China as a world power

Also, I like to note, after reading a couple of back posts on China, there seems to be a real misunderstanding of Chinese history/intentions.

Everyone points out the Chinese were an "Empire" not too long ago, well I think it should also be noted that at the height of Empire durring the Ming Dynasty, the Chiense fielded a fleet that was unparralled until modern times; Yet, they did not begin an imperial venture. They literally sent the fleet (the famouse Admiral Zhen He) and opened treaty ports for trade..... that was the extent of their actions... Compare that with the British Imperial history or Russian and I'd say that is extremely benign.

Second, the Qing's empire only extension was into their Western provinces, but if we lambast the Chinese for this, we also must lambast the British and the Russians as this was all durring the supposed "Great game" era, for control of Central Asia.

I have also read posts on China trying to take over other Asian coutnries in history? I feel the ignorance of actual Asian History pretty high here. To put it bluntly, the most imperalist country in Asia was Japan. The Chinese allied with Chosun Korea to repel Japan in the Imjin Wars of the 1600s. Afterward the troops did their duty, they came back. In fact, if any of you know Koreans, to this date (the older generations) have an affinity for China.

The Japanese have on 3 major occasions attempted imperalist designs in Asia in hte past 400 years. Also on China "assimilating" cultures like the Borg... anyone who has read even a survey textbook on Chinese hsitory will know that Chinese have spent most of their history tying to keep foreign cultures out and keep their cultures in (this is one reason the Ming Emperor dismanteled the grand fleet - he rather destroy Chinese trade rather then have foreign influcne). Believe me, the Chinese don't attempt to assimiliate anyone.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see how anyone who knows even a smudgling of actaul fact of their history can say half the things I've read thus far on this forum, there seems to be a lot of naive people spouting very trite/false comments about teh Chinese.

Oh and Taiwan, I don't know what anyone knows about this, but it really was under the Qing Dynasty for quite a bit. In any event, thier desire to gain it back is more to erase the shame of the Sino-Japanese war (who basically made Formosa/Taiwan their colony for a while), rather then any imperalist design.

In any event, if the Chinese were truly super imperalist as most people seem to claim, Korea and Japan would have been annexed in hsitory a long time ago. I do remmber Korea was occupied for a time after the collapse of Koryo because of a war between one of the Chinese empires, but it never became a provence of "China" or any of the empires that made up China. The Chinese at most imposed "tribute" which just meant political ass-kissing, but nothing substantive... certainly nothing like the Imperial designs Western countries imposed on each other.

I just don't see them as an "expansionist" nation..... If anything they have been hte victam of other expansinist powers throughout the 1800s and early 1900s.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:
But let's be honest, oil is on it's way out as the main factor input for most modern economies...

---

Then why is the demand for oil in modern economies increasing, not decreasing as it would have to be if your claim were to hold water.

What do you use to base this assertion? Alternate fuels? Even *IF* there was an alternate fuel that could replace oil in its various guises and applications what about oil's material applications? Oil underpins our society to a much greater degree than the liquid you pump into your car.

Quote:

---

In fact, China, along with the US and 2 - 3 other countries are part of the IAEA project to create a fusion reactor. The Chinese have already started a parralel project reffered to as EAST, based partly on Russian technology and those tehy have developed on their own.

---

I think you mean The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), not The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ITER is a collaboration to produce a large scale experimental Reactor, situated in France I believe. The collaboration is amongst The European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China.

The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokomak (EAST) is not designed to produce power. It is a research device only.

We've built Tokomak Fusion reactors before; the first operational Tokomak was built in Russia in the 1960's. Currently the largest Fusion reactor is the Joint European Torus (JET) in Oxfordshire in the UK, which was completed in 1983. The big thing about the ITER is that it is designed to produce more power than it consumes, but it's still experimental and a working power plant is still some way off.

However none of this replaces the need for Oil. There is still many of the fuel, material and manufacturing applications that can not be addressed with Oil (many that can't be addressed with 'alternate fuels' either).

Quote:

---

Anyone who studies Economics knows what will likelly happen is as factor costs goes up for oil, firms and consumers will slowly switch to alternatives which were comparteively expensive durring the high time of the cheap Oil economy, but now are comparatively cheap. This will create more demand for altenrative fuel, which will propell the development of said resources.

---

Anyone who studies Human history can see the few times when a society has run out of a resource that it is almost exclusively dependent on (like we are with Oil) that society collapses. Modern Economics has no parallel to draw from when it comes to our modern dependence on Oil. The "we'll find alternatives" and "economic forces will dictate a switch" is a theory and something hoped for, not a definite.

Quote:

---

So which one is more socialist, to me Europe is 10:1. In Germany the goverment has just past alaw to give money to families if the father stays at home for at least 2 months to take care of the family. Northern Europe is way worst...

---

And yet their economy is very strong. How do you account for this?

Also China is not Socialist, it is Communist and the two are not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Ultimitly, words like "freedom" and "democracy" are meaningless. All that matters is that you can satisfy your needs via the market. Further, it was proven that democratic elections never can lead to socially optimal solutions, this is the famous Arrow Theorem. As Economist say, only market equalibriums are "Pareto Optimal." Thus, any goverment meddling of that, will be ineffecient. If I had my way, there would be no goverment, and to espouse the superiority of one goverment form to another is stupid. Goverments are better or worst depending on how much emphasis they put on market orientated solutions and markets in society.

---

Said like a true free market capitalist economist, your lecturer must be very proud . I bet you believe trickle down works as well. There's more to life than money and economics, if there wasn't we'd all be economist .

There is a term for the t

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Then why is the demand for oil in modern economies increasing, not decreasing as it would have to be if your claim were to hold water.

---

No.... If it's quite simple, if there is a limited supply of something, obviouslly it'll have to be used up eventually. As there is less of it, the more expensive it'll become to find it and drill it up, the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it.....

Quote:

---

What do you use to base this assertion? Alternate fuels? Even *IF* there was an alternate fuel that could replace oil in its various guises and applications what about oil's material applications? Oil underpins our society to a much greater degree than the liquid you pump into your car.

---

Actually at most all you could say is that there does ot exist evidence now. Your statement is just as *bias* I highly doubt realit/science conforms to your ability to forsee it.

It is the case however, that humans expand their ability to do things when given the proper incentive. In this case it'll be high prices. It's all quite simple, either an alternative will be found, or people iwll just consume less.... and I know altenrtives exist now (such as electric) which do not yet have practicality because of lack of infastructure. Yet, at some point, the increase in petroleum based fuel will make those investments in the infastructure (for whatever altenrnative) viable.....

Quote:

---

I think you mean The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), not The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ITER is a collaboration to produce a large scale experimental Reactor, situated in France I believe. The collaboration is amongst The European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China.

The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokomak (EAST) is not designed to produce power. It is a research device only.

We've built Tokomak Fusion reactors before; the first operational Tokomak was built in Russia in the 1960's. Currently the largest Fusion reactor is the Joint European Torus (JET) in Oxfordshire in the UK, which was completed in 1983. The big thing about the ITER is that it is designed to produce more power than it consumes, but it's still experimental and a working power plant is still some way off.

However none of this replaces the need for Oil. There is still many of the fuel, material and manufacturing applications that can not be addressed with Oil (many that can't be addressed with 'alternate fuels' either).

---

I was on the impression the IAEA was somehow directing this. In any event, perfecting this technology will relieve oil burden in energy production. I never said it will reduce the the total burden for oil. That really is the point really, the increase in factors for oil consumption is creating incnetives for firms and govermetns to react and look for altnerative methods....

Quote:

---

Anyone who studies Human history can see the few times when a society has run out of a resource that it is almost exclusively dependent on (like we are with Oil) that society collapses. Modern Economics has no parallel to draw from when it comes to our modern dependence on Oil. The "we'll find alternatives" and "economic forces will dictate a switch" is a theory and something hoped for, not a definite.

---

No, because demand will go down gradually, it won't be a a one time event.... therefore the chances of a catastrophic "collapse" is unlikelly. As most economist now, most alarmist end up being wrong because people adopt, quite reasonablly, therefore things usually don't happen as badly as people forsee....

Quote:

---

And yet their economy is very strong. How do you account for this?

Also China is not Socialist, it is Communist and the two are not the same thing.

---

Actaully the German economy has stagnated.... in fact all the European econommies save England, who have reformed early on have stagnated.... Further, because of this large well-fare state (which provides inferior gov't service), they are now directly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hummm lots of rubbish there. Where to start??

1) Resources. Everything you say about oil is true in the long term. America still have significant domestic oil resources, just that it's expensive to exploit them. Going forward as the price of crude increases the economic case for pumping that American oil improves so it will be exploited. Further along, newer renewable technologies will become economic to use. The problem? This all presupposed sustained high oil prices and with it high energy costs. A lot of our current economy presupposes low enery costs, as costs rise there will be economic impacts, some of which we can adapt to, some we wont. The assumption is that we will adapt to it but that's not always the case. Nineteenth century Britain was a coal economy its industrial sector fed by cheap local coal. Consequently it was slow to adapt to the new oil economy and the associated technologies. America is an oil economy, it is likely to be slow to adapt to newer fuel technologies than countries with a lower level of oil infrastructure and lobbying.

2) The purpose of life is not economics but the creation of a stable environment for the raising of children. If German children's survival and quality of life are improved by fathers spending more time at home that strikes me as being a reasonable priority. As for those nasty "socialist" northern Europeans, they kick your ass in just about every economic indicator you can look at. German's problems come from absorbing the run down economically crippled east. Are current Germans living beyond their economic means? probably, but their real problem was that they didn't realise just how much they needed to sacrifice for reunification. It's a little like agreeing to take on your deadbeat orphaned nephew and not adjusting your lifestyle to cover the increased family outgoings. The luxuries that you may have once afforded easily you simply can't afford now. That doesnt mean that those luxuries are bad, just that your changed circumstances make them unreasonable now.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

1) Resources. Everything you say about oil is true in the long term. America still have significant domestic oil resources, just that it's expensive to exploit them. Going forward as the price of crude increases the economic case for pumping that American oil improves so it will be exploited. Further along, newer renewable technologies will become economic to use. The problem? This all presupposed sustained high oil prices and with it high energy costs. A lot of our current economy presupposes low enery costs, as costs rise there will be economic impacts, some of which we can adapt to, some we wont.

---

Uhm... no? Why wouldn't the cost of energy production increase in a petro-based economy if its increasgnily more expesnvie to extract petrol from the Earth?

Further, be specific as to what you forsee the United States "Can't" adapt to in terms of changing hte energy infastructure..... in the long term, there IS NO SUCH THING as fixed capital investement.....

Quote:

---

The assumption is that we will adapt to it but that's not always the case. Nineteenth century Britain was a coal economy its industrial sector fed by cheap local coal. Consequently it was slow to adapt to the new oil economy and the associated technologies. America is an oil economy, it is likely to be slow to adapt to newer fuel technologies than countries with a lower level of oil infrastructure and lobbying.

---

Uhm... obviouslly the British have adapted.... in the long term nothing is fixed....

Quote:

---

2) The purpose of life is not economics but the creation of a stable environment for the raising of children.

---

I'm glad that you have decided the purpose of life for everyone. I merely state the purpose of life is to satsify your utiltiy, whatever that may be.....

Quote:

---

If German children's survival and quality of life are improved by fathers spending more time at home that strikes me as being a reasonable priority.

---

Yeah too bad it hasn't actually changed a thing. Since the policy has been enacted, most familise have not used it. Do you know hwy? Cause it's not market viable. The reason firms higher men in most labor mro ehten women is because firms have to invest some time and capital to trainign these people. Unlike women, men are likelly not to take time off for thigns like birth, and are likelly to remain in hte company for a logner term. In fact when DW-TV interviewd people on the street about this program, this is EXACTLY what they said was the problem, none of hteir companeis are going to excuse men arbitrary time to take off from the firm... it makes no sense in a competetive buisness envirment if your labor pool is not consistent.

Quote:

---

As for those nasty "socialist" northern Europeans, they kick your ass in just about every economic indicator you can look at.

---

All except for market competetivness in just about every industry, especially medical.... and GDP growth.... oh and unemployment.... so basically, we have more people working and the workers have more capital per worker to use with.... that means we're more effecient by defintion.

The only European nation that has similiar growth rates are either implementing market liebralization or its England. France and Germany the two most socialist of the European economies are stagnate.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:
No.... If it's quite simple, if there is a limited supply of something, obviouslly it'll have to be used up eventually. As there is less of it, the more expensive it'll become to find it and drill it up, the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it.....

---

You said we are now, at this moment, moving away from Oil. If this were true we would be now, at this moment, reducing our demand for Oil. We are, at this moment INCREASING our demand for Oil, therefore at this moment we are not moving away from Oil, we are becoming more dependent on it, despite the prices currently going up. It really is as simple as that.

An important line here is "the higher the factor cost of using it up..... The less people will want to use it..... ". You can not want to use something all you want, but if you have no choice you have no choice. That is one of the reasons why Governments don’t judge everything based on economics, neither should they.

Quote:

---

Actually at most all you could say is that there does ot exist evidence now. Your statement is just as *bias* I highly doubt realit/science conforms to your ability to forsee it.

---

But reality/science does conform to your ability to forecast we'll suddenly get a whole new societal/manufacturing/fuel/transport infrastructure within the time period forecast for peak Oil (some forecasts put it in the next decade)?

Quote:

---

It is the case however, that humans expand their ability to do things when given the proper incentive. In this case it'll be high prices. It's all quite simple, either an alternative will be found, or people iwll just consume less.... and I know altenrtives exist now (such as electric) which do not yet have practicality because of lack of infastructure.

---

In my last post I said there was more to life than economics. This is one of those circumstances, it REALLY ISN'T that simple. It's that simple if you look at it merely from an economics standpoint and ignore the consequences.

Your still talking about Oil like it's only used to run power stations and run internal combustion engines. If that was the case we could move over, it still wouldn't be quite as rosy as you make out , but it could be done. Unfortunately it isn't the case.

Let me put it like this, in the US every one calorie of Food requires ten calories of Oil. Firstly just taking Oil as a fuel:

All farming equipment runs on Oil. There are a few experimental prototypes but these would have to be commercially viable at the time of peak Oil, people can't eat less, no matter how much economics wants them too.

Food storage devices such as refrigerators are made from Oil, made in factories powered by Oil, and run on electricity derived from Oil.

The average piece of food is transported 5000 miles, if a viable cost effective means of powering the vehicles that do this is not found people aren't going to pay $50 for a loaf of bread and despite what economics wants, people can't stop eating.

Fertilizers and Pesticides are all derived from Oil.

Oil is used everywhere, as I said it's not just the stuff that we burn to make our cars go, or supply us with electricity, it's also a raw material.

We can't simply use less it doesn't work like that in the real world, in an economics text book perhaps but not the real world. We have to find an alternative to ALL of Oils uses, some alternatives exist yes but not for all applications.

Quote:

---

I was on the impression the IAEA was somehow directing this. In any event, perfecting this technology will relieve oil burden in energy production. I never said it will reduce the the total burden for oil. That really is the point really, the increase in factors for oil consumption is creating incnetives for firms and govermetns to react and look for altnerative methods....

---

The IAEA is more of a regulatory board. Fusion power being used for commercial energy production, let alone relieving the 'Oil burden' is some way off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MarginalRevolution:

Uhm... no? Why wouldn't the cost of energy production increase in a petro-based economy if its increasgnily more expesnvie to extract petrol from the Earth?

---

It will and that's the point.

Let's assume that electricity generated by oil is 3c per Kwh. Now let's assume that the cost of solar generated electricity is 10c per Kwh. Based soley on economic principles there is little justification for building solar plants in most cases while oil energy costs remain low. If oil costs rose until oil derived electricity hit 12c/Kwh and stayed that way, the position changes. So it is with the US oil Bidness, there is US dommestic oil reserves but right now the cost of foreign crude is so low that it would not be economic to exploit it. If the price of foreign sources becomes high enough then the US oil becomes economic to exploit. What's the problem with that?

Quote:

---

Further, be specific as to what you forsee the United States "Can't" adapt to in terms of changing hte energy infastructure..... in the long term, there IS NO SUCH THING as fixed capital investement.....

---

No I said you assumed it would adapt and I'm saying that's not a given. I'm not saying they won't adapt just that "don't worry about it-- we'll adapt" is poor science....

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The assumption is that we will adapt to it but that's not always the case. Nineteenth century Britain was a coal economy its industrial sector fed by cheap local coal. Consequently it was slow to adapt to the new oil economy and the associated technologies. America is an oil economy, it is likely to be slow to adapt to newer fuel technologies than countries with a lower level of oil infrastructure and lobbying.

---

Uhm... obviouslly the British have adapted.... in the long term nothing is fixed....

---

In the nineteenth century they were also the world's largest economy, the principle industrial power and the originators of most new innovation. Are they now? Your assumption is that if you are top dog, you will remain taht way because of course you will adapt easily to the new economic reality. It would seem that history has already shown your assumption to be false.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

2) The purpose of life is not economics but the creation of a stable environment for the raising of children.

---

I'm glad that you have decided the purpose of life for everyone. I merely state the purpose of life is to satsify your utiltiy, whatever that may be.....

---

No, you are an animal, your purpose is to reproduce your genes, that is why your genes made you -- the same way a plant makes a flower. Everything else you do in life is to support that function. The money you make, the posessions you amass everything else you do is just there to support that purpose. Few things you build, own or create in your lifetime will still be here in 1000 years except your decendants. If you made $200B and died childless, you will be a loser.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As for those nasty "socialist" northern Europeans, they kick your ass in just about every economic indicator you can look at.

---

All except for market competetivness in just about every industry, especially medical.... and GDP growth.... oh and unemployment.... so basically, we have more people working and the workers have more capital per worker to use with.... that means we're more effecient by defintion.

The only European nation that has similiar growth rates are either implementing market liebralization or its England. France and Germany the two most socialist of the European economies are stagnate.

---

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/28/wef-gci-finland-cx_pm_0928gc
i2005.html

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/28/wef-gci-finland-cx_pm_0928gc
i2005.html]

Now let's take a little quote from this supposed index:

Quote:

---

All indexes reflect their components. The WEF's GCI has three main legs: the overall quality of a country's economy at the macro level (e.g., budget surpluses, good; deficits, bad); the state of its public institutions, which includes such measures as the independence of the judiciary and the level of public-sector corruption; and the level of its technological innovation.

---

So this isn't even actually based on GROWTH as defined by Economist.

"State of its public institions" how do they measure that exadtly?.... The vitality of the court system has very little to do with real GDP growth...

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/07/art3full.pdf#search='Labor%20per%2
0capita'

US productivity is the highest in the world, so is our labor participation rate. Further, even your link admits US technoglocial innnovation is the hgihest, and we arn't even at a Pareto Optimal point... the US gov't meddles enough with the economy and directs research that the market is not totally able to behave naturally. If the US were to totally liberalize, it would be that much higher.

The only argument you can give me is that the4 Solow Growth model does not link economic well-being with productivity; but since you don't nkow anyo of the theory you deem to criticisize I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

---

No, you are an animal, your purpose is to reproduce your genes, that is why your genes made you -- the same way a plant makes a flower. Everything else you do in life is to support that function. The money you make, the posessions you amass everything else you do is just there to support that purpose. Few things you build, own or create in your lifetime will still be here in 1000 years except your decendants. If you made $200B and died childless, you will be a loser.

---

According to the defintion of biological fitness. I'm glad you took Bio 101, but that is merely saying "my defintion is better then yours." Sociey runs smoother if people are satisfied, in whatever way they wish to be. That is why command economies and socialism dosn't work, and that's why it must be left to the own devices of individuals to determine what will satsify their utility..... We can't just direct people to be "biologically fit" and expect society to run properly. People obviosully don't care about this notion of biology, since by defintion, there are many "unfit" individuals (people who remain childless) and that is their right.

Quote:

---

No I said you assumed it would adapt and I'm saying that's not a given. I'm not saying they won't adapt just that "don't worry about it-- we'll adapt" is poor science....

---

Yeah I suppose your right, if we assume people start to behave totatlly unlike what they normally do, then yes, tehy won't adapt and they will just die. That's very realistic. If your given a choice of a consumble and a inferior substittue, and both will satsify your needs, but you wish to have the superior good because of whatever, its irrelvent, if its beyond your budget constraint, you WILL purchase the inferior good if its truly needed. Unless you can stave off consumption for future consumption. But to talk about this in any real detail we have to introduce macroeconomic models of arbitrary periods.

Quote:

---

It will and that's the point.

Let's assume that electricity generated by oil is 3c per Kwh. Now let's assume that the cost of solar generated electricity is 10c per Kwh. Based soley on economic principles there is little justification for building solar plants in most cases while oil energy costs remain low. If oil costs rose until oil derived electricity hit 12c/Kwh and stayed that way, the position changes. So it is with the US oil Bidness, there is US dommestic oil reserves but right now the cost of foreign crude is so low that it would not be economic to exploit it. If the price of foreign sources becomes high enough then the US oil becomes economic

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME