Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China Derangement Syndrome - Once again, an economic yellow peril is exaggerated.
Reason ^ | December 2011 | Ronald Bailey

Posted on 11/24/2011 10:00:44 PM PST by neverdem

The 1979 book Japan as Number One: Lessons for America, by East Asia scholar Ezra Vogel, stoked fears that the United States was about to be outcompeted by the land of the rising sun. And why not? The U.S. had just suffered through a decade of stagflation and was about to enter what was then the worst recession since the Great Depression. By the late 1980s, the case seemed ironclad. "I don't mean to be an alarmist, but I get the uneasy feeling that America is history," wrote Robert Kuttner, then the economics correspondent for The New Republic, in the Los Angeles Times in May 1988. Evidence for this decline and fall? "The total value of stocks listed on the Tokyo stock exchange is now $3.54 trillion dollars, compared to $2.34 trillion for the New York Stock Exchange."

In his 1988 book Trading Places: How We Are Giving Our Future to Japan and How to Reclaim It, former Reagan administration trade negotiator Clyde Prestowitz warned, "The power behind the Japanese juggernaut is much greater than most Americans suspect, and the juggernaut cannot stop of its own volition, for Japan has created a kind of automatic wealth machine, perhaps the first since King Midas."

Two decades later, we know that the panic over Japanese economic competition was greatly exaggerated. Today the total value of the New York Stock Exchange is nearly three times that of Tokyo's. Japan is not Number One. In fact, as of last year it became Number Three, behind China.

Twenty-five years ago, Japanophobes (or should they be called Japanophiles?) were fretting about the differential economic growth rates of the United States and Japan. At times in the 1980s, Japan's gross domestic product (GDP) was growing at nearly 10 percent per year, whereas American GDP was increasing at a merely respectable 4 percent. (All figures are unadjusted for inflation.) Had the growth rates continued at those levels after 1988, Japan's overall economy would have caught up to ours within 10 years.

Instead, the Japanese financial bubble burst. In 2011 the country's GDP in current dollars is $5.5 trillion, compared to the American total of nearly $15 trillion. Per capita GDP (adjusted for purchasing power, a measure of what it costs to purchase similar baskets of goods and services among countries) for Japan is $34,000, compared to $46,000 for Americans. Japan has suffered through two decades of stagflation, and you no longer hear anyone recommending that the U.S. adopt Japanese-style top-down industrial policy as an economic panacea.

So now comes China. "We are getting our clock cleaned by Chinese state capitalism," wrote Robert Kuttner, now editor of The American Prospect, earlier this year at The Huffington Post. Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Simon Johnson piled on at the annual conference of the American Economic Association, declaring, "The age of American predominance is over. The [Chinese] Yuan will be the world's reserve currency within two decades." The conservative Citizens Against Government Waste even aired a television commercial featuring a Beijing economics class in 2030 in which a professor explains how America became indebted to China. The professor concludes, "So now they work for us." The class chuckles knowingly.

This gloomy message of American decline relative to China appears to be seeping into popular consciousness. An April 2011 poll by Xavier University found that "a stunning 63 percent believe that the Chinese economy is more powerful than the US economy."

"The U.S. could lose its status as the world's biggest economic power within five years," reported The Daily Mail in April. The Mail article was based on calculations released by the International Monetary Fund projecting that total Chinese GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, will surpass U.S. GDP by 2016.

Can that be? Let's do the math: China's total GDP is around $6 trillion today. Assuming 10 percent GDP growth for the next 20 years, China's GDP would rise to $40 trillion. If the U.S. economy grew at, say, 3 percent a year, total GDP would be $27 trillion. Back in 2007, before the financial crisis, the investment bank Goldman Sachs issued a report projecting that Chinese GDP would be $26 trillion in 2030, compared to $23 trillion for the U.S. It bears noting that current Chinese purchasing power per capita is about $6,000, compared to $46,000 for Americans.

But it is unlikely that China's economy can sustain 10 percent annual growth for two more decades. Economic history suggests that once countries catch up with leading economies in terms of technologies and business management, growth slows down. Consider what would happen if Chinese growth slows to 5 percent. Assuming sustained respective 5 percent and 3 percent growth rates for China and the U.S. for the next two decades, China's total GDP would reach just $16 trillion, not $34 trillion. In 30 years, it would grow to $26 trillion, by which time U.S. GDP would be $36 trillion. In 40 years, China's GDP would be $42 trillion, compared to our $49 trillion. All in all, it would take China a half-century to catch up.

Just to be clear: Anyone who thinks that they know what purchasing power parity might be between any two countries by 2060 is seriously deluded. Calculations like these—mine and Goldman Sachs'—can only provide rough possible scenarios for the economic future.

Of course, theres no guarantee that U.S. growth will remain steady at 3 percent. As the recent history of Japan shows, it is possible to adopt economic policies that produce decades' worth of economic stagnation. In that case, China's GDP may well surpass ours sooner rather than later, although perhaps not for the reasons alarmists predict.

Then again, China has already picked most of the low-hanging fruit, economically speaking. Future productivity increases will not come from merely copying technologies developed in other advanced countries. Furthermore, continued rapid growth depends on the kind of innovative management that can thrive only in open societies. Unless China makes the transition to an open society, its future is not growth but stagnation and political disillusionment. And if it does make that transition, then China will be a partner, not a rival.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Japan
KEYWORDS: china; communist; conspirators; globalist; traitors

1 posted on 11/24/2011 10:00:45 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Why is it that the Reason Foundation is so utterly ignorant about Red China? That country with a communist regime will always regard the USA as their number-one enemy; that has been their unchanged foreign policy since Mao clawed to the top and brought his country so low.
2 posted on 11/24/2011 10:04:06 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It would be wonderful for China and the whole world to see China open up politically. Christians are a silently growing portion of China, and the Lord may grant them to be a sane influence there, ironically around the same time as they are declining in influence in the United States.


3 posted on 11/24/2011 10:04:56 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I believe Reason acknowledges this. China has to open up politically. It’s in the last paragraph or so.


4 posted on 11/24/2011 10:05:59 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It isn’t in the cards—China historically looks inward not outward. I see a break up of the Chinese Nation and Civil War, followed by a toppling of the elites in the Communist Party—people who have rejected the qualities of egalitarian Communism for Capitalism that makes a few rich and the masses poor. Marx is spinning in his grave. They will go back to something more like the Nationalist Party and a Neo-Nazi like system—its that or bring back the Emperors.


5 posted on 11/24/2011 10:20:23 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

China has to open up politically
The only way they'll "open up politically" is if you use a nuclear-powered can opener. They're just about as radical and zealous as the Mullahs in Iran—they want communism to take over the world, literally.
6 posted on 11/24/2011 10:21:14 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One thing this study completely misses - it’s based on a 3-4% GDP growth for the US. We’ve had 3 years in the negative or sub-2% range, and we’re going to have that for the next 3-4 years. That cuts the timeline down from 20 years to just 6 years before China passes us.

Doesn’t take very long at all, when your “competition” is doing 8-10% per year and you’re struggling to just hold at zero.


7 posted on 11/24/2011 10:30:34 PM PST by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Beyond the real estate bubble which everyone knows about, China is ignoring several anomalies which could stall its economy.

There is a demographic bomb which cuts in several directions. The country is undergoing a 19th century transition from farm to town while it confronts a self-induced shortage of women. The leaders of the country are confronted with the imperative to produce tens of millions of jobs a year or face increasing civil unrest.

A second anomaly is the general dissatisfaction across the vast country with the corruption and inefficiencies of the economic system leading to riots somewhere in China virtually 24/7. The leadership of a top-down economy must either loosen its grip and risk having these uprisings grow out of control or tighten its grip and risk shutting down entrepreneurship, innovation, capital formation, and the growth which it desperately needs.

A third anomaly is the corruption which is not just throughout the economy but represents the way of life. The central government finds that it cannot properly control its provincial party functionaries and bankers whose interests are often at variance with the central planners. Therefore, like our soldiers in Vietnam who lied to Secretary of Defense McNamara about body counts, the provinces lie to Beijing sending reports up the chain which will keep Beijing off their backs. Therefore, there is no real transparency and nobody knows truly what the numbers are even if they wanted to make them known.

A fourth anomaly is the fact that China has traded its environment for economic growth in a desperate attempt to keep pace with its demographic bomb. The ability to exploit the environment for growth is coming rapidly to an end and with it one can expect an end to rapid growth.

China must ultimately convert from a mercantilist export economy to an economy more oriented toward consumption and therefore self-sustaining. The problem is that if central planners make one misstep the whole process comes apart.

For example, if central planners do not tighten enough the inflation rate in China will run away. If they tighten too much, it crashes. They must do this in the absence of transparency so it becomes doubly difficult to centrally plan. They must do this while risking the deflation of the real estate bubble which, when it occurs not if, will be absolutely devastating. They must do this in the face of varying demands, undoubtedly shrinking demand, from their markets in America and Europe. Europe is disintegrating and Germany, according to Goldman Sachs, just went into recession. China faces the problem of shrinking markets as it tries to transition to a self-sustaining economy.

International competition is also cutting in Chinese manufacturing domain.

There are many more problems such as dishonest books in provincial banks and a series bogus accounting principles done by the central planners to take nonproducing loans off the books. These shenanigans must ultimately have their day of reckoning.

It is absolutely foolish to project a straight line growth in the Chinese economy. One can only think of the analogy of the manufacture of a pencil to show the folly of top-down planning for a controlled economy. Virtually anyone of these anomalies or some other black swan event could send China into a vortex.

That is not to say that China will not be a superpower, it already is, and it is not to deny that its trajectory is up while ours is down. It is say that only a fool projects straight lines.


8 posted on 11/24/2011 10:37:24 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

How much does modern China care about ancient Chinese history now? It seems the Communists have cut them off from the ancient philosophy (which overwhelmingly rejected anything like modern communism), and so they are shallow. This could work to good as well as ill for the advent of a newer philosophy.


9 posted on 11/24/2011 10:43:02 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (bloodwashed not whitewashed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“.....if [China] does make that transition [to an open society], then China will be a partner, not a rival.”


Germany and Japan made that transition.

Why not China?


10 posted on 11/24/2011 10:44:45 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

They are VERY slow and VERY hierarchical. Rife with corruption.

They think they are very smart strategically, they think Americans are lazy.

They are arrogant.

They do not understand some things that are essential for success.

They have had an enormous advantage up until now because of the nature of the way things work there and the way things work in the large free market economies and in the third world.

The conventional wisdom of “big” investors has propelled them and held back America up until now.

Just view this program to get an idea about this...

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ChineseEcono

Arrogant big investors (those who are wealthy or who manage large funds) are scared silly of unrest amongst the world’s poor. They seek to parrot their feelings and project sympathy for and unity with them. They actually do not have to worry about that, it is a fearful kneejerk reaction on their part. Instead, they should be worrying about a few dramatic imbalances in their own financial world that they have caused - while working in concert with politicians - by kneejerkily getting way too involved with said politicians. While they cluelessly blabber instead of unwinding positions and shutting down operations, they are creating enormous financial problems.

There is no need or responsbility for monied interests to direct and guide the world; they simply should do their job and go home. They could help by simply using their influence to pressure governments to not borrow money. But they are so “smart” in their own minds, they can’t see the forest for the trees.

$15 trillion invested in Treasuries yields a stream of future payments that come from tax dollars on the citizenry.

This basically boils down to this: monied interests, instead of only investing in businesses have taken the easy way out in $15 trillion worth of their investing strategy - they have the government collecting the interest on their bonds from the citizens.

Trouble is, they took it too far and too much debt has been issued by not only the U.S., but most goverments of the world.

Let not your heart be troubled.


11 posted on 11/24/2011 10:52:40 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I agree with the assessment. China is not a free country... though in some respects Chinese are more free than they were in Mao’s time. They can become rich, they can have a good life, they can even travel abroad. Chinese are asked in return not to challenge the Communist monopoly on political power. At the same time, a transition to democracy is inevitable and it will take a “soft” landing. The Communist leaders are well of it and the party is already preparing for that time when it will have to compete in a multi-party system.


12 posted on 11/24/2011 10:55:35 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Germany and Japan made that transition
The former, no, not exactly; they faked it very well though, for those that couldn't understand what they were looking at. The latter, there are signs of it slipping back.

Why not China?
Um, maybe because we keep reinforcing their communist regime?
13 posted on 11/24/2011 10:58:25 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
no sooner did I write my reply then this article popped up:

Europe’s debt crisis takes toll in China as exports slow

(may run trade deficit soon)

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index


14 posted on 11/24/2011 11:00:10 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

Exactly.

People (especially GOP economists and pundits) keep assuming that we’re going to be able to recover 3%+ GDP growth per annum “sometime soon.”

That’s nonsense. The pattern of western economies going through debt deflations is that, on average, the GDP output is suppressed for about 7 years, on average, with longer episodes recently very visible.

Take Japan, for an example. Their economy underwent a debt deflation in the early 90’s. They STILL have not recovered their GDP growth of the early to mid 80’s.

From this URL:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth-annual

Select January 1981 as the first point for the graph, leaving the back end as November 2011. You can see the clear “before” and “after” GDP growth patterns centered around their debt deflation and financial crisis.

Now, people like the libertarians (who presumably are against wholesale government spending, but alas, libertarians seem to be against government spending until their free trade theories cease functioning... then they’re willing to toss both sound money and government spending controls overboard) seem to deliberately ignore how much Japan has had to spend to prop up their economy to achieve only 2%+ GDP growth, on average. The debt:GDP ratio is over 220% in Japan. They’ve gone from being only 30% debt:GDP in the late 80’s to 220%+ now. And now they’re deliberately gutting the yen to prop up their export market(s), but most especially their exports to the US.

The clowns who are really out the window are those who claim that their assuming 4% GDP targets - eg, Paul Ryan. These people are living back in the pre-2000 days.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Configure this chart to ask for GDP’s from 1947 to today. You can see two real turning points in the US economy:

About before 1986, we not only had quarters where we’d have 4%, we would have quarter-after-quarter of more than 4%. We had quarters of 10% GDP growth, which are now flights of imagination any more.

After 1986, while we still achieved quarters of 4 to 5% frequently, there became no quarters of > 9% GDP growth any more.

After 2000, we see only two quarters of 5% GDP growth. Most quarters are under 4% - they’re somewhere in the 3%+.

Going forward, I would now expect the 3% quarters to be unusual, and we’re now stuck in Japan’s situation of mediocre growth, much of which is dependent upon government spending.


15 posted on 11/25/2011 12:45:54 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

China doesn’t have to do any such thing.

I find it cute how these pinhead yahoos at some botique magazine published out of DC have the hubris to tell China what they “have” to do.


16 posted on 11/25/2011 12:47:50 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
good analysis. The US will not be "defeated" by China, but, just as we see what happened in the 50s-90s, the US will no longer be the super-dominant economic force it was post WWII when the rest of the world was shattered.

China needs to keep developing rapidly so that it drags people out of poverty. however, once it crosses a certain boundary, people will demand a better quality of life and more political power. Also, the demographic trend is against them -- by 2020, they should be aging rapidly and will have younger countries like india, Bangladesh etc. competing against them.

17 posted on 11/25/2011 2:02:28 AM PST by Cronos (Nuke Mecca and Medina now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I disagree -- they don't want 'communism' to take over -- they want China to take over.

in this they share the same imperialistic ambition that the KMT had - the Middle Kingdom dominating all.

18 posted on 11/25/2011 2:04:58 AM PST by Cronos (Nuke Mecca and Medina now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

well analyzed


19 posted on 11/25/2011 2:34:54 AM PST by Cronos (Nuke Mecca and Medina now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Did you actually read the article? It doesn’t even address whether or not China has an adversarial attitude, it just talks about economic reality.


20 posted on 11/25/2011 5:44:28 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines
We’ve had 3 years in the negative or sub-2% range . . . .

Huh?

21 posted on 11/25/2011 6:43:38 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
China today is a superpower in the same way the Soviet Union was a superpower in the 1980's: by allocating a huge proportion of its wealth to military buildup while lying to the world and itself about its command economy.

No economy ever has or ever will sustain double digit growth , bubble free, for more than a few years at the most. China has claimed 8% for a couple decades now which in itself is essentially impossible.

To project 10% growth for twenty years is a daydream, even if beginning from scratch, which China is not. I think the parallels between Japan-hysteria and China-hysteria are very apt. Even fuelled by the same Chicken Littles of the media.

22 posted on 11/25/2011 8:00:29 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

Did you actually read the article? It doesn’t even address whether or not China has an adversarial attitude, it just talks about economic reality
If you are acting like politics and economics are wholly separate from each other, think again. In communism especially, they are one and the same. Therefore, China's adversarial attitude cannot but be discussed when it comes to their economics, and no, China will not ever move to a more open society without being forced to do so from the outside—by military force.
23 posted on 11/25/2011 9:11:21 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

China today is a superpower in the same way the Soviet Union was a superpower in the 1980's: by allocating a huge proportion of its wealth to military buildup while lying to the world and itself about its command economy.

No economy ever has or ever will sustain double digit growth , bubble free, for more than a few years at the most. China has claimed 8% for a couple decades now which in itself is essentially impossible.

To project 10% growth for twenty years is a daydream, even if beginning from scratch, which China is not. I think the parallels between Japan-hysteria and China-hysteria are very apt. Even fuelled by the same Chicken Littles of the media.
WADR, I think you're underestimating the zealotry of the Communist Party of China for spreading communism to every corner of the globe. It's their opinion that communism will not begin to work until the entire world is under its sway; therefore, all non-communistic, capitalistic entities must first be swept aside.
24 posted on 11/25/2011 9:16:14 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

You still are missing the point. The article is pretty clear about the fact that China’s growth will slow down inevitably if it doesn’t open up. So if they don’t, fine, they will hit a wall on growth and their economy will stop expanding.

If they keep the type of government which leads them to be adversarial, they are going to limit themselves and thus limit the threat they present.


25 posted on 11/25/2011 9:26:05 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

You still are missing the point. The article is pretty clear about the fact that China’s growth will slow down inevitably if it doesn’t open up. So if they don’t, fine, they will hit a wall on growth and their economy will stop expanding.

If they keep the type of government which leads them to be adversarial, they are going to limit themselves and thus limit the threat they present
You must really think that the CPC really cares about stuff like that. The more that the naïve West continues to support that communist regime by trading with it, the more resources the Party has to crush dissent, via "tank diplomacy" if necessary. The USSR would still be around if we had traded with it the same way we trade with the PRC.

And the most naïve of all is the statement in the thread title. Neglecting the threat or trying to make light of it is pure ignorance.
26 posted on 11/25/2011 9:34:57 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This is evidently not going to go anywhere. You don’t seem to care at all about the point of the article, nor seem terribly willing to recognize it.


27 posted on 11/25/2011 9:56:46 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

You don’t seem to care at all about the point of the article, nor seem terribly willing to recognize it
Actually, you don't "seem to care" that whatever point is trying to be made is utterly invalid, because it's predicated on the impossibility of China "mak(ing) the transition to an open society" by itself—if you continue to strengthen a rival, then he'll remain a rival and not "transition" to a partner (this is one of the basics of foreign policy, or so I thought; to wit, appeasement fails utterly). You can't ignore reality while trying to make a point, or else you'll end up writing a bunch of empty paragraphs.

If wrecking its own economy while bringing the economies of its sworn enemies down with it is the accelerant towards Red China's communist party's final push towards world communism, they will do it; it only gives them an excuse to use their military, which they are building up by leaps and bounds.
28 posted on 11/25/2011 10:22:03 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
There are many more problems such as dishonest books in provincial banks and a series bogus accounting principles done by the central planners to take nonproducing loans off the books.

I made the same mistake just two days ago.

The way out of our financial mess is transparency

They're (the Japanese) still refusing to resolve all of their non-producing loans, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure the correct term is non-performing loans. Otherwise, thanks for a nice summary of the looming problems facing the Chicoms.
29 posted on 11/25/2011 10:27:31 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

There is a lot of thought here that is off base.

CDS is alive and well here every day.

The process under way in China is economically driven political evolution. That is, change. The process of change largely is restricted and constrained by old men. As they die, the society evolves in a new direction. The specific outcome is of course unknown.

I don’t think there will be a revolution. I think the new direction after 50 or 75 years will result in a socialist state more like Europe of the present than China of 1965.


30 posted on 11/25/2011 10:42:17 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

You haven’t offered anything remotely akin to proof that the article is wrong. You don’t even bother to grasp the salient points.


31 posted on 11/25/2011 10:48:54 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bert

The process under way in China is economically driven political evolution
No such thing is happening in Red China. Rogue states do not "evolve"—they have to be destroyed, and never appeased. Again, if we had traded with the USSR the way we do China, it would be here today and most likely more malevolent than ever.
32 posted on 11/25/2011 10:49:22 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard

You haven’t offered anything remotely akin to proof that the article is wrong
You haven't offered anything to prove the article right. I, for my part, filled in the missing holes in the argument, which makes it collapse. You cannot predicate anything on a statement that is based on pie-in-the-sky hope (authoritarian Red China transitioning by itself to a more open society, especially while you continue to strengthen the authoritarians). WADR, are you just trolling? because it appears you are just blatantly ignoring the obvious.

You don’t even bother to grasp the salient points
Invalid points are not salient. Salient points do not ignore reality.
33 posted on 11/25/2011 10:53:14 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

You are mighty impressed with your own arguments. However they aren’t even vaguely close to as good as you seem to think they are.

But it’s also quite apparent that arguing with you is as fruitful as arguing with a wall, so I’ll pass. Have fun with your delusions.


34 posted on 11/25/2011 11:28:01 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
It's not my fault if you want to be evasive. You can't run away from the facts, and whatever ones are posted by the libertarian magazine are already tainted by missing facts. The focus of the government of Red China is not economic growth as capitalists see it, but to acquire as many means as possible to prepare for making the world transition to global communism—this is why they are building up their military, among many other things. If their economy goes, they know that the economies of their enemies will be shattered rather than merely weakened, and they'll have a huge upper hand if they want to inject their military even more into their foreign policy.

And comparing things to Japan of thirty years ago is yet another canard.
35 posted on 11/25/2011 11:35:02 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
It seems the Communists have cut them off from the ancient philosophy (which overwhelmingly rejected anything like modern communism), and so they are shallow.

Well, Confucius was a statist on a grand scale - so they like him enough to start re-introducing his teachings. Lao Tzu and Taoism on the other hand, that kind of free thinking and ridicule of authority they don't really care for. :)

36 posted on 11/25/2011 12:03:40 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

What’s been our annual GDP growth over the last 3 years? Will it break 3% annually sometime in the foreseeable future?


37 posted on 11/25/2011 11:33:11 PM PST by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FromTheSidelines

I thought you knew.


38 posted on 11/26/2011 6:26:31 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I do, which is why I posted what I did. The flaw in this article is that is assumes much more GDP growth that what we’re experiencing, and what we’re likely to experience for the next several years. China doesn’t need to continue 8+% annual growth to overtake the US, not when we’re muddling along at 2%, 1%, or even lower.


39 posted on 11/26/2011 8:00:02 AM PST by FromTheSidelines ("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson