Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, we all gotta have ambitions, I guess.
But China could not have evolved without access to European and American markets and cannot continue to thrive without continued access. So, this is just me speaking...I wouldn't jack around with my trading partners too much.
True access to the European and American markets jumpstarted the Chinese economy, but let’s not pretend it wasn’t a two-way beneficial streak. Access to cheap Chinese labor and manufacturing “know how” helped grow and or sustain western economies. The economic cooperation wasn’t out of the goodness Western powers heart but rather exploitation. China was smart. They were able to develop without becoming subservient, unlike their contemporaries S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan which are basically modern-day vassal states. That “freedom” as we say came at cost of sovereignty over their foreign affairs. Also, a handicap on their economic growth since they aren’t allowed to become more power than their Western counterparts. Think about it, Taiwan and South Korea are forced to construct semi-conductor plants in the U.S., giving up an economic advantage, a move not in their best long-term interest for basically nothing. This is very similar to Japan having to handicap it’s economic growth to appease U.S., U.K. and France in the 80s with the Plaza accords. Freedom comes with steep cost I see.
I think Ukraine is a great cautionary tale to would-be superpowers. China has plenty of problems on it's plate, and doesn't need a losing naval/amphibious/air war added to them. Nobody in their right mind wants China to try to invade Taiwan, except possibly anti-China factions in the West who would love to see China's rise thwarted by Chinese killing Chinese again, like prior to WWII.
The only real threat of a Taiwan invasion would come from a serious chronic threat to Xi's power, where he needs to drum up support that a wartime footing would gain him--until the war ended up a losing quagmire with the occasional Taiwanese missiles falling on major Chinese cities, and the people starting to ask: "Why are we suffering all this for one man's ambitions?"
For that to happen, there would have to be at least 6 months worth of lead time for China to deploy a serious invasion force. I don't see any serious threats to Xi's grip on power, that fit that profile, where he is going to feel the need--and have the ability--to wag the dog.
Anyway, I sure hope it never comes to hostilities. I really like Taiwan and China and I admire both their peoples (if not their leaders). China has suffered a lot of mismanagement (from time to time), but has still lifted itself to great power status, and far outstripped India--the only other country with the same size/population. Taiwan is the poster child for how to peacefully transition to a representative government, and is a very advanced society. It would be an unspeakable tragedy for them to go to war.
Cautionary in what way. Superpowers learn no such lessons. I mean the U.S. had the failed examples of the British Empire and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, yet still invaded and suffered the same fate. The problem with hegemonic powers is they always believe they are best military and can win conflicts easily.
...........Taiwan and South Korea are forced to construct semi-conductor plants in the U.S., giving up an economic advantage, a move not in their best long-term interest for basically nothing. This is very similar to Japan having to handicap it’s economic growth to appease U.S., U.K. and France in the 80s with the Plaza accords. Freedom comes with steep cost I see.
I actually had never heard of that. Taiwan and South Korea FORCED to build semi-conductor plants here? Really!?
Because of falling population and its associated aging, Japan could no longer find workers for their plants. So they built the plants in the US and used US workers to construct autos which were then bought by Americans. Send the profit back to Japan. Seems clever to me.
As far as I know, nearly ALL countries will face labor shortages of all sorts in the coming years. As far as we mortals are concerned it has just started and will never end. China has two problems - (1) they just reported a population reversal. Demographers tell us this will be permanent, with every year reporting fewer people, and (2) almost all the rural population has already moved to the cities for work. There is no one left out in the boonies for factories to recruit. Link
True access to the European and American markets jumpstarted the Chinese economy, but let’s not pretend it wasn’t a two-way beneficial streak. Access to cheap Chinese labor and manufacturing “know how” helped grow and or sustain western economies. The economic cooperation wasn’t out of the goodness Western powers heart but rather exploitation.
I'd posit that while this was the best thing that's happened to China in modern times, it was actually terrible for Western economies.
In 1999, I could easily buy boots, clothing, furniture, books, and other mundane stuff that was made in the US, at reasonable prices, at nearly any retailer. I still have a couple Adidas windbreakers that were made in Germany. Most of my paints and inks were made in EU countries. Now, for the most part, you have to specifically hunt down stuff that's not made in China, although that is changing these days, with more stuff made in other Asian nations, or in Central/South America, or even the middle East (I ordered a pack of t-shirts and they were made in Jordan, of all places).
The loss of those manufacturing jobs gutted the American working class, and killed a lot of opportunities. The blame for that lies primarily on Western companies' greed, and their governments' complacency. But, to say that it was "beneficial" to society because people who now couldn't find stable work were able to buy stuff that was 25% cheaper because it was made in China is pretty nonsensical, and if you're taking and anti-capitalist, populist bent towards the matter, that should be even more pronounced.
Quote:
China was smart. They were able to develop without becoming subservient, unlike their contemporaries S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan which are basically modern-day vassal states. That “freedom” as we say came at cost of sovereignty over their foreign affairs. Also, a handicap on their economic growth since they aren’t allowed to become more power than their Western counterparts.
I bolded that because I certainly will give credit where it's due; it ended up being the ultimate "smoke em if you got em" situation, where although I can't fault China at all for exploiting corporate greed to their benefit and the detriment of their rivals, they assumed this would continue on indefinitely, and underestimated foreign countries' tolerances for Chinese belligerence, while overestimating their own abilities. Xi Jinping is good at strongarm tactics involving threats and coercion, but has shown to be deficient at pretty much everything else that a statesman must excel at in a globalized world.
That's why China increased its belligerence, ramped up its threats, and is now increasing its military spending at a higher rate than it expects its economy to grow. They haven't been able to correct course on economic matters, because they have no viable solution. So, what's left in the strongman's bag? Well, what's the most base-level show of strength? Military might... what's the best way to demonstrate military might? Threaten conflict.
So, you're right: it was smart. It's now making a rapid series of bad decisions.
Quote:
Think about it, Taiwan and South Korea are forced to construct semi-conductor plants in the U.S., giving up an economic advantage, a move not in their best long-term interest for basically nothing. This is very similar to Japan having to handicap it’s economic growth to appease U.S., U.K. and France in the 80s with the Plaza accords. Freedom comes with steep cost I see.
TSMC tried to open a chip fab in Washington State in the 90's, but it didn't work for a variety of reasons. TSMC's founder has stated that "globalization and free trade are almost dead," and he certainly recognizes the existential threat from China towards his company. The US isn't threatening to actively invade Taiwan. The US may operate bases in Korea and Japan, but has nothing to do with day to day societal operation in those nations. China is threatening to invade Taiwan and take it over, returning it to CCP control and mainland-style organization and society. China seeks to turn Korea and Japan into vassal states all the same that anyone alleges the US has turned them into such; why would the people of those nations, let alone their leaders or officials, welcome a paradigm-shifting takeover that may involve violent conflict so that they can be in the control sphere of a power that is by most metrics more repressive? Especially one that is an ethnonationalist state that they have historical animosities with.
So, I'd posit that they're only "forced" to do so, in that it's in their own best interests to hedge their bets against a power that is openly seeking hegemonic power in the region, expanding their military, and threatening conflict, all of which is to the detriment of Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. Even if you choose to take China's side based purely on anti-Western ideological reasons, you should at least be able to appreciate this from a rational or academic viewpoint.
I actually had never heard of that. Taiwan and South Korea FORCED to build semi-conductor plants here? Really!?
Because of falling population and its associated aging, Japan could no longer find workers for their plants. So they built the plants in the US and used US workers to construct autos which were then bought by Americans. Send the profit back to Japan. Seems clever to me.
Taiwan and Korea are moving production to a nation that is friendly, offers them safeguards against a belligerent neighbor who seeks to undermine, overtake, and subjugate them, and helps them secure supply chains which could be disrupted in the event of the conflict that belligerent neighbor is preparing for.
As I said in a previous post directed at Ice_Major, one could argue that they're only being "forced" to do so as a result of that belligerence from China. When your entire worldview is basically, "Capitalist West bad, Communist East good," and everything the latter does is justified by the existence of the former, it's hard to make an objective analysis because your entire argument is reactionary.
Quote:
As far as I know, nearly ALL countries will face labor shortages of all sorts in the coming years. As far as we mortals are concerned it has just started and will never end. China has two problems - (1) they just reported a population reversal. Demographers tell us this will be permanent, with every year reporting fewer people, and (2) almost all the rural population has already moved to the cities for work. There is no one left out in the boonies for factories to recruit. Link
Under the current systems and economic models, the bithrate will continue to slide for some time; eventually, it will most likely "correct," and at some point - most likely long after those of us posting now are gone - there will probably be another "boom." That the catalyst for that will be, is anyone's guess.
China's got major existential problems with its economy, and no easy solutions. Especially now that the operations have been disrupted, they simply lack the real and practical resources to correct course and achieve the goals they've set. More adept leadership would have been able to adapt to see this on the horizon and adapt the situation at hand but, well...
Cautionary in what way. Superpowers learn no such lessons. I mean the U.S. had the failed examples of the British Empire and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, yet still invaded and suffered the same fate. The problem with hegemonic powers is they always believe they are best military and can win conflicts easily.
Losing the war in Afghanistan didn't even cost the President his job. That's what happens when you rule by (elected) committee, and swap out the head guy every 4-to-8 years; usually do nothing (stupid) because nobody can herd all the cats into agreement. When you do manage to do something stupid, spread the blame around until it's thin enough not to affect anyone.
Everyone is waiting to see if/how long Putin keeps his head on his shoulders, now that he's losing Ukraine.
Xi starting and losing a war of aggression against Taiwan will Put[him]in the same position.
So, yeah, maybe you're right; it's not cautionary for China. Someday maybe China will have representative government and it can do all the stupids its people want.
The tale of Ukraine is cautionary for the dictator-for-life of China.
Can China do that without major repercussion? Doubtful.
Plus it's still far, far easier for China to put those CCP-licking KMT (yeah...the same people that fought against the commies for years) via continued propaganda war against DPP. Not as hard as it seems when Tsai was literally fairly close to losing the last time around if not for the HK protest to really changed the mind of Taiwan people especially among the younger generation.
can't be more wrong
china does not want to take taiwan by force, that's what the US want, the destruction of taiwan/china
taiwan has been alternating ruling party every 8 years ever since they started with elections. we will see what happens next year
.............Under the current systems and economic models, the bithrate will continue to slide for some time; eventually, it will most likely "correct," and at some point - most likely long after those of us posting now are gone - there will probably be another "boom." That the catalyst for that will be, is anyone's guess.
China's got major existential problems with its economy, and no easy solutions. Especially now that the operations have been disrupted, they simply lack the real and practical resources to correct course and achieve the goals they've set. More adept leadership would have been able to adapt to see this on the horizon and adapt the situation at hand but, well...
Birth rate or Total Fertility Rate shows no signs of change in its trajectory downward. I believe it certainly will increase at some point - it has to, because not all portions of the population (talking just China, here) have a low TFR. At some point the low TFR populations disappear and the higher TFR portions count more in the equation. But, it is going to make a much, much smaller China.
More adept leadership: One-man rule has some real problems as everyone in the loop tries to anticipate what The Big Guy wants. Some of the things that are happening are pretty stupid - disinfecting the runway before He lands is pretty stupid, as was the recent balloon incident. But the strangest of all was painting the landscape green so that He would see grass grow.
Many demographers believe the population figures have been altered to make Him happier.
taiwan has been alternating ruling party every 8 years ever since they started with elections. we will see what happens next year
Meanwhile, Pooh Bear is in there for the rest of his life, no matter what the Chinese people want.
See, the problem with being Dictator-For-Life is that you are dictator, for life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
