Hacker News Reader

Comment by landryraccoon | Hacker News Reader

I am curious about the prevailing fetish for adopting a hyper critical stance towards China's growth rate. Is it just me, or does it seem that when articles are posted portaying China in a positive light, the immediate tendency is to adopt a critical or skeptical stance? Of course a certain amount of skepticism is warranted, but I feel that these criticisms take on a bit more of a personal tinge, as if there is something ominous or threatening about China's growing economic influence.

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.

View on HN

> If you feel threatened by the idea of a China that is economically globally dominated, I would honestly like to hear your explanation.

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.

> 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.

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.

On a phone right now so can't write a long reply but you need to read up on some of the history around US corporate colonialism. Try looking at the origin of the phrase "Banana Republic" or the history of pre-Castro Cuba.

The articles about the South China Sea always make me curious because all the countries are involved in claiming non-islands. China is simply late to the party and is making similar claims than the other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Quarrels about borders exist also in democratic countries, the only difference is that there good diplomatic ties are usually seen as more important.

A better analogy would be that there’s an argument on land between various farming households. China is now using heavy machinery to change the flow of the river which served as the naturally boundary and saying “see, this ALL used to be mine.”

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.

> 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..

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.

China has not been able to project power over the last century, so of course the US is going to have been more interventionist. Even today the Chinese navy only has one relatively small, foreign made aircraft carrier. Compare that to the US navy in the 1940s; maybe the only thing that allowed China to continue to exist as a sovereign nation.

They launched their first domestically built carrier last April. (Technically, it hasn't completed what we'd call sea trials and commissioning.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/world/asia/china-aircraft...

> the Chinese navy only has one relatively small, foreign made aircraft carrier

You know what's better than aircraft carriers? An island!

If China decides to build 10 Ford class carriers today, they will have 10 in 5 years time. And there is nothing that anyone can do about that.

Your suggestion is that by ending the Pax Americana, everyone would be safer?

I don’t understand your question. Does Pax Americana mean invading Vietnam or Iraq? Pax means “Peace”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

> USA on the other way just want everybody to be okay cause you know USA is all about money and business.

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.

> 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...I think in general I rather have USA ideology over China bullying.

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]

The island now houses a US military base (née "Camp Justice") used as a black site torture facility and banned munitions depot. The former inhabitants live in poverty and exile, the US and UK having recently declared the area a sham marine reserve specifically with the secret intent of preventing their return.

But that's fine, because the USA just wants everybody to be okay.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

If you want to talk about 1968, we can talk about the mass purges going on in China too.

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.

The "extraordinary rendition" international kidnapping program that literally disappeared people and was facilitated by Diego Garcia began in 2001. The "Chagos Marine Protected Area" which was internally praised as "the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling"[1] was established in 2010.

But that's fine, that's clearly ancient history.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Marine_Protected_Area

The forced resettlement happened in 1968. Further developments, while illegal, don't carry forward the original sin. You can't categorize the entire history of the island under "2010" because something new happened.

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.

> China continues to purge and "disappear" people, so I can understand why you wouldn't want to talk about 2017.

Can you give me few examples of that? As a Chinese I'm interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...

>but it's not even in the same universe regarding human rights abuses. China continues to purge and "disappear" people ...

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.

Do you count killing someone as human rights abuse? Killing hundreds of thousands, millions? I guess these U.S. killings have been mostly of people in other countries, which don't count as human rights abuses? It's somehow worse if a country kills its own people, than the people of other countries?

I would love you to find me a source for millions of non enemy combatant deaths directly caused by the US.

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.

"I would love you to find me a source for millions of non enemy combatant deaths directly caused by the US."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualt...

> I would love you to find me a source for millions of non enemy combatant deaths directly caused by the US.

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...

I would invite you to read a list of notable quotes by Gen. LeMay [0]. The man had a specific interest, sustained over decades, in promoting and normalizing the idea that the US should kill civilians to make wars easier.

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.

[0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

I’ve found it fascinating that people cannot coherently talk about a different nations moral failings without equivocating and falling back onto moral relativism and what-aboutism regarding how the US is just bad.

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.

> I’ve found it fascinating that people cannot coherently talk about a different nations moral failings without equivocating and falling back onto moral relativism and what-aboutism regarding how the US is just bad.

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.

Hi. 'find me a source': Google is your friend.

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/

I thought you might link that [0] article. In includes deaths attributed to "economic pressures", and "U.S. military supplies".

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've already put in a lot of hours to that depressing topic, mostly a couple of decades ago. That Scott Noble stuff recently was more than enough.

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.

I'm not sure what straw man you're referring to, but I'll address yours: I have never called the US perfect, and it has done many evil things. The difference is that you can talk about them without disappearing.

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.

"Criticizing the history of the United States is fine, but it's not even in the same universe regarding human rights abuses." I thought this was an outrageous remark, and felt compelled to object. But you say that's deflecting from a vast oppressive machine. Criticizing an easy target. Trying to cast the US as the world's "bad guy".

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?

Unites states assassinates 'enemy combatants' without any judge or jury hearing their case. If I was on a US govt shit list I would be very weary of traveling to places where US drones can operate without impunity.

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.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I will never defend illegal actions taken by the US government. I'm genuinely aghast at many of the things that have been uncovered.

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 totally agree about relativism not being a credible defense in any circumstance.

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.

I understand. In my original reply, I actually wrote in and then deleted a sentence saying that I didn't mean to accuse you specifically of doing so.

China represses it’s own citizens and would gladly blow other countries citizens to bits too

Nice. Love seeing this jingoistic propaganda crap on HN. Hopefully I can get more of these high quality comments ASAP.

Thank you, I needed a good laugh!

Someone can be concerned about China's military & economic domination despite problems of USA. Your comment engages in the "tu quoque" logical fallacy, also colloquially known as "Whataboutism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

> They're doing this because of the oil in the area
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.

United States bullies enough. Generally US agents target organizations. Three letter agencies support industrial espionage and black hat business tactics. For example:
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.

China has little concept of human rights compared to the west. The planet would be much worse off for everyone with a Chinese hegemony, except for the Chinese politburo.

> worse off for everyone with a Chinese hegemony, except for the Chinese politburo
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!

i mean...
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

Oh, that is interesting. You mean it is illegal for me to live/work in other Chinese cities? The problem is several members of immediate family have been doing that for 20 years, e.g, my parents, are they going to be detained soon?

why do you think that I'm talking about you? the phrasing of my post even says "imagine", indicating that I'm assuming it doesn't apply to you. imagine yourself as someone who wasn't lucky enough to be born into the "right" citizenship
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...

Yes the hukou system is a shame, but even with the hukou system check out the population growth in Beijing: http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/beijing-popula...
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.

i can understand why it's necessary, but that doesn't mean that it's not oppressive

Are you taking about intra- or international migration?

intra-migration, specifically rural to urban (not urban to urban or rural to rural)

Actually, I think you misunderstand how the Hukou system works.
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.

>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.
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

It's legal to live and work there and tens of millions of people are doing that.
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.

With some=lots of paperwork, yes you can move.
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.

Well, Hukou is not good, but clearly you know little about China.
It's about time to paste this guy's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/serpentza

why not tell me what i'm wrong about instead?

But why should I pay my time to do that while someone else already made a bunch of answers better than mine?
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.

>being a westerner surely gives you such right to assume that we Chinese are all being repressed.
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.

Something you have to keep in mind is that China is a much, much, more populated place than the USA in a smaller land mass.
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.

"China is a much, much, more populated place than the USA in a smaller land mass"
Smaller land mass? At least based on pure numbers 9.6 (China) vs 9.8 (Us) million square kilometers is not relatively massively different.

But with 4x the population...

Obviously the US has a very low overall population density, being for the most part a wasteland devoid of human life.
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.

Where did you get the area numbers? China is larger than the US in land area (9,326,410 km2 vs. 9,147,593).

> under the boot of an immutable society in love with its own stagnation
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.

I can use WeChat, you can't use Facebook. I really shouldn't have to explain why that's a bad thing.

Here are a few examples 1. Inflating asset bubbles without accompanying consumer standard of living: http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/72997
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.

> Inflating asset bubbles without accompanying consumer standard of living
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?

The idea is similar but also there are important differences. In that 1. Who owns the debt(bubble) that is piled up and who is it owed to. The US stock market the debt was owed by private banks and on their balance sheets. In china there is not a lot of difference between monetary and fiscal policy and because of this the Banks spend as govt wants them to and so is the ownership of debt. 2. Not the 2008 crisis. Thats just poor due diligence of borrowers letting them use the same collateral for multiple loans.

For context:
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...

> If you feel threatened by the idea of a China that economically dominates, I would honestly like to hear your explanation.
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 :)

And more to the point:
> ...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.

All analysis takes on a 'personal tinge' - what we want to be true we judge to be true. Perhaps I'm making that mistake, but let me explain my view regarding China:
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.

Fetish? Your question reads as a farce, because there is no, "Chinese Government," it is merely the actions of the Chinese Communist Party, which has 50 million members and is democratic within itself. What China is in terms an elite party controlled state and what you are assuming as an unuanced, "undemocratic state," whatever that means, shows you should probably just read a lot more on China and how it actually works rather than dismissing any potential criticisms as sexual in nature, implying they warrant no further discussion, if you are genuinely curious.

How many Western tech companies do you know that are doing well in China? How many Americans do you know that are allowed to work legally in China?
What about the other way?

Actually as an American you can simply go to China on a, "whatever" visa and start working on arrival, there is no enforcement of the law except if you start making real money and stepping in someone's toes. It's virtually impossible for average Chinese to get to the US even as a tourist. Western Tech companies doing well? 3M, Microsoft, Yahoo,...it depends on how good of a job they did forming relationships or paying bribes and how immune their business model is to asset siezure and copying.

A tourist visa does not permit someone to work legally in China. And Chinese companies do not hire foreigners so the point is moot: there are more non-native Chinese people working in Silicon Valley than foreigners working in all of the Chinese tech companies in China.
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).

China is a dictatorship and not a benevolent one.
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).

I feel threatened by China, because I don’t trust them. There’s not much more to it. I fear that they might abuse their power or use it to destabilize the West. There’s a lot of hatred of the Us, and I don’t want them to try and trample our norms, culture, society... things which I care about and am deeply connected to.
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.

> I fear that they might abuse their power or use it to destabilize the West
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.

Interesting...
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?

Yes I see how this goes, but I don’t see your point. I don’t agree with the conclusion that the existences of mutual distrust is proof that distrust is wrong, and I do t think you’ve provided any argument besides that.
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.

You are justifying your fear of a rising power, as if you are threatened, and you have all your rights to fear. However, the truth is that the West is still arguably more powerful, where the Chinese people are the ones that have been living in this exact kind of fear that you stated for a very very long time. If your reasoning holds as a universal value for all human beings (but not just for you), then it is effectively justifying a historically less powered entity, China, now eventually becoming free from this threat, where the world becomes more equal and multi-tenant in power, and you should happily embrace it.
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.

Did you really need to call me ugly? Lol
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.

Historically, China has not interfered in the affairs of distant nations. If you are judging by history, the West has interfered with China much more, thus far, than visa versa. I would go so far as to say that China has never yet tried to destabilize the West or impose it's values on the West. Can the West make the same claim about China?
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?

China has never been able to interfere in 'distant' nations.
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.

Actually Chinese had much more capable maritime technology than europe in the 1500's but their emperor said he did not approve of such silly business as voyages of discovery so they just stopped doing that. To China's rulers, trade and profit were facets of internal politics, and not an end in themselves.
"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]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exploration

I am certainly aware of the 'Treasure Voyages' and China's abilities up through the Ming dynasty. China was indeed able to travel, trade, and exploit foreign nations at limited distance, but never on a scale as the Europeans from the 16th century onward.
This is also documented: https://www.amazon.com/Civilization-West-Rest-Niall-Ferguson....

You're just talking about different time periods.
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.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

They "didn't care to" because the Ming dynasty rulers felt that China was culturally, technologically, and economically superior to all other nations, and thought cutting China off was the best way to preserve that. 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
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.

>>> Ming dynasty rulers felt that China was culturally, technologically, and economically superior to all other nations
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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages

> then historically doesn't China actually hold the high ground?
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.

Would you think it was fair if China were to treat the West the same way the West treated China, if the balance of power was reversed?

Distance is no weasel word. China historically interfering with Korea or Vietnam is natural as it's neighbors and problems of one side of the border leaks on the other side, and cultural and economical influences are strong. But France or US interfering with Vietnam or Korea make much less sense. The real deep difference in the long span is that Chinese never sailed en masse to the other side of the planet to "propose" (with a gun in the hand) a foreign religion and a different way of life to people which never asked for anything.

Maybe you should read a few books about china? You fear things you don't understand. Your writing sound like you are describing Mordor. China, on the other hand, is a country ruled and populated by real people. With a bit different values, sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com