Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

China's had unprecedented economic growth since 1978, lifting close to billion people out of extreme poverty. Now large part of china has better infrastructure than in the USA.

Call me when American\EU citizens try to illegally immigrate to China and not vice versa.

Yes, their economic growth, caused by Western investments and cheap (almost) slave labor is rather impressive but let's wait and see how they will survive their first major crisis that should come sooner or later. Authoritarian rigid societies of enormous size are bad at this.

[jipehog]

Yes, their economic growth, caused by Western investments and cheap (almost) slave labor is rather impressive but let's wait and see how they will survive their first major crisis that should come sooner or later.

The fact is that China's had unprecedented economic growth. Otherwise this can describe many countries, including the USA who own industrial revolution has greatly benefited from foreign investment, lower wages particular among the large and growing population of immigrants which was employed in (almost) slave labor conditions to build its infrastructure. As well some other shenanigan's, and ww1 and ww2 that brought down the power at be and passed the torch to USA by default.

One also might want to add that the role of foreign imperialism in regard to China starting condition. After the opium wars, the west has robbed and looted China and did with them as they pleased, forcing China to buy narcotics to finance the British empire. The west succeeded in its goal but that left China in endless civil war with rivers of blood and complete destruction of infrastructure. After that the good years in China were when only 100-200 thousand people died of starvation a year.

---

That said I agree that China faces many challenges, more so because the west see it as threat for its dominance and seeks to make it so. Here some examples of the challenges China face:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTbILK0fxDY&list=PLR5tswn4SFyUOm3QusvlFGbPCCAN_uXnK

[scriver]

In what world has China not benefited greatly from foreign investment? Just look at all the companies that have moved production over there.

I don't think China's development is unprecedented in any way, basically the entire western world and many countries outside of it has gone through it. Sweden went from the poorest country in Europe, having recently lost half its population to starvation and emigration (because of the starvation), at the end of the 19th century to the most equal country in the world, and with one of the highest standards of living, in less than one hundred years.

[jipehog]

The world bank think that China's economic development in scale and speed is unprecedented.

Otherwise, I suspect what is really bothering you is the future of China's development and whether it will overtake the USA.

[scriver]

Like Germany was to overtake the USA? And then Japan? And then India? And then China?

China's economy is showing signs of slowing down, and in the future is even at risk of collapse, looking at economy and population numbers combined. More likely it will probably end up lumbering on because inertia, like our Western economies, as all production is slowly outsourced to countries with cheaper labour.

I'm not American, by the way.

[jipehog]

And I didn't said that China will overtake USA btw Tough considering all the other posters attempt to diminish China achievements that question seem to be the elephant in the room.

I think that (1) in 30years China undergone change took over 100years in most other countries and that going to have social impact (2) it is unclear whether China is going to be able to escape the middle income trap, especially with west stacking the deck against them (which helps understand why they support Russia..)

Also I would caution about any predictions about China's imminent collapse, we seen the goal posts on that prediction being moved for the past 3 decades. Lets just say that China is USA only competitor, that only naive idealist believe that USA doesn't play dirty like the rest, and that confidence plays a significant role in any economy..

[Starver]

How much of China's accelerated development, in various ways, was just catching up to (or following on from) the countries of the world that had not been stagnated/retrograded by historic policy decisions (internally or externally)?

Back to the talk of their Space Program (as mentioned in the Space Thread), they're doing very well. So their first satellite was about a dozen years after Sputnik (and half way through the Cultural Revolution, which seems not to be an advantage, in hindsight, but at least wasn't the Great Leap 'Forward'), but what they have now can be seen as the direct spiritual successor of the Russian project (which has in many ways zee-rusted as "sufficient", from both homegrown and external changes in space-policy), and may be at or near a point where a hypothetically unimpaired Soviet program may have reached not so long ago in a non-fantastical parallel world.

Their really interesting developments has been since the turn of the millenium and the Shenzhou missions. A couple of decades and now into a homegrown space-station era. Compare the decade from Vostok to Salyut, and slightly under for a manned Shenzou to reach a Tiangong. They're definitely looking close to 'par', now, what the other single-country efforts produced (or backbone components of the multinational ISS), with the benefit of the same kind of happy-shiny-futuretech that looks so good in other upstarts. (e.g. SpaceX, at least as far as the Dragon. But the differences between them are that China has a national GDP potentially behind it, whilst SpaceX has a zealous internet-entrpreneurship. With national pride and corporate pride working in different ways when it comes to developmental pressures.)

So, perhaps a bit snappier in the development, even without the US/USSR battle to bag 'firsts'. But, because not a first attempt, there's conceptual (if not downright 'copied') precursors to smooth their way across many of the original technical hurdles. What happens when they get to better-than-parity levels of tech and they're the ones trying to solve important new problems?


And so with all their other achievements. They have built an (internalised) Internet Economy, perhaps off the back of the Dotcom Boom and the lessons learnt. They're a fabrication specialist in many consumer-product industries, but how much of that is other nations having had factories producing <whatever> and they found a way to reach in and become the offshore-replacement for such homegrown industries, with brand new factories. In nebulous 'trade', they spent a long time as a closed-nation (their choice or others') but they seem to have understood many of the lessons, or at least avoided revisiting the worst pitfalls.

But all bets are off for the next 'revolution', or attempt to handle the stagnation (in leiu of one). Are they going to be better at bespoke 3D-printing at scale? When financial services develop something that makes Pork Futures look like Pork Historics, are they going to be the successful game-changers? When world politics heaves over on its axis, as it might do soon, are they actually the ones who gain (or hold) the position atop the newly-orientated iceberg? Or are they going to have to play catch-up to whatever entity finds itself better fitted to grab the reins of this bucking-bronco of a mixed metaphore?

[EuchreJack]

Now large part of china has better infrastructure than in the USA.

This is more an indictment against the USA than any great accomplishment of People's Republic of China.
Most of Europe has better infrastructure than in the USA.

Now you want a country that has done great things with little, I got one for you: Republic of China aka Taiwan.
Tiny miracle country, that one.  And they don't need a pat on the head about it, either.

[jipehog]

Your dislike of China blinds you. Your opinion about Taiwan isn't shared by economic institutions. According to the world bank their progress

is attributable to several factors: an already high degree of development, literacy, agricultural skills, institutions, transportation, and power facilities prior to 1949; the transfer of skilled administrators from the mainland in 1949; and a large U.S. aid program.

To put it in perspective, at the time US aid was equal roughly to 10% of Taiwan GDP. In other words the USA have bootstrapped Taiwan economy so they can oppose the commies for them. Moreover you'd notice that often small dense countries like that (Singapore etc) that feature on these "miracle" list as oppose to huge countries with large parts that are sparsely populated.

China is still relatively poor, but I believe its coastline could already compete with many European countries and it already has built one of the most advanced high-speed train infrastructure in the world, with more tracks than the rest of the world combined.

[Starver]

China [...] already has built one of the most advanced high-speed train infrastructure in the world, with more tracks than the rest of the world combined.

Well, to be frank, it was always more likely to do that than Liechtenstein, Monaco, Tuvalu or the Vatican City, for reasons nothing to do with relative technical, societal or economic advancements.


...ok, so that's a rather flippant comment. So now I'll chuck together some more expanded thoughts about why China isn't really a surprising holder of such a supremacy, even against the more practical competition.

That there's a basic elbow-room for such a record-breaking infrastructure, outwith the ability, need or will to create it, would more definitely the domain of countries such as Russia, Canada, China, USA, Brazil and Chile. Sorted by 'length', though whether Chile could usefully have significant spurs or loops of rail-links to outcompete its rivals. (By total length of all existing rail, those places are positioned in 3rd, 5th, 2nd, 1st, 8th, 30th place, respectively.)

By ability, arguably any country could scrape the budget to set up an HS link (assuming two or more somewheres to link between), given the right economic circumstances (either capitalistically or command-economy, and China's current hybrid system might indeed work in that favour), even if a bit of a White Elephant. Needwise, that'd be people-movements expected/required, above mere freight, and how people travel between various areas of cluster-density and others (US and its ilk skews away from that, Russia doesn't seem to be as philosophically desirous, Brazil seems to find alernate methods of hopping around more useful for either indiginously living peoples who already have their historic routes or the more 'cosmopolitan commuters').

So I'd say that China scrapes together the various pillars required to find itself the undoubted leader in its field. It can emulate/mirror other country's technological development with more space to expand into. Other countries have a travel-hungry population spread across large areas, but seem content to keep with what is basically the original infrastructure. Some countries are ambivalent about rail, and their high-speed projects were meager projects to begin with and get cut down further because of perceived boondoggling and/or political-mindchanging. (Japan, India, UK are 10th, 4th, 18th in existing rail-lengths, respectively, to punctuate my above example points.) China can carve out this space in the record books because it happens to have competitive factors across the board, but it could easily have lost out if any one of these circumstances were different (ok, so sheer geography is likely a fairly invariant factor, but a policy decision or two from the leadership could be the make-or-break).


That's not necessarily dependent of any achievements, or otherwise, in other exciting developmental metrics. China is definitely a current 'player', on the world stage, but I don't see high-speed passenger transport as a vital key to it. Helps some aspects. Arguably (e.g. with something like Covid, but I'm thinking of other aspects too) also has potent downsides to the internal situation that might make it a less useful investment. Time may tell if the barometer that has indicated past successes can be said to useful for future trajectories.

(China also has telecommunications as a target. Perhaps population helps it to be number 1 in telephones (land-line, mobile or both) and internet access (by numbers, can't establish comparative quality), and has clearly embraced this. Per-capita figures might show nuances, but with the drive to social-scoring everyone behind The Great Firewall I don't think there'd be any shying away from attaining competitive placing along the lines of Best Korea. Maybe this is what future assessments will find the most impressive key indicator, compared to any particular methods of travel (road, rail, air, suborbital!), or maybe even this will be considered subservient to some other metric.)

[ChairmanPoo]

Sorry to interrupt the conversation but has everyone remembered to cash in their social credit bonuses? Remember to check that you have enough spare  credits by first of June to opt out of Outer Mongolia Uranium Mine Duty.

[Starver]

Sorry to interrupt the conversation but has everyone remembered to cash in their social credit bonuses? Remember to check that you have enough spare  credits by first of June to opt out of Outer Mongolia Uranium Mine Duty.

I actually save mine up for Online Waffle Dispensation Permits... And I've just bought myself the next five-year licence renewal!

And, you'll never guess what shape of uranium-nugget I found the other day. (But you'll have to. The cost of the Online Disparaging Visual Comparisons Of Senior Party Figures Permit is way beyond my remaining balance.)

[Superdorf]

When financial services develop something that makes Pork Futures look like Pork Historics, are they going to be the successful game-changers?

I don't have anything useful to say about Chinese politics, just wanted to take a moment to appreciate this reference

[jipehog]

That's not necessarily dependent of any achievements, or otherwise, in other exciting developmental metrics. China is definitely a current 'player', on the world stage, but I don't see high-speed passenger transport as a vital key to it.

Keep in mind that infrastructure is an important enabler of economic integration and development, as part of China's road belt initiative it invest in infrastructure connectivity challenged asia, for the same reason it is a top priority for EU in Southern and Eastern Europe and Euro-Mediterranean region at large.

I used HS rail transport as shiny example for the accomplishment dick measuring competition before, but its important to note that these infrastructure investment span anything from roads, to ports, to HDVC interconnector and energy projects. China is powerhouse in the construction section, and has various benefits around the world particularly those that traditionally was used as extractive economies for the west.

Caspianreport: South America turning into China’s backyard also The Global Security Initiative: China’s New Security Architecture for the Gulf

[Starver]

Belt-And-Road cargo capacity is an achievement, and possibly even worrying (the foothold China is getting into real-estate on foreign soils, and/or tying nations into financial ties(. But HS Rail isn't really a component of it. (Perhaps clearing people-movers off the original track, adding 'new' freight capacity without having to slot between the original passenger services. That's one thing that HS2 was supposed.to do. Though I'm not sure anyone thinks that, anymore, after the original limited scheme became successively pruned down.)