I didn’t read that as the author thinking that its bad China has overtaken the west as the industrial leader, just that China should expect the same trend of early growth, reaching a threshold or economic carrying capacity, and then decline. Like, it’s just built into being an economic organism. The US/EU has papered over their decline with heavy financialization. China will face a similar problem, and how they respond to it is going to be very consequential for the rest of the 21st century and beyond. The author has highlighted militarism as a dangerously easy response, and I think they’re right to point it out.
I… don’t think China will take the militaristic rout? It’s definitely the path our (or my, depending where you are) leaders here would like them to take, and that alone should be enough of a signal that they wont. Green energy isn’t where it needs to be yet, but perhaps the growth we’re seeing there will continue to develop…
just that China should expect the same trend of early growth, reaching a threshold or economic carrying capacity, and then decline
The article explicitly talks of China’s phenomenal growth as “a lucky instance”, as if it weren’t the conscious policy of a highly organized party forcing the vast majority of western industrial capital to move to China and simultaneously controlling it not to become a colony, while taking a billion people out of poverty and creating its own heavily state-controlled firms with its own highly trained professionals and tech transfer in the strongest industrialization event in human history.
The US/EU has papered over their decline with heavy financialization. China will face a similar problem
How do you know? Why is the communist party of China going to let the country fall for that? China and the west are fundamentally different systems and can have fundamentally different outcomes in similar starting conditions. Do we see China de-industrializing in favour of cheaper labour elsewhere? Do we see the Chinese stock market run wild? I just think the article assumes China is just another country like the western ones when in my opinion it clearly isn’t.
I didn’t read that as the author thinking that its bad China has overtaken the west as the industrial leader, just that China should expect the same trend of early growth, reaching a threshold or economic carrying capacity, and then decline. Like, it’s just built into being an economic organism. The US/EU has papered over their decline with heavy financialization. China will face a similar problem, and how they respond to it is going to be very consequential for the rest of the 21st century and beyond. The author has highlighted militarism as a dangerously easy response, and I think they’re right to point it out.
I… don’t think China will take the militaristic rout? It’s definitely the path our (or my, depending where you are) leaders here would like them to take, and that alone should be enough of a signal that they wont. Green energy isn’t where it needs to be yet, but perhaps the growth we’re seeing there will continue to develop…
The article explicitly talks of China’s phenomenal growth as “a lucky instance”, as if it weren’t the conscious policy of a highly organized party forcing the vast majority of western industrial capital to move to China and simultaneously controlling it not to become a colony, while taking a billion people out of poverty and creating its own heavily state-controlled firms with its own highly trained professionals and tech transfer in the strongest industrialization event in human history.
How do you know? Why is the communist party of China going to let the country fall for that? China and the west are fundamentally different systems and can have fundamentally different outcomes in similar starting conditions. Do we see China de-industrializing in favour of cheaper labour elsewhere? Do we see the Chinese stock market run wild? I just think the article assumes China is just another country like the western ones when in my opinion it clearly isn’t.