Is China a Great Power, and if so, when did it become one?

[nerd]

Yeah, but I was talking about the modern day, not history.

I get your point, but "currency" is whatever people use for 3rd party exchanges.
Canadian Tire still issues "money", mostly e-money now, and I have seen <very rarely> a restaurant take payment in Canadian Tire money. I took it when I had a business as I could buy things for my business with it. As long as it is used to pay 3rd party debts, it is money.

 

[WSnova]

Uhhh what?

Thats not the same as creating money.

When I take 10 bucks worth of ingredients to create a Pizza worth 15 bucks I am not creating money, just wealth.

A Bank relies on that money now>money later to create its wealth. It gives you money now on the condition that you will pay for that money + some sum in the future. Its really not that different than a product.

 

[nerd]

Uhhh what?

Thats not the same as creating money.

When I take 10 bucks worth of ingredients to create a Pizza worth 15 bucks I am not creating money, just wealth.

A Bank relies on that money now>money later to create its wealth. It gives you money now on the condition that you will pay for that money + some sum in the future. Its really not that different than a product.

To make this more real....
A thought experiment....


In an isolated place there is a small community.
One highly respected person sets up a trading post. He has few goods but he owns them all.
A farmer comes in and wants a plow blade, but only has enough grain to trade for half its value. The merchant says, "pay me next crop".

In effect they just "created" half a plow blade. You say, thats not money!

Now the merchant goes to the blacksmith and says, "I'll give you scrip that will allow you to take 100 kilos of wheat <or anything else of equal value> from my store, if you make me a plow blade."
Yes, its just an IOU, not money.

Now the blacksmith takes a scrip <from the merchant, not his own> for 10 Kg of wheat to the miner who digs coal, and trades it for 100 Kg of coal. The miner takes that scrip to the merchant and gets his 10 Kg of wheat.

NOW thats money! and 90 Kg of wheat worth is circulating in the community, and may never get redeemed at the merchant. Its just too useful for other exchanges.
Its inherent value is zero, but the trust that if ever someone wants to it can be redeemed for valuable goods at its issuer, gives it value.

 

[keynes2.0]

IOU and store credit are generally not included in definitions of money IIRC. This isn't because there is a substansive technical difference in them so much as they are very small compared to the traditional money supply and it would be difficult to assess them. Furthermore, a lot of IOUs and store credit are never claimed.

So in the theoretical sense you are correct but in the jargon sense of what we talk about today you are not. However in the historical jargon sense you would be correct because historically money was defined to include such things. That is part of why travellers checks are included in the definition of money and not World of Warcraft Gold despite WoW gold being much more important. The anachronism lives on.

 

[nerd]

IOU and store credit are generally not included in definitions of money IIRC. This isn't because there is a substansive technical difference in them so much as they are very small compared to the traditional money supply and it would be difficult to assess them. Furthermore, a lot of IOUs and store credit are never claimed.

So in the theoretical sense you are correct but in the jargon sense of what we talk about today you are not. However in the historical jargon sense you would be correct because historically money was defined to include such things. That is part of why travellers checks are included in the definition of money and not World of Warcraft Gold despite WoW gold being much more important. The anachronism lives on.

Change "merchant" to "bank" or "government" and nothing really changes.......

 

[keynes2.0]

As I said, in the theoretical sense you are correct.

 

[Mechanical Franz]

Uhhh what?

Thats not the same as creating money.

When I take 10 bucks worth of ingredients to create a Pizza worth 15 bucks I am not creating money, just wealth.

A Bank relies on that money now>money later to create its wealth. It gives you money now on the condition that you will pay for that money + some sum in the future. Its really not that different than a product.

Well its very different to the extent that its a monopoly privilege. Trying getting a licence to start a banking business ; literally a licence to create money out of nothing. Or try creating money as any other type of company and find out whether counterfeiting laws will be applied to you. Forget the theory, focus on the realities and the real history.

The real history is that governments used to create money and it was paid directly into the economy for goods and services without charge. Hence taxes on wealth, excises on goods and trade, tolls on travel etc., no income taxes.
In the private bank monopoly privilege system in which money is created as loans (so that all money is debt, and without debt there is no money), government ceases to issue money and finances its operations with interest bearing bank loans (usurious, compound interest bearing loans). Income taxes are then instituted and levied to meet these interest "obligations". Income tax is an English invention to meet the interest charges on Bank of England loans to government.
If government DOES create money in this system its only when the banking system is stretched beyond its fractional reserve capacities (as during world wars), and it ceases to do so when the crisis is over.
Otherwise it is rebelling against the system, in which case the bankers organize a hit , the case of Abraham Lincoln and his "greenbacks", or destroy a country entire, the recent case of Libya, where the first political move of NATO-backed terrorists upon seizing power was to create no mosque or religious school or something to do their purported Islamic aspirations, but a private money issuance banking system, shutting down the government issuance system which had made Libya the most prosperous country in Africa after Sth. Africa. Now its no longer even a country, just a training hell hole to provide the manpower for NATO and western govt terrorist attacks on Syria, or on their own populations.

 

[Maq]

Turkey won a war against England, France and Greece right after the nation was founded. Home field advantage counts for a lot. A limited war but so was Korea. Beijing wasn't nuked not out of fear of the chinese but fear of the soviets.

Nuked Beijing? I think that was out of question principally. American position was not to allow this war to grow over its dimensions. That's why the president recalled MacArthur. The aim was the return to status quo ante.
That said, Chinese performed quite well, and the war certainly improved their self-esteem. I'd say it has established China's position as a sovereign nation (in contrast to the past), but not yet Great Power.

 

[LordTempest]

1. Definitely.
2. Depends how you define China.

 

[Maq]

1) Is China today (in 2016) a Great Power? Why or why not?

2) If the answer to the above question is "yes," at what point in modern history did China attain (or re-attain, depending on your perspective) Great Power status?

I think China is a Great Power about since the turn of the century.
But there's another question which seems interesting to me: What about China's prospects? Especially compared to India's. Will these countries be able to surpass enormous problems which they apparently have? Which way do you think is better - Indian "crazy democracy" or Chinese "capitalist communism"?

 

[Yakman]

Except they did not have a seat at the Security Council until 1971. Before that China's seat was held by ROC. Their first nuclear rest was in 1964 by the way.

During the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis (95-96) the US sailed a carrier group (Nimitz) through the straits in a show of force, knowing full well that China would have been incapable to do anything about it. I would find it difficult to classify a country as a Great Power as long as it can't protect its own coast line.

I would put China as a true great power around 2005. As for force projection they have a limited capability now. While Liaoning still is not fully operational it could be sent out with a limited wing of fighters (16 or so). PLAN also have 4 LPDs that they could send out.

i later amended my statement -

in my view, you need three things to claim Great Power status in the 21st century:

1 - A seat on the Security Council
2 - Nuclear Weapons
3 - A manned space program

China had the first in 1945 (yes, it went over to Taipei, but please) - and regained it in 1971
The second was in 1964
The third is in 2003

The general consensus is midway through the aughts.

 

[Maq]

What about making a list of current Great Powers? I think it could help defining features which must be met to call a country Great Power.
I believe three of them are obvious: the U.S., Russia, and China.
But what about another group: the U.K., France, Germany, India, Japan? Are any of them Great Powers? Myself, I can't tell for sure. What do you think?

 

[Maq]

Well, France, India and UK (as soon as they get Queen Elizabeth operational) have limited force projection capabilities (carrier and LPD/LHD/LPH).

France has the M51, which can deliver a nuke about 10,000 km, while the UK has the Trident. India will probably have Agni-VI operational around 2020.

India lacks the status and influence that a permanent seat at the Security Council gives them.

Germany and Japan really don't have any of the above, although Japan gets closest in force projection ability.

Then comes the question of economy and industrial capability, arms industry included. Is a country a Great Power if it to a large degree rely on weapon imports?

So, we'd probably relegate Japan and Germany to 'regional' power status.
India lags in technology, and to me it seems they were not interested to 'project power' outside South Asia, until recently.
The U.K. and France have all that Great Powers should have, except in small quantity. They are not able to wage 'big' war, yet they can act worldwide.
I'm less inclined to measure the status by purely military abilities. So I believe that German or Japanese word counts a lot, simply thanks to their economic strength. The problem is rather different - they seldom act independently, and prefer following American, or European (EU) stance. Invisible giants...

 

[Yakman]

I do not see why a manned space program is needed. It does give prestige, but as long as you can toss your nukes 10,000+ km it really don't matter, IMO, if you put a man in space or not.

You have to be wealthy enough to do it. You have to be prestige seeking, and have a high prestige, to do it.

The point of sending a man into space is to announce to the world that you are a leader in science and in economic might. There's only three countries that have ever done it, and all three are the world's superpowers since 1945.

 

[Maq]

You have to be wealthy enough to do it. You have to be prestige seeking, and have a high prestige, to do it.

The point of sending a man into space is to announce to the world that you are a leader in science and in economic might. There's only three countries that have ever done it, and all three are the world's superpowers since 1945.

I quite agree without much reservation. But we should not be restricted to purely military/technological achievements.
An example: Pakistan developed nuclear bomb, and it did so for prestige at least as much as for military purpose... actually, I believe that Pakistani leaders know pretty well that if they ever use nuclear weapon, they'd be responded in kind. Well, but Pakistan also belongs among the poorest nations.
Compare with Brazil. Nothing spectacular like A-bomb. Relatively moderate military budget. Yet I believe Brazil commands greater respect than Pakistan on international scene.

 

[Maq]

There is a difference between a Super Power and a Great Power, and China most certainly is not a Super Power. Power status is about exerting influence, and sending a man into space gives no influence at all. If you had said it demands a space program of a certain scale (ELINT satellites and so on) I might agree as that does give ability to project power.

The labels clearly differ, but we should settle on some of them to avoid mess.
While at the college, we have distinguished terms 'global power' and 'regional power'. What do you think? Do we really need another degree ['super power']?

 

[ShoGuL]

So, we'd probably relegate Japan and Germany to 'regional' power status.
India lags in technology, and to me it seems they were not interested to 'project power' outside South Asia, until recently.
The U.K. and France have all that Great Powers should have, except in small quantity. They are not able to wage 'big' war, yet they can act worldwide.

I find this assessment interesting. These are pretty much all main actors of World War 2 and all were more or less disarmed (excepting Japan) just a few years before the outbreak of the war. Are you suggesting that they have less economic power than in 1939? If the worst should happen and any of these countries face major war, do you believe them unable to re-arm and produce a huge military in short order? Should 'Great Power' status not be based on potential as well as actual power?

I am curious and really want to know. If you don't believe them capable of this, why not? Is it simply exponentially more expensive and difficult to run an effective military force in 2016 than in 1940 ?


On the topic of China: Logically, from a pure military power status, I find it difficult to believe that any nation in the world (including the US!) would be able to match Chinese capabilities if the state decided to nationalize all factories and start building tanks*. This is simply due to the belief that the rest of the worlds 'great economies' are, to a far greater degree, service based, whereas China's is still massively based on raw production.

Is that a completely invalid assertion ?



*And other military equipment, obviously..

 

[Maq]

I find this assessment interesting. These are pretty much all main actors of World War 2 and all were more or less disarmed (excepting Japan) just a few years before the outbreak of the war. Are you suggesting that they have less economic power than in 1939? If the worst should happen and any of these countries face major war, do you believe them unable to re-arm and produce a huge military in short order? Should 'Great Power' status not be based on potential as well as actual power?

I am curious and really want to know. If you don't believe them capable of this, why not? Is it simply exponentially more expensive and difficult to run an effective military force in 2016 than in 1940 ?


On the topic of China: Logically, from a pure military power status, I find it difficult to believe that any nation in the world (including the US!) would be able to match Chinese capabilities if the state decided to nationalize all factories and start building tanks*. This is simply due to the belief that the rest of the worlds 'great economies' are, to a far greater degree, service based, whereas China's is still massively based on raw production.

Is that a completely invalid assertion ?



*And other military equipment, obviously..

Difficult and complex questions.
There are several levels of armed conflicts, topped by a nuclear one. I believe that all powers know that the latter works solely as a deterrent, not a real alternative.
So the status of global power largerly depends on the country's power projection in the world like it looks now, at peace.
Eighty or so years ago, the U.K. or France could easily soundly defeat Persia (Iran). But today? I doubt they could. But even this particular scenario depends. If Iran would do something really bad (blockading Hormuz channel?) and as a consequence suffered deep diplomatic isolation, then I can imagine a succesful British punitive action.
---
China is still a steamroller facing American hypertech technology. These countries' advantages are asymmetric.
So, if China decided, par example, to occupy Vietnam, I wouldn't expect the U.S. taking any action similar to that of the sixties. But what about trade embargo, including imports of raw materials (oil!) to China? What would follow?
1. The world would suffer a recession, but remedy is obvious: China would lose the status of the world's factory. India and others would take over.
2. Disastrous consequences for China, in this case, the permanent ones. Civil war would be very likely.

 

[magritte2]

I think a lot of people of talking about superpowers, not Great Powers. Historically, the term Great Power was applied to countries like Austria-Hungary and Prussia which certainly did not have global reach.

 

[LordTempest]

On the topic of China: Logically, from a pure military power status, I find it difficult to believe that any nation in the world (including the US!) would be able to match Chinese capabilities if the state decided to nationalize all factories and start building tanks*. This is simply due to the belief that the rest of the worlds 'great economies' are, to a far greater degree, service based, whereas China's is still massively based on raw production.

Is that a completely invalid assertion ?

It would be a very valid assertion if our concepts and methods of warfare hadn't changed since the 1940's, before great military powers possessed the ability to wipe out a nation's entire industrial base at the push of a button.

I think a lot of people of talking about superpowers, not Great Powers. Historically, the term Great Power was applied to countries like Austria-Hungary and Prussia which certainly did not have global reach.

Agreed.