15 ms·

Dreams of a Red Emperor: The Relentless Rise of Xi Jinping

188 points by rfreytag 6y ago

echelon 6y ago
So is China going to surpass America to become the world's #1 economy? Or are the predictions that China's growth will decline true? Some analysts think China's population is too old and that youth will peter out, whereas others think that all the CCP has to do is ask its millennials to have more babies. Some analysts think that democratic nations will band together and give China the cold shoulder. China could just as easily form alliances. Others say that the West will build factories in India, Vietnam, Mexico, and Africa and stop single-sourcing the supply chain. China's also playing that game with their One Belt initiative. The West has bountiful resources. Oil, minerals. So does China. The West has a huge military and space program. So does China. The West has high-paying tech jobs because of its lead in tech, but China is catching up and has more people graduating into the field. This could drive dominance (and salaries) down. China keeps reporting growth. Others say don't trust the numbers. At the same time, look at what's happening to Western economies and national debt. Is China pulling the same levers, or are they unscathed? What, if anything, can the West do to match that growth? Or is it impossible? What's going to happen? What's the 20 to 30 year outlook? Really hoping for some good analysis. (note: this story was "flagged" and I was unable to reply, but I "vouched" for it because I really value conversation and want informed input to help shape my view. Maybe I was wrong to do so, and if Dang or the mods disapprove, I'm sorry. My opinion on this whole matter is constantly in flux, and I'd really like good sources of information so I can be up to date and well informed. It feels like one of the most important topics of our generation.)
- simonh 6y ago
  China is huge and powerful and still growing rapidly. It's nominal GDP is $15tn, compared to $20tn for the USA. However it's GDP per capita is 1/6th that of the USA because it has 4x the population. Of course the west, or the developed democracies are much more than just the USA. Also while China is catching up in many areas, it is far behind in many of the ones that really count. China's military infrastructure and military technology is far, far behind. They have been struggling for almost a decade to get even one refurbished Russian aircraft carrier operational. Their space launch and satellite technology is decades behind, as is their silicon chip tech. China is almost caught up to the USA by itself in raw industrial and economic power, they're close to parity, but this is just muscle. On the technology front they are still copying the basic stuff. It will take them another generation to catch up to the west in the ability to innovate in new technologies. They will do it though. It's just a matter of time. Then they will be a match for the west as a whole, not just the USA.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > It will take them another generation to catch up to the west in the ability to innovate in new technologies. I think you are in for a rude awakening.
    - zabardasth 6y ago
      Consider this: China can close their economy tomorrow and most of the world’s economies would crumble almost overnight. The supply chain of most developed and developing nations is primarily based in China. It would take decades in a developed country to build manufacturing capabilities at the scale China has currently.
      - est31 6y ago
        China would be severely affected by such a measure as well. This is WTO's doing, and is a big reason why there has been no world war 3. It's easy to wage war if your economy is truly sovereign, but with a nation your economy is intertwined with, it's hard to wage with. Trump's anti-China policy, while it is sensible in many ways, could have the ill effect of enabling a major war in a few years.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        The move towards a transnational, mobile class of wealthy individuals could engender within-nation conflict, though.
        tsjq 6y ago
        Could you pls elaborate on the WTO -> no WW3 angle ?
        brobinson 6y ago
        It's the "economic integration reduces conflict" falsehood which has been around for at least 100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
- rapsey 6y ago
  The problem with the west is that it is largely leaderless. Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. China on the other hand is very much lead. I think the west constantly bringing up Chinese demographic and other issues is just the west being lazy and ignoring reality. China is becoming unstoppable. Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    > Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. This is such a big reason. We no longer identify under a single identity. In America, that would be identifying as an American. In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. Between both America and Europe, we no longer identify with being Western. The fact that we now increasingly identify with some subgroup, means many of us focus on improving the success of the subgroup with which we align. That means that growing your piece of the pie means growing the size of the pie of your subgroup over growing the size of the pie for the larger group (European, American, Western, etc.) In China, on the other hand, the focus is on growing the size of the pie for China. It's going to be hard to compete with this unless we adopt the same mindset.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. My impression is that that's a dividing line in many European countries. Some (mostly the elite) identifies as European and sees the single nations as backwards and vulgar, while others identify as their nationality and consider the EU as an elitist project to shift the power away from individual nations.
    - throw51319 6y ago
      Yup, and you could say that's the strength of a well-lead homogenous country. That's why although i'm more left-leaning, the constant focus of the left on subgroups being wronged is laughable and such a distraction from the reality of the world. China and their technological superiority and increasing economic sphere doesn't care.
- danaos 6y ago
  My take is that China will eventually surpass the United States in terms of GDP but the USA will continue to lead in terms of per-capita.
  - delfinom 6y ago
    >but the USA will continue to lead in terms of per-capita Which will be further and further ironic as the 1% will eventually become the 0.1%
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Only if foreign companies keep investing. If there is another Wuhan virus, then as possible the world may step back tremendously from China
    - scarmig 6y ago
      China is looking to move away from export focused growth and has been developing a rich domestic market. More broadly, the world has been stepping back a bit from China anyway, because its labor costs have risen significantly compared to other potential manufacturing centers.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        In truth, the Chinese share of manufacturing has recently surged.
    - landryraccoon 6y ago
      Hmm, really? To me it looks like a new pandemic every decade would crush the west and assure the dominance of Asian economies. Just looking at how much better Asian countries have weathered the pandemic, it would seem that every pandemic would be a relative boon for Asia compared to the West.
  - ffggvv 6y ago
    yeah with more than 3x the population they only need 1/3 of the median gdp to surpass in overall gdp
- puranjay 6y ago
  It has been nearly impossible to find objective analysis of China. Most sources are either soft propaganda or irrational jingoism. What are some good sources for a rational discussion about China's growing dominance?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I don't think it is currently possible, there is such a war-footing in the West even among the intelligentsia. Best you can do is to read Chinese documents and try to squint through their own bias or to read academics who have spent extensive time in China recently (ie. past 5 years).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throw51319 6y ago
    Seriously. There are so many right wing that think they are a paper tiger, and there's so many left CCP apologists that cloud the discussion in their own way. The West needs a completely unbiased body to release a report to the world about where stuff stands. Nobody wants a conflict. We realize our systems are like two huge tectonic plates about to grind against each other... but let's fix it
    - ardit33 6y ago
      China looks like Japan in the 20s and 30s. Rapidly developing country, with territorial ambitions around the seas /islands close to the coast, and a almost predatory commercial way of doing business, and a almost nazi like squashing of minorities. History doesn't exactly repeats itself, but it certainly rhythms...
      - PrinceKropotkin 6y ago
        This isn't comparable at all. The territorial expansion was always difficult to sustain and grew from a ravenous, irrational ethnonationalist political culture and the need for oil and other industrializing resources. China's mode of imperialism is inherently based on China's geography and centralized bureaucracy. There is no analogue of the Emperor being both absolutely powerful and removed from day to day decision making. There's not much analogue to the ethnonationalism angle either, their apparent persecution of the Uighurs stems from internal social control, not fueling a war machine, and they've adopted the soviet multinational state. The CCP is much more politically & economically competent and geographically stable than Japan was leading into WWII. The idea of japan attacking pearl harbor was arguably inevitable, but the idea of china doing that is beyond ridiculous.
- kerng 6y ago
  This is pretty much a done deal - just look at China's trajectory of growth since 2000s. The only way this would not happen, is some severe world wide trade embargos, which seems unrealistic. Or if China tries to go to war with Taiwan or something like that, which would result in trade embargos probably.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  > China could just as easily form alliances. Can you please elaborate? I find this to be an Achilles heal for China. If there is a bipolar world with US on one side and China leading the other, who do you think will ally with China? I can see Russia, Iran and North Korea but not really anyone else. In the US camp, I see Western Europe + NATO countries, Australia, NZ, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Israel. Do you think China can match that alliance?
  - lobotryas 6y ago
    Countries that want money. When you ally with China you get fat stacks for infrastructure and other development projects that those nations (Africa, SEA, Eastern Europe) simply can’t afford on their own. Now you owe China favor so you will do as they ask when they come to collect.
    - novok 6y ago
      What prevents countries from saying thanks china, we aren't going to pay and then allying with the rest of the west, or playing back and forth to negotiate ever better deals? The problem with infrastructure investment is it's hard to move.
      - NonEUCitizen 6y ago
        Most of those countries remember being conquered and looted by the west. They're not going to just ally with the west -- they'll play both sides (as they should) to get the best deal from China and from the West.
        RestlessMind 6y ago
        India was colonized by the west and Vietnam recently warred with the US. And yet, today's China is so antagonistic towards these countries that they are tilting towards West (TPP for Vietnam, growing Indo-US collaboration etc).
      - est31 6y ago
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  China’s Purchase Power Parity GDP (in other words, adjusted for exchange rate and local costs) is already higher than the US’s and is probably around 10-20 years from being equal on nominal dollars as well. There’s no doubt China’s growth will slow due to an aging population, but they’re coming already from a MASSIVE population size advantage. The West can counter by increasing immigration significantly (and probably pursuing pro-natalist policies as well), plus picking some of the best of what China is doing with investments in infrastructure and R&D while maintaining the freedom and vitalism that has helped the West in the past.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    One major problem is that the people directing massive capital investments in the West are simply not as smart as the people directing massive capital investments in China. If your nation gets rich earlier, then hereditary passing on of wealth will mean that in a few generations the people making the decisions about capital allocation are no longer your best and brightest. All you need to do is look at the difference between a scatter plot of "income vs. IQ in the US" and "wealth/assets vs. IQ in the US" to see at least part of the problem. e: I'm downvoted, but concentration of hereditary wealth is definitely something dragging Western models down.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Almost any argument attempting to invoke intrinsic intelligence (as an explanation for some geopolitical phenomenon) is horsehocky. But even if you buy that, the West (particularly the Us) can game that by accepting “High skilled” immigrants from the entire world rather than just relying on just a fraction of the human population. A distillation of ambitious people from every nation on Earth. I personally doubt very much how genetically hereditary this is. So you have to maintain a high number of first or second generation immigrants to keep the effect going.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        I think it'd be horsehockey if I were claiming that the Chinese or white people or Americans or whoever is intrinsically more intelligent or "culturally" hard-working or whatever. That's bullshit. I can understand the gut reaction to any mention of IQ since it is a common trope among racists on the internet. But my claim is not that: it is about the pretty clear concentration of inherited wealth in the US, compared to the intensive testing system used in China. Your immigration solution would fix the intelligence of our workforce (skeptical that's a huge problem to start with), but do nothing to resolve the distributional problems in our model.
- statquontrarian 6y ago
  Why care who "wins" or who's "bigger"? Our goal should be the greatest wealth for the most people for the whole Earth. This is accomplished with innovation and peaceful trade. One "side" discovers a new technology and the whole world can benefit. The primary driver of innovation is a competitive market in which individuals innovate through the pursuit of self-interest. The 20th century was a large experiment finalizing this hypothesis, including China through Deng Xiaoping's reforms. The incendiary thought to both "sides" is that they're both suppressing such innovation: China through explicit communist philosophy and Western countries through some sort of devolution into Crapitalism due to varied causes. In other words, are China and Western countries qualitatively different? In my opinion, not by a magnitude, and that's the scary thing. However, barring idiotic wars by country leaders, humans are likely to continue to innovate _despite_ the chiefs, priests, and thieves, as we have done for the last few hundred years (see Pinker, Goklany, etc.).
  - GradientAssent 6y ago
    One reason to care which is bigger is the effect they each will have on the norms of governance around the world. Superpowers tend to nudge the rest of the world's governments to be more like them (see Britain and the US over the last 300 years). Do you want the rest of the world to be more like China or more like the West? China has shown the world what it considers to be acceptable norms of governance: unrepentant, ongoing genocide against the Uigers, snuffing out liberal democracy in Hong Kong, and denying the sovereignty of a liberal neighbor in Taiwan. I'm fully expecting plenty of whataboutism and false equivalencies in response to this comment and others making a similar point. Believe me, I'm disappointed in the US and the rest of the West's recent slide away from liberal values, and I hope we can start doing better soon, but I encourage onlookers to ask themselves: do you really believe the there's no meaningful difference between China's vision for the future and the West's? No difference between the future each will create for you?
    - statquontrarian 6y ago
      > I'm fully expecting plenty of whataboutism and false equivalencies in response to this comment and others making a similar point. Please don't poison the well. If you believe I've made such an argument, please politely point that out about a specific statement and I'll try to understand my biases and correct it. > do you really believe the there's no meaningful difference between China's vision for the future and the West's? If we were comparing to Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, then, yes; but, modern states, no. The U.S. imprisons millions of people for petty drug crimes and kills millions of people in imperial wars. Is that so different than the treatment of the Uigers, Taiwanese, or those in Hong Kong? The social credit system and Great Firewall are being implemented through different means: social ostracism and social media oligopolies. I've personally experienced it. > No difference between the future each will create for you? I'm actually generally optimistic. If we take the evidence of the past few hundred years, we are likely to innovate and grow despite such excessive governance. It's the innovators that will make my future better. As far as the government goes, the practical difference seems minimal: I will meticulously pay my taxes and follow the laws so as not to receive the glare of either of the Saurons.
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  1.China has 4 times the population of America, and 1/6 the per capita output. Take your pick on what you think the long term per capita output ratio will be and you'll easily reach a conclusion on the relative size of the two economies. 2. The US has a greater inclination and ability to build alliances. However, managing the divergent interests of the members in the alliances won't be easy. 3. China does not have enough oil to sustain itself in the case of a war. So there will be a strategic competition for the South China Sea and the control of the Strait of Malacca. 4. Taiwan will be the key trigger for a possible war.
  - perardi 6y ago
    The US has a greater inclination and ability to build alliances. I really hate to bring up the T factor…but I think this is more in doubt than it used to be, given the current administration. Taiwan will be the key trigger for a possible war. I cannot imagine the horror that would ensue if China tried to assert power over Taiwan. Just the potential of losing TSMC alone…
    - ardit33 6y ago
      trump is on the way out.... but 'trumpism' will be around for a while, but still in the minority and eventually fade just like the Tea Party, or Occupy wall Street
    - fakedang 6y ago
      How many TSMC foundries are in Taiwan alone? Sure, they could straight up invade Taiwan, but I'd wager that most of the affluent and the middle class (which would include a lot of TSMC engineers) will have quickly moved shop away from the island by then. So even if China took over the island, the intellect would have escaped.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        I believe all of the cutting-edge process node foundries are in Taiwan. If all of those foundries were to be lost, that would be something like 50% of the entire production capacity for computers, computer peripherals, and smartphones completely axed, and it would take years for the capacity to resume.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > So is China going to surpass America to become the world's #1 economy? Well, who can comment on the World's #1 (India, after all, is a country). But exactly what mistakes will China have to make not to be bigger than the US (if they aren't already)? They have 4 times as many people and all the indications are that they are making bigger real investments in infrastructure and industrial capacity than the US. I would wish for some of the pro-growth policies from China to come to the Western powers.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Some analysts think China's population is too old and that youth will peter out, whereas others think that all the CCP has to do is ask its millennials to have more babies. I'm not sure how well "asking" will work. IIRC, they transitioned rapidly from a two-child policy to a "however many you want" policy because not enough Chinese families chose to have another kid. Anecdotally, it's extremely expensive to have a kid in China because the culture is so cut-throat competitive and rankings-obsessed. If you don't provide your kid with a lot of (expensive) extra educational opportunities, he could fall behind. On the other hand, Chinese culture (compared to Western culture) appears to be much more comfortable with parents playing favorites with their children, but I'm not sure how much that's carried through to the one child generation.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  About the demographic collapse from the One Child policy, I'm going to volunteer an alternative analysis, since you've asked for it, copied from another of my comments: The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended. There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West. The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions. In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated. Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency. The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age. In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.
  - coredog64 6y ago
    It’s not just through the lens of Western demographics that it has to be examined. There’s still a very real possibility of unrest as a result of the gender imbalance created by the One Child policy.
- op03 6y ago
  Who makes better food? Thats all that matter. It was a crucial factor in the fall of the Romans (they hadn't invented pizza yet), the Mongols, the Brits, the Soviets, the Germans etc etc.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    This is interesting. Can you expand?
    - op03 6y ago
      I was just joking :) Mostly to show, the MORE complex and dynamic the system is, anyone can pick random factors and use it in analysis to say whatever they feel like.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        The thing is it almost made sense. I could see “quality of food declining” as a market for a civilization or empire beginning to fail.
  - jakeva 6y ago
    My girlfriend is Chinese and she's the best cook I've ever met, so there's one opinionated bit of anecdata for you.
- prepend 6y ago
  > The West has a huge military and space program. So does China I don’t think this is true. China’s military is quite weak compared to the US (dollar amount, global reach, navy, nuclear) and it’s not able to project power globally. Even as far as the Middle East would be a problem as they don’t have bases or carrier groups. This is actually kind of an advantage as they can funnel money into more productive purposes, but I think it means they won’t be the sort of unipolar force that the US was. I think the 21st century will be multi-polar and if I had to bet on a single country, I would bet Nigeria or maybe even somewhere like DRC or Brazil. A truly digital world will be best for countries in Africa who have so much untapped raw power and resources.
  - loughnane 6y ago
    By some measures China's navy is larger than the US's [0]: >In a report published this month, the Pentagon acknowledged a grim milestone: China’s navy, having churned out warships like sausages, has become the world’s largest. I'm not aware of many signs that this trend will decrease. [0] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/09/26/china-now-has-the-worlds-largest-fleet-alarming-its-pacific-rival https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/09/26/china-now...
    - creaghpatr 6y ago
      Largest and strongest are not the same thing.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      The Pentagon's incentivized to exaggerate any threat though, because it justifies more funding to themselves. I'd say that the real threat, as far as navies go, is what if our carrier-heavy paradigm is obsolete and cheaper missile cruisers are more effective.
    - hacknat 6y ago
      China is, at best, a Pacific power, but really they're just regional. China cannot project sea lane power past Japan at this point. The dirty secret of China's economy is that they're incredibly dependent on the American military for stable trade relations.
- georgeecollins 6y ago
  If you look at the fifty year picture, China and the US have been developing trade with each other and the rest of the world and growing in prosperity. Particularly vs important rivals from the last fifty years, such as the USSR and Japan. You can argue about the distribution of the prosperity in the US, and you can argue about the political liberalism in China, but neither country is exclusively responsible for the other countries problems in either regard. Both countries depend on world trade and have a lot to loose from any event (like a war) that would upset trade. Neither country is really threatened by each other or any other power. It is possible that this could be a situation like the United States and Great Britain, where one country passed up another in power and wealth without a need for conflict.
- rawgabbit 6y ago
  China is pragmatic. The CCCP portrays their leaders as competent technocrats who are building their way into a future of prosperity. The Belt and Road Initiative is a means for China to secure access to needed raw materials in Africa and other developing countries in exchange for Chinese financed and built public works projects such as ports highways and telecom. Similar to how the internet is splitting due to the Great Firewall, China is creating its alternative vision of world trade and international order. I would argue that China is almost economically and technologically on par with the USA. It’s military is behind. It’s biggest weakness is internal politics. Xi Jinping is using the tools at his disposal to prevent China from falling apart like the USSR. What is unknown is the amount of push back he is getting for his crackdown of dissent, secret detentions, mass incarcerations and re-education. As the article mentioned both Xi and his father suffered from the Cultural Revolution which was triggered by Mao to regain power after he was temporarily sidelined by the failure of the Great Leap Forward. After Mao’s death it was Deng Xiao Peng who gave the Chinese the right to make decisions based on facts again instead of blindly following the latest central party dictates. This was the “Seek truth from facts” speech. It seems that China is reverting to its old ways with the enshrinement of Xi Jinping thought. But I think Chinese leaders are very much aware their legitimacy is based solely on providing material prosperity to their people. China is not actively seeking to antagonize the West but their relentless focus on winning the trade wars may be misinterpreted which is dangerous for everyone.
- hacknat 6y ago
  Honestly, I don't think the 20-30 year outlook for China is all that great. Japan's bailout of its corporate sector was contingent on its corporate sector removing their supply chains from China. A lot of natural incentives, globally, are not going China's way right now. A lot of corporations are going to repatriate or localize their supply chains, because, at long last, supply chains, and not labour, are the cost-center of most corporations. Over the next decade we're actually going to become a less globalized world from a manufacturing perspective. Finally, while the manufacturing sector has always had more friendly relationships with China, the technology sector (particularly software) has a much more ambivalent relationship with China; and now tech makes up a huge percentage of corporate power. Given that Western domestic politics is becoming more economically nationalist and that the corporate sector of most Western countries is gaining less benefit from the labour arbitrage that China offers them, I think we'll see a significant draw down in economic power from China over the next 10-30 years. There will be sectors that stay in China, like high-tech hardware, but even they will become more regionalized as well. You'll start to see some iPhones (or whatever) get made in Western countries as hedges against the need to rapidly draw down manufacturing in China. The Washington Consensus in the 90s thought that normalizing trade relations with China would turn them into a Democracy. No one who is serious thinks that any more, and given China's current bad bout with human rights violations there is a convenient cover for the West to take. My two cents.
- throwaway34241 6y ago
  If you're interested in this question I think the recent articles by Ray Dalio might be exactly what you are looking for. He founded and ran the world's largest hedge fund and in addition to studying the issue has had personal interaction with high level Chinese leaders going back decades, so he seems pretty well informed about both the macroeconomics in general and China specifically. In addition the very question you're talking about seems to be currently his main point of interest and he's been writing a series of free articles about it on linked in ([1][2] and others). The articles go very in depth and I can't do justice to them here. But I got the impression that he expects some of these things: - China to surpass the US as the #1 economy. Beyond that, eventually become a developed country, so probably wildly surpass the US economy considering the population is 4x as large. - Them to continuously increase in relative technological and military power relative to the US. - For them to possibly supplant the US dollar as the world reserve currency, which could have implications on the value of the US dollar - Not for them to give up their hierarchical government [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-6-big-cycle-china-its-currency-ray-dalio https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-6-big-cycle-china-its... [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-7-us-china-relations-wars-ray-dalio https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-7-us-china-relations-...
- Fricken 6y ago
  You blinked and missed it. China already has the world's leading economy: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-now-world%E2%80%99s-largest-economy-we-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-shocked-170719 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-now-world%E2%80%9...
  - TearsInTheRain 6y ago
    They have been ahead of us for a while when you measure by PPP. International orgs are only just now starting to use PPP as the standard
- hintymad 6y ago
  These factors are important, but I don't think they are as important as the people factor: Chinese people simply want to work hard to live a better life. Everyone knows education matters, so much so that you see news like this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296195/Chinese-girl-seven-study-parents-market-counter-day.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296195/Chinese-gir.... Not that I personally know everyone, but I trust that what my Chinese coworkers told me had certain truth. They openly acknowledge that Chinese needed to learn from western civilization, especially STEM, and policy making, so much so that no one would mock CIT for not winning NCCA games. That's some serious respect. I mean, what kinda of sick country would openly mock their best university for sucking at basketball?
apengwin 6y ago
The title is a reference to Dream of the Red Chamber, one of the greatest novels ever written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber
- wmeredith 6y ago
  Can you recommend an English translation?
  - bxbb 6y ago
    The Story of the Stone by Hawkes and Minford. https://www.goodreads.com/series/175344 https://www.goodreads.com/series/175344
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    Warning: Lower your expectation. The novel was written in traditional Chinese, with a different style and narration system. The novel has many ancient poem mixed in the text, a major part of the plot, they were almost always vastly inferior when translated. Lastly, even if the translation goes well, the cultural sensitivity required to appreciate the story and character is going to put you in such a disadvantage that you'll wonder why it feels so bland, even claimed one of the best...
chaostheory 6y ago
Under XJ, China is declining. One of the big reasons for China's meteoric rise was that stupid laws weren't being enforced properly or at all, and free speech was on the rise which in turn led to more creativity and economic freedom. Under that old reality, I was worried that China would inevitably surpass the West, but Zhou Enlai & Deng Xiaoping's golden egg laying goose is dead now in exchange for more centralized power. China's destiny is now to become a giant Galapagos copy machine courtesy of the new emperor. Who knows; maybe the new social credit system will prove me wrong?
- excerionsforte 6y ago
  I'll humor and agree with this take given it can take greater than 7 years for macro effects to occur stemming from policies and choices that countries make. Example is the former One Child policy which took a long time for the effects to be seen. Another example is that pumping money into the economy doesn't have immediate effects. India had its own policies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790) that would take decades for effects to be seen.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended. There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West. The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions. In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated. Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency. The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age. In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.
Simulacra 6y ago
I would like to see some analysis of what a nuclearized Japan, or Australia, would do. China has emerged as the single greatest threat to democracy, human rights, prosperity, and peace around the world. They can only do this because a foreign investment. If companies like Apple etc. did not make their products in China, Then perhaps I could see a future of China rising peacefully. Otherwise they are a grave in mortal threat to the world
- perardi 6y ago
  Aren’t they, in a sense, nuclearized, as they live under our security aegis?
  - graeme 6y ago
    Yes and no. This was a big debate during the cold war. If the Russians invaded Europe, would America really nuke Russian and risk total destruction? Many strategists considered this to be not a credible threat, on its own. This was part of the reason the US deployed so many conventional troops to Europe during the cold war. These troops couldn’t stop the russians, but their presence would force the US to act if the Russians invaded. Hence, the US might actually irrationally nuke Russia. Hence, Russia would be deterred from invading. This also partly explains the US presence in Japan and Korea. Apart from power projection, it is a tangible expression of US committment to potentially irrationally deploy nukes to defend those countries. However, recent US actions have greatly called into question the US’s commitment to this strategic nuclear umbrella. Hence those countries may be more interested in a deterrent they control. Also of note: the US withdrew troops from Taiwan in 1979 when it switched diplomatic recognition to communist China. This switch was done to play China against the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
- jl6 6y ago
  Democracy and human rights - sure. Prosperity and peace? I think China actually has a good track record there. Actions you might perceive as un-peaceful (building islands, modernizing military) could also be interpreted as defensive. The world could achieve great peace and prosperity under a “Pax Sinica”, at the cost of individual liberty. That IMHO is the bigger threat: that authoritarianism will sneak in under the cover of prosperity - a Faustian bargain that too many will be willing to accept.
naringas 6y ago
In my opinion how he handles his succession will be the key. if he acts like a nepot and tries to keep the power within his lineage, that's a sure sign of a classic story of decreseaingly capable rulers. I think that the capability of democractic systems to enforce a level of competence in the rulers are the real reason behind the West's success.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  > enforce a level of competence Can you please elaborate? In the US, I see "lying" and "corrupt" as some of the most defining characterisics of modern US "rulers".
  - graeme 6y ago
    Lying and corruption don’t exclude competence. The parent comment meant competent in the sense of whether the state can achieve its goals. A state may lie about its goals to its public, or enrich its elite, while also being capable of meeting state goals. US state competence has clearly declined, but it is worth making this distinction. Strictly speaking the two factors you cite aren’t necessarily linked to competence. Every politician must lie, it’s part of the job.
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      > Every politician must lie I doubt this. I would belive that your belief in this is just another indication of how diseased our system is. You won't catch Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse ever, even once, telling a lie.
tehjoker 6y ago
Y'all need to stop seeing other countries through the lens of existential competition before it causes cold or hot wars and start cooperating internationally.
- lobotryas 6y ago
  You need a little more realpolitik in your life. Nations are absolutely competing with each other because we live in a world of limited resources. Recognizing this fact and wanting your nation to come out on top are very normal.
  - count 6y ago
    Normal and necessary are different.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    I am quite familiar with realpolitik, the American post-war perspective and how the idea of international cooperation was undercut and destroyed by our national bourgeoisie. The UN system was put in place for America to exert its post-war dominance. China is a complicated nation. It is constructing a parallel system to the IMF/World Bank that under-girds US hegemony. It also controls a huge fraction of world manufacturing due to the laziness and greed of the business community. However, because it is not a pure capitalist country, it doesn't have the same imperial market imperatives that western countries certainly have. If we don't try to build a better future, we will realpolitik ourselves into a dystopian one. Also, nations are fake creations of the elites. The working class is international in scope and we have no quarrel with one another.
  - Der_Einzige 6y ago
    Realpolitik means that we acknowledge that great power wars aren't an option while MAD exists - and that MAD isn't going anywhere for 100 years or more. That means that soft/economic power is far more important than hard power. Anti-ICBM tech sucks balls and it only gets worse with new weapons like nuclear cruise missiles.
    - 6y ago
throw51319 6y ago
China's plan is definitely to absorb countries into their growing economic sphere. Then they absorb countries into their network/techno-sphere by selling communication and surveillance equipment. This will allow them to assist the leaders in power by swaying public opinion at a whim. Further consolidating control. This pushes out western companies and doesn't allow their capital to operate. Eventually this "virus" will reach the main western countries and engulf them. The capitalist system will be turned against itself. In the past, you couldn't automate the managing of perception and access like you can now with a "technosphere" of capabilities that increase by the year. They exploit weaknesses like the "racial divide" to pit us against each other, to hasten this.
coliveira 6y ago
China had been the most advanced country for centuries, having lost this position during the capitalist advances in the West. This should be welcome as it returns China to its traditional position as an advanced civilization.
- logicslave 6y ago
  ...where are all the great Chinese inventions? the great literature? philosophy? math? science? Aside from gun powder and a few others, it all came from the west in the last thousand years.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    Chinese discoveries were more suited to their local needs and geographies, just as the Western ones were unique themselves. Besides, Chinese decline began way back, from the Yuan era, with a brief rise during the Ming Era, then stagnation again during the Manchurian period. For some Chinese inventions: the meritocratic bureaucracy, which inspired the civil services in the UK, India and many other countries. Or the seismograph, block printing (which enabled a much higher literate population than the West in its time), their variant on paper, and tons of water-powered "appliances". China might have been very different had the Ming not stagnated badly, and the Jurchens not invited to exploit the chaos.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
    What are you considering the "West"? Prior to 1600, almost nothing of importance came out of Europe. For the last 400 years, Europe and the US have dominated technologically. Maybe you mean the last few hundred years? I think this is what the parent comment was getting at. For most of history, what we now consider "China" had -- by far -- the largest population. To think that nothing much came from there is a bit naive.
  - tim333 6y ago
    Inventions: Paper, printing, banknotes, bombs, dental amalgam, rockets, drilling rigs, natural gas as fuel, oil refining, smallpox inoculations, land mines, grenades, seismometers and some other stuff. Admittedly mostly a while ago. There's an article here that >It is now reliably estimated that more than 60% of all the knowledge existing in the world today originated in China, a fact swept under the carpet by the West. https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/03/01/history-of-chinese-inventions-the-present-and-the-future-recent-chinese-state-of-the-art-innovations https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/03/01/history-of-chi... And more recently social credit systems, anti ship ballistic missiles, tik tok, maybe covid.
tigerlily 6y ago
Two things China has in common with the West are aging demographics, and asset price bubbles. I figure somewhere the two go hand in hand, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that by the end of the decade, either or both lateral hemispheres will experience an asset price bubble the likes of which have never been seen before. I think there is scope in China for heinously priced real estate in the coming years, for example. I believe it's human-behavioural stuff like that which will confound the best laid plans of our leaders, in both east and west.
piccolo666 6y ago
I really wouldn't mind other country taking leadership of the world from the US. What scares me the most is that this leadership can be taken from a selfish leaded country and their expansionism program: * Xinjiang * Hing Kong * Taiwan * Inner Mongolia * Tibet * Spratly Islands / Nine dash lane. * Northern India * Vietnam sea They cannot just be nice with their neighbours. And, for some reason, they think they have the rights to take and to threat. I personally don't want these bully leaders to be the leaders of the world. But unfortunately, this is happening in front of us right now and there's not too much we can do about it.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/yAGcM https://archive.is/yAGcM
known 6y ago
China is like a giant jail; “If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom” --Eisenhower (b. 1890)
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Anybode else feeling reminded of the Carousel in Logan's Run by the first picture? (With the caption "Actors run through the air, eager to join the Communist Party, in a propaganda musical in Yanan.")

188 points by rfreytag 6y ago

So is China going to surpass America to become the world's #1 economy? Or are the predictions that China's growth will decline true? Some analysts think China's population is too old and that youth will peter out, whereas others think that all the CCP has to do is ask its millennials to have more babies. Some analysts think that democratic nations will band together and give China the cold shoulder. China could just as easily form alliances. Others say that the West will build factories in India, Vietnam, Mexico, and Africa and stop single-sourcing the supply chain. China's also playing that game with their One Belt initiative. The West has bountiful resources. Oil, minerals. So does China. The West has a huge military and space program. So does China. The West has high-paying tech jobs because of its lead in tech, but China is catching up and has more people graduating into the field. This could drive dominance (and salaries) down. China keeps reporting growth. Others say don't trust the numbers. At the same time, look at what's happening to Western economies and national debt. Is China pulling the same levers, or are they unscathed? What, if anything, can the West do to match that growth? Or is it impossible? What's going to happen? What's the 20 to 30 year outlook? Really hoping for some good analysis. (note: this story was "flagged" and I was unable to reply, but I "vouched" for it because I really value conversation and want informed input to help shape my view. Maybe I was wrong to do so, and if Dang or the mods disapprove, I'm sorry. My opinion on this whole matter is constantly in flux, and I'd really like good sources of information so I can be up to date and well informed. It feels like one of the most important topics of our generation.)

simonh 6y ago
China is huge and powerful and still growing rapidly. It's nominal GDP is $15tn, compared to $20tn for the USA. However it's GDP per capita is 1/6th that of the USA because it has 4x the population. Of course the west, or the developed democracies are much more than just the USA. Also while China is catching up in many areas, it is far behind in many of the ones that really count. China's military infrastructure and military technology is far, far behind. They have been struggling for almost a decade to get even one refurbished Russian aircraft carrier operational. Their space launch and satellite technology is decades behind, as is their silicon chip tech. China is almost caught up to the USA by itself in raw industrial and economic power, they're close to parity, but this is just muscle. On the technology front they are still copying the basic stuff. It will take them another generation to catch up to the west in the ability to innovate in new technologies. They will do it though. It's just a matter of time. Then they will be a match for the west as a whole, not just the USA.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > It will take them another generation to catch up to the west in the ability to innovate in new technologies. I think you are in for a rude awakening.
  - zabardasth 6y ago
    Consider this: China can close their economy tomorrow and most of the world’s economies would crumble almost overnight. The supply chain of most developed and developing nations is primarily based in China. It would take decades in a developed country to build manufacturing capabilities at the scale China has currently.
    - est31 6y ago
      China would be severely affected by such a measure as well. This is WTO's doing, and is a big reason why there has been no world war 3. It's easy to wage war if your economy is truly sovereign, but with a nation your economy is intertwined with, it's hard to wage with. Trump's anti-China policy, while it is sensible in many ways, could have the ill effect of enabling a major war in a few years.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        The move towards a transnational, mobile class of wealthy individuals could engender within-nation conflict, though.
      - tsjq 6y ago
        Could you pls elaborate on the WTO -> no WW3 angle ?
        brobinson 6y ago
        It's the "economic integration reduces conflict" falsehood which has been around for at least 100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
rapsey 6y ago
The problem with the west is that it is largely leaderless. Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. China on the other hand is very much lead. I think the west constantly bringing up Chinese demographic and other issues is just the west being lazy and ignoring reality. China is becoming unstoppable. Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way. This is such a big reason. We no longer identify under a single identity. In America, that would be identifying as an American. In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. Between both America and Europe, we no longer identify with being Western. The fact that we now increasingly identify with some subgroup, means many of us focus on improving the success of the subgroup with which we align. That means that growing your piece of the pie means growing the size of the pie of your subgroup over growing the size of the pie for the larger group (European, American, Western, etc.) In China, on the other hand, the focus is on growing the size of the pie for China. It's going to be hard to compete with this unless we adopt the same mindset.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc. My impression is that that's a dividing line in many European countries. Some (mostly the elite) identifies as European and sees the single nations as backwards and vulgar, while others identify as their nationality and consider the EU as an elitist project to shift the power away from individual nations.
  - throw51319 6y ago
    Yup, and you could say that's the strength of a well-lead homogenous country. That's why although i'm more left-leaning, the constant focus of the left on subgroups being wronged is laughable and such a distraction from the reality of the world. China and their technological superiority and increasing economic sphere doesn't care.
danaos 6y ago
My take is that China will eventually surpass the United States in terms of GDP but the USA will continue to lead in terms of per-capita.
- delfinom 6y ago
  >but the USA will continue to lead in terms of per-capita Which will be further and further ironic as the 1% will eventually become the 0.1%
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Only if foreign companies keep investing. If there is another Wuhan virus, then as possible the world may step back tremendously from China
  - scarmig 6y ago
    China is looking to move away from export focused growth and has been developing a rich domestic market. More broadly, the world has been stepping back a bit from China anyway, because its labor costs have risen significantly compared to other potential manufacturing centers.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      In truth, the Chinese share of manufacturing has recently surged.
  - landryraccoon 6y ago
    Hmm, really? To me it looks like a new pandemic every decade would crush the west and assure the dominance of Asian economies. Just looking at how much better Asian countries have weathered the pandemic, it would seem that every pandemic would be a relative boon for Asia compared to the West.
- ffggvv 6y ago
  yeah with more than 3x the population they only need 1/3 of the median gdp to surpass in overall gdp
puranjay 6y ago
It has been nearly impossible to find objective analysis of China. Most sources are either soft propaganda or irrational jingoism. What are some good sources for a rational discussion about China's growing dominance?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I don't think it is currently possible, there is such a war-footing in the West even among the intelligentsia. Best you can do is to read Chinese documents and try to squint through their own bias or to read academics who have spent extensive time in China recently (ie. past 5 years).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throw51319 6y ago
  Seriously. There are so many right wing that think they are a paper tiger, and there's so many left CCP apologists that cloud the discussion in their own way. The West needs a completely unbiased body to release a report to the world about where stuff stands. Nobody wants a conflict. We realize our systems are like two huge tectonic plates about to grind against each other... but let's fix it
  - ardit33 6y ago
    China looks like Japan in the 20s and 30s. Rapidly developing country, with territorial ambitions around the seas /islands close to the coast, and a almost predatory commercial way of doing business, and a almost nazi like squashing of minorities. History doesn't exactly repeats itself, but it certainly rhythms...
    - PrinceKropotkin 6y ago
      This isn't comparable at all. The territorial expansion was always difficult to sustain and grew from a ravenous, irrational ethnonationalist political culture and the need for oil and other industrializing resources. China's mode of imperialism is inherently based on China's geography and centralized bureaucracy. There is no analogue of the Emperor being both absolutely powerful and removed from day to day decision making. There's not much analogue to the ethnonationalism angle either, their apparent persecution of the Uighurs stems from internal social control, not fueling a war machine, and they've adopted the soviet multinational state. The CCP is much more politically & economically competent and geographically stable than Japan was leading into WWII. The idea of japan attacking pearl harbor was arguably inevitable, but the idea of china doing that is beyond ridiculous.
kerng 6y ago
This is pretty much a done deal - just look at China's trajectory of growth since 2000s. The only way this would not happen, is some severe world wide trade embargos, which seems unrealistic. Or if China tries to go to war with Taiwan or something like that, which would result in trade embargos probably.
RestlessMind 6y ago
> China could just as easily form alliances. Can you please elaborate? I find this to be an Achilles heal for China. If there is a bipolar world with US on one side and China leading the other, who do you think will ally with China? I can see Russia, Iran and North Korea but not really anyone else. In the US camp, I see Western Europe + NATO countries, Australia, NZ, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Israel. Do you think China can match that alliance?
- lobotryas 6y ago
  Countries that want money. When you ally with China you get fat stacks for infrastructure and other development projects that those nations (Africa, SEA, Eastern Europe) simply can’t afford on their own. Now you owe China favor so you will do as they ask when they come to collect.
  - novok 6y ago
    What prevents countries from saying thanks china, we aren't going to pay and then allying with the rest of the west, or playing back and forth to negotiate ever better deals? The problem with infrastructure investment is it's hard to move.
    - NonEUCitizen 6y ago
      Most of those countries remember being conquered and looted by the west. They're not going to just ally with the west -- they'll play both sides (as they should) to get the best deal from China and from the West.
      - RestlessMind 6y ago
        India was colonized by the west and Vietnam recently warred with the US. And yet, today's China is so antagonistic towards these countries that they are tilting towards West (TPP for Vietnam, growing Indo-US collaboration etc).
    - est31 6y ago
Robotbeat 6y ago
China’s Purchase Power Parity GDP (in other words, adjusted for exchange rate and local costs) is already higher than the US’s and is probably around 10-20 years from being equal on nominal dollars as well. There’s no doubt China’s growth will slow due to an aging population, but they’re coming already from a MASSIVE population size advantage. The West can counter by increasing immigration significantly (and probably pursuing pro-natalist policies as well), plus picking some of the best of what China is doing with investments in infrastructure and R&D while maintaining the freedom and vitalism that has helped the West in the past.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  One major problem is that the people directing massive capital investments in the West are simply not as smart as the people directing massive capital investments in China. If your nation gets rich earlier, then hereditary passing on of wealth will mean that in a few generations the people making the decisions about capital allocation are no longer your best and brightest. All you need to do is look at the difference between a scatter plot of "income vs. IQ in the US" and "wealth/assets vs. IQ in the US" to see at least part of the problem. e: I'm downvoted, but concentration of hereditary wealth is definitely something dragging Western models down.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Almost any argument attempting to invoke intrinsic intelligence (as an explanation for some geopolitical phenomenon) is horsehocky. But even if you buy that, the West (particularly the Us) can game that by accepting “High skilled” immigrants from the entire world rather than just relying on just a fraction of the human population. A distillation of ambitious people from every nation on Earth. I personally doubt very much how genetically hereditary this is. So you have to maintain a high number of first or second generation immigrants to keep the effect going.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      I think it'd be horsehockey if I were claiming that the Chinese or white people or Americans or whoever is intrinsically more intelligent or "culturally" hard-working or whatever. That's bullshit. I can understand the gut reaction to any mention of IQ since it is a common trope among racists on the internet. But my claim is not that: it is about the pretty clear concentration of inherited wealth in the US, compared to the intensive testing system used in China. Your immigration solution would fix the intelligence of our workforce (skeptical that's a huge problem to start with), but do nothing to resolve the distributional problems in our model.
statquontrarian 6y ago
Why care who "wins" or who's "bigger"? Our goal should be the greatest wealth for the most people for the whole Earth. This is accomplished with innovation and peaceful trade. One "side" discovers a new technology and the whole world can benefit. The primary driver of innovation is a competitive market in which individuals innovate through the pursuit of self-interest. The 20th century was a large experiment finalizing this hypothesis, including China through Deng Xiaoping's reforms. The incendiary thought to both "sides" is that they're both suppressing such innovation: China through explicit communist philosophy and Western countries through some sort of devolution into Crapitalism due to varied causes. In other words, are China and Western countries qualitatively different? In my opinion, not by a magnitude, and that's the scary thing. However, barring idiotic wars by country leaders, humans are likely to continue to innovate _despite_ the chiefs, priests, and thieves, as we have done for the last few hundred years (see Pinker, Goklany, etc.).
- GradientAssent 6y ago
  One reason to care which is bigger is the effect they each will have on the norms of governance around the world. Superpowers tend to nudge the rest of the world's governments to be more like them (see Britain and the US over the last 300 years). Do you want the rest of the world to be more like China or more like the West? China has shown the world what it considers to be acceptable norms of governance: unrepentant, ongoing genocide against the Uigers, snuffing out liberal democracy in Hong Kong, and denying the sovereignty of a liberal neighbor in Taiwan. I'm fully expecting plenty of whataboutism and false equivalencies in response to this comment and others making a similar point. Believe me, I'm disappointed in the US and the rest of the West's recent slide away from liberal values, and I hope we can start doing better soon, but I encourage onlookers to ask themselves: do you really believe the there's no meaningful difference between China's vision for the future and the West's? No difference between the future each will create for you?
  - statquontrarian 6y ago
    > I'm fully expecting plenty of whataboutism and false equivalencies in response to this comment and others making a similar point. Please don't poison the well. If you believe I've made such an argument, please politely point that out about a specific statement and I'll try to understand my biases and correct it. > do you really believe the there's no meaningful difference between China's vision for the future and the West's? If we were comparing to Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, then, yes; but, modern states, no. The U.S. imprisons millions of people for petty drug crimes and kills millions of people in imperial wars. Is that so different than the treatment of the Uigers, Taiwanese, or those in Hong Kong? The social credit system and Great Firewall are being implemented through different means: social ostracism and social media oligopolies. I've personally experienced it. > No difference between the future each will create for you? I'm actually generally optimistic. If we take the evidence of the past few hundred years, we are likely to innovate and grow despite such excessive governance. It's the innovators that will make my future better. As far as the government goes, the practical difference seems minimal: I will meticulously pay my taxes and follow the laws so as not to receive the glare of either of the Saurons.
bigpumpkin 6y ago
1.China has 4 times the population of America, and 1/6 the per capita output. Take your pick on what you think the long term per capita output ratio will be and you'll easily reach a conclusion on the relative size of the two economies. 2. The US has a greater inclination and ability to build alliances. However, managing the divergent interests of the members in the alliances won't be easy. 3. China does not have enough oil to sustain itself in the case of a war. So there will be a strategic competition for the South China Sea and the control of the Strait of Malacca. 4. Taiwan will be the key trigger for a possible war.
- perardi 6y ago
  The US has a greater inclination and ability to build alliances. I really hate to bring up the T factor…but I think this is more in doubt than it used to be, given the current administration. Taiwan will be the key trigger for a possible war. I cannot imagine the horror that would ensue if China tried to assert power over Taiwan. Just the potential of losing TSMC alone…
  - ardit33 6y ago
    trump is on the way out.... but 'trumpism' will be around for a while, but still in the minority and eventually fade just like the Tea Party, or Occupy wall Street
  - fakedang 6y ago
    How many TSMC foundries are in Taiwan alone? Sure, they could straight up invade Taiwan, but I'd wager that most of the affluent and the middle class (which would include a lot of TSMC engineers) will have quickly moved shop away from the island by then. So even if China took over the island, the intellect would have escaped.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      I believe all of the cutting-edge process node foundries are in Taiwan. If all of those foundries were to be lost, that would be something like 50% of the entire production capacity for computers, computer peripherals, and smartphones completely axed, and it would take years for the capacity to resume.
roenxi 6y ago
> So is China going to surpass America to become the world's #1 economy? Well, who can comment on the World's #1 (India, after all, is a country). But exactly what mistakes will China have to make not to be bigger than the US (if they aren't already)? They have 4 times as many people and all the indications are that they are making bigger real investments in infrastructure and industrial capacity than the US. I would wish for some of the pro-growth policies from China to come to the Western powers.
ardy42 6y ago
> Some analysts think China's population is too old and that youth will peter out, whereas others think that all the CCP has to do is ask its millennials to have more babies. I'm not sure how well "asking" will work. IIRC, they transitioned rapidly from a two-child policy to a "however many you want" policy because not enough Chinese families chose to have another kid. Anecdotally, it's extremely expensive to have a kid in China because the culture is so cut-throat competitive and rankings-obsessed. If you don't provide your kid with a lot of (expensive) extra educational opportunities, he could fall behind. On the other hand, Chinese culture (compared to Western culture) appears to be much more comfortable with parents playing favorites with their children, but I'm not sure how much that's carried through to the one child generation.
sudosysgen 6y ago
About the demographic collapse from the One Child policy, I'm going to volunteer an alternative analysis, since you've asked for it, copied from another of my comments: The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended. There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West. The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions. In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated. Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency. The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age. In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.
- coredog64 6y ago
  It’s not just through the lens of Western demographics that it has to be examined. There’s still a very real possibility of unrest as a result of the gender imbalance created by the One Child policy.
op03 6y ago
Who makes better food? Thats all that matter. It was a crucial factor in the fall of the Romans (they hadn't invented pizza yet), the Mongols, the Brits, the Soviets, the Germans etc etc.
- ericmay 6y ago
  This is interesting. Can you expand?
  - op03 6y ago
    I was just joking :) Mostly to show, the MORE complex and dynamic the system is, anyone can pick random factors and use it in analysis to say whatever they feel like.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      The thing is it almost made sense. I could see “quality of food declining” as a market for a civilization or empire beginning to fail.
- jakeva 6y ago
  My girlfriend is Chinese and she's the best cook I've ever met, so there's one opinionated bit of anecdata for you.
prepend 6y ago
> The West has a huge military and space program. So does China I don’t think this is true. China’s military is quite weak compared to the US (dollar amount, global reach, navy, nuclear) and it’s not able to project power globally. Even as far as the Middle East would be a problem as they don’t have bases or carrier groups. This is actually kind of an advantage as they can funnel money into more productive purposes, but I think it means they won’t be the sort of unipolar force that the US was. I think the 21st century will be multi-polar and if I had to bet on a single country, I would bet Nigeria or maybe even somewhere like DRC or Brazil. A truly digital world will be best for countries in Africa who have so much untapped raw power and resources.
- loughnane 6y ago
  By some measures China's navy is larger than the US's [0]: >In a report published this month, the Pentagon acknowledged a grim milestone: China’s navy, having churned out warships like sausages, has become the world’s largest. I'm not aware of many signs that this trend will decrease. [0] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/09/26/china-now-has-the-worlds-largest-fleet-alarming-its-pacific-rival https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/09/26/china-now...
  - creaghpatr 6y ago
    Largest and strongest are not the same thing.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    The Pentagon's incentivized to exaggerate any threat though, because it justifies more funding to themselves. I'd say that the real threat, as far as navies go, is what if our carrier-heavy paradigm is obsolete and cheaper missile cruisers are more effective.
  - hacknat 6y ago
    China is, at best, a Pacific power, but really they're just regional. China cannot project sea lane power past Japan at this point. The dirty secret of China's economy is that they're incredibly dependent on the American military for stable trade relations.
georgeecollins 6y ago
If you look at the fifty year picture, China and the US have been developing trade with each other and the rest of the world and growing in prosperity. Particularly vs important rivals from the last fifty years, such as the USSR and Japan. You can argue about the distribution of the prosperity in the US, and you can argue about the political liberalism in China, but neither country is exclusively responsible for the other countries problems in either regard. Both countries depend on world trade and have a lot to loose from any event (like a war) that would upset trade. Neither country is really threatened by each other or any other power. It is possible that this could be a situation like the United States and Great Britain, where one country passed up another in power and wealth without a need for conflict.
rawgabbit 6y ago
China is pragmatic. The CCCP portrays their leaders as competent technocrats who are building their way into a future of prosperity. The Belt and Road Initiative is a means for China to secure access to needed raw materials in Africa and other developing countries in exchange for Chinese financed and built public works projects such as ports highways and telecom. Similar to how the internet is splitting due to the Great Firewall, China is creating its alternative vision of world trade and international order. I would argue that China is almost economically and technologically on par with the USA. It’s military is behind. It’s biggest weakness is internal politics. Xi Jinping is using the tools at his disposal to prevent China from falling apart like the USSR. What is unknown is the amount of push back he is getting for his crackdown of dissent, secret detentions, mass incarcerations and re-education. As the article mentioned both Xi and his father suffered from the Cultural Revolution which was triggered by Mao to regain power after he was temporarily sidelined by the failure of the Great Leap Forward. After Mao’s death it was Deng Xiao Peng who gave the Chinese the right to make decisions based on facts again instead of blindly following the latest central party dictates. This was the “Seek truth from facts” speech. It seems that China is reverting to its old ways with the enshrinement of Xi Jinping thought. But I think Chinese leaders are very much aware their legitimacy is based solely on providing material prosperity to their people. China is not actively seeking to antagonize the West but their relentless focus on winning the trade wars may be misinterpreted which is dangerous for everyone.
hacknat 6y ago
Honestly, I don't think the 20-30 year outlook for China is all that great. Japan's bailout of its corporate sector was contingent on its corporate sector removing their supply chains from China. A lot of natural incentives, globally, are not going China's way right now. A lot of corporations are going to repatriate or localize their supply chains, because, at long last, supply chains, and not labour, are the cost-center of most corporations. Over the next decade we're actually going to become a less globalized world from a manufacturing perspective. Finally, while the manufacturing sector has always had more friendly relationships with China, the technology sector (particularly software) has a much more ambivalent relationship with China; and now tech makes up a huge percentage of corporate power. Given that Western domestic politics is becoming more economically nationalist and that the corporate sector of most Western countries is gaining less benefit from the labour arbitrage that China offers them, I think we'll see a significant draw down in economic power from China over the next 10-30 years. There will be sectors that stay in China, like high-tech hardware, but even they will become more regionalized as well. You'll start to see some iPhones (or whatever) get made in Western countries as hedges against the need to rapidly draw down manufacturing in China. The Washington Consensus in the 90s thought that normalizing trade relations with China would turn them into a Democracy. No one who is serious thinks that any more, and given China's current bad bout with human rights violations there is a convenient cover for the West to take. My two cents.
throwaway34241 6y ago
If you're interested in this question I think the recent articles by Ray Dalio might be exactly what you are looking for. He founded and ran the world's largest hedge fund and in addition to studying the issue has had personal interaction with high level Chinese leaders going back decades, so he seems pretty well informed about both the macroeconomics in general and China specifically. In addition the very question you're talking about seems to be currently his main point of interest and he's been writing a series of free articles about it on linked in ([1][2] and others). The articles go very in depth and I can't do justice to them here. But I got the impression that he expects some of these things: - China to surpass the US as the #1 economy. Beyond that, eventually become a developed country, so probably wildly surpass the US economy considering the population is 4x as large. - Them to continuously increase in relative technological and military power relative to the US. - For them to possibly supplant the US dollar as the world reserve currency, which could have implications on the value of the US dollar - Not for them to give up their hierarchical government [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-6-big-cycle-china-its-currency-ray-dalio https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-6-big-cycle-china-its... [2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-7-us-china-relations-wars-ray-dalio https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-7-us-china-relations-...
Fricken 6y ago
You blinked and missed it. China already has the world's leading economy: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-now-world%E2%80%99s-largest-economy-we-shouldn%E2%80%99t-be-shocked-170719 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-now-world%E2%80%9...
- TearsInTheRain 6y ago
  They have been ahead of us for a while when you measure by PPP. International orgs are only just now starting to use PPP as the standard
hintymad 6y ago
These factors are important, but I don't think they are as important as the people factor: Chinese people simply want to work hard to live a better life. Everyone knows education matters, so much so that you see news like this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296195/Chinese-girl-seven-study-parents-market-counter-day.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296195/Chinese-gir.... Not that I personally know everyone, but I trust that what my Chinese coworkers told me had certain truth. They openly acknowledge that Chinese needed to learn from western civilization, especially STEM, and policy making, so much so that no one would mock CIT for not winning NCCA games. That's some serious respect. I mean, what kinda of sick country would openly mock their best university for sucking at basketball?

apengwin 6y ago

The title is a reference to Dream of the Red Chamber, one of the greatest novels ever written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber

wmeredith 6y ago
Can you recommend an English translation?
- bxbb 6y ago
  The Story of the Stone by Hawkes and Minford. https://www.goodreads.com/series/175344 https://www.goodreads.com/series/175344
- justicezyx 6y ago
  Warning: Lower your expectation. The novel was written in traditional Chinese, with a different style and narration system. The novel has many ancient poem mixed in the text, a major part of the plot, they were almost always vastly inferior when translated. Lastly, even if the translation goes well, the cultural sensitivity required to appreciate the story and character is going to put you in such a disadvantage that you'll wonder why it feels so bland, even claimed one of the best...

chaostheory 6y ago

Under XJ, China is declining. One of the big reasons for China's meteoric rise was that stupid laws weren't being enforced properly or at all, and free speech was on the rise which in turn led to more creativity and economic freedom. Under that old reality, I was worried that China would inevitably surpass the West, but Zhou Enlai & Deng Xiaoping's golden egg laying goose is dead now in exchange for more centralized power. China's destiny is now to become a giant Galapagos copy machine courtesy of the new emperor. Who knows; maybe the new social credit system will prove me wrong?

excerionsforte 6y ago
I'll humor and agree with this take given it can take greater than 7 years for macro effects to occur stemming from policies and choices that countries make. Example is the former One Child policy which took a long time for the effects to be seen. Another example is that pumping money into the economy doesn't have immediate effects. India had its own policies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790) that would take decades for effects to be seen.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended. There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West. The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions. In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated. Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency. The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age. In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.

Simulacra 6y ago

I would like to see some analysis of what a nuclearized Japan, or Australia, would do. China has emerged as the single greatest threat to democracy, human rights, prosperity, and peace around the world. They can only do this because a foreign investment. If companies like Apple etc. did not make their products in China, Then perhaps I could see a future of China rising peacefully. Otherwise they are a grave in mortal threat to the world

perardi 6y ago
Aren’t they, in a sense, nuclearized, as they live under our security aegis?
- graeme 6y ago
  Yes and no. This was a big debate during the cold war. If the Russians invaded Europe, would America really nuke Russian and risk total destruction? Many strategists considered this to be not a credible threat, on its own. This was part of the reason the US deployed so many conventional troops to Europe during the cold war. These troops couldn’t stop the russians, but their presence would force the US to act if the Russians invaded. Hence, the US might actually irrationally nuke Russia. Hence, Russia would be deterred from invading. This also partly explains the US presence in Japan and Korea. Apart from power projection, it is a tangible expression of US committment to potentially irrationally deploy nukes to defend those countries. However, recent US actions have greatly called into question the US’s commitment to this strategic nuclear umbrella. Hence those countries may be more interested in a deterrent they control. Also of note: the US withdrew troops from Taiwan in 1979 when it switched diplomatic recognition to communist China. This switch was done to play China against the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force
jl6 6y ago
Democracy and human rights - sure. Prosperity and peace? I think China actually has a good track record there. Actions you might perceive as un-peaceful (building islands, modernizing military) could also be interpreted as defensive. The world could achieve great peace and prosperity under a “Pax Sinica”, at the cost of individual liberty. That IMHO is the bigger threat: that authoritarianism will sneak in under the cover of prosperity - a Faustian bargain that too many will be willing to accept.

naringas 6y ago

In my opinion how he handles his succession will be the key. if he acts like a nepot and tries to keep the power within his lineage, that's a sure sign of a classic story of decreseaingly capable rulers. I think that the capability of democractic systems to enforce a level of competence in the rulers are the real reason behind the West's success.

minerjoe 6y ago
> enforce a level of competence Can you please elaborate? In the US, I see "lying" and "corrupt" as some of the most defining characterisics of modern US "rulers".
- graeme 6y ago
  Lying and corruption don’t exclude competence. The parent comment meant competent in the sense of whether the state can achieve its goals. A state may lie about its goals to its public, or enrich its elite, while also being capable of meeting state goals. US state competence has clearly declined, but it is worth making this distinction. Strictly speaking the two factors you cite aren’t necessarily linked to competence. Every politician must lie, it’s part of the job.
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    > Every politician must lie I doubt this. I would belive that your belief in this is just another indication of how diseased our system is. You won't catch Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse ever, even once, telling a lie.

tehjoker 6y ago

Y'all need to stop seeing other countries through the lens of existential competition before it causes cold or hot wars and start cooperating internationally.

lobotryas 6y ago
You need a little more realpolitik in your life. Nations are absolutely competing with each other because we live in a world of limited resources. Recognizing this fact and wanting your nation to come out on top are very normal.
- count 6y ago
  Normal and necessary are different.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I am quite familiar with realpolitik, the American post-war perspective and how the idea of international cooperation was undercut and destroyed by our national bourgeoisie. The UN system was put in place for America to exert its post-war dominance. China is a complicated nation. It is constructing a parallel system to the IMF/World Bank that under-girds US hegemony. It also controls a huge fraction of world manufacturing due to the laziness and greed of the business community. However, because it is not a pure capitalist country, it doesn't have the same imperial market imperatives that western countries certainly have. If we don't try to build a better future, we will realpolitik ourselves into a dystopian one. Also, nations are fake creations of the elites. The working class is international in scope and we have no quarrel with one another.
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  Realpolitik means that we acknowledge that great power wars aren't an option while MAD exists - and that MAD isn't going anywhere for 100 years or more. That means that soft/economic power is far more important than hard power. Anti-ICBM tech sucks balls and it only gets worse with new weapons like nuclear cruise missiles.
  - 6y ago

throw51319 6y ago

China's plan is definitely to absorb countries into their growing economic sphere. Then they absorb countries into their network/techno-sphere by selling communication and surveillance equipment. This will allow them to assist the leaders in power by swaying public opinion at a whim. Further consolidating control. This pushes out western companies and doesn't allow their capital to operate. Eventually this "virus" will reach the main western countries and engulf them. The capitalist system will be turned against itself. In the past, you couldn't automate the managing of perception and access like you can now with a "technosphere" of capabilities that increase by the year. They exploit weaknesses like the "racial divide" to pit us against each other, to hasten this.

coliveira 6y ago

China had been the most advanced country for centuries, having lost this position during the capitalist advances in the West. This should be welcome as it returns China to its traditional position as an advanced civilization.

logicslave 6y ago
...where are all the great Chinese inventions? the great literature? philosophy? math? science? Aside from gun powder and a few others, it all came from the west in the last thousand years.
- fakedang 6y ago
  Chinese discoveries were more suited to their local needs and geographies, just as the Western ones were unique themselves. Besides, Chinese decline began way back, from the Yuan era, with a brief rise during the Ming Era, then stagnation again during the Manchurian period. For some Chinese inventions: the meritocratic bureaucracy, which inspired the civil services in the UK, India and many other countries. Or the seismograph, block printing (which enabled a much higher literate population than the West in its time), their variant on paper, and tons of water-powered "appliances". China might have been very different had the Ming not stagnated badly, and the Jurchens not invited to exploit the chaos.
- onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
  What are you considering the "West"? Prior to 1600, almost nothing of importance came out of Europe. For the last 400 years, Europe and the US have dominated technologically. Maybe you mean the last few hundred years? I think this is what the parent comment was getting at. For most of history, what we now consider "China" had -- by far -- the largest population. To think that nothing much came from there is a bit naive.
- tim333 6y ago
  Inventions: Paper, printing, banknotes, bombs, dental amalgam, rockets, drilling rigs, natural gas as fuel, oil refining, smallpox inoculations, land mines, grenades, seismometers and some other stuff. Admittedly mostly a while ago. There's an article here that >It is now reliably estimated that more than 60% of all the knowledge existing in the world today originated in China, a fact swept under the carpet by the West. https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/03/01/history-of-chinese-inventions-the-present-and-the-future-recent-chinese-state-of-the-art-innovations https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/03/01/history-of-chi... And more recently social credit systems, anti ship ballistic missiles, tik tok, maybe covid.

tigerlily 6y ago

Two things China has in common with the West are aging demographics, and asset price bubbles. I figure somewhere the two go hand in hand, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that by the end of the decade, either or both lateral hemispheres will experience an asset price bubble the likes of which have never been seen before. I think there is scope in China for heinously priced real estate in the coming years, for example. I believe it's human-behavioural stuff like that which will confound the best laid plans of our leaders, in both east and west.

piccolo666 6y ago

I really wouldn't mind other country taking leadership of the world from the US. What scares me the most is that this leadership can be taken from a selfish leaded country and their expansionism program: * Xinjiang * Hing Kong * Taiwan * Inner Mongolia * Tibet * Spratly Islands / Nine dash lane. * Northern India * Vietnam sea They cannot just be nice with their neighbours. And, for some reason, they think they have the rights to take and to threat. I personally don't want these bully leaders to be the leaders of the world. But unfortunately, this is happening in front of us right now and there's not too much we can do about it.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/yAGcM https://archive.is/yAGcM

known 6y ago

China is like a giant jail; “If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom” --Eisenhower (b. 1890)

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Anybode else feeling reminded of the Carousel in Logan's Run by the first picture? (With the caption "Actors run through the air, eager to join the Communist Party, in a propaganda musical in Yanan.")