Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

The fact is that the muchly vaunted Euro system is in deep doggie doo, brought on by the fact that Europe is shrinking, demographically, and they're gonna have a financial crisis on their hands trying to keep the welfare state going that's gonna make our trouble with social security look like a trip to the state fair by comparison.

Nice opinion. Read el freako's threads to see the places were your opinion of Europe is incomplete.

Again, the best way to see success for yourself is to emulate those who have already found it.

For those of you tuned in to some OTHER universe, that would be the US of A, no matter how you slice it.

Does this mean "make a carbon copy of?" Of course not, and I never hinted at, or implied that it did. It is understood that any nation will take a core idea and make it their own...put their own spin on it, as it were.

Doesn't change the mechanism, however.

By your logic then, US success must have been a copy of the success of others before it, since this is the mechanism. Hence the US copied the UK. So US success, while not a copy of British success, is based on it, so then we should all thank British ingenuity.

And hearkening back to an earlier point, yes, Europe DID have a thousand-odd year head start. Not the US's problem or fault that they chose to squander those years beating the snot out of each other. Actually, it helped us, as you pointed out.

The US in 1789 was at the same technological level as Europe, AND was integrated into the European dominated world economy. Sorry bub, but that's NOT a 1000 year lead. The difference between the US and Europe was one of population. Massive immigration into the US erased this "lead" rather quickly, so that by 1876 the US had more people than most European powers. Had the US not allowed immigrants to go there, then the US would certainly have fallen behind.

But the WORK of hacking a world class economy out of a continental wilderness (a harsh and unforgiving one, by the way) while the various landed gentry of Europe beheld the splendor of their sculpted gardens in their centuries' old estates...the ingenuity and savvy required to bootstrap oneself to that level, under the umbrella of an experiment that the whole world saw as pure folly, and taking time out to rip itself to shreds in its infancy....yes, that's pretty remarkable stuff.

Yawn. Any idiot can hack down forests. Its back breaking work, but nothing innovative about it. I notice how you speak about the landed gentry- I see no mention of the masses there, though. Interesting, and rather jaundiced world view you got. Plus, the US had an endless infusion of Europeans willing to break their backs clearnig brush if it meant the ability to own the land themselves, as opposed to working their backs off on someone elses land. THAT basic socio-economic reality is the backbone of American growth, and the core difference, and WHY millions went to America- becuase back home they faced an entrenched socio-economic system which they lacked the power to change. The uS, thought, was a blank slate.

Your beautiful romantic view of what it takes to cut down forests and dig **** out of mines is touching. Too bad it has little to do with reality.

And as to your latest post....you seem in QUITE a huff about what I find impressive. I'd gather by your response and ruffled feathers that it means a great deal to you.

Huff? I don;t give a **** about your opinion, I do give a **** that arguing with someone who thinks their opinions matter is a pain in the ass, because they are less willing to actually debate in good faith, as opposed to realizing their opinions are utterly meaningless as debating tools.

And you said it yourself...history is never the same. That was a real leap, I know...and yet, your entire premise is that China should seek to emulate that which you have already admitted is not reproducable.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster, if you ask me, but there you go.

You can be dense, aren't you?

Of course China can't replicate what Japan did step for step. What China can do is modernize, invest in itself, open itself to the world economy, just as South Korea did, just as Taiwan did, Just as Singapore and Hong Kong did, and let the wealth grow. And just like South Korea, and Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and Poland, and the Czech republic, and so forth and so on, China will grow, develop, get richer, and due to its basic size, surpass the US.

I mean, it ridiculous, really, it is. So, what again is the basis of your arguement that China surpasing the US is not inevitable? That possibly this will happen, possible that, so forth and so on?

Again, my arguement based on basic Capitalistic theory. Yours, based on "history does not repeat", "Chinese not Americans (lacking the "American innovative spirit)".

Somehow, I think I have a much better foundation for my arguement.

[Velociryx]

Indeed yes! The US's success was based very much on the learnings of Europe's early industrialization...back when England was considered "the workshop of the world."

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).

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.

So yes, you and I are actually *somewhat* arguing the same side of the coin.

You're saying that the Chinese should emulate the successes of others and make them their own.

I'm saying that too.

Where we differ, however, is that I'm saying that the Chinese should study reproducable events (ie, that scientific wonder you spoke of when referencing "Economics" earlier) and take cues from other nations who already HAVE affluence to gain theirs. You're saying that China should study Medieval Japanese history, which they have no chance at re-creating or reproducing, and base their strategy from that.

One is inherently reproducable. One is not.

If I was a betting man, I'd know right away which horse I'd be betting on, but that's just me.

As to the state of the European Welfare state....I've read LOTS of stuff about it, arguing both sides of the coin. The facts remain the same however....Europe is vanishing, demographically. Her population is aging. Unless the taxes about triple on the backs of those who will still be working in 25 years, she can't support her own weight, but that's not really on topic, is it? (nice attempt at a diversion, however...props!)

As for the rest of the debate, I'm ready to debate in good faith anytime you are....that is, as soon as you figure out what your position IS.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Where we differ, however, is that I'm saying that the Chinese should study reproducable events (ie, that scientific wonder you spoke of when referencing "Economics" earlier) and take cues from other nations who already HAVE affluence to gain theirs. You're saying that China should study Medieval Japanese history, which they have no chance at re-creating or reproducing, and base their strategy from that.

One is inherently reproducable. One is not.

If I was a betting man, I'd know right away which horse I'd be betting on, but that's just me.

Lord...Maybe you missed my last post, but what Japan did in 1854 on was to accept and incorporate the thinking of the time to drag itself from medieval feudalism to Parlimentary industrial power.

As for the rest of the debate, I'm ready to debate in good faith anytime you are....that is, as soon as you figure out what your position IS.

-=Vel=-

My position is simple:

I said it is inevitable that China will surpass the US. India too. You said it was not. I have yet to see you postulate a reason why.

My reason for my argument is simple: Once China opens itself to the world economy and incorporates modern technology and eocnomics and the whole host of wrold ideas, it will grow, develop become rich, and simply based on its size compared to other states it will become paramount in the world. And Japan was used as an example of a non-western state capable of rapid economic and social change.

Interstingly enough, my position has been consistent throughout all my posts.

So again, what is the core basis of your argument that China is not destined to inevitably surpass the US economically?

[Velociryx]

1) China has yet to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the free market ideals that are currently driving her success. There have been "strategic retrenchments".....periodic pulling back by her communist rulers who fear the market, and with good reason (from their perspective).

2) China is only beginning to engage the industrialized world, economically. Her successes will define, in large part, her chances of eclipsing the US. So far, it's been a mixed bag, indicating that they're learning, but still somewhat behind the curve.

3) China is significantly behind the US in terms of economic size. While not impossible to overcome this deficiency (as you rightly pointed out, given her own native strengths), nonetheless, one thing you downplay in your arguments is the fact that the US economy is humming along strongly itself, AND her population is growing (which puts it in rare company, considering the populations of the rest of the industrialized world). No, we won't have as many people as China in fifty years, but we'll have more than half a billion, and that ain't small fry, by any stretch.

So yes...it is POSSIBLE that China can eclipse the US. Maybe even possible in my lifetime.

IF they don't screw up.

IF they don't backpedal.

IF they do LOTS of stuff right, and don't make many mistakes.

That's a lot of if's. I'd say the jury is still out.

Too soon to tell.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) China has yet to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the free market ideals that are currently driving her success. There have been "strategic retrenchments".....periodic pulling back by her communist rulers who fear the market, and with good reason (from their perspective).

Pulling back like what? The Us has had "retrenchments" (increasing tariffs) itself, so does everyone.

2) China is only beginning to engage the industrialized world, economically. Her successes will define, in large part, her chances of eclipsing the US. So far, it's been a mixed bag, indicating that they're learning, but still somewhat behind the curve.

According to the UN, more human beings have been lifted form poverty in the last 10 years than ever before, and China is the reason for that. The greatest migration ni human history, in terms of numbers, is going on right as we speak, again, in China. ASccording the the CIA, China's economy is 6/10 that of the US, and in only 15 years China's economy has vaulted past France, Italy, the UK, Germany, and Japan, to become the world's second largest economy. China is currently the largest consumer of cement, and scrap metal, it dominates the world textile markets, it is driving the price of oil up and up. I m curious were your notiong that China is behind the curve comes from? Their growth in the past 15 years has been phenomenal. I can't see how they could have grown even more...

3) China is significantly behind the US in terms of economic size. While not impossible to overcome this deficiency (as you rightly pointed out, given her own native strengths), nonetheless, one thing you downplay in your arguments is the fact that the US economy is humming along strongly itself, AND her population is growing (which puts it in rare company, considering the populations of the rest of the industrialized world). No, we won't have as many people as China in fifty years, but we'll have more than half a billion, and that ain't small fry, by any stretch.

Again, China's eocnomy is 6.6 Trillion to the US's 11 Trillion. IN 50 years the US will NOT have 500 million. I have not seen a single population prediction that has the US at 500 million by 2055. The current UN preditions are that by 2050, China will have 1.4 Billion, India 1.5 Billion, and the US 400 Million. IN fact, the UN precitions don;t have the US approching 500 billion until 2300.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

So yes...it is POSSIBLE that China can eclipse the US. Maybe even possible in my lifetime.

IF they don't screw up.

What's to screw up?

IF they do LOTS of stuff right, and don't make many mistakes.

NOT make mistakes? What if the US makes mistakes? Oh, or do you think the US can;t and won't? Its this type of thinking I can't fathom. IN the last 15 years China has grown phenominally, and they still haven't even carried out the most important changes they need to undertake. Imagine what happens once they do?

[Velociryx]

Yes, but when the US has retrenchments, it typically raises a tarriff here and there. When China has retrenchments, talented businesspeople disappear for being "troublemakers."

And kudos to China for what they've done for their people so far. The question is whether or not the Communist leadership of the country will continue to embrace the market principles that are making this renaissance possible, or whether they'll fall back into old habits.

I'll not argue the population figures with you. We'll use those if it pleases you.

As to what's not to screw up....THAT is for history to write, isn't it?

Yes, it's possible that the US economy will face a collossal meltdown. It's MORE probable, however, that the red leadership of China, fearing the growing affluence of her people and the freedoms that come with opening themselves to the world (however guardedly, at present) will clamp down and choke off that growth. Will do something to diminish the flame.

It wasn't economically driven, but the point remains....do you not recall the tanks in Tienman Square? Is it so impossible that something similar could happen again? Ahhh, but you seem to think it more likely that their unfettered growth will continue. In your universe, it is more likely that those in power in China will not falter away from the present course (again), but that the US will stumble.

I take a different view, and from where I sit, China has a long, difficult road ahead. One that is fraught with peril. As the smaller of the two economies, mistakes will be felt that much more harshly by them than by us. Mistakes will further delay the time it takes to catch up, much less to surpass.

Again, our positions are not so very different, really. You see a foregone conclusion, I see a tough road. Nowhere have I stated the impossibility of what you say, but rather, I reject the notion that any unwritten history is a "foregone conclusion."

The sun would never set on the British Empire, either, right?

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

My understanding is Vel was talking about (QA) quality assurance and (OB) organisation behaviour experts who moved to Japan after WWII. They moved there because the Japanese were willing to listen to them, unlike the US businesses.

However, that is just part of the picture.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
'03, China added 586,859,000 to their economy
in the same period (using the info from your cited source), the US added 340,690,000. China's net gain:

$246,169,000

And that was in one of their best years IN years.

Or, to put another way, they'd need 18.5 "fastest growths in years" to catch up.

Vel, this is just downright dishonest.

You don't figure out absolute for one year and just add them up. That's because economy is grow by percentages, thus the basis gets bigger each year.

[Velociryx]

Thank you, UR, and yes....this would ALSO explain why the two systems developed very differently. They were shunned in the US until it became apparent that the Japanese, who were LISTENING to their expertise, were kicking our arses.

Does that explain the whole picture? Of course not, but no matter how hard working the individual (or group of individuals), hard work without direction is largely meaningless, so yes, no small part of the success of the system lies with those who proposed it.

And to GePap, I have but one question:

IF China's economic supremacy is a "foregone conclusion" then why do you yourself use provisos?

"If" they do this, "if" they do that?

Sounds to me, with the inclusion of all those IF's that it's not a foregone conclusion in your mind after all.

In short, you disagree with yourself.

And that would be....checkmate.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) China has yet to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the free market ideals that are currently driving her success.

Free market ideals? Are you one of them Libbies?

[Velociryx]

blah blah, UR....I was in the middle of three other things and did not have the time to look up all the projected data so I used what was on hand. That wasn't dishonest, since the debate did not revolve around the numbers themselves, and especially since I SAID what I was doing upfront. Sheesh....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

UR: Nope, but do you honestly believe that China's present growth is because of ANYTHING else?

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, but when the US has retrenchments, it typically raises a tarriff here and there. When China has retrenchments, talented businesspeople disappear for being "troublemakers."

They have 1.2 billion people- not a problem.

And kudos to China for what they've done for their people so far. The question is whether or not the Communist leadership of the country will continue to embrace the market principles that are making this renaissance possible, or whether they'll fall back into old habits.

I'll not argue the population figures with you. We'll use those if it pleases you.

As to what's not to screw up....THAT is for history to write, isn't it?

Yes, it's possible that the US economy will face a collossal meltdown. It's MORE probable, however, that the red leadership of China, fearing the growing affluence of her people and the freedoms that come with opening themselves to the world (however guardedly, at present) will clamp down and choke off that growth. Will do something to diminish the flame.

NOw I see the issue. You think of China as "red China". That is the problem, and yes, it IS a problem. China is an authoritarian state. An authoritarian state can endorse and approve of free markets. If anything, the great danger to China's leaders today are not too much wealth, but an uneven distribution- the 300 Million in the coats get rich, the 800 million inland are not getting rich as fast, and they will ask questions. As the eocnomy advances, millions lose thier outdate jobs- so the fear form China's leaders are not that their people will get rich and demand freedom- if anything, the amazing growth in wealth allows them to channel people's energy away from political freedom into beocming rich. China's problem, as I said before, is that 800 million Chinese peasants see the 300 million on the coast get rich, and they get jealous. I mean, just this year China might finally abolish the main tax on peasants, something not done in over a thousand years.

It wasn't economically driven, but the point remains....do you not recall the tanks in Tienman Square? Is it so impossible that something similar could happen again?

The tanks in Tianemen obviously had no impact on China getting rich, did they? China's immense economic growth happen AFTER they crushed pro-democracy sentiments.

Ahhh, but you seem to think it more likely that their unfettered growth will continue. In your universe, it is more likely that those in power in China will not falter away from the present course (again), but that the US will stumble.

Neither is more likely. In fact, it is irrelevant- China will modernize and become rich, no matter what regimes rule China, because it is basically now inevitable. A state can turn away from dmeocracy, but not intergation into the world economy.

I take a different view, and from where I sit, China has a long, difficult road ahead. One that is fraught with peril. As the smaller of the two economies, mistakes will be felt that much more harshly by them than by us. Mistakes will further delay the time it takes to catch up, much less to surpass.

MIstakes like what? Crushing more pro-democracy people? Again, that had nothing to do with economic growth. Certainly mistakes in China will hurt more, so the question is how steadfastly will governments carry out their plans, be they democratic of dictatorial. But suprass China will.

Again, our positions are not so very different, really. You see a foregone conclusion, I see a tough road. Nowhere have I stated the impossibility of what you say, but rather, I reject the notion that any unwritten history is a "foregone conclusion."

But, you see, saying it is a tough road does notmean the end of the road is the same, now does it? For all your arguments, the best you may have done is pushed the date back- but you have still not said why its NOt inevitable. Slowing a train does not mean stopping it from reaching the end of the tracks.

The sun would never set on the British Empire, either, right?

-=Vel=-

You do realize, that is my POINT, don't you!??

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

And to GePap, I have but one question:

IF China's economic supremacy is a "foregone conclusion" then why do you yourself use provisos?

"If" they do this, "if" they do that?

Sounds to me, with the inclusion of all those IF's that it's not a foregone conclusion in your mind after all.

In short, you disagree with yourself.

And that would be....checkmate.

-=Vel=-

Its called the english language Vel. heard of it? Its hard to form certain sentences without that word.

can you cite a single example of a sentence in which I seem to say China will not inevitably surpass the US?

[Velociryx]

Um....actually GePap, that's MY point.

You are the one arguing for inevitibility. I'm arguing on the side of history...that NOTHING we humans seek to do is inevitable.

-=Vel=-