China has had 7% plus growth for well about two decades now without a boom and bust cycle.
Err, yes - that's my point. It's a developing economy. I was asking for examples of
developed economies that could sustain such growth.
That doesn't mean they can't in the future. That was what I was saying.
Why use a country that subsists on oil as an example.
Fine, how about Iceland. Do they have millions of entrants into the job market each year?
Why not Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc,. Every country has a population that needs jobs.
You said "Every country has millions of new entrants to the work force every year" when clearly that is not true. You didn't say anything about scale or percentages.
LOL, are you actually comparing a actual figure with a procentage?
"Procentage"?
No, I wasn't. I was explaining to crobato why his assertion that millions of people enter every country's workforce every year.
Go and learn basic mathematic pls!
I think you could do with improving your reading and comprehension skills first!
China havn't hade any incompetent leaders like in many democracies around the world have hade for well over 35 years now
Hahaha, that's a good one. Then why were Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang purged? Unless of course you admit they were unfairly persecuted, which would say something about China's ruling party in putting its own good above that of the country.
Li Peng, is he a popular figure in Chinese society?
Unrest and incompetancy is what democracy is all about
I don't see much unrest in the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.
just look at Taiwan, Thailand, Philipines and several african and south american democracies, more than anything should have proven democracy is simply unsuited for poor or unstable countries.
Democracy isn't just about elections, it's about rights, forms of redress, independent institutions, etc. In Thailand you have people working against democracy to institute autocratic rule like in China. Taiwan hasn't been democratic for very long, nor has the Philippines.
In many African/South American states you have the authorities trying to fix elections, have their opponents/critics silenced, etc. They are by far the most unstable countries, where democracy is threatened or a sham. Whereas if you look at a country like Ghana, which is having elections and big-wigs have so far much more respecting the principles of freedom, things are calm and people are enjoying their right to vote.
And of course if you want to cherry-pick, I can do the same by pointing to failed autocratic/dictatorial states like North Korea, Zimbabwe and so forth. Does having strong bullies in charge help them? No, it makes things worse.
As I said before, I havn't seen a single country that become prosperous because of democracy, only prosperous countries that later became really democratic.
Who said countries become prosperous because of democracy? You just made that up. All I've said is that the fact China isn't a democracy means people have few options when they're in trouble other than to riot or cause unrest.
I'd call it not being complacent.
I'd call it either being truthful or setting expectations low. But as I said, why play with what they really think and damage economic confidence?
But if the reporter tries to stretch it with his own imagination like it'll lead to mass unrest
What would you define as mass unrest? It isn't necessarily the same as what other people think.
Too bad if it's expensive whether in terms of time/effort/finance, that's what a good report requires.
Show me a collection of news reports where reporters have commissioned research (other than simple polling) for themselves. For the media to be affordable it's impossible to do that all the time.
Stick to reporting quotes only if too lazy or daft to do some research.
You're contradicting yourself. First you admit it might be expensive then you imply it's easy. Pick one or the other.
A lot of Western sources these days substitute wishful thinking for research & reports are made more to fill news space rather than due to having new substance to report.
Yeah, like non "Western" media don't do the same. Chinese media are guilty of doing that too.
Yup, I'll continue to dispute the 8% threshold & see it as nothing but an attempt to set a low 'target' for those 'wishing' for mass unrest in China until good studies backing up this claim up is presented.
Again, I'll remind you that supposedly this comes from the Chinese government. Either come down and say it has been made up by the media, or accept that it has not been artificially created/set by them.
All I can say is I hope they won't hold their breath waiting for the mass unrest or the banking crisis, as SampanViking mentioned has been 'predicted' for literally decades.
If you're talking about "decades", then people were proved right by the 1980s.
80s has more to do with hyperinflation & blind yearning for political changes like in the USSR then than low growth per se.
So hyperinflation does cause unrest but increased employment doesn't?!
I don't think you know about that period. It wasn't caused by a desire for political change, it was because of economic trouble and corruption. Because of that only political change in their eyes could resolve the problem. It wasn't because things were peachy but they thought political change would be good anyway.
Today I see inflation falling back & not only consensus that the changes in USSR then would have been disastrous for China but also unprecedented questioning of the political & economic policies in the west as well.
Oh, yes, we're just screaming for one-party rule and being locked into mental asylums whenever we have a grievance. Everything will be great if we are ruled with an iron fist!
Sure, economic policies are questioned but the same has happened in China - e.g. over the causes of the blackouts at the start of the year. It's just that where we live there is such freedom of speech that people are much more likely to speak out. Whereas in China if you disagree with the authorities you are labelled "insane".
So you see, using late 80s to gauge the risks of mass unrest in China is like a weatherman predicting rain whenever there's any clouds in the sky. Not totally wrong but seriously lacking in scientific substance.
Dear oh dear, you don't understand do you?
There is a difference between saying there WILL be mass unrest and there MIGHT be mass unrest. I don't see the majority of newspapers saying the former. You would agree, surely, that clouds indicate that rain might come, yes?
