One reason for American dominance after WWII was that so much of Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed by war. America has (about) the same manufacturing base as 2 years ago.
Another is that the strength of American industry was fed by the migration of farmers' sons and daughters into the cities. While American farmers may have been cash-poor, they had a lot of practical skills that were passed on to the kids that went to the city, such as fixing farm implements (requires mechanical aptitude).
Finally there is the question of the relative amount of freedom - not having been to China, I don't know the "full story" but it seems that America still has the edge.
Caution: Personal bias stemming as a Chinese-born U.S citizen.
One reason for American dominance after WWII was that so much of Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed by war. America has (about) the same manufacturing base as 2 years ago.
Currently, lots of U.S manufacturing, save for defense-related projects have been outsourced elsewhere (i.e., GM/Ford cars are only 50%, 60% made in the U.S; GM cars sold in China, are often assembled and with many parts made in a GM-Shanghai joint-venture factories; Pratt & Whitney and GE Aircraft engines out-source their engine compressors to low-cost developing countries such as Poland, etc.). Perhaps what's even more alarming, is how many industrial and high-tech companies have out-sourced their R&D to China: Intel, AMD, United Technologies, GM, MSFT all have R&D centers in Shanghai or Beijing. So Chinese manufacturing, on both low-end and high-end, I would argue is booming.
Another is the strength of American industry was fed by migration of farmers' sons and daughters into the cities .... they had a lot of practical skills
See cities like Shenzhen and Wuxi. Actually, the bulk of Chinese growth is attributed to a major migration of farmers' sons and daughters from in-land China to the coastal cities' huge factory complex. This makes for China's low-end exports. As for having practical skills, China pumps a great deal of math/science/engineering graduates, more per capita than U.S - a good percentage of whom would then later pursue post-doc or graduate work in the U.S/Europe. So I would argue, that Chinese human capital is also booming.
Finally there is the question of relative amount of freedom.
In absolute terms, yes, U.S enjoys more political, social and economic freedom. But I would argue, that Westerner's tend to overestimate the "freedom" disparity between themselves and other "authoritative regimes." In another words, U.S, IMHO is not a pure meritocracy either (corporate personnel is often determined via social connections or pedigree; political candidates are often chosen by back-room deals). Yes, there is tremendous room for China to improve on its human rights and political autonomy; but the whole Western democratic ideal/Plato's Republic is just another manifestation of the European "holier than thou" attitude, left over the colonial times.
well said. As for your cautionary personal bias...from my experience, anyone that has lived in China can appreciate your position.. its not necessary to be of Chinese decent.
In terms of economic freedom, China has the edge. The cardinal rule is, "you cannot write, read, or do anything that threatens the legitimacy of the party." That kind of limit on free speech certainly does not appeal to me, but I don't think it in anyway cripples the economy.
I'm not sure I agree that China actually offers more economic freedom to most of its people than America does. Most people in China don't even have a formal legal right to move their residence to a new town.
The cardinal rule is, "you cannot write, read, or do anything that threatens the legitimacy of the party." That kind of limit on free speech certainly does not appeal to me, but I don't think it in anyway cripples the economy.
But this I very specifically disagree with. The ruling party of China intervenes in the economy in very many ways in China, and leaving criticism of the party off-limits in public discourse means that sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level can't happen. China has had a bubble economy over the last decade or more, but it's unclear this year how much of the bubble is popping, because the state-controlled media are not engaging in vigorous reporting about what is really happening to real estate projects invested in by local governments or many other government-intertwined economic projects. An economy thrives better with more transparency.
Both good points. Determining whether the U.S. or China has more economic freedom is difficult, because their ways of restricting freedom are so different.
discourse means that sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level can't happen.
It definitely happens among the elites, I once attended a workshop in Guangzhou about problems in urban planning. You can criticize the government's actions, you just cannot question its legitimacy. But even then you probably won't be jailed. Being an open supporter of democracy in China is like being an open racist in the U.S. You probably won't get jailed, but you will find your career not going so well. It is true you see far less policy debate in the popular press, but personally I'd have to be convinced that there is any link between the amount of popular debate over a certain issue and the quality of the eventual solution.
Lack of transparency is always definitely an economic hindrance, no question there. It's a bad problem both in China and the U.S..
I agree with you. But "sound discussion of economic policy at a deep and detailed level" does actually happen. People do openly talk about such things in China. The censorship is not that complete. Where there are pain points, you will find people shouting about it.
You are correct that local media does not disclose the whole truth. But that's not too different than U.S. mainstream media.
"An economy thrives better with more transparency." agreed!!!
The last is indeed significant. Something that the rise of reality TV has shown us, is that humiliation is an American pastime. Asian men often get to see this hidden sadistic side of mainstream North American society. I just turned 40 at the end of last year, and I've been looking back at my life and reflecting on this more and more in recent weeks. The way that one ethnic group can talk about another when they think it's safe for them to voice what they're really thinking can be shocking. It makes me want to play around with hidden cameras and microphones.
> But other then that you're right, and lets not forget the huge brain drain into America over the years.
This is true - and the brain drains are probably what made America great. Before and during WW2 some of smartest people in Europe (mostly Jewish) fled to America and they never went back. That is probably one of the reasons why the USA was off much better after WW2 than other countries.
This continued over the years. But it can easily reverse - if situations in the home countries become more favourable or if the USA decreases the number of Visas...
* I've never heard of the village pass restriction.
* You can have more than one kid - you have to pay a fine though. Also, the restriction doesn't apply to ethnic minorities or farmers.
* You cannot organize dissenting political views. You can express yourself creatively, artistically, etc all you want. Check out Beijing's 798 district: http://www.798space.com (one of my favorite places).
* It's not an "ongoing massacre". It may be oppression, racism, discrimination, segregation, confining a people to internment or a reservation - but to describe it as an active massacre is inaccurate.
I'm well aware of the HuKuo system (most of my extended family live in China). It doesn't restrict movements at all, and you can move to any city you wish for work, vacation, wandering, whatever. It's just a zip code system to track where people live. I don't know the exact process, but you can have your HuKuo changed if you want to move (of course, you have to go through the requisite paperwork).
There are a lot of injustices in China to be angry about, but I don't think this is one of them.
* Do you mean to say that scores of Tibetan protesters were not beaten and/or shot dead in the months leading up to the Olympics? Because that's news to me.
Shall I post for you the numerous articles of people in places like Minneapolis or Denver or New York that were arrested or beaten for protesting around campaign conventions?
St. Paul, really, not Minneapolis. I live in the state where both cities are. I see a lot of news video of what the "protesters" were doing, and the police response was appropriate, in my opinion. I am very able in this state to vote out a current administration (not something someone can do in China) and to speak up about my opinion on any issue.
St. Paul, yes, sorry to not give the Minni's twin is due credit ;)
Off topic, but St. Paul and surrounding suburbs are actually much more conservative than Minneapolis and the suburbs on its side. It's like the difference between Boston and Cambridge.
That's the real difference: You can get pissed about these injustices in America without disappearing. Government accountability is tremendously important in American culture.
That's the problem you're facing. You're trying to understand China from an American perspective. And it may not be your fault, maybe that's all the perspective you have at the moment.
To understand the complexity of China's problems, and to try to propose a solution, you're going to have to try to understand China at a much deeper level.
The best line I've heard wrt giving Westerners a perspective to understanding China is this (paraphrasing):
Americans demand change when they feel something isn't right. They want to see change happen and want it immediately - or, at the least, every four years. It's a young country, barely 250 years old, and has reinvented itself many times over, in short durations, and has grown and evolved so much so quickly. Because Americans can change and remake itself so quickly, they also demand that of others. America is like the hare. China, on the other hand, is like the turtle. It's a 5,000 year old civilization, moving slowly and gradually, at its own pace, regardless of what others are doing. To the Chinese, the last 20 years has been probably the most progressive 20 years in China's history. To China, it is moving at lightening pace. Compared to China 10, 15, 20 years ago, it has come a long long way. And it will continue to progress, but at its own turtle's pace.
The students who protested in Tian An Men Square in 1989 (some of whom I know quite well) don't expect China to be so slow. They have been disappointed to see that its change has been slower than they hoped back then, but Americans were disappointed back at the time of the Boston Massacre too.
Because I totally applied my criticism to a people rather than a national government, right? Maybe you're the old-world type that equates nations with races.
I don't want to play this game. All I'm trying to say is it doesn't seem like you understand China well, and should reserve criticism until you have some basic understanding of her problems.
I think the Chinese view the Tibetan mission as one of colonization and modernization, while violently putting down groups opposed to Chinese rule. Their internal media, at least, views it as a humanitarian mission, not genocide.
Don't know who's right. Could anyone point out information that China's goal is the elimination of the Tibetan people, instead of rule over them? Seems like they could have finished by now if they just wanted to kill them all.
Sure. I'm just asking for some factual clarification here. Is the point of the Chinese mission to rule Tibetans, or to kill them all? Neither is a nice thing to do, but there is a difference in degree of how mean they are.
There are valid practical reasons for this. Infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, schools, etc... can simply not cater for a massive influx of people from rural areas.
The alternative to this is probably giant slum cities that surround every major city (as what happens in other parts of the world).
> * You can't have more than one kid
Although this is horrible - and things such as forced abortions is heretic there are good reasons for this.
There are huge overpopulation problems in China. Culturally many people are also inclined to get more children (since children traditionally cared for parents and were an old fashioned "retirement plan").
I would go further and argue that the rapid increase in population is responsible for much of Africa's non-development.
> * No freedom of expression
Between personal freedom and economic freedom I would prefer economic freedom. Of course China is not a democracy with all the nice associated things (freedom of expression, etc...).
However, if China were a democracy it would probably have succumbed to a kleptocratic leftist rule - as 95% of other 3rd world countries.
No - the extent of America's financial dominance in the 20th century was not the result of a single event (the Great Depression), but of three; WW1 (in which Britain lost its position of financial dominance), the Great Depression (in which the USA cemented theirs), and WW2 (in which all other industrialised countries were either defeated or depleted to a much greater extent than the US was).
As a result, there wasn't really any country in the position to challenge the USA at the end of WW2; China is not at all in the same position now.
This being said, the crisis may have helped China along in its aim to becoming a global superpower; they have reserves that no-one else has, and so far they've been using them to buy strategic resources (mainly primary materials) as well as lending to the USA. It's a nice position for them to be in, although they probably would have preferred finishing their transition away from manufacturing before being thrust into it.
This forum ought to focus more on what new business opportunities arise from a larger/richer Chinese middle class, than be afraid of losing old business ideas.
There are lots of possible candidates for it, but communism ruined it all in China.
Anyway, left are:
1) Africa (don't underestimate it, it could grow much faster than any other country, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
2) Europe, united with all of its parts (and I mean especially the eastern ones)
3) Middle East + India; may seem strange (to some of you), but there you can find the top of the top of human-brewn Culture -- no other region on earth can beat this.
America, you have to "die" (read: take the last place on earth for some decade), because it was you trashing whole world in this financial disaster. This is not popular, so you people will not agree -- the same as children never agree when it comes to take some bitter medicine...
My grandmother (who's Chinese) used to always say "Communism! What Communism! Just take a look outside, you can clearly tell who's rich and who's not!"
China may be Communist by name, but it's capitalist by heart.
> 1) Africa (don't underestimate it, it could grow much faster than any other country, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
Uhm... Firstly – Africa will never become a world power. Do you know how many problems Africa have? Most economies are shrinking. The countries whose economies grow are based on resources (e.g. oil) that foreign companies mine. There is not one sub-sahara African country with a good education system (the best is mediocre and rapidly declining education systems).
> y, iff it only could free itself from all those nasty colonialism consequences...)
You could blame the problems in the 70ies or 80ies on colonialism. But modern problems are created by Africans for Africans. I can cite numerous examples. Can you really blame Britain of Zimbabwe? Both Lesotho and Swaziland never had any major colonial influences – yet they are the most backward in Africa.
One reason for American dominance after WWII was that so much of Europe's manufacturing capability was destroyed by war. America has (about) the same manufacturing base as 2 years ago.
Another is that the strength of American industry was fed by the migration of farmers' sons and daughters into the cities. While American farmers may have been cash-poor, they had a lot of practical skills that were passed on to the kids that went to the city, such as fixing farm implements (requires mechanical aptitude).
Finally there is the question of the relative amount of freedom - not having been to China, I don't know the "full story" but it seems that America still has the edge.