I do agree with your assertion that interests exist independent of individuals. But I think I tend to conflate issues by comparing China's position vis-a-vis its neighbors with India/Pakistan. Yes, China's territorial disputes may remain, but when was the last time a democratic regime went to war over territory? Also, surely its not your claim that China's stand with its neighbors is the same as Pakistan's with India? The reason you are right about Modi being immaterial to our relations have nothing to do with interests - they have everything to do with the fact that one of these two nations was founded as an ideological antithesis of the other. If the so-called Communist party was not in power, there would be no fundamental schism between China and its neighbors.
Pakistan is root of all evil, here we go again. Even ISIS isn't one dimensional, but Pakistan is. Come on.
As to democratic government over territory, Britain, America, France, South Korea, South Vietnam, and more. BTW, do you consider India democratic? Goa?
India and China's problem is fundamentally, none of the others can challenge China, even in theory, India in theory, could, hence it is what it is. SCS is really about the US. These differences will continue to exist, well after CCP is gone.
The Cold War was not the Soviets shadow boxing itself.
True. But the point is - when investing is more due to your own need than that of those receiving the investment, what leverage do you have? I am yet to see a Chinese member on PDF concede that Japan carries tremendous clout because of its overseas investment. Primarily because they apparently have different rules and are too busy crowing about the success of China on the same metrics. What is sauce for the goose....
The point isn't influence, it's your assertion that Western investors are done with China. They may or may not be. They aren't, but even if they are China is a major source of financing now.
The point is, China is no longer at a stage were foreign funding has to be the driver of economic growth.
Your comment is Chinese members is contradictory, unless they are your spirit animal, what do you care what they say.
The damage is in terms of destabilizing the security paradigm. China obviously believes that it is too big for any tensions in South China Sea etc. to cause an economic impact. But same is not so for Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia. Investment will not come if threat perception remains. How is this damage to be quantified? The bully instigating tensions will obviously deny the damage. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
I mean actual damage to Philippines, Vietnam, wetting the bed isn't damage. China is still top three in investments, and number one in out going investments. While trade is still expanding, so what damage did it do to China.
Any damage you think may have occurred be it by China or to China is non existent because that is not how the world works. Did you know China became America's number one trade partner this year, surpassing Canada.
Don't be one of those on a board that goes boycott this, sanction that. That's not a discussion, that's the GOP primaries.
Agreed. But lack of popular will is a constant feature. And also, Xi's cult of personality is as close as one can get to Mao's. So instead of progress, one could say there has been a regression.
This is like me grabbing your yogurt and you call me a colonizer. The fact you can even think it's in the same sport, much less ballpark, means you have no idea what kind of power Mao had. Even Putin and Modi has bigger cults around them.
Also popular will is almost never a problem, see a non elective change is still a change. Hence the same hope is placed in the leaders as any new democratic leaders.
Things can go forward, or backwards, one of the features of any action. Things hardly stay the same, after action. However, forward doesn't mean good and backwards doesn't mean bad in the long term. Your entire argument is based on that.
The rest of the world tends to treat GDP in a slightly less cavalier manner than you state. But that is to be assumed - seldom does a student who gets caught cheating in an exam show much faith in examination invigilation.
Much of China's GDP includes production for the sake of it. The Chinese government promised that it would slash steel production by 150 million tonnes. It did even let a couple/few mills shut down. Now a fresh round of funding has been infused, some public sector mills are being taken over by private players such as Jianlong, and instead of cutting down, production will only increase this year. Meanwhile the three month bubble in steel prices has passed, and these will be no buyers for much of this steel. Same is the case with housing - new purchases are being made because banks are lending money to sub-prime borrowers who will not be able to repay.
Yet, all of this counts as China's GDP. It is a criminal waste of resources, and some day in the near future it will have to answer for all this wastage.
Yea, as if this is a Chinese problem, I'm sure 40 nuclear submarines and 11 carriers for the US is because IEDs have evolved so much. All nations continue stupid stuff long after they served their purpose, due to other reasons.
Even India, it knows it's weapon development agencies are largely inefficient, why not reform? Can't, too much interest there.
China has its problems, anybody can see that, what you have suggested as a long decline is not on the cards is my point.
No IMF is not screwing us. India has not subscribed to Bretton Woods dictated "structural adjustment" plans in a major way. On the other hand, Chinese lending for infrastructure projects is already running into rough weather because they seem to believe that it is a profitable venture. Don't think that no one notices that China only gives loans at exhorbitant interest rates for projects to be executed by Chinese companies. That is taking the sort of "tied loans" that the West was accused of disbursing to a whole new level.
I'm talking Chinese involvement in IMF, India also wants a bigger say. Those investments are Chinese banks, not IMF. IMF doesn't give two craps about what China thinks, while taking China's money. We have less voting power than Belgium and you say we are not getting screwed?
Infrastructure is needed to service economic activity. Creation of infrastructure is not an end in itself. If Chinese steel is not needed, then the ports and the expressways leading up to them are wasted. If people don't live in ghost cities then what do you do with the infrastructure? Stimulating the economy by replacing legacy infrastructure is one thing, which is what American requirement is. Yes, maybe they too could do with a repeat of the New Deal.
But what China has done is that it has created infrastructure based upon a false premise - that of an ever-increasing demand for the same. This infrastructure is leveraged with so much debt - unless all this infrastructure can be monetized, who will repay all the debt? And how exactly will it be monetized? Given that the only way the current levels of demand are maintained is through debt? By adding on more debt?
Ghost cities are filling up, and even the ones that are slow to do so would eventually. China wants 70% urban population and create bigger farms for the individual, where do you want China to stash them if not for the infrastructure.
Napoleon was so successful why? He inherited France, as did Hitler Germany. My point, is that infrastructure last. Even if CCP were to fall, any succeeding power would still have all this to play around with.
I can hardly see how more words has made Modi's term any easier.
You are focusing too much on what's on paper, paper can be burnt, I like to see someone destroy our roads, rails, and bridges.
What's good for some, isn't necessarily good for others. After the great depression, Americans came out of it, richer, though, a different band of rich people. That really only matters to the ones that are not rich anymore, not so much to the wider population.
)
