Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[MOBIUS]

I think my favourite argument in this pissing contest is that a nation with an average growth rate several times less than another nation will never be overtaken by it...

Once I stopped pissing myself laughing at that, I knew I could comfortably ignore the thousands upon thousands of words that spewed forth from that point on

[Velociryx]

Note to Molly: I meant to mention this in my post this morning, but was pressed for time on the way to work....I consider those who fled for religious reasons to be in the "soico-arm" of the aforementioned "socio-economic prison" and as such, they'd fall under the general umbrella of those folks striving to leave for "socio-economic" reasons (reading that as "Socio-and/or-economic")

To Ge: You seem to be relying on a truism yourself, while scolding others for the same "crime." Another inconsistency...

And as yet, I have seen no evidence presented that would lead one to the conclusion that China's economic dominance is "inevitable."

I HAVE seen lots of preconditions for their (eventual) economic dominance, which I agree with, having said repeatedly that the potential is certainly there.

The "inevitability," however, is not.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The current regime, which is effectively only little over 25 years old (the triumph of Deng over the gang of four). Can we be sure that it wont be replaced? China has major social tensions - what if theres a peasant revolution? ( ) You and I may believe that trade, capitalism, and industrialization are the best bets for the peasantary, but theres no guarantee they will see that. Alternatively the current regime might evolve in different directions. So far the level of development has not led to social ferment beyond what the CP has been able to control. All the examples you cite, Japan, South Korea, would seem to indicate that at SOME level development leads to social ferment that an authoritarian regime CANNOT contain. Surely the Chinese leaders know that as well we do. What choice they will make, and how they will make their choice stick, is not something id care to predict.

Which reigme controls China is utterly and completely immaterial to the question of whether China will surpass the US. Again, at most that only ends up changing at what point it happens, NOT if. SK military dictators began the modernization- even when their reigme collapsed, it continued. Nowhere have I said "China ruled by the Communist party", just China.

All lower growth does is push the date further. It does not change inevitability.

Look again at why China fell behind. For thousands of years economic size was driven by essentially by agriculture, and China had the most land and the most peasants (as long as it was united). It couldnt deal with the changes of the 19thc and was passed by the industrial powers. Are we really sure that in the next, say, 100 years there wont be something else that will shake things up as much as the IR?

China "could not deal" because China until the early 1800's never HAD to deal with the issues. Europeans did not come knocking on China's door in the 17th and 18th centuries- its sheer size and wealth allowed it to be complacent and to have its leaders cut themselves off from the world, just like Japan did.

As for your second point, the whole point of my arguement is that China, having seen the need to integrate itself into a global system, that cutting itself of no longer works because those barbarians outside the Middle Kingdom can actually have ideas, means that even if we have some new radical change, China this time will know about it and act on it, and thus will not "be left behind".

All of this of course assumes that the shapes of the polities in question remain the same. The dominant power of the 19th c, Britain, would i think still be the world leader in GDP if it were had the same boundaries it had in 1860. OTOH the EU is the creation of the last couple of decades. All of which is to point out the limited utility of predictions past a certain point.

What are you talking about?

Britians only border change since the early 19th century was the loss of the Irish Free state. IF you mean the British EMPIRE, well, in a colonial empire is disticntly NOT part of the homeland, and in most Colonial empires, industry does NOT spread to the colonies very fast, if at all. The bounderies of the British Empire did not change significantly between 1860 and 1880 yet by 1880 certainly the US had surpassed Britian in output, and Germany, if not already ahead, was only 1 decade away from doing so.

This is a question of China surpassing the US- what anyone else does is immaterial to the question, 1, so what if the EU get bigger? EU surpassgint eh US does not mean China can;t do it.

2. NO, I do not forsee China collapsing, at least the core rich provinces (Places like Tibet and Xian(?) have tiny populations and little is any real industry) anymore than I see the US splitting up again. I am sure some boundaries will change, but if anything the more likely change in the future is a greater deterioration of soverign rights, not some atavistic return to them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

And as yet, I have seen no evidence presented that would lead one to the conclusion that China's economic dominance is "inevitable."

I said China will surpass the US. For all we know, in 2080 the top four economies will be in order:

EU
India
China
US

Who knows, but the arguement Vel, if you hadn't noticed it before, is that China's economy will become greater than the US's. That's a two horse race. What any other horse does is immaterial unless it crashes into the two horses we are dealing with.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap

2. NO, I do not forsee China collapsing, at least the core rich provinces (Places like Tibet and Xian(?) have tiny populations and little is any real industry) anymore than I see the US splitting up again. I am sure some boundaries will change, but if anything the more likely change in the future is a greater deterioration of soverign rights, not some atavistic return to them.

Tibet and Xinjiang (which I suspect you mean) are not the only provinces of extreme poverty. Remove the eastern provinces from Beijing to Hong Kong and that's the general idea. Also, Tibet and Xinjiang are too of the more stable provinces because of all the tight control China has there. The other provinces, including the eastern ones, have seen an increasing number of riots recently regarding unfair economic distribition and corruption.

Inevitable, no one can truly say. Extremely likely that China will surpass the US, at least economically, very much so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


Tibet and Xinjiang (which I suspect you mean) are not the only provinces of extreme poverty. Remove the eastern provinces from Beijing to Hong Kong and that's the general idea. Also, Tibet and Xinjiang are too of the more stable provinces because of all the tight control China has there. The other provinces, including the eastern ones, have seen an increasing number of riots recently regarding unfair economic distribition and corruption.

Inevitable, no one can truly say. Extremely likely that China will surpass the US, at least economically, very much so.

The reason China cracks down so heavily in Tibet and Xinjiang is because untrest there might be nationalistic and secesionist. People rioting in the poor interior what better conditions (and the faster they get them the sooner China surpassing the US occurs) but they would hardly be asking for their own independent states, unlike Tibetans or Uighurs.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Japan's economic miracle occurred before WWII so it is difficult to say that the switch to democracy had a significant impact on Japan's post-war growth. If Japan economy grew significantly under the emperor then it is reasonable to assume it would have continued to do so in the post-war period.


As for downplaying America's role, the problem is that there is no indication that the US significantly contributed to Japan's success. If you believe that the US did, then show me how it did.

What can be said is that Japan chose a different route to develop its economy compared to the route taken by the US.

The Japanese example does show something important though:

In the 1980s it was thought that Japan's economy would soon overtake the USA. What happened instead, however, was more than a decade of stagnation.

Why'd this happen? It's easy to run down a beaten trail, but once you're in the front and have to blaze the trail, things naturally get slower.

The US has huge cultural advantages that will become increasingly important in an increasingly globalized world. As bad as racial problems are right now, the US is still decades ahead of much of the world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Smiley


The Japanese example does show something important though:

In the 1980s it was thought that Japan's economy would soon overtake the USA. What happened instead, however, was more than a decade of stagnation.

For Japan to have gone beyond the US, its per capita income would have had to have been twice that of the US. Japan does have a higher PCI, but twice the US would be a PCI of 60,000 plus.

The US has huge cultural advantages that will become increasingly important in an increasingly globalized world. As bad as racial problems are right now, the US is still decades ahead of much of the world.

Racial issues?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


The reason China cracks down so heavily in Tibet and Xinjiang is because untrest there might be nationalistic and secesionist. People rioting in the poor interior what better conditions (and the faster they get them the sooner China surpassing the US occurs) but they would hardly be asking for their own independent states, unlike Tibetans or Uighurs.

The communists who brought the current regime didn't come from Tibet or Xinjiang.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


The communists who brought the current regime didn't come from Tibet or Xinjiang.

OK, and?

China's leaders don;t want any chunks of what they consider their country to break off. The Han, even if they riot for better pay are not likely to want to break China up. Uighurs and Tibetans, who have an indentity that does not view itself really as Chinese do have reasons to seek independence.

[DaShi]

It's not just breaking off that could be a problem. I don't understand why you are being so myopic.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
It's not just breaking off that could be a problem. I don't understand why you are being so myopic.

Because as I said to LoTM, regime change is imaterial to my arguement- that China will invariably develop, and by its sheer size, surpass the US. The fact South Korea's dictatorship fell did not stop it from developing. That the Suharto regime fell in Indonesia has not put the breaks on Indonesia's development (the Asia financial crisis is what has slowed it, but NOt ended it). So what if the Communist regime falls? If it did anything to turn away from economic growth, those types of riots would only INCREASE. And if the reigme falls, then hey, maybe a nice, wonderful democratic regime takes over, Taiwan decides to join the motherland again peacefully, and China surpasses the US even faster....

[DaShi]

That would be nice. But the communist revolution in China led to decline in productivity and quality of life. Revolutions in China have historically been destructive for the country. The growth comes from the reconstruction afterward. This is one of the reasons the Chinese fear rebellion or revolution so much (Tiannanmen Square). They tend to get crazy. So it's not right to compare them with other countries in this regard unless you can show past similarities in style.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
That would be nice. But the communist revolution in China led to decline in productivity and quality of life. Revolutions in China have historically been destructive for the country. The growth comes from the reconstruction afterward. This is one of the reasons the Chinese fear rebellion or revolution so much (Tiannanmen Square). They tend to get crazy. So it's not right to compare them with other countries in this regard unless you can show past similarities in style.

Yet China has in its 4000+ year history survived countless rebellions, civil wars, barabria takeovers, foreign invasions...

Yes, the communist revolution did lead to much destruction- the great failure of the Great Leap Forward, the madness of the Cultural Revolution..but if anything, that in my mind enhanced my arguement- who whould have thought, looking at China in 1966, just 7 years after the end of mass famine, with the country in political turmoil on a grand scale, that in just 40 years China's economy would by the second largest in the world?

The changes brought by the leadership I believe have brought fundamental change, because China no longer is an isolated middle kingdom-its part of a very new globalized world.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't understand why you are being so myopic.

Welcome to the club...