Comments on: The Future Is China

By: JTJT

JTJT — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:02:33 +0000

Instead of being paranoid about China and the 21st Century, I prefer to think of them coming out of what most of Europe went through in the mid 20th Century and ending up somewhat like Europe in relation to us as time goes on. As China becomes wealthier, all those cheap products won’t be so cheap any more.
And the only serioiusly zero sum aspect of the game is fossil fuels. If we collectively don’t solve that one in a sustainable way, we are all screwed.
And for the USA, the military crap and imperial delusions are going to have to go. And that will happen because we won’t be able to afford it any more.
It will bankrupt us if we try, the same way it did the Soviets.
Our choice.

By: naugiedoggie

naugiedoggie — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:54:40 +0000

Where is the empirical evidence for this claim? Most of the “high-tech” components in your computer are manufactured in China. And what is the empirical evidence that “marketing” is the demonstration of an advanced industrial society? Seems to me that “marketing” became gradually dominant as the industrial component of American society declined. Further, the article states that China has the fastest accumulation rate of new patents of any nation. Assuming this statement as fact, how does that square with your claim that they’re just a bunch of potters and chip welders?

Well, anyway, I’m a “buy American” guy and have been for years. But, I’m in the minority.

Thanks.

By: mui1

mui1 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:07:54 +0000

Wal-Mart Loves Unions (In China)

Only in China, with its inimitable blend of Dickensian capitalism and authoritarian communism, has Wal-Mart found a union to its liking.

And small wonder. Unions affiliated with the All-China Federation seldom push for wage increases or safer machinery. Indeed, the locals are often headed by someone from company management. Not that there isn’t worker discontent in China: Every week brings accounts of spontaneous strikes, and now and then an occasional riot over such lifestyle impediments as unpaid wages. But the role of the state-sanctioned unions isn’t to channel the discontent into achievable gains; it’s to contain it to the employer’s benefit.

The leaders of genuine workers’ movements in China don’t end up running the All-China Federation. They’re to be found in prison, in exile or in hiding.

By: mui1

mui1 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:03:26 +0000

Yeah unfortunately, China still has only one union. To suggest they need better ones, will only get dirty looks. But they do.

By: mui1

mui1 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:56:19 +0000

People in HK have memories of unfettered capitalism as well.

By: mui1

mui1 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:55:07 +0000

Pardon the language, but the idea of going back to the early industrial age really always bothers me. But it seems that’s what some rethugs want.

By: mui1

mui1 — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:53:38 +0000

Pardon me, In reverse of the west, some are fond of saying China went through its dark ages in the 20th c.
Yes, I have had many compare and contrast conversations regarding HK, Mainland China and the US with a friend of mine. I always said that what drives some of us Dems in the Northeast is that we have a collective memory of crappy working standards, TB, shitty housing and the like from our grandparents and their parents and etc., and don’t want to go back to that crappy state of unfettered capitalism. Since change for the better in China can’t come like it did in HK– they are not overseas British citizens as HK was–it will come with a growing sense that the promise of “getting rich” is not enough. In other words, conflict . . . and it will be organic.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:34:48 +0000

China has serious problems. Uprisings (not without reason), beaucoup de natural disastors, uneven living standards across the country, and serious serious worker safety and public health issues as well as pollution, etc. As a close friend of mine who’s Chinese would say, “give us another 50 years to get civilized;

One thing that worries me is that they could review a lot of our history and fear unions, Liberal government regulations and the like; then skip forward to our more recent system (since 1981) where the Rich get ALL the profits of growth and everyone else is kept in a stasis.

We’re still looking to improve and evolve here in America. Who is going to drive the evolution in places still growing like China or India?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:26:05 +0000

we’ve been reliant on a policy of “bubble cultivation”

The Rich see it as easier and safer to transport what they know to new ground and begin plowing for profits. Here we’ll have to keep doing some of that and be creative to find new ‘crops’ to plant (Green Revolution and so on). If a bubble is based on REAL economic activities and growth, then it’s fine. Where the Wall Streeters got crazy was in finding ways to grow money supply without relating it to real economic activities. Let them try that in China and their heads will roll.

By: Rayne

Rayne — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:23:12 +0000

They had 19B in cash as of last week. Their burn rate is 13B a month. It’s got little to do with leaving the U.S. at this point, as much as they simply don’t have cash nor the credit to get them through a massive slump in demand during a major retool.

I calculated based on last year’s financials that GM lost about $2500 per vehicle sold (it’ll be a larger number this year, for sure). Health care is a HUGE chunk of their expenses, at more than $5000 a vehicle. If they want to leave the U.S., that’s one of the biggest incentives, and it’s an incentive for any other manufacturing firm outside of the auto industry as well.