The problem with all utopian ideals is that they are all based on false facts derived from a faulty concept oof humanity. Humanity is desccribedd as kind and caring etc, when they are not traiits held by the majority of the worlds population.
Most people will do whats best for them and their family unit as it is what we are genetically geared to do. Democracy doesnt work for that reason. Everyone agrees that cuts need to made to state expenditure and those in power need to act to do that. But when those cuts apply to you, of you go on strike saying thats whats killing the economy.
Polititians need to do the right thing for the country. Ask any parent, doing what is best for your kids often means they hate you. Sure, much later they understand why. But then, you cant vote off your parents.
Polititians have to do what people want (usually not what is best for the country), what is right for the country (usually not very popular). Thats obviously impossible, so they give in to human nature and just do what is best for them.
Flair: What you are highlighting is basicly the tragedy of the commons. Everbody knows that a sacrifice is needed, yet no one is willing to actually make the sacrifice.
I do however believe that in the long run humans are "kind and caring". Atleast when you look at the majority of the people. If everyone had just been looking out for their best interest we wouldn't have a functioning society, which we do.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
Levi4life wrote:
Population is as much a burden as an asset. In coming years, China's population will increasingly become a drag.
I'm not sure I understand.
More population, more consumption, more economical growth, isn't it ?
Of course you need to have more exports than imports, otherwise it means money is running out of the country.
That population has to be well paid enough to become consumers. In order for incomes to rise across the board there have to be jobs. Until recently, international consumers, combined with Chinese monetary policy (I.E. pegging Chinese currency to the dollar, and therefore encouraging exports in an artificial way(much like Germany with the comparative values of the Euro and the Deutchmark)) have been able to stimulate China's economy enough to fuel growth through exports. That growth is slowing, partly because there is only so much cheap crap that Americans and Europeans can buy, partly because monetary policy is geared toward exports and not a domestic consumption, and partly because as standards of living rise in China they are losing their comparative advantage in cheap manufacturing.
If China were to let their currency value float, their comparative advantage would be reduced in a big way, reducing economic growth that is a result of exports. Such a move would give Chinese citizens more buying power in the domestic market, but the damage would be done. The average citizen would be a manufacturing worker, but it would be too expensive to export. They'd be relying on a domestic market, and be priced out of international competition. It's a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
As manufacturing growth has slowed down, the Chinese government has tried to fill the gap in employment with infrastructure. But there is only so much infrastructure that can be built.
Hopefully this explains my logic, I've got some place to be, so I tried to make it quick.
The Chinese have a challenge that no other country in the world has faced. They are attempting to develop an economy that can rival the EU and US, except on a scale never before seen and in a period of time that is minuscule in comparison.
It also has to be accomplished in an era of relative scarcity, and in a land mass of which only 14% is arable(this arable land is primarily on the coast, which is in danger of serious flooding due to sea level rise), and not particularly mineral wealthy, and with fresh water sources that are increasingly polluted. BP estimates that petroleum reserves will run out in 40 years, so the Chinese even have to find new fuels for their development.
I think if you stack these challenges, one on top of the other, and then take into account the basic paradox of building a consumption economy on the foundations of an export economy (with export industries that the Chinese are increasingly priced out of(most of my clothes are no longer made in China, I see Bangledesh, Haiti, Jordan, Nicaragua and even the USA on the tags of my shirts)), and then take into account the massive population, I just don't see it working out the way many people seem to envision it.
To catch up to the US in terms of per capita GDP China has to quadruple its economy.
And I don't think that this is possible when economists are beginning to face the reality of squeezing 9 billion people (which is where it is believed that earth's population will plateau). Rather than growth based economic models, they are increasingly looking at sustainability oriented models, where most goods are durable goods and manufacturing is aimed at replacing the worn durables instead of adding new disposables. China's government needs growth, and there isn't a whole lot of room left to grow.
And exactly because of what you wrote, i am scared of them in a military way, that was also my original point with them, nott about economics so much. However they can boost the economy through the war though...
I see your point. But I'm not only afraid of China, also that USA, Russia or a country from the Middle-East will go nuts and fire an atomic weapon one day. Anyone here ever saw Dr. Strangelove? (It's about Russia <-> USA, cold war, Mutual Assured Destruction)
Edited by Ian Butler on 19-10-2012 06:47
I don't think that war is an option anymore. They can boost their economy with military spending, but I don't think the international system would allow war. If China attacks Japan, for example, then it loses it's largest markets, the US and EU, who would certainly side with the Japanese. Losing those markets would cause a collapse in the Chinese economy that the current regime could not survive. With globalization, integrated countries are bound so closely together via the economies that major international conflicts are unlikely.
It's still a bit worrying to see how much they've increased their military budgets in Asia. I think it's 4 times more nowadays than 10 years ago, mostly because of China.
China wants an army that matches its importance on planet scale, whereas India, Taiwan or Japan are increasing their budgets to match China's.
Though, wars are costly more than anything else, especially when they're not led to grasp additional natural resources.
To be honest, I think war is never out of the picture. Men with that much power are always the biggest ego's and will fight if they think fighting is right. Of course, it's better worldwide than it used to be, but don't be naive, war is and will always be around man.
Levi4life wrote:
I don't think that war is an option anymore. They can boost their economy with military spending, but I don't think the international system would allow war. If China attacks Japan, for example, then it loses it's largest markets, the US and EU, who would certainly side with the Japanese. Losing those markets would cause a collapse in the Chinese economy that the current regime could not survive. With globalization, integrated countries are bound so closely together via the economies that major international conflicts are unlikely.
I am far from this optimistic look, as Ian says one country will go nuts and rest will just defend themselves with power...in the end, our world cant be all about economics for another hundreds of years to come.
Massed ranks of conscripts stopped working as an effective military tactic a long time ago. Even if China desired to attack anyone, I doubt they have the capability, aside their immediate neighbors. The Chinese military is geared more towards posturing, internal security, natural disasters and the economic value of employment/manufacturing related to the military. Being big is not enough, you have to be able to project that power. China's Navy and Air Force are relatively underdeveloped. China only just recently started retrofitting an old Ukrainian ship to become their first aircraft carrier. That hardly inspires fear in me.
The issue of nuclear weapons is a non-issue to me. Nuclear weapons are not considered offensive weapons in the military establishment, which is all well and good. If you use a nuclear weapon on an area you intend to take, be it for resources, or for the population, then you've ruined that area for a good long time and spoiled any gains that might have been had.
Funny how nuclear weapons came up as a topic; last week I wrote an exam about how the development of nuclear weapons either confirmed or dismissed the view on power politics in realism Weird coincidence.
Anyway, I am very anxious to see what's going to happen between China and Japan regarding that rock in the middle of nowhere that both want. It's hard to say what's going to happen, but I reckon it won't amount to much more than a Cold War-type stand off.
I seem to remember someone here saying they studied politics so you might know more about this than me (I only study regional planning with a bit of politics), but what do you think about USAs position in all of this? Should China and Japan break out into a armed conflict, wouldn't the US have commitments to both sides? If I remember correctly they have an agreement with Japan, but they are also somewhat at the mercy of China, financial wise.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
They won't go to war. The USA would side with Japan. China and Japan hold roughly the same amount of US debt (there's only 32 billion between them), which I believe is the reason you think the US is at China's mercy (which, in my opinion incorrect to assume). Japan doesn't have a conventional military. They have a defense force, which has almost no offensive capabilities (as per their constitution). The US is obligated by treaty to protect Japan.
China buying US debt ties our economies closer together. Rather than being a strategic asset that China can hold over our heads it is an incentive for China to help ensure a healthy American economy. If the US economy is shit, then China doesn't get it's money back, and if China does something we don't like, attacking Japan (for example), then perhaps they don't get their money back.
Levi4life wrote:
Massed ranks of conscripts stopped working as an effective military tactic a long time ago. Even if China desired to attack anyone, I doubt they have the capability, aside their immediate neighbors. The Chinese military is geared more towards posturing, internal security, natural disasters and the economic value of employment/manufacturing related to the military. Being big is not enough, you have to be able to project that power. China's Navy and Air Force are relatively underdeveloped. China only just recently started retrofitting an old Ukrainian ship to become their first aircraft carrier. That hardly inspires fear in me.
This is entirely incorrect.
The Chinese Army has traditionally been based on mass conscription, yes, but about ten years ago they realized that in today's environment, that's not enough. With the development of network warfare, numbers are no longer very relevant. In fact, as massing of forces doesn't do much more than make yourself a larger target, having a military that realizes on assault depth isn't going to cut it anymore. The Chinese aren't stupid, and so around the turn of the millennium they decided to start from scratch, and they've done a hell of a job building up capacity.
That isn't to say they've reached the level of the United States. In conventional warfare, only Israel has a skill set that matches that of the US, but China isn't far off. They're mainly behind the US in a few main features. Point of denial operations, sea power (which isn't relevant for an East Asian war, as land based aircraft can cover any and all occurrences), mission command structures, precision operations, and low-level ground attack aircraft are probably where they are the furthest behind. Important? Massively. But if we're talking about a war between the US and China in China's local region, where the US would have to travel thousands of miles, those issues could very well be overcome. It would be a very near run thing, and we aren't that far off from the balance tipping in favor of China (not in general, but within the context of the war being in China's backyard).
Part of the problem is that the US has some entrenched dogmas that are obsolete with network warfare that haven't yet been scrubbed from practice (using armored columns for shock, such as in WWII, for instance). As the Chinese started over, they don't have many of the same drags.
EDIT: If you want to debate this with me, feel free. Just so you know though, there is absolutely nothing I know more about than modern military strategy and tactics.
Edited by Deadpool on 23-10-2012 00:33
China cannot threaten Europe and the US without a huge retrofitting of the fleet. And I think that the Chinese air power advantage (the distance problem you alluded too) could very quickly be neutralized, given that the US' foreign policy under Obama has begun to shift into the Pacific (meaning a naval realignment), and given the number of allies in the region that the US is tied to. I suspect it would take less than 24 hours to match China plane for plane, as I'm sure there are airbases in Japanese and Taiwanese territory that can service US planes, and the USAF is larger than China's by a not insignificant margin. I'm sure our military planners have it all figured out, but I think the reality is that this world exists only in Tom Clancy novels.
All of this is purely hypothetical. War between the US and China is highly unlikely, war between China and the EU is even more unlikely, and I doubt China would want to embroil itself in a war in it's neighbors' territory. There would be crippling consequences in the international community. If they are starting from scratch, then they must have been closely watching the US in Iraq and Afghanistan to see how those conflicts developed. I doubt war in East Asia is easier to conduct than it is in a desert in the Middle East.
Like I said earlier, war has diminishing utility in the world of international politics.
Levi4life wrote:
China cannot threaten Europe and the US without a huge retrofitting of the fleet. And I think that the Chinese air power advantage (the distance problem you alluded too) could very quickly be neutralized, given that the US' foreign policy under Obama has begun to shift into the Pacific (meaning a naval realignment), and given the number of allies in the region that the US is tied to. I suspect it would take less than 24 hours to match China plane for plane, as I'm sure there are airbases in Japanese and Taiwanese territory that can service US planes, and the USAF is larger than China's by a not insignificant margin. I'm sure our military planners have it all figured out, but I think the reality is that this world exists only in Tom Clancy novels.
That's ridiculous. The US wouldn't have the ability to base more than 20-30% of its Air Force within operational range of China, and any attempt to do so would require a large undertaking while China has the initiative from commencing operations. We're not talking China attacking the US or Europe here, that's a ridiculous proposal for at least the next twenty years. We're talking the US and China getting into a war over Chinese ambitions in the west Pacific, with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Australia as the primary flash points.
The hope for repelling Chinese ambitions would be that the Navy can sufficiently disrupt any invasion attempt to allow for the deployment of a full ground force, as well as supporting infrastructure and air power. Under cover of Chinese airspace, that's unlikely.
I fully believe China could successfully capture Taiwan and make a serious run at Japan if they commenced war now. In the long term, right now, the US would win. Now very long from now, that won't be the case.
EDIT: Key point. This isn't to say the Chinese are close to surpassing the US in military power. There are a number of different fields, e.g. COIN, that they are well, well behind the US on. But within a full-scale conventional war in East Asia, they aren't far off.
Levi4life wrote:
Like I said earlier, war has diminishing utility in the world of international politics.
That's a mistake that's been made many, many times before. Most notably here:
20-30% might well be enough. The F22 is head and shoulders above what everyone else has, and even our older stuff is the envy of the world.
Look at a map, and look at the countries in east, southeast, south, and central Asia. There's lots of countries that would take exception to Chinese imperialism. South Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, India, all important countries, several of those have a bone to pick(India, Taiwan), several of which have long had large garrisons of American soldiers (Japan and South Korea).
Additionally there are 2 fleets regularly deployed in the area. The bulk of our carrier groups are permanently deployed in the Pacific. Most of our carrier groups operate at about half their capacity. Bring those carrier groups up to full strength and you have more than 500 carrier based combat planes.
There is no doubt that China is a force to be reckoned with, now and in the future. But you have to take into account the fact that China's government is very much a rational actor. They know that a major regional war would cost far more than they would gain from it, and there would be no guarantee they would win it.
And that's on top of the commercial losses of a war. There is no way they could maintain their current economic growth, (which is essential to the maintenance of the current regime) and go to war with the world.
Weird coincidence. 
