"We will wait 100 years...."

[Bussard Ramjet]

The guy/gal/being is really obsessed with two or three concepts and every time you open thread on stuff as unrelated as "J 15," he/she/it will find a way to derail the debate to one of his/her/its obsessed concept. Population is one of them. Better not to take it seriously.

Oh I am not obsessed man. Had you people realized the importance of the thing, I wouldn't have talked about it at all. I think that there should be a permanent thread for Chinese demographics.

As for various threads, I bring in the topic only when required. This topic started when we were talking about future, things like 100 years. In that time, if the current disaster continues, China's population will half.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Theoretically speaking, yes. But the reality on the ground shows that the largest trading partner for both the United States and China, respectively, is each other. There has been one sane member in this forum who has continually reiterated this reality -- @LeveragedBuyout . The United States is the largest consumer of Chinese goods (note that China's economy is mostly export driven) and a theoretical conflict would lead to the collapse of trade relations between the two. It would be devastating to both economies. The bypass of this so called CPEC would be unable to offset the loss in nearly $600 Billion USD worth in bilateral trade.

A war, honestly, would hurt the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd largest economies in the world (USA, China, and Japan respectively) as the combined trilateral trade volume between the three Economic Powerhouses is over $1 Trillion.

Technically, our largest trading partner is Canada, but the point is valid nevertheless. It's a good thing I know many good, thoughtful, pragmatic Chinese in real life. Otherwise, based on PDF, one might think that most Chinese think about toppling the liberal Western order 18 hours a day.

Let's reiterate: the most that can be achieved from war between the US and China is a Pyrrhic victory, whomever wins. I leave it to others to criticize US policy in Asia (and the critics are legion), but I marvel at Xi's apparent miscalculations in seeking short-term glory with these artificial islands, while sacrificing long-term security by sending China's neighbors into the arms of the US. I wonder what it is about Xi's background that makes him impatient for prestige, while his predecessors were patiently playing the long game. @Shotgunner51 Any insight? What made Xi take such a radical turn?

 

[Echo_419]

@Nihonjin1051 @Genesis do you guys think Chinese mega CPEC project which worth's 46 billion dollars in Pakistan is Part of it's great game in south china sea as you know china is preparing a web of oil pipelines,rail roads and highways to connect Xian province with Gawdar, after project is even partially operational any navel blockade of china will be of no use?

If yes then the Japanese have already defeated the Chinese

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Otherwise, based on PDF, one might think that most Chinese think about toppling the liberal Western order 18 hours a day.

As liberal as Freedom Act, secret court and mass surveyance?

 

[Aepsilons]

Yeah I can testify to this as a Shanghainese. Our local population is shrinking (fertility ratio of 0.79 as you said), however we are still keep expanding for some many "neo-Shanghainese" are coming here everywhere, say other Chinese provinces, neigboring countries (ever-expanding community of TW/HK, SK, Japan) and others.

Similar trend is happening to other provincial capitals, major cities.

But yes from a country perspective Chinese population is shrinking.

It's the trait of an advancing society, bro . Professional development associated with quality of life supersedes quantity of family. More resources will be focused for 1 to 2 children , enabling them with high chance of success than having 10 children yet with try same income.

Shanghai is becoming more and more like Tokyo in that social paradigm concept. And it's not necessarily a bad thing, Shanghai and other major cities in China is "joining the ranks of the big boys" as they say.

Technically, our largest trading partner is Canada, but the point is valid nevertheless. It's a good thing I know many good, thoughtful, pragmatic Chinese in real life. Otherwise, based on PDF, one might think that most Chinese think about toppling the liberal Western order 18 hours a day.

Let's reiterate: the most that can be achieved from war between the US and China is a Pyrrhic victory, whomever wins. I leave it to others to criticize US policy in Asia (and the critics are legion), but I marvel at Xi's apparent miscalculations in seeking short-term glory with these artificial islands, while sacrificing long-term security by sending China's neighbors into the arms of the US. I wonder what it is about Xi's background that makes him impatient for prestige, while his predecessors were patiently playing the long game. @Shotgunner51 Any insight? What made Xi take such a radical turn?

I would deign to say that it is partially due to Xi's need to cater to the masses and the nationalist agenda and prove his worth. Let us remember how both Bo Xilai and Xi Jinping were both contenders to Leadership of the CPC back in 2010. After Bo Xilai was sacked , Xi came out on top and to consolidate power and to repudiate any doubts in his own transparency he has focused on both national transparency measures in tandem with territorial-focused policies to cater to the people's passions on addressing internal corruption , nepotism as well as inspiring nationalism. The latter was always a tool , an effective one at that, in gaining the popular will in China. Mao , for example, was fond of said tactic during the Gang of Four Trial as well as during the 百花运动 Period of his leadership.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Let's reiterate: the most that can be achieved from war between the US and China is a Pyrrhic victory, whomever wins. I leave it to others to criticize US policy in Asia (and the critics are legion), but I marvel at Xi's apparent miscalculations in seeking short-term glory with these artificial islands, while sacrificing long-term security by sending China's neighbors into the arms of the US. I wonder what it is about Xi's background that makes him impatient for prestige, while his predecessors were patiently playing the long game. @Shotgunner51 Any insight? What made Xi take such a radical turn?

Let me try my best to respond to this question as neutral as possible, that's isn't easy!

I suppose there are drastically opposite perceptions of China's (or Xi's) stance towards US, say being perceived by the outside world as radical, while being perceived at home as fair or even not strong enough.

Looks like Xi is catering to an increasingly "nationalistic" Chinese population who don't see existing world order as fair to them. Is Xi making use of nationalist emotions for his own agenda? This I can't be sure. Throughout world history many politicians do rally support using nationalist pride/fear, by creating imaginery enemies, etc.

It's natural for US to see no problem with existing world order, which was built by US in the first place since WWII, hence US will see Xi as radical for disagreeing with it.

 

[Aepsilons]

Let me try my best to respond to this question as neutral as possible, that's isn't easy!

I suppose there are drastically opposite perceptions of China's (or Xi's) stance towards US, say being perceived by the outside world as radical, while being perceived at home as fair or even not strong enough.

Looks like Xi is catering to an increasingly "nationalistic" Chinese population who don't see existing world order as fair to them. Is Xi making use of nationalist emotions for his own agenda? This I can't be sure. Throughout world history many politicians do rally support using nationalist pride/fear, by creating imaginery enemies, etc.

It's natural for US to see no problem with existing world order, which was built by US in the first place since WWII, hence US will see Xi as radical for disagreeing with it.

I agree with you bro in your analysis . There usually will be diverging views towards Xi's leadership style , and there will be definite dichotomy in the US' perception of him vs that of China's.

While I have aired my personal disagreements in Chinese policies with Japan , I have actually appraised Xi's leadership style as a union of both traditional and progressive concepts. Traditional in that he has focused on family planning initiatives as well as even held a position on making necessary changes to the One Child Policy during the last Plennum. Admiringly we have to appraise his encouraging stance in Chinese Corporate Law which now addresses issues of internal control failure in prior years, as well as encouraged minority and foreign inveator confidence; actually quite similar to Japan's recent policies in corporate codes. Xi seems to be focused on necessary changes to then Culture within the CPC it's recent initiatives to allow greater judicial freedom in reviewing legislative abilities to comply with anti corruption drive. Notice that here has been a paradigm shift with the CPC from survivability focus to long term national development focus.

Nationalism is a natural tool for politicians and is the basic aspect of political economy. Xi's strategy in tapping into that is natural if he is to undergone and weather these necessary policy changes successfully.


Regards ,

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Let me try my best to respond to this question as neutral as possible, that's isn't easy!

I suppose there are drastically opposite perceptions of China's (or Xi's) stance towards US, say being perceived by the outside world as radical, while being perceived at home as fair or even not strong enough.

Therefore looks like Xi is catering to an increasingly "nationalistic" Chinese population who don't see existing world order as fair to them. Is Xi making use of nationalist emotions for his own agenda? This I can't be sure. Throughout world history many politicians do rally support using nationalist pride/fear, by creating imaginery enemies, etc.

It's natural for US to see no problem with existing world order, which was built by US in the first place since WWII, hence US will see Xi as radical for disagreeing with it.

That's a fair assessment, and I certainly understand it. In fact, I seem to recall discussing with @Chinese-Dragon that despite the high-minded call of Westerners to implement democracy in China, it might actually be the case that the CCP is the restraining factor on an increasingly aggressive and nationalistic populace--and thus, democracy would increase the likelihood of war compared to continued rule by the CCP. It's something I always keep in mind when thinking about how CCP leadership acts.

That said, can you please articulate what it is about the liberal Western order (under which China enjoyed unprecedented prosperity) that is so troublesome to China that it would put it all at risk? We have had many threads over the last year speculating about "What Does China Want?" but never seemed to reach a satisfactory consensus. It appears, from the American point of view, that the "Chinese Dream" is essentially a race for prestige (economically, militarily, diplomatically), but the trigger points that would satisfy China (domination of the SCS? domination of Asia? replacing the US as the sole superpower?) are still unknown.

On the other end of the spectrum, @Chinese-Dragon once intimated that what China seeks to achieve is a sense of permanent security, that never again will it suffer a century of humiliation. Not having grown up in China, it's difficult for me to empathize with that mindset (since China was never colonized, but those countries which were actually colonized are not nearly as bitter about the experience 50+ years later), but I certainly understand the desire to feel secure. The issue I have is that China appears to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that it is turning its neighbors against it, who in turn are inviting in the US--and that situation calls for a military build-up by China, in turn, to defend itself, and prevent further humiliation.

10 years ago, it was beyond our wildest dreams to speculate about a defense agreement with Vietnam, or be invited back to the Philippines, after being unceremoniusly kicked out in the 1990s. I do not believe Xi is stupid, but I also don't see how this benefits China other than to satisfy some amorphous desire for prestige and pride. So I will put it to you (and @Edison Chen , @Chinese-Dragon , @Genesis , or any others who care to comment): what does China want, and how does turning the SCS into an anti-China crucible advance those goals?

 

[Shotgunner51]

It's the trait of an advancing society, bro . Professional development associated with quality of life supersedes quantity of family. More resources will be focused for 1 to 2 children , enabling them with high chance of success than having 10 children yet with try same income.

Shanghai is becoming more and more like Tokyo in that social paradigm concept. And it's not necessarily a bad thing, Shanghai and other major cities in China is "joining the ranks of the big boys" as they say.

Yeah I agree with you, don't see any problem with a shrinking local population, and we welcome new immigrants from other China provinces, or foreign countries, to come work, live and play!

And it's true that more social welfare can be provided for those in need, say kids, and elderly, but it would be difficult for immigrants who aren't covered, Moreover the housing prices will keep go up, which is good for Shanghainese as owners, but not good for neo-Shanghainese as buyers.

But Japanese community here is fine and continue to grow, they can afford the houses, and operate their own schools and hospitals.

In 100 years? I think Shanghai is becoming another Hong Kong or Singapore, a mini-UN.

 

[AndrewJin]

Yeah I agree with you, don't see any problem with a shrinking local population, and we welcome new immigrants from other China provinces, or foreign countries, to come work, live and play!

And it's true that more social welfare can be provided for those in need, say kids, and elderly, but it would be difficult for immigrants who aren't covered, Moreover the housing prices will keep go up, which is good for Shanghainese as owners, but not good for neo-Shanghainese as buyers.

But Japanese community here is fine and continue to grow, they can afford the houses, and operate their own schools and hospitals.

Shanghai is becoming like Hong Kong, a mini-UN.

Even in Wuhan, there is a francophone community!

 

[Aepsilons]

Yeah I agree with you, don't see any problem with a shrinking local population, and we welcome new immigrants from other China provinces, or foreign countries, to come work, live and play!

And it's true that more social welfare can be provided for those in need, say kids, and elderly, but it would be difficult for immigrants who aren't covered, Moreover the housing prices will keep go up, which is good for Shanghainese as owners, but not good for neo-Shanghainese as buyers.

But Japanese community here is fine and continue to grow, they can afford the houses, and operate their own schools and hospitals.

In 100 years? I think Shanghai is becoming another Hong Kong or Singapore, a mini-UN.

I find it always amazing that despite conflicting views on the governmental level between Japan and China, the level of cooperation and cross straits relation continues to grow. A funny inverse relationship, lol, if ever there was one.

This past December when I was back in Japan for break I stayed in Tokyo for about 3 days and I can see that there is a growing Chinese community in Tokyo . Most of the new realty buyers in Tokyo are either from Hong Kong or from Shanghai or Ningbo. There was one Chinese lady who I had privilege to talk with at a local cafe and she was saying how she loves the life in Tokyo; she owns a real estate business and travels regularly between Hong Kong and Tokyo. Seriously she was no older than 31 or 32 and already successful enough to own properties in downtown Tokyo?

Even in my hometown, Sapporo, there are a number of Chinese and Koreans (surprising ! Lol) who are buying summer homes there.

 

[Genesis]

That's a fair assessment, and I certainly understand it. In fact, I seem to recall discussing with @Chinese-Dragon that despite the high-minded call of Westerners to implement democracy in China, it might actually be the case that the CCP is the restraining factor on an increasingly aggressive and nationalistic populace--and thus, democracy would increase the likelihood of war compared to continued rule by the CCP. It's something I always keep in mind when thinking about how CCP leadership acts.

That said, can you please articulate what it is about the liberal Western order (under which China enjoyed unprecedented prosperity) that is so troublesome to China that it would put it all at risk? We have had many threads over the last year speculating about "What Does China Want?" but never seemed to reach a satisfactory consensus. It appears, from the American point of view, that the "Chinese Dream" is essentially a race for prestige (economically, militarily, diplomatically), but the trigger points that would satisfy China (domination of the SCS? domination of Asia? replacing the US as the sole superpower?) are still unknown.

On the other end of the spectrum, @Chinese-Dragon once intimated that what China seeks to achieve is a sense of permanent security, that never again will it suffer a century of humiliation. Not having grown up in China, it's difficult for me to empathize with that mindset (since China was never colonized, but those countries which were actually colonized are not nearly as bitter about the experience 50+ years later), but I certainly understand the desire to feel secure. The issue I have is that China appears to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that it is turning its neighbors against it, who in turn are inviting in the US--and that situation calls for a military build-up by China, in turn, to defend itself, and prevent further humiliation.

When I moved out of my parents house in college, the living condition was terrible at best. I had to be responsible for myself and many mistakes were made. It was the first time I understood, REALLY understood the value of money, of insurance, and responsibility.

China will face many of the problems America faces today when the time comes. Global economy, IP Protection(ironic know), internal affairs of crazy governments and petty scuffles over a few rocks(yea I know) and more.

But it would be our decision. There are hurdles, but obvious benefits.

Let me make this point, would you move back to your parents house? Or let someone else dictate your life? Right now?

10 years ago, it was beyond our wildest dreams to speculate about a defense agreement with Vietnam, or be invited back to the Philippines, after being unceremoniusly kicked out in the 1990s. I do not believe Xi is stupid, but I also don't see how this benefits China other than to satisfy some amorphous desire for prestige and pride. So I will put it to you (and @Edison Chen , @Chinese-Dragon , @Genesis , or any others who care to comment): what does China want, and how does turning the SCS into an anti-China crucible advance those goals?

"Philippines and China is more like, Magic, madness, heaven, sin, I could show you incredible things, and I could make the bad guys good for a weekend."

This line was in jest, a Taylor Swift song, but it sums it up. We are a bigger version of Japan, huge reserves for investment, ability to pass down manufacturing, huge market, and since it's a military forum, our weapons better suit these countries due to price and ease of use and maintenance.

"10 years ago, it was beyond our wildest dreams to speculate about a defense agreement with Vietnam, or be invited back to the Philippines, after being unceremoniusly kicked out in the 1990s. "

How can you be sure what 10 years later things would look?

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

What about indian occupied territories lol.

Chinese are not much serious about Indian occupied territories.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

China will face many of the problems America faces today when the time comes. Global economy, IP Protection(ironic know), internal affairs of crazy governments and petty scuffles over a few rocks(yea I know) and more.

But it would be our decision. There are hurdles, but obvious benefits.

Let me make this point, would you move back to your parents house? Or let someone else dictate your life? Right now?

Normally, I would agree with you on this point, but China has shown itself to be an exceptional student of history. It was able to replicate the Japanese/Asian Tiger model on a massive scale, and achieve an unprecedented run of economic growth. Similarly, looking at how Japan's rise caused frictions with the US into the 1980s, I cannot accept that developments such as the following are coincidence:

Chinese investment boosts U.S. economy: report
- Xinhua | English.news.cn

The report, New Neighbors, co-released by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the Rhodium Group consultancy, said that from 2000 to 2014, Chinese firms have spent nearly 46 billion U.S. dollars on new establishments and acquisitions in the United States, most of them over the past five years.
(...)
Chinese-affiliated businesses now directly employ more than 80,000 Americans, said Daniel Rosen, partner of the Rhodium Group.

This long payroll was compared to less than 15,000 people five years ago, while excluding indirect employment, or an addition of tens of thousands of jobs.

Again, China studied Japan's strategy of countering American dissatisfaction with the trade imbalance by investing in the US and employing Americans.

The CCP leadership is clever, and has been advancing China's aims rather proficiently for the last few decades. I hope I don't need to bring up the actual precedents, but the island reclamation project is a departure from the previous model (as my Chinese friends here point out, concerning Deng Xiaoping's dictum to keep a low profile), and seems to be entering the "our place in the sun" mode that has proven disastrous for more than one nation in the past. Perhaps "this time will be different," but aren't those often famous last words?

How can you be sure what 10 years later things would look?

And this is how I can remain optimistic, despite the nationalistic mud-slinging we often observe here. Who would have imagined 30 years ago that China would become the peer competitor of the US? 30 years before that, the US fought a war against a Soviet proxy, allied with China. 10 years before that, the US fought a world war triggered by its attempt to protect its friend, the Republic of China.

Similarly, what will the world look like 30 years from now? Rivalry or war are not inevitable, they are just two outcomes among many. We may find that the world is a radically different place, with the US and China sitting on the same side once again. It's important not to burn bridges, to ensure that such a possibility remains viable. War would close that door, but trade keeps it open.

 

[Place Of Space]

That's a fair assessment, and I certainly understand it. In fact, I seem to recall discussing with @Chinese-Dragon that despite the high-minded call of Westerners to implement democracy in China, it might actually be the case that the CCP is the restraining factor on an increasingly aggressive and nationalistic populace--and thus, democracy would increase the likelihood of war compared to continued rule by the CCP. It's something I always keep in mind when thinking about how CCP leadership acts.

That said, can you please articulate what it is about the liberal Western order (under which China enjoyed unprecedented prosperity) that is so troublesome to China that it would put it all at risk? We have had many threads over the last year speculating about "What Does China Want?" but never seemed to reach a satisfactory consensus. It appears, from the American point of view, that the "Chinese Dream" is essentially a race for prestige (economically, militarily, diplomatically), but the trigger points that would satisfy China (domination of the SCS? domination of Asia? replacing the US as the sole superpower?) are still unknown.

On the other end of the spectrum, @Chinese-Dragon once intimated that what China seeks to achieve is a sense of permanent security, that never again will it suffer a century of humiliation. Not having grown up in China, it's difficult for me to empathize with that mindset (since China was never colonized, but those countries which were actually colonized are not nearly as bitter about the experience 50+ years later), but I certainly understand the desire to feel secure. The issue I have is that China appears to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that it is turning its neighbors against it, who in turn are inviting in the US--and that situation calls for a military build-up by China, in turn, to defend itself, and prevent further humiliation.

10 years ago, it was beyond our wildest dreams to speculate about a defense agreement with Vietnam, or be invited back to the Philippines, after being unceremoniusly kicked out in the 1990s. I do not believe Xi is stupid, but I also don't see how this benefits China other than to satisfy some amorphous desire for prestige and pride. So I will put it to you (and @Edison Chen , @Chinese-Dragon , @Genesis , or any others who care to comment): what does China want, and how does turning the SCS into an anti-China crucible advance those goals?

"I do not believe Xi is stupid, but I also don't see how this benefits China other than to satisfy some amorphous desire for prestige and pride."

All are your excuses. During WWII, Hawaii was not American territory legally, you just have military base there. America and Japan had 50/50 chance to own Hawaii. For the ilands disputes, you would cruelly nuke Japan....For all the reason, China has to suppress our neighbors which desiere Chinese territory.
With India---disputes caused by British Macmahon line, in 1900's, China had in the first place claimed the line illegal and won't accept it.
With Japan---Japan was defeated after WWII, they were forced to return Taiwan and nearby ilands including the disputed islands. Even the Ryukyu is argumentive, China kept Ryukyu independent for centuries, they was annexed by Japanese in 1870's. ( Of course, Ryukyu nowadays choose to live under Japan or independent is as to their own wishes.)
With SCS countries--in this forum we have talked enough of the issues.

For the past 3500 years, since China had writing hsitory record. China didn't attack Japan, Ryukyu, Laos, Thailand, India, Philippines, Cabomdia, South East islands country ONE TIME; China invade Mynamar and Nepal one time, China invade Korea 3 times, China invaded Vietnam ( this has very complicated history, because north Vietnam was part of China between 110's B.C and 960's A.D indepence, hard to say clearly in sentences, Viets also have arguments with us about the history. ). I don't mention north Asia and Middle Asia, because there are grassland, iceland and nomad, they didn't have stable territory and nationality concept till modern times. The Great Wall was built for them.
In a sum, it's Chinese territory since morden era, we will not give up; its not Chinese territory, we won't desire it.