This discussion of economies made me curious so I will inject something that
looks like a fact after checking out the The World Factbook by the CIA
China's GDP: 3.39 trillion US dollars (though the authors argue that this may
overstate true GDP by 25%) Japan's GDP: 2.85 trillion US dollars
USA GDP: 7.61 trillion US dollars
Now, this is for 1997, pre Hong Kong but Hong Kong is really tiny (the report
GDP is.15 trillion US dollars). I think what is going on is that every
remembers that the GDP of China is growing really rapidly and should surpass
that of the US in the next 30 or so years at current growth rates.
Btw, the current success rate of the Long March rockets is about 70% or so,
much worse then the US success rate of 99% but then we have been at it quite a
bit longer then they have.
cheers brad
Ok, well, I decided that going by memory isn't going to cut it here and I am
afraid of being called an NSM or something so I decided to visit the CIA and
get me some facts so that we can figure this thing out.
> China has 4 and a half times the population of the US but not 4
OK the most exciting news I have here is that yes China has 4 times the
population as the United States but that China has slightly LESS land mass!
9.60M sq.Km. vs 9.59M sq.Km. That shocked me. China must be very crowded. Here
in Massachusetts I have picked a plot of land for my home that is far enough
from my neighbors that I can't see them. I imagine I would not have this
choice in a more crowded country.
> Forgive me but I think you'll find that China is the worlds largest
Forgive me, but the facts speak for themselves. Let's compare China, Japan,
Germany, and the U.S. (all money converted into US Dollars for comparison
purposes, all values as of 1997) China GDP: $3.39T Real GDP Growth: 9.7%
(exceptional from what I can determine) Per Capita:$2,800 Inflation: 10%
Unemployment: 8-10% (estimated)
Japan GDP: $2.8T Real GDP Growth: 3.6% Per Capita:$22,700 Inflation: 0.3%
(very exceptional from what I can determine) Unemployment: 3.4% (but rising)
Germany GDP: $1.7T (composite of East and West) Real GDP Growth: 1.4% Per
Capita:$20,000 Inflation: 1.5% Unemployment: 10.8% (unforgivable)
United States GDP: $7.6T Real GDP Growth: 3.6% Per Capita:$28,600 Inflation:
3% Unemployment: 5.4% (and falling)
So, per capita the U.S. Economy is 10 time bigger than the Chinese economy.
The Chinese GDP is significant, but once the E.U. finalizes the Monetary Union
in January of 1999 just the top 4 countries will be contributing over $5T. I
didn't bother to look up the other countries but even Spain will contribute
$0.6T alone. I imagine Europe will be bigger than the U.S. Comming back to my
point, the Chinese have a problem in that they have a fairly mighty economy,
nationaly, their people are very poor.
> Yes and there are large tracts of land in China, Australia, United
and
> all for the same reason, they are deserts.
Here is a comparison of the U.S. and China:
China Land Use arable land: 10% permanent crops: 0% permanent pastures: 43%
forests and woodland: 14% other: 33% (1993 est.) Irrigated land: 498,720 sq km
(1993 est.)
United States Land Use arable land: 19% permanent crops: 0% permanent
pastures: 25% forests and woodland: 30% other: 26% (1993 est.) Irrigated land:
207,000 sq km (1993 est.)
I don't know if this supports either of our claims, but the 'Other' category
leaves me wondering what that is, exactly. I imagine it is
Urban/Desert/Mountain and others lumped together.
> Need we mention "Challenger"? What was that Mars probe that NASA
Most contries fire rockets over ocean or uninhabited terrain. China is a
little more loose on the concept of uninhabited. It is a fact that they have
had massive loss of civilian life because of accidents. The Astronauts and
Cosmonauts who gave their lives for the advancement of both the American and
Chinese programs are heros. The Chinese villagers who died due to accidents
were victims. And inspite of our problems with STS 26 (Challenger) as well as
various satalites and probes, the U.S. has a much stronger record for getting
bigger projects done than the Chinese. Anyone who thinks the Chinese space
program even rates is dreaming. The U.S. is rapidly becoming second in
Commercial Space use to Europe actually. China, however, is not in the
running.
> Imagine what China would be like if they had Japanese Technology,
> Given the rate of economic growth and industrial modernisation
I don't think the economic numbers above support that theory.
> [The] ESU ... will have huge numbers of people willing to emigrate
I don't want to put down the Chinese peasant farmer, but since you took an
unjustified swipe at the citizens of New York let me just say that your
typical New York resident has more to gain by going into space. They have
demonstratably more education and economic resources as well as better skills
(on average mind you). If I was looking for someone who had the guts AND the
knowhow to manage a colony I'd pick someone from New York or London or Paris
or New Delhi long before I picked someone from the East Lanzhou Peoples
collective.
This is an interesting topic. If anyone wants to check my numbers just look
at:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/country-frame.html
If you want to check their numbers you are on your own!
--Pete
> China is massive, lets call it 4 times the size of the US. The US is
China has 4 and a half times the population of the US but not 4 times the
area. Twice maybe and then only just IIRC. I don't remember the population of
Japan but I have a feeling it's at least half that of the US.
The US and Japan are the top economies in the world. China is
> a Top economy but no where near the class of the US or Japan. Japan has
Forgive me but I think you'll find that China is the worlds largest national
economy (and now with Hong Kong it should be by a clear margin). Splitting GDP
per capita brings it back serverely but for overall size I believe you'll find
China is number 1.
> massive electronics industry that makes great use of what little space
Yes and there are large tracts of land in China, Australia, United States and
many nations of Africa and the Middle East that are "underutilised" and all
for the same reason, they are deserts.
> industry nor an automobile industry. It has a minor space agency (one
Need we mention "Challenger"? What was that Mars probe that NASA lost again?
How many Titan II rockets have had to be destroyed in flight in the last 5
years? Don't worry the French have the same problems. The Russians have the
most reliable (and powerful) rockets and their industrial level is somewhere
between that of the US and China. They really only have problems with their
space stations.:)
> citizens. Imagine what China would be like if they had Japanese
Given the rate of economic growth and industrial modernisation going on
(Western companies often doing the work) it won't be that long at all. Don't
forget many economist think that continued population growth (lots more new
citizens) benefits and stimulates economic growth which they at least believe
is the best thing since sliced bread. Lots of citizens work and create goods
(including military hardware). To a large extent, the more citizens you have
the more you produce.
> I think you have a similar situation with the Rhomanoi - sure they have
Well this is what I was getting at. A nation might have a 100 worlds but for
the most part they will new colonies with few people and contribute
realitively little to the overall strength of that nation (at least in the
short term). Each nation will be judged on how many developed worlds it has.
That number will be a function of how many planets a nation can colonise in a
given space of time and how quickly it can develop them. Both of these depend
on technology (they must be able to get there at least at lets face it China
really isn't that far behind its just that being so large it takes time for
things to change over) which can be assumed to be roughly equal, population
(both size and growth, the more people you have the sooner you can send large
numbers to a New World) and money. In terms then of the GZG background, I
imagine the ESU to be larger than the NAC because it has roughly similar
technology and development, it will have huge numbers of people willing to
emigrate (lets face it the ESU in the background has nations 1, 2 and 4
interms of population size in it, also a peasant farmer from the back blocks
of China will be more will to
swap his mud hut and 1/4 acre of back breaking farming for life on a new
colony world than a New Yorker) but it won't hugely overwealm the NAC because
it won't always have the money to set up new colonies when it wants to. The
smaller nations will lack both people and money to greatly expand and become a
challenge to the super powers.
In a message dated 98-05-05 16:24:57 EDT, twilko@ozemail.com.au
(Tony
> Wilkinson) writes:
<< Need we mention "Challenger"? What was that Mars probe that NASA lost
again? How many Titan II rockets have had to be destroyed in flight in the
last 5 years? Don't worry the French have the same problems. The Russians have
the most reliable (and powerful) rockets and their industrial level is
somewhere between that of the US and China. They really only have problems
with their space stations.:) >>
Er, I don't want to start another 'nation vs. nation' debate, but I feel like
I have to stick up for the US space program (short-sighted that it can
be);
Reuseable Spaceplane/Orbiters? (only ones in the world)
Mars Sojurner? Clemetine? GPS? Voyager, Pioneer, Galileo, Viking, (Venus
mapper), Cassini, Mercury. Gemini, Apollo? (mourn its passing and
opportunities wasted) The Russians, problematic that their program may be (low
money), at least think about boosting large payloads into orbit. They have
Proton/Energias; we
HAD Saturn Vs. The French HAVE Ariane Vs (or is it VI?) and some minor
software problems. And the Russians HAVE a working (sort of) space station.
No-one else does. It's exceeded design expectations and survived
numerous accidents and problems with aplomb. I'll miss her next year.
I stand corrected on the size of China's economy. I knew that the per capita
GDP was low but with all those people I did think it was pretty big.
> From the figures people have sent me it looks like China is number 2 by
With the rockets what I was trying to show was that even with the technical
advantages and experience of the Americans and Europeans space shots can still
go wrong. Also not all US launches are over water. In these cases they are
launched from the desert somewhere (mostly military sats I believe. China
doesn't do this because they are preparing to change to over water launches
from Taiwan:) Also got to agree that if you want a colonist you want someone
educated, hardworking and not afraid of taking risks. Some Urban dwellers
would want to go to a new colony but I don't believe it would be many. What I
was getting at is that life in a western city, on average, is comfortable and
convienent. Colony life is likely to be hard, dangerous, primative (no night
clubs etc) and not entirely pleasant. If you look at those people who came to
Australia or the US to settle last century and after WWII, they came because
they were looking for something better than they already had. Leaving the Gold
Rushes aside, most people who came did so with very little, were often poor or
had little real choice (Irish during the potato famine). If you want people
from New York (or indeed any other major city particularly in the West) you
have to be offering a pretty good incentive. I just can't see many people from
suburbia buying it. I find far more likely that someone with nothing will jump
at the chance for a smaller incentive. What does all this have to do with FT?
Probably nothing (unless you're building a campaign).
On Thu, 07 May 1998 01:01:15 +0100, Tony Wilkinson
<twilko@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Does anyone have a population figure for Japan.
A book I have lists Japan as having 121,000,000 people as of 1984. It projects
130 million by the turn of the century. Japan's birth rate is currently
1.4:1
(yep, that's WELL below sustainability, especially since they don't allow wide
scale immigration). If you want a country that's tempted to try new
bio-tech,
there you have it...