Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
The Trump China Policy Thread
Author Message
Transsimian Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 439
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 4
Post: #126
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Great post Liberty Sea, I've learned a lot.
04-22-2017 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
SamuelBRoberts Online
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,091
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 46
Post: #127
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(04-21-2017 08:22 PM)Enigma Wrote:  A country with 1.3+ billion people can't even develop a cell phone, TV, etc. that competes with LG or Samsung. Even in places like the Philippines and Thailand, Chinese brands are considered cheap, substandard products.

For what it's worth, I'm a high-end buyer, and my next phone will be a Chinese one. This (Chinese) company is doing really interesting things with the screen that nobody else is doing: maximizing the amount of screen on the front of the phone to make it bigger without increasing the size of the phone. And Samsung has gone into full 'tard mode with a non-disable-able button that calls up an irritating AI assistant on their latest S8, so I think I'm done with them.

[Image: mimix-2.jpg]

The phone is gorgeous, and it's certainly fast enough for my uses.

Phones are kind of old, commoditized technology now, so this isn't the huge deal it might've been 5 years ago, but it's not true that China simply can't compete in this arena. Xiaomi is being held out of the US right now due to patent issues, but I think if they were here you'd see these phones doing very well against the Galaxy series, particularly as Samsung gets more and arrogant.

"We're gonna win at every single level. We're gonna win so so much you're gonna get sick and tired of it. And I'm gonna say, 'I don't care!' We're gonna keep winning, because we're gonna make America great again! We're gonna make it greater than ever before!"
-Donald Trump
04-22-2017 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like SamuelBRoberts's post:
Enigma, Handsome Creepy Eel, Peregrine
Fortis Away
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,697
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 70
Post: #128
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
TO be fair, I have a 100 dollar Chinese phone I got last year and it's only recently beginning to crap out after 1 year of total abuse. That said, it's a gorgeous phone and Xiaomi totally over delivered for 100 dollars. They are making some really solid phones out here.

Caring more about Donald Trump than your bank account is beta.
04-22-2017 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Fortis's post:
Transsimian, Handsome Creepy Eel
Enigma Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,043
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 73
Post: #129
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Samsung currently owns about 25% of the worldwide marketshare on smartphones. The largest Chinese manufacturers, Xiaomi and Huawei, are around 7% each.

And not only is Samsung the best-selling smartphone brand, it's also the best-selling TV manufacturer. #2 is LG, another Korean company. And Samsung also has the third highest selling laptop brand.

South Korea's population is 50 million; China's is 1.3 billion.

Again, context.

Most of the arguments for China revolved around "wow, look how big their population and gross GDP is!"

But their economy is already 10x times bigger than South Korea's. Their population is already 10x times that of Japan.

The point being that the economies of countries like Japan, Korea, and much of the West are built in an entirely different way than modern China's.

This is why a country with a fraction of China's total manufacturing base is able to produce Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Suzuki, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Isuzu, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi.

China literally has the largest automotive industry in the world. Can you name any Chinese car brands? I've lived in fucking Asia for 3+ years, and I certainly can't. I know they have some, but they haven't penetrated the rest of Asia in anything resembling significant numbers.

And someone brought up, "well, China doesn't need to sell products internationally".

China doesn't need to export goods? Huh? And which economic powerhouses have existed without exporting goods?

Again, if China is going to accomplish the type of growth people are predicting, they're going to have to reinvent their economy. They're not going to quadruple their GDP paying wage slaves $1 an hour to churn out products all day.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. But anyone forecasting China's growth as if it's just a diagonal line that will continue on for eternity is missing the mark.

It is not particularly hard for a developing country to post high annual growth numbers. It is hard, however, for these countries to transition to a first world, developed economy that doesn't rely on keeping huge numbers of people dwindling in extreme poverty to fuel your labor force.
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2017 11:36 PM by Enigma.)
04-22-2017 11:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Enigma's post:
Fortis, SamuelBRoberts, Handsome Creepy Eel, Samseau
Arado Offline
Chubby Chaser
**
Gold Member

Posts: 553
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 14
Post: #130
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Liberty Sea has effectively countered the arguments of the China skeptics, but I just want to add a few more points.

(04-22-2017 09:02 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  I've to second what Suits said above here. People often said that Mao destroyed China's traditional culture and common trust, that Chinese people are so treacherous and materialistic are due to the Cultural Revolution. This is incorrect. The Chinese have always been cunning. Throughout history, China have gone through countless war and political infighting, with the resource/population ratio always high. So to survive they have to be cunning, as Arado said. But would they stop being cunning once they get out of scarcity? I doubt that. I'm afraid that cunningness has gotten to their DNA. Perhaps they have never been more ruthless and cunning than they are now, and perhaps they will be less cunning and ruthless when things got better, but something of this nature will remain with them.

You know, I think being cunning is part of their nature, but I don't think it's really any worse than other countries - I've been to many countries where people have constantly been trying to cheat me, and that just no longer happens in the big cities in China. Also look at somewhere like Taiwan or Singapore - ethnic Han, but people there are pretty nice and honest. I really think that the cunningness of Chinese is overblown and in a less competitive society they will chill out a bit. It may take a generation or two. Either way, I don't think it will be a major hindrance on their march to superpower status.

(04-22-2017 11:35 PM)Enigma Wrote:  China literally has the largest automotive industry in the world. Can you name any Chinese car brands? I've lived in fucking Asia for 3+ years, and I certainly can't. I know they have some, but they haven't penetrated the rest of Asia in anything resembling significant numbers.

And someone brought up, "well, China doesn't need to sell products internationally".

China doesn't need to export goods? Huh? And which economic powerhouses have existed without exporting goods?

Again, if China is going to accomplish the type of growth people are predicting, they're going to have to reinvent their economy. They're not going to quadruple their GDP paying wage slaves $1 an hour to churn out products all day.

I'm not saying it isn't possible. But anyone forecasting China's growth as if it's just a diagonal line that will continue on for eternity is missing the mark.

It is not particularly hard for a developing country to post high annual growth numbers. It is hard, however, for these countries to transition to a first world, developed economy that doesn't rely on keeping huge numbers of people dwindling in extreme poverty to fuel your labor force.

China has not HAD to have their own brands for the past few decades. All they were was an OEM production site for the world's products. That is changing now though. Fortis mentioned DJI before. Huawei and Xiaomi phones are doing well in poorer places like Africa and India. It starts there before it moves to more developed markets.

http://www.businesstoday.in/technology/n...43499.html

Quote:Chinese smartphone vendors last year captured about 40 per cent share in India, the second largest smartphone market in the world, the official media in Beijing reported.
Among all, Lenovo saw its shipment volume rise to the second only after Samsung in the third quarter last year, state-run China Daily quoted global research firm International Data Corporation (IDC) survey as saying.
Xiaomi took the third spot with a market share of 10.7 per cent, whereas Chinese vendors collectively took up 40 per cent, according to the survey conducted across 30 major Indian cities.


It's not hard for developing countries to post high growth rates, but yet, so many other countries have failed where China is succeeding. China is now where South Korea and Japan and Taiwan were at this stage of development. Even if growth slows to 4 ish percent, that still puts them far ahead of the U.S. in PPP terms by 2030.

(04-20-2017 06:22 PM)Enigma Wrote:  I'm talking about overseas Chinese. Most of them are not being educated in mainland China, they're being educated in the country that they're living in, using the same schools, more or less, as the ethnic majority.

And school systems are what the PISA measures, not raw/genetic intelligence, hence the reason predominantly Chinese states like Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and Singapore score higher than the mainland.

Also, you should take a look at how China gathers their scores.

Their 2015 scores only measured students from Shanghai, Guangdong, Beijing, and Jiangsu. Those are the richest provinces in the country and only make up 230 million of the country's 1.3+ billion total population.

In short, China only measures the most affluent students from the largest cities.

In 2012, they only measured Shanghai. And their scores were about 50 to 80 points higher than the mainland.

Let's put that into perspective for a minute. Simply adding three other rich Chinese provinces to the average dropped Shanghai's scores by 50+ points in every category.

If Shanghai was 613 but the average of the four provinces was 531 in mathematics, how low are those other provinces' scores? They would have to be at least 100 points lower to drag the average down that dramatically.

That'd put them right on part with most of Southeast Asia.

Now, what would happen if you included the other 1 billion Chinese, measuring the total population, as countries like the US do? How about if we average the 300+ million Chinese living in extreme poverty with the 230 million in those four provinces?

This all supports my point, which is that ethnic Chinese, as a whole, are not that much genetically smarter than the natives of many Southeast Asian countries. Yes, there is an IQ difference, but it's not significant enough to account for 1% Chinese owning such incredible 50 to 99% wealth in some of these countries.

Even looking at the PISA scores that we have, China and Vietnam are roughly on part, yet the 1% Chinese in Vietnam own over 40% of the wealth, and it was at high as 80% in the 70s.

Well - Shanghai + Beijing population is just over 40 million compared to Jiangsu + Guangdong is 185 million so the score doesn't have to be that low in Jiangsu + Guangdong for the average to come out to 530. Plus, as you mention above, other ethnic Chinese states such as Taiwan and Singapore do well on PISA. Either way, a score above 500 is still perfectly respectable and puts them well in contention to developed economy status. Also, China is still not a rich country, and students get a fraction of the funding per capita that students in rich countries get. But yet, they are still able to do on par with other developed countries. That is impressive. As the other provinces catch up with the coast then they too will have improving test scores.

Look, there are plenty of flaws with the PISA study, no study is perfect. But it's the ONLY data we have, and so far, the data point to the Chinese being better educated on average than southeast Asians. You may say that the test only measures test taking abilities, but the evidence shows that PISA ability largely correlates with a country's overall level of development.

Also, historically, many of the countries in Southeast Asia have paid tribute to China throughout the dynasties and recognized their cultural, military, and economic superiority and SEA has not had a measurable contribution to science and technology progress as China has done.

(04-22-2017 04:40 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  1. Why is it that the Filipinos do so well financially in the US, performing better than mainland Chinese immigrants but at home they are ruled financially by the Chinese? Well, honestly I don't know. I don't have answer for everything, so I've to guess. My guess is that the Chinese have set up network all-over SEA to help other Chinese, and they are just better at being thug-cunning, which works better in the terrible law enforcement of SEA than in the US.

Well, I'd venture several possibilities from this article, all of which are perfectly compatible with Filipino IQ in the Philippines being lower than Han IQ:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/f...ted-states

Quote:In 2013, about 30 percent of Filipino immigrants (age 5 and over) reported limited English proficiency, compared with about 50 percent of the foreign born overall.

English proficiency is a huge booster

Quote:Three major waves characterize the history of Filipino immigration to the United States. Following the U.S. annexation of the Philippines in 1899, the United States began sponsoring select Filipino students to study at U.S. colleges and universities.
That would definitely select for IQ

Quote:The second wave of Filipino immigration began in the aftermath of World War II. Many more than 100 Filipinos arrived annually outside the quota, primarily as “war brides” to U.S. servicemen and as recruits into the U.S. armed forces, particularly the U.S. Navy. In addition, an increasing number of Filipinos arrived in the United States to train as nurses and other health-care workers. While the postwar period saw a modest influx of Filipinos, particularly higher-educated professionals, their numbers grew considerably in the third major wave of immigration after 1965.

This would also have a highly selective effect.

Remember, Indians in the U.S. out earn Chinese. But does anyone here who has been to India really think the average Indian in India is smarter than the average Chinese in China? Doubt it. Btw, Nigerian-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, and Egyptian Americans also out earn white Americans.

Using the economic performance of immigrants in the U.S. as a proxy for the IQ of their home country compatriots is very inaccurate.

Point being, Chinese are smart and we should not underestimate their development prospects, nor should we should so casually dismiss how much of a disruptive force China's rise will be in the current world order.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 03:38 AM by Arado.)
04-23-2017 03:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Arado's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel
Enigma Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,043
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 73
Post: #131
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(04-23-2017 03:34 AM)Arado Wrote:  China has not HAD to have their own brands for the past few decades. All they were was an OEM production site for the world's products. That is changing now though. Fortis mentioned DJI before. Huawei and Xiaomi phones are doing well in poorer places like Africa and India. It starts there before it moves to more developed markets.

Yes, the largest population in the world and second largest economy have produced about 4 somewhat significant technology brands, less than countries a fraction of their size.

How exactly does that run contrary to anything I just posted?

Quote:It's not hard for developing countries to post high growth rates, but yet, so many other countries have failed where China is succeeding. China is now where South Korea and Japan and Taiwan were at this stage of development. Even if growth slows to 4 ish percent, that still puts them far ahead of the U.S. in PPP terms by 2030.

Can you tell me at which stages of development that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan had 300+ million people living on $2 a day?

Also, China is already ahead of the US in PPP. What has that gotten them?

Their PPP is also larger than the entire European Union combined. So what? It's another meaningless statistic.

India's PPP is more than twice as large as almost every other country in the world. It's still filled with poor people shitting on the street.

(04-20-2017 06:22 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Well - Shanghai + Beijing population is just over 40 million compared to Jiangsu + Guangdong is 185 million so the score doesn't have to be that low in Jiangsu + Guangdong for the average to come out to 530. Plus, as you mention above, other ethnic Chinese states such as Taiwan and Singapore do well on PISA. Either way, a score above 500 is still perfectly respectable and puts them well in contention to developed economy status.

Most of Southeast Asia scored just under 500. If China is just above 500, that means China is not much higher than SEA, which was exactly my point all along.

Quote:Also, China is still not a rich country, and students get a fraction of the funding per capita that students in rich countries get. But yet, they are still able to do on par with other developed countries. That is impressive. As the other provinces catch up with the coast then they too will have improving test scores.

Is Vietnam a rich country? Is the Philippines? Indonesia? Thailand?

I'm talking about overseas Chinese compared to the natives of the country they live in.

Not mainland China vs. the rest of the world.

Not mainland China vs. Malaysia.

You are trying to combine two totally different conversation threads into one. I was discussing something very specific when I made those comments, and it was totally unrelated to China's success as a country.

Quote:Look, there are plenty of flaws with the PISA study, no study is perfect. But it's the ONLY data we have, and so far, the data point to the Chinese being better educated on average than southeast Asians. You may say that the test only measures test taking abilities, but the evidence shows that PISA ability largely correlates with a country's overall level of development.

Also, historically, many of the countries in Southeast Asia have paid tribute to China throughout the dynasties and recognized their cultural, military, and economic superiority and SEA has not had a measurable contribution to science and technology progress as China has done.

Again, at what point did I compare Southeast Asia, as nations, to China? I didn't.

My assertion was that the 1% ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia did not accrue 50 to 99% of every countries' wealth simply by being smarter than the native population.

They did it through a combination of their business practices and China's political manueverings in the region.

Interestingly, your whole argument on the past few pages is that Chinese are good at business and will use their growing power to threaten their neighbors. Yet you disagree with a post where I explained how they've done the same in the past.

It's as if you're not actually reading what is being posted and simply disagreeing by reflex.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 05:01 AM by Enigma.)
04-23-2017 04:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Enigma's post:
Samseau
Arado Offline
Chubby Chaser
**
Gold Member

Posts: 553
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 14
Post: #132
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(04-23-2017 04:51 AM)Enigma Wrote:  
(04-23-2017 03:34 AM)Arado Wrote:  China has not HAD to have their own brands for the past few decades. All they were was an OEM production site for the world's products. That is changing now though. Fortis mentioned DJI before. Huawei and Xiaomi phones are doing well in poorer places like Africa and India. It starts there before it moves to more developed markets.

Yes, the largest population in the world and second largest economy have produced about 4 somewhat significant technology brands, less than countries a fraction of their size.

How exactly does that run contrary to anything I just posted?

Well, point being that just a few years ago there were essentially no Chinese brands because it was all OEM. Now, there are more and more Chinese brands gaining market share throughout the world, and this trend sees no signs of dissipating. The point I'm making is that we should be thinking critically about where China is projected to be at in 2030 and what it means in terms of the West's ability to determine the direction of human civilization at that point vis a vis China.

Quote:It's not hard for developing countries to post high growth rates, but yet, so many other countries have failed where China is succeeding. China is now where South Korea and Japan and Taiwan were at this stage of development. Even if growth slows to 4 ish percent, that still puts them far ahead of the U.S. in PPP terms by 2030.

Can you tell me at which stages of development that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan had 300+ million people living on $2 a day?

Also, China is already ahead of the US in PPP. What has that gotten them?

Their PPP is also larger than the entire European Union combined. So what? It's another meaningless statistic.

India's PPP is more than twice as large as almost every other country in the world. It's still filled with poor people shitting on the street.

[/quote]

Well I won't disagree with you there - China is already ahead of the U.S. in PPP now, so by 2030 they will be far ahead of the U.S. And of course PPP is only one statistic in the broad spectrum of indices that we look at to measure national "power," which is why India is still uninfluential in the world despite their size. China's per capita income will hit high income status by 2030, and China's growing wealth will translate into more military capabilities vis a vis their neighbors, as well as economic leverage over other countries, and the ability to fund soft power initiatives such as Confucius institutes. Result? Growing Chinese influence, on par to surpass the U.S. in a couple of decades.

I know inequality is worse in China but at least in terms of per capita GDP and growth rates, China now is roughly where SK was in the 1990's.

(04-20-2017 06:22 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Most of Southeast Asia scored just under 500. If China is just above 500, that means China is not much higher than SEA, which was exactly my point all along.

Quote:Also, China is still not a rich country, and students get a fraction of the funding per capita that students in rich countries get. But yet, they are still able to do on par with other developed countries. That is impressive. As the other provinces catch up with the coast then they too will have improving test scores.

Is Vietnam a rich country? Is the Philippines? Indonesia? Thailand?

I'm talking about overseas Chinese compared to the natives of the country they live in.

Not mainland China vs. the rest of the world.

Not mainland China vs. Malaysia.

You are trying to combine two totally different conversation threads into one. I was discussing something very specific when I made those comments, and it was totally unrelated to China's success as a country.

Not quite - my point is that the Han do have a higher genetic IQ than the ethnic groups in other SEA countries, and it's not just their cunning that explains their dominance in that region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_...Assessment

Thailand scored in the low 400's, Malaysia around 440, Indonesia barely broke 400. So when you write that most SEA is just below 500, that is 100% wrong.

Vietnam was the only other country somewhat close to China (reading and science score disparities cancel each other out), but were still crushed by them in math (531 to 495). Plus, we don't know anything about the sample size in Vietnam, so if the same selection issues were present there, then the disparity remains.

Quote:Look, there are plenty of flaws with the PISA study, no study is perfect. But it's the ONLY data we have, and so far, the data point to the Chinese being better educated on average than southeast Asians. You may say that the test only measures test taking abilities, but the evidence shows that PISA ability largely correlates with a country's overall level of development.

Also, historically, many of the countries in Southeast Asia have paid tribute to China throughout the dynasties and recognized their cultural, military, and economic superiority and SEA has not had a measurable contribution to science and technology progress as China has done.

Again, at what point did I compare Southeast Asia, as nations, to China? I didn't.

My assertion was that the 1% ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia did not accrue 50 to 99% of every countries' wealth simply by being smarter than the native population.

They did it through a combination of their business practices and China's political manueverings in the region.
[/quote]

Well my point is that China's historical accomplishments as a civilization is a reflection of the talent of it's population. SEA countries have no such historical records of accomplishment, ergo, their population is less talented than that of China. This talent disparity largely explains the success of overseas Chinese in SEA.

As of now all we have is the PISA to compare talent across countries. I wish there was a god-test out there that sampled a broad spectrum of provinces and socio economic levels. But that test doesn't exist.

However, working off what we DO know, all indications point to China growing significantly in power over the next couple of decades. No hostility here - I'm not asking you to fully buy into my Chinese superiority arguments. All I'm saying is that there is at least a good argument to be made that China is on the path to exceeding the power of the West, and anyone who cares about world order should at least think seriously about what this means for the future of the U.S. and the West instead of dismissing China and assuming that the U.S. will be the #1 power forever.

That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

Interestingly, your whole argument on the past few pages is that Chinese are good at business and will use their growing power to threaten their neighbors. Yet you disagree with a post where I explained how they've done the same in the past.

It's as if you're not actually reading what is being posted and simply disagreeing by reflex.

Ok - hopefully it's a bit more clear now what my main argument is, not trying to disagree for the sake of it so let's keep this civil.

These IQ and overseas Chinese questions aren't really that important for this thread, I just brought them up in order to bolster my argument for why we should seriously be concerned with China rising and challenging the West. I'm mainly focused on two questions:

1) What should be the U.S. strategy to deal with a rising China that will surpass the U.S. (battered by political dysfunction and demographic replacement) in economic influence and military capability within a couple of decades?

2) Why has the alt-right completely ignored the China story, is it because China's growth does not fit into the alt-right narrative about (((globalist))) bogeymen?
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 06:19 AM by Arado.)
04-23-2017 06:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Arado's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel, atlant
Enigma Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,043
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 73
Post: #133
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(04-23-2017 06:04 AM)Arado Wrote:  Well, point being that just a few years ago there were essentially no Chinese brands because it was all OEM. Now, there are more and more Chinese brands gaining market share throughout the world, and this trend sees no signs of dissipating. The point I'm making is that we should be thinking critically about where China is projected to be at in 2030 and what it means in terms of the West's ability to determine the direction of human civilization at that point vis a vis China.

Huawei and Lenovo were founded in the '80s, and Lenovo has been performing at a high level for years. In fact, in terms of product quality, most people agree that they've gotten worse in recent years. Xiaomi is the only new brand out of that pack.

In short, you have the second largest economy in the world hanging its hat on Lenovo and two mid-level smartphone manufacturers. That is not at all impressive.

Yes, they haven't needed brands, which is exactly my point. Their economy has to undergo a massive shift in focus in order to accomplish the level of growth that's being predicted.

Quote:Well I won't disagree with you there - China is already ahead of the U.S. in PPP now, so by 2030 they will be far ahead of the U.S. And of course PPP is only one statistic in the broad spectrum of indices that we look at to measure national "power," which is why India is still uninfluential in the world despite their size. China's per capita income will hit high income status by 2030, and China's growing wealth will translate into more military capabilities vis a vis their neighbors, as well as economic leverage over other countries, and the ability to fund soft power initiatives such as Confucius institutes. Result? Growing Chinese influence, on par to surpass the U.S. in a couple of decades.

I know inequality is worse in China but at least in terms of per capita GDP and growth rates, China now is roughly where SK was in the 1990's.

You're just repeating the same things over and over. Stating that China will do "this and that" by 2030 is not an argument.

"China will grow bigger because it grew bigger" is not an argument either. That's what I've been pointing out for the last few posts.

Earlier you claimed that China was going to grow its economy by 350% in 15 years, which you still haven't given any sort of explanation for.

And China is almost 30x times larger than South Korea. Large countries do not grow in the same way that small countries do, hence the reason that Taiwan, Singapore, etc. were able to grow so quickly.

Quote:Not quite - my point is that the Han do have a higher genetic IQ than the ethnic groups in other SEA countries, and it's not just their cunning that explains their dominance in that region.

Yes, they do have have higher IQs. I already stated that. Their IQs, however, are not enough to account for their massive collection of wealth in SEA.

Quote:Thailand scored in the low 400's, Malaysia around 440, Indonesia barely broke 400. So when you write that most SEA is just below 500, that is 100% wrong.

Vietnam was the only other country somewhat close to China (reading and science score disparities cancel each other out), but were still crushed by them in math (531 to 495). Plus, we don't know anything about the sample size in Vietnam, so if the same selection issues were present there, then the disparity remains.

You're arguing in circles.

If you measured all of China, their scores would not be above 500. This is clear based on how they take the scores.

When I pointed this out, you said, "well, China isn't a rich country and don't have good educaton". But then you take the scores of countries like Indonesia, which isn't a rich country either.

For the third time, "overseas" Chinese are not educated in mainland China.

The Hao, for instance, have been in Vietnam for generations. They go to school in Vietnam, not in China.

Quote:Well my point is that China's historical accomplishments as a civilization is a reflection of the talent of it's population. SEA countries have no such historical records of accomplishment, ergo, their population is less talented than that of China. This talent disparity largely explains the success of overseas Chinese in SEA.

First of all, China is like 2x times larger and more populated than all of SEA combined.

Second of all, the claim that they have no historical records of accomplishment is ridiculous. Angkor was the largest preindustrial city in the world, for starters.

Quote:However, working off what we DO know, all indications point to China growing significantly in power over the next couple of decades. No hostility here - I'm not asking you to fully buy into my Chinese superiority arguments. All I'm saying is that there is at least a good argument to be made that China is on the path to exceeding the power of the West, and anyone who cares about world order should at least think seriously about what this means for the future of the U.S. and the West instead of dismissing China and assuming that the U.S. will be the #1 power forever.

That's all I'm saying.

Clearly China will grow. The question is how fast and steadily they will grow, and whether they will overcome their own problems.

I have never said it's impossible for them to exceed the West, I'm simply unconvinced that it's the inevitable outcome.

Quote:These IQ and overseas Chinese questions aren't really that important for this thread, I just brought them up in order to bolster my argument for why we should seriously be concerned with China rising and challenging the West. I'm mainly focused on two questions:

You didn't bring up overseas Chinese, I did. And I brought them up to show China's historic influence on the region, which is very relevant to the thread.

Quote:1) What should be the U.S. strategy to deal with a rising China that will surpass the U.S. (battered by political dysfunction and demographic replacement) in economic influence and military capability within a couple of decades?

2) Why has the alt-right completely ignored the China story, is it because China's growth does not fit into the alt-right narrative about (((globalist))) bogeymen?

Or is it because the alt-right is a nationalist American movement that's more concerned and familiar with the issues closer to their sphere?

The funny thing is your response to the alt-right's perceived dismissal of China is to pretend like China has no problems or weaknesses. You see this same kind of black and white thinking in the North Korea thread.

Yet if I take the stance that the US and China both have problems, and that China shows promise but has a lot to prove, this somehow means I'm an alt-right Trump fanboy China hater.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 07:24 AM by Enigma.)
04-23-2017 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Enigma's post:
Fortis, Samseau, Peregrine
Arado Offline
Chubby Chaser
**
Gold Member

Posts: 553
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 14
Post: #134
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(04-23-2017 07:17 AM)Enigma Wrote:  
Quote:1) What should be the U.S. strategy to deal with a rising China that will surpass the U.S. (battered by political dysfunction and demographic replacement) in economic influence and military capability within a couple of decades?

2) Why has the alt-right completely ignored the China story, is it because China's growth does not fit into the alt-right narrative about (((globalist))) bogeymen?

Or is it because the alt-right is a nationalist American movement that's more concerned and familiar with the issues closer to their sphere?

The funny thing is your response to the alt-right's perceived dismissal of China is to pretend like China has no problems or weaknesses. You see this same kind of black and white thinking in the North Korea thread.

Yet if I take the stance that the US and China both have problems, and that China shows promise but has a lot to prove, this somehow means I'm an alt-right Trump fanboy China hater.

We can agree to disagree on China's potential since it looks like we are arguing in circles and Liberty Sea has already addressed most of your points on Chinese brands, economic growth, and education potential. At the very least, we agree on the IQ issue and you are open to the idea that China could exceed the U.S. so we can at least work off of that - let's say it's a 50/50 chance that China exceeds the U.S. in terms of overall national power in two decades.

Should the U.S. take pre-emptive steps to constrain, contain, or weaken China? Do you really think that a superpower China will pose zero threat to an alt right nationalist America, and therefore the alt-right is completely justified in spending almost zero time thinking about it?

Chinese militarism is of course the most obvious example - should we be on the hook to defend Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc from Chinese expansionism? Should we risk WW3 for it? Should we cede the south China sea to the Chinese? And if we do abandon our Asian allies, is the alt-right ok with them abandoning their alliance with the U.S. to curry favor with China?

It's not just militarism. It's also China attempting to duplicate all the industries that we have a comparative advantage in. It's China pushing RMB internationalization to undermine dollar supremacy. It's China buying influence throughout the world through building infrastructure. China pushing Confucius institutes to increase their soft power. All of these issues have gone unaddressed by the alt-right, though these are all trends that will negatviely impact our standing in the world and the economic security of the middle class.

If the possibility comes to fruition that China becomes a superpower, then this is the first time that a non-Western non Judeo-Christian country will be the pre eminent power in the world. It's hard to overestimate the impact this will have.

I agree with you that a nationalist movement should pay attention to issues close to their sphere, but I really think that China becoming a superpower is not an issue that nationalists can't afford to ignore because on the surface it doesn't impact core national interests.

At the very least you can admit that China is the most likely candidate for "country there that will challenge American influence the most in the decades ahead."

Therefore, doesn't it merit some attention from this part of the web?
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 09:19 AM by Arado.)
04-23-2017 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Liberty Sea Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,209
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 15
Post: #135
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Brilliant chess move from China! Your move, mr. Trump!
http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-civil...china-sea/

China is populating the Paracels, Spratlys, and other islands in the South China Sea with its civilians, setting up government frameworks and tourist industries there. Within a few years, those islands will become de facto China towns, and de facto Chinese territory. By then, no matter what legal-formal reasoning any other side may use, it will be rendered empty and useless. That's how you make a territory yours: occupy it, populate it with yours people, set up economic activities and bureaucracy. WE LIVE HERE SO IT'S OURS! YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID!

Within a few years, the US can hardly have any legitimate reason to intervene there militarily. If it's just military occupation by China, then it's relatively simple: you beat them, chase them out. But now that it has been 'civilianized', you can no longer simply bomb the shit out of them, chase them out, deport them, tell them to go back, etc. Bannon used to say, “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years... There’s no doubt about that.". However by then it will have been too late.

The US is also currently too busy to stop this civilianizing process. It also needs alliance with China to counter North Korea. It's the perfect time for China to make this move (make me wonder if China also had some backroom dealing with NK).

Other parties in the region (Vietnam, Philippine, Japan, South Korea, etc.) cannot stop China from doing this, lacking either power or sufficient incentive. Japan and SK have absolutely no territorial claims, they cannot legitimately intervene. And even if some SEA country doesn't care about human lives, killing China's civilians will risk triggering a bigger war with China, which it cannot afford.

If things go optimally, China can take those islands without wasting a single bullet or life, then expand its presence in that whole water. This will greatly enhance China's political-economic capacity and influence in the region.


**********


http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-civil...china-sea/
Quote:The 'Civilization' of China’s Military Presence in the South China Sea
Chinese policy in the South China Sea increasingly focuses on boosting its civilian presence on disputed islands.

By Zhibo Qiu
January 21, 2017



From increasing land reclamation activities to expanding military infrastructure and capacities, many international observers have expressed concerns over China’s “militarization” of the South China Sea. However, some have neglected the tendencies which actually witnessed a shift toward to opposite policy direction — the “civilization” of China’s military presence on the disputed islands. This trend will have profound implications for China’s foreign policy in the region, and deserves more attention from policymakers and scholars.

The increasing civilian elements of China’s South China Sea military presence are part of China’s grand strategy to integrate military and civilian capacities nationwide. On January 8, a new industrial alliance on strengthening military-civilian integration was established in Beijing, supported by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. This alliance will create a cooperative platform to build up China’s military industrial capacity, drawing on resources from both state-owned defense companies and private companies.

Earlier this year, the Party issued a special circular on integrating military capacity building and economic development. The circular called for using market forces to optimize military resources nationwide, and actively guide private investment and technology to serve defense purposes, which in return will provide long-term economic development. Resources will be pooled and shared between military operations and civilian activities.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
In particular, the circular mentioned the implications for China’s maritime policy. According to the document, China will integrate its national interests in the territorial integrity of its oceans and economic exploitation of marine resources, and gradually form a joint force pooling the resources of the Party, state, military, police, and citizens to safeguard its maritime borders.

These plans are not only on paper; Beijing is already taking real-world steps toward these ends. A closer examination of China’s current activities in the South China Sea shed light on China’s integrated military-civilian strategy and its implications for the maritime disputes.

To legitimize the legal status of these islands domestically, China took an important step in July 2012, when it announced Sansha as a provincial-level city in Hainan Province. According to China, Sansha City has jurisdiction over the Paracels, Spratlys, and other disputed features. By legalizing the administrative status of these islands in its political system, China has set up a solid legal basis at home to claim territorial sovereignty against competing claims from Vietnam and the Philippines. Notably, the city government of Sansha is located on Yongxing (Woody) Island in the Paracels, which is also a center for China’s growing military capacity in the region.

The international legal status of Sansha City may face more challenges after an international tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled against China’s sweeping maritime claims. However, the set-up of a provincial-level city in Sansha has different implications domestically and is a substantial step toward making China’s military actions more “civilianized.” Intriguingly, the disputed islands, under Sansha’s leadership, are increasingly branded as a popular destination to attract patriotic tourists and private investors.

China plans to transform some of the islands into vacation destinations for domestic tourists. The local government has already launched public campaigns in the media, urging Chinese tourists to join the patriotic-themed cruise tours to these islands. On December 21, 2016, A new ship called Dream of the South Sea embarked on its first four-day cruise from Sanya City, on Hainan, to three islands and reefs in the South China Sea. Operated by the largest stated-owned travel agency, China International Travel Service, the themed cruise will include both patriotic and recreational activities. Aside from sightseeing, tourists will sign a long paper scroll to show their support for China’s territory sovereignty and sing China’s national anthem on the disputed islands.

The Dream of the South Sea, which can accommodate up to 893 people, will be scheduled to offer this cruise between four and six times per month. It is the second such ship operating in the South China Sea; a 300-person ship running the same route has already hosted 23,000 tourists since April 2013. From now on, the two ships will bring even more Chinese tourists to these islands.

This is only the start of China’s ambitious plan to increase its civilian presence in the South China Sea. In an interview with Xinhua News Agency, Xiao Jie, mayor of Sansha City, further confirmed that the city plans to focus on promoting tourism and developing tourist infrastructure. Sansha plans to offer a wide range of tourist services, including weddings, surfing, fishing and scuba diving trips, and wants to brand itself as an alternative tourist destination to Maldives. The local government’s blueprint also mapped out a plan to develop two to three marine national parks — likely to be in disputed areas as well — for sightseeing purposes.

Furthermore, the city government has formulated an “Action Plan on Promoting Sansha Tourism” with substantial funding from Hainan Province. Currently, Chinese tourists can only visit the South China Sea islands via cruises the depart from Sanya, a tourist city on Hainan Island. To attract more tourists, Sansha plans to open the airport on Yongxing (Woody) Island to civilian flights. Built in 1990, the Yongxing airport has long been an exclusively military airport, for the use of Chinese warplanes. Mayor Xiao Jie promised that soon Chinese tourists will be able visit Sansha via direct commercial flights from their home cities.

Opening the military airport to civilian flights is a perfect example of what the Party circular called pooling and sharing resources as part of military-civilian integration. China has also made a point of sending passenger jets to land on its newly-built airstrips on the Spratlys, opening up the potential for commercial flights to these islands as well.

Aside from tourism, Sansha is also trying to attract more permanent civilian residents. Sasha’s first local regulation, passed by the local legislature in January 2016, was the Administrative Measures on Sansha Residential Services. The local government has pledged to improve infrastructure for island residents, ranging from the water supply, electricity, and sewage to a full-coverage WiFi network.

As part of those efforts, China’s next step to “civilianize” these islands is to attract private investment. Feng Wenhai, Sansha’s deputy mayor, made it clear that Sansha welcomes private investors to support civilian infrastructure construction. Already, the local government plans to initiate a series of public-private-partnerships programs. Plus, Sansha has been branded as an important hub of China’s Maritime Silk Road, raising its profile for investors.

From the beginning, Sansha City has received preferential policies on taxation, which are attractive to private investors. According to the deputy mayor, so far 119 companies have registered in Sansha. Together with 110 individual businesses, they contributed approximately $106.6 million in local taxes in 2015.

If the local government in Sansha is as strategic as it is ambitious, it is likely that these tourism, infrastructure, and financial projects will gradually open to international private investors as well, further legitimizing China’s presence in the South China Sea.

In a few years, China will have a robust tourist industry, a well-populated residential community, and local businesses with mixed public-private ownership in the South China Sea. That will make it difficult for the international community to claim that China’s activities on the disputed islands are pure “militarization” anymore. Undoubtedly, the number of China’s South China Sea island residents and tourists will continue grow at an alarming rate, which will eventually change the nature of China’s military operations in these islands.

To some degree, these Chinese tourists and residents serve as a “civilian shield” in the South China Sea. The potential for large causalities among Chinese civilians will make foreign countries think twice before initiating military action. For all the stakeholders involved in the South China Sea disputes, the “civilianization” of China’s presence in the South China Sea is a significant factor to take into consideration when formulating future military strategy and foreign policy. The trend has already become a reality that international policy makers and experts can no longer afford to neglect.

Zhibo Qiu is an independent researcher and political consultant. Her research focuses on China’s domestic politics, foreign policy, and overseas investment. She holds master’s degrees from the University of Cambridge and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. The article represents the author’s personal opinions.

Harmony of Logos and Pathos. Unsentimental sensitivity. Rigorous creativity. Critical appreciation. Disillusioned Positivity. Alert enthusiasm. Disciplined tenacity
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2017 12:22 AM by Liberty Sea.)
04-23-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Liberty Sea's post:
Suits, Peregrine, Handsome Creepy Eel, Transsimian
Liberty Sea Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,209
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 15
Post: #136
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Part (1) of 3.
(04-22-2017 11:35 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Most of the arguments for China revolved around "wow, look how big their population and gross GDP is!"

The core thrust of my main argument was actually aiming at a much more long term and fundamental prospect, based on the persistence and sturdiness of the Han's racial substance and ethnic identity, its racial-evolutionary health and propagating-assimilating power, its high average IQ combined with the energy of its current national spirit. I haven't expounded these points sufficiently, since I figured it's a bit outside of the scope of thread (but if this is to be considered as The Master China Thread, then sure, I'll expound it at length). And while I have much to say on the subjects of its recent/current political-economic performances and prospects, such things are in the end only surface and ephemeral compared to its true fundamental, underlying strength. But since the topic at hand is whether China can attain superpower status within the foreseeable future, I'll address those subjects altogether.

****

1. There is much to agree with the points that Enigma has made. However my confidence in China's future remains high. My stance is that China, more likely than not, will attain superpower status. The specific time point is uncertain. My guess is that it would be somewhere within this century, and perhaps within my lifespan (if I live for another 50+ years).
One thing to keep in mind is that high GDP per capita is more of an indication of the quality of life of a country’s citizen, than the power and influence of the country itself. America have lower GDP per capita than a lot of country, but wield more power than them ever will.

2.
Quote:In short, you have the second largest economy in the world hanging its hat on Lenovo and two mid-level smartphone manufacturers. That is not at all impressive.
Can you tell me at which stages of development that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan had 300+ million people living on $2 a day?

I get your point, although I can't help pointing out that the population of all those countries combined wouldn't muster up to 300 million. 25% of their population would be more exact.

In some measures China has indeed underperformed compared to the economic miracles of Japan and South Korea. This was in part due to some strategical missteps of China's leadership, but also in part due to the fact that the difficulties that its leadership faced is much larger than that which Japan's and Korea's leaderships had to face. My argument is such underperformance does not mean China's potential is lower than that of those countries, but that it's actually higher, just not yet - and nowhere near- optimally realized.

2.2. Japan modernized way before China did. And although it was 'devastated' in WW2 and the two nuclear bombs, the damage was in comparison much smaller than what China suffered. Japan still has a highly developed framework and high-skilled human resources, whereas China's population was still predominantly peasants and its intellectual class was crushed by Mao and the Gang of Four's Cultural Revolution.

South Korea also opened its market before China did. Japan and SK's technological tradition is longer, more developed.

2.3. And because America 'took care' of Japan’s security, it could focus on developing its economy. Such is the upside of being America's ally (but that also has consequences, as we shall see). SK also heavily depended on America for protection, freeing its hand to engineer economic growth. Another benefit of being ally of the most economically and technologically developed superpower on Earth is that Japan and SK both enjoyed is enhanced economic and technological exchanges. Japan and SK wouldn't have achieved what they did, as fast as they did, without tremendous help from America (be proud, Americans!)

Meanwhile the CPC had to guard against the US and other possibly hostile forces attempting to overthrow it. It has had to guard the territory of China by itself. China also went sour with the USSR - it didn't have a powerful ally to rely on for economic and technological exchanges when it opened the market.

2.4. Also, when China entered the world market, the high-end market was occupied by Japan, SK, the US and other developed countries. It’s nigh impossible for an inexperienced, unprepared newcomer to compete in that market, so China had to go the route of competing in low- and mid-end market, producing cheap commodities. Even late into the game, entering that high-end market is still a challenge, due to things like brand recognition, brand familiarity, brand loyalty, and market saturation, etc. To successfully compete internationally, it's not enough for China's products to be on par with Japan's and SK's products; they had to be superior, and better marketed! Even if some China's luxury goods are just as good, they would mostly and firstly be consumed in their homeland for patriotic reason. Which is one of the reasons why China has targeted fresh markets like Africa.

2.5. Also, as you yourself have said:

Quote:And China is almost 30x times larger than South Korea. Large countries do not grow in the same way that small countries do, hence the reason that Taiwan, Singapore, etc. were able to grow so quickly.

Looking at the difficulties China has had to face, I think we could be a bit more lenient on scolding China for not being as 'impressive' as Japan and SK.

In 1950, China’s urban population was only 13%. Japan’s was 63%. In 2015 China’s was 56% and Japan’s was 93%. China’s urban population increased by 43% whereas Japan’s increased by 30% (there is not much less for Japan to urbanize anyway, but that also mean, Japan has nearly reached the limit of its economic potential, whereas China still has tremendous potential left to realize). South Korea’s urban population went from 18% to 82% within that same span, which made sense considering its size.

Urbanizing 40% of population as massive as that of China is a tremendous task. Consider that within the same time span, India’s urban population has gone from 18% to only 33%. India has a relatively more developed high-tech IT industry than that of China, but still it does not truly have strong IT industry of its own. Focusing on high-end goods while the country still has not developed its urban condition and industrial base is not a good strategy. You do not produce high-tech by yourself in an industrial vacuum, it needs a co-ordination of numerous inter-related industries.

In the primary stage of development, China did what was most suited for its situation: moving people from farm to city and putting them to work in factories – and through doing so gradually urbanizing and upgrading the country conditions of production, preparing for higher stages – a process that is bound to be longer for large countries than for small countries. China has stayed on low-end manufacturing for as long as it could, longer than any developed nation at a similar stage of development, so as to suck out as much juice from this market as it could. It's a double-edged sword. While it has harvested much more from this market than Japan and Korea or any other country ever could, this strategy also make a much needed transition into high-end manufacturing more difficult. This has its downside for sure, and it is certainly true that optimally China could have done much better, could have moved to high-end manufacturing sooner, but let's not pretend that this means China is stupid for staying on low-end manufacturing for this long, or that the mainland Chinese people are inherently lower in their engineering and innovating capacity than Japan and SK, incapable of moving forwards and doomed to stuck on churning out cheap shit for eternity, or even that its "communist" government system is incompatible with a transition into high-end manufacturing.

3.
Quote:Yes, they haven't needed brands, which is exactly my point. Their economy has to undergo a massive shift in focus in order to accomplish the level of growth that's being predicted...
Again, if China is going to accomplish the type of growth people are predicting, they're going to have to reinvent their economy. They're not going to quadruple their GDP paying wage slaves $1 an hour to churn out products all day.

I can't agree more. China's leadership would wholeheartedly agree. They're keenly aware of the problem. Despite what Samseau said in his currency manipulation thread, wages in China are going up faster than currency depreciation. There is no evil conspiracy to keep the poor Chinese forever in poverty and wage slavery. The quality of life in China has been improving for most of its workers.

Quote:These days, China's labor costs are only 4% cheaper than those in the U.S. when productivity is factored in, according to Oxford Economics.
That's because wages in China have risen much faster than increases in productivity. Coupled with a strengthening yuan, Chinese labor costs have grown dramatically. Meanwhile, huge productivity improvements in the U.S. have helped keep labor costs down.
The bottom line: Manufacturing in China is no longer a surefire way to save on the cost of labor.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/eco...ductivity/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-you-think

So manufacturers have been trying to relocate their factories and find cheap labor else, like in SEA, eg. Vietnam.

Quote:China doesn’t release data on factory closings or relocations. But according to an analysis by researcher Justina Yung of Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the Federation of Hong Kong Industries trade group, the number of factories owned by Hong Kong companies in the Pearl River Delta near Hong Kong fell by a third to 32,000 in 2013 from a 2006 peak. Many of those that left moved to lower-wage countries.

Labor costs in China have grown faster than consumer inflation for years, according to consultancy BMI Research, and are currently nearly four times those in Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.

Some textile and clothing manufacturers see advantages in Vietnam as well. “Moving to Vietnam is a trend,” says Wang Wei, general manager of Guangzhou Weihong Footwear Industrial Co., which established its first factory in 2013 in the southeast Vietnamese town of Thuan An to supply shoe makers Nike Inc., Adidas AG and Puma SE. Weihong now plans to build a second footwear factory and shift several textile factories to Vietnam from China.

China's leadership knows that it cannot simply continue with the strategy of putting farmers into factory and depreciating its currency - it's trying to contain its currency from falling in fact (and this means: Trump likely won't ever label China a currency manipulator or put a tariff on its exports)

3.1. The Xi administration's next economic strategy to solve this problem is called "Made in China 2025". This is China's attempt towards a homegrown knowledge economy with high-end/intelligent manufacturing.

From the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Quote:Q1: What is "Made in China 2025"?

A1: "Made in China 2025" is an initiative to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry. The initiative draws direct inspiration from Germany's "Industry 4.0" plan, which was first discussed in 2011 and later adopted in 2013. The heart of the "Industry 4.0" idea is intelligent manufacturing, i.e., applying the tools of information technology to production. In the German context, this primarily means using the Internet of Things to connect small and medium-sized companies more efficiently in global production and innovation networks so that they could not only more efficiently engage in mass production but just as easily and efficiently customize products.

The Chinese effort is far broader, as the efficiency and quality of Chinese producers are highly uneven, and multiple challenges need to be overcome in a short amount of time if China is to avoid being squeezed by both newly emerging low-cost producers and more effectively cooperate and compete with advanced industrialized economies. The English translation of "中国制造2025" -- "Made in China 2025" -- does capture the goal of localization, but it misses the focus on the manufacturing qua manufacturing. The plan was drafted by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) over two and a half years, with input from 150 experts from the China Academy of Engineering.


Q2: What are its key contents?

A2: Based on the State Council document summarizing the plan released last week, "Made in China 2025" has clear principles, goals, tools, and sector focus.

Its guiding principles are to have manufacturing be innovation-driven, emphasize quality over quantity, achieve green development, optimize the structure of Chinese industry, and nurture human talent.

The goal is to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry, making it more efficient and integrated so that it can occupy the highest parts of global production chains. The plan identifies the goal of raising domestic content of core components and materials to 40% by 2020 and 70% by 2025.

Although there is a significant role for the state in providing an overall framework, utilizing financial and fiscal tools, and supporting the creation of manufacturing innovation centers (15 by 2020 and 40 by 2025), the plan also calls for relying on market institutions, strengthening intellectual property rights protection for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the more effective use of intellectual property (IP) in business strategy, and allowing firms to self-declare their own technology standards and help them better participate in international standards setting.

Although the goal is to upgrade industry writ large, the plan highlights 10 priority sectors: 1) New advanced information technology; 2) Automated machine tools & robotics; 3) Aerospace and aeronautical equipment; 4) Maritime equipment and high-tech shipping; 5) Modern rail transport equipment; 6) New-energy vehicles and equipment; 7) Power equipment; 8) Agricultural equipment; 9) New materials; and 10) Biopharma and advanced medical products.

Q3: Is "Made in China 2025" an extension of the 2010 plan to support "Strategic Emerging Industries"?


A3: The unveiling of "Made in China 2025" suggests a major departure from the Hu-Wen administration's approach to innovation and technology upgrading. The heart of their approach was the Medium- and Long-Term Plan on the Development of Science & Technology. A 15-year plan issued in 2006, the plan's key concept was "indigenous innovation" (自主创新) and focused entirely on advanced technologies. The culmination of the plan was the identification in October 2010 of seven "strategic emerging industries" (战略性新兴产业) that were seen as vital for China to achieve mastery in if it was to become an advanced economy. The core of the plan focused on developed leading-edge advanced technologies through investment in R&D from state and industry sources, accumulation of intellectual property, setting of distinct technical standards, and leveraging access to the Chinese market in exchange for foreign technologies. The plan set a target of SEI-related industries to account for 8% of the economy by 2015 and 15% by 2020. The plan was developed jointly by National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST), with supplemental input from MIIT and other ministries.

"Made in China 2025" is different in multiple respects: 1) It focuses on the entire manufacturing process and not just innovation; 2) It promotes the development of not only advanced industries, but traditional industries and modern services; 3) There is still a focus on state involvement, but market mechanisms are more prominent than in SEI. For example, instead of focusing on top-down, unique domestic technical standards, the attention is on self-declared standards and the international standards system; and 4) There are clear and specific measures for innovation, quality, intelligent manufacturing, and green production, with benchmarks identified for 2013 and 2015 and goals set for 2020 and 2025. In this regard, the proposal reads much more like a five-year plan (which I believe is intentional), even though laid out over 10 years.

The plan's language is also very different than under Hu-Wen. The term "indigenous innovation" appears only twice and "SEI" only once. There is no obvious effort to paint this as the successor to or extension of SEI, but in fact, to show that an SEI-oriented focus was too narrow and built on a misunderstanding of China's core needs and comparative advantage. In addition, the original focus on innovation took inspiration from similar innovation programs developed in the United States, Japan, and the EU during the 2000's in the wake of the information technology revolution and a common concern about technological competitiveness. As mentioned above, "Made in China 2025" is more consistent with how Germany and Japan approach their economies than the United States.

Although there will no doubt be problems with implementation and perhaps create new market-access challenges for multi-national companies (MNCs), from a Chinese national-interest perspective, this plan is much better conceived and more appropriate for China's situation than the "indigenous innovation" approach and SEIs. It will be more coordinated and utilize a wider array of policy tools. If a "Made in China 2025" leading group has not already been created, I expect there to be one soon.

Q4: What are the implications for MNCs?


A4: MNCs face new challenges and opportunities with this plan. In terms of challenges, a clear goal is to make Chinese companies more competitive across the board, to localize production of components and final products, and to have Chinese firms move up the value-added chain in production and innovation networks, and to achieve much greater international brand recognition. In addition, the plan calls for Chinese firms to ramp up their efforts to invest abroad, and to do so by becoming more familiar with overseas cultures and markets, and to strengthen investment and operation risk management. (The drafters are clearly sensitive to the high proportion of failed overseas investments.) It specifies focus on the countries that together make up the Silk Road initiative, but it is meant to apply everywhere. Government measures and market incentives will be used to pursue these goals. In some ways, this represents a frontal challenge to advanced manufacturing in the US, Europe, and East Asia.

At the same time, MNCs and other countries can benefit in three ways. First, there will be greater investment and attention to the ten industries, and MNCs that align themselves with these sectors and the general goals of this plan can benefit from its focus. In some ways, there will be greater competition from Chinese companies and a buy-local push, but it's a guarantee that MNCs will be needed to provide critical components, technology, and management for this plan is to work. Second, to the extent China genuinely embraces intelligent manufacturing, it will be much easier for Chinese companies and MNCs to collaborate, both in China and elsewhere. This is a big 'if', but it is potentially a way to reduce the zero-sum elements of the business relationship. And third, most broadly, if China successfully upgrades its manufacturing capacity, that will have meant it has also likely improved its overall economic governance, including its financial and fiscal systems, strengthened the education system, and increased access to varied sources of information. These should all be of general benefit to the global economy and MNCs.

Q5: How is Premier Li Keqiang's recent tour of Latin America related to this plan?

A5: Strengthening relations with Latin America has been a priority for China's leadership. In early 2014 Beijing announced the creation of the China-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum, which met for the first time this January. Xi Jinping has made two trips to the region, and Li Keqiang just completed a 9-day tour of Brazil, Columbia, Peru, and Chile. Li signed dozens of agreements promoting economic cooperation, worth over $100 billion. Although Premier Li didn't specifically tout "Made in China 2025," he emphasized that China's renewed focus on advanced manufacturing would be beneficial to Latin America's economy, moving the commercial relationship's focus away from natural resources toward basic infrastructure, industry, and information technology. Li stressed that expanded Chinese investment in everything from high-speed rail to telecom should also help Latin America upgrade its manufacturing capacity and industrial structure as well. We can expect that the Chinese leadership will continue to carry a similar message wherever their travels take them.

3.2. At the same time, China wants to maintain its advantage in low-end manufacturing at least to some extent, in order to maintain the high growth rate and upward mobility that has served to keep the CPC in power, and to continue to urbanize the country. To do this, it is trying to move its low-end factories to its poorer provinces:

Quote:The central government is concerned about losses of low-end manufacturers to other countries and so is giving them incentives to move to lower-cost parts of China. But at the same time, it wants to raise wages and spur consumer demand by developing more high-tech manufacturing, such as semiconductors and robotics.

Policy makers thus walk a fine line as they try to keep wages from rising so fast they undermine competitiveness for one type of factory work, while seeking to promote other types of factory work to boost incomes to create a more consumer-driven economy.

... China’s share of total global manufacturing output was 25% last year, up from 7% in 2000, according to HSBC Ltd. To contain the loss of industries to lower-wage countries, it has offered subsidies and a range of incentives for manufacturers to relocate to cities in western and central China, where wages are as much as 30% lower than in eastern provinces.

Far western Xinjiang province, a major cotton-growing region, has budgeted 20 billion yuan ($3 billion) in tax benefits, rent and power subsidies to attract textile and apparel companies. “The country is doing crazy things to support Xinjiang and the textile industry,” says Hu Yiteng, deputy general manager of Flying Eagle Textile Co., which is considering a move to Xinjiang. “It’s near-guaranteed profit.”

At the same, moving its low-end and polluting factories to developing SEA countries such as Vietnam:

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/busines...etnam.html
Quote:... China's plan is to replace cheap energy-consuming industries that pollute the environment. They expect to have high-tech content accounting for at least 70 percent in products by 2025.

As such, China's low technologies will be transferred to other countries. Vietnam may be among them. "That is a very high risk," said Luong Van Khoi, deputy director of the National Center for Socio-Economic Information and Forecast.

China is also trying to cut the number of coal thermopower plants.

“It is possible that they would relocate the plants to Vietnam,” Khoi warned, adding that some Chinese investment projects have entered the country already.

“We need to keep a close watch over the situation, or Vietnam will be a dumping ground for other countries,” he said.

An MPI report showed that China has surpassed Japan, the US and other countries to become the third largest foreign investor in Vietnam, just after South Korea and Singapore.

In the first three months of the year, China registered $823 million worth of investments in 58 projects.
(Making a dumpground out of developing countries is not a practice unique to China, and other Western nations have done far worse: https://www.theguardian.com/global-devel...-countries)

3.3. China's also aggressively pressuring European companies to hand over technologies in exchange for access to market, which has received quite a bit of complain from those companies:

Quote:China's plan to boost domestic manufacturing by 2025 is "highly problematic" and could be used to discriminate against foreign firms in favour of Chinese competitors, a top European business lobby has said.

Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan calls for a dramatic increase in domestically-made products in 10 sectors - from robotics to biopharmaceuticals - that the government hopes will accelerate an industrial upgrade as economic growth slows.

But foreign business groups have grown more vociferous in criticising Beijing's lacklustre market reforms, and worry the plan will force members to give up key technology in order to access the market or bypass them altogether.

"Made in China 2025" amounts to a "large-scale import substitution plan aimed at nationalising key industries" or "severely curtailing the position of foreign business", the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China said in a report.

Chinese policies, including hundreds of billions of euros in subsidies, were already harming European business, the chamber said.

"Under recently passed legislation in the new energy vehicle industry, for example, European business is facing intense pressure to turn over advanced technology in exchange for near-term market access," the group said.
Read more at: http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/...66fe5763af

Dick moves, right? China is handling this like the thug state that it is. Some calls it protectionist - inspired by Trump with a thuggy twist? But since we are not discussing morality, it matters not whether they are dicks - what matters is whether they are effective.

3.4. Let’s look at a few key industries in the “Made in China 2025”. Bloomberg has an article on China's growing robot industry:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...t-industry

Quote:Standing in the way are established robotics superpowers like Japan, South Korea, Germany and the U.S. Yet China has three big advantages--scale, growth momentum and money. It’s home to the world’s fastest-growing robotics market and vast manufacturing sector where companies are under pressure to automate. China overtook Japan in 2013 in unit sales domestically. Guangdong province, for example, announced in 2015 plans to offer 943 billion yuan ($137 billion) in subsidies to about 2,000 local companies, including both robot makers and those making autos, home appliances, and construction materials, that are looking to automate their plants.

[Image: FzWROqn.png]

That creates a big opening for Chinese start-ups. “The mantle of leadership is wide open,” said Justin Rose, a partner and manufacturing expert with Boston Consulting Group in Chicago. “China has the ability to rise to prominence.”

To get there, China has a two-pronged strategy. President Xi Jinping’s government wants local industrial robotics makers like E-Deodar Robot Equipment Co., Anhui Efort Intelligent Equipment Co., and Siasun Robot & Automation Co. to take on foreign players including Japan’s Fanuc Corp. or California-based Adept Technology Inc. for leadership in the $11 billion market. Chinese corporate demand is expected to power double-digit demand for factory bots, according to Gudrun Litzenberger, General Secretary of the International Federation of Robotics. In 2016, China installed 90,000 new robots. That’s one-third of the world total and 30 percent more than the year before.

Yet China’s ambitions go beyond factory robots that bolt and weld. Earlier this year, officials deployed a pollution-monitoring robot in the Zhengzhou East Railway Station, one of China’s busiest, and a Chinese deep-sea robot broke a new record, descending to 6,329 meters (21,000 feet) in the Mariana Trench in March. Xi, who in 2014 called for a “robot revolution,” was greeted by a droid when he visited a top science academy in Anhui province last year. “I’m very happy to see you, dear President. I wish you happiness every day,” said Jia Jia, who is also known as "robot goddess" for her good looks, the China Daily reported.

Right now, China lags rival nations when it comes to robot adoption. China had only 49 robots per 10,000 workers in 2015, versus 176 for the U.S., Germany’s 301 and South Korea’s world-leading 531. Yet if China’s robot build-out succeeds, it may be able to stanch the flow of factories moving overseas.

Under a sweeping proposal called “Made in China 2025,” as well as a five-year robot plan launched last April, Beijing plans to focus on automating key sectors of the economy including car manufacturing, electronics, home appliances, logistics, and food production. At the same time, the government wants to increase the share of indigenous-branded robots in China to more than 50 percent of total sales volume by 2020 from 31 percent last year.

Robot makers and the companies that automate will be eligible for subsidies, low-interest loans, tax waivers, and rent-free land. “Fair or unfair, you can expect Chinese companies will get a lot of preferential treatment and funding,” said Rose with Boston Consulting. “They actually have a comprehensive plan to get there. And their track record isn’t terrible either.”

[Image: Ne5fq21.jpg]

The Chinese productivity push is being watched with trepidation by global competitors. “They’re putting a lot of money and a lot of effort into automation and robotics in China. There’s nothing keeping them from coming after our market,” said John Roemisch, vice-president of sales and marketing for Fanuc America Corp.

There are obstacles for China to overcome, as well:

Quote:Demand for robots in China is clear enough. Less certain is whether Chinese robotics companies have the tech savvy to compete globally. Lured by tax breaks and cheap land, some 800 Chinese robotics companies have set up shop. Trouble is, some startups buy key components from Siemens or Fanuc, put them in a robot shell with an arm, and then slap on a Chinese brand name, says Chai Yueting, director of the National Engineering Laboratory for E-Commerce Technologies at Tsinghua University.

“China has lots of robot companies. But their technology often is from the Japan or U.S.,” said Chai. “China’s own specific robot technology is still very limited.”

Chai predicts that at least half of China’s robot makers will eventually shut their operations. An overcrowded field is a challenge the government has also acknowledged. China risks being inundated with low-end robotics, Xin Guobin, the vice minister of industry and information technology, was quoted as saying in state media in March.

Still, with China’s huge demand, its financial heft, and the government’s clear desire to develop, Chai predicts a handful of globally competitive Chinese robot makers are likely to emerge.
...
The technology gap that must be overcome by Chinese robot-makers is still substantial, and it’s hard to imagine so many startup companies surviving long-term. However, foreign executives see China producing some globally competitive robotic companies eventually.

“As they learn how to compete, they’ll be a force to be reckoned with,” said Stuart Shepherd, CEO of Gudel Inc., the U.S. unit of the eponymous Swiss robot manufacturer.

4. China is not only making a change in what it produces, but also the people that produce them. Remember that in China STEM majors have much higher salaries than they do in the US:

Quote:NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Low-wage, unskilled labor was once its competitive edge, but now China is quickly rising as the world's largest supplier of college-educated workers.

By 2030, China alone will account for 30% of the world's new college-educated workers, predicts a study by the McKinsey Global Institute.

In comparison, the United States will account for only 5%, and collectively, advanced countries including the U.S., Japan and much of Europe will account for only 14% of new highly educated workers.

"Investments in education that China made much earlier are now paying off," said Anu Madgavkar, a senior fellow for the McKinsey Global Institute. "China invested in opening a lot of schools and they ramped up college enrollment."

China is also churning out far more science, technology, engineering and mathematics grads, giving it a leg up in some of the world's fastest growing sectors.
In 2008, only 14% of U.S. grads earned degrees in those specialties, whereas 42% of China's college grads did so.

Overall, the results of the study point to a global need for more college grads. It predicts employers around the world will be faced with a shortage of 38 million college-educated workers and a surplus of 90 million unskilled workers in 2030.

"An unprecedented level of response is required to raise education rates and then on the other hand, we also need a concerted effort to create more jobs for low-skilled workers," Madgavkar said.

In advanced countries, the imbalance is worrisome because it could lead to more income inequality and long-term joblessness, the report said.

4.1. It's trying to improve the quality of its workforce, by co-operating with educationally advanced foreign institutions.

For example:

Quote:http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2015...ed-workers
China: Improving Technical and Vocational Education to Meet the Demand for High-Skilled Workers

In response to the growing demand for higher level technical and professional skills, Guangdong Province in China worked with the World Bank to improve the quality and relevance of its vocational and technical education by promoting competency-based training and strengthening the delivery system, directly benefiting more than 9,000 students, as well as school teachers and administrators. The lessons learned from implementing the project was disseminated and used to inform policy development.

Solution

The Guangdong Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project was designed as a pilot to explore innovative approaches to reform of the technical and vocational education and training system in China. The following approaches were adopted to address the challenges identified:

-promoting and rolling out competence-based and demand-driven school reform;
-capturing lessons by closely monitoring and evaluating the project progress and subsequently disseminate them to other provinces and countries; and
-conducting surveys and data analysis for evidence-based management and policy development.

Results

Implemented between 2009 and 2015, the project help upgraded three project schools and achieve the following specific results:

The percentage of students that passed the skill certification exams increased to 90.37 percent by 2014, up from 70 percent in 2009 when the project started.
The percentage of graduates finding employment within six months increased from 86 percent in 2009 to over 98 percent by 2014. The relevance between jobs and majors in 2013 was 59 percent for technical college graduates and 46 percent for secondary technical school graduates, up from 48 percent and 45 percent respectively in 2010.

The average starting monthly salary showed an increase from RMB1,744 (about US$282) in 2009 to RMB2,625 (about US$424) in 2014.

At the national level, three policy studies themed, respectively, on financing of vocational education, quality improvement in curriculum development and school-industry collaboration, and long-term governance structure were produced, providing input for the preparation work for the 13th Five-Year-Plan. Moreover, results and lessons from the project were used to inform the development of two national-level guidelines related to technical education and training, and are expected to also inform the revision of China’s Vocational Education Law.
At the provincial level, the government’s directives on promoting technical education in Guangdong that drew on the project schools’ experience in competency-based curriculum development and implementation.

In addition, operational school-industry advisory bodies were put in place, with established guidelines and standard forms of contract for school-industry partnerships; teachers and administrators benefited from a variety of training activities; competency-based training syllabus, curriculum standards and textbooks were developed, tested and rolled out; training space was expanded for students to practice their newly acquired skills; and school management information system was enhanced.
....
Bank Group Contribution

The World Bank provided an IBRD loan of US$20 million in 2009, complemented by US$25.52 million in counterpart funding from the Guangdong Provincial Government, and US$0.4 +8million from the “Trust Fund for Bank-Korea Partnership on Poverty Reduction and Socio-Economic Development” to support the policy studies and impact evaluation. The Bank also brought its knowledge and experience in developing technical and vocational education and training projects in China and worldwide. This was the third such project supported by the World Bank in China, after the Vocational and Technical Education Project (1990-1996) and the Vocational Education Reform Project (1996-2002).

...

Moving Forward

Competency-based and demand-driven technical and vocational education and training continues to be promoted through exchanges and workshops, the two provincial policy documents, the three national policy studies and different provincial directives, providing a strong foundation for expansion.

The ongoing World Bank-funded Guangdong Social Security Integration and Rural Worker Training Project and Xinjiang Vocational and Technical Education and Training Project both continue a number of activities that were piloted under this project, including the development and roll-out of competency-based training, and strengthening school-industry linkages.

Beneficiaries

Wei Bincheng, Student at Guangdong Urban Construction Secondary and Tertiary School:

“In the past, teachers were leaders in class, and students were just listening to lectures. Now a new mode of learning has been introduced - teachers and students discuss and learn the subject together. Performance assessments used to be based on exam results alone. Now school puts more emphasis on our practical skills.”

He Xiaowen, Student at Guangdong Light Industry Secondary and Tertiary School:

“We are now encouraged to ‘learn by doing’ and ‘learn through trial and error’. We focus more on how to complete an assignment rather than just memorizing what teachers say in class.”

4.2. According to the Job Market Monitor, there is no acute gap in hard/technical skills, the problem is soft skills.
Quote:https://jobmarketmonitor.com/2016/10/24/...port-says/

China – No acute skills gap, but a lack of soft skills report says

As China moves towards a services- and knowledge-driven economy, one of the main constraints will lie in the ability of its workforce to gain the requisite skills and knowledge to make the transition to a high-income country.

There is little evidence to suggest that China suffers from an acute skills gap across wide occupational areas. A surge in tertiary education graduates over the past decade has provided employers with a large pool of workers to recruit from.
All the companies interviewed said that a lack of soft skills posed a much greater challenge than the absence of hard skills. Notable soft skills mentioned as posing the greatest business and organisational challenges in China include leadership, communication and self-motivation.

The soft skills gap is still seen as being most prominent in middle management roles, with wages for these positions continuing to see rapid increases. However, there is a broader and rising demand for soft skills training at all levels, with companies generally dissatisfied with current training options available.

In manufacturing/engineering sectors, finding the requisite hard skills in the open labour market is a challenge. However, these skills tend to be specific to the technologies and processes deployed by individual employers. New recruits at these firms typically tend to undergo extensive in-house training, sometimes in co-operation with third-party training providers. In comparison, interviewees in high value-added services sectors, such as banking and finance, indicated a greater demand for training, which is likely due to the faster pace of development in this sector of China’s economy.

As China’s domestic firms become increasingly intertwined with the global economy, they are under pressure to bring business practices closer to international standards. Training in project management processes will be a notable area of growth in the coming years, as will training on overseas business regulation and cross-cultural management.

There is scope for international education and training providers to participate in China’s rapidly growing market for skills training and there remains a high degree of interest in learning from foreign institutions. The main area of unmet demand, according to interviewees, is currently the soft side of personal development, but skills associated with sectors that remain underdeveloped in China are also likely to be areas where international education providers can gain more traction in preparation for growth in the near future.

I think it's only a matter of time until the Chinese college-graduates get the soft skills they need, at least in managerial areas and the likes, unless they genetically disposed to be spergy dweebs - which I don't think they are. The Chinese have a knack for being cunning after all. They are going to be force to be reckoned with in the future:

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/metro/socie...aily.shtml
Quote:
CHINA, a seven-year-old member of the WorldSkills International, wants to host the 46th WorldSkills Competition in Shanghai in 2021 — and the message from the government is clear – the country is ready.

Shanghai is up against Basel, Switzerland, and the decision on who will host the 2021 competition will be announced in October.

China, the world’s most populous country and its second largest economy, is striving to upgrade its manufacturing sector and is very much aware of the importance of preparing a more skilled workforce.

An estimated 800 million of the country’s population are “economically active” and two years ago the State Council published “Made in China 2025,” a strategy document calling for more technologically driven, innovative and environmentally friendly industrial development.

Furthermore, several documents have been issued since 2010 about improving vocational education and specific mid and long-term plans to build a highly skilled workforce.

Currently there are 165 million skilled workers in China and 45 million highly skilled workers. About 27 million students are studying at more than 12,000 vocational schools and colleges, spanning all skill categories.
From 2010 to 2015, the government’s financial contribution to vocational education doubled.

China was accepted as a WorldSkills International (WSI) member in 2010 and the WorldSkills Competition has played a major role in the development of the country’s vocational education, which integrates standards of the competition into education programs and various domestic skill competitions.

China’s successes in the competition has seen its participants receive much media attention.

Already 86 training centers that use pedagogical methods generated from the competition that put practice first have been set up around the country. It is planned to open more of them in less developed areas, as young participants from China make a growing impression at the competition.

China made its debut at the competition in 2011, when six participants competed in London 2011 in six skill sectors.

In 2015, 32 participants traveled to San Paolo, Brazil, to compete at 29 skills.
China’s representatives won five gold medals in Brazil, six silver and four bronze — its best year so far. For this year’s competition, which will be held in Abu Dhabi in October, China will send 47 participants.

Through its participation in the past three editions of the competition, China has also built up a growing team of competent technical experts, translators and juries. As a result China is now capable of hosting the competition on its own.

Zhang Lixin, director of the Professional Capacity Building Department, which comes under China’s Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, said at a press conference in Shanghai on March 29 that bringing the competition to China would created a win-win scenario.

“Hundreds of thousands of Chinese audiences, especially teenagers among them, will be inspired by the excellence of the participants of the competition, while the competition itself will for the first time have a big exposure to this part of the world,” he said.

4.4. There will be a lot of obstacles and problems for sure. But with an workforce increasingly high-skilled and numerous, it is more likely than not that China will transition into a high-end manufacturing country that can compete globally by 2030, capable of innovation and clearing its path to superpower status in the further future.
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functio...innovation

5. China is also learning from the US and developing its own Military-Industrial Complex with Chinese characteristics. It’s called Civil-Military Integration.

Quote:China's Answer to the US Military-Industrial Complex
The Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development represents a new trend in civil-military relations.

On January 22, China’s Xi Jinping added a new title to his long list of state and party functions: the chairman of the Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development (CCIMCD). The aim of this commission is to cut costs and integrate existing civilian technologies and services into the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Two months later, China announced its smallest military budget increase in a near decade. Improving efficiency and tapping into China’s existing economic power has become the new trend in China’s civil-military relations.

Background on the Commission and Chinese Civil-Military Integration

The CCIMCD is a coordination body for the integration of civilian and military sectors and is staffed by members of the Politburo and the Standing Committee. The aim of the commission is to promote innovation for dual-use technologies and integrate civilian sector services into the PLA. In practice, the CCIMCD is the latest of Xi’s efforts to reform the PLA and create efficiency for the largest standing army in the world. To understand the CCIMCD, one should first look at the developments leading up to China’s proposed civil-military integration.

Over the years, China made its own efforts to “catch up” (at all costs) to the United States. The latest attempt is to build a domestic version of the defense military-industrial complex. Xi noted as early as March 13, 2016 that “military innovations should take a central role in producing indigenous military wares; and that the governments from the state to the local levels should promote integration between the civilian and the military sectors.” This announcement was followed up by a report released from the PLA Daily on March 27 on reducing compensated services to the civilian sectors and drawing service directly from the civilian sector.
On July 21, the Recommendation on Integrating Economic and Defense Developments was issued by the Central Military Committee. In the recommendation, the term “civil-military integration” was first mentioned as a reform to provide the military with better services while at the same time helping advance the Chinese economy. The broad Keynesian statement should not be unfamiliar to China watchers, but the recommendations also laid out a military strategic goal for China. The recommendation stated that by 2020, collaborations between civilian and military sectors should provide better dual-use technologies, direct civilian participation, and services for the PLA. The recommendation also called for a loosening of the barriers between military technologies and services that had been long withheld from the private sector, a new training and promotion program for civilian experts, and a co-development scheme for the Chinese military installations by civilian contractors. Especially on the last point, the recommendation emphasized that maritime installations should be a key priority.

The July recommendation was endorsed by Xi and officially adopted on January 22, 2017, after a series of high-profile conferences and expositions demonstrating existing dual-use technologies and services. Branding civil-military relation as a new policy agenda, the CCIMCD was established to coordinate the July recommendation to create efficiency and political support for China’s national security strategies.
Xi’s chairmanship on the committee raises speculations for the private sector. To many, the CCIMCD may create an opportunity to set a low bar for private sector businesses to gain entrance into the lucrative defense market. From January, civil-military integration has since risen to one of the most frequently used terms in Chinese mainstream media, and many are speculating about the economic incentives for the Chinese private sector to be engaged with the patriotic duty of providing service and technology to the PLA. However, what may seem to be a boon for private sectors may also cause trouble in the long run.

Read more at: http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/chinas-an...l-complex/

6. To get to its power status China needs a long peace to develop. It cannot afford a war with a major power, especially with the US. It was smart of China to quickly populate the South China Sea island chains with its people during a temporary alliance with the US against North Korea so as to avoid a war with the US and its ally while at the same time expanding its power.
For its own interest, China wants peace (as do I for my interest). The longer the peace, the more time for China to develop, and the more the US destroy itself with political correctness, multiculturalism and ethnic replacement. A war may end up reviving the US’s culture of masculinity.

Ironically enough, a big war or a tremendously threatening enemy country is precisely what the US needs in order to regain its vitality. War and war pressure accelerate technological development and forge masculinity.
https://aeon.co/essays/has-progress-in-s...-to-a-halt

Let’s not forget that it’s WWII and the Cold War that propelled the US to superpower status. China does not have the US’s geographical advantage which enabled to the US to stay outside of damages inflicted on its own land, so it cannot benefit from war the same way the US did. The US also has to thank the USSR for propelling its military-industrial complex to its current size:

Quote:China’s quest for superpower status is undermined by something else, too: weak incentives to make the sacrifices required. The United States owes its far-reaching military capabilities to the existential imperatives of the Cold War. The country would never have borne the burden it did had policymakers not faced the challenge of balancing the Soviet Union, a superpower with the potential to dominate Eurasia. (Indeed, it is no surprise that two and a half decades after the Soviet Union collapsed, it is Russia that possesses the second-greatest military capability in the world.) Today, China faces nothing like the Cold War pressures that led the United States to invest so much in its military. The United States is a far less threatening superpower than the Soviet Union was: however aggravating Chinese policymakers find U.S. foreign policy, it is unlikely to engender the level of fear that motivated Washington during the Cold War.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/201...7a27a7234d

I’d say that China is driven by something else (something quite similar to what propelled Japan into an imperial power), and currently it is far more driven than the US to strengthen itself, but that is for another time. On the other hand, China is nowhere near threatening to the US as the USSR was. Trump is not enough to stop femininization of the US (ironically enough, Trump has inspired and emboldened many in China, causing a surge in masculine spirit there - he may end up making China great again more than he would make America great again). Also, China has time. Time works in China’s favor and against the US. China has been biding its time and it can afford to bide for longer – there is no need for China to rush and act rashly, like Japan and Germany did when they get strong, a lesson that Deng Xiaoping has learned well and put into practice. Meanwhile, as time peacefully passes, the US slips further into ethnic replacement and cultural deterioration.

So yeah, it’s in China’s best interest not to become a superpower in 20 years, but in 50 years or more.

8. It should be noted that while China has a lot regionally dialects and ethnic minorities, unlike India, the Chinese government has been trying to enforce the Mandarin on other populations, in an attempt to enhance the country’s unity, with relative success. Kids in Guangdong began to speak Mandarin and can’t communicate with their grandparent.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-...rin-2014-8

http://www.voanews.com/a/china-promotes-...91207.html

Only some monks in Tibet are allowed to learn Tibetan. Their culture is fading:
Tibetans Fight to Salvage Fading Culture in China

China is not cracking down on, say, Protestantism. However it has been enforcing de-islamization in Xinjiang Uyghurs.

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/c...23917.html

It’s banning the last name Mohammed. It’s banning muslim beard and burqa.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...00646.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...57826.html

For some reason I’m not cheering for the Muslims in this case.

Whether you consider this an ominous violation of human rights or not, if things keep going the way they are, China is becoming more and more unified and homogeneous, which enhances the ability of the CPC to manage the country and mobilize resources and power, and any other party that is going to govern China in the future, if there be any, would have to thank it for that.

Also, Christianity is growing fast in China, especially Protestantism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...years.html
This could in the future improve China's work ethics and accordingly the quality of their products. Protestantism has been associated with the capitalist spirit by sociologists of the caliber of Weber, so we may see a rise in China's entrepreneurial spirit and creativity. And also more ethical treatment. This may be optimistic, but I don't see why not.

9. To double the response on the concern about China's aging population issue, I think we are going to see the advantage of an authoritarian government over all-too-nice democracies such as Japan and the US. Let me quote Ron Unz here:
Quote:http://www.unz.com/runz/the-long-decline...economist/

Meanwhile, The Economist argues that China may find it almost impossible to eventually raise fertility rates back to a stable 2.1 target after decades of much lower numbers, and a vicious spiral of permanently shrinking numbers caused by “ultra-low fertility” may result. But does this make any sense? After all, if the Chinese government eliminated its restrictive one child policy, births would presumably increase. If the centralized Communist government began a mass propaganda campaign about the glories of two or three or four children, births would presumably increase even more. And if worst came to worst, the Chinese government could easily afford to pay a bonus of $5,000 or more for every second or third child, which would surely boost the birth rate enormously for low total cost.
I find it difficult to believe that a determined national government commanding vast financial resources could not speedily revive a five thousand year tradition of large families if it somehow felt the need to do so. Perhaps the writer was confusing China with America, whose dysfunctional government can never seem to get anything done.

10. Lastly, let’s evaluate the prospects of various other competitors for superpower status.

While China and the US both have problems, but the problems in the US are much more serious and damaging in long term than that of China. Much of Europe have the same problems. In much more serious degree than America.
Japan is and has been killing their drive with porns, video games and manga-anime, producing more and more hikkinomori and herbivore men, lower birth-rate and higher suicide rate. Meanwhile the bad-ass old generation is dying. The nationalist faction in Japan consists mostly of dying old men. Japanese cultural products are also becoming more and more politically correct, which reflect a current in larger culture.

http://time.com/2911630/japan-politician...colleague/

Akihiro Suzuki, a member of the Tokyo metropolitan assembly, bows to Ayaka Shiomura, a fellow assembly member, to apologize for his sexist jeer during a recent event, at Tokyo city hall on June 23, 2014.
[Image: newXXD4.jpg]

The US chopped Japan’s dick with its military nannying and political meddling. [If you’re right that Japan flipped its shit when the US suggested removing their military nannying, then it poses a question of whether Japan is capable of holding itself isn’t it? In technology the Japanese is certainly not inferior to China, but the men who man them are up to further investigation.] Japanese youths also do not care about disputes such as the Diaoyu Island as much as Chinese youths does.
Japan’s problems are nowhere as bad as that of the US or Europe, and they are still a considerable potential threat to China. China should do its best to let them sleep and not wake them up. With its move on the South China Sea, I think China has managed to avoid imminent conflicts with Japan. Seems like it doesn’t intend to meddle with Japan any time soon.

South Korea has even lower birth-rate and higher suicide rate than Japan. And I heard from this forum that their military is pathetic. Their youths are increasingly destroying themselves with video game addiction. K-pop with its effeminate male idols is destroying the masculinity of its male youths and other nations consuming its product (Chinese leadership has been aware of the negative impact of K-pop and is going to do something about it).

https://cmr.berkeley.edu/blog/2016/4/south-korea/

It seems to me that Japanese and SK youths have serious issues concerning personal goal in life. You can detect a different drive and energy in China, but that is for later.

India is too ethnically, regionally, linguistically, religiously and socioeconomically diverse. Their unity and manageability is much lower than the mostly homogeneous Han population of China.

We are going to see an increasingly unified and homogeneous China, whether you like it or not. The Chinese leadership is aggressively pushing in that direction.The same thing is not being done in India.

India is also held back by its caste system. Not to mention low average IQ over all, and the wealth and iq gaps between the rural areas and the urban areas are massive. Muslim birth rate is currently higher than that of Hindu and this is going to pose serious problems in the future. Not that India cannot become a powerhouse, but it is going to face much more challenge and difficulty in its path than China does. I’m not saying this because I love China and hate India or any other country – I’m just putting down my observations.

Russia’s economy is not dynamic enough, and relies to much on natural resources. It’s going to be a hegemon in the region as it has been. But it is eventually going to be surpassed by China.

That leaves us with Israel. Well, Israel is stuck in the Middle East with a lot of hostile Muslim nations. It has its hand busy. The larger strength of Israel come from its diaspora, who are increasingly intermarry, and whose performance in Ivy League School have been declining in comparison with Asians. I’ve no ideas what the Jewish elites are up to, and how they are going to deal with changing population in America, with more and more Muslims immigrants and converts who are hostile to them. They are a variable, but for the time being I don’t see them posing a real threat to China’s growth and advance to superpower status.

I’m certainly not wishing for the Chinese economy to crash. In our globalized age, an economic crash in China would ensue an economic disaster all over the globe like what we see in 2008 or even more severe. Those who want (as opposed to merely forecasting with disinterested mind) to see an economic collapse in China perhaps want to watch the world burn –and I’m not one of them. With my personal interest in mind I wish China do well economically.

... to be continued.

Harmony of Logos and Pathos. Unsentimental sensitivity. Rigorous creativity. Critical appreciation. Disillusioned Positivity. Alert enthusiasm. Disciplined tenacity
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2017 08:52 PM by Liberty Sea.)
04-27-2017 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Liberty Sea's post:
Transsimian
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Donald Trump thread Samseau 63,445 8,029,230 Today 02:12 PM
Last Post: kaotic
  Obama ending ‘wet-foot, dry-foot’ policy JayMillz 47 4,402 01-22-2017 10:52 PM
Last Post: Oz.
  Australian state introduces transgender policy for public schools Prof. Ligate 32 5,654 01-07-2017 05:09 PM
Last Post: Off The Reservation

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication