is asia the future?

[gelaye]

do you think that East Asia will come to dominate the world? All im hearing about is growing economies and all this new technology thats revolutionising things in japan and robots being built in malaysia - will Asia become the new future 'eden' of earth???


(or maybe africa will start developing fast and everyone will migrate there!!!! natural resources and nice weather for all )

[Samhain]

gelaye said:

do you think that East Asia will come to dominate the world? All im hearing about is growing economies and all this new technology thats revolutionising things in japan and robots being built in malaysia - will Asia become the new future 'eden' of earth???


(or maybe africa will start developing fast and everyone will migrate there!!!! natural resources and nice weather for all )

Someone very bright will have to come up with a cure for Aids and Communism first.

[Igu]

-Of course they will, East asians do not have a guilt-feeling towards parasites, they do not preach egalitarism and socialism, they preach hard-work!!

-unlike westeners who will join the thirld world, East-asians will dominate!

[Samhain]

East Asians tend not to have feelings towards anything, which is why they are considered a cruel race lacking the warmth of other groups.

Igu said:

-Of course they will, East asians do not have a guilt-feeling towards parasites, they do not preach egalitarism and socialism, they preach hard-work!!

-unlike westeners who will join the thirld world, East-asians will dominate!

[CooCooCachoo]

East Asians are under-utilized. Their economies will grow until they've maximized their potential in producing goods, and accumulating wealth by doing so.

...Unless they decide to get in some large scale war, they will continue to enjoy expanding markets, and the benefits of free trade which is new for them.

[murphee]

I predict East Asia will be ascendant given its burgeoning population and increasing industrialization.

[CooCooCachoo]

Yeah, what Murphee says. ...Those Mother Fvckers are going to be "ascendant".

[nordicyouth]

I disagree. China will inexorably take its place as a Great Power in the world, alongside the United States, Japan, and a hopefully united Eastern and Western Europe. Chinese growth rates are only high because they have nothing to begin with, the fact is that their economy is expanding and will continue to do so.

Western Europe and the United States' are in a process of consolidation, characterized by low growth rates. But they have the infrastructure, etc. i.e. it's maintenance and rehauling periodically. Eastern Europe, however, provides fertile ground to inject some raw Capitalism into its Western counterpart.

If China were to industrialize per capital on the scale of Japan, the United States, or Europe, it would exhaust every resource on Earth well before it reached its target; this is aside from the environmental damage incurred.

East Asia is not unified, except economically, and both Tokyo and Beijing have very different ideas about who will run the show. Japan hasn't sacrificed to stay competitive and protectionist just to be part of some Orwellian super-state. Eastern and Western Europe are far more likelier to fuse, and then you'll have the largest and most powerful military-economic bloc in human history, with plenty of room for both consolidation and expansion.

The same thing for China goes for India, although they aren't centralized enough to wield the force that China does. And don't mention Brazil - the land of classicism and racism - overcrowded Rio slums do not make for a large demographic that will have any recognition or say.

Until Indochina abandons its militarized economies, it will be up to Japan, China, the N.I.E.s (Japan's imitators), and India.

It has nothing to do with inherent industriousness; many European immigrants after W.W.I.I. displayed the same qualities as East Asian immigrants today: minus the organized crime, illness, lack of manners, etc., but plus the discrimination.

[Tautamo]

A.U.C.T.O.R.I.T.A.S. said:

I disagree. China will inexorably take its place as a Great Power in the world, alongside the United States, Japan, and a hopefully united Eastern and Western Europe. Chinese growth rates are only high because they have nothing to begin with, the fact is that their economy is expanding and will continue to do so.

Western Europe and the United States' are in a process of consolidation, characterized by low growth rates. But they have the infrastructure, etc. i.e. it's maintenance and rehauling periodically. Eastern Europe, however, provides fertile ground to inject some raw Capitalism into its Western counterpart.

If China were to industrialize per capital on the scale of Japan, the United States, or Europe, it would exhaust every resource on Earth well before it reached its target; this is aside from the environmental damage incurred.

East Asia is not unified, except economically, and both Tokyo and Beijing have very different ideas about who will run the show. Japan hasn't sacrificed to stay competitive and protectionist just to be part of some Orwellian super-state. Eastern and Western Europe are far more likelier to fuse, and then you'll have the largest and most powerful military-economic bloc in human history, with plenty of room for both consolidation and expansion.

The same thing for China goes for India, although they aren't centralized enough to wield the force that China does. And don't mention Brazil - the land of classicism and racism - overcrowded Rio slums do not make for a large demographic that will have any recognition or say.

Until Indochina abandons its militarized economies, it will be up to Japan, China, the N.I.E.s (Japan's imitators), and India.

It has nothing to do with inherent industriousness; many European immigrants after W.W.I.I. displayed the same qualities as East Asian immigrants today: minus the organized crime, illness, lack of manners, etc., but plus the discrimination.

what the hell are you talking about?

[NuSapiens]

East Asia has a high average IQ, but smaller "smart fraction" of people with a verbal IQ over 106. This doesn't mean they can't make their own civilization less based on commerce than ours in the West. Their approach to demographics has long-term viability, and they have already begun to vie for access to Southern Hemisphere resources, especially in S. America. They will be contenders for global hegemony within a century or so, or possibly much sooner.

The USA and EU have created big internal problems for themselves by allowing far too many unskilled laborers to immigrate. The West's advantages for the moment are better resources and human resources (educated workforce and large "smart fraction"). Major disadvantages are disunity and social decay.

[Tautamo]

NuSapiens said:

East Asia has a high average IQ, but smaller "smart fraction" of people with a verbal IQ over 106. This doesn't mean they can't make their own civilization less based on commerce than ours in the West. Their approach to demographics has long-term viability, and they have already begun to vie for access to Southern Hemisphere resources, especially in S. America. They will be contenders for global hegemony within a century or so, or possibly much sooner.

The USA and EU have created big internal problems for themselves by allowing far too many unskilled laborers to immigrate. The West's advantages for the moment are better resources and human resources (educated workforce and large "smart fraction"). Major disadvantages are disunity and social decay.

thats funny you say usa and the us created big internal problems about unskilled laborers

but yet people like greenspan says we do need immigrints.

certainly someone is hiring them.

i dont understand

[Tautamo]

NuSapiens said:

East Asia has a high average IQ, but smaller "smart fraction" of people with a verbal IQ over 106. This doesn't mean they can't make their own civilization less based on commerce than ours in the West. Their approach to demographics has long-term viability, and they have already begun to vie for access to Southern Hemisphere resources, especially in S. America. They will be contenders for global hegemony within a century or so, or possibly much sooner.

The USA and EU have created big internal problems for themselves by allowing far too many unskilled laborers to immigrate. The West's advantages for the moment are better resources and human resources (educated workforce and large "smart fraction"). Major disadvantages are disunity and social decay.

Debate over Mexican illegal immigration to the United States consists of two opposing sides. Supportersof illegal immigration believe it is not fair to prohibit immigrants from entering the United States, sincethe U.S. was founded by immigrants. Second, illegal immigrants take the low-paying jobs otherAmericans are not willing to take. They help the American economy because the amount of skilled andunskilled workers created by high levels of immigration contributes to the nation's prosperity (Masci 1).Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, states, ``As we are creating an ever more complex,sophisticated, accelerating economy, the necessity to have the ability to bring in ..... people from abroadto keep it functioning in the most effective manner increasingly strikes me as [sound] policy'' (Masci 1).Greenspan reasons that immigrant's work ethic and motivation make them the cornerstones of America'seconomic prosperity. Finally, illegal immigrants provide cheap labor to employers, thereby lowering thecost of goods and services.Opponents of Mexican illegal immigration believe that even though the United States was founded byimmigrants, immigration of the past is not the same as it is today. First, Mexican immigrants are not herelegally. Second, most Mexicans do not take the dangerous journey across the border to become Americancitizens, but rather to help provide for their families in Mexico. Also unlike former immigrants, Mexicanillegal immigrants are able to remain in contact with their home localities because of the close proximityof the two countries (Huntington 2). Opponents of illegal immigration also believe the United Statesdoesn't need a million illegal immigrants each year to ensure a strong economy. The majority of illegalimmigrants are not well educated entrepreneurs, but rather, ``poorly educated people who take low-skilled jobs for little money,'' says Dan Stein, executive director for the Federation for AmericanImmigrant Reform (Masci 1).

Illegal immigration opponents also reject the argument that illegalimmigrants are willing to do the jobs that most Americans wouldn't do. In parts of the country wherethere are small amounts of immigrants, low wage jobs are filled by native born residents (Masci 1).After analyzing the history, causes, and contrasting sides of illegal immigration, one might wonder ifMexican illegal immigration hurts the United States. The conclusion made, from extensive research inspecific areas, is Mexican illegal immigration is a detriment to the United States. But, the reasons whyillegal immigration hurts the United States still need to be addressed.First, many discussions of immigration fails to take into account the attitude towards immigration in thesending countries. For example, the Mexican media and political elite portray the United Statesnegatively, and therefore dissention between the two countries in regards to immigration is amplified.Second, manipulation of American politics might occur through Mexican immigrants that becomeinfluential in American government. Third, if the United States continues to allow illegal immigrants totake advantage of government provided benefits in states like California, there is a possibility the entirecountry will have similar economic misfortunes in the future. Finally, since Mexican illegal immigrantshave monopolized specific areas of employment, Americans have difficulty pursuing and acquiring thosejobs--especially with the prospect of guest-worker programs which would intensify their monopoly.In Mexico, the media and political elite pay close attention to illegal immigration to the United States,and have created a one-sided, unfavorable portrayal of the United States. The United States' attempts tocontrol their borders are presented as ``racist, xenophobic, and anti Mexican'' (Wall 1). Mexican citizenseven blame the U.S. for the deaths of illegal aliens who die crossing the border, and Mexican politicianshave called the U.S. border a ``slaughterhouse, or modern Nazi zone'' (Wall 1). In Mexico, all politicalparties support immigration to the United States, amnesty, and government benefits for Mexicans in theUnited States, regardless of migratory status (Wall 2). Common slogans Mexicans use to justify illegalimmigration are: ``Mexican illegal aliens are not criminals, they only do the work the gringos won't do,''and ``they are obliged to cross the border'' (Wall 2). Because the Mexican media and political eliteportray illegal immigration to the United States in this manner, dissension between the two countries isamplified.Throughout history, Mexican-Americans had always been viewed as an embarrassment.
tancredo.house.gov/speeches/2004_11_18.pdf.

[Tautamo]

America has two economies, and one is flourishing at the expense of the other. First, there's the legitimate economy, in which craftsmen are licensed and employers and employees pay taxes. Then there's the fast-growing underground economy, where millions of nannies, construction workers and others are paid off-the-books, their incomes largely untaxed. The best guess as to the size of the output of this shadow economy is about $970 billion, or nearly 9% that of the real economy. It should soon pass $1 trillion.

What is largely fueling the underground economy, experts say, is the nation's swelling ranks of low-wage illegal immigrants. The government puts this population at 8.5 million, but that may represent a serious undercount.



Robert Justich, a senior managing director at Bear Stearns Asset Management in New York, makes a persuasive case in a forthcoming paper, "The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface," that illegal immigrants actually number 18 million to 20 million. If true, the economic implications are profound and could help shape debates slated in Washington this year over both immigration policies and tax reform.

Measuring the size of the underground economy is, of course, more art than science, since most of its denizens seek to remain anonymous. But convincing anecdotal evidence and a number of credible academic studies suggest that it is expanding briskly -- probably by an average of 5.6% a year since the early 1990s, edging out the real economy.



In the process, the underground economy is undermining the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service, which is highly dependent on employees' withholding taxes. If the IRS could collect all the taxes it says that it is owed from the underground economy in a given year, then the current budget deficit would disappear overnight. And if the IRS could collect these taxes every year, then the nation would have surpluses as far as the eye can see.

The IRS has estimated that its tax gap -- the estimated amount of taxes owed minus the amount collected -- is around $311 billion in any given year. The agency will produce a new estimate in 2005, and it could be as high as $400 billion, says former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander. Now a lawyer in Washington, he cites a rise in private contracting and the opportunities it affords for not reporting income.

The gap number measures only a portion of the underground economy. Because the number is extrapolated from audited returns, it makes no allowances for criminal enterprises that report no income, and it even fails to capture some garden varieties of non-reporting. The unreported wages of illegal immigrants alone could be costing the government another $50 billion a year, says Justich.

Growth of the underground economy is partly a result of corporate downsizing, which has forced many former employees to go out on their own.


"We have had an 85% taxpayer compliance rate," says Nina Olson, the IRS's taxpayer advocate. "I expect the number to decline," because the portion of employees subject to withholding is on the wane. Such employees are 99% compliant with tax laws, she says, but in the 21st-century economy, "More and more people are being treated as independent contractors. We are losing people from the withholding environment."

Entrepreneurs often are stymied by the complexity of estimating their taxes and making quarterly payments, which leads to mistakes or out-and-out avoidance. The growth of online commerce may be exacerbating the situation.


There were over 40 million regular users of eBay alone in 2003, up from 23 million in 2002. The sellers are responsible for paying taxes. Some of them set up a business and get a taxpayer ID number; others don't. (An eBay spokesman says the company isn't a tax adviser -- it's up to members to report their taxes.)

Most unsettling to IRS bureaucrats, taxpayers as a group appear to have become less honest. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is the latest poster boy for the phenomenon. He had to drop his bid to become secretary of homeland security because he failed to pay Social Security taxes for his children's illegal-immigrant nanny.

Kerik is hardly alone: Any homeowner who has been offered two prices by a handyman or a gardener -- a higher one for a payment by check, a lower one for all cash -- knows how quickly the savings can add up. In one twist on off-the-books business, the New York Times recently reported on a rise in mechanics who repair cars at curbside for untraceable cash payments. They are not in want of customers. In some cities, including Boston, owners of battered cars get similar offers from itinerant body-repair "experts."

In speeches, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson is fond of citing a survey by his agency showing that the number of Americans who consider tax-cheating acceptable rose from 11% in 1999 to 17% in 2003.

Former Commissioner Alexander, who ran the agency during the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations, said he urged Congress to pass a law making customers responsible for withholding some taxes on services provided by carpenters, plumbers and other self-employed contractors. Customers would have had to hold back 5% of the cost of services and forward it to the IRS, but Congress failed to embrace the measure.

Result: The underground economy has kept growing nearly unchecked. Academics accept the work of Austrian Friedrich Schneider as the best estimate of the underground economy's size. Using data on currency flows and the consumption of electricity, he guessed that in 1996 it was about 8.8% of the nation's gross domestic product. This estimate was made before the flood of immigration from South America, so it might be conservative if used today, when the nation's GDP stands at $11 trillion.

To be sure, the U.S. underground economy, as a percentage of GDP, is smaller than those of some other countries. In a 2000 paper in a publication of the Independent Institute, a nonprofit research organization, Schneider found that Greece, as of 1998, had the largest underground economy, at 29% of its GDP, followed by Italy at 27.8% and Spain at 23.4%. Countries with high tax burdens and high social security costs lead the list.

But the sheer growth of the underground economy in the U.S. is cause for concern. If Justich's estimate of illegal immigrant workers is correct, the underground economy may now be growing at a markedly faster rate than the legitimate economy. Justich, working with Bear Stearns colleague Betty Ng, an emerging- markets economist, says he's found evidence of a larger illegal immigrant population by analyzing data on construction and on remittances sent from the U.S. to Mexico and other countries. He also had conversations with over 100 immigrants from Mexico, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guinea, China and Tibet. And he interviewed local business owners, real-estate sales people and police.

Justich, a veteran securities analyst, currently specializes in fixed-income strategies at Bear Stearns Asset Management, which oversees some $29 billion in investments. He began digging into the underground economy because of its broad ramifications for the real economy. In his spare time, he has been exploring the immigrant communities of northern New Jersey for his work as executive producer of a documentary film about immigrants and the importance of their former national anthems in their lives.

From all this, Justich concludes that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's estimates of productivity gains are overly rosy. "The productivity miracle may be slightly overstated because they are counting the output of millions of illegal immigrants but not counting the input," he says. Likewise, long-term budget projections could be overstating the potential growth of the legitimate U.S. economy or underestimating the need for high illegal immigrant flows to hit the forecast growth targets.

Ideas like that could well become food for thought for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas of California. He wants to push ahead with tax reform this year, including the creation of a national sales tax and reduction of income taxes. In theory, a sales tax would capture the underground economy, since all wage earners have to spend money to live.

[Tautamo]

Alan Greenspan informed Congress that immigrants, including undocumented workers, in essence donate $27 billion to state and local economies. This is the difference between what they pay in taxes ($70 billion) and what they use in services ($43 billion). In Illinois alone, he testified, "Illegal workers pay $547 million in taxes yearly, compared to $238 million in services used." This is a net "profit" for Illinois of $309 million. This phenomenon is the norm, not the exception, in states where undocumented workers pay taxes. Indeed, rather than take money from, undocumented workers donate money to the American economy and thus to Americans.
www.ailf.org/pubed/pe_articles_nw062102a.htm

[Tautamo]

Im sick of hearing everyones opinion.i want to see numbers.