The Becker-Posner Blog — These two guys do a debate similar to what Jerry Pournelle and I were doing back in 95 or so when we were experimenting with our distopia website on Earthlink. Eventually this sort of thing will catch on: two guys arguing. This debate is on Will China Become the Leading Nation of the 21st Century?
This is a good battle since there is plenty of fodder for you to use at a cocktail party.
China’s economic growth since it freed agriculture from the oppressive hand of government has been spectacular, averaging some 7-10 per cent per year in real GDP since 1980, even allowing for some inflation in the official numbers. It has becoming a leading destination of foreign investment, one of the world’s biggest exporters, and among the largest users of oil and other natural resources.
Debate? It’s practically a given. Leading American corporations, from textiles to anything with a printed circuit, owe their loyalty to only one flag — it’s green and has pictures of dead presidents on it.
That’s this week. Next week, who cares if it looks like the yuan? And who, in the US is providing an alternative?
Clinton brought us NAFTA. Bush and the neo-cons are bringing us KYAG!
China has 1.3 billion people. They have more people in big cities than the USA has people. However, that still leaves near a billion in rural areas where they have extreme poverty, few health or human services, bad schools, political repression, etc. Those people are not necessarily happy about the new millionaires/billionaires who are building gated ultramansions in Shanghai and Beijing using money from slave factories.
So what happens in an huge country which has a giant impoverished population viciously opressed by a tiny minority of noveau-ultra-riche? …. ummmm, let’s see… oh,yeah that sounds a lot like China in 1900…. The 21st century could be the Century of Chinese Revolution.
I’m reminded than in Europe it took 1789, 1815, 1836, 1848, 1870 and all the way through 1914-18, 1939-45 and into the 1990s to get them settled into a democratic routine. Only, China is starting from a lower base.
When I heard that Posner and Becker were writing about China I nearly came in my pants, I was so excited. But I have to admit the article/blog wasn’t very interesting. It was too vague and generalized and never got into specifics. I can be summed up as follows: Will China become the leading nation of the 21st century? Maybe.
China’s population is a resource of knowledge. They have opened the door and when the door opened the world of technology fell through. Their standard of living is raising and ours is falling. Parity is the standard by which this world lives by. Are we annoyed? Yes! No one wants to be the second choice when they choose up teams. Technology and this medium of communications in the world have sped up the process.
Just look at the world through the eyes of these blogs and you can see where the world as a whole stands.
I have been to Las Vegas and have seen how quickly homes and business are built. I can imagine China moving that swiftly.
When I was in my twenties I wanted equality for the world and now I see it.
Imafish, are you sure that isn’t a definite maybe?
China lacks some things that the last great empires all had. Raw materials. With 1.3 billion people, China cannot export food and in fact must import. Energy is greatly imported. Many other raw materials, such as cotton are imported as well. In only a couple of areas has China made an impression: textiles and electronics. Both required imported materials and intelligence.
In contrast, The British Empire, from about 1750 to 1918, had a lot of domestic coal, iron, wool, and wood. Both the agricultural revolution and Ireland provided enough food for the population. The wood, and later iron, provided the resources to build ships with which to trade and colonize. The colonies only added to the wealth of the empire. This wealth and growth led to an educated workforce. Trade with other countries was discouraged by high tariffs.
The United States had a similar economic history. Raw resources surpassed local need and ended up being exported. When WWI and then WWII bankrupted the European Empires, the US filled the gap. Because of the solid state of its economy, the US and it’s industry “neo-colonized much of the world. The domestic supplies of energy, iron, and food were sufficient to export. Very few materials needed to be imported. The education of its citizens was the best in the world. And trade was discouraged through high tariffs.
The US economy is now on the wane as the basis of the economy; automobiles and oil are now highly imported. Other finished products are also imported replacing the domestic items. Money and wealth flow out and not in.
When Japan regained it strength after WWII, it was because of several American Industrial Engineers that had been setup by General Douglas MacArther. As Japan is a net importer, it got by only on the value added work of its population. Japan soon peaked after about 30 years of growth and high tariffs. The strong need to import could not create enough wealth to sustain itself.
China has few of the benefits that the UK and US had. It has neither an empire with cheap raw materials nor domestic supplies. Its workforce is not as highly educated. And, because of the new World Trade Organizations rules, it cannot use high tariffs to develop its own domestic workforce and industry. As shown by the US and UK, the wealth must be spread out more equally or risk the revolts seen in France (1789), Russia (1917), and Iran (1979).
China’s emergence in electronics is due to research and development done outside the country. As soon as China’s standard of living rises, these factories will move to the next country of convenience, such as Thailand or Pakistan. China’s strong showing in textiles will be longer lived. Still, much of the cotton and machinery are still imported.
China will definitely become much more powerful. That newfound power will, however, drive the European community and North America closer together.
Just my two cents worth of blabber.
Not that I have to defend Ima, but this post is hogwash. China has nearly as much energy reserves as we do in coal and we have enough to fully power our infrastructure for 300 years. They lead the world in silk and much of their textiles are silk. How does your argument fare there? They have plenty of agricultural product and more potential. They are even beginning to do world class wine such as Chardonay. They have traditionally been isolated and self-sufficient. How did that change?
Maybe you are confusing cheap imports with what can be done domestically or I do not know what. But China is not like Japan in regards to natural resources. You are confused on this.
Have you actually been to China? I do not think so. You’d better go soon to see what’s what.
China is working fast and hard to bring up new pebble design nuclear power plants. There was a story in Wired a few months back on this and it was real interesting (see: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html ). Without the fear of lawsuits, much concern with environmental consequences and the ability to deal with any unrest in a rather decisive manner, China doesn’t have much to hold it back.
I’d wager that in 5 to 10 years, China will be the most technology advanced country on the planet. Meanwhile, Bush’s focus on forcing “Democracy” on the rest of the world, enriching his pal’s pockets with rebuilding contracts, un-employing large segments of our country through offshoring and throwing money away on the military and foreign wars instead of spending it on education WILL relegate us to the level of a has-been country.