Do you think China is becoming too powerful?

[Knight-Dragon]

Chinese brand names off the top of my head: IBM, MG-Rover

Once upon a time, Japanese and Korean brands were practically unhearded of in the world. Or else associated with cheap, shoddy goods.

Today, who has not heard of Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic? Samsung, Hyundai?

China's companies are heading that way...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

China is becoming too powerful for my liking, because it is not a democracy. Non-democratic government have less pressure to distribute welfare to their citizens than democratic states have. They can spend more of the tax revenues on their armies and police forces.

Yup, nonsense.

S Korea, Taiwan had all gone that way. Became rich first, and then became democratic. You can argue that Singapore today is not really democratic, but no one doubts it is rich or that its denizens are not looked after.

China is merely one of the last ones in the region to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[plarq]

Yup, nonsense.

S Korea, Taiwan had all gone that way. Became rich first, and then became democratic. You can argue that Singapore today is not really democratic, but no one doubts it is rich or that its denizens are not looked after.

China is merely one of the last ones in the region to jump on the bandwagon.

Yup,with good reasons.But how are we going to be rich in the first place with goverments' heavy control in key industry,and the unbalanced conflicts between different branches of th goverment?State-run industry fighting each other?

S Korea has some super corporations such as Hyundai,Samsung and LG,but how many super corps are there in the state of China?The lack of integrared state industries and the lack of free markets for smaller companies stop us from both ways towards prosperity.We're neither controlled economy nor free economy.It's like a vehicle without good brakes and good engines.

For the democracy issue,did the S.Korean hate democracy at the time of dictatorship as the Chinese currently?Not being democratic is a thing,people regarding democracy as colonization of the nation is another.S.Korean nationalists claim democracy while Chinese nationalists claim against democracy.

 

[Ramius75]

Yup,with good reasons.But how are we going to be rich in the first place with goverments' heavy control in key industry,and the unbalanced conflicts between different branches of th goverment?State-run industry fighting each other?

S Korea has some super corporations such as Hyundai,Samsung and LG,but how many super corps are there in the state of China?The lack of integrared state industries and the lack of free markets for smaller companies stop us from both ways towards prosperity.We're neither controlled economy nor free economy.It's like a vehicle without good brakes and good engines.

For the democracy issue,did the S.Korean hate democracy at the time of dictatorship as the Chinese currently?Not being democratic is a thing,people regarding democracy as colonization of the nation is another.S.Korean nationalists claim democracy while Chinese nationalists claim against democracy.

If the gov dont control some sector, there might be massive layoff than what is happening now, remember, just 10 years ago, China is still a very closed country, so how can u expect 1 to open so quickly ??

Didnt u learned the lesson of Tiananman ? or ur too young to understand that and let ur ideal get in the way of thinking ?

ur neither a planned economy and open economy and thats give u a good brake and good engine. Some sectors need to be protected, if imagine of they arent ? how many take over ou think they will be ? or industries folding down. where u think the rest of the workers should be ?

Just that ur educated doesnt mean that ur country is also ready for democracy. DO u want another India, phillipine, or indonesia ??? Do u understand how easy for ppl to be manipulated ?? or do u have hidden agenda and thinking to be one ?? or ur just one of the pawn ?

 

[10Seven]

We Asians who live in the neighbourhood don't feel much of an alarm. Many of us are even heading there to eke out a new life/business/vocation.

You are free to assume what you wish. <shrugs>

As for troops, Malaysia and Taiwan are the ones who actually have military bases on the islands. Are we then a threat to regional security?

Less.

The USA's playing field stretches all the way from Europe to Asia, all over the world. And rightly so, as a superpower. China's is much more localized, and far less effective.

I have to say, with respect - this is complete BS. China also stationed or has stationed military units on the islands.

And China's aggression is much more localized? Oh, please, 'I only bully in my back-yard'?

You presume to a position of superiority from which to judge the situation solely because you are asian? Excuse me for thinking that quite arrogant, and certainly racist.
Moderator Action: I suggest you choose your words more carefully - flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Facts are, China since revolution has embarked on quite a few 'little jaunts' trying to bully or blast various peoples into submission. And this is exactly the case right up until today. Despite wishful/naive thinking, the Chinese government has not suddenly become 'nice' but continues to bully and subvert toward it's own interests.

Are we to accept that China is somehow 'special' and free of all the ego and corruption that all large nations experience, or that it's leaders, despite decades of suppression are actually a great bunch of 'guys' and only misunderstood?

No. China is a threat because it has and continues to act in politically and militarily aggressive manner.

It's all 'good-mates' now, because there's money to be made - but virtually no government in the region will be betting on that lasting, and, in fact, quite a few more than just Taiwan and Japan are very open about their position.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I have to say, with respect - this is complete BS. China also stationed or has stationed military units on the islands.

And China's aggression is much more localized? Oh, please, 'I only bully in my back-yard'?

The Chinese did?

I had only read of PLA warships in the region - didn't know they had actual bases, like the Taiwanese or my home country.

You presume to a position of superiority from which to judge the situation solely because you are asian? Excuse me for thinking that quite arrogant, and certainly racist.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't claim my opinion to be better than yours. I am only stating that as Asians, we don't feel the alarm that you do.

Facts are, China since revolution has embarked on quite a few 'little jaunts' trying to bully or blast various peoples into submission. And this is exactly the case right up until today. Despite wishful/naive thinking, the Chinese government has not suddenly become 'nice' but continues to bully and subvert toward it's own interests.

Probably. <shrugs>

Are we to accept that China is somehow 'special' and free of all the ego and corruption that all large nations experience, or that it's leaders, despite decades of suppression are actually a great bunch of 'guys' and only misunderstood?

You said that. I didn't.

You are free to feel how you like about it.

No. China is a threat because it has and continues to act in politically and militarily aggressive manner.

The same can be discerned from Beijing's view - with regards to US bases in central Asia, Korea, Okinawa, Japan... <shrugs>

It's all 'good-mates' now, because there's money to be made - but virtually no government in the region will be betting on that lasting, and, in fact, quite a few more than just Taiwan and Japan are very open about their position.

Ahem. Taiwan and Japan also happened to be amongst the biggest investors in China - along with Overseas Chinese Inc and the USA.

Taiwan's posturing is only because Chen Suibian is trying to angle for independence.

 

[Drewcifer]

The source of China's power will also be the strongest break on the misuse of that power. It cannot afford to alienate it's export markets and is partially dependent on their successes for it's. As it's exporters help build a middle class in China that becomes a further break on any foolish adventurism on the part of the ruling clique in Bejing - any action that hurts it's export industries hits it's growing middle class in the pocketbook. An alienated middle class can be a dangerous thing. The Chinese Communist party is in many ways riding a tiger, they cannot afford unnecessary enemies; if growth slows they are in a very dangerous position internally, potentially a revolution. It is in everybodies best interest that China, the US and the other countries of the Pacific Rim find a way to work together, done right it makes us all better off. Eventually the Communist Party will become like the Kuomintang is in Taiwan now provided growth isn't interrupted.

The people who run China are not idiots, which is why I am not particularly afraid of it.

 

[Drewcifer]

The same can be discerned from Beijing's view - with regards to US bases in central Asia, Korea, Okinawa, Japan... <shrugs>

I can understand why China may feel that way about those US bases but they really aren't there because of China. The ones in Central Asia are aimed at Afghanistan and whatever else may happen in that region terrorismwise. The South Koreans barely even want us there and probably don't need us and the whole point of the US Japanese allience is to neuter Japan once and for all and control it's military so that it is not a threat to us or peace and prosperity in the larger region (though it probably isn't politically correct for the US to say it), we guarentee their defence so that they don't need the military they could afford.

 

[Winner]

Japan should rearm. Massively.

I have a feeling they cannot rely on the US forces for much longer. China's military is growing rapidly, so the only way how to preserve a balance of power is to have stronger Japan - the only country with enough big economic resources.

Guess that's exactly what the US gov is praying for

 

[Drewcifer]

Japan should rearm. Massively.

I have a feeling they cannot rely on the US forces for much longer. China's military is growing rapidly, so the only way how to preserve a balance of power is to have stronger Japan - the only country with enough big economic resources.

Guess that's exactly what the US gov is praying for

The US will defend Japan no matter what as long as the treaty is in place. I'm not sure a rearmed Japan is in anybodies best interest. The emotions between Japan and the rest of east Asia are not a settled issue like those between say Germany and France. An assertive and armed Japan is perhaps not a stabalizing force in the region.

 

[Ramius75]

Japan should rearm. Massively.

I have a feeling they cannot rely on the US forces for much longer. China's military is growing rapidly, so the only way how to preserve a balance of power is to have stronger Japan - the only country with enough big economic resources.

Guess that's exactly what the US gov is praying for

Actually, Japan already has one of the largest fleet in asia giving their so callled "passive and peaceful" constituition.

But of coz, its not a concern really. which country will be interested in invading Japan ?? does it have the resources ppl need ?? its industry and money are something that is best replicate at home, not occupied.

but given that the japanese aggresive past and their lack of remorse over the issue. they are the one im really scare of, since they got the reasons to invade like lack of resource and living spaces.

The correct name of the thread will be, "Are Japan defence army too powerful for its "passive" constituition or was it for show ?"

One that will benefits from a constant scare of China will be the USA armed(death) industry which supply most of the weapon to Japan and Korea.

 

[silver 2039]

If the gov dont control some sector, there might be massive layoff than what is happening now, remember, just 10 years ago, China is still a very closed country, so how can u expect 1 to open so quickly ??

Didnt u learned the lesson of Tiananman ? or ur too young to understand that and let ur ideal get in the way of thinking ?

ur neither a planned economy and open economy and thats give u a good brake and good engine. Some sectors need to be protected, if imagine of they arent ? how many take over ou think they will be ? or industries folding down. where u think the rest of the workers should be ?

Just that ur educated doesnt mean that ur country is also ready for democracy. DO u want another India, phillipine, or indonesia ??? Do u understand how easy for ppl to be manipulated ?? or do u have hidden
agenda and thinking to be one ?? or ur just one of the pawn ?

Another India? We are the largest democracy in the world. Our stock market captilization is higher than yours in Shanghi and Shenzhen. The fund managers in Schroder and Merrill Lynch attract American pension money to India far more than China. It takes an average of 3 months to to sign a joint venture in India, two years in China. Our courts are not beholden to the ruling party they are impartial. Investors feel safer here because we are a democracy and there is a fair rule of law. Both our countries are corrupt yes we have our problems but our people know about them. In China they are kept in body bags.
In Bihar in India and in Gansu in China both are poverty stricken.But in Gansu the government controls everything even how many children are born. In Bihar in the most appaling conditions they still have the right to speak out and make desecions. If you take away people's minds they do lose everything. There is no happiness. In India we tried your methods in the 1970's and they failed. If China ever becomes a shining beacon of the arts, of science, of literature, with world class highways, hospitals, schools, and skyscrapers then you can boast. But it is not now and I believe never will be. At some stage the human spirit comes into conflict with the power that seeks to control it.
Our system allows for growth of the human spirt in China it does not and when there is a conflict it will break the country into two.

 

[sausnebb]

China will conquer the World.

Regards from Scandinavian Province of the Empire of China

 

[Winner]

The US will defend Japan no matter what as long as the treaty is in place. I'm not sure a rearmed Japan is in anybodies best interest. The emotions between Japan and the rest of east Asia are not a settled issue like those between say Germany and France. An assertive and armed Japan is perhaps not a stabalizing force in the region.

I don't care about some silly emotions and WW2 grudge. If (you americans) want to seriously contain China, you need a strong allies. Japan army is strong, but not enough for a country of Japan's importance.

 

[muppet]

Yup,with good reasons.But how are we going to be rich in the first place with goverments' heavy control in key industry,and the unbalanced conflicts between different branches of th goverment?State-run industry fighting each other?

Can you elaborate about key industry, unbalanced conflict between branches of government and fighting between industry?

S Korea has some super corporations such as Hyundai,Samsung and LG,but how many super corps are there in the state of China?The lack of integrared state industries and the lack of free markets for smaller companies stop us from both ways towards prosperity.We're neither controlled economy nor free economy.It's like a vehicle without good brakes and good engines.

Well.. you kinda have one of two choices: overnight capitalism or gradual capitalism - there isn't really anything in-between. I guess it's a matter of preference. What real life examples do we have of the alternative? I've been involved with the transition of Chinese corporations from state owned to private and there can be complex problems and issues to be resolved in these transitions. I can elaborate if you like.

 

[Drewcifer]

I don't care about some silly emotions and WW2 grudge. If (you americans) want to seriously contain China, you need a strong allies. Japan army is strong, but not enough for a country of Japan's importance.

The point is that if the US does not artificially maintain the status quo from afar the region could easily degenerate into a nuclear armed Japan staring down a nuclear armed China in the sort of power struggle the world hasn't seen since the Cold War or WWII or I. It is not about a "grudge", it is about containing a rivalry that ought not be rekindled. The EU has made it so that such a thing will never return to Europe; there is no EU in east Asia. China by itself does not need to be contained, it is dependent on outside markets for it's prosperity and as such will have a very good reason to want to get on with the other major economic powers in the world - it will contain itself; what needs to be contained is any future potential for the rekindling of the Chinese - Japanese rivalry in realpolitik, military terms.

 

[Winner]

The point is that if the US does not artificially maintain the status quo from afar the region could easily degenerate into a nuclear armed Japan staring down a nuclear armed China in the sort of power struggle the world hasn't seen since the Cold War or WWII or I. It is not about a "grudge", it is about containing a rivalry that ought not be rekindled. The EU has made it so that such a thing will never return to Europe; there is no EU in east Asia. China does not need to be contained, it is dependent on outside markets for it's prosperity and as such will have a very good reason to want to get on with the other major economic powers in the world - it will contain itself; what needs to be contained is any future potential for the rekindling of the Chinese - Japanese rivalry in realpolitik, military terms.

Well, an united east-asian EU-style organisation is exactly what I (and of course the US) don't want

For the US, it is much better to fuel this rivalry and keep the status quo.

 

[Ramius75]

Another India? We are the largest democracy in the world. Our stock market captilization is higher than yours in Shanghi and Shenzhen. The fund managers in Schroder and Merrill Lynch attract American pension money to India far more than China. It takes an average of 3 months to to sign a joint venture in India, two years in China. Our courts are not beholden to the ruling party they are impartial. Investors feel safer here because we are a democracy and there is a fair rule of law. Both our countries are corrupt yes we have our problems but our people know about them. In China they are kept in body bags.
In Bihar in India and in Gansu in China both are poverty stricken.But in Gansu the government controls everything even how many children are born. In Bihar in the most appaling conditions they still have the right to speak out and make desecions. If you take away people's minds they do lose everything. There is no happiness. In India we tried your methods in the 1970's and they failed. If China ever becomes a shining beacon of the arts, of science, of literature, with world class highways, hospitals, schools, and skyscrapers then you can boast. But it is not now and I believe never will be. At some stage the human spirit comes into conflict with the power that seeks to control it.
Our system allows for growth of the human spirt in China it does not and when there is a conflict it will break the country into two.

First, im not from China. Im speaking from an observer view from Singapore.

Yeah, China is far from Free and India is doing a much better job at that, i dont denied it, but the class disparity in India is also much greater than that of China. The poor are really poor with lack of education where most of the children are working for a living. The situation does not really improve with the increading middle class of India (which is the world largest).

Giving democracy, more indian actoress and actor are "voted" into politics, are they the right ppl for the right job ? maybe yes, maybe no, but the politics of india is still far from perfect. So will it be better to have better education or more freedom ?

What will the ppl choose or do they know how to choose ? Like an illierate who couldnt tell the different from a good book from bad. The thickness of the book is what counted and most probably it will be used to pack Kachang puteh (peanuts).

Im also not saying that China is better than india as India does have a head start in politics, economic and military while China really pick up 30 years after the culture revolution. But is India a model for China ?? or China need to aspire for something better ? Does India's model worked better ? (even for herself ?) if not, why should country follow India ? or in my argument, use her as a counter argument ?

If India is doing that great, why are she picking up after China atm ? The population arent that much a different and giving the headstart, she SHOULD be doing better, but is she ?

But have no doubt, giving the population, im sure that India will be another great country, but she is now laggin after Dictatorship China. And lets hope the education of India will finally improve.

 

[Drewcifer]

Well, an united east-asian EU-style organisation is exactly what I (and of course the US) don't want

For the US, it is much better to fuel this rivalry and keep the status quo.

Actually I think closer ties between the countries of East Asia would be best for the US. Would a continuation of the cold war have been best for the US in Europe?

The US's interests in East Asia are primarily commercial ones, like in Europe. Anything that strengthens the economies of our trading partners tends to benefit us, we buy their goods and sell them our design and financial services. Discord and rivalry works against commerce. Economics is not a zero sum game. If East Asia gets richer we all get richer. Instability gets in the way of a business that profits both sides. We can work with China in and of itself, probably even with the Taiwan issue; we can work with Japan as it is; Japan vs China is the real danger.

 

[Winner]

Actually I think closer ties between the countries of East Asia would be best for the US. Would a continuation of the cold war have been best for the US in Europe?

That depends on what you want. US had clearly better control over the Western Europe, politically speaking. The EU is just making it harder for them to pursue their interest - now, there is a risk (though small one) of united Europe opposing the US goals.

The US's interests in East Asia are primarily commercial ones, like in Europe.

Not at all. China is important trading partner, but never forget the trade benefits both sides, and China obviously uses this benefits for purposes, which are in conflict with US interests. The main US interest is to be a world's lone superpower. Stronger China isn't in US interest. Any EU-style org. with China as it's motivator is even bigger threat.

Anything that strengthens the economies of our trading partners tends to benefit us, we buy their goods and sell them our design and financial services. Discord and rivalry works against commerce. Economics is not a zero sum game. If East Asia gets richer we all get richer. Instability gets in the way of a business that profits both sides.

Well, it is all about relative gains. It is not so important the US benefits from something, if the China benefits much more from that.

Keeping of status quo is very, very good thing for the US: both China and Japan will trade with US extensively, but their gains from such a trade will be used for military spending. In fact, US gov follows good old strategy: divide et impera