4 ms·

this is amazing and filled with facts that i wish everyone arguing the point that china cant overtake U.S. in economy or world superpowers would read. The facts

this is amazing and filled with facts that i wish everyone arguing the point that china cant overtake U.S. in economy or world superpowers would read. The facts are there, there is not much hiding around the corner, all of the true indication is in front of us. Yes. the article states U.S. still holds the title for world superpower by military size and capabilities. That's not to say that china cant catch up in no time with U.S. military. That's if they decide to do so. i would ask does the Chinese republic need to invest heavy in this sector in order to grow? Clearly not from the facts. in fact that's the very same thing we should have been doing all along.The U.S. has spent enormous amount of capital to fund wars and foreign relational activities. China has a great way going about this. making friends with less developed countries that U.S. overlooked. China is looking for something specific. Just as U.S. is looking for something specific as well. To be totally honest I am not entirely sure what the U.S. is looking for when engaging with other countries, other than the same narrative for the fear of not having safety blah blah. This time that was spent on these adventures the U.S. cannot get back, while also injuring foreign relations. there is a clear sign that the U.S. government is confused and has a gun with no-where to aim. All the policies and efforts are accelerating the U.S. into deterioration. The U.S. has some strong sector for the sake of this reply i will mainly say that attacking the top tech firms and industries with regulation will only push them out to more favorable grounds give new room for industries to form in more favorable grounds other than U.S.. the solution must solve the problem that brought the solution to existence.

smcl 2y ago
> everyone arguing the point that china cant overtake U.S. in economy Surely nobody halfway serious is arguing that. The faction about to take power in the USA is tilting at the "woke ideology" windmill, talks openly of deporting a big chunk of the workforce and does not seem to understand how tariffs work. Even if you ignore all that, China has 4-5x the population (for now!) and is by all measures has a highly developed, productive and growing economy. What argument can there possibly be in favour of China falling back, other than maybe the aforementioned demographic issues.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  The demographic issue is the big one. But there are several others that show up in serious financial circles. Particularly the domestic fiscal policy around debt and investment, currency liberalization and entrepreneurial risk vs reward. The Chinese government is walking a very fine line with their private enterprise policies and it’s not one that is well understood. But there is quite a bit of concern that if China gets more autocratic it may hinder further productivity and growth (right as the demographic issue hits in earnest).
- audunw 2y ago
  Chinas total population isn’t really that relevant for what their economy will end up looking like. China is essentially a handful of moderately wealthy coastal areas (perhaps comparable to USA in population but still far behind in GDP/capita) and a huge inland area of very poor people. There’s not much reason to think all those 100s of millions of people will become as wealthy as the average American or European any time soon. It’s not just demographics. Geography is a huge challenge as well. I don’t know if China will “fall back”. But stagnation seems very likely. If they backslide it’ll probably be due to some political turmoil, like what happened in when the Soviet Union collapsed. Nearly impossible to predict. If you look at what’s happening with regular people inside China, there does seem to be a sense that things are getting worse, not better. I have friends with family in China that said exactly that this New Year’s Eve.. There’s a lot of incidents with people driving their cars into crowds of people as a revenge against society, and other similarly worrying signs. Many factories are being moved out of China. It might not be enough to show up on statistics yet, but it’s a process that has undeniably started and will probably accelerate. China has a huge bet on batteries, EVs and solar panels to make up for what they’re loosing. That’s going really well right now. But I don’t think it’s a winning strategy long term. USA and EU seems to be wanting to protect their industries and on-shore or near-shore a lot of that stuff. The manufacturing of those things are highly automated. Eventually most of the materials will come from local recycling. China could get a very strong and balanced economy if they had a good strategy based on self sustainable local consumption, rather can just export. But I just don’t see that they’re taking that seriously. Most of the policies are still geared towards supporting/subsidising higher exports.
bobthepanda 2y ago
I don’t think it’s necessarily so clear that Chinese foreign policy has really paid off yet. Chinese loanmaking to foreign countries has mostly gone bust, with many loans basically in default. While it’s true that Western development agencies were not lending to these projects, they mostly weren’t doing so because they were doubtful of the business cases of said projects and the likelihood that the government could actually pay off the loan, and so now China is dealing with that. One of the most direct Chinese relationships is with Myanmar, which has not only gone to hell in a handbasket but now is a hotbed of criminal activity by Chinese organized crime abducting Chinese nationals to work in Myanmar. So that’s not great either.
- ted_bunny 2y ago
  It's been argued that if you observe actions and not words, default has always been the point of IMF loans. Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?
  - manishader 2y ago
    If you can't tell Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a work of fiction I don't know what to tell you.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      You don't need to read the book to see the role the world bank plays in preserving worldwide power structures. The entire world can talk to each other outside the american media sphere, you know!
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    I think that generally if you read the internal documents, most of the people behind IMF and other global development loans are operating in good faith and not simply puppets of the political agenda of the west. I think they showed clear overconfidence in their policy prescriptions, but not out of malice
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
Yeul 2y ago
Trump reminds me of a Star Wars quote "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" The reality is that China will not magically disappear and they have integrated themselves into the world economy.
hnthrow90348765 2y ago
>attacking the top tech firms and industries with regulation will only push them out to more favorable grounds give new room for industries to form in more favorable grounds other than U.S Let them go, someone else will step in. Yes it will be inefficient as someone else ramps up, but companies that are only here to repeatedly hold the country hostage to get out of sensible regulations are a threat to the population's security. China will eventually abuse its population to the breaking point.
stefan_ 2y ago
What do you mean, Chinese foreign policy is an utter train wreck. All of their neighbors hate them.
rkancv 2y ago
Yes, China engages diplomatically and financially with countries that the U.S. fought and then leaves. Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan of course China appeared instantly: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/mining-influence-chinas-mineral-ambitions-taliban-led-afghanistan https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/mining-influence-chin... Now the U.S. is fighting for minerals in Ukraine. Rare moment of truth by Senator Graham: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/lindsey-graham-ukraine/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/lindsey-graham-ukraine/ This of course could have been achieved diplomatically by cooling down the NATO tensions. But no, another proxy war must be fought that likely will be lost like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. The Chinese do not fight and profit from all of this.
- rm_-rf_slash 2y ago
  Korea is not the best example to prove your point. SK is per capita equivalent to Japan[1]. The Korean War was a tie and in the long run it’s clear which side is better off. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/01/by-one-measure-of-living-standards-south-korea-has-overtaken-japan https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/01/by-one-m...
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Pretty sure the parent is talking about overlooked nations. Nations no one even fights a war over. Probably referring to things like China going "all in" on under-developed African nations. It's a very "Eastern" strategy. Avoidance and Trade.
- mahirsaid 2y ago
  and now Russia (Russia takes step towards recognizing Afghanistan's Taliban government) https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-takes-step-towards-recognising-afghanistans-taliban-government-2024-12-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-takes-step-towards-reco...
bflesch 2y ago
You're showcasing the "false equivalence" fallacy - you're comparing apples to oranges. 1) Autocracies are fundamentally unstable and need extreme violence to prevent dissent and dissolution. Autocrats basically steal from people at the bottom who in turn are less incentivized to give their best performance. Democracies are much more stable due to acceptance by most people who live in them and much more fair sharing of profits. 2) Due to their inherent instability, autocracies have a very high incentive to fake numbers. With this background, I think your arguments are for the trash can.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  I generally agree, but “China is doomed because autocracy” has been on the media since 2000s. There’s been literally two new generations of people that have been born. The country seems fairly stable as of now.
msabalau 2y ago
China had everything going for it for couple of decades. Other countries were happy to outsource manufacturing and invest for the sake of access to the the Chinese market and under the assumption that great power conflict with China was very unlikely. None of those things, broadly is true any more.
api 2y ago
China has more than 3X the population of the US, so it only needs a bit over 1/3 the GDP per capita to overtake the US. I can’t imagine that not happening unless China really screws up. Overtaking the US on GDP per capita is much further away.

smcl 2y ago

> everyone arguing the point that china cant overtake U.S. in economy Surely nobody halfway serious is arguing that. The faction about to take power in the USA is tilting at the "woke ideology" windmill, talks openly of deporting a big chunk of the workforce and does not seem to understand how tariffs work. Even if you ignore all that, China has 4-5x the population (for now!) and is by all measures has a highly developed, productive and growing economy. What argument can there possibly be in favour of China falling back, other than maybe the aforementioned demographic issues.

kasey_junk 2y ago
The demographic issue is the big one. But there are several others that show up in serious financial circles. Particularly the domestic fiscal policy around debt and investment, currency liberalization and entrepreneurial risk vs reward. The Chinese government is walking a very fine line with their private enterprise policies and it’s not one that is well understood. But there is quite a bit of concern that if China gets more autocratic it may hinder further productivity and growth (right as the demographic issue hits in earnest).
audunw 2y ago
Chinas total population isn’t really that relevant for what their economy will end up looking like. China is essentially a handful of moderately wealthy coastal areas (perhaps comparable to USA in population but still far behind in GDP/capita) and a huge inland area of very poor people. There’s not much reason to think all those 100s of millions of people will become as wealthy as the average American or European any time soon. It’s not just demographics. Geography is a huge challenge as well. I don’t know if China will “fall back”. But stagnation seems very likely. If they backslide it’ll probably be due to some political turmoil, like what happened in when the Soviet Union collapsed. Nearly impossible to predict. If you look at what’s happening with regular people inside China, there does seem to be a sense that things are getting worse, not better. I have friends with family in China that said exactly that this New Year’s Eve.. There’s a lot of incidents with people driving their cars into crowds of people as a revenge against society, and other similarly worrying signs. Many factories are being moved out of China. It might not be enough to show up on statistics yet, but it’s a process that has undeniably started and will probably accelerate. China has a huge bet on batteries, EVs and solar panels to make up for what they’re loosing. That’s going really well right now. But I don’t think it’s a winning strategy long term. USA and EU seems to be wanting to protect their industries and on-shore or near-shore a lot of that stuff. The manufacturing of those things are highly automated. Eventually most of the materials will come from local recycling. China could get a very strong and balanced economy if they had a good strategy based on self sustainable local consumption, rather can just export. But I just don’t see that they’re taking that seriously. Most of the policies are still geared towards supporting/subsidising higher exports.

bobthepanda 2y ago

I don’t think it’s necessarily so clear that Chinese foreign policy has really paid off yet. Chinese loanmaking to foreign countries has mostly gone bust, with many loans basically in default. While it’s true that Western development agencies were not lending to these projects, they mostly weren’t doing so because they were doubtful of the business cases of said projects and the likelihood that the government could actually pay off the loan, and so now China is dealing with that. One of the most direct Chinese relationships is with Myanmar, which has not only gone to hell in a handbasket but now is a hotbed of criminal activity by Chinese organized crime abducting Chinese nationals to work in Myanmar. So that’s not great either.

ted_bunny 2y ago
It's been argued that if you observe actions and not words, default has always been the point of IMF loans. Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?
- manishader 2y ago
  If you can't tell Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a work of fiction I don't know what to tell you.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    You don't need to read the book to see the role the world bank plays in preserving worldwide power structures. The entire world can talk to each other outside the american media sphere, you know!
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I think that generally if you read the internal documents, most of the people behind IMF and other global development loans are operating in good faith and not simply puppets of the political agenda of the west. I think they showed clear overconfidence in their policy prescriptions, but not out of malice
- bobthepanda 2y ago

Yeul 2y ago

Trump reminds me of a Star Wars quote "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" The reality is that China will not magically disappear and they have integrated themselves into the world economy.

hnthrow90348765 2y ago

>attacking the top tech firms and industries with regulation will only push them out to more favorable grounds give new room for industries to form in more favorable grounds other than U.S Let them go, someone else will step in. Yes it will be inefficient as someone else ramps up, but companies that are only here to repeatedly hold the country hostage to get out of sensible regulations are a threat to the population's security. China will eventually abuse its population to the breaking point.

stefan_ 2y ago

What do you mean, Chinese foreign policy is an utter train wreck. All of their neighbors hate them.

rkancv 2y ago

Yes, China engages diplomatically and financially with countries that the U.S. fought and then leaves. Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan of course China appeared instantly: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/mining-influence-chinas-mineral-ambitions-taliban-led-afghanistan https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/mining-influence-chin... Now the U.S. is fighting for minerals in Ukraine. Rare moment of truth by Senator Graham: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/lindsey-graham-ukraine/ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/lindsey-graham-ukraine/ This of course could have been achieved diplomatically by cooling down the NATO tensions. But no, another proxy war must be fought that likely will be lost like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. The Chinese do not fight and profit from all of this.

rm_-rf_slash 2y ago
Korea is not the best example to prove your point. SK is per capita equivalent to Japan[1]. The Korean War was a tie and in the long run it’s clear which side is better off. [1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/01/by-one-measure-of-living-standards-south-korea-has-overtaken-japan https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/01/by-one-m...
bilbo0s 2y ago
Pretty sure the parent is talking about overlooked nations. Nations no one even fights a war over. Probably referring to things like China going "all in" on under-developed African nations. It's a very "Eastern" strategy. Avoidance and Trade.
mahirsaid 2y ago
and now Russia (Russia takes step towards recognizing Afghanistan's Taliban government) https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-takes-step-towards-recognising-afghanistans-taliban-government-2024-12-10/ https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-takes-step-towards-reco...

bflesch 2y ago

You're showcasing the "false equivalence" fallacy - you're comparing apples to oranges. 1) Autocracies are fundamentally unstable and need extreme violence to prevent dissent and dissolution. Autocrats basically steal from people at the bottom who in turn are less incentivized to give their best performance. Democracies are much more stable due to acceptance by most people who live in them and much more fair sharing of profits. 2) Due to their inherent instability, autocracies have a very high incentive to fake numbers. With this background, I think your arguments are for the trash can.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
I generally agree, but “China is doomed because autocracy” has been on the media since 2000s. There’s been literally two new generations of people that have been born. The country seems fairly stable as of now.

msabalau 2y ago

China had everything going for it for couple of decades. Other countries were happy to outsource manufacturing and invest for the sake of access to the the Chinese market and under the assumption that great power conflict with China was very unlikely. None of those things, broadly is true any more.

api 2y ago

China has more than 3X the population of the US, so it only needs a bit over 1/3 the GDP per capita to overtake the US. I can’t imagine that not happening unless China really screws up. Overtaking the US on GDP per capita is much further away.