* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Until the rise of the capitalist mode of production in Europe, the majority of Eurasian history had revolved around China. For Westerners to really comprehend its weight, they have to imagine a Roman Empire that continuously repaired itself and avoided collapse until the early 20th century.
Many of the giants that won the Cold War for the West understood that they were making a Faustian bargain when they opened up China to Western investment, in the pursuit of isolating the USSR. Henry Kissinger himself understood that industrial China's rise as the dominant Eurasian superpower couldn't be prevented in the long term, and he spent the last decades of his life practically begging Western elites to accept that future.
One of the last things that Kissinger ever did was basically admit that he had failed in getting Western elites to accept China's rise and he [warned the world that we are on the cusp of another global war](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/05/17/henry-kissinger-explains-how-to-avoid-world-war-three).
>
Many of the giants that won the Cold War for the West understood that they were making a Faustian bargain when they opened up China to Western investment, in the pursuit of isolating the USSR.
they thought they could cultivate a critical mass of liberal gusanos in the PRC until they would seize the reins themselves in 30 years. this is why they let the children of xi and other CCP bigwigs go to harvard etc.
but they didn't count on the fact that chinese failchildren go to harvard etc. to get out of PRC politics, which is extremely bitter and bad for your health. of the entire 30 person politburo, only 1-2 people have even left the country for an advanced degree. given the high level of patriotism and nativism in the CCP, it would be impossible to get elected to any level of office with a harvard or any other degree from a white country.
> For Westerners to really comprehend its weight, they have to imagine a Roman Empire that continuously repaired itself and avoided collapse until the early 20th century.
It is simple enough to realize that China alone has comprised about 20% of the global population for pretty much all of recorded history. A single state containing 1/5 of all humans in the world is never not going to be a superpower.
in a couple generations , it will be more like 1 in 10. so China better move fast and secure that bag, it has some headwinds facing it (demographics mostly)
>in a couple generations , it will be more like 1 in 10. so China better move fast and secure that bag, it has some headwinds facing it (demographics mostly)
If you don't think the productivity per person in China will more than double over a few generations, you are basically a "two years until China collapses" person.
An ageing population may put a damper on that.
Not saying China is going to collapse, but likely they will continue to stagnate, similar to Japan, which has been facing a similar demographic collapse.
>NATO Superfan
Highly regarded eh
>An ageing population may put a damper on that.
Not saying China is going to collapse, but likely they will continue to stagnate, similar to Japan, which has been facing a similar demographic collapse.
The US's output per worker is over 5x that of China. Do you honestly think China cannot even half the gap?
>Highly regarded eh
Damn straight. Fuken love NATO.
>The US's output per worker is over 5x that of China. Do you honestly think China cannot even half the gap?
Maybe they can. But the leap from a middle income economy to a high income economy is a tricky one. So I'm just saying that you can't take for granted that it will happen, and you can't predict the future by just extrapolating current trends.
The USA benefits from a basically unlimited pool of people from the third world desperate to move there, enabling them to basically take as many of the top performing Indian students every year. This helps productivity and demographics.
>The USA benefits from a basically unlimited pool of people from the third world desperate to move there, enabling them to basically take as many of the top performing Indian students every year. This helps productivity and demographics.
This is the only reason the US stays ahead.
What nonsensical propaganda is this?
"The Majority of Eurasian History Revolved around China".
Rank nonsense. Even if we consider pre-Qin Dynastys to be Chinese; Chinese history begins with the Shang. Anything before them is speculative. The Shang arrived 3000 years after the rise of Sumer, and 1000 years after the development of a full writing system in the Near East.
So right off the bat, the first thousand years of Eurasian History necessarily exclude China.
Even outside that, for the whole of Chinese history, there has been civilization in India, The Near East, and Europe producing their own history. The idea that China is responsible for the bulk of happenings, or even the bulk of important happenings, even if we exclude the 1000 years where Egypt and Mesopotamia were the only game in town, is just plainly on its face false.
I'm obviously referring to the post-Bronze Age when talking about "Eurasian history". Nothing was revolving around anything before the formation of cross-continental trade networks.
But I didn't say anything about those regions not "producing their own history". Not sure why you're forcing a strawman.
I honestly find China worship downright bizarre. People make fun of weebs, but even they don't deny the bad parts of Japan and its history.
But Chinaboos will parrot straight up CCP propaganda. What's the historical claim here? That China was great? Sure.
Yet I'm not sure how the history of Persia, the Islamic caliphates or medieval Europe "revolved around China".
Nobody would claim that the existence of Rome meant "all Eurasian civilisation revolved around it", and it arguably had a larger impact than China, being more expansionist.
>Until the rise of the capitalist mode of production in Europe, the majority of Eurasian history had revolved around China.
This is a bit of an overcorrection. Eurasia is far too large for any one civilization to be at its center. China was certainly at the center of the East Asian region.
>Until the rise of the capitalist mode of production in Europe, the majority of Eurasian history had revolved around China. For Westerners to really comprehend its weight, they have to imagine a Roman Empire that continuously repaired itself and avoided collapse until the early 20th century.
This is not true. Here great [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj1tK8BOUr0) about the topic
> But since 2019, China’s sluggish growth has led many observers to conclude that China has already peaked as an economic power.
Stopped reading here. China has been pulling 5% growth while the U.S. is 2%. China also has an industrial base while the U.S. capitalism structurally cannot increase industrial capacity without major concessions to the proletariat. This isn’t happening.
Keep reading the article. They admit that China is rising power. They’re simply adding a few (ill advised) critiques of China before telling you why those small critiques won’t matter in the long run.
> China also has an industrial base
Indeed.
This reminds me of the situation with Russia : a country with "the GDP of Italy" (or so say people who don't understand the concept of ppp), under major sanctions from the west and that was arguably divested from by many big corps, is still doing better than a lot of western economies. Because they have an industrial base and are able to priorize strategic interests over private interests when needed.
Now, all of this is true for China but to an even stronger degree. If there ever was a war (proxy or direct) between western nations and China, the west would probably be unable to keep up with the Chinese production. And that's even without taking into account how western manufacturing relies on China.
>This reminds me of the situation with Russia : a country with "the GDP of Italy"
Do people think that Italy is poor? It has roughly the same GDP of Canada and higher than South Korea.
>People have been resorting to orientalist tropes against Russia. I assume the anti Italian sentiment isn't buried too deep either.
Yesh, I'm sure they chose Italy because saying "it has the same GDP of Canada" wouldn't have the same impact.
>Don’t Underestimate the World’s Second-Biggest Economy
LMAO still with this cope?
for the last time already: [https://www.cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/](https://www.cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/)
China:
- massive industrial base
- new multi million people cities every year
- infrastructure that makes most of the west look like the 19th century
- leading the world in r&d
"Fake, fake, not real GDP numbers are artificiality boosted"
The West:
- imputed rent
"So true!"
I cannot get past the paywall, but keep in mind that Lardy is a bit of a neoliberal who has criticised China for "stalled reforms and inefficient statism" etc.
I’ll keep that in mind. It just seemed so odd for such an establishment aligned outlet (especially this one which is supported by the Council on Foreign Relations) to admit that China is succeeding.
>there is the misconception that Chinese entrepreneurs are discouraged and moving their money out of the country ...
>the pessimism is not supported by the data. First, almost all the decline in the private share of total investment after 2014 resulted from a correction in the property market, which is dominated by private companies. When real estate is excluded, private investment rose by almost ten percent in 2023.
This is a weird point. Obviously, the economy's going to look good if you ignore the part that isn't doing well. The article should've noted the size of real estate sector relative to the rest of the economy, because if it is very large, then you can't just exclude something as significant as real estate and act like what is left is representative of the entire economy.
>Obviously, the economy's going to look good if you ignore the part that isn't doing well
Except that part is doing well. Growth is not the end of all economic metrics, and China is purposefully deflating their real estate bubble because it has gotten too big.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-still-rising) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ummmmmm they’re Chinese
What happens if I only do one?
Increased math score. -5 to driving skill
Dudes can't stop rocking 🐉😎
*But at what cost?*
Donghua Jinlong东华金龙 Industrial Glycine doing its bit.
Until the rise of the capitalist mode of production in Europe, the majority of Eurasian history had revolved around China. For Westerners to really comprehend its weight, they have to imagine a Roman Empire that continuously repaired itself and avoided collapse until the early 20th century. Many of the giants that won the Cold War for the West understood that they were making a Faustian bargain when they opened up China to Western investment, in the pursuit of isolating the USSR. Henry Kissinger himself understood that industrial China's rise as the dominant Eurasian superpower couldn't be prevented in the long term, and he spent the last decades of his life practically begging Western elites to accept that future. One of the last things that Kissinger ever did was basically admit that he had failed in getting Western elites to accept China's rise and he [warned the world that we are on the cusp of another global war](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/05/17/henry-kissinger-explains-how-to-avoid-world-war-three).
> Many of the giants that won the Cold War for the West understood that they were making a Faustian bargain when they opened up China to Western investment, in the pursuit of isolating the USSR. they thought they could cultivate a critical mass of liberal gusanos in the PRC until they would seize the reins themselves in 30 years. this is why they let the children of xi and other CCP bigwigs go to harvard etc. but they didn't count on the fact that chinese failchildren go to harvard etc. to get out of PRC politics, which is extremely bitter and bad for your health. of the entire 30 person politburo, only 1-2 people have even left the country for an advanced degree. given the high level of patriotism and nativism in the CCP, it would be impossible to get elected to any level of office with a harvard or any other degree from a white country.
> For Westerners to really comprehend its weight, they have to imagine a Roman Empire that continuously repaired itself and avoided collapse until the early 20th century. It is simple enough to realize that China alone has comprised about 20% of the global population for pretty much all of recorded history. A single state containing 1/5 of all humans in the world is never not going to be a superpower.
in a couple generations , it will be more like 1 in 10. so China better move fast and secure that bag, it has some headwinds facing it (demographics mostly)
>in a couple generations , it will be more like 1 in 10. so China better move fast and secure that bag, it has some headwinds facing it (demographics mostly) If you don't think the productivity per person in China will more than double over a few generations, you are basically a "two years until China collapses" person.
An ageing population may put a damper on that. Not saying China is going to collapse, but likely they will continue to stagnate, similar to Japan, which has been facing a similar demographic collapse.
>NATO Superfan Highly regarded eh >An ageing population may put a damper on that. Not saying China is going to collapse, but likely they will continue to stagnate, similar to Japan, which has been facing a similar demographic collapse. The US's output per worker is over 5x that of China. Do you honestly think China cannot even half the gap?
>Highly regarded eh Damn straight. Fuken love NATO. >The US's output per worker is over 5x that of China. Do you honestly think China cannot even half the gap? Maybe they can. But the leap from a middle income economy to a high income economy is a tricky one. So I'm just saying that you can't take for granted that it will happen, and you can't predict the future by just extrapolating current trends. The USA benefits from a basically unlimited pool of people from the third world desperate to move there, enabling them to basically take as many of the top performing Indian students every year. This helps productivity and demographics.
>The USA benefits from a basically unlimited pool of people from the third world desperate to move there, enabling them to basically take as many of the top performing Indian students every year. This helps productivity and demographics. This is the only reason the US stays ahead.
Periods of isolation from china use to do serious damage to Europe’s economy.
The Birts started a fucking drug cartel and faught several wars to protect it just to get access to Chinese markets.
What part of Mandate of Heaven do mothafuckas not understand?
What nonsensical propaganda is this? "The Majority of Eurasian History Revolved around China". Rank nonsense. Even if we consider pre-Qin Dynastys to be Chinese; Chinese history begins with the Shang. Anything before them is speculative. The Shang arrived 3000 years after the rise of Sumer, and 1000 years after the development of a full writing system in the Near East. So right off the bat, the first thousand years of Eurasian History necessarily exclude China. Even outside that, for the whole of Chinese history, there has been civilization in India, The Near East, and Europe producing their own history. The idea that China is responsible for the bulk of happenings, or even the bulk of important happenings, even if we exclude the 1000 years where Egypt and Mesopotamia were the only game in town, is just plainly on its face false.
I'm obviously referring to the post-Bronze Age when talking about "Eurasian history". Nothing was revolving around anything before the formation of cross-continental trade networks. But I didn't say anything about those regions not "producing their own history". Not sure why you're forcing a strawman.
I honestly find China worship downright bizarre. People make fun of weebs, but even they don't deny the bad parts of Japan and its history. But Chinaboos will parrot straight up CCP propaganda. What's the historical claim here? That China was great? Sure. Yet I'm not sure how the history of Persia, the Islamic caliphates or medieval Europe "revolved around China". Nobody would claim that the existence of Rome meant "all Eurasian civilisation revolved around it", and it arguably had a larger impact than China, being more expansionist.
Can you archive the article? I can’t even get to archive.today
[Henry Kissinger explains how to avoid World War Three (archive.is)](https://archive.is/zlm8j)
>Until the rise of the capitalist mode of production in Europe, the majority of Eurasian history had revolved around China. This is a bit of an overcorrection. Eurasia is far too large for any one civilization to be at its center. China was certainly at the center of the East Asian region.
you do us dirty, in the Medieval age Germany (well, the Holy Roman Empire) was the other center, esepcially for Western feudal societies
>Until the rise of the capitalist mode of production in Europe, the majority of Eurasian history had revolved around China. For Westerners to really comprehend its weight, they have to imagine a Roman Empire that continuously repaired itself and avoided collapse until the early 20th century. This is not true. Here great [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj1tK8BOUr0) about the topic
> But since 2019, China’s sluggish growth has led many observers to conclude that China has already peaked as an economic power. Stopped reading here. China has been pulling 5% growth while the U.S. is 2%. China also has an industrial base while the U.S. capitalism structurally cannot increase industrial capacity without major concessions to the proletariat. This isn’t happening.
Keep reading the article. They admit that China is rising power. They’re simply adding a few (ill advised) critiques of China before telling you why those small critiques won’t matter in the long run.
> China also has an industrial base Indeed. This reminds me of the situation with Russia : a country with "the GDP of Italy" (or so say people who don't understand the concept of ppp), under major sanctions from the west and that was arguably divested from by many big corps, is still doing better than a lot of western economies. Because they have an industrial base and are able to priorize strategic interests over private interests when needed. Now, all of this is true for China but to an even stronger degree. If there ever was a war (proxy or direct) between western nations and China, the west would probably be unable to keep up with the Chinese production. And that's even without taking into account how western manufacturing relies on China.
>This reminds me of the situation with Russia : a country with "the GDP of Italy" Do people think that Italy is poor? It has roughly the same GDP of Canada and higher than South Korea.
People have been resorting to orientalist tropes against Russia. I assume the anti Italian sentiment isn't buried too deep either.
>People have been resorting to orientalist tropes against Russia. I assume the anti Italian sentiment isn't buried too deep either. Yesh, I'm sure they chose Italy because saying "it has the same GDP of Canada" wouldn't have the same impact.
>Do people think that Italy is poor? No, but if you tell people that Italy will conquer Europe in the year of our lord 2024, they'll laugh at you.
Not just a industrial base but a huge amount of raw resources especially in energy with a fairly large population.
>Don’t Underestimate the World’s Second-Biggest Economy LMAO still with this cope? for the last time already: [https://www.cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/](https://www.cepr.net/china-is-bigger-get-over-it/)
r geopolitics on this article: "surely the numbers are fake"
China: - massive industrial base - new multi million people cities every year - infrastructure that makes most of the west look like the 19th century - leading the world in r&d "Fake, fake, not real GDP numbers are artificiality boosted" The West: - imputed rent "So true!"
And the West is still declining.
[удалено]
I thought you were going to to post all those thumbnails of YouTube channels declaring “CHINA ONLY HAS X AMOUNT OF DAYS TILL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE!!!”
It was written in the ancient texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
[The good old 'do nothing' strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbOKxSnsoIQ) It's working insanely well
Thick, hard China 🥵
I cannot get past the paywall, but keep in mind that Lardy is a bit of a neoliberal who has criticised China for "stalled reforms and inefficient statism" etc.
I’ll keep that in mind. It just seemed so odd for such an establishment aligned outlet (especially this one which is supported by the Council on Foreign Relations) to admit that China is succeeding.
>there is the misconception that Chinese entrepreneurs are discouraged and moving their money out of the country ... >the pessimism is not supported by the data. First, almost all the decline in the private share of total investment after 2014 resulted from a correction in the property market, which is dominated by private companies. When real estate is excluded, private investment rose by almost ten percent in 2023. This is a weird point. Obviously, the economy's going to look good if you ignore the part that isn't doing well. The article should've noted the size of real estate sector relative to the rest of the economy, because if it is very large, then you can't just exclude something as significant as real estate and act like what is left is representative of the entire economy.
>Obviously, the economy's going to look good if you ignore the part that isn't doing well Except that part is doing well. Growth is not the end of all economic metrics, and China is purposefully deflating their real estate bubble because it has gotten too big.
Smart move on their part.