If you are interested in a more detailed portrait of the shifts happening, this book is excellent. If the US loses its technological advantage and its reserve currency status, it is very difficult to know what will happen.
> 1. Its geography means it's impervious to conventional invasions.
You'd have to be insane to invade China, though. "Never get involved in a land war in Asia". Especially never get involved in a land war in Asia against someone with an army the size of China's.
> 2. Its embracing culture will attract more immigrants.
This advantage the current administration seems to be working as hard as possible to destroy. As far as I know, though, this is still an advantage for the US compared to China.
> 2. Its [China's] economy is still underdeveloped, therefore economic growth is a lot easier.
It's not nearly as underdeveloped as it used to be. Further growth will be significantly harder than past growth was. Can China keep it going? I don't know.
Nobody is capable of invading China, that is true. But American mainland is a lot more secure than China's. Any military conflict will be fought near China and have direct costs to China. For example, a blockage of the strait of Malacca will cripple China.
As to the economy, as long as China grows faster than 3%, it will gain relatively to the US.
Infrastructure destruction by missiles, terrorism and hacking (power grid, financial system, etc.) seem more dangerous at the moment and geography plays little to no role in any of those.
Also, weaponize space and all terrestrial advantages become mostly moot (no GPS, communications, etc.).
You don't need to invade the entire land, you just need to bomb a few targets. A nice chunk of China's population and structure is distributed across China's shores. If you take a look at photos of China at night from space, you'll see that the shores are way way brighter than inland. Interesting enough, there are plenty US allies nearby which could be used as base to make bombing easier.
Edit:However, I, personally, don't think we'll see big dogs such as U.S and China fighting in any moment near future. We have developed tools so efficient to kill each other that the best ideia possible is to not use them. At these times, big wars are too costly for everyone, involved or not.
The US would never need to invade China in the (horrific) event of a conflict. Simply cut off their access to oil by blocking the Strait of Malacca. Better yet do nothing and allow Japan do it for you.
The easy growth is gone, though, now that the labor market in China is tightening up. A lot of countries have made it to the middle stage of development and then petered out on growth; that list includes Thailand, Malaysia, Turkey, etc, all of which rank higher either on GDP per capita or GNI per capita.
China is interesting in that its society is rapidly aging before it becomes a high income country, which is enough of a rough transition for high income countries.
That is all true. However I would say that the divisions within US society (black vs. white, guns vs. no guns, abortion vs no abortion, tax rich vs. tax no one,...) and the horrible public education system will be its biggest challenge going forward. At the end of the day, empires are build on economic / technological advantage - Roman army & aqueducts, British longbow, French knights, British steampower, US microprocessors,...
Their Geography is not better either they do not have direct access to Pacific, their energy dependence on ME oil is very evident and of course 17 bordering states with numerous disputes.
If US goes down (that's a big If and very unlikely event) then Pacific will be Japanese playground not Chinas and India will tie-up with the biggest maritime power to check them in India Ocean.
Its really hard to be a super power at least in the near term without being a first grade naval power.
The publication is some times called Washington Compost, a very hard earned nick name for their BS vending!
Japan does not have the capability to compete with Chinese naval power. Why do you think it’s unlikely that the US will go down? What time frame are you attributing this unlikelihood to take place in? I’m assuming you mean in the next few decades and not meaning a much larger time frame.
I have no expertise but it appears from my perspective that the US is in a state of imperial decline. I think this will accelerate in the coming decades. For me the canary in the coal mine event was Gulf War 1 when the US went around asking other countries to help pay for our war. Mercenary nation. There are lots of other signs of imperial decline as I see things but that event was very telling.
There are definitely signs of decline; I'm with you there. The problem is that there have been signs of decline before - leading up to the Civil War, the Great Depression, Vietnam. The question is, is this negative derivative at the moment the start of the Big Decline, or is it just a temporary downtrend?
I also fear that it's the start of the Big Decline, but I'm far from certain of that...
From my perspective the decline has been going on since the end of the Reagan administration. There are a number of reasons for my belief but I think it has been steadily going on for 30 years now. Prior the Civil War Alexis de Tocqueville famously predicted the rise of America. After the war our dominance in the Western Hemisphere was solidified and at the beginning of the 20th century it was clear that resource rich America with its vast land mass was able to achieve scales of economy that no other nation could match. It was clear that we were still a rising power at that time.
> For me the canary in the coal mine event was Gulf War 1 when the US went around asking other countries to help pay for our war.
On the contrary I would say Gulf War 1 was the last example of the US empire operating as designed: a large coalition of westernized nations implicitly following the leadership in the US, in a network of institutions and alliances entirely built around the assumption of US supremacy.
IMO the second Gulf War was the first blow to the US-centric international system... and it was the US themselves who dealt that blow.
It's one thing asking allies to help fight a war and quite another asking them to pay for it. Japan famously was asked to pay $10 billion. It was disconcerting to see this as an American. Allegedly the war was worth fighting for America but I guess not worth America paying for it. We were willing to spill our blood but not open our wallets.
I mean, china has nukes, a larger and more experienced army and navy, and a geographical advantage. The largest mountain range in the world borders them on one side, Siberia and the steppe on the other, a huge ass desert in between, tropical rainforest and mountains to the south east.
The geographic isolation isn't as strong as the us', but it's much stronger than any other country in the region. Taiwan/japan/south korea off their border is the biggest issue
>US will likely due to tax / deficit issues, not so different than the French aristocrats who refused to pay taxes in run-up to the revolution.
Or you could see it as being like the USSR which drove itself into the ground by spending everyone's money (trying to keep up with the US) faster than everyone could create it.
Tax/deficit problems can not be considered just tax problems or just spending problems because the amount of input is not meaningful except in relation to the amount of output. It's like how diet and exercise need to be considered together if you want to make a plan for meaningful weight loss. If we stopped playing world police (or just did it less) and made the government gravy train more efficient (i.e. less of a gravy train, which sounds easy but it's actually hard because nobody wants to stop pissing money away on their pet program/subsidy) we could probably have both good social safety nets and less taxes.
> So US will spend their money on trying to keep up with... China? Russia? Japan? India?
At the moment the US is outspending everyone combined. As they catch up and economically and technologically it gets exponentially harder for the US to maintain their current dominance. China also gets more bang for it's buck, it's only trying to assert dominance of a small area but the US is spread globally.
A better analogy might be pre-WW1 Britain that tried to maintain a navy at least the size of the next world powers combined.
I am curious who is the analog to the french aristocrats. With 95% of the tax burdened by those earning more than $50k, it is crucial to define this. The median income is roughly about this value as well, so basically nearly all the tax is burdened by the top 50% earning populace. If you raise the bar further ($200k), its still nearly 60% of the taxes being paid by 5-10% of the populace. So I am not sure I buy that the "aristocrats" are "refusing" to pay their taxes. Maybe we could oversimplify to just politicians?
The 95% / 20% is just income tax. Total tax burden is quite different considering at least payroll taxes and the fact that a lot of the top earners simply do not pay income tax at all.
Who pays most of the country's taxes -- the rich, poor or middle class? If you add up it all up, including federal income, payroll, excise (such as for gas), and state and local taxes, it's pretty even. Each group's share of total taxes is roughly equivalent to their income.
In other words, concludes Washington advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice, the U.S. tax system is only marginally progresssive, meaning that people at the top hardly pay any more than folks lower down the income ladder.
I suspect this is a disingenuous question, given that almost anyone who has the above statistics also knows that they are misleading, and even false, in the context. The minutes old account age is also suspect.
High income earners pay a vanishingly low percentage of their income as tax, and it is almost all discretionary income, not income they need to merely subsist.
Low income earners pay an increasingly higher proportion of their income as tax (which is not predominantly income tax, rather things like sales, property (directly or indirectly), or ad valorum taxes.
The analog to the French aristocrats are those incredibly wealthy people who, like the former aristocracy, receive enormous income from rents and other unearned sources. That's dead simple obvious to anyone who isn't trying to live out some kind of fantasy-based ideology.
Losing technological advantage will happen naturally as the gdp per capita increase in China and India.
More population= more scientists= more innovation
The reserve currency status is tough. Would not happen naturally without major world events.
Which may be why China is so lenient with bitcoin mining. If 51% of the hashpower of the new currency is within your border, it is not as good as being the reserve currency, but pretty close to it. And it gives a advantage if you ever want to impose a fork with rules that would being home some benefit.
It is Trump that is unraveling the American world order. He dislikes multi-lateral institutions and does not care for values, only interests. Meanwhile, the American government has no cogent response to China's Belt and Road Initiative except for labeling it as "predatory". Something tells me the hard cash of the Chinese will speak louder in Central Asia than American rhetoric.
Trump like the neocons is a reaction to a declining American world order. That being said he's doing things that will also like the neocons merely hasten this decline.
You can see this pattern in corporations all the time. Companies that start to lose market share will often actually lean into the strategies and decision patterns that are causing their collapse while simultaneously canceling innovative projects that might lead somewhere new. They also often get aggressive by doubling down on efforts to lock customers in and becoming litigious, further driving away new customers and leading those with an existing investment to start making plans to migrate.
Human beings react to scarcity by hunkering down, but hunkering down is almost always a losing strategy in the post-industrial age.
I expect China's hunkering down to harm it as well. I think it's too early to call China as the new world power.
> Trump like the neocons is a reaction to a declining American world order.
Neoconservatism arose before the American world order was declining; they only became noteworthy after the end of the Cold War because that (and not any US decline, as such) created a gap between other prominent philosophies and and neoconservatives on substantive foreign policy, where previously there was more of a consensus on the outline of policy, though different philosophies supported the consensus policy.
In many ways, yes. I think Americans tend to underestimate how incredibly damaging US foreign policy has been to massive chunks of the world. The same cannot be said of China. To grossly overgeneralize: China sucks for Chinese people. America sucks for non-Americans¹, and that's only become worse in the recent past. It's something I welcome, with some reluctance.
¹ I mean this in global terms. Not referring to immigrants.
They don't treat other people better. Chinese foreign policy is generally indifferent to the politics of their trade partners. China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries. There are no Chinese analogs to America's unambiguously disastrous adventures in Iran (Mosaddegh), Iraq, Afghanistan, Apartheid South Africa, Chile (Allende), Vietnam etc.
America's main success, in my opinion, has been the ability to cast itself, and perhaps more importantly see itself as one of the good guys - if not the Good Guy™ - while simultaneously setting half the world on fire. China has no such pretensions.
You are partially right, but China does seek significant control of the world outside of China’s borders. The troubles surrounding a major port at Sri Lanka (to say nothing about the South China Sea) is indicative of what a Chinese world order might look like.
Absolutely. My own country's main sea port faces the same threat, because our government has been pigging out on easy Chinese credit, and I still believe that a Chinese global hegemony would be preferable (from a utilitarian standpoint) to the American one. What China is pursuing in a lot of the "Global South" is nothing short of soft colonization, and is the subject of a lot of debate/thinkpieces/Twitter outrage in these parts. It might tell you something that so many of us, after looking at what's on offer, would still rather give this a try than maintain the status quo.
That's an oversimplification. Both the ROC, and the PRC lay claim to each other. I agree with you on Tibet. There's no defending that. I'm not a fan of Chinese foreign or domestic policy. I still think it's vastly preferable (for the vast majority of people outside their own borders) to American.
I'm Kenyan. I know the extent of their involvement in my country. My statements are grounded in that experience.
I think you have an interesting point about America's tendency to wrap itself in the mythos of the "Good Guy" and the inherent hypocrisy between our words and actions.
But with that being said, I think you're making an unfair comparison between two countries. America has been the world hegemon for ~70 years. Have we abused that power at times? Absolutely. Would China abuse the same power given the opportunity? Most certainly. It's human nature.
It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue. If they had that power, they would probably use it like every other powerful country has over the course in human history.
> China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries.
> It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue.
Not quite. I think the idea I'm struggling to communicate is that China is an amoral force upon the world. They're not good. They're just far less bad, in my opinion, from a utilitarian perspective.
> Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.
Taiwan and mainland China both lay claim to each other, so that's a bit more complicated. You're right about Tibet. Most of my statements are, I'll happily admit, generalizations, but it says something that those are the only two examples that come to mind, wouldn't you agree?
I think the crux of my disagreement comes from the fact while China may act "amorally" on the internal stage now, acquiring world hegemon level power will likely change that like it has changed every nation to come into that role before them. Doubly so because they already act (imo) immorally towards those they have current power over (their own people).
Remember that America was once a relatively "amoral" isolationist country too.
>Taiwan and mainland China both lay claim to each other, so that's a bit more complicated.
I'm not a scholar on China-Taiwan relations but as a betting man I'd put money on the PRoC not renouncing their claim on Taiwan even if the RoC renounced theirs on the mainland.
> but it says something that those are the only two examples that come to mind, wouldn't you agree?
Yes I would. But once again, China is a relatively recent major world power (in the modern era). Plenty of time to make enemies yet.
Obviously we're trading in a lot of speculation, opinion and bias here. Thank you for engaging in such a potentially heated discussion in such good faith.
Until Taiwan stops claiming itself to be China, it's an internal affair (or rather a civil war) within "China".
I don't want to go into a long debate over Tibet, but I suggest reading wikipedia articles on it if you haven't done so, to get a more holistic view of the timeline.
It's frightening to think of a world controlled by China although Western societies are heading in China's direction and left wingers have no problem eroding free speech rights...
I would consider myself to the right on the political spectrum although i know where left vs. right sit are a bit different in Europe vs. the US.
This site is very much America-centric so any criticisms of the holy land is taken poorly. If you actually reflected on the last 20 years without bias you would be able to understand why the developed world is considering a new flag to rally behind.
I would argue that, more than anyone else, the US is laying the groundwork for a post-American world order. It has been on that course since the post-9/11 insanity, and the trend has only accelerated since.
As an American I would be happy to see someone else take responsibility. If China thinks they can somehow bring stability to the Middle East then give them a shot. At least when they inevitably descend into chaos again it wont be us having to babysit. I think many Americans are hoping China tries to take a leadership role in Asia and near neighbors
>I think many Americans are hoping China tries to take a leadership role in Asia and near neighbors
Could you elaborate on this? My impression was that China has recently been bullying its neighbors, particularly Vietnam and to some extent the Philippines, over oil and gas deposits in the South China Sea. I can't imagine that's great for regional stability.
I also wonder if many Americans would want China to take on a leadership role with respect to Taiwan. I doubt the Taiwanese would take such a view.
Border tensions is only a minor part of life in Asia, one that is over reported by western media. Trade and infrastructure are more important concerns.
How do the American people benefit from protecting Vietnam and the Philippines? Not to sound trollish, but I genuinely do not see why spending billions in the region and antagonizing China really helps us.
As I understand it, an enormous percentage of global trade sails through the South China Sea. From a pragmatic standpoint, it behooves American interests to support the Vietnamese and Philippine territorial claims so that one nation (China) does not militarily and/or politically dominate such a vital trade route.
From an idealistic standpoint, America supports the notions of state sovereignty and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea simply out of principle. Like Apple’s stance on customer data privacy, the U.S. government defends freedom as a matter of pragmatism first, and then talks up the altruistic angle :)
China is a mass-copying, intelectual property stealing, communist dictatorship. The other countries in Asia dont like them. China is the mordor of Asia
who do you mean by 'us'? I was born in one of the asian countries China is trying to influence with its cheap plastic copies. Everything they touch there is ruined.
Nationalistic flamewar will get your account banned here. Can you please not post like this to HN? You did it elsewhere recently as well, which is a problem.
> The Uighurs see themselves as a minority facing cultural, religious and economic discrimination. When Xinjiang was incorporated into the People's Republic of China in 1949, they comprised roughly 80 percent of the region's population. Controlled migration to Xinjiang of Han Chinese has reduced this share to 45 percent
[..]
> Anyone with a potentially suspicious data trail can be detained. The government has built up a grid of hundreds of re-education camps. Tens of thousands of people have disappeared into them in recent months. Zenz estimates the number to be closer to hundreds of thousands. More precise figures are difficult to obtain. Censorship in Xinjiang is the strictest in China and its authorities the most inscrutable.
[..]
> Normal journalistic research in Kashgar is inconceivable. No one wants to talk. A Uighur human rights activist who met up with us four years ago didn't respond to a single one of our text messages. His phone number is no longer listed. As we later learned, he disappeared months ago. But whether he was thrown into a re-education camp or prison is unknown.
[..]
> Every family begins with 100 points, one person affected by the system tells us. But anyone with contacts or relatives abroad, especially in Islamic countries like Turkey, Egypt or Malaysia, is punished by losing points. A person with fewer than 60 points is in danger. One wrong word, a prayer or one telephone call too many and they could be sent to "school" in no time.
Bring "stability" to the Middle East?
What the US did and does in the Middle East is not something any other nation can solve for them; bring those who waged wars of aggression to justice, show genuine good will towards those you mistreated, that's something any nation owes either way (it's not like many European nations don't have a lot to make up for, for example). You're responsible for not making it worse, and owning your shit. That's not just what "number one" must do, even the smallest must do it. Others are responsible for sorting out their mess. You don't have to bring peace to the Middle East, just not more war. You don't have to bring democracy to China, just don't look the other way or even help rationalize and justify it.
Not sure I agree 9/11 was when it started. We were still cooperating with allies and other countries and still maintaining non-war stuff.
Trump is when the bridge burning started and when America really lost its stature on the world stage. If it was declining since 9/11, trump took that gradual trend and sent it straight down.
Exactly the same sort of FUD was stated when Bush was president. Trump is strengthening NATO, is in the process of renegotiating several trade treaties which appear to be well received by all sides, and has made some unprecedented progress with N. Korea, while building a coalition of Arab states to counter Iran and Russia in the Middle East, plus putting pressure on Europe to lessen their dependance on Russian energy.
I'm sure I'll be down voted for stating facts, but that's just the times - people hate facts.
Trump is "strengthening NATO" by telling the other members to pull their own weight, or the US will walk away. That may in fact strengthen NATO, if the other members do what Trump wants them to. If they don't, though, it could destroy NATO.
My impression is that Trump is negotiating completely differently than any previous US president. He's throwing extreme positions out there as a starting point, then trying to negotiate back to something reasonable. (Much of the outrage in the press is directed at his opening statements - both content and style - not at the end position.) This approach may work, if others adjust to his style. But international diplomacy is not like business negotiations, and he may wind up alienating countries that he really needs to keep as friends.
He's merely negotiating from a position of power; US has the biggest GDP of any country. and has the largest consumer market (12T) vs EU (9T). No country is stupid enough to not want access to this market - they might be upset for concessions. But to walk away? no way.
At the risk of falling for troll bait, I'll ask anyways.
What measurable metrics are you examining to come to the conclusion that Trump has had a net positive effect? Can you please point me to any primary source document in the EU parlament which outlines legislative action leading to growth in NATO? Who is our diplomatic negotiator in these talks? Do we have any commitment on any level?
On the subject of trade, can you please point me to any primary source document that suggests we're getting a better deal? What exports are suffering, and how does current administration policy balance the deficit, increase the quality of life for the American people, or benefit our trading partners. Who has received the current administration's policy "well?"
What tangible commitments has N Korea made towards a peace process? Sohae Satalite Launch was not used for years, and the only thing torn down was a rocket engine burn pad (trivial to setup again, but I'm not an airspace engineer. ).
What new Arab state coalition exists under Trump that didn't exist under Bush or Clinton?
How has Trump's summit meeting with Putin, or his actions since illustrated a clear international policy on Syria? How has the EU been forced to make any energy policy changes in the past 2 years?
You've made some interesting claims, and I'd be happy to hear you support them. However, that which can be claimed without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.
Well, France and Germany have both acknowledged their NATO spending deficits and have pledged to increase them, with France actually signing legislation and Germany saying they improve their stance (hard to say no when at the time of the NATO summit they had 0 operational fighter jets): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/08/france-germany-i...
As for N. Korea, their latest peace negotiations have gone further than ever before. US soldier's remains have been returned, political prisoners were returned, the very first peace summit directly between a US president and a N. Korean leader, and end to missile and nuclear testing for going on a year. You can knock these, but it is hard to see how they aren't major achievements only belittled by ideology.
As for the middle-east why would we not count a strengthening of a coalition, just because it existed before? I pointed out that negotiations are being made when the parent would have you believe things were getting worse instead of working plan for better. They certainly aren't "burned bridges".
I didn't mention Syria for a reason. That is clearly lost to Assad and Russia. Not sure what Trump could have done differently except immediately pull out and cede the loss.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Europe had changed their energy policy, only after the NATO and trade summits, they have agreed to take US LNG in an effort to reduce their reliance on Russian nat-gas, and at least formally acknowledged their reliance is a bad thing.
Why didn't you ask the parent to source and explain their statements? What did they state which was obvious?
I saw that too :( Still, Trump has gotten further than any president before him.
My whole point was this “burning bridges” and general miasma around Trump’s foreign policy is the result of ideology and hysteria instead of hard nosed observation of facts.
>My whole point was this “burning bridges” and general miasma around Trump’s foreign policy is the result of ideology and hysteria instead of hard nosed observation of facts.
Part of the "stature" involves how he publicly treats officials from other countries and how he presents himself to the world.
This is what led Angela Merkel (and other world leaders) to repeatedly denounce Trump. Theresa May almost laughed when Trump suggested that she sue the EU and it's by far not the most stupid thing he's said.
No president does 100% bad things, but the problem is that with every success that he does have, he can't articulate it well because 30% of his vocabulary solely consists of the word 'very'. His reading and speaking level are barely above middle school. The only reason he's resorted to doing unpredictable, mad dog politics is that he isn't capable of doing anything else -- not because it's a good method of politics these days.
Does that get you things like trade deals because no one knows how you'll react? Sure, at the cost of reputation down the line.
This certainly seems like a cultural divide in America. Some people would prefer someone less effective, but whom was polite and proper. Others don't care about polite and proper as long as they are effective.
Some people didn't care that Trump called Jong-Un "rocketman" if it meant positive results. Others were horrified that Trump would ridicule a world leader in such a childish manner, even if it did lead to by far the best results of any president in the history of N. Korea/US relations.
I think people are expecting some grand event and suddenly next minute China is dominating. Of course it's not going to be like that! US overtook UK in GDP per capita in 1860s yet it took another 50 years or more before the dominance became clear and 100 years before it became overwhelming
As technology increases connections between actors in the global economy, speed of change seems to be increasing as well.
While I agree that the change won’t be a “grand event”, I don’t think it’ll take anywhere near half a century to happen. I expect it’ll happen over a decade or less and will largely be invisible to US consumers until the larger effects of our weakened currency become apparent.
I expect the rise of China as the dominant economy will be rapid and will take most people by surprise - barring, of course, a major downturn in either major economy.
Serious question. What is the purpose of these articles? They seem to popup often on mainstream media sites. They have little or no information other than obvious stuff about belt and road, etc.
Is the purpose just clicks? Does China generate clicks?
The United States has been pulling back from the world order since the end of the Cold War. We just don't need to engage with the rest of the world as much as we used to, especially now that we don't even need foreign oil (thanks fracking!). Trump is just continuing this trend with more bombast and directness, as is his style.
93 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 28.0 ms ] threadhttps://www.amazon.com/Shadows-American-Century-Decline-Disp...
China's biggest problem will be demographics, second only to their political system.
US will likely due to tax / deficit issues, not so different than the French aristocrats who refused to pay taxes in run-up to the revolution.
1. Its geography means it's impervious to conventional invasions.
2. Its embracing culture will attract more immigrants.
3. It is an offshoot of western civilization and therefore has natural allies in Europe.
China's advantages are:
1. It has a population that is 3-4 times the size of the US.
2. Its economy is still underdeveloped, therefore economic growth is a lot easier.
You'd have to be insane to invade China, though. "Never get involved in a land war in Asia". Especially never get involved in a land war in Asia against someone with an army the size of China's.
> 2. Its embracing culture will attract more immigrants.
This advantage the current administration seems to be working as hard as possible to destroy. As far as I know, though, this is still an advantage for the US compared to China.
> 2. Its [China's] economy is still underdeveloped, therefore economic growth is a lot easier.
It's not nearly as underdeveloped as it used to be. Further growth will be significantly harder than past growth was. Can China keep it going? I don't know.
As to the economy, as long as China grows faster than 3%, it will gain relatively to the US.
Also, weaponize space and all terrestrial advantages become mostly moot (no GPS, communications, etc.).
Maintaining that deterrence is the the actual disadvantage to China - not the risk of invasion, but the cost of preventing invasion.
Battles are rapidly migrating to the air (drones, missiles, etc.) and cyberspace.
You don't need to invade the entire land, you just need to bomb a few targets. A nice chunk of China's population and structure is distributed across China's shores. If you take a look at photos of China at night from space, you'll see that the shores are way way brighter than inland. Interesting enough, there are plenty US allies nearby which could be used as base to make bombing easier.
Edit:However, I, personally, don't think we'll see big dogs such as U.S and China fighting in any moment near future. We have developed tools so efficient to kill each other that the best ideia possible is to not use them. At these times, big wars are too costly for everyone, involved or not.
China is interesting in that its society is rapidly aging before it becomes a high income country, which is enough of a rough transition for high income countries.
1 party rule can make quick, bold changes for better or for worse.
In the US, we're stuck with slower change again for better or worse.
Pro.1 does also apply to China I would think.
I'm not sure con.1 is that much of an advantage. other than a larger national market.
If US goes down (that's a big If and very unlikely event) then Pacific will be Japanese playground not Chinas and India will tie-up with the biggest maritime power to check them in India Ocean.
Its really hard to be a super power at least in the near term without being a first grade naval power.
The publication is some times called Washington Compost, a very hard earned nick name for their BS vending!
I have no expertise but it appears from my perspective that the US is in a state of imperial decline. I think this will accelerate in the coming decades. For me the canary in the coal mine event was Gulf War 1 when the US went around asking other countries to help pay for our war. Mercenary nation. There are lots of other signs of imperial decline as I see things but that event was very telling.
I also fear that it's the start of the Big Decline, but I'm far from certain of that...
On the contrary I would say Gulf War 1 was the last example of the US empire operating as designed: a large coalition of westernized nations implicitly following the leadership in the US, in a network of institutions and alliances entirely built around the assumption of US supremacy.
IMO the second Gulf War was the first blow to the US-centric international system... and it was the US themselves who dealt that blow.
The geographic isolation isn't as strong as the us', but it's much stronger than any other country in the region. Taiwan/japan/south korea off their border is the biggest issue
Not really... WWIII and likely the end of human civilization will happen.
If the US Falls it is unlikely it will fall silently with out using its massive military to bring down everyone.
Or you could see it as being like the USSR which drove itself into the ground by spending everyone's money (trying to keep up with the US) faster than everyone could create it.
Tax/deficit problems can not be considered just tax problems or just spending problems because the amount of input is not meaningful except in relation to the amount of output. It's like how diet and exercise need to be considered together if you want to make a plan for meaningful weight loss. If we stopped playing world police (or just did it less) and made the government gravy train more efficient (i.e. less of a gravy train, which sounds easy but it's actually hard because nobody wants to stop pissing money away on their pet program/subsidy) we could probably have both good social safety nets and less taxes.
So US will spend their money on trying to keep up with... China? Russia? Japan? India?
At the moment the US is outspending everyone combined. As they catch up and economically and technologically it gets exponentially harder for the US to maintain their current dominance. China also gets more bang for it's buck, it's only trying to assert dominance of a small area but the US is spread globally.
A better analogy might be pre-WW1 Britain that tried to maintain a navy at least the size of the next world powers combined.
from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-its-a-myth-that-the-rich-ar... ...
Who pays most of the country's taxes -- the rich, poor or middle class? If you add up it all up, including federal income, payroll, excise (such as for gas), and state and local taxes, it's pretty even. Each group's share of total taxes is roughly equivalent to their income.
In other words, concludes Washington advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice, the U.S. tax system is only marginally progresssive, meaning that people at the top hardly pay any more than folks lower down the income ladder.
High income earners pay a vanishingly low percentage of their income as tax, and it is almost all discretionary income, not income they need to merely subsist.
Low income earners pay an increasingly higher proportion of their income as tax (which is not predominantly income tax, rather things like sales, property (directly or indirectly), or ad valorum taxes.
The analog to the French aristocrats are those incredibly wealthy people who, like the former aristocracy, receive enormous income from rents and other unearned sources. That's dead simple obvious to anyone who isn't trying to live out some kind of fantasy-based ideology.
More population= more scientists= more innovation
The reserve currency status is tough. Would not happen naturally without major world events.
Which may be why China is so lenient with bitcoin mining. If 51% of the hashpower of the new currency is within your border, it is not as good as being the reserve currency, but pretty close to it. And it gives a advantage if you ever want to impose a fork with rules that would being home some benefit.
You can see this pattern in corporations all the time. Companies that start to lose market share will often actually lean into the strategies and decision patterns that are causing their collapse while simultaneously canceling innovative projects that might lead somewhere new. They also often get aggressive by doubling down on efforts to lock customers in and becoming litigious, further driving away new customers and leading those with an existing investment to start making plans to migrate.
Human beings react to scarcity by hunkering down, but hunkering down is almost always a losing strategy in the post-industrial age.
I expect China's hunkering down to harm it as well. I think it's too early to call China as the new world power.
Neoconservatism arose before the American world order was declining; they only became noteworthy after the end of the Cold War because that (and not any US decline, as such) created a gap between other prominent philosophies and and neoconservatives on substantive foreign policy, where previously there was more of a consensus on the outline of policy, though different philosophies supported the consensus policy.
¹ I mean this in global terms. Not referring to immigrants.
America's main success, in my opinion, has been the ability to cast itself, and perhaps more importantly see itself as one of the good guys - if not the Good Guy™ - while simultaneously setting half the world on fire. China has no such pretensions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
I'm not sure Taiwan agrees with you. One could also argue about Tibet.
I also remember hearing they are fairly involved in Africa, but I don't recall the exact details (so I could be off there).
I'm Kenyan. I know the extent of their involvement in my country. My statements are grounded in that experience.
But with that being said, I think you're making an unfair comparison between two countries. America has been the world hegemon for ~70 years. Have we abused that power at times? Absolutely. Would China abuse the same power given the opportunity? Most certainly. It's human nature.
It would appear as though you're confusing relative weakness (i.e. their current inability to project their values upon the entire world) with virtue. If they had that power, they would probably use it like every other powerful country has over the course in human history.
> China doesn't intervene, for better or worse, in the running of other countries.
Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.
Not quite. I think the idea I'm struggling to communicate is that China is an amoral force upon the world. They're not good. They're just far less bad, in my opinion, from a utilitarian perspective.
> Taiwan and Tibet would like a word.
Taiwan and mainland China both lay claim to each other, so that's a bit more complicated. You're right about Tibet. Most of my statements are, I'll happily admit, generalizations, but it says something that those are the only two examples that come to mind, wouldn't you agree?
Remember that America was once a relatively "amoral" isolationist country too.
>Taiwan and mainland China both lay claim to each other, so that's a bit more complicated.
I'm not a scholar on China-Taiwan relations but as a betting man I'd put money on the PRoC not renouncing their claim on Taiwan even if the RoC renounced theirs on the mainland.
> but it says something that those are the only two examples that come to mind, wouldn't you agree?
Yes I would. But once again, China is a relatively recent major world power (in the modern era). Plenty of time to make enemies yet.
Obviously we're trading in a lot of speculation, opinion and bias here. Thank you for engaging in such a potentially heated discussion in such good faith.
I enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.
Until Taiwan stops claiming itself to be China, it's an internal affair (or rather a civil war) within "China".
I don't want to go into a long debate over Tibet, but I suggest reading wikipedia articles on it if you haven't done so, to get a more holistic view of the timeline.
This site is very much America-centric so any criticisms of the holy land is taken poorly. If you actually reflected on the last 20 years without bias you would be able to understand why the developed world is considering a new flag to rally behind.
Could you elaborate on this? My impression was that China has recently been bullying its neighbors, particularly Vietnam and to some extent the Philippines, over oil and gas deposits in the South China Sea. I can't imagine that's great for regional stability.
I also wonder if many Americans would want China to take on a leadership role with respect to Taiwan. I doubt the Taiwanese would take such a view.
Why would border tensions be "over reported." It's a matter of allied sovereignty?
From an idealistic standpoint, America supports the notions of state sovereignty and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea simply out of principle. Like Apple’s stance on customer data privacy, the U.S. government defends freedom as a matter of pragmatism first, and then talks up the altruistic angle :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> The Uighurs see themselves as a minority facing cultural, religious and economic discrimination. When Xinjiang was incorporated into the People's Republic of China in 1949, they comprised roughly 80 percent of the region's population. Controlled migration to Xinjiang of Han Chinese has reduced this share to 45 percent
[..]
> Anyone with a potentially suspicious data trail can be detained. The government has built up a grid of hundreds of re-education camps. Tens of thousands of people have disappeared into them in recent months. Zenz estimates the number to be closer to hundreds of thousands. More precise figures are difficult to obtain. Censorship in Xinjiang is the strictest in China and its authorities the most inscrutable.
[..]
> Normal journalistic research in Kashgar is inconceivable. No one wants to talk. A Uighur human rights activist who met up with us four years ago didn't respond to a single one of our text messages. His phone number is no longer listed. As we later learned, he disappeared months ago. But whether he was thrown into a re-education camp or prison is unknown.
[..]
> Every family begins with 100 points, one person affected by the system tells us. But anyone with contacts or relatives abroad, especially in Islamic countries like Turkey, Egypt or Malaysia, is punished by losing points. A person with fewer than 60 points is in danger. One wrong word, a prayer or one telephone call too many and they could be sent to "school" in no time.
Bring "stability" to the Middle East?
What the US did and does in the Middle East is not something any other nation can solve for them; bring those who waged wars of aggression to justice, show genuine good will towards those you mistreated, that's something any nation owes either way (it's not like many European nations don't have a lot to make up for, for example). You're responsible for not making it worse, and owning your shit. That's not just what "number one" must do, even the smallest must do it. Others are responsible for sorting out their mess. You don't have to bring peace to the Middle East, just not more war. You don't have to bring democracy to China, just don't look the other way or even help rationalize and justify it.
And isn't that exactly what most nations are doing ? Especially European countries and the EU, and more so as time goes on.
Trump is when the bridge burning started and when America really lost its stature on the world stage. If it was declining since 9/11, trump took that gradual trend and sent it straight down.
I'm sure I'll be down voted for stating facts, but that's just the times - people hate facts.
My impression is that Trump is negotiating completely differently than any previous US president. He's throwing extreme positions out there as a starting point, then trying to negotiate back to something reasonable. (Much of the outrage in the press is directed at his opening statements - both content and style - not at the end position.) This approach may work, if others adjust to his style. But international diplomacy is not like business negotiations, and he may wind up alienating countries that he really needs to keep as friends.
What measurable metrics are you examining to come to the conclusion that Trump has had a net positive effect? Can you please point me to any primary source document in the EU parlament which outlines legislative action leading to growth in NATO? Who is our diplomatic negotiator in these talks? Do we have any commitment on any level?
On the subject of trade, can you please point me to any primary source document that suggests we're getting a better deal? What exports are suffering, and how does current administration policy balance the deficit, increase the quality of life for the American people, or benefit our trading partners. Who has received the current administration's policy "well?"
What tangible commitments has N Korea made towards a peace process? Sohae Satalite Launch was not used for years, and the only thing torn down was a rocket engine burn pad (trivial to setup again, but I'm not an airspace engineer. ).
What new Arab state coalition exists under Trump that didn't exist under Bush or Clinton?
How has Trump's summit meeting with Putin, or his actions since illustrated a clear international policy on Syria? How has the EU been forced to make any energy policy changes in the past 2 years?
You've made some interesting claims, and I'd be happy to hear you support them. However, that which can be claimed without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.
As for trade, negotiations are obviously ongoing, but it's only been a few week, but certainly seems to be going in a good direction: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-j...
As for N. Korea, their latest peace negotiations have gone further than ever before. US soldier's remains have been returned, political prisoners were returned, the very first peace summit directly between a US president and a N. Korean leader, and end to missile and nuclear testing for going on a year. You can knock these, but it is hard to see how they aren't major achievements only belittled by ideology.
As for the middle-east why would we not count a strengthening of a coalition, just because it existed before? I pointed out that negotiations are being made when the parent would have you believe things were getting worse instead of working plan for better. They certainly aren't "burned bridges".
I didn't mention Syria for a reason. That is clearly lost to Assad and Russia. Not sure what Trump could have done differently except immediately pull out and cede the loss.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Europe had changed their energy policy, only after the NATO and trade summits, they have agreed to take US LNG in an effort to reduce their reliance on Russian nat-gas, and at least formally acknowledged their reliance is a bad thing.
Why didn't you ask the parent to source and explain their statements? What did they state which was obvious?
My whole point was this “burning bridges” and general miasma around Trump’s foreign policy is the result of ideology and hysteria instead of hard nosed observation of facts.
Part of the "stature" involves how he publicly treats officials from other countries and how he presents himself to the world.
This is what led Angela Merkel (and other world leaders) to repeatedly denounce Trump. Theresa May almost laughed when Trump suggested that she sue the EU and it's by far not the most stupid thing he's said.
No president does 100% bad things, but the problem is that with every success that he does have, he can't articulate it well because 30% of his vocabulary solely consists of the word 'very'. His reading and speaking level are barely above middle school. The only reason he's resorted to doing unpredictable, mad dog politics is that he isn't capable of doing anything else -- not because it's a good method of politics these days.
Does that get you things like trade deals because no one knows how you'll react? Sure, at the cost of reputation down the line.
Some people didn't care that Trump called Jong-Un "rocketman" if it meant positive results. Others were horrified that Trump would ridicule a world leader in such a childish manner, even if it did lead to by far the best results of any president in the history of N. Korea/US relations.
While I agree that the change won’t be a “grand event”, I don’t think it’ll take anywhere near half a century to happen. I expect it’ll happen over a decade or less and will largely be invisible to US consumers until the larger effects of our weakened currency become apparent.
I expect the rise of China as the dominant economy will be rapid and will take most people by surprise - barring, of course, a major downturn in either major economy.
Is the purpose just clicks? Does China generate clicks?