What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Asian Century - China will soon be the dominant economic player in the world (1 Viewer)

John Maddens Lunchbox

John Maddens Lunchbox

Socialism for Dummies
One of the downsides of the infighting between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of vision at the global future..

Meanwhile China has invested in over 70 countries around the world with its belt and road initiative. These countries need the economic investment and in return China gains global influence and sinks its claws into these countries by gaining their dependence with debt. They have a concrete plan over the next 30 years to not only be the dominant economic superpower in the world, but global moral compass and influencer.

Frightened yet?

India is on track to not be far behind. They are far more isolationist however and unlikely to have the global influence the chinese have. They can be right behind China if they want to be though. 

A lot depends on ultimately what Xi Jinping wants to achieve. They can militarily take over Taiwan easily. Then what? Chinese culture doesn’t tend to be aggressive militarily, but Xi is a different animal. If China wishes to flex its muscle then we enter a new era of danger. Western unity won’t be enough this time. I suspect China wont do this, but have it as an option once they are stronger. They will divide where possible or just sit back and watch as countries are weakened from within.

Solutions?

1) Hope that India and China pick fights with each other that escalate, weakening both.

2) Accept weakening power and influence

3) Get other Asian nations like South Korea, Japan, Pakistan and Indonesia on board with keeping China in check. 

4) Grow the US economy on a scale unseen. Mass immigration combined with mass population and economic growth. To truly compete with China moving forward the US needs maybe 750 million people. Quickly. Plenty of ways to do this, but they aren’t going to be popular. New super cities need to be created and massive infrastructure investment undertaken. Isolationist policies are only going to weaken the country further and leave the future at the mercy of the Chinese. If people want to complain about their lot in life now, just wait until 2050. 

Thoughts?

 
Seems like a reasonable theory. I think we need massive infrastructure spending regardless. It would be interesting to see the US version of the pop up city. I don’t know what will happen but I doubt we have some sort of grand awakening where we all work together against a common enemy. Can’t do it during a pandemic anyway...

Imagine for a minute if the worlds powers decided to work together for the good of humanity as a whole. Even if just China and the US came together and said “we have differences and that won’t change, but if we work together on a common cause we can change the world for the better.” End hunger, access to water, schools and hospitals built (or rebuilt in war torn areas.) But the only reason these countries do that stuff is to exert control- we will build schools but then you’ll teach these ideas. We’ll give you aid because your location is strategic. It’s really sad that we can do so much with the tech/tools we have but we use it for the wrong purposes.

 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
To truly compete with China moving forward the US needs maybe 750 million people. Quickly.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Why would we need so many people?  With the advancements in things like AI & robotics I'd imagine we don't need as many people.  There would still be a major need for care takers, because who wants a robot wiping their elderly butt's?  I'd much rather have an ex-truck driver or Uber driver who's jobs should be disappearing any year now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was the whole intent of the Pacific trade agreement (whatever it’s proper name was - drawing a blank).  To keep the US a force in that economy - but trump withdrew it cause it was Obama’s policy without ever understanding it’s purpose.  
 

US moved out and China moved in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude said:
That was the whole intent of the Pacific trade agreement (whatever it’s proper name was - drawing a blank).  To keep the US a forc3 in that economy - but trump withdrew it cause it was Obama’s policy without ever understanding it’s purpose.  
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's my anecdotal evidence that people who are anti China/ pro Trump think that if those factories in the Rust Belt are fired up again....China will fall apart. When you mention the money China has sunk into Africa and building strong with relationships with other countries....the say "we shouldn't have to pay for our friends" and they don't even want to begin to hear about a population boost for this country.

 
The Dude said:
That was the whole intent of the Pacific trade agreement (whatever it’s proper name was - drawing a blank).  To keep the US a force in that economy - but trump withdrew it cause it was Obama’s policy without ever understanding it’s purpose.  
 

US moved out and China moved in.
Click to expand...
You have not done much research on China.   China was moving in with or without an invitation to anything.

 
Summer Wheat said:
Maybe very short term, long term it does not matter.  And this is not defending Trump but China has had a master plan in place decades before Trump and will have it long after.
Click to expand...
Agreed while China was expanding control and relations the most recent administration was contracting and creating opportunity for China

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude said:
My comment was specific to that trade agreement.  China moving in occurred while trump was asleep at the wheel
Click to expand...
Trans Pacific Partnership. And you are absolutely correct. It would have prevented this and its ideas still will, long term. We need to increase trade with the nations that surround China. 

 
It's obviously the looming force in the world and has been for a long time, but some things to consider:

-trying to make a 50-year plan has always been hard throughout all of world history and is perhaps harder than ever given how fast developments happen.  unintended consequences will always rise up.

-it's not totally clear how their state-controlled capitalism is effective, how long it will last and what challenges they will face going forward.  it is a hybrid approach that is unique in history.  it's still not clear and and if their gdp growth will continue unabated.

-their people are already experiencing more freedom and that means that they may have to shift some of their priorities.

-their project to create their own internet and also to integrate all of their facial surveillance data and personal information could cause changes to everything in ways that we cannot foresee.

-some of these BRI projects may ultimately become boondoggles and they are already running into a lot of issues with their debt servicing as a result of the pandemic.

-all that being said, their leaders are adaptable and their worldview certainly allows them to play a long game in a way that is fundamentally different from the U.S. and most other countries.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
GoBirds said:
Good luck, electing Biden wasn’t the step to prevent this. Get ready, it’s what you signed up for.  
Click to expand...
What did Trump do to prevent this?  His isolationist and America First platform and rhetoric was going to do what, exactly, to curtail China’s global influence?

 
Utter nonsense.  What kind of moral influence does making a bunch of kids toys with lead paint utilizing cheap child labor provide?  Most everything China makes is junk.   Sure they make a ton a cheap junk.   But real influence comes from advancements in technology. 

We need some influx of young workers to keep our economy strong, but we do not need to more than double our population to keep up with China's total GDP numbers.  That is not what gives you power and influence. 

It is great that China is investing in African nations, but what is the payoff?  They are mostly sink holes which will provide little payback.   Infrastructure spending for the sake of infrasture spending is not beneficial.  It needs to be well thought out with some planned result.  

Seems like a bunch of nonsensical fear-mongering designed to feed Chinaphobes.  OK, Trump was dumb to tear up trade agreements.  So what, move on and establish nee agreements.  The rest of the world is not lining up to get behind China's moral compass now or anytime soon.  

 
We need cheap energy.  We need to de-regulate 

Snorkelson said:
Seems like a reasonable theory. I think we need massive infrastructure spending regardless. It would be interesting to see the US version of the pop up city. I don’t know what will happen but I doubt we have some sort of grand awakening where we all work together against a common enemy. Can’t do it during a pandemic anyway...

Imagine for a minute if the worlds powers decided to work together for the good of humanity as a whole. Even if just China and the US came together and said “we have differences and that won’t change, but if we work together on a common cause we can change the world for the better.” End hunger, access to water, schools and hospitals built (or rebuilt in war torn areas.) But the only reason these countries do that stuff is to exert control- we will build schools but then you’ll teach these ideas. We’ll give you aid because your location is strategic. It’s really sad that we can do so much with the tech/tools we have but we use it for the wrong purposes.
Click to expand...
It's a nice thought, but it's prolly a pipe dream.

We've become lazy, and entitled.  We fight about global warming, and the social autracities of the shaping of our country. 

The Chinese were humiliated by western powers as the east and west came into contact.  And they feel it again with Covid and how the western world views the Chinese gubs responsibility for the pandemic.

Chinese nationalism has become more aggressive.  Trump had minimal success in addressing trade deficits with China, even though that was a huge priority of the administration.  How will Biden respond?  Hopefully not like Obama, who failed to take China seriously enough.  Trump was right to try and address the Chinese gubs subsidizing for unfair trade advantage.  Trump also tried to be a bully.  A diplomat, he was not.......we need to be tougher than Obama, and not as brutish as Trump.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
jon_mx said:
Utter nonsense.  What kind of moral influence does making a bunch of kids toys with lead paint utilizing cheap child labor provide?  Most everything China makes is junk.   Sure they make a ton a cheap junk.   But real influence comes from advancements in technology. 

We need some influx of young workers to keep our economy strong, but we do not need to more than double our population to keep up with China's total GDP numbers.  That is not what gives you power and influence. 

It is great that China is investing in African nations, but what is the payoff?  They are mostly sink holes which will provide little payback.   Infrastructure spending for the sake of infrasture spending is not beneficial.  It needs to be well thought out with some planned result.  

Seems like a bunch of nonsensical fear-mongering designed to feed Chinaphobes.  OK, Trump was dumb to tear up trade agreements.  So what, move on and establish nee agreements.  The rest of the world is not lining up to get behind China's moral compass now or anytime soon.  
Click to expand...
For once I find myself pretty much in agreement with jon mx. Go figure. 

 
Manster said:
We need cheap energy.  We need to de-regulate 

It's a nice thought, but it's prolly a pipe dream.

We've become lazy, and entitled.  We fight about global warming, and the social autracities of the shaping of our country. 

The Chinese were humiliated by western powers as the east and west came into contact.  And they feel it again with Covid and how the western world views the Chinese gubs responsibility for the pandemic.

Chinese nationalism has become more aggressive.  Trump had minimal success in addressing trade deficits with China, even though that was a huge priority of the administration.  How will Biden respond?  Hopefully not like Obama, who failed to take China seriously enough.  Trump was right to try and address the Chinese gubs subsidizing for unfair trade advantage.  Trump also tried to be a bully.  A diplomat, he was not.......we need to be tougher than Obama, and not as brutish as Trump.
Click to expand...
Obama took China plenty seriously,  way more than Trump. Obama had the solution to China: the TPP. It’s too bad he had to fight both the Republicans and his own party. But it’s still the answer. 

 
timschochet said:
Obama took China plenty seriously,  way more than Trump. Obama had the solution to China: the TPP. It’s too bad he had to fight both the Republicans and his own party. But it’s still the answer. 
Click to expand...
However you slice it, Obama failed in China.  He always seemed a pushover to me.  In some ways that led to Trump, imo.

 
zoonation said:
What did Trump do to prevent this?  His isolationist and America First platform and rhetoric was going to do what, exactly, to curtail China’s global influence?
Click to expand...
Well, look at how the Chinese government behaves.  I'm not saying what Trump did was the right approach, but the chinese gub doesn't operate on a level playing field. The state controls and manipulates everything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manster said:
Well, look at how the Chinese government behaves.  I'm not saying what Trump did was the right approach, but the chinese gub doesn't operate on a level playing field. The state controls and manipulates everything.
Click to expand...
Which is why circumventing them and making a deal with the other Asian counties via the TPP was the shark move. 

 
Punxsutawney Phil said:
Why would we need so many people?  With the advancements in things like AI & robotics I'd imagine we don't need as many people.  There would still be a major need for care takers, because who wants a robot wiping their elderly butt's?  I'd much rather have an ex-truck driver or Uber driver who's jobs should be disappearing any year now.
Click to expand...
I’m not an economist, but more people equals more economic growth. Advancements in AI only do so much. At some stage 1.4 billion people have an significant advantage, in numerous ways over 320 million. Working smarter wont happen and in fact China are well on the way to doing that themselves

jon_mx said:
Utter nonsense.  What kind of moral influence does making a bunch of kids toys with lead paint utilizing cheap child labor provide?  Most everything China makes is junk.   Sure they make a ton a cheap junk.   But real influence comes from advancements in technology. 

We need some influx of young workers to keep our economy strong, but we do not need to more than double our population to keep up with China's total GDP numbers.  That is not what gives you power and influence. 

It is great that China is investing in African nations, but what is the payoff?  They are mostly sink holes which will provide little payback.   Infrastructure spending for the sake of infrasture spending is not beneficial.  It needs to be well thought out with some planned result.  

Seems like a bunch of nonsensical fear-mongering designed to feed Chinaphobes.  OK, Trump was dumb to tear up trade agreements.  So what, move on and establish nee agreements.  The rest of the world is not lining up to get behind China's moral compass now or anytime soon.  
Click to expand...
Yes. China’s influence is purely because of kids toys. 🤡

Read up on Chinas technological advancements. They are coming hard and fast and the next big technological advancement is likely to come from there. 

China is buying influence in Africa and Asia. At some stage some nations in these areas are going to be economic powerhouses. Indonesia and Nigeria for instance are a good plan away from massive economic expansion. China is doing this through investment, rather than by colonisation or oppression. The US is losing its global grip rapidly and others will fill the breach. Do you want it to be China? They are working harder and smarter at winning friends and influencing people. 

I am far from a china phobe, in fact im learning Mandarin. Wonderful culture, lovely womens. Civilizations rise and fall all the time. The asian century is here, but its not too late for the US to take action. The TPP was meant to buy time. Time has run out. Accept declining returns or do something now. 

 
Manster said:
Well, look at how the Chinese government behaves.  I'm not saying what Trump did was the right approach, but the chinese gub doesn't operate on a level playing field. The state controls and manipulates everything.
Click to expand...
The Chinese system right now is an advantage in dealing with their plans. The US is torn with internal strife and can’t even agree on whether water is wet. 

 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
The Chinese system right now is an advantage in dealing with their plans. The US is torn with internal strife and can’t even agree on whether water is wet. 
Click to expand...
Wait a minute....tell me more about this "wet" water.

 
I'm certainly not taking economic and political predictions that are pro-communist from somebody with "Socialism For Dummies" in their avatar. The Berlin Wall fell. The hybrids never work. They collapse. History repeats itself, never as farce, but as democratic capitalism reigning supreme time and again. Now, when China inevitably collapses, will the world collapse? That's the question.

 
rockaction said:
I'm certainly not taking economic and political predictions that are pro-communist from somebody with "Socialism For Dummies" in their avatar. The Berlin Wall fell. The hybrids never work. They collapse. History repeats itself, never as farce, but as democratic capitalism reigning supreme time and again. Now, when China inevitably collapses, will the world collapse? That's the question.
Click to expand...
My hope is that China at some point has a peaceful collapse, ala the Soviet Union. 
But the truth is I honestly thought, after Tiannemmen Square in 1989, that collapse was right around the corner. But it didn’t happen. 
 

 
rockaction said:
I'm certainly not taking economic and political predictions that are pro-communist from somebody with "Socialism For Dummies" in their avatar. The Berlin Wall fell. The hybrids never work. They collapse. History repeats itself, never as farce, but as democratic capitalism reigning supreme time and again. Now, when China inevitably collapses, will the world collapse? That's the question.
Click to expand...
Thats an interesting take or 2.

I have no idea why I put “Socialism for Dummies”. All the cool kids were getting fun things there, so thats what i came up with. I am socially and economically liberal, but more in the Scandanavian way. I have no time for brutal regimes and communism which do the opposite of providing for the “workers”

if the Chinese communist regime fell, i would rejoice. I do not want them to be deciding global rules and stepping into the breach to be the global leader. The world would be a much poorer and less humane place.

The chinese people are lovely in my experience, but id literally prefer every other asian country as a people. I would be interested in how you think they will fall or why their hybrid would never work? Their economy isnt built on paper stilts like the soviet union was. Now if the stronger countries in the world would reject chinese money and grouped together to destroy them, that would be an interesting angle. Unfortunately many of these countries have become so dependant on chinese money that it is almost impossible to extricate themselves from the teat of Beijing. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Wait a minute....tell me more about this "wet" water.
Click to expand...
Pfffft, as if mixing two doses of hydrogen to one dose of oxygen makes a wet substance. What are these called covalent bonds? Its all a conspiracy by scientists. What exactly are we drinking? It isnt what weve been led to believe by so called experts

That kind of thing?

 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
Thats an interesting take or 2.

I have no idea why I put “Socialism for Dummies”. All the cool kids were getting fun things there, so thats what i came up with. I am socially and economically liberal, but more in the Scandanavian way. I have no time for brutal regimes and communism which do the opposite of providing for the “workers”

if the Chinese communist regime fell, i would rejoice. I do not want them to be deciding global rules and stepping into the breach to be the global leader. The world would be a much poorer and less humane place.

The chinese people are lovely in my experience, but id literally prefer every other asian country as a people. I would be interested in how you think they will fall or why their hybrid would never work? Their economy isnt built on paper stilts like the soviet union was. Now if the stronger countries in the world would reject chinese money and grouped together to destroy them, that would be an interesting angle. Unfortunately many of these countries have become so dependant on chinese money that it is almost impossible to extricate themselves from the teat of Beijing.
Click to expand...
Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises outlined why much better than I ever could.

Von Mises, from a quote aggregator

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quot...irtschaft-untersuchungen-uber-den-sozialismus

Those are just quotes, assembled by an aggregator, but they ring true. The gist of it is that the means of production, the most important part of the communist or hybrid-style economies, is and can never be realized by central planners. The only person that gets to decide, in the end, is the consumer. Central planners never understand the amount of x that people want or need, and this inability to quantify either a proper price, wage, or marginal product accurately leads to its inevitable demise. Mises thinks of the individual in the marketplace as a political agent with a vote. Each dollar spent is a vote for the particular product sought. Demand fuels supply, the means of production and all its ethical wishes fall secondary to demand. The fatal conceit of communism/socialism is that it portends to know, at all times, what these votes are and what they mean. It's an impossible task to quantify large swaths of the economy from a central planners' distance.

Hayek, from a summary

"His economic arguments themselves had many dimensions. Hayek noted, for example, that market prices, which reflect the appraisal of millions of market participants, are essential for entrepreneurial calculation; they allow firm owners to choose the most affordable combinations of technologically feasible inputs. Hayek asserted that in a world of constant change—in which every change of price causes market participants to change their demand and supply, which lead to other adjustments, ad infinitum—no constructed system can match the ability of the market process to adjust continually to the changes. He argued that the market system itself constitutes a “discovery procedure,” in that it provides incentives for the discovery of new products and processes while also disseminating information to market participants (e.g., consumers). This occurs because entrepreneurs have incentives to be alert to and to exploit newly discovered or created knowledge. Hayek maintained that a market system aids in the coordination of plans and the correction of errors in a world in which knowledge is dispersed, tacit, and specific to time and place and in which individual beliefs may be wrong. Obversely, price-fixing hinders coordination; attempts to gather knowledge centrally do not permit the best use of localized and tacit knowledge; and no system provides as much feedback and incentives for the correction of errors in perception as does a market system."
 
Last edited:
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
I have no idea why I put “Socialism for Dummies”. All the cool kids were getting fun things there, so thats what i came up with. I am socially and economically liberal, but more in the Scandanavian way. I have no time for brutal regimes and communism which do the opposite of providing for the “workers”
Click to expand...
I see. Scandinavian Liberal™ suits you better than Unfettered Communist, if you want my opinion.

And I was half-kidding when I typed that. I had a tone, but it didn't really come across as anything but serious in written form.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
I’m not an economist, but more people equals more economic growth. Advancements in AI only do so much. At some stage 1.4 billion people have an significant advantage, in numerous ways over 320 million. Working smarter wont happen and in fact China are well on the way to doing that themselves

Yes. China’s influence is purely because of kids toys. 🤡

Read up on Chinas technological advancements. They are coming hard and fast and the next big technological advancement is likely to come from there. 

China is buying influence in Africa and Asia. At some stage some nations in these areas are going to be economic powerhouses. Indonesia and Nigeria for instance are a good plan away from massive economic expansion. China is doing this through investment, rather than by colonisation or oppression. The US is losing its global grip rapidly and others will fill the breach. Do you want it to be China? They are working harder and smarter at winning friends and influencing people. 

I am far from a china phobe, in fact im learning Mandarin. Wonderful culture, lovely womens. Civilizations rise and fall all the time. The asian century is here, but its not too late for the US to take action. The TPP was meant to buy time. Time has run out. Accept declining returns or do something now. 
Click to expand...
It would be great to see some African nations develop, but it does not appear to be happening.  As far as Chinese endevors into technology, their desire to make proprietary standards and their need for control, will keep most countires from buying into chinese tech no matter how good.  Open standards which allow for competition, growth and advancement is the far superior path.  Chinese may have some success in green energy, AI and 5G technology, but unless Europe and the US adopt their technology, they are not going to be leading the world in anything.  And until China loses their adversarial stance, the US and Europe should avoid Chinese technology like the plague.

 
China is a house of cards. It is being propped up by an inexpensive work force. The new middle class will go the route of the US in the 70s and 80s.

 
jon_mx said:
it is great that China is investing in African nations, but what is the payoff?
Click to expand...
This is kinda a big deal.

The payoff is control of the planets limited resources. Things like copper and cobalt used in lithium ion batteries. That is Chinas play here and it should be paid attention to. It’s a long game, but none the less strategic. 

 
rockaction said:
Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises outlined why much better than I ever could.

Von Mises, from a quote aggregator

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/148868-die-gemeinwirtschaft-untersuchungen-uber-den-sozialismus

Those are just quotes, assembled by an aggregator, but they ring true. The gist of it is that the means of production, the most important part of the communist or hybrid-style economies, is and can never be realized by central planners. The only person that gets to decide, in the end, is the consumer. Central planners never understand the amount of x that people want or need, and this inability to quantify either a proper price, wage, or marginal product accurately leads to its inevitable demise. Mises thinks of the individual in the marketplace as a political agent with a vote would be. Each dollar spent is a vote for the particular product sought. Demand fuels supply, the means of production and all its ethical wishes fall secondary to demand. The fatal conceit of communism/socialism is that it portends to know, at all times, what these votes are and what they mean. It's an impossible task to quantify large swaths of the economy from a central planners' distance.

Hayek, from a summary

"His economic arguments themselves had many dimensions. Hayek noted, for example, that market prices, which reflect the appraisal of millions of market participants, are essential for entrepreneurial calculation; they allow firm owners to choose the most affordable combinations of technologically feasible inputs. Hayek asserted that in a world of constant change—in which every change of price causes market participants to change their demand and supply, which lead to other adjustments, ad infinitum—no constructed system can match the ability of the market process to adjust continually to the changes. He argued that the market system itself constitutes a “discovery procedure,” in that it provides incentives for the discovery of new products and processes while also disseminating information to market participants (e.g., consumers). This occurs because entrepreneurs have incentives to be alert to and to exploit newly discovered or created knowledge. Hayek maintained that a market system aids in the coordination of plans and the correction of errors in a world in which knowledge is dispersed, tacit, and specific to time and place and in which individual beliefs may be wrong. Obversely, price-fixing hinders coordination; attempts to gather knowledge centrally do not permit the best use of localized and tacit knowledge; and no system provides as much feedback and incentives for the correction of errors in perception as does a market system."
Click to expand...
you are making sense, but I think that it is still important to recognize that what China is currently doing is fairly different from all other planned economies.  It is more like subsidized public-private partnerships with more freedom than other socialist countries and while we can obviously draw some parallels to history, we need to balance that out with recognizing how it is different.

 
If this comes as a surprise to anyone, China plays the long game better than just about anyone and have been for quite some time, see the Belt & Road Initiative linked below. They look at the world 10, 20, 50, 100 years down the road whereas we are stuck in an ever changing 4 year (sometimes 8 ) year cycle of partisan politics that hamstring anything an administration tries to do to address the issue (see the TPP mentioned above). This is not lost on them and, to some extent, fomented by them via social networking and the sheer amount of Chinese nationals trying to influence our political infrastructure.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/10/01/seven-years-into-chinas-belt-and-road/

All views expressed in this post are those of the author and have no factual backup other than his considered opinion

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The US tried to negatively influence the election of Xi to a third term by the Taiwan trip by Pelosi. It didn’t succeed, but it didn’t fail either. It poked at the achilles heel of China. It was a longshot, but it did better than could have been foreseen. It weakened the authority of Xi and the strongarming of a former leader was a clear sign to anyone wishing to step forward as a challenger.

China continues to kick own goals and Covid has slowed their plans considerably, economically, militarily and politically.

The Biden administration has taken them seriously as an adversary, unlike the last 3 presidents. The QUAD alliance with Japan, Australia and India is an excellent start. If they can also strengthen alliances with South Korea, Indonesia and particularly Vietnam.....incredibly tricky unfortunately, they will have China needing to play nicer. Phillipines, Thailand and Malaysia are also smaller, but just as important to win over.

Beating China needs to happen now, not when they become a behemoth. If China improves its models and gets the best out of its citizens instead of using standover tactics, they will be unstoppable. Communism helps in some ways, but is a major detractor in others.

It truly is fascinating and scary at the same time as we watch one empire destroy itself from within, while another struggles to understand some basics, but still have the strategic advantage to usurp them.
 
China's economy will implode as Xi Jinping increasingly uses authoritarian economic distribution tactics while moving away from entrepreneural polices of previous decades. Xi is your typical lefty who does not comprehend the capitalistic incentives which are necessary to fuel growth. He is all about power and equity and his arrogance and total buy in to Communististic principals dooms China's economy to continue their downward growth spiral.
 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
Communism helps in some ways, but is a major detractor in others.
Click to expand...

I would change communism to authoritarianism, really. As you and Long Ball Larry pointed out last year when this was on the front page, China is a hybrid-style government. The more it teeters towards communism in the market will be the more it is inefficient in its dealings. But authoritarianism can get things done democratic societies can't because of human rights, among other things.
 
rockaction said:
But authoritarianism can get things done democratic societies can't because of human rights, among other things.
Click to expand...
There's also an efficiency in decision making if the populace and/or their representatives don't need to be consulted. The central authority will get it wrong a lot, but they'll get it wrong quickly. And sometimes any decision, even a wrong one, is better than no decision.

Finally, their populace doesn't see politics as sport. There are no sides since the vast vast majority have no access to any politician. Therefore, their energy (both entertainment and labor) will be focused elsewhere and likely into more productive avenues.
 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
It truly is fascinating and scary at the same time as we watch one empire destroy itself from within, while another struggles to understand some basics, but still have the strategic advantage to usurp them.
Click to expand...
Chinas strategic advantage is people and I’m not sure what else?
 
djmich said:
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
It truly is fascinating and scary at the same time as we watch one empire destroy itself from within, while another struggles to understand some basics, but still have the strategic advantage to usurp them.
Click to expand...
Chinas strategic advantage is people and I’m not sure what else?
Click to expand...
They have rapidly increased their industry across all levels and continually moved up the value chain. The Chinese government has invested heavily in capacity and capabilities, owning more and more of the value creation.
 
The Z Machine said:
djmich said:
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
It truly is fascinating and scary at the same time as we watch one empire destroy itself from within, while another struggles to understand some basics, but still have the strategic advantage to usurp them.
Click to expand...
Chinas strategic advantage is people and I’m not sure what else?
Click to expand...
They have rapidly increased their industry across all levels and continually moved up the value chain. The Chinese government has invested heavily in capacity and capabilities, owning more and more of the value creation.
Click to expand...
Yes those are good things and I think China is a strong country. But those to me are more “outcomes” than core strategic advantages or competencies.

Their per capita gdp is 1/3rd of ours. If they didn’t have almost 5x as many people this wouldn’t even be a conversation. They’re close to Iraq on per capita gdp.

They are rocking out manufacturing because they’re cheap (that’s what happens we you have a glut of poor people).

It will be interesting to see how the changing view of global corporates vis a vis China and re-evaluating the importance of owning local supply chains will impact them over the next decade.

All that to say they are “doing their job”, with 1.5B people you should kinda carry a big stick and it will get bigger unless they somehow start going backwards.
 
I can tell you that the amount of change I've seen in China in the last 15 years has been astonishing. The growth of the middle class there (at least in the big cities and manufacturing centers of the south and east of the country) was shocking to me. There used to be thousands of bicycles riding around those cities. Now they have subways and the professionals all drive new cars.

They have invested in infrastructure where the west has not. They have invested in education and in enterprises both large and small.

They have a strategic advantage in their demographics in that there are a lot of working age people and proportionally not a ton of older, retired folks. That will last for another 20 years before the tide goes out and they won't have the working age population to support the surfe in elderly.

But make no mistake, that's a structural advantage that goes beyond sheer numbers.
 
GoBirds said:
Good luck, electing Biden wasn’t the step to prevent this. Get ready, it’s what you signed up for.
Click to expand...
I truly don’t understand how people can form this view. The alternative was Trump, an isolationist TPP killing America First guy who, in four years, did absolutely nothing to expand US influence on a global scale. In fact, he did the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Do Democrats Intentionally Ignore How Much Fossil Fuel It Takes To Power Electric Cars? (6/7/22 1:10 PST)
Replies
13
Views
711
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
T
Democrats will be punished in November by not increasing domestic Oil Production
2 3
Replies
145
Views
3K
dkp993
dkp993
E
This is Xi-N-N
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top