"China was the largest economy for centuries because everyone had the same type of economy - subsistence - and so the country with the most people would be economically biggest. Then the Industrial Revolution sent the West on a more prosperous path. Now the world is returning to a common economy, this time technology- and information-based, so once again population triumphs."
The exuberance for Japan 20 years ago was a bubble, and as such it was based on a lot of irrational assumptions: The Japanese had better business models, more productive workers, better work culture, etc. However, the advocates for China's rise are just counting on one, objective indicator; they outnumber us.
Part of it is, but China has several things that the Japanese do not.
Japan has to import pretty much everything they need to keep their economy running. The Japanese population is also about half that of the United States, and during their boom years, there was such a massive problem in finding skilled workers that the Japanese government had to turn a blind eye to the sheer number of illegal immigrants flooding in from the rest of southeast Asia.
The Japanese also care very deeply about nature; I have never seen a polluted stream or a park covered in litter there, and I've spent a decent amount of time in the country. Of course, this is one of the bits of Japanese culture that I rather love. grin
So, Japan could have probably swallowed the U.S., if they weren't so dependent on imports; it puts a limit to how high their economy can really go.
China has a wealth of natural resources, and more than enough skilled workers. China also doesn't care one iota about their ecology, which is why Beijing is not a city to live in if you're a fan of air, or water -- it's also worth noting that, sanitation-wise, mainland China is still very much a third-world country.
But unlike Japan, China doesn't need to be importing and exporting to keep their economy going; they've got so much work to do in their own country that they've got growth potential out the wazoo.
That said, China is rapidly becoming a toxic wasteland, and I'm curious how well the Chinese business system (all businesses being government entities) will scale; this goes double, given how the culture promotes rampant cronyism and incredible corruption.
I think Japan's problem wasn't population, it was credit. The banks got government license to grow the economy, so they threw it at their well-connected keiretsu friends who wasted it on bad business ideas. After the crash, everyone got "cautious" and money was funneled to big pointless public-works projects. On top of that, the VC's are famously conservative. The end result is that innovative people without business connections never got seed funding. So they come to the US. It's the same story everywhere, and China will probably repeat it.
Exactly. Or Spanish. Or French. Or Russian. How many language fads have there been in the last century, based on the perceived importance of the country/countries?
Unless you plan to relocate to China or Asia, I think most people considering language study would be better off learning a programming language. I am a proficient Mandarin speaker, and while it helped me greatly when I lived in Taiwan, it has done nothing for my career in the United States, except for a single nibble from a software company that needed a bilingual project manager (they ended up hiring a native speaker).
i don't think the world will ever learn mandarin en masse if that entails learning thousands of characters. that said, if the chinese embrace an alphabet (at least for communication with foreigners), pinyin/bopomofo could become the standard for an "international mandarin." or more likely, the chinese will just learn english since it already has international traction.
Good luck grokking the four tones of Mandarin, it's tough, but doable. I was lucky enough to have been raised speaking Mandarin, though my skill isn't great and I probably have a thick American accent. donw, the traditional characters are beautiful, and easier to remember (though harder to write). But when it comes to China in specific, I've been told that the traditional/simplified character thing strikes up the Taiwan/PROC tension. It's a beautiful language, and there are plenty of movies that will get you to understand that. A girl I dated improved her Mandarin tonalities after we watched "Crouching Tiger," of all movies. However, many of the "mainstream" Chinese actors we're aware of here in the US do NOT speak Mandarin as a first language, and their accents aren't very good in roles where they're forced to speak Mandarin.
"Someone once said that learning Chinese is "a five-year lesson in humility". I used to think this meant that at the end of five years you will have mastered Chinese and learned humility along the way. However, now having studied Chinese for over six years, I have concluded that actually the phrase means that after five years your Chinese will still be abysmal, but at least you will have thoroughly learned humility."
This is a really good essay that I read long ago. My view is... you got nothing to worry about. Between how hard Chinese is to learn, and the eagerness of Chinese to learn English (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/28/080428fa_fact_...) and the fact that even at current rates of growth it'll take decades for China to catch up means English will be the default international language for a long time yet.
Tones aren't so bad. Characters aren't half as ugly as most people imagine; a few years of diligent study will suffice (same as for Japanese, I imagine).
A good question for you, is how has your life as an ABC impacted your relationships with people from the mainland? I've heard that ABCs are looked down upon as being almost subhuman by a lot of Mainlanders.
I have no doubt that China will grow as an economic power. Personally, I'm not especially worried about it. As China gets wealthier, the "wage arbitrage" involved in moving over there will shrink, so I disagree with the writer that Americans in "place-based" activities will be better off. You may be better off in a position to sell stuff to newly wealthy Chinese and Indian consumers. I also suspect that prosperity and liberalism (meaning democracy and free markets, not handouts) will go hand in hand - so far, they usually have.
As for learning Mandarin? Hey, go for it, but I doubt it'll be crucial. English is very entrenched at this point, and it's not really about the USA anymore. English became entrenched because of the British Empire/US ascendency, but now it's just a convenient standard for the 21st century. I've read that several European companies are so diverse that it's easier to just use English than German, French, Swedish, regardless of location. Scientific conferences in Asia use English even when the audience doesn't contain a single American, Brit, or Australian.
Nobody does this out of some deep respect for English - they do it because it's convenient. Everyone educated these days becomes literate in their own native language + English, and preferably some other language as well.
Well, I'm starting in the near future, albeit with the traditional characters, rather than simplified (U.N. be damned). China is undoubtedly an economic powerhouse, and learning new languages is fun, so I might as well pick up something useful.
That said, this is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, maybe it's a good chance for the U.S. to get back to its economic roots and actually start producing something again, with an exchange rate that favors exports and a skilled local labor pool.
Wow, highly original thought: China is going to be an economic superpower.
Except I have read that about a zillion times before...
Just gives me a thought: maybe it would make sense to create two fake identities, one who predicts China becomes a superpower, and one who predicts that it is doomed. Then, whichever turns out to be true, you can officially assume that identity and be hailed as a prophet.
I always wonder when people list China among the most powerful nations in the world.
For sure they the most populous with 1.5 billions; it’s a big market of people to sell stuff to and unlimited cheap labor;
Here is my point 1.5 billions with a middle class (by world standards) of few millions, a large majority under the poverty level (by all standards), the shared revenue per head is as low as most poor countries. Is China powerful because of its population only?
Personally I think China will pull the whole world economy down the more it opens to the world (it’s already started with Gas and food); the growth will be tempered by humanitarian need.
Put aside the option of a bunch of cheap labor China is still globally a very poor country and not yet in the position to make mandarin a great commodity.
"If we used the exchange rate, the value of a new skyscraper in Shanghai would count much less toward China's GDP than an identical building in Chicago would count toward America's, which makes no sense."
Somehow, I don't think the author has thought very hard about this. The value of the building isn't labor plus materials -- it's not like he'd make the same argument about putting it in the Gobi desert. It's possible to estimate the proper exchange rate, and use this to estimate China's actual GDP.
