http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072502255.html
A Long Wait at the Gate to Greatness
John Pomfet
Nikita Khrushchev said the Soviet Union would bury us, but these days, everybody seems to think that China is the one wielding the shovel. The People's Republic is on the march -- economically, militarily, even ideologically. Economists expect its GDP to surpass America's by 2025; its submarine fleet is reportedly growing five times faster than Washington's; even its capitalist authoritarianism is called a real alternative to the West's liberal democracy. China, the drumbeat goes, is poised to become the 800-pound gorilla of the international system, ready to dominate the 21st century the way the United States dominated the 20th.
Except that it's not.
Ever since I returned to the United States in 2004 from my last posting to China, as this newspaper's Beijing bureau chief, I've been struck by the breathless way we talk about that country. So often, our perceptions of the place have more to do with how we look at ourselves than with what's actually happening over there. Worried about the U.S. education system? China's becomes a model. Fretting about our military readiness? China's missiles pose a threat. Concerned about slipping U.S. global influence? China seems ready to take our place.
But is China really going to be another superpower? I doubt it.
It's not that I'm a China-basher, like those who predict its collapse because they despise its system and assume that it will go the way of the Soviet Union. I first went to China in 1980 as a student, and I've followed its remarkable transformation over the past 28 years. I met my wife there and call it a second home. I'm hardly expecting China to implode. But its dream of dominating the century isn't going to become a reality anytime soon.
Too many constraints are built into the country's social, economic and political systems. For four big reasons -- dire demographics, an overrated economy, an environment under siege and an ideology that doesn't travel well -- China is more likely to remain the muscle-bound adolescent of the international system than to become the master of the world.
In the West, China is known as "the factory to the world," the land of unlimited labor where millions are eager to leave the hardscrabble countryside for a chance to tighten screws in microwaves or assemble Apple's latest gizmo. If the country is going to rise to superpowerdom, says conventional wisdom, it will do so on the back of its massive workforce.
But there's a hitch: China's demographics stink. No country is aging faster than the People's Republic, which is on track to become the first nation in the world to get old before it gets rich. Because of the Communist Party's notorious one-child-per-family policy, the average number of children born to a Chinese woman has dropped from 5.8 in the 1970s to 1.8 today -- below the rate of 2.1 that would keep the population stable. Meanwhile, life expectancy has shot up, from just 35 in 1949 to more than 73 today. Economists worry that as the working-age population shrinks, labor costs will rise, significantly eroding one of China's key compe ive advantages.
Worse, Chinese demographers such as Li Jianmin of Nankai University now predict a crisis in dealing with China's elderly, a group that will balloon from 100 million people older than 60 today to 334 million by 2050, including a staggering 100 million age 80 or older. How will China care for them? With pensions? Fewer than 30 percent of China's urban dwellers have them, and none of the country's 700 million farmers do. And China's state-funded pension system makes Social Security look like Fort Knox. Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer and economist at the American Enterprise Ins ute, calls China's demographic time bomb "a slow-motion humanitarian tragedy in the making" that will "probably require a rewrite of the narrative of the rising China."
I count myself lucky to have witnessed China's economic rise first-hand and seen its successes etched on the bodies of my Chinese classmates. When I first met them in the early 1980s, my fellow students were hard and thin as rails; when I found them again almost 20 years later, they proudly sported what the Chinese call the "boss belly." They now golfed and lolled around in swanky saunas.
But in our exuberance over these incredible economic changes, we seem to have forgotten that past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Not a month goes by without some Washington think tank crowing that China's economy is overtaking America's. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is the latest, predicting earlier this month that the Chinese economy would be twice the size of ours by the middle of the century.
There are two problems with predictions like these. First, in the universe where these reports are generated, China's graphs always go up, never down. Second, while the do ents may include some nuance, it vanishes when the studies are reported to the rest of us.
One important nuance we keep forgetting is the sheer size of China's population: about 1.3 billion, more than four times that of the United States. China should have a big economy. But on a per capita basis, the country isn't a dragon; it's a medium-size lizard, sitting in 109th place on the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Database, squarely between Swaziland and Morocco. China's economy is large, but its average living standard is low, and it will stay that way for a very long time, even assuming that the economy continues to grow at impressive rates.
The big number wheeled out to prove that China is eating our economic lunch is the U.S. trade deficit with China, which last year hit $256 billion. But again, where's the missing nuance? Nearly 60 percent of China's total exports are churned out by companies not owned by Chinese (including plenty of U.S. ones). When it comes to high-tech exports such as computers and electronic goods, 89 percent of China's exports come from non-Chinese-owned companies. China is part of the global system, but it's still the low-cost assembly and manufacturing part -- and foreign, not Chinese, firms are reaping the lion's share of the profits.
When my family and I left China in 2004, we moved to Los Angeles, the smog capital of the United States. No sooner had we set foot in southern California than my son's asthma attacks and chronic chest infections -- so worryingly frequent in Beijing -- stopped. When people asked me why we'd moved to L.A., I started joking, "For the air."
China's environmental woes are no joke. This year, China will surpass the United States as the world's No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases. It continues to be the largest depleter of the ozone layer. And it's the largest polluter of the Pacific Ocean. But in the accepted China narrative, the country's environmental problems will merely mean a few breathing complications for the odd sprinter at the Beijing games. In fact, they could block the country's rise.
The problem is huge: Sixteen of the world's 20 most polluted cities are in China, 70 percent of the country's lakes and rivers are polluted, and half the population lacks clean drinking water. The constant smoggy haze over northern China diminishes crop yields. By 2030, the nation will face a water shortage equal to the amount it consumes today; factories in the northwest have already been forced out of business because there just isn't any water. Even Chinese government economists estimate that environmental troubles shave 10 percent off the country's gross domestic product each year. Somehow, though, the effect this calamity is having on China's rise doesn't quite register in the West .
And then there's "Kung Fu Panda." That Hollywood movie embodies the final reason why China won't be a superpower: Beijing's animating ideas just aren't that animating.
In recent years, we've been bombarded with articles and books about China's rising global ideological influence. (One typical le: "Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World.") These works portray China's model -- a one-party state with a juggernaut economy -- as highly attractive to elites in many developing nations, although China's dreary current crop of acolytes (Zimbabwe, Burma and Sudan) don't amount to much of a threat.
But consider the case of the high-kicking panda who uses ancient Chinese teachings to turn himself into a kung fu warrior. That recent Hollywood smash broke Chinese box-office records -- and caused no end of hand-wringing among the country's glitterati. "The film's protagonist is China's national treasure, and all the elements are Chinese, but why didn't we make such a film?" Wu Jiang, president of the China National Peking Opera Company, told the official New China News Agency.
The content may be Chinese, but the irreverence and creativity of "Kung Fu Panda" are 100 percent American. That highlights another weakness in the argument about China's inevitable rise: The place remains an authoritarian state run by a party that limits the free flow of information, stifles ingenuity and doesn't understand how to self-correct. Blockbusters don't grow out of the barrel of a gun. Neither do superpowers in the age of globalization.
And yet we seem to revel in overestimating China. One recent evening, I was at a party where a senior aide to a Democratic senator was discussing the business deal earlier this year in which a Chinese state-owned investment company had bought a big chunk of the Blackstone Group, a U.S. investment firm. The Chinese company has lost more than $1 billion, but the aide wouldn't believe that it was just a bum investment. "It's got to be part of a broader plan," she insisted. "It's China."
I tried to convince her otherwise. I don't think I succeeded.
[email protected]
-----
Aside from the random movie segment of the article, I completely agree with what he's saying. China has major problems right now with NO way to solve them, short of semi-permanently displacing ~300,000,000 people.
Every single person I know who's visited China comes back with the at ude that it's great when you're in the upscale district, but set a foot outside of the commercialism, and it's poorer, and more des ute than any ghetto in the United States. China doesn't care about this, because it's not in the areas that the world sees (or will see in the Olympics). It's a country that is in such a rush to modernize that they have completely left their populace behind.
It reminds me of studying the industrial revolution -- only the horrible part is that China has skipped the section where the US dug itself out of the horrors of urbanization to field very well paying mechanically-oriented jobs. They are still paying their workers nothing, and they're going to continue, because big business is already in place there.
China buys our steel products, ships them back to China, smelts them on the way, and builds military stuff with it. Meanwhile our lovable ecolosers in the states continue to kill businesses here. I wonder who is really funding them?
I tried watching that discovery show on China a couple weeks ago but it was too depressing. There is no way America will keep any of those kinds of jobs as each day passes
China buys our steel products, ships them back to China, smelts them on the way, and builds military stuff with it. Meanwhile our lovable ecolosers in the states continue to kill businesses here. I wonder who is really funding them?
I tried watching that discovery show on China a couple weeks ago but it was too depressing. There is no way America will keep any of those kinds of jobs as each day passes
But here's the catch:
China has two options. They can either continue to pay their workers next to nothing, which means they will have a massive economy but deplorable living conditions and citizens demanding more from the government in the form of rebellion and uprising...
Or they can pay their workers more. And the INSTANT they start paying their workers anywhere close to what we do in the U.S., the jobs will be outsourced again, to the Philippines, to India (who has a younger populace and enough of a workforce to accommodate the influx of millions of jobs), or to Africa, the Middle Eastern impoverished nations, etc.
There is no way to remain compe ive economically when the nation next door is paying it's workers 1/10th or 1/100th the wage that you are giving them. China will feel that soon, or they will be the largest country in the world by economy and among the worst by living standards.
Wasn't that one of the major reasons why Hitler decided to invade his neighbors?
Eureka!
You actually may be onto something there...
I remember hearing about these couple of Asian islands of the coast of China....real nice places, very modern, very upscale. Something about "former Chinese government types being exiled and seeking refuge" or some such.
I watched the special on Discovery Channel about China (i should say I watched parts 1-3, havent seen 4).
It was depressing, especially for someone like myself in the auto industry. But it was also revealing. The Chinese are cheating. Theyre cheating on the value of their money, on the numbers of their economy, on the health of the population, on living standards, on just about anything.
They cheat because they dont want the civilian world to know the truth, knowing the business world doesnt care.
With every advance forward in GDP/GNP, 75%+ of the population will start to look around and say "How is this benefitting me?". They see pictures of the USA, France, Germany, etc. They have an idealized view of being #1...what do you think will happen when they reach #1 and those dreams die a hard death?
China will be equalized with the world...but the influence to do so will not be from any external force. It is purely with the Chinese people, and judging by their ancient and recent history, they are not afraid of needed change.
As an aside, this is a video taken from one of China's assembly/stamping plants.
Its rather old, from an older source that Im no longer worried about, but it gives you an idea of their manufacturing "expertise". People die routinely in these places (over 10 a year, hundreds more are maimed...when asked about it, the representative simply stated "We dont keep track"). I hate to generalize, but I guess thats acceptable to a population of over 1 billion.
http://s84.photobucket.com/albums/k1...hinasafety.flv
What's REALLY scary is the idealism that exists within China. Not only does their government possess enough influence over the media to basically brainwash the citizens of every major city, the people have enough nationalistic pride that they will have a LOT of anger if they are dubbed by the world as the #1 economy and their lives still suck. That anger is going to need someplace to go, and the militaristic government will have plenty of places to direct it.
It seems sensational, until you go to China and see the conditions of the manufacturing jobs, where people live IN the factory. And that honestly pales to the nightmare that is rural China right now.
Yet their government plods ahead, modernizing itself while leaving it's people behind. And all the while, it puts this pretty face on, preening for the media about how superior they are. The people of that country will only stay quiet for so long before we see the dark side of what is going on there.
Give it another 10-20 years, and see how much NOT protecting the environment costs the Chinese.
For all the people who like to blame the environmental movement for "killing businessness", we have a grand experiment in China.
No ecolosers there with any power. All the industrial development and businesses you want, with no silly regulations to stop it.
In 10-20 years, when the Chinese are dealing with the long-term effects of this, those ecolosers will be proved right.
As for the OP itself: I concur.
China faces a few problems that a lot of people seem to be missing.
Yeah. I am pretty immature for using that term
I just believe outside forces are exploiting people's good intentions to cripple us later down the road. That can be just as much an act of aggression as any attack through force of arms. We can't get so comfortable with over-regulation that it kills us right in front of our eyes and we do nothing.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asi...pic_reporters/
BEIJING—Olympic organizers are backtracking on another promise about coverage of the Beijing Games, keeping in place blocks on Internet sites in the Main Press Center and venues where reporters will work.
The blocked sites will make it difficult for journalists to retrieve information, particularly on political and human rights stories the government dislikes. On Tuesday, sites such as Amnesty International or any search for a site with Tibet in the address could not be opened at the Main Press Center, which will house about 5,000 print journalists when the games open Aug. 8.
"This type of censorship would have been unthinkable in Athens, but China seems to have more formalities," said Mihai Mironica, a journalist with ProTV in Romania. "If journalists cannot fully access the Internet here, it will definitely be a problem."
The censored Internet is the latest broken promise on press freedoms. In bidding for the games seven years ago, Chinese officials said the media would have "complete freedom to report." And in April, Hein Verbruggen and Kevan Gosper -- senior IOC members overseeing the games -- said they'd received assurances from Chinese officials that Internet censorship would be lifted for journalists during the games.
China routinely blocks Internet access to its own citizens.
Gosper, however, issued a clarification Tuesday. He said the open Internet extended only to sites that related to "Olympic compe ions."
"My preoccupation and responsibility is to ensure that the games compe ions are reported openly to the world," Gosper said.
"The regulatory changes we negotiated with BOCOG and which required Chinese legislative changes were to do with reporting on the games," Gosper added, using the acronym for the Olympic organizers. "This didn't necessarily extend to free access and reporting on everything that relates to China."
Journalists trying to use the Internet on Tuesday expressed frustration, and some also complained about slow speeds. Several said it might be an intentional ploy to discourage use.
IOC officials have said the Internet would be operational by "games time," which began Sunday when the Olympic Village opened.
In a related event, Amnesty International released a report Tuesday accusing China of failing to improve its human rights record ahead of the Olympics.
The group said that in the last year, thousands of pe ioners, reformists and others were arrested as part of a government campaign to "clean up" Beijing before the Olympics. It said many have been sentenced to manual labor without trial.
Beijing organizers have been backtracking on the freedom to report.
Rights holders such as NBC, which has paid about $900 million to broadcast the games, and non-rights holders have faced roadblocks, red tape and changing rules as they prepare to cover unexpected events away from the venues.
Broadcasters have complained about having permits rescinded, being forced to give notice a month ahead of time about the location of satellite trucks, and facing harassment from bureaucrats and police about renting office space or getting parking permits for their vehicles.
Earlier this month, broadcasters tried again to get Olympic organizers to lift restrictions on live broadcasts from Tiananmen Square. Alex Gilady, a senior IOC member and a senior vice president of NBC Sports, has pushed for more live time from the iconic venue -- China is offering six hours daily, and no interviews. Others are pressing to lift the ban on live interviews.
"Don't push the issue," responded organizing committee executive vice president Wang Wei, according to an official who attended the meeting. It was Wang who led Beijing's 2001 bid, and who said after winning: "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."
NBC is promising to air 3,600 hours of coverage, and its owner, General Electric, is one of 12 top sponsors of the IOC. Some top sponsors have reportedly paid as much as $200 million.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Ebersol, chairman of NBC Universal Sports, said he would like to see more "openness" from Chinese officials. But he seemed to play down the news value of the Olympics. He said NBC was ready to cover stories as they come up, but "we're not going to cavalierly ... blow out sporting events to show news."
Olympic historian David Wallechinsky has criticized the IOC for giving the games to China. He's visited the country more than a half-dozen times in 30 years, and said the IOC and its sponsors were distracted by China's booming economy.
"There is so much money being made that the IOC has just turned a blind eye," Wallechinsky said. "The IOC wanted to believe it was all going to go well, and they weren't there when they should have been. You know, the Communist Party wants to control everything."
The IOC has maintained the Olympics are a sports event, and it should not intervene in politics. However, others have faulted the Swiss-based body for failing to hold China to promises made seven years ago when it won the bid.
"It is truly sad to see the IOC fail in this regard," said Vincent Brossell, a a spokesman for Paris-based press rights group Reporters Without Borders.
Rioting in Tibet four months ago, which sparked protests on international legs of the torch relay, was followed by the mobilization of an army of security personnel in Beijing -- 110,000 police, riot squads and special forces, augmented by more than 300,000 Olympic volunteers and neighborhood watch members.
Cuban reporter Joel Garcia Leon, with the magazine Trabajadores, said he expected the censorship. But he was overwhelmed by other red tape.
"I'm surprised how tightly controlled and complicated everything is here," he said. "To get a phone number from China Mobile, I have to give them a copy of my passport and my mother's maiden name. This seems quite excessive and abnormal."
-----------
Horrifying.
We should be worried about China not because they could take over the no 1 spot in the world economy, but because they have the power to bring us down.
A lot of American debt is owed to Chinese creditors. And when you consider a lot of companies in the US depend on China for cheap labor and products, it's pretty easy to see how China could put a huge dent into our economy.
That being said, China needs us about as much as we need them, and hurting us would hurt them in the long term. But still, it's unnerving to think about how much power China has over our economy.
Welcome to the world post-NAFTA economy. If the Prime Minister of Congo sneezes and wrenches a muscle in his back, it might hurt the confidence in sales of ore to Japan, which depresses their computer industry and in-turn makes their currency drop off. This, of course, makes their cars cheaper to buy here, so Ford and GM end up taking a hurt because Gizenga ate a burrito too quickly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
