Chinese insider: China playing, and winning, zero-sum game with US

[Razgovory]

Well, we would be happy if the communists went away.

[LaCroix]

I think Chinese mistrust of the US is much greater than the reverse.  Fundamentally, the Chinese leadership believes that the US is trying to overthrow the communist regime through subversion, Arab Spring style.  Therefore, US-China relations is not a zero-sum game - it is a matter of life and death.  Human rights, Tibet, Tinanmen, Falung Gong are all excuses and smokescreens aimed at regime change.  That fear is, I think, exaggerated but not entirely unjustified.  The communist regime is fragile and they know it.  The ultimate goal of Chinese foreign policy is therefore self-preservation.

which really is a shame. taiwan is an albatross, and the obsession over the human rights issues is one reason why i could never call myself truly liberal. the united states and china should strive to be on friendly terms, but that may not be possible with the ridiculous anti-OTHER SIDE movements both countries have

[Sheilbh]

So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is? What are the reasonable actions either side should take? What's the best possible, not-unrealistic development and what needs to happen for it to come to pass?

I think a lot depends on the new generation of leaders in China.  It seems like the last one overplayed their hand which, combined with the administration's clever Asian diplomacy, has left China looking a little more friendless and America a little more essential in the Pacific.

I agree that a big challenge for China is moving to a sustainable model internally.  But I think that there's also an external challenge of calming the region and other parts of the world about her rise.  I think the Chinese leadership went a bit far in recent years and I don't think they've found a sustainable model for foreign relations either.

If you are worried about the US becoming more beligerent, I think that is unlikely--global and US markets depend on China too much. From a production side, and from a consumer side too (although the consumer side is more theoretical, but still priced in).

That dependence goes two ways, but China's government is much more of a longer term wildcard.

Agreed.  But much the same was true before World War I.  It makes conflict unlikely but if national interest and pride gets involved then they'll probably end up winning out.

[Ideologue]

I think Chinese mistrust of the US is much greater than the reverse.  Fundamentally, the Chinese leadership believes that the US is trying to overthrow the communist regime through subversion, Arab Spring style.  Therefore, US-China relations is not a zero-sum game - it is a matter of life and death.  Human rights, Tibet, Tinanmen, Falung Gong are all excuses and smokescreens aimed at regime change.  That fear is, I think, exaggerated but not entirely unjustified.  The communist regime is fragile and they know it.  The ultimate goal of Chinese foreign policy is therefore self-preservation.

which really is a shame. taiwan is an albatross, and the obsession over the human rights issues is one reason why i could never call myself truly liberal. the united states and china should strive to be on friendly terms, but that may not be possible with the ridiculous anti-OTHER SIDE movements both countries have

You know what else were albatrosses?  Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941.  COME ON.

[LaCroix]

You know what else were albatrosses?  Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941.  COME ON.

not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style

[Josquius]

As Cecil says China is going to get old before it gets rich.
Also there is the consideration of how they will make the leap from middle to rich. China has got to where it is now as the factory of the world, paying  crap wages to make things cheaply. But because it is getting richer its people are demanding higher wages which is making China less competitive. Business goes to China because its cheap but China isn:t the only poor country out there. There are many poor we can go to if China gets more expensive.
Rising transport costs too will make the current world of it being cheaper to make something halfway around the world and ship it over, somewhat shakey. It won't totally defeat such thinking but domestic manufacture will become far more competitive.


Economics is a zero sum game- Ish...somewhat...kind of.
Overall there is a limited amount of resources and everything. At the moment however there are still vast swathes of the world that are undeveloped. Much of Africa just isn't part of the game for instance. We can dip into there to allow some current middling nations to become rich whilst Africa becomes middling.
However.....The big problem I see with the future is that our capacity to manufacture has drastically outstripped our capacity to consume.
This is a problem which goes beyond China though will include them in the future. To keep everyone employed we will have to manufacture a lot more than everyone, even fully employed, could ever want to buy. Which just wouldn:t work. The future I foresee is quite a depressing one of unemployment being the norm. Perhaps with countries scrapping over what few jobs there are.

[Monoriu]

I don't see rising labour costs as a bad thing.  After all, the ultimate goal of economic development is so that the population has a higher standard of living.  The best way to achieve that is through higher wages.  Nobody should be satisfied with being a manufacturer of cheap goods forever.  A stepping stone, yes, but the long-term goal is to become a service-provider and inventor.  Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and many other places went through similar phases. 

Actually, the Chinese textiles industry is dying.  Or already dead.  A lot of these factories are operated by HK companies and most of them have moved elsewhere, mostly to Bangladesh.  I won't call it as China losing its competitiveness.  I think it is China moving on to more profitable businesses.   

[Ideologue]

You know what else were albatrosses?  Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941.  COME ON.

not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style

Because we can't put the Seventh Fleet in the Himalayas.  But we can defend the RoC (I guess technically we could defend Tibet too, with glorious airpower, but it would be much harder).  The people of the RoC have chosen to resist diplomatic or forcible reunion with the mainland; in doing so, they have fostered something like liberty, not to mention relative prosperity; why do you think it necessary for them they circumscribed the freedoms they enjoy with a half-century contract with Beijing?  And why should other free states not protect them?  If you let a totalitarian empire attack the interests you value less, as you evidently do the happiness and well-being of twenty-three million people, they will only be stronger when they come for the interests you value more.  Like when they destroy labor protections in an advanced economy.

And Hong Kong should never have been returned.  The British abandoned their responsibility as a sovereign.  If it had to be returned, it should have been returned to the legitimate government of China.  At the least, they should have held a referendum and guaranteed vindication of its results.

If the Argentines had just asked nicely, apparently, it would have worked.

[Ideologue]

However.....The big problem I see with the future is that our capacity to manufacture has drastically outstripped our capacity to consume.
This is a problem which goes beyond China though will include them in the future. To keep everyone employed we will have to manufacture a lot more than everyone, even fully employed, could ever want to buy. Which just wouldn:t work. The future I foresee is quite a depressing one of unemployment being the norm. Perhaps with countries scrapping over what few jobs there are.

The future will be a standard of living guaranteed by the government.  The question is how much bullshit is going to happen before we finally get there.

(Alternatively, the future will be the serious decline of human civilization and human numbers.  But that's covered under "bullshit," really.)

[Monoriu]

And Hong Kong should never have been returned.  The British abandoned their responsibility as a sovereign.  If it had to be returned, it should have been returned to the legitimate government of China.  At the least, they should have held a referendum and guaranteed vindication of its results.

No thanks. 

[Ideologue]

See?  They've brainwashed Monoriu and turned him into a working stiff, completely unconcerned with freedom or due process!

[Josquius]

I don't see rising labour costs as a bad thing.  After all, the ultimate goal of economic development is so that the population has a higher standard of living.  The best way to achieve that is through higher wages.  Nobody should be satisfied with being a manufacturer of cheap goods forever.  A stepping stone, yes, but the long-term goal is to become a service-provider and inventor.  Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and many other places went through similar phases. 

Actually, the Chinese textiles industry is dying.  Or already dead.  A lot of these factories are operated by HK companies and most of them have moved elsewhere, mostly to Bangladesh.  I won't call it as China losing its competitiveness.  I think it is China moving on to more profitable businesses.   

Depends how you look at it.
From a shallow perspective of the Chinese people- yep. More money and western standard of living is of course good! Totally don't blame them for wanting the same quality of life as an American.
From a perspective of China's place in the world - doing things cheaply is how they're getting so powerful.  If a Chinese worker costs the same as a western worker then why would anyone bother investing in China when they can make stuff at home or in India or somewhere?

For those other countries the step up from being a middling nation to being a rich nation was much easier. There was plentiful room in the world for a few more rich people. Hong Kong and Singapore were small enough that transitioning to their modern state didnt leave much of an impact on the modern world. 
With Japan things were a bit trickier, they had to do it through being so much more efficient than anyone else; but they were still small enough that it wasn:t too massive a move. And, their move into being solidly first world wasn't 100% succesful in the long term. Sure, to be born Japanese today is a good fate, even despite the lost decades Japan remains a good country to live in, but again...Japan is much smaller than China. And its collapse came in much friendlier worldwide economic times. Not where it was the only thing keeping the world propped up as China seems to be now.

Is there even room for 1 billion more westerners?
I just don:t think the world can take it. Even half that many would be tricky without first bringing Africa into productivity. And even then...they won't be happy being second class forever....

[LaCroix]

in doing so, they have fostered something like liberty, not to mention relative prosperity;

obsolete in this day and age. in the past under mao, sure, but not today. especially since china is more than willing to offer concessions as they did with hong kong

And why should other free states not protect them?

because it does not justify the problems that arise out of it, but that is a moot point. taiwan will likely be peacefully integrated into china this century

And Hong Kong should never have been returned.

silly

[Ideologue]

Which is obsolete?  Liberty or prosperity?  I think both are pretty important, even if prosperity seems to have been misplaced by my government.

And why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly?  We didn't give back Guantanamo.  Russia didn't give back Kaliningrad.

[Monoriu]

HK is divided into 3 main parts, HK island, Kowloon, and the new territories.  NT is the largest part of the 3, something like 70-80% of our land area.  It also contains all our water supply and the majority of the population.  Legally, NT was leased to the British for 99 years, until 1997.  The Brits were treaty-bound to return NT to China in 1997.  In theory they can just return NT and keep Kowloon and HK, but that is not feasible.  HK cannot survive without NT.  It'll be like cutting Manhatten off from the rest of New York and imposing border controls.