The China Thread

[HVC]

Some people are just lucky enough to fail upwards. We've all worked with those people, no doubt. Not saying Xi mastered that level of luck, I don't know enough, but I can see it happening. At some point you hit a momentum of power and connections and it's hard to stop.

[crazy canuck]

I have a lot of difficulty accepting the proposition that the policies under Xi are a natural extension and evolution of what had come before.


Everyone I know who is doing business in China noted the dramatic change and got out.

Surely that could mean either
A: as you say, that Xi was a complete change on things,
B: these people totally misread the situation and put too much faith in the power of liberalism to change China

No, B does not follow.  They noted the changes Xi brought in and got out.

[Sheilbh]

Some people are just lucky enough to fail upwards. We've all worked with those people, no doubt. Not saying Xi mastered that level of luck, I don't know enough, but I can see it happening. At some point you hit a momentum of power and connections and it's hard to stop.

Yeah. I think the biggest challenge to that is the consolidation of power and cult of personality.

My general default is that people who become leaders of countries - especially a country like China - are effective, skilled politicians. But even if we assume he rises to the top by accident I don't see how the next step is ruthless consolidation of power, destruction of your predecessor's faction and institution of a cult of personality not seen since the founding father of your party/country. Especially given we know of the issues that previous leaders have had establishing themselves - Jiang and Hu were in office several years before they were in power.

[Jacob]

Well yeah if you define "exceptional ability" to equal "rises to the top" then of course anyone who rises to the top has exceptional ability.

It may, however, be that that exceptional ability to rise to the top in a particular political system is not the same as exceptional ability in making decisions when in power. Similarly, it may not map one to one to other traits that are more typically considered signs of general intelligence.

But yeah, by that metric Bashar Assad, Kim Jung Un, and Liz Truss also have exceptional abilities.

[Josquius]

Well yeah if you define "exceptional ability" to equal "rises to the top" then of course anyone who rises to the top has exceptional ability.

It may, however, be that that exceptional ability to rise to the top in a particular political system is not the same as exceptional ability in making decisions when in power. Similarly, it may not map one to one to other traits that are more typically considered signs of general intelligence.

But yeah, by that metric Bashar Assad, Kim Jung Un, and Liz Truss also have exceptional abilities.

Not so sure on Kim and Assad given they just had to be better than their siblings.
But on Truss yes. She absolutely must be pretty good at politics to even become an MP never mind then becoming PM.
The issue with her terrible reign likely coming from the fact the skills required to rise to this place: schmoozing, telling people what they want to hear, and so on, are completely irrelevant to actually understanding economics on any level.

There does tend to be a correlation between one sort of intelligence and another - eg a huge majority of professors leaning progressive rather than trumpy - but this isn't absolute.

With xi you have a guy who ticked off all the abilities to get himself to the top, but then to also do a "good" ruler (in the sense of tightening his rule, crushing his enemies, etc...). There's probably a fair bit of overlap there. Maybe the less desirable jobs xi took early career are weirdly better places to practice the skills to be dictator than the sexier jobs the expected path would have involved?

[Tamas]

It may, however, be that that exceptional ability to rise to the top in a particular political system is not the same as exceptional ability in making decisions when in power

I think that has been extensively proven during both recent and not so recent history. Stalin, Trump, Orban, Putin, Boris Johnson, the list is endless.

[crazy canuck]

It may, however, be that that exceptional ability to rise to the top in a particular political system is not the same as exceptional ability in making decisions when in power

I think that has been extensively proven during both recent and not so recent history. Stalin, Trump, Orban, Putin, Boris Johnson, the list is endless.

Biden etc etc

[Jacob]

My favourite Chinese language pop-artist has released a song celebrating the upcoming Year of the Dragon and 5000 years of Chinese civilization:

Another recent song of his also caught my attention. I don't think Mono would approve:

[Tamas]

I love the whole Winnie-the-Pooh thing. If apparatchiks let it slide when it was a thing, nobody would remember it now that for a week or two Xi was likened to it. Now it's stuck on him forever.

[Zanza]

A Hong Kong court ordered the liquidation of Evergrande now. The company has about 300 billion dollars debt. Might be just an exception or the first of a wave that will destabilise the Chinese real estate sector, which contributed an outsized share of GDP and taxes.

[Jacob]

So I guess there's two schools on Evergrande?

1) Oh man the Chinese economy is in trouble.

2) This is a deliberate move by Xi to recalibrate the economy on "the real" (i.e. making things, not speculating). So far I've only heard this from Sheilbh, but I'm sure he's not alone.

Thoughts from Languish?

[Barrister]

So I guess there's two schools on Evergrande?

1) Oh man the Chinese economy is in trouble.

2) This is a deliberate move by Xi to recalibrate the economy on "the real" (i.e. making things, not speculating). So far I've only heard this from Sheilbh, but I'm sure he's not alone.

Thoughts from Languish?

My main thought is the two points are not mutually exclusive - that Xi's desire to focus on "the real" economy is going to cause a lot of trouble for China's economy...

[Zanza]

The Chinese economy already makes way too many things and does not consume enough. So focussing on making even more will have dimishing returns and will cause foreign markets to increase trade barriers.

[crazy canuck]

So I guess there's two schools on Evergrande?

1) Oh man the Chinese economy is in trouble.

2) This is a deliberate move by Xi to recalibrate the economy on "the real" (i.e. making things, not speculating). So far I've only heard this from Sheilbh, but I'm sure he's not alone.

Thoughts from Languish?

I am not sure how this could be the latter other than to say, I think that an assumption is being made that the liquidation will take place in a way that mirrors what would occur in a country that has a strong process for such things. But in the Chinese context, this will be highly chaotic.  Will the Hong Kong judgement be scrupulously observed on mainland, China?  How will foreign creditors be treated in the liquidation process? To what extent will endemic corruption determine how these assets are dealt with during the liquidation process?

And that's just off the top of my head.  One would have to have a very rosy view of the world to think that this was a masterstroke plan.

[Josquius]

So I guess there's two schools on Evergrande?

1) Oh man the Chinese economy is in trouble.

2) This is a deliberate move by Xi to recalibrate the economy on "the real" (i.e. making things, not speculating). So far I've only heard this from Sheilbh, but I'm sure he's not alone.

Thoughts from Languish?

My main thought is the two points are not mutually exclusive - that Xi's desire to focus on "the real" economy is going to cause a lot of trouble for China's economy...

Yeah, definitely aspects of both.
See also mao.