Talk:Chinese Century/Archives/2012

Link to WMD

I wonder how the Chinese weapon of mass destruction is linked to the concept of "Chinese Century". The term is mostly derived from the fast economics growth of China, and as the China WMD article states, "it possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal amongst the five major nuclear-weapon states." I am going to remove the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

China was the largest economy for the past 18/20 centuries

There has got to be something unique OUTSIDE of economics that will distinguish the 21st century "Chinese Century" from the past 18/20 centuries.

R emergence as a new largest economy doesn't count since China was already the biggest economy 18 times in a row before the British empire took that spot.

Or else, can we call the past 18/20 centuries "Chinese centuries" just based on world's largest GDP percentage share?

Yes, we can call the past 18/20 centuries "Chinese centuries". --Zhonghuo (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact we can use the term "Chinese Millennium" --Zhonghuo (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No one uses the word chinese millenium, cut the propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese millennium sounds fine. Two milleniums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Check your facts people. India was the largest country for most of the last two millenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.81.180 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Check your reading comprehensions. The argument is about largest ECONOMY not largest COUNTRY81.155.74.89 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article reads like a WP:SYNTHESIS made of various unrelated POVs and needs to be fixed. Sources that make the correlation between China's economic growth, army, etc. and the "Chinese Century" need to be provided. Laurent (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Fogel is crazy to think GDP per capital in EU will be half of Chinas in 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.209.167 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After 10 months, no source has been provided so I've removed the section. Laurent (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Several inaccuracies.

There are several inaccuracies in the article.

1. Technological innovations. Every year, China publishes 5,500 pattants while the US records 550,000. China is not "number three" or projected to be number one within 50 years, and certainly not by 2012. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/941_2010.pdf

2. "China's per capita income will hit $85,000, more than double the forecast for the European Union." completely ludacris, as it far exceeded even the theoretical sustainability of population of the Earth. which is 2 billion at 80,000 per capita- and 40 billion at 500 per capita.

http://dieoff.org/page112.htm

I also contest the validity of Robert Fogel's assessments on the future. He based his article off of assumptions of continued growth steady political atmosphere, population growth and unmeasurable factors such as education and the future health of the global econamy. While neglecting this such as inflation, currency value, overly stressed natural resources, an aging population, desertification, and other issues dealing with the health of the Chinese econamy. His views strike me personaly as incredibly vague, short sighted, and overly optimistic. Fellow economists such as Drezner have also criticized his assessments calling it unfitting, and amateurish.

While i do not deny there are several economists who predict a healthy Chinese econamy in 2040, a large majority do not belive it will exceed the US econamy, and potentially the Eurozone should it be included in the assessments. There for, i do not think it is wise to have such an isolated economist be quoted for this article.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

Delete

I request this article for deletion. This has been termed the asian century not the chinese century. Its also been predicted by many, includeding Goldman Sachs that India will overtake the USA and China by 2050 to become the world's largest economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.81.180 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I second this notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.33.116.78 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The second paragraph of this article is very biased, partial copy of the Chinese section in potential superpowers that only includes the negative views. Furthermore, the sources talks about superpower but does not seem to talk about "Chinese century". As such, I propose that this paragraph should be removed with comment to see the potential superpower article for a discussion regarding that topic. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)