I found the article amazingly biased towards talking down the accomplishments of China. The attitude of them being replaced by
Russia as world economic leaders was perhaps a little "wishful thinking" in nature. A certain racial bias was evident throughout
the article. However, many points are currently true.

One which I believe to be totally incorrect is that China cannot survive without overseas exports. Quite incorrect China works
towards a totally self sufficient economy whereby China can dictate
its own terms outside its own boundaries.

Civil unrest is not a common factor in China despite Teneiman Square
of twenty five years ago. Chinese prefer to work together than against one another which is counter to the procedures of many Western Nations. ie, The US OF A has groups who would rather WIN
than see their Nation advance in other than the direction they want.
This attitude strangles any Nation and the Democracy Flag lays limp beside the flag pole when China begins to do this.

Re returning workers. Most of them stay put apart from African
employees who return home mostly. However, Africa is expanding in
these harsh economic times and so employment becomes possible in two
years time for all workers in Africa.

Basically an analysis of the China situation. Performed with bias and
some prejudice. I enjoyed it. My comments are my own.

HDuggin

Hduggin,

What racial bias? The author was commenting on the disfunctions typical of an authoritarian state,particularly the unreliability of official statistics,and the resort to brutal oppression when the ruling elite is threatened. How can any nation have a totally self sufficient economy in the modern world? When I was at business school in the early 1970s, Japan was in fashion and on its way to be No.1, no one thought of India or China or Russia.

Arthur Thomas,

Interesting comment about Russia, during the Cold War some Western observers of the Soviet Union thought that if the Communist government was replaced with an authoritarian capitalist regime, Russia would be a far more formidable rival to the US.

China cant be trusted.
She ran over her teenagers in Tiananmen Square with her tanks and then went about trying to get the nations to forget she had done it.

A friend whos brother is in the ANZ bank says that Chinese will gladly keep agreements between themselves... but if the crunch comes will fail to honour agreements with Europeans.
I think right now, today, China is involved in a huge secret arms build-up, bigger than observed by the USA, as part of her plan for an outward march.
I wouldnt buy anything she says. What comes out of her mouth is not what shes thinking.
I dont think shes fogotten the Opium Wars and this is part of what its all about.

The writer is making some fairly biased comments here..

The “illusion” the article refers to is created by people who willingly buy into such concepts. The matter of the fact is that China is a developing country and the national savings that are counting into the trillions is due to a propensity of the population to save, rather than spend as we do here It is a choice that we all make. There are no illusions about what these savings are for. Comments such as “China's money was for China and China alone.” Is uncalled for and undemocratic. Western capitalism has always been about reward for hard work and individual decisions.

The writer has a problem with cheaper goods and efficient production practices, with concerns over oversupply of goods and jobs being “taken”. Chinese production has kept prices low and all of us simply need to pick up our game at innovation, better production practices, and constantly improving.

While not discrediting the article on commentary on social impacts on the environment etc I noted that the author has not considered all sides of the coin, which make this piece biased. The very essence of China’s competitive edge is the low labour cost. The author has not offered any real solution in regard to what he criticize as the problem, particularly in light of his concern over unemployment exacerbated by the GFC. Issues of this nature are commonplace in developing world.

It is really too early to say that consumers are moving towards eco-friendly products. It is still price driven in the supermarket aisles, for most.

Without taking sides I find it interesting the way the authors have identified losers and winners of the GFC. The cost advantage has not disappeared as a result of the GFC and there are cycles in the economy. Nations can develop comparative advantages Economies grow with good fundamentals and growth in capacities. And the key to this is capital investments including education. This is something that Chinese are good at. The author is unnecessarily taking sides, rendering the article biased.

Just once I would like to hear Arthur acknowledge any of the positive moves China has taken, or acknowledge the giant leap which has occurred since opening and expansion 30 years ago. Actually, after reading each one of his successively more negative pieces, I would now settle for any indication that he is even au fait with events from within China.

This time I got as far as "the economic failure of the Olympic Games" before I realised that neither of the above would be presented. Even a nod towards the use to which not only The Birds Nest but other Olympic venues have been put and the income that has been generated from this post-Olympic re-cycling, would have done it for me in this case.

My consistent complaint about these pieces is that no provenance is ever given for much of the material that is presented as fact. For instance I would genuinely like to know the who and when of this: “China’s claims that it can maintain a GDP growth of 8%...” because even before the proverbial hit the fan heralding the current Global recession, every economist I ever heard or saw here was in fact warning of the unreality of such expectations.

But this piece is written a little more carefully at least: each dire (to put it tactfully) forecast is prefaced by conditionals: we MAY YET find evidence of all sorts of tactics which in turn MAY prove just about everything China says to be illusory. Unemployment figures COULD push to 12%. Then again, they could push to 7% or 20%. In exactly the same way that many people have been pointing out for years that current unemployment statistics in Australia COULD be bogus and exclude people who work only two or three hours a fortnight.

I also think mention of many of the innovative steps taken since supporting Kyoto worth a mention.

The fact that the first hybrid car is on the market has got to earn at least one brownie point.

And public Government acknowledgement of Tiananmen Square?

Surely that’s a biggie,too?

Its not wise to be a China lover Romany.
In Europe/England there were many German lovers before Hitler rose to power who later got caught up in the shame of being associated with that evil government.

Heres something to note:
and note it well...

How does the West and her military and intelligence analysts know an evil government?

Its in the way the soldiers of an evil government march.

They all do the GOOSE-STEP!

Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose-Step

Its a march full of hate to 'crush the face of another' with the boot.

It shows the true heart of a government and precisely what side of the spirit realm they serve through their worship.

China plays a game of great deception.

She quielty builds for war and conquest...and all the time speaks soothing words to the West as part of the deception.