Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
China- the future superpower?
Bitey
Member Posts: 356
I was reading torrent spy lately, and they have a link to article by Yahoo News! Really scary....
China. More than a billion people and an economy on the go. Number of main telephone lines in use: 263 million (estimated, as of 2003). Number of cell phones: 269 million (estimated, 2003). Clearly, there's room to grow. Is it any wonder that American investors are intrigued by the possibilities that China presents?
I've recently read some interesting things about the nation and the business within it. For example, Yum! Brands , operator of Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut, was an early mover into China, launching a KFC unit there in 1987. Today, according to QSR magazine, its China division sports more than 1,100 KFC units and 136 Pizza Huts -- significantly more than McDonald's and its 600-some locations. Much of the credit for Yum's success is due to its early entry. If you're investing in a firm operating in China, see which firms in the industry have established themselves there early on. On a less rosy note, in Inc. magazine, Ted Fishman offered a long article detailing 14 things entrepreneurs should know about how China will affect American businesses. First, though, he offered some eye-opening facts: China "has become the world's largest maker of consumer electronics, pumping out more TVs, DVD players, and cell phones than any other country... [and is] moving quickly and expertly into biotech and computer manufacturing. It is building cars (there are more than 120 automakers in China), making parts for Boeing 757s, and exploring space with its own domestically built rockets."
Here are some of his 14 points:
# China's economy is much larger than the official numbers show.
# China's growth is making raw materials more expensive.
# No company has embraced China's potential more vigorously than Wal-Mart . Fishman notes: "A whopping portion of between 10% and 13% of everything China has sent to the U.S. winds up on Wal-Mart's shelves."
# There are hidden costs associated with doing business in China.
# Piracy is a problem.
One of his scariest points is this: "China can be a bully. China can spend, it can hire and dictate wages, it can throw old-line competitors out of work. In just a three-year period from 2000 to late 2003, for example, China's exports to the U.S. of wooden bedroom furniture climbed from $360 million to nearly $1.2 billion. During that time, the work force at America's wooden-furniture factories dropped by 35,000, or one of every three workers in the trade. China now makes 40% of all furniture sold in the U.S., and that number is sure to climb."
Not scared yet? Consider this: "In 2001, the Chinese makers produced 1% of the socks on U.S. feet. In just two years, sock imports from China to the U.S. jumped two-hundred-fold and now make up 7% of the U.S. market. James J. Jochum, assistant secretary for export administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce, has noted that the Chinese manufacturers cut their prices by more than half in 2003 and helped drive one in four U.S. sock makers out of business."
Source: Yahoo! News(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1483&ncid=1293&e=4&u=/fool/20050321/bs_fool_fool/1111410840)
Some Intresting theroies-
No question about it, China will one day replace America as the superpower. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in our lifetime.
Imagine this chain of events:
1. American companies continue to outsource and invest more and more in China. That's almost a given.
2. As more American money pours into China, they're able to build up their military to the point where they can boss other countries around in the same way America does now.
3. China, which already owns a large portion of America's national debt, decides to cash it in. America doesn't have the money to pay for it, so the US economy collapses, which makes the world economy collapse.
4. The only superpower left is China -- and huge "American" corporations that are so heavily invested in China that they're only nominally American.
5. China starts to outsource their labor to Africa, and the empire cycle starts all over again.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe. It's just a theory. But I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.
Comments
I have no doubt, China will be the next superpower especially after oil- www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
We are finding ways to fuel without oil, once we find a cheap, reliable, efficiant way to do so, we might be a bit more independent in our economy. Oil isnt going to last for much longer, I think the world has enough to last us for the next 10-20 years before we make a big transition into another fuel source.
Here are some reasons that China will not be a super power, or at least not any time soon. China's economy relys heavily on America, they are too racist to ever be able to become allies with the world, we are by far superior in technology, their education system sucks as it stands right now. The reason why they are becoming a stronger nation is because of becoming capitalists, and America.
I bet people are writing essays right now to prove me wrong
Either we harness the power of Bat Guano or Canada will rule us all.
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"
"When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"What About all the Various Alternatives
to Oil? Can't we Find Replacements?"
Many politicians and economists insist that there are alternatives to oil and that we can "invent our way out of this."
Physicists and geologists tell us an entirely different story.
The politicians and economists are selling us 30-year old economic and political fantasies, while the physicists and geologists are telling us scientific and mathematical truth. Rather than accept the high-tech myths proposed by the politicians and economists, its time for you to start asking critical questions about the so called "alternatives to oil" and facing some hard truths about energy.
While there are many technologically viable alternatives to oil, there are none (or combination thereof) that can supply us with anywhere near the amount of net-energy required by our modern monetary system and industrial infrastructure.
People tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them.
Each of the alternatives is besieged by numerous fundamental physical shortcomings that have, thus far, received little attention. A brief sampling:
"What About Green Alternatives like
Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal?"
Solar and wind power suffer from two fundamental physical shortcomings that prevent them from ever being able to replace more than a tiny fraction of the energy we get from oil: lack of energy density and energy intermittency.
I. Energy Density/Inappropriateness as Transportation Fuels:
Few people realize how much energy is concentrated in even a small amount of oil or gas. A barrel of oil contains the energy-equivalent of almost 25,000 hours of human labor. While a barrel of oil currently sells for about $45, it only takes $1.00 to actually pull a barrel of oil out of the ground in Iraq. In Saudi Arabia, it only takes $2.50, while in the US it it takes $10.00 per barrel. The global average is about $5.00/barrel.
Think about that for a moment: the average hourly wage in the US is a little less than $20/hour. Twenty-five thousand hours of human labor at $20/hour would cost an employer $500,000. The average barrel of oil gives us access to the energy equivalent of the same amount of labor for less than $5.00 in production costs. That's a rate of return of 100,000/1.
.
A single gallon of gasoline contains the energy-equivalent of 500 hours of human labor. Most people are stunned to find this out, but it makes sense when you think about it. It only takes one gallon of gasoline to propel a three ton SUV 10 miles in 10 minutes. How long would it take you to push the three ton SUV 10 miles?
Working for a wage of $20/hour, the average American can thus afford 10 gallons of gas - which will contain the energy equivalent of 5,000 hours of human labor - by working for only one hour.
While the energy-density of oil and gas give them rates of return comparable to a lottery ticket or marriage to a ketchup fortune heiress, the energy-density of solar and wind give them returns comparable to minimum wage jobs. For instance, it would take 4 Manhattan size city blocks of solar equipment to produce the amount of energy distributed by a single gas station in one day.
With 17,0000 gas stations just in the United States, you don't need to be a mathematician to realize that solar power is incapable of meeting our urgent need for a new energy source that - like oil - is dense, affordable, and transportable.
On a similar note, It would take close to 220,000 square kilometers of solar panels to power the global economy via solar power.
Wind is better than solar, but the essential problem - a lack of energy density - is still present. To illustrate, it takes all of California's 13,000 wind turbines to generate as much electricity as a single 555-megawatt natural gas fired power plant.
Oil provides over 90% of our transportation fuel. Solar and wind cannot be used for transportation fuels unless they are used to crack hydrogen from water via electrolysis. The electrolysis process is a simple one, but unfortunately it consumes 1.3 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy it produces. In other words, it results in a net loss of energy. You can't replace oil - which has a positive EROEI of about 30 - with an energy source that actually carries a negative EROEI.
II. Energy Intermittency:
In addition to suffering from poor energy-density and being largely inappropriate for transportation, solar and wind also suffer from energy intermittency. Unlike oil and gas, which can be used at anytime of the day or night, solar and wind are dependent on weather conditions. This may not be that big of a deal if you simply want to power your household appliances or a small scale, decentralized economy, but if you want to run an industrial economy that relies on airports, airplanes, 18-wheel trucks, millions of miles of highways, huge skyscrapers, 24/7 availability of fuel, etc., an intermittent source of energy will not suffice.
III. Percentage of Total Energy Supply
Finally, most people new to this issue drastically overestimate the amount of energy we will be able to realistically derive from these sources inside of the next 5-25 years.
In 2003, the US consumed 98 quadrillion BTU's of energy. A whopping .171 quadrillion came from solar and wind combined. Do the math (.171/98) and you will see that a total of less then one-sixth of one percent of our energy appetite was satisfied with solar and wind combined. Thus, just to derive a paltry 2-3 percent of our current energy needs from solar and wind, we would need to double the percentage of our energy supply derived from solar/wind, then double it again, then double it again, and then double it yet again.
Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race. Despite jaw-dropping levels of growth in these industries, coupled with practically miraculous drops in price per kilowatt hour (95% drop in two decades), along with increased interest from the public in alternative energies, the percentage of our total energy supply derived from solar and wind is projected to grow by only 10 percent per year.
Since we are starting with only one-sixth of one percent of our energy coming from solar and wind, a growth rate of 10 percent per year isn't going to do much to soften a national economic meltdown. Twenty-five years from now, we will be lucky if solar and wind account for one percent of our total energy supply.
While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations while only a few nations have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.
On a related note, even if solar, wind, and other green alternatives could replace oil, we still wouldn't escape the evil clutches of so called "Big Oil." The biggest maker of solar panels is British Petroleum while the second biggest maker of wind turbines is General Electric, who obtained their wind turbine business from that stalwart of corporate social responsibility, Enron.As these two examples illustrate, the notion that "Big Oil is scared of the immerging renewable energy market!" is silly. "Big Oil" already owns the renewable energy market.
"Can't We Use a Combination of
the Alternatives to Replace Oil?"
Absolutely. Despite their individual shortcomings, it is still possible for the world economy to run on a basket of alternative sources of energy - so long as we immediately get all of the following:
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />1. A few dozen technological breakthroughs;
2. Unprecedented political will and bipartisan cooperation;
3. Tremendous international collaboration;
4. Massive amounts of investment capital,
5. Fundamental reforms to the structure of the international banking
system;
6. No interference from the oil-and-gas industries;
7. About 25-50 years of general peace and prosperity to retrofit the
world's $45 trillion dollar per year economy, including
transportation and telecommunications networks, manufacturing
industries, agricultural systems, universities, hospitals, etc. , to run
on these new sources of energy.
8. A generation of engineers, scientists, and economists trained to
run a global economy powered by new sources of energy.
If we get all of the above, we might be able to get the energy equivalent of 3-5 billion barrels of oil per year from alternative sources.
That's a tremendous amount of oil - about as much as the entire world used per year during World War II, but it's nowhere near enough to keep our currently mammoth-sized yet highly volatile global economic system going. The world currently requires over 30 billion barrels/1.2 trillion gallons of oil per year to support economic growth. That requirement will only increase as time goes on due to population growth, debt servicing, and the industrialization of nations such as China and India.
So even if the delusionally optimistic 8-step scenario described above is somehow miraculously manifested, we're still facing a 70-90% reduction in the amount of energy available to us. Consequently, a full-blown meltdown of petrochemical civilization is now inevitable.
"What About Amazing New Technologies Such As Thermal Depolymerization, Solar Nanotech, Space Based Solar Arrays, and other 'Energy-Miracles'?"
Thermal depolymerization is an intriguing solution to our landfill problems, but since most of the feedstock (such as tires and turkey guts) requires high-grade oil to make in the first place, it is more "high-tech recycling" than it is a solution to a permanent oil shortage.
At the risk of sounding crass, hoping that thermal depolymerization will do much to solve a long-term energy crisis is like hoping that eating your own feces will do much to solve a long-term famine. In both cases, the energy starved party is simply recycling a small portion of energy they originally consumed.
In terms of replacing traditional oil, the technology is besieged by several fundamental shortcomings that those desperately hoping for a techno-messiah tend to overlook:
First, there is the problem of the technology's net energy - or more accurately, lack thereof. According to the company itself, the process has an efficiency of 85%. This means 100 units of energy go in, 85 come out. That's a negative EROEI of .85. You can't hope to replace or even supplement traditional oil's positive EROEI of 30 (or more) with a process that carries a negative EROEI.
Then there is the problem of production costs. According to a recent article in Fortune Magazine, a barrel of oil produced via the thermal depolymerization process costs $80 to produce as of January 2005. To put that figure in perspective, consider the fact that oil pulled out of the ground in Saudi Arabia costs less than $2.50 per barrel, while oil pulled out of the ground in Iraq costs only $1.00 per barrel.
This means that with spot oil prices in the $50/barrel range, a barrel of oil produced via thermal depolymerization in January 2005 would have to sell for between $1,600-$4,000 per barrel to have a return on investment comparable to oil produced from Saudi Arabia or Iraq.
Oil prices of $1,600-$4,000 per barrel would put gas prices at roughly $80-$200 per gallon.
If the technology was the miracle many people are desperately hoping for, the company would likely not have needed a grant from the Department of Energy to keep its head above water.
Low EROEI and sky-high production costs aside, a look at the history of thermal depolymerization tends to show it will never amount to more than a tiny drop in the giant barrel that is our oil appetite.The technology was first developed for commercial use in 1996. Here we are, ten years later and there is only one thermal depolymerization plant online and it is producing less than 500 barrels of oil per day, despite record high oil prices. Even if oil production from thermal depolymerization is upscaled by a factor of 1,000, and the cost of production brought down by a factor of 10, it will still only be producing 500,000 barrels of oil per day. While that may make a tremendous amount of money for the company, it won't make much difference in our overall situation as the global need for oil is projected to reach 120,000,000 barrels per day by 2020.
If thermal depolymerization sounded "too good to be true" when you first heard about it, now you know why.
As disappointing as thermal depolymerization has been, at least it has produced a small amount of commercially available energy. The same cannot be said for space-based solar arrays, which according to NASA, are plagued by "major technical, regulatory and conceptual hurdles" and won't see the light of day for several decades.
Even if these major hurdles are somehow cleared inside of 5 years instead of 50 years, there is still the not-so-minor problem of rewiring all of industrial civilization - including agriculture, communications, transportation, defense, health care, education, industry, government, finance/banking, etc. . . to run on space-derived solar energy.
Of course, before the global rewiring can begin, we have to find the energy, raw materials, political willingness, financial capital, etc. to get such a project off the ground.
We also have to find a way to prevent China's million man standing army from snapping up all the raw materials necessary to make the transition.
While there are some promising technological advancements in solar-nanotechnology, even Dr. Richard Smalley, the scientist at the forefront of these technologies, admits we need a series of "miracles" to prevent a total collapse of industrial civilization.
In the February 2005 issue of Discover Magazine, Dr. Smalley gave the following prognosis:
There will be inflation as billions of people compete for insufficient
resources. There will be famine. There will be terrorism and war.
He went on to say that it will take "presidential leadership" to inspire us to pursue technologies that might alleviate this crisis.
In other words, the chances of technology saving you from the coming economic collapse are about the same as the chances of another virgin-birth taking place.
For you or any other "average" person to expect high-tech solutions to save you from the economic effects of Peak Oil is akin to a person living in sub-Saharan Africa to expect high-tech medical treatments to save their community from the effects of AIDS. These treatments are available to super-wealthy people like Magic Johnson, not poor people in Africa.
Likewise, many of the recent technological advancements in energy production and efficiency may be available and affordable to extraordinarily wealthy people or agencies like the Department of Defense, but they aren't going to be available or affordable to you.
It may be a tough pill to swallow, but adaptation for 6-7 million super-wealthy people does not equal survival for 6-7 billion not-so-wealthy people.
"What About Hybrids and
Super Fuel Efficient Cars?"
Hybrids or so called "hyper-cars" aren't the answer either because the construction of an average car consumes about 25-50 barrels of oil. Thus, a crash program to replace the 700 million internal combustion vehicles currently on the road with super fuel-efficient or alternative fuel-powered vehicles would consume approximately 18-36 billion barrels of oil, which is the amount of oil the world currently consumes in six-to-twelve months. Consequently, such a program (while well-intentioned) would actually bring the collapse upon us even sooner.
On a similar note, the construction of an average car also consumes 120,000 gallons of fresh water. Unfortunately, the world is in the midst of a severe water crisis that is only going to get worse in the years to come. Scientists are already warning us to get ready for massive "water wars."
Thus, the only way for us to replace our current fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs with fuel-efficient hybrids is to to seize control of the world's reserves of both oil and fresh water and then divert those resources away from the billions of people who rely on them.
Even if were willing to undertake such an endeavor, the problem will still not be solved due to a phenomenon known as "Jevon's Paradox," whereby increases in energy efficiency are obliterated by corresponding increase in energy consumption.
The US economy is a good example of Jevon's Paradox in action. Since 1973, we have managed to cut in half the amount of oil necessary to generate a dollar of GDP. At the same time, however, we have doubled our level of consumption. Thus, despite massive increases in the energy efficiency over the last 30 years, we are more dependent on oil than ever. This trend is unlikely to be abated in a market economy.
The widespread use of technologies such as the internal combustion engine and the air conditioner is what got us into this situation. It is thus unlikely that even more technology will get us out of it.
"What About Large-Scale Efforts at Conserving Energy or Becoming More Energy Efficient?"
Amazingly, such efforts will actually make our situation worse. This probably makes absolutely no sense unless you understand how the modern day banking and monetary system works. To illustrate, let's revisit Jevon's Paradox, explained above, with an example:
Pretend you own a computer store and that your monthly energy bill, as of December 2004, is $1,000. You then learn about the coming energy famine and decide to do your part by conserving as much as possible. You install energy efficient lighting, high quality insulation, and ask your employees to wear sweaters so as to minimize the use of your store's heating system.
After implementing these conservation measures, you manage to lower your energy bill by 50% - down to $500 per month.
While you certainly deserve a pat-on-the-back and while your business will certainly become more profitable as a result of your conservation efforts, you have in no way helped reduce our overall energy appetite. In fact, you have actually increased it.
At this point, you may be asking yourself, "How could I have possibly increased our total energy consumption when I just cut my own consumption by $500/month? That doesn't seem to make common sense . . ."
Well think about what you're going to do with that extra $500 per month you saved. If you're like most people, you're going to do one of two things:
1. You will reinvest the $500 in your business. For instance, you might
spend the $500 on more advertising. This will bring in more
customers, which will result in more computers being sold. Since, as
mentioned previously, the average desktop computer consumes 10X
<v:shape id=_x0000_i1045 style="WI
I didnt read that whole article, but this is what I think about it. They are trying so hard to make you believe that what they are saying is going to come true. I read what they thought about alternitive energy sources, and on EVERY single one they said it will not work for the following reasons. There has to be an alternitive source of energy, oil isnt the only thing we can use. I dont know what they are trying to make us believe in that article.
HOLY ****!!
Massive article. Sounds like we'd have an easier time trying to invent teleportation or something
Though I'll say this, which is probably a given, the depletion of oil will be the next worldwide economy breakdown if we aren't ready for it. Everyone will suffer from it.
I support 921 on this. In retort to the comments on "there is no proof there are alternative fuel sources out there that will work", this is my comment "Have you seen proof that alternative fuel sources wont work?"
Think about it. If we run out of oil, which we will indeed within most of our current life times, we HAVE to come up with alternative methods. I have been thinking about it, and it is exactly the same as every other "alternative method" for any type of resource in the past. Once it is realized that something will fail, its nature that an alternative will be found. It certiantly wont be like we wake up one day and boom!!! the world is back to the horse and carriage days.
Eventually somebody, or some corporation or organization will realize the amount of cash they could rake in if THEY themselves came up with that alternative resource. Its exactly the same as the person who thought up Giga pets, or pokemon cards, or pogs. Its all about some person who has one genuis moment and says "hey, if i make this or invent this, i just might make billions of dollars"
.
Even so, there are alternative fuel sources currently being researched that seem to have a good chance of suceeding. But then again, a large part is about the public excepting it.
If nothing else works we can always build cars that run on garbage, like in Back To The Future.
Once we have the technology to produce a new type of fuel, we may not even need oil any more. No one knows what the future holds. Remember when we used coal, remember when we used steam, each of those are being used less and less now, soon maybe oil will be the same.
Also 90% of the world is undeveloped, im sure there are other areas that have oil.
Oh noes the sky is falling the sky is falling!! This is what its starting to sound like. Do some of you want this to happen? Its just like politics, the opposing party loves when something bad happens, they can take advantage of the problem by saying they can change it. I wouldnt be suprised if this article about the oil has a political motive for 2008.
mlshmily
mlshmily
1. China's economical power
China will be the next economical superpower. They have the human resources needed to do so and are developping slowly towards it. The opium wars were only won due to an enormous technological advantage, there is no such technological advantage at this very moment. If you still claim america and brittain control the chinese government at this day, then explain the fact why they changed their support from taiwanese to chinese government for the control of the same teritories. Schooling is an easily overcome problem, but as a fact it's better to keep the large part of population down to ultra low class with little knowledge and only allow the elite to learn what's needed.
2. China's military power
Nowhere has been stated that the chinese would invade america, I believe that the ere of true wars are over. Each side has too much to loose. The only thing left is bullying countries like US invading Iraq (name all the causes you want it's a war of bullies vs. weaklings in strategic power terms). What different would a war be if the chinese were to go against madagascar (just an example) ?
3. Oil...
Interesting subject but as stated if the oil industry has it's hands on the main possible competing technologies (wind and solar) for the future, don't you think they'ld keep at oil as long as it lasts since it has the biggest profit margin 800% brute profit on a raw material is an enormous number and as long as the resource last they need to be able to control the energy market. In order for them, as a good capitalist company, to have a long term business plan and that also means after oil is gone (don't think major oil companies aren't aware of their future problem) they need to be able to develop a technology which could replace oil. The fact that two major oil companies own the secrets to the two major proposed energy technologies replacing oil should really say enough. They are more then likely developping these techs to lower production cost and to increase energydensity. Since they have a view on current oil resources they can redirect human resources in order to force a technological breakthrough whenever they see it fit.
The article you copied is a hyper conservative point of view but the author made a few mistakes in mentionning clues for those that see further then that superficial read to reply. Stating it would take "presidential leadership" made me laugh in a sense. We know that a big part of the election budget for presidentials are provided by the oil industry. I'm not afraid of the solution the oil companies will offer me in twenty years when we'll call them the energy companies. As for Nuclear power, the issue of waste is totally bogus and was brought up to keep the technology under oil in matters of public relations. It's really a choice between poluting the air you breathe or the ground you walk on.
The next economical crash will only make oil companies richer as it will be the end of petrol age as we know it, the fact is that oil prices will be boosted up at the last thousands of billions of barrels. At the same time the next technology will already be available and in their hands to be sold at outrageous prices at the dawn of the next energy source.
4....
We are raised in a society of fear to keep our minds from what's really happening. Look around you and think are the rich still getting richer? If that's the fact, there won't be a problem in any near future. Just try to work your way up because the goal of our capitalist elite is to abolish middle classes and it's working.
-
Still won't stop them front beating the $^#* out of North Korea.
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"
"When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman
This has nothing to do with politics. Even Bush and Cheny said(if you read the article) there is a serious problem in the energy market. Nobody in this thread has yet posted a source of energy that could even possibly replace oil- you need oil for alteratives, or the alt is too weak(wind and solar) to ever replace it. Oil is needed for everyting, our energy, our food, our cars- everything in society! 90 percent of the world isn't undeveloped, however a percentadge is, so your making the case for the oil crash. More then even, undeveloped conutries are using cars and energy, and need oil. Look at china, once having very very few cars, now have 200 car companies, and have a demand for oil.
http://wootedgepage.proboards18.com/index.cgi
Still won't stop them front beating the $^#* out of North Korea.
"Deep love for peace"? Doesn't stop them from passing laws to legalize an attack on Taiwan, or threatening them with an invasion.
Still won't stop them front beating the $^#* out of North Korea.
"Deep love for peace"? Doesn't stop them from passing laws to legalize an attack on Taiwan, or threatening them with an invasion.
Gotta keep your peons under control somehow.
Seems sort of something akin to the American Civil War, in all actuality. Except I suppose for the fact in the American Civil War the seceder under their Constitution was allowed to.
Which I agree with some of the above posts, China will be the next world superpower. And most likely sooner then everyone thinks.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
oil can easily be replaced with hamsters on spinny wheels.
20 HWs (Hamsters on Wheels) could easily power a small moped.