|
Helsing posted:The US sort of followed that model but Britain, perhaps because it industrialized first, doesn't really fit that description. quote:Well the British also had much more direct land reform in form of the Inclosure Acts. British industrialization was certainly more organic, but that's doesn't preclude a certain amount of government driving some of the process. Every single industrializing country followed a state driven model, it's just that some of them was done better (Britain, Germany, South Korea, Japan, the US, China post-1979) than others (Much of the Arab world, ARGUABLY China pre-1979).
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
enraged_camel posted:People have been predicting China's crash for well over a decade. Predictions like that are made by economic incumbents (USA and allies, i.e. the West) to sow doubt in people's minds about China's upcoming rockstar status. It's the way a veteran boxer looks at a young trainee, shakes his head and goes, "tsk tsk... he's training too hard." And then gets beaten a few years down the line by said trainee, who is now the champion. I mean, "Chinese collapse" is an overplayed meme and I don't think its particularly likely, but the reverse (the Chinese Juggernaut becoming the new #1) is another overplayed meme that seems just as unlikely. Typo fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:That's why I find this topic fascinating. China's gone from an agrarian medieval society to 21st century economic titan in the span of 60 years. If this was 1865 America then you are stuck with either developing those on your own or waiting for someone else to developing it for you. Either way it would be take a lot longer. And it's not just China either, countries with lower GDP per capita tend to have much faster GDP/capita growth rate across the board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(economics) Typo fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The Soviet Union went from medieval to developed economy by contemporary 1950 standards in ~30 years. That's a much smaller step than the same starting point to 21st century standards. Though I agree command economies can be great for rapid directed development and China is a semi example of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita The Soviet experience (and Chinese for that matter) also needs to be put in the perspective of their precedessors. Both Tsarist Russia and the KMT experienced rapid (see the Nanjing decade), state driven economical growth in the years preceding the wars which gave rise to Communists governments. Russia in the 1890s-1900s was rather like China today, an autocratic country which experienced growth as high as 9% per annuam (https://www.russianlegacy.com/russian_culture/history/ep_tsarist_economy.htm). In this context the Soviet model was not particularly unique (though far more brutal and extreme) or effective relative to their right wing counterparts. The Chinese model pre-1979 was notable for being even more extreme than the Soviets. Soviet style central planning was the position of conservatives within the party. Whereas Mao himself has a tendency of wanting to repeat the worst of the Soviet experiment on a bigger style with less success (the GLF) and bringing on the economic disruptions for the sake of politics (targeting the CCP bureaucracy during the Cultural revolution). Typo fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
flatbus posted:This narrative isn't what happens in real life, and I'm shocked that people still think this way despite the opposite being heavily documented in mainstream media. There's tons of liberal tearjerkers about sweatshops and cheap labor in Asia and Africa, and you don't hear about developing countries adopting the latest fully automated assembly systems. There's a reason for that - developing countries are competing on the cost of labor and if you have high productivity systems, the cost of labor goes down and so does that advantage. Without a strong state to say 'adopt this less profitable but technologically advanced venture,' there is no incentive for firms in a developing country to adopt the latest productive technologies if it's more profitable to stick with labor-intensive ones. That's why very basic poo poo is still made by humans in poor countries when they can be made by robots, and it's hampering the growth of productivity. Yes, you are correct that China and other developing countries succeeded by utilizing their cheap labor. But adopting western or Soviet technology does not necessarily mean the very latest automatic system, but rather subsets of technology which favors labor intensive manufacturing. See for instance, China essentially buying old steel mills from the Rhineland and transporting it to China. It doesn't change the fact you can grow very fast by moving farmers from pre-industrial methods of production into towns and factories using at least industrial level technology. There is also the fact that a lot of the technological expertise adopted aren't even factory equipment, the Soviets for instance helped to massively improve the infrastructure in China. My hometown still uses a bridge which was built by the Soviets in the 1950s. Typo fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
flatbus posted:This goes directly against the claim that countries can benefit from the path (or technology) taken by previously industrializing countries. China has a very strong state so I'm not counting it here (and this is going to veer off topic so I'll watch myself), but if you're saying that it's obvious that a developing country can't make use of the latest productive tech and should climb up the productivity chain all by its own, how in the world is convergence ever going to happen unless the developed countries stop innovating?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
flatbus posted:how in the world is convergence ever going to happen unless the developed countries stop innovating? It's simply faster for me to adopt existing technology than to invent new ones.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That also has the effect of not having an indigenous base of knowledge to call back on to make your own revolutionary improvements. First of all, we should clarify what is the cause and what is the effect. The base of knowledge doesn't exist in China for innovation on par with the west anyway, this is partially because China have something like 5-10 world class universities, and then the quality of higher education drops off a cliff after that. Which means human capital is poor in China except for the very top tier, and many of them choose to go abroad anyway. This is why China has to resort to copying western innovations in the first place. But China deals with the need to copy foreign innovation and still foster domestic improvements by 1) The tried and true method of pooling resources into (attempting at least) creating national champions: world class technology giants where there is a real attempt at having good corporate governance and be competitive on the world stage (best examples are Huawei and ZTE). 2) The tried and true method of protectionism. By design or coincidence, banning Facebook, Twitter, and Google means your population has to use domestic products like RenRen, Weibao and Baidu instead. So that leaves institutions which are at least theoretically capable of innovating on the same field as the west. ronya posted:Labour-intensive low-productivity industry is not intended to be superior to capital-intensive high-productivity industry; it is intended to be superior to agricultural productivity, which is always very low. China has not yet finished mobilizing its rural population, far from it, so it has a while to go before it stops adding more labour-intensive production Typo fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
tbp posted:Being real loose with the definition of "world class university" here There's something like 7 Chinese Universities on there in the top 200 in the world
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:In what manner are Chinese social media, search, or software companies even theoretically innovative? Typo fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Peel posted:Haven't most industrialising nations followed a similar path?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:its important to also recognize that countries like Peru and Mexico which pursued an import substitution strategy in the post war era were much better off than they have been since they abandoned import substitution for neoliberal economic policies. What is the background behind this statement? Typo fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Your comment really just illustrates how premature free trade is a recipe for keeping currently under developed countries at the bottom of the global economy. South Korea industry was less efficient than its best global competitors for many decades and had to use various protectionist measures and subsidies. The USA had a century of protectionism and Britain had several hundred years of it before those countries were able to compete effectively in a "free market". In fact it isn't a coincidence that Britain switched from protectionism to advocating 'free trade' right around the time it became the world leader in industry. The Americans did the exact same thing: they were huge advocates of protectionism and cultivating 'infant industries' until they had built up the world's most productive industry and then they suddenly became the world's fiercest advocates for free trade. All those countries also experienced major bubbles during their development, but they were able to recover from them and forge ahead because, for various reasons, they didn't end up at the mercy of foreign creditors who had a vested interest in keeping them down. quote:I agree that the record of ISI isn't as good as the record of export lead protectionism but its still got a much better track record than "free trade" which tends to only benefit the core countries plus a small strata of elite interests in the periphery. If we actually wanted to use trade to develop the entire world then free trade would be phased in gradually, starting at the regional level and then slowly working up as countries became more efficient. We'd recognize that while a country is developing they are better off having an inefficient industrial base that is protected by government rather than having no real industry at all. Typo fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Chinese economics question: Say you're a provincial official with a good unreported revenue stream. What are the investment and banking options open to you? American bank account obviously
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:All of these, and: bitcoins
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The US isn't actually in decline, though. Growth in the US has been significantly better than Europe and Japan for a long time now, and looks like it might even be better than China in the future, depending on how badly China implodes. There's a very plausible scenario where the rest of the world basically goes down in flames and the US keeps trucking along, and that, at least with China, is seeming more likely every day Even if China starts growing at a far slower path it will still have exceeded the US as the largest economy in the world, or will do so eventually if you use nominal measure of GDP. So even if we just assume the power of the PRC and the US remains relatively constant, it's still very significant. None of the major geopolitical rivals to the US in the 20th century: Germany, Japan and the USSR, has came even close to match the amount of economic resources the US possessed. All 3 had economies a fraction of the size of the US. In other words, China will be far more powerful a rival than even the Soviet Union was if Cold War 2.0 ever breaks out. quote:Even that is questionable since the middle-income trap has already claimed several of the vaunted BRICS economies and seems poised to capture China as well. Typo fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The USSR did, it just turns out that central planning is a really inefficient way to run an economy. And China doesn't have central planning anymore and have not since like 80s-90s
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you think a democratic Chinese government would take the same actions in the South China Sea, or r/e Tibet and Xinjiang? I think democracies tend more towards isolationism than anything, they would be liable to tell Xinjiang to gently caress off and then deport all the Uighyrs out of Real China A democratic Chinese government might actually be more aggressive because the average Chinese is pretty nationalistic and might vote in whoever promises to bomb Japan and solve the "Uighur problem" once and for all. It's not like China's actions in the South China Sea is terribly unpopular.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:
In general, I would agree with you, but it's far from a guarantee.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:I think a democratic China would have democratic government in Tibet and Xinjiang as well No it wouldn't a democratic China might very well implement democracy for the 98% of so of its population outside of Xinjiang/Tibet and maybe even let those two regions vote for national government but there is no way any autonomy is going to be granted to them because anything that even hints at "independence" would be shot down instantly in the court of Chinese popular opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Democracies, with supporting institutional structures, are a more accountable form of government. OTOH, you have the example of India, which is democratic but so broken that Communist China probably does govern better than which ever Indian government is in power at any given time in the last 30 years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:It obviously depends entirely on the system of government, but China has a lengthy tradition of strong central government and it'd be a surprise to me if a democratic China was set up to be a federation. Yeah I seriously doubt de jure federation would ever survive even a democratic Chinese political process because it remands people too much of the era of the warlords.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Chinese war strategizing used to involve using China's sheer bulk against any given enemy (throw people at them because they'll run out of bullets before we run out of people) but then they saw the Gulf War and shat a brick. That's not quite true, human wave was a tactic used by the PLA, but strategically it always involved the usage of infiltration tactics (see the first phase of the Korean War) to position your forces on the enemy flank without being detected, and then use fast human wave attacks to overrun individual units and ambush the retreaters. For the latter part of the cold war, the Chinese military never modernized because it was expected to fight against a Soviet tank invasion, and therefore the people's war doctrine was paramount since the only logical way to fight against that would be to draw them into the interior country and bleed them like 100x Afghanistan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
A3th3r posted:This WAS true for the most part.. but you must remember that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980's. Oh yeah definitely, which is why the Chinese military today is different, and is geared to fight a war over Taiwan or SE sea than a people's war against an invading Soviet army.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
ductonius posted:This. This will happen. Either the CCP lays the hammer down or great indivisible China will divide into dozens of warring states. Again. The last time is occurred essentially because one man (Yuan Shikai) hosed and tried to make himself emperor: then died so military power went to provincial generals with nobody at the center capable of controlling them. The CCP will literally shoot another 40 million people before it allows that to happen again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:I wonder if they've considered putting up some kind of banner, maybe white letters on red? I'm just throwing out ideas. Letting stock market index fall is counter-revolutionary and those who do so should submit themselves to self criticism struggle sessions
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
1949 borders are scared to Han Chinese at all levels, pretty any Chinese government would probably shoot every ethnic Tibetan and replace them with Han settlers than allowing so much as an inch of Tibet to secede from China
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Splitting off the various non-Mandarin Han subgroups isn't really feasible in part because those groups have basically always been politically united for the last 2000 years, but I don't see how you can say Xinjiang and Tibet shouldn't be split with a straight face. That's not Russia and Tatarstan or Siberia, that's Russia and Estonia or Georgia or Tajikstan Manchuria was actually very lightly settled before the mid 1800s because they were off limits to Han settlement. The Manchus themselves allowed Hans to migrate there in the mid-late 1800s because Russia annexed the Amur region and the Qing realized that without a large Chinese population the Russians can just walk in and take over the rest easily.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 01:34
|
|