15 ms·

China's $1T Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order

189 points by pdog 9y ago

ne375 9y ago
...
njarboe 9y ago
“Pursuing protectionism is just like locking oneself in a dark room,” Mr. Xi told business leaders at the World Economic Forum in January. I might agree with Mr. Xi, but the Great Firewall of China is a higher wall of protectionism than anything the West has against the Chinese. Forcing foreign companies to partner with Chinese companies and then transfer all of their closely held technologies and industrial processes to China seems pretty protectionist also. Maybe in Chinese culture being able to lock oneself in a dark room is a positive?
- thablackbull 9y ago
  Those two aren't mutually exclusive. America is an incredibly protectionist country as well if you aren't aware. http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pages/protectionism-is-not-new.aspx?postID=1048 http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pa... In the past 3 years, America has introduced far more protectionist measures than other countries.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Is there any other source than that chart? I was looking for a supporting document to explain those figures but there's nothing apparently on that link besides that chart, which looks impressive but without context is as good as meaningless. edit: So Googling this, I came across this article, which agrees with the trends, but also notes: But the vast majority of the actions — 89 of the 145 — came in the form of anti-dumping and other cases aimed at alleged unfair behaviour by trading partners. Of those, more than 40 were aimed at the trade in steel and other metals. The global steel sector has been roiled by a collapse in prices blamed on China and its production of more of the metal than it can use. That has led to a growing number of anti-dumping cases in the US and EU and a backlash against Beijing’s bid to be recognised as a market economy in the WTO. https://www.ft.com/content/2dd0ecc4-3768-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f https://www.ft.com/content/2dd0ecc4-3768-11e6-a780-b48ed7b61...
    - thablackbull 9y ago
      They are apparently using data from Global Trade Alerts http://www.globaltradealert.org/ http://www.globaltradealert.org/ I good intro would be their 19th Global Trade Alert Report http://www.globaltradealert.org/gta-analysis/global-trade-plateaus http://www.globaltradealert.org/gta-analysis/global-trade-pl...
      - narrowrail 9y ago
        Not to be pedantic (It's an unfortunate consequence of nuance), but just so you know, there is no country called "America." We have north, central, and south American continents with many countries; the U.S is one country in North America.
        myrandomcomment 9y ago
        The name of the country is "United States of America" or you could say America as a shorted version, so there really is a county called America. If you said America to most people in the world they are pretty much going think the USA. BTW, you in your post used the other shorted version "U.S.". Not to be padantic or anything :) There is no other country on the American continents with America in its name.
        narrowrail 9y ago
        That's fair, but many of my fellow American's in other countries within the continents think it is arrogant (I now realize that typing 'America' into wikip redirects to the US). I think of the United States as a reasonable shorthand because I believe in state sovereignty as supreme; Still unlike anything else in the America's. My terminology and ideas are considered antiquated, but I like to believe nuance is important, and the history of the terms we use can inform how we think about these concepts. "Often copied, never duplicated."
    - fcanesin 9y ago
      You can look at every request for retaliation and amendment on the WTO here: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.... For example the US lost on subsidies for cotton and music intellectual properties infringement: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e... https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e...
  - propman 9y ago
    LOL nothing compared to China. China partners with startups, steals their IP and then escapes back to the homeland and no course of legal action. They get all the access to the West's markets and then give almost no access to their own. Their companies are all backed by the government and it's rigged in their favor. They cheat constantly, check out the EU scandal where they smuggle goods into London don't pay equal taxes as the EU companies, beat out competition who is playing fairly and then jack up prices. Their immigration policies are one of the worst in the world. Human rights violations insanely high. They purchase our movie studios and then force on them Chinese propaganda and nothing negative on China ever. America is one of the least protectionist countries in the world if not the least.
    - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
      China doesn't even allow its own citizens to read about things like the Tiananmen square massacre. If they could censor the rest of the world they would. Even their citizens abroad will tow their party's line [0] 0. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-essential-education-updates-southern-uc-davis-lands-the-dalai-lama-as-1487270569-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-essential-educati...
      - Kali909 9y ago
        Bit pedantic but it's 'toe the line' [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
    - icantdrive55 9y ago
      "Oh--Yea, here's are land. Just make a phone call when you get home!" Is it any wonder why people fell into Trump's blather? I do give China credit. The government literally subsidizes (I believe) part of business shipping. The only reason Alibaba, or the the cousin something express hasen't decimated many of our markets is it takes over a month to ship.
    - stupidhn 9y ago
      >They purchase our movie studios and then force on them Chinese propaganda and nothing negative on China ever. They are free to do what they want with what they have bought and paid for. >if not the least Lol is right.
  - hueving 9y ago
    It doesn't matter what America does. Mr. Xi is hypocritical either way.
  - dave_sullivan 9y ago
    China and the US have similar policies re: economic protectionism (as you point out). We have very different policies re: the openness of information. "Freedom of Speech" vs "The Great Firewall of China/kidnapping booksellers" The lack of Freedom of Speech in the most populous country in the world is a tragedy, full stop. Meanwhile, it would be cool to see less protectionist trade policies on both sides.
  - sceew 9y ago
    Volume DNE extent.
- easilyBored 9y ago
  None of that matters. China is spending hundreds of billions to "support" several countries. In reality to own those countries and to bring business back to China. In corrupt countries about 10-20% of the total is going to the elite (cost of doing business) and they'll never forget that China made it possible. If they do, China will undoubtedly remind them. Also, whatever the cost, China is not spending that much anyway: the engineers are Chinese, probably the workers are Chinese, the tech and materials where possible are Chinese so a nice chunk of that money if flowing back to China. Brilliant, especially since China has a lot of $$ reserves.
  - petre 9y ago
    And they made this possible by co-opting authocrats or wannabe authocrats like Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban, along with other corrupt leaders. I just wonder if they play to build their silk road railway through Ukraine. The Chinese bought an area bigger than Belgium in this country which are using for agriculture.
- afpx 9y ago
  It's going to be an interesting test. No government that I know of was able to both squelch information while also winning technologically and economically. But, I'm not sure if any of those previous governments paid their scientists and engineers well. So, maybe China can win by just paying everyone off.
free652 9y ago
Its more like China vs Europe, USA would only benefit. USA can also use the same road to ship goods from West Coast to Europe.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  You might want to look at a globe, the Pacific ocean is much larger than you appear to think.
  - vorg 9y ago
    The US and Russia have been talking on-again off-again since the 1990's about a sea tunnel from Alaska to Siberia.
holydude 9y ago
The scary part is china's protectionism. Small nations and businesses have so little possibilities to operate in china without getting robbed of IP or being outcompeted by state supported domestic ventures. I fear the future of China being stronger superpower than the USA.
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  Protectionism has never made a country strong.
  - dilap 9y ago
    Seems to be working pretty well for China so far.
  - stuaxo 9y ago
    Worked pretty well for the US in the 1800s.
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    This is demonstrably false, and actually the opposite of most countries that have successfully developed. I was searching for "South Korea protectionism history" to find articles for a great example (as SK practiced heavily protectionist policies in the immediate post-war decades), and this came up: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.globaleconomy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.glo... Protectionism can be very successful for countries with underdeveloped economies.
    - awkwardtortoise 9y ago
      Hell the icon of "free trade and capitalism" developed under protectionism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Every nation needs protectionism to help its industries. It's only when you have strong stable industries/companies that you become anti-protectionism because you want your native companies to have access to foreign markets.
cammil 9y ago
You cannot control Asia until the end game.
- bognition 9y ago
  Unlike Risk this game NEVER ends. It will be played millennia to come
  - goatlover 9y ago
    More like Axes & Allies?
grewergrfefg 9y ago
I recently heard Charles Hess from InferFocus talk about the changes coming from China. The United States is about to be passed up in a big way due to Xi's "China Dream" https://twitter.com/cervinventures/status/860307819030958080 https://twitter.com/cervinventures/status/860307819030958080
- bmiranda 9y ago
  What should the US do than? Spend our tax dollars on foreign handouts? If US companies want to invest in SE Asia there is nothing stopping them.
  - grewergrfefg 9y ago
    I don't have an answer for you. But, I'd rather spend tax dollars building railroads in SE Asia than blowing up the Middle East. #Iraq2Trillion #neverforget
    - the-dude 9y ago
      Dude, it is not 2 trillion by a long shot. It is 268k ( https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ )
      - tacomonstrous 9y ago
        Dollars not deaths.
        clio 9y ago
        If we count trees as people, there is no difference
      - knowaveragejoe 9y ago
        Did you really think he was talking about the body count?(Have 2 trillion people even ever lived...?) He's clearly talking about the projected cost of that war.
B4TMAN 9y ago
India is not playing ball, big mystery there.
tunesmith 9y ago
Isn't this what the failed TPP trade deal was supposed to serve as a counter to?
- mark_l_watson 9y ago
  I think that about 20% of TPP did, as you said, deal with real trade, but 80% dealt with treaties that would override individual nations' laws and use private 'courts' for disputes.
  - yohui 9y ago
    In terms of public perception, perhaps. In reality? The parent comment is correct: we let ourselves pick out the parts we didn't like, with a dash of knee-jerk opposition to "secrecy" on top, and completely ignored the broader context (trade, security, and international politics). The good news is, against all odds, it looks like the other TPP members might forge ahead anyway even without the US (for now): https://www.google.com/amp/asia.nikkei.com/amp/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-to-push-for-TPP-11-by-year-end https://www.google.com/amp/asia.nikkei.com/amp/Politics-Econ... It wasn't concern for little countries or even anti-IP sentiment that killed the TPP in the US, though that provided useful cover, but nativism as embodied by Trump. New Zealand, one of those little countries, just ratified the TPP a few days ago to "send a message" in support of free trade despite the US withdrawal:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330574/nz-govt-ratifies-tpp-despite-us-rejection http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330574/nz-govt-ratif...
- awkwardtortoise 9y ago
  No. Most of the TPP members aren't involved in the Belt and Road Initiative.
chvid 9y ago
Bravo China. Instead of overspending on military conquer the world thru trade and investment.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  I also applaud that idea. But I do wonder if it's possible to protect/expand trade without military activity. Historically it seems military expansion is the tip of the spear for trade expansion.
  - oblio 9y ago
    Nixon expanded trade without the military. Other than that... except for the awful Iraq situation, I don't remember any kind of gunboat diplomacy post WW2. Edit: nevermind, Iran.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    There are plenty of examples in the late 20th century where military activity wasn't a help: Taiwan and South Korea have succeeded despite their military challenges -- and spend basically nothing militarily protecting their trade.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      They can only do that because someone else is subsidizing a large part of their defense (the US). Without that they would have been conquered by NK and China long ago. Ironically, it is the US overspending in military which is part of what is driving his economic push for China instead of trying to compete militarily.
  - chvid 9y ago
    The best example is probably the opium wars between China and Britain. Historically the superpower role has shifted hands thru wars. But not with the superpower in direct conflict with the ascending power. The British empire fell apart after 2nd world war in which Britain was a victor. However Britain was bankrupt and all capital that could move had fled to USA.
Kholo 9y ago
I found this talk with Niall Ferguson and Samantha Power pretty fascinating about the US - China power balance changing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yghOc-lMIM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yghOc-lMIM Just one mindblowing fact from the talk - China has poured more concrete in the last two years than the US in the last hundred.
- iiiggglll 9y ago
  It's like everything in Dan Ligon's satirical video from 10 years ago came true: http://cargocollective.com/danligon/filter/current-tv/Ha-Ha-Ha-America http://cargocollective.com/danligon/filter/current-tv/Ha-Ha-...
- agumonkey 9y ago
  China is a hot mass, people look at it as valuable energy, but it seems it lacks structure to be able to handle itself without risk of collapse. I don't wish them to fail, I just wish things to evolve smoothly and peacefully.
  - thablackbull 9y ago
    > it seems it lacks structure to be able to handle itself without risk of collapse. Could you clarify? China was stable for like a millennium while Europe was fighting each other to no end.
    - agumonkey 9y ago
      I meant as internal structure, not international stability.
      - ori_b 9y ago
        I don't know what that means.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Thank you for the link; Harvard Kennedy School talks and guest lectures are almost always a fascinating watch. Shameless plug: the former president of Tunisia (my country) was invited for a talk there around a month ago[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aviBRogZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aviBRogZY
nostromo 9y ago
The "China vs America" narrative is unnecessary. If China wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure to develop their region that's a great thing for America too. Counterintuitively, it could even be better for the US than China. Eventually the demand for low-margin, subsidized, Chinese steel will flatten, while the demand for high-margin American technology and cultural products will grow.
- hemantv 9y ago
  without IP these high margin American technology is copyable, which China has already shown they can do that.
  - nostromo 9y ago
    American technology companies don't rely on IP restrictions as much as they used to. You couldn't copy Facebook, Google, Apple, or Amazon's products and services effectively on a global scale even if they had no IP restrictions. And China is the second largest market for American movies, which absolutely require IP law to function. So I think this concern is overstated.
    - gaius 9y ago
      Sure. But I predict in 10 years we will all buy Huawei networking kit and everyone will have forgotten there ever was a company called Cisco (for example).
      - prodmerc 9y ago
        Huawei will shamelessly give away all your data to the Chinese government. At the very least it looks like Cisco doesn't willingly do that with the NSA. That should count for something. Else we'll have to learn to trade like the Chinese, and it's almost inconceivable - they'll fuck you the first chance they get, like some third world shithole, they have no principles in my experience.
        9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Animats 9y ago
The "Belt and Road" scheme is well known. The first container freight train from Yiwu, China to Barking, England, arrived January 15, 2017. Coast to coast travel time: two weeks.[1] Conveniently, China uses a 4' 8.5" track gauge, unlike Russian metric gauge, so they can move freight cars all the way without a gauge change. Soon, of course, heavier rails, longer trains, faster trains, more trains, better gradients, more electrification, alternate routes... China is funding high speed rail from Belgrade to Budapest. Now that's an infrastructure scheme. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38654176 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38654176
- thablackbull 9y ago
  To add to that, the SCMP newspaper just released a visual a couple days ago explaining various projects. The five main projects of the Belt and Road Initiative http://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-Road/index.html http://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-R...
  - chvid 9y ago
    This is a very vice visual - thank you for that.
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    What an absolutely amazing project! The interactive explanation is pretty slick as well.
  - vorg 9y ago
    "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." Can't see it -- blocked in mainland China.
    - Animats 9y ago
      SCMP is blocked? I thought SCMP had been bought by a pro-mainland owner and was now taking pro-mainland government positions.
throwaway053 9y ago
Oh yes, China, with the authoritarian government lead by a dictator, and has proven to engage in unfair trade policies and dumping of goods, and supports an evil regime in north korea, is going to help the region grow! /s. Seriously, only third world countries welcomes Chinese loans that will never be be repaid. The 'Belt and road' scheme has been shown to be a failure thus far. No smart nation wants to have its economy/community/jobs/manufacturing destroyed by an evil government, just for cheap, shoddily made goods Besides, China has no trillions to spend. It's massively in debt, suffers from capital outflow and rich fleeing the country. It has middle income problem and demographics issues. It's heyday was 2007.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>and supports an evil regime in north korea For what it's worth, the only reason China "supports" North Korea is because they don't want to deal with the massive influx of refugees that would result from that regime's collapse. If you think about the strain that a few million Syrian refugees are putting on Europe, you can hardly blame China for this stance. Make no mistake though: China has no love for North Korea. I mean who would want a crazy mad man armed to the teeth right in their backyard?
- thablackbull 9y ago
  > destroyed by an evil government, just for cheap, shoddily made goods This attitude is why China managed to get itself out of poverty while other countries don't seem to get anywhere. While you may think phones made in China are cheap, shoddily made goods, guess what, there are billions of people in this world who don't have the financial resources of the 300M Americans to afford an iPhone. The American model is to have a company create an amazing product at a very high cost (iPhone, Tesla) and have it "trickle down". What ends up happening are these companies monopolize the market, force everyone onto their ecosystem, and extract as much money as possible. Things do progress, but everyone gets locked into a system, and the company lacks incentive to keep innovating. In China, they create cheap products, but in a few years, every single person has a smartphone. The technology is democratized and because of that, new technology can be built off that initial platform - now they are by far way ahead in things like fintech. Who cares if the product was initially cheap and shoddily made when the people there are upgrading their devices every year. The "cheap" device maker Xiaomi dropped to fourth place in China because consumers demanded more and more high end products. Within the space of a few years, the Chinese phone makers are making quality phones.
pnathan 9y ago
Certainly more forwardlooking than Trump. But I don't think Official China's shadow is a moral one, even if it allows trade to flourish. I certainly hope that the citizens force their government to be more moral and have a better focus on human rights.
rodionos 9y ago
Somewhat hypocritical considering China's established track record of creating walled gardens around its own economy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mrb 9y ago
"a difficult three-hour drive over potholed roles from the capital" s/roles/roads/ Incidentally I have done this three-hour drive. Horrible indeed. The potholes limit your speed to 20-30 mph. I kept thinking on the way "what would really be the cost to repave a ~100-mile 2-lane road?" And "how high on this country's priority list would this be?"
aswanson 9y ago
It's interesting that a country of China's size works without any history of widespread religious belief.
- vorg 9y ago
  Isn't the period from the end of the Three Kingdoms (~280AD) to the beginning of the Sui/Tang (~580AD) when Mahayana Buddhism evangelized China?
  - aswanson 9y ago
    Isn't Buddhism a philosophy/approach to living rather than a religion?
    - vorg 9y ago
      You're thinking more of Theravada Buddhism which spread to Sri Lanka and Thailand, and the more recent Tibetan variety. The Mahayana version which took over China features statues of many different gods, often taken directly from Taoism.
- pcr0 9y ago
  China's history was mostly shaped by the "three teachings" of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, combined with a lot of folklore. Religion was never allowed to gain any significant power by Chinese emperors. They often taxed then destroyed monasteries/churches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecutio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China
giis 9y ago
With 60+ countries agreed to attend the event, Its interesting to note: India refused to take part on this OBOR project. China's arch rival Japan sent a official team, but India refused to attend the submit. China repeatedly blocked India's move to Ban terrorist Azad[1], blocked their NSG bid and their flip-flop on Arunachal. so India prefers to stay away from China-led project. Russia is watchful about rising Chinese influence in their regions. Once they used to be major partner and China played minor role. Now the trend reversed.Russia knows that too. [1] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-united-nations-masood-azhar-jem-terrorist-india-4451956/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-united-nations-... [2]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/outlier-china-preventing-indias-entry-into-nuclear-suppliers-group-says-us/articleshow/56559841.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/outlier-china-preve... And Chinese media, says: India and Russia tipped to be the big winners from China’s massive ‘Belt and Road' investment: http://www.scmp.com/business/article/2094224/india-and-russia-tipped-be-big-winners-chinas-massive-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/business/article/2094224/india-and-russi...
- throwaway053 9y ago
  the event isn't that impressive "The Chinese government had hoped to assemble a weightier guest list to Mr Xi’s premier international forum. But many heads of state and government, especially from G7 and OECD nations, were reluctant to participate in what they thought might be little more than a propaganda coup for China’s ruling Communist party. Only seven EU heads of state or government, most from smaller eastern European countries, accepted Mr Xi’s invitation" https://www.ft.com/content/f89060ac-36c7-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e https://www.ft.com/content/f89060ac-36c7-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0f...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
marcell 9y ago
I'm struck by China's ability to attempt large, ambitious projects like this, compared to America's inability to do, well, anything really. The largest infrastructure project I'm aware of in the USA is California's High Speed Rail (~$60B+), was approved a decade ago and is barely making any progress. The federal government is in complete gridlock. The most ambitious legislation passed in the last decade, the ACA, caused endless partisan warfare. Meanwhile, obvious policy wins like allowing more immigration [1] are not even discussed. I've been following US politics for the last 2-3 presidents (going back to George W Bush), and it makes me very pessimistic. I don't see how a country can expected to be exceptional, or even above average, with politics that are so dysfunctional. Perhaps, though, I'd have a different view if I could see things from inside, within China? [1] http://paulgraham.com/95.html http://paulgraham.com/95.html
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- prodmerc 9y ago
  I reckon it's really easy when there's one party in power that controls pretty much everything in the country - you just say it's in the nation's interest, most of the party is similar minded and will agree, and billions are immediately available for the project. Very different than the US and EU, sadly...
- taway_1212 9y ago
  Aren't the projects in China executed at complete disregard to the rights of individual citizens? I.e. if your house is in the way, sorry, we'll give you some laughable amount of money and send police over to brutalize you until you leave. Under such conditions, it's easy to make lots of change quickly (in such spirit, Stalin was even more efficient - he essentially enslaved a part of his nation via Gulags and used the free slave labor to get done quickly various massively ambitious projects around the country). Another aspect is environment protection - it's much easier to build infrastructure if you don't mind wrecking the natural environment around it.
  - jon_richards 9y ago
sandGorgon 9y ago
There has been a lot of debate on India's refusal (for political reasons around disputed territory) to join the OBOR. Such debates are tempered by math that show that the trains are actually less efficient than shipping in lots of cases [1]. I wonder if the pure economic value , minus the investment leverage, still makes sense. [1] https://m.rediff.com/news/column/india-doesnt-want-to-join-chinas-obor-but/20170513.htm https://m.rediff.com/news/column/india-doesnt-want-to-join-c...
thedevil 9y ago
It's interesting to note that China and India were the global economic juggernauts until only very recently: (first google result to demonstrate the point) https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history
awinter-py 9y ago
Calling this a new marshall plan is a powerful analogy. Not sure I agree or disagree. The marshall plan was focused on gaining allies, so in theory it was more economically selfless than this. But even if not perfect the comparison makes you zoom out and take the long view.
tiatia 9y ago
Well, they build roads and trains. Something that they know. The Question: Will it be enough? Some people claim that there are no more reasonable investment opportunities left in China. "The power plants in Pakistan, as well as upgrades to a major highway and a $1 billion port expansion, are a political bulwark. By prompting growth in Pakistan, China wants to blunt the spread of Pakistan’s terrorists across the border into the Xinjiang region, where a restive Muslim population of Uighurs resides." Well, yes. But there may be other ways to do this. China just wants to have Pakistan as a close ally. If India is an ally of the US, it is a good idea to have an ally that can counter India.
- manquer 9y ago
  Pakistan is closer ally than india for the US . Pakistan receives much more military aid alone every year than the Chinese investment
  - pknerd 9y ago
    US is ally of Pakistan while China is rather a friend.
contingencies 9y ago
From about 2005-2008 I used to live and own a house on the Laos and Burma borders of far south-western China and still often travel in the area. Laos is simply poor, being a landlocked mountainous country with minimal infrastructure or education surrounded by larger and more powerful neighbors. In the last 16 years, Laos has begun to get some better roads (largely with foreign investment), mobile telecommunications, a larger tourist industry, some dams and a great deal more rubber plantations. Otherwise, it is still a sleepy, mountainous, jungled backwater. China has committed to building infrastructure to connect Laos and Thailand to Chinese rail and road networks. Relatively tiny Vietnam apparently made an expensive and partly abortive attempt to sponsor a road from Dien Bien Phu to Udomxai in the north, perhaps in a bid to counter growing Chinese influence, but China ran rings around them and the strategic significance or benefit of such a road is now negligible. From an economic rationalist perspective, I think China just wants more markets. If you were a massive manufacturer with 14(?) land borders and awesome infrastructure expertise, you'd be building infrastructure to connect new markets too. I don't think there's any kind of evil Beijing geostrategic scheme at play here ... there's very little to gain by controlling Laos (which economically China already does in the north of the country) ... it just makes sense. Some images of the northern Laos road to Dien Bien Phu in 2012 (dunno if this new non-Picasa Google Photo link works) @ https://get.google.com/albumarchive/106883718971909092529/album/AF1QipOJtgKiJZdgruRyZhNTUk2bWY6_fXjzFYLosft7 https://get.google.com/albumarchive/106883718971909092529/al... or https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOJtgKiJZdgruRyZhNTUk2bWY6_fXjzFYLosft7 https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOJtgKiJZdgruRyZhNTUk2b...
- noisy_boy 9y ago
  There are repercussions of China's aggressive market hunting. Taking an example of Northern Laos, the Chinese have been buying farmlands and converting them into Banana farms. Lots of farmers have sold their land for good money. If you don't sell you land, you'll be a fool because a) the size of land isn't that big so you are dependent on your neighbours good will for letting the water flow into your patch b) the neighbours already sold their's to the Chinese. The Chinese also very cleverly opened a casino. So, now you have villages full of farmers who go to the casino and gamble the money back to the same people (because as the saying goes, the house always wins) who bought their lands. Lao women who used to work in their farms now work in these casinos. Drug abuse has always been a problem in Laos but with this inflow of cash, it has been exacerbated. One might say, the Lao government is equally responsible - which is not entirely false. If a chinese company tried to buy an Indian farmer's land, there would be outrage but Laos is a tiny country so no real comparison. Anyway, the net result is a social impact that is far from the carrot of "economic growth".

189 points by pdog 9y ago

...

“Pursuing protectionism is just like locking oneself in a dark room,” Mr. Xi told business leaders at the World Economic Forum in January. I might agree with Mr. Xi, but the Great Firewall of China is a higher wall of protectionism than anything the West has against the Chinese. Forcing foreign companies to partner with Chinese companies and then transfer all of their closely held technologies and industrial processes to China seems pretty protectionist also. Maybe in Chinese culture being able to lock oneself in a dark room is a positive?

thablackbull 9y ago
Those two aren't mutually exclusive. America is an incredibly protectionist country as well if you aren't aware. http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pages/protectionism-is-not-new.aspx?postID=1048 http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pa... In the past 3 years, America has introduced far more protectionist measures than other countries.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Is there any other source than that chart? I was looking for a supporting document to explain those figures but there's nothing apparently on that link besides that chart, which looks impressive but without context is as good as meaningless. edit: So Googling this, I came across this article, which agrees with the trends, but also notes: But the vast majority of the actions — 89 of the 145 — came in the form of anti-dumping and other cases aimed at alleged unfair behaviour by trading partners. Of those, more than 40 were aimed at the trade in steel and other metals. The global steel sector has been roiled by a collapse in prices blamed on China and its production of more of the metal than it can use. That has led to a growing number of anti-dumping cases in the US and EU and a backlash against Beijing’s bid to be recognised as a market economy in the WTO. https://www.ft.com/content/2dd0ecc4-3768-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f https://www.ft.com/content/2dd0ecc4-3768-11e6-a780-b48ed7b61...
  - thablackbull 9y ago
    They are apparently using data from Global Trade Alerts http://www.globaltradealert.org/ http://www.globaltradealert.org/ I good intro would be their 19th Global Trade Alert Report http://www.globaltradealert.org/gta-analysis/global-trade-plateaus http://www.globaltradealert.org/gta-analysis/global-trade-pl...
    - narrowrail 9y ago
      Not to be pedantic (It's an unfortunate consequence of nuance), but just so you know, there is no country called "America." We have north, central, and south American continents with many countries; the U.S is one country in North America.
      - myrandomcomment 9y ago
        The name of the country is "United States of America" or you could say America as a shorted version, so there really is a county called America. If you said America to most people in the world they are pretty much going think the USA. BTW, you in your post used the other shorted version "U.S.". Not to be padantic or anything :) There is no other country on the American continents with America in its name.
        narrowrail 9y ago
        That's fair, but many of my fellow American's in other countries within the continents think it is arrogant (I now realize that typing 'America' into wikip redirects to the US). I think of the United States as a reasonable shorthand because I believe in state sovereignty as supreme; Still unlike anything else in the America's. My terminology and ideas are considered antiquated, but I like to believe nuance is important, and the history of the terms we use can inform how we think about these concepts. "Often copied, never duplicated."
  - fcanesin 9y ago
    You can look at every request for retaliation and amendment on the WTO here: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.... For example the US lost on subsidies for cotton and music intellectual properties infringement: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e... https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds267_e...
- propman 9y ago
  LOL nothing compared to China. China partners with startups, steals their IP and then escapes back to the homeland and no course of legal action. They get all the access to the West's markets and then give almost no access to their own. Their companies are all backed by the government and it's rigged in their favor. They cheat constantly, check out the EU scandal where they smuggle goods into London don't pay equal taxes as the EU companies, beat out competition who is playing fairly and then jack up prices. Their immigration policies are one of the worst in the world. Human rights violations insanely high. They purchase our movie studios and then force on them Chinese propaganda and nothing negative on China ever. America is one of the least protectionist countries in the world if not the least.
  - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
    China doesn't even allow its own citizens to read about things like the Tiananmen square massacre. If they could censor the rest of the world they would. Even their citizens abroad will tow their party's line [0] 0. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-essential-education-updates-southern-uc-davis-lands-the-dalai-lama-as-1487270569-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-essential-educati...
    - Kali909 9y ago
      Bit pedantic but it's 'toe the line' [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
  - icantdrive55 9y ago
    "Oh--Yea, here's are land. Just make a phone call when you get home!" Is it any wonder why people fell into Trump's blather? I do give China credit. The government literally subsidizes (I believe) part of business shipping. The only reason Alibaba, or the the cousin something express hasen't decimated many of our markets is it takes over a month to ship.
  - stupidhn 9y ago
    >They purchase our movie studios and then force on them Chinese propaganda and nothing negative on China ever. They are free to do what they want with what they have bought and paid for. >if not the least Lol is right.
- hueving 9y ago
  It doesn't matter what America does. Mr. Xi is hypocritical either way.
- dave_sullivan 9y ago
  China and the US have similar policies re: economic protectionism (as you point out). We have very different policies re: the openness of information. "Freedom of Speech" vs "The Great Firewall of China/kidnapping booksellers" The lack of Freedom of Speech in the most populous country in the world is a tragedy, full stop. Meanwhile, it would be cool to see less protectionist trade policies on both sides.
- sceew 9y ago
  Volume DNE extent.
easilyBored 9y ago
None of that matters. China is spending hundreds of billions to "support" several countries. In reality to own those countries and to bring business back to China. In corrupt countries about 10-20% of the total is going to the elite (cost of doing business) and they'll never forget that China made it possible. If they do, China will undoubtedly remind them. Also, whatever the cost, China is not spending that much anyway: the engineers are Chinese, probably the workers are Chinese, the tech and materials where possible are Chinese so a nice chunk of that money if flowing back to China. Brilliant, especially since China has a lot of $$ reserves.
- petre 9y ago
  And they made this possible by co-opting authocrats or wannabe authocrats like Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban, along with other corrupt leaders. I just wonder if they play to build their silk road railway through Ukraine. The Chinese bought an area bigger than Belgium in this country which are using for agriculture.
afpx 9y ago
It's going to be an interesting test. No government that I know of was able to both squelch information while also winning technologically and economically. But, I'm not sure if any of those previous governments paid their scientists and engineers well. So, maybe China can win by just paying everyone off.

free652 9y ago

Its more like China vs Europe, USA would only benefit. USA can also use the same road to ship goods from West Coast to Europe.

Godel_unicode 9y ago
You might want to look at a globe, the Pacific ocean is much larger than you appear to think.
- vorg 9y ago
  The US and Russia have been talking on-again off-again since the 1990's about a sea tunnel from Alaska to Siberia.

holydude 9y ago

The scary part is china's protectionism. Small nations and businesses have so little possibilities to operate in china without getting robbed of IP or being outcompeted by state supported domestic ventures. I fear the future of China being stronger superpower than the USA.

BurningFrog 9y ago
Protectionism has never made a country strong.
- dilap 9y ago
  Seems to be working pretty well for China so far.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  Worked pretty well for the US in the 1800s.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  This is demonstrably false, and actually the opposite of most countries that have successfully developed. I was searching for "South Korea protectionism history" to find articles for a great example (as SK practiced heavily protectionist policies in the immediate post-war decades), and this came up: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.globaleconomy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/09/eu.glo... Protectionism can be very successful for countries with underdeveloped economies.
  - awkwardtortoise 9y ago
    Hell the icon of "free trade and capitalism" developed under protectionism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Every nation needs protectionism to help its industries. It's only when you have strong stable industries/companies that you become anti-protectionism because you want your native companies to have access to foreign markets.

cammil 9y ago

You cannot control Asia until the end game.

bognition 9y ago
Unlike Risk this game NEVER ends. It will be played millennia to come
- goatlover 9y ago
  More like Axes & Allies?

grewergrfefg 9y ago

I recently heard Charles Hess from InferFocus talk about the changes coming from China. The United States is about to be passed up in a big way due to Xi's "China Dream" https://twitter.com/cervinventures/status/860307819030958080 https://twitter.com/cervinventures/status/860307819030958080

bmiranda 9y ago
What should the US do than? Spend our tax dollars on foreign handouts? If US companies want to invest in SE Asia there is nothing stopping them.
- grewergrfefg 9y ago
  I don't have an answer for you. But, I'd rather spend tax dollars building railroads in SE Asia than blowing up the Middle East. #Iraq2Trillion #neverforget
  - the-dude 9y ago
    Dude, it is not 2 trillion by a long shot. It is 268k ( https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ )
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      Dollars not deaths.
      - clio 9y ago
        If we count trees as people, there is no difference
    - knowaveragejoe 9y ago
      Did you really think he was talking about the body count?(Have 2 trillion people even ever lived...?) He's clearly talking about the projected cost of that war.

B4TMAN 9y ago

India is not playing ball, big mystery there.

tunesmith 9y ago

Isn't this what the failed TPP trade deal was supposed to serve as a counter to?

mark_l_watson 9y ago
I think that about 20% of TPP did, as you said, deal with real trade, but 80% dealt with treaties that would override individual nations' laws and use private 'courts' for disputes.
- yohui 9y ago
  In terms of public perception, perhaps. In reality? The parent comment is correct: we let ourselves pick out the parts we didn't like, with a dash of knee-jerk opposition to "secrecy" on top, and completely ignored the broader context (trade, security, and international politics). The good news is, against all odds, it looks like the other TPP members might forge ahead anyway even without the US (for now): https://www.google.com/amp/asia.nikkei.com/amp/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-to-push-for-TPP-11-by-year-end https://www.google.com/amp/asia.nikkei.com/amp/Politics-Econ... It wasn't concern for little countries or even anti-IP sentiment that killed the TPP in the US, though that provided useful cover, but nativism as embodied by Trump. New Zealand, one of those little countries, just ratified the TPP a few days ago to "send a message" in support of free trade despite the US withdrawal:http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330574/nz-govt-ratifies-tpp-despite-us-rejection http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/330574/nz-govt-ratif...
awkwardtortoise 9y ago
No. Most of the TPP members aren't involved in the Belt and Road Initiative.

chvid 9y ago

Bravo China. Instead of overspending on military conquer the world thru trade and investment.

mythrwy 9y ago
I also applaud that idea. But I do wonder if it's possible to protect/expand trade without military activity. Historically it seems military expansion is the tip of the spear for trade expansion.
- oblio 9y ago
  Nixon expanded trade without the military. Other than that... except for the awful Iraq situation, I don't remember any kind of gunboat diplomacy post WW2. Edit: nevermind, Iran.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  There are plenty of examples in the late 20th century where military activity wasn't a help: Taiwan and South Korea have succeeded despite their military challenges -- and spend basically nothing militarily protecting their trade.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    They can only do that because someone else is subsidizing a large part of their defense (the US). Without that they would have been conquered by NK and China long ago. Ironically, it is the US overspending in military which is part of what is driving his economic push for China instead of trying to compete militarily.
- chvid 9y ago
  The best example is probably the opium wars between China and Britain. Historically the superpower role has shifted hands thru wars. But not with the superpower in direct conflict with the ascending power. The British empire fell apart after 2nd world war in which Britain was a victor. However Britain was bankrupt and all capital that could move had fled to USA.

Kholo 9y ago

I found this talk with Niall Ferguson and Samantha Power pretty fascinating about the US - China power balance changing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yghOc-lMIM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yghOc-lMIM Just one mindblowing fact from the talk - China has poured more concrete in the last two years than the US in the last hundred.

iiiggglll 9y ago
It's like everything in Dan Ligon's satirical video from 10 years ago came true: http://cargocollective.com/danligon/filter/current-tv/Ha-Ha-Ha-America http://cargocollective.com/danligon/filter/current-tv/Ha-Ha-...
agumonkey 9y ago
China is a hot mass, people look at it as valuable energy, but it seems it lacks structure to be able to handle itself without risk of collapse. I don't wish them to fail, I just wish things to evolve smoothly and peacefully.
- thablackbull 9y ago
  > it seems it lacks structure to be able to handle itself without risk of collapse. Could you clarify? China was stable for like a millennium while Europe was fighting each other to no end.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I meant as internal structure, not international stability.
    - ori_b 9y ago
      I don't know what that means.
Cyph0n 9y ago
Thank you for the link; Harvard Kennedy School talks and guest lectures are almost always a fascinating watch. Shameless plug: the former president of Tunisia (my country) was invited for a talk there around a month ago[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aviBRogZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aviBRogZY

nostromo 9y ago

The "China vs America" narrative is unnecessary. If China wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure to develop their region that's a great thing for America too. Counterintuitively, it could even be better for the US than China. Eventually the demand for low-margin, subsidized, Chinese steel will flatten, while the demand for high-margin American technology and cultural products will grow.

hemantv 9y ago
without IP these high margin American technology is copyable, which China has already shown they can do that.
- nostromo 9y ago
  American technology companies don't rely on IP restrictions as much as they used to. You couldn't copy Facebook, Google, Apple, or Amazon's products and services effectively on a global scale even if they had no IP restrictions. And China is the second largest market for American movies, which absolutely require IP law to function. So I think this concern is overstated.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Sure. But I predict in 10 years we will all buy Huawei networking kit and everyone will have forgotten there ever was a company called Cisco (for example).
    - prodmerc 9y ago
      Huawei will shamelessly give away all your data to the Chinese government. At the very least it looks like Cisco doesn't willingly do that with the NSA. That should count for something. Else we'll have to learn to trade like the Chinese, and it's almost inconceivable - they'll fuck you the first chance they get, like some third world shithole, they have no principles in my experience.
      - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Animats 9y ago

The "Belt and Road" scheme is well known. The first container freight train from Yiwu, China to Barking, England, arrived January 15, 2017. Coast to coast travel time: two weeks.[1] Conveniently, China uses a 4' 8.5" track gauge, unlike Russian metric gauge, so they can move freight cars all the way without a gauge change. Soon, of course, heavier rails, longer trains, faster trains, more trains, better gradients, more electrification, alternate routes... China is funding high speed rail from Belgrade to Budapest. Now that's an infrastructure scheme. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38654176 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38654176

thablackbull 9y ago
To add to that, the SCMP newspaper just released a visual a couple days ago explaining various projects. The five main projects of the Belt and Road Initiative http://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-Road/index.html http://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-R...
- chvid 9y ago
  This is a very vice visual - thank you for that.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  What an absolutely amazing project! The interactive explanation is pretty slick as well.
- vorg 9y ago
  "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." Can't see it -- blocked in mainland China.
  - Animats 9y ago
    SCMP is blocked? I thought SCMP had been bought by a pro-mainland owner and was now taking pro-mainland government positions.

throwaway053 9y ago

Oh yes, China, with the authoritarian government lead by a dictator, and has proven to engage in unfair trade policies and dumping of goods, and supports an evil regime in north korea, is going to help the region grow! /s. Seriously, only third world countries welcomes Chinese loans that will never be be repaid. The 'Belt and road' scheme has been shown to be a failure thus far. No smart nation wants to have its economy/community/jobs/manufacturing destroyed by an evil government, just for cheap, shoddily made goods Besides, China has no trillions to spend. It's massively in debt, suffers from capital outflow and rich fleeing the country. It has middle income problem and demographics issues. It's heyday was 2007.

enraged_camel 9y ago
>>and supports an evil regime in north korea For what it's worth, the only reason China "supports" North Korea is because they don't want to deal with the massive influx of refugees that would result from that regime's collapse. If you think about the strain that a few million Syrian refugees are putting on Europe, you can hardly blame China for this stance. Make no mistake though: China has no love for North Korea. I mean who would want a crazy mad man armed to the teeth right in their backyard?
thablackbull 9y ago
> destroyed by an evil government, just for cheap, shoddily made goods This attitude is why China managed to get itself out of poverty while other countries don't seem to get anywhere. While you may think phones made in China are cheap, shoddily made goods, guess what, there are billions of people in this world who don't have the financial resources of the 300M Americans to afford an iPhone. The American model is to have a company create an amazing product at a very high cost (iPhone, Tesla) and have it "trickle down". What ends up happening are these companies monopolize the market, force everyone onto their ecosystem, and extract as much money as possible. Things do progress, but everyone gets locked into a system, and the company lacks incentive to keep innovating. In China, they create cheap products, but in a few years, every single person has a smartphone. The technology is democratized and because of that, new technology can be built off that initial platform - now they are by far way ahead in things like fintech. Who cares if the product was initially cheap and shoddily made when the people there are upgrading their devices every year. The "cheap" device maker Xiaomi dropped to fourth place in China because consumers demanded more and more high end products. Within the space of a few years, the Chinese phone makers are making quality phones.

pnathan 9y ago

Certainly more forwardlooking than Trump. But I don't think Official China's shadow is a moral one, even if it allows trade to flourish. I certainly hope that the citizens force their government to be more moral and have a better focus on human rights.

rodionos 9y ago

Somewhat hypocritical considering China's established track record of creating walled gardens around its own economy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mrb 9y ago

"a difficult three-hour drive over potholed roles from the capital" s/roles/roads/ Incidentally I have done this three-hour drive. Horrible indeed. The potholes limit your speed to 20-30 mph. I kept thinking on the way "what would really be the cost to repave a ~100-mile 2-lane road?" And "how high on this country's priority list would this be?"

aswanson 9y ago

It's interesting that a country of China's size works without any history of widespread religious belief.

vorg 9y ago
Isn't the period from the end of the Three Kingdoms (~280AD) to the beginning of the Sui/Tang (~580AD) when Mahayana Buddhism evangelized China?
- aswanson 9y ago
  Isn't Buddhism a philosophy/approach to living rather than a religion?
  - vorg 9y ago
    You're thinking more of Theravada Buddhism which spread to Sri Lanka and Thailand, and the more recent Tibetan variety. The Mahayana version which took over China features statues of many different gods, often taken directly from Taoism.
pcr0 9y ago
China's history was mostly shaped by the "three teachings" of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, combined with a lot of folklore. Religion was never allowed to gain any significant power by Chinese emperors. They often taxed then destroyed monasteries/churches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecutio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

giis 9y ago

With 60+ countries agreed to attend the event, Its interesting to note: India refused to take part on this OBOR project. China's arch rival Japan sent a official team, but India refused to attend the submit. China repeatedly blocked India's move to Ban terrorist Azad[1], blocked their NSG bid and their flip-flop on Arunachal. so India prefers to stay away from China-led project. Russia is watchful about rising Chinese influence in their regions. Once they used to be major partner and China played minor role. Now the trend reversed.Russia knows that too. [1] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-united-nations-masood-azhar-jem-terrorist-india-4451956/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-united-nations-... [2]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/outlier-china-preventing-indias-entry-into-nuclear-suppliers-group-says-us/articleshow/56559841.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/outlier-china-preve... And Chinese media, says: India and Russia tipped to be the big winners from China’s massive ‘Belt and Road' investment: http://www.scmp.com/business/article/2094224/india-and-russia-tipped-be-big-winners-chinas-massive-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/business/article/2094224/india-and-russi...

throwaway053 9y ago
the event isn't that impressive "The Chinese government had hoped to assemble a weightier guest list to Mr Xi’s premier international forum. But many heads of state and government, especially from G7 and OECD nations, were reluctant to participate in what they thought might be little more than a propaganda coup for China’s ruling Communist party. Only seven EU heads of state or government, most from smaller eastern European countries, accepted Mr Xi’s invitation" https://www.ft.com/content/f89060ac-36c7-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e https://www.ft.com/content/f89060ac-36c7-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0f...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

marcell 9y ago

I'm struck by China's ability to attempt large, ambitious projects like this, compared to America's inability to do, well, anything really. The largest infrastructure project I'm aware of in the USA is California's High Speed Rail (~$60B+), was approved a decade ago and is barely making any progress. The federal government is in complete gridlock. The most ambitious legislation passed in the last decade, the ACA, caused endless partisan warfare. Meanwhile, obvious policy wins like allowing more immigration [1] are not even discussed. I've been following US politics for the last 2-3 presidents (going back to George W Bush), and it makes me very pessimistic. I don't see how a country can expected to be exceptional, or even above average, with politics that are so dysfunctional. Perhaps, though, I'd have a different view if I could see things from inside, within China? [1] http://paulgraham.com/95.html http://paulgraham.com/95.html

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
prodmerc 9y ago
I reckon it's really easy when there's one party in power that controls pretty much everything in the country - you just say it's in the nation's interest, most of the party is similar minded and will agree, and billions are immediately available for the project. Very different than the US and EU, sadly...
taway_1212 9y ago
Aren't the projects in China executed at complete disregard to the rights of individual citizens? I.e. if your house is in the way, sorry, we'll give you some laughable amount of money and send police over to brutalize you until you leave. Under such conditions, it's easy to make lots of change quickly (in such spirit, Stalin was even more efficient - he essentially enslaved a part of his nation via Gulags and used the free slave labor to get done quickly various massively ambitious projects around the country). Another aspect is environment protection - it's much easier to build infrastructure if you don't mind wrecking the natural environment around it.
- jon_richards 9y ago

sandGorgon 9y ago

There has been a lot of debate on India's refusal (for political reasons around disputed territory) to join the OBOR. Such debates are tempered by math that show that the trains are actually less efficient than shipping in lots of cases [1]. I wonder if the pure economic value , minus the investment leverage, still makes sense. [1] https://m.rediff.com/news/column/india-doesnt-want-to-join-chinas-obor-but/20170513.htm https://m.rediff.com/news/column/india-doesnt-want-to-join-c...

thedevil 9y ago

It's interesting to note that China and India were the global economic juggernauts until only very recently: (first google result to demonstrate the point) https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history

awinter-py 9y ago

Calling this a new marshall plan is a powerful analogy. Not sure I agree or disagree. The marshall plan was focused on gaining allies, so in theory it was more economically selfless than this. But even if not perfect the comparison makes you zoom out and take the long view.

tiatia 9y ago

Well, they build roads and trains. Something that they know. The Question: Will it be enough? Some people claim that there are no more reasonable investment opportunities left in China. "The power plants in Pakistan, as well as upgrades to a major highway and a $1 billion port expansion, are a political bulwark. By prompting growth in Pakistan, China wants to blunt the spread of Pakistan’s terrorists across the border into the Xinjiang region, where a restive Muslim population of Uighurs resides." Well, yes. But there may be other ways to do this. China just wants to have Pakistan as a close ally. If India is an ally of the US, it is a good idea to have an ally that can counter India.

manquer 9y ago
Pakistan is closer ally than india for the US . Pakistan receives much more military aid alone every year than the Chinese investment
- pknerd 9y ago
  US is ally of Pakistan while China is rather a friend.

contingencies 9y ago

From about 2005-2008 I used to live and own a house on the Laos and Burma borders of far south-western China and still often travel in the area. Laos is simply poor, being a landlocked mountainous country with minimal infrastructure or education surrounded by larger and more powerful neighbors. In the last 16 years, Laos has begun to get some better roads (largely with foreign investment), mobile telecommunications, a larger tourist industry, some dams and a great deal more rubber plantations. Otherwise, it is still a sleepy, mountainous, jungled backwater. China has committed to building infrastructure to connect Laos and Thailand to Chinese rail and road networks. Relatively tiny Vietnam apparently made an expensive and partly abortive attempt to sponsor a road from Dien Bien Phu to Udomxai in the north, perhaps in a bid to counter growing Chinese influence, but China ran rings around them and the strategic significance or benefit of such a road is now negligible. From an economic rationalist perspective, I think China just wants more markets. If you were a massive manufacturer with 14(?) land borders and awesome infrastructure expertise, you'd be building infrastructure to connect new markets too. I don't think there's any kind of evil Beijing geostrategic scheme at play here ... there's very little to gain by controlling Laos (which economically China already does in the north of the country) ... it just makes sense. Some images of the northern Laos road to Dien Bien Phu in 2012 (dunno if this new non-Picasa Google Photo link works) @ https://get.google.com/albumarchive/106883718971909092529/album/AF1QipOJtgKiJZdgruRyZhNTUk2bWY6_fXjzFYLosft7 https://get.google.com/albumarchive/106883718971909092529/al... or https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOJtgKiJZdgruRyZhNTUk2bWY6_fXjzFYLosft7 https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOJtgKiJZdgruRyZhNTUk2b...

noisy_boy 9y ago
There are repercussions of China's aggressive market hunting. Taking an example of Northern Laos, the Chinese have been buying farmlands and converting them into Banana farms. Lots of farmers have sold their land for good money. If you don't sell you land, you'll be a fool because a) the size of land isn't that big so you are dependent on your neighbours good will for letting the water flow into your patch b) the neighbours already sold their's to the Chinese. The Chinese also very cleverly opened a casino. So, now you have villages full of farmers who go to the casino and gamble the money back to the same people (because as the saying goes, the house always wins) who bought their lands. Lao women who used to work in their farms now work in these casinos. Drug abuse has always been a problem in Laos but with this inflow of cash, it has been exacerbated. One might say, the Lao government is equally responsible - which is not entirely false. If a chinese company tried to buy an Indian farmer's land, there would be outrage but Laos is a tiny country so no real comparison. Anyway, the net result is a social impact that is far from the carrot of "economic growth".