5 ms·

I can't even get myself to write anything about China, because I don't want to sound like a China-shill. But, my entire point is, they course correct. A lot act

I can't even get myself to write anything about China, because I don't want to sound like a China-shill. But, my entire point is, they course correct. A lot actually. They publish literal documents that can be read as course corrections (Government Work Report). They've shown they're willing to take big risks to achieve their written and published goals. And given the recent developments and their achievements in tech/improving QoL of locals, they deserve respect for accomplishments. They're obviously trying to go ahead with their dominance-through-tech plan, and not taking them seriously isn't going to help us in a long run.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> obviously trying to go ahead with their dominance-through-tech plan, and not taking them seriously isn't going to help us in a long run They should absolutely be taken seriously. But nothing you put forward suggests pivots, but minor course corrections. (Granted, that puts them a rung above most of the world's dictatorships.) What's holding Beijing back is the wolf warrior nonsense from before Covid. China has the best industrial supply chains on the planet within any single border, but their neighbors don't trust them. As a result, America can scale using European, Japanese and Korean (and now Indian and Middle Eastern) assets while China has to rely on itself. (And Russia and Iran, the new sick dogs of Europe and Asia, respectively.) Contrast that with e.g. the Trump-Biden-Trump pivots. A lot of that was and will be chaos. But some of it was fruitful policyspace exploration. (A lot of it was course correcting from previous mistakes.) Like, imagine if we replaced Obama's presidency with W. Bush. That is the handicap Beijing is forced to play with.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  Again, I've been hearing it since 2000s, how China is going to fall. So far, no predictions, especially the forced RE market collapse ones have panned out. I think a lot of people want China to fall, so they can point at the political ideology that's not compatible with ours and say "ha, we told you so!". But it just hasn't happened yet. They're smoking the west in a good chunk sectors as well. Also, I think you're underestimating how quickly public perception can turn if the leader becomes disliked. People will flock to be friendly with China, if there's any need.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > I've been hearing it since 2000s, how China is going to fall Where am I predicting failure? Inflexibility doesn't mean failure, it means just that. > underestimating how quickly public perception can turn if the leader becomes disliked. People will flock to be friendly with China, if there's any need Possible. But public perception has nothing to do with it. To date, America has wielded its superpower status in a way that defied containment. If we misbehave, yes, countries will work to contain America, but that doesn't naturally mean they'll work to benefit China. Geostrategically, the best thing that could happen to China is Xi goes away and someone who can softly engage with its neighbours comes in so they can integrate supply chains and cultures more effectively. (Again, the way America has historically done.)
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      Fair points. I highly doubt anyone is going to softly engage with China while China is trying to become the world leader. My guess is US won't like the loss of soft power, thus will intimidate any country that signs deals with China even further. It's in China's best interest to go full steam ahead without caring about the neighbours until they become the political super power in the world.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It's in China's best interest to go full steam ahead without caring about the neighbours until they become the political super power in the world This worked, because in the post-Cold War high realpolitik took a break. Unfortunately, now, it will do the same thing every other rising power trying to steamroll its way to superpower status does: inspire balancing alliances. Sort of like how Xi being impatient with Hong Kong not only pushed Taiwan away, it also nudged various nations around the South China Sea together and towards the U.S. To the extent the history of great powers has been written, it's that superpower status cannot be claimed. Simply relinquished. An emerging power trying to steamroll to the top tends to preserve the status quo more than bring about its demise; unfortunately, while waiting for America to next stumble is something an immortal China can wait for, it's not something a mortal dictator can afford. Hence, America's luck. (And again, not forecasting downfall. Just not inevitable rise.)
NemoNobody 2y ago
Ok, I understand the consideration and even a certain level of admiration for the capability of such a large population to govern themselves so effectively and shrewdly over time as to implement a new 5 year economic plan, every 5 years, successfully - that's an accomplishment... There are quite actually empty skyscraper cities - with likewise massive corresponding infrastructural investments - this failure of central planning as an issue isn't always city sized but is widespread. It's a human thing... so it makes mistakes. Like China's Navy specifically designed to insure dominion over the South China Sea... what's the point of that? To insure dominion? Now everyone is convinced China is going to be making moves for the top spot - bc that's what they signalled with such a Navel buildup. They are rejecting the US Global Order and suggesting that China may be an increasingly better alternative for international Leadership... but they only have a mere couple decades left of economic growth before their entire economy will experience a population (and thearby economic growth) contraction like no peaceful society in history has before. Who wants to sign up behind that wannabe Great Power? Had China contented themselves with #2, we could have propped up an "adversarial" relationship political to seemingly dampen US Hegemony but in reality be each other's largest trading partners and whatnot - you know, like it used to be ;) Now everyone knows tho - China's got a timer on it.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> obviously trying to go ahead with their dominance-through-tech plan, and not taking them seriously isn't going to help us in a long run They should absolutely be taken seriously. But nothing you put forward suggests pivots, but minor course corrections. (Granted, that puts them a rung above most of the world's dictatorships.) What's holding Beijing back is the wolf warrior nonsense from before Covid. China has the best industrial supply chains on the planet within any single border, but their neighbors don't trust them. As a result, America can scale using European, Japanese and Korean (and now Indian and Middle Eastern) assets while China has to rely on itself. (And Russia and Iran, the new sick dogs of Europe and Asia, respectively.) Contrast that with e.g. the Trump-Biden-Trump pivots. A lot of that was and will be chaos. But some of it was fruitful policyspace exploration. (A lot of it was course correcting from previous mistakes.) Like, imagine if we replaced Obama's presidency with W. Bush. That is the handicap Beijing is forced to play with.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
Again, I've been hearing it since 2000s, how China is going to fall. So far, no predictions, especially the forced RE market collapse ones have panned out. I think a lot of people want China to fall, so they can point at the political ideology that's not compatible with ours and say "ha, we told you so!". But it just hasn't happened yet. They're smoking the west in a good chunk sectors as well. Also, I think you're underestimating how quickly public perception can turn if the leader becomes disliked. People will flock to be friendly with China, if there's any need.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I've been hearing it since 2000s, how China is going to fall Where am I predicting failure? Inflexibility doesn't mean failure, it means just that. > underestimating how quickly public perception can turn if the leader becomes disliked. People will flock to be friendly with China, if there's any need Possible. But public perception has nothing to do with it. To date, America has wielded its superpower status in a way that defied containment. If we misbehave, yes, countries will work to contain America, but that doesn't naturally mean they'll work to benefit China. Geostrategically, the best thing that could happen to China is Xi goes away and someone who can softly engage with its neighbours comes in so they can integrate supply chains and cultures more effectively. (Again, the way America has historically done.)
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    Fair points. I highly doubt anyone is going to softly engage with China while China is trying to become the world leader. My guess is US won't like the loss of soft power, thus will intimidate any country that signs deals with China even further. It's in China's best interest to go full steam ahead without caring about the neighbours until they become the political super power in the world.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > It's in China's best interest to go full steam ahead without caring about the neighbours until they become the political super power in the world This worked, because in the post-Cold War high realpolitik took a break. Unfortunately, now, it will do the same thing every other rising power trying to steamroll its way to superpower status does: inspire balancing alliances. Sort of like how Xi being impatient with Hong Kong not only pushed Taiwan away, it also nudged various nations around the South China Sea together and towards the U.S. To the extent the history of great powers has been written, it's that superpower status cannot be claimed. Simply relinquished. An emerging power trying to steamroll to the top tends to preserve the status quo more than bring about its demise; unfortunately, while waiting for America to next stumble is something an immortal China can wait for, it's not something a mortal dictator can afford. Hence, America's luck. (And again, not forecasting downfall. Just not inevitable rise.)

NemoNobody 2y ago

Ok, I understand the consideration and even a certain level of admiration for the capability of such a large population to govern themselves so effectively and shrewdly over time as to implement a new 5 year economic plan, every 5 years, successfully - that's an accomplishment... There are quite actually empty skyscraper cities - with likewise massive corresponding infrastructural investments - this failure of central planning as an issue isn't always city sized but is widespread. It's a human thing... so it makes mistakes. Like China's Navy specifically designed to insure dominion over the South China Sea... what's the point of that? To insure dominion? Now everyone is convinced China is going to be making moves for the top spot - bc that's what they signalled with such a Navel buildup. They are rejecting the US Global Order and suggesting that China may be an increasingly better alternative for international Leadership... but they only have a mere couple decades left of economic growth before their entire economy will experience a population (and thearby economic growth) contraction like no peaceful society in history has before. Who wants to sign up behind that wannabe Great Power? Had China contented themselves with #2, we could have propped up an "adversarial" relationship political to seemingly dampen US Hegemony but in reality be each other's largest trading partners and whatnot - you know, like it used to be ;) Now everyone knows tho - China's got a timer on it.