3 ms·

> Here's an accurate if unsparing description of the US: "a crisis-wracked, oil-rich, nuclear-armed country in which an aging would-be dictator for life tries t

by xref 6y ago

> Here's an accurate if unsparing description of the US: "a crisis-wracked, oil-rich, nuclear-armed country in which an aging would-be dictator for life tries to stave off replacement by his popular successor amid large protests, while heavily armed groups roam the ethnically divided interior". >China looks like a model of stability and calm by comparison. Isn’t Xi effectively dictator for life now, and not simply a “would be” like in the US? Doesn’t China have the 4th largest nuclear stockpile? (US is #2) Doesn’t China have the 12th largest proven oil reserves? (US is #10) Do the tens of thousands arrested/wounded/dead in Hong Kong count as “crisis wracked”? Doesn’t China ethnically divide itself between the Han vs everyone else, culturally erasing groups like the Tibetans or simply rounding up Uyghurs to fill concentration camps?

dirtyid 6y ago
Dictators can be stabilizing especially if they prioritize calm and stability, which Xi / current 5 year plan does. Xi's entire socialist modernization scheme is supposed to continue until 2035, so we know China at least wants stable external environment for that long. Ranking hides context. China plans to double nuclear stockpile to around 600, but that's still 10% of what US current has at 6,000. Charitably 15% because US is slated to reduce stockpile to 3,800. China is a massive oil importer whereas US fracking makes it a net producer. This means China _must_ maintain SLOCs and maritime trade, whereas US has incentive to disrupt it. XJ/HK/Tibet can protest and it would be a relatively minor disruption because they account for ~1% of the population, the disruption in HKs case is only because anglosphere is making it a geopolitical issue. HK under NSL has moved _up_ Global Finance Centre Index this year, overtaking Singapore. Stability is good for business. And as Singapore demonstrates, one party systems is fine for long term financial prosperity. XJ had terrorism, but that's completely suppressed by the security architecture. Compared to US prison industrial complex, even if China jails every Uyghur rather than the alleged 1M+ right now, lifetime likelihood of being detained for Chinese Muslims (total population 80M) would be less than US Blacks at 28%. Rising pork prices is more of a concern of CCP than minority protests. Incidentally, food security and dependency on oil / resource imports is broadly why China benefits massively from global stability and existence of multilateral systems. Whereas US is largely self sufficient and can step back and watch the world burn. Ultimately, China needs stability, whereas US doesn't. Indeed US can afford to disrupt stability for everyone else, perhaps even sufficiently so at US relative gain.

by xref 6y ago

dirtyid 6y ago

Dictators can be stabilizing especially if they prioritize calm and stability, which Xi / current 5 year plan does. Xi's entire socialist modernization scheme is supposed to continue until 2035, so we know China at least wants stable external environment for that long. Ranking hides context. China plans to double nuclear stockpile to around 600, but that's still 10% of what US current has at 6,000. Charitably 15% because US is slated to reduce stockpile to 3,800. China is a massive oil importer whereas US fracking makes it a net producer. This means China _must_ maintain SLOCs and maritime trade, whereas US has incentive to disrupt it. XJ/HK/Tibet can protest and it would be a relatively minor disruption because they account for ~1% of the population, the disruption in HKs case is only because anglosphere is making it a geopolitical issue. HK under NSL has moved _up_ Global Finance Centre Index this year, overtaking Singapore. Stability is good for business. And as Singapore demonstrates, one party systems is fine for long term financial prosperity. XJ had terrorism, but that's completely suppressed by the security architecture. Compared to US prison industrial complex, even if China jails every Uyghur rather than the alleged 1M+ right now, lifetime likelihood of being detained for Chinese Muslims (total population 80M) would be less than US Blacks at 28%. Rising pork prices is more of a concern of CCP than minority protests. Incidentally, food security and dependency on oil / resource imports is broadly why China benefits massively from global stability and existence of multilateral systems. Whereas US is largely self sufficient and can step back and watch the world burn. Ultimately, China needs stability, whereas US doesn't. Indeed US can afford to disrupt stability for everyone else, perhaps even sufficiently so at US relative gain.