« The UK's R&D problem | Main | Remedying school education in India »

Friday, December 30, 2005

Comments

T Yang

Arthur Eckart, unless you can understand Churchill's famous dictum: " Communism with Chinese characteristics is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time", I can only assume you kinow something about china.

Give CCP another 20 years, you will understand what Communism with Chinese characteristics can achieve. HAHA......

tom

Vietnam, the only reason you did not lose any major battles in that war is because of your airpower. Without it you would have loss numerous times, the first major battle of 65, was saved by airpower, in 68 when that air base was surrounded, airpower again. The VC did not have B 52's to hide behind, yet these tough buggers get on coming on, of course their losses where far greater based of such an unfair balance of firepower. But when it comes to toughness they leave you American wimps way behind. If you had to fight like the VC, just a rifle and boiled rat for dinner, and had to face such firepower, you would have run for mummy.

Compared to the VC you are little girls, and they won because they were tougher than you. And with all your creature comforts you still got the shakes, and wet your pants.

The VC were never broken mentally, you were, they knew they would suffer far more losses but they also knew in the end they were tougher and THEY WERE RIGHT!

Arthur Eckart

You've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies. The VC spent most of their time hiding in holes and trees. The VC commanders didn't have a high regard for human life, since over 1 million VC were "killed in action." Unfortunately, the politicians in Washington were micromanaging the war, rather than the generals.

tom

quote : "The VC spent most of their time hiding in holes and trees"

Of course when you are faced with such an imbalance of firepower, that is the tactically correct approach, do you expect them to stand in the middle of a field and have the shit blow out of them by airpower?

The VC used the correct tactics, of psychological attrition based on guerrilla warfare to brake the will of the American people, and they succeeded. The correct strategy was to avoid large battles because American firepower would always prevail, and to use of ambushes and other hit run tactics along with traps to consistently inflict losses on the Americans.

But there is no doubting the toughness of the VC, they were hard and brave, and if you dispute this, then you don’t know what you are talking about.

The will of US military was also broken in a large number of soldiers, shown by poor discipline, drug addiction, low moral and plenty of traumatized returning soldiers.

Source:

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html

But as the Ted offensive showed the VC had the balls to face massive American firepower when called on with little backup, no planes or tanks for them.

While Ted was a military failure, it was a great psychological and political victory. And it also demonstrated the commitment of the VC to die in huge numbers for their cause, such a commitment the US could never have.

Now was the VC command poor? , well the Ted offensive was a disaster from a miltary standpoint, but as far as their other battles are concerned, they generally conducted a smart campaign, high losses were unavoidable because of the imbalance in power.

The Americans used massive abounds of explosives more that all of WW2 in just in their Rolling Thunder bombing offensive and then there was agent orange. They in fact killed far more civilians than VC in their desire to bring liberty.

In 1995, the Vietnamese government reported that its military forces, including the NLF, suffered 1.1 million dead and 600,000 wounded during Hanoi's conflict with the United States. Civilian deaths were put at two million in the North and South.

Now the old stab in the back theory to save face, the simple fact is that it is highly debatable whether the US could have prevailed in that war.

Here is one source that disputes the possibility of victory

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=23368

The fact is that there was incompetence at all levels from the military on up, to say it was simply the politicians who cost you that war is simplistic rubbish.

Source: Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot Cohen

"Contrary to the traditional explanation that the Vietnam War was lost because civilian leaders forced the military "to fight with one arm behind its back," Cohen contends that the war was lost due to insufficient civilian prodding. He states that Johnson’s reviewing of bombing targets was not unnecessary interference in military operations but absolutely necessary considering the political consequences of such actions, which might have brought China more actively into the war. Furthermore, he states that President Johnson and Secretary McNamara’s failure resulted from not demanding their generals produce new strategies, such as a physical wall along the South Vietnamese border or subverting South Vietnamese forces to US training and control, and instead simply accepting the military’s failed and uncreative strategies of more intense bombing and increased troop deployments."

Plus America is a democracy and if the US military is too stupid to realize that in such a war they have operate under the constraints of a democracy (free press, public opinion), then they a doubly incompetent. A smart general would have known that this war was not winnable from the beginning because of these constraints.

http://www.amazon.com/Military-Incompetence-American-Doesnt-Century/dp/0374521379

http://www.nowpublic.com/a_failure_in_generalship_by_lt_col_paul_yingling

So as you can see I just don’t just get my history from the movies but seems that you do.

tom

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96winter/record.htm
SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE POST

THE SUN IS BEGINNING TO SET ON THE AMERICAN EMPIRE

The metal tally at the games 46 gold for China and only 26 for US, are signs of the new age coming, China number 1 and the US declining.

The intelligentsia is being out bred 2 to 1. By the year 2070, 50% of THE US population will be Hispanic, look at South America and Mexico. Hardly an egghead race like the Chinese, have you seen their dropout rate?, look below

I see china as massive Concorde ready to set off, we all know of the hard work ethic of the Chinese and their high academic ability. When this country reaches takeoff level ( a large educated middle class) they will leave THE US behind like a Concorde on afterburner and the US will be in a cessa, with a 12 trillion dollar debt around your neck and a poorly educated workforce.

With a selfish stupid electorate who keep on putting the day on judgment off to later generations with their credit card mentally, well one more generation of this and the US economy will collapse.

Plus were are THE educated intelligent work force going to come from? Who are you going to match the eggheads of Asia? ( Chinese are not known as the Jews of Asia for nothing).

Because the future will be dominated by countries more than ever that are highly skilled and educated, semiskilled jobs will not cut it anymore, especially when advance AI and robotics come into play. Nations will need thinkers and innovators like never before to remain competitive. Asia will prevail, a hard working population that has great educational ability and attitude. In the end this will override American’s natural advantage in innovation.

Facts to support:

Study: Uneducated Outbreeding Intelligentsia 2-To-1

CHICAGO—In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation's uneducated are breeding twice as fast and twice as often as its educated. "The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional," study leader Kenneth Stalls said. "America's intellectual elite, as a result, are badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates."


Hispanics out breeding whites


Census Bureau data released last week state that Hispanics account for about 15.1% of the U.S. population and one out of every four children in the U.S. under age five. The nation's Hispanic population is expected to grow as new births outnumber new immigrants, the AP/Courant reports (AP/Hartford Courant, 5/8).

AND

"Now the immigration dimension: black and white dropout rates have increased only slightly. The real problem is the increasing proportion of Hispanics, the result of America’s ongoing immigration disaster. Their dropout rate [the obverse of the graduation rate] is appalling—45% in 1999. By contrast, the dropout rate for blacks – blacks!—was only 27%. Not all dropouts will be welfare cases and criminals. But many will. Which suggests public policy is importing a new and even more serious underclass problem."

· Almost half (44.2%) of Hispanic immigrants between ages 16 to 24 did not have a high school diploma in 2000.

· Among first generation (at least one parent born in the U.S.) Hispanics aged 16-24, the comparable dropout rate was 14.6%.

· Among second generation Hispanics, the dropout rate was actually worse: 15.9. (The dropout rate is worse for non-Hispanic second-generation immigrants too - something is clearly wrong with the Great American Assimilation machine.)

· Only 13.1% of all Blacks in the 16-24 age group lacked HS degrees.

· Only 6.9% of all whites in the 16-24 age group lacked HS degrees.

U.S. High School Seniors Among Worst in Math and Science

The most comprehensive and rigorous international comparison of schooling ever undertaken reveals American high school seniors, even many in advanced classes, to be among the industrial world's least prepared in mathematics and science, Students were selected to represent their respective nations, with 23 countries participating in some part of the exam. To account for margins of error, the results were clustered into groups.

In general knowledge of mathematics, American 12th-graders did better than those in only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. Students in four countries, Italy, Russia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, performed at the same level as those in the United States. Fourteen countries outperformed America, led by the Netherlands and Sweden. The results were similar for general science.

The advanced mathematics assessment was given to students who had taken or were taking pre-calculus, calculus or advanced placement calculus, and the advanced physics assessment to students who had either taken or were taking physics or advanced placement physics. In advanced mathematics, 11 countries outperformed the United States and no country performed more poorly; in physics, 14 countries did better than the U.S. and none did worse.

RESEARCH, POLICY

USA – A scientific empire on the decline?


For years, the European Union has treated the USA as a yardstick for what it needs to achieve in science and innovation. That stick – measuring performance in terms of research graduates, patents, prize winners, scientific citations, etc. – appears to be getting shorter, US experts reported earlier this month.

Asia’s ascendancy and Europe’s determination, especially in basic science, have begun to erode America’s dominance in science and innovation, according to John Jankowski, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation (NSF). "The rest of the world is catching up – scientific excellence is no longer the domain of just the US," he told the New York Times last week.

The leading American daily offers many examples where the USA fears a loss of scientific status. One area, international patents, is still strong but Asia is on the rise. The US share of industrial patents has fallen steadily over recent decades, now standing at almost 52%. In published research – once a US mainstay – it has also experienced serious decline.

In physics journals, American papers went from 61% in 1983 down to just 29% last year, according to a tracking study by Physical Review. A European Commission study showed that Europe overtook the USA in the mid-1990s as the world’s largest producer of scientific literature. Many of the USA’s woes are outlined in the National Science Board’s January report ‘An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering labor force’.

On the rise
In terms of Nobel Laureates, the US’ supremacy has taken a fall as well, from its peak performance in the 1960s down to about half of the prizes given out by the committee in the sciences last year. Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand took the remaining prizes.

.
Another key indicator, the number of new doctorates in science, peaked in 1998, according to America’s NSF, then fell 5% the following year, representing a loss to the States of some 1 300 new scientists. Bright science students from China, India and other Asian countries – especially since the 11 September attacks – have been going home or choosing to study elsewhere, causing a worrying, for US authorities, reverse brain drain problem (see Headlines, 19 December).


AND

mc cain making the same old mistake again, another reason why american will be surpassed by china.

Nobody has denigrated the service of John McCain or his suffering in captivity as a prisoner of North Vietnam, as much as his supporters wish to pretend that someone did. Nobody has denied that his valor in captivity offers insight into his character. But so far almost nobody has asked the most important question about McCain's military experience, which is how his past might influence his future as president.

The most pertinent issue is not what McCain did or didn't do during the war in Vietnam, but what he learned from that searing, incredibly bloody and wholly unnecessary failure of U.S. policy. Clearly he learned that torture is morally wrong, illegal and counterproductive, and he has spoken with great moral authority on that issue. But listening to him now and over the past decade or so, he also seems not to have learned why that war itself was a tragic mistake -- and why we needed to leave Vietnam long before we did.

Indeed, what is most striking about McCain's attitude toward Vietnam is his insistence that we could have won -- that we should have won -- with more bombs and more casualties. In 1998, he spoke on the 30th anniversary of the Tet Offensive. "Like a lot of Vietnam veterans, I believed and still believe that the war was winnable," he said. "I do not believe that it was winnable at an acceptable cost in the short or probably even the long term using the strategy of attrition which we employed there to such tragic results. I do believe that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed." Five years later, he said much the same thing to the Council on Foreign Relations. "We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal."

Very few military historians agree with McCain's bitter analysis, which suggests that a ground invasion and an even more destructive bombing campaign, with an unimaginable cost in human life, would have achieved an American victory. But perhaps because he is obsessed by the humiliation of defeat -- which fell directly on his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., who served as the commander in chief of Pacific forces during the Vietnam conflict -- the former prisoner of war seemingly can formulate neither a rational assessment of that war's enormous costs nor of its flawed premises and purposes.

To reach such an assessment requires, at the very least, a review of the relevant statistics, although such data can scarcely convey the war's horror. Numbers are useful, however, because they provide perspective on the assertions of politicians like McCain, whose rhetoric of "victory" is otherwise meaningless.

More than 58,000 Americans were killed in action between 1965 and 1973. More than a million and a half Vietnamese died during that same period, including hundreds of thousands killed by American bombs like those dropped by McCain during the mission that led to his capture, imprisonment and torture. Prosecution of the war diminished American prestige, as did our eventual defeat -- and the price paid by our armed forces and the returning veterans is still painful to recall. The economic cost of the war, calculated in current dollars, may have been as high as $1.7 trillion.

In McCain's mind, those lives and that treasure were expended in a "noble cause." Presumably he believes that we were seeking to preserve the freedom of the South Vietnamese from North Vietnamese communist oppression. But the politics of Vietnam and the geopolitics of the war were at once more complicated and simpler. Complicated because South Vietnam was a corrupt dictatorship that had forfeited the loyalty of most of its citizens, who regarded the United States not as a liberator but as the latest invader in a long procession that dated back centuries and included the French and the Chinese as well.

What vital American interests required so many deaths and so much suffering? There were none, but presumably, again, McCain thinks that we were forced to push back against communist expansion in Asia. That too was an awful misconception, based on cultural ignorance, since the Vietnamese accepted Russian and Chinese assistance only to expel the American occupation. Within the decade that followed the American defeat in Indochina, our diplomats were opening a new relationship with China while the Soviet Union, along with communism as an ideological threat, was on the verge of disintegration.

If the Vietnam War was premised on strategic misconceptions and cultural stupidity, it was also based on plain old lies, as the true history of the Tonkin Gulf incident has long since revealed. There was no reason for the United States to enter a colonial war that the French had abandoned. Ultimately there was no basis for American hostility toward Vietnam, as McCain wisely acknowledged when he led the effort to normalize our diplomatic and trade relations with the government that defeated us. Now that we live in peace and reconciliation with that same regime, what justifies the war that led to more than a million deaths?

Whenever McCain tries to explain what lessons he drew from the Vietnam tragedy, he cites a simple doctrine. We should not send troops into foreign conflict unless there is a vital American interest at stake, and once we go to war, we must deploy sufficient force to win. It is difficult to see how McCain has applied that logic to Iraq, which we invaded on a fraudulent excuse and where the definition of "winning" remains murky five years later.

But it is easy to understand why a man who thinks that we should have escalated the Vietnam War after 10 futile years would talk about occupying Iraq for a century. And it is hard to imagine why voters would elect a president who still believes that 60,000 American dead and more than 300,000 wounded in Vietnam were not quite enough.

tom

i found this site very interesting, it may be over the top. I will have to check the stats, since i never rely on just one source, but if you are a American i would be scared shitless for future generations if even 30% of it was true.


http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/us_debt.html

tom

as far as the immediate reference above, while it makes many excellent points i don't agree with some of the more absurd points, such as freemason controlling the world, and anti-jewish remarks. But there are many good points in between the nonsense. And it is quite obvious that america is in very deep trouble indeed.

FOR A FAR MORE PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT READ THE FOLLOWING:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NX65YJFZyAsJ:research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf+The+US+is+bankrupt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Arthur Eckart

Tom, I've already proven using orthodox economics, mathematics, and real data that your assumptions on education are false. Also, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, which has typically attracted the best, the brightest, and the ambitious. Moreover, history, since at least Vietnam, shows U.S. military power has been most effective. The second link gives you an idea of U.S. military objectives. Furthermore, even with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror, along with Homeland Security, the U.S. budget deficit fell to $160 billion in 2006 (or roughly 1% of GDP), and U.S. military expenditures as a proportion of GDP are near recent historical lows.

Even Sheila Jackson Lee, a Congresswoman, who voted against Operation Iraqi Freedom stated: "The U.S. achieved extraordinary military success in Iraq, toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in only 21 days, assuring the world that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, assisting the Iraqis in holding free elections, and setting the nation on a path toward democracy."

http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov/list/hearing/tx18_jackson-lee/reporttohousecommitteeiraq.shtml

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101771.pdf

tom

You have not proven anything, but that comes as no surprize that you think so. A couple of brief paragraphs proves your contention, what a joke, HA HA HA


The list of references that I have provided plus their sources overwhelm your statements. Including that by by Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff titled "Is the U.S. Bankrupt?" was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in November, 2005, and quietly posted on their public website. Although publicly accessible, it was totally ignored by the U.S. press.

Kotlikoff is professor of Economics at Boston University and has penned at least 355 papers published by the Federal Reserve over several years.


Now do i lsten to a professor who works for the federal reserve or a fool like you, i think i know who.

All your can do is repeat classic American crap, "AMERICA WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL", and it is precisely because of people like you , full of ignorance of the real situation in the US, that your country will go down, it is just a matter of time, 50 or 100 years. The education statistics i have provided are correct you are just too dull to see it. EVEN GINGRICH, who i suspect is a hero of yours believes there is a huge education crisis and if not corrected the US will lose it lead.

Added to that you fail to see the brain drain that is already ocurring in the US, as pointed out by America’s NSF (nation science foundation). So much for the best brightest always flooding to america, who do i listen to, NSF or you, I think I know who.

This clearly shows that the best and brightest are not flooding to the states:


For years, the European Union has treated the USA as a yardstick for what it needs to achieve in science and innovation. That stick – measuring performance in terms of research graduates, patents, prize winners, scientific citations, etc. – appears to be getting shorter, US experts reported earlier this month.
Asia’s ascendancy and Europe’s determination, especially in basic science, have begun to erode America’s dominance in science and innovation, according to John Jankowski, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation (NSF). "The rest of the world is catching up – scientific excellence is no longer the domain of just the US," he told the New York Times last week.
The leading American daily offers many examples where the USA fears a loss of scientific status. One area, international patents, is still strong but Asia is on the rise. The US share of industrial patents has fallen steadily over recent decades, now standing at almost 52%. In published research – once a US mainstay – it has also experienced serious decline.
In physics journals, American papers went from 61% in 1983 down to just 29% last year, according to a tracking study by Physical Review. A European Commission study showed that Europe overtook the USA in the mid-1990s as the world’s largest producer of scientific literature. Many of the USA’s woes are outlined in the National Science Board’s January report ‘An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering labor force’.
On the rise
In terms of Nobel Laureates, the US’ supremacy has taken a fall as well, from its peak performance in the 1960s down to about half of the prizes given out by the committee in the sciences last year. Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand took the remaining prizes.
.
Another key indicator, the number of new doctorates in science, peaked in 1998, according to America’s NSF, then fell 5% the following year, representing a loss to the States of some 1 300 new scientists. Bright science students from China, India and other Asian countries – especially since the 11 September attacks – have been going home or choosing to study elsewhere, causing a worrying, for US authorities, reverse brain drain problem (see Headlines, 19 December).


Explain the decline here you dope, if the best and brightest will always keep the US number 1?

Already the Chinese are the largest technology exporters, and they have only just begun. And based on their population they only need educate a fraction of their workforce to have a education edge over your country in skilled labour.


your statement on china that it is communist indicates your level of ignorance, china in fact is a national socialistic state like Nazi Germany , that has incorporated capitalism in its system. In fact it has the highest level of income inequality in the world. So when you are so ignorant of even such simple matters as that, then it is impossible for you to make correct assessments. As your assessments of vietnam, that washington caused the lose of the war atest to.

Additionally the most effective military in terms of pound for pound capability is the Israeli military , based on their efficiency, your military is very poor in comparison. They have nearly always fought against the odds in their major wars and have done so with minimal resources. they won their major wars by brilliance why you high behind your high technology and massive resources.

The Iraq attack was another example of American incompetence as shown by this source:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/19/content_7818520.htm

plsu the speed of the attack was a mere illusion because the iraqis chose largely not to fight.

Even Bill O'reilly hardly a liberal agrees that the 9 trillion dollar debt that bush has created will lead to the destruction of the US system if not corrected.

Continue to live in your American self delusions, it like arguing with a born again Christian over Noan's ark, a waste of time. But i knew that would be that case, the posts placed here were for others to read.

Now shout like a brainwashed American cretin: USA USA USA !!!!

TOM

I would not use statistics from the bush govt. who are know for lies and manipulation

$9,517,951,282,749.33
— US debt as of July 17, 2008
*

(BASED ON REAL DATA FROM THE GOVT ITSELF YOU DOPE)

The National Debt inceased $1.36 billion per day since September of 2006.

The trade deficit is on track to set a record for a seventh consecutive year, running at an annual rate of $780 billion.

In six years, U.S. Public debt has increased from 4 trillion to 10 trillion dollars

The estimated population of the United States 2006 is around 300,000,000 people. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the US and head of the Government Accountability Office, in his December 17, 2007, report to the US Congress on the financial statements of the US government noted that "the federal government did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with significant laws and regulations as of September 30, 2007."

The US government cannot pass an audit.

The GAO report states accrued liabilities of the federal government "totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007."

No funds have been set aside against the liability.
The estimated net worth of all American families is about $47 trillion, reducing as property values reduce.
The US is bankrupt.


1, Real military budget twice as much as official budget

Although the official military budget already eats up the lion's share of the public money (crowding out vital domestic needs), it nonetheless grossly understates the true magnitude of military spending.

The real national defense budget, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, is nearly twice as much as the official budget.

The reason for this understatement is that the official Department of Defense budget excludes not only the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also a number of other major cost items.[3]

These disguised cost items include:

Budgets for the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.
Nuclear weapons research and development, testing, and storage (placed in the Energy budget).

Veterans programs (in the Veteran's Administration budget).
Most military retiree payments (in the Treasury budget).

Foreign military aid in the form of weapons grants for allies (in the State Department budget).

Interest payments on money borrowed to fund military programs in past years (in the Treasury budget).

Sales and property taxes at military bases (in local government budgets).
Hidden expenses of tax-free food, housing, and combat pay allowances.

After adding these camouflaged and misplaced expenses to the official Department of Defense budget, Higgs concludes:

"I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it.
You may overstate the truth, but if so, you'll not do so by much."[4]

2, real cost of iraq Between $1 trillion and $2 trillion

The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.

Mr Stiglitz told the Guardian that despite the staggering costs laid out in their paper the economists had erred on the side of caution.

"Our estimates are very conservative, and it could be that the final costs will be much higher. And it should be noted they do not include the costs of the conflict to either Iraq or the UK."

...The economists' costings went much further than the economic value of lives lost.

They factored in items such as the higher oil prices which could partly be attributed to the war.

They also calculated the effect if a proportion of the money spent on the Iraq war was allocated to other causes.

These factors could add tens of billions of dollars.

Mr Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist, said the paper, which will be available on josephstiglitz.com, did not attempt to explain whether Americans were deliberately misled or whether the underestimate was due to incompetence.

Guardian January 7, 2006
www.guardian.co.uk

tom

suck on these apples

DEVELOPMENT:
China Poised to Surpass U.S. Economy by 2035
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, 11 Jul (IPS) - China's booming economy is on course not only to surpass that of the United States by 2035, and but to double its size by 2050, according to a new study released here this week by an influential former World Bank economist who also headed the China desk at the U.S. Treasury.

The report by Albert Keidel, currently a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), argues that Beijing's torrid annual growth rates, that have averaged around 10 percent over the past three decades, are likely to be sustained over the next two before gradually declining to around three percent -- the rate at which the U.S. economy is projected to grow over the same period -- by 2070.

By then, however, China's economy, currently estimated at only about one-third that of the U.S., will have built up such momentum that its total annual gross domestic product (GDP) will reach the equivalent of nearly 180 trillion 2005 dollars, dwarfing the 80-trillion-dollar U.S. economy projected for the same year, according to the study, entitled 'China's Economic Rise - Fact and Fiction'.

And while important obstacles to that growth -- including possible social unrest, corruption, and macro-economic mismanagement -- clearly loom on the horizon, Keidel argues that China's leadership appears prepared to overcome them based on the record it has compiled in dealing with related problems, particularly over the past decade.

'They are not likely to stop China's growth,' insisted Keidel at a crowded CEIP forum that drew economic specialists from a host of U.S. government agencies, think tanks, and foreign embassies Wednesday. Moreover, he added, the numbers presented in the report should be considered conservative. 'This is a slower-growth scenario,' he said in answer to scepticism voiced by some attendees and panelists who were asked to comment on the paper.

Of course, the global implications of such an economic powerhouse are enormous, according to Keidel, who stressed that China's financial clout alone 'will spill into every conceivable dimension of international relations.'

'Leadership of international institutions will gravitate toward China,' with the headquarters of some existing U.N. agencies and other multilateral institutions likely to move to Chinese cities. 'The United States will have an important secondary influence, like Europe, but it will need to compromise, and its sphere for unilateral action will be increasingly curtailed.'

On the military front, the U.S. will continue to enjoy major advantages, including a worldwide network of hundreds of bases, many situated around China's periphery, and enormous accumulated stocks of sophisticated weapons many times larger than Beijing's arsenal. However, the sheer size of the Chinese economy at the mid-century mark 'should persuade American policy makers to consider their options wisely.'

Much of Keidel's analysis, which comes on the eve of next month's landmark Beijing Olympiad, is based on his conclusion that China's economic dynamism has been based much more on domestic demand and investment than on exports. The conventional view is that China's economy will begin to slow -- sooner rather than later -- because its external markets will be unwilling or unable to continue buying those exports at the same rate.

While trade has certainly been an important factor in China's development, according to Keidel, it is by no means export-dependent. Indeed, when its major export market, the U.S., has boomed, China's growth has slumped; while when the U.S. has slowed down, China's growth has been strong -- a pattern that is precisely the opposite of three other major export powerhouses, Japan, South Korea, and Germany.

China's high growth rates are more likely to be sustained, moreover, because it started at such a low level of development when it first implemented economic reforms in the late 1970s. Compared to Japan and South Korea, China is still at a relatively early stage of economic and political development, according to the study.

And, unlike its two neighbours that protected their key industries at a comparable period in their development, the Chinese economy has been much more open to global competition, ensuring that leading sectors import and use the latest technology, thus enhancing their own competitiveness. 'This is not something that Japan or South Korea ever did,' Keidel said.

Finally, the economy has developed a 'web of incentive systems that rewards people who take risks and work hard,' according to Keidel who said this evolution was 'under-appreciated'. Despite state control, 'Chinese corporations today are money-making machines,' and the governance of the larger ones is 'heavily oriented towards profit making.'

He also believes that China's economic managers have become increasingly sophisticated over the last three decades in ways that show that a growing ability to deal with the 'cyclical ups and downs (that) are inevitable' in a fast-growing economy.

As for concerns that poverty, growing inequality, air and water pollution could derail long-term growth, the study concludes that China appears to be on a similar trajectory as Japan and South Korea, both of which have addressed these issues, particularly as their countries became more urbanised and income levels increased, spurring greater public concern.

Corruption, particularly within the Communist Party, could also prove an 'Achilles' Heel' for China, although Keidel notes that it 'has clearly not prevented rapid growth in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future,' particularly with increases in per capita income and the growing attention already being paid to the problem in the news media.

As for the Party's rule, it has evolved from a 'one-man authoritarian system' to a 'corporate technocracy' that has introduced 'participatory governing mechanisms' that may lead to a 'more broad-based system of elections' -- a transition similar to those of South Korea and Taiwan.

While China's GDP will surpass that of the U.S. by 2035, its per capita GDP will likely draw even with the U.S. in about 80 years, according to the study. In 2005, China's per capita GDP was less than 2,000 dollars, compared to 41,000 dollars in the U.S. As measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), which takes account of the relative cost of living -- how much a certain basket of goods actually costs -- China's per capita income was about 4,100 dollars.

By 2035, according to Keidel's model, per capita GDP in China should reach about one third of U.S. GDP, and roughly one half as measured by PPP.

Arthur Eckart

Tom, I've already proven my statements on this site about a year ago using orthodox economics, mathematics, and real data. To repeat, since you're taking up so much space with your value judgments:

Your assumptions on the U.S. military, education, and China are false. India has a realistic chance of surpassing China within 10 or 20 years. Perhaps, China can overtake the U.S. someday. However, it needs to improve its economic policies. Also, the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, which has typically attracted the best, the brightest, and the ambitious. Moreover, history, since at least Vietnam, shows U.S. military power has been most effective. The second link gives you an idea of U.S. military objectives. Furthermore, even with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror, along with Homeland Security, the U.S. budget deficit fell to $160 billion in 2006 (or roughly 1% of GDP), and U.S. military expenditures as a proportion of GDP are near recent historical lows.

Even Sheila Jackson Lee, a Congresswoman, who voted against Operation Iraqi Freedom stated: "The U.S. achieved extraordinary military success in Iraq, toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in only 21 days, assuring the world that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction, assisting the Iraqis in holding free elections, and setting the nation on a path toward democracy."

http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov/list/hearing/tx18_jackson-lee/reporttohousecommitteeiraq.shtml

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101771.pdf

D sherman

Why don't people simply realize one thing about China. They are simply manufacturing, There isn't any intellectual property coming from China. If we don't buy there is no China economy. The United States can always find cheap labor for our consumption.

Larry Koss

What's missing from this conversation for me is a growing discussion among forward-thinking economists that our present model of spec-marketed growth economics is not sustainable - be it locally, nationally or globally.

Indeed, given what we witness via climate change, peak oil, global economic fragility, global hunger, poverty, poverty-related disease, environmental and cultural degradation, world conflict etc, it appears: (a) our entire global malaise sits on the doorstep of how we've practiced commerce and (b) that neither the Earth or humanity have sufficient resources or resiliency to continue this path unabated.

Einstein puts it pretty straight - "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive!” and "We cannot hope to solve a problem using the same kind of thinking that produced it."

When I look at China, India, Japan, the European Union, U.S. et al, I see attempts to foster exponential growth leading to geometrically increasing complexity with little commitment beyond lip service to true sustainability in whole terms - i.e., to bring or organizing and expression in life on all quarters into "absolute honesty, balance and whole wellbeing." Despite all the very noble attempts being made to reduce the "symptoms" (e.g., carbon emission) of a "context gone awry", I do not believe we are yet speaking to the "belly" of the issue. To wit - even after multi-billion dollar bailouts and stimulus packages, we still witness unconscionable excess and dishonesty at executive levels throughout the corporate and political world that led to it in the first place.

I'm reminded of a quote by Will Durant, "A great nation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within!" Too, of a comment made in the 1/12/2009 issue of Newsweek ... “Only a transformation of capitalism can save the United States and perhaps the world. If we can’t escape the materialistic trap that the most recent brand of capitalism seems to have set for us, I’m very afraid for the world my children will inherit!” – Frank Kline, Lake Forest Park, WA

I find it interesting that David Rockerfeller and his cabal go on record with their commitment to create a "one world government." Recognizing how utterly complex and crazy-making it is to run a single country without bringing it to the verge of collapse (noting the fall of many former empires, the former Soviet Union as the latest) - I would like to see more discussion beyond speculation on who will overtake the other, on what we can do to bring ourselves - ALL of us - to absolute honesty, balance and whole well being. Alas, the minute I hear my mind say, "That's not realistic!", I hear next, "It's 'inevitable' if humanity is to survive on Earth!"

In closing, when I look at the underpinnings of our entire global malaise, it seems to sit upon the doorstep of how we've practiced commerce. I've noted, too, that this entire malaise represents acts of violence against humanity and/or Nature. Next, a Bureau of Justice Statistic reveals that "85-95% of all violence is caused by men, and of the 5-15% caused by women, most have been abused directly or indirectly by men."

This seems consistent with the reality that we are a patriarchal world run-riot - i.e., all our systems from commerce to education, government/politics, military and even theology are principally directed, controlled and furthered by men. This of course speaks to the Bureau of Justice claim of women being "indirectly" abused by men via. It's occurred via the systems we've created that have suppressed beyond comprehension their innate preciousness, equality and value to the world from the very creations of our theologies to the workplace and political process.

Looking beneath the choice to violate in the first place, one finds a "disconnect" from one's own sense of self and our own preciousness - for were that intact, we literally couldn't hurt a fly.

This suggest that our grossly out-of-balance patriarchal world sits squarely upon a massive, systemic sense of insecurity on the part of who we are as men - an insecurity which has compelled us thus to seek evermore money, power and fame in an insatiable effort to "be somebody." Yet alas, given the "leaky bucket" we've had on board, there will NEVER be enough, right?

Core issue? I believe we men have an answered question, the failure to answer of which will keep us on this treadmill forever. And I believe this question represents the "gap" we feel from women, from ourselves and from the source of Life Itself.

I believe we have yet to ask individually and as a gender why are we here other than to be a sperm-donor? Women innately know why they are here - i.e., they're here to create and nurture life. They can be doctors or lawyers, yet fundamentally their psyche and physiology clearly signals "mothering and nurturing."

For us men, however, since all life needs to create, once we've done the sperm thing, what are we left with? Seems the principal "babies" we set out to create and nurture are our images viz a vie our money, power and fame. These are of course mere illusions, yet we insert ourselves in them SO deeply that when competition threatens the image, some literally KILL to defend it - which explains some go berserk killing themselves and/or others, why one corporation seeks to bury another or why one theology will genocide another.

I believe as men we are being presented with an opportunity now to "wake up" beyond individual and organizational ego to a larger truth of who we are - one that will NOT be found in any bank account, estate or accolades, rather in the heart and soul of each one of us as individuals within the organizations we represent. I believe, too, somewhere deep inside we know this to be true. We simply find the notion of softening and partnering at a much broader level scary enough to imagine it to be life-threatening. Indeed, deep inside beyond our images, it appears we scared to death of women and the softening and surrender that is innate to them. Could it be that we've been fighting the woolly mammoth for too long?

I leave with a metaphor ... "What does it take for a man to surrender to have his wife and kids (LIFE) be the most important thing in his life?" Seems generally one or more of three things. Some need a health problem (some even a few heart bypasses). Others, for their wife to say, "You think all that show of yours is more important than we are? We're out of here!" Some need to lose their money, power and privilege enough to ask, "What is REALLY important in life?" And some, of course, need all three.

I hope we can come together as a gender to learn than in the surrender to what is more noble and heartfelt - ESPECIALLY in what we do daily in the marketplace - we finally find ourselves, happiness and what we've sought via our theologies.

Blessings upon your day!

JET

The glorious days of the Roman Empire had gone...the British Empire too had gone...so what makes you think that the US will last forever? Everything comes and goes, that is natural. Even if China will to become number one in the world, it too will be gone in due time. So why worry?

Jonathan Lim

This is 2010. I am sure Arthur Eckart is ashamed of his earlier predictions. After the so-called IT Revolution and Biotech Revolution, a large number of Americans are jobless and have no income. Can we really consume more and more, believing that our capacity to produce will lead to no problems? Hey, if the agricultural sector in the U.S. needs only 3% of its population to get involved...where can the remaining millions of Americans get jobs? Their talents and abilities will all be wasted. Look at Kroger. Many machines and few workers are there. Due to heavy mechanization, firms and companies in the U.S. become less customer-friendly, and many people become jobless, human resources are wasted, and the U.S. may become poorer by 2025!

travesti

istanbul hotel travesti hotelles hallow hi artic thanks This article is very beautiful, I really get very beyendım text files manually to your health as you travesti very beautiful and I wish you continued success with all respect ..

Thanks for helpful information travesti siteleri you catch up us with your sagol instructional çok explanation.
en iyi travestiler en guzel travesti

travesti
travesti forum
istanbul travestileri
ankara travestileri
izmir travestileri
bursa travestileri
travestiler
trv
travesti siteleri
travesti video
travesti
travesti
travesti
travestiler
travesti
travestiler
sohbet
travesti
chat
organik
güncel blog
sohbet
turkce mirc

David Clark

Mr Braden, Sir,

you buy Chinese products because they are everywhere and very cheap, because your need or desire for a thing is immediately satisfied without too much struggle. Given the choice, judging by your patriotism, you would choose the US made version.

A belief in International Trade unfortunately rarely enters into it.

overtake you

you just try to comfort yourself, let's see who is the winner in the future, you superficial westerner.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Information




  • TEST


  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Economist Weblogs

Disclaimer


  • This is a personal web site, produced in my own time and solely reflecting my personal opinions. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of my employer, past or present, or any other organisation with which I may be affiliated. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities.