Europe is poor so should live within its means

Wibbs

megafan wrote: »

Europe has little in the way of natural resources

Where does this stuff come from? Take Germany. One of the highest deposits of coal in the world. Right up there with Iron and other ores too. Ditto for the Scandinavian countries. Hell we in Ireland have the largest zinc production in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, from just one mine(Tara). No slouches on the lead front either. That's just three nations and we have Russia on our doorstep and their natural resources are off the scale. Seriously I'd love to know where these facts opinions spring from?

Yahew

Wibbs wrote: »

They have the largest underclass on the planet and that divide is growing.

I don't see it as an underclass. Obviously when a middle class is growing it "leaves behind" the people not making it, until they make it. You are, I think, using the term underclass incorrectly. The Western underclass is a permanent non-working class, which is on benefits. The Chinese peasant class is a class which can supply the working class in the future.

While I agree 100% that Europe has to start making more stuff, we already do make quite a bit of stuff already. Plus on the R&D front Europe knocks China into a cocked hat. Europe(and the US) aren't all just working the stock market.

R&D is pointless in terms of job or income growth unless it leads to manufacture.

You need to read far more on this ethnic cohesion you speak of.

Heres a wikipedia link on the ethnic composition of China.


China's ethnic composition is largely homogeneous with 91.9% of the population being Han Chinese, other ethnicities are Mongols, Zhuang, Miao, Hui, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Koreans.[16]

No doubt. Canada and the UK pissed off Twain to much the same degree. Important difference to today however.Local publishing copyright had existed to some degree or other since soon after the indroduction of the printing press(and before. See Columbanus getting it in the neck from an Irish king for breaking it "To every cow its calf and to every book its copy"), However internationally agreed publishing copyright is a much more recent invention and set of agreements. Ditto for international patent law. Your example was operating in a very different world, but when that world changed they adhered to the new order. That made them grow even faster. Look at the US gun industry of the 19th century. A better example when it comes to patent protections. There were "gentlemens agreements" between the major names. Compare that to the current and recent Chinese way of doing things. The headlong race to the bottom.Which with respect again shows some ignorance of these things. The aforementioned firearms industry changed high volume manufacturing for the better. That's just one example of American innovation in the 19th century. There are others. Major innovations in railroads(ironically with cheap Chinese labour), clock and watchmaking, textiles, industrial chemistry etc. They innovated all over the place.

You seem to be claiming, once again, the Chinese can't innovate. I don't agree. When they start innovating more they will adhere more to copy right. The Americans warmed to copyright when it benefited them. The "race to the bottom" is not true, either, China has grown its per capita GDP 10 times in the last few decades.

The only real difference is the time frame. Economies seek to make that time frame as long as possible. The faster an economy expands the more likely it will burst from over pressure(internally or externally) If the rest of the world goes back to growth it's likely it'll be somewhat at their expense.

No it won't, as the rest of the world are the consumers of Chinese products. As we have agreed.

Are you serious? Watch as that section starts to get very "uppity" in the next few years. It's already started, even with the state's control on the media, word is getting out of protest even riots in the hinterland.

Sure people protest, but they are not going back to communism. The 19th century "spectre hanging over Europe" does not hang over China since they are already communist, nominally. The "worst" that can happen ( and the best) is a more democratic revolution, or an anti-corruption drive.

Then we have their neighbours. China is not rising in a vacuum. Others in that region are also rising and arguably from a much stronger base, both politically and culturally. They'll be only too quick to compete with China.

Nobody is saying they are in a vacumn. Just that they have 1.2 billion more people than their nearest competitors.

Then we have the Chinese demographics problem that will get worse rather than better. A problem that seems quite under the radar of many.

It doesn't exist at the moment, where the momentum keeps the population growing, the future drop in Chinese population will make them richer but they still have that peasant class ( your "underclass") to make rich first. Its not an issue.

According to their own latest census of 2010, their population is aging and aging fast and fertility is one of the lowest in the world. The UN has even questioned those figures and reckons on books are being cooked. The problem is likely worse.

Not sure why this is even a problem for a country with

1) Massive supply of labour which can be moved to the more productive cities over time.
2) No transfers to the old in terms of old age pensions.

You are applying the European system to China. The problem with demographics where there are too many old people is the dependancy ratio, they don't have one as they don't transfer. At least the State doesn't.

Up to now, their demographic economic base has reached it's peak and now it's waning. And fast. In 2009 ages 19 - 25 were at an all time peak of 100million, by 2019 on official figures this will have halved. Yep halved. This will affect their industrial labour base as the decline hits new entrants into the workforce. The very same workforce that fueled this 'miracle'.

This will just mean that more peasants will flock to the cities as the cities need to compete with higher wages.

One of the biggest drivers of the Chinese tiger economy has been it's demographics. It was a stroke of good fortune that China had a growing young and cheap workforce just as it's economy started to grow. This is changing and changing fast. When labour, never mind skilled labour becomes rarer, it becomes a commodity and that commodity costs. Look at what happened to Europe after the plague years. The cheap peasant labour force declined and caused upheaval across the social and cultural landscape. Nations/economies ignore significant demographic shifts at their peril.

Once again the fact that 500 M people have yet to be brought into the modern capitalist ( or corporatist) economic system escapes you. You see it this surplus a bad, I see it as a labour surplus.

[aside]I would argue that one of the rarely mentioned significant factors in the Irish bubble was demographic in nature. We had a "baby boom" between the late 60's and mid 70's. That population needed an enlarged infrastructure, services and housing by the late 90's. So we built them and they came and kept coming until the numbers ran out. It was obvious to me at least. I even mentioned it here about four years ago(to slight derision). Watch us have another building boom/rise in house prices in 20 years time as their 2.5 kids come to maturity. [/aside]

That's a piece of sense, but unrelated to China.

This change will also affect the number of Chinese graduates. This has already started to happen. In 2008 the number of students enrolling dropped by 400,000, by 2010 it had dropped by nearly a million.

They need, then to allow more peasants in, or increase the second level availability.

Then look at the younger generation of Chinese. The workers of 20 years hence. Their primary school entrance figures dropped by over a third between the late 90's and mid naughties. In 1990 China had over three quarters of a million primary schools, by 2009 that had shrunk to 300,000. These are serious drops that show a serious trend coming, indeed happening as we speak. Your idea that the hinterlands will supply more workers in the event the rich cities inhabitants get uppity is quite simply wrong. The numbers don't add up. You can build factories and they will come and they did, but the day is looming when they may have "ghost" factories the way we had ghost estates.

The numbers do add up. There are 500M or so peasants yet to be moved to the cities, thats a generational event. If the Chinese were worried about this they would just remove the one child policy. I expect they will do that in a few years, and just as the rural population is saturated

Then we have the gender ratio shift which is also increasing. From 110 boys to girls in 2008 to 119 in 2010(20 million plus Chinese men will be in trouble looking for wives and families, which will hit the population in other ways).

They might pick up Western girls. There is no much evidence of this imbalance causing any trouble, it is merely theoretical that might.

Never mind the other end of life where the elderly demographic is rising equally rapidly. Who will pay for them?

Their families. Not the State.

These are pretty big shocks to the system coming down the line. NO economy in history has survived such a demographic change without problems, including serious ones.

Your entire premise is based on labelling a highly mobile and hard working peasant population which can move to the cities as an "underclass" to over-egg the demographic problem which doesn't exist.

Unlike Europe, where the demography does matter. Europe is not just in economic decline but in massive demographic decline too - many places with lower fertility than China - and with massive transfers to people over 65. People who on average now live 20+ years, and trending - for women - towards 25 years. That affects the dependancy ratio, not so much in China.

You mention America in the 19th century and compare it to China today. Loosely of course I understand you're using it as a loose comparison. Look at the demographics of the US back then. They had a quickly growing population. Growing populations feed economies. When they decline or shift those economies become shaky. You can damn near plot it on a graph. On this demographics front India is in a far better position and IMHO that's more likely to see a new 'tiger' economy.

The China that is growing is the capitalist/corporatist part. Some if it is still communist, and has State farms, or small holdings. You can see the movement of Chinese from rural areas to cities ( and they need visas to do this) as a movement of peasants to factories similar to the movement of Europeans to the US.

Growing populations are not the be-all and end-all of economic growth either, India is growing but so is Nigeria. So is Ethiopia. So is liberia. India has far more problems ( manifest in its per capita being much lower than China now though they started reforms at about the same time). Real ethnic, and sectarian, and caste differences. And over population. When china is rich, India will be poor( er) at 2 billion people.

Actually Ireland could be well placed in Europe on this score. We've one of the highest fertility rates in the EU(if not the highest). If we educate that population growth and foster it well we could be onto a winner in the next couple of decades. Big if mind you considering the narrow mindedness and sheer bloody idiocy of too many of our political class. I'm not holding my breath anyway.

We could do well, the recent immigration was of smart industrious people too. With smart kids.

And this is but one of the reasons that I'm of the opinion that China while becoming a player in the world, will not become anything like the player it's recent history suggests or that some/many seem to be cock sure of. IMHO historically many westerners fall into two camps on the Orient. The "ohmigodtheyresoadvancedandsublimeandourbetters" or "itstheyellowperil". I saw it with the rise of the Japanese economy. Same shít different nation. The truth and future lays somewhere in the middle.

The actual "fear" of the Japanese economy began just as Japan tended towards lethargy because it had already grown across 2 generations, thus the fear was "too late". If someone in 1950 had extrapolated Japans growth across 2 generations to be the second richest country in the world, that would be equivalent to seeing the same mechanisms at work in China now.

Yahew

Wibbs wrote: »

Where does this stuff come from? Take Germany. One of the highest deposits of coal in the world. Right up there with Iron and other ores too. Ditto for the Scandinavian countries. Hell we in Ireland have the largest zinc production in Europe and the fifth largest in the world, from just one mine(Tara). No slouches on the lead front either. That's just three nations and we have Russia on our doorstep and their natural resources are off the scale. Seriously I'd love to know where these facts opinions spring from?

So Germany, one country, has one of the highest deposits in the world.

The stats are here. Poland does better than expected. In "Hard Coal" production, one country in Europe - Poland - is in the top ten. Germany isn't.

And in Brown Coal production there are more Europeans, five out of ten, but much more limited reserves. Its fair to say that Europe does not really have dominate reserves. Not much oil. Some gas. Fracking will never get going, judging by reactions on this forum.

Nothingbetter2d

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought that we were turning Japanese, now we need to turn Malaysian!

asia wont be so wealthy anymore now us eu and usa folks cant buy their exports like we used to be able to

blatantrereg

Outsourcing caused the Dark Ages.

Rome outsourced its military. Foreign commanders of Roman armies got frustrated and led the first barabarian invasions into the west. The eventual fall of Rome was catastrophic and the dark ages ensued. Feats of architecture such as the collosseum were picked apart to build shacks. People started living in sh!t (literally) in the shadow of broken aqueducts that had once provided running water and sanitation. This happened across Europe - not just in Rome itself.

The outsourcing of corporations to foreign powers could be seen as analogous to the outsourcing the military before. Corporations have the sort of power that armies once had perhaps.

Sindri

Wibbs wrote: »

You mention America in the 19th century and compare it to China today. Loosely of course I understand you're using it as a loose comparison. Look at the demographics of the US back then. They had a quickly growing population. Growing populations feed economies. When they decline or shift those economies become shaky. You can damn near plot it on a graph. On this demographics front India is in a far better position and IMHO that's more likely to see a new 'tiger' economy.

Where did you get this from? Genuinely curious. India so far as disappointed expectations.

Nothingbetter2d

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

asia wont be so wealthy anymore now us eu and usa folks cant buy their exports like we used to be able to

That won't be too much of an issue as those countries are rapidly developing their internal markets and will be able to sustain healthy economies without relying on exports.

They will never be able to afford the luxury of "cradle to grave" social security or an enormous military shield, but they may feel that these expenses are too expensive and are not necessary.

Therefore their tax take will be considerably smaller than most western countries and this means that their (working) citizens can have a higher standard of living with much less money. The unemployed, sick, elderly etc. will be dependant on family & charity for support, just as they are now now.

Stinicker

World War II was primarily fought over this, Germany was expanding its Empire, while Ireland had started in chain a motion of events which saw the British Empire declining to its end. Japan also went Empire building in the pacific and this directly threatened US interests in the region with the Filipino colony.

Britain attacked Germany fearing the homeland would fall into German hands,

Japan attacked the US hoping to defeat them in the Pacific and gambling that the US could not fight on two fronts Europe and the Pacific.

Germany thought they were invincible and went all out to conquer the Russians, their superiority defeated by the Russian winter and the Russians fighting them to the death in a pyrrhic victory which cost 20m+ Russian lives.

The second front for Germany cost them the war and allowed the UK to regroup and the USA to assist them and eventually Germany was crushed on both sides.

The US beat back the Japanese atol to atol in the pacific in a brutal war and won it with their new Nuclear detterant thus ending WWII.

Before the war you had three effective superpower:

British Empire
Japanese Empire
Pax-Germania and Empire

After the war the Americans and USSR emerged, the UK was destroyed and later lost most of its empire, the Japanese lost everything but later recovered economically ditto Germany.

So the question begs, the USA is the worlds only superpower left today with Russia in disarray and China developing. WWII was mainly Japan V USA and Germany V UK/USA/Russia. It will eventually come down to dollar hegemony and within a few decades possibly the next 20 years the USA and China will engage each other directly in war most likely over the last remaining oil supplies in Saudi Arabia which is currently "american" territory as is the EU and quite alot of SEA also.

The USA does not need to invade the ME, the US has on its doorstep the Canadian oil sands (Bitumen) and failing that Venezuelan heavy oil, or they could just cut their consumption down to European levels and be self sufficient.

China OTOH will more likely stay with coal and limit their growth to the available supply, while making hay while the sun shines (using up all the oil it can get).

It's Europe that's screwed as they will be increasingly dependent on Russia for fossil fuel as the ME sells to China for gold and (cheap) manufactured goods & the Americas for food.

Wibbs

I've had a few ales with mates so...

Yahew wrote: »

I don't see it as an underclass. Obviously when a middle class is growing it "leaves behind" the people not making it, until they make it. You are, I think, using the term underclass incorrectly. The Western underclass is a permanent non-working class, which is on benefits. The Chinese peasant class is a class which can supply the working class in the future.

Jeez you really are hellbent on an unassailable position here. You're missing the point entirely. The demographic timebomb is throughout the Chinese population. Indeed the one child per family edict is even more applied in the hinterlands. There will be a significant supply issue across the board. The 'peasant class' simply won't fill this void. There will be half the workers available.

R&D is pointless in terms of job or income growth unless it leads to manufacture.

You cannot be serious. You better tell that to the Chinese as they based their economic miracle on the R&D of others. So long as one can control the manufacture R&D is with grows business. And if you can't and others are ripping you off? Then you start trade wars.

Heres a wikipedia link on the ethnic composition of China.


China's ethnic composition is largely homogeneous with 91.9% of the population being Han Chinese, other ethnicities are Mongols, Zhuang, Miao, Hui, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Koreans.[16]

Like I said, do more reading. Han does not equal homogenous.

You seem to be claiming, once again, the Chinese can't innovate.

Nope, do not collect, do not pass go. I never said that. I did say that culturally and historically speaking such innovations are remarkably unexploited.

I don't agree. When they start innovating more they will adhere more to copy right.

They haven't so far in 20 years and yet you reckon this will magically change? Good luck with that.

The Americans warmed to copyright when it benefited them.

Precisely because they saw the benefit as a culture long before it was enshrined in law.

The "race to the bottom" is not true, either, China has grown its per capita GDP 10 times in the last few decades.

YOu do realise that these aren't following one from the other?

No it won't, as the rest of the world are the consumers of Chinese products. As we have agreed.

Point-you-country mile. How do yo imagine the 'rest of the world' will go back to growth?

Sure people protest, but they are not going back to communism.

Who said they would?

The 19th century "spectre hanging over Europe" does not hang over China since they are already communist, nominally. The "worst" that can happen ( and the best) is a more democratic revolution, or an anti-corruption drive.

OK then read and absorb how that tends to go down historically.

Nobody is saying they are in a vacumn. Just that they have 1.2 billion more people than their nearest competitors.

India will have a larger population, in actual growth by 2020.

It doesn't exist at the moment, where the momentum keeps the population growing,

Eh no. Did you even read the figures?

the future drop in Chinese population will make them richer

How's that work then? It has never worked in any economy before.

but they still have that peasant class ( your "underclass") to make rich first. Its not an issue.

Like I have pointed out and you seem to ignore, the 'peasant class' are part and parcel of this demographic shift.

Not sure why this is even a problem for a country with

1) Massive supply of labour which can be moved to the more productive cities over time.

No, no, lest I over emphasise, NO. The 'massive' supply of labour peak has passed. There will be fewer to move. The number of all Chinese 18-25 year olds will halve by 2020. Just so you don't miss this, ALL Chinese people.

You are applying the European system to China. The problem with demographics where there are too many old people is the dependancy ratio, they don't have one as they don't transfer. At least the State doesn't.

The old are the least of the problem. The lack of the young is where trouble lays. Just as it is in Europe. We're just asked to pay more of their upkeep.

This will just mean that more peasants will flock to the cities as the cities need to compete with higher wages.

Again no.... You do realise that the 2010 Chinese census(which was likely cooked, like their currency) applies to all of the citizens of China. There won't be 'more peasants', there will be less.

Once again the fact that 500 M people have yet to be brought into the modern capitalist ( or corporatist) economic system escapes you. You see it this surplus a bad, I see it as a labour surplus.

I give up.

That's a piece of sense, but unrelated to China.

Thanks, but not appreciated first time around . However demographics are very much related to China. Seriously, look up the UN report(I have it in print, sadly not a link), read it and then look at the long view.

They need, then to allow more peasants in, or increase the second level availability.

They did. Indeed had quite the spread of schooling throughout China. One good thing about Mao's regime. It's not a question of letting peasants in, the numbers are simply decreasing. In actuality the biggest school closures were in the rural areas.

The numbers do add up. There are 500M or so peasants yet to be moved to the cities, thats a generational event. If the Chinese were worried about this they would just remove the one child policy. I expect they will do that in a few years, and just as the rural population is saturated

See above, ad nauseum. Oh and let's say they remove that policy? They'll be in population deficit for 20 years plus and will have more mouths clamouring to be fed and listened to in the interim.

They might pick up Western girls. There is no much evidence of this imbalance causing any trouble, it is merely theoretical that might.

From what I gather from Chinese mates, it's somewhat of an issue, but it remains a minor issue alright. Certainly when compared to the bigger picture.

Your entire premise is based on labelling a highly mobile and hard working peasant population which can move to the cities as an "underclass" to over-egg the demographic problem which doesn't exist.

Read the census results.

Unlike Europe, where the demography does matter.

Demographics matter everywhere. Always have and likely always will do.

Growing populations are not the be-all and end-all of economic growth either, India is growing but so is Nigeria. So is Ethiopia. So is liberia. India has far more problems ( manifest in its per capita being much lower than China now though they started reforms at about the same time). Real ethnic, and sectarian, and caste differences. And over population. When china is rich, India will be poor( er) at 2 billion people.

Watch this space...

We could do well, the recent immigration was of smart industrious people too. With smart kids.

like I said I'd not hold my breath there Y. Though even through blundering moronity(should be a word:)) we'll still likely see a boom in 15-20 years time.

The actual "fear" of the Japanese economy began just as Japan tended towards lethargy because it had already grown across 2 generations, thus the fear was "too late". If someone in 1950 had extrapolated Japans growth across 2 generations to be the second richest country in the world, that would be equivalent to seeing the same mechanisms at work in China now.

Look at Japan's post war growth. Track it's demographic shift.

Sindri wrote: »

Where did you get this from? Genuinely curious. India so far as disappointed expectations..

So far yes and god do they have issues, corruption being one of the actual biggies, however currently India is in a remarkably similar position to China 15 years ago on a few levels. As China's population shifts and cheap isn't so cheap anymore, where would you look for a large and growing young workforce that is relatively well educated? In many ways more educated than the average Chinese per head and significantly more fluent in english, the language of the web/biz. India for all it's current issues may IMHO will be a better bet for a time.

marketty

We're headed back to the middle ages if Malaysia is being held up as an example of how to run a country, just this week they've handed over a man to the Saudis for possible execution for tweeting about Mohammed.
We have a lot of problems in Europe thankfully religion isn't really one of them. Anymore.

Wibbs

blatantrereg wrote: »

Outsourcing caused the Dark Ages.

Rome outsourced its military.

It always had pretty much. It grew on the back of outsourcing by making others 'Roman'. Quite a number of Emperors weren't Roman, even Italian. I'd disagree that outsourcing caused the dark ages(tm) or the fall of rome. Neither did Christianity, though Gibbon would likely disagree with me. I would say the fall came from increasing cultrual complexity, social stagnation, taxes(and their collectors) and environmental stresses. In any event only the western empire fell, the eastern empire continued. It continued because it adapted, it became less complex and less socially rigid and reinvented itself. Even replacing Latin as the state language for Greek. Good sense given Greek was the common language of all Rome even at it's height.

megafan

Wibbs wrote: »

we have Russia on our doorstep and their natural resources are off the scale. QUOTE]






Great we're ok so Russia will save us with all their natural resources!.... eh... now all we need is money to pay for them???:rolleyes:

Wibbs

megafan wrote: »

Great we're ok so Russia will save us with all their natural resources!.... eh... now all we need is money to pay for them???:rolleyes:

Annnnd? Your point being M? You always pay for natural resources, though it's a lot cheaper to shift them from somewhere relatively 'close by'. And I hate to break it to you, Europe has money. Don't let Greece apparently going belly up throw you.

Nevertheless your assertion that "Europe has little in the way of natural resources" is just a tad... well wrong. As a location Europe does alright in various metal ores(like I said just one mine in Ireland has the 5th highest production of zinc in the world) and there are still large deposits out there. Europe does well in various minerals, coal, bauxite and some oil and quite a bit of natural gas, though as Yahew points out getting it out may be more a political/environmental problem than a practical one. Going forward? On the renewable energy front Europe is well placed. Sea, wind and sun are all in abundance depending where you look(even geothermal). And the northern European nations have an abundance of clean fresh water, which in time may well become something akin to the 'new oil'. And that's before we get to other resources like fishing, good farming land, a highly educated population(one of the highest in the world, if not the highest) etc. There is quite the spread of resources out there.

Yahew

Wibbs, I am a bit tired of this quoting each other back and forth. This is my last reply.

1) China has 500 million peasants willing to work. The one child policy was designed to stop poverty, it can be revoked. You are claiming two contradictory things - there is a huge "underclass" ( actually a hard working peasant class) and thats a huge problem, and there is a huge problem with future labour shortages. Thats absurd.
2) They can change the 1 child policy if they need to. Clearly they are not worried. see 1.
3) I don't need to read up on the Han. Its an largely homogenous ethnic group. Mandarin speakers are 800 million of that anyway, but the different languages of the HAN do not lead to separatist movements. The place has been united for centuries. India on the other hand has massive ethnic, sectarian, language, and caste differences. It is also 2-3 times poorer per capita than China is now.
4) It is a major fallacy to suggest that rising populations always lead to economic growth - you persist in this fallacy all the time.
5) The result of the black death, as it happened, was an increase in per-capita income for the poor in Europe.

So as the one child population policy kicks in, the cities in the economic zones need to get more workers, but there are still surpluses in the hinterlands, and will be for a generation or two, which gives the Chinese time to balance the population by removing the restriction. They brought it in precisely because they thought higher populations lead to poverty.

so most of the headline facts you believe are wrong, or reversible. And while I am sure that India can do better than now, this

As China's population shifts and cheap isn't so cheap anymore, where would you look for a large and growing young workforce that is relatively well educated? In many ways more educated than the average Chinese per head and significantly more fluent in english, the language of the web/biz. India for all it's current issues may IMHO will be a better bet for a time.

Is way optimistic. India seems to educate it's elites well and everyone else badly. The chinese literacy is 92%. India is 66%.

Wibbs

Yahew wrote: »

1) China has 500 million peasants willing to work. The one child policy was designed to stop poverty, it can be revoked. You are claiming two contradictory things - there is a huge "underclass" ( actually a hard working peasant class) and thats a huge problem, and there is a huge problem with future labour shortages. Thats absurd.

The 'hard working peasant class' are aging at the same rate. There is and will be simply fewer people available of working/graduate/productive age, across the board. No matter where they look.

4) It is a major fallacy to suggest that rising populations always lead to economic growth - you persist in this fallacy all the time.
5) The result of the black death, as it happened, was an increase in per-capita income for the poor in Europe.

Nope I am however saying that falling populations tend to lead to economic slowdown, especially if that economy is based in manufacturing. The black death effect led to costs going up. Food prices went through the roof. What saved Europe was empire building and the cash that came from that.

Is way optimistic. India seems to educate it's elites well and everyone else badly. The chinese literacy is 92%. India is 66%.

Oh I agree, India has a lot of issues and they're in dire need of the political will to fix them.

Sindri

Statistics would I think point to European decline in some areas I would think, but as Wibbs pointed out it would not be unreasonable to believe Europe has many advantages and benefits over it's far eastern counterparts.

Demographics would also point to the ascension of India and China. 75% of Indians live in rural areas. Now that would create quite a problem for cities and their ability to accommodate for these practically peasants but also shows a huge untapped workforce that will eventually move to cities and participate in the growing manufacturing sector. India also has a rising population while China's is in decline.

As well as that though, the amount of scientific papers Chinese scientist's publish has risen phenomenally in the last decade and it will soon overtake America in that regard next year. So to presume the Chinese cannot innovate is just wrong.

I think if you look at the underlying statistics, China and India have many many advantages in their favour and to disregard them would be folly as some people seem intent on doing.

AeoNGriM

Europe is poor so should live within its means

Absolutely true. Everyone should be living within their means, regardless of where they live.

Then again, who the fcuk am I to be telling the rest of you what to do with your monies?

If only I could steal me some of that Jew gold............

Wibbs

Sindri wrote: »

As well as that though, the amount of scientific papers Chinese scientist's publish has risen phenomenally in the last decade and it will soon overtake America in that regard next year.

Well yes, however there is more than the sniff of quantity over quality. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110720/full/475267a.html This is from a Chinese chap at the coalface a professor in both a Chinese uni and American one.
For the mobile readers;

"It found that between 1999 and 2008, China's citation share rose from almost nothing to 4%. However, this is dwarfed by the 30% share held by the United States. And although China ranks second to the United States in terms of publication output, the report found that, in 2008, it ranked only joint ninth in citation numbers. This suggests that China's dramatic proliferation of scientific papers does not reflect quality research. China still has a long way to go to become a major player in the scientific arena and, to do so, I believe it must address these key areas."

So to presume the Chinese cannot innovate is just wrong.

God no, certainly not. They're among the most innovative cultures this world has ever seen, in bursts anyway.

Sindri

Wibbs wrote: »

Well yes, however there is more than the sniff of quantity over quality. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110720/full/475267a.html This is from a Chinese chap at the coalface a professor in both a Chinese uni and American one.
For the mobile readers;

"It found that between 1999 and 2008, China's citation share rose from almost nothing to 4%. However, this is dwarfed by the 30% share held by the United States. And although China ranks second to the United States in terms of publication output, the report found that, in 2008, it ranked only joint ninth in citation numbers. This suggests that China's dramatic proliferation of scientific papers does not reflect quality research. China still has a long way to go to become a major player in the scientific arena and, to do so, I believe it must address these key areas."

God no, certainly not. They're among the most innovative cultures this world has ever seen, in bursts anyway.

You remind me Mr. Wibbs (it would be brilliant if your surname actually was Wibbs) of a teacher I once had. Did you by any chance ever teach Classical Studies?

blatantrereg

It's difficult to qualify research in general. The most blatant dodgy publications are easy enough to spot, if you scratch the surface. There are some that are the equivalent of those emails you get offering you a degree without studying anything. I received a mail from a journal in an unrelated discipline saying they wanted to publish a recent conference paper of mine. They mentioned the costs of publication would need to be covered my end. The journal was in a field only vaguely related to my paper. Looking it up showed that it did happen to be a Chinese publisher. They had journals in a number of fields. Almost all the authors appeared to be Chinese, and there were few references to the published papers - I think mostly from similar publications.

Even the most reputable journals can contain questionable material though. Academia is pretty political in general really, and can be somewhat cliquey. The names on the papers can often have a greater bearing on what gets published than the content.

Aside from that, it's not unusual for academia to lag behind industry in technical fields. All in all, numbers of publications, citations etc are not terribly meaningful imo - beyond how they advance an individual's academic career, or influence the funding an institution receives. But really the proof is in the pudding - the actual creation is what is significant. I'd rather have developed one proven, useful, marketable product or technology, than to have 100 meaningless papers and patents that never get used in the real world.

Wibbs

Sindri wrote: »

You remind me Mr. Wibbs (it would be brilliant if your surname actually was Wibbs) of a teacher I once had. Did you by any chance ever teach Classical Studies?

Teach? I barely have a leaving cert S. And I do mean barely.