China Is Quietly Reshaping the World(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
China Is Quietly Reshaping the World
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/china-belt-and-road/542667/?single_page=true
100 comments
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!
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!
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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 :)
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.
> ...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.
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?
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).
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
"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....
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
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
[deleted]
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.
> 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.
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.
This is just another way to keep GDP growth up by boosting spending. Basically there are a few policies that the Chinese are pursing:
1. Conquering the industries that they are lagging in(i.e auto and semiconductor) by disguising govt subsides as state "support" and flouting WTO rules[1].
2. Spend money on belt and road thingy to prop up GDP because there is no more to spend on existing overheated asset bubbles.
Remember all those years of propping up GDP in construction projects, where the interest on debt(and the debt itself too) becomes too large a portion of the GDP such that most of it goes to just servicing the debt. Ultimately you want consumer spending and standard of living to grow in lock step but it does not[2].
But ultimately with extra spending and little growth they will keep running against fundamental issues like the Impossible Trinity[3] which is like the CAP theorem of macro economics. Unless the economy balances spending and real growth, and if it does not the only Q is when will it burst or become like Japan's decades of stagnation.
[1]https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172944... [2] http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/72997 [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
1. Conquering the industries that they are lagging in(i.e auto and semiconductor) by disguising govt subsides as state "support" and flouting WTO rules[1].
2. Spend money on belt and road thingy to prop up GDP because there is no more to spend on existing overheated asset bubbles.
Remember all those years of propping up GDP in construction projects, where the interest on debt(and the debt itself too) becomes too large a portion of the GDP such that most of it goes to just servicing the debt. Ultimately you want consumer spending and standard of living to grow in lock step but it does not[2].
But ultimately with extra spending and little growth they will keep running against fundamental issues like the Impossible Trinity[3] which is like the CAP theorem of macro economics. Unless the economy balances spending and real growth, and if it does not the only Q is when will it burst or become like Japan's decades of stagnation.
[1]https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172944... [2] http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/72997 [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
“Ultimately you want consumer spending and standard of living to grow in lock step but it does not[2].”
This is often said, but even after reading the linked article it’s not clear why that’s desirable.
Why not for example keep growing exports instead of domestic consumption?
This is often said, but even after reading the linked article it’s not clear why that’s desirable.
Why not for example keep growing exports instead of domestic consumption?
Too much exposition on "non-china" factors?
Annoying quibble about the author's carelessness: there's an article from the Economist that this sentence is linked to.
"Scholars who looked at Chinese investment in Africa from 1991 to 2010 found that Chinese assistance does not appear to help economic growth..."
However, the article linked is actually about Chinese government assistance in Pakistan (not Africa) and the impact on Pakistan's relationship with India -- not about Chinese private investment at all, nor about Africa.
>_>
"Scholars who looked at Chinese investment in Africa from 1991 to 2010 found that Chinese assistance does not appear to help economic growth..."
However, the article linked is actually about Chinese government assistance in Pakistan (not Africa) and the impact on Pakistan's relationship with India -- not about Chinese private investment at all, nor about Africa.
>_>
Chinese private investment in other countries is "private" in name only. It's investment by largely state-owned enterprises in the service of government foreign policy.
"secure the natural resources it needs to grow"
This gets repeated a lot. Maybe Chinese propaganda make this point to justify its outward investments to the Chinese people. Statements like this then take on a sinister sheen when discussed in the West.
Commodities are fungible and China is rich in natural resources itself. Oil is the one thing it is insecure about yet the insecurity is much more about a potential blockade in time of conflict than insufficiency of suppliers. Yes it has interests to see more supplies so it certainly would encourage investments in natural resources but to control the resources? That doesn't even make sense in the modern (WTO) context. It can't even control rare earth exports when 90% of the supply is based inside China, how can it expect to control supplies outside of China?
China has a high savings rate and runs a trade surplus and by necessity it will export capital. There is no other way around it. The Chinese government right now finds it more attractive investing in overseas infrastructures than buying more US Treasury bills.
This gets repeated a lot. Maybe Chinese propaganda make this point to justify its outward investments to the Chinese people. Statements like this then take on a sinister sheen when discussed in the West.
Commodities are fungible and China is rich in natural resources itself. Oil is the one thing it is insecure about yet the insecurity is much more about a potential blockade in time of conflict than insufficiency of suppliers. Yes it has interests to see more supplies so it certainly would encourage investments in natural resources but to control the resources? That doesn't even make sense in the modern (WTO) context. It can't even control rare earth exports when 90% of the supply is based inside China, how can it expect to control supplies outside of China?
China has a high savings rate and runs a trade surplus and by necessity it will export capital. There is no other way around it. The Chinese government right now finds it more attractive investing in overseas infrastructures than buying more US Treasury bills.
>China has a high savings rate and runs a trade surplus and by necessity it will export capital. There is no other way around it. The Chinese government right now finds it more attractive investing in overseas infrastructures than buying more US Treasury bills.
Why can't China now run a huge deficit like the US is expected / encouraged to do, thus becoming consumers of products built in the US and Europe, instead of the other way around?
You say there is no other way around it.
Actually there is, but China prefers to play unfairly (though I agree they wouldn't get away with it if our own business and political leaders weren't so corrupt and short-sighted).
Why can't China now run a huge deficit like the US is expected / encouraged to do, thus becoming consumers of products built in the US and Europe, instead of the other way around?
You say there is no other way around it.
Actually there is, but China prefers to play unfairly (though I agree they wouldn't get away with it if our own business and political leaders weren't so corrupt and short-sighted).
When I said "no other way around it" I meant trade surplus must be balanced by outward investment, an arithmetic fact. I didn't mean they can't run a trade deficit.
As for why they don't have a trade deficit: to run a trade deficit domestic investment rate needs to exceed savings rate. They have a high savings rate. They are already accused of doing too much domestic investment to prop up the economy so an even higher investment rate is not a solution. They can try to lower the savings rate by increasing welfare spending.
As for why it may not want a trade deficit: China can't borrow in its own currency from foreigners like US, that is Chinese RMB is not a major reserve currency. To fund trade deficits with USD denominated market borrowing would expose its economy to mood swings of foreign investors.
As for why they don't have a trade deficit: to run a trade deficit domestic investment rate needs to exceed savings rate. They have a high savings rate. They are already accused of doing too much domestic investment to prop up the economy so an even higher investment rate is not a solution. They can try to lower the savings rate by increasing welfare spending.
As for why it may not want a trade deficit: China can't borrow in its own currency from foreigners like US, that is Chinese RMB is not a major reserve currency. To fund trade deficits with USD denominated market borrowing would expose its economy to mood swings of foreign investors.
>Why can't China now run a huge deficit like the US is expected / encouraged to do, thus becoming consumers of products built in the US and Europe, instead of the other way around?
Because banks and other Govenments believe that there is a ~20% chance that China will implode and have a popular revolution over the next decade for any given decade. That's Morgan Stanley's number, other banks may project different numbers. China is incredibly unstable relative to the US and European countries. Half of China, does not want to be part of China, and not in a joking, "Texas will secede" type of way. There's tons of poverty, not enough water, overpopulation. There's little democratic self correcting mechanisms.
Because banks and other Govenments believe that there is a ~20% chance that China will implode and have a popular revolution over the next decade for any given decade. That's Morgan Stanley's number, other banks may project different numbers. China is incredibly unstable relative to the US and European countries. Half of China, does not want to be part of China, and not in a joking, "Texas will secede" type of way. There's tons of poverty, not enough water, overpopulation. There's little democratic self correcting mechanisms.
Statements like this then take on a sinister sheen when discussed in the West.
That's because statements like that are nothing new if looked at from a historical context. E.g. there was this German word "lebensraum", meaning "living space", that was used to justify Imperial Germany's goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
That whole lebensraum thing didn't end well, for anyone involved.
That's because statements like that are nothing new if looked at from a historical context. E.g. there was this German word "lebensraum", meaning "living space", that was used to justify Imperial Germany's goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
That whole lebensraum thing didn't end well, for anyone involved.
The amount of comments on this article that are emotion and fear-based, rather than fact and experience-based is surprising for HN.
I think part of the problem is that China has zero respect for human rights for even its own citizens. Pretty common knowledge they farm their own undesirables (human beings) for organs.
HN is primarily read by western web software engineers who have little incentive to understand the nuances of China for now because China's web is effectively a closed ecosystem.
Not mentioned in the article is China's desire to develop the western areas of the country, which benefit from Belt and Road.
To manufacture a product in Hebei and ship it from Tianjin, or manufacture in Jiangsu and ship from Shanghai/Ningbo, or manufacture in Guangdong and ship from Shenzhen, is pretty cheap.
To do the same in western provinces is much harder. There's a big regional disparency. While China's landmass goes far west, (western) Sichuan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, the western provinces I mean are the shanxis, gansu, sichuan, yunan with large population bases.
Myanmar was also not mentioned in the article, but will also play an important role as support to southwestern China's access to the ocean.
To manufacture a product in Hebei and ship it from Tianjin, or manufacture in Jiangsu and ship from Shanghai/Ningbo, or manufacture in Guangdong and ship from Shenzhen, is pretty cheap.
To do the same in western provinces is much harder. There's a big regional disparency. While China's landmass goes far west, (western) Sichuan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, the western provinces I mean are the shanxis, gansu, sichuan, yunan with large population bases.
Myanmar was also not mentioned in the article, but will also play an important role as support to southwestern China's access to the ocean.
It is mentioned, even if not deeply: "...Gwadar is experiencing a storm of construction: a brand-new container port, new hotels, and 1,800 miles of superhighway and high-speed railway to connect it to China’s landlocked western provinces"
I might be wrong but didn't something similar happen with Japan too? After the rise of their industrial power they started expanding outside, buying/investing in stuff outside their country in accordance to the BoJ guidance also known as "window guidance". But then the asset bubble burst causing issues for their economy.
Chinese loans seem to be on the rise: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-loans/rpt-upda...
So, will something similar happen here too?
Chinese loans seem to be on the rise: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-loans/rpt-upda...
So, will something similar happen here too?
"most of its largesse comes as loans"
These investments are not really Chinese government's money to give unless it wants to tax its people more. What Chinese government has is a very large sway over where Chinese external investments go since it requires exporters to sell their forex earnings and large outward investments require state approvals. But these investments are not taken from depositors as a tax. The depositors still have claims on the Chinese banks. What the Chinese government/banks do is really to provide a guarantee to the domestic depositors as intermediaries. If the investments go bad they will have to plug the financial hole somehow.
These investments are not really Chinese government's money to give unless it wants to tax its people more. What Chinese government has is a very large sway over where Chinese external investments go since it requires exporters to sell their forex earnings and large outward investments require state approvals. But these investments are not taken from depositors as a tax. The depositors still have claims on the Chinese banks. What the Chinese government/banks do is really to provide a guarantee to the domestic depositors as intermediaries. If the investments go bad they will have to plug the financial hole somehow.
Really interesting article. A couple of comments. Investing in foreign infrastructure and trade is good, as the article itself says, also because it creates a disincentive for war. But we need to keep in mind that economic interest isn't enough to prevent war; before WWI lots of people thought that a new war in Europe was unthinkable, considering the interdependence of Europe economies at the time and how much everybody had to lose with a war. It didn't matter.
Another very important point IMHO is that the end result of this will depend a lot on how productive will these investments turn out to be; will they create good returns or not? If returns are good, they will create wealth and everybody will probably be happy in the end. If returns will be poor, I'm afraid they could end up creating very big tensions in the future between China and the countries that are getting indebted now.
Another very important point IMHO is that the end result of this will depend a lot on how productive will these investments turn out to be; will they create good returns or not? If returns are good, they will create wealth and everybody will probably be happy in the end. If returns will be poor, I'm afraid they could end up creating very big tensions in the future between China and the countries that are getting indebted now.
Too many loans, they'll probably fail big and it will be a bang...
But it is impressive though, I just can't believe they will actually achieve it. Already done internal loaners are failing and they are holding back European expansion ( Chinese firms) on command of the Chinese government.
But as usual, we will see
But it is impressive though, I just can't believe they will actually achieve it. Already done internal loaners are failing and they are holding back European expansion ( Chinese firms) on command of the Chinese government.
But as usual, we will see
> Too many loans, they'll probably fail big and it will be a bang...
Just like IMF "loans" many of these are given with the understanding that the receiving country will never be able to pay it back. The goal is to gain control. So they might go and agree to "restructure" the loans if the country agrees to number of conditions, like say opening the market for more Chinese companies "hey my cousin such and such owns a recycling plant, how about your country lets him dump some of the byproducts in your landfills, and we'll forgive some of these loans" kind of stuff.
Just like IMF "loans" many of these are given with the understanding that the receiving country will never be able to pay it back. The goal is to gain control. So they might go and agree to "restructure" the loans if the country agrees to number of conditions, like say opening the market for more Chinese companies "hey my cousin such and such owns a recycling plant, how about your country lets him dump some of the byproducts in your landfills, and we'll forgive some of these loans" kind of stuff.
That might be the understanding, but Chinese banks haven't written off the loans yet. Some of those loans are with private or SOE Chinese capital, is the government just going to bail them out? It gets messy.
It's more than that. Look at the recent deal with Sri Lanka to resolve the debt owed to China for building a port there:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-ports-idU...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-ports-idU...
"...included a plan for a 99-year lease..."
The loss of sovereignty is the most extreme example for of course. Leasing is something in between. Though 99 years is a pretty long time.
"You can't pay, ok how about we'll just take control of this little part of your country for 99 years".
The loss of sovereignty is the most extreme example for of course. Leasing is something in between. Though 99 years is a pretty long time.
"You can't pay, ok how about we'll just take control of this little part of your country for 99 years".
99 years is long, though significantly less than the duration of the Guantanamo lease.
"Just like IMF "loans" many of these are given with the understanding that the receiving country will never be able to pay it back."
No way.
The IMF is a benevolent entity, with benevolent principles.
Because African leaders grab 15% off the top, and then squander the rest, does not make it a failing, directly of the IMF.
Why do we point fingers at 'Westerners' when Africans are failed and corrupt?
Yes - a pragmatic/cynical person might have 'expected' that the nation would not be able to pay it off, because they understand what's going on.
Also, there are some firms trying to 'cook the books' to get in on the major deals, even when they fully well know it's not possible ...
BUT - the IMF is not intentionally a weapon of economic power in this regard.
America wants South Americans to be consumers of their products - not perpetually broke and unable to even make repayment loans.
Nobody really wins when those IMF deals go black, other than some warlords and some dam/energy plant builders.
Edit: The 'IMF Agent' mythology is one of the worst of the conspiratorial issues to be popularized by the illiterati over the last few decades - and consistent with other economic conspiracy theories: because there are definitely 'bad actors' (on all sides) that have come to be revealed, conspiracists assume that there are these nefarious overlords.
Siemens bribing a surveyor to fudge data to make an investment look better does not make the IMF evil.
African leaders pocketing the cash does not make the IMF evil.
Their inability to actually complete the project on budget/time does not make the IMF evil.
Even when projections were 'altered' - it still worked out for the better. The electricity requirements for Indonesia were fudged overstated when they were taking on loans to build electricity generation facilities. Corruption? Well, maybe. But in fact, actual electricity usage far outpaced the 'higher, fudged' numbers in the first place, thus obviating the nature of the fudge.
Anyone who thinks that the IMF are evil actors should go around and hang out with some of them and see what kind of people they are.
2cnd Edit:
The most obvious evidence against the 'evil IMF' claims is that the economic argument doesn't add up: making low-interest loans that are very risk in terms of default, and other things like political risk - has to be 'the worst' kind of investment one could possibly make.
Make a $500M loan at lower interest than you can elsewhere, with a 25% chance you won't get paid back and a 50% chance the deal will go whacky at some point and have to be re-financed?
Nobody would be willing make that investment.
No way.
The IMF is a benevolent entity, with benevolent principles.
Because African leaders grab 15% off the top, and then squander the rest, does not make it a failing, directly of the IMF.
Why do we point fingers at 'Westerners' when Africans are failed and corrupt?
Yes - a pragmatic/cynical person might have 'expected' that the nation would not be able to pay it off, because they understand what's going on.
Also, there are some firms trying to 'cook the books' to get in on the major deals, even when they fully well know it's not possible ...
BUT - the IMF is not intentionally a weapon of economic power in this regard.
America wants South Americans to be consumers of their products - not perpetually broke and unable to even make repayment loans.
Nobody really wins when those IMF deals go black, other than some warlords and some dam/energy plant builders.
Edit: The 'IMF Agent' mythology is one of the worst of the conspiratorial issues to be popularized by the illiterati over the last few decades - and consistent with other economic conspiracy theories: because there are definitely 'bad actors' (on all sides) that have come to be revealed, conspiracists assume that there are these nefarious overlords.
Siemens bribing a surveyor to fudge data to make an investment look better does not make the IMF evil.
African leaders pocketing the cash does not make the IMF evil.
Their inability to actually complete the project on budget/time does not make the IMF evil.
Even when projections were 'altered' - it still worked out for the better. The electricity requirements for Indonesia were fudged overstated when they were taking on loans to build electricity generation facilities. Corruption? Well, maybe. But in fact, actual electricity usage far outpaced the 'higher, fudged' numbers in the first place, thus obviating the nature of the fudge.
Anyone who thinks that the IMF are evil actors should go around and hang out with some of them and see what kind of people they are.
2cnd Edit:
The most obvious evidence against the 'evil IMF' claims is that the economic argument doesn't add up: making low-interest loans that are very risk in terms of default, and other things like political risk - has to be 'the worst' kind of investment one could possibly make.
Make a $500M loan at lower interest than you can elsewhere, with a 25% chance you won't get paid back and a 50% chance the deal will go whacky at some point and have to be re-financed?
Nobody would be willing make that investment.
Worse, implosion of the Chinese market affects us all. We're all interconnected for better or for worse.
source?
People who travel there report empty buildings ( cause : loans not paid back and the mortgage are the buildings )+ multiple articles about bank failure ( eg. Google China shadow banking)
I always thought China's motto was: Fake it, untill you make it ( their annual growth of 8% is based on a big part on empty buildings and not repaying loans. It is controlled by the governement and they try to eliminate the crisis by expanding influence in the world. Eg. Too big to fail)
----------
In short, the growth of China is artifically inflated to 8% per year, since many years --> huge internal debt. Now they are doing the same on a global scale. We are all doomed :)
https://amp.ft.com/content/a6086a9a-5059-11e7-bfb8-997009366...
https://theconversation.com/is-china-on-the-verge-of-a-banki...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/211...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-financial-crisis_...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/15/chinas-debt-b...
I always thought China's motto was: Fake it, untill you make it ( their annual growth of 8% is based on a big part on empty buildings and not repaying loans. It is controlled by the governement and they try to eliminate the crisis by expanding influence in the world. Eg. Too big to fail)
----------
In short, the growth of China is artifically inflated to 8% per year, since many years --> huge internal debt. Now they are doing the same on a global scale. We are all doomed :)
https://amp.ft.com/content/a6086a9a-5059-11e7-bfb8-997009366...
https://theconversation.com/is-china-on-the-verge-of-a-banki...
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/211...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-financial-crisis_...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/15/chinas-debt-b...
The internet will go crazy over China now, mostly of which will be:
1. Abuse human rights.
2. A dictatorship.
3. South China sea.
But the internet will happily use "Made in China" shamelessly. Hypocrisy at its best.
The internet being the western majority crowd who have never seen a world outside of their state.
As seen on youtube
" Do you support Iraq war"
Yeah absolutely. They have WMD.
Show me where Iraq is on this map.
Points to Madagascar.
1. Abuse human rights.
2. A dictatorship.
3. South China sea.
But the internet will happily use "Made in China" shamelessly. Hypocrisy at its best.
The internet being the western majority crowd who have never seen a world outside of their state.
As seen on youtube
" Do you support Iraq war"
Yeah absolutely. They have WMD.
Show me where Iraq is on this map.
Points to Madagascar.
"Supreme excellence consists on breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." - Sun Tzu
What enemy? The world benefits immensely from China no longer being hyper impoverished and no longer being a big negative drain on world aid. Now that China can fully support itself - which is something that is actually relatively recent, only occurring in the last 20 years - more global aid is available to help the remaining very poor nations, and China can contribute to that, accelerating the climb of the global median standard of living.
500 million of the world's poorest people still live in China. While they have a long ways to go yet, every bit of progress helps the rest of the world tremendously.
500 million of the world's poorest people still live in China. While they have a long ways to go yet, every bit of progress helps the rest of the world tremendously.
I know you mean well, but China is a relatively rich country, it doesn't have 500 million of the world's poorest people, those distinctions go to India (poorer than china at 1 billion) and Africa (most of which is poorer than India).
China has been the richest country in the world at many points in world history, heck, even at its worse, it has always been self sufficient. They never got global aid like say Ethiopia did. At best, they had some Russian technical help before the sino soviet split.
China has been the richest country in the world at many points in world history, heck, even at its worse, it has always been self sufficient. They never got global aid like say Ethiopia did. At best, they had some Russian technical help before the sino soviet split.
The quote said "enemy" so I kept that word. But in the context of trade, I would rather interpret that as "adversary" or "rival".
Now, it is important to understand that the Chinese communist party and the US are ideological opposites. And this is reflected in policies such as censorship and redaction of Internet content.
Market dominance comes with political influence. These infrastructure projects not only have trade implications but influence implications as well.
Now, it is important to understand that the Chinese communist party and the US are ideological opposites. And this is reflected in policies such as censorship and redaction of Internet content.
Market dominance comes with political influence. These infrastructure projects not only have trade implications but influence implications as well.
Thanks somewhat to US domestic politics, China seems to be gradually edging from global enemy towards saviour status.
With regard to climate change, they are now more progressive than the US. Perhaps the chinese emphasis on long term thinking and the importance of future generations is counteracting the negative effects of their ruthless and undemocratic regime.
With regard to climate change, they are now more progressive than the US. Perhaps the chinese emphasis on long term thinking and the importance of future generations is counteracting the negative effects of their ruthless and undemocratic regime.
China starts from a huge deficit in environmental protection that can't really be compared to the USA. They are being aggressive today because 500+ 2.5pm is unlivable.
Climate change is nothing to do with PM2.5. That's a very short term (falls out of the air in days) local issue. They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US.
The solutions are exactly the same. The Chinese people aren't more fired up about solving climate change, but they have a huge immediate pollution problem that needs to be solved yesterday. But coincidentally, getting rid of coal plants helps with climate change, and they don't have the natural gas infrastructure to go with it much anyways.
The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.
The USA on the other hand, doesn't have that same problem, at least nowhere near on the same scale. Natural gas has worked really well as a more economic substitute to coal even if its CO2 reduction isn't as great. The problem of climate change is less immediate and less local than direct toxic air pollution, making it much more difficult to get people fired up about.
> They're emitting less CO2 per capita than the US
The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news...
High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance.
Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.
The most disingenuous statement in this thread? In other news...
High School coach points out his QB completes more passes per game than NFL team QB. Demands equivalent compensation for better performance.
Total physical amount of pollution is a quantitative problem. Trying to cut it up per capita by a population grouping is not constructive. Hand waving with this kind of reductionist calculation is political spin. It's "unfair" to discount this measure, but thats because physical/practical problems lie outside political interests.
Are you saying a country with 4M people that emits the same as a country with 100M people is doing OK?
Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
Per capita is a useful measurement (but not the only one).
Depends on density if we are talking about local livability, Mongolia would have a lesser problem if everyone didn't live in its capital. CO2, on the other hand, is a global problem, so per capita is more relevant, but has all sorts of tragedy of the commons and prisoner dilemma implications.
Wow those numbers are staggering... Staggeringly small compared to US's budget for the War(s) on Terror, that is.
China is destroying the world. The amount of ecological damage they do OUTSIDE their own country is staggering.
That's how industrialization looks, at this point. For now, you can either choose to be "pure" or "rich". 99% of people choose "rich".
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.