6 ms·

"So China, which had been forecast to overtake America in 2019 by the IMF, will be crowned the world's pre-eminent country by the end of this year according to

by mturmon 13y ago

"So China, which had been forecast to overtake America in 2019 by the IMF, will be crowned the world's pre-eminent country by the end of this year according to The Economist’s calculations. The American Century ends, and the Pacific Century begins." You can expect the Economist to tilt this way, but it feels a little over-eager and glib to me (even considering the source). Yes, by one important economic metric, China wins. So therefore, China is "crowned the world's pre-eminent country". (Who makes these crowns, anyway? Wait, let me guess -- they're made in China, but awarded by a London-based committee.) We've done this one before. Hitchens (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-06-17/entertainment/9002190154_1_christopher-hitchens-czeslaw-milosz-english-connection http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-06-17/entertainment/...) used to call it "Our Greece to their Rome" -- the wise British counselors would advise the Americans how to run their Empire. It's like the committee decided to trade in for someone else to advise. And "the Pacific Century begins". What does this even mean? Is it just to goad page views and comments? "Crowning the Dragon"? Really? Why so eager to reach for that metaphor? Do we have to search around for something to put a crown on?

jonnathanson 13y ago
If we can officially crown a new era, it's the era of pat catchphrases and clickbait. "The Pacific Century" has a nice ring to it; it's memorable; it's a strong catchphrase. So it makes the cut, no matters its inanity. Even serious journalism, academic research, and industry white papers are coming under intense pressure to adopt the methods of punditry. I'd say this is less about pageviews and comments, and more about acute awareness of hashtags. "The Pacific Century," "Crowning the Dragon," and other such phrases are conscious attempts to create hashtag-ready hooks for the article.
- faizanbhat 13y ago
  In its defense, the Economist has been known for its handsome catchphrases since before the modern clickbait era began. Take their covers for example. I don't think they're bowing to pressure -- just doing what they do.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    That's fair. I've been reading The Economist for quite awhile, and to your point, it's never short on clever catchphrases and headlines. I do, however, think the use of catchphrases within a text (as opposed to the headline) has been growing over the years. Especially in recent years. Not just in The Economist, but in general. To wit: the headline "Crowning the Dragon" feels very typically Economist; the catchphrase "The Pacific Century" feels more like a conscious attempt to coin a meme.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The Economist blog content tends to be pretty lightweight and casual, a little daily snack in between the weekly full-course meal of the print edition (whether or not you read it on paper). I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, the fact that China was the world's biggest economy until 1890 wasn't very significant in terms of its influence on world history. I don't mean this in a Eurocentric way, but in terms of the fact that China stayed largely within its own borders and wasn't in intense technological competition with the West; the size of the economy was largely a function of its huge population, which remains somewhat true today. On the other hand* population can't be the whole story, or India would have a similarly-sized economy. Chinese GDP per capita may lag behind the west, but there is no question that the country has profited hugely from becoming the modern 'workshop of the world.' These profits must be set against the negative externalities of chronic pollution and a increased internal political pressures, but it's impossible to ignore China's enormous strategic advantage in this area. How they will leverage this is another question, as the country is facing an intense demographic squeeze that will leave it with a disproportionate number of elderly people within the next couple of decades, but without a strong social safety net or high levels of education. Obviously China's leaders have no intention of allowing the country to enter a Japanese-style economic stagnation, but how they will address that challenge is anyone's guess. * Harry Truman once demanded that he be sent a one-armed economist who would supply him with one opinion instead of two.
coldtea 13y ago
>Who makes these crowns, anyway? Well, judging from foreign policy and media the Americans have made those crowns for themselves for the past 80+ years. >And "the Pacific Century begins" I guess what the "American century" used to mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
thesimpsons1022 13y ago
I wish i could actually read his article and not a review of it.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/270056-1183395201801/Summary-of-Results-and-Findings-of-the-2011-International-Comparison-Program.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/270056-1... is the paper they did the article from if that helps.
  - mturmon 13y ago
    Maybe GP was referring to Christopher Hitchens' article "Our Greece to Their Rome", which appeared as chapter 1 in his book Blood, Class, and Nostalgia? Even if not, I have to recommend the book. Like all early Hitchens, this is an occasionally dazzling and very entertaining book, written by someone with the same pedigree as the wits at the Economist, but with a lot more originality, and more interesting ideological commitments. There are a few pages in the Amazon preview (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Class-Empire-Anglo-American-Relationship/dp/1560255927 http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Class-Empire-Anglo-American-Rela...). Also, I just saw this NYT review: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/a-discordant-intimacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/a-discordant-intimac...
    - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
      yes I was referring to that, thank you.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
So there are a lot of interesting things that come with being the largest economy on the planet. Not the least of which is pricing power over the other economies. There is also the ability to project force. In a number of analyses of WWII what "won" it for the allies was the US economy, and the ability for that economy to out produce war material than the axis powers combined. Not that we would, but should the US and China engage in endless WW2 style battles of attrition, the larger economy wins that engagement. Because at the end of the day the ability to replace assets trumps any initial tactical advantage. A number of well respected economists have debated the 'reality' of the Chinese economy and the UN has tried to get a qualitative measure that avoids over reliance on government supplied numbers. There is always the possibility that China will stumble again, unable to balance its form of governance against its population's outrage, but if it does not, well its going to be able to push around more people without being overly concerned about the US being able to pressure others to resist. The way that works is as follows. Country A taunts country B, country C tells country D to push back on them or their relationship with C will be in jeopardy, maybe C tells D, E, F, and G to make a fuss. They comply because they are economically dependent on C. Country A backs down. B is grateful. But if country C taunts country B, and Country A doesn't have the influence to get anyone else to push back on that taunting. Country C gets its way. How those scenarios play out is very dependent on the relative sizes of Country A's economy and Country C's economy. Politicians are particularly afraid of biting the hand that trades with them.
- moogleii 13y ago
  So, what you're saying is, it's like starcraft, and he who mines more minerals wins.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Yup. Or sheep, bricks, and wood if you're a Catan fan.
- usaar333 13y ago
  > Not that we would, but should the US and China engage in endless WW2 style battles of attrition, the larger economy wins that engagement. Because at the end of the day the ability to replace assets trumps any initial tactical advantage. I don't think it is quite this simple. You could argue that the country that can sustain the higher defense budget will win [1], which is actually the United States. Reason being that China's population is 4x that of the United States, so significant parts of GDP need to just go to keeping everyone alive. [1] In the past; these days the US' technology superiority over China is so large that short-term budget changes still couldn't give China the edge.
hackuser 13y ago
> Yes, by one important economic metric, China wins. I know you mean that a bit sarcastically, but some people really thing that way. Don't we win too? If your business partner grows wealthier, isn't that good for you? I want all my business partners to become fabulously wealthy. It is true that, when it comes to politics (which includes armed conflict), it's better if your enemy is poor.
- chc 13y ago
  This depends very much on who you're doing business with and how much you like them. You might not prefer that the slightly shady guy you're forced to do business with on occasion become a big-name mobster with a protection racket.
- mturmon 13y ago
  Absolutely! By the way, having poor enemies and neighbors can be destabilizing as well. Think of Israel, or South Korea.
Lambdanaut 13y ago
China also has nearly 3 times the USA's population, as well as significantly less land. They may be making more money, but they also have more people they have to divide it between. They're far less wealthy in that sense.
- joelwilliamson 13y ago
  The US has more arable land. In terms of total land, China is the second largest contry in the world, behind only Russia.
- ekm2 13y ago
  The larger population might also mean more smart people to make even more money.

by mturmon 13y ago

jonnathanson 13y ago

If we can officially crown a new era, it's the era of pat catchphrases and clickbait. "The Pacific Century" has a nice ring to it; it's memorable; it's a strong catchphrase. So it makes the cut, no matters its inanity. Even serious journalism, academic research, and industry white papers are coming under intense pressure to adopt the methods of punditry. I'd say this is less about pageviews and comments, and more about acute awareness of hashtags. "The Pacific Century," "Crowning the Dragon," and other such phrases are conscious attempts to create hashtag-ready hooks for the article.

faizanbhat 13y ago
In its defense, the Economist has been known for its handsome catchphrases since before the modern clickbait era began. Take their covers for example. I don't think they're bowing to pressure -- just doing what they do.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  That's fair. I've been reading The Economist for quite awhile, and to your point, it's never short on clever catchphrases and headlines. I do, however, think the use of catchphrases within a text (as opposed to the headline) has been growing over the years. Especially in recent years. Not just in The Economist, but in general. To wit: the headline "Crowning the Dragon" feels very typically Economist; the catchphrase "The Pacific Century" feels more like a conscious attempt to coin a meme.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The Economist blog content tends to be pretty lightweight and casual, a little daily snack in between the weekly full-course meal of the print edition (whether or not you read it on paper). I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, the fact that China was the world's biggest economy until 1890 wasn't very significant in terms of its influence on world history. I don't mean this in a Eurocentric way, but in terms of the fact that China stayed largely within its own borders and wasn't in intense technological competition with the West; the size of the economy was largely a function of its huge population, which remains somewhat true today. On the other hand* population can't be the whole story, or India would have a similarly-sized economy. Chinese GDP per capita may lag behind the west, but there is no question that the country has profited hugely from becoming the modern 'workshop of the world.' These profits must be set against the negative externalities of chronic pollution and a increased internal political pressures, but it's impossible to ignore China's enormous strategic advantage in this area. How they will leverage this is another question, as the country is facing an intense demographic squeeze that will leave it with a disproportionate number of elderly people within the next couple of decades, but without a strong social safety net or high levels of education. Obviously China's leaders have no intention of allowing the country to enter a Japanese-style economic stagnation, but how they will address that challenge is anyone's guess. * Harry Truman once demanded that he be sent a one-armed economist who would supply him with one opinion instead of two.

coldtea 13y ago

>Who makes these crowns, anyway? Well, judging from foreign policy and media the Americans have made those crowns for themselves for the past 80+ years. >And "the Pacific Century begins" I guess what the "American century" used to mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century

thesimpsons1022 13y ago

I wish i could actually read his article and not a review of it.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/270056-1183395201801/Summary-of-Results-and-Findings-of-the-2011-International-Comparison-Program.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/270056-1... is the paper they did the article from if that helps.
- mturmon 13y ago
  Maybe GP was referring to Christopher Hitchens' article "Our Greece to Their Rome", which appeared as chapter 1 in his book Blood, Class, and Nostalgia? Even if not, I have to recommend the book. Like all early Hitchens, this is an occasionally dazzling and very entertaining book, written by someone with the same pedigree as the wits at the Economist, but with a lot more originality, and more interesting ideological commitments. There are a few pages in the Amazon preview (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Class-Empire-Anglo-American-Relationship/dp/1560255927 http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Class-Empire-Anglo-American-Rela...). Also, I just saw this NYT review: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/a-discordant-intimacy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/books/a-discordant-intimac...
  - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
    yes I was referring to that, thank you.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

So there are a lot of interesting things that come with being the largest economy on the planet. Not the least of which is pricing power over the other economies. There is also the ability to project force. In a number of analyses of WWII what "won" it for the allies was the US economy, and the ability for that economy to out produce war material than the axis powers combined. Not that we would, but should the US and China engage in endless WW2 style battles of attrition, the larger economy wins that engagement. Because at the end of the day the ability to replace assets trumps any initial tactical advantage. A number of well respected economists have debated the 'reality' of the Chinese economy and the UN has tried to get a qualitative measure that avoids over reliance on government supplied numbers. There is always the possibility that China will stumble again, unable to balance its form of governance against its population's outrage, but if it does not, well its going to be able to push around more people without being overly concerned about the US being able to pressure others to resist. The way that works is as follows. Country A taunts country B, country C tells country D to push back on them or their relationship with C will be in jeopardy, maybe C tells D, E, F, and G to make a fuss. They comply because they are economically dependent on C. Country A backs down. B is grateful. But if country C taunts country B, and Country A doesn't have the influence to get anyone else to push back on that taunting. Country C gets its way. How those scenarios play out is very dependent on the relative sizes of Country A's economy and Country C's economy. Politicians are particularly afraid of biting the hand that trades with them.

moogleii 13y ago
So, what you're saying is, it's like starcraft, and he who mines more minerals wins.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Yup. Or sheep, bricks, and wood if you're a Catan fan.
usaar333 13y ago
> Not that we would, but should the US and China engage in endless WW2 style battles of attrition, the larger economy wins that engagement. Because at the end of the day the ability to replace assets trumps any initial tactical advantage. I don't think it is quite this simple. You could argue that the country that can sustain the higher defense budget will win [1], which is actually the United States. Reason being that China's population is 4x that of the United States, so significant parts of GDP need to just go to keeping everyone alive. [1] In the past; these days the US' technology superiority over China is so large that short-term budget changes still couldn't give China the edge.

hackuser 13y ago

> Yes, by one important economic metric, China wins. I know you mean that a bit sarcastically, but some people really thing that way. Don't we win too? If your business partner grows wealthier, isn't that good for you? I want all my business partners to become fabulously wealthy. It is true that, when it comes to politics (which includes armed conflict), it's better if your enemy is poor.

chc 13y ago
This depends very much on who you're doing business with and how much you like them. You might not prefer that the slightly shady guy you're forced to do business with on occasion become a big-name mobster with a protection racket.
mturmon 13y ago
Absolutely! By the way, having poor enemies and neighbors can be destabilizing as well. Think of Israel, or South Korea.

Lambdanaut 13y ago

China also has nearly 3 times the USA's population, as well as significantly less land. They may be making more money, but they also have more people they have to divide it between. They're far less wealthy in that sense.

joelwilliamson 13y ago
The US has more arable land. In terms of total land, China is the second largest contry in the world, behind only Russia.
ekm2 13y ago
The larger population might also mean more smart people to make even more money.