Is China the regional power?

wdl1976 said:

But from my personal point of view, for a country to advance it cannot lose it's self identity. Which is culture preservation. Remembering where they come from and who they are. Take Japan for instance, they are able to progress but never forget who they are.

Click to expand...

Actually, Japan actually assimilated many aspects of other cultures (and technology) very readily. "Japan" does not stand for the same things it stood for 100 years ago, despite technological or political ideas that it may have integrated into its culture.

As a widely known example, it integrated Buddhism, Confucian values from China, but in a way that did not usurp the position of their Emperor. In a sense, they took only the things that they found advantageous in a culture and improved (though this is subjective) their own national culture. America as it is known today is quite different from the one that it started out with in 1776. European, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Indian etc immigrants all added their own little slice of life into the mix, but that did not decrease in any way what it meant to be American because these were all assimilated into the thinking of what it meant to be American. Now that doesn't mean that China should follow the same path, as obviously what may seem good for one group of people may not seem as good for others.

But it's just worth noting that adopting practices from other cultures that are positive isn't a bad thing.

Technologically Japan also had a tradition of adopting things that would help the country. One reason why they progressed so quickly (especially after WWII) was that they didn't see the changes as "Westernization", instead they saw it as "advancement".

Now it's arguable that aspects of American culture that are slowly becoming more mainstream are China may be detrimental to China as it is or as it wants to exist. But always keep in mind that things that "other" countries have may not always be bad, and could possibly be worth adopting.

Mainland Chinese can copy all the foreign norms they want. But the one Americanized norm that can land China and the entire world in serious trouble is the idea that everyone must have a car. I think that will seriously impact the world's fuel supplies.

China should try to bypass the car culture and into a post car culture, where you have efficient public transportation and use of alternative fuels (gasohol, biodiesel). China should look into ecology and the use of alternative fuels (heck even nuclear) as her future depends on it.

crobato said:

Mainland Chinese can copy all the foreign norms they want. But the one Americanized norm that can land China and the entire world in serious trouble is the idea that everyone must have a car. I think that will seriously impact the world's fuel supplies.

China should try to bypass the car culture and into a post car culture, where you have efficient public transportation and use of alternative fuels (gasohol, biodiesel). China should look into ecology and the use of alternative fuels (heck even nuclear) as her future depends on it.

Click to expand...

So, erm, americans can buy even more SUV and enjoy even more fossil fuels??

You know this is really an ironic sticking point. Developed countries ("The Have") wants the Developing countries ("The have not") to give up their share of resources.. why? you ever wonder?

dioditto said:

So, erm, americans can buy even more SUV and enjoy even more fossil fuels??

You know this is really an ironic sticking point. Developed countries ("The Have") wants the Developing countries ("The have not") to give up their share of resources.. why? you ever wonder?

Click to expand...

Looking at it from a different perspective, it simply makes sense to have more fuel efficient cars that require less fossil fuel, regardless of whether you are a developed or deeveloping country.

China using up its "share" of resources just for the sake of using it (via fuel guzzling SUVs) is simply stupid economically, and that's why it won't do so. This is one aspect where I disagree with the notion of, "We got ours, but you can't get yours." Not everyone WANTS to have to stop for gas 3 times on their way to work.

This is moving off-topic so I'll just be brief...

Generally speaking, from a government's point of view, private auto ownership equals tax income, versus light rail mass transit system equals cost in subsidies.

Private autos consume greater resources through individual car ownership and petro consumption. You have auto tax, license tax, petro tax, etc. The more that people consume, the more taxes the government collects.

Light rail mass transit system consume less resources and therefore produce less tax income. They're also very expensive. For example:


Cost and budget

BART's initial cost was $1.6 billion, which included both the initial system and the Transbay Tube. Adjusted for inflation, this cost would be valued at $15 billion in 2004.

In 2005, BART required nearly $300 million in subsidies after fares. About 37% of the costs went to maintenance, 29% to actual transportation operations, 24% to general administration, 8% to police services, and 4% to construction and engineering.[4]

In 2005, 53% of the budget came from fares, 32% came from taxes, and 15% came from "other sources", such as advertising, leasing station space to vendors, and parking fees.[4] BART's farebox recovery ratio of 0.53 is considered very high for a US public transit agency operating over such long distances with high frequency. It is often favorably compared to the ratio of the nearby Caltrain diesel commuter rail operation and is presented as an argument for an extension of BART all around the bay.


In short, public mass transportation are often cost liabilities. This doesn't take into account for environmental damage or time/productivity lost from people waiting in traffic in their personal autos, but that's another story for another thread.


p.s. despite its costs, I'm actually a fan of mass transportation and would support tax increases to pay for it.

dioditto said:

So, erm, americans can buy even more SUV and enjoy even more fossil fuels??

You know this is really an ironic sticking point. Developed countries ("The Have") wants the Developing countries ("The have not") to give up their share of resources.. why? you ever wonder?

Click to expand...

No. Even Americans should cut the SUV stuff and need to conserve. It is good that oil prices stay high because that will force them to rethink and reorganize their energy lifestyles. Everyone enjoyed the 90s which is a period of cheap oil.

The point is no one else should copy an American bad habit.

Its becoming more and more, even outside of the US and in Asia in particular, you have to get a big SUV to tell people you have "arrived" in your social status.

Just because if China decided to get more SUVs, that doesn't automatically mean America will reduce their buying muscle........Americans live in America and they could care less about people living across the sea whom they never see-China. Vice versa.

As for Public transportation, that should depend on your urban infrastucture. If your city is built w/ skyscrapers like those in Asia, Public Mass Rapid Transits make sense since you just go to the lobby and the bus stop or the walkway to the subway is just a couple of feet away; America is different: we have fully single houses and PMRTs are inefficient here. PMRT also requires people with good civility.
(BART, LOL, that thing is a joke!)

Back to topic. (And PLEASE keep this thread civilised. No bashing or indirectly curses are allowed!)

I am defining "region" as East Asia. South Asia is across No Man's Land and Middle East is far far away.
While Japan is economically rich, I don't find it any where close to being a regional power. Japan's military isn't capable at anything but defense. (As their law requires) and their unpopular politics have left them as what I would consider a "loner" for the region. The reason they have relations with ROK and maybe ROC is really because of America, and ROK certainly isn't giving Japan a very nice face.

Having power is having influence, and currently, America has a good deal of influence over East Asia, especially in the ROXs. Militarily, the USA got Guam, Yokosuka, Okinawa, etc, and it is effectively strangling PLAN by having good control over the Island Chain covering China's East Coast. Economically, the US is doing very well also. They have companies settled in China, and they still have a reputation as an icon. Their products are popular, and people from the region usually want to come here.

China's power is strongest in the tropics as people have mentioned. Afterall, this is the only place where their ships can go safely. And this is land where the army can conquer (I am not saying China will invade, just measuring China's military.) instead of drowning. You guys talked of the politics. The region have lots of Chinese-blood leaders also. The 2 also trade a lot. Also note that most of Chinese arms sales are here.

Wow, why is this even a topic? Of course China is regional power...

To ask "who has the most power" is nearly an unaswerable question - gosh, what kind of power are we talking about? military, economic, cultural? electrical? (Even egghead international relations theorists throw up their hands when faced with the problem of measuring power).

I think the better question to ask, is, as US military resources move out of East Asia (to concentrate in um, other parts of the world), who will move to fill the (military) power vacuum? For sure China (and the Chinese people) would like to. For sure Japan is restricted by its constitution. For sure certain Japanese politicians are attempting to change that constitution.

I'm not implying direct political conflict between Japan and China (let alone military) - right now Japan's economic recovery owes a lot (some say most) to increased exports to China, and neither wants to harm trade relations. I do think, however, that Koizumi knew what he was doing with those Yasakuni visits.

blueranger said:

To ask "who has the most power" is nearly an unaswerable question - gosh, what kind of power are we talking about? military, economic, cultural? electrical? (Even egghead international relations theorists throw up their hands when faced with the problem of measuring power).

I think the better question to ask, is, as US military resources move out of East Asia (to concentrate in um, other parts of the world), who will move to fill the (military) power vacuum? For sure China (and the Chinese people) would like to. For sure Japan is restricted by its constitution. For sure certain Japanese politicians are attempting to change that constitution.

I'm not implying direct political conflict between Japan and China (let alone military) - right now Japan's economic recovery owes a lot (some say most) to increased exports to China, and neither wants to harm trade relations. I do think, however, that Koizumi knew what he was doing with those Yasakuni visits.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean when you say that the US is moving military power out of the Far East. If anything it is moving power to the Far East. The majority of the US SSN force is now in the Pacific, as is an Ohio Class SSGN. And F-22s have been deployed to Guam, as well as B-1Bs and B-52s. Of course, the US Army has moved some troops out of Korea for Iraq but that is temporary.