Folks have been predicting this for years, when's it gonna come true? :angry:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/chinese-economy-fall-off-cliff
QuoteIs the Chinese Economy About to Fall Off a Cliff?
By John Cassidy
The Conference Board, an international economic-research organization financed by donations from large corporations, is out with a new report claiming that the Chinese economic miracle is over, and that things are about to get sticky for what is now, by some measures, the world's second-largest economy. During the next few years, China probably faces a period of turbulence and uncertainty, as well as the possibility of a serious financial crisis, the report says. And, over the long term, it will have to be content with annual G.D.P. growth of about four per cent—less than half the rate seen in recent decades.
It's not surprising that the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets have picked up on the report. Its conclusions, if they hold up, have important implications for everything from the future of the Chinese Communist Party to the price of oil to the security situation in the Far East. But how plausible are they?
Some things we know for sure. The Chinese economy, after growing at an average annual rate of about ten per cent between 1993 and 2011, is already slowing down. This year, G.D.P. growth is expected to be about seven per cent. By Western standards, that's a very rapid rate of expansion: recent estimates peg the long-term growth potential of the U.S. economy at about 2.5 per cent a year, or even less. The Chinese government, which helped engineer the recent slowdown by restricting the supply of credit (for reasons I'll get to in a moment), would be delighted to see seven per cent growth continue indefinitely. If such a rate could be sustained for the next ten years, the Chinese economy would once again double in size, and it would overtake the U.S. economy as the world's biggest. (In terms of domestic purchasing power, this may already have happened. Earlier this month, the Financial Times, citing data from the International Monetary Fund, reported that China's G.D.P., when it is adjusted for the fact that the prices of many things are considerably lower there, is already slightly bigger than American G.D.P.)
But can Chinese policymakers pull it off? They face two separate challenges. Right now, the task is to slow things down without precipitating a property crash and a banking crisis. After a period in which the amount of credit being extended has grown much faster than G.D.P., and in which property bubbles have emerged in some cities, this won't necessarily be easy. The second challenge is to make the transition from one growth model to another—from expansion fed by the country's resources, and by heavy investment in industry and the recruitment of hundreds of millions of workers from rural areas, to growth that relies more on innovation, increased productivity, and consumer spending. The authors of the Conference Board report, David Hoffman and Andrew Polk, argue that the China optimists have underestimated both of these tasks. "In the short term (i.e., the next two or three years), we have difficulty seeing anything but a rocky and turbulent adjustment," the report says. And it goes on: "The full transition of China's economic growth model is likely to be a long slog as it presents many challenges: political, economic, social, and even cultural."
I find it hard to argue with the first conclusion. The report shows just how reliant China has become on credit growth, particularly on bank loans to property developers and other businesses. "Private sector debt, now at almost 200 percent of GDP and up from 117 percent at the end of 2009, is still accruing at 15 percentage points per year," the authors note. This pace of credit creation is unprecedented for China, and the result has been over-all debt levels that are now "well in excess of the thresholds that have historically triggered financial crises in other countries."
If China were a fully capitalist economy, the outcome would be eminently predictable: a 2008-style "Minsky moment" in which something bad happens, creditors panic, new lending dries up, and a crash ensues. China would join the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Argentina, Mexico, and a long list of other countries that have experienced credit binges that ended badly.
The complicating factor is that China, despite all its reforms, is still a country where the government controls large segments of the economy, including much of the financial sector. If there's a crisis, optimists say, the government will step in and rescue lenders, writing off many of their bad loans. And the fact that people are aware of this will help prevent a crisis in the first place. (When depositors and investors know there's a safety net in place, there's less incentive for a bank run.) "Even if a huge swathe of loans go bad, the consequence is unlikely to be a Lehman-style financial collapse," the editors of The Economist argue in this week's issue. "For that, thank the Chinese regime's vice-like grip on its financial system."
The Conference Board analysts aren't reassured. They argue that, as the rate of economic growth falls and bad debts pile up, there may well be too many stricken lenders for the state to rescue. And, even if the government does step in, the economic consequences will be severe. "While it is difficult to determine with precision when the breakpoint will be reached ... a major deleveraging must occur at some point—it cannot be forestalled forever," the report says. "Nor can China grow out of the problem. Anticipated nominal GDP growth comes nowhere close to being able to service the debt that has been accumulated since 2009. Something's got to give."
It shouldn't be very long before we know which side in this debate is right. However, it could be decades before we know whether China has succeeded in adopting a new growth model. The pessimism that runs through the report is based on two questionable assertions: that China has already exhausted much of its potential for "catch-up" growth—the sort that comes from getting a late start in industrializing—and that its Communist government is incapable of introducing productivity-enhancing reforms.
Even after all the progress China has made, it isn't a rich country. According to World Bank data, its per-capita G.D.P. in 2013 was $6,807, which puts it on about the same level as Iraq and South Africa. By comparison, per-capita G.D.P. in the United States was $53,143; in South Korea, it was $25,977. Looking at the experience of South Korea and other "Asian tiger" economies, there is no obvious reason for the rate of economic growth to slow down dramatically at the income level China has reached. Unless, of course, the government puts a wrench in things.
That's what the report says is likely to happen. The Communist regime is so tied up in the current system, it argues, that it won't be able to introduce necessary changes. Rather than dealing with the debt problem, modernizing the tax system to encourage consumption, and promoting competition, the government will stall and stall, "because of the impact reforms would necessarily have on the business interests and financial fortunes of elites and their families across all levels of government in China."
This is a powerful argument: if you run a state-owned bank in a provincial Chinese city and your brother is the biggest real-estate developer in town, you may well be reluctant to refuse him a loan. But the report may push the critique too far. In addition to corrupt local officials, the Chinese Communist Party contains plenty of highly educated technocrats who are devoted to expanding the country's power and influence, and they aren't just sitting on their hands. Credit has been tightened, the value of the currency has been allowed to rise modestly, and a vigorous anti-corruption campaign has been launched. The reforms haven't gone far enough, but they can't be wholly dismissed.
China shouldn't be underestimated. Whatever one thinks of the authoritarian state-capitalism model, its success in building industries from scratch cannot be denied—and I'm not just talking about low-value-added activities, such as manufacturing clothing and assembling electronic devices. In inviting foreign companies to operate in China only if they did so in partnership with local companies, Beijing helped lay a basis for industries that now produce everything from automobiles to electric power to commercial aircraft to high-resolution liquid-crystal displays. These new industries provide plenty of avenues for raising productivity. China is already the world's biggest purchaser of industrial robots, for example, outpacing both Germany and Japan.
Rather than focussing on China's record of success, Hoffman and Polk emphasize over-investment, cronyism, and discrimination against foreign competitors. "Local champion firms now span all sectors, from industrials to consumer to services," the report laments. "They enjoy opaque, non-market competitive advantages that serve to smother the real private sector and its dynamism. In many sectors, these firms have emerged as the chief competitors for MNCs." ("MNCs" stands for "multinational companies," such as General Electric, Monsanto, and Intel, all of which happen to be financial supporters of the Conference Board.)
If you speak to senior executives from some of the big firms that have set up operations in China, they will tell you, off the record, that China's success was built in part on the theft of their intellectual property. If that's true, it's pretty similar to what American textiles manufacturers did to British market leaders during the early nineteenth century. The jackdaw strategy worked for the Americans then, and it has worked for the Chinese over the past twenty years; but it's only part of the story. In addition to bringing in Western expertise, the Chinese invested heavily in infrastructure and education, particularly scientific education. This strategy provided a platform for rapid growth which, once China gets through its current problems, could well prove more durable than the Conference Board report acknowledges. But it's an interesting and provocative study.
These predictions appear multiple times every year. They have yet to come true.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 08:36:58 AM
These predictions appear multiple times every year. They have yet to come true.
But when they finally do, all those people sure are going to be smug.
Hope they can hold on for another few years so at least other economies will be on steadier ground and not be affected so much.
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2014, 01:26:48 PM
Hope they can hold on for another few years so at least other economies will be on steadier ground and not be affected so much.
If the Chinese Economy collapsed it would be disastrous for everybody.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 08:36:58 AM
These predictions appear multiple times every year. They have yet to come true.
I use the same line of thought to convince myself that I'm immortal. Everyone who has ever died was not me, so if this trend continues I should be fine.
China clearly has a property bubble, but as far as I can tell it's not financed by lending. I don't see how bursting the bubble would fuck up their financial system.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 02, 2014, 07:04:01 AM
Folks have been predicting this for years, when's it gonna come true? :angry:
Hopefully never. They should slowly transition into slower, sustainable growth and the world will benefit.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2014, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 02, 2014, 07:04:01 AM
Folks have been predicting this for years, when's it gonna come true? :angry:
Hopefully never. They should slowly transition into slower, sustainable growth and the world will benefit.
Yep.
It is slowing; there is no question about that.
At the same time population growth is also slowing and will soon likely hit a steady state and eventual decline. The "demographic dividend" of young workers is coming to a close, earlier than historically typical in other development situations, b/c of the uniqueness of the One Child policy. So that will impact on growth rates.
Perspective is useful here - China is still over 7 percent and even if it falls under that it is very strong growth on an absolute and per capita basis. It only looks weak from the perspective of their recent extraordinary run.
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
State control of the economy should prevail, but it's China, so hard to say.
Forget it, Ide.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
That's a tall order. I'd say yeah they are on a cliff. They have been for some time, and they may be for some time yet. More and more risk keeps piling up, but we all know that can last a while. Raz pretty much has it right here.
If their economy is indeed about to fall off a cliff I'm sure Seedy will volunteer to push it.
Push it real good?
If they think they are about to, at least they have the kind of government that can take logical measures to prevent it.
We'd just bicker through the collapse. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2014, 05:45:24 PM
If they think they are about to, at least they have the kind of government that can take logical measures to prevent it.
Not necessarily. Cutting unprofitable SOEs off from the finance teat could impose more employment disruption than the government is willing to stomach.
Except they can just roll over the disgruntled unemployed with tanks. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
Efficiency = Fragility
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
I'm not too sure that what works for a couple city-states will work for the most populous nation on Earth. There's already quite a big development and wealth gap between regions.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
Wait Hong Kong has no Democracy at all? I thought you could vote for candidates your Imperial Masters picked for you.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
Wait Hong Kong has no Democracy at all? I thought you could vote for candidates your Imperial Masters picked for you.
It is complicated.
The legislative council has 70 seats. Half are directly elected, just like the western way. No restrictions at all. The other half are "functional constituencies". Basically, special interest groups. All the teachers elect one legislator. All the accountants elect one. The doctors, lawyers etc each get one. The banks get one. The "natives" get one. Etc. Each half can veto the other half's ideas. The design is, control half the functional constituencies, and you block all legislation proposed by the entire populace. The government is not subject to these restrictions, i.e. a simple majority of the 70 will do. Also, legislators in HK cannot propose any spending. So they can't approve a spending bill for a retirement scheme. Only the government can propose any spending, and as long as the government steadfastly refuses to propose a retirement scheme, they won't get one, even if all 70 members are for the idea. This guards against a welfare state.
For the Chief Executive, currently a 1,200 member committee elects one. The proposal on the table offered by Beijing is that this committee will become a vetting committee for nominees. Candidates approved by half the committee will be able to stand for election by the population in 2017. The current riots are about this arrangement.
Quote from: celedhring on November 02, 2014, 07:20:37 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
I'm not too sure that what works for a couple city-states will work for the most populous nation on Earth. There's already quite a big development and wealth gap between regions.
They agree with you, actually. So right now they prefer the status quo :lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:55:07 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 02, 2014, 07:20:37 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
I'm not too sure that what works for a couple city-states will work for the most populous nation on Earth. There's already quite a big development and wealth gap between regions.
They agree with you, actually. So right now they prefer the status quo :lol:
Status quo can't last forever. All societies change and evolve over time and the harder one clings to the status quo the more jarring and unnatural the break.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2014, 01:40:57 AM
Status quo can't last forever. All societies change and evolve over time and the harder one clings to the status quo the more jarring and unnatural the break.
There have been huge changes in Chinese society in the past few decades, not only in terms of economic development but in governance as well. Of course, they still have a long way to go, but they've made progress. It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
It is complicated.
The legislative council has 70 seats. Half are directly elected, just like the western way. No restrictions at all. The other half are "functional constituencies". Basically, special interest groups. All the teachers elect one legislator. All the accountants elect one. The doctors, lawyers etc each get one. The banks get one. The "natives" get one. Etc. Each half can veto the other half's ideas. The design is, control half the functional constituencies, and you block all legislation proposed by the entire populace. The government is not subject to these restrictions, i.e. a simple majority of the 70 will do. Also, legislators in HK cannot propose any spending. So they can't approve a spending bill for a retirement scheme. Only the government can propose any spending, and as long as the government steadfastly refuses to propose a retirement scheme, they won't get one, even if all 70 members are for the idea. This guards against a welfare state.
For the Chief Executive, currently a 1,200 member committee elects one. The proposal on the table offered by Beijing is that this committee will become a vetting committee for nominees. Candidates approved by half the committee will be able to stand for election by the population in 2017. The current riots are about this arrangement.
So in other words, you've got British-style parliament (thinking mostly of the House of Commons vs. House of Lords). You went more British after Britain gave you up. :P
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 07:42:32 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
Wait Hong Kong has no Democracy at all? I thought you could vote for candidates your Imperial Masters picked for you.
It is complicated.
The legislative council has 70 seats. Half are directly elected, just like the western way. No restrictions at all. The other half are "functional constituencies". Basically, special interest groups. All the teachers elect one legislator. All the accountants elect one. The doctors, lawyers etc each get one. The banks get one. The "natives" get one. Etc. Each half can veto the other half's ideas. The design is, control half the functional constituencies, and you block all legislation proposed by the entire populace. The government is not subject to these restrictions, i.e. a simple majority of the 70 will do. Also, legislators in HK cannot propose any spending. So they can't approve a spending bill for a retirement scheme. Only the government can propose any spending, and as long as the government steadfastly refuses to propose a retirement scheme, they won't get one, even if all 70 members are for the idea. This guards against a welfare state.
Yeah, the last thing you'd want in a communist country is a welfare state.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 06:35:20 AM
It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.
Mono is: Chairman Lmao.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2014, 09:11:53 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 06:35:20 AM
It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.
Mono is: Chairman Lmao.
:lmfao:
Malthus been saying the Chinese is about to fall for the last 10 years.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 01:32:48 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 08:36:58 AM
These predictions appear multiple times every year. They have yet to come true.
I use the same line of thought to convince myself that I'm immortal. Everyone who has ever died was not me, so if this trend continues I should be fine.
I want to live to be 100 years old so I'll be immortal, because as George Burns the wise comedian used to say, very few people die over the age of 100.. ;)
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2014, 09:42:55 AM
Malthus been saying the Chinese is about to fall for the last 10 years.
Huh? I've never expressed any opinion on the matter, far as I can remember.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 06:35:20 AMThere have been huge changes in Chinese society in the past few decades, not only in terms of economic development but in governance as well. Of course, they still have a long way to go, but they've made progress. It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.
met a beijing native the other night who supported republicanism. he wanted a two-party system like the united states. he wasn't some liberal arts major, either -- aviation student employed by air china.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 03, 2014, 10:53:22 AM
met a beijing native the other night who supported republicanism. he wanted a two-party system like the united states. he wasn't some liberal arts major, either -- aviation student employed by air china.
Did you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 11:50:03 AMDid you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?
i used republicanism because (1) the student said he wanted a republican form of government, like the US; (2) republicanism is a fine way to characterize US style democracy regardless of any specific definition different groups may have for it; and (3) the US was founded on republican ideals
They already have a republican form of government. :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 12:27:01 PM
They already have a republican form of government. :nerd:
Yeah, exactly.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 03, 2014, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 11:50:03 AMDid you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?
i used republicanism because (1) the student said he wanted a republican form of government, like the US;
So an ESL mistake. Fair enough.
Quote from: lacroix(2) republicanism is a fine way to characterize US style democracy regardless of any specific definition different groups may have for it;
Well, the actual definition is:
Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic (la. res publica), where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.Though I have noted attempts to redefine it to mean "the way government works in the US" on occasion. Presumably because some low-information GOP types resent the "democracy-Democrats" connection, and would rather live in a place where the system of government shares a name with their party of choice.
Quote from: lacroix(3) the US was founded on republican ideals
As was the People's Republic of China.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2014, 07:08:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
The real question is how far away is China from the development level that historically is inconsistent with non-inclusive and representative institutions, and will they somehow be able to get around it.
They want the Singaporean/Hong Kong model. Efficient administration and no democracy.
We discussed this on the other thread but there are other big differences between PRC (mainland) and HK other than the lack of electoral franchise for the highest leadership positions. HK has a charter of freedoms, a powerful independent judiciary, an honest and neutral civil service, all with many years of historical experience. Singapore is weaker on civil liberties but has real rule of law and an efficient autonomous civil service. Singapore has real elections - sure the system is strongly tiltled against the opposition but the PAP keeps losing support and if the trend continues the opposition will eventually break through.
PRC still has a long way to go to get to where Singapore and HK are now and while the rhetoric is there about rule of law, the reality isn't. The Party doesn't accecpt or understand the concept of judicial independence, and Xi's corruption drive is IMO ultimately counter-productive, treating the symptom rather the causes. Any anti-corruption effort in a one-party state without an autonomous civil service ultimately will reduce to factional score-settling. The victims may be truly guilty, but the prosecution is selective which undermines the point.
I don't know if the rhetoric is even there on the rule of law. I seem to recall "the rule of law" being put on the black list a few years back, as it was apparently used as a disguise for anti-government activities and troublemaking.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 06:35:20 AM
There have been huge changes in Chinese society in the past few decades, not only in terms of economic development but in governance as well. Of course, they still have a long way to go, but they've made progress. It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.
All true.
It's also true that for the last 35 years you would have lost a lot of money betting against the Party.
But developmentally it seems PRC is getting close to hitting the Roh line (or whatever you want to call it). The ability to improvise and adapt has been extremely impressive but perhaps too much so - having grown so far so quickly, the PRC may have economically outpaced the groth of its institutional capacity for further development - time is short and they are running out of runway.
Quote from: Siege on November 03, 2014, 09:42:55 AM
Malthus been saying the Chinese is about to fall for the last 10 years.
Wrong Jewish lawyer.
I gave a 50-50 on a financial collapse around the time of the first big NPL crisis.
Got it wrong. Well, half wrong.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 12:39:42 PMQuote from: lacroix(2) republicanism is a fine way to characterize US style democracy regardless of any specific definition different groups may have for it;
Well, the actual definition is:
Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic (la. res publica), where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.
Though I have noted attempts to redefine it to mean "the way government works in the US" on occasion. Presumably because some low-information GOP types resent the "democracy-Democrats" connection, and would rather live in a place where the system of government shares a name with their party of choice.
Quote from: lacroix(3) the US was founded on republican ideals
As was the People's Republic of China.
your definition is from wikipedia. you may use wikipedia's definition as your "actual definition," but i don't find it persuasive. GOP has nothing to do with this conversation.
there is a definition of republican government that fits the china or USSR model, correct. however, in common discussion at a bar, when one person says a word that technically has multiple definitions, the common definition known to both parties is applied. if you want a smoking buddy, you don't walk up to someone and ask if he wants to go out back and suck on a fag.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 03, 2014, 12:58:49 PM
your definition is from wikipedia. you may use wikipedia's definition as your "actual definition," but i don't find it persuasive. GOP has nothing to do with this conversation.
Yeah, Wikipedia reflects the actual definition. Here's Merriam-Webster:
Quote from: Merriam-WebsterREPUBLICAN
: of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S.
: relating to or based on a form of government in which representatives are elected and there is no king or queen
REPUBLIC
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a republic
: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
Oxford Dictionary:
Quote from: OxfordREPUBLICAN
(Of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to or characteristic of a republic:
REPUBLIC
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Nowhere does it mention a subset of democracy that happens to fit the US set-up.
Quote from: LaCroixthere is a definition of republican government that fits the china or USSR model, correct.
That is
the definition, outside of one that's apparently evolving presently in certain sections of the US.
Quote from: LaCroixhowever, in common discussion at a bar, when one person says a word that technically has multiple definitions, the common definition known to both parties is applied. if you want a smoking buddy, you don't walk up to someone and ask if he wants to go out back and suck on a fag.
There are not "technically multiple definitions." There's the actual long-standing definition that is reflected in dictionaries and political science courses, and there is the new definition that has started showing up in certain local US contexts in the last decade or so. It may have nothing to do with the GOP, but in my observation the term is only used the way you and your Beijing friend uses it by right-leaning Americans and the people who take instruction from them.
Usually, it shows up when someone argues that a certain political process or policy is undemocratic and the counter argument is that that's not a problem, because "the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY."
Of course, English definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so if you keep at it for a while maybe it'll become more than a localized definition.
china's form of government fits under some of those definitions but not all of them.
you claim there is one single definition, yet you cite two authorities that show there is more than one definition.
even if the oxford definition was the sole definition, there are different ways to construe that definition that in essence morphs it into several definitions. as one example, some people will construe "people" in a narrow sense, others will construe it broadly. if you believe republicanism has a single definition since its inception, then you are incorrect.
i consider myself left-leaning, and i vote for the democrat party in the US. i don't take instruction from the GOP.
One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 03, 2014, 01:53:44 PM
china's form of government fits under some of those definitions but not all of them.
you claim there is one single definition, yet you cite two authorities that show there is more than one definition.
even if the oxford definition was the sole definition, there are different ways to construe that definition that in essence morphs it into several definitions. as one example, some people will construe "people" in a narrow sense, others will construe it broadly. if you believe republicanism has a single definition since its inception, then you are incorrect.
I believe that the right-wing-talkshow-sphere definition of "republic" that posits the US as a "republic" distinct from a "democracy" is a load of hogwash. That is all.
Quotei consider myself left-leaning, and i vote for the democrat party in the US. i don't take instruction from the GOP.
But you adopt their talking points :console:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 02:05:38 PM
One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.
They all get better jobs with the oil companies, so none are left for anyone else except at sky-high prices. Similar to the housing, in some ways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 02:05:38 PM
One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.
They need a capitol first.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 02:06:18 PMI believe that the right-wing-talkshow-sphere definition of "republic" that posits the US as a "republic" distinct from a "democracy" is a load of hogwash. That is all.
But you adopt their talking points :console:
for the sake of the argument, let's assume right-wing-talkshows do not believe the US is a democracy.
i believe the US government fits under a definition of democracy and a definition of republic. if the US wasn't a republic, the government would be in violation of the constitution.
therefore, because i disagree with right-wing-talkshows, then i cannot adopt their talking points.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 02:05:38 PM
One would think with the fracking boom North Dakota could afford some capital letters now.
i have to wait until next summer before i start making oil money. :(
Quote from: LaCroix on November 03, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
US government fits under a definition of democracy and a definition of republic. if the US wasn't a republic, the government would be in violation of the constitution.
Yeah, the US is a democracy and it's a republic. No argument there.
Quotetherefore, because i disagree with right-wing-talkshows, then i cannot adopt their talking points.
Well... you could have been bamboozled, but I think this line of conversation has kind of run its course at this point.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 12:44:32 PM
I don't know if the rhetoric is even there on the rule of law. I seem to recall "the rule of law" being put on the black list a few years back, as it was apparently used as a disguise for anti-government activities and troublemaking.
The rule of law is trendy now on the mainland. This was the phrase most used in the official announcements after the conclusion of the 4th Central Committee meeting a few weeks ago. Of course, when they say "rule of law", they really mean "we'll use legal means to rule over the population" rather than "we'll restrict our powers as written in the law".
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 12:44:32 PM
I don't know if the rhetoric is even there on the rule of law. I seem to recall "the rule of law" being put on the black list a few years back, as it was apparently used as a disguise for anti-government activities and troublemaking.
The rule of law is trendy now on the mainland. This was the phrase most used in the official announcements after the conclusion of the 4th Central Committee meeting a few weeks ago. Of course, when they say "rule of law", they really mean "we'll use legal means to rule over the population" rather than "we'll restrict our powers as written in the law".
It's back in vogue, is it?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2014, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 06:35:20 AM
There have been huge changes in Chinese society in the past few decades, not only in terms of economic development but in governance as well. Of course, they still have a long way to go, but they've made progress. It will be interesting to see if they can continue to improve government accountability without adopting representative government of some form.
All true.
It's also true that for the last 35 years you would have lost a lot of money betting against the Party.
But developmentally it seems PRC is getting close to hitting the Roh line (or whatever you want to call it). The ability to improvise and adapt has been extremely impressive but perhaps too much so - having grown so far so quickly, the PRC may have economically outpaced the groth of its institutional capacity for further development - time is short and they are running out of runway.
There is some talk about "administrative reform", since political reforms are out of the question. Things like make the courts more independent in civil cases, make it easier for the population to get government permits (it is a nightmare now).
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 07:45:15 PM
There is some talk about "administrative reform", since political reforms are out of the question. Things like make the courts more independent in civil cases, make it easier for the population to get government permits (it is a nightmare now).
What do you mean it's a nightmare to get government permits? It's easy enough. You just have to know the right person and pay them a suitable fee.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 07:46:56 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 07:45:15 PM
There is some talk about "administrative reform", since political reforms are out of the question. Things like make the courts more independent in civil cases, make it easier for the population to get government permits (it is a nightmare now).
What do you mean it's a nightmare to get government permits? It's easy enough. You just have to know the right person and pay them a suitable fee.
:lol:
I remember a few months back, a representative in the People's Congress made a chart about the kinds of permits that a normal person would need to get in the course of his life, and the names of the government departments involved. You need a permit for everything including having a baby, buying a house, moving to another place etc and each permit requires multiple approvals from different bureaucracies. That chart is like a huge banner and it made an impression.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 03, 2014, 10:53:22 AM
met a beijing native the other night who supported republicanism. he wanted a two-party system like the united states. he wasn't some liberal arts major, either -- aviation student employed by air china.
Did you just unironically use "republicanism" to describe US style democracy?
The Constitution specifically requires the states to have Republican forms of government.
Does the UK have a republican form of government? My understanding is - no.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 09:15:28 PM
Does the UK have a republican form of government? My understanding is - no.
By definition a monarchy, even a constitutional one, is not a republic.
They don't even have a constitution.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 09:15:28 PM
Does the UK have a republican form of government? My understanding is - no.
Correct. They are a theocratic absolute monarchy in theory.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2014, 09:39:41 PM
They don't even have a constitution.
This isn't remotely correct. The UK has a constitution.
It just isn't a written constitution.
Quote from: Barrister on November 04, 2014, 12:42:28 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2014, 09:39:41 PM
They don't even have a constitution.
This isn't remotely correct. The UK has a constitution.
It just isn't a written constitution.
Hahahahaha. Good one.
Inside joke? :hmm:
It have a degree in medicine. Not a written degree, mind you.
As an European, our view of what a Republic is, is that it is a State that is not led by a Monarch (King/Queen or Emperor), nor by Priests (that's a Theocracy).
The other forms are "republican".
Now, what there are is different types of Republics, with many variants. China and the US are both Republics, but otherwise have different systems of government.
(and there are also some big differences between the US and Western European Republics, too).
Of course, the United Kingdom is NOT a Republic. It is democratic, but certainly not Republican.
I could say here that one of the main differences is that the US is a Representative Republic and China is a one-party totalitarian republic, but my dealings with China have been making me doubt the 'totalitarian' part that theoretically exist.
I mean, most people don't even realize the amount of Free Press China has. Which was a surprise for me, and I've argued a LOT with said Free Press, which seems to just see faults in everything the Chinese government does. It reached the point where I actually asked the state officials that were with me if those reporters should not be arrested, to which they said 'of course not', to my utter dismay :huh:
Also, people there seem rather free to say a lot of things. While many in the streets prefer not to talk about politics (even though far more than I'd like do), in political echelons there seems to be little problem in smiling and leaving pretty damn clear that the chinese authorities no longer really believe that the country is Socialist, even though the actual words in that sense are not said. You can certainly speak more freely about many things without being arrested than in most PC-countries in Western Europe, that's for sure.
Anyway, enough ranting. Case in point: the Chinese Enconomy.
Although slowing, the signs of collapse are simply not there (Beijing always made sure it had enough cash reserves to bail out all of its banks if needs be), and one must, while talking about this, bear in mind that Russia caved in and signed this year a deal to supply oil and gas to China at a price far lower than East Asian nations usually pay. The ducts are being installed (the major oil one is already operating), and the whole set-up will be up and going by 2018.
The access to cheaper energy should then give a rather large boost to Chinese economic growth (I believe some US politicians have referred to the Western sanctions on Russia as the 'China Recovery Act'), and if anything I expect Chinese growth to increase noticeably after 2018.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2014, 09:09:11 PMThe Constitution specifically requires the states to have Republican forms of government.
And what are the characteristics of a Republican form of government?
MSil, you crazy! :lol:
Quote from: Martim Silva on November 04, 2014, 08:46:11 AM
It reached the point where I actually asked the state officials that were with me if those reporters should not be arrested, to which they said 'of course not', to my utter dismay :huh:
Take out a restraining order if the paparazzi are bothering you too much.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 09:32:37 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2014, 09:15:28 PM
Does the UK have a republican form of government? My understanding is - no.
By definition a monarchy, even a constitutional one, is not a republic.
Poland. :mad:
UK constitution is not codified but it can be found in writing - lots of House of Lords decisions and the like.
What differentiates "the constitution" from the greater body of law in the UK?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 12:40:18 PM
What differentiates "the constitution" from the greater body of law in the UK?
The UK constitution can be found in a number of statutes, conventions and legal decisions interpreting them. That body of law is different from the general law in that it deals specifically with how the realm is governed - ie the Westminster Parliamentary system.
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2014, 10:42:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2014, 09:09:11 PMThe Constitution specifically requires the states to have Republican forms of government.
And what are the characteristics of a Republican form of government?
For the intents of the writers of the constitution, it seems that sovereignty of the people, with elected representatives, was enough. Not all republics feature the sovereignty of the people, of course; China is a case in point. In the sense used in the Peoples' Republic of China, republic just means "not a monarchy nor a theocracy."