China set to overtake Japan as World's second largest economy

Kohoutek

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Culminating in the British Empire. That's where the wealth came from, the England we know today.

Don't forget the millions of tonnes of cheap energy buried in the ground ready to be burnt to power trains, ships, factories, to create gas, electricity etc.

One of the most well known academics in this area summed up Britain's rise as "coal and colonies".

marklv

China's aim is not benevolent. They want to build an empire that can take on India, Japan, Russia and the US - at the same time, if needs be. They need to be watched very carefully. What's more, they are still friendly with that nuke-toting crackpot in North Korea.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

Don't forget the millions of tonnes of cheap energy buried in the ground ready to be burnt to power trains, ships, factories, to create gas, electricity etc.

One of the most well known academics in this area summed up Britain's rise as "coal and colonies".

If it was as simple as coal reserves what happened to the Polish industrial revolution, apparently they work hard as well

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

If it was as simple as coal reserves what happened to the Polish industrial revolution, apparently they work hard as well

I agree it's an oversimplification - of course having energy resources alone is not enough, you need factors that causes the technology to be invented to exploit them.

I suppose a big difference between England and Poland in the early 19th century was England was, by the standards of the time, a liberal, educated, open society and Poland was a society of serfs under the control of the Russian Tsar. Maybe if those roles had been reversed George Stephenson would have been Polish!

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

I agree it's an oversimplification - of course having energy resources alone is not enough, you need factors that causes the technology to be invented to exploit them.

I suppose a big difference between England and Poland in the early 19th century was England was, by the standards of the time, a liberal, educated, open society and Poland was a society of serfs under the control of the Russian Tsar. Maybe if those roles had been reversed George Stephenson would have been Polish!

Nah, he would still been a Geordie

ruggedtoast

China's boom is only one side of the story, and has to a large extent been built on de facto slavery. They have a vast workforce of low wage workers from the countryside who have been supporting skilled industries in the cities because they have no choice other than to go there. Either because its that or starvation, or because theyve been forcibly moved by their repulsive government.

Meanwhile they have a rapidly ageing population, air that you can barely breathe, and growing levels of acts of sedition and violence in the parts of the province that arent quite as loyally PRC as they are meant to be.

The middle classed in the Middle Kingdom, like the middle classes in most countries, dont really give a monkeys about any of this. The government has a real headache though as its trapped in a cycle of modernisation and gentrification, which is mostly counterproductive to its vile ambitions for social control.

They want to be a knowledge economy as long as 40% of the internet is blacked out inside China.
They want to be a global force but without many of their citizens being allowed a passport.
They want increasing standards of living but not if they have to pay workers more or revalue the Yuan.
They want to overcome corruption but only if the people responsible for this are themselves the most corrupt.

History has shown enough times that societies that operate like this eventually hit a wall. I dont expect China to be any different.

Linton

ruggedtoast wrote: »

China's boom is only one side of the story, and has to a large extent been built on de facto slavery. They have a vast workforce of low wage workers from the countryside who have been supporting skilled industries in the cities because they have no choice other than to go there. Either because its that or starvation, or because theyve been forcibly moved by their repulsive government.

Meanwhile they have a rapidly ageing population, air that you can barely breathe, and growing levels of acts of sedition and violence in the parts of the province that arent quite as loyally PRC as they are meant to be.

The middle classed in the Middle Kingdom, like the middle classes in most countries, dont really give a monkeys about any of this. The government has a real headache though as its trapped in a cycle of modernisation and gentrification, which is mostly counterproductive to its vile ambitions for social control.

They want to be a knowledge economy as long as 40% of the internet is blacked out inside China.
They want to be a global force but without many of their citizens being allowed a passport.
They want increasing standards of living but not if they have to pay workers more or revalue the Yuan.
They want to overcome corruption but only if the people responsible for this are themselves the most corrupt.

History has shown enough times that societies that operate like this eventually hit a wall. I dont expect China to be any different.

Aren't China's current changes remarkably similar to England's of 150 years ago? Then you had appaling polution, people forced by extreme rural poverty to work long hours in terrible conditions in overcrowded cities, lack of democracy for the vast majority of the population, a small middle class doing rather well etc etc.

In England the underlying economic imperatives have led to the need for increases in freedom and wealth to be passed to almost the entire population. Why should the future be any different for China?

In England the change from feudal serfdom to a modern democratic welfare state took over 300 years. Perhaps seen in the light of history China is progressing at a remarkable rate.

Linton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Its ingrained in the culture.

Just as the British with their mix of Roman, Viking and Norman blood became adventurers. Culminating in the British Empire. That's where the wealth came from, the England we know today.

Or from another point of view Britain became successful because it engaged in a policy of global conquest culminating in vast wealth being passed from the subject nations to the centre.

It also had the advantage of being the first industrialised nation and thus able to produce goods that were sold all over the world undercutting the local craft producers. This advantage arose from large deposits of easily accessible coal and iron, and the benefits of education being available to the middle classes.

ruggedtoast

We are also the best at everything. Which people tend to overlook.

ruggedtoast

Linton wrote: »

Aren't China's current changes remarkably similar to England's of 150 years ago? Then you had appaling polution, people forced by extreme rural poverty to work long hours in terrible conditions in overcrowded cities, lack of democracy for the vast majority of the population, a small middle class doing rather well etc etc.

In England the underlying economic imperatives have led to the need for increases in freedom and wealth to be passed to almost the entire population. Why should the future be any different for China?

In England the change from feudal serfdom to a modern democratic welfare state took over 300 years. Perhaps seen in the light of history China is progressing at a remarkable rate.

Well China is industrialising so there are always going to be some parallels.

However, in England you didnt have a one child policy. Females in the proletariat being dragged away by soldiers to have forced abortions, or entire towns being transported at gunpoint to the other end of the country because the state decided it would be more econimically productive to have a town there.

Most importantly however, Britain had a vibrant and tenacious culture of freedom of expression. During the industrual revolution we had a wealth of diarists, playwrights, journalists and other writers like Hardy and Dickens, who were willing and able to criticise the establishment and in turn help to shape its future.

I'm sure there are Chinese Hardys and Dickenses rught now. Unfortunately theyre more likely to be tortured and shot in the back of the head for treason than allowed to inspire any awareness of what China is actually like for most of the Chinese who actually live there.

This is why I always find these "China is the new #1" reports a bit depressing. In 99% of the things that actually count, China is a world leader in nothing.

Unfortunately we live in a society which is now so obsessed with the idea that money = merit that you will never hear a peep of criticism, even though most Chinese have very little of it.