China Must Reform or Die.

[Solomon2]

Also local protectionism has to stop. There are too many flowers blooming in China. Every city wants its own auto industry. Every town want its own semiconductor industry. No country other than China has more than 100 car makers and more than 500 fabless semiconductor design houses scattered across the country.

I think you're worrying too much. As long as localities do not protect their markets from competition, a natural process of consolidation should take hold in the natural capitalist survival-of-the-fittest fashion.

I don't want China to go down the road of Taiwan, having tons of medium and small companies that's unable to build strong brands like the South Koreans did.

South Korea started out with its "strong brands", the chaebol, and THEN developed. It is too late for China to take that approach. Natural consolidation will serve China better - as long as monopolies or trusts are avoided.

Cheer up, China is only thirty years into its capitalistic development! Just about the same stage the U.S. was in in 1900, only thirty years after the 14th Amendment put corporate capitalism on a sturdy legal ground.

(But seek to de-power trusts and monopolies, and the crooked politicians who favor them, unless you want another revolution!)

 

[chauism]

Thats fine the USA needs a strong enemy if we are not to become weak, though true democracys usually get along pretty good, but if China wants a war, cold or hot, I am sure that the USA will oblige them.

But I think the chances of war will lessen, China's hope right now
is if they have an enemy it will make the people pull togather more. An age old trick of totalitarian government goverments run by a dictators.

You might want to refer to Quincy Wright, and his monumental A Study of War:[26]


"To sum up, it appears that absolutist states with geographically and functionally centralized governments under autocratic leadership are likely to be most belligerent, while constitutional states with geographically and functionally federalized governments under democratic leadership are likely to be most peaceful."
DEMOCRACY AND WAR

China's current government does not want an enemy especially when the population are very nationalistic. It was the government tried to cool down the anti-west sentiment during the Tibet riot and torch relay in 2008. If it is not anything, Others are more hostile to China because it is different from them, than China is more hostile to others because they don't have the internal approach as China. Yes, USA can handle China today. Since you so insist on the notion that democracy is the reason that kept China from advancing, then once China become democratic and is able to advance to the level of USA today, with the larger population and economy USA will be what UK is to USA right now to China in the future in terms of military power.

Democracies don't go to war with each other is a classical fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".
"In fact, the thesis is not nearly as strong as the statement that no two countries with a McDonald's Restaurant have ever gone to war with one another, so why do you never hear distinguished international diplomats expound on the need to sell more beef patties in the world?"

You can find more compelling evidence from this studies with real statistics and explanations.
War Between Democracies

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Thats fine the USA needs a strong enemy if we are not to become weak, though true democracys usually get along pretty good, but if China wants a war, cold or hot, I am sure that the USA will oblige them.

But I think the chances of war will lessen, China's hope right now
is if they have an enemy it will make the people pull togather more. An age old trick of totalitarian government goverments run by a dictators.

You might want to refer to Quincy Wright, and his monumental A Study of War:[26]

"To sum up, it appears that absolutist states with geographically and functionally centralized governments under autocratic leadership are likely to be most belligerent, while constitutional states with geographically and functionally federalized governments under democratic leadership are likely to be most peaceful."
DEMOCRACY AND WAR

Yes Democracy leads to peace, thats why the USA has funded 100+ coups in the last 50 years, have bombed almost 100+ different countries and fought almost 50+ wars in the last 50 years. ALmost 1 new war for every year.

List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Cheer up, China is only thirty years into its capitalistic development! Just about the same stage the U.S. was in in 1900, only thirty years after the 14th Amendment put corporate capitalism on a sturdy legal ground.

That's a good point, it has only been 30 years.

 

[Solomon2]

The idea that a democratic China will be more friendly towards the west is fantasy and will always remain so. So my question is whether the world is prepare for a democratic China?

Venezuela's current president was democratically elected and is no friend of America. Yet he isn't a security threat to the U.S., either. Venezuela's legislature and judiciary remain intact, and the voters still have the ability to kick him out when they wish. Works for me!

As long as Chinese don't catch the "German disease" and go beyond the limits of nationalism and security into empire-building, the West will be O.K. Sad to say, popular Chinese support for slow expansion and colonization create strong doubts. Tibet yesterday, Sudan today, the Paracels tomorrow, Kashmir again the week after that?

 

[chauism]

Venezuela's current president was democratically elected and is no friend of America. Yet he isn't a security threat to the U.S., either. Venezuela's legislature and judiciary remain intact, and the voters still have the ability to kick him out when they wish. Works for me!

As long as Chinese don't catch the "German disease" and go beyond the limits of nationalism and security into empire-building, the West will be O.K. Sad to say, popular Chinese support for slow expansion and colonization create strong doubts. Tibet yesterday, Sudan today, the Paracels tomorrow, Kashmir again the week after that?

That is why I think those decisions should be left to those cool headed people in politburo and CMC than those opportunist ones that will use the result from a poll to pursue their political agendas.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Venezuela's current president was democratically elected and is no friend of America. Yet he isn't a security threat to the U.S., either. Venezuela's legislature and judiciary remain intact, and the voters still have the ability to kick him out when they wish. Works for me!

As long as Chinese don't catch the "German disease" and go beyond the limits of nationalism and security into empire-building, the West will be O.K. Sad to say, popular Chinese support for slow expansion and colonization create strong doubts. Tibet yesterday, Sudan today, the Paracels tomorrow, Kashmir again the week after that?

The USA did the same thing under a "democratic government"

Killing 100 million Indians in their manifest destiny.

Brutally subjugating and annexing Hawaii

Attempted to take over Canada under a democratic government

Attacking Mexico stealing 50% of Mexican territory and ethnically cleansing the mexicans living there

Invading and annexing Cuba and putting up Guantanamo Bay

Invading and annexing Puerto Rico

Invading and annexing Guam and Philippines

Invading and annexing Samoa

Invading and annexing the Virgin Islands

Support independence for Kosovo and Tibet, but when the Southern States declared independence the Southern states were brutally subjugated by the Northern States.

And all of this occurred under "democracy"

ALSO TIBET NEVER LEGALLY DECLARED INDEPENDENCE, SINCE THEY WERE BRITISH CONTROLLED IN 1913

 

[Solomon2]

That is why I think those decisions should be left to those cool headed people in politburo and CMC than those opportunist ones that will use the result from a poll to pursue their political agendas.

The mechanisms of a future Chinese Republic are worthy of discussion.

 

[Solomon2]

The USA did the same thing under a "democratic government"

As far as I know, U.S. conquests were rarely perceived as a security risk by any third nation. Even as they were in progress, Chinese flocked to the "golden country".

As for your specific list, general U.S. history is a matter for a separate thread.

 

[chauism]

As far as I know, U.S. conquests were rarely perceived as a security risk by any third nation. Even as they were in progress, Chinese flocked to the "golden country".

As for your specific list, general U.S. history is a matter for a separate thread.

Not even those being annexed?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Sad to say, popular Chinese support for slow expansion and colonization create strong doubts. Tibet yesterday, Sudan today, the Paracels tomorrow, Kashmir again the week after that?

Alarmist nonsense.

If you want to see "expansionism", look to your very own Israel, and the illegal settlement building in the occupied territories.

Chinese activities in Sudan do not even come close to that.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

As far as I know, U.S. conquests were rarely perceived as a security risk by any third nation. Even as they were in progress, Chinese flocked to the "golden country".

As for your specific list, general U.S. history is a matter for a separate thread.

But China is not expansionist, China has legitimate claim to all these areas.

The USA did not have the right to invade these areas.

The islands in the South China sea originally belonged to China, The French forced China to hand over the islands using "gunship diplomacy" and now Vietnam is claiming these islands because they claim that they inherited them from France.

Same thing with China's border dispute with India. The British invaded Tibet, forced them to sign over the lands Arunachel Pradesh and Akasai Chin to Britain, Now India is claiming these on the basis that they inherited them from Britain.

China is just taking back land that was wrongfully stolen from them by western imperialists.

 

[chauism]

But China is not expansionist, China has legitimate claim to all these areas.

The USA did not have the right to invade these areas.

The islands in the South China sea originally belonged to China, The French forced China to hand over the islands using "gunship diplomacy" and now Vietnam is claiming these islands because they claim that they inherited them from France.

Same thing with China's border dispute with India. The British invaded Tibet, forced them to sign over the lands Arunachel Pradesh and Akasai Chin to Britain, Now India is claiming these on the basis that they inherited them from Britain.

China is just taking back land that was wrongfully stolen from them by western imperialists.

Actually Arunachel Pradesh and Akasai Chin technically belonged to Manchurians.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Actually Arunachel Pradesh and Akasai Chin technically belonged to Manchurians.

These areas BOTH belonged to Tibet since the year 700, Tibet has been part of China since 1300

 

[Solomon2]

But China is not expansionist, China has legitimate claim to all these areas.
The islands in the South China sea originally belonged to China -

I recall asking a Chinese student the basis of that claim, and he replied, "Archaelogists discovered that skeletons on the island are Chinese." That's pretty thin stuff.

The French forced China to hand over the islands using "gunship diplomacy" and now Vietnam is claiming these islands because they claim that they inherited them from France.

The Chinese claim not just the islands but the whole sea, in contravention of U.N. treaties.

Same thing with China's border dispute with India. The British invaded Tibet, forced them to sign over the lands Arunachel Pradesh and Akasai Chin to Britain, Now India is claiming these on the basis that they inherited them from Britain.

One or two Chinese emperors claimed Europe as their territory. Shall we give that credence as well? Where do you draw the line? What are the limits? These things are for discussion - I don't think China has truly engaged its neighbors in such yet.

China is just taking back land that was wrongfully stolen from them by western imperialists.

Do you think China is satisfied with the chunk it reclaimed from Pakistan, or do you think China will someday be hungry again for more?