Minor quibble: Sweden’s per capita income is smack in between the US and South Korea’s.
Well, I don’t claim to be expert on such things. But the state still owns many key industries and is a huge investor and manipulator of many markets. ISTM that countries that operate like this can flourish only up to a point.
Domestically, in many markets there are only one or two big players and others are simply not allowed to join (particularly foreign companies). Needless to say, that needs to end.
There are other problems too. Everything here is done in a very labour intensive way because labour is so cheap. But now wages are increasing.
This is a good thing of course, but the transition could be dangerous. You don’t want a lot of large institutions laying off people at the same time.
Well, the point is it could slow down further, even without one of the collapse/stagnation scenarios. Meanwhile if things start to pick up elsewhere (and believe it or not, many economists are saying the US is a good bet again), China may not close the gap.
It’s true, but ISTM that China is following a similar path to Japan, which started out with cheap knock-offs / “commodity” electronics just to get a foot in the door.
Many chinese brands such as Haier have gone from being the cheapest option to successfully targeting the mid-end part of the market (as well as the cheap end).
I don’t see that it will be that difficult for them to move towards the high-end, nor do I see it as essential that they do.
I agree with everything you say here, with the one pedantic nitpick that it’s not actually clear what the outcome was of the war with Vietnam. China probably never intended to penetrate far into the country, though Vietnam’s local militias certainly put up a good showing. But it was in both Vietnam’s interests (for international reasons) and China’s interests (for internal reform reasons) to treat it as a Chinese defeat, so it ended up portrayed as one in posterity. And also, it did succeed as a pedagogical exercise for Vietnam (China really tore up the northern part of the country, and there wasn’t much Vietnam could do to stop them), so it actually could qualify as a success.
I agree with your general thrust here, too, except the one point: the American treatment of aboriginal peoples was completely successful. Sure, it was downright sociopathic, but I don’t think China feels constrained by moral considerations in Tibet, either.
A few differences, IMO.
1)There were many nations here..not one. Some were assimilated; some destroyed; some sent to reservations.
2)We are talking the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in NA…not in a post WWII world.
3)It was recognized here that what was done was an injustice and measures have been taken to compensate; I highly doubt the Han Chinese will make any effort to compensate displaced Tibetans.
4)It wasnt really sociopathic in a pre WWII world. Expansion and conquest were happening all over the globe.
5)It makes far less sense today when larger countries can exert control over smaller ones without actually annexing the land.
What everyone else is doing is certainly relevant to morality, but doesn’t define it.
Otherwise just about all the great evils perpetrated could be written off – “I raped and killed many civilians, but I was no different to all the other soldiers”.
Different times- different morality.
No one alive today can judge those in the past by the standards of today.
So far as I can discover by research, everyone was pretty “bad” by today’s standards.
Even people in recent times were able to carry out pretty horrific atrocities without being judged criminal, eg the officer that ordered the Amritsar massacre ( 1919 ) was never prosecuted.
I agree with you, but..is there a nation from the USA to China to any in Papua New Guinea who arent guilty of vast crimes? We are the survivors, after all.
Surely “middle class” is something defined by lifestyle rather than by income?
I’m not going to claim it is not a factor what everyone else is doing, particularly when it is combined with ignorance, but it’s still just an extenuating circumstance. Not many people would claim that morality itself changes based on what everyone else is doing.
And?
I may be British, but I share as much of the blame for what the early settlers did to the native americans, as I share credit for discovering DNA – absolutely none at all.
The situation with Japan is not analogous, the Japanese were hellbent on creating an empire and the US-lead economic sanctions in response to the Japanese invasion of China would have, as it was designed, crippled their economy.
China is pushing its neighbors over resources. The Senkaku/Diaoyu island dispute is an example. However the dynamics are entirely different, and China is still decades away from being able to challenge US military dominance.
None of your ancestors ever traded with America for cotton or other exports? You exist without any relationship whatever to your country’s history?
“Absolutely none at all” is too strong. Everyone alive bears some burden of guilt, if only in microscopic quantities. Obviously, there are worse sins much closer to home: your taxes may have paid for abuse of prisoners of war in the current war in Afghanistan or the recent war in Iraq. Farther away, your house might have been built on land seized from a Catholic family during the Civil War.
The world’s history is a vast sea of moral sin. We speak of “blood diamonds,” but every product and every service has its own tinge of blood, no matter how faint.
Surely you realize that saps out all meaning of the word. You can call me guilty of screwing natives out of their land but I can’t summon up a feeling of guilt.
<sorry, continuing hijack…>
Well, actually I have one white and one black (caribbean) parent. So I likely have slave ancestors and ancestors who were beneficiaries.
As you allude yourself; there’s little of human history that’s not tinged with blood. If any of us is going to feel ashamed, we should all feel ashamed.
Personally I prefer to learn the lessons, be aware of how fucked up our species can be, and move on.
I can see how someone could be angry that their tax dollars are used for this, but I don’t see how you can feel culpable for something you had no involvement in, and no choice (wrt paying taxes).
I just don’t see China as a Super Power working out very well at all.
Personally, I’d much prefer to be able to fly.
Well, IIRC, your treatment of Native Americans with Asian origins was more than equaled by their treatment of Native Americans with European origins.
Why did you do it, to begin with? If I were you, I would give the land which you took illegally back to those from whom you stole it, before the police are called.
How do you figure?
I’ll be honest, I was nowhere near the goings on. I hope you aren’t trying to imply that guilt is in my genes, are you?
If you are trying to purge your conscience, please leave me out of it.
Your neurosis does not make me guilty. Sorry to leave you in the lurch, but, I have problems of my own, and I can’t help you to feel clean inside.
As to the OP, China will make the exact same mistakes that we have made. The only differences will be locations and technology.