Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ting: Actually, not for and to the Japanese specifically, but yes. And again (this time specifically FOR Japan) in ~1998?.

Vel: If you have a chance, you should should learn something about Friedman, Japan's economy and economic in general. Then you would see why your statement is so foolish.

Friedman argues for minimal government intervention.

Japan's economy was built with extensive government intervention, both fiscally and through controlling corporate development.

Friedman is against tariffs, Japan maintains numerous trade barriers.

Friedman is in favour of monetary policies, (but free currency markets) and opposed to fiscal policies.

Japan routinely intervenes in the currency markets and has extensive public spending.

There is simply no connection between Friedman's theories and what the Japanese did to successfully develop their economy.

More than that, Friedman's theories have proven a disaster when applied to developing economies.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Conclusion, based on just these basic economic numbers: If the US economy continues to grow at an average predicted rate of 1.9% per year, then to keep up (ie - not to close the gap, just to keep from falling further behind), the Chinese economy will need to grow by 12.5% each year.

Your conclusion is wrong because you have not set an end date. If the Chinese economy grew at 6.25% then it would simply take longer to catch up to the U.S. compared to a growth rate of 12.5%.

You're pulling numbers out of thin air.

[DaShi]

*cough*

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Velociryx


And further back, the English can thank their Norman conquerers for building castles and instituting the rule of law...and before them, the Romans who pretty much kick-started everything in Europe. Echoes of their influence can still be felt today.

The English (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) had the rule of law, before even the Vikings came. That's where common law comes from.

The Vikings had the rule of law, before they even settled in Normandy and became Normans.

The Celts had a Europe-wide trading system and technologies before a tribe in the peninsula of modern day Italy defeated its opponents, and Hellenistic science and technology predates and mostly outstrips the later Roman science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Since GePap obviously has problems with that same "English Language" he scolded me with earlier, let me take another stab:

Two statements:

1) It is inevitable that Microsoft will lose marketshare.

2) It is inevitable that Apple will eclipse Microsoft.

One of these statements is true. One is not. COULD be true, yes, but that's not the same thing.

And the counter-arguement to that is trying to explain why you would think Apple won;t be the one- not sitting behind a "truism", just exclaiming "that might not be". You could say "I think the democrats will win the 2008 election" and I could just as well say "we don;t know if there will be an election in 2008". And that statement would be true. It in no way trhought even comes close to countering any of the points made in your arguement. Similarly, your truism do NOTHING to counter mine.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
"China and India will inevitably surpass the US"

"Nothing in history is inevitable - I agree...."

Tell me...who's making contradictory statements again?



-=Vel=-

Jesus HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's called readong comprehension Vel, if you were paying attention, you would recognize, as I think most other posters did, that those sentences are supposed to highlight the contradictory nature of your argument.

But nice one, either failing to understand the post, or blatantly misquoting.

I wonder which is worse?

[Velociryx]

Ting: Friedman has a long history of offering advice and blueprints for success to Japan. Sometimes they are followed, sometimes not.

I know full well that the Japanese insistence on heavy handed government intervention runs against most of Friedman's theories, but this has not stopped him from continuously advising them on the points they WILL listen to.

In fact, over the years, the pace of that advice has picked up considerably.

Molly: Well said, and quite so.

Ge: Ohhhh how I have missed this! The problem, good sir, is that both statements are yours.

I have never maintained that the US will "inevitably maintain" her economic dominance. Just as I have maintained that it is not "inevitable" that China will eclipse the US. There's nothing contradictory in that position.

Where you CAN find a contradiction, however, is by claiming the point that it's "inevitable" that any particular nation will be the next economic, military, imperialistic (or whathaveyou) juggernaught, and in the same breath agreeing that "nothing in human history is inevitable." Can't have it both ways, bro.

When you're at the top, you've only got one direction to go. When you're not at the top, you can go either direction. This is where China is, at present, and there's nothing "inevitable" about her future.

Or are you one of those freaky predestination people?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, and while we're harping about the English language, here's some stuff that you may not know (given your useage of the word)

The word inevitable implies a sense of predestination and un-avoidability (in fact, this is the very root of the word). There is no escaping or avoiding that which is inevitable. Variables no longer apply, because they cease to have meaning.

This is why (or at least one of the reasons) that your core argument is frankly laughable.

Inevitability does not NEED "if's". It simply does not require them.

Nonetheless, your argument is:

IF A, b, c and d happens, China's rise to economic dominance is inevitable.

The presence of the variables in the equation, and China's dependence ON those variables, however, makes it quite clear that their economic dominance is NOT assured, as you have so frequently posited in your many posts.

Further "basically inevitable" (another gem of yours, describing China's soon to be ascendance) is not even in the same ballpark as "inevitable."

So before you choose to harp on the english language and your mastery of it, mayhaps a greater understanding of the words YOU are using is in order.

Well, that and a bit more of that "readong comprehension" stuff?



-=Vel=-

EDIT: Of course, you'll have some or other catty half-baked comeback...that really is...inevitable I suppose....

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, that and a bit more of that "readong comprehension" stuff?

Of course, you'll have some or other catty half-baked comeback...that really is...inevitable I suppose....

Pwned...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ting: Friedman has a long history of offering advice and blueprints for success to Japan. Sometimes they are followed, sometimes not.

I know full well that the Japanese insistence on heavy handed government intervention runs against most of Friedman's theories, but this has not stopped him from continuously advising them on the points they WILL listen to.

In fact, over the years, the pace of that advice has picked up considerably.

Well if you're saying that among the factors that contributed to Japan's economic success was ignoring the advice of American economic wizards like Friedman then I couldn't agree more.



And what advice of Friedman's has Japan followed that has proven useful? Because, as far as I can see, his theories have not worked in East Asia.

The economic success of East Asia has proven conclusively that the American near-religious belief in free markets and government non-intervention damages developing economies more often than not.

[Velociryx]

Yes, I can see how his essays to the Japanese version of our "Fed" on interest rates and "The Case for Free Trade" would prove ruinous to their economy (both of these offered during Japan's extended period of economic doldrums, found after about a thirty second google search).

-=Vel=-

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Velociryx


And the people who came here (the vast majority of them anyway) fled from the socio-economic prison that had become Europe (that clever reference to the sculpted gardens which you apparently grossly misinterpreted). Thus, Europe can be seen to have sown the seeds of her own eclipsing. People were literally DYING to leave (when they weren't being kicked out en masse).

The socio-economic 'prison' of the British Empire ?

You've also missed out the people that came to the United States who weren't fleeing Europe, but came as cargo- the slave workforce. Also the indentured, felons, the religious groups looking to set up their own vision of an earthly paradise- in fact I'd say you are mythologizing the reasons for emigrating.

[Velociryx]

Granted, there were lots of reasons for leaving.

The slave work force was concentrated in the South, and was a steady influx, but a clear minority of the influx of people, however.

And while it is absolutely true that a good chunk of people indentured themselves to pay for passage to the new world, this in no way refutes my earlier comment. There was a REASON they were willing to bind themselves to the folks who could get them to the USA...namely, because they figured that EVEN WITH a seven year payback period, they'd have better opportunities here than there.

Then there were the numerous people kicked out on religious grounds, and the Geogia colony, which was a penal colony, rather like the one in Austrailia.

Of the groups you mentioned, however, only the slaves and the prisoners were not "fleeing to" the US....the rest, for whatever the reason, decided that they'd better get out while the getting was good, and....they did.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Ge: Ohhhh how I have missed this! The problem, good sir, is that both statements are yours.

Next time I will ad "" so you can understand better.

I have never maintained that the US will "inevitably maintain" her economic dominance. Just as I have maintained that it is not "inevitable" that China will eclipse the US. There's nothing contradictory in that position.

No, you agreed (do I need to quote you) that the US will NOT keep its dominant position. That is a statement of inevitability (supported by the quote YOU brought up on the British empire). It is contradictory to claim that it is inevitable that the US will at some point not be number one anymore, yet that it is wrong to speak of inevitability when it comes to anyone else.

Where you CAN find a contradiction, however, is by claiming the point that it's "inevitable" that any particular nation will be the next economic, military, imperialistic (or whathaveyou) juggernaught, and in the same breath agreeing that "nothing in human history is inevitable." Can't have it both ways, bro.

First, next time, try to read the posts more carefully. BUt I will make it easy for you by adding "". Maybe that way you will get it next time...

Second- My arguement was, and remains, it is inevitable that the US will lose world dominance, and it is inevitable that China will surpass the US. That is rather consistent.

When you're at the top, you've only got one direction to go. When you're not at the top, you can go either direction. This is where China is, at present, and there's nothing "inevitable" about her future.

What is the underlying basis for your first argument? This is what you fail to ever explain. But leaving large parts of your :arguement" vague and free of details is a sadly commmon activity with you here in the OT.

As for China, you act as if surpassing the US were some great deed. The US has 5 % of the world pop- the EU already surpassed the US as an economic block, and places like Japan are richer per capita and got there without being Americans, somehow. Its rather simple- if China reaches the same level of development as South Korea, simply by its size, which will remain 4X the US for several centuries, its eocnomy will surpass that of the US.

Or are you one of those freaky predestination people?

-=Vel=-

NO. I am one of those people who no longer goes around using non PPP GDP numbers and calling China "Red China". Having moved on beyond 1989, I can see that the Chinese leadership has begun the same road as Japan once did and SK did as well. I see nohing that will derail China permanently from that road, and only such an event can prevent China from surpassing the US economy.

So yes, inevitability.

So, again, learnd to read posts more carefully.
And have the courtesy to attempt tp back up your assertions.

[Mr. Harley]

1850 South immigrant born - 241,665

1860 South immigrant born - 392,432

1850 Southern Slave population - 3,116,629

1860 Southern Slave population - 3,838,765

1850 South total population - 8,982,612

1860 South total population - 11,133,361

Source - multiple US Census tables.

In the south, the increase in population due to the increase in slaves (free blacks actually decreased as a percentag of the black population) and non-immigrant Causasian factors hugely outnumbered the amount due to immigrants. While the percent of the population that was immigrant did increase, the gross numbers of slave population increase alone - 722,136 - dwarves the gross increase in immigrants - 150,767.

There were reasons for this. Immigrants found the slave holding states had a much lower wage for immigrant labor due to the competitve effect of slavery. Contrary to popular claims, the south had turned slavery into an economically viable system, without imports (of slaves).

However, that system was not competitive except in certain areas like agriculture, and then only in the context of long periods of letting land lie fallow and with certain valuble crops, i.e. cotton and tobacco. Even then planations had decreasing crop yields, and a goodly portion of that was the extreme conservatism of slave holders combined with an excessive amount of capital tied up in claves themselves.

There are a host of additional reasons for this, and books have been written solely on this issue. Suffice to say, the Civil War pretty much decisively answered the competitive issue. As an addenda, one of the reasons the South attemepted succession is that by 1860 they could no longer dominate US politics? Why? Immigrants didn't want to compete against slaves, and came to the North.

The Northern demographics increased, and all of a sudden you could have a president elected without one Southern electoral vote. His name was Abraham Lincoln. Supporting some of the points about both free (immigrants could move where they chose) and regulated (limited areas with slavery) markets. The killer is keeping the balance.

Both China and India at this point appear to understand this better than either party in the United States. Eclipsing the US is theirs to lose - if they keep doing things right, and the US ignores various government supports worldwide (look at Deutche Post and Deutche Telecom so-called competition in US markets) - the US economy, due to a variety of issues, will be displaced as number one in the world. However, if either nation starts to overregulate they will descend back to stagnation. If they underregulate, they will end up with a Russian style kleptocracy. Only history will tell.