game
photo
retro
rant
Not logged in. · Lost password · Register

All content © NFGworld, unless otherwise noted, except for stuff we stole. Contact the editor-in-chief : baldbutsuave@thissitesdomain, especially if you are an attractive young female willing to do nude photography modelling. All rights reversed. 602

Forum: Our World The World RSS
(Now the Official China thread)
submit to reddit
Author name #76
Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post ID 3535
There's a United Nations report that's been cited in several news articles lately, but I can't find the source to see it for myself. Apparently, over the next 25 years, China will lose 400 million people from its population. Owing to a rapidly aging workforce, gender equity, natural disasters, poor health care and emigration, China's population is predicted to drop by a third. I wait to observe the effects of this population drop with dread.
Author name (Administrator) #77
Avatar
Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
I have trouble with that figure, since China's death rate hovers at 7% and has been stable for the last eight years

Reading into it further, I'm finding all kinds of conflicting numbers, and I can't help but wonder if this kind of variation suggests a lack of hard facts.  I've got one report saying the 65+ demographic was 4.91% in 1982, and another says it's 7.64%.  That's a huge difference.

As for the projection, I've got a 2001 projection that suggests the population's going to increase significantly, a 2007 projection that says it'll drop to 1.2b by 2050, and the UN 2001-2050 projection that says it might skyrocket past 1.6b or it might drop to below 1.2b (from just over 1.3 today).

Well, that's not a 400m drop, though the spread between high and low is 400m.  I wonder if your source confused the concept of 'error margin' and 'population drop' of 400m?

[Image: http://nfgworld.com/grafx/throwaway/china-pop-1.png]

A 400m drop would be what, 25% of the total population?  I've no idea how that could happen in such a short time.  400m deaths, sure, but a collective total drop?  I'd like to see that data.
BLEARGH
Author name (Administrator) #78
Avatar
Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
The recent Chinese high speed rail crash has proven to be as illuminating as crashing a probe on the moon.  Crashing two things into each other is newsworthy, but the shit that swirls around it is much more interesting.

A recent Economist blog talks about the repercussions of this crash, compares it with Japan's system, and puts it into a world-wide perspective.

The Chinese PR flacks in the comments are incredibly worrisome, as they reveal the sort of fervent close-mindedness you get from the most zealous political and religious believers from every country.  They ignore the point, seize on tiny facts, and try their best to redirect the conversation to anything that's not China.

There's definitely something different about China when I see bone-headed arguments in the comments and assume they're paid-by-the-post Chinese hacks.  When I see the same thing on events in Australia I just assume every other person in this country is an idiot.  It's not a government plot, the government isn't any smarter.  =/
BLEARGH
Author name #79
Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Wired magazine has an interesting take on Chinese military strength. In a nutshell, China is believed to be a proverbial paper tiger, without the support structure or resources to properly deploy their giant military in a competitive manner:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/china-plan-to-beat…

I find the bit about the in-flight refueling planes really illuminating. When you consider that the United States has literally 300 times as much capacity, and that China can't send their fighters or bombers any great distance and have them return safely.

The whole article has me breathing a little easier, honestly. China behaves the way superpowers generally behave, rattling sabers but not really being interested in starting any trouble.
Author name (Administrator) #80
Avatar
Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
That's a very good point.  China's generally too wrapped up in everyone else's economy to start any big fights.  I often think that the biggest argument against wars in our future is the intricate trade and financial entwining that keeps our interests more aligned than not.

While in Japan recently there was a lot of China news, and I've got a bit of a backlog to get through.  The more I read about the goings on there, the more I'm convinced it's a schizophrenic basket case of ego and dishonesty.  If China ever does rise up to superpower status, it's not going to be soon, there's just so much work to be done on the population's mindset before they're, you know, ready.

Of course that's gotta be something I say viewed through my standard Western mindset, so I cannot confidently say I'm not just reacting to things that are different to my standards...  But then, I see shit like this whole thread, and the following...


It's hard for me to get my head around what the Chinese really think, but this article suggests that the Chinese look down on Westerners for being honest and forthright, instead of devious and vague:

To many Chinese, Americans don’t have xin-yan (心眼, meaning,  literally, eyes of the mind; or figuratively, calculating, wily), they trust what you say, and they believe you are doing what you say you are doing. For that, they are dumb.

I saw a couple of young British men on a Japanese train last week, who seem to have a similar attitude towards the Japanese.  These two loud, rude and animated louts were annoying everyone on the train as if to say the Japanese are quiet and don't want to cause a scene by chastising us, so we will take advantage of their weakness and be assholes as much as we like.  What I perceive as a virtue, these two seemed to see as weakness.  The Chinese view of honesty and forthrightness seems very similar.


Generally speaking, I do not believe it is particularly likely that China can become a superpower with its current government and mindset.  Societies with authoritarian governments tend to fail...


From Chinalawblog:

Unlike the world’s other most populous nations, the Chinese do not acknowledge or seek a multiracial character. The Han Chinese, comprising a majority of some 92%, believe themselves to comprise a distinct race whose superiority, when a long view is taken, they regard as self-evident. In this view, Western ascendancy is a recent and brief anomaly, following which China will return to its natural position at the centre of the world.

This sort of thinking is, to my Western mind, nearly exactly wrong.  Racial superiority?  And you're calling Americans childish?  Pot, meet kettle, geez.

This next bit is very interesting however, and certainly makes sense to me.  In fact, this is more or less how I see the world, not as a bunch of divided spaces with arbitrary borders, but as one continuous area where some places are simply more awesome than others:

Until its engagement with Europe in the nineteenth century forced it to operate more according to the rules of nation-states, China thought of itself as the centre of the world -- it was the middle kingdom or the "land under heaven."  It did not even need a name. Unlike, say, the United States or Israel, it was not said to be the land chosen by a God, but rather the chosen land by virtue of the sheer brilliance of its civilization. 

[...]

Unlike those of a nation-state, China’s frontiers were, until relatively recently, never carefully drawn or policed, but instead regarded as zones tapering from civilization into barbarism.

The problem of course is that China sees itself as the centre and doesn't really seem to allow that there are other similarly awesome zones...


This just floors me.  I've highlighted the relevant bit:

Many years ago, I used to think China's quality issues were "an emerging market thing" and not "a China thing." I thought that we were constantly reading of China quality issues because China is such a large producer. I thought that until I spoke at a China-focused product liability conference and had lunch with a super high level official with the United States Consumer Protection Agency who told me that year and year out, China's product safety record is at least six times worse on a percentage per product basis than any other country in the world. "Pakistan," I asked. "Yes," he said? "Cambodia?" "Yes." "Sri Lanka?" Yes. "Laos?" "Yes."  "How can that possibly be," I asked. "I don't know," he said, "but it is."

And that, right there, is a big part of the problem.  (From Chinalawblog again)


I love the way Chinese weapons manufacturers met with the old Libyan government and made arrangements to sell hundreds of millions of dollars to the government, and now that the rebels are nearly in placeas the new government, China's looking to lose out on Libya as a source of oil...  Tom Lasseter says:

When I lived in the Middle East, I often heard a variation of this statement about why regimes there liked China: The Chinese come to do business, and they don't meddle with domestic politics.

That sort of ambivalence will come back to haunt your ass when your comrades get the boot.  =D


And so on.  What a show.
BLEARGH
Author name #81
Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Quote by NFG:
It's hard for me to get my head around what the Chinese really think, but this article suggests that the Chinese look down on Westerners for being honest and forthright, instead of devious and vague:

To many Chinese, Americans don’t have xin-yan (心眼, meaning,  literally, eyes of the mind; or figuratively, calculating, wily), they trust what you say, and they believe you are doing what you say you are doing. For that, they are dumb.

I saw a couple of young British men on a Japanese train last week, who seem to have a similar attitude towards the Japanese.  These two loud, rude and animated louts were annoying everyone on the train as if to say the Japanese are quiet and don't want to cause a scene by chastising us, so we will take advantage of their weakness and be assholes as much as we like.  What I perceive as a virtue, these two seemed to see as weakness.  The Chinese view of honesty and forthrightness seems very similar.

Watch as I seamlessly draw together disparate threads of culture. :)

There's a story about Odysseus that I particularly like. As he disagrees with the purposes of the Trojan War, he decides to feign insanity in order to avoid being sent into battle. He lashes two different animals to his plow so that it can't be properly steered, and he starts enthusiastically planting salt, all the while cackling and babbling. Achilles is the only one who knows the score, and so to sabotage the scheme puts Odysseus's son in the path of the plow. When Odysseus quite sensibly avoids the infant in the dirt, all the world then knows that he's quite sane and just faking.

The Greeks love Odysseus. They admire his cunning and his scheming. By contrast, the Romans hated the character as it was told to them in the translation we would come to know as Ulysses. To the Romans, Ulysses was a selfish shirker, an undeserving slacker who didn't understand honor or duty. Whereas the Greeks interpreted the struggles of Odysseus as the acts of capricious gods, the Romans saw the same burdens of Ulysses as just punishment for his deceptive and uncharitable ways.

It's interesting to view this cultural difference through the prism of history. The Greeks are famous for giving us democracy and complicated mathematics, and more recently for being a scapegoat for European financial ruin. By contrast, the Romans are famous for their roads and their civilization, their spectacular rise and fall, the broad reach of their empire and the lasting impact of their language and standards (Latin in medicine, highway lanes, legislative process, units of measure, and so on.) In this particular comparison, China thinks of itself as Rome. But they value cleverness and smug self-satisfaction over transparency and neighborly behavior. If it is that China is culturally closer to Greece, does that explain why they don't have the influence that the old empires had?
Author name (Administrator) #82
Avatar
Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
I'm starting to think they won't have the same influence 'cause they're unable to see the value of long term relationships over short-term gains.  You said once that this was, at least partially, a result of never really knowing if the government was going to take their shit tomorrow so they valued profits today...  Which makes sense.

But it's frustrating when I think the next big empire might be a bunch of selfish assholes who don't care to play nice.

Very nicely done with the multicultural comparisons BTW.  =)
BLEARGH
Author name #83
Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
The Hukou, or residency registration paper, is starting to get mentioned a lot more in the western press. Essentially, China limits personal mobility by tracking where you and your parents were born. By dividing all workers into rural and urban categories, the People's Republic reserves the right to move workers around at will, and more importantly make them go home in times of distress. More worryingly, the Hukou system also prohibits people from living in the city if they're classified as a rural worker, and in most cases there is no freedom to relocate. At any time, Chinese authorities are allowed to demand any citizen's papers, and detain them if they're walking around some place that they don't have any business being. The Hukou system is why so many Chinese died in the 1960s, because failed farmers living in poverty were not permitted to migrate to cities to find work, as occurred in western countries under similar circumstances.

I was looking for a good primary source for the Hukou system and stumbled upon the blog of Wang Jianshuo, a Shanghai native. English is not his first language, but he valiantly chronicles his experiences so that western readers can get a sense of what life in China is really like. Please be forgiving of his grammar and spelling. Here's the relevant link:

http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20060610_hukou_syste…
Author name (Administrator) #84
Avatar
Member since May 2011 · 2173 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
That's a very interesting read.  I'm sort of ambivalent about the hukou system, 'cause it seems to be both necessary to keep people from flooding the cities and a system that's evidence of governmental control that I can't happily accept.

At what price personal freedoms, eh?  It ain't easy.
BLEARGH
Author name #85
Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post ID 3464
Quote by NFG on 2011-05-22, 07:55:
I saw a similar article talking about the general's words, but I never once thought that it meant China was establishing bases in Africa.  Instead, it seems to me that China's launching assaults on pirates, a mini-invasion police action.

It has begun. Wired has an article up about a leak from Islamabad. China has asserted the right to establish permanent military bases in Pakistan:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/china-pakistan-bas…

The author of the article actually gives it a positive spin, in that allowing China to flex its military muscle in western Asia is actually in the best interests of all the parties who have been involved. Anybody China kills there is likely an enemy common to both China and the United States, and a lot of international diplomacy players think it's high time that China was more willing to get its hands dirty anyway.

And that brings me back to China: Are they going to be a power for good, an empire like America that ostensibly tried to do the right thing?  Or will they act only in their own interests, like it seems America increasingly does?

I've been reading about Pakistan, and specifically about the Sunni/Shi'a split. Pakistan is pretty representative when it comes to Muslim diversity, about 75 percent Sunni and 25 percent Shi'a. Problem is, there are more Shiites in Pakistan than there are in Iraq, Iran, and Syria put together. It's an oversimplification to say that Shiite extremists are more often overtly hostile. What is arguably more accurate to say is that where there are Shiite extremists, Iran's influence is always present.

China and Iran are friendly on paper. They have similar views when it comes to battling internal dissent and centrally planning an economy. But China has strong and immutable ties to the west, and economic investments that they're not willing to abandon any time soon. What happens when China and Iran must become opponents?
Author name #86
Member since Oct 2007 · 265 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
In reply to post ID 3458
Quote by Kendrick on 2011-05-18, 17:30:
Quote by Kendrick on 2010-03-29, 17:30:
When you look at those numbers, you need to think about the "average" yearly income of the Chinese, which works out to around USD$2,000 after conversion. I put quotes around the word because the average has dirt-poor farmers at one end, and absurdly wealthy real estate tycoons at the other. That means that in real terms, $160 a month isn't the actual average.

And now, somebody noticed. I didn't know about the Hurun Wealth Report, which is an NGO publication that enumerates the worth of the richest Chinese. A Time Magazine blogger has noticed that the list is breeding discontent in China, and causes the wealthiest to be investigated (or at least publicly disliked.) Here's the link:

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/05/17/to-be-young-ri…

And now a view of the other side of that math. China doesn't really have a middle class, and the misconception has been that western companies would be able to benefit from Chinese prosperity by selling their products there. Adam Davidson of the New York Times sums up the problem pretty succinctly:

The first time I visited China, in 2005, an American businessman living
there told me that the country was so huge and was changing so fast
that everything you heard about it was true, and so was the opposite.
That still seems to be the case. China is the fastest-growing consumer
market in the world, and American companies have made billions there.
At the same time, Chinese consumers aren't spending nearly as much as
American companies had hoped. China has simultaneously become the
greatest boon and the biggest disappointment.

Full article is here. Note that the NYTimes.com website requires registration, but the usual URL substitution tricks work to get around it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/come-on-china-b…
Close Smaller – Larger + Reply to this post:
Smileys: :-) ;-) :-D :-p :blush: :cool: :rolleyes: :huh: :-/ <_< :-( :'( :#: :scared: 8-( :nuts: :-O
Special characters:
Page:  previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 
We love UNB by Yves Goergen!