What's new

The clock is ticking for USA....

USA's economy is just less than thrice the Chinese economy.
And seeing China's population composition and its mainstream industries.
China is no where near USA.

The future,as i have read on the net saw interviews of experts,isn't too good for China.
Firstly,one child policy is hurting China in the back.
Secondly,China emphasizes of dealing in light material,which proves to be beneficial to the economy in the short term,not in the long one.
Thirdly,China is sooooooooo very over-confident and boasting about its growth rather than mending it's other internal problems,USA doesn't face any of those whatsoever.
So China surpassing USA?:hang2::lazy:
will merely be a dream for them,at least for the next 50-60 years.
And this is not my opinion,i have concluded such a post by knowing the opinion of the experts.

Really the bottom line no one really knows what the future holds.
50 years from now humans might be extinct, according to some predictions we might not make it past 2012.
 
Fair point, unfrotunately I have this reaction to one sided opinions :disagree:

It does seem that the influence on the presidency by big businesses is in decline (especially after this economic disaster) which is a damn good thing. IMO some of the big cooperations have really messed up the US with short term greediness (GM tearing down public transport network, Failure of the banks etc) which would actually have benefited the whole country and its citizens if properly regulated, I hope Obama does a better job then some of his past predecessor.

That said the US governance and education system does a great job by encouraging a hotbed of new innovations which is a class of its own. I think this alone is what makes the US so special and sets it apart from everyone else.

Yeah really I was amazed that Obama was able to pass his wall-street reforms against that much opposition from big money. It's really kind of sad and petty that the financial world decided to let the stock market drop in order to voice their complaint.
 
USA's economy is just less than thrice the Chinese economy.

Agreed the raw GDP figures are there for all to see. No one is disputing this


The future,as i have read on the net saw interviews of experts,isn't too good for China.

There have been people predicting doom and gloom for China (including chinese like Minxin Pei) since the 90's and all the problems they foresaw as crippling, China has solved, so there is no reason to think China can't continue on its path.

Minxin Pei’s Reflex Twofish's Blog


Firstly,one child policy is hurting China in the back.

The one child policy is already being relaxed and China labour pool is still growing believe it or not and will continue to do so to 2015. Besides the one child policy is producing some unexpected benefits. With only one child to pay and care for, these children (including me) are fortunate to receive much better education and attention than otherwise would be possible. No starving kids here.



Thirdly,China is sooooooooo very over-confident and boasting about its growth rather than mending it's other internal problems,USA doesn't face any of those whatsoever.


sorry mate this really sounds like India more than China. The CCP does a relatively good job at problem solving, 6/7 top leaders comes from an engineering background. Any boasting you hear is not coming from the top but brainless fenqing (look it up)

To quote Chauism's article he posted somewhere else.
Made in China: The Revenge of the Nerds - TIME


Take a look at the seven members of the current Standing Committee of the 15th Central Committee. The Big Three in the Chinese oligarchy were all trained as electrical engineers: President Jiang Zemin at Shanghai's Jiatong University, Li Peng in the Soviet Union, and Premier Zhu Rongji at Beijing's prestigious Tsinghua University. Hu Jintao graduated from Tsinghua in hydroelectric engineering. Wei Jianxing studied mechanical engineering at the Dalian Engineering Institute. Vice Premier Li Lanqing earned his degree in automotive engineering from Fudan University. Of the seven, only Li Ruihuan did not graduate from a four-year institute with an engineering degree. But he did earn a college certificate by taking night classes at the Beijing Spare-time Architecture Engineering Institute.




,USA doesn't face any of those whatsoever.

I could write an essay on the USA's internal problems. If you weren't so blind, you probably can too.

And this is not my opinion,i have concluded such a post by knowing the opinion of the experts.

Nowadays you can find/pay any expert to say anything you want. I suspect this is no different. But if you were really honest with yourself, you'd try to examine the motivation of your opinions and the opinions of these China doomsayers.

I'll give you an example. There was a debate hosted by the Economist magazine on the whether the era of Chinese labour is over.

Economics: Is the era of cheap Chinese labour over? | The Economist

8 economists were asked, 7 all say things like "The important thing is Chinese productivity is rising", "Rising labour costs are transitory" etc. BUT the one economist who predicts the end of Chinese labour is an Indian.

Politics and demographics indicate a turning point is at hand - Arvind Subramanian

What does that say about India and what does that say about you.
 
Last edited:
^^^ You may be on to something that engineers may be helpful on the political scene. Recently people from outside has been lecturing in final year engineering class at my university about the importance of getting engineers to participate more politically since they seems to understand the implications of a solution more than people from other background.

Sadly in NZ there are no politicians with engineering (or science) background put plenty in laws, arts and managements. Apparently I heard from the lectures a couple of years ago that china is producing 600,000 engineers from it's universities a year, followed by india with around 400,000. US managed about 80,000 to 100,000 I think.
 
^^^ You may be on to something that engineers may be helpful on the political scene. Recently people from outside has been lecturing in final year engineering class at my university about the importance of getting engineers to participate more politically since they seems to understand the implications of a solution more than people from other background.

Sadly in NZ there are no politicians with engineering (or science) background put plenty in laws, arts and managements. Apparently I heard from the lectures a couple of years ago that china is producing 600,000 engineers from it's universities a year, followed by india with around 400,000. US managed about 80,000 to 100,000 I think.

America is run by lawyers and China is run by engineers. Both have their strength and weaknesses but I personally prefer scientism and engineers to dominate government.
 
America is run by lawyers and China is run by engineers. Both have their strength and weaknesses but I personally prefer scientism and engineers to dominate government.

i prefer the government to stay out of just about everything really :) i don't want either engineers or lawyers interfering and trying to regulate an economy.
 
i prefer the government to stay out of just about everything really :) i don't want either engineers or lawyers interfering and trying to regulate an economy.

à la Greenspan? Surely the government has a role in developing countries like China, where unguided growth could be disastrous.
 
i prefer the government to stay out of just about everything really :) i don't want either engineers or lawyers interfering and trying to regulate an economy.

Well, the invisible hand of free market need to be guided by the visible hand of government intervention.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, says: "the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there." Stiglitz explains his position:

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the "invisible hand" and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.

Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.)

But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always.

Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights.

The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector"—non-governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.

Noam Chomsky, while acknowledging the intelligence of Smith's thesis, criticizes how the term of the "invisible hand" has been used. He also explains:

Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces. (...)

The political economist E.K. Hunt criticized markets and the externalities emerging from market exchanges as being a route for self-advancement at the expense of social good. Hunt helped contribute to the literature on heterodox economics, helping to coin the term "invisible foot" in contrast to a presumably beneficent "invisible hand":

If we assume the maximizing economic man of bourgeois economics, and if we assume the government establishes property rights and markets for these rights whenever an external diseconomy is discovered [the preferred "solution" of the conservative and increasingly dominant trend within the field of public finance], then each man will soon discover that through contrivance he can impose external diseconomies on other men, knowing that the bargaining within the new market that will be established will surely make him better off. The more significant the social cost imposed upon his neighbor, the greater will be his reward in the bargaining process. It follows from the orthodox assumption of maximizing man that each man will create a maximum of social costs which he can impose on others. D'Arge and I have labeled this process "the invisible foot" of the laissez faire ... market place. The "invisible foot" ensures us that in a free-market ... economy each person pursuing only his own good will automatically, and most efficiently, do his part in maximizing the general public misery. "
Notes of NAFTA: "The Masters of Man", by Noam Chomsky
 
well, i've already said this before. capitalism's achilles heels are labour markets (when labour supply is so high that they get paid subsistence or lower wages) and financial markets (where 1929 style mismanagement can derail the system in a massive way)

outside of these 2 problems, government meddling leads to severe inefficiency.
 
well, i've already said this before. capitalism's achilles heels are labour markets (when labour supply is so high that they get paid subsistence or lower wages) and financial markets (where 1929 style mismanagement can derail the system in a massive way)

outside of these 2 problems, government meddling leads to severe inefficiency.

Well we seen what communism accomplished, a 100 million dead and nothing.
 
Well we seen what communism accomplished, a 100 million dead and nothing.

Why this guy still allowed to post on this forum, he copy 99% of his posts from other forum, even a simple sentence like this post?
Its a disgrace to PDF, this shameless guy should be banned forever.
This time he copy from this site, scroll to th bottom of the forum, you will found out how pathetic he is.:rofl:
http://srtforums.asterpix.com/cy/2436661/?q=Communism+Accomplished,+100+Million+Dead+And+Nothing
Goals of Communism (1963) - SRT Forums - SRT4, SRT6, SRT8, SRT10 & Dodge Forum
 
Last edited:
America is run by lawyers and China is run by engineers. Both have their strength and weaknesses but I personally prefer scientism and engineers to dominate government.

U know in US Lawyers are mostly known as liars(as second name)...:woot::lol:
What we can expect from the country run by Liarz...:cheesy::lol:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom