Conquer Club

shickingbrits wrote:China was never very liberal with its markets. Many factories receive export only status, multinationals found they, in general, could only profit in China by forming JVs, many industries are still government directed.

See the part of your underlined article that isn't underlined?

So, you understand that your summary of my position isn't correct, right?

(Yeah, China isn't a free market economy, but it's still economically freer than it was in the 1950s. This constitutes as a shift toward capitalism/free markets and away from communism/central planning of the economy. There's no need to nitpick about this aspect).

Maybe we can stop talking past each other.

shickingbrits wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:The potential electorate was raised believing that Mao overcame democracy

So you didn't read the bit where I explained that China's current constitution, written by Mao, says that China is a democracy?

shickingbrits wrote:the CCP... defeated Taiwan militarily

The CCP 'fought Taiwan'? I don't have nearly enough hands to perform the facepalm that comment deserves.

Looks like you're going to have to take your Modern Chinese History module again next semester. Bad luck.

Sorry, I forgot how fragile you were. The CCP fought the KMT. The CCP being the current PRC and the KMT more or less being their equivalent in Taiwan.

Fragile? It's a pretty epically dumb mistake for someone who supposedly knows all about China to make, especially if you've apparently spent 14 years immersed in local life.

Not to mention that you seem to think that Chinese students are taught that Mao fought against democracy and that China is communist.

Great, so we both agree that China should continue steadily onwards in its economic and foreign policies, that a shift in government could pave the way towards some disastrous outcomes (Taiwan's elections are often decided on the parties policies towards China, in reverse it may not be so pretty), that the populace are generally content with this and in many ways it opens the doors for corruption, but frees the hands of the government to act efficiently and for others to take the words of the Chinese government to the bank on long-term policies.

I do feel for you Mrswdk.

I haven't said that anywhere in this thread, but on the whole I would agree that China's system of government is largely suited to its current situation. That said, it has changed considerably during the past 30ish years and will most likely continue to evolve as China's economy and society change further.

shickingbrits wrote:I do feel for you Mrswdk.

So you have no proper answer to my questions? I don't believe that you ever lived in China.

shickingbrits wrote:Great, so we both agree that China should continue steadily onwards in its economic and foreign policies, that a shift in government could pave the way towards some disastrous outcomes (Taiwan's elections are often decided on the parties policies towards China, in reverse it may not be so pretty), that the populace are generally content with this and in many ways it opens the doors for corruption, but frees the hands of the government to act efficiently and for others to take the words of the Chinese government to the bank on long-term policies.

I'm not so certain.

Mrswdk,

That you have wrapped yourself in a bubble suggests that you feel the need for one. Far be it from me to burst the bubble you feel you need.

You can't even cop out coherently. Fail.

mrswdk wrote:You can't even cop out coherently. Fail.

Indeed...I may be drunk right now (and rarely contribute to off-topics threads) but I am far from convinced by shickingbrit's analysis of the whole situation.

China is no simple topic. It has layers, deep layers that are simply not reflected in his comments.

You guys got me.

I have never come home in a taxi pretending to turn right at an intersection to speed through a red without the automated cameras catching them. I've never been to a bar with a Chinese friend who bought a bottle that we couldn't finish and so left it on hold to be drunk at our next visit. I don't know about toasting below the brim, two-knuckling the table, being gongbeid by a whole table one by one, how to count on one hand. I've never followed the drinks by an early morning street meal. I haven't been asked a thousand times if I like Chinese girls, Chinese food, China, can use chopsticks. I haven't been accused of not being Canadian because I don't have blond hair. None of these things ever happened.

So I must not know anything about China and its layers.

shickingbrits wrote:You guys got me.

I have never come home in a taxi pretending to turn right at an intersection to speed through a red without the automated cameras catching them. I've never been to a bar with a Chinese friend who bought a bottle that we couldn't finish and so left it on hold to be drunk at our next visit. I don't know about toasting below the brim, two-knuckling the table, being gongbeid by a whole table one by one, how to count on one hand. I've never followed the drinks by an early morning street meal. I haven't been asked a thousand times if I like Chinese girls, Chinese food, China, can use chopsticks. I haven't been accused of not being Canadian because I don't have blond hair. None of these things ever happened.

So I must not know anything about China and its layers.

pfftt...a week in China would be enough for such superficial experiences.

To be frank either your life in China was tremendously shallow for 14 years in or you are full of crap.

Guyz, I visited China via Google Images and/or Google Street View, and I think I have a pretty good sense of all the onion layers.

Feel free to ask me any deep questions involving these layers.


--Andy

Mr Changsha wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:You guys got me.

I have never come home in a taxi pretending to turn right at an intersection to speed through a red without the automated cameras catching them. I've never been to a bar with a Chinese friend who bought a bottle that we couldn't finish and so left it on hold to be drunk at our next visit. I don't know about toasting below the brim, two-knuckling the table, being gongbeid by a whole table one by one, how to count on one hand. I've never followed the drinks by an early morning street meal. I haven't been asked a thousand times if I like Chinese girls, Chinese food, China, can use chopsticks. I haven't been accused of not being Canadian because I don't have blond hair. None of these things ever happened.

So I must not know anything about China and its layers.

pfftt...a week in China would be enough for such superficial experiences.

To be frank either your life in China was tremendously shallow for 14 years in or you are full of crap.

And what's a 'gongbei'? Is that one of his dialects?

It would be shallow of me to argue with a drunk guy who's calling me shallow at 1:45 am on a Monday about how shallow my drinking in China was.

When I arrived in China, I stopped traffic. Young girls lined the streets for a john or the police to give them a place to stay and some food. Maimed bodies uniquely twisted begged for the equivalent of less than a penny, grandmothers fed huddled back bundles straight from the side bucket that the garbage cans held for discarding food. The military marched past my house everyday and many areas were restricted by machine gun.

I saw many foreigners who managed to set-up a productive enterprise strong-armed out, if they weren't bankrupted by the locals who were helping them set-up. Watched cities arise, road sense develop, people learning to use elevators. I watched the glassy eyed drive to the Olympics.

China has come a long way, but not all current Chinese problems demand democracy or liberalization. In major cities, the price of housing is a major concern. Left to the will of the market, the price will not significantly drop. China has tried many things to restrict the will of the market through limiting eligibility to own in order to decrease demand. Unleashing the market when development is in full tilt would not increase the supply.

Putting a stop to corruption opens a whole kettle of worms. In brief, it would cost more and accomplish less.

The one-child policy has so many loopholes as to practically not exist.

Of equal or greater concern to many Chinese people is their IDs which are needed for many aspects of life. Both domestically and for international Chinese, this poses a problem. All documentation has to go through the region of their ID, be it marriage, birth, getting a visa. Where or if you can go to school is determined by your ID. If my wife takes Canadian citizenship, Canada will inform China according to an agreement and it would be very difficult for her to return to China.

When China opened it's doors to business, it did so selectively. Many policies prevent people, money and goods from entering or leaving China. China has many policies encouraging overseas Chinese to return or not give up their Chinese citizenship. I agree with these policies.

Most minority issues are handled better as is than they would be in an open democracy.

In a cost benefit analysis, I would say that China is doing quite well and will continue to improve through greater individual and collective exposure to information and communications.

Don't worry, we've already established that you have very little clue what you are talking about.

mrswdk wrote:Don't worry, we've already established that you have very little clue what you are talking about.

But he has 9 paragraphs of information in his last post?!!


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Don't worry, we've already established that you have very little clue what you are talking about.

But he has 9 paragraphs of information in his last post?!!


--Andy

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:Great, so we both agree that China should continue steadily onwards in its economic and foreign policies, that a shift in government could pave the way towards some disastrous outcomes (Taiwan's elections are often decided on the parties policies towards China, in reverse it may not be so pretty), that the populace are generally content with this and in many ways it opens the doors for corruption, but frees the hands of the government to act efficiently and for others to take the words of the Chinese government to the bank on long-term policies.

I'm not so certain.

Feel free to elaborate more on that. What is going to stop China's economic growth in the near future?

Gillipig wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:Great, so we both agree that China should continue steadily onwards in its economic and foreign policies, that a shift in government could pave the way towards some disastrous outcomes (Taiwan's elections are often decided on the parties policies towards China, in reverse it may not be so pretty), that the populace are generally content with this and in many ways it opens the doors for corruption, but frees the hands of the government to act efficiently and for others to take the words of the Chinese government to the bank on long-term policies.

I'm not so certain.

Feel free to elaborate more on that. What is going to stop China's economic growth in the near future?

That's something different. China will most likely continue growing. It takes a lot more than something as severe as the Great Depression (for the US) to stop long-run growth. You'd need something like prolonged civil war in an arbitrarily drawn political boundary which none of groups in conflict can dominant (e.g. Dem Rep of Congo), but I think the DRC still grows. Main point here is that growth tends to never stop.

So with that in mind, "near future"... well, its shadow banking problem could blow up in China's face. As China keeps developing its deep water (or blue water) navy, it'll be more likely to beat up some country without nuclear weapons (since the cost will be lower). That could have ugly ramifications. Maybe there'll be a recession and the Big Dogs in the PRC step on the nationalist gas to distract the people with a war.

I'm not sure. I'm not as certain as shickingbrits for reasons already mentioned. He seems to possess a crystal ball which simply spits back what he wants to see.

According to my crystal ball, during their history as a super power, they were quite benign. They traded and had cultural exchanges with the countries they visited and rarely tried to colonize or interfere with politics. There are some examples of aggression, but nothing like European or American.

I expect they will do more or less the same. I disagree with BBS as to cost. Beating up non-nuclear countries can be quite costly and only serves to further the interests of the military and their suppliers and a small handful of private interests. China will seek to achieve a more prolonged balance.

Of course, the People's Republic is a very different state to dynastical China, with notably different leaders and a very different ideology.

You are right that China has historically made a point of not interfering in other states' affairs (an approach that the current leadership continues to champion) but the current tensions with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines (especially the latter two) are mostly territorial disputes and thus are often framed as a question of China's national sovereignty. Therefore, China's leaders could provoke a war with Vietnam in the South China Sea while continuing to spout all that 'mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity' stuff.

shickingbrits wrote:Beating up non-nuclear countries can be quite costly and only serves to further the interests of the military and their suppliers and a small handful of private interests

Conflict could be used as a way of boosting the legitimacy of the CCP's one-party rule, and the issue of legitimacy is an important thing to consider when trying to understand the government behaves the way it does. The unspoken social contract of the reform and opening up era was 'accept one-party rule and in return get steady economic growth', but the reforms that have been undertaken have made the central government less and less able to claim responsibility for economic growth (which is more and more driven by local government and the private sector). So how else to continue claiming legitimacy, when you are unelected? Being the big, strong protectors who guard China against foreign threats would help. Would they go so far as to provoke a minor war to help with this? Maybe, maybe not. Might their increasing belligerence trigger a conflict by accident? Also possible. It seems unlikely at present, but the possibility of something silly happening in the future cannot be entirely dismissed.

My point was building up their military for the purposes of being an aggressor nation would end up costing China as whole more than they could gain from it.

Yes, you do have a point, but I think with imagination they can find other ways to distract the populace. As for calling out China as belligerent...they have a long way to go by modern standards.

Ultimately, war always comes with an overall cost. However, that hasn't stopped lots of wars happening in the past. Also, China's leaders may value their legitimacy (and therefore their retention of power) more than they value the lost GDP points.

And China does not need to become the most belligerent country in the world in order to accidentally or deliberately provoke a conflict.