Hacker News Reader

>China will fall

>Saudi will have a violent revolution

Very very unfortunately, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a reasonable prediction. The ways in which modern states can maintain power and suppress their people is overwhelming. China can and has built perhaps the most oppressive totalitarian state ever to have existed. Saudi is diversifying its absurd wealth to resist downturns in oil, and the "first world" is still hapelly grovelling and kissing the rings of that disgusting despot, selling them weapons and propping them up diplomatically. All in all, I don't have my hopes up.

It's all rather depressing.

Yep, and the thing is that most Chinese don't even mind the high level of control for the time being. I don't see any significant large scale instability as long as the material quality of life continues to improve for the average Chinese.

This is probably pretty normal historically. People start rebelling not just because of restrictions on freedom, but usually because their quality of life sucks. See what's happening in Hong Kong: they don't like the increasing Chinese oppression, sure, but they also have some serious quality-of-life complaints too, namely with housing prices.

When people are fat and comfortable, they tend not to rock the boat too much for vague ideals.

>China will fall >Saudi will have a violent revolution

Very very unfortunately, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a reasonable prediction.

The truly troublesome part is that predictions about social phenomenon can be self-fulfilling prophesy. If you basically want to see a bloody revolution instead of a better solution, that actively increases the odds of it happening.

The best the world can hope for Saudi Arabia is the status quo. As authoritarian and barbaric as they are, the problem is, Saudi's internal opposition isn't some liberal freedom lovers – it's much more radical religious fanatics that would turn the country in (in essence) ISIS, but with oil and wealth.

The reason modern western leaders support house of Saud isn't that they're the good guys. They're just the best of what all realistic possibilities in the region, unfortunately.

>The reason modern western leaders support house of Saud isn't that they're the good guys. They're just the best of what all realistic possibilities in the region, unfortunately.

I doubt it. Saud family were interested in fighting the Ottomans, as were the British in WW1, and their interests aligned then. And during WW2, once it was found to provide access to oil, it only made sense for the west to make sure a stable regime was established. The US/Brits support the Sauds in whatever they want to do, and the Sauds provide oil and purchase weapons. Keeps the region nice and unstable for future weapons orders and to prevent a situation like Norway where the oil wealth is distributed to everyone and no longer able to be controlled by a handful of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Origins_and_earl...

For further proof, the more modern socially liberal Iran was destabilized in favor of a fundamentalist leader by the US for their refusal to play ball:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Khomeini's_c...

It's just business, it's easier to deal with a small country's king than a democracy.

This is a good book about the circumstances that result in the modern situation:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64594.A_History_of_the_M...

> prevent a situation like Norway where the oil wealth is distributed to everyone and no longer able to be controlled by a handful of people.

Isn't the wealth distributed to the saudis to keep them happy and inline?

Who knows what proportion of it is distributed. Money isn’t the only wealth. A high trust society with an open and accountable government is far more “wealth” for the average citizen than getting a check every month.

And if the Saudi king decides to stop the payments or kill you for speaking out against them (see Kashoggi assassination), what good is a few thousand in oil money while the royalty splits the billions with the US.

The PRC's working population peaks somewhere between right now and the next 5 years. By 2050, over 1/3 of their population is over 65 years old. They've been under replenishment birth rates for a long time. Their population pyramid is really, truly scary.

Their highly leveraged economy will not survive at "6%" growth over the next decade. It is not clear that they will escape the Middle Income Trap [1]. They are struggling with zombie companies and transitioning from manufacturing to a services-based economy. Their manufacturing is also being slowly eaten away by countries like Vietnam.

As the PRC maintains its legitimacy through the economic growth that has happened under its existence, a recession could trigger political upheaval or force the CCP to distract the populace, e.g. they might try to annex the ROC (Taiwan and its other holdings) by force. A military conflict in which a large number of one child families lose their sole child would have disastrous ramifications as far as government stability, too.

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

(No opinion on Saudi as I only follow the economy/demographics of the PRC and Eurozone countries)

Given their focus on technology and modernization and massive investment in R&D and STEM education, it is likely that China will grow further still. China’s R&D investment is now at the top of the world about on par with the US. There are also a very high number of capable engineers in China as suggested by PISA results.

A key difference with middle income countries that only earn export income as manufacturing base is that there are quite a few Chinese companies that possess its own technology and brands. DJI, Oppo, Xiaomi are some examples. Many of these brands are not well known in the US but have become increasingly competitive with global brands, at least in some respect, in Asia and perhaps elsewhere.

It might make sense to compare them to Korean brands a while back, with an additional advantage of massive domestic market.

Their forward-looking focus on major industries of tomorrow like AI, EV, and biotech does not hurt either.

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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21868570

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21692002

Since there are many areas in China that could be further developed, the service sector will also likely grow.

My point is that the US ought not get complacent and believe in wishful thinking that competition from China will simply go away in time.

It’s all about trade. The USSR was brought down because they had no nations to trade with and refused to play ball with them and excluded them from the world diminishing their growth and power. The key difference this time around is Europe seems pretty complacent to let China keep doing its thing.

>1. China will fall to internal strife of some kind. Still may maintain power, but famine and mass executions / disappearances will occur.

>6. Saudi Arabia will have a violent revolution

why do people make these kinds of predictions. they're so uninformed it's beyond the pale.

china and SA are two of the most authoritarian and simultaneously well-funded (effective and efficient) governments on the planets -- we're not talking libya here (let alone syria, venezuela which still stand in their pre-upheavel form). how do you practically imagine either of these things happening? like a superhero comes down and leads the charge?

do you know what it actually takes to organize on such a massive scale as to bring down a state? here in america we can't get enough grass-roots organization for free health-care and tertiary education. and you think somewhere in china is a political mind so brilliant that they'll be able to organize some portion of 3x the population to violent revolution (since they don't have elections)?

Because they’ve never been to China but simultaneously think they knew a lot about China because the news they were fed. Particularly that Chinese people want democracy like Iraqis under Saddam (note: both are untrue).

While I haven't been to China, I think you mean Han Chinese. Uighurs and Tibet are less excited about being part of China.

True for the Uyghurs, but less true for Tibetans. The Tibetan public is largely happy with what has happened under China - it's the deposed nobility who are less excited about it.

The Han Chinese are, by far, the majority. Uyghurs are a small and unliked minority. What makes you think they're going to destabilize that nation? Did the poor treatment of black people in the US cause it to collapse? It did lead to a civil war at one point, and to some turbulent times a century later, but that's only because people in the US actually cared about human rights. I don't see any evidence that most of China's population is too concerned with the treatment of Uyghurs, unfortunately.

Many were alive when the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain fell. That makes such large upheavals believable. The weakness of authoritarian regimes is that by their nature dissention is hidden. Those in charge aren't really aware of how far they're overshooting until it's too late to release some of the pressure. I don't understand Chinese culture or their current situation enough to say whether or not they're in danger but Saudi Arabia certainly seems to have many parallels with other authoritarian regimes that fell to revolution.

>Saudi Arabia certainly seems to have many parallels with other authoritarian regimes that fell to revolution.

SA has the 12th highest purchasing power parity in the world. what parallels do you see exactly with the soviet union?

If anyone predicted in 1985 that a mere 7 years later the Soviet Union would no longer exist and Germany would be reunited, and it would all happen with essentially no violence, people would have derided them mercilessly.

Monumental changes can happen, and shockingly quickly.

Well, Soviet Union (hence the Iron Curtain itself) were not really _well funded_ anymore when they fell. The system they had in place was completely failing.

Edit: or maybe I'm wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio...

Not to me. Soviet Union's fall was a very unique set of events, some unique to the time and sweep of history, some just plain unique. It was a combination of the right leaders, Chernobyl, fallout from WW2 divisions such as the Baltic States Molotov Pact protests, and Solidarity and Lech Walesa in Poland, then the right chain of events over a decade.

Many of those Soviet Republics were very reluctant participants, forcibly occupied with underlying resentment going back centuries in a couple of cases, to WW2 in others.

There seem very few parallels with Saudi or China.

Yeah, when China breaks down again, it will be for very unique reasons, singular for their time and place, and dependent on a few very good or bad political decisions.

When has social change ever not been unique?

Which is rather my point, rather than a few vague sweeping generalisations of GP drawing parallels where none appear to exist.

It's always easier to explain collapse with hindsight. :)

The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries were in many ways the opposite of modern China. They were not efficient at all, and their economies were absolutely terrible. China has its problems, but a moribund economy is not one of them.

Fascist states don't need a revolution to collapse, though; they just need to run out of anger and people to oppress. Consider China's attempts to oppress Hong Kong; like with all prior oppression attempts, China must succeed if they want to continue expanding. Given how precarious their position is in HK, it's not a stretch to imagine that they might not be able to reconquer the South China Sea soon enough to ensure continued growth. China's out of places to expand in the west and south, and so it's South China Sea or bust for them. I don't know how they'll collapse, just that they will.

The Saudis are much more comfortable in their position. MBS can and will dangle individual rights for women, one by one, like red meat for the laity. He will garner applause throughout the next two decades for his progressive attitude towards women, even as he is a bloodthirsty despot.

> free health-care and tertiary education.

Probably because there is no such thing. The people who vote against them realize that you’re still paying for them via taxes and that you’ll be destroying the entire market.

Destroying the market with the best healthcare research and the market with much of the best academic research shouldn’t be taken lightly.

in your effort to reiterate a cliche you've completely missed my point. nationalized health care has broad support:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-...

and yet we can't get organized enough to pass it.

And in your effort to repeat dogma, you’ve missed mine. Support for a vague notion of nationalizing healthcare. In that article you linked it’s only 42 percent strongly supporting it. The rest is “somewhat” or worse.

Someone who “somewhat” supports Medicare for all doesn’t really like the actual proposed implementation. With less than a majority strongly supporting it, are you really surprised?

I'd bet the farm, all the farms, that your list turns out more correct than the one at the link.

The item on your list I have the biggest issue with is 10. We'll still be catching plenty of fish in the wild (but some places that fish are plentiful today won't be that way) in another 10 years.

Blank.

Even if over fishing is under control there is still an issue with climate change and everything that comes with it, including ocean acidification, ocean current disruptions, migrations of pervasive alien species, collapse of important local populations (due to the above).

So even if over fishing is not a threat any more, our ocean food source is still at huge risk.

> 7. California housing market will collapse due to high electricity prices, lack of electricity and wildfires

Hope you're right about the CA housing market coming down, but I think more likely is just that Gavin Newsom and ilk get booted out for their failures to reign in PG&E and housing prices aren't particularly effected one way or the other.

Wildfires are generally not in the densely populated areas, so I don't think they'll move the needle much.

13. Wait... you think they’re _not_ already doing that?

Well, if they are, the public isn't aware yet, which was part of prediction 13.