Is China the New America?(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Is China the New America?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4778&print=1
53 comments
Caution: Personal bias stemming as a Chinese-born U.S citizen.
One reason for American dominance after WWII was that so much of Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed by war. America has (about) the same manufacturing base as 2 years ago.
Currently, lots of U.S manufacturing, save for defense-related projects have been outsourced elsewhere (i.e., GM/Ford cars are only 50%, 60% made in the U.S; GM cars sold in China, are often assembled and with many parts made in a GM-Shanghai joint-venture factories; Pratt & Whitney and GE Aircraft engines out-source their engine compressors to low-cost developing countries such as Poland, etc.). Perhaps what's even more alarming, is how many industrial and high-tech companies have out-sourced their R&D to China: Intel, AMD, United Technologies, GM, MSFT all have R&D centers in Shanghai or Beijing. So Chinese manufacturing, on both low-end and high-end, I would argue is booming.
Another is the strength of American industry was fed by migration of farmers' sons and daughters into the cities .... they had a lot of practical skills
See cities like Shenzhen and Wuxi. Actually, the bulk of Chinese growth is attributed to a major migration of farmers' sons and daughters from in-land China to the coastal cities' huge factory complex. This makes for China's low-end exports. As for having practical skills, China pumps a great deal of math/science/engineering graduates, more per capita than U.S - a good percentage of whom would then later pursue post-doc or graduate work in the U.S/Europe. So I would argue, that Chinese human capital is also booming.
Finally there is the question of relative amount of freedom.
In absolute terms, yes, U.S enjoys more political, social and economic freedom. But I would argue, that Westerner's tend to overestimate the "freedom" disparity between themselves and other "authoritative regimes." In another words, U.S, IMHO is not a pure meritocracy either (corporate personnel is often determined via social connections or pedigree; political candidates are often chosen by back-room deals). Yes, there is tremendous room for China to improve on its human rights and political autonomy; but the whole Western democratic ideal/Plato's Republic is just another manifestation of the European "holier than thou" attitude, left over the colonial times.
One reason for American dominance after WWII was that so much of Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed by war. America has (about) the same manufacturing base as 2 years ago.
Currently, lots of U.S manufacturing, save for defense-related projects have been outsourced elsewhere (i.e., GM/Ford cars are only 50%, 60% made in the U.S; GM cars sold in China, are often assembled and with many parts made in a GM-Shanghai joint-venture factories; Pratt & Whitney and GE Aircraft engines out-source their engine compressors to low-cost developing countries such as Poland, etc.). Perhaps what's even more alarming, is how many industrial and high-tech companies have out-sourced their R&D to China: Intel, AMD, United Technologies, GM, MSFT all have R&D centers in Shanghai or Beijing. So Chinese manufacturing, on both low-end and high-end, I would argue is booming.
Another is the strength of American industry was fed by migration of farmers' sons and daughters into the cities .... they had a lot of practical skills
See cities like Shenzhen and Wuxi. Actually, the bulk of Chinese growth is attributed to a major migration of farmers' sons and daughters from in-land China to the coastal cities' huge factory complex. This makes for China's low-end exports. As for having practical skills, China pumps a great deal of math/science/engineering graduates, more per capita than U.S - a good percentage of whom would then later pursue post-doc or graduate work in the U.S/Europe. So I would argue, that Chinese human capital is also booming.
Finally there is the question of relative amount of freedom.
In absolute terms, yes, U.S enjoys more political, social and economic freedom. But I would argue, that Westerner's tend to overestimate the "freedom" disparity between themselves and other "authoritative regimes." In another words, U.S, IMHO is not a pure meritocracy either (corporate personnel is often determined via social connections or pedigree; political candidates are often chosen by back-room deals). Yes, there is tremendous room for China to improve on its human rights and political autonomy; but the whole Western democratic ideal/Plato's Republic is just another manifestation of the European "holier than thou" attitude, left over the colonial times.
well said. As for your cautionary personal bias...from my experience, anyone that has lived in China can appreciate your position.. its not necessary to be of Chinese decent.
In terms of economic freedom, China has the edge. The cardinal rule is, "you cannot write, read, or do anything that threatens the legitimacy of the party." That kind of limit on free speech certainly does not appeal to me, but I don't think it in anyway cripples the economy.
I'm not sure I agree that China actually offers more economic freedom to most of its people than America does. Most people in China don't even have a formal legal right to move their residence to a new town.
The cardinal rule is, "you cannot write, read, or do anything that threatens the legitimacy of the party." That kind of limit on free speech certainly does not appeal to me, but I don't think it in anyway cripples the economy.
But this I very specifically disagree with. The ruling party of China intervenes in the economy in very many ways in China, and leaving criticism of the party off-limits in public discourse means that sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level can't happen. China has had a bubble economy over the last decade or more, but it's unclear this year how much of the bubble is popping, because the state-controlled media are not engaging in vigorous reporting about what is really happening to real estate projects invested in by local governments or many other government-intertwined economic projects. An economy thrives better with more transparency.
The cardinal rule is, "you cannot write, read, or do anything that threatens the legitimacy of the party." That kind of limit on free speech certainly does not appeal to me, but I don't think it in anyway cripples the economy.
But this I very specifically disagree with. The ruling party of China intervenes in the economy in very many ways in China, and leaving criticism of the party off-limits in public discourse means that sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level can't happen. China has had a bubble economy over the last decade or more, but it's unclear this year how much of the bubble is popping, because the state-controlled media are not engaging in vigorous reporting about what is really happening to real estate projects invested in by local governments or many other government-intertwined economic projects. An economy thrives better with more transparency.
Both good points. Determining whether the U.S. or China has more economic freedom is difficult, because their ways of restricting freedom are so different.
discourse means that sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level can't happen.
It definitely happens among the elites, I once attended a workshop in Guangzhou about problems in urban planning. You can criticize the government's actions, you just cannot question its legitimacy. But even then you probably won't be jailed. Being an open supporter of democracy in China is like being an open racist in the U.S. You probably won't get jailed, but you will find your career not going so well. It is true you see far less policy debate in the popular press, but personally I'd have to be convinced that there is any link between the amount of popular debate over a certain issue and the quality of the eventual solution.
Lack of transparency is always definitely an economic hindrance, no question there. It's a bad problem both in China and the U.S..
discourse means that sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level can't happen.
It definitely happens among the elites, I once attended a workshop in Guangzhou about problems in urban planning. You can criticize the government's actions, you just cannot question its legitimacy. But even then you probably won't be jailed. Being an open supporter of democracy in China is like being an open racist in the U.S. You probably won't get jailed, but you will find your career not going so well. It is true you see far less policy debate in the popular press, but personally I'd have to be convinced that there is any link between the amount of popular debate over a certain issue and the quality of the eventual solution.
Lack of transparency is always definitely an economic hindrance, no question there. It's a bad problem both in China and the U.S..
I agree with you. But "sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level" does actually happen. People do openly talk about such things in China. The censorship is not that complete. Where there are pain points, you will find people shouting about it.
You are correct that local media does not disclose the whole truth. But that's not too different than U.S. mainstream media.
"An economy thrives better with more transparency." agreed!!!
You are correct that local media does not disclose the whole truth. But that's not too different than U.S. mainstream media.
"An economy thrives better with more transparency." agreed!!!
I'm guessing the Chinese farmers also have a lot of practical skills.
But other then that you're right, and lets not forget the huge brain drain into America over the years.
Attracted both by the economy but also by the level of freedom.
Not just democratic freedom, but also the freedom to not stand out just because you look different.
But other then that you're right, and lets not forget the huge brain drain into America over the years.
Attracted both by the economy but also by the level of freedom.
Not just democratic freedom, but also the freedom to not stand out just because you look different.
The last is indeed significant. Something that the rise of reality TV has shown us, is that humiliation is an American pastime. Asian men often get to see this hidden sadistic side of mainstream North American society. I just turned 40 at the end of last year, and I've been looking back at my life and reflecting on this more and more in recent weeks. The way that one ethnic group can talk about another when they think it's safe for them to voice what they're really thinking can be shocking. It makes me want to play around with hidden cameras and microphones.
> But other then that you're right, and lets not forget the huge brain drain into America over the years.
This is true - and the brain drains are probably what made America great. Before and during WW2 some of smartest people in Europe (mostly Jewish) fled to America and they never went back. That is probably one of the reasons why the USA was off much better after WW2 than other countries.
This continued over the years. But it can easily reverse - if situations in the home countries become more favourable or if the USA decreases the number of Visas...
This is true - and the brain drains are probably what made America great. Before and during WW2 some of smartest people in Europe (mostly Jewish) fled to America and they never went back. That is probably one of the reasons why the USA was off much better after WW2 than other countries.
This continued over the years. But it can easily reverse - if situations in the home countries become more favourable or if the USA decreases the number of Visas...
> it seems that America still has the edge.
Please don't mince words about freedom in China, a brutally repressive state: It doesn't deserve it.
* You can't leave your village without a pass
* You can't have more than one kid
* No freedom of expression
* Oh, and that ongoing massacre in Tibet
Please don't mince words about freedom in China, a brutally repressive state: It doesn't deserve it.
* You can't leave your village without a pass
* You can't have more than one kid
* No freedom of expression
* Oh, and that ongoing massacre in Tibet
* I've never heard of the village pass restriction.
* You can have more than one kid - you have to pay a fine though. Also, the restriction doesn't apply to ethnic minorities or farmers.
* You cannot organize dissenting political views. You can express yourself creatively, artistically, etc all you want. Check out Beijing's 798 district: http://www.798space.com (one of my favorite places).
* It's not an "ongoing massacre". It may be oppression, racism, discrimination, segregation, confining a people to internment or a reservation - but to describe it as an active massacre is inaccurate.
* You can have more than one kid - you have to pay a fine though. Also, the restriction doesn't apply to ethnic minorities or farmers.
* You cannot organize dissenting political views. You can express yourself creatively, artistically, etc all you want. Check out Beijing's 798 district: http://www.798space.com (one of my favorite places).
* It's not an "ongoing massacre". It may be oppression, racism, discrimination, segregation, confining a people to internment or a reservation - but to describe it as an active massacre is inaccurate.
I've never heard of the village pass restriction.
He's probably referring to the hukou system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
He's probably referring to the hukou system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
Thanks, I've long wondered about the specific name for the system. That article is a very interesting read, and the comparisons to Apartheid are apt.
I'm well aware of the HuKuo system (most of my extended family live in China). It doesn't restrict movements at all, and you can move to any city you wish for work, vacation, wandering, whatever. It's just a zip code system to track where people live. I don't know the exact process, but you can have your HuKuo changed if you want to move (of course, you have to go through the requisite paperwork).
There are a lot of injustices in China to be angry about, but I don't think this is one of them.
There are a lot of injustices in China to be angry about, but I don't think this is one of them.
* Read about it. I will post some sources here ASAP.
* Is that any less perverse?
* The right to organize with other dissenters is critical in the fight for freedom.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
Those are from the past month in the Post alone.
* Do you mean to say that scores of Tibetan protesters were not beaten and/or shot dead in the months leading up to the Olympics? Because that's news to me.
* Is that any less perverse?
* The right to organize with other dissenters is critical in the fight for freedom.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...
Those are from the past month in the Post alone.
* Do you mean to say that scores of Tibetan protesters were not beaten and/or shot dead in the months leading up to the Olympics? Because that's news to me.
[deleted](2)
I don't want to play this game. All I'm trying to say is it doesn't seem like you understand China well, and should reserve criticism until you have some basic understanding of her problems.
agreed..I'm not interested in saying much more either. If this were any other forum, I wouldn't bother replying to erlanger's statements.
[deleted]
As for Tibet, it is quite similar to what we did to the Native Americans, the Chinese are just doing it more quickly.
I think the Chinese view the Tibetan mission as one of colonization and modernization, while violently putting down groups opposed to Chinese rule. Their internal media, at least, views it as a humanitarian mission, not genocide.
Don't know who's right. Could anyone point out information that China's goal is the elimination of the Tibetan people, instead of rule over them? Seems like they could have finished by now if they just wanted to kill them all.
Don't know who's right. Could anyone point out information that China's goal is the elimination of the Tibetan people, instead of rule over them? Seems like they could have finished by now if they just wanted to kill them all.
There were also "humanitarian" justifications with the Native American situation.
Sure. I'm just asking for some factual clarification here. Is the point of the Chinese mission to rule Tibetans, or to kill them all? Neither is a nice thing to do, but there is a difference in degree of how mean they are.
It's not just to rule, but also to obliterate their "inferior" culture. So we Americans did more killing, ideologically, we aren't much different.
I suggest reading about how the Tibetans ran their country before the Chinese invasion.
That doesn't make it any more right
I think he was trying to say it wasn't more wrong, which carries a different connotation.
> * You can't leave your village without a pass
There are valid practical reasons for this. Infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, schools, etc... can simply not cater for a massive influx of people from rural areas.
The alternative to this is probably giant slum cities that surround every major city (as what happens in other parts of the world).
> * You can't have more than one kid
Although this is horrible - and things such as forced abortions is heretic there are good reasons for this.
There are huge overpopulation problems in China. Culturally many people are also inclined to get more children (since children traditionally cared for parents and were an old fashioned "retirement plan").
I would go further and argue that the rapid increase in population is responsible for much of Africa's non-development.
> * No freedom of expression
Between personal freedom and economic freedom I would prefer economic freedom. Of course China is not a democracy with all the nice associated things (freedom of expression, etc...).
However, if China were a democracy it would probably have succumbed to a kleptocratic leftist rule - as 95% of other 3rd world countries.
There are valid practical reasons for this. Infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, schools, etc... can simply not cater for a massive influx of people from rural areas.
The alternative to this is probably giant slum cities that surround every major city (as what happens in other parts of the world).
> * You can't have more than one kid
Although this is horrible - and things such as forced abortions is heretic there are good reasons for this.
There are huge overpopulation problems in China. Culturally many people are also inclined to get more children (since children traditionally cared for parents and were an old fashioned "retirement plan").
I would go further and argue that the rapid increase in population is responsible for much of Africa's non-development.
> * No freedom of expression
Between personal freedom and economic freedom I would prefer economic freedom. Of course China is not a democracy with all the nice associated things (freedom of expression, etc...).
However, if China were a democracy it would probably have succumbed to a kleptocratic leftist rule - as 95% of other 3rd world countries.
No - the extent of America's financial dominance in the 20th century was not the result of a single event (the Great Depression), but of three; WW1 (in which Britain lost its position of financial dominance), the Great Depression (in which the USA cemented theirs), and WW2 (in which all other industrialised countries were either defeated or depleted to a much greater extent than the US was).
As a result, there wasn't really any country in the position to challenge the USA at the end of WW2; China is not at all in the same position now.
This being said, the crisis may have helped China along in its aim to becoming a global superpower; they have reserves that no-one else has, and so far they've been using them to buy strategic resources (mainly primary materials) as well as lending to the USA. It's a nice position for them to be in, although they probably would have preferred finishing their transition away from manufacturing before being thrust into it.
As a result, there wasn't really any country in the position to challenge the USA at the end of WW2; China is not at all in the same position now.
This being said, the crisis may have helped China along in its aim to becoming a global superpower; they have reserves that no-one else has, and so far they've been using them to buy strategic resources (mainly primary materials) as well as lending to the USA. It's a nice position for them to be in, although they probably would have preferred finishing their transition away from manufacturing before being thrust into it.
This forum ought to focus more on what new business opportunities arise from a larger/richer Chinese middle class, than be afraid of losing old business ideas.
Is America the New USSR? :)
Dmitry Orlov thinks so. Google him.
Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060105_soviet_less...
If hyperinflation takes place then it will be possible, but we aren't there (yet).
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/hyperinflation
Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060105_soviet_less...
If hyperinflation takes place then it will be possible, but we aren't there (yet).
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/hyperinflation
"A country is not made of land; a country is made of its people." --unknown
It is the wrong question:
There are lots of possible candidates for it, but communism ruined it all in China.
Anyway, left are:
1) Africa (don't underestimate it, it could grow much faster than any other country, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
2) Europe, united with all of its parts (and I mean especially the eastern ones)
3) Middle East + India; may seem strange (to some of you), but there you can find the top of the top of human-brewn Culture -- no other region on earth can beat this.
America, you have to "die" (read: take the last place on earth for some decade), because it was you trashing whole world in this financial disaster. This is not popular, so you people will not agree -- the same as children never agree when it comes to take some bitter medicine...
There are lots of possible candidates for it, but communism ruined it all in China.
Anyway, left are:
1) Africa (don't underestimate it, it could grow much faster than any other country, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
2) Europe, united with all of its parts (and I mean especially the eastern ones)
3) Middle East + India; may seem strange (to some of you), but there you can find the top of the top of human-brewn Culture -- no other region on earth can beat this.
America, you have to "die" (read: take the last place on earth for some decade), because it was you trashing whole world in this financial disaster. This is not popular, so you people will not agree -- the same as children never agree when it comes to take some bitter medicine...
Africa, is not a country.
> 1) Africa (don't underestimate it, it could grow much faster than any other country, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
Uhm... Firstly – Africa will never become a world power. Do you know how many problems Africa have? Most economies are shrinking. The countries whose economies grow are based on resources (e.g. oil) that foreign companies mine. There is not one sub-sahara African country with a good education system (the best is mediocre and rapidly declining education systems).
> y, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
You could blame the problems in the 70ies or 80ies on colonialism. But modern problems are created by Africans for Africans. I can cite numerous examples. Can you really blame Britain of Zimbabwe? Both Lesotho and Swaziland never had any major colonial influences – yet they are the most backward in Africa.
Uhm... Firstly – Africa will never become a world power. Do you know how many problems Africa have? Most economies are shrinking. The countries whose economies grow are based on resources (e.g. oil) that foreign companies mine. There is not one sub-sahara African country with a good education system (the best is mediocre and rapidly declining education systems).
> y, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
You could blame the problems in the 70ies or 80ies on colonialism. But modern problems are created by Africans for Africans. I can cite numerous examples. Can you really blame Britain of Zimbabwe? Both Lesotho and Swaziland never had any major colonial influences – yet they are the most backward in Africa.
One reason for American dominance after WWII was that so much of Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed by war. America has (about) the same manufacturing base as 2 years ago.
Another is that the strength of American industry was fed by the migration of farmers' sons and daughters into the cities. While American farmers may have been cash-poor, they had a lot of practical skills that were passed on to the kids that went to the city, such as fixing farm implements (requires mechanical aptitude).
Finally there is the question of the relative amount of freedom - not having been to China, I don't know the "full story" but it seems that America still has the edge.