Got me thinking

[CheGuevara]

based on what i just said in another post. what are your opinions of china's future? it is a country of 1.3-1.5bn with a growing economy every year (some estimates have it at a 10% increase every year).

[DutchGangster69]

china depends on the West building factories to produce goods sold in the westerne worl...without us they would have pretty much nothing

[Azure9920]

Chinese GDP growth has been at nearly 10% for 3 decades now. Personally, I think China will amount to an economic power than the United States could never have dreamed of, likely within the next 20 years. They're already the third, if not second most economically capable nation, and I don't think any economist will disagree that their growth is going to continue for quite some time. Their "Go Global" policy has helped them keep the global recession at bay, China's inroad into Africa is going to be a very good thing for them in the near future. Africa is chock full of resources, why no other superpower has exploited them yet is beyond me. Since the end of the Cold War, the 3rd world has been begging for another partner, and China's beginning to fill that need. Their relations with Central/South America may prove to be an issue soon...the US doesn't like people meddling in their backyard. They've come a lot in the last 50 years, almost a direct parallel to the growth of the USSR following Stalin's 5 year plans. However, China doesn't seem to be engaging in a costly arms war anytime soon. That being said, they do have a lot of kinks to work out, energy deficiencies and a lack of infrastructure being some of them.

china depends on the West building factories to produce goods sold in the westerne worl...without us they would have pretty much nothing

China actually has a positive trade balance with most of it's major trading partners, except Russia and probably Japan.

[Dobre]

Chinese GDP growth has been at nearly 10% for 3 decades now. Personally, I think China will amount to an economic power than the United States could never have dreamed of, likely within the next 20 years. They're already the third, if not second most economically capable nation, and I don't think any economist will disagree that their growth is going to continue for quite some time. Their "Go Global" policy has helped them keep the global recession at bay, China's inroad into Africa is going to be a very good thing for them in the near future. Africa is chock full of resources, why no other superpower has exploited them yet is beyond me. Since the end of the Cold War, the 3rd world has been begging for another partner, and China's beginning to fill that need. Their relations with Central/South America may prove to be an issue soon...the US doesn't like people meddling in their backyard. They've come a lot in the last 50 years, almost a direct parallel to the growth of the USSR following Stalin's 5 year plans. However, China doesn't seem to be engaging in a costly arms war anytime soon. That being said, they do have a lot of kinks to work out, energy deficiencies and a lack of infrastructure being some of them.

china depends on the West building factories to produce goods sold in the westerne worl...without us they would have pretty much nothing

China actually has a positive trade balance with most of it's major trading partners, except Russia and probably Japan.

Japan is extremely advanced in robotics while China and Russia are partners in military hardware. China bases most of it's crap off Russian originals. China and Russia together are a menace, let alone if Russia manages to annex some of it's old stages, Central Asia is already with Russia, Mongolia can easily be annexed by China and used for testing since it's pretty much empty space and on the other hand I think they might have some use if the look into the Gobi desert...

China and Russia are together part of the Shanghai Coorperation Organistaion which is also pushing for India to join.

Germany is strictly controlled by the Anglo-American alliance otherwise they would become a menace as they were in WW2. I respect the Germans, their goal is intellectualism instead of moronism as with the Americans.

[Dobre]

based on what i just said in another post. what are your opinions of china's future? it is a country of 1.3-1.5bn with a growing economy every year (some estimates have it at a 10% increase every year).

Buddy, you have no idea. Russia and China are ass and underwear together. You add India into the mix, America and Europe are fucked. You add Brazil into the mix, it's even worse for America and Europe.

Push for a North American Union and a complete European Union...

Then Europe will want to become independent from North America yet they will still be allies.

African and South American Union proxies...

CNN already made it loud and clear that China is buying up mining corperations at dirt cheap prices and resources are key to everything.

As Azure said, their lack of infastructure is their biggest problem. Go on Google maps and zoom into any major Chinese city to see they have massive amounts of ghetto type buildings stacked one next to another and in the hundreds...

Jobs aren't a problem, jobs are easily created. Housing is on the other hand. By the time you build a building enough to support 1,000 people in a Chinese city over 1 million, the population of the city would have grown by at least 20,000, and that's by births.

[CheGuevara]

Chinese GDP growth has been at nearly 10% for 3 decades now. Personally, I think China will amount to an economic power than the United States could never have dreamed of, likely within the next 20 years.

you pushed it here. 20 years? more like in 75 years, china will be comparable to the united states. you're forgetting that the united states has a gigantic gdp per capita and in 20 years will have a population of at least 360 million people. while china's gdp per capita is i believe around 5,000, similar to albania's. china has a while before it starts worrying the united states. also, take into account that the chinese population is shrinking due to the new 1 kid per couple law set in place.

China's inroad into Africa is going to be a very good thing for them in the near future. Africa is chock full of resources, why no other superpower has exploited them yet is beyond me.

hahahaha i hope this was a joke.

[Azure9920]

you pushed it here. 20 years? more like in 75 years,

It will certainly be a lot sooner than that. It will be within this generation that we see the polarity switch between the two.

you're forgetting that the united states has a gigantic gdp per capita

You seem to like bringing this up, but as in most circumstances that you do, it has nothing to do with the conversation.

and in 20 years will have a population of at least 360 million people. while china's gdp per capita is i believe around 5,000, similar to albania's. china has a while before it starts worrying the united states. also, take into account that the chinese population is shrinking due to the new 1 kid per couple law set in place.

US population, China's GDP PC and the possibility of a shrinking population has nothing to do with China becoming an economic superpower.

Also, I suggest you do a little reading before you call the 1 child policy "new", it's a good decade older than you are, if not more.

hahahaha i hope this was a joke.

I'm not. I'm aware that the Europeans attempted to exploit Africa in the 17/1800's, but they did so on a fairly small scale. If that's what you meant.

[CheGuevara]

It will certainly be a lot sooner than that. It will be within this generation that we see the polarity switch between the two.

you're very optimistic..

You seem to like bringing this up, but as in most circumstances that you do, it has nothing to do with the conversation.

how can the gdp per capita not have anything to do with a conversation about the economy between two countries?

US population, China's GDP PC and the possibility of a shrinking population has nothing to do with China becoming an economic superpower.

Also, I suggest you do a little reading before you call the 1 child policy "new", it's a good decade older than you are, if not more.

what on earth are you talking about? the gdp shows how strong a nation really is economic wise. how could it not matter? and how could population not matter?

i didn't know this policy was 28 years old.. is this policy enforced or what? because they don't seem to be following it.

I'm not. I'm aware that the Europeans attempted to exploit Africa in the 17/1800's, but they did so on a fairly small scale. If that's what you meant.

north america and northern europe have exploited africa for a long time including today. there was no attempt in the 17/1800's. they practically owned the continent.

[Azure9920]

you're very optimistic..

Not at all. I just look at the facts. "China's economy will overtake that of the United States by 2035 and be twice its size by midcentury, a study released Tuesday by a US research organization concluded."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

how can the gdp per capita not have anything to do with a conversation about the economy between two countries?

Because economics is a lot more complicated than that.

what on earth are you talking about? the gdp shows how strong a nation really is economic wise. how could it not matter? and how could population not matter?

Okay, I'll bite. Could you perhaps demonstrate a causation effect between the future population growth of the United States, and it's economic stability?

i didn't know this policy was 28 years old.. is this policy enforced or what? because they don't seem to be following it.

If you didn't even know how long it's been around, how can you comment on how well China is following it or not?

north america

Perhaps you can enlighten me. What has the United States ever done in Africa?

and northern europe have exploited africa for a long time including today.

While European corporations have had a foothold in Africa, the European resource manipulation in Africa in that time period was a quick set up designed to exploit them short term. Nothing long term was set up.

there was no attempt in the 17/1800's. they practically owned the continent.

Just like the Chinese 1 child policy is new, right?

[CheGuevara]

Not at all. I just look at the facts. "China's economy will overtake that of the United States by 2035 and be twice its size by midcentury, a study released Tuesday by a US research organization concluded."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

lol, if you think china's ppp will double in 24 years. you can believe so. i on the other hand, don't believe it can happen.

Okay, I'll bite. Could you perhaps demonstrate a causation effect between the future population growth of the United States, and it's economic stability?

well take china's ppp for example, it's half that of the united states. but it's gdp per capita is 1/9th of the united states. see the difference? china's massive population gives them a big ppp. but if china let's say had a population of 300 million like the united states. it's ppp would be 1/9th of the united states as it's gdp per capita is. so population, as well as future population growth plays a big part in the ppp of a nation.

If you didn't even know how long it's been around, how can you comment on how well China is following it or not?

because you can see it in the population growth... a population cannot go from 1.2bn to 1.3bn in ten years if they are having only one kid per couple. the population should be shrinking if they obeyed the rule.

Perhaps you can enlighten me. What has the United States ever done in Africa?

While European corporations have had a foothold in Africa, the European resource manipulation in Africa in that time period was a quick set up designed to exploit them short term. Nothing long term was set up.

if you say so...

[Dobre]

...

[Azure9920]

i on the other hand, don't believe it can happen.

Well, you aren't paid to postulate on China's economic future.

well take china's ppp for example, it's half that of the united states. but it's gdp per capita is 1/9th of the united states. see the difference? china's massive population gives them a big ppp. but if china let's say had a population of 300 million like the united states. it's ppp would be 1/9th of the united states as it's gdp per capita is. so population, as well as future population growth plays a big part in the ppp of a nation.

Did you miss the word "causation" in my question, or what? All you did was point out a correlation, a very weak one at that.

Income disparity has increased more than 100x since the break up of the Beatles, are they to be blamed?

because you can see it in the population growth... a population cannot go from 1.2bn to 1.3bn in ten years if they are having only one kid per couple. the population should be shrinking if they obeyed the rule.

Chinese population growth has slowed considerably with the implementation of the policy.

"At its founding in 1949 the People’s Republic of China had a population of 540 million. Only three decades later its population was more than 800 million. This enormous population increase created a strong population momentum that still drives population growth despite rapidly declining fertility in the late 1970s and 1980s"

Coincidentally, the late 1970's is when the policy was implemented.

"China's future population growth is a product of past growth. The average number of children per woman has been below the replacement level of 2.1 since the mid-1980s. Most recent estimates from the State Statistical Bureau assume that current fertility on a national average is at 1.85 children per woman. In cities, the fertility was estimated at 1.43, in towns at 1.58, and in rural counties at 2.00 children per woman. Whatever population growth we see in the future will be caused not by high fertility, but by the "population momentum" of China's young age structure. What will come is a legacy of the 1950s and 1960s, when China's fertility was quite high and mortality had already declined. Consequently, China now has a large number of young adults of reproductive age. Their number will actually increase until 2015. This growing number of potential parents is the reason the number of births will remain high even if fertility remains at the current low level."

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Chi ... end_10.htm

So, you have nothing? Please don't waste my time in the future.

if you say so...

So, you admit that it's correct?

[CheGuevara]

Well, you aren't paid to postulate on China's economic future.

read the article over again, it ends up contradicting itself.

Did you miss the word "causation" in my question, or what? All you did was point out a correlation, a very weak one at that.

Income disparity has increased more than 100x since the break up of the Beatles, are they to be blamed?

how was that weak? that was pure fact in it's purest form. how you can go against that is beyond me. as for your second sentence. that is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response. you know it's stupid, why on earth you decided to compare what i just said which is based on logical and simple facts to what you wrote is ridiculous.

So, you have nothing? Please don't waste my time in the future.

So, you admit that it's correct?

why don't you bring me a source that actually agrees with me and use it to go against my fact-backed statements like you did for the milan scenario? don't be an idiot. i realize the point of this place is to debate but don't create a debate which is obvious and stupid to even discuss because of the obvious facts surronding it.

[Azure9920]

read the article over again, it ends up contradicting itself.

I just did. Could you perhaps provide the instance where it contradicts itself? Unless of course, such an example doesn't exist.

that was pure fact in it's purest form.

You simply stated a bunch of unrelated statistics. None of that had absolutely anything to do with anything being discussed anywhere on this board.

Now, I'll ask you again. Can you please provide a logical explanation linking the economic stability of the United States and it's future demographics?

why don't you bring me a source that actually agrees with me and use it to go against my fact-backed statements like you did for the milan scenario? don't be an idiot. i realize the point of this place is to debate but don't create a debate which is obvious and stupid to even discuss because of the obvious facts surronding it.

Why don't you just answer the questions? I kept them all very straight-forward and simple. Hell, I don't think a single one of those sentences has a word with more than 3 syllables. Don't be an idiot. I realize the point of this place is to debate, but we can't have a discussion if you're too stupid to even answer simple questions.

[Azure9920]

Africa:

A grid of European administrative outposts was created, to guarantee effective occupation. European personnel were costly, though, and only modest numbers could be covered by colonial budgets. In 1900 the colonial administration in Nigeria had only a few hundred British officers, and even later it never had more than a few thousand.

The subsistence-oriented rural economies in most of Africa offered little extractable surplus for the colonial state. The discovery in south Africa of rich diamond deposits in 1869 and gold in 1885 aroused hopes of treasure troves, but these were initially disappointed. Most of the mineral wealth of Africa was to be discovered only after World War II.

The primary mobilizable resources in most territories were African labor and land.

[CheGuevara]

I just did. Could you perhaps provide the instance where it contradicts itself? Unless of course, such an example doesn't exist.

China's economy will be larger than America's by midcentury

China's economy will overtake that of the United States by 2035 and be twice its size by midcentury

You simply stated a bunch of unrelated statistics. None of that had absolutely anything to do with anything being discussed anywhere on this board.

WOW! i can't even respond to such stupidity.

Now, I'll ask you again. Can you please provide a logical explanation linking the economic stability of the United States and it's future demographics?

when the united state's population grows, it's ppp grows. that is to say, if the gdp per capita remains stable.

Why don't you just answer the questions? I kept them all very straight-forward and simple. Hell, I don't think a single one of those sentences has a word with more than 3 syllables. Don't be an idiot. I realize the point of this place is to debate, but we can't have a discussion if you're too stupid to even answer simple questions.

you're an idiot. the second i read that population growth won't increase the ppp of a nation if the gdp per capita remains stable is the second i stopped taking you seriously.

[Azure9920]

China's economy will be larger than America's by midcentury

China's economy will overtake that of the United States by 2035 and be twice its size by midcentury

The actual quote you're looking for is "China's economy will overtake that of the United States by 2035 and be twice its size by midcentury".

I fail to see why you believe that is a contradiction, perhaps you need a bit more experience in English? They're stating that by 2035, the Chinese economy will surpass that of the United States, and a mere 15 years later in 2050(midcentury, in case you're wondering) it will be double the size.

WOW! i can't even respond to such stupidity.

You haven't really been responding to any of my replies...just throwing out unrelated population statistics. You seem to do that a lot though. I guess it's the only portion of demographics you can comprehend.

when the united state's population grows, it's ppp grows. that is to say, if the gdp per capita remains stable.

That is what's called a "correlation", which is just a parallel relationship. My Beatles analogy was an example of correlation. What I asked you for, was a demonstration of causation, ie, somehow prove that the expected future population growth of the United States is the direct cause of a possible economic upswing.

Also, you're using "purchasing power parity" incorrectly. I suggest you refrain from using words you don't understand.

http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/PPP.html if you're interested in learning what that term actually means.

you're an idiot. the second i read that population growth won't increase the ppp of a nation if the gdp per capita remains stable is the second i stopped taking you seriously.

I stopped taking you seriously after you called China's one child policy "new", and made incorrect references to its success(or lack of), oh, and your repeated misuse of PPP.

You don't understand basic economics, just stop trying.

[Dobre]

I stopped taking you seriously after you called China's one child policy "new", and made incorrect references to its success(or lack of), oh, and your repeated misuse of PPP.

You don't understand basic economics, just stop trying.

Indeed.