China Is Quietly Reshaping the World
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
If you feel threatened by the idea of a China that economically dominates, I would honestly like to hear your explanation. Or if your skepticism is ideological e.g., a general belief that undemocratic societies cannot prosper economically, I'd be curious about that as well.
That’s not to say they actually would do any of those things, the key point is the lack of trust, specifically trust that they would do anything to benefit us or protect us or that they care about us at all. I don’t trust them, and the specifics of what they could do to hurt us are not really something I consider (but as they become more powerful they have many more options... to the point where one day maybe we are dwarfed by them and have no ability to defend ourselves should we need to.) China is very scary to me.
Totally warranted, look at what happens during cold war, and the conflicts between nations with different ideologies. The mutual-untrustness cannot be reduced in any degree.
Chinese people also feel threatened by the West, because they don't trust you. There's not much more to it. They fear that you might abuse your power or use it to destabilize China. There's a lot of hatred of China, and they don't want you to try and trample Chinese norms, culture, society... things which they care about and are deeply connected to.
That's not to say the West actually would do any of those things, the key point is the lack of trust, specifically trust that you would do anything to benefit Chinese people or protect Chinese or that you care about them at all. They don't trust you, and the specifics of what you could do to hurt them are not really something they consider (but as you, the West is already powerful, you have many more options... to the point where one day maybe be the Chinese are dwarfed again by the West, and have no ability to defend themselves should they have to.) The west is very scary to Chinese people.
See how this goes?
I don’t see why my distrust of China implies to people that China is not allowed to distrust me, or that I’m somehow saying that They’re unique. This is a statement of fact. This is reality. I’m not being prescriptive here. I would personally like for China to be more friendly towards the us and vice versa but I’m not sitting here saying the us is perfect or free of sin. I don’t see why the us must be perfect before I can announce what is already reality, that I distrust China.
Perhaps you shouldn’t read my post as a diplomatic action, something that I just said as part of an argument to try and manipulate China or something, because that’s not what it is. It’s a statement of fact and some analysis on the cause. I’m not trying to criticize China or convince China to change, even if I would definitely like that to happen, and think it should.
Maybe what you fear is not that you are threatened, but that your current way of threatening other people in the world is no more. What you fear is change.
And yes, you are stating the facts: one of the ugly parts of human nature.
I fear a loss of security. You’re overthinking it to say I’m attached to the fact that our security comes from threats. Security is what matters, not being threatening. I think your comment is a little bit rude to be honest, but that’s not a big deal.
As it is written, as you judge, so shall you be judged. If your standard is that countries should not abuse their power to destabilize other countries, then historically doesn't China actually hold the high ground?
The Europeans were the first to truly develop navies capable of projecting force at such great distances, beginning in the Renaissance period, and everyone else has been playing catch-up.
By your logic, the Romans or Greeks or ancient Egyptians were a peace-loving peoples because they didn't bother China much either.
But if you look at what was possible, based on the technological capabilities at the time, China has never been as peaceful as they constantly claim. Just ask any of their neighbors, many of whom have explicitly created defense pacts with the US and the West because of historical fear of an aggressive China.
Note I'm not trying to say the West deserves any trust. But based on China's history and its current behavior as it does become more capable, combined with the constant Chinese PR about their 'peaceful rise', I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
"as the Confucian bureaucracy under the next emperor reversed the policy of open exploration and by 1500, it became a capital offence to build a seagoing junk with more than two masts."[0]
This is also documented: https://www.amazon.com/Civilization-West-Rest-Niall-Ferguson....
But when talking about "ability" to influence distant nations, having a bigger and better ship than Columbus at the time kind of means they had the ability. [0]
They just didn't care about finding another route to India for spices or mining some distant silver mountain. They already had those.
I'm not sure how that provides any guidance on how a CCP-led China would handle foreign policy in a completely different era though. This whole discussion seems sort of pointless to me.
They most likely were at that time.
>>> Obviously, that turned out to be a total failure of a policy as China was rapidly surpassed by the West over the next several centuries and is still catching up today
You don't know that. Maybe expanding beyond your means for no good economic reason would have been a bad idea?
And the reason they're catching up today has little to do with that decision. The industrial revolution or the enlightenment didn't happen because Columbus discovered America.
>>> This whole discussion seems sort of pointless to me
Agreed.
No, it doesn't. Just look around what they did to their neighbors. The weasel word "distant" doesn't change a thing: China has bullied other nations for a long time and there is little reason to believe that they won't do it again.
Do you not see those articles where China build artificial islands and try to enforce the China seas as if they own all of it? They bully everybody, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, etc..
They're doing this because of the oil in the area and to exert dominance. USA on the other way just want everybody to be okay cause you know USA is all about money and business. If you lock that area like China is doing USA can't really profit.
I think in general I rather have USA ideology over China bullying.
It because of a fear of missing resources that may be scarce and invaluable. Not just oil, fish too, and access to shipping lanes. This is not incompatible with US interests.
Quarrels about borders exist also in democratic countries, the only difference is that there good diplomatic ties are usually seen as more important.
China also patently doesn’t give a crap about equal countries or cultural issues - they want and need to be the top, and so that’s what they are going to Do.
I am an American, but the USA is not exactly a paragon of non-interventionalism. The US has had a far more aggressive and interventionalist foreign policy over the past century than China. I think that America would serve not only the global order but it's own citizens far better by offering a more standoffish, less aggressive foreign policy. That would also go a long way if you want to take the high road with other countries on being too aggressive with their neighbors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/world/asia/china-aircraft...
You know what's better than aircraft carriers? An island!
So long as you're working in the interest of US Businesses that is. Just ask the South American Democracies about the benevolent USA taking care of them.
I think people are just more comfortable with the enemy they know.
When the United States wants an island and its surrounding territory, it doesn't build a new one. It takes over an existing island and depopulates it by force.
Diego Garcia was located far away from any potential threats, it was low in a
native population and it was an island that was not sought after by other
countries as it lacked economic interest...Diego Garcia and other acquired
islands would play a key role in maintaining US dominance.
The Chagossians had to be removed from the island before the base could be
constructed. In 1968, the first tactics were implemented to decrease the
population of Diego Garcia. Those who left the island—either for vacation or
medical purposes—were not allowed to return, and those who stayed could
obtain only restricted food and medical supplies. This tactic was in hope
that those that stayed would leave "willingly". One of the tactics used was
that of the killings of Chagossian pets. Dogs were carried into sheds where
they were gassed in front of their owners.[1]
But that's fine, because the USA just wants everybody to be okay.
Criticizing the history of the United States is fine, but it's not even in the same universe regarding human rights abuses. China continues to purge and "disappear" people, so I can understand why you wouldn't want to talk about 2017.
But that's fine, that's clearly ancient history.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Marine_Protected_Area
We're talking about 2,000 people being exiled. I understand that this injustice may be meaningful to you, but we are talking about a country that has forcibly resettled hundreds of millions of people, and continues to relocate tens of thousands yearly.
I will never defend illegal actions taken by the US. However, by mentioning the two in the same breath you're normalizing one of the most objectively evil dictatorships in the world.
Can you give me few examples of that? As a Chinese I'm interested.
The distinction is not as clear-cut as you claim, that is if you factor in America's many ongoing foreign entanglements around the world, including those which are not so well-known. America still "disappears" people.
Notice that I never said that the US hasn't committed shameful human rights abuses. I'd be happy to discuss them. Most are taught in schools, like Kent State in which 4 students were killed. Do the Chinese teach about Tiananmen, where hundreds were killed?
If you seriously want to compare the US to one of the bloodiest nations in the history of the world, I'll take that comparison any day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualt...
The US killed roughly 20% of the population of North Korea with direct targeted bombings of civilian centers and infrastructure.[1] They destroyed so much of the country that they ran out of targets. Civilian death estimates for North Korea alone start around 1.5 million.
"We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too." — General Curtis LeMay
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-war-crime-nor...
Meanwhile, most estimates put North Korea's total deaths at between 400 and 700 thousand. I'm sure you'll find many war crimes on both sides. The crimes of North Korea do not justify those of the US, and those of the US do not justify those of North Korea. If you insist on comparing them, again, I'll take that comparison any day.
To put this another way, the fact that the US has done X, does not excuse 1000X done by repressive regimes around the world. Trying to cast the US as the world's "bad guy" isn't brave or controversial, it just gives cover to the truly evil nations committing ongoing genocide.
Funnily enough, the EU is the chief purveyor of this equivocation, regularly chiding the US for it’s privacy laws while hypocritically issuing exemptions to China for its repression of political dissidents and keeping conspicuously quiet regarding its censorship.
Translation: "USA, USA, USA, USA".
If you think about it not as a citizen or partisan but in terms of systems of human organization, the question to ask is: "Why is it that different nations with different cultures still manage to have some of the same moral blind spots?"
In this view, Hitler's concentration camps, Gitmo, and the Russian Gulag are all serving the same function. The difference is in magnitude.
The idea that citing equivalence is dishonest rests on the idea that magnitude is all that matters in moral issues. If Jerry Sandusky had only molested one child would he be a significantly better person than he is after molesting dozens? Sorry I don't really feel the need to canonize someone who unlike Sandusky only managed to victimize one person, nor would I feel the need to give Sandusky any credit if a person were discovered who had victimized thousands.
My point is that ugly things happen for a variety of reasons. All regimes (the US, NK, Russia, China, etc.) benefit in some way from identifying a class of people to imprison as political prisoners. The US is generally able to keep the number imprisoned fairly small and keep them overseas where they are out of sight and out of mind. Other nations are not able to manage this and must imprison more people.
Similarly, any spouse may benefit from intimidating the other spouse in some way. Some do it verbally, while others do it physically. Sure you can get on a moral high horse and say that only the physical form of intimidation is bad, that verbal threats are harmless. That's analogous to the idea that Gitmo is harmless but NK or Russia's treatment of political prisoners is deeply concerning.
Note that my argument is not that both are equally bad. They are not. My argument is that they are both bad enough that we have s much stronger moral duty to fix the problems at home before we focus our energy on politicizing similar issues abroad.
I can understand if you don't want to learn about this stuff. You sound young, or naively gloaty at least. If you think talking about 4 people is relevant then prepare for a big shock. It's really a horrific story though. I learned about it until I couldn't stand it anymore...all that stuff about central America in the 80s is so depressing. But no more than e.g. 800,000 (!) bombing raids on Laos in 1964-73, dropping more bombs than in the whole of WWII. Understandably it's hard to get precise figures, or any kind of figure, for killing on such a huge scale. You guys don't bother counting these days. Do people born with birth defects from chemical weapons count? Killed with unexploded bombs after a 'war' - 20,000 in Laos alone since 1973. ... Did you hear they were using uranium bullets in the latest Iraq slaughter?! I wonder how long that will cause 'problems'. I guess I first learnt about most of this from Chomsky's earlier political books, and following up his references and reading elsewhere, until it was all too depressing and I had to stop. He wasn't making it up. The way he straight-facedly reports the grotesque pronouncements of officials, letting the facts condemn themselves, is not something forgettable.
I found this source[0] saying 20 million after a moment's googling. (And a minute checking the site didn't seem obviously insane.) I'm no expert at all. I didn't think "millions" was particularly controversial. I don't think I've seen a total figure estimate before, but from the stuff I've read about Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, central America, Iraq x2 etc etc, I thought "millions" was pretty inarguable. Just read about all the places the U.S. has invaded/bombed/'interfered with' in the 20th C. You'll be doing well to make it halfway. Often because they were getting too democratic, not doing what the U.S. wanted, the "threat of a good example", that's the depressing thing. Then cover the whole thing up with propaganda so the U.S. public thinks it was all in a good cause. Pretty sickening.
Do you only count 'domestic' human rights abuses? And 'non enemy combatants'? So if they fight back, their human rights aren't abusable or something. (Or they just slaughter whole villages and say they were enemy soldiers. See wikipedia page on Vietnam casualties) And I guess 'directly caused' means if the U.S. gets rids of democracy and installs a dictator (e.g. Iran), and sells them weapons, like they did so many times in the 20th C, (and probably graduates of U.S. torture school) well, anything bad that happens later isn't 'directly caused' by the U.S.?
Anyway. Oh also Scott Noble's documentaries are available on his site[1], some covering aspects of this subject. I think they're excellent, also very depressing, although they feature some very inspiring people.
[0] https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-mil... [1] http://metanoia-films.org/films/
It also includes all deaths on both sides of the wars that they judged the US to have been a factor in, regardless of whether the US was involved.
- It includes 1.6 million deaths from the Soviet Union's war on Afghanistan, which the US was not involved in, because the US "lured the Soviet Union into war".
- It includes 750,000 deaths from the US arming Angolan revolutionaries overthrowing colonial rulers.
That's just "A" on the alphabetical list of countries. If you want to blame the US for every tangential death, you can do so openly here. While you do that, China continues to actively repress a billion people.
I mentioned Kent State because it's the standard Chinese apologist response to Tienanmen.
You should read more about some of the countries we were fighting. Many of the things that the US did in Cambodia and Iraq were utterly shameful. While we did those shameful things, they were committing genocide [1][2].
History is more complicated than an evil US butchering every innocent country it can find.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_genocide
I do seem to remember Saddam got into power with U.S. help, then they sold him about 10 kinds of chemical weapons. Have heard a bit about Pol Pot. Not sure why you just mention those 2 countries.
If I want to what?... Uh. So I guess you know all about the U.S-funded fanning of extreme Muslim flames in the area. With the purpose of starting a war, wasn't it? But sure, 'tangential', no abuse of human rights there.
Well, maybe you're an expert - what do you believe is the total number killed by the U.S.? Less than "millions"?
I notice you did the straw man thing that you did here also with user982's LeMay comment - finishing your post with something the other person didn't say and saying it's not true.
Also I'm getting that you think the U.S. isn't evil but other countries are 'truly evil'. Sounds familiar.
Well, thanks. Sorry, I wish I had the interest/energy/time etc for a long exchange about this, but I don't.
You and User982 are criticizing the easy target that is the US and in the process deflecting from the vast oppressive machine that is China. This is a post about China, and US atrocities don't excuse the greater Chinese ones. No straw man involved.
No-one said you called the US perfect. No-one said US atrocities excuse Chinese ones. I guess if by definition you say Chinese ones are greater, and I guess they are one of the "truly evil" countries you referred to, there's not much can be said to you. The US merely has done evil things - other countries actually are truly evil. I guess it's natural for humans to think that way about their own group, but still, it bears reflecting on, that each group thinks that way about itself and others.
Whole countries have disappeared in the 20th C when they say they want to do things their own way, not the way the US wants - not just individuals. But it seems you don't see that. "Trying to cast the US as the world's "bad guy" isn't brave or controversial, it just gives cover to the truly evil nations committing ongoing genocide." There are a number of interesting things going on in that sentence. It's so thick with what seem to me labels, ad hominem dismissals, false assumptions, straw men etc that it's impossible for you to hear what is said to you on this subject. You said criticism is fine but keep coming up with reasons why it's not. This has been interesting for me, thanks.
Anyway, I'm still wondering - are you only interested in what the total number of US killings has been, or only what it isn't? What's your estimate of the total? You are obviously better informed than me on the subject, or at least think you are, having told me to read more about it.
I repeat: What's your estimate of the total number of US killings?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
Sure, with US this is more or less open policy but it does not really make it any more respectable. It just shows US has the propaganda advantage.
China represses their own citizens, US blows other countries citizens to bits.
I still value US military assets in Europe and elsewhere but the question is not really about who has intrinsically higher morals.
I.e a region always has someone with the biggest capability of violence and of the current geopolitical players, I would prefer the US camp. But this does not make them the 'good guys', rather, generally the least evil.
That said, the numbers of people harmed by the US and China are not remotely comparable. Bringing up the US in a discussion about China does nothing but give cover to a country which continues to repress a fifth of the world's population.
Europe and the US have plenty of moral failings. Using those to undermine every criticism of far worse countries is itself a failing. Claiming relativism between imperfect nations and tyrants helps only the tyrants.
I was not very verbose. My aim was to point out nation states are not that different in their capability to sacrifice moral for power. That in itself does not excuse any malfeasance.
It's not really about the oil, if it does exist. It's about control of their eastern border and access to the pacific ocean, especially in the context of all the neighbouring countries being US allies and potentially being usable by the US in the case of a conflict.
Simply put, if China doesn't control the South China Sea, then they can be blockaded. If they control it, then they can't. Sea access is incredibly important - for military, economic, food and energy security. Their actions in the SCS are a no-brainer from their perspective and the only surprising thing is why it took them so long.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5149981
US operates for it's own benefit. Just like everyone else. The real life is not a Hollywood movie with good guys and bad. In real life, everybody wants to improve their status, and those that don't, sink.
Thanks for representing 1.4 billion Chinese, being a westerner surely gives you such right to assume that we Chinese are all being repressed. well done!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system
imagine being an illegal immigrant in your own country because you aren't legally allowed to live in major cities
furthermore, you're describing urban-to-urban movement in your post for some reason...you're either being very disingenuous in that regard because the main issue with the hukou system is that it blocks rural-to-urban, or i know more about it than you do...
China has done some work to soften the system a little and there have been recurrent talks of abolishing it altogether. Hopefully it goes into the dustbin of history one day.
You're allowed to physically go anywhere and visit as a tourist. It's just that if you want to to permanently move to another city, you have to do a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork. In reality, people move around all the time, but it's rate-limited, and it's easier to go from a dense place to a less dense place.
As a point of comparison, consider the housing crisis in San Francisco. One could facetiously argue that political forces limiting the housing supply creates a similar effect.
what about moving from a rural town to to a major city permanently? or even just being able to legally work in a major city as someone who isnt able to get the proper clearance?
if im misunderstanding, please educate me
The restrictions are on some interesting aspects, like real estates purchases, college entrance exam for children, social security stuffs.
Hukou is evil, just not the kind of evil you are thinking about.
However, except for marrying or (sometimes) after graduation from college, you are not allowed to change your Hukou. Many (most?) of the people living and working in the 'supercites' of Shenzhen, Shanghai, Chongqing, and Beijing do not have Hukou residency. Even being born there does not confer the right, if your parents do not have residency.
Lack of Hukou prevents purchase of real-estate, and high-school education for children, but for the last 2 years it has been possible to get state healthcare. This leads to much higher costs of living which prevents the poor from moving to the cities en masse.
It's about time to paste this guy's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/serpentza
If you seriously interested about the question you just asked, take your time, watch those videos.
Hukou covered in one of them, among visa policy if my memory is correct.
You're free to oppress yourselves. You're even free to believe that your slavery is freedom. But I have no doubt in my mind that China and its vision of the ideal society would be repressive to me and negatively affect my way of life.
See, I like being divisive and value the ability of a society to be disrupted in favor of bigger and better things. For example, we value the ability to petition and protest our government or society when it does something bad because that way we get progress.
The Chinese way to respond to a social grievance, whether you like/know/acknowledge it or not, is to just murder everyone and deny anything ever happened. Granted, that's also known to happen in America-backed dictatorships, but at least they don't do it at home.
And that's the culture you export- encouraging harmony, monotony, and social conservatism ("don't rock the boat") in countries they support rather than free thought, diversity, and innovation. I'd hate for the remaining 5/6ths of the planet to be under the boot of an immutable society in love with its own stagnation and mediocrity.
I think recent times are showing an issue with protest. In a democracy, if the 'side' that 'loses' (democracy is ideally a collective decision of individuals trying to come to the objectively best decision, not a team sport trying to beat the other team - the founding fathers feared parties for good reason) decides to try to disrupt society in response, that simply doesn't work.
I think the true value in protest were sides managing to illustrate to others that support for views, that did not seem popular, did indeed have substantial support. The civil rights protests are a good example. The status quo of America was 'separate but equal'. Clearly many did not really believe this, but it can be difficult to express views that run contrary to the perceived majority of a society. Protest enabled these people to unify and others to feel more comfortable "coming out", as it were. In today's society, the internet serves this purpose. You can find and organize support nationally, and even internationally, for any view. This is a reason that I think having a completely free and open internet is crucial.
The Vietnam War is a good example of protests that were not useful, even though they did have a good overlap with the civil rights protests. Many people vehemently opposed the war, but many also supported it. So it turned into the sort of protest that is not about enabling people to come out (as it was already completely acceptable within society to support or oppose the war) but simply because one side was upset that they were not getting their way. There was lots of chaos caused, lots of social disruption, and it changed absolutely nothing.
Imagine the issues the US is having today, and then multiply our population by well over 400% with a proportional (if not exponential) increase in mutual antagonism. I think we're already starting to reach the breaking point of our political systems. So I think simply assuming our system and its status quo suddenly strapped onto a population 400% larger, without massive changes, is not really reasonable.
Smaller land mass? At least based on pure numbers 9.6 (China) vs 9.8 (Us) million square kilometers is not relatively massively different.
China, on the other hand, does not seem remarkable: higher than the European average, lower than Germany, way lower than India.
http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Population+density+of+Chi...
Of course, it's a pointless metric and it fails to capture that China, too, is for the most part a wasteland devoid of human life and it still has about five times the USA's average density.
China is rapidly leading in solar panel production, implementing CRISPR tech, super computers, and now building a modern Silk Road. Perhaps they are stagnating on the human rights front, but they are not stagnating in tech and economic growth.
2. Poor oversight of loans causing volatility in commodity markets and general mayhem http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-02/pledged-assets-are-...
Interestingly Michael Pettis's site was hacked and killed multiple times before he moved it to Carnegie Endowments for International Peace. One can only wonder how.
Like the rising US stock market and real estate prices, without accompanying consumer standard of living?
> Poor oversight of loans causing volatility in commodity markets and general mayhem
Like the 2008 crash?
What about the other way?
Your examples prove the point. 3M is a manufacturing company that distributes face masks. Microsoft collects payments because diplomatic pressure from the US coerced China into paying for software licenses. And Yahoo stopped being active in any meaningful way more than a decade ago: their Chinese search engine even redirects to Singapore. All three companies are also effectively guaranteed to have more Chinese hires working overseas than foreign staff working in China.
Like it or not, the bias against China is easy to understand: China is racist and non-meritocratic in ways that Western economies are not. Tech workers face harsh wage competition (from Chinese workers) and commercial competition (from ventures with direct or indirect state backing) without any countervailing upside (the ability to compete in the Chinese market or play off Chinese against American employers).
The grand bargain being attempted in China since the '80s is that economic growth achieved by any means (by hook or by crook) will work to pay off the citizenry and prevent reforms in the political arena in the direction of freedom and democracy.
Thus those sympathetic to the growth of freedom and democracy and opposed to power projection of a dictatorship are going to be skeptical and critical of news of Chinese economic growth and international investment.
Also, since Chinese policies within their economic sphere of influence are explicitly protectionist, the expansion of that sphere materially threatens the non-Chinese firms currently brushing up against that sphere (and their future successors).
BEIJING: China today warned that it would consider as a "major offence" if any country or foreign leader hosts or meets the Dalai Lama as it deems the Tibetan spiritual leader a "separatist" trying to split Tibet from it.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/meeting-dala...
I think what's actually more worrisome is what happens when China stops growing. The CCP is extremely authoritarian, China's residents are nationalistic and already consider a whole foreign country "actually theirs", it seems like the perfect setup for maybe-accidentally sliding into war when things go sour back at home. As a German, I am not scared of China because they're an exotic "other" culture with 5000 years of history etc., but because they look like fellow Germans at their absolutely worst. Having met Chinese who revere Hitler hasn't really helped.
Paranoid? Maybe. We Germans are schooled to be extremely wary of aggressive nationalism :)
> ...a general belief that undemocratic societies cannot prosper economically...
This question doesn't compute for me. Democracy was always explained to me as a mechanism to keep countries peaceful and stable at the expense of economic efficiency.
1. China's economy is headed for a slump - either a severe recession or 'lost decade'. China is taking on enormous debt to fund infrastructure projects which on the whole will not generate a good economic return. They have an overheated property market. Looking at economic history over the past 100 years, there have been few countries that have had capital expenditure as a percentage of GDP approaching China's level, and when they did it almost always ended badly.
2. But In the longer term China's economy is on track to greatly exceed the US - there's no doubt that they are following the economic path of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. Military strength correlates with economic size, so before the end of this century China will be the dominant superpower [1]
3. As an Australian I'm concerned by China's rise, but I wouldn't say 'threatened'. Our economy has benefited enormously by China's economic success - mostly through the mining industry, but also education and tourism. My concern stems from a belief that open, democratic governments are much better behaved - how many of the 20th century's horrors could have been avoided by a free press and fair elections? The current superpower, the U.S., is far more open and democratic than China, and it has never had mass hysteria like the Cultural Revolution. I hope that China becomes more free and democratic as it gains strength, but if it doesn't Australia and the world will probably still be OK. Probably.
[1] Curiously, the one thing that could prevent the U.S. from losing its military dominance in the long term - ie. a high immigration level - is opposed by 'conservatives' in the US.
1. Conquering the industries that they are lagging in(i.e auto and semiconductor) by disguising govt subsides as state "support" and flouting WTO rules[1].
2. Spend money on belt and road thingy to prop up GDP because there is no more to spend on existing overheated asset bubbles.
Remember all those years of propping up GDP in construction projects, where the interest on debt(and the debt itself too) becomes too large a portion of the GDP such that most of it goes to just servicing the debt. Ultimately you want consumer spending and standard of living to grow in lock step but it does not[2].
But ultimately with extra spending and little growth they will keep running against fundamental issues like the Impossible Trinity[3] which is like the CAP theorem of macro economics. Unless the economy balances spending and real growth, and if it does not the only Q is when will it burst or become like Japan's decades of stagnation.
[1]https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172944... [2] http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/72997 [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
This is often said, but even after reading the linked article it’s not clear why that’s desirable.
Why not for example keep growing exports instead of domestic consumption?
"Scholars who looked at Chinese investment in Africa from 1991 to 2010 found that Chinese assistance does not appear to help economic growth..."
However, the article linked is actually about Chinese government assistance in Pakistan (not Africa) and the impact on Pakistan's relationship with India -- not about Chinese private investment at all, nor about Africa.
>_>
This gets repeated a lot. Maybe Chinese propaganda make this point to justify its outward investments to the Chinese people. Statements like this then take on a sinister sheen when discussed in the West.
Commodities are fungible and China is rich in natural resources itself. Oil is the one thing it is insecure about yet the insecurity is much more about a potential blockade in time of conflict than insufficiency of suppliers. Yes it has interests to see more supplies so it certainly would encourage investments in natural resources but to control the resources? That doesn't even make sense in the modern (WTO) context. It can't even control rare earth exports when 90% of the supply is based inside China, how can it expect to control supplies outside of China?
China has a high savings rate and runs a trade surplus and by necessity it will export capital. There is no other way around it. The Chinese government right now finds it more attractive investing in overseas infrastructures than buying more US Treasury bills.
Why can't China now run a huge deficit like the US is expected / encouraged to do, thus becoming consumers of products built in the US and Europe, instead of the other way around?
You say there is no other way around it.
Actually there is, but China prefers to play unfairly (though I agree they wouldn't get away with it if our own business and political leaders weren't so corrupt and short-sighted).
Because banks and other Govenments believe that there is a ~20% chance that China will implode and have a popular revolution over the next decade for any given decade. That's Morgan Stanley's number, other banks may project different numbers. China is incredibly unstable relative to the US and European countries. Half of China, does not want to be part of China, and not in a joking, "Texas will secede" type of way. There's tons of poverty, not enough water, overpopulation. There's little democratic self correcting mechanisms.
As for why they don't have a trade deficit: to run a trade deficit domestic investment rate needs to exceed savings rate. They have a high savings rate. They are already accused of doing too much domestic investment to prop up the economy so an even higher investment rate is not a solution. They can try to lower the savings rate by increasing welfare spending.
As for why it may not want a trade deficit: China can't borrow in its own currency from foreigners like US, that is Chinese RMB is not a major reserve currency. To fund trade deficits with USD denominated market borrowing would expose its economy to mood swings of foreign investors.
That's because statements like that are nothing new if looked at from a historical context. E.g. there was this German word "lebensraum", meaning "living space", that was used to justify Imperial Germany's goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
That whole lebensraum thing didn't end well, for anyone involved.
To manufacture a product in Hebei and ship it from Tianjin, or manufacture in Jiangsu and ship from Shanghai/Ningbo, or manufacture in Guangdong and ship from Shenzhen, is pretty cheap.
To do the same in western provinces is much harder. There's a big regional disparency. While China's landmass goes far west, (western) Sichuan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, the western provinces I mean are the shanxis, gansu, sichuan, yunan with large population bases.
Myanmar was also not mentioned in the article, but will also play an important role as support to southwestern China's access to the ocean.
Chinese loans seem to be on the rise: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-loans/rpt-upda...
So, will something similar happen here too?
These investments are not really Chinese government's money to give unless it wants to tax its people more. What Chinese government has is a very large sway over where Chinese external investments go since it requires exporters to sell their forex earnings and large outward investments require state approvals. But these investments are not taken from depositors as a tax. The depositors still have claims on the Chinese banks. What the Chinese government/banks do is really to provide a guarantee to the domestic depositors as intermediaries. If the investments go bad they will have to plug the financial hole somehow.
Another very important point IMHO is that the end result of this will depend a lot on how productive will these investments turn out to be; will they create good returns or not? If returns are good, they will create wealth and everybody will probably be happy in the end. If returns will be poor, I'm afraid they could end up creating very big tensions in the future between China and the countries that are getting indebted now.
But it is impressive though, I just can't believe they will actually achieve it. Already done internal loaners are failing and they are holding back European expansion ( Chinese firms) on command of the Chinese government.
But as usual, we will see
I always thought China's motto was: Fake it, untill you make it ( their annual growth of 8% is based on a big part on empty buildings and not repaying loans. It is controlled by the governement and they try to eliminate the crisis by expanding influence in the world. Eg. Too big to fail)
----------
In short, the growth of China is artifically inflated to 8% per year, since many years --> huge internal debt. Now they are doing the same on a global scale. We are all doomed :)
https://amp.ft.com/content/a6086a9a-5059-11e7-bfb8-997009366...
https://theconversation.com/is-china-on-the-verge-of-a-banki...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/211...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-financial-crisis_...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/15/chinas-debt-b...
Just like IMF "loans" many of these are given with the understanding that the receiving country will never be able to pay it back. The goal is to gain control. So they might go and agree to "restructure" the loans if the country agrees to number of conditions, like say opening the market for more Chinese companies "hey my cousin such and such owns a recycling plant, how about your country lets him dump some of the byproducts in your landfills, and we'll forgive some of these loans" kind of stuff.
No way.
The IMF is a benevolent entity, with benevolent principles.
Because African leaders grab 15% off the top, and then squander the rest, does not make it a failing, directly of the IMF.
Why do we point fingers at 'Westerners' when Africans are failed and corrupt?
Yes - a pragmatic/cynical person might have 'expected' that the nation would not be able to pay it off, because they understand what's going on.
Also, there are some firms trying to 'cook the books' to get in on the major deals, even when they fully well know it's not possible ...
BUT - the IMF is not intentionally a weapon of economic power in this regard.
America wants South Americans to be consumers of their products - not perpetually broke and unable to even make repayment loans.
Nobody really wins when those IMF deals go black, other than some warlords and some dam/energy plant builders.
Edit: The 'IMF Agent' mythology is one of the worst of the conspiratorial issues to be popularized by the illiterati over the last few decades - and consistent with other economic conspiracy theories: because there are definitely 'bad actors' (on all sides) that have come to be revealed, conspiracists assume that there are these nefarious overlords.
Siemens bribing a surveyor to fudge data to make an investment look better does not make the IMF evil.
African leaders pocketing the cash does not make the IMF evil.
Their inability to actually complete the project on budget/time does not make the IMF evil.
Even when projections were 'altered' - it still worked out for the better. The electricity requirements for Indonesia were fudged overstated when they were taking on loans to build electricity generation facilities. Corruption? Well, maybe. But in fact, actual electricity usage far outpaced the 'higher, fudged' numbers in the first place, thus obviating the nature of the fudge.
Anyone who thinks that the IMF are evil actors should go around and hang out with some of them and see what kind of people they are.
2cnd Edit:
The most obvious evidence against the 'evil IMF' claims is that the economic argument doesn't add up: making low-interest loans that are very risk in terms of default, and other things like political risk - has to be 'the worst' kind of investment one could possibly make.
Make a $500M loan at lower interest than you can elsewhere, with a 25% chance you won't get paid back and a 50% chance the deal will go whacky at some point and have to be re-financed?
Nobody would be willing make that investment.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-ports-idU...
The loss of sovereignty is the most extreme example for of course. Leasing is something in between. Though 99 years is a pretty long time.
"You can't pay, ok how about we'll just take control of this little part of your country for 99 years".
1. Abuse human rights.
2. A dictatorship.
3. South China sea.
But the internet will happily use "Made in China" shamelessly. Hypocrisy at its best.
The internet being the western majority crowd who have never seen a world outside of their state.
As seen on youtube
" Do you support Iraq war"
Yeah absolutely. They have WMD.
Show me where Iraq is on this map.
Points to Madagascar.
500 million of the world's poorest people still live in China. While they have a long ways to go yet, every bit of progress helps the rest of the world tremendously.
With regard to climate change, they are now more progressive than the US. Perhaps the chinese emphasis on long term thinking and the importance of future generations is counteracting the negative effects of their ruthless and undemocratic regime.
The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news...
High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance.
Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.
Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.
China has been the richest country in the world at many points in world history, heck, even at its worse, it has always been self sufficient. They never got global aid like say Ethiopia did. At best, they had some Russian technical help before the sino soviet split.
Now, it is important to understand that the Chinese communist party and the US are ideological opposites. And this is reflected in policies such as censorship and redaction of Internet content.
Market dominance comes with political influence. These infrastructure projects not only have trade implications but influence implications as well.