China

[arthwollipot]

And can't or doesn't read.

Certainly Plato's Utopia does not purport to describe an achievable society.

In fact I just realised that Utopia is simply Plato's Cave applied to politics and culture. Huh. Go me.

 

[Ziggurat]

China thinks in decades or centuries, not weeks and months the way the west does.

This has been conventional wisdom for decades, but it isn’t actually true. Rather, it’s a convenient fiction for big government advocates in the west. Chinese politics is driven by short term thinking, not long term thinking. That’s why they keep digging holes they can’t get out of. Their real estate bubble? It’s a Ponzi scheme, which is the epitome of short term thinking. Why on earth would anyone plan to build excess housing capacity that wasn’t even livable?

Their vaunted high speed rail? Sounded like a good idea at the time, now it’s going bankrupt. But it’s worse than that, because it also stole capacity from freight rail, which pushed more freight traffic onto roads, which is much less efficient. US politicians and pundits who wanted high speed rail here puffed it up like it was a great accomplishment instead of recognizing it for the boondoggle it is.

There are lots of examples, but perhaps most damning of all is their one child policy, a move that has doomed China. They will not be a global power in 100 years thanks to that mistake, and no belt and road initiative, no soft power diplomacy, no naval buildup can do a single thing to reverse that decline. And it has already started.

Don’t tell me that China thinks in centuries unless you want to argue they planned suicide.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe China figures that after the rise and fall of the American Empire, there'll still be Han descendants scrabbling in the littoral mud of the "South China Sea".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Ironically, TGZ himself has already acknowledged that command economies cold suck at responding to market lag - something that free market capitalism handles quite well by comparison.

I think you are laboring under the misapprehension that I think Marxism the a System of Government.
Yes, all command economies suffer from lag, and the more restrictive they are the more they do so.
On the other hand, they are way less wasteful than pure market economies and can execute large scale projects faster and cheaper than pure market systems.

In short: it's unlikely that 17th Century entrepreneurs have figured out the perfect way to run an economy for all times. Neither has a 19th century philosopher.

Is is just sad and scary that we have come to the point, as Frederic Jameson said,
"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"

this is extremely dangerous and, objectively, bad for most humans.

never mind the fact that we are not living in a capitalist system, but in a system of Capital Welfare, Laissez-faire capitalism for those without capital.
Capitalism is always a system of Privilege and Classism, as an entire set of the legal system has to be set aside for a selected group with outsized power and influence.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

China's nuclear reactor buildout isn't so much an achievement on their part but a failure on ours. We have the industrial capacity to build reactors. We CHOOSE not to for political, not technical, reasons. And their solar/wind buildout is going to turn out to be a waste of money, just like their high speed rail was.

not in evidence.

with almost no exception, no Western State has managed to build any new reactors in decades that were not decades behind schedule and orders of magnitude over budget.
We can NOT build nuclear reactors, unless the State takes all the costs and risks - there are no investors for it.

and when it comes to renewables, its certainly not a waste when you build up production capacity for export - which is exactly what China has done and the US has completely failed to do.
Because Capitalism didn't want it.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think you've missed the point - China isn't interested in having carriers like America's.

America's are there to project power around the world; China's military focus is near China and they already have [fairly] indestrucible bases in the SC Sea that are much more useful than any carrier. Their carriers are for show for their 3rd world pals who vote with them on economic/geopolitical fora.

If you look at what's happening in the south Pacific, China & US are involved in a battle for friends and China's pulling them in nicely. One of the island groups changed allegiance just the other day, and they don't have any interest in what kind of carrier either side has. When it ties up in port and the crew start spending money, the locals won't care if it's loaded with F35s or Fairey Swordfishes.

Thinking China is imperialistic in the way America is is an error. China is aggressive close to home and uses renminbi diplomacy elsewhere. I'm not aware of any Chinese troop involvement in Africa or the ME right now, and I'm sure there aren't because it's a stupid move. They've quietly put a base in Djibouti and that's all at the moment, more will come but not through force - it's one thing Wolfman used to note: China thinks in decades or centuries, not weeks and months the way the west does.

Actually, China's foreign policy is a near complete bust. Yes they've picked up a few of the small island nations in the south Pacific as (very temporary) allies, but they've also alienated every significant country in the south-east Asian and Pacific regions. They picked up Djibouti on the belt and road initiative but nobody else, largely because the scheme was more geared towards further enriching their own billionaires than enhancing diplomatic ties, so much so that all their wanted pickups in the Sahel decided to do deals with Wagner instead, which amounted to little more than signing over significant national assets for the illusion of protection.

China's international policy is so successful they are now deepening ties with Ruzzia, a state they distanced themselves from two years ago after realising that it is a failed state.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Actually, China's foreign policy is a near complete bust. Yes they've picked up a few of the small island nations in the south Pacific as (very temporary) allies, but they've also alienated every significant country in the south-east Asian and Pacific regions. They picked up Djibouti on the belt and road initiative but nobody else, largely because the scheme was more geared towards further enriching their own billionaires than enhancing diplomatic ties, so much so that all their wanted pickups in the Sahel decided to do deals with Wagner instead, which amounted to little more than signing over significant national assets for the illusion of protection.

China's international policy is so successful they are now deepening ties with Ruzzia, a state they distanced themselves from two years ago after realising that it is a failed state.

Arguably, turning Russia into a Client State (aka making it your bitch) is the greatest foreign policy win in all of Chinese history.

And the presence China has in Africa is decades ahead of anything the West will be able to do.

The only hope, really that the EU/US block has is for China to become super unpopular and thus push countries into the western embrace.

 

[The Atheist]

This has been conventional wisdom for decades, but it isn’t actually true.

So absurd I wonder why I'm bothering answering.

China has lifted nearly a billion people from poverty, growing their economy to number 2 in the world and poised to take over the number one spot in the next 20 years.

Of course they've made some errors along the way, but their national debt is roughly equivalent to the amount of US debt they own, so the idea that their economy is a bust is beyond laughable.

Still, it's nice of you to show your total understanding of economics. The idea of an American laughing about anyone else's high-speed rail is a nice touch, too.

 

[Lplus]

I think you got it wrong.

Capitalism is extremely reluctant to change, because once you have a monopoly, you can stop innovating.
That is because Capital will always prefer a calculable win over a gamble.
It takes State Investment to do really risky or long-term projects.

One look at US Pharma should prove this beyond any doubt.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. Capitalism is quite ready to inovate to maintain an advantage within its ranks, and is quite capable of responding to a government requirement to build anything the government likes and is prepared to pay for. Capitalism is not a monolithic system, only Socialism can be that.

Ironically, TGZ himself has already acknowledged that command economies cold suck at responding to market lag - something that free market capitalism handles quite well by comparison.

We're not talking about market forces here, China is building things for political reasons, not because they make economic sense.

I think you are laboring under the misapprehension that I think Marxism the a System of Government.
Yes, all command economies suffer from lag, and the more restrictive they are the more they do so.
On the other hand, they are way less wasteful than pure market economies and can execute large scale projects faster and cheaper than pure market systems.

They certainly can if the workers are simply ordered to work - not something available in democratically governed countries, at least in "western" ones.

In short: it's unlikely that 17th Century entrepreneurs have figured out the perfect way to run an economy for all times. Neither has a 19th century philosopher.

Is is just sad and scary that we have come to the point, as Frederic Jameson said,
"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"

this is extremely dangerous and, objectively, bad for most humans.

never mind the fact that we are not living in a capitalist system, but in a system of Capital Welfare, Laissez-faire capitalism for those without capital.
Capitalism is always a system of Privilege and Classism, as an entire set of the legal system has to be set aside for a selected group with outsized power and influence.

And there's the real hatred of Capitalism - the fact that individuals can invest excess money they shouldn't have, in enterprises that employ others for a wage to carry out work at a profit, and then get paid money from that profit simply for having invested that money they shouldn't have available.

not in evidence.

with almost no exception, no Western State has managed to build any new reactors in decades that were not decades behind schedule and orders of magnitude over budget.
We can NOT build nuclear reactors, unless the State takes all the costs and risks - there are no investors for it.

and when it comes to renewables, its certainly not a waste when you build up production capacity for export - which is exactly what China has done and the US has completely failed to do.
Because Capitalism didn't want it.

Three reasons for not building reactors quickly in the "west" -

Democracy allows those who don't want nuclear power (for many and varied reasons) to have a say and threaten the positions of the politicians who have to get reelected. (quite apart from the inevitable demonstations and so forth)

Design and safety standards for both the construction and operating phases.

Wages levels for both construction and operation staff.

None of which are of consequence to China.

And as to building up export capacity for renewables, the time has long gone when "western" economies could guarantee massive export sales of the more basic technologies. It isn't a case of Capitalism not wanting to build up capacity, it's a case of Capitalism knowing it is unlikely to make a profit. (shock horror!) Again, China knows it can export cheaply enough to make it worth while.

 

[Ziggurat]

So absurd I wonder why I'm bothering answering.

China has lifted nearly a billion people from poverty, growing their economy to number 2 in the world

How did they do that? With some great 100 year plan? No. They did it when they stopped trying to plan the economy. Plus a **** ton of intellectual property theft.

Now they’re back to trying to plan the economy again.

and poised to take over the number one spot in the next 20 years.

Not going to happen. If you think it is, you haven’t been paying attention to demographics.

Of course they've made some errors along the way,

This reminds me of a Monty Python bit:

May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy, absolutely none. And when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than I personally admit. But, all new Ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they are to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And finally, necrophilia is right out.​

but their national debt is roughly equivalent to the amount of US debt they own, so the idea that their economy is a bust is beyond laughable.

You don’t understand what’s happened in the real estate market there, do you? Nor do you understand its connection to local government funding. The problem isn’t simply the level of debt, but the resource misallocation. That would remain even if the debt vanished. Which it won’t.

Or maybe it will, and all those Chinese citizens who poured their life savings into real estate will end up with nothing. And maybe there will be no negative consequences of that. The CCP certainly hopes so.

Still, it's nice of you to show your total understanding of economics. The idea of an American laughing about anyone else's high-speed rail is a nice touch, too.

What is it with people who treat high speed rail like it’s holy? Like running at a massive loss doesn’t mean anything?

 

[Ziggurat]

And the presence China has in Africa is decades ahead of anything the West will be able to do.

The only hope, really that the EU/US block has is for China to become super unpopular and thus push countries into the western embrace.

As their debt traps begin to spring, that may very well happen. They’re already pushing Southeast Asia into the American camp with their island adventures.

Plus, it won’t matter in the long run. China is a dying country, no amount of diplomacy will change that. Every year that passes, their work force gets smaller, their population older. They have committed national suicide.

 

[theprestige]

I can't be the only one creeped out by the "a Yugo accelerating from 0 to 60 is competitive with a BMW cruising at 120, because acceleration" rationale.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

As their debt traps begin to spring, that may very well happen. They’re already pushing Southeast Asia into the American camp with their island adventures.

Plus, it won’t matter in the long run. China is a dying country, no amount of diplomacy will change that. Every year that passes, their work force gets smaller, their population older. They have committed national suicide.

This. And most things that Ziggurat has said about China, for that matter.

The idea that China has long term plans based on some deep strategy is unfortunately just myth making, largely propagated by China itself, but also a hangover from western orientalism and I think a desperate need to be generous and not appear racist, which is odd considering how just how blatantly racist China itself is. Could a Rishi Sunak, for example, ever rise to be leader of China? Could he bollocks.

The end goal of the CCP is not really to better the condition of the people of China, or to promote marxism, or even communism, it is to keep the CCP in power, forever.
That is their most important and overriding consideration.

They manage to combine kneejerk reactions with great ideological inertia, so keep potentially useful policies active long after their usefulness has ended. The 1 child policy is the prime example, introduced quickly then kept decades after they knew the harm it was causing, because of ideology. Now, of course, its too late.

Zero Covid is another good example. Kept beyond all usefulness, to the point long after it was actively hurting their economy, as outright stated by their Premier Li. Then finally the population had enough, riots were spreading, Covid testing booths set on fire, and the CCP's stability and hold on power itself was threatened. So over a weekend, zero covid was dropped, and it was if it had never happened.

Yes, they lifted many out of abject poverty by abandoning communism entirely and embracing capitalism, but those people are still extremely poor, even considering local purchasing power. And the countryside is unbelievably dirt poor. There are very little social safety nets, if any.

What you have is an incredibly rich and prosperous elite, and the rest scrabbling for scraps. Like the US or UK but on steroids. The idea that China is rich is, guess what: A myth. Some chinese are indeed very, very, VERY rich. Most are poor, and getting poorer by the month.

Plus the idea that China is some kind of green pioneer is just rubbish. Don't buy into the facade that modern China presents, again its a myth. It approved 2 new coal power stations PER WEEK all through most of 2023.
It is easily the largest polluter in the world. Its air pollution is 6 times higher than WHO standards.

And it was specifically CCP policies to encourage home ownership and not reign in the developers that has led to the current property crash.
And its teetering. Evergrand is already in liquidation, and the biggest developer of all, Country Garden, has liquidation case ongoing and will be next, as it owes 194 billion USD and has absolutely no chance of paying it off, or even making the next payment.
The others are just as bad, and it will happen to them all.

If you didn't know, the property market is 25% of the Chinese GDP, and its going down the toilet fast.

There is far more reason to be pessimistic about China than to be optimistic. Don't believe the myths or the hype.

 

[Ziggurat]

The end goal of the CCP is not really to better the condition of the people of China, or to promote marxism, or even communism, it is to keep the CCP in power, forever.
That is their most important and overriding consideration.

It's not even that. It's to keep the current leader in power for his lifetime. Apres moi, le deluge. Or in more contemporary terms, "That's a problem for future Homer. Man, I don't envy that guy."

They manage to combine kneejerk reactions with great ideological inertia

That's a very good way to describe it.

Plus the idea that China is some kind of green pioneer is just rubbish. Don't buy into the facade that modern China presents, again its a myth. It approved 2 new coal power stations PER WEEK all through most of 2023.
It is easily the largest polluter in the world. Its air pollution is 6 times higher than WHO standards.

They are a green pioneer. Just look at all the hills they painted green.

If you didn't know, the property market is 25% of the Chinese GDP, and its going down the toilet fast.

The total value of Chinese real estate exceeded the total value of US real estate. Considering that in none of these cases does anyone actually own the land (it's all leased from the government), there's no possible way that this wasn't a massive overvaluation. And the bubble is starting to pop. The CCP might be able to prop it up for a while, but the fundamentals are bad, and there's nothing they can do about that.

There is far more reason to be pessimistic about China than to be optimistic. Don't believe the myths or the hype.

Even the Chinese know. That's why the CCP is starting to turn the screws domestically.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I can't be the only one creeped out by the "a Yugo accelerating from 0 to 60 is competitive with a BMW cruising at 120, because acceleration" rationale.

Weak metaphor is weak.


Better to have a cheap car that everyone can afford and gets them out of misery quick than an expensive car hardly anyone can afford.

 

[Ziggurat]

Weak metaphor is weak.


Better to have a cheap car that everyone can afford and gets them out of misery quick than an expensive car hardly anyone can afford.

OK, let's go with your criteria.

China hasn't lifted everyone in the country out of misery. Not even close. Most Chinese are still living in abject poverty. And that's not about to change.

 

[theprestige]

Weak metaphor is weak.


Better to have a cheap car that everyone can afford and gets them out of misery quick than an expensive car hardly anyone can afford.

If that's where the metaphor were going, sure.

But TA isn't saying that the Chinese economy is doing well for its people, even though it's not on the same level as the American economy. He's saying that the Chinese economy is on track to outpace the American economy, because it's currently building more things faster than the American economy is.

 

[The Atheist]

Not going to happen. If you think it is, you haven’t been paying attention to demographics.

You're making less sense than usual.

While people continue to buy Chinese goods, their economy will overtake yours.

You don’t understand what’s happened in the real estate market there, do you?

I certainly do and have posted extensively on the subject.

What is it with people who treat high speed rail like it’s holy? Like running at a massive loss doesn’t mean anything?

Resort to strawman noted.

I made no comment about whether high-speed rail is good or bad, I merely pointed out that China is a long way ahead of USA on it, despite USA spending tens hundreds of billions of dollars to still have zero high-speed trains.

You criticised China's high-speed rail while ignoring the sleeper in your own eye.

If that's where the metaphor were going, sure.

But TA isn't saying that the Chinese economy is doing well for its people, even though it's not on the same level as the American economy. He's saying that the Chinese economy is on track to outpace the American economy, because it's currently building more things faster than the American economy is.

Correct.

Let's look at China/US trade, shall we?

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

 

[Ziggurat]

You're making less sense than usual.

While people continue to buy Chinese goods, their economy will overtake yours.

Chinese goods don't appear out of thin air. They have to be made by workers. China is losing workers, which means they cannot make as many goods, labor costs are going up making the goods they do make more expensive, their aging population is also going to mean that a smaller percentage of that shrinking work force will even be available to work on exported goods. Meanwhile, the world is realizing that they're an unreliable supplier so they're trying to divest, and China's economic and political crackdowns are making foreign investment in China less and less attractive. Growing China's economy requires more than just people buying Chinese goods. It requires buying more and more Chinese goods over time. And that's not going to keep happening.

You're whistling past the graveyard on China's demographic collapse. And in this case, the graveyard isn't even metaphorical.

Let's look at China/US trade, shall we?

Why? Is China the only country we trade with? No, it isn't. Our trade balance with only China doesn't say much of anything. For example, China imports more from Australia than Australia imports from China. So does that mean Australia is ahead of China? Does that mean Australia is ahead of the USA? That would be a naive way to look at it, since Australia imports more from the USA than the USA imports from Australia.

And one of the supreme ironies in all of this is that China actually depends on the USA not just as its biggest customer (far more than we depend on it as our biggest supplier), but also to ensure the global security that its exports depend upon. China cannot actually protect its merchant marine fleet. It needs the US Navy to do that for it.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Why? Is China the only country we trade with? No, it isn't. Our trade balance with only China doesn't say much of anything. For example, China imports more from Australia than Australia imports from China. So does that mean Australia is ahead of China? Does that mean Australia is ahead of the USA? That would be a naive way to look at it, since Australia imports more from the USA than the USA imports from Australia.

Indeed. The US biggest trading partner is now Mexico, who finally overtook Canada.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrob...-trade-partner-export-import/?sh=4b9551e33eaf

China is now 3rd largest, and dropping fast, down 16.7% in 2023.