By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Will China replace the US one day?
what you think?
I see Brazil replacing the US of A far sooner than China.....
There will have to be a massive change of thinking before that would happen.
To the haters: i am not saying impossible. Just highly unlikely considering the current way that people think, are averse to risk taking and have absolutely no imagination.
Then again, the Roman Empire kicked ass and the only thing they invented on their own was concrete....
Traveler:
The Romans built a fantastic network of high quality roads. That's what enabled them to expand. The same way that England later used ships to expand.
GuilinRaf:
Yes, their engineering was their own. Militarily and culturally, they copied. A LOT.
They would see what worked and incorporate it.
angelina8:
What is your concept of the Roman Empire? If you include the Byzantine Empire, well a lot of thing were invented there, such as the fork.
GuilinRaf:
Good question!!!
I was referring specifically to the pre 476 AD (Western Empire) era.
If we bring in the Byzantine, then not only do we h ave the fork (I did not know about that!) but we also have the Code of Constantine, which is the basis of the modern law system used in Europe and was the direct precursor of the Napoleonic code.
angelina8:
Actually, it's the Code of Justinian I, don't mix up Justinian and Constantine.
GuilinRaf:
Oi Ve!
You are right!
I was reading "Prince Valiant" today, so the name kinda stuck.
I sit corrected!
bill8899:
GR, that's simply not true. The Romans also invented the orgy. Seriously, you need to know your history before you make baseless, incendiary claims. I am disappointed.
bill8899:
Oh yea, and the Napoleonic Code consists of rigid laws in a style generally eschewed by modern governments. Common law works better because it's flexible. Well, at least that's one opinion.
GuilinRaf:
I have litigated in both spheres, Common Law and Civil Code. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Puerto Rico, while technically a Civil Code jurisdiction is becoming more and more "mixed".
Scandinavian:
The Romans had working toilets with running water. !!!
No. No. China is China and the US is the US.
China might catch up with the US in some aspects like how much steel China makes per year or the fake GDP statistics but I don't think there would be a "replacement", unless the US declines dramatically . I know little about what's going on there but it would be another story and there are other countries too besides China and the US.
I don't think this question is very good. It would easily attract too many haters posts. I don't think anybody would like to admit the idea that their motherland would be "replaced", no matter he./she is Chinese or American.
I love China and I wish I could defend her dignity everywhere but it doesn't mean I'm blind to the bad things done by the govt and the people. And it doesn't mean I can change the path of history and future.
Apart from a big economy, supported by hugely over- exaggerated trade figures, China has little that is positive to offer the world.
Nobody is replacing anybody...what a silly question! And the way you use replace in the question sounds very awful....you need to pay attention to your choice of words.
As the country with the most obese people? Highly possible.
i dont know how you make people care about one another and get a moral code that says rule of law is mandatory for everyone. i dont think government can effectively do this by themselves. as for gdp, when your country has 5 times the population of another country and you still dont match their gdp on a total basis, well that says volumes that i can not write.
dont think so since china has to steal everything just last month foreign companies have filled 4758 lawsuits for stealing intellucual property rights in shanghai and a case that just went threw the courts suit filled by intel they won the case and recieved a large cash settlement until they become free thinkers and come up with their own products i just dont see it in this century
ambivalentmace:
the parasite has to stop and let the host feed again and become fat , then come back for more intellectual theft, a starving host cant think and create for the parasite to prosper.
the problem is the host is to nice and lets them get away with it.
For China to replace the US in any real way would necessitate China becoming such a different place that it would not truly be Chinese anymore.
It will be years before China has the gun-crime that the US has. I simply don't think those in power would allow the population to kill each other that way, apart from vehicular slaughtering, ending peoples lives is a state monopoly in this country.
Others in this thread mention GDP and such, but in fact, China has far far less toilets than the US, as long as you don't have proper sanitation you cannot have a civilized society. The lessons learned from other civilization is, power through plumbing.
mattsm84:
Gun homicides in the US dropped 50% over the last 20 years. This is actually pretty amazing as fire arm sales have increased steadily during that period. Its almost as if social factors rather than simple access to fire arms are the driving force behind gun violence. But that can't be true because Americans are just trigger happy morons, right?
Scandinavian:
some are, some aren't. generally there are two types of trigger happy morons, those with guns and those without guns. I know which kind kills less people.
mattsm84:
You're right, just not in the way that you think you are. Those that do not legally possess fire arms kill more people with fire arms than those that legally do. Most people that commit gun related crime have chosen a career that necessitates ties to the black market. If these people can get their hands on thousands of dollars in narcotics, how difficult would it be for them to obtain a gun illegally? That's why gun control laws are so unpopular in the US, because they are so ineffective in preventing gun related violence. More over, they are essentially asking huge swaths of the population to give up a right for no societal gain.
No offense, but talking about this with Europeans is just so incredibly frustrating. There are a number of complex social factors that contribute to gun death a lot more than legal gun ownership, yet they refuse to even acknowledge that because its more important for them to believe that Americans are overweight, walmart shopping idiots than it is to have an actual discussion about it.
Scandinavian:
ah but the thing Americans don't understand is, the more legal guns there are, the more black market guns you will have.
mattsm84:
That's one of those statements that really only makes sense until you think about it. After all what creates a market, supply or demand? The answer is of course is that demand creates supply, not the other way around as you suggest. If what you're saying is true, then the European solution to drug addiction, decriminalization and treatment, should have created more drug addicts because of a greater availability of drugs. Yet, that was not the case. And it is not the case in the US as we actually have almost twice as many guns in the US as we did 20 years ago, but only half the shootings.
Scandinavian:
I think most Europeans who are pro-legalising drugs are most interested in getting rid of the crime related to drug usage (and the gangs with guns running the show) than to save the drug addicts. however it is easier to help people kick an addiction if they do not have to hide in the back alleys but can be out in the open with their problem
the fact that shootings drop despite more guns being in circulation could be a case of people generally being better educated, after all, the days of the wild west are in a still more distant past
mattsm84:
The point there, about European drug policy, was that supply does not create demand, which was what you'd asserted.
About the wild west, you think that because you don't understand my country. Most rural communities still do operate on a wild west mentality due to lack of public infrastructure. After all, if the nearest police department was 50 miles away from your home 100 years ago, its still probably 50 mile away from you now. It's these areas where you see looser gun laws and laws that support the rights of gun owners to police their own property. Yet, in these areas you traditionally see less gun violence. Similarly, these people have always have better education in regards to fire arm safety and have opposed gun control. So the wild west, and frankly unchanged rural American values surrounding fire arms have very little to do with it.
The drop in gun violence despite the increased number of guns is actually more likely the result of economic growth. Why participate in the drug trade if there are better opportunities available to you? But again, why blame the drug trade when you can blame existing American attitudes about gun ownership.
ambivalentmace:
if guns are so bad, why no complaints about switzerland , any crazy gun nuts there.
But then who would they steal all of their intellectual property from?
Are we talking continental shifts? (not specified) I'd like to see that. Going for Chinese would only be a short drive.
Scandinavian:
according to this animation it will not happen in the next 100 million years http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es0807/es0807page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization that's a pretty long wait
TedDBayer:
according to this north and south China were once separate.
mattsm84:
Having been in North and South China I can tell you that they are still pretty separate.
For most of it's history China was the strongest and richest country in the world. The fact that it hasn't been for the last 100 years or so is an exception. China will eventually, barring a disastrous economic downturn or war, become the largest economy but that doesn't mean much. For China to become as rich as the US is today, China's GDP will have to rise from the current $9 trillion to over $50 trillion for the people to have comparable wealth to Americans. Will that happen? No telling.
As far as military goes, if China keeps making enemies all around Asia then it'll have to spread out it's forces and spend lots of money on land, sea and air forces which is impractical and hugely expensive.
I don't see China ever replacing Western culture as the dominant one. Honestly, most modern Chinese TV, movies and fashion are wack to the extreme.
The US will continue to be a vastly powerful country with innovative leaders but it'll have competitors in the future. I think that's good. For the last 20 years the US has strutted around the world, doing whatever it wants. It needs other superpowers to keep it in check.
xinyuren:
There is no other country that can conjure up the will, technology, and wealth to equip an army that can strike against any nation in the world and hold a conflict on at least 2 fronts at a time. It would take a conglomerate (European Union??). This will not take place in the foreseeable future. I think America, whether it stands or falls, will be the last superpower. It just takes too many resources for world domination these days.
mattsm84:
I'm not sure that I agree that thats a good thing. If you look at long periods of peace and prosperity in world history they typically coincide with periods of political hegemony (Pax Romana, Pax Mongolica, Pax Britannia, Pax Americana.) Bi-polar world is slightly less stable, like during the Cold War, and a multipolar world, as was the case right before the out break of both World Wars, is the least stable of all. I mean, even when the US was doing "whatever it wanted" that seldom amounted to more than a handful of policing actions.
beaufortninja:
policing actions that collectively got millions killed. With another power or powers to balance the equation then perhaps in today's modern age that'll be enough to give a superpower pause.
mattsm84:
Like the Soviet Afghan conflict? Or Vietnam? Or Korea? All of those were as bad, and usually much worse than the likes of Iraq 1 and 2 or the modern Afghan conflict. No, turning relatively small conflicts into larger proxy wars isn't going to help anyone.
beaufortninja:
Would still feel the same if China were the only superpower? Would your opinion change if it was China doing whatever it wanted in the world with little to hem it in?
Nope. Part of the reason the USA became what it is is the offer of hope and freedom. China offers repression and wealth if you are willing to play ball.
2016.
2015 if the american economy collapses again (It's in a dead cat bounce/bubble as we speak.)
Traveler:
The Chinese economy is in much worse state than US economy. If the US economy fails, China's will be devastated as a result.
mattsm84:
A dead cat bounce is a brief recovery followed by a new round of losses in a stock market. The gold index, which China has been hoarding, just had a dead cat bounce earlier this month. Bubbles, meanwhile, are when prices inflate to exceed demand. The housing market in any first, second or third tier city provide a pretty good example of what that looks like. Either way, they aren't the same thing and neither of them paint an accurate picture of the US economy which has had four years of slow growth. I mean, at this point, the notion that any other country, barring maybe Canada (maybe), handled the Great Recession any better is the stuff of fantastical Austrian counter narratives. Imagine Ron Paul riding a unicorn to his inauguration address. What you wrote is just as silly.
How exactly does one nation replace another?
If you're asking whether or not China will become the dominant power in a global political hegemony. The answer is never, even if its economy should double and surpass the US in terms of GDP. I don't think it aspires to. That isn't to say that they wouldn't like to be a regional power in control of a Yuan bloc. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam would probably have a big problem with that, but that's probably more in line with what China would like to do.
Really, thinking about this a better question would be whether or not China has finally begun to level off. Their rate of growth has been slowing. They're due to have their first recession on the housing bubble bursts. And they're going to have to start paying out those pensions for that last generation of people before the one Child policy. I really do think that this may be China's high water mark.
This will never happen - EVER. And to be honest,that is a good thing...despite what people think about America - I would rather have a strong America than a strong 'Any other country' ! Imagine... Russia,Peoples Republic of Congo,North Korea.. or any of those tin-pot lunatic ridden countries being in 'charge'.
Time will answer the question for me,please wait patiently!
I am not sure whether China will surpass the US or not. But according to some experts, US will dissappear whthin 100 years, some pessimists think it will happen whthin 50 years because US implements democracy. Now some state ask president for autonomy.
Next year, Scotland will be an independent country. The west will be parted.
angelina8:
You've been reading Armageddon 2419 a.d., haven't you?
Don't get overexcited about the whole thing. These experts would say anything to get publicity.
MissA:
The leaders of the Scottish independence movement want Scotland to join the EU but probably keep the queen and the pound. How the f*ck does that equate to the west being parted?
blah:
your independence movement make the west become one and anther smaller country. so the west will be parted. f**k u
