How close is China really to becoming a superpower?

[thinkingamer]

I wish that China will regain its former glory and most of all, become democratic (or at least not communist)

[Odd]

Ah... speculation over speculation...

In 50 years the USA will be broke after the majority of it´s citizents decided that money wouldn´t bring happiness and just stopped consuming. Europe banned all imigration and just vanished as it´s last inhabitant, a 192 years old dutch woman, died. It was then transformed into a huge museum controlled by iranians, whose citizents became fans of european culture, building copies of europe´s monuments all over their country. Brazil destroyed all of Amazon and became the proud owner of the largest desert in the world. Tourists of all over the world came to amazon desert to ride in camels and spent at the lavish hotels with an arabic theme.

The true large world superpowers will be Madagascar (their scientists discovered the secrets of cold fusion) and Mongolia (their scientists discovered the secrets of how to lose weight without suffering).

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ned
China will be a superpower 25 years after the pro-democracy revolution. I think that revoltion will happen within 10 years. So - 35 years.

That has a much higher chance of botching China into the ground than raising China into heaven.
(The last time China crashed, it took about 100+ years to recover. So yeah - that better not happen again.)

The USSR collapsed because socialist policies ran productivity into the ground. China is not pursuing such policies.

The risks that China do face right now - massive rich-poor gap, unemployment and migrant workers, corruption, etc - wouldn't be solved by a revolution anyway.

Originally posted by thinkingamer
I wish that China will regain its former glory and most of all, become democratic (or at least not communist)

China isn't communist, in all but name.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
China isn't communist, in all but name.

besides economics, in what way is China not communist?

[ranskaldan]

Isn't that the very definition of communist?

If you mean "politically communist" - then that's authoritarianism, not communism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The last time China crashed, it took about 100+ years to recover.

Yeah, but it had 'help' in that crash .

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Isn't that the very definition of communist?

If you mean "politically communist" - then that's authoritarianism, not communism.

it doesn't matter if it is "politically communist" or authoritarianism; it is the same goverment of the "former pre-capitalist communist government"

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The last time China crashed, it took about 100+ years to recover.

Yeah, but it had 'help' in that crash .

Yes. And I'm pretty sure that if China crashes again, we will receive help from the same people again.

Thank you, helpers.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by thinkingamer


it doesn't matter if it is "politically communist" or authoritarianism; it is the same goverment of the "pre-capitalist former communist government"

China isn't "pre-capitalist" - it is a mixed economy, like Canada, or Sweden.

And if we're talking about politics instead of economics, then "communist" isn't even a fitting word. Communism is an economic concept, not a political one. As far as politics are concerned, the USSR, China, Peron's Argentina and Pinochet's Chile are all single-party dictatorships.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The last time China crashed, it took about 100+ years to recover.

Yeah, but it had 'help' in that crash .

Were you there?

*Puts Imran on hit list*

[GePap]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


China isn't "pre-capitalist" - it is a mixed economy, like Canada, or Sweden.

And if we're talking about politics instead of economics, then "communist" isn't even a fitting word. Communism is an economic concept, not a political one. As far as politics are concerned, the USSR, China, Peron's Argentina and Pinochet's Chile are all single-party dictatorships.

Last time I heard, the party had stopped funding education and healthcare in the boondocks; hardly the Swedish model. China today seems more like a heaven for Good old fashioned Gilded Age capitalism.

[ranskaldan]

Source?

I wouldn't say they've *stopped*. But you're right, funding for education and healthcare are going down the drain, as certain marked recent events tend to show.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Were you there?

I must be pretty old .

--

GePap: 'Guilded Age Capitalism'? What?! How is China anything like that? It is definetly a mixed economy with substantial state interference. It may not be 'Sweden', but it may be even larger and more involved.

[GePap]

The "state interference" is mainly holding up politically connected neterprises form going downt he tubes. I think the most efefctive control is of the banking sector, which again is mainly political in nature.

Sweden is hardly a good comparison. Mexico would be a much better one, specially the Mexico of a few years back. Sweden has this whole "little corruption" thing going on that china lacks.

Source?

None in particular: evry time I see some report about conditions of peasants in the coutnry, i read, or hear, abou local authorities making them pay for education and healthcare: certainly they are no longer free in many areas.

[Carver]

An article in Foreign Affairs about a year ago said that for most of the Cold War the Soviet economy was half the size of the US economy; and if China can raise its standard of living to half that of Japan the Chinese economy will be 2.5 times the US economy. That said, getting to half the per capita income of Japan will be hard. The provinces across from Hong Kong and Taiwain (Guandong and Fujian -sp?) are prosperous, but much of the rest of China is awash in poverty and its hard to see rapid improvement in much of the country.

As someone mentioned, to be a superpower you need a blue water navy and China is just begining to build one. The PLAAF (air force) is still largely dependent on imports. Even with the impresive Chengdu J-10 coming out the Chinese are still buying Russia's Su-30, perhaps lacking confidence in their own plane (or perhaps the planes are to fill very different roles).

Anyway, if all goes well I think they could be the world's second most powerful nation in 20-40 years. When they will be a "superpower" is hard to say, a large blue water navy requires a lot of resources. I say 40 years, best case scenario.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
None in particular: evry time I see some report about conditions of peasants in the coutnry, i read, or hear, abou local authorities making them pay for education and healthcare: certainly they are no longer free in many areas.

Strange, because that's certainly the first time I hear this.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Ned
China will be a superpower 25 years after the pro-democracy revolution. I think that revoltion will happen within 10 years. So - 35 years.

If the revolution never comes, China's economy will never match that of the United States. When I was a kid, they projected the USSR to catch the US in time. It never happened. Not even close.

That's because the USSR had radically reformed itself. The old "Stalinist" institutions were destroyed and replaced with those in-kind with capitalism and the market; i.e. enterprises running for "profit," regional(and after Khruschev, local) planning, supply and demand, etc.

Coincidentaly, this is exactly the same route China took in the 70s, albeit they played it much smarter than Breznhev's USSR did. While the Kremlinists played the same tune(albeit, it became only rhetoric with "socialist dressing"), China moved closed to the West. In fact, both the USSR of the 60s, 70s and 80s and China of the 70s-(relatively)the present were very much alike, the only difference being that they took opposing sides(and that China allows/allowed foreign investment, but that's another story).

Let me just say that if China doesn't go for radical(but slow) reforms to move towards full-blown market capitalism(or back to the Stalin-like economy it had in the 50s), China will destroy itself by continuing to push it's own hypocritical policies just like the USSR did.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Propaganda
Let me just say that if China doesn't go for radical(but slow) reforms to move towards full-blown market capitalism(or back to the Stalin-like economy it had in the 50s), China will destroy itself by continuing to push it's own hypocritical policies just like the USSR did.

China has already gone for radical reforms towards full-blown market capitalism.

(As for the Stalinist economy of the 50's, please, no.)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I don't see why China wouldn't develop a middle class similar to Japan's.

It's well on it's way to doing so, at least in certain areas. And with so many people, it doesn't take much of a rise in standard of living in order to make a big impact on the overall economy.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Strange, because that's certainly the first time I hear this.

The repressive government you always advocate here doesn't tell you any bad news? That's silly, we all know that Beijing is totally honest and only George Bush and his handlers spread "propaganda."

[Sandman]

China is a relatively safe bet, if they continue their quiet but remarkable growth. I don't see the need for a blue-water navy in order to be a superpower, there are other ways to dominate the world.

[el freako]

Remember China's growth rates are inflated and not strictly comparable with the rest of the world.

Using PPP anaysis (that is checking current price GDP converted using PPPs in differing years with the reported growth rates between those years) I estimate that china's growth rates is overstated by 2.1% a year vis-a-vis the US (interestingly the EU, Japan's and India's growth rates are all understated vis-a-vis the US by 0.5%, 0.3% and 0.7% a year respectively).

That changes things a bit, here are the growth rates for 1998-2002, adjusted and (unajusted):

USA: 3.0% (3.0%)
EU15: 2.9% (2.4%)
China: 5.1% (7.4%)
Japan: 0.8% (0.5%)
India: 6.1% (5.4%)

I think that China's and the EU's GDP will continue to catch up with the US's untill the 2030's (when they will all be around the same size) - thereafter China output will stay static relative to the US (as the increases in relative productivity are mitigated by a falling working age population) and the EU will start to fall behind the US (as it will, by then, have no more prospective member states to add to make up for it's slower growth).
India will catch up continuously for the next 50 years and as such will be 20-30 years behind China (in terms of relative GDP vis-a-vis the US).
Japan will continue to decline relative to the US, so that by 2040 it's GDP relative to the US (20%) will be half the level it had 50 years previously.

As for military power that could (in today's world of historically low defence/GDP ratios) be much more rapidly changed - given a will to spend the nessecary resources and a reluctance by the US to match it both China and the EU could equal the US's military power within a decade.

[Odd]

Remember that technological breakthroughs can spark economic booms that do not affect the world equally. It´s very likely that will be plenty of them in 50 years. Military power is more of a burden than an instrument of domination these days, especially if the US chooses to act as a deterrent to any country looking forward to wreck havoc (as it has done so far), instead of wrecking havoc themselves. But having a big arsenal is always good as a guarantee that if your economy collapses you have something to sell to rogue states and terrorists for a change.

[Lord Merciless]

Military technology is the driving force of new technologies today. Radio Electronics, Internet, Jet Planes, Spaceflight, Nuclear Power, GPS, all had their roots in the military.

The next generation of new technologies, as the previous generation, will again be derived from military applications.

[Sandman]

Military technology is the driving force of new technologies today. Radio Electronics, Internet, Jet Planes, Spaceflight, Nuclear Power, GPS, all had their roots in the military.

I disagree. Where's the military in genetic engineering, maglevs, the automobile, the television, silicon chips and fusion research?

The fact is, if you follow the genesis of an technology, you may well find a period where it was pioneered by the military, but there is no reason to stop there and proclaim the military to be the source of technology.

[Alinestra Covelia]

It:s obvious that China will never be a true superpower until they win the World Cup. People may talk about weapons, economy, and technological advances, but when push comes to shove, if you don:t have at least one football victory to your name, the rest of the countries will laugh at you behind your back regardless of how loyal they appear.

God, I hate Japanese keyboards. Where:s the goddam apostrophe, eh?

[Kuciwalker]

rofl

[BeBro]

In 50 years, there will be some million more VWs in China /evil capitalist

But seriously, the country has of course great potential, but that doesn´t mean it will become the biggest power automatically. Russia has potential too, but currently it seems wasted. It´ll be very interesting to watch China´s development (as well for example India´s), but I´m not convinced by political prophecy about the next superpower....

[The Andy-Man]

maybe you should all stop thinking that a US Style economy is needed to be a world power. China has done many capitalist-style reforms etc, but I am personaly very skeptical about how far this will go before there is some sort of left-wing backlash.

[The Andy-Man]

as for 'the future', in 100yrs everything will most likley be domnated by China and India, though weather capitalism (as such) is still the main ideology and form of economy seems very unlikley to me.