Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    See this amusing video:

    http://www.glumbert.com/media/hahahaamerica
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I hope not. As superficial as it may sound, at least the average Brit can keep a track of their American ally in the sense that they can at least understand their language.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well of course they will. You don't need to be an expert to figure out that China has a population of at least 1.3 billion, whilst the US has only less than 1/4 of that number. The Chinese population, previously unexploited, are now becoming active, and China's dominance is inevitable.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    China's dominance is inevitable.
    I'm not sure; it's yet to make that crucial step into a true stable democracy. And it's economy in general (more internally, I suppose) is lacking when we consider the poverty rate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    I'm not sure; it's yet to make that crucial step into a true stable democracy. And it's economy in general is lacking when we consider the poverty rate.
    Who said it needed to be democratic to be dominant? In fact, pretty much all the most powerful nations and empires in history were not democratic. And its economy is expected to become the largest in the world within months.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Who said it needed to be democratic to be dominant? In fact, pretty much all the most powerful nations and empires in history were not democratic. And its economy is expected to become the largest in the world within months.
    I think the growing trend is that democracy replaces governments with poor human rights. China has yet to make that transition. It's just a hunch though .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Who said it needed to be democratic to be dominant? In fact, pretty much all the most powerful nations and empires in history were not democratic. And its economy is expected to become the largest in the world within months.
    Its going to sextuple in months? Better tell the Americans. No in fact, tell the Japanese. They aren't going to like China doubling their GDP in a few months. What are they doing to finance that? Selling back Hong Kong?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Well of course they will. You don't need to be an expert to figure out that China has a population of at least 1.3 billion, whilst the US has only less than 1/4 of that number. The Chinese population, previously unexploited, are now becoming active, and China's dominance is inevitable.
    Population isn't the only factor that determines a country's relative power and economic wealth, though. Look at Africa, it's whole GDP is equivalent to the combined GDP of a few European countries. I'm not saying you're wrong about China, just pointing that out.

    Also, remember that India has a population of over 1 billion, and (as far as I'm aware) they have no "one child per couple" policy like China does, so its population is growing faster. I expect the USA and Europe will try to forge a stronger alliance with India to counter the potential future dominance of China.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    Also, remember that India has a population of over 1 billion, and (as far as I'm aware) they have no "one child per couple" policy like China does, so its population is growing faster. I expect the USA and Europe will try to forge a stronger alliance with India to counter the potential future dominance of China.
    Not to mention China is greatly at risk from an aging population due to the one child policy. India has no such risk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Someone's watched too much Bladerunner
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not to mention China is greatly at risk from an aging population due to the one child policy. India has no such risk
    Ah yes the so-called '1-2-4 problem'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Who said it needed to be democratic to be dominant? In fact, pretty much all the most powerful nations and empires in history were not democratic. And its economy is expected to become the largest in the world within months.
    Yes, but how is this economy going to be fuelled? China's economy does not operate in a vacuum based on its population alone - its fortunes are inextricably linked to the world's economy. Will there be an ever-continuing demand for what China is producing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    Population isn't the only factor that determines a country's relative power and economic wealth, though. Look at Africa, it's whole GDP is equivalent to the combined GDP of a few European countries.
    On the other hand, big population + highly specialised, mechanised division of labour = wealth, if Adam Smith was right. And since Deng Xiaopeng, China's economic (and - though less importantly - political) decentralisation has enabled such division of labour to flourish and respond to foreign demand for cheap electronic and other assembled goods.

    I nevertheless think that any argument that says "China's dominance is inevitable" is weak on two points; firstly, what comprises "dominance"? - as Howard has pointed out, much like the US after WWII, Chinese industry cannot afford to undermine the wealth of other nations, because that is whence comes the source of their wealth. And secondly, claiming that something is "inevitable" is quasi-historicist and prophetical. Guesswork, at best. You may interpolate from specific events in specific regions and think the likelihood of specific outcomes is raised, but this extrapolation is nonsense - why must the Chinese economy continue to grow at the rate it has?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is also worth noting that not even a fully exploited (read utilised, marxists :p:) workforce ensures economic growth and dominance, as China discovered when Europe left it behind in the Industrial Revolution, after decades (if not centuries) of Chinese dominance.

    However, given China's participation in world trade, compared to its isolation previously, this is a less likely prospect. In the absence of any major shocks derailing the Chinese economy, I think it only fair to say that it will eventually become dominant, though whether this will automatically make it the leading world power is less certain.
    Europe, for all her anti-Americanism, may yet feel more certain in an alliance with America than China, with whom she shares so little. An alliance between the US and EU in the face of burgeoning Chinese economic strength and political influence is far from unlikely and would do much to offset Chinese "dominance".

    I also sometimes wonder how much the effect of Chinese growth on the world economy is taken into account by the assorted studies - as Chinese wealth (not just GDP, but the level of disposable income per capita) rises, it seems likely that other countries will experience increased economic growth, receiving a little extra hot air from the rising dragon.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Will there be an ever-continuing demand for what China is producing?
    Certainly seems so at the moment. Whether or not the trend will continue, who knows?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    China's reach and position on the global arena is growing, but I do not believe that China will dominate the future in the same way that the US dominates the world today.

    At best, China can hope to rival the United States, but to assume that China will not only reach America's economic, military and cultural domination of the world, but actually replace America as the worlds superpower is ludicrous, at least for the next one hundred years.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Well of course they will. You don't need to be an expert to figure out that China has a population of at least 1.3 billion, whilst the US has only less than 1/4 of that number. The Chinese population, previously unexploited, are now becoming active, and China's dominance is inevitable.
    What sort of dominance?

    China will never rival the US from a military perspective. US technology is light years ahead of anything else in the world. So that rules out any chance of China being the sole superpower. Population is irrelevant here.

    Secondly, the US has massive resources on it's home turf, with Canada also possessing huge reserves of ores, minerals etc. Economically, there's still huge room for expansion. Furthermore, both nations are dependent on each other to keep each other active.

    I don't think China will ever dominate the US. China's rise in power is just another step towards a global society in my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    ...but actually replace America as the worlds superpower is ludicrous, at least for the next one hundred years.
    I agree that it will take longer than most believe.

    There was an amusing article written by Boris Johnson a few years ago about this subject:

    Getting our knickers in a twist over China
    By Boris Johnson
    01/09/2005

    Quite often on a Wednesday lunchtime I find myself conferring with my friend Rudi the sandwich man about the madness of Ken Livingstone, and his latest monstrous scheme for London. Rudi blames the congestion charge for pushing up his costs. I can't stand the evil frankfurter buses that crush cyclists to the kerb.

    This week, however, the newt-fancier has exceeded our wildest fantasies. Do you know how he has chosen to spend £1 million of our congestion charge cash? That crazy old Trot has bought in 100,000 doses of anti chicken flu medication, to be distributed, presumably, so that his key workers can continue to clamp cars and impose their poxy charges while the rest of us are expiring during the approaching epidemic.

    It is a ludicrous waste of taxpayers' money, and before you dismiss it as another case of Red Ken-ery, you should know that the madness has infected the Department of Health. They have drawn up a list of "elite" figures, mainly government ministers and BBC high-ups, who would be required to keep the country going in the event of the chicken plague, and who must therefore receive free doses of the wonderdrug.

    What drives me mad is not that I am excluded from this list (opposition politicians, you will not be surprised to learn, are thought to be dispensable to the running of Britain), but that we are getting in a flap about a chicken disease which has killed a grand total of 57 human beings since it was detected in 2003, most of them Asian owners of fighting-cocks who chose to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to their spifflicated birds.

    To get these figures in proportion, as Ross Clark does in the current Spectator, you should know that nine million people are suffering from tuberculosis, of which two million will die in the next year, and half a billion people are suffering from malaria. So why are we scaring ourselves witless about this Asian fowl pest? Because it is all part of our new phobia about the Far East, and China in particular.

    China is becoming in our imaginations the fashionable new dread, the incubator of strange diseases, a vast polluted landscape of Victorian factories where coolies sit in expectorating rows, nourished on nothing but rice and the spleens of pangolins, producing whirling typhoons of cheap bras and lingerie that race across the seas and reduce the native industries of the West to matchwood.

    It has become a cliché of geopolitical analysis to say that China is the next world superpower, that the 21st century will belong to Beijing, and that we had better get in tutors to teach our nippers Mandarin if they are to make it in the new world order.

    It is all stark staring nonsense, and founded on the same misapprehension as Peter Mandelson's demented decision to slap quotas on Chinese textiles, so that the mouths of the Scheldt and the Rhine are apparently silting up with 50 million pairs of cut-price Chinese trousers. It is idiocy, and not just because it is unlike Mandy to come between a British woman and her knickers.

    Let me assert this as powerfully as I can: we do not need to fear the Chinese. China will not dominate the globe. We do not need to teach babies Mandarin. Our Sinophobia is misplaced. Even with 1.3 billion people, and fast export-led growth, the Chinese have an economy smaller than Italy's, but that is not really the point. World domination - superpowerdom - is all about hard power and soft power, military might and cultural impact.

    Well, compared with the old British Empire, and the new American imperium, Chinese cultural influence is virtually nil, and unlikely to increase. Far from spreading overseas, as the English language has spread, and Hollywood has spread, Chinese culture seems to stay firmly in China.

    Indeed, high Chinese culture and art are almost all imitative of western forms: Chinese concert pianists are technically brilliant, but brilliant at Schubert and Rachmaninov. Chinese ballerinas dance to the scores of Diaghilev. The number of Chinese Nobel prizes won on home turf is zero, though there are of course legions of bright Chinese trying to escape to Stanford and Caltech.

    There are Chinatowns and takeaways all over the world, but in Britain the culinary impact of China is dwarfed by the subcontinent. The turnover for Chinese restaurants is about £282 million, compared with £2 billion for Indian restaurants. It is hard to think of a single Chinese sport at the Olympics, compared with the umpteen invented by Britain, including ping-pong, I'll have you know, which originated at upper-class dinner tables and was first called whiff-whaff.

    The Chinese have a script so fiendishly complicated that they cannot produce a proper keyboard for it. And how many people do you know who can speak even a sentence of Chinese? If global domination means anything, it must mean the spread of culture, language and mores, in the way of the Romans, the British, and the Americans. The Chinese aren't even out of the paddock.

    As for military might - hard power - our fears are again overdone. The Chinese may have 2.5 million men in uniform, but of the long-range missiles you need to be a global power Beijing can wield only 20, which would make for a pretty brief fireworks display if they came up against the Americans.

    None of this, of course, is in any way intended to be disrespectful to the glories of Chinese culture: only that they are not in any way global or - and this is the point - intended to be global. The Chinese have neither the ability nor the inclination to dominate the world. They merely want to trade freely, and they should be encouraged.

    The emergence of China and its integration into the world economy has been a major spur to growth and a deterrent to inflation. It is an unalloyed good, and it is sad to see our politicians responding with such chicken-hearted paranoia.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Homer Simpson knows the answer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d8FExUvV7Q

    (don't mean to troll and lower the standards of the debate but i just had to post the video in reply)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tagit)
    Homer Simpson knows the answer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d8FExUvV7Q

    (don't mean to troll and lower the standards of the debate but i just had to post the video in reply)
    Well said Homer.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.