I heard mixed forecasts about China:

One forecast says due to Bejing's one child per family program, the population of China will have a really sharp decline in the next century which will cause the Chinese economy, along with eveything else in China to crash. OTOH, I heard that inspite of China's one child per family program, China's population still continues to grow at 14 million people a year.

The One Child Per Family Program has had one side effect. Since the OCPF program favors the male child over the female child, China's population is becoming more and more male. Because of the shortage of women, that has led to an increase in kidnapping, white slavery, etc. Also, Bejing has to create more security jobs for all the young males in their society.

This could contribute to the more adventurous foriegn policy as of late as well as China's military buildup. With a $1 trillion economy growing at 10% a year, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is being modernized with equipment from the former USSR and China is acquirng the capacity to build its own weapons. China is building a "Blue Water" Navy to challenge the US Navy and China is launching a space program to establish a base on the moon in 50 years.

I heard mixed forecasts about China:

One forecast says due to Bejing's one child per family program, the population of China will have a really sharp decline in the next century which will cause the Chinese economy, along with eveything else in China to crash. OTOH, I heard that inspite of China's one child per family program, China's population still continues to grow at 14 million people a year.

The One Child Per Family Program has had one side effect. Since the OCPF program favors the male child over the female child, China's population is becoming more and more male. Because of the shortage of women, that has led to an increase in kidnapping, white slavery, etc. Also, Bejing has to create more security jobs for all the young males in their society.

This could contribute to the more adventurous foriegn policy as of late as well as China's military buildup. With a $1 trillion economy growing at 10% a year, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is being modernized with equipment from the former USSR and China is acquirng the capacity to build its own weapons. China is building a "Blue Water" Navy to challenge the US Navy and China is launching a space program to establish a base on the moon in 50 years.

I heard mixed forecasts about China:

One forecast says due to Bejing's one child per family program, the population of China will have a really sharp decline in the next century which will cause the Chinese economy, along with eveything else in China to crash. OTOH, I heard that inspite of China's one child per family program, China's population still continues to grow at 14 million people a year.

The One Child Per Family Program has had one side effect. Since the OCPF program favors the male child over the female child, China's population is becoming more and more male. Because of the shortage of women, that has led to an increase in kidnapping, white slavery, etc. Also, Bejing has to create more security jobs for all the young males in their society.

This could contribute to the more adventurous foriegn policy as of late as well as China's military buildup. With a $1 trillion economy growing at 10% a year, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is being modernized with equipment from the former USSR and China is acquirng the capacity to build its own weapons. China is building a "Blue Water" Navy to challenge the US Navy and China is launching a space program to establish a base on the moon in 50 years.

I find this article extremely interesting. In my Mammaloids stories, (set in the Crises of 2100 and 2180) the Crisis of 2020 is an economic Depression caused by lack of oil, followed by a World War between a Western Alliance (including Russia) and a Chinese-Muslim Coalition.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.ph...ws/edvati.html

Oil supply I: The Arabs look to the East
By Michael Vatikiotis International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, November 17, 2004


HONG KONG Oil supply I







Saudi Arabia is looking for new friends and finding them - in Asia. The oil-rich kingdom feels spurned and disliked by its traditional close allies in the West; ties have never been quite as warm since Sept. 11, 2001.

Luckily for Saudi Arabia it sits on about a quarter of the world's reserves of crude oil, and Asia needs oil. A lot of oil. China is already the second-largest energy consumer after the United States, and last year it overtook Japan as the world's second-largest consumer of petroleum products.

This explains why Saudi Aramco, the kingdom's largest oil company, now does almost half of its business in Asia and has more offices there than anywhere else in the world. "We consider Asia a strategic market with growth potential, and believe it will become even more so, especially with the growing energy demands of China and India," says Ali Bakhsh, regional vice president for Saudi Aramco in Singapore.

The business is building. Recently, the Saudi government awarded a natural-gas prospecting concession to Sinopec, a major Chinese oil company. Saudi Aramco says it is currently in discussions about the expansion of an oil refinery in China's Fujian Province, and earlier this summer, a major deal was concluded with Shell to acquire an interest in Showa Shell, a large Japanese refining company.

Saudi Aramco also has an agreement with Sumitomo Corp. of Japan for a feasibility study to upgrade another refinery on the west coast of Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Saudi Aramco holds significant equity interest in Petron Corp. in the Philippines and in South Korea's S-Oil Corp.

For China of course, securing a reliable energy supply has become a key policy imperative. This explains why Beijing put its international credibility on the line in September to fend off UN sanctions against Sudan, where China hopes to secure close to 10 percent of its oil imports in the coming year. It also explains why Chinese oil executives are risking their lives to secure oil concessions in Iraq.

It's not all about oil, and not all about Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf States are also looking toward Asia because they find that the suspicion and scrutiny that greets Arabs in the Western world is increasingly an obstacle to doing business. So officials and businessmen from the Gulf have been visiting places like Singapore and Malaysia to explore opportunities.

A large Saudi bank was just awarded an Islamic banking license in Malaysia. Singapore is also seeking to plug into the lucrative Islamic banking field.

No longer feeling so welcome in their former playgrounds on the Riviera or in the United States, hordes of Arab tourists now flock to Malaysia to escape the desert heat in the summer - more than 200,000 a year. They stay at five-star hotels and shop for expensive brands; they stay for three months and order a lot of room service.

Walk the streets of Kuala Lumpur's fashionable Bukit Bintang district and the visitor can sample Arab delicacies in plush street-side restaurants that offer piped-in Arab television and water pipes.

There are of course political implications that stem from closer Asia-Middle East contacts. The first steps in this direction have been taken by Singapore, which is initiating a modest Asia-Middle East Dialogue next year. This, officials say, will help bring Asians closer to Middle Easterners, who are looking for understanding and impartiality.

Asia's historical ties with the Middle East are complex and sophisticated. While Europe sought to conquer the Arab lands, Asia was itself the target of Arab conquest, which led to the Mogul Empire and the bringing of Islam and aspects of Arab culture all the way to remote islands in the Indonesian archipelago.

As a result of Arabian-inspired missionary and trade activity, Asia is home to the world's largest Muslim population, and its earliest trade networks owe their establishment to links with the Middle East. This familiarity with the Middle East, although dormant since the rise of European power in the 18th century, could easily be nurtured back to life, using trade, culture and social interaction as the basis for a re-integration of West Asia with East Asia.

And, idealism aside, there is a large pool of petro-dollars waiting to be invested by oil-producing states who no longer trust the Western markets.

I agree with you that China and the Islamic world are natural allies in the coming 4T. I've been ridiculed for saying it but there it is.

The Islamic World simply does not work and play well with others and has hostile relations with every other civilization is borders. China has the most to gain from disrupting the status quo as a growing Great Power, much like Germany and Japan in the 20th century. I'm sure mutual goals would be strong enough for them to overlook the Xinjiang Uyghur Turk problem between them.

Now add this "we have the oil, you need the oil" component. Marriage made in heaven. I say let's follow Mike Alexander's recommendation and do a Manhattan Project to get rid of our need for petroleum, perhaps following Praetor's model to some degree, and let the Chinese deal with the Middle East.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I agree with you that China and the Islamic world are natural allies in the coming 4T. I've been ridiculed for saying it but there it is.

The Islamic World simply does not work and play well with others and has hostile relations with every other civilization is borders. China has the most to gain from disrupting the status quo as a growing Great Power, much like Germany and Japan in the 20th century. I'm sure mutual goals would be strong enough for them to overlook the Xinjiang Uyghur Turk problem between them.

Now add this "we have the oil, you need the oil" component. Marriage made in heaven. I say let's follow Mike Alexander's recommendation and do a Manhattan Project to get rid of our need for petroleum, perhaps following Praetor's model to some degree, and let the Chinese deal with the Middle East.

I'm not so sure that China should be in charge of handling the Middle East, but I do agree that a Manhattan project to deep-six our oil dependence is a winner. It's probably going to happen, regardless, so now's a good time to statrt.

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

I'm not so sure that China should be in charge of handling the Middle East, but I do agree that a Manhattan project to deep-six our oil dependence is a winner. It's probably going to happen, regardless, so now's a good time to start.

A good first step would have been to oust the oil barons from power. How likely do you think a alternative energy "Manhatten project" will be with Bush in the White House?

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I agree with you that China and the Islamic world are natural allies in the coming 4T. I've been ridiculed for saying it but there it is.

The Islamic World simply does not work and play well with others and has hostile relations with every other civilization is borders. China has the most to gain from disrupting the status quo as a growing Great Power, much like Germany and Japan in the 20th century. I'm sure mutual goals would be strong enough for them to overlook the Xinjiang Uyghur Turk problem between them.

Now add this "we have the oil, you need the oil" component. Marriage made in heaven.

I have thought of the situation between Russia and China in somewhat the same light, at least short-term ('we have modern weapons, you need modern weapons'). Of course, should Russia give in to the temptation to sell China all the modern weapons they want, they could find themselves regretting it further down the road.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I agree with you that China and the Islamic world are natural allies in the coming 4T. I've been ridiculed for saying it but there it is.

The Islamic World simply does not work and play well with others and has hostile relations with every other civilization is borders. China has the most to gain from disrupting the status quo as a growing Great Power, much like Germany and Japan in the 20th century. I'm sure mutual goals would be strong enough for them to overlook the Xinjiang Uyghur Turk problem between them.

Now add this "we have the oil, you need the oil" component. Marriage made in heaven.

I have thought of the situation between Russia and China in somewhat the same light, at least short-term ('we have modern weapons, you need modern weapons'). Of course, should Russia give in to the temptation to sell China all the modern weapons they want, they could find themselves regretting it further down the road.

No, I see Russia and China's relationship as more analogous to Russia and Germany's in the last cycle. Then it was just as obvious that the two were not natural allies, either idealistically or in long-term Realpolitik terms. Yet Russia stupidly aided Germany anyway and lived to regret it.

Russia should NOT want a stronger China, esp. with all those resources and low population density in Siberia. This time it's not so much an issue of Lebensraum as Naturresourcen. :wink:

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

I have thought of the situation between Russia and China in somewhat the same light, at least short-term ('we have modern weapons, you need modern weapons'). Of course, should Russia give in to the temptation to sell China all the modern weapons they want, they could find themselves regretting it further down the road.

No, I see Russia and China's relationship as more analogous to Russia and Germany's in the last cycle. Then it was just as obvious that the two were not natural allies, either idealistically or in long-term Realpolitik terms. Yet Russia stupidly aided Germany anyway and lived to regret it.

Russia should NOT want a stronger China, esp. with all those resources and low population density in Siberia. This time it's not so much an issue of Lebensraum as Naturresourcen. :wink:

That's why I said 'short-term' and spoke of Russia regretting going that way, down the road, if they do go that way. With luck, they'll realize that, and resist any such temptation.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

I have thought of the situation between Russia and China in somewhat the same light, at least short-term ('we have modern weapons, you need modern weapons'). Of course, should Russia give in to the temptation to sell China all the modern weapons they want, they could find themselves regretting it further down the road.

No, I see Russia and China's relationship as more analogous to Russia and Germany's in the last cycle. Then it was just as obvious that the two were not natural allies, either idealistically or in long-term Realpolitik terms. Yet Russia stupidly aided Germany anyway and lived to regret it.

Russia should NOT want a stronger China, esp. with all those resources and low population density in Siberia. This time it's not so much an issue of Lebensraum as Naturresourcen. :wink:

That's why I said 'short-term' and spoke of Russia regretting going that way, down the road, if they do go that way. With luck, they'll realize that, and resist any such temptation.

Okay, I'm with ya.

China has the most to gain from disrupting the status quo as a growing Great Power, much like Germany and Japan in the 20th century. I'm sure mutual goals would be strong enough for them to overlook the Xinjiang Uyghur Turk problem between them.

There's a lot of Westerns coming through Hanoi after doing teaching stints all over China. Pretty much all say the same thing, which is that development is so uneven there that domestic concerns dominate the Party thinking in a way difficult for us to understand.

The US is something of an interior empire, as the blue/red divide suggests, but China is much more so. The history of the place doesn't suggest much in the way of imperial ambitions beyond the borders of the Middle Kngdom. They have A LOT on their plate at the moment.

Also, they already think of themselves as the Greatest Power.

Originally Posted by lexpat

There's a lot of Westerns coming through Hanoi after doing teaching stints all over China. Pretty much all say the same thing, which is that development is so uneven there that domestic concerns dominate the Party thinking in a way difficult for us to understand.

The US is something of an interior empire, as the blue/red divide suggests, but China is much more so. The history of the place doesn't suggest much in the way of imperial ambitions beyond the borders of the Middle Kngdom. They have A LOT on their plate at the moment.

These are important points. Another thing to note is that Chinese banks are state-controlled. They are not run by capitalists, and so return on capital is of secondary importance. Thus, Chinese funding of Chinese economic development (and the US overconsumption required to absorb excess Chinese output) may continue for a long time. Chinese banks may well show a willingness to lose hundreds of billions of dollars on loans to the US treasury, if such lending achieves state purposes. The banks loss will be made up by the government (they will "print" money to replace lost assets). This will effectively monetize the debt, much as US WW II debt was monetized. In both situations (US in WW II and China today) the losers were/will be capitalist lenders, who generally come out on the short end of the stick during the 4T.

As I recall the Chinese have historically deemed parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East as part of their sphere of influence.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As I recall the Chinese have historically deemed parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East as part of their sphere of influence.

Also, Mongolia, both Koreas, parts of the Central Asian republics, all of northeastern India, all of mainland Southeast Asia...

I've seen a map showing all of the areas that China deems to be rightfully theirs or part of their sphere of influence. It reminded me of the sort of map of the 'Greater German Reich' that Hitler might have had hanging up on one of the walls of his office in the Reichschancellory during the 1930s.

Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

I'm not so sure that China should be in charge of handling the Middle East, but I do agree that a Manhattan project to deep-six our oil dependence is a winner. It's probably going to happen, regardless, so now's a good time to start.

A good first step would have been to oust the oil barons from power. How likely do you think a alternative energy "Manhatten project" will be with Bush in the White House?

I think it's very possible, if the focus is on helping the energy industry. I could see Bush salivating at the possibility of using US Goverment funds to develop the next big thing in energy, then handing it to his buddies in the business.

But of course, you're right. I don't see a development happening any other way while Bush is in charge. After all, this is the president that thinks war profittering is good. :shock:

China Tells US to Put its House in Order
By James Kynge in Beijing, Chris Giles in London and James Harding in Santiago
Published: November 22 2004

In a mark of China's growing economic confidence, the country's central bank has offered blunt advice to Washington about its ballooning trade deficit and unemployment.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Li Ruogu, the deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, warned the US not to blame other countries for its economic difficulties.

?China's custom is that we never blame others for our own problem,? said the senior central bank official. ?For the past 26 years, we never put pressure or problems on to the world. The US has the reverse attitude, whenever they have a problem, they blame others.?

Mr Li insisted an appreciation of the Chinese currency would not solve the US's structural problems and that although China was ?gradually? moving towards greater exchange rate flexibility, it would not do so under heavy external pressure.

?Under heavy speculation we cannot move [towards greater flexibility] and under heavy external pressure we cannot,? said Mr Li. ?So the best environment for us to gradually move towards a more flexible exchange rate is when people don't talk about it.?

His comments will disappoint US, Japanese and European politicians. Pressure has mounted on the Chinese administration to revalue the renmimbi or to increase the flexibility of the Chinese exchange rate over the past two years.

Mr Li said China could only permit greater renminbi flexibility after creating a domestic financial infrastructure, including reformed banks and developed markets, able to cope with a more liberalised currency mechanism; considering the conditions and the wishes of neighbouring Asian economies on any move towards a more flexible system; and educating people on how to deal with a new exchange rate system, teaching them how to hedge.

Mr Li, who spoke before a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum last weekend, said China did not want to run trade surpluses or accumulate foreign currency reserves. Its reserves stand at $515bn.

?If there is a small deficit, we are not concerned. But certainly we don't want to run into the US situation of having a trade deficit of 6 per cent of GDP,? he said.

?That is not sustainable,? he added. ?The appreciation of the RMB will not solve the problems of unemployment in the US because the cost of labour in China is only 3 per cent that of US labour. They should give up textiles, shoe-making and even agriculture probably.

?They should concentrate on sectors like aerospace and then sell those things to us and we would spend billions on this. We could easily balance the trade.?

China's timetable for freeing up the renminbi is expected to have an impact on sales of US goods to the mammoth and growing Chinese market as well as the consumption of Chinese goods in America.

The recent, adjustment to Chinese interest rates is seen by some in Washington as evidence that Beijing accepts administrative measures that are no longer an effective means of managing an increasingly liberalised market.

At last weekend's G20 meeting, finance ministers and central bank governors called for a global effort to reduce trade imbalances, and in partiuclar, the US current account deficit. John Snow, the US treasury secretary, repeated his commitment to work towards halving the US budget defict and to increase net US national saving, which would reduce the current account deficit.

But President George W. Bush's assurances at the weekend that his administration is committed to a strong dollar policy appeared to do little on Monday to encourage buying of the dollar, evidence of how far the White House's credibility on currencies has been undermined by the rising deficit. In mid day trading in New York the dollar was at 1.304 against the euro and 103.21 against the yen.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f16a4694-3c...00e2511c8.html

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I agree with you that China and the Islamic world are natural allies in the coming 4T. I've been ridiculed for saying it but there it is.

The Islamic World simply does not work and play well with others and has hostile relations with every other civilization is borders. China has the most to gain from disrupting the status quo as a growing Great Power, much like Germany and Japan in the 20th century. I'm sure mutual goals would be strong enough for them to overlook the Xinjiang Uyghur Turk problem between them.

Now add this "we have the oil, you need the oil" component. Marriage made in heaven.

I have thought of the situation between Russia and China in somewhat the same light, at least short-term ('we have modern weapons, you need modern weapons'). Of course, should Russia give in to the temptation to sell China all the modern weapons they want, they could find themselves regretting it further down the road.

That is not much unlike our willingness to send the Red Chinese all of our manufacturing capability in exchange for cheap goods at WalMart.

Well the Chinese leadership is on record as saying they want to move 200 million of their people from agriculture to something more 'productive.' This is going to take a bit of time. They looked at 'lend lease' during WWII, I've been told, and thought the US did rather well giving their manufactured goods away. I still think they want stability and more than they want anything else.

So does just about everybody else. When I talk about this economic stuff with Euros they all say their dependency on the American market means the strong Euro is dangerous to their 'recovery.' As far as I can discern, just about everybody wants things to change...but to change slowly. More savings in the US of course, but also things like changes in the European labor market.

Also, I'm in no way convinced we're all headed for some huge economic apocalypse...Gee, I don't even think housing is that overpriced, at least not everywhere. If I had a half million to drop on a Palo Alto/or Rockridge (Oakland) lean-to, I might do it. After a short trough, I expect the technological capital of the world (the bay area), to really take off again. Other places...I don't know. I suspect the sorting going on in other ways is going to manisfest itself in valuations too....

Just a hunch...

Well the Chinese leadership is on record as saying they want to move 200 million of their people from agriculture to something more 'productive.' This is going to take a bit of time. They looked at 'lend lease' during WWII, I've been told, and thought the US did rather well giving their manufactured goods away. I still think they want stability and more than they want anything else.

So does just about everybody else. When I talk about this economic stuff with Euros they all say their dependency on the American market means the strong Euro is dangerous to their 'recovery.' As far as I can discern, just about everybody wants things to change...but to change slowly. More savings in the US of course, but also things like changes in the European labor market.

Also, I'm in no way convinced we're all headed for some huge economic apocalypse...Gee, I don't even think housing is that overpriced, at least not everywhere. If I had a half million to drop on a Palo Alto/or Rockridge (Oakland) lean-to, I might do it. After a short trough, I expect the technological capital of the world (the bay area), to really take off again. Other places...I don't know. I suspect the sorting going on in other ways is going to manisfest itself in valuations too....

Just a hunch...

I have a concern if a democratic revolution does not occur in China during the 4T. China will be a major enemy of the free world, but what have our leaders done to prepare us for this event. Nothing, worse than nothing we are helping our most likely major 4T enemy. The economic prosperity currently being enjoyed by countries like the USA and Australia is underwritten by huge borrowing?s from the Chinese and our governments ass kiss the butts of chinese leadership.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

That is not much unlike our willingness to send the Red Chinese all of our manufacturing capability in exchange for cheap goods at WalMart.

Believe me it is not as bad as borrowing huge amounts of money from the Chinese to fiance short term economic growth.

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

We may have to reach an understanding with China based on some formula of the 'Asia for Asians, America for Americans' sort. We'd not only have to cut all ties with Taiwan, but also get out of South Korea, Japan, and Micronesia, and leave Australia and New Zealand to their fate. In return, they would get out of the Panama Canal Zone, and recognize our position in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Eastern Pacific. The alternative may well be a 4T war which, with at least a third of our population severely disaffected from their country, we could very easily lose. (Think 4T type consequences of defeat. :shock: )

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I cannot agree with Tristan and Roadbuilder enough (and I believe Rick joins us on this): China is going to be a BIG problem.

Add me to the list .. and add India to the list of 'problems'. And yes, I know about iltant Islam, so add that too.

Ultimately, it will be China and the multinatinals v. the rest of us, though.