Thanks for writing the piece that needs to be written about the orientation of our media and commentators. And our financial gurus and advisors.

Your points are important because Australia and our future is linked to China and Asia, yet all the commentary is Wall St and London 'cut and paste'. No wonder Australians think we are in a recession similar to the US and UK, when we are have an economy the envy of the developed world.

Likewise with news and Chinese language, culture and history. Not only is China the driver of our economic future in the coming 25 years but it is/will be our largest source of tourists, international students (one of our top service industy earners) and suppliers. Yet we take no advantage of the many Chinese background fluent speakers to help us learn Mandarin, understand the culture and history or most importantly, do business with China. How stupid are we?

And what are we doing to prepare for the rise of India, which will happen in the 15-50 years from now? Gudjarati classes anyone?

Thankfully Ken Henry has been commissioned by the government to report on Australia's participation in the Asian Century. Good to see policy mekers are beginning to be oriented.

While all the factors that James mentioned matters, also important is the way people's expectations changes over time that influence both culture and history.
I am surprised that it wasn't mentioned that adaptive expectations could also explain many of what has been the imbalance issues with the Chinese economy.
When a developing economy changes very rapidly with considerable uncertainties, many consumers, particularly historically poor ones that are the cases with developing economies, are adaptive to the rapid change in the economy and the rise in income, so their expectations are somewhat influenced by their past low income and won't spend as much as people in rich and economically relative stable developed countries.
Another factor is the role of surplus labor has played in depressing the real wages, at least until now. While many economists, including some in China, take the market as sacred on the one hand, they leave the market force aside in analysing the imbalance in the Chinese economy. They say it was the Chinese government policy that was pro investment and pro exports.
How cynical and illogical can they be?
People need to use their creativity in research, not simply and wholly rely on existing theories or what conventional line of views.

Just about spot on with high savings and culture but high savings are
also due to a combination of high home ownership (nearly 90 percent), Chinese frugality, and undeclared household income.

However, in regards to the son and culture:

1. it's a sons duty to care for the parents in their old age.
2. its a parents duty to ensure the sons are educated in a way to
secure the best job possible to be able to financially take on their
parents later on.
3. it's the parents duty to provide the accomodation for their sons
(not just to attract a mate, but for themselves in their old-age)
4. it's a parent duty to get their son married off ASAP (their last obligation)
5. it's a son's duty to choose a wife who will make the best daughter-in-law.

Accomodation to attract a bride has an element of truth to it these days,
But it's a modernisation phenonomen as the great bulk of children
now leave home and move to the larger cities for higher education, employment and settlement whereas in the past sons married,
and worked and lived with their parents down on the farm.

I'm not convinced that a comprehensive social security system will
change the culture. Also the gender imbalance is to be found more
in the rural areas.

We're in the final stages of getting our son married off and the wife says she's relieved!.

James
Excellent article.

Excellent piece. For more about perspective, and an examination of China's radically different approach to 'the economy', see this excellent piece by some professional Australian investors: http://inpraiseofchina.blogspot.com/2012/07/chinas-economic-miracle-how-it-works.html

My wife is Chinese and my two sons plainly mixed race, while raised in Australia both encouraged from early childhood to embrace both cultures and to maintain their close relationship with China.

But what does that mean? While many Asians argue that Australians must learn to start discussing Asia in terms of what we have in common rather than what's different, to which I do agree, it remains that there is no such thing as 'China' in any real sense, nor is there any such thing as 'India' for that matter.

In China there are over 50 recognised nationalities. China is vibrant and diverse, we do not have to do business with 'China' only with our business partners and associates, and remain loyal to them.

As they say, there are many high mountains and deep valleys between Guangzhou and Beijing. When Deng Xiaoping wanted to open the door he was unable to do so through the north. He opened the door through Guangzhou.

Even then, China did not open the door to the West, necessarily, but through the Overseas Chinese Friendship Associations to, you guessed it, overseas Chinese. It was overseas Chinese not because of race or language or culture but because there were established relationships among them that were simply being rekindled.

I have seen many Western businessmen coming out of China ashen faced when their 'business deals' fell through, back when the US too was complaining about how difficult it was to do business with China, but that's because they simply do not understand the nature of relationships.

China does business where China does business, not because of economic policy or their banking system or whatever, but because it's simply good business. China does business with Australia because Australia has proven to be good to do business with. Australia does business with China likewise for the same reason.

There is nothing else to it. Our relationship with China continues to grow because it is a good relationship, it is good business which in turn makes it good economics. In China it is called 'guan xi', special friendship, as in old childhood classmates, old comrades on the Long March, old family friends. Australia is a special friend of China, that's all we need to be worrying about.

While ever we look forward to a prosperous future together the relationship will be strong. Race, language, 'culture' all the rest of it, simply gets sorted out in the adaptive wash. The ongoing problem Australia must yet face is in what it means to have good relationships with others, a sense of kinship and common purpose, willingness to adapt and change, and a positive outlook.

I have also suggested on a number of occasions, here and elsewhere, that we also need to reconsider our work ethic, partly to maintain our relationship with China but very much more to compete with Chinese now living here, and making significant inroads into our academic and intellectual life.

All good, in my view.