You raised a legitimate question.
There are two factors that distinguish China from ASEAN countries fundamentally. One is the sheer size, the momentum associated with it when such a huge country is set on a move. The other is the sharp contrast in terms of economic development and income both geographically and demographically. This gradient of social inequality facilitates the flow of both labor and capital. Just as western industries are outsourcing all sorts of business to developing countries, the same thing is happening from the rich areas in China to poor ones. Because of its size, such movement will continue for many, many years in China, while economies of smaller size become homogenized quickly.
My main concern is those constraints not from pure economic aspects. It is just impossible to imagine the amount of material resources China would consume giving the same rate of growth for another 10 years (which I believe is possible were not for those constraints I am discussing), and the environmental impact associated with it. There may be improvement of environmental quality in the rich areas as income and awareness grow, but the less developed areas will be receiving out-dated technology and polluting factories. If the material consumption and pollution multiples as GDP, we will be facing a potential disaster that could have negative impact on millions for generations (pollution causes gene mutations). Are we really going on this path?
The delemma is, if China does not grow rapidly (with whatever human costs), there are plenty of less developed peoples who are willing to fill in. You miss the train, then there won't be another one. Just take India for example(which, in my opinion, is in an even more hopeless situation). The option of slow growth while the population drops to a more acceptable level simply does not exist. It's a crazy situation as all the peoples on this globe fight for the resources for survival.
There are two factors that distinguish China from ASEAN countries fundamentally. One is the sheer size, the momentum associated with it when such a huge country is set on a move. The other is the sharp contrast in terms of economic development and income both geographically and demographically. This gradient of social inequality facilitates the flow of both labor and capital. Just as western industries are outsourcing all sorts of business to developing countries, the same thing is happening from the rich areas in China to poor ones. Because of its size, such movement will continue for many, many years in China, while economies of smaller size become homogenized quickly.
My main concern is those constraints not from pure economic aspects. It is just impossible to imagine the amount of material resources China would consume giving the same rate of growth for another 10 years (which I believe is possible were not for those constraints I am discussing), and the environmental impact associated with it. There may be improvement of environmental quality in the rich areas as income and awareness grow, but the less developed areas will be receiving out-dated technology and polluting factories. If the material consumption and pollution multiples as GDP, we will be facing a potential disaster that could have negative impact on millions for generations (pollution causes gene mutations). Are we really going on this path?
The delemma is, if China does not grow rapidly (with whatever human costs), there are plenty of less developed peoples who are willing to fill in. You miss the train, then there won't be another one. Just take India for example(which, in my opinion, is in an even more hopeless situation). The option of slow growth while the population drops to a more acceptable level simply does not exist. It's a crazy situation as all the peoples on this globe fight for the resources for survival.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
