OT - Is America looking over its shoulder

[RN7]

I'm currently over in Kansas. Its a long story but my wife and son are American and my house is now over here and I'm back and forth between the States and Ireland every six or seven weeks. But without trying to start a flame war and from talking to people and looking at the news things don't bode well.

China is a one party communist dictatorship whose citizens have very little rights. It tells its people how many children they can have and crushes and imprisons all dissenters yet it's on the verge of becoming the most powerful country on Earth. Since the end of the Second World War, and economically since the early 20th Century, America has been the dominant political and economic force in the world. But for how much longer?

In 2010 China overtook America as the world's biggest manufacturer after 110 years.
In 2010 China overtook America as the world's largest consumer of energy.
By some statistics China is now the largest producer and consumer of electricity, and may possibly have a larger installed electricity capacity than America who has led the field since the 19th Century.
In 2011 China produced more than half of the worlds steel and more cars and commercial vehicles than America and Japan combined.
In 2012 China spent US$ 106.4 billion on defence, but the US DOD estimates the real unofficial figure to be closer to $200 billion. America is currently slashing its defence budget.
On current trends China's economy will overtake America by 2016 on the basis of purchasing power parity.
On current trends China's economy will overtake America sometime between 2020 and 2030 on the basis of gross domestic product.
China is planning to send people to the moon by 2025, while America currently has no capacity to send people into Earth orbit and is charged $63 million per man to use Russian rockets.

Other Chinese economic statistics are also staggering. It's now the leading producer of a whole range of raw materials and agricultural products, and produces three and a half times as much coal as America which has the world's largest reserves. It also has the largest number of cell/mobile phone users as well as internet and broadband users, and its major road and rail network is second only to America's. Before China was given most favoured trading nation status by America it was a very poor country. But massive American investment over the past 20 years along with investment from Japan and Europe has seen it grow into an economic powerhouse.

Despite an unprecedented Chinese military and industrial espionage campaign against America and the developed world and counterfeit goods accounting for 8% of China's GDP, and record breaking trade imbalances with America fuelled by continued American corporate investment in export orientated industries and the dumping of products targeted to eliminate American competition, the US government has done little or nothing to stop any of it. China has also bought up approximately 20% of all foreign-owned US Treasury securities. However despite all of this America's 12 million manufacturing jobs are still as valuable as China's 100 million plus workers, and they still make products in high end manufacturing and technology that the Chinese just can't compete with. In innovation and education America also still retains its traditional advantages, as you just can't replicate free thinking and a free market economy in a country like China.

China's economic growth is now slowing down. Most of the above figures about economic growth were complied when the Chinese economy was growing at 10% or more per annum. Since 2011 it has slowed to under 8% despite massive Chinese government stimulus since 2009 by spending one US$ trillion on infrastructure and property development to mask the decline and it may soon fall lower. China's economic future now faces a nightmare senario. If the government continues to raise incomes they become uncompetitive and the factories will close as the Americans, Europeans and Japanese move elsewhere. If they don't raise incomes and give people more rights the people will get restless which will destabilise the country and lead to the same problems. Due to the corruption and political uncertainties of the one-party state and the limited economic freedom in an economy dominated by large state owned enterprises, many skilled professionals are either leaving the country or preparing safety nets for themselves abroad. Also the demographic future belongs to America. By 2050 there will be at least 100 million more Americans and that excludes illegal immigrants. By 2050 China will be lucky to have even the same number of people as it has in 2012 due to the one child policy and the now naturally low birth rate and dreadful living conditions. China is cursed by its very own government, a one part communist dictatorship run by elites but America still needs to wake up and soon!

[Targan]

China's rise scares the hell out of me. Some aspects of American society, culture and politics do disturb me but Australia and America have far more in common than not and I'm far, far more comfortable with America being the dominant world power than China. I guess the majority of my fellow Aussies feel the same because we've allied ourselves lock, stock and barrel with the USA.

In the back of my mind I can't help but wonder if my grandchildren will have no choice but to speak Mandarin. America has the mighty Pacific Ocean between itself and China. Australia is basically geographically part of Asia. We should be the ones allowed to keep military-grade firearms at home.

[weswood]

RN7, you forgot to mention the trillions of dollars owed to China by the U.S. As an American, that is what scares me the most.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

We should be the ones allowed to keep military-grade firearms at home.

Who says some of us don't....?

The world is changing, of that there's no doubt. We'll never go back to the economic and political situation of even a decade ago - too much has changed, especially financially. All we can do is hold on tight and hope the ride doesn't kill us all.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Who says some of us don't....?

Lucky you. For all intents and purposes it's impossible for me to do legally here.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

My country is basically F'd, and the previous administration did nothing to stop it and the current one is doing everything to accelerate it.

I hear occasionally "Well this is just what we thought about the Japanese in the 70s and 80s and look where they are now." Well, firstly, Japan wasn't the largest foreign debt-holder against the US in the 1970s and '80s (I take some small comfort that the US is still the largest holder of its own debt, emphasis on some and small). Secondly Japan's political aims were at least tacitly aligned with our own even if we had to beat them into it. Finally, Japan wasn't ever in any political, social or economic position to demand we do anything. The same can't be said of China.

Moreover, if China does go down the way Japan did, they'll take the world with them. They'll make the 2008 meltdown look like a balancing error in your checkbook.

I don't say any of this with any passionate redneck fury to the tune of "...an' naow's th' tahm to RAAAAAHS UP!" - primarily because there's nothing we can do about it.

1776-2008: it was a good ride.

[rcaf_777]

I fail to see the the Twlight 2000 tie in here or is this another OT Thread not marked.....................AGIAN

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

Lucky you. For all intents and purposes it's impossible for me to do legally here.

Who said it was legal here?

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by Targan

We should be the ones allowed to keep military-grade firearms at home.

every free citizen should. its part of being a country based on civil rights. even Machiavelli recognized this.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

China's rise scares the hell out of me. Some aspects of American society, culture and politics do disturb me but Australia and America have far more in common than not and I'm far, far more comfortable with America being the dominant world power than China. I guess the majority of my fellow Aussies feel the same because we've allied ourselves lock, stock and barrel with the USA.

I'm not really very afraid about an outside power taking us over, or even of our credit-holders calling in our debts. I am, however, almost deathly afraid of what our own politicians are doing -- look at the current "fiscal cliff" we're facing, and how both sides are quite willing to let the car go over the cliff so they don't have to compromise, give in, or satisfy their rich buddies.

Dangers from without? I'm not that concerned about that. Dangers from within? That may go as far as to destroy the country. Our democracy has almost completely become a plutocracy.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Dangers from without? I'm not that concerned about that. Dangers from within? That may go as far as to destroy the country. Our democracy has almost completely become a plutocracy.

No nation can be destroyed from without until it has been destroyed from within. I can't remember where I read that idea or if I have the quote right, but one gets the gist. Rome fell in part because the economy failed. Too few people owned virtually everything and managed to get their holdings exempted from taxes (sound familiar?). Population growth went into the tank because the economics of having children were so very unfavorable. There weren't enough young men for the army, and the treasury was short on funds for equipping them. Whether Rome could have withstood the waves of barbarians trying to enter its territory had the economy and manpower situation been better is an open question. However, the fact remains that Rome's ability to withstand stressors from without weakened at the same time that stressors from without were strengthening.

France was destroyed by internal divisions as much as anything the Germans did on the battlefield in 1940 (or before, since short wars reflect preparation). The Red Army might have given a better account of itself in 1941 had Stalin not purged its leadership. Thankfully, they were able to learn something from their experience in Finland. One could even say that the American experience in Vietnam reflects the hazards of internal divisions. The US could neither commit nor withdraw. The US could neither succeed with the tools at hand nor adapt sufficiently to use different tools. (In a few years, we may be writing the same things about the American experience in Afghanistan, for which we cannot blame the triple canopy rain forest.)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

No nation can be destroyed from without until it has been destroyed from within.

Something our government has had gotten a good start with. (Just for context, I consider myself an "Enlightened Liberal.")

[DigTw0Grav3s]

A couple thoughts, divided by power category.

Economically, China is not the powerhouse that most make it out to be. We're talking about totally black box accounting, here. They claim near-maximum industrial output every year, but the power consumption statistics simply don't back that up. Same story with financing. Owning a significant percentage of U.S. debt is great for them in a strategic sense, but that's not a debt that they can simply call at any time. Debt between sovereign states doesn't work that way. They've also admitted to recessionary conditions domestically, which says a lot considering the sanitizing that usually goes into their press releases.

In terms of military capabilities, they are certainly developing quickly. That said, they are reminiscent of pre-war Germany in a lot of ways. You can only develop your forces so aggressively before other nations begin to coalesce against you. Look at the current situation; Japan is talking about becoming an independent military power again. New basing may open up to U.S. carrier groups for the first time since World War II. Australia is basing a MEF. Asia is scared, and that doesn't bode well for a nation with a military mostly stuck in in the 1950s, both technologically and culturally.

Culturally, well.. how many Chinese pop stars do you know? How about television hits? Films? Celebrities? Central economic planning and totalitarianism are both antithetical to cultural exchange. As is scaring the hell out of your neighbors.

The technology transfer and cyber-espionage do scare me a lot, though. If anything, that will be the factor that bites the West (free world?) in the ass.

[enrious]

Given that Japan owes just as much US debt as does China, I'm not terribly concerned with that - especially since it further intertwines our economies, meaning that China will cut its own throat if it tries to take out the US economy.

Funny how no one mentions that when they mention China's ownership of US debt.

As for the rest..."This is it, it's all over!" has likely been uttered by Ook the caveman and y'know...we are still around.

We have better health care, technology, ethics & morals, food, and leisure than at any time in the history of the planet.

I'm good.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by enrious

We have better health care, technology, ethics & morals, food, and leisure than at any time in the history of the planet.

I agree completely with the rest of your post but the above quote is pretty sweeping. When you say "we have" do you mean the USA? The "western world"? The world in general?

"Better healthcare" is true but don't you have a situation in the US (which as I understand it Obamacare tries to ameliorate) where if you are in a lower socio-economic grouping your healthcare choices are somewhere between very restricted and non-existant. So that's really "better healthcare for those with money".

I can't argue with "better technology" but once again there's an element of better technology for those that can afford it. Then there's economic pressure in a whole host of technology fields which can slow the uptake of or largely prevent better technology being rolled out. Look at the use of fossil fuels. We know the harm caused by their use. We know they are finite. For a long time we've had the technology to largely replace their use in many areas. Yet here we are, burning through our ever-diminishing stocks as fast as we can. And the turning of technology into usable items is in the hands of the technical classes. Large numbers of westerners wouldn't have a clue how most of their high tech items work and they'll happily use whatever gadgets they can afford, all the while living in an anti-science fairy tale world where they think there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark and that the world (and the universe for that matter) was created 6,000 years ago.

"Ethics and morals"? Woah, that's hugely subjective. Most modern, western societies share many ethics and morals but there are some pretty big differences, too. I don't know if "better" is an easy label to use when it comes to ethics and morals. I mean, some people consider the issue of state-sanctioned killing to be a moral issue, and look upon China and many US states as being amoral in that area for that reason. And most of us westerners look upon Sharia law with disgust, but those who practice it look upon the rest of us as barbarians and unbelievers who will surely be going to hell.

"Food and leisure" is another area where the who is "we" question is very important. In general I wouldn't agree. In my country and in the USA, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to eat very poorly. Sure they have access to lots af food but in many cases it's really nasty stuff in terms of long-term health. Even those of us firmly middle-class and higher don't necessarily have access to the best foods. Factory farming, pesticides, food processing, these aren't the makings of the best nutrition. I'd say that in many cases foods were better for us in the middle of the last century. And of course people at the bottom, socio-economically speaking, often just can't access enough calories at all. As for leisure, ever-increasing numbers of westerners watch TV and play video games as a major component of their leisure time. Is that "better"? I think not. Certainly not better for their health.

[enrious]

Originally Posted by Targan

I agree completely with the rest of your post but the above quote is pretty sweeping. When you say "we have" do you mean the USA? The "western world"? The world in general?

The world in general, but y'know, the same could be said for the US in particular.

"Better healthcare" is true but don't you have a situation in the US (which as I understand it Obamacare tries to ameliorate) where if you are in a lower socio-economic grouping your healthcare choices are somewhere between very restricted and non-existant. So that's really "better healthcare for those with money".

There's a lot of ancillary benefit from our increases in medicine and science. Let's take someone without any medical insurance, but who does have a medical emergency (heart, cancer, loss of limb, etc.), then they can get that emergency care.

Can you think of a better time for them to need care? The Middle Ages? The Napoleonic or Civil War periods? WW1? WW2? Even the 1980s?

Now compare what the people today who can't afford emergency care with whether or not people in those prior periods would have even gotten emergency care.


To be clear, I'm not saying that things are peachy for everyone in the US or that health care is the same, but across the US and the world, those that can get health care have better health care than at any point in the past - and the number of people who can get that health care is higher than ever before.

I can't argue with "better technology" but once again there's an element of better technology for those that can afford it. Then there's economic pressure in a whole host of technology fields which can slow the uptake of or largely prevent better technology being rolled out. Look at the use of fossil fuels. We know the harm caused by their use. We know they are finite. For a long time we've had the technology to largely replace their use in many areas. Yet here we are, burning through our ever-diminishing stocks as fast as we can. And the turning of technology into usable items is in the hands of the technical classes. Large numbers of westerners wouldn't have a clue how most of their high tech items work and they'll happily use whatever gadgets they can afford, all the while living in an anti-science fairy tale world where they think there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark and that the world (and the universe for that matter) was created 6,000 years ago.

And yet, that's been a trend since really the advent of specialization in society. So, thousands of years of being true.

On the other hand, it's allowed for those specialists to become (generally speaking) capable of feats unheard of in years past.

I do wish fundamental science was more accepted, but that rarely do you have gains without losses.

Ask the luddites.

"Ethics and morals"? Woah, that's hugely subjective. Most modern, western societies share many ethics and morals but there are some pretty big differences, too. I don't know if "better" is an easy label to use when it comes to ethics and morals. I mean, some people consider the issue of state-sanctioned killing to be a moral issue, and look upon China and many US states as being amoral in that area for that reason. And most of us westerners look upon Sharia law with disgust, but those who practice it look upon the rest of us as barbarians and unbelievers who will surely be going to hell.

And yet, think about it. We talk about ethics and morality, we're semi-knowledgeable about the ethics and morality from places and peoples half-way 'round the world...

We collectively, as a starting point for a plurality of nations in the world agree that things such as genocide, slavery, rape, murder, etc. are morally and ethically (and increasingly legally) wrong.

Take a look at the UN section on Human Rights...at what point in the past have we ever, as the majority of nations on the earth, ever cared about how other nations were treating their people or those of their neighbors?

Again, show me a time before where things have ever been better, a time where collectively strive to certain universal human ideals of ethics and morality?

"Food and leisure" is another area where the who is "we" question is very important. In general I wouldn't agree. In my country and in the USA, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to eat very poorly. Sure they have access to lots af food but in many cases it's really nasty stuff in terms of long-term health. Even those of us firmly middle-class and higher don't necessarily have access to the best foods. Factory farming, pesticides, food processing, these aren't the makings of the best nutrition. I'd say that in many cases foods were better for us in the middle of the last century. And of course people at the bottom, socio-economically speaking, often just can't access enough calories at all. As for leisure, ever-increasing numbers of westerners watch TV and play video games as a major component of their leisure time. Is that "better"? I think not. Certainly not better for their health.

I find it interesting that you bring up bad food, factory farming food, pesticides, etc. without ever bringing up the simple fact that if it weren't for advances in food science, you wouldn't have that food to complain about.

Let me introduce you to someone named Norman. Norman worked on plant breeding, on helping to create plants and crops that were more resistant to pests, that could grow in areas where they weren't native and so on.

He worked through the famines of the 1960s, he introduced cereals to Latin America and Asia, and helped turn nations which had been having to borrow or steal for food for its people into nations with food surpluses...

Indeed, in 2006, the US Congress recognized him as someone who has saved more than 1 billion human lives.

Let me repeat that, Norman Borlaug has been credited with saving 1,000,000,000 human lives.

So tell me again...in terms of food, when has there ever been a better time in human history?

As to leisure...you essentially say tv and video games are bad for your health. Did you have anything more substantive that you'd like to articulate?

I mean, surely you're not suggesting its worse than back-breaking farm or factory work, 6 dawn-to-dusk days a week? Whats the average life expectancy now as any time before now?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

A couple thoughts, divided by power category.

Economically, China is not the powerhouse that most make it out to be. We're talking about totally black box accounting, here. They claim near-maximum industrial output every year, but the power consumption statistics simply don't back that up. Same story with financing. Owning a significant percentage of U.S. debt is great for them in a strategic sense, but that's not a debt that they can simply call at any time. Debt between sovereign states doesn't work that way. They've also admitted to recessionary conditions domestically, which says a lot considering the sanitizing that usually goes into their press releases.

I would totally agree they cook their books. Everything about their economy is manipulated.

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

In terms of military capabilities, they are certainly developing quickly. That said, they are reminiscent of pre-war Germany in a lot of ways. You can only develop your forces so aggressively before other nations begin to coalesce against you. Look at the current situation; Japan is talking about becoming an independent military power again. New basing may open up to U.S. carrier groups for the first time since World War II. Australia is basing a MEF. Asia is scared, and that doesn't bode well for a nation with a military mostly stuck in in the 1950s, both technologically and culturally.

They can't expand their military capabilities too much as no nation in Asia trusts China or wants it to replace American power in the region. It will also force an arms race with powerful regional countries like Japan and India, might upset Russia its largest ally in the international arena and will annoy America who will certainly match any Chinese military build up and could retaliate with a trade war.

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

Culturally, well.. how many Chinese pop stars do you know? How about television hits? Films? Celebrities? Central economic planning and totalitarianism are both antithetical to cultural exchange. As is scaring the hell out of your neighbors.

None of note although Jet Li and Jackie Chan have become fairly big action stars and don't forget the legend Bruce Lee.

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

The technology transfer and cyber-espionage do scare me a lot, though. If anything, that will be the factor that bites the West (free world?) in the ass.

Its a major problem and is enhancing China's military and strategic capabilities. It will also be a big issue when China tries to sell (dump) copied products in the developed world.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

None of note although Jet Li and Jackie Chan have become fairly big action stars and don't forget the legend Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco.

Well so he was but he was raised in Hong Kong and was known for his potrayal of Chinese martial artists

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well so he was but he was raised in Hong Kong and was known for his potrayal of Chinese martial artists

But in the initial discussion of "Stars" it was in how a Chinese central authority is not good at creating them.

Of the ones you mentioned only Jet Li came out of the communist system and he would be considered to be more on the technical side rather than as an innovator (as I would generally consider Lee and Chan to be).

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

They can't expand their military capabilities too much as no nation in Asia trusts China or wants it to replace American power in the region. It will also force an arms race with powerful regional countries like Japan and India, might upset Russia its largest ally in the international arena and will annoy America who will certainly match any Chinese military build up and could retaliate with a trade war.

Who says they can't? You? Me?
The only things really stopping/slowing them down is money, and if they can be bothered to care what their neighbours think about it.

The US certainly can't compete in a military arms race, not with their economy so far down the toilet, so I think we can rule that out as a major factor. As for Japan - does anyone seriously think Japan can or even wants to do anything militarily?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Who says they can't? You? Me?
The only things really stopping/slowing them down is money, and if they can be bothered to care what their neighbours think about it.

So how come they haven't expanded the size of their nuclear arsenal in over 30 years. Their economy is now about three times the size of Russia after all so what's stopping them?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The US certainly can't compete in a military arms race, not with their economy so far down the toilet, so I think we can rule that out as a major factor. As for Japan - does anyone seriously think Japan can or even wants to do anything militarily?

Japan is comfortable living under America's nuclear and defence umbrella although its own armed forces are far from insignificant. If another country threatens that or builds forces designed to control the seas and airspace in the Western Pacific which could intefer with Japanese security or commerce how long do you think Japan would tolerate it? Also how much does America currently spend on defence? America has bases all over the Pacific Rim from South Korea to California and Alaska to Australia, and its airforce and naval forces in the Pacific alone are far more powerful than anything China has.

The last time that China strategic ambitions threatened American security it led to this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-weapons.html

China's anti-satellite warfare launches have been remarkably quite since.