Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Whoa: I believe that the US isn't doing absolutely everything it could, no....always room for improvement, but then again, the US can get by with smaller growth rates and stay ahead on account of the vast size of its economy (the difference on paper between 6.6 and 10.99 doesn't look like all that much until you add the words "trillion dollars" to the end of it....at which time, it becomes a compelling difference indeed).

You're ignoring some critical flaws in the US economy.

The US gov't is running a massive deficit that elimates its ability to respon to a recession.

The US federal deficit and the consumer debt in the US are extremely high which makes the US vulnerable to interest rate changes.

The US is extremely reliant on cheap imports from China. If China re-evaluates its currency then that will create an inflation shock in the US.

The US and Canada are also extremely suspectable to oil price increase because their cities are designed for cars, unlike Asian and European cities.

The US is also reliant on cheap foreign lenders, but with the improving stength of the euro, countries no longer have to rely on the greenback. They now have an alternative in the euro which did not exist before.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

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.



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.

Japan did not become American, but it did become a democracy. The transition from the meiji autocracy to post WW2 democracy involved gradual democratization in the 20's, a wave of assasinations and attempted coups that resulted in a military regime, and then a World War. If Chinas transition is going to go anything like that, we have some interesting times ahead.

South Korea also made the transition somewhat more quietly than Japan.


South Korea and even Japan are far smaller than China (or India) No nation of the size of India or China has ever successfully reached South Korean levels of industrialization - for the apparently trivial reason that there have not BEEN any countries of that size other than India or China.

Which is not to say they wont. Its merely to suggest that what we are seeing is yet another historical novum, and we dont KNOW what will happen.

"in Munich in 1927, a man was asked what he thought the future of Germany would be. He said that in 10 years time it would be ruled by a criminal lunatic. Well surely then, our fate in 15 years will be horrible. No, he said, in 15 years Germany will head an empire that will stretch from the Arctic to the Sahara, from the Atlantic to the Volga. Ah, then, in 20 years will surely be moving on to greater achievements. No, in 20 years our cities will be bombed ruins, half of our current territory will be lost, and our economy will be a shambles. Oh, then in 30 years things will be very bad? No, in 30 years our economy will be prosperous, one of the fastest growing on earth, and we will be a valued member of the most powerful alliance in the world. They took the man, and sent him to the insane asylum"

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Japan did not become American, but it did become a democracy. The transition from the meiji autocracy to post WW2 democracy involved gradual democratization in the 20's, a wave of assasinations and attempted coups that resulted in a military regime, and then a World War. If Chinas transition is going to go anything like that, we have some interesting times ahead.

South Korea also made the transition somewhat more quietly than Japan.


South Korea and even Japan are far smaller than China (or India) No nation of the size of India or China has ever successfully reached South Korean levels of industrialization - for the apparently trivial reason that there have not BEEN any countries of that size other than India or China.

India is a democracy already, so we know democracy is not impossible in a state that large. I see no reason why a state with 1 Billion plus people should not be capable of developing at all.

"in Munich in 1927, a man was asked what he thought the future of Germany would be. He said that in 10 years time it would be ruled by a criminal lunatic. Well surely then, our fate in 15 years will be horrible. No, he said, in 15 years Germany will head an empire that will stretch from the Arctic to the Sahara, from the Atlantic to the Volga. Ah, then, in 20 years will surely be moving on to greater achievements. No, in 20 years our cities will be bombed ruins, half of our current territory will be lost, and our economy will be a shambles. Oh, then in 30 years things will be very bad? No, in 30 years our economy will be prosperous, one of the fastest growing on earth, and we will be a valued member of the most powerful alliance in the world. They took the man, and sent him to the insane asylum"

And for all of that, Germany got richer as time when on, so that Germany in 1960 was richer than Germany in 1940, and before anyone mentions postwar aid, Germany would not have needed any postwar aid had it not been for it getting into a war and then getting flattened- one makes up for the other. All industrialized nations have gotten richer, ismply because development forges ahead. What changes is relative position, but unless a state cuts itself of from the world or fails utterly, it will go up.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

India is a democracy already, so we know democracy is not impossible in a state that large.

which is why i said industrialize, not democratize.

I see no reason why a state with 1 Billion plus people should not be capable of developing at all.

I did not say it was impossible. Im merely asserting historical contingency is all. A truism, perhaps, but not a trivial one.

And for all of that, Germany got richer as time when on, so that Germany in 1960 was richer than Germany in 1940, and before anyone mentions postwar aid, Germany would not have needed any postwar aid had it not been for it getting into a war and then getting flattened- one makes up for the other.

The story was not about GDP per se, but about the need for humility before history.

All industrialized nations have gotten richer, ismply because development forges ahead. What changes is relative position, but unless a state cuts itself of from the world or fails utterly, it will go up.

But some have seen their growth fall so dramatically as to make a huge difference to their relative position. Argentina and the Phillipines, come to mind. ( I would say Chile, but thats a special case connected to natural resources) You can quibble that they werent industrialized - this only points out how limited the number of successfully industrialized countries was prior to the last 30 years or so - i really wouldnt want to generalize from such a short period.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Ge: Not sure where the mystery is. I have agreed that both China and India have the potential. What I disagree on is the "inevitibility" of their surpassing.

Here's a newsflash. China is a very old nation. They've had this economic potential for quite some time....before the US was even a glimmer in anybody's eye, and yet....they've not been able to successfully do anything with it for that entire span of time.

Here is another news flash, prior to 1978 Chinese leaders were isolationists and ignored much of the outside's gains.
Even then, China was the worlds largest economy until the early 19th century. The collapse of the Empire, the breaking up of the country, the foreign invasions and civil wars that followed during the next 200 years seem to finally have waked the Chinese leaders up. So the question is, why shouldn;t China return to a position of global leadership that it held for more than half of the previous Millenium, and a mayority of the time in the last 2000 years?? If anything is the historical annomaly, its China NOT being the world leader.

So now, they begin to do a few things right, and you start spouting off about inevitability? I don't get it.

No, you don;t , because you have a completely American centric world view.

Here are a few things off the top of my head that can totally derail the progress made so far:

* China's authoritarian government pulling the plug on the Market. Can be done simply by decree, if they grow to fear the effects it is having on their population.

China's leaders have statked their legitimacy on making China richer. Their regime survival depends on bringing home the bread.

* Capital flight, if China does something stupid (like oh....invading Taiwan), causing much of the rest of the industrialized world to balk at further investments there.

China has foreign cash reserves of 200 Billion plus, and hold hundreds of billions in US bonds- they have a local savings rate of 40%- certainly capital flight would hurt, but China has enough cash to weather the storm before cash returned. China is simple too large an economy now to be left to fail.

* General contractions in the economy....very punishing to developing economices like China's.

* Bad decisions on the topic of monetary policy

Both of which are short term issues that can be overcome. The 1923 hyperinflation in Germany did not make Germany permanently poor. The great depression did not sink world growth.

Its called a cycle.

* War with India (as the other big kid on the block, it could happen, causing LOTS of death and destruction and vastly eroding their huge edge in population). Note too that war between these two giants may well involve some limited nuclear exchange.

Both India and China have been working to avoid that- their land border is a ***** and not particularly firendly to real large wars, and the nuclear option would make sense to neither for a bunch of mountains. As for "eroding the population lead". Laughable. Any war that kills over 1 Billion people will not be a war that hurts only 2 countries.

But you're right....my gosh...it's...inevitable!

Yes, Inevitable. Most of your examples are problems that set things back, but don;t stop growth- all the rich countries of the world today have seen great difficulty in the past. Did not stop them from being richer in 2000 than 1950, or 60, or 30, or 20.

As for the final one- Oh, my gosh, maybe the US gets nuked!! Then China passes us real quick...

Whoa: I believe that the US isn't doing absolutely everything it could, no....always room for improvement, but then again, the US can get by with smaller growth rates and stay ahead on account of the vast size of its economy (the difference on paper between 6.6 and 10.99 doesn't look like all that much until you add the words "trillion dollars" to the end of it....at which time, it becomes a compelling difference indeed).

Economies grow in percentages. The US economy is about 60% bigger than the Chinese one today, but China can make that up- heck, with 4% growth its economy would triple in 40 years. With 2% growth the US economy would double in 40. China would thus pass the US.

Of course China will grow faster for a time...they started off so much smaller that rapid early growth is expected, and in fact, necessary if they are to survive. As they get bigger, however, that growth will slow down dramatically, and be harder to come by, just as it is here.

-=Vel=-

-=Vel=-

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

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

China's leaders have statked their legitimacy on making China richer. Their regime survival depends on bringing home the bread.

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.

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

Push the date far enough, and we may be into a qualitatively different global economy.


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?

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

All industrialized nations have gotten richer, ismply because development forges ahead.

ah, the magic of compounding!!! Have you been reading W.W. Rostow lately? (the key text is The Stages of Economic Growth, A Capitalist Manifesto)

[lord of the mark]

Both India and China have been working to avoid that- their land border is a ***** and not particularly firendly to real large wars, and the nuclear option would make sense to neither for a bunch of mountains.

one presumes that they would not fight over the mountains, but over access to raw materials.

[Sandman]

China and India have signed a non-aggression treaty. They're both quite cogniscient that war would be an exceptionally bad deal for them. The chances of them going to war over 'raw materials' are about as likely as the Soviet Union reforming.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
China and India have signed a non-aggression treaty. They're both quite cogniscient that war would be an exceptionally bad deal for them. The chances of them going to war over 'raw materials' are about as likely as the Soviet Union reforming.

No ones talking about this in the near future, or even saying its likely. Just taking issue with certain claims of inevitability. China does have a naval presence at Gwaidar (sp?) in Pakistan. India, in its recent rebuff to the US over the Iran pipeline, expressed concern about Chinese pursuit of energy in the region.

[Sandman]

Got a link for that 'expressed concern'? Iran has strong links with both nations; it's hardly a tinderbox.

[lord of the mark]

No, i cant find it, but im sure i saw it as the response to Rices nagging about the pipeline. Now i cant find ANY article on the nagging about the pipeline, just happy stuff about the US offering to help India on energy.

edit:

dammit, the source was the Wash Times.


"NEW DELHI -- The United States is raising objections to a proposed $4 billion gas pipeline running from Iran through Pakistan to energy-hungry India, an issue likely to arise during a visit this week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
India sees the so-called "peace pipeline" project as a boost in its rising competition with China for energy resources and as a way of fostering economic cooperation with its historic rival Pakistan. "

feel free to dismiss out of hand.

[lord of the mark]

heres some stuff from the Asia Times, always worth taking with a grain of salt, about two years old


"Alongside Chinese military activity in Tibet, Nepal and Myanmar, directed at India, Beijing's "expansionist naval ambitions" in the Indian Ocean are greatly worrying Delhi.

India's chief of naval staff, Madhavendra Singh, recently expressed "concern" about the Chinese navy's "close interaction" with Indian Ocean states such as Myanmar. In an interview with the British-based Jane's Defence Weekly, he said China - which allocates 33 percent of its defense outlay on the navy - is helping Myanmar modernize its naval bases that can support Chinese submarine operations in the region.

Singh said the Indian navy was also "closely monitoring" Chinese activity in developing Gwadar port on close military ally Pakistan's Makran coast, a move that could seriously endanger vital shipping routes in the Persian Gulf, crucial to India's trade and petroleum needs.

Security officers said China is helping Myanmar modernize naval bases at Hainggyi, the Coco Islands, Akyab, Za Det Kyi, Mergui and Khaukphyu by building radar, refit and refuel facilities.

The Chinese are also believed to be establishing a signals intelligence (SIGINT) facility on the Coco Islands, 30 nautical miles from India's Andaman Islands territory, to monitor its missile tests.

Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, who openly supports Myanmese dissidents and hosts many in his official residence in Delhi, has declared that Hianggyi base to be a joint Sino-Myanmese naval establishment and that the Coco Islands had been lent to Beijing.

In a direct reference to China, but without naming it, the Defense Ministry report declares that "Myanmar remains an area of security interest for India ... because of the activities of countries working against India's legitimate security concerns".

Indian concerns also center on increased Chinese involvement in the annual export to India of Myanmese pulses and beans, worth about US$300 million. Until recently this trade, vital to India, was controlled by ethnic Indian traders operating out of Singapore.

Beijing is also lobbying hard for a corridor to the Indian Ocean from southern China via Myanmar in addition to the established route via the Malacca Straits. China has already constructed a highway from Kunming, capital of its Yunnan province, to Shewli on the Myanmese border.

According to a proposal being reviewed by Myanmar's military junta, Beijing wants to extend that road link to Sinkham for access to the Irrawaddy River, flowing through to Yangon and into the Andaman Sea. Once completed, Chinese barges would transport Chinese goods down the Irrawaddy to Yangon and transfer them on to waiting Chinese ships.

Yangon is resisting this move, but foreign diplomats said it is a matter of time before Beijing prevails.

Consequently, after more than a decade of rhetoric, India has dumped the cause of Myanmese democracy at the altar of strategic and economic considerations and launched an aggressive diplomatic and commercial thrust into Yangon to try to blunt China's influence.

Pakistan and China were among the few countries to defy international opinion and forge close military ties with Yangon's junta in 1988, cleverly complementing their strategy of encircling India.

"India has long ignored China and to some extent Pakistan's growing influence with Burma's military government at its peril. It is now looking to correct this imbalance," a senior military official said.

To neutralize China's influence in Yangon, India was also instrumental in persuading Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand about five years ago to form an economic-cooperation group. But little of significance has emerged from this coalition. "

[Sandman]

It can't have been that bad; they held joint naval exercises one and half years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3267731.stm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
It can't have been that bad; they held joint naval exercises one and half years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3267731.stm

keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer

Youre correct that theres been considerable warming of relations since they hit a low back in '98. But the Indians are still concerned about Chinese power. I suppose you could point out that some folks are still concerned about the recreationg of the USSR (while others look forward to it)