Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

[c1ue]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

The notion that China has a communist economy is ridiculous - in no way does the Chinese economy operate on any type of 'shared' principles.

The notion that China will continue to grow is equally inconclusive. The reality is that China is leveraging its masses of poor labor to offshore manufacturing in 1st world nations - this is a service and one which could very much be replaced by one or more other nations, or obviated by economic issues.

It is equally unclear that the Chinese government is necessarily better. What is clear, is that China's government understands that it must do something in order to show progress, or else said government won't be around for long.

The massive bubbles ongoing inside China, once they pop (and they will do so soon), will reveal just how much was intelligent decision vs. overenthusiastic cheerleading, much as the Internet 1.0 bubble bursting revealed what was actually created vs. simple capital investment squandering.

The key is still what exactly do the Chinese people expect?

I've noted many times - it is physically impossible for the average Chinese to gain a lifestyle similar to Japan's or the US' in their lifetime.

If in fact their expectations are for that, then the government and nation of China are doomed.

If on the other hand the Chinese people are willing to permanently be poorer than the 1st/2nd world nations, then this is achievable depending on just how much poorer.

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

I've noted many times - it is physically impossible for the average Chinese to gain a lifestyle similar to Japan's or the US' in their lifetime.

Not impossible, if the standard of living in Japan, US and Europe were to halve.

[Sharky]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

The notion that China has a communist economy is ridiculous - in no way does the Chinese economy operate on any type of 'shared' principles.

Communism has nothing to do with "sharing." To understand their economy, look at their view of human rights: all rights are at the whim of the state, and can be taken away at any time, for any reason; property ownership is just an illusion. Corruption and fraud are viewed as necessary facts of life.

The key is still what exactly do the Chinese people expect?

I've noted many times - it is physically impossible for the average Chinese to gain a lifestyle similar to Japan's or the US' in their lifetime.

If in fact their expectations are for that, then the government and nation of China are doomed.

If on the other hand the Chinese people are willing to permanently be poorer than the 1st/2nd world nations, then this is achievable depending on just how much poorer.

Talking about averages in a country the size of China may not be very meaningful, particularly since the hukou caste system is still in place. It's my impression that the hope and expectation of many people is to simply have enough to be able to feed themselves and their families. You can see this in the fact that child labor still exists in China. It's not "slave labor," it's survival labor. Parents put their kids to work, because if they don't, they will likely starve.

[c1ue]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

Not impossible, if the standard of living in Japan, US and Europe were to halve.

Actually, it would still be impossible.

There was a research paper by a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences which noted that China would require the resources of 4 Earths alone in order to achieve an equivalent of 1st world standard of living for every Chinese.

Thus in reality the 1st world would have to reduce its standard of living by at least 80%.

Communism has nothing to do with "sharing." To understand their economy, look at their view of human rights: all rights are at the whim of the state, and can be taken away at any time, for any reason; property ownership is just an illusion. Corruption and fraud are viewed as necessary facts of life.

This is wrong in many ways.

Communism per se has nothing do for or against human rights. The inherent concept is to balance the collective and individual's needs. In theory, this is possible via an objective decision making process; in reality those in power abuse it.

This can happen in any milieu, because the same can be said for 'democracy' and the 'free market' - in theory democracy is the will of the overall people. In reality special interests and radicalization lead to something very different, just as in reality monopolies/oligopolies, fraud, and various other non-altruistic behavior ruin the process.

For that matter, it is quite amusing that you take note of the corruption in Communism when corruption in the United States is equally as bad. For one thing, the leaders of the Communist nations - outside of North Korea - don't have father/son successions like Bush/Bush Jr.

As for property ownership - I guess it is all a matter of viewpoint.

In Russia today, far more people own in entirety the dwelling they live in than anywhere in the 'free market' world. In this respect Communism (actually Leninism) appears to have worked.

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

Actually, it would still be impossible.

There was a research paper by a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences which noted that China would require the resources of 4 Earths alone in order to achieve an equivalent of 1st world standard of living for every Chinese.

If you're talking about the average American or Canadian or Australian first world standard, it is of course impossible due to physical limitation and cultural differences - there is not enough land to build enough roads for both mommy and daddy to own a car, neither is there enough land for everyone to stay in a house on a quarter acre plot, nor do the Chinese eat from palm sized slabs of meat.

[c1ue]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

If you're talking about the average American or Canadian or Australian first world standard, it is of course impossible due to physical limitation and cultural differences - there is not enough land to build enough roads for both mommy and daddy to own a car, neither is there enough land for everyone to stay in a house on a quarter acre plot, nor do the Chinese eat from palm sized slabs of meat.

The road/car issue isn't the major one - it is energy, which in turn affects the food.

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

The road/car issue isn't the major one - it is energy, which in turn affects the food.

China is not going to use as much oil as the US. Oil isn't cheap and it is far cheaper to build an extensive urban rail transportation network that runs on electricity and coal.

[Sharky]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

Communism per se has nothing do for or against human rights. The inherent concept is to balance the collective and individual's needs. In theory, this is possible via an objective decision making process; in reality those in power abuse it.

The proponents of communism have been very clear that one of their goals is not to balance the collective and the individual; it's to obliterate the individual all together. The collective is the only thing that matters. Therefore, individual rights not only don't make sense, but are completely contrary to their core philosophy. This line of thinking has been clearly demonstrated in every communist country, including China.

For that matter, it is quite amusing that you take note of the corruption in Communism when corruption in the United States is equally as bad. For one thing, the leaders of the Communist nations - outside of North Korea - don't have father/son successions like Bush/Bush Jr.

I never said there wasn't corruption in the US. In fact, the whole concept of a mixed economy is ultimately based on corruption in one form or another.

In Russia today, far more people own in entirety the dwelling they live in than anywhere in the 'free market' world. In this respect Communism (actually Leninism) appears to have worked.

I'm no expert on property ownership in Russia. Isn't dwelling ownership often separate from land ownership, which is usually maintained by the State? Also, haven't there been a number of dramatic changes in property ownership policies over the last few decades, including statements along the lines that the State really owns everything? It strikes me as being a much different sense of "ownership" than in the US.

[c1ue]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

China is not going to use as much oil as the US. Oil isn't cheap and it is far cheaper to build an extensive urban rail transportation network that runs on electricity and coal.

Oil is only part of the equation. An urban rail transportation network doesn't remove the need for personal transportation - if you've ever actually tried to get around Beijing or Shanghai in public transportation, you'll understand better.

The point is simple: if we look at all energy usage - China increasing its per capita energy usage from present levels even to 1/4 of 1st world standards requires either completely unknown new sources or significant pullback in the entire 1st/2nd world.

Note also that transportation usage of oil is only a fraction even of US energy usage; as noted elsewhere, 2/3rds or more of energy consumption in finished goods and food are from the creation process, not the utilization process.

The proponents of communism have been very clear that one of their goals is not to balance the collective and the individual; it's to obliterate the individual all together. The collective is the only thing that matters. Therefore, individual rights not only don't make sense, but are completely contrary to their core philosophy. This line of thinking has been clearly demonstrated in every communist country, including China.

I'm unclear where this meme started from - that collectivism means the destruction of the individual.

Simply because some theoretical perfect entity absorbs and apportions society's output in a fair manner does not automatically mean everyone is reduced to an Orwellian serf. Soviet Russia, for example, was very well known for its classical arts via state sponsored ballet (Kirov), opera, and other entertainment.

China equally has thriving centers of art - in Dalian and elsewhere even in the years right after the Cultural Revolution.

It is only in places like North Korea where you see much more the grim faceless human cog in the machine, and North Korea is clearly a Communist-flavored dictatorship rather than any form of collectivist society.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" does not equate to everyone is identical; in fact it assumes there are varying levels of ability (to produce) and need (to consume and/or create).

I'm no expert on property ownership in Russia. Isn't dwelling ownership often separate from land ownership, which is usually maintained by the State? Also, haven't there been a number of dramatic changes in property ownership policies over the last few decades, including statements along the lines that the State really owns everything? It strikes me as being a much different sense of "ownership" than in the US.

No, China is the place where the government owns all the land, but individuals can purchase leases for 99 years. Then again, in China there is no property tax so I guess it all works out.

Russia has no such construct.

There has been a concerted effort in Russia in the past few years to bring Russian natural resources - as owned by stolen former state companies - back into at least de facto, if not outright sovereign control, but there is no question that the state companies' in question own the resources they are supposed to.

Some time after the fall of the Soviet Union, laws were passed which gave the occupants of any given dwelling the right to assume outright ownership if proof of legal residency and occupancy could be provided.

This is one source of Russia's amazing per capita spending power - why the luxury brands had concentrated so fiercely there. The other sources were both the combination of rapid income growth and high inflation.

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

Some time after the fall of the Soviet Union, laws were passed which gave the occupants of any given dwelling the right to assume outright ownership if proof of legal residency and occupancy could be provided.

This is one source of Russia's amazing per capita spending power - why the luxury brands had concentrated so fiercely there. The other sources were both the combination of rapid income growth and high inflation.

This explains why the Russian military is breaking down. Without the ability to collect tax from banks and make money from mortgages, what will fund the military?

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

Oil is only part of the equation. An urban rail transportation network doesn't remove the need for personal transportation - if you've ever actually tried to get around Beijing or Shanghai in public transportation, you'll understand better.

Do you mean there are not enough stations or that the rail coverage isn't comprehensive enough?

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...rapid-transit/

Just fifteen years after the first segment of its first metro line opened, the city’s metro network has gained the title as the world’s longest with the opening of a section of Line 10 last week. This followed years of continuous construction and the opening of pieces of Lines 2, 9, and 11 over the past month. In anticipation of the inauguration of the city’s Expo 2010 event on May 1st, Line 13 will open sometime in the next two weeks.

Now Shanghai offers 282 stations and 420 km (261 mi) of lines, compared to 408 km in London and 368 km in New York, which now have the world’s second and third-largest rapid transit networks. Unlike those cities, which have only minor line extensions planned, Shanghai’s expansion plans are only half complete: not only does the city have 140 km of more lines currently under construction and intended for service by 2012, but it has an additional 300 km planned to be ready for operations by 2020, by which time this city alone will have more rapid transit mileage than the entire country of Japan.

[c1ue]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

This explains why the Russian military is breaking down. Without the ability to collect tax from banks and make money from mortgages, what will fund the military?

Sorry, but you are completely off base.

The Russian military is breaking down because income from formerly state owned natural resources - like natural gas, oil, nickel, etc - is no longer going to the state, it is going into private pockets.

There was never a property tax in the Soviet Union, that I am aware of.

Do you mean there are not enough stations or that the rail coverage isn't comprehensive enough?

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...rapid-transit/

Just fifteen years after the first segment of its first metro line opened, the city’s metro network has gained the title as the world’s longest with the opening of a section of Line 10 last week. This followed years of continuous construction and the opening of pieces of Lines 2, 9, and 11 over the past month. In anticipation of the inauguration of the city’s Expo 2010 event on May 1st, Line 13 will open sometime in the next two weeks.

Now Shanghai offers 282 stations and 420 km (261 mi) of lines, compared to 408 km in London and 368 km in New York, which now have the world’s second and third-largest rapid transit networks. Unlike those cities, which have only minor line extensions planned, Shanghai’s expansion plans are only half complete: not only does the city have 140 km of more lines currently under construction and intended for service by 2012, but it has an additional 300 km planned to be ready for operations by 2020, by which time this city alone will have more rapid transit mileage than the entire country of Japan.

Shanghai stats: (via wiki)

Population (2009)[4]
- Municipality	19,210,000
- Density	2,729.9/km2 (7,070.3/sq mi)

New York stats: (via Wiki)

Population (July 1, 2009)[3]
- City	8,391,881
- Density	27,532/sq mi (10,630/km2)
- Urban	18,223,567
- Urban density	5,435.7/sq mi (2,098.7/km2)
- Metro	19,006,798
- Metro density	2,828.4/sq mi (1,092/km2)

London stats: (via wiki)

Population (July 2007 est.)[2][3][4]
- London	7,556,900
- Density	12,450/sq mi (4,807/km2)
- Urban	8,278,251
- Metro	12,300,000 to 13,945,000

Tokyo stats: (via wiki)

Population (1st)[1]
- Metropolis	13,010,279 (April 1, 2,010)
- Density	5,847/km2 (15,143.7/sq mi)
- Metro	35,676,000

The 282 stations in Shanghai might compare nicely vs. New York or London, but Tokyo has 3 different public transportation systems with a total of at least 400 and up to 500 stations serving a much denser urban area.

In New York it is possible to get around in Manhattan entirely by public transit, equally so in the tourist/central part of London.

Further away it becomes progressively less tenable.

Shanghai - though it has been 4 years since I was there, is accessible via public transit in the downtown area, but outside of that it is a huge task to get around anywhere but immediately near a public transportation system. Kind of like East Queens in New York.

Which is to say, there are powerful reasons why people will want to get a car in Shanghai, whereas in Tokyo a car is purely a lifestyle choice.

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

The 282 stations in Shanghai might compare nicely vs. New York or London, but Tokyo has 3 different public transportation systems with a total of at least 400 and up to 500 stations serving a much denser urban area.

In New York it is possible to get around in Manhattan entirely by public transit, equally so in the tourist/central part of London.

Further away it becomes progressively less tenable.

Shanghai - though it has been 4 years since I was there, is accessible via public transit in the downtown area, but outside of that it is a huge task to get around anywhere but immediately near a public transportation system. Kind of like East Queens in New York.

Which is to say, there are powerful reasons why people will want to get a car in Shanghai, whereas in Tokyo a car is purely a lifestyle choice.

You can't use the official area size of Shanghai because 80% of it is farmland.

Also, you can't use the current state of public transportation in Shanghai as a gauge, because bear in mind, the Shanghai metro is only 15 years old! 15 years isn't too long ago, if you remembered we used Netscape Navigator about 15 years ago.

Theoretically, it is not impossible for Shanghai to build a 1000-1500 station city rail network comprising of conventional rail and light rail by 2025.

The fundamental issue is that many cannot accept the fact that China has the opportunity and also the capability to build up an advanced economy that is less dependent on oil than any of the advanced economies today, so much so that even if oil goes up to $300 or even $400 a barrel in today's money, China will still do fairly well.

[c1ue]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

You can't use the official area size of Shanghai because 80% of it is farmland.

Also, you can't use the current state of public transportation in Shanghai as a gauge, because bear in mind, the Shanghai metro is only 15 years old! 15 years isn't too long ago, if you remembered we used Netscape Navigator about 15 years ago.

Theoretically, it is not impossible for Shanghai to build a 1000-1500 station city rail network comprising of conventional rail and light rail by 2025.

The fundamental issue is that many cannot accept the fact that China has the opportunity and also the capability to build up an advanced economy that is less dependent on oil than any of the advanced economies today, so much so that even if oil goes up to $300 or even $400 a barrel in today's money, China will still do fairly well.

Are you trying to tell me Shanghai is more dense than Tokyo? And more dense than Manhattan? It is probably more dense than the non-Manhattan boroughs of New York City, but that is a far cry from those true megalopolis centers.

If you still persist in your belief, please show some proof. A dozen half empty skyscrapers doesn't count.

As for what China might do or could do, all you are saying is speculation. The spending for even another 500 subway stations or overland train lines requires both time and money. If it isn't in progress already, it WILL not happen in 10 or 15 years.

The intra-city transportation networks in Tokyo first began in 1925 - it was nearly 70 years before it achieved the density it has today, and this was with 3 different boom periods (post WW I, post WW II Reconstruction, 1980s bubble).

[touchring]

Re: Ideology battle: "Communist market economy" winning democratic market economy?

As for what China might do or could do, all you are saying is speculation. The spending for even another 500 subway stations or overland train lines requires both time and money. If it isn't in progress already, it WILL not happen in 10 or 15 years.

Sure it is speculation but it is reasonable to believe it will happen. Why?

The reason is profit. Stations divert and concentrate human traffic.

Firstly, the government owns most of the land. The appreciation of the land itself pays for the cost of the station.

Secondly, is creating more land. Train stations in highly populated areas are built underground. Underground malls can be created around stations and directly connected to the basement of buildings surrounding the stations.

In Singapore, the government actually sells the "underground land" to building owners.