3 ms·

You are being reasonable and measured, which I appreciate. But I have to forcefully object. I don't think these observations, which are obvious, and which hav

by mturmon 13y ago

You are being reasonable and measured, which I appreciate. But I have to forcefully object. I don't think these observations, which are obvious, and which have obvious rejoinders given nearby, move the conversation forward. Repeating them whenever some metric or other (and the metric in the article is cooked, by using purchasing power) exhibits a US/China crossover is just not interesting. Doing so in this bizarre horse-race style ("who is winning") is ridiculous and deserves to be condemned as intellectually vacuous. What would it look like to actually move the conversation forward? Good question. Maybe the actual cause for celebration should be lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty. (Exclusive of considerations relating to the US!). Or maybe the interesting phenomenon would be when Chinese start using their new purchasing power to get political influence over decisions affecting their lives. Viewing this as some kind of horse race forces a mostly inherently-Chinese phenomenon (that we should all observe with interest and pleasure) into a perverse "I mostly care about this because it knocks me off my #1 rank." Which I feel is missing the point in a deep way.

ChuckMcM 13y ago
That is certainly one way of looking at the situation, but it misses the point. I claim that the Chinese politburo cares as much about "lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty" as the US Government cares about "reforming the campaign contribution process." What those two, apparently disjoint topics, have in common is that both are a threat to power of the people currently in power in the respective governments. The whole 'crowning' or 'we're number 1' sort of stuff that you were asserting was so mystical and unnecessary is in fact, in the world policy arena, the only point. This point cannot possibly more clearly illustrated than the shenanigans going on in Ukraine at this very instant. Russia of five years ago would never have made as provocative move as they did had they not believed the US and its allies incapable of responding. Russia, in the form of Vladimir Putin, feels very much like someone who can get away with annexing a neighboring country for the same reasons that Hitler was ok with annexing his neighboring countries. The belief that the will to act would not overcome the potential cost of acting. An emergent China will annex Taiwan and it will not be so that they can lift up the Taiwanese citizens, it will because they can, citizens be damned. They will also annex large regions of the border with India, same reasoning. They will do this, and potentially succeed in doing so, by virtue of their place as the pre-eminent economy on the planet. Defy them and they don't have to fire a shot to take out your economy, they just have to cut trade with your economy and blammo, recession if not depression time. In grade school, the class doesn't get together and elect the class bully. The class bully takes that position by beating up or intimidating everyone else. Basically being the baddest actor in the set of possible actors. What the Economist alludes to with their pithy "Pacific Century" is that the China, as the largest economy, gets to be the boss. Not because they were elected, but because they can punish folks who don't toe the line, just as the US has repeatedly done to people over the last 50 years. I could give you lots of examples real or hypothesized, but the key is the weaker economy risks more in a showdown than the stronger one does, and that has been the basis for world governance and policy since 1948. The one line summary of the Economist article is "When China's economy exceeds that of the US, China will be calling the policy shots on the world stage, not the US." It is that ability to shape world policy that will make them the new 'boss' not some imagined contest between horses. My guess is that you should care in a deep way because China has a different opinion on what constitutes 'human rights' than the current world order does.
- mturmon 13y ago
  It's not just the US that is enforcing norms like the ones you mention. It will also be the rest of the world, and, we can hope, the citizens of China.

by mturmon 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago

That is certainly one way of looking at the situation, but it misses the point. I claim that the Chinese politburo cares as much about "lifting millions of Chinese out of poverty" as the US Government cares about "reforming the campaign contribution process." What those two, apparently disjoint topics, have in common is that both are a threat to power of the people currently in power in the respective governments. The whole 'crowning' or 'we're number 1' sort of stuff that you were asserting was so mystical and unnecessary is in fact, in the world policy arena, the only point. This point cannot possibly more clearly illustrated than the shenanigans going on in Ukraine at this very instant. Russia of five years ago would never have made as provocative move as they did had they not believed the US and its allies incapable of responding. Russia, in the form of Vladimir Putin, feels very much like someone who can get away with annexing a neighboring country for the same reasons that Hitler was ok with annexing his neighboring countries. The belief that the will to act would not overcome the potential cost of acting. An emergent China will annex Taiwan and it will not be so that they can lift up the Taiwanese citizens, it will because they can, citizens be damned. They will also annex large regions of the border with India, same reasoning. They will do this, and potentially succeed in doing so, by virtue of their place as the pre-eminent economy on the planet. Defy them and they don't have to fire a shot to take out your economy, they just have to cut trade with your economy and blammo, recession if not depression time. In grade school, the class doesn't get together and elect the class bully. The class bully takes that position by beating up or intimidating everyone else. Basically being the baddest actor in the set of possible actors. What the Economist alludes to with their pithy "Pacific Century" is that the China, as the largest economy, gets to be the boss. Not because they were elected, but because they can punish folks who don't toe the line, just as the US has repeatedly done to people over the last 50 years. I could give you lots of examples real or hypothesized, but the key is the weaker economy risks more in a showdown than the stronger one does, and that has been the basis for world governance and policy since 1948. The one line summary of the Economist article is "When China's economy exceeds that of the US, China will be calling the policy shots on the world stage, not the US." It is that ability to shape world policy that will make them the new 'boss' not some imagined contest between horses. My guess is that you should care in a deep way because China has a different opinion on what constitutes 'human rights' than the current world order does.

mturmon 13y ago
It's not just the US that is enforcing norms like the ones you mention. It will also be the rest of the world, and, we can hope, the citizens of China.