<p>
[quote]
Then let's talk about HYPSM. Which one of those do you think Berkeley is more prestigious than?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>some of these schools may be more prestigious than berkeley for different reasons. if we are talking about pure science (as in # of nobel prize winner who went to these schools as undergrad) i dont consider berkeley any lower than these schools except maybe harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
some of these schools may be more prestigious than berkeley for different reasons. if we are talking about pure science (as in # of nobel prize winner who went to these schools as undergrad) i dont consider berkeley any lower than these schools except maybe harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Prestige should be thought of as more than simply the # of Nobel prize winners who just happen to have gone to your college. How many US Presidents has Berkeley produced? How many Forbes 500? ? Cabinet officials?</p>
<p>Prestige is in the eye of the beholder. End discussion.</p>
<p><a href="http://bioegrad.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://bioegrad.berkeley.edu/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ergo/%5B/url%5D">http://www.me.berkeley.edu/ergo/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://ohst.berkeley.edu/events/events.html%5B/url%5D">http://ohst.berkeley.edu/events/events.html</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/045642.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/045642.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://coeh.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://coeh.berkeley.edu/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://jmp.berkeley.edu/about/history.htm%5B/url%5D">http://jmp.berkeley.edu/about/history.htm</a></p>
<p>But these are just grad programs, so they don't count.</p>
<p>I see data and word manipulation at its finest in this thread.</p>
<p>Berkeley has served as the nation's brain, heart, and pulse; its intellect, passion, and conscience. Berkeley is a university that is beloved by the people and recognized as one of the world's great universities.</p>
<p>"Berkeley is a university that is beloved by the people and recognized as one of the world's great universities."</p>
<p>Is it really beloved by the people? Residents and bums of the city seem to hate the university and its students. And other people seem to hate it because of the bums or even because of its publicness.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong I love the university. I'm just questioning if "the people" really love the university.</p>
<p>"the People..." faculty, staff, students, alumni.... GO BEARS!</p>
<p>man, i wish berkeley went back to it's revolutionary past. damn modern apathy and all these career oriented wanna-make-money types.</p>
<p>sakky: "China stands on the edge of a knife and that things could easily deteriorate into chaos. Hence, there is certainly no guarantee that China will become the top trading partner of the US, or with anybody else, in the future. "</p>
<p>Wrong!!!</p>
<p>China Tops US as Japan Trade Partner <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070425_392152.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business%5B/url%5D">http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070425_392152.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business</a></p>
<p>China overtakes Japan in trade with Australia
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1914846.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1914846.htm</a></p>
<p>Calwood,</p>
<p>But that's not what sakky said...he said that there's no guarantee that China will become the top trading partner of the US, or anybody else, in the future.</p>
<p>And there isn't.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Japan, China, and Australia are much different cases than the US. For one, they don't run current account deficits of 6% of GDP year after year. They're also all closer geographically to one another. It makes a lot more sense for Japan and China to be larger trading partners than the US and China.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the word that you ignored was "guarantee." And by that, sakky is right. There is NO guarantee that China will become anyone's largest trading partner. It's just not that simple in macroeconomics or political economy. There are way too many variables to ever say anything is guaranteed. Now, I don't agree that China stands on the edge of a knife (I think that the foundation's a little more stable than that), but plenty of things could stop China's growth rather quickly.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how all this ballyhoo about "decoupling" turns out, for example. </p>
<p>But to say that it's guaranteed is certainly a bit hasty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: "China stands on the edge of a knife and that things could easily deteriorate into chaos. Hence, there is certainly no guarantee that China will become the top trading partner of the US, or with anybody else, in the future. "</p>
<p>Wrong!!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, RIGHT. As UCLAri has pointed out, what you are talking about has nothing to do with what I said. </p>
<p>Read what I said again, and then ask yourself - is there really a * guarantee * that China will become the top trading partner with anybody in the future?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sakky's banking his argument on speculation that chinese peasants will revolt and bring social upheaval to the nation as the reason why China won't become a top trading partner.</p>
<p>everyone, please stop feeding the troll</p>
<p>karch,</p>
<p>That's something that plenty of political scientists and political economists are concerned about.</p>
<p>As is the CCP.</p>
<p>It's not trolling. It's a serious concern. But again, that's not the point. The point is that someone said that it's "guaranteed" that China will become the largest trading partner. It's not guaranteed. The development of NAFTA and CAFTA, as well as plenty of political and economic issues in the Pacific may step in to stem the tide of Sino-American trade.</p>
<p>Has anyone of you been to China? Go for a visit. NAFTA and CAFTA is a joke.</p>
<p>ev700,</p>
<p>Sorry, but that's not QUITE how trade works. Remember that plenty of factors could potentially get in the way of China's development in the short- and long-run as the US's largest trading partner. The Taiwan Strait issue, Chinese political instability, the US current account deficit (which will eventually require the US to shift back on its consumption in the long run due to the necessity of consumption smoothing), and RMB revaluation could all effect in a serious way Sino-American trade.</p>
<p>Furthermore, don't forget that India is also developing at breakneck speeds as well, and the US has historically had fewer disputes with India than with the PRC.</p>
<p>Again, the size of the economy is not necessarily the determinant of its effective trade with other countries. If that were the case, the US would be EVERYONE'S #1 trading partner, which we know is not the case.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I am sorry. You are using the exact same logic to explain away the US/China trade situation as with your explaining away of Berkeley's Prestige. You are using bit and pieces of data and normalizing them in your head, using your own filters.</p>
<p>My question was, "Anyone been to China?". Go take a visit, China may not be the USA's number 1 trading partner, but the Chinese are ruthless capitalists.</p>
<p>NAFTA is a joke, there are so many loopholes in NAFTA, and it has not bring stability to Mexico's economic situation.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that UCLAri's focus of study is in Economics or something similar, and as an Economics major myself, I can tell you that UCLAri's views are in line with current economic views on China. In other words, the general arguments are in line with many Economics professors/researchers, who actually do this for a living. I don't see any manipulation.</p>
<p>ev700, in light of this I think you'll have to be more specific about your statements, because saying that, "the Chinese are ruthless capitalists," or "NAFTA is a joke," doesn't really tell us much. This sort of thing is already rampant on CC as it is, what with English majors acting like Statistics experts, Engineers like Sociologists, Chemists like Economists, and so on :) I'm just saying that you need to show us at least some sort of Economic analysis (such as UCLAri's reference to the potential account deficit-RMB problem) that shows us that UCLAri is wrong or that NAFTA is a joke, etc.</p>
<p>ev700,</p>
<p>What difference does it make if the Chinese are ruthless capitalists if the US Congress places tariffs on Chinese goods in a deliberate attempt to reduce Chinese imports? Or if the Taiwan Strait issue comes to a head and Sino-American relations deteriorate? Or if the US growth tanks and we can no longer afford the CA deficit we currently run? So many things can change.</p>
<p>These are just TWO examples of ways that Chinese trade could potentially be curtailed. I'm not saying that either one is guaranteed to happen (and I'd like to think that they won't), but neither is it guaranteed that China will become the US's biggest trading partner. </p>
<p>I think you're missing my point. International trade (and political economy in general) is a complicated issue with many variables. To say that anything is "guaranteed" borders on irrational.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but the Chinese are ruthless capitalists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, they certainly are ruthless * something *. Particularly the government. The autocracy and ruthlessness of the Chinese government to its own people is a major reason why China could collapse in the future.</p>
<p>Could. But I tend to agree with Barry Naughton and Susan Shirk that China's probably not going to find itself in trouble for a while at least. Negroponte, predictably, is more worried than them-- but I suppose that's his job!</p>