China is a super power. I don't believe poor living standards preclude it from being so. The Chinese exert huge influence over the Asia region. It's why your starting to see USA place a lot of emphasis on a military presence in the Asia region.
The interesting thing is a lot of the countries in the Asia/Pac region primarily trade with China, even US allies (e.g. Australia). If the US starts to get agressive (in the cold-war sense) within the region, at what point does economics trump allies?
Retail sales of consumer goods in China in 2011 were about $300B USD and growing at 17% per year. I think this places it close behind the USA and EU.
More cars (units) are already sold in China than any other market. Other categories are not far behind.
Obviously China's growth was fueled mainly by exports. However, that doesn't mean its internal consumer economy is anemic. Further, current government policy in China is to encourage internal consumer spending.
>Of course, it is all economic waste, since none of the skyscrapers are occupied. No forces of demand or supply, no consumption locally of the product (people can’t afford it).
I'm not qualified to judge how sustainable the whole Chinese system is, but what the author is saying here is simply untrue.
There are some distortions in the economy, especially in real estate, but its not a universal by any means. You get some districts/towns/buildings being built where there is no demand but someone can scrounge up land and capital, these are very under utilized, but in the boom regions space is still at a premium.
There are also distortions in residential real estate, easy access to credit + no property taxes (just one upfront sales tax) means that many people by properties speculatively without intending to rent it out or flip them in a timely manner. This means many empty apartments even in cities like Beijing and Shanghai where rents keep rising.
A true 'super power' in the modern sense is not the strength of its hard military power but its soft power. The USA influences the world through technology and culture on a level that China will never be able to match without major internal changes. The fact that it still chooses to push its smaller neighbours around is an example of this.
I'm not sure the term "superpower" is well defined enough to argue over who is and isn't one, but I do take issue with the idea that the USSR was influential only via its military. Many, if not most, revolutionary movements for quite a while were Marxist in nature. This resulted in the fall and creation of many governments on all 6 populated continents. I think the projection of a particular ideology counts as a form of soft power.
First of all I don't understand why this is HN-worthy.
China was a super power before, I mean, long before there was a USA. There is no reason why it can't be again. And keep in mind that Germany became a super power from nothing in less than 50 years.
What definition of super power are you using, and when was China considered this?
The term super power is a new invention. One can't consider Rome, the Aztek or Mayan Empires, Byzantium, or the Empire of Ghana to be super powers just because of their pre-eminent position in a pre-global society.
"China was a super power before, I mean, long before there was a USA."
Also the Greeks, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the Persians, the Spanish, the Japanese, the French and the British. Even Portugal got to control a territory bigger than that of ancient China (without Tibet and other recent conquest).
"And keep in mind that Germany became a super power from nothing in less than 50 years."
?? I don't know what nothing means to you. Do you mean "nothing" as the WWII? were it was the most scientifically and industrially developed country of the world with scientist that later will launch rockets for the Americans and Russians, develop modern chemistry or psychology?.
I believe Chinese are very hard working people and there will be prosperity there but not under communism. China could break apart very easily into smaller states. The coast is very rich while inner China is so poor.
I learnt long ago that one can not learn anything about China from an Indian, about India from a Pakistani and so on....
I checked the title of the article, read about a para and decided to check the name of the author. That was the end of it.
I hope to hear a few things about China from a chinese one day. Everyone else is either jeolous or afraid or angry or something else that gets his/her skin in the way of a fair argument.
"When, and it’s a question of when, and not if, the crash happens – which could be the collapse of exports, the internal property waste bubble bursting, the GDP will see a very severe contraction"
wait what? i missed the paragraph founding this claim. especially important because you're basing other claims on this.
17 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 36.5 ms ] threadThe interesting thing is a lot of the countries in the Asia/Pac region primarily trade with China, even US allies (e.g. Australia). If the US starts to get agressive (in the cold-war sense) within the region, at what point does economics trump allies?
Why is this surprising?
The countries are fearful of China but they don't respect, admire or mimic it like they do with Japan or the USA.
I am sure one billion suppressed people are going to rise against tyranny of few ruler in coming future.
More cars (units) are already sold in China than any other market. Other categories are not far behind.
Obviously China's growth was fueled mainly by exports. However, that doesn't mean its internal consumer economy is anemic. Further, current government policy in China is to encourage internal consumer spending.
I'm not qualified to judge how sustainable the whole Chinese system is, but what the author is saying here is simply untrue.
There are also distortions in residential real estate, easy access to credit + no property taxes (just one upfront sales tax) means that many people by properties speculatively without intending to rent it out or flip them in a timely manner. This means many empty apartments even in cities like Beijing and Shanghai where rents keep rising.
A true 'super power' in the modern sense is not the strength of its hard military power but its soft power. The USA influences the world through technology and culture on a level that China will never be able to match without major internal changes. The fact that it still chooses to push its smaller neighbours around is an example of this.
China's current power in the world comes primarily though its economic might.
China was a super power before, I mean, long before there was a USA. There is no reason why it can't be again. And keep in mind that Germany became a super power from nothing in less than 50 years.
The term super power is a new invention. One can't consider Rome, the Aztek or Mayan Empires, Byzantium, or the Empire of Ghana to be super powers just because of their pre-eminent position in a pre-global society.
Also the Greeks, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the Persians, the Spanish, the Japanese, the French and the British. Even Portugal got to control a territory bigger than that of ancient China (without Tibet and other recent conquest).
"And keep in mind that Germany became a super power from nothing in less than 50 years."
?? I don't know what nothing means to you. Do you mean "nothing" as the WWII? were it was the most scientifically and industrially developed country of the world with scientist that later will launch rockets for the Americans and Russians, develop modern chemistry or psychology?.
I believe Chinese are very hard working people and there will be prosperity there but not under communism. China could break apart very easily into smaller states. The coast is very rich while inner China is so poor.
I checked the title of the article, read about a para and decided to check the name of the author. That was the end of it.
I hope to hear a few things about China from a chinese one day. Everyone else is either jeolous or afraid or angry or something else that gets his/her skin in the way of a fair argument.
wait what? i missed the paragraph founding this claim. especially important because you're basing other claims on this.
"there are highways in China, where one can drive for hours and see very few cars"
So does the United States.. Both China and the US are pretty big countries you know..
Other than that. Not sure what to think of the article.