Please read past the allegories and comparisons.

My fears are that Chinese are becoming what Mexicans have been to the US in the past few decades. Illigal immigrants who run across the border and take unwanted jobs. Unlike Mexicans however there is a past history that usually dictates something more of a problem. In 1969
Chinese insurgents went across the Amur river (far eastern border between Russian/China) and occupied Demyanski Isle. Killing about 58 border guards and wounding 94. Bear in mind this was a gov't staged insurgency using approximately 5,000 armed troops. It ended when the Russian army stationed near the situation was called in used
grad(katusha type) napalm artillery support to basicly anihalate a few square km along with chinese. The Isle was given to China in 1991 though. http://www.damanski-zhenbao.ru/chronicals_en.htm

The Russian far east that borders China has approximately a population of 5million while the Chinese provinces that border Russia have appx 100million. My fear use the illigal immigrants as an excuse in the future to claim the area by just sending massive ammounts of people to dilute the Russian populous into minority. This was done by them in the past in Tibet & Xinjang as attested by the corresponding thread.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3320347.stm
I fear it could be done in the Russian far east by saturation immigration legal or otherwise. Claiming the region under some guise to legitemise
armed insurgency to secure the region & repeating the process going westward to some extent.

Lately since 1992 there has been tightning & realization of the Russia gov't of this problem. Tightning of quotas & legal immigration appropriated to the Chinese. There has been developping a funnel effect thats increasing in the past years especially since 2000. But the problem still persists and much more rapidly.

Your thoughts, ideas &/or fears about China are welcome

Hmmm well if I was China I would be mighty tempted to take over the resource rich area to the North.

Hmmm well if I was China I would be mighty tempted to take over the resource rich area to the North.

yes thats very compelling but they also try to expand in other directions...
for exmaple this just happened: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3563777.stm

Island hoping at its finest :)

I think most people haev recognised China as a massive threat/opportunity depending on how you look at it, for over a decade. getting Hong Kong back was merely a small coming of age ceremony. The question becomes how large China will get, be permitted to become, and whether it can release internal tension by invasion/ emigration or implode in a hideously mesy fashion involving a combination of demographics and lack of resources, eg oil.
Theyll take back Taiwan at some point, maybe in 10 years. If i were a really mad person I'd make sure taiwan had some big, secret nukes and the missiles for them by then, and let it nuke a chunk of china when taiwan is overrun. Just a scenario for you to play with.

China is the inevitable world leader, with her culture, economy, population and potential. The US and others have just going to have to accept China for her power, which is growing at 8% a year for the last 25 years. Russia has lost to China, Russia is not industrializing she is a resource based economy, by the end of this decade the Chinese will wheen off the Russian military industrial complex, and Siberian trade will be monopolized by China. China used to own that part of Russia now know as the Primorsky region, so it is only natural for the Chinese to exhort massive influence on it. I know the Chinese haven’t forgot the “un-equal” treaties. I think the US and China will not come to blows there are too many pluses for them both to simply break relations and fight. The unfortunate thing for the US is that China will eventually be becoming less dependant on the US for investment, and the US more dependant on China for goods. This is why it is called a deficit! The good thing is that China will become a market for American goods so all is not lost. In theory for the US, China will become such a huge market that eventually the US can get a trade surplus again, but that is highly speculative. For the US the Chinese threat is acute with the Chinese expected to base her naval assets in Myanmar, and Pakistan. For the US to have Chinese naval assets at the foot of the Persian Gulf is dangerous, the US has no such permanent naval facility in that region. With China expect to consume 10 million bbl/day by the end of this decade, importing 7.5 million bbl/day they will be the second most important importer in the world. Eventually China should become the world’s largest importer of oil which would change the shift in world power forever. States like Iran will become players again because the Chinese will have the economic and military capability to really affect the region's politics. The reason why Americans should be scared is because with China on top, gives nation’s options, something they haven't had since the pre-WWI era. To pretend that China can be thwarted is a joke, only the US can do that and even that can’t last for long. China is the true raising dragon and the West will feed it for a long time to come.

China's will fail becuase of its government. Not to mention its current tech base is a joke. Everything is either bought or stolen. We shall see.....

Actually China's gov't is the only thing that is keeping the thing together, democracy in a country of 1.2 billion ppl, and 70 million minorities is really not an option. Not even America's beau in China, Chiang was not a democrat. It sure sucks that socialist gov't policies in China are working... About her tech base, it is China who is sending thousands of students in MIT to come back and create that tech base, again it's all trends. Then hey you always have the fall back, intellectual property! BAH!

I personally wouldnt hire anyone who went to school in China. Now if they were American and went to school here fine, but I wouldnt trust a mainlander.

Chinas current tech base is bought or stolen? Well, forget stolen, once htey have it it doesnt matter. But presumably you have forgotten that 1 ) they put a man into orbit. 2) They make boeing etc aircraft wings there now. Now, of course, development is spread unevenly, but its only a matter of a few years before they spread it all further. If you looked at the UK, only 3 or 4 locations would seem to be technically alive and busy, because of concentration and loss of traditional industries. (but thats another topic).
And remember, the Chinese are hiring lost of people who went to school in China. It took less than 30 years for the USA to become a technocracy, employing lots of people with lots of degrees in a wide variety of subjects, I think China will take even less time. But it depends on how much the Gvt keeps the lid on things.

The US has lost the competition against India and other Asian states in terms of tech. In 1998 the US had a huge trade surplus in terms of hi-tech, now she is in deficit! Need I really say more? The Chinese are sucking everything up; the US has a big problem. Its workers are not competitive and high productivity creates unemployment. Most Americans will not be wiling to pay up to two times more for goods. China has thousands of students coming to Canada, the US and other states. They come, learn, and leave back to China making the very states that taught them go into the hole. It's one of the grave ironies of society today. I agree with Guthrie, we assume that China is very backward, but most of her tech is secret, and China will be a chief competitor against the US in space. Let's not underestimate our foes, because they usually don't underestimate us. The real question is not whether we are scared bout China, only a retard wouldn’t be scared. The real question is how we can deal with China so that there is nothing to be scared about.

Edit: IT market back in fast lane: IDC report

China's information technology (IT) market has shrugged off slow growth and a drop in the hardware market happening last year and come back to the fast lane again, said the US-based market researcher International Data Corp (IDC) yesterday.
--------------------------------------------
He said at his company's annual market review and forecast event, IDC Directions 2004, that despite the negative impacts of the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak in the first half of last year, the country's IT market grew by 11 per cent year-on-year to US$25.1 billion, compared with a 2.1 per cent growth rate in 2002
------------------------------------------
Software and IT services even grew faster than the hardware segment, with 24 per cent and 20.6 per cent rates respectively in 2003.

Xie predicted the IT market in China will grow at an annual average of 15.6 per cent from 2003 to 2008 and reach US$51.74 billion by then.

Its proportion of the total Asia-Pacific region, not including Japan, will also rise from 2003's 30.8 per cent to 38 per cent in 2008.
---------------------------------------------
IDC statistics show shipments of notebook computers grew by almost 80 per cent last year to 1.75 million units, but it will reach 2.62 million this year, which will double to 5.38 million units in 2008.

Network security is also forecast to see almost four times its regular growth in the next five years, from US$200 million to almost US$800 million in 2008.


It's coming along...

undicided I will tell you how china will most likely disintigrate "if" it occurs. Here is my little doomsday scenario for china...

Earthquake or just simple failiure at the three gorges will trigger its destruction carrying with it the ultimate wave of destruction prehaps for 1/3rd of china's populous within a weeks time... As soon as destruction is finalized with international aid pledged and the army commited to rebuilding in damaged provinces. Taiwan & Sianking will declare themselves independant. Sianking will most likely have a very very bloody rebellion with aid coming from the surrounding stans. How does it sound?

HHMM, it depends upon the situations in Sianking and Taiwan. And i don thtink anything short of nuclear war will cause 1/3 or chinas populaiton to die. That too depends upon the projected damage from the 3 dams failing, or else, that the earthquake is a seriously bad one, causing millions to eb killed due in part to poor building standards control.

That aside, I think what endangers china is both the high population and pressure build up, allied to the adoption of western ways. This leads to a sedentary lifestyle and type 2 diabetes, as well as rampant consumerism. If they succumb fully, China will have too much to worry about to bother anyone else. Then on the other side is the demographics, of 2 or 3 geenrations of one child per family, which will be aided by adoption of western lifestyles.

Earthquake or just simple failiure at the three gorges will trigger its destruction carrying with it the ultimate wave of destruction prehaps for 1/3rd of china's populous within a weeks time...

Well very imaginative but not a reality, 1/3 of the population of China is 400 million ppl, nothing can kill that many ppl. The destruction three gorges dam project is a possibility, the sediments on the Yangtze river is second only to the Amazon. So the possibility of the damn being destroyed is not a far fetched possibility, and because of the nepotism, and cronyism that has plagued the project, has put the quality of the dam in question. But if successful China would then stop the floods that have killed millions in the past, and that one dam would generate 1/9 of the total electricity in China. Also the industrialization of China would expand beyond the coastal regions making China the undisputed economic leader in the world. A lot does hang on this dam, but not China proper.

Taiwan & Sianking will declare themselves independant. Sianking will most likely have a very very bloody rebellion with aid coming from the surrounding stans. How does it sound?

East Turkistan is totally irrelevant, it's a thorn on China's side but the ppl largely have been pacified in that region. China has the acquiescence from the US to do whatever it wants in that region and plead "TERRORISM", the US will buy it. Also E.T is now majority Han Chinese like Tibet, so really E.T is not a concern. Taiwan is indeed the only real problem that China faces with the world. If China went to war with Taiwan the Chinese ppl would support the CCP and rally behind the flag, alas Bush and 9/11. Taiwanese independence would be the ultimate slap in the face, alas 9/11. By 2015 China will have three carriers, and battle groups (which she is building now) and the Taiwanese will fall WAY behind China. Also Taiwan can be simply cut off from China causing Taiwan to go into a depression. What do you think is maintaining Taiwanese economic growth today? China. This is brilliant for the Chinese, they traditionally never expanded militarily, they control nations...by their finances, and now is no different. China has major problems, but they are internal not external.

guthrie

That aside, I think what endangers china is both the high population and pressure build up, allied to the adoption of western ways.

I agree with everything except this, China's population growth rate is below the replenishment level of 2.1/woman. China's population by mid-century will decline. For every 100 females there are 116 males, leaving a 200 million man surplus and non-productive members of society. China will face the same problem that the US and Japan is facing. Social Security...AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Well very imaginative but not a reality, 1/3 of the population of China is 400 million ppl, nothing can kill that many ppl.

comon lets not forget the plague :D
Also I'm pretty sure if the damb breaks and all that water behind it is released it wont just kill people. But totally wipe out any agriculture along those river and any valleys ajacent. Now if you think about that effect it could definetely wipe out 400 mill people maybe not instantly but through time starvation & disease that spreads after floods.

The destruction three gorges dam project is a possibility, the sediments on the Yangtze river is second only to the Amazon.

Explain the significance. I wanna know why sediments are important in the possibility of destruction? I know cronyism and nepotism are definetely factors but why sediments? *asking out of curiousity not sarcasm*

well I said several weeks so that gives some room for disease & starvation to kick in but several months would definetely be a better phrase there.

And yes my imagination has been churning this thought was triggered by one of the China's insurance companies going public and the three gorge project I read about. I was figuring how much money someone would make if they bought put options or shorted that stock before it happened in 2006. (yes I know I'm prophesising a bit)

Well, looky here:
"China's western ambitions do not end with the purchase of huge amounts of energy, the main products that Central Asia has to offer, international political analysts, Chinese and regional officials agree. Beijing's bid to secure vital fuel supplies is part of a bold but little noticed push to increase its influence vastly in a part of the world long dominated by its historic rival in the region, Russia.

China's thrust into Central Asia comes as an almost natural extension of its ambitious efforts to populate and develop Xinjiang, a far-western region the size of Texas with 18 million people, which seems underpopulated compared with much of China. In doing so, China hopes to neutralize a threat of separatism by the region's Uighur minority, whose Turkik language and Islamic faith draw them toward kinsmen in Kazakhstan and other former Soviet republics of the region"

From
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/international/asia/28ASIA.html?th
the new york times, so you'd have to get a log in.
And todays scotland on sunday had a short article about how Indias population is going to overtake chinas in the next 50 years, due to high birth rates and lack of a one child policy.

Also I'm pretty sure if the damb breaks and all that water behind it is released it wont just kill people. But totally wipe out any agriculture along those river and any valleys ajacent.

So? Most of China's agricultural land isn't even located in that region; it is located in the South of the country. This is not a feasible possibility; China will not die because of this dam. Please I urge you to look at a map, please...

Now if you think about that effect it could definetely wipe out 400 mill people maybe not instantly but through time starvation & disease that spreads after floods.

Oh yes of course...:rolleyes: Do you just want me to say yes?

Explain the significance. I wanna know why sediments are important in the possibility of destruction? I know cronyism and nepotism are definetely factors but why sediments? *asking out of curiousity not sarcasm*

Eluminate, how can you utter a word about the dam project without even knowing what will most likely destroy it? I suggest you study a tad bit more and when you arrive on Terra Ferma we can have a nice little discussion. I am not trying to be rude, I am just shocked.

And todays scotland on sunday had a short article about how Indias population is going to overtake chinas in the next 50 years, due to high birth rates and lack of a one child policy.

This has been known since the mid 90's not really news, but it is indicative of the situation China and India are in. Unlike India China will have a better chance of economic growth, and human development due to the lack of high population growth rates. The one child policy for all her quarks has worked in China, if India wants to sharply cut down population growth she should try to follow the lead of her most successful state (in terms of pop. Control) Kerela.

just tell me about the sediments significance comon share knowledge

It's not very complex to understand; sediment is soil which erodes off the land due to water flow. The Chinese water supply comes from Mountains in the Himalayas, and the force of the river erodes much of the soil. The sediments accumulate like they do in Egypt with the Nile Delta. Look at a satellite photo of the major rivers in the world, and their outlets. They usually have a lot of brown floating around, like the Amazon of the Ganges in India. Bangladesh is essentially a country made of sediments from the river. With the Three Gorges dam the sediments would accumulate behind the dam creating a lot of pressure, potentially so much so that the dam can burst. To the best of my knowledge the Chinese have not resolved this discrepancy.

thx for explaining....
i know what sediments are but i didnt know what effect they had on the damb
i didnt know about them creating pressure behind it.
It is logical to assume that they gradualy restrict the waterflow and thus create a smaller opening with higher pressure going into the damb which eventually might be more then the concrete could take and it would crack and burst. (right?)

also I m thinking more of a much wider span of effect... The two rivers that are dambed up are the ones that flow into southern china and provide for most of the agriculture needs there if they overflow/destroy agriculture all along their banks it would effect all of southern china and it being the most productive agriculture part of china starvation effects would definetely be in the making. I was thinking of a tidal wave effect that would essentially wash out the rivers from base of damb to the outsourcing into south china sea I know i wasnt clear or anything.

My take is this:

1) China is not a threat to anyone. I remember economists went on and on and on about Japan - - and the truth is Japan is a great asset of the World. China will be as well. And India too for that matter.

2) Chinese students study in the “West” or “East” (in the case of Japan) and see how a country can function as a democracy and the resulting standards of living. They then go back to China with these new ideas. They had freedom here and they’ll be loath to give it up when they return. That’s the point in conquering a people – it to instill in those people the ideas you want them to have. A good idea is an easy sell.

3) What makes the US a great economy is the ability to innovate. Only with freedom of thought do you produce these great strides that the West has made - intellectually. Sure China can produce all it wants as brute work (as does and can India) - but the great strides are made with innovation.

4) The US has more farmable land, more fresh water, access to two oceans, a manageable sized population, democratic and capitalistic institutions – only a series of morons (aka Bush) could ruin her :)

5) Oil is a problem for China as well as us all. I hope we see a lucrative renewable energy source sometime in the next 50 years.

And with that there’s really not much to squabble about aye?

I do think China will become a great world power – and a responsible one at that. To the benefit of the West for sure. Outside of a fluke, China isn’t going to invade Taiwan – as that would surely wreck everything China has been reaching for. The only worry I would have about China is the hygiene. If anything I think of China as flu-pandemic powder keg waiting to blow. Lets hope not though.

As far as #1 goes: Tawain, Tibet, Russia, Japan.........do I need to continue?? Oh, my bad. They already took over Tibet...........

China is a threat to others in the region. I m pretty sure I have a link on page 1 of this thread which demonstrates their expansionist zeal in some cases. Invasion to annex territory of another sovergn nation is not a little thing.

But lack of oil might compel china to be more aggressive considering their biggest oil field in Daqing has began to loose resreves. They say it will run out by 2010 and lowering production 7% per annum till then. This oil field provided about 60% of their total needs. Thats why they have tensions with Russia & Japan because senkaku isles believed to have oil under the shelf. And Russia definetely has it in Siberia. Furthermore they don't want to be dependant on the gulf which would become their ultimate supplier if they dont create alternatives since the gulf has 65% of worlds proven oil and gas reserves. Also their energy needs are growing at an insane rate they are projecting growth rates to 9million barrels per day needs by 2010. The US consumes appx 16 million barrels per day today. These are all very very compelling ecconomic reasons for a country to be a bit aggressive to grab some oil resources of a neighbor.

It is logical to assume that they gradualy restrict the waterflow and thus create a smaller opening with higher pressure going into the damb which eventually might be more then the concrete could take and it would crack and burst. (right?)

Since I am not an engineer I really wouldn't know, but my educated guess is that no matter what they do, it will be a big problem. That sediment will come faster then it can leave (I guess), and thus the problem will be compounded. Also it eventually gets hard if it doesn’t constantly move. As of yet I haven't heard how the Chinese are going to solve this very serious issue.

also I m thinking more of a much wider span of effect... The two rivers that are dambed up are the ones that flow into southern china

No they aren't, the dams in question do not affect S.China at all. We are talking about central China. Here look at this map please:

Carte de la Chine (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/china_pol01.jpg)

Sorry Eluminate but your agricultural predictions are not realistic at all. What is realistic is the pandemic that Michael is discussing, and what I will add on too.

1) China is not a threat to anyone. I remember economists went on and on and on about Japan - - and the truth is Japan is a great asset of the World. China will be as well. And India too for that matter.

What I underlined is the significant difference btwn Japan and the Chinese. The Japanese were not necessarily sucking jobs away, China is. Japan was making jobs worldwide, and she had a very strong industrial complex. She had excess capital so she could invest overseas. Consider that Japan in 2001 had over $300 billion worth of investment overseas, and is in deficit in terms of this investment. China is not even close, around $30 billion invested overseas. In China's case we are talking about a state which is becoming the world's factory, with 1.2 billion ppl. Japan's market is exploited; she isn’t going to grow significantly if she depends solely on domestic consumption. China offers the Japanese a market so their economy can grow again at healthy rates. The US is largely exploited as well. In China the idea of an exploited market is not realistic. For the Chinese numbers mean everything, the Japanese could only do so much. The Chinese can only do so much more. Already China’s GDP is 2x the size of Japan, by the end of this decade China should reach, and then usurp the US in terms of GDP. China is an asset merely because it offers employers cheaper labor. China does not give back, Japan did. There is the difference, Smith would have loved this.

2) Chinese students study in the “West” or “East” (in the case of Japan) and see how a country can function as a democracy and the resulting standards of living. They then go back to China with these new ideas. They had freedom here and they’ll be loath to give it up when they return. That’s the point in conquering a people – it to instill in those people the ideas you want them to have. A good idea is an easy sell.

This is what happened in the late 80’s with the student uprisings. But there is a difference; the people of China or any state do not rebel against the powers that be if they are doing economically ok. The French revolution started because of the prevailing economic conditions in the country, and all revolutions afterward were based on this basic assumption. People don't rebel because they feel that they can't go on a website. The enlightened in China are few and far btwn.

3) What makes the US a great economy is the ability to innovate. Only with freedom of thought do you produce these great strides that the West has made - intellectually. Sure China can produce all it wants as brute work (as does and can India) - but the great strides are made with innovation.

True, to an extent. The USSR was a great innovative nation as well. But overall I agree, look at India. She is employing more ppl in her hi-tech sector in Bangalore then the US does in Silicon Valley. Let the Indians deal with the innovation.

4) The US has more farmable land, more fresh water, access to two oceans, a manageable sized population, democratic and capitalistic institutions – only a series of morons (aka Bush) could ruin her :)

Import, I know many nations that would love access to the Chinese market.

I do think China will become a great world power – and a responsible one at that. To the benefit of the West for sure.

True, I buy Smith's idea of absolute advantage in labor. It seems China is the ultimate advantage, and we all eventually benefit. But the question is what happens before that with reactionaries (in the west)?

If anything I think of China as flu-pandemic powder keg waiting to blow. Lets hope not though.

I think that is the biggest danger to China, she has to improve her sanitation and she has to wheen ppl off some of their more "dirty" ways of life.

China?

There's so much potential for growth there, rich resources, as well as nearly limitless HUMAN resources. With that many people, you could find almost any kind of person you needed.

Need a tall person? No problem. Scour the lands for someone who's tall. In a population that big, you're likely to find plenty of giants.

Need a smart person? No problem. Make everyone compete and pick out the very best. Set up some sort of evaluation and competition and testing process where only the top 500 people make it. Imagine what kind of person it would take to beat out the other millions and make it into the top 500.

I'm no political science major, but I'd venture to say that one of China's greatest strengths is its superior human resources base.

On a bright side for you Americans, consider China a good investment opportunity. :p

What I underlined is the significant difference btwn Japan and the Chinese. The Japanese were not necessarily sucking jobs away, That is, unless you manufactured cars and trucks. I used to live near Detroit where making cars was the economy. At one time 1 in 7 jobs in the entire US was connected to the big 3 automobile co. While I went to Uni I worked at GM – and definitely yes, competition with Japan’s automotive companies took many jobs away from Americans. MI used to have about 120 thousand people employed at the various GM owned plants (V6, AC, V8, GMC, bla bla bla …) and now I would think about 25 thousand. I can only imagine that the same can be said of people who used to make stereos, TVs, motorcycles, heavy equipment, etcetera . . .

However, even with the loss of all these jobs - - Americans innovated their way out of the slump and after a very brief eclipse by the Japanese, is the world leader once again in just about anything you'd care to mention. Not that it really matters who is the leader.

China offers the Japanese a market so their economy can grow again at healthy rates. The US is largely exploited as well. In China the idea of an exploited market is not realistic. For the Chinese numbers mean everything, the Japanese could only do so much. The Chinese can only do so much more. Already China’s GDP is 2x the size of Japan, by the end of this decade China should reach, and then usurp the US in terms of GDP. Yeah, so it sounds like a good thing. China will make money and buy stuff from the US and sell stuff to the US. I don’t see any “threat”.

Incidentally Europe is meant to eclipse the US in terms of GDP before China does. SO is Europe a “threat” too?

China is an asset merely because it offers employers cheaper labor. China does not give back, Japan did. There is the difference, What does this mean? China certainly has a market much more penetrable than the Japanese. China buys from the US and the US buys from China. Ever been to China lately – sadly it looks just like the US; Levis, McD, Star Pukes , , ...

A good idea is an easy sell.

This is what happened in the late 80’s with the student uprisings. But there is a difference; the people of China or any state do not rebel against the powers that be if they are doing economically ok. The French revolution started because of the prevailing economic conditions in the country, and all revolutions afterward were based on this basic assumption. People don't rebel because they feel that they can't go on a website. The enlightened in China are few and far btwn True, and I don’t expect a bloody rebellion. I expect the Chinese to slowly adapt a Western “style” of government (that is slowly become more democratic) together with more and more liberties and openness. It may take 25-50 years or so but it is going to happen.

The USSR was a great innovative nation as well. But overall I agree, look at India. She is employing more ppl in her hi-tech sector in Bangalore then the US does in Silicon Valley. Let the Indians deal with the innovation. Yes, it seems only Africa and the ME presently lack high-tech inventiveness.

Import, I know many nations that would love access to the Chinese market. True, although I think more want into Europe, the Americas, and Japan.

But the question is what happens before that with reactionaries (in the west) I agree but its hard to say. I think some people (military boot heads) will always look for an excuse to advance their agenda – aka military budget. But I’d bet business wins out over military. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

something interesting:
Study: Outsourcing tech jobs strengthens economy (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/03/30/outsourcing.survey.ap/index.html)

can you at least tell me the province where the damb is ( i m semi-sure its connected with the two rivers that flow into southern china about 95% sure when i read about it a while back maybe i m wrong who knows)

by japan giving back and china not i think what is meant is a mutual investment and back and forth flow of capital. Ergo japanese cars sold here money flowing there they invest it here buying real estate or moving plants to US.

With China it has mostly been a one way street Capital going there investing creating jobs but most of it stays in China and isn't reciprocated. Product wise yes they are pushing into the market and lowering prices/quality but profits always go back with Japan they would invest here we would invest there it would go back and forth.

What I think might happen is an overdependance on manufactory with no quality control improvement, increasing transport costs ( oil ) and the slacking global demand (which is not forseen in the near future) but the consumer backlash could definetely occur if quality doesn't improve. Long term China is defintely dependant on food imports when their own food production base will fluctuate. That is why they are trying so hard to keep those 800 million farmers farming in order to keep capital inwardly working as well as lessen outer dependance on food resources because their populous would definetely push the market price up. Also if they create too many unflexible gov't controls to stabilize their ecconomy it might have a negative effect and create a boom/bust sequance when the conditions change. Right now they are beneficial but in the future it will change. (read book about soros recently. that theory of reflexivity is pretty cool)

We are the Chinese Borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile

However, even with the loss of all these jobs - - Americans innovated their way out of the slump and after a very brief eclipse by the Japanese, is the world leader once again in just about anything you'd care to mention. Not that it really matters who is the leader.

True, the whole point is too bad for the American worker. The US economy is better for it. Look at the quality of US cars, now some are approaching European levels, and productivity is second to that of the Japanese. Germany is a great example of an economy that is not going anywhere without having the outsourcing competition needed to make it into a very competitive state. The labour laws are too strict and the German economy has been taking a pounding for it, and so has German industry. The US now is better off thanks to the competition from the Japanese, and really it gave the monolithic big 3 into profitable companies again.

Yeah, so it sounds like a good thing. China will make money and buy stuff from the US and sell stuff to the US. I don’t see any “threat”.

But there is a threat, a very real one. It is supposed to work in that fashion. But the Chinese are making their own industries, which will make US industry obsolete. Chinese companies could be much more competitive then American or European or even Japanese industry. For instance the Chinese are now making their own cars, soon enough their own computers, and etc. Under Chinese brand names, this will change the landscape of the world economy. It is very possible that the US could be a big time loser in all this. Why buy more expensive foreign goods when you can buy it cheaper at home?

Incidentally Europe is meant to eclipse the US in terms of GDP before China does. SO is Europe a “threat” too?

No, because the circumstances are totally different. Firstly unlike China, Europe is not a nation, thus does not have comprehensive uniform policy. Secondly Europe unlike China has many different ethnic groups, and Europe is exploited. Europe does not represent a geo-political threat to the US. The Europeans population will decline in droves so that GDP number won't last long. China and India on the other hand are 3 Europe’s together, imagine the sheer possibilities there? Already they are starting to ramp up the Naval race with each other. It is merely a matter of time until the US gets dragged in.

What does this mean? China certainly has a market much more penetrable than the Japanese. China buys from the US and the US buys from China. Ever been to China lately – sadly it looks just like the US; Levis, McD, Star Pukes , , ...

Sadly? That's what the CCP wants; consumerism is the wave of the future for the Chinese. Hong Kong is a perfect example, it seems like Western and Chinese culture jive together. It's a match made in economic heaven. The problem is how is China going get the balance right?

It may take 25-50 years or so but it is going to happen.

I agree to an extent, democracy if it does happen will be limited to municipal levels imo. The CCP is not going to relinquish power if that is the impression.

I agree but its hard to say. I think some people (military boot heads) will always look for an excuse to advance their agenda – aka military budget. But I’d bet business wins out over military. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see

Well really I was talking about protectionist economists...

True, the whole point is too bad for the American worker. Some low skilled manufacturing jobs yes. Not all jobs. For example, Universities are making a tidy profit selling education thereby creating more skilled jobs in these areas, the US has a massive budget in terms of basic research (although many of these are filled with foreign researchers – at least they do the work in the US :)

Look at the quality of US cars, now some are approaching European levels, and productivity is second to that of the Japanese. The Japanese are first with the Americans second and Europeans (which usually are second) have, this year, dropped to third. Scored Japan was 12 America 19 and Europe 22 (last month’s economist). Japan is definitely way in front.

But there is a threat, a very real one. It is supposed to work in that fashion. But the Chinese are making their own industries, which will make US industry obsolete. I just don’t think that’s the case. Firstly, there are millions of Chinese that can not consume – once they can, some of that is going to be from US companies, Australian companies, German, Canadian, etcetera. The Chinese have the world’s second largest white goods producer - it was started in the mid 90’s by a Chinese and German and was eventually bought in full by the present Chinese owner. I certainly didn’t see any difference in the world-economy when who ever was making white goods was bumped down to 3rd by this Chinese company. Why? Because they sell a lot of their product to Chinese. That’s one the points I’m trying to get across – that before, there was no China market and in the future there will be – which is a great thing for world companies.

But there is a threat, a very real one. It is supposed to work in that fashion. But the Chinese are making their own industries, which will make US industry obsolete. …. Under Chinese brand names, this will change the landscape of the world economy. It is very possible that the US could be a big time loser in all this. Why buy more expensive foreign goods when you can buy it cheaper at home You’re way over stating that Chinese are going to only going to buy Chinese made products. China’s market is already easier to penetrate than Japanese has EVER been. Now Japan – there’s a hard market to crack. Incidentally China probably has more “ethnic” groups than Europe. Anyway, There are many many many US companies in China: GMC, Ford, Wal-Mart, Kmart, IBM, Amazon, Levies, MTV, movies, video games, fashion, ect… So although – some manufacturing jobs are going to be lost, many service originated jobs and “luxury” products will be gained. Why buy American or European or Japanese products? Because Chinese will think some are fashionable or some are superior or copyright / patent protected – like medicine – or just because they’re better, and some products bought because of sheer desire – like Doritos or Mc Donald’s or Giorgio Armani. Or quality – like Australian wool, beef, lamb, or wheat. I think the West will do fine trading with China.

Anyway, this happened to England with America and to America with Japan and again to American and to Japan with China. It always works out via innovation and everyone is relatively at the same level – individually that is.

Some low skilled manufacturing jobs yes.

This is becoming more and more like a myth, which only low skilled jobs are leaving. Now hi-tech jobs are leaving the US as well, and the trend is growing. White collar jobs are also leaving to places like India. Low skilled jobs are leaving in droves that is understood, but so is hi-tech jobs.

"While the U.S. lost 234,000 IT jobs in 2003, for Indian techies 152,000 new jobs were created."

Universities are making a tidy profit selling education thereby creating more skilled jobs in these areas, the US has a massive budget in terms of basic research (although many of these are filled with foreign researchers – at least they do the work in the US :)

Those Universities are making a killing in foreign tuition that is true, but they are mortgaging the nations future by doing so. Those students go back to X country and create hi-tech, or labor intensive industry in country X with lower wages, but same quality. The comparative advantage has been set; this is very dangerous for any modern economy to do if she still wants to have competitive industry.

Firstly, there are millions of Chinese that can not consume – once they can, some of that is going to be from US companies, Australian companies, German, Canadian, etcetera.

Companies that make most of their products in China, low wages = the companies are making money. The people in the home country aren't, they are losing money instead. These "Western companies" aren't nationalistic. They are globalized and just care for maximum profit, more and more I finding those nationalistic labels something to scoff at. So really the Chinese aren't importing anything from anyone because they will make it themselves.

I certainly didn’t see any difference in the world-economy when who ever was making white goods was bumped down to 3rd by this Chinese company. Why? Because they sell a lot of their product to Chinese. That’s one the points I’m trying to get across – that before, there was no China market and in the future there will be – which is a great thing for world companies.

I never denied it was good for the TNC's that's not the issue. The problem is looking at it from a nationalistic sense. Sure those companies could be making a killing. Chinese companies are making their own cars for instance, and they are cheaper and of almost the same quality as Western cars. (Economist) Chinese quality is not bad quality on these products, otherwise half our home wouldn't be Chinese made.

You’re way over stating that Chinese are going to only going to buy Chinese made products.

Well look at Japan for instance, the domestic market was/is overwhelmingly Japanese. That has caused problems in her economy, but still that finances Japan's exporting industry. Obviously the Chinese are going to buy goods made outside China, but the majority of the market will be Chinese made goods. The simple fact is that as long as China has a $100 trade surplus with the US, she can survive.

Incidentally China probably has more “ethnic” groups than Europe.

:bugeye: 92% Han Chinese... you tell me?

Anyway, There are many many many US companies in China: GMC, Ford, Wal-Mart, Kmart, IBM, Amazon, Levies, MTV, movies, video games, fashion, ect… So although – some manufacturing jobs are going to be lost, many service originated jobs and “luxury” products will be gained. Why buy American or European or Japanese products?

Mike please think of what is being said, Why buy American or European or Japanese products when they really aren't. TNC's aren't nationalistic by nature. The Chinese will most likely made those products in China proper, so what do those economies benefit? The companies do yah sure... and more money could be flowing into the home country. That doesn’t translate into a better economic environment for the average worker. The Chinese are still buying their own goods really, they made it.

I think the West will do fine trading with China.

Investing, not trading. Two totally different things...

Anyway, this happened to England with America and to America with Japan and again to American and to Japan with China. It always works out via innovation and everyone is relatively at the same level – individually that is

Not exactly, the companies that existed in the UK, USA, and Japan are companies that were almost exclusively based in her home country. Now those companies are manufacturing in X country, and then a bit in the home country. When 14 million jobs are being identified in danger of being outsourced all you hear is the sucking sound. The economies of the past had no such sucking sound. This is unique in history, I support it. But many don't.

I’m still not sure where China is a threat? Yes, some jobs are leaving the US and going to other countries. However, the same thing happened when Japan was an emerging market and people said the same sorts of things. That the US was never going to be able to compete with the Japanese. But, remarkably, the US ended doing quite well for it’s self (while Clinton was in the Oval Office anyway). And some industries – like entertainment – are doing quite well out of Japan. Had Japan stayed a backwater country like say Indonesia – well that wouldn’t be the case.

This is becoming more and more like a myth, which only low skilled jobs are leaving. Now hi-tech jobs are leaving the US as well, and the trend is growing. White collar jobs are also leaving to places like India. Low skilled jobs are leaving in droves that is understood, but so is hi-tech jobs.
Fair enough – I wouldn’t want to be in IT at the present.

But maybe I’m looking at it from a different point of view. I have feel I work in a secure environment and I don’t live in the US. I get paid to think and if those thoughts are good enough they get published – if not then they don’t and out I go :)

You know I was reading in Science about this wonderful new metal material. This stuff is truly amazing. If you were to drop it from say two feet, so that it falls onto a secure piece of metal, when it bounces upwards its bounces so high in the air that it takes about 2 full minutes for it to return to the ground. That’s a pretty fricken high bounce – considering it was just dropped from 24 inches. It’s because it can convert almost all of the energy of momentum into kinetic. That’s innovation (Japanese and American) and that’s the sorts of innovation that I would hinge the future hopes of America, Europe, and Japan on. Like the internet, Viagra, Play Station 3, Movies, etcetera.

However, you make a valid point about Universities. The US was told over and over they should beef up their high school education – which it’s below that of some African nations using chalk on a board. Well, you know the saying – you get what you sow! On the side, I remember this women complaining to me (back in the States) about how none of the doctors she visited could speak proper English (actually I think she may have said proper American!) and I asked if she had any kids. She said yes, 5. I asked if any when to Medical school. No, none went to University. I she should stop bitching then!

Also, living here, I think Australia will probably do quite well selling Australian made products to Chinese - wool, lamb and wheat. In that Australia is competitive and maybe that’s what the US lacks. Not to mention China will probably be consuming quite a bit of metals and Australia does a lot of mining of metals. As China needs more metal or food or wool Australia will be there to supply it. Australia also offers itself as a great tourist destination. As the Chinese middle class grows many will probably like to come here and visit. So from an Australian point of view – a richer China is a good thing.

So we'll have to wait and see - but for me - I see a rich China as a good thing. And I have never heard of a country dropping from 1st world status to 3rd. The people make or find work and continue to get along at about the average level as they always have. Sort of like Europe and America and Japan. They all really live at about the same level. I don’t see a time when the people in the US are going to live like those in Indonesia. But I do see a time when the Chinese live like the average American. However, places like Saudi Arabia – when they have sent there last barrel – well they may end up like Indonesia - - because of the government and the culture. I just don’t think that is going to happen to the US – and in that sense – why fear China? If anything be happy for them – they're finally getting their break and maybe, if the bubble doesn’t pop (or maybe if it does) they’ll get some governmental reform and some freedom as well.

Here's something interesting

Japan's economy is showing real signs of a recovery from a decade of slowness, helped by strong exports to fast-growing neighbor China that are boosting business investment and company profits.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/04/03/japan.economy/index.html (Japan growth 'may reach 3 p.c.')

Michael, that metal stuff, got any more info? It sounds fun, but id need a name to google.

"Also, living here, I think Australia will probably do quite well selling Australian made products to Chinese - wool, lamb and wheat. In that Australia is competitive and maybe that’s what the US lacks. Not to mention China will probably be consuming quite a bit of metals and Australia does a lot of mining of metals. As China needs more metal or food or wool Australia will be there to supply it. Australia also offers itself as a great tourist destination. As the Chinese middle class grows many will probably like to come here and visit. So from an Australian point of view – a richer China is a good thing."

Well, I was thinking more that the CHinese would buy up all the Australian firms and therefore much of the profits etc would go abroad.
Plus I was just reading in the paper today that Germaine greer's been getting attacked for saying uncomplimentary things about Australia, about why a million Australians would rather live abroad than in Oz.

Michael, that metal stuff, got any more info? It sounds fun, but id need a name to google.Sorry about that, it took awhile for me to remember where I read it - it was Discovery Glassy Metals: Harder, stronger, and better—the material of the future (http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-04/features/glassy-metals/)

Well, I was thinking more that the CHinese would buy up all the Australian firms and therefore much of the profits etc would go abroad. Companies, for the most part, directly control this. As for wool and meat – I think their more farms based. So it’s not like buying stock in Sony.

Plus I was just reading in the paper today that Germaine greer's been getting attacked for saying uncomplimentary things about Australia, about why a million Australians would rather live abroad than in Oz. Of course Aussies are avid travelers, it’s really a part of the culture. I think most of the Aussies I work with have lived overseas for some period of time and then, obviously, returned home. If anything, there’s a projected shortage of skilled labor projected to occur in 2008 due to baby boomers retiring. I think elevating the age of retirement may elevate this though? And perhaps by living in Europe or the Amercia's skills can be brought back. I certainly see it happening in the sciences - it's almost a must to have lived overseas.

I’m still not sure where China is a threat?

China is a threat to some nations more then others, that is correct. Looking at it from an American perspective (I am not American, but I know the American view all too well) is that the Chinese are sucking high paying jobs out of the US. Jobs that before were secure and high-paying ones, relics of the Keynesian economic model. China is going through the motions, notice that all export lead growth in Asian states usually start out with light industry (clothing, toys, etc), then move on to more advanced industry until the point where the state becomes a Japan, or South Korea. Imagine the GDP per capita of SK in China! The earth cannot support a China with 1st world living standards, especially like those of the US. Chinese are eating more meat for instance, which is stressing the world's poorest nations, because more and more cereals are being fed to animals and prices go up. But nations that export beef are starting to make quite a bit of money. It's all a tit-for-tat. China is a threat to some but a god send to most.

Had Japan stayed a backwater country like say Indonesia – well that wouldn’t be the case.

Well Japan is a good example of an economic miracle, in 1950 GDP per capita in Japan was $1,921, and in Indonesia it was $840. In 2000 Japan's GDP per capita $20,683, and Indonesia $3,256. What do I mean by showing this? Well it is simple nations who are export lead, protect industry, and virtually monopolize the domestic market make a killing. Also nations that are homogeneous like Japan and China are stable countries that make killings because companies can easily tailor marketing strategies. The thing is that both Japan and China are resource poor states, because they have to import mineral goods it's a boon for states like Indonesia and as you alluded to afterward Australia thus increasing the relative wealth of nations. Oh that Free Trade.

That’s innovation (Japanese and American) and that’s the sorts of innovation that I would hinge the future hopes of America, Europe, and Japan on. Like the internet, Viagra, Play Station 3, Movies, etcetera.

Which I don't disagree with you, of course the West has traditionally been innovative. But technology is very touchy for many companies and countries do not want to give it to X nation, so what do we really expect? It puts them at a disadvantage. China with the students coming back from N.A with education will create that innovative structure. A consumer society like that of China or India innovation is necessary because unless the West tailors to their needs they need to replace the West. My advice for a Western TNC would be to tailor some of their R&D to tech that could be used in these emerging markets for a cheap price and thus creating a market for their goods. Putting the domestic maker at a disadvantage, and thus securing their position. They aren’t called TNC’s for no reason.

Also, living here, I think Australia will probably do quite well selling Australian made products to Chinese - wool, lamb and wheat. In that Australia is competitive and maybe that’s what the US lacks.

Nations like Australia, Indonesia, Canada, most Latin American nations will have an economic boon with China and India. They [China and India] are again, resource poor states. Let me put it like this, demand dictates price, if demand is high then prices follow in suit. The US, Japan, Europe, China, and India will be fighting for the same resources. Thus making nations like Australia much richer, with higher prices for commodities many 3rd world nations will make it up the ladder. The problem will shift from 3rd world to manufacturing nations where prices are bound to go down. The down side of course is that mineral resources are finite, or if another nation ramps up production big time then prices will go down.

So we'll have to wait and see - but for me - I see a rich China as a good thing.

For a resource based economy of course it is, with your low population, vast territory, massive surpluses in grain production, and being an affluent market. The prospects for Australia look quite good.

I don’t see a time when the people in the US are going to live like those in Indonesia. But I do see a time when the Chinese live like the average American.

The former is true, the latter is not. China cannot become a US it is impossible. There simply aren't enough resources to sustain such a huge economy. I think rather that China's living standards (thesis) will raise the West's have to come down (anti-thesis), and a synthesis economy will come to be. Let's say the median GDP per capita being $15,000, the question is where does it go from there?

If China is so peacefull, why did they feel the need to steal our W-88 design.

Allies always spy on each other, China is a friend to the US in more ways then one.

hahahahahahhaaha
Thats funny! I dont remeber the US using any Chinese technology- probably because it sucks hahahahahaha

But the US spies on China, that's the whole point. It's a tit for tat, what is your point exactly?

Are you saying that we steal their military technology as well? hardly. Thats my point.
Since we are talking about our fears on China, and some on here say China is peacefull and not a threat- Then why did they steal our Nuclear Warhead Design?

Are you saying that we steal their military technology as well?

But my point is really...so what? China is not the only nation on Earth that does this. China is not a threat to the United States, unless the US wants to make China a threat. Is what China did right? Obviously not, but what are you going to do about it? Also the US does spy on China, obviously. You don't actually deny this do you?


Since we are talking about our fears on China, and some on here say China is peacefull and not a threat- Then why did they steal our Nuclear Warhead Design?

We aren't talking about a weapon system that will ever actually be used so don't get those knickers in a twist. China wants an advantage over her competition, and she got it. This in no way shows that China wants to bomb the living shit out of the US. There is no real threat apart from the Taiwanese crisis.

would be interesting if a near-cataclysmic event I am prophesing would destabilize China into a Civil War of some sort would be really intersting to see the repurcussions of the Gorge Damb being broken and the tidal wave going through. Especially if they showed it in real time. Ratings would be insane. And simultaneously culmination of Taiwanese Independance as the repair works just begin.

And yes I definetely agree that countries like Australia who grow commadities profit the most out of commodoty booms. My fear is that the growing prices of commodities skyrocketing by the increase in demand compel outward expansion by those lacking resources of those kinds. Ergo Steel, oil, ariable land etc...

Another interesting thing would be if China functions as a manufacturing hub and when demand falls off and China suffers a crisis how it would handle it. Granted its all skeptical futuristic scenarios by imagine if their labor price increases from 30cents an hour to 90cents and by that time you could create robotic manufacturing facilities at 90cents per output producing machine and 30cents an hour. And people dismantle some of the plants to set up homebased technological manufactoring plants. Would be interesting to see China handle this sort of crisis.

would be interesting if a near-cataclysmic event I am prophesing would destabilize China into a Civil War of some sort would be really intersting to see the repurcussions of the Gorge Damb being broken and the tidal wave going through. Especially if they showed it in real time. Ratings would be insane. And simultaneously culmination of Taiwanese Independance as the repair works just begin.

OK I think you really have to get away from the Three Gorges Dam thing, it's getting rather old don't you think? Although I agree on the ratings part, but I would not want to see untold thousands die for some cheap visual effect. You shouldn't hope for the thing to be destroyed, it's only ethical.

My fear is that the growing prices of commodities skyrocketing by the increase in demand compel outward expansion by those lacking resources of those kinds. Ergo Steel, oil, ariable land etc...

Ergo invasion of Russia you mean? I don't think so, Russia will give China what she wants as long as Russia is racking in the $$$. Also Russia and China's flash point will be in Central Asia, not in Siberia. Russia has lost against China it's almost natural that the Chinese take over Asiatic Russia. Raising commodity prices are a good thing, if kept in equilibrium.

Another interesting thing would be if China functions as a manufacturing hub and when demand falls off and China suffers a crisis how it would handle it.

China is a manufacturing hub now...

Granted its all skeptical futuristic scenarios by imagine if their labor price increases from 30cents an hour to 90cents and by that time you could create robotic manufacturing facilities at 90cents per output producing machine and 30cents an hour.
Labour costs in China are .80 today...

Would be interesting to see China handle this sort of crisis.

Tech will always be more expensive then ppl imo, so I really don't see this happening. For nations like Japan and Germany tech innovation is necessary, companies don't want to waste millions on tech, and its production. While what? 100 million cheap ass Chinese are waiting to do your bidding.

Russia has lost against China it's almost natural that the Chinese take over Asiatic Russia.What do you mean "lost"? And how are the Chinese goign to take "Asiatic Russia"? What area is Asiatic Russia?

... by that time you could create robotic manufacturing facilities ...make robots that can make robots :) yeah, I think sometime in the future semi-intellegent robots may be doing the low skill labor.

By Asiatic Russia he means everything up to the Urals which wouldn't happen.
And how did Russia loose already?... (My guess is what would happen is basicly a nuclear war which Russia would probably win without being nuked, i won't get into the balistic interception technology here but these are my feelings. Ahem the damanski conflict did prove that Russia would stand up to the Chinese hordes just because they gave the isle 22 years later in '91 doesn't mean the Chinese won they lost)
I never said commoditie prices going up was bad...
And labor cost is 30 cents an hour in china i took it from an article. I know its a manufactoring hub but sometimes technology does strip even the cheapest laborers off their jobs. Cant think of an example though. I think you misanswered me two or three times just answering half a sentance.

Furthermore Russia knows that China is looking hungry north thats why it closed borders to most of chinese immigrants except 2,000 a year or so quota.

Well if China wasnt going to attack us with their previous nuclear designs then why the need for the upgrade?

Well if China wasnt going to attack us with their previous nuclear designs then why the need for the upgrade?

China could have attacked you with her previous warheads; really the W-88 design just gave China a boost in accuracy. Really it is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. China has 25 warheads that can attack the US, not much. So again those knickers, untie them. ;)

By Asiatic Russia he means everything up to the Urals which wouldn't happen.


No, what I was saying (I should have been clearer) is the area in the NE of Manchuria otherwise known as the Primorsky Kray, and the Khabarovsk Kray, along with the Amur Oblast. That is the region China would take over economically, she will monopolize that region's trade, and eventually it would in China's sphere of influence. IMO China will not actually own that land, nor do I think China wants to. What China wants to do is exhert power over it, yet leaves it under the nominal control of Russia.

And how did Russia loose already?...

Pure and simple birth rates, China's population by 2050 should be around 1.5 billion persons, and Russia 104 million or so. A decrease of 38 million persons, most of the deaths will be in the more underdeveloped regions. Siberia's small population now as it stands is a mere 16 million (Manchuria has close to 80 million alone), and with that anticipated loss of population, Russia’s position it is going to decline badly. Russia has to accept immigrants in order for it to keep on to its territory. Russia cannot survive in her current geopolitical state much longer. But if you were to re-read my post you would have seen that Central Asia not Siberia is the playing ground.

And labor cost is 30 cents an hour in china i took it from an article.

That article must be quite old, the economist:

.80 cents an hour (labour costs) (http://www.economist.com/countries/China/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DEconomic%20Data)

Recent trends indicate that Chinese wages will raise so .30?

know its a manufactoring hub but sometimes technology does strip even the cheapest laborers off their jobs. Cant think of an example though. I think you misanswered me two or three times just answering half a sentance.


Technology will never be able to fully replace labour. You must think tech is cheap to develop, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and the electric bills are dirt cheap too? I think you just misunderstood everything I said. It's simply not logical, think about it.

Pure and simple birth rates, China's population by 2050 should be around 1.5 billion persons, and Russia 104 million or so. A decrease of 38 million persons, most of the deaths will be in the more underdeveloped regions. Siberia's small population now as it stands is a mere 16 million (Manchuria has close to 80 million alone), and with that anticipated loss of population, Russia’s position it is going to decline badly. Russia has to accept immigrants in order for it to keep on to its territory. Russia cannot survive in her current geopolitical state much longer. But if you were to re-read my post you would have seen that Central Asia not Siberia is the playing ground.

hmm 2050 is a long time off projections this far into future will be pretty wrong because some of the variables that will arise are undoubtedbly unaccounted for plus usually these are simple projections using "setirus paribus" all things being equal rule , I m pretty sure Russia will get its pop up to double at least by that time by introducing incentives, which it began to do. And it wont be immigrants, they made a quota of 156k-256k (not sure the exact number but i remember it was somewhere there) of legal immigrant admited. And yes I know you talked about central asia I just thought that since you talked about asiatic Russia you meant siberia as well ergo it being included as well as central asia in you arguments until you cleared it up later.

The ecconomist is a bit wierd though if you load up Russias ecconomic profile it says that its 78 cents an hour cost wise so I dont think its right at all.


No, what I was saying (I should have been clearer) is the area in the NE of Manchuria otherwise known as the Primorsky Kray, and the Khabarovsk Kray, along with the Amur Oblast. That is the region China would take over economically, she will monopolize that region's trade, and eventually it would in China's sphere of influence. IMO China will not actually own that land, nor do I think China wants to. What China wants to do is exhert power over it, yet leaves it under the nominal control of Russia.

Yes I agree here but "nominal control" is a bit low. Sovergnty is not nominal control of land. And I certainly disagree with you on China not wanting to own the land. It definetely wants to expand and own as much land around itself as possible. But trade wise it definetely is monopolizing that region and doing it well.

Technology will never be able to fully replace labour. You must think tech is cheap to develop, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and the electric bills are dirt cheap too? I think you just misunderstood everything I said. It's simply not logical, think about it.

This is simply not true and I ll use an example one of my economic professors gave: Around 1960-1980 the printing industry got rid of printers as a profession who were skilled people in arranging led letters for newsprint and other printing processes. (So no you are wrong on this point completely because it does happen) And I know technology is not cheap to develop but after it is developed and time passes it may become cheap to implement.

But if China was so peacefull you would think she would be stealing farm secrets :)

hmm 2050 is a long time off projections this far into future will be pretty wrong because some of the variables that will arise are undoubtedbly unaccounted for plus usually these are simple projections using "setirus paribus" all things being equal rule , I m pretty sure Russia will get its pop up to double at least by that time by introducing incentives, which it began to do.

With current trends Russia will have a declining population. She would need to have way over 2.1 children per woman to have any significant form of population growth. Russia is not alone mind you, Japan, China even, and most of Europe’s population is declining. Russia's population has already declined and it's not getting better.

The ecconomist is a bit wierd though if you load up Russias ecconomic profile it says that its 78 cents an hour cost wise so I dont think its right at all.

I trust the economist over some forum member don't you think? So .80 cents it is.

Yes I agree here but "nominal control" is a bit low. Sovergnty is not nominal control of land.

I suggest you look at what the Japanese did to Korea and Manchuria prior to their respective invasions. She set up a sphere of influence; basically she owned everything and was the prime motivator of the economy and culture. Russia is there basically to pay for the hospitals, schools, etc. It's a pretty sweet deal for the Chinese. Russia can "own" it but she won't "control" it.

And I certainly disagree with you on China not wanting to own the land. It definetely wants to expand and own as much land around itself as possible. But trade wise it definetely is monopolizing that region and doing it well.

China has never actually invaded another state, apart from Vietnam. (Tibet was nominally under Chinese control so I really don't count it as an invasion, alas Taiwan.) China is not stupid, Russia is a nuclear power. So an actual invasion of Russia is not going to happen., they are almost in a alliance now so this is becoming less and less likely. So get over it. Although Central Asia is quite a different story.

This is simply not true and I ll use an example one of my economic professors gave: Around 1960-1980 the printing industry got rid of printers as a profession who were skilled people in arranging led letters for newsprint and other printing processes. (So no you are wrong on this point completely because it does happen)

But that is such a small segment of a economy. Steel workers? Or miners, or assembly lines for Barbie dolls,etc? See those ppl in who worked in the printing presses were more expensive (most likely) then the tech. because they are paid western wages. In China you have to have tech. that costs (altogether) less then .80, including electrical prices. So I don't see that happening. ;)

And I know technology is not cheap to develop but after it is developed and time passes it may become cheap to implement.

In certain high wage, labor intensive industry...ok I can see it. But in extremely low wage, and labor intensive (or not) and with 100 million workers ready to go. I don't see tech changing much...at least not in China. In Japan, the US, and Europe I totally agree with you. But not in Asia.

current trends = 2-5 years at best things change very rapidly even in this sphere

and its not just high wage jobs i can go back in time a bit and demonstrate it like this.
nail makers, hangar makers (the things you hang your clothes on if i misspelled it) etc... ran out of thoughs. But my point is this advancements in steel working wiped out entire industries of low wage jobs. Advancements in plastic molding and forming did the same thing. So saying its just HIGH paying labor intensive jobs is not always true.

The ultimate killer for china i think would be if labor intensive agriculture became revolutionized with some automated machines that would replace the lowest priced labor they have ergo peasants. This in other countries would lower the price of food so low that their 800 million peasants wouldn't be able to earn anything and would put them in a cash crunch.

Sometimes those 100 workers ready to go become mad and protest a bit and maybe even rebell granted its far from likely but lift someone up to descent living standards and then drop them back down see how they react. (just a thought)

And I m sticking to 30 cents I saw it in a news article on bbc the ecconomist can blou me

current trends = 2-5 years at best things change very rapidly even in this sphere

That is true, but chances are that things will not change for the better. In order for Russia to merely keep her current rate of population she needs to have 2.1/woman. You know what the average Russian birth rate is? 1.33 children born/woman (2003 est.)! Look at these very disturbing facts:

Population growth rate:
-0.3% (2003 est.)
Birth rate:
10.09 births/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Death rate:
13.99 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)

This is not good news, and this won't change anytime soon. With AIDS, TB, alcoholism, etc. Russia's health is in a horrid state of affairs. Let's be real here, the numbers spell it out. If Russia can meet that 2.1/woman it's merely a replacement rate. So by that time that happens Russia will most likely have a much smaller population. Also note, the more successful economically a person gets, the less children they have. It's not a good story.

nail makers, hangar makers (the things you hang your clothes on if i misspelled it) etc... ran out of thoughs. But my point is this advancements in steel working wiped out entire industries of low wage jobs.

These workers are considered low wages relative to their countries standards. No one in the US has worked for .80/hour since the 30's (if not even before). The comparison is simply not there.

The ultimate killer for china i think would be if labor intensive agriculture became revolutionized with some automated machines that would replace the lowest priced labor they have ergo peasants. This in other countries would lower the price of food so low that their 800 million peasants wouldn't be able to earn anything and would put them in a cash crunch.

Although I doubt that 800 million figure (seems a bit inflated) this is largely true, and China needs more food. So it becomes a double edged sword for the Chinese, these farmers have to get new jobs due to the high productivity of the land. That's why FDI is so vital to China's economic fortunes, and creating a consumer economy.

And I m sticking to 30 cents I saw it in a news article on bbc the ecconomist can blou me

Just admit it... :D

But if China was so peacefull you would think she would be stealing farm secrets :)
Spying is part of the "Art of War". The goal is to understand both sides so there is no surprise. Also, stealing the warhead design doesn't mean it's going to be implemented the US way. One thing Chinese good at is the ability to assimilate tech quickly, and then re-make it better and a lot cheaper.

China certainly has something that's on the cutting edge, and US wants to know it badly. It's naive to think that US is the tech leader on every front.

Just admit that an advance in some technological field and the implementation of that technology can revolutionize industry and effect all those who labor within it...

And no its 30 cents I believe bbc more then the ecconomist. And the peasant figure I put down is probably understated.

Just admit that an advance in some technological field and the implementation of that technology can revolutionize industry and effect all those who labor within it...


There's nothing to admit, you just want me to nod and agree with you. It's not going to happen. You show me how a machine will be cheaper then .80/hour, and reach the level of AI needed to accomplish essential tasks? In the foreseeable future China will be sucking. End of discussion t'is that simple.

And no its 30 cents I believe bbc more then the ecconomist. And the peasant figure I put down is probably understated.

LOL!

I dont want a nod but you are always talking in absolutes and always tend to state everything as in de facto indisputable. Sometimes technology replaces and reshufles even the lowest skilled workforce levels. Granted it doesn't happen often but the trend is certainly there every 15-20 years technology gets downsized and reimplemented in ways which change and displace labor period.

What could happen is that change occurs when china is increasingly reliant on revenues comming from manufactoring. Debt service isn't met and it has to default. Now Chinas ecconomy is roaring now but its how you handle the crisis is what matters.

We just have to agree to disagree, kay?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3619485.stm
interesting development ... reminds me of 1987 and the american south.
A crisis in the horizon, I bet it takes two years before it reaches the actual crisis point.
would be interesting if they defaulted and went bankrupt

Now this is what I fear from the Chinese, a financial meltdown caused by a super hot economic growth. This is effect us all, so don't hope for the worst, hope that the banks can deal with this liquidity problem.

heh i finally found something that you agree could happen I m pretty happy now
althought i think the damb is more likely to break and kill people this calamity is good enough for me.

Would be kind of cool to see the financial meltdown happen and see how they deal with it though. Very interesting to actually watch something like that from the outside.

I m sure currency speculators or Soros at least will make a killing on the Yuan. This opportunity is simply to juicy to pass up. The reality is they are at fault for it themselves holding a currency down artificially for too long created so much disequalibrium within the inner and outter ecconomies. And since the system is rigid as hell thx to the people in the gov't when it snaps and it will they will reap one hell of a bust sequence.

The bad loans that the Chinese banks engaged in during the true communist era, has caused some trouble. In which they lent money to everyone basically regardless of who they were, or the prospects of their business plans have now come to bite China in the ass, here's a article from the economist from January:

At the end of December, it said, the Chinese state injected $45 billion—one tenth of its foreign-exchange reserves—into the country’s two largest banks, dividing the funds evenly between Bank of China (not to be confused with China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China) and the China Construction Bank.
------------------------------
With 116,000 branches across China, these four hold 67% of the country’s deposits and make 61% of its loans. But not all of those loans are likely to be repaid. The government estimates that 23% of the big four’s loans are “non-performing”.
--------------------------
it is just a drop in a bucket of bad loans totalling more than 3.5 trillion yuan ($422 billion).
------------------------
For decades they made loans based on bureaucratic, not commercial, priorities. Some funds served to prop up bankrupt state enterprises and the legions of workers who depended upon them. Others served social policy of a different kind—keeping cronies happy and palms properly greased
----------------------------
But the Chinese government is hoping gradually to withdraw its tentacles from the banking system, and this latest injection of funds is a necessary part of that process. The state needs to clean its banks up in order to sell them off.
-----------------------------
Bank of China and China Construction Bank will, it is hoped, make for an initial public offering (IPO) that investors (foreigners included) cannot refuse. Bank of China, the country’s biggest foreign-exchange lender, which hopes to follow in 2005, could be even bigger.
---------------------------
China’s people stash about 40% of their income in their nation’s banks. The big four do not have to chase deposits: deposits come to them. Privatising the banks will do little by itself to sharpen competition—a privately owned oligopoly is still an oligopoly. By the end of 2006, however, this cosy banking market will be shaken up by China’s commitments to the World Trade Organisation. Foreign banks will be allowed to do business in the Chinese currency with Chinese households.
-----------------------------
Indeed, the Chinese authorities are caught in a bind. They cannot rein in their banks as long as they maintain their currency peg. But they cannot surrender their peg until the country’s banks are fit enough to live with a currency free to float and capital free to flee. It is a Gordian knot the Chinese state has only begun to unpick

So China can avoid this if the banks are privatized, and are able to accumulate enough money to make up the huge amount of non-performing loans given during the communist era. China has the possibility of becoming a shell society, in which there are nice skyscrapers, but no one is inside to work it them. But I don't see China being let down the IMF, World Bank and commercial banks will not allow China to descend into a recession. It would have dire economic consequences for us, so don't be gleeful.

You are ignoring something though it will be a huge opportunity *if u look at it from a different angle* for them and for people outside china to get into it and have a different build then the one thats opperating currently. Booms and busts are natural and should be embraced. Ignoring them and creating half azt measures doesn't make them go away. Dealing with them honestly and openly does sometimes.

My angle is that china will either create a very modern market mechanism afterwards where the banks are more in line with the world standards of originating and loan servicing or chaos for a while and then rebuilding in some other maybe less appealing fashion thats less open but more stable in its fundament.

Their securities are begining to be viewed as illiquid more or less since they restricted foreign security rights so much. Last Ipo ChinaLife (the insurance company) had a negative close on the first day i think *either first or second day not sure* people are fed up with being treated as second class investors. The environment for floating those public institution has turned into a very unfavorable envoronment especialy after required disclosures of their bad loans. So if they do float those banks they will either get less then expectedd capitalization and below necessary subscription rates from foreighners something they desparately need.

My angle is that china will either create a very modern market mechanism afterwards where the banks are more in line with the world standards of originating and loan servicing or chaos for a while and then rebuilding in some other maybe less appealing fashion thats less open but more stable in its fundament.

They will have to, and opening up the market to competition from foreign banks should start to solve alot of the problems. This can be a big issue, but I don't see China falling apart from it. China will have to go through painful bank reforms like most Asian nations have. Japan is in a even worse position in terms of bad loans. So there is precedent for the Chinese in her neighbours.

if any of you are actually Chinese and had been out seeing the world, you'r probably ending up like me every time think about China, there're only problems, these problems either on their own or combined altogether, are worse than terminal diseases.

the whole educational system is a joke, trust me nobody scores any big deal out of it. we've been producing nuts all over the country, which, is runing by some old nuts and the new-coming nuts, who are nastier than their foreparents and would definitely mock off the non-nuts.......... I'm talking about everything here - the education, market, gov administration, military, communication, art&music, whatever

well it might not be that bad but if you really wanna do something, get out of the country

Martian

It is true it seems that Chinese who get out of the cocooned world of China’s exceptionalism, they see how well people in the West live. Yet China is not the West, the Chinese should compare themselves with people who are closer to their level of development, look at Vietnam, Russia, India, etc. The Chinese are much better off economically, socially, and politically then the former three. Yes China has its problems, and big ones at that. But in a holistic view of things Chinese living standards tower over itself from 1975 when reforms began. Chinese are always going to be somewhat shocked, and angry even at the situation in China when looking through a western perspective, and to a certain extent they should be. But with the Chinese gov't allowing private property, allowing foreign competition by joining the WTO, and the world would then have a vested interested in keeping China afloat and growing China doesn’t seem so backward and bad. The possibilities and disasters seem endless in a country like China. A stable balance of western liberalism and Chinese egalitarism can meet in a mix.

No undecided Russias Living standards are vastly higher then Chinas otherwise they wouldn't run across the far east borders and become illigal aliens. In Russia its possible to make money and excell if you are willing to sweat through some work. In china its not possible because a few million more are willing to do the same.

I would even debate to some extent weather India is going to have better living standards then China or has them right now. Compare India's semi-British roots and educational infrustracture to that of china and you can clearly see that its much more superior and produces better possibilities for its graduates as well as ability to apply the skills they learn in real market environments. India might be a socialistic state but its only because its modeled of socialist governments in europe. But it was a market ecconomy way longer then china.

This whole thing brings me to the idea of social capital that countries develop in their enterpreneurial ranks and small business groups. India is growing in this area while China is practicing big business favoritism of familial Connections... Big business deals look nice but the bottome line is they don't employ the most people. I find that China's social capital development has been severely lacking by imposing external barriers to direct foreighn entry and competition and by internal suppression of ranks of people who have no familial links to access markets even though they might have the abilities and even the capital.

No undecided Russias Living standards are vastly higher then Chinas otherwise they wouldn't run across the far east borders and become illigal aliens.

Well that is somewhat true, this is the grey area. To live in Coastal China is better then to live in Manchuria. It's better to live in Shanghai then living in Ulan-Ude. China is just as varied as Russia is, if not more. China has this major socioeconomic problem of having many of the population living in the rich coasts and the poor interior. It depends on what you are comparing; Siberia vs. Coastal China there is no compare. Siberia vs. Manchuria well there you might have an issue. Chinese immigration to Siberia will become essential to the Russian economy like Mexicans are to the US. Cheap Chinese labour making up for the loss of Russians in the region, and the abundant natural resources. If Russia wants to have a fighting chance in the East she needs to increase the amount of Russians living there. Otherwise the Chinese economic and social tide is unstoppable.

I would even debate to some extent weather India is going to have better living standards then China or has them right now.

There are rumblings that India will usurp China in terms of economic power, she will only if she can control her population. China's long term prospects look better because China's population will stagnate then begin to decline. But India does have a much better developed local industry, but China is not far behind.

ulan-ude is mongolia i think...?
"Chinese immigration to Siberia will become essential to the Russian economy like Mexicans are to the US."
This isnt exactly true... Siberia isn't the breadbasket it could become one but not in any near future. And immigration isnt necessary to work on oil platforms or infrastructure which could afford to import labor from urban dwellers and pay them good wages. Which is exactly what they do. Preventing immigration is more important here because it secures the territorial cohesiveness and lessens the problems. And doesn't cause tax revenue to flow off to a different country. The US can afford some wages going to Mexico, Russia on the other hand isn't in that position and doesn't want to be. They want as much money to circulate in Russia as possible without outflows.

ulan-ude is mongolia i think...?


Nope it's in good ole Siberia, just east of Lake Baikal. It's the nexus of the Trans-Siberian, Mongolian, and Manchurian railways. It's the second most important Siberian city after Vladivostok...you should know this...

http://home.iae.nl/users/arcengel/Transib/Lenin%20kop%20Ulan%20Ude.jpg

... Siberia isn't the breadbasket it could become one but not in any near future.

You lie, obviously Siberia isn't going to become a "breadbasket" but the Chinese can work the dangerous Russian mines, and it's going to be Chinese funds who open up Siberia to new mines and opportunities...there aren't enough Russians to do the job.

And immigration isnt necessary to work on oil platforms or infrastructure which could afford to import labor from urban dwellers and pay them good wages.

Why do you think Mexicans are so popular in the SW, they are paid very low wages, so will the Chinese. Why pay Russians more then the Chinese when there are many more Chinese to be had? Russians can have their oil; the Chinese are going to the ones who own the pipelines and even some oil fields, and the Japanese to be fair.

The US can afford some wages going to Mexico, Russia on the other hand isn't in that position and doesn't want to be. They want as much money to circulate in Russia as possible without outflows.

Good luck, then Russia should not accept Chinese FDI. China is going to make huge profits off Russia; it's only a matter of time. Welcome the NWO... Russia simply doesn’t have the capital, the man power, and the advanced tech to compete.

obviously Siberia isn't going to become a "breadbasket" but the Chinese can work the dangerous Russian mines, and it's going to be Chinese funds who open up Siberia to new mines and opportunities...there aren't enough Russians to do the job. ...are so popular in the SW, they are paid very low wages, so will the Chinese. Why pay Russians more then the Chinese when there are many more Chinese to be had? Russians can have their oil; the Chinese are going to the ones who own the pipelines and even some oil fields, and the Japanese to be fair.... Russia simply doesn’t have the capital, the man power, and the advanced tech to compete.Undecided, you seem to be making some huge assumptions.
1) Russians will work cheap.
2) The Russian government doesn’t always do things for the profit. The people in the government are not going to give up control of the land and would probably use cheap Russians to do the work (I think it was mentioned earlier that Russia puts a limit on immigration in the area).
3) Recently China was skipped over in favor of Japan to develop oil fields in Siberia.
4) Russia doesn’t have the tech and China does? I was under the impression that China gets it’s technology FROM Russia – not the other way around! Anyway, both send students to the “West” where they can learn all they need to use the latest technology to mine or pump oil.

ya ur right i was thinking of ulan-bator (heh got abit confused)
Mike the reason China got passed up for Japan is very simple. The proposed pipeline was moved from going through machuria instead going to the coast where Russia wouldn't need anyone to go through to export it. This was done because 1) the Chinese simply wanted too much out of the deal that would have been in thier favor which basicly killed the deal.
2) Previous pipelines going through other countries weren't a good president since they became greedy and ciphoning off from the pipeline as well as use its presence as an anchor to push up the favor of the deal in their favor as time progressed.
Also Japan offered much better terms and didn't want China controling an energy outlet and want it independant and uncorrupted in the politics in the region something Russia would practice and China wouldn't. Russia would supply anyone in the region who paid the price china would probably monopolize and use it as leverage for various geopolitical goals it has.

Placing Pipelines isn't farming you do it once and maintenance every few months Russian labor is used. Quota on legal chinese immigration is at 2,000 last I read. And total immigration quota is aroudn 152-252k * read in an article somewhere but forgot weather it was 1 or 2*

Undicided not everything is about money here . The mines and oilfields will be developed either way foreigh capital will frow in like with the natural gas deposits in or near Sakhalin being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. The Chinese aren't allowed to pour in as you say for various valid reasons I listed earlier. They rather pay the Russians twice the price of the chinese laborers but keep the country devoid of this "immigrant invasion". Why do you think the nationalists took over 20% in the last elections and even the democratic oriented parties who monitored the parliamentary elections said that only approximately 500k forged ballots were cast or appx 1% of the total votes cast. They had monitors on 14000 out of 96000 voting centers. (got this info today on tv from Boris Nemtzov former leader from SpS one of the democratic parties) They know that the people are turning increasingly nationalistic and anti-immigration of any sort and the gov't is responding as well. They are proposing legislation to cast out all 4 million of the illigal immigrants. Also recently large raids were conducted upon the markets where most of the illigal labor is located most of which is chinese and central asian.
Russia definetely doesn't need China to develop itself. It can do it at its own pace and at its own speed.

In Russia sometimes money is irrelevant its boils down to the ideal of if you are selling your country at what point do you stop. And on this point its defenitely stoped and they are going to start pushing out all those foreighners cheap labor or not. Long term its the better solution then letting it expand become a bigger problem.

and why are you accusing me of lying ? Siberia isn't the breadbasket. The south is ergo, krasnadarski krai, stavrapolski krai, and it goes in a sicle type shape entering siberia slightly but most of it isn't in it. How am I lying?

1) Russians will work cheap.

I agree that Russians will work cheap to our standards, but the Chinese will work for even less. Don't you agree? The thing that makes Russians in trouble is the lack of population growth, even if Russians are wiling to work on the cheap there aren't enough of them. Especially in Siberia where only 16 million people live, then consider Manchuria (alone) has 80 million ready and wiling to work. The trend is China...

2) The Russian government doesn’t always do things for the profit. The people in the government are not going to give up control of the land and would probably use cheap Russians to do the work (I think it was mentioned earlier that Russia puts a limit on immigration in the area).

There is such a thing as illegal immigration, you must understand that. The Russians it is true did things that weren't profitable for Russia. But the problem is that 35-40% of all Russian industry now is controlled by the Oligarchs, and if they can make more money they will. They can buy state assets, the recent crackdown on them is indicative of their power.

By pushing for the building of privately owned pipelines -- one directly to China and another to Murmansk to better supply America -- "Khodorkovsky was pursuing a set of interests ... that was a threat to Putin's state policy," a senior U.S. administration official said in an interview in Washington earlier this year.
------------------
"Fundamentally, this was a question about power," he said. "What Khodorkovsky was proposing presented problems for both foreign and domestic policy. ... State control over pipelines was both a domestic and foreign policy lever."

3) Recently China was skipped over in favor of Japan to develop oil fields in Siberia.

Yes for the pipeline, but the Russians are still exporting oil to China through trains. I will give info if I can...

4) Russia doesn’t have the tech and China does? I was under the impression that China gets it’s technology FROM Russia – not the other way around!

Problem here, militarily Russia is more advanced then China. But in terms of civil engineering the Chinese are up and comers. Meanwhile Russian tech has stagnated, and is dependant on late Soviet tech.To think that Bill Gates loves China so much that he intends to move much of the R&D there. China is proving to be a competitor.

They know that the people are turning increasingly nationalistic and anti-immigration of any sort and the gov't is responding as well.

So it's trying to prevent the inevitable syndrome that many democracies go through. In Europe too they are anti-immigration to a certain extent but the gov'ts know that if they don't accept immigration their economies will collapse. This is beyond mere simpleton nationalism; this is the state of the country. Russia was a great state, no longer it's a state dependant on others for aid, and for investment. Its population is imploding at a truly alarming rate. Tell me how is Russia's East going to survive with half it's already low population? Development, forget it, that region will be moribund. The Far East region of the country has a -5.6% pop. growth rate btwn 1986-2001, and it's only 10 million ppl! The population shows no sign of turning around in the near future. If Russia wants to survive in her current state for much longer she has to start making those babies. Otherwise Russia won’t be able to afford the east, unless Russia starts accepting immigrants.

and why are you accusing me of lying ?

*MEOW*, calm down man, I was only poking fun... its called sarcasm.

I think this article was interesting:

China's development is neither a challenge nor a threat, but an opportunity for Russia, Chinese Ambassador to Russia Liu Guchang said at a press conference on March 30.
---------------------------------
Liu stressed that China does not have now, nor will it adopt in the future, any type of expansionist policy. The nation's development does not threaten any other nation, including Russia.
--------------------------------
Liu noted that Russia is in a particularly advantageous position in this regard as China's largest neighbor, which should give impetus to Russia's economic development.
-------------
The ambassador noted that Russia's development also provides a significant opportunity to China, and a stable, prosperous and powerful Russia benefits not only China, but also the entire world.
----------------------------------------
Liu said that accusations concerning illegal Chinese immigrations are groundless. In recent years, he noted, citizen exchanges between the two countries have grown steadily. In 2003 alone, there were 660,000 visits to Russia on tours, and 1.38 million such visits from Russia to China.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ambassador, quoting Prikhodko's Izvestia article, said, "Reliable statistics show that permanent Chinese citizens living in Russia total no more than 150,000 or 200,000. According to the latest population census taken in Russia, only 35,000 Chinese citizens live in Russia permanently. Therefore, it's sheer nonsense to accuse the Chinese government of 'encouraging' immigration or even 'illegally emigrating' its people to Russia."


http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Apr/91892.htm

I agree that Russians will work cheap to our standards, but the Chinese will work for even less. Don't you agree? The thing that makes Russians in trouble is the lack of population growth, even if Russians are wiling to work on the cheap there aren't enough of them. Especially in Siberia where only 16 million people live, then consider Manchuria (alone) has 80 million ready and wiling to work. The trend is China... I Agree, however, as you mentioned, China has an interest in the land and Russia has an interest in keeping Chine out of it. Russia could have made big money letting the US invest in some areas of the Russian market. However, to maintain control they didn’t. Russia could have made big money giving N. Japan back to Japan – and as you said they don’t have the people to make full use of it – but again they didn’t. I’m just not convinced Russia is going to start allowing a bunch of Chinese foreigners into Russia. And I’m not really sure why there would need to be such a large number of workers. Is there that much work in Siberia? Why would Siberia need so many workers? Also, why not pat for workers from India? One of Russia’s closer trading partners. Speaking of which, this last quarter, India had a greater economic growth rate, relative to China. And we don’t feel “threatened” by India. Do we? So why feel threatened by China?

Why not “the trend is India”?

ahem there is a huge illigal immigrant surge mike just like mexicans run and swim across the border the chinese are doing the same on the far eastern part of Russia. Granated the incentives are there and not as big as the ones U.S. got but still there. The problem lies that there are 5 million Russians across the border from about 80-100 Chinese... Approximately 4 million illigal immigrants in Russia by gov't estimates most from China, and central asia. N.Japan doesn't what you are talking about the south of sakhalin which will never be returned to japan and the four kuril isles which were contested talked about but in the end Russia never ratified anything and hopefully will keep them. Japanese removed all their people in the 50s or 60s from the kurils I have no idea why fear of prosecution maybe and just helping reimbrace their nation brothers i guess.

Sibir is just a huge deposit of minerals of all kinds and oil, dimonds etc... Which don't need to be excavated all at once... They wont spoil and foreighn labor is not necessary to develop them.

Kind of off topic,

N.Japan doesn't what you are talking about the south of sakhalin which will never be returned to japan and the four kuril isles which were contested talked about but in the end Russia never ratified anything and hopefully will keep them.Do you think that the land Russia has taken should be returned to Japan? If not why?

It shouldn't , I misspelled a bit in there what I meant to say Northern Japan doesn't exist and wasnt annexed. But there were northern japanese pocessions which basicly were gotten by japan in 1905 in the Ruso-Japanese war in 1945 after ww2 was over Russia got them back but the japanese still claim that they are theirs. In 1950s or 60s they also took all Japanese nationals out of those islands and the only ones who were left were basicly the Russians who settled there afterwards. So no the pocessions should be kept by Russia. The reason the Japanese want them is because of the huge radius of the fishing grounds that are now territorialy Russian waters and that keep intercepting Japanese fishing boats. And various other nationalistic and mineral reasons.

China has an interest in the land and Russia has an interest in keeping Chine out of it.

No that would be like saying the US is interested in the land of Canada. What I am saying that the Chinese are interested in the abstract like economics, social, and influence in Russia. ( I am thinking of a US/Mexico relationship) I personally don't see China wiling to risk nuclear war with Russia for something they can get for free basically.

Russia could have made big money letting the US invest in some areas of the Russian market. However, to maintain control they didn’t. Russia could have made big money giving N. Japan back to Japan – and as you said they don’t have the people to make full use of it – but again they didn’t.

True, but the situation is dramatically different today, and in the future. The Russian population has already declined from 144 million to 142 million today, and by mid century Russia's population should be half of that. Already Russia's population isn't much for a country the size of Russia. There are parts of Russia which are deserted because of this, and it will only get worse. In order for a country like Russia to maintain order on land, she has to have Russian nationals living on that land. By the looks of it with an aging population, -5.3 population growth rates in the Far East and economic stagnation things don't look good for Russia.

I’m just not convinced Russia is going to start allowing a bunch of Chinese foreigners into Russia.

Allowed is quite a strong word, shall we use acquiesce to the Chinese? Chinese funds are going to flood into Russia; Russia is not in a position to reject investment especially not in the future. China has to find resources; Russia is the obvious destination, close, cheap, and abundant. I fear China could in such a strong position in the future the Russians would be imperialized.

And I’m not really sure why there would need to be such a large number of workers. Is there that much work in Siberia? Why would Siberia need so many workers?

Because of China's growth, now there isn't work. But in the future I can see an economic boom for the region. The Chinese economy is going to become the world's factory and that factory needs raw material. It's the economic domino; things will get better economically for Siberia if she opens up to China. Russia is moribund Russia needs trade to survive and Putin knows this.

Also, why not pat for workers from India? One of Russia’s closer trading partners. Speaking of which, this last quarter, India had a greater economic growth rate, relative to China.

India is well behind China in every respect, that temporary growth spurt was impressive, but it will take decades for the Indians to reach Chinese development. Will India invest in Russia? That is the question that needs to be answered. India has almost nothing invested overseas; China on the other hand is growing in terms of FDI outflows.

And we don’t feel “threatened” by India. Do we? So why feel threatened by China?

Tell an American IT worker the former. Why feel threatened by China? 1.2 billion ppl, the world's second largest economy (soon to be #1), monopolizing manufacturing, increasing trade volume by huge % points, etc. China is a threat only if we make it one.

Tell an American IT worker the former. Why feel threatened by China? 1.2 billion ppl, the world's second largest economy (soon to be #1), monopolizing manufacturing, increasing trade volume by huge % points, etc