1) What does this mean for Xi's leadership and the CCP? Will this threaten their power?
2) Does this cement the US as the leading economy for the next quarter century?
3) What does this mean for up and coming rivals, such as India and Vietnam?
4) How will this effect China's middle class?
5) Will we see an increase in Chinese expats?
No, only had you experienced the level and depth of China's indoctrination, can you understand how profoundly it affects the people, I still recall now and then the red songs I was taught and sang. Your whole world view is shaped by the regime to ensure their best interest, you think in their ways even if you are a rebel.
BTW they now teach "politics" in primary schools. The Youth are extremely patriotic and loyal to the party, they are impatient to even let you start your different opinions.
There will be discontent, but the power and reach of the tools the party has built is simply unprecedented in human history.
4) How will this effect China's middle class?
If the condo market collapses, most of them probably will go bankrupt and be in huge debts for a long time, being taught bubble economics the hard way, but the market probably can bounce back since it's CCP monopoly. Worst case senario the party can print money nonstop to keep the prices from crashing.
The US has had credit collapses before, and has relatively robust institutions to deal with it. Robustness that has developed through major crashes.
This is largely true of most developed economies as well.
China's credit bust will be epic - epicly bad, both for China and the rest of the world, but mostly for the Chinese people.
The fact that you're being downvoted is just more evidence, people hate being told they're just as indoctrinated into propaganda as China is, but they're just as indoctrinated into their own version.
In addition, the Chinese court system is simply a tool of the government to keep themselves in power. Reference the 99.9% conviction rate: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It's true, the two systems are significantly different, but I don't think that rules out that Americans are subject to a form of indoctrination. Look at the stranglehold the two parties have on the electoral system in the US. Just as one example, what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election barely raised an eyebrow. If you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast for several weeks on either side of the last election (particularly after), I'd say it's pretty hard to make a case that the system isn't rigged to a fairly large degree, but how many people are actually aware of this?
I don't know if indoctrination is the perfect word for it, but constantly singing the praises of the system of democracy, while realistically the only alternatives people get have to go through a very thorough pre-screening for "suitability", and almost no one ever asks what the hell is really going on here, seems like a relative of some sort to indoctrination.
I'm not so sure about that either. I'd be surprised if the average Chinese person wasn't fairly well aware that they live in a censored world, and that a government that does that might also bend the truth a bit on the evening news. The average American on the other hand, and even the above average judging by most forums I frequent, seem to be under the impression that the US is truly the land of the free, the home of the brave, with a completely free press (not unlike the completely free electoral system), and that what they see and hear in the news is generally trustworthy and comprehensive.
Chinese people may not know the truth, but I'm pretty sure they know it's being hidden from them. People in the West, defenders of the free world, who not only seem unable to see the various pink elephants that are right in front of their eyes, but will attack and condemn anyone who points them out, worry me a lot more than the indoctrinated in plain sight Chinese.
But hey, that's just me.
It's far from uncommon for a reporter to explicitly say "by the way, the government told me not to disclose this information but I'm gonna do it anyway".
What the American government doesn't do is require citizens to believe it's great, or forbid them from saying it's not. If you get on a soapbox and talk about how the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders, a lot of Americans will think you're being silly, but none of them will think that you should be arrested for subversion.
Actually, I'm not.
If two countries both engage in indoctrination, in different forms and to different degrees, pointing out that one is different, or does it to a lesser degree, is not a proof that they do not do it in the first place.
> There's no way to deny that the American government thinks it's great, and puts in effort to convince people that it's great. That's the explicit goal of e.g. civics education.
I feel like you're implicitly suggesting that's all they do.
> What the American government doesn't do is require citizens to believe it's great, or forbid them from saying it's not.
That isn't a prerequisite for indoctrination, and only a prerequisite for certain kinds of censorship.
> If you get on a soapbox and talk about how the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders, a lot of Americans will think you're being silly, but none of them will think that you should be arrested for subversion.
Of course. But indoctrination and censorship can take many forms, and can be very hard to spot when done well. It also helps if the private sector engages in it so the government doesn't have to.
Superdelegates in the Democratic primary are the following:
1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs.
The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. It's called an indirect election. That is not 'rigging'. The closest thing to rigging here would be category 4.
That this is even possible is as much a criticism of the process as it is a compliment.
Honest question: if you were designing a brand new system to elect the leader of the US, how likely do you expect it would be for someone of his calibre to be the last person standing?
> 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority.
Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? How many people do you think approve of this structure.
> That is not 'rigging'.
For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
No, this is a primary, as in, it is how the democratic party elects its own representative to run for president.
>What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election?
In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically elected.
Superdelegates and how they function is common knowledge for anyone following or participating in the primary. It's heavily covered and talked about every presidential election cycle.
>How many people do you think approve of this structure.
According to a poll run by Rasmussen in 2016, likely democratic voters approved of it at a rate of 30%.
>For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
Americans understand very well how the election system works. 'Rigged' implies deception or fraudulence.
That's actually a pretty convincing argument, I think I'll have to concede victory.
Are they "patriotic" enough to report family members to the regime as political dissenters? If so, China is really in a bad spot as that is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. At least we would have a pseudo-ironic name for the program ("Xitler Youth")
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-prj-co...
History says that that has its limits too.
More of the kind of behavior that got you into some problem is usually not the way to get out. Hyperinflation could hit the US, China or the Eurozone in a very hard way. If you do it gradually you may get away with it, do it too quickly and the whole thing will take on a momentum all its own. A bit like pushing a ball of snow down hill. For a while it seems like you are in control and then suddenly you realize you are no longer in control. By then it will be too late to stop it. I was on the fence in 2008. Despite having money in one of the Dutch banks that was hard hit by the sub-prime repackaging I was all for letting them go bust. Instead the state stepped in and propped up the bank. This meant that everybody ended up paying for that and the execs walked.
Hard to make the call on what was the best solution there, it is very well possible that this was the optimum outcome but it set the stage for a repeat, the beginnings of which we are already witnessing today.
This happened in Poland a while ago. Everybody with debts in old Zloty such as mortgages and so on was ecstatic, they could pay off their mortgage with three months work after the crash. Everybody else lost their life's work.
Those with property ended up neutral.
Banks learned their lesson: they pegged new mortgages to the Mark initially and later to the Euro, but people still got paid in Zloty...
1. Nothing. No. The CCP retains power without challenge under far more volatile conditions. Xi is the head of the CCP and he is not about to let go.
2. No. Nothing cements the future.
3. Nothing. Their growth is not China's growth.
4. It will continue to grow.
5. No. This "slowdown" has nothing to do with expats. Financial tools being taxed, has curbed Chinese investment outside of China. Anchor babies will continue to be popular.
This announcement, means very little in the long term, imo.
2) No. USA is the leading economy not because of economy but because of dollar hegemony, which insulates it from shocks that the RMB is subjected to. If belt-and-road nations start using RMB as reserve currency (and non-swift banking systems), regardless of economic power, that would challenge USA as leading economy. This is being attempted, but not covered much, for example the sino-russian deal to trade oil and gold in RMB instead of using the OPEC petro-dollar.
3) India is a more socially volatile than China, considering regions like Kashmir and social discord like lower-castes. If India were the #2 or #1 it would suddenly have these situations magnified the way China's situations are scrutinized on the world stage, leading to more aggressive challenges. India currently gets a free pass on inequality and climate etc. because it's a 'democracy.' Vietnam doesn't have the framework to challenge either effectively.
4) Not super, but again not terrible. The main thing is income distribution, not GDP. It may mean less iphones but doesn't necessarily mean less Huaweis, inside the mainland a Huawei is only about 60% the price you see in USA and doesn't represent a major drop in quality of life.
5) This is more a function of capital control I feel. They are a long long way from panic-flight ala Venezuela. Expats at this point are more luxury expats. Lots of other asians immigrate into China for a better life. Regardless, the China diaspora is already huge, and largely welcome in every country the immigrate to.
How it affects VN and IN depends on how long the trade tiff lasts. If it’s prolonged it will benefit them as companies are encouraged to transition.
The middle class in cities of course will see a crunch if this continues —they have a lot tied up in real estate.
Don't want to start a flamewar, I'll just say Kashmir issue is far more complex than you can imagine and talk of fundamental rights suppression is utterly nonsense. But let's not discuss it on HN.
In the context of this thread and topic, Kashmir doesn't play any significant role in India's economy or growth story. Secondly, the troubled area is quite a small part of Jammu Kashmir state.
Few days of bad mood
> Will this threaten their power?
Who will threaten his power? Han Zheng is the last Jiang loyalist in party's higher tiers, he is under extreme pressure for his handling of HK now.
I bet Xi will come out of that even more powerful, by dumping blame on whomever may oppose him.
> Does this cement the US as the leading economy for the next quarter century?
Leading economy != leading country. The negative feedback on currency will just roll Chinese companies back few years in their market outlook. Companies that were previously aiming for selling to developed economies will thing of places like South Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and such.
> What does this mean for up and coming rivals, such as India and Vietnam?
Not much for India. India just like Russia doesn't really want joining the global economy, and the impediment comes from within.
For Vietnam... good times to come. And for whomever will be working as fixers, bringing Western companies there.
But there is a big BUT. The moment Vietnam will get up on the economic ladder, there is a certain chance US or somebody else will try to pull the same tariff hike on them.
> How will this effect China's middle class?
Chinese middle class largely works in service sector, and that depends near solely on internal demand.
> Will we see an increase in Chinese expats?
Sure, there is always a knee jerk reaction among Chinese rich to any new wave of doomsayers.
When I was living in Vancouver I met quite a few rich Chinese. One of whom was an owner of the 4th largest scrap metal company in China. He sold his business at an insane 60% discount, and ran to Canada the moment he read "Chinese steel bubble is about to pop" in an "esteemed Western publication" in 2010.
The last time I checked on him, he was still living a nice rentier life with 3 houses in Vancouver, but was super cringy about him selling so low, and trusting random rags for making a once in a lifetime decision.
Near same was the case with 3 factory owners. Two had electronic factories, and one did clothing. You can still argue about one with clothing business making a correct decision closing the shop, but for two electronics factory owner, the decision to close their businesses made zero sense.
I asked them separately why they exchanged life in Canada for untold millions to come. None was able to give an answer, saying simply they don't understand their own rationale back then.
To them, people of peasant background, life in the West looked as something near mythical. They grew up thinking that "getting to the West" was something like a once in a lifetime chance, something what exceeds just anything on the list of ones personal achievements. To such people, parting with a few million buck a year business for a house in Vancouver and steady life genuinely looks like a good deal.
The new generation of entrepreneurs of course don't hold the West in such esteem, and some actually thing of it with some degree of contempt.
The new generation of entrepreneurs is a lot more guanxi secure than the one that organically grew up in the 80s. They often are or have friends related to those in power, so we won’t see another transition until Xi passes the baton.
People in their thirties and forties make by far the largest cohort of entrepreneurs I know who can support the claim of them making their businesses from scratch, and not being part of state economy machine.
Notably, I knew DJI when they still were a "garage company," along with half of "Shanzhai" crowd.
On other hand, just anybody who somehow got $1m+ out of nowhere in China in nineties would've been a man "from the system." The few ways somebody made such money in China back then were: 1. land auction fraud, 2. privatisation auction fraud, 3. embezzlement from funds of the state or state company, 4. being a relative of somebody who did anything of above.
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanting_Qu#Personal_life https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BC%A0%E6%98%8E%E6%9D%B0_(%...
Not willing to stick my neck out with a prediction though.
For 2), I think the answer is yes. Chinas rapid transition from a low to a middle income country was remarkable, but I think the zeitgeist got a bit too excited about it (just as they did with Japan 30 years ago). I don't see any contenders to US economic power in the near future - China will be competing with India, not the US.