Asian Power: Ghost of Genghis? BBC is dumbass.

[sephodwyrm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7991277.stm

Goldman Sachs believes that the four largest economies in the world will be China, India, the US and Japan by 2015.

That three of the four largest economies in the world might be Asian suggests that the old world order is re-establishing itself, according to Dr Kishore Mahbuani at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.

"From the year one to the year 1820, the two largest economies of the world were consistently China and India," he says.

"In the 19th and 20th Century, first Europe took off and then North America," he says. "But the last 200 years were historical aberrations."

As usual, start off with a very controversial statement: the rise of Europe and North America to the center of the world stage and pioneers in technological and economic development as "aberrant". Hope this will spark some crazy discussions.

To this controversial statement, BBC follows up with this totally retarded comment:

Just as Genghis Khan once established an empire that covered more than one fifth of the Earth's surface, stretching from Japan to Eastern Europe, many people feel that China and India are creating Asian world powers once again.

Genghis Khan is responsible for the destruction of the economic and cultural powerhouses in East, Central and Western Asia, and parts of Europe, I don't know why BBC had chosen the looter/pillager/arsonist/butcher to represent the rapidly growing Asian Economy. Though it is true that trade became possible between Asia and Europe due to "Mongol dominance", the myth that a girl could carry a basket of gold from Hangzhou to Constantinople is just a myth. She will most likely be robbed, gang raped and murdered.

If BBC so wish to talk about Asia being the center of the world stage, I think it should be more prudent to have someone representing that instead of an illiterate war-monger. Maybe people like Qianlong (then unsuitable since he's a isolationist) or Shah Jahan. But Genghis? Gimme a break.

Furthermore:

"It is a question of pragmatism," he says. "Asian states are rising because they have finally understood, absorbed, and implemented the best practices."

Asia is taking off because we destroyed the Genghis-worshiping part of ourselves.

There is also a view that the Asian economies may not emerge that well out of this recession because many of them have built themselves as exporters and not consumers.

"Asian countries have to try and find ways to crank up domestic consumption," says Ajay Chibber, assistant secretary-general of the United Nations.

"Governments have to spend more on government consumption, government infrastructure, and government social spending in the short term."

I.e.:
Asians should spend money on Asian goods. The major Asian economies have a lot of money, but limited avenues with which to spend these capital on. This is where political and diplomatic clout comes in, of which Japan is most restricted while both India and China enjoy more freedom.

"In the previous crisis Asia needed to look to the West for solutions. In this crisis Asia needs to find its own solutions," Mr Chibber says.

Asian power. And get the Genghis out of my face. Gah. This guy killed more Asians than anyone could count.

[Fishy]

I agree strange example. But I doubt they wished to show that Ghenghis was somebody that created a powerful economy. I think they wanted to show more that Asia can indeed become very powerful.

Also as for the rest of this article. I still don't think China will become a superpower anytime soon. Sure they have all the necessary stuff to do so, but I don't think they will be able to effectively use the population to their advantage. And with the huge difference between man/woman their power will likely fall soon after it reaches it's peak.

[sephodwyrm]

And with the huge difference between man/woman

That's the basis of selection.
China would be better off with only 800 million. And that's taking away 500 million people.

[Fishy]

That's the basis of selection.
China would be better off with only 800 million. And that's taking away 500 million people.

Sure China would be better off with less people, problem is however that if millions of people can't get married because of government rules that will create unrest. It will create difficulties for them when they are older, and who is going to pay for that? Certainly not their children because they don't have them. You can't just let them die on the street, that would definitely be bad for the total health of your country and the overal happiness .

Besides do you honestly trust the Chinese government to figure out when it's a good time to stop the one child politics? Because I can't.

And then there is the way they carry out this political idea of theirs along with several others. China at this moment is growing fast, but if the west would stop dealing with China then China would lose more then vice versa, and it's only a matter of time before the press starts paying attention to things like this. I wonder how long it will take for the first boycots after that. I just see to many bumbs on the road for China to actually to become the greatest power any time soon.

[Exarch]

.

Besides do you honestly trust the Chinese government to figure out when it's a good time to stop the one child politics? Because I can't.

.

china will soon be moving onto a 2 child policy
and in any case, those that can afford it (which tends to be increasing) are having more than 1 kid

[Fishy]

china will soon be moving onto a 2 child policy
and in any case, those that can afford it (which tends to be increasing) are having more than 1 kid

How can they stop now when the overpopulation is still a problem? And people who can afford two children are having two children? Well that wouldn't be that bad, if those two wouldn't be boys as well. The difference between man and woman is just increasing, not decreasing.

Besides making exceptions for people who are richer will eventually start working against the Chinese government as well.

[DekuTrash]

It's currently placed at

51% male/48% female
That would be hilarious if the rates continued to fall for women.

[Exarch]

How can they stop now when the overpopulation is still a problem? And people who can afford two children are having two children? Well that wouldn't be that bad, if those two wouldn't be boys as well. The difference between man and woman is just increasing, not decreasing.

Besides making exceptions for people who are richer will eventually start working against the Chinese government as well.

the problem here is assuming the chinese will stay in china to look for brides
look at it worldwide, women outnumber men on this planet despite the probability for a baby to be male or female is 50%.
and ppl want kids, no gov. policies going to stop that. you may as well make eating pissing, ing and illegal.

[Bovril]

Looks like the reporter (James Melik) wanted a catchy hook to pin his very cliched 'rise of asia' story on. At least he didn't use the terms 'red menace' or 'yellow peril'.

[Exarch]

the guys from singapore right?
sinpore ppl are...a wee bit strange

[sephodwyrm]

'red menace' or 'yellow peril'.

That would exclude India which would be very inappropriate.
The biggest thing I have a beef about is that BBC skitters around the "aberrant rise of the West" theory and concludes with Genghis Khan.

the guys from singapore right?

Yes. Kishore is from Singapore. All the others aren't.

sinpore ppl are...a wee bit strange

They are.
But the government and civil service establishment isn't. It's predictable and pretty respectable for a semi-democratic paternal autocracy.

[DekuTrash]

China and India are doomed with a billion a piece and counting.

[sephodwyrm]

Besides do you honestly trust the Chinese government to figure out when it's a good time to stop the one child politics? Because I can't.

A good time to stop one child policy is when China's population is below 1 billion. But that's my opinion. China, as of now, has:
- excess manpower
- preference for manual means instead of automation (which would provide better precision and standardization of current manufacturing)

There are benefits for reduced population. One being that we can provide more social benefits to each individual. Automation will easily cover the population decrease, and the countryside will still offer plenty of manual labor if required. With the development of current technologies, we should see less MP devoted to each production value.

One reason why industrial farming is almost impossible to implement nation wide in both China and India is due to the excess labor issue. Industrial farming would require less farm hand per acre, more automation and mechanizing as well as critical capital. Subsistence farming and small land owners simply don't make the cut. I would've been rather glad if the Chinese population was less numerous (say around 400 million with the same area of land). We'd have industrialized easily without all this "this land is mine/not yours" BS.

[sephodwyrm]

Besides making exceptions for people who are richer will eventually start working against the Chinese government as well.

Most of the Chinese that are most supportive of the Chinese government tend to be from the upper / middle class. The most aggrieved are the lower income class.

The difference between man and woman is just increasing, not decreasing.

I wouldn't consider that a critical issue. An entire generation of Chinese bachelors slaved and died in the US, with no legal rights to marriage at all. I don't see any problems in the US at that time era. They got away scat free and they still get away with it.

[Fishy]

Most of the Chinese that are most supportive of the Chinese government tend to be from the upper / middle class. The most aggrieved are the lower income class.


I wouldn't consider that a critical issue. An entire generation of Chinese bachelors slaved and died in the US, with no legal rights to marriage at all. I don't see any problems in the US at that time era. They got away scat free and they still get away with it.

Which is kinda the point. How do you think the lower class will respond if they keep getting in worse situations while the government keeps favoring the rich? When they are removed from their houses so that the government can build a stadium? Eventually civil unrest can't be prevented. Add to that the hundreds of other problems China has and I don't think a huge economical growth is really going to help them in the long run. They should try to reduce their growth, save money and spend the rest on helping the rest of the country that means primarily the poor reach higher quality of life, and a better education.

Which of course brings problems of it's own but that's their best chance, if they at the same time slowly reform their policies to allow a bit more freedoms then they might have a chance. Otherwise people will just get pissed off that one side is rich and they aren't, or that they are all rich and they don't have enough freedoms to enjoy their money.

[Exarch]

Which is kinda the point. How do you think the lower class will respond if they keep getting in worse situations while the government keeps favoring the rich? When they are removed from their houses so that the government can build a stadium? Eventually civil unrest can't be prevented. Add to that the hundreds of other problems China has and I don't think a huge economical growth is really going to help them in the long run. They should try to reduce their growth, save money and spend the rest on helping the rest of the country that means primarily the poor reach higher quality of life, and a better education..

and how are they going to achieve the parts in bold with no economic growth?!

Which of course brings problems of it's own but that's their best chance, if they at the same time slowly reform their policies to allow a bit more freedoms then they might have a chance. Otherwise people will just get pissed off that one side is rich and they aren't, or that they are all rich and they don't have enough freedoms to enjoy their money

taking the example of all developing countries, specifically the asian tigers, it went like this:
1) economic development
2) social development
3)political development

for reference look at taiwan and south korea

[Bovril]

taking the example of all developing countries, specifically the asian tigers, it went like this:
1) economic development
2) social development
3)political development

for reference look at taiwan and south korea

That is far, far too simplistic. Major political and social changes occured in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and South Korea immediately or soon after WW2. Change in one sphere always happens essentially concurrently with at least some change in another.

[bushbush]

That is far, far too simplistic. Major political and social changes occured in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and South Korea immediately or soon after WW2. Change in one sphere always happens essentially concurrently with at least some change in another.

are you serious? Taiwan and South Korean went for drastic political change only in the 80s and 90s.

-------

as for OP, it's a dumbass journalist who has a very poor understanding of history and Asia in general.

[Cougar109]

Par⋅a⋅noi⋅a

Really now, someone needs a history lesson and fast.

As for what the article was trying to get at, or at least what I think it was trying to get at. I don't see either Japan, China, or India ever rising to the status of superpower before 2050, and the only one that has a shot at reaching Economic superiority by that time is Japan. India, while they've taken the the right turn to get themselves started have got a VERY long way to go. The vast majority of their country is still poverty stricken and the infrastructure is just terrible with the exceptions of a few cities. Putting them on a list with China, Japan, and the US is quite a stretch in this day and age because they are still a few decades away and that's if everything goes perfect for them in the world.

China looks like it's on the path to some serious internal problems. A massive population that they just can't seem to figure out how to control and a very large number of them are living in poverty, an incredibly lopsided male/female ratio, the citizens are now feeling and tasting capitalism and it will be interesting to see how that plays out in terms of reformation, civil war, or nothing at all. If nothing happens and by some miracles they figure out their problems then I can expect them to reach the status of economic superpower by 2050 and may manage to eclipse the US, but more things seem to be pointing down then up.

[sephodwyrm]

That would be hilarious if the rates continued to fall for women.

Well, so long as it reduces the countryside population. May sound harsh, but they brought it upon themselves.

I don't know why people think the lopsided gender ratio is even a serious issue. On the big scale, it works to China's favor if she reduces her population.