Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
People have a rather strange view of History.

I'd say.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
People have a rather strange view of History. The zenith of US power was 1945- when it was the only power with nukes, about half of the worlds economic output, so forth and so on.

70% percent. Indeed that was the era when the US dominated the world.

[:) Smiley]

That's if you measure power as a relative thing- in absolute terms, we have more nukes, more economic output, and more so forth and so on than we did in 1945.

[Mr. Harley]

Power is intrinsically relative, unlike economic growth. It is a zero sum game, in that any increase in power by one party by it's nature decreases the power someone else had.

You may argue that is not the case when technological groups moved into village sustenance-farming areas. But even then you had elites, or the local elders, who were forced out by the new overlords. A modern division in Papua, New Guineau give you much more power than in lets say in Beijing. As long as you can keep your logistics, you have pretty much absolute power in Papua. In Beijing the PRC military would maul you. It's relative.

You are confusing destructive ability with power and context. All of those nuclear weapons, when faced by like weaponry have relatively little power. OPEC has a large amount of power, constrained by economic factors (oil at too high a price means more marginal sources are pursued, increasing supply and diluting OPEC's ability to set prices). As the US military is discovering in Iraq, power can be vastly diluted by context (suicide bombers, insufficient garrsion troops, etc.). The army of Desert Storm is faring much worse as the army of occupation. To repeat, context is crucial.

[:) Smiley]

Only part of power is zero-sum. Power is not only control over other people, but also natural forces.

[Velociryx]

Our opinions on the subject don't differ as much as you make it out to be, Ge.

I do not make the claim that the US will remain dominant for "the rest of Human history," only that it won't be as easy as turning the crank of history to see India and China surpass the US's economic power.

Yes, the US's % of total output has been shrinking since the end of WWII. Logical that it should as the bombed out factories of Europe were rebuilt, and as newly industrializing nations began ramping up production.

Nonetheless, there's one country that sits at the top of the economic pile, and there are a bunch of also-rans.

Japan's economic success came about via a number of factors, but one of the major ones was a visit by a certain American economic wizard, who laid out a blueprint for Japanese success.

Listening to the advice of those who already HAVE success is one of the chief ways of gaining it for yourself.

Pretty simple stuff, actually.

-=Vel=-

[Mr. Harley]

I would argue then you are talking science and technology versus power. Technically, you are correct. However, to combine the two terms makes the discussion meaningless, as the paradigms are totally different. That's why people, when normally talking about power (versus energy) are discussing it between individuals and societies. Google power, eliminate energy related statements, and look at how many concern it as being over nature, and how many as people over other people. I rest my case.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Velociryx


China has a long history of isolationism of a sort that made US isolationism look pathetic, by comparison.

It does ?


I'd say that China has actually been very open to foreign ideas, influences and products throughout its history- from Roman coral jewellery and glassware and statuary, to Sogdian monk-alchemists, African raw materials, European clocks and artillery, Korean philosophy and literature, Indian Buddhism, Tibetan lamas, steppe shamanism, Nestorian Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Turkish ballgames and metalware, Jesuits, Iranian mathematics and astronomy- the Silk Road wasn't by any means a one-way street.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Japan's economic success came about via a number of factors, but one of the major ones was a visit by a certain American economic wizard, who laid out a blueprint for Japanese success.

Really? and who might that be?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
re: the "bumbling fool" comment - Quite simply because China has not shown much more than instinctual savvy at this point, in the business arena. The practical, day-to-day business savvy will come in time, but they ain't there yet...not by a long shot.

On a lot of fronts, the mainland Chinese corporations are there. Where there are weaknesses, the knowledge gap is being supplied by outside investors, particularly the Japanese, Taiwanese and Hong Kongers.

Many Chinese companies are at the leading edge of business technology.

You ignore the economic power that exist at your own peril. Don't underestimate the competition.

Originally posted by Velociryx
re: America's business savvy - do not confuse the USA's muddled governmentally driven foriegn policy decisions with good old fashioned business sense.

You mean like Tyco and Enron?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Nonetheless, there's one country that sits at the top of the economic pile, and there are a bunch of also-rans.

What a foolish way to think of it. The US is the third largest country in the worl population wise- being it is the only 'developed' country in the heap of the top 5, no kidding it has the biggest eocnomy- but your measures seem a bit dated- Americans don't have the highest per capita income in the wolrd, and with negative savings rate, our consumption driven economy is driven by the willingness of others to lend us the money, money we don't have.

Many states prefer the European model of work to live, not live to work- plus others might be more interested in less income inequality and poverty.

But at the bottom, you miss the fact that the world has a global economy- the uS is no longer divorced from the system, and the fact is China has been a bigger engine of global eopcnomic growth over the last decade than the US-and its not even a developed state yet.

Japan's economic success came about via a number of factors, but one of the major ones was a visit by a certain American economic wizard, who laid out a blueprint for Japanese success.

Listening to the advice of those who already HAVE success is one of the chief ways of gaining it for yourself.

Pretty simple stuff, actually.

-=Vel=-

Actually, not simple stuff.

1. Your view of Japan success seems a bit condescending, but more importantly, a large bit WRONG. It in fact seems a lot like making facts try to fit a world vioew, as opposed to accpeting them. So, who were these "American geniuses", and if so, why was the Japanese industrial model significantly different from the american one, and remains to this day!? Once again, facts get in the way of world view.

Japan found its own way to success, and it achieved far more than probably any other country in history in terms of meteroric rise. In 1854 Japan had maybe 1650 European tech. By 1954 it was in the front ranks of world technology and a modern, developed industrialized state. That's far more than the US can claim (japan did this without massive immigration, and on an island poor in most vital resources), and in fact anyone else can. And it somehow, did this without the magical "US innovation". I wonder how could they possibly ever have done so??

Finally, you seem to think the US model of success is what everyon aims for- well, newsflash Vel, IT AINT. As I said before, many look to places like Europe (or Japan) as a model- they like less income inequality, lees poverty, more social control over things like healthcare. And they will get rich just as well.

I await that list of grand Americans than taught those Japanese savages how to be real modern men...it will be interesting, no?

[David Floyd]

Out of curiosity, does anyone actually think that China COULD successfully invade Taiwan? I haven't even heard UR make that claim.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Out of curiosity, does anyone actually think that China COULD successfully invade Taiwan? I haven't even heard UR make that claim.

Currently, no, they could not.

[Drake Tungsten]

Japan might never have achieved any economic success after WWII if America hadn't jumpstarted its economy with spending for the Korean War...

[Velociryx]

US Economists who mapped out a blueprint for Japanese economic success:

Solow, Swan, and Friedman.

To this day, Friedman (who, at age 88, is booked solid for the next ten+ years) frequently offers invaluable advice to the Japanese re: the state of their economy.

And let's take a closer look at those numbers, shall we?

Last year, China's economy was a robust 1.65 Trillion in size. That's pretty good.

It also grew at 9.5% which was "the fastest rate in years."

So...at 9.5% growth, the Chinese economy added $156,750,000 to its economy by the end of the '04 fiscal year.

Impressive.

The US economy, 10.99 Trillion in size, grew by less than that. I don't have the numbers, but let us use GePap's predicted 1.9% growth rate.

In the same timespan then, the US economy added $208,810,000 to its economy.

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.

The fact that 9.5% has been heralded as the "fastest growth in years" for China, sugessts that this is not likely to be the norm for them, and further, given the sheer size of the US economy, I'd say adding more than $200,000,000 to your economy (which is, by the way, a larger amount of economic growth than the sum-total GDP of a great many nations)....yeah, I'd call that "growling ahead like the lion it is."

Maybe you've got a different definition.

So who's not letting facts get in their way?

-=Vel=-