The End of Cheap Chinese Goods-What will it Mean for You? (page 5)

botchtowersociety

China is running at full speed towards a brick wall. India, for all its flaws, is laying the ground work for sustainable long success.

There is a slight change in this chart, compared to earlier ones. The western migration to europe and egypt came out of india. Thus, while it is an 'out of africa' chart, it's a secondary 'out of india' chart, also. So, while africa may be the oldest, india is the second oldest culture.

S

botchtowersociety

Fascinating chart, Satanus. I'd like to add, on the other hand, that Chinese stats are not to be trusted. Common sense alone should be enough to establish this attitude.

fulltimestudent

First point, thank you Shamus for pointing out the essential truth that in the USA (and Australia and Europe) the people who make the decision to buy a Chinese product are usually citizens of that country. Let's re-state this clearly, if in America, their is surfeit of cheap rubbish (as some suggest) it is because another American placed an order for the lowest priced goods that he could find, paid for it and had it shipped to the US.

And, this does not necessarily include the production centres that are totally owned by foreign companies. Mattel for example, closed (I understand) its last US factory in 2002, and (again, I understand) now has five totally owned and controlled factories in China. Which is interesting, in view of the lead contamination scandal of some years ago. The blame was placed on "China." But that was a bit gutless, was it not, in view of Mattel manufacturing in its own factories.

A wide quality range of products are made in China, but price competition in the US and other western countries, pushes the (wholesale) buyers into the cheapest segment.

Secondly, the GDP of the western country importing the goods, may show a bigger increase than China. Why? AN example provided by an economist a few years ago broke the retail price down into its coststructure. I forget all the details, but it went like this. The economist assumed an ex-factory cost of $2.00. That's more or less the price that would be structured into the Chinese GDP. The product is then shipped to the USA (not sure to which country he allocated that cost). But within the US, the shoes then entered into supply network that would eventually deliver the shoes into a retil store where they may be sold for (let's say) US$20.00. That price would include transportation, insurance, warehousing, advertising, services costs,wages etc. The value to the US GDP is something like US$18.00.

The reason for that second point is simply that manufacture is only one in a series of cost centres, and in contemporary economies, service industries are more important than manufacturing.

fulltimestudent

Satanus, the mapping of possible human migration patterns illustrated in your example is interesting. But since all actual physical movement happened in pre-history I suggest it is somewhat anachronistic to state that certain cultures did this or did that. This diagram I assume, is comparing ancient genetic information from skeletal remains and modern genetic information from contemporary sampling. I think it dangerous to draw firm conclusions from it. Why?

Whatever the migration paths of pre-history were in fact, they only set the stage for the dawn of history. From that point there are further movements.

The diagram does not attempt (unless, it is a separate section) to provide a movement stream for native Americans.

And you'll note that the diagram locates "han" Chinese on a path to modern Korea and modern Japan. This is difficult, I would certainly accept that some people now classified as "han" but previously as Manchurians, are among genetically identifiable relatives of Koreans and Japanese. To describe modern Chinese as the 'Han' people and as a specific ethnic group is nonsense. The word "han" is certainly used to describe Chinese people, but only because it was the second dynasty and lasted (in one form or the other) for approx. 400 years. Some 'han' ancestors come from southern China, where the people were seen as 'different' to northern Chinese.

The first dynasty, the Qin (pronounced chin) is also used historically and is the origin of the word China. The Qin nation prior to conquering all of the area was a small tribal group, more related (as I posted before) to the Xiongnu, of the Steppe people. The first Emperor undertook a program of standardisation that the second dynasty built on. The people of China are originally multi-ethnic. Therefore the origins of 'Han' people are multi-ethnic.

fulltimestudent

Some further thoughts.

1. A discussion on human origins is a long way from the thought behind the topic. It was (apparently) introduced by some posters to support their ideological passions concerning the rise of China. Nonetheless, the question can be examined to consider the passions of Sinophobes.

2. A diagram illustrating the current conclusions of some genetic scientists was introduced to support a conclusion that (a) the oldest 'culture' is African, and (b) Indian culture is the second oldest.

These statements raise some interesting questions. Is the poster assuming that contemporary "African" culture is unchanged over a 40,000 year period? Further, is it to be assumed that as humans moved across the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf (as we term these geographical features in modern Eurocentric cultures), that they developed a "new culture" in South Asia, that has persisted to this day also?

I suggest that those conclusions are a long stretch from the proposition set forth by Dr Royyuru. Dr. Royyuru mentions one problem in the R&D (mag) article, and that was the (current, at least) theoretical impossibility of reconstructing the recombination (data) through generations. At present, he says, (only) enough portions can be parsed so that researchers at least get a glimpse of the pattern.

What we glimpse (from the data provided by contemporary sampling) is what may have been the movement of ancestor groups across the landscape. To then label these with current tags is anachronistic. At best they provide a possible background to the peoples who we meet in the first historical documents, when humans decided that they wanted a record of their experiences.

fulltimestudent

In connection with Indian civilisation, how and when does a visible (historical) "Indian culture" come into view?

Many students in this field think that the Indus Valley civilisation is the oldest of the Pre-Indo-Europeans inhabitants of the sub-continent. It is dated to c. 2600-1700 BCE. These people seemed to have had a writing system, but it has proved exceptionally difficult to decode. It seems connected to the archeological sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro (in present-day Pakistan). Aside from the fact that it was urbanised it is difficult to link it with other cultures, since we cannot yet read of common ideas and myths that held that Socieity together

In the past, some scholars have seen the IVC as the pro-genitors of the Dravidian/Tamil peoples who were driven out of the Indus Valley and North India by Aryan invaders. More lately (at least) this is disputed by assertions based on genetics, that all Indians have a common origin and that there is no north-south divide

Generally, we can discern something of distinctive Indian thought through religious writings, but that's so extensive that it cannot be covered in a few hundred words.

Satanus

'In the past, some scholars have seen the IVC as the pro-genitors of the Dravidian/Tamil peoples who were driven out of the Indus Valley and North India by Aryan invaders. More lately (at least) this is disputed by assertions based on genetics, that all Indians have a common origin and that there is no north-south divide'

Geographical studies of late, suggest drought drove them out of the harrappa and mohenjo daro. The aryan invasion theory may be a british creation. The south likely had smaller scale coastal migrations from africa at later times. These would account for their darker color.

'Is the poster assuming that contemporary "African" culture is unchanged over a 40,000 year period? Further, is it to be assumed that as humans moved across the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf (as we term these geographical features in modern Eurocentric cultures), that they developed a "new culture" in South Asia, that has persisted to this day also?'

No, and to assume so would be wrong. Nothing remains static. It is a good starting point, though, in inderstanding human cultural evolution.

S

Satanus

Pre 2011 migration theory usually has migration routes directly out of africa, north to europe. While there was no doubt some going that route, the main body of human migration was from africa to india, then generally to what is now china. Only from china did migration go north and then double back and head for europe.

The neandertal, who already occupied europe from earlier migration(s), and colder weather would seem to have been the discouragers of direct to europe migration. It has been shown that humans tend to stay within the band of the same weather. Thus, often, migrations tend to stay along the same latitude. This is reflected in the chart. It gives it more credibility, imo.

S

fulltimestudent

An on-topic post, illustrating the variation of quality in Chinese production. I emphasis again, that most Chinese products in western countries are ordered and paid for by western importers. The importer makes the decision as to what level of quality to import.

Chinese manufacturing (as the cited article demonstrates) responds to the western buyers.

At the lowest level are factories who offer bargain basement products to western buyers, a brand name specified by the western buyer is fixed to the product.

Above that lowest level there is a range of higher levels.

My reference can be found at: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/hometech/made-in-china-a-mixed-bag-20121114-29b0v.html#ixzz2CHJfPTOw

The End of Cheap Chinese Goods-What will it Mean for You?

Share this