New Book on Space Colonies

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > --- In ssi_list@... "panamabob"
> >
> > I could go on but I think I've conveyed my concerns sufficiently
to
> > characterize my skepticism about China becoming a dominant space
> > power and fulfilling the orbital development schemes we all hold
> > dear.
>

I guess I didn't characterize my concerns sufficiently :( So, here
goes . . .

> Have you talked to any Chinese people lately?

Every single day. A number of Chinese every single day, both at
work, and calls to Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Taipei. I don't know any
Beijing bureacrats, but I do speak with financial traders and
business executives who are intimately familiar with the inner
workings of the Chinese economy. I wasn't denying that their economy
is growing at a good clip, rather that there are other issues that
nobody is addressing that cast some doubt on the strength and
potential that many hold China to have.

Or read any real
> updates on the country and its economy?

Absolutely. Look more deeply. I don't pull commentary from thin air
especially if it's contrarian. I've many journal and bank reports
that aren't online that help form my opinions.

For this discussion, I'll reference online sources for your
attention.

Just from today's papers. All discuss issues I raised in my post.

China to downsize military forces by 200,000
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid59479465314

Snow urges the Chinese to let currency float
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid59479474420

China forecasts further job losses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3198019.stm

China Is Resisting Pressure to Relax Rate for Currency
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8606-2003Aug31.html

China is currently the world's
> second-largest economy measured by purchasing-power-parity (after
the US)
> and still growing at extravagant rates (over 8% first half of this
> year, apparently). See the CIA world fact book on China:
>
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Indeed it is, but that doesn't negate any of the issues I've raised.
Furthermore, speak to any analyst familiar with China's economy and
they'll confirm that China's economic reporting isn't as transparent
as the countries of the West. That doesn't take away from their
successes, it just obfuscates some issues and data.

Look here for some interpretation of the numbers you raise.

Prepared by US Embassy Staffers. Puts China's GNP at the approximate
level of Italy and also lists some trouble spots.
http://www.usatrade.gov/website/ccg.nsf/CCGurl/CCG-CHINA2002-CH-1:-
002F425D

Perhaps we should look to Italy to start us on the road to orbital
development.

> China has 4 times as many people as the US - yes, many of them
> are very poor, but many of them are also quite well off by US
middle class
> standards.

The coastal cities are the ones that are doing the best. The
interior is having some trouble catching up. Nevertheless, that
doesn't refute my points.

And China has recent experience with huge engineering
> projects. If there's any other country in the world right now that
> can match or surpass the US on space projects, it ought to be
China.

Why ought it? Those engineering projects, particularly The Three
Gorges, are government projects, centrally planned by a communist
system. They lack a lot of efficiency.

Why not Russia? They've got the technology and personnel? They've
also embarked on huge engineering projects - look through their
history. Surely, the ability to undertake large engineering projects
can't be the metric by which we gauge success in space programs, can
it?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. Are you countering the
prevailing wisdom on these lists that the private market is the most
efficient mechanism to insure sucess in space endeavors by
advocating a communist, centrally planned approach. That might make
for some good debate.

> And the fact that they're starting from Russian technology
indicates
> they're being smart about it - all you have to do is read the CAIB
> report to know the US shuttle, despite all the 1970's "high tech",
> was not a step forward...
>
> Arthur

If you're really looking to understand the dynamic forces at work
within the Chinese economy and would like a good backgrounder, look
here: while dated (1999) things haven't changed so much as to
invalidate many of the points raised.
http://www.foreignpolicy2000.org/library/issuebriefs/readingnotes/fa_
segal.html

TangoMan