Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
Interesting story in Der Spiegel today quotes the Chinese Deputy economic minister on the relative use of resources compared to production. Get a load of the smog in Urumchi.......gggggggggasp!
Immeasurable environmental damage through air and water pollution are fanning the problems, the economic costs of which remain unclear for China and, indeed, the world. Yue Pan, Deputy Minister for the Environment, is already predicting the end of the economic miracle: "To produce goods worth $10,000, we need seven times the resources used by Japan, almost six times the resources used by the U.S. and -- a particular source of embarrassment -- almost three times the resources used by India."
Skidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
The West and others want cheap, cost effective goods. they don't come without a price. And the price is going to be high. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but it will come!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Quoting Dougloid (Thread starter): Immeasurable environmental damage through air and water pollution are fanning the problems, the economic costs of which remain unclear for China and, indeed, the world. Yue Pan, Deputy Minister for the Environment, is already predicting the end of the economic miracle: "To produce goods worth $10,000, we need seven times the resources used by Japan, almost six times the resources used by the U.S. and -- a particular source of embarrassment -- almost three times the resources used by India."
That's pretty typical of communist countries. The use of a minimum amount of raw materials to create a given product is the essence of efficiency, and for people to appreciate efficiency, they should understand the concept and motivation of profit.
China has only been introduced to the profit motive over the past decade or so, and it will take some time to alter their entire economic chain to reflect a respect for efficiency.
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 1): The West and others want cheap, cost effective goods. they don't come without a price. And the price is going to be high. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but it will come!
Well, I think you can bet your last Confederate dollar on it. I give them ten years tops. You gotta remember that the vast majority of Chinese aren't getting a whole lot out of the growth that's taking place besides an aching back and a shortened life. Real growth at the level we're talking about simply cannot be sustained long term, I don't think.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3542 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
Last figures I read the economic growth in China last year was somewhere around 10%! It is impossible to sustain that with the Yuan still pegged to the dollar. They cannot continue artificially devaluing the currency like that.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): Only if waste has a cost. If that cost is negligible, they'll just as happily waste and pollute until the state steps in and makes waste expensive!
Like I said, that is the result of communits thinking. Under that system, waste is simply a matter of right pocket/left pocket transfers, and can actually be used to pad production figures to please the planners. Waste only becomes a bad thing if you have to pay for the wasted materials out of your profits.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 5): Last figures I read the economic growth in China last year was somewhere around 10%! It is impossible to sustain that with the Yuan still pegged to the dollar. They cannot continue artificially devaluing the currency like that.
If course it cannot last. The closer their GDP per Capita comes to world levels, the more difficult it becomes to maintain high growth rates. Look at Japan, Germany and Korea, which all had their own "economic miracles". The only reason that China's growth rate is so high is that they started out so far behind to begin with.
If China does end up selling off a lot of their T-Bills, you might see a good inflation spike in the US. How badly it will affect the US economy will depend on where it is in the economic cycle, but under certain circumstances, it could actually have positive effects.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13368 posts, RR: 64 Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2): That's pretty typical of communist countries. The use of a minimum amount of raw materials to create a given product is the essence of efficiency, and for people to appreciate efficiency, they should understand the concept and motivation of profit.
What is communist in today's Chinese politics and economics except for the party name? IMO currently the PRC rather resembles 19th century ultracapitalist England, with a few very rich industrialists and a huge number of poor migrant workers willing to work for a few pence.
To detract from their bad economy, which only supports the ruling class ( defacto the leaders of the former communist party and their families became the new aristocrat class, just thinking of their own profit at the expense of the country), are turning more and more to fascism and ultranationalism. Even formaly state owned companies are defacto owned by party functionaries, and the private companies profit from corruption insofar as that for a certain bribev they can evade and occupational health and safety or enviromental rules.
In which other country can the owner of a privately owned company be at the same time the union leader of his staff?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 7): What is communist in today's Chinese politics and economics except for the party name? IMO currently the PRC rather resembles 19th century ultracapitalist England, with a few very rich industrialists and a huge number of poor migrant workers willing to work for a few pence.
That's true, but remember that their experience with capitalism is very short. They have not understood all the details yet. Just as US and European capitalism started with massive inequities, so will China. It is simply impossible for a country to churn out all the legal foundations for a more fair society in only a few years. Russia has had the same experience.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20900 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1296 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 6): Waste only becomes a bad thing if you have to pay for the wasted materials out of your profits.
That is irrelevant as long as waste is cheaper than efficiency! That is one of the many limitations unrestricted capitalism has - externalizing losses (costs) and internalizing profits is standard behaviour for any market participant. That's why at least some modifications need to be made, preferably on as few fundamentals as possible, but on as many as necessary.
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 6): The only reason that China's growth rate is so high is that they started out so far behind to begin with.
True. It's a lot more difficult when you're already fully developed.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 7): What is communist in today's Chinese politics and economics except for the party name? IMO currently the PRC rather resembles 19th century ultracapitalist England, with a few very rich industrialists and a huge number of poor migrant workers willing to work for a few pence.
Exactly, although they still do exert general controlling influence - as much as corruption permits...
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 9): That's true, but remember that their experience with capitalism is very short. They have not understood all the details yet.
And, as Russia has shown before, they haven't understood its limitations (or simply don't care yet).
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1260 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 7): What is communist in today's Chinese politics and economics except for the party name? IMO currently the PRC rather resembles 19th century ultracapitalist England, with a few very rich industrialists and a huge number of poor migrant workers willing to work for a few pence.
To detract from their bad economy, which only supports the ruling class ( defacto the leaders of the former communist party and their families became the new aristocrat class, just thinking of their own profit at the expense of the country), are turning more and more to fascism and ultranationalism. Even formaly state owned companies are defacto owned by party functionaries, and the private companies profit from corruption insofar as that for a certain bribev they can evade and occupational health and safety or enviromental rules.
In which other country can the owner of a privately owned company be at the same time the union leader of his staff?
Essentially what you describe gave rise to the philosophy of one of the hairy folks seen on some walls in China-none other than Karl Marx, a lawyer too. He was kicked out of Prussia for suggesting that poor folks ought to be able to pick up a few deadfalls in the king's forest so as to heat their homes, cook a little gruel and such. He ended up in 1840s London, where situations were as you describe.
I think ultimately there are two reasons that one makes any decision or choice-self interested (i.e., lowest cost-amoral) or not self i(i.e., not the lowest cost therefore *moral*).
Now. When I say *moral* I do NOT necessarily mean *good*. Nazi Germnay made many policy choices that were *moral*, i.e, other than lowest cost but they were not *good* or ethical. I merely mean for other than the lowest cost.
If, as we are told many times every day by the ruling ideology of Walmart and the Chicago School of Economics and the Harvard Business School that self interest/lowest cost is the only valid decision making matrix, then when it serves our interest we will begin by devouring those around us and then proceed to the less important parts of our anatomy in the drive to accumulate all that we can for ourselves. Some others may benefit but it is only by accident. The only variable is the mix between moral and amoral choices, as we make moral choices all the time-whom do we marry, things like that. If the amoral gains the ascendancy present day society's doom is sealed.
It seems therefore that if the dominant ideology is the true one, Marx may well have been on to something when he said that capitalism would ultimately devour itself.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20900 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3542 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Mar 2004, 2152 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
