4 ms·

“Developing”. They are the #2 economy.

yorwba 7y ago
It doesn't make sense to look at the absolute size of an economy to determine development status. A country full of subsistence farmers can be #1 economy if they're numerous enough. China's GDP per capita (PPP) is still less than a third of that of the US, somewhere between Azerbaijan and the Dominican Republic.
- riversflow 7y ago
  I couldn’t disagree more. We live on a finite planet with limited resources. It hardly matters what the PPP is if they destroy the oceans we all use. The planet is only capable of sustaining so much. Having more people doesn’t give a nation some sort ethical imperative to have a higher GDP.
  - yorwba 7y ago
    That you think China achieving a standard of living like current developed countries wouldn't be sustainable doesn't change anything about the fact that they're still developing. FWIW, polluting water ecosystems is more common in developing countries (because they don't have the money to care about luxuries like environmental protection) and they've been slowly regenerating in developed countries, so from that perspective you should hope for China to become developed faster rather than slower.
    - riversflow 7y ago
      I didn’t say that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth that make this somehow about nationality. I said that achieving a target PPP before expecting some restraint on the environment is a ludicrous goal in the face of the impending environmental cliff. You basically aren’t arguing, but telling me I’m just wrong and then making me out to really be on about keeping China down. Maybe try some intellectual honesty. My point has everything to do with what the global ecosystem can take, and how much of an impact any nation has on it. As a species we need to figure out how to develop societies and countries without poisoning the planet. The concept that because a country hasn’t reached PPP with the US it’s developing and can do what it pleases is patently insane. The Earth just doesn’t have the environmental resources for that, it’s already painfully apparent if you aren’t covering your eyes and ears. The human race can’t wait for countries to completely develop to play by the rules. Sucks. Meanwhile China has demonstrably better infrastructure and more development in terms of cities than the US. I think by a lot of measures the US is still “developing”, we certainly lack the rail infrastructure of other “developed” countries for example, and our cities lack the dense, efficient urban cores of highly developed old world. To boil my argument down, if China can build an extensive high speed rail network and capture the global electronics and PV markets they’ve moved beyond a “developing” economy, regardless of how well off or not the majority of their populace is.

It doesn't make sense to look at the absolute size of an economy to determine development status. A country full of subsistence farmers can be #1 economy if they're numerous enough. China's GDP per capita (PPP) is still less than a third of that of the US, somewhere between Azerbaijan and the Dominican Republic.

riversflow 7y ago
I couldn’t disagree more. We live on a finite planet with limited resources. It hardly matters what the PPP is if they destroy the oceans we all use. The planet is only capable of sustaining so much. Having more people doesn’t give a nation some sort ethical imperative to have a higher GDP.
- yorwba 7y ago
  That you think China achieving a standard of living like current developed countries wouldn't be sustainable doesn't change anything about the fact that they're still developing. FWIW, polluting water ecosystems is more common in developing countries (because they don't have the money to care about luxuries like environmental protection) and they've been slowly regenerating in developed countries, so from that perspective you should hope for China to become developed faster rather than slower.
  - riversflow 7y ago
    I didn’t say that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth that make this somehow about nationality. I said that achieving a target PPP before expecting some restraint on the environment is a ludicrous goal in the face of the impending environmental cliff. You basically aren’t arguing, but telling me I’m just wrong and then making me out to really be on about keeping China down. Maybe try some intellectual honesty. My point has everything to do with what the global ecosystem can take, and how much of an impact any nation has on it. As a species we need to figure out how to develop societies and countries without poisoning the planet. The concept that because a country hasn’t reached PPP with the US it’s developing and can do what it pleases is patently insane. The Earth just doesn’t have the environmental resources for that, it’s already painfully apparent if you aren’t covering your eyes and ears. The human race can’t wait for countries to completely develop to play by the rules. Sucks. Meanwhile China has demonstrably better infrastructure and more development in terms of cities than the US. I think by a lot of measures the US is still “developing”, we certainly lack the rail infrastructure of other “developed” countries for example, and our cities lack the dense, efficient urban cores of highly developed old world. To boil my argument down, if China can build an extensive high speed rail network and capture the global electronics and PV markets they’ve moved beyond a “developing” economy, regardless of how well off or not the majority of their populace is.