SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RealMuLan who wrote (37561)7/22/1999 4:51:00 PM
From: Zardoz  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116782
 
Too bad China developed A-bomb itself, and as much as the US wants to claim the credit, the time frame is too far.

A-bomb technology is not that hard to understand. Altough it took china many years, many man power, and yet the yields are still very low. H-bomb technology is not much harder, funny you didn't mention that? Canada has been selling China CANDU reactors for the same reason why we tried to sell them to Russia. Heck Canada even leant the money to China to pay for the first 3. Why? Because technically speaking Canada wants to see the world have a dumby proof system of nuclear reactors. Least we forget Chernobayl, Three mile Island, and others.

When you have boat people leaving your country... then you have something wrong with your country.

Hutch

PS: Can we get back to the shiny metal please. Wow, time to short it or what!

PPS: If china can grow enough food to feed itself, why does Canada have to subsidize the 13 Chinese wheat frieghters in Vancouver Harbour as of today?



To: RealMuLan who wrote (37561)7/23/1999 12:35:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 116782
 
OT:

LOL. Too bad China developed A-bomb itself, and as much as the US wants to claim the credit, the time frame is too far

If China can do all these "wonderful" technically daring projects by themselves, then why is the country still so poor??

Perhaps a lack of priorities?? Perhaps a lack of incentive and property guarantees??

Your country wouldn't risk nearly the degree of chaos that it currently does, were it not for the party elite jockeying for country over the masses.

Your leadership is the problem and they can either move aside gracefully or your people will eventually get fed up and do it themselves, sadly with much blood shed.

Btw, even the US didn't build the A-bomb "by ourselves". It took quite a few German nuclear physicists to help us along with the theory. Same thing with rockets and jet aircraft.

Regards,

Ron



To: RealMuLan who wrote (37561)7/23/1999 2:36:00 PM
From: Richnorth  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116782
 
AN EMERGING SUPERPOWER
By Jim Rogers (taken from worth.com (see The Complete Archives of Jim Rodgers))

Which nation has the largest middle class? (Nope, not the U.S.) If you don't know the answer, you haven't been following one of the world's most important economies.

I've used this space before to express my conviction that the United States' reign as the world's only superpower isn't likely to last. It's quite clear that sometime in the next century China will eclipse the U.S. as the world's dominant force. I've even suggested that American schoolchildren should start learning Chinese. China, however, isn't the lone emerging superpower. There's another nation--one I've written far less about--that is clearly destined to become a major player on the global stage: India.

India recently jumped to the forefront of world attention by exploding a few nuclear bombs. This was a rude wake-up call to what already should have been obvious: India is a force to be reckoned with.

Everyone knows about China's huge population--1.2 billion people. But fewer realize that India isn't far behind, with 950 million citizens. More important, India already has the world's largest middle class-- estimated between 150 million and 300 million people. It represents a huge, skilled workforce, an enormous market for consumer goods, and an economic force that we all need to know something about.

For better and for worse, India owes its existence as a nation to Great Britain. The colonial British crammed a variety of cultures and religions into one pot, imposed English as the common language for business and politics, and introduced the concept of bureaucracy--a tool that the Indians have since elevated to an even higher level of mindlessness. (My visits to Indian government offices have been unique; it's often hard to make human contact amid the dizzying mountains of official forms.)

India would be even further along economically if it hadn't taken a wrongheaded detour during the Cold War, when it allied itself with the former Soviet Union. It took until 1991 for India to recognize this error and to reject economic statism. China, by contrast, began embracing free markets as early as 1979. China's head start has given it a significant edge over India in economic growth. While China's gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 8.5 percent between 1965 and 1996, India's growth averaged 4.5 percent.

Even so, India now has a larger economy than France, Britain, Italy, or Brazil. It currently ranks fifth in the world, behind the United States, China, Japan, and Germany. Unlike many emerging economies, India also has a legacy of democracy and a strong rule of law. Though corruption remains a problem, India has elections as well as universal suffrage. Its government operates under a parliamentary system. The president, elected every five years, is something of a figurehead. The true power rests with the prime minister and the cabinet, who must have the support of a majority of the bicameral parliament.

India was essentially bankrupt in 1991--at one point it had only enough foreign-currency reserves in its coffers to last three weeks. Impelled by necessity, it deregulated, unshackling business to develop the subcontinent's wealth and talents. As a result, it now has $26 billion in foreign-currency reserves.

India's new government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, has a clear agenda to promote the interests of Indian industry and recognizes that India needs more foreign investment, not less, if its growth rate is to improve.

Yashwant Sinha, the finance minister and a new member of the Bharatiya Janata party, could be speaking for progressive finance ministers around the globe when he was recently interviewed by the Financial Times of London, which asked, "What is your message for foreign investors?"

"That we are normal human beings as any other," replied Sinha. "We are not out of some other planet. We are not Hindu nationalists as newspapers in the west tend to describe us....We are committed to economic reforms. We will carry forward the process of internal liberalization much faster....We are ready to welcome foreign investment in a very big way in sectors which we feel it has a major role to play."

In some respects, India remains two nations, one rural and one urban. Seventy percent of India's population is still involved in agriculture, forestry, or fishing. Yet India is also one of the most heavily industrialized areas in the world. Its leading products are textiles, iron, steel, machine tools, and chemicals. Principal exports are cut gems, jewelry, and software.

Perhaps its biggest strength lies in the collective brainpower of its middle class. Through the Internet, Indians are already scripting reams of software for Silicon Valley. Indian entrepreneurs are also building a Silicon Valley of their own, one that may rival California's.

Twenty years from now, many Americans may have their taxes calculated over the Internet by a New Delhi accountant, their financial planning done by a firm in Calcutta, and routine legal work (such as a will or divorce agreement) done in Bangalore.

The Indian diaspora throughout the U.S., Europe, and Asia will also produce benefits. Expat Indians send capital to their families and continue to do business with companies back home.

I think India will generate profits for investors over the intermediate term: 5 to 15 years. To make direct investments today, foreigners must either form an Indian company or establish a joint venture with one--an absurdity that will change before too long. There are several mutual funds that invest in Indian stocks. Depositary- receipt issues also trade on the New York and London markets. I've been especially interested in some of the better-managed Indian commodity plays. These could provide a double whammy, enabling investors to profit from both the burgeoning Indian economy and the coming worldwide lift in commodity values.

Does India have problems? Of course. Most of its 280 banks have a negative net worth. There's still deep and widespread poverty. And the caste system hasn't been entirely eliminated.

It's also an open question whether India can remain at peace with its neighbors. In an effort to keep their disparate republic knit, nationalist Indian politicians have continually provoked Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China. The recent nuclear tests may be yet another example of this.

Over time, though, economic success has a way of making war look like an ever more costly proposition. My guess is that India will see the light.

Senior contributing editor Jim Rogers is an international investor and the author of Investment Biker (Adams).




To: RealMuLan who wrote (37561)7/23/1999 3:22:00 PM
From: Richnorth  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116782
 
Did you know that a particularly talented Chinese physicist and gifted mathematician who was chosen by von Karmann to succeed him as Head of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, in the late 50's, was harrassed endlessly by the U.S. authorirties and trumped-up charges were brought against him? In disgust, that scientist returned to China. (The authorities feared he stole secrets. So, during a stopover in Hawaii, they searched his belongings but they came up empty). In the years following he helped Red China launch its own satellites into orbits.

Why did they harrass and embarrass him? Simply because having a Chinese as Head of the JPL (a very political thing during the Cold War) was a No-No!!!

Yes, against great odds, China did much to develop her own Hydrogen Bomb. (The bomb the Chinese exploded in 1964 was essentgially a hydrogen bomb, not a atom bomb). The pariah "Yellow Peril" at tremendous self-sacrifice, had marshalled enough resources to make the bomb for very obvious reasons.

Many Westerners still think that if China achieved anything of significance, China must have copied it from some super powers or stolen their secrets because they believe the Chinese are just not smart enough. At one time, Japan was looked at in the same way too. Little do they realise that no one nation has the monopoly on the laws of science and the principles of math and engineering!!!

If Professor Phillipe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario were here, he would have said something very favorable about the potential of Oriental people. (Use the search engines to look up Phillipe Rushton).

Did you know that because of unfair treaties and indemnities imposed upon China especially during the last century and also because of internal problems and the invasion by Japan, China was practically broke for a very long time?