PDA

View Full Version : China to become worlds next Superpower


Furious George
11-04-2006, 10:30 AM
China has pledged to donate billions of dollars to Africa, the poorest continent in the world. Some may see this as suicide, but anyone with a brain would realize this is a genious idea. If this plan is succesful, this will lead to Africa becoming industrialized, and China becoming it's biggest profiteer. Not only is China lending the United States hundreds of billions, it will soon do the same for Africa. Pretty impressive for a 'commie' state, I must say. While, in reality, China isn't a true communistic state, it certianly is giving our Capitalist society a run for it's money.

I've been saying this forever. The best way to help a country like Africa, is to help them help themselves. Welfare is NO solution to poverty, and neither is sitting back doing nothing. If you give the people of Africa jobs, hope, and a future, they will bounce back with economic strength. Congratulations China, you have played your cards like a true capitalist, and will soon reap the benefits.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/11/04/ap3145612.html


China launched a sweeping effort Saturday to expand its access to Africa's oil and markets, pledging billions of dollars in aid and loans as dozens of leaders from the world's poorest continent opened a conference aimed at building economic ties.
African leaders at the two-day meeting said they welcomed Chinese investment and business ties, but Beijing also faces criticism that it is treating Africa like a colonial territory and supports regimes with poor human rights records.
President Hu Jintao pledged to double China's aid to Africa from its 2006 level by 2009. Speaking at the conference's opening ceremony, he promised $3 billion in loans, $2 billion in export credits and a $5 billion fund to encourage Chinese investment in Africa.
"Chinese assistance to Africa is sincere, unselfish and has no strings attached," Premier Wen Jiabao said at a gathering of Chinese and African entrepreneurs held as part of the conference.
Possibly reacting to criticism that China's aid to Africa might fuel human rights abuses or corruption, Wen promised to ensure that projects are "open, just, fair and transparent."
The two-day event includes heads of state from 35 of the 53 African nations and top officials from 13 others - one of the largest such gatherings in history.
China's trade with Africa soared to $39.7 billion last year, four times its 2000 level, according to Wen. He called for efforts to boost that to $100 billion by 2020 and promised to open China's markets wider to African exports.
China's state oil companies are expanding in Africa, signing deals in Nigeria, Angola, Sudan and elsewhere. Manufacturers are trying to expand exports to African markets.
Human rights activists accuse China of supporting governments such as Sudan and Zimbabwe that are accused of chronic abuses. African business groups complain about poor treatment by Chinese companies and competition from a flood of low-cost imports.
But a succession of African leaders who spoke Saturday said they want closer commercial ties with China and hope to learn from its two-decade-old boom as they try to reduce poverty.
"Chinese companies can become key players by investing in our development processes," said President Paul Kagame of Rwanda.
Hu said Beijing also will forgive debts owed by the poorest African countries and grant more of their goods tariff-free import status.
China will train 15,000 African professionals, build schools, hospitals and anti-malaria clinics, send agriculture experts and youth volunteers to Africa and build a new conference center for the African Union, Hu said.
He said China would double the number of scholarships given to African students to 4,000 by 2009.
At a banquet Saturday, Hu invoked the shared history of colonialism in China and Africa and their struggle with poverty.
"The Chinese people rejoice at the achievements made by the African people," he said. "The Chinese people will continue to provide assistance and support to African people in an effort to achieve common development."
The New York-based group Human Rights Watch appealed to Beijing on Saturday to be judicious in giving aid. It called on Chinese leaders to avoid giving Sudan assistance that might fuel the Darfur conflict and to stop supplying Zimbabwe with electronic surveillance and Internet-censoring technology.
"Africans do not need another external power enabling abusive regimes," the group said in a statement.
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz accused Chinese banks last month of ignoring human rights and environmental standards in Africa. He warned that their surge in lending could fuel corruption and debt burdens.
This weekend's conference is a major prestige event for China's communist leadership.
The capital was hung with banners welcoming the African leaders. The government called on residents to avoid driving to keep streets clear for their motorcades.
On Saturday, state television showed Chinese surgeons working in African hospitals, a Kenyan stadium paid for by Beijing, and Chinese and African students dancing together.

wondering
11-05-2006, 01:32 AM
Whatever happened to that whole idea that soybeans could save the world from starvation? You can make almost any type of food from soy.

Furious George
11-05-2006, 02:02 PM
Being an employee at a health food store, I can tell you right now, soy can be made into a TON of foods.

dong
11-05-2006, 11:25 PM
I see that the concerns about China's appalling humanitarian record have come to light here- as it is almost inevitable. I wonder just how significant it is/would actually be in relation to the economic workings of this project.

One thing about China I find difficult to reconcile is my impression that they appear to blantantly lie in just about every record they produce. How are we to gain a measure of what is really going on if the records are never transparent?

FourBear
11-08-2006, 05:44 PM
Not only does China have a tendency to lie, but they also are unfriendly towards anthropologists and archaeologists. Interested anthropologists have a slim chance of getting their project approved by the government, and if their results aren't something the government likes, they could be jailed.

Anyways, I've seen this coming for awhile. I believe there is an entire book about this, but I can't remember the title.

framed
11-08-2006, 11:26 PM
Considering the number of people in China if they ever manage to get their act togehter (and it would seem that they are) its pretty clear that they'll be the next world superpower.

Its interesting to consider that they are becoming a very capitalist nation, but clearly not democratic. The idea that those things dont have to go hand in hand is something most Americans haven't considered. The example would lead you to believe that its less democracy thats important than capitalism. China clearly isnt a real democracy, but it has made a serious effort to becoming capitalist, which I think has contributed most to their rise of late.

With respect to Africa, China isn't the only major donor (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp) in the area. While its certianly popular lately I have to wonder about the viability of investment in an area with few if any natural resources and barely enough productive capacity to support its current population. Theres something to be said for encouraging settlement where theres a natural capacity to support your population.

Furious George
11-09-2006, 07:34 AM
I see that the concerns about China's appalling humanitarian record have come to light here- as it is almost inevitable. I wonder just how significant it is/would actually be in relation to the economic workings of this project.

Chances are, if they are making an investment in an oil-rich area, the investments will be recurring.

One thing about China I find difficult to reconcile is my impression that they appear to blantantly lie in just about every record they produce. How are we to gain a measure of what is really going on if the records are never transparent?


Not sure how to answer that, but they surely are pretty economically sound.

Its interesting to consider that they are becoming a very capitalist nation, but clearly not democratic.

I could've told you that. The United States hasn't been a 'real' Democracy for over a century, but we are indeed capitalist.

The idea that those things dont have to go hand in hand is something most Americans haven't considered.

That's because most Americans are unconcerned with things that are outside of their 'bubble', or daily lives. See here. (http://forum.politicsevolved.com/showthread.php?t=337)

The example would lead you to believe that its less democracy thats important than capitalism. China clearly isnt a real democracy, but it has made a serious effort to becoming capitalist, which I think has contributed most to their rise of late.


To tell you the truth, Capitalism as it's practiced in the 21st century [corporatism, cronyism, and a quasi-market economy] is nothing even close to what was theorized in the "Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith. We are not even a true laissez faire, so how can we judge China as being a true capitalist society, when we ourselves have skewed Capitalism to the point where it's just a name, and not an actual definition?


With respect to Africa, China isn't the only major donor (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp) in the area. While its certianly popular lately I have to wonder about the viability of investment in an area with few if any natural resources and barely enough productive capacity to support its current population. Theres something to be said for encouraging settlement where theres a natural capacity to support your population.

Are you kidding me? Africa is extremely rich in natural resources. They are the worlds leading producers of Diamonds and Gold! Without Gold or Diamonds they wouldn't of been able to open the Johannesburg (Sp?) Stock Exchange! Nigeria also sits on the largest oil reserve in the world, and is becoming the fastest growing economy in the world. I think your statement above needs some major revision, because there is HUGE potential in Africa, but because of poverty, violence and despotism are rampant. To pull the Africans out of the dumps, you need to help them help themselves. Take our welfare system for example. Do you really think it does anything other than provide the lazy with a reason to STAY poor? If you train them in a skill, hook them up with an employer, then they have a chance to become succesful.

framed
11-09-2006, 03:41 PM
"The United States hasn't been a 'real' Democracy for over a century"

Huh?

Reason
12-05-2006, 03:26 PM
China will not become a superpower until it confronts its massive social problems in how the revolution it is seeing right now in growth is not effecting the rural poor of that country.

California is right behind China in GDP, so when are you gonna post a thread saying, "California realizes it is too good for the U.S. and breaks away."

Furious George
12-05-2006, 08:41 PM
Just like any other successful capitalist system, massive social problems take a back seat to economic stronghold. I fail to see why solving social problems would be the contributing factor to their world dominance, hell, what stopped us?

mamab
12-06-2006, 06:22 AM
I agree, Reason, China needs to deal with their own social problems, but I don't really see it happening anytime real soon. I think they're happy to be pulling the wool over other's eyes, letting us think they're getting their act together. Unfortunately, it's the rural poor that are paying the most, and it's not likely to change.

Reason
12-06-2006, 08:26 PM
Just like any other successful capitalist system, massive social problems take a back seat to economic stronghold. I fail to see why solving social problems would be the contributing factor to their world dominance, hell, what stopped us?

The issue is corruption and communism. Both of those ideas punish individual action and full utilization of resources.

Furious George
12-07-2006, 04:11 PM
And Capitalism promotes what exactly? Sheepish consumerism and greed?

Brandon
12-07-2006, 04:46 PM
What's wrong with consumerism? It's their money, let them spend it the way they want to.

Oh and by the way, communism and socialism have just as much greed in them as capitalism. Greed is not an economic factor but a human condition. We will never truely excape it (unless we evolved? Maybe!). Politicians become the cartels and corrupt business men in a socialist and communist society. The nice thing about capitalism is that I can choose to spend my money where I like to. With a tax-filled socialist country, I have no choice, I am FORCED to support it via taxes.

Furious George
12-07-2006, 05:09 PM
Consumerism as we know it promotes an anti-intellectual and egotistical environment. Something we cannot afford to have.

Brandon
12-08-2006, 11:38 AM
Are you trying to say that the American consumer is stupid?

The only time you see riots are when there is not enough supply to meet the demand. If there are 10 products and 1000 people want them, you will see riots and bad behavior. The nice thing about it all is that they are all luxury items.

When was the last time you saw a rush for bread or toothpaste? In the 25 years I have been around, not once. But the latest video game system, they were rioting when the original Nintendo launched.

The nice things about a capitalist system is you rarely see people killing one another over the things people really need. You see it with the PS3 and the Wii. In the USSR and GDR (east germany before the wall collaped) you saw people waiting in line for hours at the bakery.

Can you tell me the last time you waited that long for something you NEEDED and not wanted?

framed
12-08-2006, 03:19 PM
Reason:

You Said: California is right behind China in GDP, so when are you gonna post a thread saying, "California realizes it is too good for the U.S. and breaks away."

I'll do that when California has over 1 billion people to harness to support its rise in influence. Its simple numbers, when China learns to leverage its people effectively there won't be an economic engine on the planet that could match it. Yes they currently have problems, but they are making measurable progress and with that their influence is growing.

George:

You seem to have a serious grudge against capitalism! The egotistical comment is funny because when I think of times I've had to put up with the holier-than-thou attitude (outside of church of course) its usually from a would-be socialist.

You're rallying about how capitalism encourages greed, I kindof agree with you but think its a fantastic thing. Communism and socialism deny that greed is part of human nature, and it turns into their downfall when people respond to their policies with self interest. Capitalism instead recognizes greed as part of human nature and harnesses it for the betterment of society. It sets up a system where if you want something you have to work for it, which has most of the population working and producing goods. Its why we don't have shortages of any of our basic needs, it drives innovation, and its why the US economic engine was able to sustain the cold war while the USSR was driven into insolvency.

I'd really like to know what system you recommend in place of capitalism, since the alternatives have already proven themselves historically as failures. I'll take "sheepish consumerism" over the "sheepish entitlementism" of socialism or communism any day, in the former at least people are busy working for what they need instead of complaining that it wasn't given to them.

dong
12-09-2006, 12:58 AM
I'm not economically minded, so I will only provide a generalised and maybe selectively desultory commentary:

Has this discussion been diverted into a pre-ordained path where "socialism" and "capitalism" have been profiled in diametric opposition? On previous threads we have come up against the distinction between principle and practice, and I think it would be most useful to explicitly acknowledge this. I am in particular focusing on Framed's question to George re: what to replace capitalism with. On that note, I'd also like to say that IMO systems should not be idealised without regard to temporality as social dynamics are consistently changing.

Now for the random note: Instead of would-be socialist I am thinking pseudo-socialist, in just the same way that a pseudo-rationalist likes to justify their profound atheism (refer to the thread about agnostics and disdain for religion...it's very similar).

Brandon
12-11-2006, 01:23 PM
The principle vs practice argument is always something I use to show the short-comings of communism and some socialist states.

In principle, communism and socialism sound like an attainable utopia but when put into practice it always turns out to be the downfall of those systems of government.

The same is said by socialists about Russia. Socialist say that the U.S.S.R is not true socialism or communism. Socialism always looks good on paper but when put into practice has extremely horrible results.

dong
12-12-2006, 04:51 AM
I have regarded socialism as an unattainable utopia as, previously pointed out on this thread, it attempts to deny greed. To balance things out, I also regard a true or perfect capitalism as unattainable due to its relation to the liberal axiology that forms the foundation of western societies: the greed panders to a selfishness which has lately become a form of exclusive individualism. What causes the perception of problems is the belief of intrinsic value in material goods, compounded by the impossiblity of consumers being well-informed. Importantly, whilst the ideal that everybody earns what they can purchase through services they provide can be considered a *noble* one, we must compare the reality to that of attempting to nurture every individual to 'unlocking their potential' i.e. causing an unmanageable amount of competition, which causes the prerequisites for meeting "basic" survival conditions to become increasingly difficult to meet.

I am personally not vehemently opposed to capitalist systems- for I am a discerning consumer who buys not so much what he likes but what he feels is suitable to his needs. I am quite able to live by this system myself...but as a population, I do think that this is another piece of the society that is falling apart, and if this way of life is to be defended in any meaningful sense, then the libertarian directives need to take a real back seat and the regulatory brakes really bite so that we can recover some semblance of balance.