The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Sinotriumph 101
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

shanghai-deus-ex

Wei Geisheing (2013). Aerial Shanghai by Crane Operator 2.

Let’s take the standard assumption that national power consists of three main elements: Economic, military, and cultural (“soft”).

Why can we be confident that China is on its way to superpowerdom?

Economic Power

China has already overtaken the US in terms of GDP (PPP) in the mid-2010s at the latest {here’s my 2012 article on this}, and will almost certainly repeat that in nominal terms by the early 2020s.

Chinese development is extremely similar to South Korea’s but with a lag of 20 years {East Asia’s Twenty Year Rule}. Consequently, a China that converges to South Korean development levels in relative terms – something that we can expect to see by 2040 – will automatically be three times the size of the US economy just by dint of its demographic preponderance. This is furthermore assuming that there is no serious US economic crisis during this period (e.g. there are estimates that US GDP is 5-10% more than it “should be” thanks to the USD’s status as the global reserve currency – what happens if/when that ends?).

There is absolutely no reason why this process of convergence must stall at any point, since average IQ explains almost all economic success, and Chinese IQ is comparable to those of the most developed OECD nations. To be sure, as I pointed out, developed East Asian nations tend to underperform their IQ; they are only as rich as European countries about 5 IQ points below them, such as France (in contrast, the Americans over perform their average IQ, probably thanks to their smart fractions, the USD’s status, and economies of scale). Nonetheless, this does mean that the average EU level is eminently reachable. And it is even possible that China will eventually do relatively better than Japan or Korea because of the unparalleled economies of scale opened up to it by its 1.4 billion population.

As China continues to develop, its economy will likewise continue getting more and more sophisticated – as of this year, it has twice as many industrial robots as the entirety of North America, and more supercomputers than the US. {China Overtakes US in Scientific Articles, Robots, Supercomputers}

Hence the utter stupidity of comparisons to the 1980s American scare over Japan. China is not the next Japan – it is the next TEN Japans {2011 article on Top 10 Sinophobe Myths}.

Military Power

Military power is primarily a function of economic power. This is a relation that is so obvious and well-established that it barely needs further elaboration.

Chinese military spending is currently at a third of the US level, but it is soaring rapidly and – as in Russia – getting more bang for the buck due to China’s lower labor costs and large share of domestic armaments production. It is also seeing rapid technological convergence in key military technologies. Once this process is finished, it will be free to start engaging in a massive buildup, without the risk of its military falling into obsolescence. This is already happening: PLAN is slated to have more ships than the USN by 2030.

On my projections, comprehensive Chinese military power should exceed that of the US by the early 2030s, and Chinese naval power should overtake the US by the early 2040s – and this is under the assumption that China continued to spend a significantly lower percentage of its GDP than the US {Comprehensive Military Power}.

It’s also worth pointing out that as a Eurasian power connected to the rest of the World-Island through OBOR, and possessing unsinkable aircraft carriers in the form of its artificial islands in the South China Sea, China is less absolutely dependent on its Navy for its military security than the US. While China has been ballyhooed for its lack of power projection capability. As it happens, China recently announced plans to produce 1,000 Y-20 strategic heavy lift airplanes, which will eventually give it strategic airlift capacities well in excess of that of the US.

The fact that China is not (yet) throwing its weight around means absolutely nothing. “Lying low and not taking the lead” was a conscious approach formulated by Deng Xiaoping, and one that that has paid off handsomely to date. There is extremely little point to be had from forcing a confrontation when you are effortlessly and massively gaining in relative power on your potential adversaries with each passing year, at least so long as your red lines aren’t crossed (e.g. recognition of Taiwanese independence).

Cultural Power

According to the Nature Index, a proxy for high quality science production, China is now 50% – up from 25% five years ago, when the index was launched – as productive as the US, and far ahead of everyone else. Now I actually agree with China pessimists that the Chinese, or rather East Asians in general, are more conformist than Europeans, which limits creativity {Coffee Salon Demographics}. Japan’s and Korea’s underperform relative to their IQ on elite science even more than they do on GDP per capita. Nonetheless, even if China were to attain just the per capita performance of Japan and South Korea, it would still generate around 50% more elite level science than the US. By analogy with Japanese and Korean experience, I expect to happen by the 2030s.

I am more skeptical about China’s potential to be competitive in the cultural sphere. English is the world’s lingua franca, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Its literary, film, and video game output is derivative and uninspiring. They can’t even create a good state-owned propaganda channel – how many Westerners watch/read CCTV relative to RT? It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich. By extension, I suspect we may have to wait for the second half of the century for a Chinese cultural renaissance.

TLDR

Even assuming no disruptive developments in the United States, such as a catastrophic unwinding of the dollar or secessionism provoked by ideological polarization, the emergence of China as the world’s preeminent superpower by the middle of the 21st century is near inevitable. It is a mere derivative of its demographic preponderance, and the close relation between national IQ and socio-economic development (buttressed by the prior experience of South Korea).

By the 2040s, China will have by far the world’s largest economy in both PPP-adjusted and nominal terms (2-3x that of the United States), its most powerful military, and comparable naval power and elite scientific production. However, it should still lag the US in cultural productivity. China will only truly regain its mantle as the Celestial Empire in the second half of the 21st century.

***

PS. As with my standard “futuristic” projections, all this assumes there are no radical discontinuities in our world – no machine superintelligence, no mass gene editing for superhuman IQ, etc. That said, is seems probably that atheist, technophile China is very well positioned to compete in these “transhumanist” scenarios, should they materialize.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Futurism, Geopolitics 
Hide 924 CommentsLeave a Comment
924 Comments to "Sinotriumph 101"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I’ve been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a “direct function of economic power” is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in “HBD”. Consequently your approach doesn’t work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia’s levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.

    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this “function”, you’re talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. “Other things” being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation’s military power, which you failed to consider.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia’s levels?
     
    South Korean PPP GDP is about half of Russia's. Although, by that metric, India has an economy more than double that of Russia's without conmensurate military power.
    , @Anonymous
    What about Starcraft and other military esports? Isn't South Korea a major virtual military power?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW73RPK4f3o

    , @Tulip
    Economy is not "money", it is productive capacity. The size of your military is a direct function of the size of your productive economy, as you can't devote more than 100% of GDP to manufacturing tanks.

    Population + Economic Production + Technological Development pretty much spells out the material basis of your fighting capacity, leaving out "elan" and not having a fighting age population consisting of diverse overweight crybabies with criminal records, which is a cultural issue.

    , @Rye
    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.
    , @Duke of Qin
    South Korea is actually a major military power. This is huge blind spot comrade Keverich. If you've looked at South Korea's orbat, you'll notice that they possess more modern tanks, more self propelled artillery, more jets, and now even more major naval vessels than practically any other European power outside of Russia. No one really notices this because 1) South Korea is a vassal state of the US and 2) their armed forces don't have anything to do but be on guard against North Korea.
    , @Anon
    Korea (Germany and Japan) grew under direct US control. There was no way it was allowed to have a strong military or even a credible military adversary. The phony adversary (Russia) was always too contrived by US to be taken seriously by Korea (or Germany or Japan).
    , @Jounn
    ROK has not developed a significant military for the same reason Canada does not have a significant military. They are not real countries. They are vassals of USG.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I am sure other people have answered your point, but to take a stab at it myself (not having read the other responses yet):

    1. The Russian economy is twice larger in PPP-adjusted terms (which is what matters most for military power), and this gap was far larger before the early 1990s.

    2. Russian military spending has been consistently higher as a percentage of GDP than Korea's. $92 billion to $33 billion (SIPRI) in 2014 - with the Russian spending going further, due to lower labor costs and an entirely self-sufficient MIC. There was not a single year, even during the 1990s, when Russian military spending was lower than Korea's - even in nominal terms!

    3. Soviet military spending was VASTLY higher than South Korean spending. Now to be fair, the vast bulk of it has already depreciated. But some of it is still there (e.g. bomber airframes, a few warships including the Admiral Kuznetsov, etc).

    4. I don't claim to be any sort of military expert, but I think you massively understate South Korean military power. Almost 700,000 soldiers, huge armored forces (includes the K2 Black Panther, one of the world's best MBT's), and about 250 modernized 4th generation fighters. Not enough to be a global superpower, but way more than enough to defend against Best Korea, enough to crush Best Korea if necessary (with mobilization), and enough to even defend against Russia - as long as Russia doesn't use nukes - if it was to be magically transported to Russia's borders (there's 500,000 people in the Korean Army to 350,000 people in Russia's Ground Forces!).

    Anyhow, FWIW, on the CMP scale, South Korea has approximately a quarter of the military power of Russia.
    , @Biff

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, .
     
    Ahh, because South Korea is a vassal State of Washington, and it’s military. Also, Bang-for-Buck you have to hand it to the Hermit Kindom of North Korea.
    , @the grand wazoo
    Felix, I am going to guess there are 2 reasons South Korea has not become a major military power. the first is because they are an occupied state, a vassal of the U.S.A., which won't allow it. And the 2nd reason is; as long as the U.S.A. is there they don't have to spend enormous sums on defense
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. anon[220] • Disclaimer says:

    English is the world’s lingua franca, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

    Just like Greek was the “lingua franca” in the civilized parts of Roman Empire.
    Perhaps all comparisons of America with Rome are overblown. Perhaps, in the history of the future, China is the analogue of Rome and Europe and Anglosphere are analogues of Greece and Hellenistic world.
    No idea if there already is any science fiction depicting this scenario.

    Read More
    • Replies: @S

    Perhaps all comparisons of America with Rome are overblown. Perhaps, in the history of the future, China is the analogue of Rome and Europe and Anglosphere are analogues of Greece and Hellenistic world.
     
    I doubt the the US/UK bloc will readily allow China (and or Russia for that matter) to ultmately consolidate the economic and military power the two countries are attempting to amass at this time...in the same way Germany wasn't allowed to consolidate its conquest of the bulk of Europe during WWII.

    Of course, in a WWIII scenario between the US/UK and Russia/Sino blocs there is some chance these two power blocs will (be allowed to?) largely destroy each other.

    One past comparison between America and Rome was made in 1853 when the book The New Rome was published in the United States. As the book describes things, the US is the planned direct continuation of the British Empire, which in the future will co-jointly with the UK conquer and gain control of Germany. Russia is identified as a contender with America for the domination of Germany and of Europe (and thus the world) and its land forces are to be overcome by aerial bombardment via the ability of the US to project its air power globally.

    China is mentioned too...

    The New Rome (1853) - pg 98

    'From these relations we may calculate upon an emigration of American business men to China, in return for that of Chinese laborers to California.’
     
    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Regarding whether they will not be interested in the rest of the world, something which I think Felix Keverich has wrote many times.

    Once they will be the biggest economy by far in the world, they will have interests everywhere. It’s inevitable. You cannot be the biggest economy in the world without having trade ties (especially vital are imports of raw materials and exports to pay for them) on basically all continents.

    Whether or not the Chinese are interested in ruling the world is moot. They will be forced to get involved everywhere, because they will be so big that they will see vital interests everywhere. And once mission creep sets in, they will be all over the world. Again, even if they initially have no intention of being a big superpower at all.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    China is already taking over parts of Africa...https://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-national-byo-143959.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Jason Liu says:

    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the “Ugly Chinaman” stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China’s bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn’t matter how strong or rich China becomes if it’s hated by others and doesn’t have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I’m saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China’s image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going “what about America?!” and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we’d get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy’s current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, AquariusAnon, Hail
    • Replies: @AaronB

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the “Ugly Chinaman” stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China’s bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. I
     
    That goes together with aspiring to be a superpower - America had it, Germany, Japan, even England.

    Now that America is trying to "be great again" its trying to resurrect that attitude.

    You can't be a gentle great power - if you're gentle, then you have no interest in being a great power. One does not simply stumble into great power status. It is not an inevitability based on size and IQ.

    One must desperately want it and strive for it, like China is - and this implies a certain aggressive attitude as well as created a host of mood disorders.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    If social credit works out, a shrine should be erected to Qian Xuesen.
    , @notanon

    Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.
     
    i think this is true in principle but the western populations are being replaced by the same people who off-shored western industry and what percentage of the replacements believe in those values?

    so although this will probably still be an issue for a while it's currently not looking likely to be an issue long-term imo.

    China's long term problem is how to prevent the banking mafia doing the same thing to them after they wipe out the West.
    , @Duke of Qin
    This is a feature, not bug, if you want China to isolate itself from the rest of the world like me. Face it, the developed world is facing declining populations and immigration inundation. The evil empire, the United States, is blessedly the furthest one along this route. The rest of the growing world, is full of stupid and dangerous people whom the Chinese should rightly be wary of and have nothing to do with and are of no account. 100 years is generous. By 2050, the US already only 62% non-Hispanic white, will be in the mid 40's even with ZERO immigration legal or otherwise from today because of differential fertility rates. All the prognostications of eternal American hegemony relished by American imperialists rely on the assumption that new Americans, like New Coke, are just as good as Old Americans and thus Demographics are going to save the day. Karlin, like many of us here, are quietly or not so quietly laughing at this idea.
    , @Anonymous
    Well said on likeability.

    But I don't think China needs to do everything in one go. It will have time to build itself up economically and find its footing culturally over time. This is pretty much what Japan did and what Korea is doing.

    I also agree on China needing to make genuine allies, especially with its East Asian neighbors. If China wants to make a cultural impact, that is where China should look first.
    , @utu

    Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris
     
    You can find somewhere in Tocqueville his observations that Americans had a great need to be praised and were rather intolerant to be compared negatively with other nations.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Ultimately the problem is a low trust culture - which wasn't the case historically but has increasingly defined modern China. The adage of penny-wise, pound-foolish applies.

    It's unfortunately an excellent example of how populations can change...for the worse in this case, post Cultural Revolution and Maoism.

    Any "greatness" ultimately hinges on solving this to a significant extent, one way or another.
    , @Dieter Kief
    "They eat everything - beware." - Korean friends of mine, laughing and frowning at the same time about their neighbors - at an exhibition of the excellent China Art Collection in the Kunst Museum Bern, Switzerland.
    , @milonguero139
    Jason, could not have put it better. China must develop its own soft power narrative.
    Indeed, Xi should create a team of advisors with good knowledge of the outside world - for starters, he could perhaps draw on the successful RT experience for like-minded politico-cultural experts. In the end China is China and may not change its essence, but it should certainly be able to communicate better. How would you think could this message BEST reach him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Disagree about the cultural power – unlike the military one, it’s not a function of economics.

    I’ve said it before but basically, China needs to loosen the censorship for the creative spirits of the Chinese people to produce a compelling pop culture.

    Japan has true freedom of speech. A big reason for their cultural power is that they produce shit that is original – it can be weird, ridiculous or funny but in any case, they produce far more original, new and exciting cultural content that the whole European Union combined (a counterexample for the supposed advantage Europeans have in creativity) and the freedom they have is a huge factor in this.

    There are other subjective factors too, like the Japanese language being more pleasant to the ear and less strange compared to Chinese. You can recognize words and phrases and repeat them easily, and pick up quite a lot of Japanese just by watching anime.

    Anyway I am not sure whether the Chinese even need to have a globally popular pop culture, so it doesn’t really matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    There are other subjective factors too, like the Japanese language being more pleasant to the ear and less strange compared to Chinese.
     
    True, but up to a point. Chinese songs are very melodious and catchy. Japanese songs are cacophonous.
    , @Pericles

    they produce far more original, new and exciting cultural content that the whole European Union combined (a counterexample for the supposed advantage Europeans have in creativity)

     

    European cultural production leans heavily towards sinecures for the usual cast of untalented women, muds, fags, etc. so they can repeat the same stale old criticisms and try to figure out new ways to transgress against society. In other words, we can't expect much, and it's not surprising we can't expect much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. DFH says:

    It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich. By extension, I suspect we may have to wait for the second half of the century for a Chinese cultural renaissance.

    You are too optimistic, the Japanese have always been much more succesful culturally than the Chinese. They had an impressive literature and cinema even by the 1930s. By contrast, despite thousands of years of civilisation, China has produced very little culture of interest to non-Chinese.
    I also think that live-action Asian TV/film has an inherently limited appeal to mass foreign audiences

    Read More
    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Replies: @Talha

    They had an impressive literature and cinema even by the 1930s.
     
    Anybody who has not partaken of Japanese cinema from its golden age; Mizoguchi, Korusawa...is missing out on some really good stuff.

    Peace.
    , @Anonymous
    I do think Japan is unique.

    But if you look at how Korea has grown its cultural reach I don't think it is beyond China to accomplish something similar over a longer time period given their communist history.

    Remember, they have Hong Kong which is a fully civilized place full of culture to learn from.
    , @Paw
    So we learned from Nostradamus -Author how Chinese are going to be big..in 2040. Me says they will be bigger. Without Nostradaming my IQ and other thing and I am sure Sybila will agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. DFH says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia’s levels?

    South Korean PPP GDP is about half of Russia’s. Although, by that metric, India has an economy more than double that of Russia’s without conmensurate military power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Is it fair to describe SK as one half of Russia? Perhaps, a one third? Come on, it's at a qualitatively lesser level. In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.
    , @RadicalCenter
    It is completely unsurprising that Russia is a more formidable military power than India and South Korea, notwithstanding India’s far larger population and South Korea’s in-some-ways more advanced and diversified economy.

    For one thing, South Korea and India lack Russia’s Massive reserves of oil, gas, and commercially/ militarily valuable minerals/metals.

    They also both lack Russia’s vast fertile agricultural land, in absolute terms and even more dangerously relative to their populations.

    On the other hand, I don’t know about Russia keeping all of its vast territory longer-term with a steadily declining population.

    , @reiner Tor
    India is dirt poor. Aggregate GDP data is not worth much for dirt poor countries. For example if Africa was a united country, it would still not amount to much. (Okay, India is better than Africa, but you get the point.)

    You need to be at least somewhat developed, or else your aggregate GDP would be discounted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Kimppis says:

    This is a very good summary, thank you.

    I just read that according to one source, China is already the clear number 2 in brand power as well, with a global share of 15% (it was 3% in 2008, now more than Germany and Japan combined and those two are fully developed countries with a combined population of around 200 million).

    The US still dominates with 43%, but at this rate it seems that even China’s brands will “triumph” in or even by the 2030s.

    Source is r/sino: https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/9esvgy/china_and_us_dominate_the_brand_value_rankings/

    China should overtake the US in R&D (PPP) spending this year? Or in 2019? Or did it happen already? So there’s another metric.

    Btw, what do you think of the recent devaluations? It seems to be a repeat of 2014, kind of, but it matters for nominal GDP (which in itself of course isn’t THAT important) and those projections.

    It’s it’s obviously quite pointless and impossible to predict long-term exchange rates and hence, nominal GDPs very accurately, but do you still think that China will overtake the US by the mid-2020s? Yuan would need to strengthen quite a lot, right?

    On the other hand, China’s GDP might actually be underestimated, as China doesn’t actually use up-to-date methodology to measure its GDP yet, or so I’ve read. Even though many “pessimists” think that’s China’s GDP are faked and overestimated, it could actually be the opposite. Maybe by 20%?

    Some very recent reports are also stating that China’s problems with (fighter) jet engines might be almost over too. Has China beaten even the most optimistic predictions? Wouldn’t be the first time to be honest, but SCMP isn’t the best of sources and I haven’t been following these development that closely this year. But here’s the article: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2162765/china-nearing-mass-production-j-20-stealth-fighter-after-engine

    Beijing-based military expert Zhou Chenming said that China expected the US to deploy between 200 and 300 F-35s – its most advanced stealth fighter – in the Asia-Pacific by 2025, which meant “China needs a similar number of J-20s, or at least 200”.

    One of the military sources said the public could get its first glimpse of the new stealth fighter, complete with its upgraded engine, at the China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition later in the year.

    The article must be taken with a huge grain of salt and it’s not clear where they got those F-35 numbers from. I’m not even sure how those planes are directly comparable. the F-35 is smaller and the two fighters have different roles, etc. And you also have to take into account all the other assets in the region (on both sides, of course).

    But if China manages to procure 200-300 J-20 by around 2025 and even if they’ll be mostly equipped with these stopgap engines, it will IMHO mean that the US won’t be able to “defend” Taiwan (i.e. defend China from… China). The end. After that, China would likely beat the US even in a long-term conflict over Taiwan (and the surrounding area). There’s no way around that.

    Hundreds of J-20, a very large number of advanced SAMs (S-400s and similar Chinese systems), a sizeable fleet of actually modern SSNs (Type 095s) and SSKs (they already have those) and ASW frigates and corvettes, plus the huge geographical advantage would ensure China’s victory by 2025-30. Of course, the amphibious assault would still be risky and costly, but the end result would not be in doubt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @DFH

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia’s levels?
     
    South Korean PPP GDP is about half of Russia's. Although, by that metric, India has an economy more than double that of Russia's without conmensurate military power.

    Is it fair to describe SK as one half of Russia? Perhaps, a one third? Come on, it’s at a qualitatively lesser level. In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kimppis
    Well, not entirely true. Actually invading South Korea would obviously be very difficult, even if the two countries shared a border. Very much depends on the scenario.

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.

    So Russia's military spending in PPP is maybe $150 billion? So yeah, that's three times more. Maybe 4 times in reality?

    SK's PPP GDP is also higher than its nominal, but the country is also much more dependent on imports, its MIC is much more limited in scale, there's probably less "hidden spending," etc.
    , @Dmitry
    Either way, as result of the size of the population, it's inevitable that China's going to be much more powerful in the future, even before it only reaches an upper-middle ranking in economic development.

    But there will be a great time-delay in military power, relative to their net economic power. China will not rival America and Russia for many years. Unlike these, China didn't inherit many decades of superpower investment in military and related technologies.

    In terms of policy, Chinese population will be likely much more worried about improving their quality of life (which is still low on average), than supporting external adventures of its leadership.

    Chinese population see easily that their life is below other countries, and in need of years more internal investment. There are currently reports of problems of intolerable air quality of many cities, of mass poverty in the countryside, and of incompetently managed, centrally planned state investments, with high levels of corruption.

    , @reiner Tor

    In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.
     
    Using nukes, yes. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you couldn't even get there, and even if you had a common border, it'd be very difficult to occupy it.

    Another point, to which you haven't responded, is that having a huge indigenous MIC is always an advantage when comparing military expenditure levels, since imports are usually more expensive.

    Anyway, the Korean military is not very good, because it's too rigid. I think the Chinese are more thoughtful about what kind of military could work the best. The South Koreans are content to be consistently much stronger than North Korea, which they have achieved without much effort decades ago.
    , @Patrick Armstrong
    GDP comparisons miss something very important. Russia is actually in a rather small club. https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/10/12/exchange-rating-russia-down-and-out/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Spisarevski
    Disagree about the cultural power - unlike the military one, it's not a function of economics.

    I've said it before but basically, China needs to loosen the censorship for the creative spirits of the Chinese people to produce a compelling pop culture.

    Japan has true freedom of speech. A big reason for their cultural power is that they produce shit that is original - it can be weird, ridiculous or funny but in any case, they produce far more original, new and exciting cultural content that the whole European Union combined (a counterexample for the supposed advantage Europeans have in creativity) and the freedom they have is a huge factor in this.

    There are other subjective factors too, like the Japanese language being more pleasant to the ear and less strange compared to Chinese. You can recognize words and phrases and repeat them easily, and pick up quite a lot of Japanese just by watching anime.

    Anyway I am not sure whether the Chinese even need to have a globally popular pop culture, so it doesn't really matter.

    There are other subjective factors too, like the Japanese language being more pleasant to the ear and less strange compared to Chinese.

    True, but up to a point. Chinese songs are very melodious and catchy. Japanese songs are cacophonous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Dmitry says:

    As military power, there will surely be some significant time-delay. Military strength is significantly as result of past investment. In the USA and Russia, there are many decades of past massive investments in the military, resulting in a lot of current military advantages. China still has many years of investments to catch up.

    -

    If we are talking about a per capita sense, I’m a bit skeptical China ever can match Japan (civilization output, economic development).

    Japan is a very productive and elite nationality. The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear. It could be a century behind in some ways?

    Of countries to compare, it’s a bit unfair to match it against Japan, one of the world’s most developed and refined countries in quite a few areas of civilization.

    -

    In terms of absolute power, I think we all sure now, China will soon reach a kind of superpower level quite soon, as a result of its population size.

    China will probably overtake America, to become the world’s largest economy in GDP, before it reaches as high as current per capita GDP of Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear.
     
    The 20 year rule referred to South Korea.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/east-asia-comparative-economic-development.png

    Japan, South Korea, and China have all had essentially the same trajectory after passing $2,000 in GDP per capita (1990 dollars), in 1950, 1970, and 1990, respectively.
    , @Ilya
    1. China is not a rules-based society -- never has been, perhaps never will be. I'm skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can't efficiently coordinate its population.

    2. It's unclear whether the Chinese can fight. A superpower must have some ability to impose its will militarily on others; a preference to get others to do your dirty work ("cat's paw") isn't enough.

    3. China has no experience with -- and more importantly, perhaps no desire for -- international leadership. As mentioned, it likely wants to be left alone, but the anarchy of international relations means that one must essentially mobilize or be preyed upon (in which case, see 1 and 2, above).

    4. China's GDP figures are inaccurate (Li Keqiang said so many times) -- a consequence of 1, above.

    5. Perhaps most importantly, nobody likes the Chinese. Anywhere. Hell, even the Hong Kongese hate mainlanders.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Kimppis says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Is it fair to describe SK as one half of Russia? Perhaps, a one third? Come on, it's at a qualitatively lesser level. In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.

    Well, not entirely true. Actually invading South Korea would obviously be very difficult, even if the two countries shared a border. Very much depends on the scenario.

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.

    So Russia’s military spending in PPP is maybe $150 billion? So yeah, that’s three times more. Maybe 4 times in reality?

    SK’s PPP GDP is also higher than its nominal, but the country is also much more dependent on imports, its MIC is much more limited in scale, there’s probably less “hidden spending,” etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.
     
    Would spending more bring SK up to Russia's level without Karlin's magic thinking?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Yee says:

    Chinese in the “cultural sphere” are the worst White-worshippers in China. So there’s no hope they can create any soft power until the complete fall of the Whiteman.

    We should be content to get rich and get strong, never mind the soft power. Most of the “cultural sphere” is so brainwashed by Whiteman, they’re counter-productive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    there’s no hope [that we Chinese] can create any soft power until the complete fall of the Whiteman
     
    Forget soft power. Would a world in which all the leading Western states are majority Black and/or Muslim be better for East Asian man, or worse?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    What about Starcraft and other military esports? Isn’t South Korea a major virtual military power?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. AaronB says:
    @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the “Ugly Chinaman” stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China’s bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. I

    That goes together with aspiring to be a superpower – America had it, Germany, Japan, even England.

    Now that America is trying to “be great again” its trying to resurrect that attitude.

    You can’t be a gentle great power – if you’re gentle, then you have no interest in being a great power. One does not simply stumble into great power status. It is not an inevitability based on size and IQ.

    One must desperately want it and strive for it, like China is – and this implies a certain aggressive attitude as well as created a host of mood disorders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Pot isn't a basis for national policy, either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Is it fair to describe SK as one half of Russia? Perhaps, a one third? Come on, it's at a qualitatively lesser level. In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.

    Either way, as result of the size of the population, it’s inevitable that China’s going to be much more powerful in the future, even before it only reaches an upper-middle ranking in economic development.

    But there will be a great time-delay in military power, relative to their net economic power. China will not rival America and Russia for many years. Unlike these, China didn’t inherit many decades of superpower investment in military and related technologies.

    In terms of policy, Chinese population will be likely much more worried about improving their quality of life (which is still low on average), than supporting external adventures of its leadership.

    Chinese population see easily that their life is below other countries, and in need of years more internal investment. There are currently reports of problems of intolerable air quality of many cities, of mass poverty in the countryside, and of incompetently managed, centrally planned state investments, with high levels of corruption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Tulip says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    Economy is not “money”, it is productive capacity. The size of your military is a direct function of the size of your productive economy, as you can’t devote more than 100% of GDP to manufacturing tanks.

    Population + Economic Production + Technological Development pretty much spells out the material basis of your fighting capacity, leaving out “elan” and not having a fighting age population consisting of diverse overweight crybabies with criminal records, which is a cultural issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Saudi Arabia fights wars without having much in the way of "productive capacity". The stuff you need to fight a war - most of the time you can just buy. You can even buy foreign soldiers for your wars: Saudis are using mercenaries from Sudan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    If social credit works out, a shrine should be erected to Qian Xuesen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @AaronB

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the “Ugly Chinaman” stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China’s bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. I
     
    That goes together with aspiring to be a superpower - America had it, Germany, Japan, even England.

    Now that America is trying to "be great again" its trying to resurrect that attitude.

    You can't be a gentle great power - if you're gentle, then you have no interest in being a great power. One does not simply stumble into great power status. It is not an inevitability based on size and IQ.

    One must desperately want it and strive for it, like China is - and this implies a certain aggressive attitude as well as created a host of mood disorders.

    Pot isn’t a basis for national policy, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Nor is meth.
    , @Hyperborean

    Pot isn’t a basis for national policy, either.
     
    I feel like this should be a pinned reply to all of AaronB's comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. AaronB says:

    Soft power tends to be negatively correlated with hard power.

    When Germany had imperial ambitions, France was the cultural center of Europe. When Germany was the country of poets and thinkers, it had no hard power. Japan only acquired soft power after it was defeated in WW2.

    America during its expansionist phase had no soft power, and only acquired it after WW2. This was the beginning of American decline, and America’s superpower status was the result of Europe and Asia having destroyed itself.

    The reason is because the attitude needed to create soft power – culture – is opposed to the attitude needed to create hard power.

    Ancient China has tremendous soft power – modern aggressive China not so much.

    China will probably be a great power for a while but more in the manner of 19th century aggressive European states than America post WW2, and will eventually antagonize enough people that will join together to humble it.

    After that, China will probably return to its ancient traditions excavator the aggressive Western thing, like Japan is sort of doing. At that point there will be a chance to develop soft power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    but more in the manner of 19th century aggressive European states than America post WW2
     
    Good Lord I hope not! First, it doesn't seem to be in their general history to be expansionist. Second, they will have one serious hell of a time trying to colonize the Muslim world the way Europeans did. Sh. Abdul Hakim Murad was once asked about this particular question and he mentioned that the Muslim world seems fine to work with the Chinese and buy stuff from them, but they'll take American super-power hegemony over an analogous Chinese version any day. I tend to agree with him on that point. The reasons he mentioned were very clear; much more wide-ranging historical contact as well as shared Abrahamic/People-of-the-Book ties.

    and will eventually antagonize enough people that will join together to humble it.
     
    Let's hope this doesn't have to happen as a result of the previous point because we are talking WW3. Not pretty.

    Peace.
    , @Malla

    Soft power tends to be negatively correlated with hard power.
     
    Seems true. Like how we had Shakespeare and the Elizabethan golden age of England before the British Empire. During the British Empire days, we got a lot of great British literature and culture but I doubt if all that could rival the cultural achievements of the Elizabethan age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Pot isn't a basis for national policy, either.

    Nor is meth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. OT:

    Today the EU has done a trifecta. It passed the ‘worst’ (according to Julia Reda) versions of Art 13 and 14 which includes a ‘link tax’ and ‘copyright filter’ and other disgusting things, it decided to formalise Article 7 proceedings (which could lead to sanctions) against Hungary over migration and it has massively boosted a mostly useless Frontex border force, which will almost certainly be used for adventures abroad over time due to mission creep.

    As it becomes more authoritarian and more imperial, I suspect we will see the outgrowth of a eurosceptic left á la Corbyn across Europe. So far, the left has been very pro-EU but hopefully that will change. Today’s trifecta has somehow managed to alienate everyone. Left and right on internet freedom, the right on its incessant attacks on Hungary and the left on Frontex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Article 7 proceedings (which could lead to sanctions) against Hungary over migration
     
    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever. It wasn't even a very well-written, they could've criticized Orbán much better.

    But it's interesting that the "based" Austrian chancellor supported it. Orbán will probably need to enter an alliance with the more radical right pretty soon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Another great AK article.

    There are I believe two trends in China that may derail or cause a large pause in it surpassing the US. The first is demographics in that with an ageing population and low birthrate, a refrain that is commonly heard is that China will grow old before it grows rich. Is this likely to be a serious problem?

    There have also been around 30 instances of a country’s private debt (loans advanced to businesses and individuals) increasing by 40% or more over five years since WW2, all of which reported a big slowdown or outright crisis in the consecutive five years. In China, private debt grew by 60% over the last five years to 2017, probably the fastest rate in recorded history. That was due to instructions to keep loans flowing in the wake of the 2008 crisis. There are already signs of a slowdown and the fallout from a debt binge of this magnitude has never been seen before.

    Debt binge:

    https://enterprise.press/stories/2017/02/03/chinas-kiss-of-debt

    Funding crunch for VC funds:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/technology/china-startups-technology-economy.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Felix Keverich
    Is it fair to describe SK as one half of Russia? Perhaps, a one third? Come on, it's at a qualitatively lesser level. In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.

    In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.

    Using nukes, yes. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you couldn’t even get there, and even if you had a common border, it’d be very difficult to occupy it.

    Another point, to which you haven’t responded, is that having a huge indigenous MIC is always an advantage when comparing military expenditure levels, since imports are usually more expensive.

    Anyway, the Korean military is not very good, because it’s too rigid. I think the Chinese are more thoughtful about what kind of military could work the best. The South Koreans are content to be consistently much stronger than North Korea, which they have achieved without much effort decades ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Forget nukes. Targeting SK ports with standoff missiles will prevent fuel imports and quickly bring entire economy to a halt. SK leadership would then be forced to prioritise between needs of its military and radiply developing humanitarian crisis in the cities.

    Two ways to win a war:

    1) Destroying the enemy

    2) Coercing him into peace.

    Coercing SK will be pretty easy for Russia to do. Countries like SK, Japan have grown too fragile to afford prolonged conflict with pretty much anybody. That's one reason behind their timid foreign policy posturing. And China is evolving similar way.
    , @J
    We should remember the wisdom of our sages: the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Kimppis
    Well, not entirely true. Actually invading South Korea would obviously be very difficult, even if the two countries shared a border. Very much depends on the scenario.

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.

    So Russia's military spending in PPP is maybe $150 billion? So yeah, that's three times more. Maybe 4 times in reality?

    SK's PPP GDP is also higher than its nominal, but the country is also much more dependent on imports, its MIC is much more limited in scale, there's probably less "hidden spending," etc.

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.

    Would spending more bring SK up to Russia’s level without Karlin’s magic thinking?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    If it built a fully independent indigenous MIC (it takes probably at least a couple decades) and spent a similar portion for at least a couple decades, it'd still be less than half as powerful as Russia, because - due to its bigger size - Russia would have more economies of scale. Building 50 airplanes from one type costs usually way more than half of what it costs to build 100.

    You can rest assured that China will have no problems with economies of scale, and it already has a mostly indigenous (and mostly self-sufficient) MIC, which will be self-sufficient soon enough.
    , @Dmitry
    High level of Russia, is also a result of decades of superpower military investment.

    Even many new things coming into service now, like Su-34, are projects from the end of Soviet Union, which were neglected in the 1990s.

    It's a result of decades of colossal, superpower level investment in military technology, manufacturing, and many related areas.

    So Russian economy is not at a superpower level, but the military power is a result of being one of the world's only two superpowers of the 20th century.

    South Korea, is nothing even in the same league, will never be close to a superpower - it's also only a very recently developed country.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Thulean Friend
    OT:

    Today the EU has done a trifecta. It passed the 'worst' (according to Julia Reda) versions of Art 13 and 14 which includes a 'link tax' and 'copyright filter' and other disgusting things, it decided to formalise Article 7 proceedings (which could lead to sanctions) against Hungary over migration and it has massively boosted a mostly useless Frontex border force, which will almost certainly be used for adventures abroad over time due to mission creep.

    As it becomes more authoritarian and more imperial, I suspect we will see the outgrowth of a eurosceptic left á la Corbyn across Europe. So far, the left has been very pro-EU but hopefully that will change. Today's trifecta has somehow managed to alienate everyone. Left and right on internet freedom, the right on its incessant attacks on Hungary and the left on Frontex.

    Article 7 proceedings (which could lead to sanctions) against Hungary over migration

    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever. It wasn’t even a very well-written, they could’ve criticized Orbán much better.

    But it’s interesting that the “based” Austrian chancellor supported it. Orbán will probably need to enter an alliance with the more radical right pretty soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever.
     
    the decision was due to Hungary currently refusing to replace its population on the EU's orders - the eradication of Europeans being the core purpose of the EU.
    , @Mitleser
    Sebastian Kurz is first and foremost an opportunist, therefore not a reliable ally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    Soft power tends to be negatively correlated with hard power.

    When Germany had imperial ambitions, France was the cultural center of Europe. When Germany was the country of poets and thinkers, it had no hard power. Japan only acquired soft power after it was defeated in WW2.

    America during its expansionist phase had no soft power, and only acquired it after WW2. This was the beginning of American decline, and America's superpower status was the result of Europe and Asia having destroyed itself.

    The reason is because the attitude needed to create soft power - culture - is opposed to the attitude needed to create hard power.

    Ancient China has tremendous soft power - modern aggressive China not so much.

    China will probably be a great power for a while but more in the manner of 19th century aggressive European states than America post WW2, and will eventually antagonize enough people that will join together to humble it.

    After that, China will probably return to its ancient traditions excavator the aggressive Western thing, like Japan is sort of doing. At that point there will be a chance to develop soft power.

    but more in the manner of 19th century aggressive European states than America post WW2

    Good Lord I hope not! First, it doesn’t seem to be in their general history to be expansionist. Second, they will have one serious hell of a time trying to colonize the Muslim world the way Europeans did. Sh. Abdul Hakim Murad was once asked about this particular question and he mentioned that the Muslim world seems fine to work with the Chinese and buy stuff from them, but they’ll take American super-power hegemony over an analogous Chinese version any day. I tend to agree with him on that point. The reasons he mentioned were very clear; much more wide-ranging historical contact as well as shared Abrahamic/People-of-the-Book ties.

    and will eventually antagonize enough people that will join together to humble it.

    Let’s hope this doesn’t have to happen as a result of the previous point because we are talking WW3. Not pretty.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Unfortunately I don't think our hopes will have any impact :)

    Seriously, though, I think this is just something every great civilization has to get out of its system. Its sort of like the flu or a virus - you get infected and you just have to get it out of your system before you can return to more important things.

    Its like a childish adolescent phase. Europe went through it, Japan, the Muslim world - why not China?

    I doubt it'll get as bad as WW3. Its just something the Chinese have to go through now before they can grow up for the second time.
    , @anonymous

    The reasons he mentioned were very clear; much more wide-ranging historical contact as well as shared Abrahamic/People-of-the-Book ties.
     
    Whether one worships a prophet of God, or some fat Indian china-ized man, or his/her ancestors, they are all the same, the godless human-worshipping heathens, with delusions of racial superiority.

    Whose hegemony would be better for the Islamic world? Given the evil of the Whitey over centuries, even up to now, I will have to take my chances with the godless emotionless Chinaman (just look at that fellow Xi :) ).

    Surely, Allah(swt) has plans for everyone. When the Chinaman starts to behave like the evil imperialist whitey, he will be cut to size eventually.

    True Monotheism, Islam, will in time conquer all by converting the godless lot of them. Then the descendants of those whiteys who currently cry "sky-is-falling" about the perceived Islamisation of the west, will marvel at God's mercy on them, while spitting on their ancestors (that would be the lamenting whiteys of now), who kept them away from submitting to the One and only.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    They can’t even create a good state-owned propaganda channel – how many Westerners watch/read RT relative to CCTV?

    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can’t appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can’t appeal to the Far Right because it’s not Western.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It’s not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there’s a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    China used to appeal heavily to individuals seeking a Deist form of morality and social order. I think a transhumanism sans wokeness appeal can work. It's difficult but all good things are. 天下无难事,只怕有心人.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I think this is completely wrong.

    First, it's possible to cater to multiple sides. That's what RT (run by liberals and commies) does by alternating between BLM propaganda (previously Occupy Wall Street) and anti-immigration bromides. Other outlets such as Sputnik (run by Nazis) provide the conspiracy theories.

    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can’t appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can’t appeal to the Far Right because it’s not Western.
     
    China can appeal to the left by adopting the anti-racism shtick. It already does that in its annual whataboutist responses to US human rights accusations anyway. Just have people rant on air about it as well, instead of publishing it in some paper that nobody reads. Perhaps scoop up one of those leftist celebrities, such as Greenwald, Blumenthal, Taibbi.

    As for the Far Right, well, you do realize Anglin is a fan? ;)

    * https://dailystormer.name/are-you-aware-of-chinas-program-to-rate-the-social-value-of-celebrities/
    * https://dailystormer.name/chinese-communists-put-a-million-moslems-in-concentration-camps/

    This is the most hardcore Nazi website on the Internet. And they like China already! (even if for mostly made up reasons).

    China has plenty of nationalists, the sort of guys who made up the term baizuo. Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It’s not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there’s a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.
     
    But those faggots are the most influential group in the West so it's still important to target them. Conveniently, China already has good cred with them, so it only needs to reinforce and exploit it. China is more "responsible" than Drumpf, many of them like China's "progressive" attitude to religion, and they really admire China's intensive development of green technologies. They really, really like that. I mean really, what's the contradiction? People who are cool with GloboHomoBezos will be cool with any flavor of technocratic Orwellianism.

    If they had a competent media strategy. Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Tulip
    Economy is not "money", it is productive capacity. The size of your military is a direct function of the size of your productive economy, as you can't devote more than 100% of GDP to manufacturing tanks.

    Population + Economic Production + Technological Development pretty much spells out the material basis of your fighting capacity, leaving out "elan" and not having a fighting age population consisting of diverse overweight crybabies with criminal records, which is a cultural issue.

    Saudi Arabia fights wars without having much in the way of “productive capacity”. The stuff you need to fight a war – most of the time you can just buy. You can even buy foreign soldiers for your wars: Saudis are using mercenaries from Sudan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    I believe the statement AK made was that "Military power is a direct function of economic power."

    You said, no sir, money is only part of it. I came back and said money, nothing, its productive ability.

    You rightly point out that money without productive capacity can buy armaments (if it finds a willing seller).

    But it all goes to show that military power is a direct function of economic power, as the Cold War struggle between the USA and the USSR demonstrated, as the Russians just couldn't keep up with US military spending. I foresee a similar dynamic with Sodom and Beijing come 2040-2050.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Felix Keverich

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.
     
    Would spending more bring SK up to Russia's level without Karlin's magic thinking?

    If it built a fully independent indigenous MIC (it takes probably at least a couple decades) and spent a similar portion for at least a couple decades, it’d still be less than half as powerful as Russia, because – due to its bigger size – Russia would have more economies of scale. Building 50 airplanes from one type costs usually way more than half of what it costs to build 100.

    You can rest assured that China will have no problems with economies of scale, and it already has a mostly indigenous (and mostly self-sufficient) MIC, which will be self-sufficient soon enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn't develop world class indigenous military technology?

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? - actual fact from SIPRI database LOL

    Is it just me, or Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Talha says:
    @DFH

    It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich. By extension, I suspect we may have to wait for the second half of the century for a Chinese cultural renaissance.
     
    You are too optimistic, the Japanese have always been much more succesful culturally than the Chinese. They had an impressive literature and cinema even by the 1930s. By contrast, despite thousands of years of civilisation, China has produced very little culture of interest to non-Chinese.
    I also think that live-action Asian TV/film has an inherently limited appeal to mass foreign audiences

    They had an impressive literature and cinema even by the 1930s.

    Anybody who has not partaken of Japanese cinema from its golden age; Mizoguchi, Korusawa…is missing out on some really good stuff.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich

    The thing is, and I think somebody already replied this to you earlier (it might have been DFH?), that Russia simply spends a larger share of its GDP on the military.
     
    Would spending more bring SK up to Russia's level without Karlin's magic thinking?

    High level of Russia, is also a result of decades of superpower military investment.

    Even many new things coming into service now, like Su-34, are projects from the end of Soviet Union, which were neglected in the 1990s.

    It’s a result of decades of colossal, superpower level investment in military technology, manufacturing, and many related areas.

    So Russian economy is not at a superpower level, but the military power is a result of being one of the world’s only two superpowers of the 20th century.

    South Korea, is nothing even in the same league, will never be close to a superpower – it’s also only a very recently developed country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    The existance of a certain lag between economic power (investment) and military power is a reasonable concept, but Russia has not been spending on its military at superpower levels for 30 years now. Technologies have a tendency of becoming obsolete, so you would expect Russian military to lose ground in global rankings with each passing year...

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia's level? :) Indonesia is set to overtake Russia in PPP GDP sometime in the next decade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @reiner Tor

    In a hypothetical confrontation, SK will be promptly smashed by Russia.
     
    Using nukes, yes. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you couldn't even get there, and even if you had a common border, it'd be very difficult to occupy it.

    Another point, to which you haven't responded, is that having a huge indigenous MIC is always an advantage when comparing military expenditure levels, since imports are usually more expensive.

    Anyway, the Korean military is not very good, because it's too rigid. I think the Chinese are more thoughtful about what kind of military could work the best. The South Koreans are content to be consistently much stronger than North Korea, which they have achieved without much effort decades ago.

    Forget nukes. Targeting SK ports with standoff missiles will prevent fuel imports and quickly bring entire economy to a halt. SK leadership would then be forced to prioritise between needs of its military and radiply developing humanitarian crisis in the cities.

    Two ways to win a war:

    1) Destroying the enemy

    2) Coercing him into peace.

    Coercing SK will be pretty easy for Russia to do. Countries like SK, Japan have grown too fragile to afford prolonged conflict with pretty much anybody. That’s one reason behind their timid foreign policy posturing. And China is evolving similar way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    China is neither Japan nor SK, for better or worse.
    , @reiner Tor
    So your advantage would be that while Russia is huge and its largest population centers far from South Korea, South Korea is huge and its economy would take a huge hit if being targeted by Russian standoff weapons.

    This tactic won't scale well against China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Anonymous

    They can’t even create a good state-owned propaganda channel – how many Westerners watch/read RT relative to CCTV?
     
    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can't appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can't appeal to the Far Right because it's not Western.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It's not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there's a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.

    China used to appeal heavily to individuals seeking a Deist form of morality and social order. I think a transhumanism sans wokeness appeal can work. It’s difficult but all good things are. 天下无难事,只怕有心人.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What percentage of America's population knows what "Deist" means? Has an interest in ethics? Transhumanism? It's got to be low single digits, if not less. See Karlin's recent post on "The Idiocy of the Average".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Felix Keverich
    Forget nukes. Targeting SK ports with standoff missiles will prevent fuel imports and quickly bring entire economy to a halt. SK leadership would then be forced to prioritise between needs of its military and radiply developing humanitarian crisis in the cities.

    Two ways to win a war:

    1) Destroying the enemy

    2) Coercing him into peace.

    Coercing SK will be pretty easy for Russia to do. Countries like SK, Japan have grown too fragile to afford prolonged conflict with pretty much anybody. That's one reason behind their timid foreign policy posturing. And China is evolving similar way.

    China is neither Japan nor SK, for better or worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    but more in the manner of 19th century aggressive European states than America post WW2
     
    Good Lord I hope not! First, it doesn't seem to be in their general history to be expansionist. Second, they will have one serious hell of a time trying to colonize the Muslim world the way Europeans did. Sh. Abdul Hakim Murad was once asked about this particular question and he mentioned that the Muslim world seems fine to work with the Chinese and buy stuff from them, but they'll take American super-power hegemony over an analogous Chinese version any day. I tend to agree with him on that point. The reasons he mentioned were very clear; much more wide-ranging historical contact as well as shared Abrahamic/People-of-the-Book ties.

    and will eventually antagonize enough people that will join together to humble it.
     
    Let's hope this doesn't have to happen as a result of the previous point because we are talking WW3. Not pretty.

    Peace.

    Unfortunately I don’t think our hopes will have any impact :)

    Seriously, though, I think this is just something every great civilization has to get out of its system. Its sort of like the flu or a virus – you get infected and you just have to get it out of your system before you can return to more important things.

    Its like a childish adolescent phase. Europe went through it, Japan, the Muslim world – why not China?

    I doubt it’ll get as bad as WW3. Its just something the Chinese have to go through now before they can grow up for the second time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Felix Keverich
    Forget nukes. Targeting SK ports with standoff missiles will prevent fuel imports and quickly bring entire economy to a halt. SK leadership would then be forced to prioritise between needs of its military and radiply developing humanitarian crisis in the cities.

    Two ways to win a war:

    1) Destroying the enemy

    2) Coercing him into peace.

    Coercing SK will be pretty easy for Russia to do. Countries like SK, Japan have grown too fragile to afford prolonged conflict with pretty much anybody. That's one reason behind their timid foreign policy posturing. And China is evolving similar way.

    So your advantage would be that while Russia is huge and its largest population centers far from South Korea, South Korea is huge and its economy would take a huge hit if being targeted by Russian standoff weapons.

    This tactic won’t scale well against China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Similar to SK, China is growing increasingly dependent on seaborn imports of fuel. Furthermore, Chinese leaders have plans to house most of their population in gigantic coastal agglomerations ( >100 million people each). It will be pretty easy for a capable adversary to disrupt life in these habitats.

    I'm not saying that owning China will be as easy as owning Koreans, but it's a vulnerable society and growing more vulnerable as it's becoming more prosperous and complex.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I am also not sure to what extent this will work even against Korea.

    It's not like Saudi Arabia, where a few critical hits on oil export infrastructure can cut out a large chunk of its oil exports until the facilities are repaired. Ports are big, sturdy structures. And South Korea has a lot of them. It is a peninsula that produces 30% of the world's ships! How many of these long-range standoff missiles does Russia have? When I pressed him on this, I recall that even Martyanov said ~a thousand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Rye says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    wut

    The Yuan lasted less than 80 years, the Qing lasted 276 years. In contrast, Zhou alone lasted about 800 years.
    , @notanon

    Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations.
     
    agreed but modern warfare requires those things less and less
    , @DFH

    Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations
     
    How's that working out for the Saudi military?
    , @animalogic
    Yes, the Chinese sure embarrassed themselves in the Korean conflict....not.
    , @Anonymous
    Hmmm. I seem to recall a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam driving America out of their country.

    The man in the black pajama is a worthy fucking adversary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @reiner Tor
    If it built a fully independent indigenous MIC (it takes probably at least a couple decades) and spent a similar portion for at least a couple decades, it'd still be less than half as powerful as Russia, because - due to its bigger size - Russia would have more economies of scale. Building 50 airplanes from one type costs usually way more than half of what it costs to build 100.

    You can rest assured that China will have no problems with economies of scale, and it already has a mostly indigenous (and mostly self-sufficient) MIC, which will be self-sufficient soon enough.

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? – actual fact from SIPRI database LOL

    Is it just me, or Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?
     
    Being a vassal of the US requires tribute to the MIC.
    , @reiner Tor

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?
     
    It did to an extent, but because it's relatively smaller than Russia and it doesn't want to become a great military power, it found that it doesn't have economies of scale for it, so its indigenous military products would always be way more expensive than just buying it from its allies. (Meaning the US.) Also it's politically useful to buy something from the US, because of the trade imbalance.

    These issues won't plague China.

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports?
     
    In 2016 it was double of the Israeli value, so there's probably a lot of fluctuation.

    Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.
     
    Wishful thinking, but we'll probably see soon enough.
    , @notanon

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?
     
    the US doesn't want them to
    , @Anonymous
    It's probably more complicated than that.

    There's no history of major indigenous Russian military tech developments until the importation of Western European experts and techniques starting with Peter the Great and then more recently in the late 19th and early 20the centuries with the import of US and Western industry and tech.

    I don't know that much about pre-modern Chinese and Eastern history but they did seem to have some indigenous stuff going on with rocketry weapons and the like.

    You could also make the reverse argument: why isn't Russia able to be a manufacturing powerhouse in consumer or capital goods if it has world class indigenous military tech? Even in a non-military sector where it has a lot of interest, like energy, Russia has had to use American horizontal fracking tech.

    It's true that Russia would beat SK in a war, but obviously there are major factors besides military tech at play. The Nazis had more sophisticated military tech during WW2.
    , @foolisholdman

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? – actual fact from SIPRI database
     
    Could it be the enormous US subsidy which Israel gets and China doesn't makes the difference? Then again Israel probably has more arms than soldiers to use them while China is busily arming itself in anticipation of a US attack.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Rye
    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.

    wut

    The Yuan lasted less than 80 years, the Qing lasted 276 years. In contrast, Zhou alone lasted about 800 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rye
    Zhou was a very long time ago, before the Chinese had much experience with alien races. You must admit that China has not made a good showing against outsiders over the last 2000 years. If Chinese weren't such profitable tax cattle, they'd probably be gone by now. China's strength will never be in conventional warfare, Chinese men are not a very martial bunch. The most effective strategy for the Chinese is exporting their women to competitor nations until the competitor populations become as docile and tractable as themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Felix Keverich
    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn't develop world class indigenous military technology?

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? - actual fact from SIPRI database LOL

    Is it just me, or Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?

    Being a vassal of the US requires tribute to the MIC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @reiner Tor
    So your advantage would be that while Russia is huge and its largest population centers far from South Korea, South Korea is huge and its economy would take a huge hit if being targeted by Russian standoff weapons.

    This tactic won't scale well against China.

    Similar to SK, China is growing increasingly dependent on seaborn imports of fuel. Furthermore, Chinese leaders have plans to house most of their population in gigantic coastal agglomerations ( >100 million people each). It will be pretty easy for a capable adversary to disrupt life in these habitats.

    I’m not saying that owning China will be as easy as owning Koreans, but it’s a vulnerable society and growing more vulnerable as it’s becoming more prosperous and complex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Furthermore, Chinese leaders have plans to house most of their population in gigantic coastal agglomerations ( >100 million people each). It will be pretty easy for a capable adversary to disrupt life in these habitats.
     
    Oh, it certainly won't be any easier than hitting Moscow (something like 10% of Russia alone), or, even better, just a few oil/natural gas fields and pipelines, without which Russia would not be able to use its natural resources any more.

    I don't think there's anything intrinsically easier about disrupting life in China than in Russia. China is huge enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. EldnahYm says:

    China has an aging demographic, is already past its peak as a manufacturing hub due to increasing costs, has rampant capital flight into the U.S., has little meaningful cultural output(unlike both Japan and South Korea), and is sitting atop the worst potential housing bust in human history. Furthermore much of China, lots of Guizhou or Yunnan for example is miserably poor. They have little natural resources, a giant population to feed, and are totally dependent on international trade. No one would confuse China with South Korea if they visited the two places. Pollution is horrible, you can’t drink from the tap, roads are bad, scammers everywhere, all of the signs of a low trust society are there. If China manages to be relatively stable over the next 40 years, I would consider that a huge success for them.

    Militarily China is not highly projection based, has little geographic barriers, is facing a declining pool of recruits, and is surrounded by people who don’t like them(having Pakistan as an ally is a bug, not a feature). Personally I think much of China’s military ambitions are defensive anyhow. If they think they can compete with the U.S., they’re crazy. Kim Jong-Il batshit level crazy.

    I also am puzzled by the notion that significant cultural impact from Japan is only a decade old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The year is 2010 and forever will be.
    , @RadicalCenter
    There’s nothing crazy about China thinking it can compete militarily, or in almost any other way, with a USA that faces the collapse of our currency, the coming inability to borrow enough affordable to keep the welfare/warfare State going, and then widespread civil unrest and racial violence.

    How about a Mexican secessionist movement across the usa’s two most populous States (CA and TX) — does that sound like a far fetched prospect?

    China and any other enemy or rival of the USA merely needs to wait.

    , @anonymous

    (having Pakistan as an ally is a bug, not a feature)
     
    Neither is godless China a true ally of muslim Pakistan. It is all about the "enemy of my..."

    Anyway, the godlessness of the pagan polytheist Christian world should also be viewed through the same prism... that of a hellish bug, not a feature, as is delusion-ally viewed.
    , @DB Cooper
    "No one would confuse China with South Korea if they visited the two places. "

    You must watch a lot of South Korea soap opera. South Korea in soap opera looks very different from South Korea in reality. Believe me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Felix Keverich
    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn't develop world class indigenous military technology?

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? - actual fact from SIPRI database LOL

    Is it just me, or Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?

    It did to an extent, but because it’s relatively smaller than Russia and it doesn’t want to become a great military power, it found that it doesn’t have economies of scale for it, so its indigenous military products would always be way more expensive than just buying it from its allies. (Meaning the US.) Also it’s politically useful to buy something from the US, because of the trade imbalance.

    These issues won’t plague China.

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports?

    In 2016 it was double of the Israeli value, so there’s probably a lot of fluctuation.

    Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.

    Wishful thinking, but we’ll probably see soon enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Tulip says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Saudi Arabia fights wars without having much in the way of "productive capacity". The stuff you need to fight a war - most of the time you can just buy. You can even buy foreign soldiers for your wars: Saudis are using mercenaries from Sudan.

    I believe the statement AK made was that “Military power is a direct function of economic power.”

    You said, no sir, money is only part of it. I came back and said money, nothing, its productive ability.

    You rightly point out that money without productive capacity can buy armaments (if it finds a willing seller).

    But it all goes to show that military power is a direct function of economic power, as the Cold War struggle between the USA and the USSR demonstrated, as the Russians just couldn’t keep up with US military spending. I foresee a similar dynamic with Sodom and Beijing come 2040-2050.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Felix Keverich
    Similar to SK, China is growing increasingly dependent on seaborn imports of fuel. Furthermore, Chinese leaders have plans to house most of their population in gigantic coastal agglomerations ( >100 million people each). It will be pretty easy for a capable adversary to disrupt life in these habitats.

    I'm not saying that owning China will be as easy as owning Koreans, but it's a vulnerable society and growing more vulnerable as it's becoming more prosperous and complex.

    Furthermore, Chinese leaders have plans to house most of their population in gigantic coastal agglomerations ( >100 million people each). It will be pretty easy for a capable adversary to disrupt life in these habitats.

    Oh, it certainly won’t be any easier than hitting Moscow (something like 10% of Russia alone), or, even better, just a few oil/natural gas fields and pipelines, without which Russia would not be able to use its natural resources any more.

    I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically easier about disrupting life in China than in Russia. China is huge enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    How would Russia fare with its two biggest and most significant, most prosperous cities destroyed? What would be left without the Moscow and SPB metro areas, exactly?

    Now, how would China fare if it lost Beijing and its second-largest City?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @DFH

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia’s levels?
     
    South Korean PPP GDP is about half of Russia's. Although, by that metric, India has an economy more than double that of Russia's without conmensurate military power.

    It is completely unsurprising that Russia is a more formidable military power than India and South Korea, notwithstanding India’s far larger population and South Korea’s in-some-ways more advanced and diversified economy.

    For one thing, South Korea and India lack Russia’s Massive reserves of oil, gas, and commercially/ militarily valuable minerals/metals.

    They also both lack Russia’s vast fertile agricultural land, in absolute terms and even more dangerously relative to their populations.

    On the other hand, I don’t know about Russia keeping all of its vast territory longer-term with a steadily declining population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @EldnahYm
    China has an aging demographic, is already past its peak as a manufacturing hub due to increasing costs, has rampant capital flight into the U.S., has little meaningful cultural output(unlike both Japan and South Korea), and is sitting atop the worst potential housing bust in human history. Furthermore much of China, lots of Guizhou or Yunnan for example is miserably poor. They have little natural resources, a giant population to feed, and are totally dependent on international trade. No one would confuse China with South Korea if they visited the two places. Pollution is horrible, you can't drink from the tap, roads are bad, scammers everywhere, all of the signs of a low trust society are there. If China manages to be relatively stable over the next 40 years, I would consider that a huge success for them.

    Militarily China is not highly projection based, has little geographic barriers, is facing a declining pool of recruits, and is surrounded by people who don't like them(having Pakistan as an ally is a bug, not a feature). Personally I think much of China's military ambitions are defensive anyhow. If they think they can compete with the U.S., they're crazy. Kim Jong-Il batshit level crazy.

    I also am puzzled by the notion that significant cultural impact from Japan is only a decade old.

    The year is 2010 and forever will be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @DFH

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia’s levels?
     
    South Korean PPP GDP is about half of Russia's. Although, by that metric, India has an economy more than double that of Russia's without conmensurate military power.

    India is dirt poor. Aggregate GDP data is not worth much for dirt poor countries. For example if Africa was a united country, it would still not amount to much. (Okay, India is better than Africa, but you get the point.)

    You need to be at least somewhat developed, or else your aggregate GDP would be discounted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia and fourth largest spender on armaments.

    It's economic size is roughly what China's was 10-15 years ago..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @EldnahYm
    China has an aging demographic, is already past its peak as a manufacturing hub due to increasing costs, has rampant capital flight into the U.S., has little meaningful cultural output(unlike both Japan and South Korea), and is sitting atop the worst potential housing bust in human history. Furthermore much of China, lots of Guizhou or Yunnan for example is miserably poor. They have little natural resources, a giant population to feed, and are totally dependent on international trade. No one would confuse China with South Korea if they visited the two places. Pollution is horrible, you can't drink from the tap, roads are bad, scammers everywhere, all of the signs of a low trust society are there. If China manages to be relatively stable over the next 40 years, I would consider that a huge success for them.

    Militarily China is not highly projection based, has little geographic barriers, is facing a declining pool of recruits, and is surrounded by people who don't like them(having Pakistan as an ally is a bug, not a feature). Personally I think much of China's military ambitions are defensive anyhow. If they think they can compete with the U.S., they're crazy. Kim Jong-Il batshit level crazy.

    I also am puzzled by the notion that significant cultural impact from Japan is only a decade old.

    There’s nothing crazy about China thinking it can compete militarily, or in almost any other way, with a USA that faces the collapse of our currency, the coming inability to borrow enough affordable to keep the welfare/warfare State going, and then widespread civil unrest and racial violence.

    How about a Mexican secessionist movement across the usa’s two most populous States (CA and TX) — does that sound like a far fetched prospect?

    China and any other enemy or rival of the USA merely needs to wait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    The U.S. is still the major export market for most of the world, especially China, it is still the top destination for capital flight, has long been the place where people park their funds when economic crises hit. There is no reason for this to change, and if it did, it would leave China with a whole lot of worthless Treasury bills. A collapse of the U.S. dollar would be a disaster for all of East Asia. I also see no reason why the U.S. Central Bank will suddenly become subject to the whims of the Chinese, it doesn't work like that.

    But none of that is going to happen because their is no alternative to the U.S. dollar. No other major consumption led economy with even close to positive demographics. No other large population country with major population centers in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Even in the event of a large global collapse, the countries most impacted would be those most reliant on international trade. That isn't the U.S..

    The idea of Mexican secessionist movement is a laugh.
    , @notanon
    yes, people keep talking about this as if both USA and China are advancing but China are advancing faster and then guessing when they will overtake - whereas what is actually happening is the USA is being deliberately destroyed as part of the banking mafia's move to a new host.

    the betrayal of the old host is part of the process of moving to the new one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @reiner Tor

    Furthermore, Chinese leaders have plans to house most of their population in gigantic coastal agglomerations ( >100 million people each). It will be pretty easy for a capable adversary to disrupt life in these habitats.
     
    Oh, it certainly won't be any easier than hitting Moscow (something like 10% of Russia alone), or, even better, just a few oil/natural gas fields and pipelines, without which Russia would not be able to use its natural resources any more.

    I don't think there's anything intrinsically easier about disrupting life in China than in Russia. China is huge enough.

    How would Russia fare with its two biggest and most significant, most prosperous cities destroyed? What would be left without the Moscow and SPB metro areas, exactly?

    Now, how would China fare if it lost Beijing and its second-largest City?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    South Korea is actually a major military power. This is huge blind spot comrade Keverich. If you’ve looked at South Korea’s orbat, you’ll notice that they possess more modern tanks, more self propelled artillery, more jets, and now even more major naval vessels than practically any other European power outside of Russia. No one really notices this because 1) South Korea is a vassal state of the US and 2) their armed forces don’t have anything to do but be on guard against North Korea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    But can they penetrate Russian air-defense umbrella, and stop incoming Russian missiles, because this is how I would fight them?

    Comparing SK with European countries means nothing, as these countries are effectively demilitarised. Even so Western Europe appears to have much stronger arms industry, as reflected in their exports.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Dmitry
    High level of Russia, is also a result of decades of superpower military investment.

    Even many new things coming into service now, like Su-34, are projects from the end of Soviet Union, which were neglected in the 1990s.

    It's a result of decades of colossal, superpower level investment in military technology, manufacturing, and many related areas.

    So Russian economy is not at a superpower level, but the military power is a result of being one of the world's only two superpowers of the 20th century.

    South Korea, is nothing even in the same league, will never be close to a superpower - it's also only a very recently developed country.

    The existance of a certain lag between economic power (investment) and military power is a reasonable concept, but Russia has not been spending on its military at superpower levels for 30 years now. Technologies have a tendency of becoming obsolete, so you would expect Russian military to lose ground in global rankings with each passing year…

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia’s level? :) Indonesia is set to overtake Russia in PPP GDP sometime in the next decade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In military technology and manufacturing, time-lag can be very slow, and also many projects requiring colossal investments initially (which many countries will never make).

    Russia has a century of experience (for example) military aerospace development and manufacturing, which was reaching the highest levels of superpower investment through around 4 decades from around 1950-1990.

    True, the latest planes coming into the air force now, like Su-34, were developed in the 1980s- so new introductions now, are many of them still from that epoch of colossal investment, like harvesting investments from 30 years ago.

    China, by comparison. was mainly only copying licensed replicas of Soviet planes, while in poverty until recently,

    Even now, the most common plane in China's air force is a copy of MiG-21 - a plane probably which was obsolete by 1970s.

    Currently, for their newer models, they still have to import the jet engines from - guess where? Russia.

    , @Anatoly Karlin

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia’s level?
     
    Probably never.

    For a start, with its ~85 average IQ, it is unlikely that Indonesia will ever master the complex O-Ring technologies needed to create certain classes of modern military equipment.

    This is obviously not an issue for the Northern Mongoloids. Vietnam has a better chance of becoming a great military power than Indonesia if it really wanted to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Duke of Qin
    South Korea is actually a major military power. This is huge blind spot comrade Keverich. If you've looked at South Korea's orbat, you'll notice that they possess more modern tanks, more self propelled artillery, more jets, and now even more major naval vessels than practically any other European power outside of Russia. No one really notices this because 1) South Korea is a vassal state of the US and 2) their armed forces don't have anything to do but be on guard against North Korea.

    But can they penetrate Russian air-defense umbrella, and stop incoming Russian missiles, because this is how I would fight them?

    Comparing SK with European countries means nothing, as these countries are effectively demilitarised. Even so Western Europe appears to have much stronger arms industry, as reflected in their exports.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. EldnahYm says:
    @RadicalCenter
    There’s nothing crazy about China thinking it can compete militarily, or in almost any other way, with a USA that faces the collapse of our currency, the coming inability to borrow enough affordable to keep the welfare/warfare State going, and then widespread civil unrest and racial violence.

    How about a Mexican secessionist movement across the usa’s two most populous States (CA and TX) — does that sound like a far fetched prospect?

    China and any other enemy or rival of the USA merely needs to wait.

    The U.S. is still the major export market for most of the world, especially China, it is still the top destination for capital flight, has long been the place where people park their funds when economic crises hit. There is no reason for this to change, and if it did, it would leave China with a whole lot of worthless Treasury bills. A collapse of the U.S. dollar would be a disaster for all of East Asia. I also see no reason why the U.S. Central Bank will suddenly become subject to the whims of the Chinese, it doesn’t work like that.

    But none of that is going to happen because their is no alternative to the U.S. dollar. No other major consumption led economy with even close to positive demographics. No other large population country with major population centers in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Even in the event of a large global collapse, the countries most impacted would be those most reliant on international trade. That isn’t the U.S..

    The idea of Mexican secessionist movement is a laugh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Glad you are relatively optimistic in these respects.

    As for Mexican secession being laughable, that may depend in part on how much free stuff the less-assimilated Mexicans here think they can still get by remaining nominally part of the USA. It’s not reasonable to expect that the fed and State governments will be able to sustain the current level of welfare spending. And that’s without a substantial increase in the interest that we are paying on the fed and state gov debts, which also seems likely.

    As for the us currency losing its reserve status, I’m not predicting that it will be supplanted, but at first just supplemented and shunted our of its primary position. A more likely change in the shorter-them would be the adoption of a basket of major currencies, surely including the Yuan and most likely the Euro and the Ruble (if there is still a meaningful Euro as Europe descends into Islamism and ongoing civil strife).

    China, Russia, and others have switched some contracts / transactions to being settled in their own currencies, and the trend will likely intensify. This will have an effect on our US dollar and our ability to print limitless amounts of it, untethered to any tangible good or to any increase in production of goods and services, to fund wars and domestic programs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. notanon says:

    There is absolutely no reason why this process of convergence must stall at any point

    moving all global production to only one region of the world can’t work long-term cos it depends on the other regions having money to buy the produced goods and as production is off-shored the economies of those other regions gradually stagnate and die – Europe, USA, Brazil, Turkey etc – so ultimately China will require their own population to rise up to 1950s USA level middle class to provide the demand.

    now i don’t know what proportion of China’s industry is foreign owned but they’ll want to move to cheaper locations if wages are allowed to increase to the necessary level but i assume most Chinese oligarchs think the same way (?)

    so i think there will come a time when the Chinese government will need to nationalize everything to stop the oligarchs moving which one way or another will throw a spanner in the works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. notanon says:
    @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    i think this is true in principle but the western populations are being replaced by the same people who off-shored western industry and what percentage of the replacements believe in those values?

    so although this will probably still be an issue for a while it’s currently not looking likely to be an issue long-term imo.

    China’s long term problem is how to prevent the banking mafia doing the same thing to them after they wipe out the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. notanon says:
    @reiner Tor

    Article 7 proceedings (which could lead to sanctions) against Hungary over migration
     
    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever. It wasn't even a very well-written, they could've criticized Orbán much better.

    But it's interesting that the "based" Austrian chancellor supported it. Orbán will probably need to enter an alliance with the more radical right pretty soon.

    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever.

    the decision was due to Hungary currently refusing to replace its population on the EU’s orders – the eradication of Europeans being the core purpose of the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Perhaps that was the underlying reason, but that’s not what the vote was about, it was about a bunch of other issues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. notanon says:
    @Felix Keverich
    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn't develop world class indigenous military technology?

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? - actual fact from SIPRI database LOL

    Is it just me, or Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.

    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn’t develop world class indigenous military technology?

    the US doesn’t want them to

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich
    The existance of a certain lag between economic power (investment) and military power is a reasonable concept, but Russia has not been spending on its military at superpower levels for 30 years now. Technologies have a tendency of becoming obsolete, so you would expect Russian military to lose ground in global rankings with each passing year...

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia's level? :) Indonesia is set to overtake Russia in PPP GDP sometime in the next decade.

    In military technology and manufacturing, time-lag can be very slow, and also many projects requiring colossal investments initially (which many countries will never make).

    Russia has a century of experience (for example) military aerospace development and manufacturing, which was reaching the highest levels of superpower investment through around 4 decades from around 1950-1990.

    True, the latest planes coming into the air force now, like Su-34, were developed in the 1980s- so new introductions now, are many of them still from that epoch of colossal investment, like harvesting investments from 30 years ago.

    China, by comparison. was mainly only copying licensed replicas of Soviet planes, while in poverty until recently,

    Even now, the most common plane in China’s air force is a copy of MiG-21 – a plane probably which was obsolete by 1970s.

    Currently, for their newer models, they still have to import the jet engines from – guess where? Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. notanon says:
    @Rye
    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.

    Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations.

    agreed but modern warfare requires those things less and less

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rye
    Martial spirit also seems to be correlated with the percentage of a nation's best men who gravitate towards weapons engineering and professional military service. Martial spirit may also correlate with how much punishment a population is willing to take before resigning themselves to subservience. If we ever arrive at a point where the martial characteristics of a population are irrelevant to the war-fighting potential of their nation, then we would probably already be past the point of human relevance in any field.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    China used to appeal heavily to individuals seeking a Deist form of morality and social order. I think a transhumanism sans wokeness appeal can work. It's difficult but all good things are. 天下无难事,只怕有心人.

    What percentage of America’s population knows what “Deist” means? Has an interest in ethics? Transhumanism? It’s got to be low single digits, if not less. See Karlin’s recent post on “The Idiocy of the Average”.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. notanon says:
    @RadicalCenter
    There’s nothing crazy about China thinking it can compete militarily, or in almost any other way, with a USA that faces the collapse of our currency, the coming inability to borrow enough affordable to keep the welfare/warfare State going, and then widespread civil unrest and racial violence.

    How about a Mexican secessionist movement across the usa’s two most populous States (CA and TX) — does that sound like a far fetched prospect?

    China and any other enemy or rival of the USA merely needs to wait.

    yes, people keep talking about this as if both USA and China are advancing but China are advancing faster and then guessing when they will overtake – whereas what is actually happening is the USA is being deliberately destroyed as part of the banking mafia’s move to a new host.

    the betrayal of the old host is part of the process of moving to the new one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @notanon

    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever.
     
    the decision was due to Hungary currently refusing to replace its population on the EU's orders - the eradication of Europeans being the core purpose of the EU.

    Perhaps that was the underlying reason, but that’s not what the vote was about, it was about a bunch of other issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Parbes
    Underlying reasons are the only ones that really matter. The rest is just sophistry, distraction and excuses (and highly hypocritical ones in this case, since the West European EU "elites" themselves are autocratic, undemocratic, scarcely responsive to the desires of their own native populations, and less and less committed to "the rule of law" in their own lands with each passing day).

    In other words - the whole thing is shameless, double standard-laden, hypocritical demonization, of the same type that the Western "elites" have been practicing for decades now against independent-minded national leaders around the world who refuse to knuckle under to them on a key issue of national importance.

    The same basic crap, the same playbook, every time, with superficial cosmetic variations in setting and presentation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. DFH says:
    @Rye
    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.

    Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations

    How’s that working out for the Saudi military?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    This is a feature, not bug, if you want China to isolate itself from the rest of the world like me. Face it, the developed world is facing declining populations and immigration inundation. The evil empire, the United States, is blessedly the furthest one along this route. The rest of the growing world, is full of stupid and dangerous people whom the Chinese should rightly be wary of and have nothing to do with and are of no account. 100 years is generous. By 2050, the US already only 62% non-Hispanic white, will be in the mid 40′s even with ZERO immigration legal or otherwise from today because of differential fertility rates. All the prognostications of eternal American hegemony relished by American imperialists rely on the assumption that new Americans, like New Coke, are just as good as Old Americans and thus Demographics are going to save the day. Karlin, like many of us here, are quietly or not so quietly laughing at this idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    Isolationism means China will be surrounded by a hostile, westernized world. It will be outnumbered and pressured from every direction, and increases the chance of western values seeping into China. It's not a tenable position.

    China might not be interested in a global war of ideology, but ideological war is interested in China. Fight back or the world's stupid, dangerous people will be at our throats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. pyrrhus says:
    @reiner Tor
    Regarding whether they will not be interested in the rest of the world, something which I think Felix Keverich has wrote many times.

    Once they will be the biggest economy by far in the world, they will have interests everywhere. It's inevitable. You cannot be the biggest economy in the world without having trade ties (especially vital are imports of raw materials and exports to pay for them) on basically all continents.

    Whether or not the Chinese are interested in ruling the world is moot. They will be forced to get involved everywhere, because they will be so big that they will see vital interests everywhere. And once mission creep sets in, they will be all over the world. Again, even if they initially have no intention of being a big superpower at all.

    China is already taking over parts of Africa…https://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-national-byo-143959.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    Well said on likeability.

    But I don’t think China needs to do everything in one go. It will have time to build itself up economically and find its footing culturally over time. This is pretty much what Japan did and what Korea is doing.

    I also agree on China needing to make genuine allies, especially with its East Asian neighbors. If China wants to make a cultural impact, that is where China should look first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Keverich
    How come manufacturing powerhouse SK couldn't develop world class indigenous military technology?

    How come China is trailing Israel in arms exports? - actual fact from SIPRI database LOL

    Is it just me, or Mongoloids do not seem to have a knack for this thing.

    It’s probably more complicated than that.

    There’s no history of major indigenous Russian military tech developments until the importation of Western European experts and techniques starting with Peter the Great and then more recently in the late 19th and early 20the centuries with the import of US and Western industry and tech.

    I don’t know that much about pre-modern Chinese and Eastern history but they did seem to have some indigenous stuff going on with rocketry weapons and the like.

    You could also make the reverse argument: why isn’t Russia able to be a manufacturing powerhouse in consumer or capital goods if it has world class indigenous military tech? Even in a non-military sector where it has a lot of interest, like energy, Russia has had to use American horizontal fracking tech.

    It’s true that Russia would beat SK in a war, but obviously there are major factors besides military tech at play. The Nazis had more sophisticated military tech during WW2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    Ironically some of the precursors to modern hydraulic fracturing best practices like multilateral drilling were Russian innovations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. This is a good article and I agree with its central point.

    There is absolutely no reason on this Earth why China will not reach the same level of economic development and per capita income as Taiwan or South Korea. Anyone arguing otherwise has to come up with a very compelling argument to support their position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    There is every reason. Taiwan and South Korea are both homogenous, small countries with most of the people located in a small number of cities. If things get really bad there is at least the possibility of importing the things they most need. For a country of 1.3 billion that is not a possibility. The kinds of problems China has to deal with just to meet people's food, water, and electricity needs are enormous. Becoming rich from export led trade is a totally different proposition for a nation of 1.3 billion compared to 27 million, or even 127 million in Japan's case. Taiwan also has an extra advantage in that the Japanese built a lot of stuff there.

    People want to keep comparing China with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and it's fair up to a point, but you don't have to look very hard to see in many ways China is not like these places. All of those countries are clean, efficient, low corruption, and relatively high trust. You don't expect the buildings to fall apart for no reason, or to get intestinal parasites from drinking the water, or to run across Pakistani hitmen like you can in Hunan, or to find large numbers of people living with no electricity or running water, for ordinary people to throw their trash everywhere, or to have children being given fake vaccines, or for the country's official statistics to all be in a fog of uncertainty in terms of their reliability etc. Some of these problems those other East Asian nations didn't even have when they were poor.

    China is similar to other East Asian nations in many of its weaknesses, low arable land, poor natural resources(aside from coal and some mineral reserves in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they have almost nothing), difficult to navigate waterways(building a giant dam in the middle of their best river isn't helping), and dense, aging populations. But it lacks most of the strengths of those other countries(other than high IQ). The optimistic prediction is that they will grow a little bit over time, will lift some more people out of poverty, and maybe the building quality and pollution in some of the big cities will improve a little. That's assuming nothing major happens to damage world trade. Reaching per capita levels of Taiwan or South Korea, when economic growth has already slowed down, when fertility is low, where is that economic growth going to come from? Hard to have that much consumption led growth with a declining population. Their manufacturing boom peaked years ago. They're a natural resource importer. They're also a poor place for nuclear or renewable energy. Since manufacturing went down much of the new investment is in junk finance. How are they going to grow at such massive levels?

    , @Duke of Qin
    The biggest arguments against is demographics and debt. Chinese debt (really private corporate non financial) increased rapidly after 2008. Chinese demographics are likewise around the 1.6 ish range with 17.3 million births (92% of which is Han Chinese or close enough) last year so similar to Western Europe.

    Debt in and of itself isnt bad, and high debts are not a problem as long as you can grow faster than them. It's only an issue when growth slows down and bad debts pile up.

    The demographic arguement is that only a young and growing population can create economic growth and thus China's "bad" demographics will stall economic growth.

    On the surface, these arguements sound convincing enough and indeed the China-skeptics make a very convincing case if your thought patterns have been completly dominated and shaped by liberal thinking and it's heuristic roadblocks.

    The thinking basically goes bad debt > financial crisis > Chinese are eating each other on the streets. If you are a liberal finance junkie who stares at trend lines and curves all day then any negative change in the numbers looks like the end of the world. If you have a longer more historically grounded view of development, youll see regular panics, financial crisis, bank runs, devastating wars, all of which is followed up by more economic growth. NPL loans, bubbles and bursts, are speed bumps compared to the historic forces of gradual productive capital accumulation, increased labor specialization, an intelligent and productive population capable of problem solving. Which view you subscribe to basically depends on if you think an "economy" consists of financial instruments rather than things.

    The demographic situation is more complex and grimmer. Modernity is wrecking China just as it is wrecking every society that isn't composed of sub 85 IQ morlocks. Though even here there are historic counter arguments. France actually spent the entire 19th century with a slight demographic deficit yet was able to rapidly industrialize and close the gap with Britain during the same time. Ireland wasn't just demographically stagnant but actually lost huge numbers of people, first to the famine and later to a massive emigration outflow yet was also simultaneously able rapidly develop and likewise gain ground on Britain. The entire argument for the black death as a catalyst of Capitalism in Western Europe relies on the argument that labor scarcity made it more valuable and increased wages and the search for more efficiency. This debate whether China can overcome it's demographic challenges for growth is basically answered by whether or not you believe the next (smaller) generation of Chinese that is both significantly better nourished and better educated, and all around healthier can be more productive than their parents who were born in between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The degree of this productivity differential will determine the continued catch up speed to e industrial West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich. By extension, I suspect we may have to wait for the second half of the century for a Chinese cultural renaissance.
     
    You are too optimistic, the Japanese have always been much more succesful culturally than the Chinese. They had an impressive literature and cinema even by the 1930s. By contrast, despite thousands of years of civilisation, China has produced very little culture of interest to non-Chinese.
    I also think that live-action Asian TV/film has an inherently limited appeal to mass foreign audiences

    I do think Japan is unique.

    But if you look at how Korea has grown its cultural reach I don’t think it is beyond China to accomplish something similar over a longer time period given their communist history.

    Remember, they have Hong Kong which is a fully civilized place full of culture to learn from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Yes I probably underrated the reach of Korean culture becauase all of it I have seen or know about is awful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. neutral says:

    I don’t understand the reason why China needs to build that many ships. If it wants prepare for war with the USA then the only thing it should be planning is how many Americans it can wipe out with nuclear weapons and how many of its own citizens it can save. If it needs these ships to go on far away adventures then does it not already have enough?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Limited war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    Korea (Germany and Japan) grew under direct US control. There was no way it was allowed to have a strong military or even a credible military adversary. The phony adversary (Russia) was always too contrived by US to be taken seriously by Korea (or Germany or Japan).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. utu says:
    @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris

    You can find somewhere in Tocqueville his observations that Americans had a great need to be praised and were rather intolerant to be compared negatively with other nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Seems typical for most large or successful countries, if not all countries period. We need to be more willing to admit mistakes, learn from them, and stop doing the same damn destructive, unjust, bankrupting, violent things, to be sure, but we are not unique in not enjoying negative comparison to other countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @neutral
    I don't understand the reason why China needs to build that many ships. If it wants prepare for war with the USA then the only thing it should be planning is how many Americans it can wipe out with nuclear weapons and how many of its own citizens it can save. If it needs these ships to go on far away adventures then does it not already have enough?

    Limited war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    I can't see how a limited war does not end in nuclear war, if ships start sinking then there is no way that things can be deescalated. The USA is run by fanatics (SJWism, neoliberalism, cuckservatism, these are all cult minded ideologies) they would sooner engulf the world in nuclear fire than admit their society is inferior.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Or simulated war.

    As Robert Kaplan points out in Asia's Cauldron, the future of the South China Sea may well be determined by dry calculations of force ratios. (Humane).

    A convincing enough Chinese buildup may well force the Americans to simply fold when it exhausts its ability to further pivot towards East Asia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. inertial says:

    This is furthermore assuming that there is no serious US economic crisis during this period

    Are we to assume there will be no major economic crisis in China?

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.

    Read More
    • Troll: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    How do you know they aren't just trying to mimick Gospodin Karlin?
    , @reiner Tor
    You might be correct, since what everyone believes is often wrong, but unlike the stock exchange, there is no reason to be a contrarian just because too many people believe in it. How many people believe in Sinotriumphalism in some obscure corners of the blogosphere matters very little for China, so if you only base your opinion on too many others thinking that way, then your thinking is wrong. It would be correct if China was a stock and too many people (including your cab driver and hairdresser) were talking about it would be a sure sign that the stock is overbought. But it’s just not a stock.

    I remember having read a few articles back in the mid-1990s at high school about China, and then thinking that they could easily become the next superpower. My thinking was based on the fact that China was growing at rates achieved by other countries in the region previously, and those countries were already pretty developed like Japan (fully developed) or Taiwan and South Korea (approaching developed levels). I didn’t understand or know anything about HBD, but it seemed obvious that China with a similar population would reach similar levels.

    I remember mentioning it in geography class, and everyone was laughing that China was just a worse and less developed version of the USSR. I still remember it, and so far I proved correct.

    , @Anatoly Karlin

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.
     
    This is a vicious smear.

    I was a Sinotriumphalist since I started blogging: http://akarlin.com/2008/08/a-long-wait-at-the-gate-of-delusions/ (2008)

    I mean, now that I look back on it, even my arguments were similar, LOL:

    The key difference is that China is a demographic giant. This means that to match the US in gross GDP (one of the key criteria for superpower status), it need only advance to around a quarter of its per capita development, or Mexico’s level. To match the West (and be double the US), it need only reach Portuguese standards.
     
    I was deep into the human capital aspect even back then:

    Furthermore, China has experienced very high human capital accumulation, as nine-year schooling has become universal and “during the past decade, China has produced college and university graduates at a significantly faster pace than Korea and Japan did during their fastest-growing periods”; since education is the elixir of growth, its workforce won’t just be assembling gizmos and tightening screws for long.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anon[330] • Disclaimer says:

    Why can we be confident that China is on its way to superpowerdom?

    The Economic war by US against China has started. All we await is an official renaming of the official US enemy from Russia to China (very 1984 with Winston Smith’s job of re-writing all reference copies of the Times being done with a search Russia replace China by Google and FB).

    It may be that the US waited too late and will lose but the battle has started already, and China is at much greater risk than you suggest.

    Right now we have the isolation of the bad guys – Iran, Turkey, Russia. This is not 3 biggish countries joining China, this is a massive trench being dug between Europe and Russia, ME and China and everyone and Turkey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    There is also geopolitics to consider.

    Assuming Western Europe and Korea/Japan remain American vassals, the alignment of the US-Russia-China would be based on each country’s respective relative power. If China was indeed becoming as powerful as you say, the US and Russia would align together to counterbalance China, and China’s rise and relative power would be mitigated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You’re right. And this should have been happening already.

    But the us government has been so belligerent and consistently dishonest vis-a-vis Russia that the USA and Russia are NOT, in fact, cooperating to check or balance China’s precipitous rise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. inertial says:

    It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich.

    Wat? If anything, the Japanese cultural power has slightly declined in the past decade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year - amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There's going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I think people are overestimating the number of people in North America (USA and Canada), at least, who consume or care about anime, Japanese film, whatever popular culture is being exported from japan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Jon0815 says:

    AK said:

    Why can we be confident that China is on its way to superpowerdom?

    If China had nuclear parity with the USA, it would generally be considered a superpower now. C0nversely, it won’t really be a superpower on par with the USA, even with a larger GDP, until it has achieved nuclear parity.

    China has already overtaken the US in terms of GDP (PPP) in the mid-2010s at the latest {2012 article}, and will almost certainly repeat that in nominal terms by the early 2020s.

    From 2012-2017, China’s nominal GDP rose from 53% of the USA’s to 62%. And China’s GDP growth is slowing down. So reaching >100% of the USA’s nominal GDP by 2025 seems optimistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Nominal GDP converging with PPP-adjusted GDP is a universal phenomenon when countries become richer.

    The past five years are an anomaly in the opposite direction that just means that nominal GDP should soon start expanding much more rapidly than real growth. (It was expanding at 20% per year during 2005-2012).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @inertial

    This is furthermore assuming that there is no serious US economic crisis during this period
     
    Are we to assume there will be no major economic crisis in China?

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.

    How do you know they aren’t just trying to mimick Gospodin Karlin?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Dmitry says:
    @inertial

    It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich.
     
    Wat? If anything, the Japanese cultural power has slightly declined in the past decade.

    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year – amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There’s going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year – amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

     

    Probably linked to the rise in autism
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Probably the most significant being Japanese loan-words coming into the youth I know: tsundere, waifu, zettai ryoiki, kawaii, moe. Other words like kamikaze are so common to basically be naturalized.
    , @AaronB
    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.

    They are all just Bartleby The Sctiveners.

    It is really a return to historical norm - especially for Japan, an East Asian culture. Historically there were always large numbers of people intelligent enough to see through the delusions of the rat race - they would become monks, hermits, wanderers, wandering tradesmen, or take up simple positions as craftsmen that would allow them lots of free time for contemplation.

    Society made space for such people.

    Spinoza was a humble lens grinder - if he was alive today he'd have to work multiple jobs at Starbucks just to scrape by. Einstein was a postal clerk - today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.

    Hikikimori are just a revolt against stupidity and pointless activity. Its entirely natural that this should begin in Japan, because Japan has always passed more quickly through the stages of the disease of modernity, and because East Asia has always had the world's richest tradition of contemplative idleness. This is a country that produced a medieval classic called Essays In Idleness.

    China is going through a rebellious adolescent phase where it has to strut around like a peacock on the world stage, and Korea on a smaller scale has to prove itself also - Koreans are very insecure.

    Only Japan is ready to begin entering the post-modern phase, and rediscover its East Asian cultural heritage.

    I fully predict we will be seeing the same hikikimori phenomenon in Europe, and a bit later, in America, as more and more people opt out of the culture of pointless work, often only to create technology of ever decreasing significance, and we enter the post-modern phase.

    That will be a return to the historical norm.
    , @Anonymous

    There’s going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.
     
    There already are. They just go by other names, like "incel" or "NEET". I believe "NEET" is actually originally a Japanese term that is now also used in the US.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oliq8m8Qph0
    , @inertial
    Japanese culture today appears to be produced entirely by and for 11-year old girls, so no wonder it's relatively more popular among young people. Even then, is it really more popular today among normie kids than during the times of Power Rangers, Tamagotchi, or Pokemon? Or, for that matter, during the time of Godzilla?

    Among adults, Japan has been steadily losing mind share. Certain kinds of Japanese soft cultural power had all but collapsed in the adult world since 20-30 years ago. For example, this cartoon was painfully true back when it came out in 1991. Now, not so much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. DFH says:
    @Dmitry
    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year - amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There's going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year – amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    Probably linked to the rise in autism

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I laughed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. DFH says:
    @Anonymous
    I do think Japan is unique.

    But if you look at how Korea has grown its cultural reach I don't think it is beyond China to accomplish something similar over a longer time period given their communist history.

    Remember, they have Hong Kong which is a fully civilized place full of culture to learn from.

    Yes I probably underrated the reach of Korean culture becauase all of it I have seen or know about is awful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. neutral says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Limited war.

    I can’t see how a limited war does not end in nuclear war, if ships start sinking then there is no way that things can be deescalated. The USA is run by fanatics (SJWism, neoliberalism, cuckservatism, these are all cult minded ideologies) they would sooner engulf the world in nuclear fire than admit their society is inferior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @inertial

    This is furthermore assuming that there is no serious US economic crisis during this period
     
    Are we to assume there will be no major economic crisis in China?

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.

    You might be correct, since what everyone believes is often wrong, but unlike the stock exchange, there is no reason to be a contrarian just because too many people believe in it. How many people believe in Sinotriumphalism in some obscure corners of the blogosphere matters very little for China, so if you only base your opinion on too many others thinking that way, then your thinking is wrong. It would be correct if China was a stock and too many people (including your cab driver and hairdresser) were talking about it would be a sure sign that the stock is overbought. But it’s just not a stock.

    I remember having read a few articles back in the mid-1990s at high school about China, and then thinking that they could easily become the next superpower. My thinking was based on the fact that China was growing at rates achieved by other countries in the region previously, and those countries were already pretty developed like Japan (fully developed) or Taiwan and South Korea (approaching developed levels). I didn’t understand or know anything about HBD, but it seemed obvious that China with a similar population would reach similar levels.

    I remember mentioning it in geography class, and everyone was laughing that China was just a worse and less developed version of the USSR. I still remember it, and so far I proved correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @DFH

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year – amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

     

    Probably linked to the rise in autism

    I laughed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. EldnahYm says:
    @Abelard Lindsey
    This is a good article and I agree with its central point.

    There is absolutely no reason on this Earth why China will not reach the same level of economic development and per capita income as Taiwan or South Korea. Anyone arguing otherwise has to come up with a very compelling argument to support their position.

    There is every reason. Taiwan and South Korea are both homogenous, small countries with most of the people located in a small number of cities. If things get really bad there is at least the possibility of importing the things they most need. For a country of 1.3 billion that is not a possibility. The kinds of problems China has to deal with just to meet people’s food, water, and electricity needs are enormous. Becoming rich from export led trade is a totally different proposition for a nation of 1.3 billion compared to 27 million, or even 127 million in Japan’s case. Taiwan also has an extra advantage in that the Japanese built a lot of stuff there.

    People want to keep comparing China with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and it’s fair up to a point, but you don’t have to look very hard to see in many ways China is not like these places. All of those countries are clean, efficient, low corruption, and relatively high trust. You don’t expect the buildings to fall apart for no reason, or to get intestinal parasites from drinking the water, or to run across Pakistani hitmen like you can in Hunan, or to find large numbers of people living with no electricity or running water, for ordinary people to throw their trash everywhere, or to have children being given fake vaccines, or for the country’s official statistics to all be in a fog of uncertainty in terms of their reliability etc. Some of these problems those other East Asian nations didn’t even have when they were poor.

    China is similar to other East Asian nations in many of its weaknesses, low arable land, poor natural resources(aside from coal and some mineral reserves in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they have almost nothing), difficult to navigate waterways(building a giant dam in the middle of their best river isn’t helping), and dense, aging populations. But it lacks most of the strengths of those other countries(other than high IQ). The optimistic prediction is that they will grow a little bit over time, will lift some more people out of poverty, and maybe the building quality and pollution in some of the big cities will improve a little. That’s assuming nothing major happens to damage world trade. Reaching per capita levels of Taiwan or South Korea, when economic growth has already slowed down, when fertility is low, where is that economic growth going to come from? Hard to have that much consumption led growth with a declining population. Their manufacturing boom peaked years ago. They’re a natural resource importer. They’re also a poor place for nuclear or renewable energy. Since manufacturing went down much of the new investment is in junk finance. How are they going to grow at such massive levels?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    Your argument has a fundamental error mistaking cause and effect in that it assumes the bourgeois behavior of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore today are historic causes of economic growth rather than social luxuries stemming from them. This is probably because you are a young millennial whose depth of experience amounts to little more than the circle jerking on r/China. All of them were a lot more corrupt, a lot more polluted, and a lot more declasse, and a lot more dog eat dog than you realize if you have lived there in the 90's, 70's, or 50's. It's not that these problems didn't exist back then. It's that there was no internet echo chamber to amplify everything.
    , @Sam Haysom
    The vast majority of posters here really really really want to see the USA fall. For some it’s becuse they humiliated the USSR, for others it’s becuse they really hate Jews and associate the USA with Jewish power and for others like the ones you are getting a lot of flak from they are incensed by male Asians being the low point on the sexual totem pole in the west. Seeing those Asian 6,7, and 8s go with white male 4s and 5s is enraging.

    As a result wish casting is the basis of all these projections. The disaster scenario of course is stalled Chinese growth overwhelmed by demographic issues leading to a fissure in the Chinese state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Dmitry
    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year - amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There's going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    Probably the most significant being Japanese loan-words coming into the youth I know: tsundere, waifu, zettai ryoiki, kawaii, moe. Other words like kamikaze are so common to basically be naturalized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I live in Los Angeles and have never heard a single person say any Japanese word, including young people whom we are around all the time. ALMOST NOBODY knows or cares about Japanese popular culture in the USA, let alone language or even loan words, relative to population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Jounn says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    ROK has not developed a significant military for the same reason Canada does not have a significant military. They are not real countries. They are vassals of USG.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Abelard Lindsey
    This is a good article and I agree with its central point.

    There is absolutely no reason on this Earth why China will not reach the same level of economic development and per capita income as Taiwan or South Korea. Anyone arguing otherwise has to come up with a very compelling argument to support their position.

    The biggest arguments against is demographics and debt. Chinese debt (really private corporate non financial) increased rapidly after 2008. Chinese demographics are likewise around the 1.6 ish range with 17.3 million births (92% of which is Han Chinese or close enough) last year so similar to Western Europe.

    Debt in and of itself isnt bad, and high debts are not a problem as long as you can grow faster than them. It’s only an issue when growth slows down and bad debts pile up.

    The demographic arguement is that only a young and growing population can create economic growth and thus China’s “bad” demographics will stall economic growth.

    On the surface, these arguements sound convincing enough and indeed the China-skeptics make a very convincing case if your thought patterns have been completly dominated and shaped by liberal thinking and it’s heuristic roadblocks.

    The thinking basically goes bad debt > financial crisis > Chinese are eating each other on the streets. If you are a liberal finance junkie who stares at trend lines and curves all day then any negative change in the numbers looks like the end of the world. If you have a longer more historically grounded view of development, youll see regular panics, financial crisis, bank runs, devastating wars, all of which is followed up by more economic growth. NPL loans, bubbles and bursts, are speed bumps compared to the historic forces of gradual productive capital accumulation, increased labor specialization, an intelligent and productive population capable of problem solving. Which view you subscribe to basically depends on if you think an “economy” consists of financial instruments rather than things.

    The demographic situation is more complex and grimmer. Modernity is wrecking China just as it is wrecking every society that isn’t composed of sub 85 IQ morlocks. Though even here there are historic counter arguments. France actually spent the entire 19th century with a slight demographic deficit yet was able to rapidly industrialize and close the gap with Britain during the same time. Ireland wasn’t just demographically stagnant but actually lost huge numbers of people, first to the famine and later to a massive emigration outflow yet was also simultaneously able rapidly develop and likewise gain ground on Britain. The entire argument for the black death as a catalyst of Capitalism in Western Europe relies on the argument that labor scarcity made it more valuable and increased wages and the search for more efficiency. This debate whether China can overcome it’s demographic challenges for growth is basically answered by whether or not you believe the next (smaller) generation of Chinese that is both significantly better nourished and better educated, and all around healthier can be more productive than their parents who were born in between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The degree of this productivity differential will determine the continued catch up speed to e industrial West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend

    Though even here there are historic counter arguments. France actually spent the entire 19th century with a slight demographic deficit yet was able to rapidly industrialize and close the gap with Britain during the same time. Ireland wasn’t just demographically stagnant but actually lost huge numbers of people, first to the famine and later to a massive emigration outflow yet was also simultaneously able rapidly develop and likewise gain ground on Britain. The entire argument for the black death as a catalyst of Capitalism in Western Europe relies on the argument that labor scarcity made it more valuable and increased wages and the search for more efficiency.

    This debate whether China can overcome it’s demographic challenges for growth is basically answered by whether or not you believe the next (smaller) generation of Chinese that is both significantly better nourished and better educated, and all around healthier can be more productive than their parents who were born in between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The degree of this productivity differential will determine the continued catch up speed to the industrial West.
     

    This is a solid argument, but one in which you do not need to rely on history on. It's enough to simply read the data.

    When people talk about demographic strength it should really be about quality instead of quantity. There are reasons to be skeptical about China's rise - chiefly much more rapid debt build-up compared to SK/Taiwan during their rise - but demographics in terms of age structure is not one of them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. EldnahYm says:
    @Anonymous
    It's probably more complicated than that.

    There's no history of major indigenous Russian military tech developments until the importation of Western European experts and techniques starting with Peter the Great and then more recently in the late 19th and early 20the centuries with the import of US and Western industry and tech.

    I don't know that much about pre-modern Chinese and Eastern history but they did seem to have some indigenous stuff going on with rocketry weapons and the like.

    You could also make the reverse argument: why isn't Russia able to be a manufacturing powerhouse in consumer or capital goods if it has world class indigenous military tech? Even in a non-military sector where it has a lot of interest, like energy, Russia has had to use American horizontal fracking tech.

    It's true that Russia would beat SK in a war, but obviously there are major factors besides military tech at play. The Nazis had more sophisticated military tech during WW2.

    Ironically some of the precursors to modern hydraulic fracturing best practices like multilateral drilling were Russian innovations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year - amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There's going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.

    They are all just Bartleby The Sctiveners.

    It is really a return to historical norm – especially for Japan, an East Asian culture. Historically there were always large numbers of people intelligent enough to see through the delusions of the rat race – they would become monks, hermits, wanderers, wandering tradesmen, or take up simple positions as craftsmen that would allow them lots of free time for contemplation.

    Society made space for such people.

    Spinoza was a humble lens grinder – if he was alive today he’d have to work multiple jobs at Starbucks just to scrape by. Einstein was a postal clerk – today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.

    Hikikimori are just a revolt against stupidity and pointless activity. Its entirely natural that this should begin in Japan, because Japan has always passed more quickly through the stages of the disease of modernity, and because East Asia has always had the world’s richest tradition of contemplative idleness. This is a country that produced a medieval classic called Essays In Idleness.

    China is going through a rebellious adolescent phase where it has to strut around like a peacock on the world stage, and Korea on a smaller scale has to prove itself also – Koreans are very insecure.

    Only Japan is ready to begin entering the post-modern phase, and rediscover its East Asian cultural heritage.

    I fully predict we will be seeing the same hikikimori phenomenon in Europe, and a bit later, in America, as more and more people opt out of the culture of pointless work, often only to create technology of ever decreasing significance, and we enter the post-modern phase.

    That will be a return to the historical norm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.
     
    Of course, watching childish cartoons is much more spiritually fulfilling than having a family.
    , @Bliss

    Einstein was a postal clerk – today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.
     
    Correction: Einstein was a patent clerk. Big difference.

    It was not a mindless repetitive job like postal clerk. He was examining patents submitted by creative people. It fostered his own creativity in Physics.
    , @iffen
    It is really a return to historical norm


    We were kicked out of the Garden and not allowed back in, ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. DFH says:
    @AaronB
    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.

    They are all just Bartleby The Sctiveners.

    It is really a return to historical norm - especially for Japan, an East Asian culture. Historically there were always large numbers of people intelligent enough to see through the delusions of the rat race - they would become monks, hermits, wanderers, wandering tradesmen, or take up simple positions as craftsmen that would allow them lots of free time for contemplation.

    Society made space for such people.

    Spinoza was a humble lens grinder - if he was alive today he'd have to work multiple jobs at Starbucks just to scrape by. Einstein was a postal clerk - today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.

    Hikikimori are just a revolt against stupidity and pointless activity. Its entirely natural that this should begin in Japan, because Japan has always passed more quickly through the stages of the disease of modernity, and because East Asia has always had the world's richest tradition of contemplative idleness. This is a country that produced a medieval classic called Essays In Idleness.

    China is going through a rebellious adolescent phase where it has to strut around like a peacock on the world stage, and Korea on a smaller scale has to prove itself also - Koreans are very insecure.

    Only Japan is ready to begin entering the post-modern phase, and rediscover its East Asian cultural heritage.

    I fully predict we will be seeing the same hikikimori phenomenon in Europe, and a bit later, in America, as more and more people opt out of the culture of pointless work, often only to create technology of ever decreasing significance, and we enter the post-modern phase.

    That will be a return to the historical norm.

    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.

    Of course, watching childish cartoons is much more spiritually fulfilling than having a family.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    It's a good start.
    , @ThatDamnGood

    Of course, watching childish cartoons is much more spiritually fulfilling than having a family.
     
    Try the Twelve Kingdoms presented in anime form. While maybe not at the Fengshen Yanyi level, I would rate it better than LOTR. Just because cartoons in the west are childish don't mean its the same rest of the world.

    Imagine dissing an Indonesian wayang rendition of a Hindu epic as a shitty and worse Sesame Street given the puppets are 2D.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @EldnahYm
    There is every reason. Taiwan and South Korea are both homogenous, small countries with most of the people located in a small number of cities. If things get really bad there is at least the possibility of importing the things they most need. For a country of 1.3 billion that is not a possibility. The kinds of problems China has to deal with just to meet people's food, water, and electricity needs are enormous. Becoming rich from export led trade is a totally different proposition for a nation of 1.3 billion compared to 27 million, or even 127 million in Japan's case. Taiwan also has an extra advantage in that the Japanese built a lot of stuff there.

    People want to keep comparing China with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and it's fair up to a point, but you don't have to look very hard to see in many ways China is not like these places. All of those countries are clean, efficient, low corruption, and relatively high trust. You don't expect the buildings to fall apart for no reason, or to get intestinal parasites from drinking the water, or to run across Pakistani hitmen like you can in Hunan, or to find large numbers of people living with no electricity or running water, for ordinary people to throw their trash everywhere, or to have children being given fake vaccines, or for the country's official statistics to all be in a fog of uncertainty in terms of their reliability etc. Some of these problems those other East Asian nations didn't even have when they were poor.

    China is similar to other East Asian nations in many of its weaknesses, low arable land, poor natural resources(aside from coal and some mineral reserves in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they have almost nothing), difficult to navigate waterways(building a giant dam in the middle of their best river isn't helping), and dense, aging populations. But it lacks most of the strengths of those other countries(other than high IQ). The optimistic prediction is that they will grow a little bit over time, will lift some more people out of poverty, and maybe the building quality and pollution in some of the big cities will improve a little. That's assuming nothing major happens to damage world trade. Reaching per capita levels of Taiwan or South Korea, when economic growth has already slowed down, when fertility is low, where is that economic growth going to come from? Hard to have that much consumption led growth with a declining population. Their manufacturing boom peaked years ago. They're a natural resource importer. They're also a poor place for nuclear or renewable energy. Since manufacturing went down much of the new investment is in junk finance. How are they going to grow at such massive levels?

    Your argument has a fundamental error mistaking cause and effect in that it assumes the bourgeois behavior of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore today are historic causes of economic growth rather than social luxuries stemming from them. This is probably because you are a young millennial whose depth of experience amounts to little more than the circle jerking on r/China. All of them were a lot more corrupt, a lot more polluted, and a lot more declasse, and a lot more dog eat dog than you realize if you have lived there in the 90′s, 70′s, or 50′s. It’s not that these problems didn’t exist back then. It’s that there was no internet echo chamber to amplify everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    "It’s not that these problems didn’t exist back then."

    The claim was not that the problems didn't exist, it's that they didn't exist to the same extent. The buildings the Japanese built in both China and Taiwan when they occupied them were better than most of the designed to fall apart junk being built in China now. That's a fact. While you are probably correct that some of the social ills I mentioned are not critical to economic growth(although that's not really necessary to my argument, if they correlate with economic growth that works just as well for me), some of the things I mentioned actually are sources of inefficiency. Not having the population vaccinated or having higher levels of corruption are not good for economic growth. Again, we're talking about China reaching per capita levels similar to Taiwan or South Korea, it takes a lot for that to happen.

    Also in the case of Japan specifically I think you're flat out wrong. Even before you were born these differences were there. Some of these differences regarding China and Japan can go back to the Meiji Restoration. Japan did not have a ruling dynasty selling off portions of its land to Russians just because it was afraid they wouldn't do the proper honors at court. Or to have military commanders decide not to show up during major battles. You can try the seniority angle all you like(and I don't read Reddit), but you know perfectly well that China in many ways is a very different place from Japan even in the 1950s. If you think differently, just go to Taiwan there's plenty of old infrastructure there to prove you wrong.

    Yes, you can make sort of a parallel, in the past Japan say used to make inferior knock-offs of Western products and they over time improved, in their case to the point of high efficiency. But to over-extrapolate and think China is going to be as developed as Taiwan or South Korea, given all of the problems it has, I think is unlikely.

    And no, even in Korea, which was poorer than China, not all of these things were a problem to the same degree. A country as large as China with its location and history inevitably will have to deal with types of problems those other countries will not, or will not to the same degree. China is different, that's the point of my response to the sentiments in this thread. Note I never claimed Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan never had any problems with corruption, cohesiveness, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. AaronB says:
    @DFH

    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.
     
    Of course, watching childish cartoons is much more spiritually fulfilling than having a family.

    It’s a good start.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year - amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There's going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    There’s going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    There already are. They just go by other names, like “incel” or “NEET”. I believe “NEET” is actually originally a Japanese term that is now also used in the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Rye says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    wut

    The Yuan lasted less than 80 years, the Qing lasted 276 years. In contrast, Zhou alone lasted about 800 years.

    Zhou was a very long time ago, before the Chinese had much experience with alien races. You must admit that China has not made a good showing against outsiders over the last 2000 years. If Chinese weren’t such profitable tax cattle, they’d probably be gone by now. China’s strength will never be in conventional warfare, Chinese men are not a very martial bunch. The most effective strategy for the Chinese is exporting their women to competitor nations until the competitor populations become as docile and tractable as themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Your reality is very interesting, please continue to live in it.
    , @britishbrainsize1325cclol
    You must another yellow fevered incel, just be thankful chinese are not interested in attacking other countries if it were the world would tremble .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Rye
    Zhou was a very long time ago, before the Chinese had much experience with alien races. You must admit that China has not made a good showing against outsiders over the last 2000 years. If Chinese weren't such profitable tax cattle, they'd probably be gone by now. China's strength will never be in conventional warfare, Chinese men are not a very martial bunch. The most effective strategy for the Chinese is exporting their women to competitor nations until the competitor populations become as docile and tractable as themselves.

    Your reality is very interesting, please continue to live in it.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Mitleser says:
    @reiner Tor

    Article 7 proceedings (which could lead to sanctions) against Hungary over migration
     
    It was due to rule of law and corruption and whatever. It wasn't even a very well-written, they could've criticized Orbán much better.

    But it's interesting that the "based" Austrian chancellor supported it. Orbán will probably need to enter an alliance with the more radical right pretty soon.

    Sebastian Kurz is first and foremost an opportunist, therefore not a reliable ally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. EldnahYm says:
    @Duke of Qin
    Your argument has a fundamental error mistaking cause and effect in that it assumes the bourgeois behavior of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore today are historic causes of economic growth rather than social luxuries stemming from them. This is probably because you are a young millennial whose depth of experience amounts to little more than the circle jerking on r/China. All of them were a lot more corrupt, a lot more polluted, and a lot more declasse, and a lot more dog eat dog than you realize if you have lived there in the 90's, 70's, or 50's. It's not that these problems didn't exist back then. It's that there was no internet echo chamber to amplify everything.

    “It’s not that these problems didn’t exist back then.”

    The claim was not that the problems didn’t exist, it’s that they didn’t exist to the same extent. The buildings the Japanese built in both China and Taiwan when they occupied them were better than most of the designed to fall apart junk being built in China now. That’s a fact. While you are probably correct that some of the social ills I mentioned are not critical to economic growth(although that’s not really necessary to my argument, if they correlate with economic growth that works just as well for me), some of the things I mentioned actually are sources of inefficiency. Not having the population vaccinated or having higher levels of corruption are not good for economic growth. Again, we’re talking about China reaching per capita levels similar to Taiwan or South Korea, it takes a lot for that to happen.

    Also in the case of Japan specifically I think you’re flat out wrong. Even before you were born these differences were there. Some of these differences regarding China and Japan can go back to the Meiji Restoration. Japan did not have a ruling dynasty selling off portions of its land to Russians just because it was afraid they wouldn’t do the proper honors at court. Or to have military commanders decide not to show up during major battles. You can try the seniority angle all you like(and I don’t read Reddit), but you know perfectly well that China in many ways is a very different place from Japan even in the 1950s. If you think differently, just go to Taiwan there’s plenty of old infrastructure there to prove you wrong.

    Yes, you can make sort of a parallel, in the past Japan say used to make inferior knock-offs of Western products and they over time improved, in their case to the point of high efficiency. But to over-extrapolate and think China is going to be as developed as Taiwan or South Korea, given all of the problems it has, I think is unlikely.

    And no, even in Korea, which was poorer than China, not all of these things were a problem to the same degree. A country as large as China with its location and history inevitably will have to deal with types of problems those other countries will not, or will not to the same degree. China is different, that’s the point of my response to the sentiments in this thread. Note I never claimed Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan never had any problems with corruption, cohesiveness, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Singapore had no Chinese descended people, I learned today.

    The lack of zombielike "cohesiveness" is a strength rather than a weakness.
    , @Duke of Qin
    People just don't seem to understand survivorship bias. Almost all of the old buildings in Taiwan built during the Japanese colonial period are gone. The only ones left are expensive government showpieces, the best of the best. Japanese residential real estate from anything prior to the late 80's was absolute garbage. Piss poor insulation, paper thin walls, it simply wasn't built to last and indeed was regularly torn down and rebuilt every 2 or 3 decades.

    I don't disagree with you that the social mores in the late Edo period and the late Qing were very different. Part of the reason being that the Qing government wasn't even Chinese at all, but a Manchu occupation. Not hard for the government to sell out the country when the government is composed of a parasitic foreign ethnic elite far more scared of native uprisings than giving up territory. Likewise not hard for a post Taiping regional proto warlord to fail to come to the defense of a government where decision making is monopolized by Manchu princes. Where the official Imperial army is filled with Manchu officers who prioritize ethnic loyalty over competence.

    Your arguments of "degrees" of corruption and anti-social behavior doesn't amount to much without empirical data. It's really nothing more than opinion cobbled together by Western press headlines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @EldnahYm
    "It’s not that these problems didn’t exist back then."

    The claim was not that the problems didn't exist, it's that they didn't exist to the same extent. The buildings the Japanese built in both China and Taiwan when they occupied them were better than most of the designed to fall apart junk being built in China now. That's a fact. While you are probably correct that some of the social ills I mentioned are not critical to economic growth(although that's not really necessary to my argument, if they correlate with economic growth that works just as well for me), some of the things I mentioned actually are sources of inefficiency. Not having the population vaccinated or having higher levels of corruption are not good for economic growth. Again, we're talking about China reaching per capita levels similar to Taiwan or South Korea, it takes a lot for that to happen.

    Also in the case of Japan specifically I think you're flat out wrong. Even before you were born these differences were there. Some of these differences regarding China and Japan can go back to the Meiji Restoration. Japan did not have a ruling dynasty selling off portions of its land to Russians just because it was afraid they wouldn't do the proper honors at court. Or to have military commanders decide not to show up during major battles. You can try the seniority angle all you like(and I don't read Reddit), but you know perfectly well that China in many ways is a very different place from Japan even in the 1950s. If you think differently, just go to Taiwan there's plenty of old infrastructure there to prove you wrong.

    Yes, you can make sort of a parallel, in the past Japan say used to make inferior knock-offs of Western products and they over time improved, in their case to the point of high efficiency. But to over-extrapolate and think China is going to be as developed as Taiwan or South Korea, given all of the problems it has, I think is unlikely.

    And no, even in Korea, which was poorer than China, not all of these things were a problem to the same degree. A country as large as China with its location and history inevitably will have to deal with types of problems those other countries will not, or will not to the same degree. China is different, that's the point of my response to the sentiments in this thread. Note I never claimed Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan never had any problems with corruption, cohesiveness, etc.

    Singapore had no Chinese descended people, I learned today.

    The lack of zombielike “cohesiveness” is a strength rather than a weakness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. notanon says:

    the idea that economic growth can only come from population growth is propaganda for cheaper labor

    100 people with 10K disposable income = 1000K

    200 people with 5K disposable income = 1000K

    50 people with 20K disposable income = 1000K

    so there’s two ways to get growth – 1) the same number or fewer people with *higher* disposable income (through the running dogs of capitalism sharing out the proceeds of increased productivity rather than keeping it all for themselves) or 2) increase the number of people while maintaining the *same* level of disposable income (which almost never happens cos driving down wages is almost always the reason for increasing the number of people).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. @Felix Keverich
    Anatoly,

    In this piece you failed to adress any of the arguments I've been making, so allow me to start repeating myself:

    Seeing military power as a "direct function of economic power" is an overly simplistic approach, that fails to account for differences in "HBD". Consequently your approach doesn't work once we start applying it to nations in the real world.

    Please explain why the South Korea did not emerge as a major military power, despite having economic size and military spending comparable to Russia's levels?

    Elsewhere you said:

    Military power is a direct function of economic power.
     
    It is true that wars require money, and having more money makes you more capable, but the formula to this "function", you're talking about, will be individual for every nation, based upon the differences in HBD. It will look different for China, Russia and the US. Having more money makes your country stronger, other things being equal. "Other things" being all the other factors (beyond average IQ scores and GDP), factors that influence a nation's military power, which you failed to consider.

    I am sure other people have answered your point, but to take a stab at it myself (not having read the other responses yet):

    1. The Russian economy is twice larger in PPP-adjusted terms (which is what matters most for military power), and this gap was far larger before the early 1990s.

    2. Russian military spending has been consistently higher as a percentage of GDP than Korea’s. $92 billion to $33 billion (SIPRI) in 2014 – with the Russian spending going further, due to lower labor costs and an entirely self-sufficient MIC. There was not a single year, even during the 1990s, when Russian military spending was lower than Korea’s – even in nominal terms!

    3. Soviet military spending was VASTLY higher than South Korean spending. Now to be fair, the vast bulk of it has already depreciated. But some of it is still there (e.g. bomber airframes, a few warships including the Admiral Kuznetsov, etc).

    4. I don’t claim to be any sort of military expert, but I think you massively understate South Korean military power. Almost 700,000 soldiers, huge armored forces (includes the K2 Black Panther, one of the world’s best MBT’s), and about 250 modernized 4th generation fighters. Not enough to be a global superpower, but way more than enough to defend against Best Korea, enough to crush Best Korea if necessary (with mobilization), and enough to even defend against Russia – as long as Russia doesn’t use nukes – if it was to be magically transported to Russia’s borders (there’s 500,000 people in the Korean Army to 350,000 people in Russia’s Ground Forces!).

    Anyhow, FWIW, on the CMP scale, South Korea has approximately a quarter of the military power of Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    4. I'm no military expert either, but keep reading the comments - I've already outlined my plan to easily pwn SK!

    3. US is going to enjoy a similar advantage over Chinese. As Dmitry has noted, the most common fighter jet in Chinese airforce at the moment is actually a clone of Soviet MiG-21

    2. Figures for Russia's military spending fluctuate in line with current exchange rates, but it has been around $60 billion for the past decade. Would doubling Korea's budget produce a major qualitative change? That's a really important question that I'd like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money ("economic power"), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?

    1. I picked Korea, because it's the only Mongoloid country besides China that has a half-decent military. You might have noticed that Mongoloids, despite their numbers and productivity, have rather weak militaries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. notanon says:

    i’ve noticed the stealth japanization of youth culture among my own younger relatives – including the females – i wonder if it’s anything to do with less pozzed gender roles?

    (ninja girls sure but at least they look like girls)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Yes, in part, but it's more than that. As wrathofgnon noted, it's an entire coherent mythology of life so it bypasses wokeness while still being moral and even univeralistic in a way.

    And objectively, a lot of it is artistically and narratively sound while Western media has counterintuitively made "being transgressive" so obligatory to be predictable and it impacts the artistic quality adversely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. inertial says:
    @Dmitry
    Lol AaronB plagiarized some paragraphs from my few weeks old comments, so I have to agree with them.

    Japanese influence is getting larger and larger every year - amongst young people. At least in what I see, teenagers now are much more likely to be under their influence, than people in their 20s (who grew up 10 years ago).

    There's going to be some kind of wave of American, French, English, Russian, etc, hikikomori growing up, in a few years.

    Japanese culture today appears to be produced entirely by and for 11-year old girls, so no wonder it’s relatively more popular among young people. Even then, is it really more popular today among normie kids than during the times of Power Rangers, Tamagotchi, or Pokemon? Or, for that matter, during the time of Godzilla?

    Among adults, Japan has been steadily losing mind share. Certain kinds of Japanese soft cultural power had all but collapsed in the adult world since 20-30 years ago. For example, this cartoon was painfully true back when it came out in 1991. Now, not so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    This is a good point, unlike your previous one.

    1980s Japan had high stock - would cyberpunk as a genre have even appeared without it? Blade Runner, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell - one Japanese, the other two inspired by it.
    , @Dmitry
    There is a lot more pop culture Japanese influence now, than 10 years ago. Their influence just greatly sweeping with teenagers.

    Maybe it's partly with help of increasing internetization of culture, and infantilization of the generation (which has been contributed also by America with success of Marvel Cinematic Universe over the last decade).

    Some kind of subtle visual culture influence, which is Japanizing the unconscious despite our language barrier with them, saying you don't have to grow up, and keeping Amiibo Figurines is ultimate of cool and hipster.

    As for different things like business culture prestige, and high culture prestige - these are with smaller audiences. Japanese high culture has been fashionable since the 1880s, but audience size for this is smaller.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Dmitry
    As military power, there will surely be some significant time-delay. Military strength is significantly as result of past investment. In the USA and Russia, there are many decades of past massive investments in the military, resulting in a lot of current military advantages. China still has many years of investments to catch up.

    -

    If we are talking about a per capita sense, I'm a bit skeptical China ever can match Japan (civilization output, economic development).

    Japan is a very productive and elite nationality. The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear. It could be a century behind in some ways?

    Of countries to compare, it's a bit unfair to match it against Japan, one of the world's most developed and refined countries in quite a few areas of civilization.

    -

    In terms of absolute power, I think we all sure now, China will soon reach a kind of superpower level quite soon, as a result of its population size.

    China will probably overtake America, to become the world's largest economy in GDP, before it reaches as high as current per capita GDP of Poland.

    The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear.

    The 20 year rule referred to South Korea.

    Japan, South Korea, and China have all had essentially the same trajectory after passing $2,000 in GDP per capita (1990 dollars), in 1950, 1970, and 1990, respectively.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    Just noticed that your graph shows significant economic downturns for both Japan and South Korea right about where China is. The real test for China is not if can avoid a major economic disruption, it can't and really no one ever has, but rather how quickly it can recover. South Korea's dip seems to coincide with the 1997 Asian economic crisis, Japan's seems to be the late 70's oil spike.
    , @Dmitry
    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.

    Japan won Russo-Japanese War already in 1905, defeating Europe's largest country, and Europe's most important rising power.

    By 1930s, Japan are following the same colonial path in Asia, as European great powers, simply a few decades too late.

    In 1940, Mitsubishi Zero - possibly the best fighter plane in the world in this stage of the war.

    There was disruption ending in nuclear bombing by America. But inevitable rapid recovery of Japan surprises not more than equivalent postwar recovery in West Germany.

    Japan's engineering ability, high cultural contribution and civilized lifestyle - it's demonstrably known to the world over the century. In China, we have almost an opposite story of modern history. China were a disaster zone and failures until the early 2000s. Some of this attributable to communism of course.

    Now finally, we some sparks potential from them - I think of surprisingly quality of Huawei smartphones. But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there's no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).

    In military terms, Japan was a major military power by beginning of 20th century, while China has showed no military ability


    -

    So I agree with overall theme. I'm sure China will continue developing and they will become the world's largest economy by around 2030.

    But there is not evidence yet of a "spark of genius", - yet this "spark" was evident to observers of Japan over a century ago, and observers of Germany over two centuries ago.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Rye says:
    @notanon

    Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations.
     
    agreed but modern warfare requires those things less and less

    Martial spirit also seems to be correlated with the percentage of a nation’s best men who gravitate towards weapons engineering and professional military service. Martial spirit may also correlate with how much punishment a population is willing to take before resigning themselves to subservience. If we ever arrive at a point where the martial characteristics of a population are irrelevant to the war-fighting potential of their nation, then we would probably already be past the point of human relevance in any field.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    i'm inclined to agree - as nations get more pozzed i think they'll gravitate towards poison as their primary war fighting weapon - and that will be that
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Mr. Hack says:

    Alfred McCoy recently offered a much more nuanced piece here covering the same sort of terrain, but comes up on a totally different conclusion. A conclusion based on a much more detailed examination of the importance of soft power, that China does not yield and most likely never will, in order to rise to the mantle of world hegemon:

    ▼Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia, has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.

    https://www.unz.com/article/beijings-bid-for-global-power-in-the-age-of-trump/?highlight=china

    Read the whole thing to get a better appreciation of his arguments. His ideas make sense, unfortunately, Karlin’s fall far short.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    Good article, but a bit wrong about the Belt and Road initiative which is just half assed over inflated PR to disguise patronage to favoured private and otherwise state owned companies. The biggest caveat is that China wants to be as strong as the United States, it doesn't want to BE the United States. It doesn't have the power, attitude, or even the inclination to be the hegemon of a new world order. It does however have the capability and intent to tear apart the current one. What comes afterwards will be likely similar to what came before. A return to 19th century norms rather than late 20th century ones. America's past strength was built on overwhelming economic security that enabled overwhelming military superiority. People shared America's values because people always follow the strong like the social primates we are. America's present, is in a situation where not quite so overwhelming military superiority disguises it's much smaller economic base. It's outside influenced is backed primarily by force as states stay pay deference to America because she has the biggest guns, however all the talk of shared values is nothing more than hollow sophistry that will crumble to ashes the moment the 7th fleet is sent to the bottom of the Pacific.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    non-democratic political structures
     
    gay
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @EldnahYm
    "It’s not that these problems didn’t exist back then."

    The claim was not that the problems didn't exist, it's that they didn't exist to the same extent. The buildings the Japanese built in both China and Taiwan when they occupied them were better than most of the designed to fall apart junk being built in China now. That's a fact. While you are probably correct that some of the social ills I mentioned are not critical to economic growth(although that's not really necessary to my argument, if they correlate with economic growth that works just as well for me), some of the things I mentioned actually are sources of inefficiency. Not having the population vaccinated or having higher levels of corruption are not good for economic growth. Again, we're talking about China reaching per capita levels similar to Taiwan or South Korea, it takes a lot for that to happen.

    Also in the case of Japan specifically I think you're flat out wrong. Even before you were born these differences were there. Some of these differences regarding China and Japan can go back to the Meiji Restoration. Japan did not have a ruling dynasty selling off portions of its land to Russians just because it was afraid they wouldn't do the proper honors at court. Or to have military commanders decide not to show up during major battles. You can try the seniority angle all you like(and I don't read Reddit), but you know perfectly well that China in many ways is a very different place from Japan even in the 1950s. If you think differently, just go to Taiwan there's plenty of old infrastructure there to prove you wrong.

    Yes, you can make sort of a parallel, in the past Japan say used to make inferior knock-offs of Western products and they over time improved, in their case to the point of high efficiency. But to over-extrapolate and think China is going to be as developed as Taiwan or South Korea, given all of the problems it has, I think is unlikely.

    And no, even in Korea, which was poorer than China, not all of these things were a problem to the same degree. A country as large as China with its location and history inevitably will have to deal with types of problems those other countries will not, or will not to the same degree. China is different, that's the point of my response to the sentiments in this thread. Note I never claimed Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan never had any problems with corruption, cohesiveness, etc.

    People just don’t seem to understand survivorship bias. Almost all of the old buildings in Taiwan built during the Japanese colonial period are gone. The only ones left are expensive government showpieces, the best of the best. Japanese residential real estate from anything prior to the late 80′s was absolute garbage. Piss poor insulation, paper thin walls, it simply wasn’t built to last and indeed was regularly torn down and rebuilt every 2 or 3 decades.

    I don’t disagree with you that the social mores in the late Edo period and the late Qing were very different. Part of the reason being that the Qing government wasn’t even Chinese at all, but a Manchu occupation. Not hard for the government to sell out the country when the government is composed of a parasitic foreign ethnic elite far more scared of native uprisings than giving up territory. Likewise not hard for a post Taiping regional proto warlord to fail to come to the defense of a government where decision making is monopolized by Manchu princes. Where the official Imperial army is filled with Manchu officers who prioritize ethnic loyalty over competence.

    Your arguments of “degrees” of corruption and anti-social behavior doesn’t amount to much without empirical data. It’s really nothing more than opinion cobbled together by Western press headlines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Anatoly Karlin
    I am sure other people have answered your point, but to take a stab at it myself (not having read the other responses yet):

    1. The Russian economy is twice larger in PPP-adjusted terms (which is what matters most for military power), and this gap was far larger before the early 1990s.

    2. Russian military spending has been consistently higher as a percentage of GDP than Korea's. $92 billion to $33 billion (SIPRI) in 2014 - with the Russian spending going further, due to lower labor costs and an entirely self-sufficient MIC. There was not a single year, even during the 1990s, when Russian military spending was lower than Korea's - even in nominal terms!

    3. Soviet military spending was VASTLY higher than South Korean spending. Now to be fair, the vast bulk of it has already depreciated. But some of it is still there (e.g. bomber airframes, a few warships including the Admiral Kuznetsov, etc).

    4. I don't claim to be any sort of military expert, but I think you massively understate South Korean military power. Almost 700,000 soldiers, huge armored forces (includes the K2 Black Panther, one of the world's best MBT's), and about 250 modernized 4th generation fighters. Not enough to be a global superpower, but way more than enough to defend against Best Korea, enough to crush Best Korea if necessary (with mobilization), and enough to even defend against Russia - as long as Russia doesn't use nukes - if it was to be magically transported to Russia's borders (there's 500,000 people in the Korean Army to 350,000 people in Russia's Ground Forces!).

    Anyhow, FWIW, on the CMP scale, South Korea has approximately a quarter of the military power of Russia.

    4. I’m no military expert either, but keep reading the comments – I’ve already outlined my plan to easily pwn SK!

    3. US is going to enjoy a similar advantage over Chinese. As Dmitry has noted, the most common fighter jet in Chinese airforce at the moment is actually a clone of Soviet MiG-21

    2. Figures for Russia’s military spending fluctuate in line with current exchange rates, but it has been around $60 billion for the past decade. Would doubling Korea’s budget produce a major qualitative change? That’s a really important question that I’d like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money (“economic power”), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?

    1. I picked Korea, because it’s the only Mongoloid country besides China that has a half-decent military. You might have noticed that Mongoloids, despite their numbers and productivity, have rather weak militaries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    That’s a really important question that I’d like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money (“economic power”), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?
     
    $100 billion for 20 years (translating into $150 billion in PPP-adjusted terms - broadly equivalent to what Russia spends) should do it.

    First decade focused on building up the MIC. This should be easy to do for the Navy, as South Korea already has 30% of the world's shipbuilding capacity. Much harder for aerospace where it has much less experience, but I think they'll manage. It has a breakout nuclear capability; South Korea can start producing the first fission bombs within months, though building it up to Russia's scale will take a decade.

    Second decade to actually kit out the military with their new toys. It already has one of the world's best MBT's. Hardest techs to master will be 4++ generation fighters (not sure we can demand they produce a 5 generation fighter since Su-57 is not in mass production yet and won't be for some time), SSBNs, and SSNs.

    This would constitute 7% of their GDP. Pretty doable. Israel spent way more before 2000. The US spent 10% during the 1950s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Anatoly Karlin

    The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear.
     
    The 20 year rule referred to South Korea.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/east-asia-comparative-economic-development.png

    Japan, South Korea, and China have all had essentially the same trajectory after passing $2,000 in GDP per capita (1990 dollars), in 1950, 1970, and 1990, respectively.

    Just noticed that your graph shows significant economic downturns for both Japan and South Korea right about where China is. The real test for China is not if can avoid a major economic disruption, it can’t and really no one ever has, but rather how quickly it can recover. South Korea’s dip seems to coincide with the 1997 Asian economic crisis, Japan’s seems to be the late 70′s oil spike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    when a country is catching up it can accommodate a huge amount of rolling investment capital fueling very rapid growth - when the catching up process gets close to the end that tidal wave of investment no longer has anywhere productive to go and usually ends up causing a massive bubble of some kind - usually property.

    i assume this is inevitable and so what matters is the speed of recovery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Sycophant says:

    Boring. The future of China hinges on whether it will become an appropriate incubator for the “Jews.” If it is amenable, the country will rise; if it is not, the people will be liquidated as necessary.

    I would suggest more attention be paid to the newer techniques of biological and psionic warfare. Nuclear weapons probably are no longer permitted to use and are carefully monitored by alloanthropic entities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. Bliss says:
    @AaronB
    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.

    They are all just Bartleby The Sctiveners.

    It is really a return to historical norm - especially for Japan, an East Asian culture. Historically there were always large numbers of people intelligent enough to see through the delusions of the rat race - they would become monks, hermits, wanderers, wandering tradesmen, or take up simple positions as craftsmen that would allow them lots of free time for contemplation.

    Society made space for such people.

    Spinoza was a humble lens grinder - if he was alive today he'd have to work multiple jobs at Starbucks just to scrape by. Einstein was a postal clerk - today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.

    Hikikimori are just a revolt against stupidity and pointless activity. Its entirely natural that this should begin in Japan, because Japan has always passed more quickly through the stages of the disease of modernity, and because East Asia has always had the world's richest tradition of contemplative idleness. This is a country that produced a medieval classic called Essays In Idleness.

    China is going through a rebellious adolescent phase where it has to strut around like a peacock on the world stage, and Korea on a smaller scale has to prove itself also - Koreans are very insecure.

    Only Japan is ready to begin entering the post-modern phase, and rediscover its East Asian cultural heritage.

    I fully predict we will be seeing the same hikikimori phenomenon in Europe, and a bit later, in America, as more and more people opt out of the culture of pointless work, often only to create technology of ever decreasing significance, and we enter the post-modern phase.

    That will be a return to the historical norm.

    Einstein was a postal clerk – today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.

    Correction: Einstein was a patent clerk. Big difference.

    It was not a mindless repetitive job like postal clerk. He was examining patents submitted by creative people. It fostered his own creativity in Physics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Thanks for the correction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @EldnahYm
    There is every reason. Taiwan and South Korea are both homogenous, small countries with most of the people located in a small number of cities. If things get really bad there is at least the possibility of importing the things they most need. For a country of 1.3 billion that is not a possibility. The kinds of problems China has to deal with just to meet people's food, water, and electricity needs are enormous. Becoming rich from export led trade is a totally different proposition for a nation of 1.3 billion compared to 27 million, or even 127 million in Japan's case. Taiwan also has an extra advantage in that the Japanese built a lot of stuff there.

    People want to keep comparing China with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and it's fair up to a point, but you don't have to look very hard to see in many ways China is not like these places. All of those countries are clean, efficient, low corruption, and relatively high trust. You don't expect the buildings to fall apart for no reason, or to get intestinal parasites from drinking the water, or to run across Pakistani hitmen like you can in Hunan, or to find large numbers of people living with no electricity or running water, for ordinary people to throw their trash everywhere, or to have children being given fake vaccines, or for the country's official statistics to all be in a fog of uncertainty in terms of their reliability etc. Some of these problems those other East Asian nations didn't even have when they were poor.

    China is similar to other East Asian nations in many of its weaknesses, low arable land, poor natural resources(aside from coal and some mineral reserves in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, they have almost nothing), difficult to navigate waterways(building a giant dam in the middle of their best river isn't helping), and dense, aging populations. But it lacks most of the strengths of those other countries(other than high IQ). The optimistic prediction is that they will grow a little bit over time, will lift some more people out of poverty, and maybe the building quality and pollution in some of the big cities will improve a little. That's assuming nothing major happens to damage world trade. Reaching per capita levels of Taiwan or South Korea, when economic growth has already slowed down, when fertility is low, where is that economic growth going to come from? Hard to have that much consumption led growth with a declining population. Their manufacturing boom peaked years ago. They're a natural resource importer. They're also a poor place for nuclear or renewable energy. Since manufacturing went down much of the new investment is in junk finance. How are they going to grow at such massive levels?

    The vast majority of posters here really really really want to see the USA fall. For some it’s becuse they humiliated the USSR, for others it’s becuse they really hate Jews and associate the USA with Jewish power and for others like the ones you are getting a lot of flak from they are incensed by male Asians being the low point on the sexual totem pole in the west. Seeing those Asian 6,7, and 8s go with white male 4s and 5s is enraging.

    As a result wish casting is the basis of all these projections. The disaster scenario of course is stalled Chinese growth overwhelmed by demographic issues leading to a fissure in the Chinese state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Anonymous

    They can’t even create a good state-owned propaganda channel – how many Westerners watch/read RT relative to CCTV?
     
    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can't appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can't appeal to the Far Right because it's not Western.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It's not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there's a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.

    I think this is completely wrong.

    First, it’s possible to cater to multiple sides. That’s what RT (run by liberals and commies) does by alternating between BLM propaganda (previously Occupy Wall Street) and anti-immigration bromides. Other outlets such as Sputnik (run by Nazis) provide the conspiracy theories.

    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can’t appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can’t appeal to the Far Right because it’s not Western.

    China can appeal to the left by adopting the anti-racism shtick. It already does that in its annual whataboutist responses to US human rights accusations anyway. Just have people rant on air about it as well, instead of publishing it in some paper that nobody reads. Perhaps scoop up one of those leftist celebrities, such as Greenwald, Blumenthal, Taibbi.

    As for the Far Right, well, you do realize Anglin is a fan? ;)

    * https://dailystormer.name/are-you-aware-of-chinas-program-to-rate-the-social-value-of-celebrities/
    * https://dailystormer.name/chinese-communists-put-a-million-moslems-in-concentration-camps/

    This is the most hardcore Nazi website on the Internet. And they like China already! (even if for mostly made up reasons).

    China has plenty of nationalists, the sort of guys who made up the term baizuo. Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It’s not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there’s a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.

    But those faggots are the most influential group in the West so it’s still important to target them. Conveniently, China already has good cred with them, so it only needs to reinforce and exploit it. China is more “responsible” than Drumpf, many of them like China’s “progressive” attitude to religion, and they really admire China’s intensive development of green technologies. They really, really like that. I mean really, what’s the contradiction? People who are cool with GloboHomoBezos will be cool with any flavor of technocratic Orwellianism.

    If they had a competent media strategy. Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    RT can appeal to segments of the Left because of the Soviet legacy. Whataboutism isn't sufficient. That's just basics, and something everyone does. China would have to liberalize socially in a significant way or revert to Maoism to appeal to some segment of the Left again.

    I'm familiar with Anglin and some of those types applauding some of China's policies. But that's qualitatively different from the appeal that Russia has to some of the elements of the Far Right, which goes behind mere support or admiration for certain policies. For example, Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.

    The problem with trying to appeal to "those faggots" is that you run the risk of damaging your domestic population and turning them into "faggots". It's hard to firewall everything.
    , @Jason Liu

    Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.
     
    Greatest quote
    , @neutral

    Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.
     
    What media narratives and strategies would you undertake if you ran RT?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. notanon says:
    @Rye
    Martial spirit also seems to be correlated with the percentage of a nation's best men who gravitate towards weapons engineering and professional military service. Martial spirit may also correlate with how much punishment a population is willing to take before resigning themselves to subservience. If we ever arrive at a point where the martial characteristics of a population are irrelevant to the war-fighting potential of their nation, then we would probably already be past the point of human relevance in any field.

    i’m inclined to agree – as nations get more pozzed i think they’ll gravitate towards poison as their primary war fighting weapon – and that will be that

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Malla says:
    @AaronB
    Soft power tends to be negatively correlated with hard power.

    When Germany had imperial ambitions, France was the cultural center of Europe. When Germany was the country of poets and thinkers, it had no hard power. Japan only acquired soft power after it was defeated in WW2.

    America during its expansionist phase had no soft power, and only acquired it after WW2. This was the beginning of American decline, and America's superpower status was the result of Europe and Asia having destroyed itself.

    The reason is because the attitude needed to create soft power - culture - is opposed to the attitude needed to create hard power.

    Ancient China has tremendous soft power - modern aggressive China not so much.

    China will probably be a great power for a while but more in the manner of 19th century aggressive European states than America post WW2, and will eventually antagonize enough people that will join together to humble it.

    After that, China will probably return to its ancient traditions excavator the aggressive Western thing, like Japan is sort of doing. At that point there will be a chance to develop soft power.

    Soft power tends to be negatively correlated with hard power.

    Seems true. Like how we had Shakespeare and the Elizabethan golden age of England before the British Empire. During the British Empire days, we got a lot of great British literature and culture but I doubt if all that could rival the cultural achievements of the Elizabethan age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, the mindset needed to create culture seems opposed to that needed to create hard power, and you gotta take your pick.

    Of course, its not a 100% correlation. Some culture can coexist with hard power, and vice versa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @reiner Tor
    So your advantage would be that while Russia is huge and its largest population centers far from South Korea, South Korea is huge and its economy would take a huge hit if being targeted by Russian standoff weapons.

    This tactic won't scale well against China.

    I am also not sure to what extent this will work even against Korea.

    It’s not like Saudi Arabia, where a few critical hits on oil export infrastructure can cut out a large chunk of its oil exports until the facilities are repaired. Ports are big, sturdy structures. And South Korea has a lot of them. It is a peninsula that produces 30% of the world’s ships! How many of these long-range standoff missiles does Russia have? When I pressed him on this, I recall that even Martyanov said ~a thousand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    - Privately-owned tankers will not visit areas with "missile activity".

    - When in a port, tankers are attached to a pipe, and this is how oil, LNG are offloaded from them. These are choke points. Targeting this infrastructure will cause fires, debris, including the remnants of destroyed tankers, other damage, that cannot be quickly fixed, especially if the missiles keep coming at you. South Korea is a major importer of LNG. There are 8 regasification terminals in the country. LNG is highly flammable. :)

    - A simple Kaliber will suffice IMO. They can be launched from land-based platforms. 1 US Tomahawk missile costs 2 million to produce. Kaliber could be cheaper. It would be a good idea to procure a decent amount of them before going to war with SK.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. notanon says:
    @Duke of Qin
    Just noticed that your graph shows significant economic downturns for both Japan and South Korea right about where China is. The real test for China is not if can avoid a major economic disruption, it can't and really no one ever has, but rather how quickly it can recover. South Korea's dip seems to coincide with the 1997 Asian economic crisis, Japan's seems to be the late 70's oil spike.

    when a country is catching up it can accommodate a huge amount of rolling investment capital fueling very rapid growth – when the catching up process gets close to the end that tidal wave of investment no longer has anywhere productive to go and usually ends up causing a massive bubble of some kind – usually property.

    i assume this is inevitable and so what matters is the speed of recovery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Mr. Hack
    Alfred McCoy recently offered a much more nuanced piece here covering the same sort of terrain, but comes up on a totally different conclusion. A conclusion based on a much more detailed examination of the importance of soft power, that China does not yield and most likely never will, in order to rise to the mantle of world hegemon:

    ▼Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia, has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.
     
    https://www.unz.com/article/beijings-bid-for-global-power-in-the-age-of-trump/?highlight=china

    Read the whole thing to get a better appreciation of his arguments. His ideas make sense, unfortunately, Karlin's fall far short.

    Good article, but a bit wrong about the Belt and Road initiative which is just half assed over inflated PR to disguise patronage to favoured private and otherwise state owned companies. The biggest caveat is that China wants to be as strong as the United States, it doesn’t want to BE the United States. It doesn’t have the power, attitude, or even the inclination to be the hegemon of a new world order. It does however have the capability and intent to tear apart the current one. What comes afterwards will be likely similar to what came before. A return to 19th century norms rather than late 20th century ones. America’s past strength was built on overwhelming economic security that enabled overwhelming military superiority. People shared America’s values because people always follow the strong like the social primates we are. America’s present, is in a situation where not quite so overwhelming military superiority disguises it’s much smaller economic base. It’s outside influenced is backed primarily by force as states stay pay deference to America because she has the biggest guns, however all the talk of shared values is nothing more than hollow sophistry that will crumble to ashes the moment the 7th fleet is sent to the bottom of the Pacific.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I don't think that China is interested in 'tearing apart' the current world order. After all, it would lose its largest market for its goods, and what sense is there in destroying the US economy, where it already owns so much of its debt? I do agree with most of the rest of your sentiment:

    ...it seems that China should be content to just fill the shoes of a great country content on becoming the world’s undisputed ‘economic hegemon’ minus the imperial trappings of ‘world hegemon’. With China and Russia already jockeying for position in Central Asia, along with Turkey and Iran as smaller bit players, I don’t really see how the US can exert more control over Eurasia in order to avoid Brzezinski’s admonition? The ‘Great Game’ is poised for an interesting contest to the very end.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Felix Keverich
    The existance of a certain lag between economic power (investment) and military power is a reasonable concept, but Russia has not been spending on its military at superpower levels for 30 years now. Technologies have a tendency of becoming obsolete, so you would expect Russian military to lose ground in global rankings with each passing year...

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia's level? :) Indonesia is set to overtake Russia in PPP GDP sometime in the next decade.

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia’s level?

    Probably never.

    For a start, with its ~85 average IQ, it is unlikely that Indonesia will ever master the complex O-Ring technologies needed to create certain classes of modern military equipment.

    This is obviously not an issue for the Northern Mongoloids. Vietnam has a better chance of becoming a great military power than Indonesia if it really wanted to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Obviously, that question was meant as a joke. There is only one country in Asia with the potential to match Russia in military power, and it has yet to do so, despite allegedly outspending Russia by 200% in 2018.

    You need to explain this. At which point China's economic power turns into military power, and they stop buying Russian military equipment?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Daniel Chieh
    Limited war.

    Or simulated war.

    As Robert Kaplan points out in Asia’s Cauldron, the future of the South China Sea may well be determined by dry calculations of force ratios. (Humane).

    A convincing enough Chinese buildup may well force the Americans to simply fold when it exhausts its ability to further pivot towards East Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it's budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China's naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I'm talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it's economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn't expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it's nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Jon0815
    AK said:

    Why can we be confident that China is on its way to superpowerdom?
     

    If China had nuclear parity with the USA, it would generally be considered a superpower now. C0nversely, it won't really be a superpower on par with the USA, even with a larger GDP, until it has achieved nuclear parity.

    China has already overtaken the US in terms of GDP (PPP) in the mid-2010s at the latest {2012 article}, and will almost certainly repeat that in nominal terms by the early 2020s.
     
    From 2012-2017, China's nominal GDP rose from 53% of the USA's to 62%. And China's GDP growth is slowing down. So reaching >100% of the USA's nominal GDP by 2025 seems optimistic.

    Nominal GDP converging with PPP-adjusted GDP is a universal phenomenon when countries become richer.

    The past five years are an anomaly in the opposite direction that just means that nominal GDP should soon start expanding much more rapidly than real growth. (It was expanding at 20% per year during 2005-2012).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Nominal GDP converging with PPP-adjusted GDP is a universal phenomenon when countries become richer.

    The past five years are an anomaly in the opposite direction that just means that nominal GDP should soon start expanding much more rapidly than real growth. (It was expanding at 20% per year during 2005-2012).
     

    Yes, I've made this point myself in noting that Russia doesn't need faster real GDP growth than the UK to overtake the UK in nominal GDP. However, I think a 7-year time frame for China overtaking the USA in nominal GDP is probably unrealistic. While convergence between nominal and PPP-adjusted GDP is inevitable, it happens faster when real GDP growth is faster . A 20% annual increase in nominal GDP was possible when China's real GDP growth was 12%, but those days are over. Also, I think that while the Sino-skeptics predicting a hard economic landing, will probably continue to be wrong, the chances of them being proven right within the next 7 years are nontrivial.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @inertial

    This is furthermore assuming that there is no serious US economic crisis during this period
     
    Are we to assume there will be no major economic crisis in China?

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.

    This is a vicious smear.

    I was a Sinotriumphalist since I started blogging: http://akarlin.com/2008/08/a-long-wait-at-the-gate-of-delusions/ (2008)

    I mean, now that I look back on it, even my arguments were similar, LOL:

    The key difference is that China is a demographic giant. This means that to match the US in gross GDP (one of the key criteria for superpower status), it need only advance to around a quarter of its per capita development, or Mexico’s level. To match the West (and be double the US), it need only reach Portuguese standards.

    I was deep into the human capital aspect even back then:

    Furthermore, China has experienced very high human capital accumulation, as nine-year schooling has become universal and “during the past decade, China has produced college and university graduates at a significantly faster pace than Korea and Japan did during their fastest-growing periods”; since education is the elixir of growth, its workforce won’t just be assembling gizmos and tightening screws for long.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Yeah, I know you've been a legitimate China booster since way back, and that's fine. What worries me is that everyone had become like you. And I mean not so much bloggers and online commentators (who cares about them) but our wonderful corporate sector.

    These guys have serious herd mentality and stampede hard. The convention wisdom at this moment is that no matter what your company does it has to "get an exposure" to China. This is what they all say right now, from a lowly management consultant to the "visionary" CEO. China is the future, blah, blah, blah. If you try to argue they look at you like you have two heads. Risk? What risk? Everyone knows that China will continue to grow, and grow, and grow, and grow...

    This is what makes me uncomfortable. The parallels with the past instances of disastrous groupthink are obvious. In my mind, this makes it very possible that "something's going to happen soon."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Anatoly Karlin

    So how much longer do you think this process can take before Russian military is reduced to Indonesia’s level?
     
    Probably never.

    For a start, with its ~85 average IQ, it is unlikely that Indonesia will ever master the complex O-Ring technologies needed to create certain classes of modern military equipment.

    This is obviously not an issue for the Northern Mongoloids. Vietnam has a better chance of becoming a great military power than Indonesia if it really wanted to.

    Obviously, that question was meant as a joke. There is only one country in Asia with the potential to match Russia in military power, and it has yet to do so, despite allegedly outspending Russia by 200% in 2018.

    You need to explain this. At which point China’s economic power turns into military power, and they stop buying Russian military equipment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm not sure why you are so hell bent on your Russia vs. Korea scenario when there are no hostilities between the 2 countries.

    But keep in mind that Vietnam defeated the much stronger American forces, and Afganistan defeated the much stronger Russia.

    So what's your point? There are so many factors involved besides your battle simulation you have made.

    One thing you haven't mentioned is how much wealth from oil and resources Russia gets. Russia like Saudi Arabia can afford to spend much more on armed forces than either Japan or Korea.
    , @Kimppis
    People keep repeating how Russia's conventional military power is still superior to that of China, but I'm really not convinced that is the case anymore. I'd say they're overall very comparable.

    In certain areas China is quite clearly ahead of Russia, like the surface fleet, and they even have twice as many modern diesel subs. China might even have more "very modern" MBTs (it can be argued that the upgraded Type 96s, T-72s and T-80s are also modern). The PLA has probably close to 1000 Type 99 tanks. How many T-90s are operational in Russia? Maybe 500? That's just one "surprising" example.

    You are really exaggerating China's dependence on Russian military technology.

    So when will they stop buying Russian military equipment? Within the next 5-10 years. They might order some additional Su-35s and S-400s, because it would make a lot of sense, but that will be pretty much be it.

    It's also extremely misleading to say that the MiG-21 (J-7) is the most numerous Chinese fighter. The PLAAF might have more Flankers combined already, if you include all the different variants, it's very close.

    But in any case, and even more importantly, China actually has slightly more 4th generation fighters in service than Russia. Not to mention those 20-30 5th gen J-20s vs. Russia's 0. At this rate, in the worst case scenario (for Russia), that gap could increase to something like 200-300 (and I'm not even including some potential surprises, like the J-31 program) vs. 20-50 Su-57s by the mid-2020s. (I guess technically that's not an increase when the current Russian total is 0, and you could even include those 150-200 Su-35s for Russia, but whatever, the point is clear.)

    Also, hundreds of those 4th gen fighters are actually equipped with Chinese engines (they mostly have issues with single engine J-10s), as I've mentioned previously. China's engine technology is just a meme at this point.

    The only reason why some of those J-7s are still in service is the very simple fact that the Chinese fighter fleet is like 2 times larger than Russia's and the second largest in the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @notanon
    i've noticed the stealth japanization of youth culture among my own younger relatives - including the females - i wonder if it's anything to do with less pozzed gender roles?

    (ninja girls sure but at least they look like girls)

    Yes, in part, but it’s more than that. As wrathofgnon noted, it’s an entire coherent mythology of life so it bypasses wokeness while still being moral and even univeralistic in a way.

    And objectively, a lot of it is artistically and narratively sound while Western media has counterintuitively made “being transgressive” so obligatory to be predictable and it impacts the artistic quality adversely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @inertial
    Japanese culture today appears to be produced entirely by and for 11-year old girls, so no wonder it's relatively more popular among young people. Even then, is it really more popular today among normie kids than during the times of Power Rangers, Tamagotchi, or Pokemon? Or, for that matter, during the time of Godzilla?

    Among adults, Japan has been steadily losing mind share. Certain kinds of Japanese soft cultural power had all but collapsed in the adult world since 20-30 years ago. For example, this cartoon was painfully true back when it came out in 1991. Now, not so much.

    This is a good point, unlike your previous one.

    1980s Japan had high stock – would cyberpunk as a genre have even appeared without it? Blade Runner, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell – one Japanese, the other two inspired by it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. Harding
    Yeah; I also found your "It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power" remark weird. What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018? I thought Japan's cultural power peaked in the 1990s, following right behind its economic power, arguably peaking with the Tamagotchi.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Mr. Hack
    Alfred McCoy recently offered a much more nuanced piece here covering the same sort of terrain, but comes up on a totally different conclusion. A conclusion based on a much more detailed examination of the importance of soft power, that China does not yield and most likely never will, in order to rise to the mantle of world hegemon:

    ▼Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia, has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.
     
    https://www.unz.com/article/beijings-bid-for-global-power-in-the-age-of-trump/?highlight=china

    Read the whole thing to get a better appreciation of his arguments. His ideas make sense, unfortunately, Karlin's fall far short.

    non-democratic political structures

    gay

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Anatoly Karlin
    Or simulated war.

    As Robert Kaplan points out in Asia's Cauldron, the future of the South China Sea may well be determined by dry calculations of force ratios. (Humane).

    A convincing enough Chinese buildup may well force the Americans to simply fold when it exhausts its ability to further pivot towards East Asia.

    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it’s budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China’s naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I’m talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it’s economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn’t expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it’s nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I would do that as well, in particular the nuclear deterrence.

    Still it's worth noting that there were real considerations that prevented this course of action. (1) The Chinese were genuinely afraid to repeating what they saw as the Soviet's militarization trap; (2) The PLA became massively corrupt after the Mao period - I assume much of the money lavished on them would have vanished during that period; (3) Premature military buildups when you are not at the technological frontier result in massive but obsolescent armies (e.g. the trap the USSR fell into by the late 1930s) - you'd have many more of those guided missile destroyers and frigates, but they'd be much older and more primitive than they are now.

    In any case, the US allowed China to develop its economic sinews in peace, at least until now, and without crossing its red lines (Taiwan). Perhaps you lucked out with that, but either way, the most catastrophic scenarios can now be excluded.
    , @notanon
    pick a people you have no respect for and imagine they have the same number of ships as the US - would you be worried?

    the US military is being rotted from the inside by SJWs e.g. all the ship collisions - it won't be long before they are incapable of effective large scale operations.

    (special forces will take longer but eventually even they will succumb)
    , @reiner Tor

    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it’s budget on defense.
     
    They were obviously waiting for the economy to catch up. Also apparently they wanted to develop a modern weapons system before mass production, and not mass produce obsolete weapons which then would cost a fortune to maintain (thereby slowing down the eventual modernization). This strategy meant that they will theoretically be able to reach parity with the US earlier, but be weaker until it happens.

    But this temporary weakness was a feature, not a bug, because they didn’t want to scare the Americans into taking them too seriously.
    , @gmachine1729
    These views of yours, have you expressed them to some Chinese Chinese? What do they think? Someone I know born in China but raised in America was like,

    why doesn't China just ban all Hollywood movies.
     
    His rationale was

    banning hollywood movies is like so straightforward. just a cost benefit analysis. do they benefit china? hardly at all. do they harm china? yes it perpetuates racial hegemony
     
    He was also like,

    Doesn't China not have enough nukes? They have only in the low hundreds. Shouldn't they be having ten times more than that, to, like, match what the US and Russia have?
     
    跟母亲说了他的中国应当全面禁止好莱坞之观点,得以

    书呆子呗
     
    为回应。
    , @anonymous

    increase it’s nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.
     
    Why? What does 1,000 nukes v. 100 nukes do in terms of deterrent effect?

    Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%.
     
    Why does China need to spend 4% of GDP on defense rather than the current 2%? Does the Chinese military have global responsibilities like the US? No, it just needs to be concerned with the Pacific (and currently an inexplicably small presence of 2-3 divisions facing India). 2% of GDP is more than adequate.

    Have you considered how much more economically weaker China would be if an additional 2% of GDP went to the military rather than the high speed rail network and other infrastructure over the last 3 decades? Do you think China with a larger military and a GDP per capita of $6,000 is stronger than the currently smaller Chinese military with a GDP per capita of $9,000?

    Have you at all factored in how much more secure China is now since the Maidan in Kiev and its consequences have made it impossible to blockade China because Russia and China are now firm allies? Military spending should actually be adjusted downward to 1.5% of GDP since the Maidan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. AaronB says:

    I am tempted to say that within 20 years we will all know definitively one way or the other, but we all know that isn’t true at all.

    If China fails to rise, the Sino-triumphalists will produce reams of statistics and “hard facts” and claim the anticipated rise is imminent…just 5 more years…any day now…it can’t fail…statistics…sheer size of the population….IQ…
    IQ….IQ….IQ….IQ…

    If China does succeed in rising, the Sino-pessimists will claim it’s a temporary blip that’s about to reverse itself any day now…we can’t know if it will last…its only because the West made a mistake and isn’t really attributable to China…its only because China stole Western technology…the essentially docile nature of the Chinese means a revitalized Mongolia will conquer it any day now…Chinese aren’t a martial race…

    Long live the Eternal Debate!

    I’m getting my popcorn.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. Ilya says:
    @Dmitry
    As military power, there will surely be some significant time-delay. Military strength is significantly as result of past investment. In the USA and Russia, there are many decades of past massive investments in the military, resulting in a lot of current military advantages. China still has many years of investments to catch up.

    -

    If we are talking about a per capita sense, I'm a bit skeptical China ever can match Japan (civilization output, economic development).

    Japan is a very productive and elite nationality. The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear. It could be a century behind in some ways?

    Of countries to compare, it's a bit unfair to match it against Japan, one of the world's most developed and refined countries in quite a few areas of civilization.

    -

    In terms of absolute power, I think we all sure now, China will soon reach a kind of superpower level quite soon, as a result of its population size.

    China will probably overtake America, to become the world's largest economy in GDP, before it reaches as high as current per capita GDP of Poland.

    1. China is not a rules-based society — never has been, perhaps never will be. I’m skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can’t efficiently coordinate its population.

    2. It’s unclear whether the Chinese can fight. A superpower must have some ability to impose its will militarily on others; a preference to get others to do your dirty work (“cat’s paw”) isn’t enough.

    3. China has no experience with — and more importantly, perhaps no desire for — international leadership. As mentioned, it likely wants to be left alone, but the anarchy of international relations means that one must essentially mobilize or be preyed upon (in which case, see 1 and 2, above).

    4. China’s GDP figures are inaccurate (Li Keqiang said so many times) — a consequence of 1, above.

    5. Perhaps most importantly, nobody likes the Chinese. Anywhere. Hell, even the Hong Kongese hate mainlanders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    #5 is wrong...

    Just as an example, one of the most popular calligraphers around the Muslim world is Chinese:
    http://www.hajinoordeen.com/gallery.html

    I was able to buy one of his works for my mother at a conference a few years back.

    Peace.
    , @Spisarevski

    China is not a rules-based society — never has been, perhaps never will be. I’m skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can’t efficiently coordinate its population.
     
    They literally invented legalism, genius. And if they no longer follow that absurd and hypocritical ideology, good for them.

    Legalism by the way was a proto-globalist ideology, used to unite the various Chinese kingdoms under one centralized state and destroying the diversity of thought and traditions of the various states that were conquered by Qin Shi Huang.
    The legalists were tyrannical book burning psychopaths in much the same vein as modern liberals, who also like to babble about "rule of law" a lot and attack anybody they don't like, be it Putin or Orban or Trump, with vague accusations about "corruption" and transgressions against "rules-based society".

    That being said legalism does have influence in modern China, but the Confucian elements so far seem to prevail.

    The Qin dynasty which used legalism as its state ideology fell apart extremely quickly, while the Han dynasty that came after them and restored Confucianism while borrowing some practical elements of legalism unleashed such a golden age that the ethnic Chinese are called "people of Han" to this day.

    As for worrying that China does not "efficiently coordinate its population", are you even fucking kidding me right now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. AaronB says:
    @Malla

    Soft power tends to be negatively correlated with hard power.
     
    Seems true. Like how we had Shakespeare and the Elizabethan golden age of England before the British Empire. During the British Empire days, we got a lot of great British literature and culture but I doubt if all that could rival the cultural achievements of the Elizabethan age.

    Well, the mindset needed to create culture seems opposed to that needed to create hard power, and you gotta take your pick.

    Of course, its not a 100% correlation. Some culture can coexist with hard power, and vice versa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. AaronB says:
    @Bliss

    Einstein was a postal clerk – today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.
     
    Correction: Einstein was a patent clerk. Big difference.

    It was not a mindless repetitive job like postal clerk. He was examining patents submitted by creative people. It fostered his own creativity in Physics.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Obviously, that question was meant as a joke. There is only one country in Asia with the potential to match Russia in military power, and it has yet to do so, despite allegedly outspending Russia by 200% in 2018.

    You need to explain this. At which point China's economic power turns into military power, and they stop buying Russian military equipment?

    I’m not sure why you are so hell bent on your Russia vs. Korea scenario when there are no hostilities between the 2 countries.

    But keep in mind that Vietnam defeated the much stronger American forces, and Afganistan defeated the much stronger Russia.

    So what’s your point? There are so many factors involved besides your battle simulation you have made.

    One thing you haven’t mentioned is how much wealth from oil and resources Russia gets. Russia like Saudi Arabia can afford to spend much more on armed forces than either Japan or Korea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    The North Vietnamese did not defeat the Americans militarily. The North was on its knees begging for terms in 1972, which the US granted. Two years after the US pulled its troops out of Vietnam, the North broke the agreement and invaded the South. Because of domestic political problems, the US didn't honor its military agreement with the South and the Reds were allowed to win. Had the US continued to fight, or even just given the promised support to the South, the South would have remained free from the communists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Anatoly Karlin
    I am also not sure to what extent this will work even against Korea.

    It's not like Saudi Arabia, where a few critical hits on oil export infrastructure can cut out a large chunk of its oil exports until the facilities are repaired. Ports are big, sturdy structures. And South Korea has a lot of them. It is a peninsula that produces 30% of the world's ships! How many of these long-range standoff missiles does Russia have? When I pressed him on this, I recall that even Martyanov said ~a thousand.

    - Privately-owned tankers will not visit areas with “missile activity”.

    - When in a port, tankers are attached to a pipe, and this is how oil, LNG are offloaded from them. These are choke points. Targeting this infrastructure will cause fires, debris, including the remnants of destroyed tankers, other damage, that cannot be quickly fixed, especially if the missiles keep coming at you. South Korea is a major importer of LNG. There are 8 regasification terminals in the country. LNG is highly flammable. :)

    - A simple Kaliber will suffice IMO. They can be launched from land-based platforms. 1 US Tomahawk missile costs 2 million to produce. Kaliber could be cheaper. It would be a good idea to procure a decent amount of them before going to war with SK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Felix Keverich
    4. I'm no military expert either, but keep reading the comments - I've already outlined my plan to easily pwn SK!

    3. US is going to enjoy a similar advantage over Chinese. As Dmitry has noted, the most common fighter jet in Chinese airforce at the moment is actually a clone of Soviet MiG-21

    2. Figures for Russia's military spending fluctuate in line with current exchange rates, but it has been around $60 billion for the past decade. Would doubling Korea's budget produce a major qualitative change? That's a really important question that I'd like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money ("economic power"), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?

    1. I picked Korea, because it's the only Mongoloid country besides China that has a half-decent military. You might have noticed that Mongoloids, despite their numbers and productivity, have rather weak militaries.

    That’s a really important question that I’d like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money (“economic power”), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?

    $100 billion for 20 years (translating into $150 billion in PPP-adjusted terms – broadly equivalent to what Russia spends) should do it.

    First decade focused on building up the MIC. This should be easy to do for the Navy, as South Korea already has 30% of the world’s shipbuilding capacity. Much harder for aerospace where it has much less experience, but I think they’ll manage. It has a breakout nuclear capability; South Korea can start producing the first fission bombs within months, though building it up to Russia’s scale will take a decade.

    Second decade to actually kit out the military with their new toys. It already has one of the world’s best MBT’s. Hardest techs to master will be 4++ generation fighters (not sure we can demand they produce a 5 generation fighter since Su-57 is not in mass production yet and won’t be for some time), SSBNs, and SSNs.

    This would constitute 7% of their GDP. Pretty doable. Israel spent way more before 2000. The US spent 10% during the 1950s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I suppose that's nice. Consider the fact that Chinese have been outspending Russia for a decade, but have yet to catch up. They should have at least mastered all the techs by now. :)
    , @AP
    The problem is that with 51 million people to Russia's 140+ million, South Korea would run into a ceiling long before it would reach parity with Russia, no matter how well-trained and equipped its soldiers are.
    , @reiner Tor
    It takes several decades to master some technologies. Now they will probably do most of them faster (if they threw enough money on the problem), but there are so many areas where they have zero experience that I’d expect at least some of those to be flops.

    This is where China has a big advantage over South Korea, it has worked with all types of weapons for several decades.

    The other issue is what AP mentioned, less people means a smaller pool to choose your engineers and officers from, so it’d be a long shot.

    Again, it’s not an issue with China.

    Significantly, not one of the issues we found with South Korea would affect China, or at least not nearly to the extent it affects South Korea.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    Anatoly, you left off this major factor of China’s accent. When the world’s currencies collapse, China will be able to back their currency with gold as they have over 20,000 tons at the low end. At this point they probably have closer to 30,0000 tons.

    https://www.gold-eagle.com/could-china-actually-have-30000-tonnes-gold-reserves

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. Talha says:
    @Ilya
    1. China is not a rules-based society -- never has been, perhaps never will be. I'm skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can't efficiently coordinate its population.

    2. It's unclear whether the Chinese can fight. A superpower must have some ability to impose its will militarily on others; a preference to get others to do your dirty work ("cat's paw") isn't enough.

    3. China has no experience with -- and more importantly, perhaps no desire for -- international leadership. As mentioned, it likely wants to be left alone, but the anarchy of international relations means that one must essentially mobilize or be preyed upon (in which case, see 1 and 2, above).

    4. China's GDP figures are inaccurate (Li Keqiang said so many times) -- a consequence of 1, above.

    5. Perhaps most importantly, nobody likes the Chinese. Anywhere. Hell, even the Hong Kongese hate mainlanders.

    #5 is wrong…

    Just as an example, one of the most popular calligraphers around the Muslim world is Chinese:

    http://www.hajinoordeen.com/gallery.html

    I was able to buy one of his works for my mother at a conference a few years back.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Duke of Qin
    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it's budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China's naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I'm talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it's economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn't expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it's nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    I would do that as well, in particular the nuclear deterrence.

    Still it’s worth noting that there were real considerations that prevented this course of action. (1) The Chinese were genuinely afraid to repeating what they saw as the Soviet’s militarization trap; (2) The PLA became massively corrupt after the Mao period – I assume much of the money lavished on them would have vanished during that period; (3) Premature military buildups when you are not at the technological frontier result in massive but obsolescent armies (e.g. the trap the USSR fell into by the late 1930s) – you’d have many more of those guided missile destroyers and frigates, but they’d be much older and more primitive than they are now.

    In any case, the US allowed China to develop its economic sinews in peace, at least until now, and without crossing its red lines (Taiwan). Perhaps you lucked out with that, but either way, the most catastrophic scenarios can now be excluded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. notanon says:
    @Duke of Qin
    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it's budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China's naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I'm talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it's economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn't expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it's nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    pick a people you have no respect for and imagine they have the same number of ships as the US – would you be worried?

    the US military is being rotted from the inside by SJWs e.g. all the ship collisions – it won’t be long before they are incapable of effective large scale operations.

    (special forces will take longer but eventually even they will succumb)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    It's not wise to underestimate adversaries. The US had 3.9 million births last year, 49% of that still is non-Hispanic white. The enemy always has a say and there is still plenty of fight left in America. I mean the H-man thought the Slavs were all commie untermensch and we all know how that turned out. Just because I want and fully expect the American pozz imperium to crumble doesn't mean that once their hegemony dies they will just disappear. America will still be the 2nd strongest military/economic power in the world and that by a fairly significant margin. It just wont be powerful enough where everyone has to do what she says but will still be strong enough that no one can afford to ignore her.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Dmitry says:
    @inertial
    Japanese culture today appears to be produced entirely by and for 11-year old girls, so no wonder it's relatively more popular among young people. Even then, is it really more popular today among normie kids than during the times of Power Rangers, Tamagotchi, or Pokemon? Or, for that matter, during the time of Godzilla?

    Among adults, Japan has been steadily losing mind share. Certain kinds of Japanese soft cultural power had all but collapsed in the adult world since 20-30 years ago. For example, this cartoon was painfully true back when it came out in 1991. Now, not so much.

    There is a lot more pop culture Japanese influence now, than 10 years ago. Their influence just greatly sweeping with teenagers.

    Maybe it’s partly with help of increasing internetization of culture, and infantilization of the generation (which has been contributed also by America with success of Marvel Cinematic Universe over the last decade).

    Some kind of subtle visual culture influence, which is Japanizing the unconscious despite our language barrier with them, saying you don’t have to grow up, and keeping Amiibo Figurines is ultimate of cool and hipster.

    As for different things like business culture prestige, and high culture prestige – these are with smaller audiences. Japanese high culture has been fashionable since the 1880s, but audience size for this is smaller.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Its because like I said, the younger generation prefers fantasy - they are beginning to see through the pointlessness of modern life.

    Japanese culture is full of fantasy and has traces and ethos of an older feeling, that life is sort of an illusion.

    What you consider serious adult things - is increasingly being seen as childish nonsense.

    Its the same reason for the growth in popularity of the Marvel universe.

    There is a close connection between fantasy literature and religion - other worlds, magic, etc - so we can see this as a positive step towards religion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @notanon
    pick a people you have no respect for and imagine they have the same number of ships as the US - would you be worried?

    the US military is being rotted from the inside by SJWs e.g. all the ship collisions - it won't be long before they are incapable of effective large scale operations.

    (special forces will take longer but eventually even they will succumb)

    It’s not wise to underestimate adversaries. The US had 3.9 million births last year, 49% of that still is non-Hispanic white. The enemy always has a say and there is still plenty of fight left in America. I mean the H-man thought the Slavs were all commie untermensch and we all know how that turned out. Just because I want and fully expect the American pozz imperium to crumble doesn’t mean that once their hegemony dies they will just disappear. America will still be the 2nd strongest military/economic power in the world and that by a fairly significant margin. It just wont be powerful enough where everyone has to do what she says but will still be strong enough that no one can afford to ignore her.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Talha
    The Pozz Imperium...
    https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0256/01/1372100714926.jpg

    Get thy nails done, warrior.

    Peace.
    , @notanon
    fair enough - my prediction is a complex organism like a modern warship requires rigorously enforced minimum standards at *every* link in the chain and as a result can't survive becoming SJW-complaint - but time will tell.
    , @gmachine1729
    那就是说你那么仇美,望美帝国主义,美自由主义土崩瓦解,彻底崩溃掉?崩溃到什么程度才能让你满足?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Rdghucfff says:

    South Korea military is controlled by the US as long as they are at war with NK. Did you know that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The idea China is only 20 years behind Japan, is not clear.
     
    The 20 year rule referred to South Korea.

    https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/east-asia-comparative-economic-development.png

    Japan, South Korea, and China have all had essentially the same trajectory after passing $2,000 in GDP per capita (1990 dollars), in 1950, 1970, and 1990, respectively.

    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.

    Japan won Russo-Japanese War already in 1905, defeating Europe’s largest country, and Europe’s most important rising power.

    By 1930s, Japan are following the same colonial path in Asia, as European great powers, simply a few decades too late.

    In 1940, Mitsubishi Zero – possibly the best fighter plane in the world in this stage of the war.

    There was disruption ending in nuclear bombing by America. But inevitable rapid recovery of Japan surprises not more than equivalent postwar recovery in West Germany.

    Japan’s engineering ability, high cultural contribution and civilized lifestyle – it’s demonstrably known to the world over the century. In China, we have almost an opposite story of modern history. China were a disaster zone and failures until the early 2000s. Some of this attributable to communism of course.

    Now finally, we some sparks potential from them – I think of surprisingly quality of Huawei smartphones. But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there’s no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).

    In military terms, Japan was a major military power by beginning of 20th century, while China has showed no military ability

    -

    So I agree with overall theme. I’m sure China will continue developing and they will become the world’s largest economy by around 2030.

    But there is not evidence yet of a “spark of genius”, – yet this “spark” was evident to observers of Japan over a century ago, and observers of Germany over two centuries ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Japan has definately hit on a lot of cultural high marks. But keep in mind that people have always criticized Japan for the same things people are criticizing China on.

    In HBD circles, I most hear praise for Japan only when China is brought up.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.
     
    But China influenced Europe more in the 18th century. The Enlightenment thinkers admired its system of government, which was in many ways more laissez-faire than the contemporary order in Europe. There was an early version of CafePress - (very rich) Europeans would sent their porcelain designs to China, the Chinese would produce it, and ship it back, all within a year. (If you're ever in Oxford, the Ashmolean Museum has a wonderful exposition on this trade).

    It was then that the key divergence began. China actually slipped in not only relative, but absolute terms during the 19th century, whereas Japan continued ploughing ahead, rapidly building up its human capital during the 18-19th centuries (literacy was at 40% by mid-19th century IIRC), so it was in a much better position to be competitive once it opened up.

    All of this - a 20 year lead of South Korea due to effects of Maoism, and a 40 year lead by Japan due to that plus "deeper" history - is perfectly consistent with my arguments.

    But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there’s no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).
     
    Worth noting that the Japanese themselves were quite pessimistic about their potential during that period:

    Wealthy we do not at all think [Japan] will ever become: the advantages con­ferred by nature, with the exception of climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves, forbid it. The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much. - Japan Herald, 9 April 1881
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    There is a lot more pop culture Japanese influence now, than 10 years ago. Their influence just greatly sweeping with teenagers.

    Maybe it's partly with help of increasing internetization of culture, and infantilization of the generation (which has been contributed also by America with success of Marvel Cinematic Universe over the last decade).

    Some kind of subtle visual culture influence, which is Japanizing the unconscious despite our language barrier with them, saying you don't have to grow up, and keeping Amiibo Figurines is ultimate of cool and hipster.

    As for different things like business culture prestige, and high culture prestige - these are with smaller audiences. Japanese high culture has been fashionable since the 1880s, but audience size for this is smaller.

    Its because like I said, the younger generation prefers fantasy – they are beginning to see through the pointlessness of modern life.

    Japanese culture is full of fantasy and has traces and ethos of an older feeling, that life is sort of an illusion.

    What you consider serious adult things – is increasingly being seen as childish nonsense.

    Its the same reason for the growth in popularity of the Marvel universe.

    There is a close connection between fantasy literature and religion – other worlds, magic, etc – so we can see this as a positive step towards religion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Talha says:
    @Duke of Qin
    It's not wise to underestimate adversaries. The US had 3.9 million births last year, 49% of that still is non-Hispanic white. The enemy always has a say and there is still plenty of fight left in America. I mean the H-man thought the Slavs were all commie untermensch and we all know how that turned out. Just because I want and fully expect the American pozz imperium to crumble doesn't mean that once their hegemony dies they will just disappear. America will still be the 2nd strongest military/economic power in the world and that by a fairly significant margin. It just wont be powerful enough where everyone has to do what she says but will still be strong enough that no one can afford to ignore her.

    The Pozz Imperium…

    Get thy nails done, warrior.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    That's pretty funny.

    Strangely formidable, I'm gonna have nightmares.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Now Talha, you leave the catholic priests alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. AaronB says:
    @Talha
    The Pozz Imperium...
    https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0256/01/1372100714926.jpg

    Get thy nails done, warrior.

    Peace.

    That’s pretty funny.

    Strangely formidable, I’m gonna have nightmares.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. notanon says:
    @Duke of Qin
    It's not wise to underestimate adversaries. The US had 3.9 million births last year, 49% of that still is non-Hispanic white. The enemy always has a say and there is still plenty of fight left in America. I mean the H-man thought the Slavs were all commie untermensch and we all know how that turned out. Just because I want and fully expect the American pozz imperium to crumble doesn't mean that once their hegemony dies they will just disappear. America will still be the 2nd strongest military/economic power in the world and that by a fairly significant margin. It just wont be powerful enough where everyone has to do what she says but will still be strong enough that no one can afford to ignore her.

    fair enough – my prediction is a complex organism like a modern warship requires rigorously enforced minimum standards at *every* link in the chain and as a result can’t survive becoming SJW-complaint – but time will tell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Anatoly Karlin

    That’s a really important question that I’d like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money (“economic power”), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?
     
    $100 billion for 20 years (translating into $150 billion in PPP-adjusted terms - broadly equivalent to what Russia spends) should do it.

    First decade focused on building up the MIC. This should be easy to do for the Navy, as South Korea already has 30% of the world's shipbuilding capacity. Much harder for aerospace where it has much less experience, but I think they'll manage. It has a breakout nuclear capability; South Korea can start producing the first fission bombs within months, though building it up to Russia's scale will take a decade.

    Second decade to actually kit out the military with their new toys. It already has one of the world's best MBT's. Hardest techs to master will be 4++ generation fighters (not sure we can demand they produce a 5 generation fighter since Su-57 is not in mass production yet and won't be for some time), SSBNs, and SSNs.

    This would constitute 7% of their GDP. Pretty doable. Israel spent way more before 2000. The US spent 10% during the 1950s.

    I suppose that’s nice. Consider the fact that Chinese have been outspending Russia for a decade, but have yet to catch up. They should have at least mastered all the techs by now. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    That’s a really important question that I’d like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money (“economic power”), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?
     
    $100 billion for 20 years (translating into $150 billion in PPP-adjusted terms - broadly equivalent to what Russia spends) should do it.

    First decade focused on building up the MIC. This should be easy to do for the Navy, as South Korea already has 30% of the world's shipbuilding capacity. Much harder for aerospace where it has much less experience, but I think they'll manage. It has a breakout nuclear capability; South Korea can start producing the first fission bombs within months, though building it up to Russia's scale will take a decade.

    Second decade to actually kit out the military with their new toys. It already has one of the world's best MBT's. Hardest techs to master will be 4++ generation fighters (not sure we can demand they produce a 5 generation fighter since Su-57 is not in mass production yet and won't be for some time), SSBNs, and SSNs.

    This would constitute 7% of their GDP. Pretty doable. Israel spent way more before 2000. The US spent 10% during the 1950s.

    The problem is that with 51 million people to Russia’s 140+ million, South Korea would run into a ceiling long before it would reach parity with Russia, no matter how well-trained and equipped its soldiers are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I think this is completely wrong.

    First, it's possible to cater to multiple sides. That's what RT (run by liberals and commies) does by alternating between BLM propaganda (previously Occupy Wall Street) and anti-immigration bromides. Other outlets such as Sputnik (run by Nazis) provide the conspiracy theories.

    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can’t appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can’t appeal to the Far Right because it’s not Western.
     
    China can appeal to the left by adopting the anti-racism shtick. It already does that in its annual whataboutist responses to US human rights accusations anyway. Just have people rant on air about it as well, instead of publishing it in some paper that nobody reads. Perhaps scoop up one of those leftist celebrities, such as Greenwald, Blumenthal, Taibbi.

    As for the Far Right, well, you do realize Anglin is a fan? ;)

    * https://dailystormer.name/are-you-aware-of-chinas-program-to-rate-the-social-value-of-celebrities/
    * https://dailystormer.name/chinese-communists-put-a-million-moslems-in-concentration-camps/

    This is the most hardcore Nazi website on the Internet. And they like China already! (even if for mostly made up reasons).

    China has plenty of nationalists, the sort of guys who made up the term baizuo. Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It’s not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there’s a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.
     
    But those faggots are the most influential group in the West so it's still important to target them. Conveniently, China already has good cred with them, so it only needs to reinforce and exploit it. China is more "responsible" than Drumpf, many of them like China's "progressive" attitude to religion, and they really admire China's intensive development of green technologies. They really, really like that. I mean really, what's the contradiction? People who are cool with GloboHomoBezos will be cool with any flavor of technocratic Orwellianism.

    If they had a competent media strategy. Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.

    RT can appeal to segments of the Left because of the Soviet legacy. Whataboutism isn’t sufficient. That’s just basics, and something everyone does. China would have to liberalize socially in a significant way or revert to Maoism to appeal to some segment of the Left again.

    I’m familiar with Anglin and some of those types applauding some of China’s policies. But that’s qualitatively different from the appeal that Russia has to some of the elements of the Far Right, which goes behind mere support or admiration for certain policies. For example, Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.

    The problem with trying to appeal to “those faggots” is that you run the risk of damaging your domestic population and turning them into “faggots”. It’s hard to firewall everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    It can all work out if they hire Karlin as a media strategist for the current bargain price.
    , @Bliss

    Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.
     
    What kind of neo-nazi is Spencer? Hitler and Himmler would be aghast: the Russians are mongrelized untermensch, dummkopf.

    Btw Putin, like Lenin, Yeltsin and many if not most Russians, does looks a bit mixed. Check out his Chinese doppelgänger:



    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/af-composite-putin-looalike.jpg

    And the head of the Russian military is half asian:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Sergey_Shoigu.jpg

    So is the Mayor of Moscow:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergey_Sobyanin_official_portrait.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. inertial says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I have to say that I am slowly drifting into the China skeptics camp. Not for any particular reason but due to posts like this. Everyone and his dog are Sinotriumphalists now. Gives me the willies.
     
    This is a vicious smear.

    I was a Sinotriumphalist since I started blogging: http://akarlin.com/2008/08/a-long-wait-at-the-gate-of-delusions/ (2008)

    I mean, now that I look back on it, even my arguments were similar, LOL:

    The key difference is that China is a demographic giant. This means that to match the US in gross GDP (one of the key criteria for superpower status), it need only advance to around a quarter of its per capita development, or Mexico’s level. To match the West (and be double the US), it need only reach Portuguese standards.
     
    I was deep into the human capital aspect even back then:

    Furthermore, China has experienced very high human capital accumulation, as nine-year schooling has become universal and “during the past decade, China has produced college and university graduates at a significantly faster pace than Korea and Japan did during their fastest-growing periods”; since education is the elixir of growth, its workforce won’t just be assembling gizmos and tightening screws for long.
     

    Yeah, I know you’ve been a legitimate China booster since way back, and that’s fine. What worries me is that everyone had become like you. And I mean not so much bloggers and online commentators (who cares about them) but our wonderful corporate sector.

    These guys have serious herd mentality and stampede hard. The convention wisdom at this moment is that no matter what your company does it has to “get an exposure” to China. This is what they all say right now, from a lowly management consultant to the “visionary” CEO. China is the future, blah, blah, blah. If you try to argue they look at you like you have two heads. Risk? What risk? Everyone knows that China will continue to grow, and grow, and grow, and grow…

    This is what makes me uncomfortable. The parallels with the past instances of disastrous groupthink are obvious. In my mind, this makes it very possible that “something’s going to happen soon.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @notanon

    In my mind, this makes it very possible that “something’s going to happen soon.”

     

    it will

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble

    but in geopolitical terms will it be more than a speed bump?
    , @Vidi

    our wonderful corporate sector...These guys have serious herd mentality and stampede hard...Risk? What risk? Everyone knows that China will continue to grow, and grow, and grow, and grow…
     
    Risk relative to what?

    This is what makes me uncomfortable. The parallels with the past instances of disastrous groupthink are obvious. In my mind, this makes it very possible that “something’s going to happen soon.”
     
    Of course, failure is always easier than success, for China or for anyone else. You have to ask yourself, What are the probabilities? The U.S. is closer to an economic abyss than China, in my opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.

    Japan won Russo-Japanese War already in 1905, defeating Europe's largest country, and Europe's most important rising power.

    By 1930s, Japan are following the same colonial path in Asia, as European great powers, simply a few decades too late.

    In 1940, Mitsubishi Zero - possibly the best fighter plane in the world in this stage of the war.

    There was disruption ending in nuclear bombing by America. But inevitable rapid recovery of Japan surprises not more than equivalent postwar recovery in West Germany.

    Japan's engineering ability, high cultural contribution and civilized lifestyle - it's demonstrably known to the world over the century. In China, we have almost an opposite story of modern history. China were a disaster zone and failures until the early 2000s. Some of this attributable to communism of course.

    Now finally, we some sparks potential from them - I think of surprisingly quality of Huawei smartphones. But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there's no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).

    In military terms, Japan was a major military power by beginning of 20th century, while China has showed no military ability


    -

    So I agree with overall theme. I'm sure China will continue developing and they will become the world's largest economy by around 2030.

    But there is not evidence yet of a "spark of genius", - yet this "spark" was evident to observers of Japan over a century ago, and observers of Germany over two centuries ago.

    Japan has definately hit on a lot of cultural high marks. But keep in mind that people have always criticized Japan for the same things people are criticizing China on.

    In HBD circles, I most hear praise for Japan only when China is brought up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Not entirely true - even during first contact, European explorers have always mentioned that the Japanese have had an especial appreciation for art and cleanliness. So there's something special there.

    But yes, many of the modern comments about China are similar to those about Japan. By and large, though, the mass don't distinguish and kind of just ramble on. But that's life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Anonymous
    Japan has definately hit on a lot of cultural high marks. But keep in mind that people have always criticized Japan for the same things people are criticizing China on.

    In HBD circles, I most hear praise for Japan only when China is brought up.

    Not entirely true – even during first contact, European explorers have always mentioned that the Japanese have had an especial appreciation for art and cleanliness. So there’s something special there.

    But yes, many of the modern comments about China are similar to those about Japan. By and large, though, the mass don’t distinguish and kind of just ramble on. But that’s life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Anonymous
    RT can appeal to segments of the Left because of the Soviet legacy. Whataboutism isn't sufficient. That's just basics, and something everyone does. China would have to liberalize socially in a significant way or revert to Maoism to appeal to some segment of the Left again.

    I'm familiar with Anglin and some of those types applauding some of China's policies. But that's qualitatively different from the appeal that Russia has to some of the elements of the Far Right, which goes behind mere support or admiration for certain policies. For example, Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.

    The problem with trying to appeal to "those faggots" is that you run the risk of damaging your domestic population and turning them into "faggots". It's hard to firewall everything.

    It can all work out if they hire Karlin as a media strategist for the current bargain price.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. notanon says:
    @inertial
    Yeah, I know you've been a legitimate China booster since way back, and that's fine. What worries me is that everyone had become like you. And I mean not so much bloggers and online commentators (who cares about them) but our wonderful corporate sector.

    These guys have serious herd mentality and stampede hard. The convention wisdom at this moment is that no matter what your company does it has to "get an exposure" to China. This is what they all say right now, from a lowly management consultant to the "visionary" CEO. China is the future, blah, blah, blah. If you try to argue they look at you like you have two heads. Risk? What risk? Everyone knows that China will continue to grow, and grow, and grow, and grow...

    This is what makes me uncomfortable. The parallels with the past instances of disastrous groupthink are obvious. In my mind, this makes it very possible that "something's going to happen soon."

    In my mind, this makes it very possible that “something’s going to happen soon.”

    it will

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble

    but in geopolitical terms will it be more than a speed bump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Perhaps this will happen. I can't make predictions and neither can anyone else. I can only predict one thing - whatever happens, it's going to look obvious and inevitable in retrospect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. inertial says:
    @notanon

    In my mind, this makes it very possible that “something’s going to happen soon.”

     

    it will

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble

    but in geopolitical terms will it be more than a speed bump?

    Perhaps this will happen. I can’t make predictions and neither can anyone else. I can only predict one thing – whatever happens, it’s going to look obvious and inevitable in retrospect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Mr. Hack says:
    @Duke of Qin
    Good article, but a bit wrong about the Belt and Road initiative which is just half assed over inflated PR to disguise patronage to favoured private and otherwise state owned companies. The biggest caveat is that China wants to be as strong as the United States, it doesn't want to BE the United States. It doesn't have the power, attitude, or even the inclination to be the hegemon of a new world order. It does however have the capability and intent to tear apart the current one. What comes afterwards will be likely similar to what came before. A return to 19th century norms rather than late 20th century ones. America's past strength was built on overwhelming economic security that enabled overwhelming military superiority. People shared America's values because people always follow the strong like the social primates we are. America's present, is in a situation where not quite so overwhelming military superiority disguises it's much smaller economic base. It's outside influenced is backed primarily by force as states stay pay deference to America because she has the biggest guns, however all the talk of shared values is nothing more than hollow sophistry that will crumble to ashes the moment the 7th fleet is sent to the bottom of the Pacific.

    I don’t think that China is interested in ‘tearing apart’ the current world order. After all, it would lose its largest market for its goods, and what sense is there in destroying the US economy, where it already owns so much of its debt? I do agree with most of the rest of your sentiment:

    …it seems that China should be content to just fill the shoes of a great country content on becoming the world’s undisputed ‘economic hegemon’ minus the imperial trappings of ‘world hegemon’. With China and Russia already jockeying for position in Central Asia, along with Turkey and Iran as smaller bit players, I don’t really see how the US can exert more control over Eurasia in order to avoid Brzezinski’s admonition? The ‘Great Game’ is poised for an interesting contest to the very end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Daniel Chieh
    Pot isn't a basis for national policy, either.

    Pot isn’t a basis for national policy, either.

    I feel like this should be a pinned reply to all of AaronB’s comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Duke of Qin
    The biggest arguments against is demographics and debt. Chinese debt (really private corporate non financial) increased rapidly after 2008. Chinese demographics are likewise around the 1.6 ish range with 17.3 million births (92% of which is Han Chinese or close enough) last year so similar to Western Europe.

    Debt in and of itself isnt bad, and high debts are not a problem as long as you can grow faster than them. It's only an issue when growth slows down and bad debts pile up.

    The demographic arguement is that only a young and growing population can create economic growth and thus China's "bad" demographics will stall economic growth.

    On the surface, these arguements sound convincing enough and indeed the China-skeptics make a very convincing case if your thought patterns have been completly dominated and shaped by liberal thinking and it's heuristic roadblocks.

    The thinking basically goes bad debt > financial crisis > Chinese are eating each other on the streets. If you are a liberal finance junkie who stares at trend lines and curves all day then any negative change in the numbers looks like the end of the world. If you have a longer more historically grounded view of development, youll see regular panics, financial crisis, bank runs, devastating wars, all of which is followed up by more economic growth. NPL loans, bubbles and bursts, are speed bumps compared to the historic forces of gradual productive capital accumulation, increased labor specialization, an intelligent and productive population capable of problem solving. Which view you subscribe to basically depends on if you think an "economy" consists of financial instruments rather than things.

    The demographic situation is more complex and grimmer. Modernity is wrecking China just as it is wrecking every society that isn't composed of sub 85 IQ morlocks. Though even here there are historic counter arguments. France actually spent the entire 19th century with a slight demographic deficit yet was able to rapidly industrialize and close the gap with Britain during the same time. Ireland wasn't just demographically stagnant but actually lost huge numbers of people, first to the famine and later to a massive emigration outflow yet was also simultaneously able rapidly develop and likewise gain ground on Britain. The entire argument for the black death as a catalyst of Capitalism in Western Europe relies on the argument that labor scarcity made it more valuable and increased wages and the search for more efficiency. This debate whether China can overcome it's demographic challenges for growth is basically answered by whether or not you believe the next (smaller) generation of Chinese that is both significantly better nourished and better educated, and all around healthier can be more productive than their parents who were born in between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The degree of this productivity differential will determine the continued catch up speed to e industrial West.

    Though even here there are historic counter arguments. France actually spent the entire 19th century with a slight demographic deficit yet was able to rapidly industrialize and close the gap with Britain during the same time. Ireland wasn’t just demographically stagnant but actually lost huge numbers of people, first to the famine and later to a massive emigration outflow yet was also simultaneously able rapidly develop and likewise gain ground on Britain. The entire argument for the black death as a catalyst of Capitalism in Western Europe relies on the argument that labor scarcity made it more valuable and increased wages and the search for more efficiency.

    This debate whether China can overcome it’s demographic challenges for growth is basically answered by whether or not you believe the next (smaller) generation of Chinese that is both significantly better nourished and better educated, and all around healthier can be more productive than their parents who were born in between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The degree of this productivity differential will determine the continued catch up speed to the industrial West.

    This is a solid argument, but one in which you do not need to rely on history on. It’s enough to simply read the data.

    When people talk about demographic strength it should really be about quality instead of quantity. There are reasons to be skeptical about China’s rise – chiefly much more rapid debt build-up compared to SK/Taiwan during their rise – but demographics in terms of age structure is not one of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    Seems the old link is (currently) down. Here's a back-up:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w23077
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Anatoly Karlin

    That’s a really important question that I’d like you to adress: you think military power is a direct function of money (“economic power”), so how much more money SK will need to spend to match Russia in military terms?
     
    $100 billion for 20 years (translating into $150 billion in PPP-adjusted terms - broadly equivalent to what Russia spends) should do it.

    First decade focused on building up the MIC. This should be easy to do for the Navy, as South Korea already has 30% of the world's shipbuilding capacity. Much harder for aerospace where it has much less experience, but I think they'll manage. It has a breakout nuclear capability; South Korea can start producing the first fission bombs within months, though building it up to Russia's scale will take a decade.

    Second decade to actually kit out the military with their new toys. It already has one of the world's best MBT's. Hardest techs to master will be 4++ generation fighters (not sure we can demand they produce a 5 generation fighter since Su-57 is not in mass production yet and won't be for some time), SSBNs, and SSNs.

    This would constitute 7% of their GDP. Pretty doable. Israel spent way more before 2000. The US spent 10% during the 1950s.

    It takes several decades to master some technologies. Now they will probably do most of them faster (if they threw enough money on the problem), but there are so many areas where they have zero experience that I’d expect at least some of those to be flops.

    This is where China has a big advantage over South Korea, it has worked with all types of weapons for several decades.

    The other issue is what AP mentioned, less people means a smaller pool to choose your engineers and officers from, so it’d be a long shot.

    Again, it’s not an issue with China.

    Significantly, not one of the issues we found with South Korea would affect China, or at least not nearly to the extent it affects South Korea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Thulean Friend

    Though even here there are historic counter arguments. France actually spent the entire 19th century with a slight demographic deficit yet was able to rapidly industrialize and close the gap with Britain during the same time. Ireland wasn’t just demographically stagnant but actually lost huge numbers of people, first to the famine and later to a massive emigration outflow yet was also simultaneously able rapidly develop and likewise gain ground on Britain. The entire argument for the black death as a catalyst of Capitalism in Western Europe relies on the argument that labor scarcity made it more valuable and increased wages and the search for more efficiency.

    This debate whether China can overcome it’s demographic challenges for growth is basically answered by whether or not you believe the next (smaller) generation of Chinese that is both significantly better nourished and better educated, and all around healthier can be more productive than their parents who were born in between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The degree of this productivity differential will determine the continued catch up speed to the industrial West.
     

    This is a solid argument, but one in which you do not need to rely on history on. It's enough to simply read the data.

    When people talk about demographic strength it should really be about quality instead of quantity. There are reasons to be skeptical about China's rise - chiefly much more rapid debt build-up compared to SK/Taiwan during their rise - but demographics in terms of age structure is not one of them.

    Seems the old link is (currently) down. Here’s a back-up:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w23077

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Duke of Qin
    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it's budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China's naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I'm talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it's economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn't expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it's nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it’s budget on defense.

    They were obviously waiting for the economy to catch up. Also apparently they wanted to develop a modern weapons system before mass production, and not mass produce obsolete weapons which then would cost a fortune to maintain (thereby slowing down the eventual modernization). This strategy meant that they will theoretically be able to reach parity with the US earlier, but be weaker until it happens.

    But this temporary weakness was a feature, not a bug, because they didn’t want to scare the Americans into taking them too seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Duke of Qin
    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it's budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China's naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I'm talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it's economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn't expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it's nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    These views of yours, have you expressed them to some Chinese Chinese? What do they think? Someone I know born in China but raised in America was like,

    why doesn’t China just ban all Hollywood movies.

    His rationale was

    banning hollywood movies is like so straightforward. just a cost benefit analysis. do they benefit china? hardly at all. do they harm china? yes it perpetuates racial hegemony

    He was also like,

    Doesn’t China not have enough nukes? They have only in the low hundreds. Shouldn’t they be having ten times more than that, to, like, match what the US and Russia have?

    跟母亲说了他的中国应当全面禁止好莱坞之观点,得以

    书呆子呗

    为回应。

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    我和海外学生和表哥谈过这个问题,大部份人都同情我的想法,但是我的家庭有点跟大多华侨不同。我不相 Daniel。我家里人没有这个国民党官,那个国民军。我爷爷是种地的。我奶奶是种地的。我姥姥也是种地的。只有我姥爷给中铁干活。我父亲以外,上一代的家人不是农民只是工人。只有我这一代有更多人在白领工作。与今天的大陆人相比,我们比较穷。所以没有 "精美 "王八蛋。

    女人不要说。我家的女人上上下下太温柔了。他们不想这些事情 只想怎么可以好好生活。
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Duke of Qin
    It's not wise to underestimate adversaries. The US had 3.9 million births last year, 49% of that still is non-Hispanic white. The enemy always has a say and there is still plenty of fight left in America. I mean the H-man thought the Slavs were all commie untermensch and we all know how that turned out. Just because I want and fully expect the American pozz imperium to crumble doesn't mean that once their hegemony dies they will just disappear. America will still be the 2nd strongest military/economic power in the world and that by a fairly significant margin. It just wont be powerful enough where everyone has to do what she says but will still be strong enough that no one can afford to ignore her.

    那就是说你那么仇美,望美帝国主义,美自由主义土崩瓦解,彻底崩溃掉?崩溃到什么程度才能让你满足?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nznz
    ENGLISH PLEASE OK?????????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Nznz says: • Website
    @gmachine1729
    那就是说你那么仇美,望美帝国主义,美自由主义土崩瓦解,彻底崩溃掉?崩溃到什么程度才能让你满足?

    ENGLISH PLEASE OK?????????

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is a good point, unlike your previous one.

    1980s Japan had high stock - would cyberpunk as a genre have even appeared without it? Blade Runner, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell - one Japanese, the other two inspired by it.

    Yeah; I also found your “It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power” remark weird. What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018? I thought Japan’s cultural power peaked in the 1990s, following right behind its economic power, arguably peaking with the Tamagotchi.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Yes, Japan has been a cultural influence on the West going back to the 1860s when Hokusai's prints wowed Monet (his wife started wearing a kimono), Degas and de Toulouse-Lautrec. About the only notable recent Chinese artist I am aware of is Ai Weiwei and that is mostly because the authorities keep harassing him.

    http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150409-the-wave-that-swept-the-world
    , @notanon

    What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018?
     
    big among the youth (Korea is as well), girls too (if not more so), which is interesting

    looking at it from the outside i think it's partly a reaction to the poz with one half of the kids being sucked into twerkworld and the other half trying to escape.

    (this is actually the most important cultural power for everyone not just China - kid's entertainment - that hasn't been poisoned by the US media - which is easy, just reskin old school Disney)
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I might have been overly influenced by Dmitry on this issue in recent months, instead of assessing it independently.

    He is correct that Japanese culture in Russia specifically has never been stronger.

    However, come to think of it, its peak in the US came much earlier. And I don't think it has influenced Europe (or Britain, at any rate) much at all.
    , @Dmitry
    Do you know any teenagers or have any relatives in this age?

    Ask them what they are interested. Compare to what you were interested when you were a teenager.
    You're see how much more Japanese influence there is now, compared to even ten years ago.

    Japan has far more influence now, than ten years ago. And it has far far more than it did fifteen years ago. Japan's rise began maybe in 2002, with things like "Spirited Away". But it accelerated very heavily in last ten years, with internetization of culture replacing television.

    Obviously things like Nintendo were popular before, but were not openly popular as Japanese. Whereas nowadays, young people you can meeting know all kinds of Japanese words and phrases (which I know nothing of, despite being person who actually has visited).

    -

    As for economic power. Even China has now some economic power, but it has still zero or almost zero cultural power.

    China may be a couple generations away though. Nowadays a lot of Chinese youth are studying in art schools in Europe. There may be are some seeds of future development in their visual culture - with this size of population, they should have a large share of the world's geniuses.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @reiner Tor
    India is dirt poor. Aggregate GDP data is not worth much for dirt poor countries. For example if Africa was a united country, it would still not amount to much. (Okay, India is better than Africa, but you get the point.)

    You need to be at least somewhat developed, or else your aggregate GDP would be discounted.

    India is the world’s fifth largest industrial producer with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia and fourth largest spender on armaments.

    It’s economic size is roughly what China’s was 10-15 years ago..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Oh brother. Another "India Superpower 2030" Indian.

    India is not 10-15 years behind China. India is 25IQ points behind China and will need generations to catch up, if it can. When it comes to IQ, Indians lag behind all but the lowest IQ Africans.

    No matter how much Indians spend on its military, it still has one of the weakest armed forces in the world. The only country India will be able to go toe to toe with will be other Indian type races like Bangledesh.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia
     
    superior industrial capabilities versus Antarctica, checkmate
    , @notanon
    the banking mafia are destroying the West and moving to China (imo) but once (if) that is done and they're settled in China then they'll get to work destroying China while building up their next host - which will probably be India - they only want/need one hegemon at a time to be their enforcer and debt collector.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Anon[241] • Disclaimer says:

    Everyone and their dog mocks the idea of “American nation”, since people of America are more diverse than those of Nigeria. (Which is quite shit , if you know your GWAS.) I think a tenth are polytheistic, a sixth are black, a quarter are atheist, a third speak Spanish, and more than half don’t vote (mostly because they do not care about the last unifying myth of the state, “democracy”).

    That being said, it’s been 150 years since US hosted morons of the kind seen in HK or Taiwan. True, the British base in HK has been eliminated, but it was the result of British generalized withering. Taiwan is an American colony and 24-hour away from becoming a full-scale US base if need be. The locals are as impotent and / or seduced as Ukrainians or “liberated Syrians”. They’d rather join EU than their “nation”.

    Despite all the talk about Chinese being communitarian, and anti-individualistic, there is one community which never engages them – their nation. If you kill a million of them next door, they just chew their noodles, as long as they think they will survive.

    And this is why China will never get to Japan level. Fifty years from now, Taiwan and Guantanamo will remain under US occupation. It will be difficult to project anywhere, if Americans control what is supposed to be their territorial waters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. Bliss says:
    @Anonymous
    RT can appeal to segments of the Left because of the Soviet legacy. Whataboutism isn't sufficient. That's just basics, and something everyone does. China would have to liberalize socially in a significant way or revert to Maoism to appeal to some segment of the Left again.

    I'm familiar with Anglin and some of those types applauding some of China's policies. But that's qualitatively different from the appeal that Russia has to some of the elements of the Far Right, which goes behind mere support or admiration for certain policies. For example, Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.

    The problem with trying to appeal to "those faggots" is that you run the risk of damaging your domestic population and turning them into "faggots". It's hard to firewall everything.

    Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.

    What kind of neo-nazi is Spencer? Hitler and Himmler would be aghast: the Russians are mongrelized untermensch, dummkopf.

    Btw Putin, like Lenin, Yeltsin and many if not most Russians, does looks a bit mixed. Check out his Chinese doppelgänger:

    [MORE]

    And the head of the Russian military is half asian:

    So is the Mayor of Moscow:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Admiral_John_Fisher.jpg/170px-Admiral_John_Fisher.jpg

    First Sea Lord Jackie Fisher
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vishnugupta
    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia and fourth largest spender on armaments.

    It's economic size is roughly what China's was 10-15 years ago..

    Oh brother. Another “India Superpower 2030″ Indian.

    India is not 10-15 years behind China. India is 25IQ points behind China and will need generations to catch up, if it can. When it comes to IQ, Indians lag behind all but the lowest IQ Africans.

    No matter how much Indians spend on its military, it still has one of the weakest armed forces in the world. The only country India will be able to go toe to toe with will be other Indian type races like Bangledesh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    You have demonstrated your own rather low IQ with this post.

    India is in terms of GDP per capita roughly where China was 10-15 years ago.

    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer.

    India is in terms of overall technological ability is superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia.

    Those are irrefutable facts.

    Only a low IQ dimwit will describe a country with nuclear weapons and ICBMs,the world's fourth largest Air Force and a million man army as one of the weakest in the world.
    , @steinbergfeldwitzcohen
    I disagree. The Indians can always draw upon certain 'martial' groups: Sikhs in particular a d punjabis in general. It worked well for the British.
    India can't overcome it's culture of selfishness. They will never accept tax rates like the West thus will never have a literate, educated population.
    Tldr -shifting in the street is India.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. I always thought it to be a good idea to compare today’s rising China to the late 19th century’s rising United States; the U.S. had surpassed Britain in GDP and population in the 1850s, had surpassed China in GDP in the 1880s, and had surpassed the whole British Empire in GDP during WWI. It was certainly the leading economic power in the world by 1920. Yet, aside from some minor gunboat diplomacy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, its participation in WWI, and the Spanish-American War, the United States was certainly not a world power in 1920 (it didn’t even join the League of Nations!), was not a major attraction for famous emigres, wasn’t even a more important cultural power than Britain, and was arguably less important in world cultural output than either France or Germany (other than maybe in films). That started to change during the 1930s, and by the end of the 1940s, the U.S. was the world’s only other superpower due to a series of accidents highly fortuitous for its status in the world, as well as the world’s undisputed leading cultural power. Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment. Those claiming the 21st century will be a second American century remind me of the people saying in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the 20th century will be a British century.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment. Those claiming the 21st century will be a second American century remind me of the people saying in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the 20th century will be a British century.
     
    Those claiming that China in 21st century will be like America in 20th century are ignoring the fact that Chinese are not Anglos. Heck, they are not even white.

    Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment.
     
    And you can bet Chinese will let this moment pass by them, because when come down to it, Chinese are not white. Expecting Chinese people to stop behaving like Chinese and start acting like Anglos upon attaining a certain level of GDP strikes me as profoundly illogical, absurd.
    , @Anon
    The myth of American insularity, today, in the twenties, or whenever, is just a myth. (Much like all US national myths.) The country didn't get that big by mistake. Also, the first invasion of Tripoli by Americans was in 1805. In the 1920s, your specific time point, was involved in "revolutions" in Mexico and Russia, and ran a colony at the antipodes (Philippines). This is beyond China highest abilities, at any time in its history.
    , @Anonymous
    But you have to consider that those world powers destroyed and exhausted themselves and their empires in the World Wars. Things might have been different had that not happened. The US might have been the largest economy, but might not have been the dominant superpower/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Vishnugupta
    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia and fourth largest spender on armaments.

    It's economic size is roughly what China's was 10-15 years ago..

    with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia

    superior industrial capabilities versus Antarctica, checkmate

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Anonymous
    Oh brother. Another "India Superpower 2030" Indian.

    India is not 10-15 years behind China. India is 25IQ points behind China and will need generations to catch up, if it can. When it comes to IQ, Indians lag behind all but the lowest IQ Africans.

    No matter how much Indians spend on its military, it still has one of the weakest armed forces in the world. The only country India will be able to go toe to toe with will be other Indian type races like Bangledesh.

    You have demonstrated your own rather low IQ with this post.

    India is in terms of GDP per capita roughly where China was 10-15 years ago.

    India is the world’s fifth largest industrial producer.

    India is in terms of overall technological ability is superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia.

    Those are irrefutable facts.

    Only a low IQ dimwit will describe a country with nuclear weapons and ICBMs,the world’s fourth largest Air Force and a million man army as one of the weakest in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I agree that India is not totally insignificant. But I think my original point stands: India is not where it should be in terms of military power based on its aggregate GDP and military spending data.

    It doesn’t mean that the India-hating squad is fully correct. But it’s not going to catch up with China in the foreseeable future.
    , @anonymous
    India currently has a GDP per capita where China was in 2005-06. But India doesn't grow as fast as China due to lower growth rate and currency depreciation (while the RMB appreciated). Taking into account India's growth in the last 10 years, expected currency depreciation, and inflation, India should reach China's current level sometime between 2045-50.
    , @Anonymous
    So you are bragging that India has more technology than Africa and South America? Congratulations...I guess.

    The FACT is that India still can't get its population to poop in toilets. Anyone who has been to South America and most parts of Africa will tell you that these places feel much more civilized than India. So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.

    As far as the Indian military, when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?

    Indians are the opposite of a martial people, and no matter how many planes you buy they won't do squat so long as you have Indians piloting them.
    , @neutral
    India has too many inferior people, the occasional clever Indian with some traces of Aryan blood is heavily outnumbered by the Dravidians. So while I don't think India is at the level of Sub Saharan Africa, I don't see it as equal to east Asia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:

    nominal terms (2-3x that of the United States)

    I think this should be evaluated carefully because the difference between 2 or 3-times is huge in terms of global influence.

    In 2040 the Chinese population: 1.45 billion; US population: 400 million.

    In 2017, South Korea GDP per capita in nominal terms was exactly 50% of US GDP per capita.

    If in 2040, China can manage to get to a GDP per capita of 50% of the then US GDP per capita, the Chinese economy will be 1.81 times larger than the US economy.

    China has some advantages and also quite a few disadvantages in its way compared to South Korea.
    China’s biggest advantage is simply that America won’t be as strong in the future as it was before. In 2040, America will not be as economically efficient as it was 20 years before due to a more diverse population. However, California is minority-majority and it is only a moderate drag on the economy in overall terms. Due to a more diverse population, I think America will be a rich country rather than a very rich country in 2040.

    I’m not a China skeptic. I’m Chinese and work in the financial economy so I want to see success. However, I must admit flaws and would rather focus on how to eliminate or ameliorate the flaws rather than premature victory.

    Underinvestment in human capital – Unlike South Korea or Taiwan, at this stage the under investment in childhood nutrition and education in rural areas is worse and the results from PISA of rural Chinese children shows it. There’s still malnutrition in some parts of China because the welfare state for even the poorest areas is very feeble.

    Urbanized Chinese males are laggards compared to East Asian peers – Something that seems entirely unnoticed even in the HBD sphere is how unusually bad urbanized Chinese males are doing in the advanced economy. In finance and law, Chinese women are making a better show than their East Asian peers. In venture capital, at the partner level, women in China are almost twice as represented than women in Silicon Valley. In one big investment firm’s legal department I encountered 28 women out of a department of 30. If urbanized Chinese males don’t contribute as much as their East Asian peers to the advanced economy, will it have an ultimate effect on GDP?

    Aging population – Although the aging population problem is finally recognized, there’s not much 2nd child incentives can do at this point considering the cost of raising a kid in a Chinese city and apartment ownership. China is 20 years behind South Korea but only 5 years younger.

    Xinjiang – This is the most minor problem in terms of economic damage but pacification of the Uighurs is proving to be very expensive and a huge distraction that will get worse when Syria is finally liberated and the surviving 10,000 or more Uighurs fighters and their families try to come back home. I hope enlightenment seizes hold across China and also Russia and finally there can be a conversation about getting rid of problem border regions and the minorities that can’t be assimilated living in them by granting independence. With China that means southwest Xinjiang and Russia it’s the NCFD.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    What do you think is the possibility of very draconian policies to reverse birthrate declines being implemented in China.

    I think everyone recognizes the need for birthrates of roughly 2.1 and China can see Japan's stagnation in large part due to falling birthrates so do you think policies like extremely high penalties for couples who don't have 2 or more Children after say 7 years of marriage ( With exceptions for medical conditions)comparable to those imposed on couples that had more that one child at the height of China's one child policy likely?
    , @Duke of Qin
    I agree that nutrition could still use some work, though how much is hard to quantify. South Korea and Taiwan appear to have solved the nutrition issue only by the early 2000's. At least this seems to be the case as that birth cohort was the final one where gains in height seem to have finally plateaued.

    The aging population structure has been addressed by my and others elsewhere.

    Xinjiang is quite different the West's colonies. The British empire when it crumbled had 30 million brits overseeing some 600 million in South & Southeast Asia. They were outnumbered 20 to 1 so it obviously wasn't going to work long term. The Chinese outnumber the Uyghurs 120 to 1. There are already 9 million Han Chinese families living in Xinjiang. Compared to a few hundred thousand bureaucrats and soldiers the Brits had spread out in theirs. I will not accept abandoning them to be massacred by Muslim mobs. Unlike the West who seems to enjoy in a sadomasochistic fashion watching their own co-ethnics raped, murdered, and dispossessed, I don't. I would rather every central Asian turkic muslim be rendered down into protein powder before I watch a single Han Chinese give up their homes. The Chinese have suffered enough at the hands of barbarians.

    The final issue of Chinese male "underperformance" is an artifact of your industry. Aside from your wrongheaded idea of "finance and law" as the "advanced economy". The reason that Chinese women are overrepresented in venture capital and law is due to a confluence of factors. First, Women as a whole in Chinese executive positions are actually relatively underrepresented compared to the West. I think Forbes did a recent study looking at board members of fortune 500 companies and Chinese, along with Japanese companies were seriously deficient in female representation with 13 and 11 Japanese companies multibillion dollar companies having no female representation at all. Amazingly Tencent and JD both count themselves in this list. There is a slight female over participation in the labor force due to the lagacy of Communism, as there is in Russia. The Chinese venture capital industry is much larger than that of Japan's and Korea's, the reason of this is because of the complex interlink between Chinese VC and American VC. Namely look at Chinese VC's and you'll see a string of people who attended US schools in the 90's, worked for Goldman or some such, then returned to China. Men get into wealth and power generally speaking by their own work. Women get it through their husbands. The reason that Chinese women have more relative representation in VC is what I would call the Wendi Deng effect. In the 90's there was a string of ambitious Chinese students heading overseas and plenty of women among them. Being Chinese yourself, you should know that discrimination against East Asians in the West is heavily gendered. You yourself are competition, your women are fair game. What this in effect resulted to was a stronger representation of Chinese women moving through the Goldman type chain that feeds into the industry and their powerful hypergamous instinct lead them to marry American men. Unsaid but not unnoticed is that the majority of female Chinese venture capital partners were already married to American men and it was their patronage networks that they harnessed to get their businesses in China rolling. Likewise where you noticed the big investment company where 28 out of 30 in the legal department were women. I'll bet you a million dollars that there is a Western manager somewhere immediately in the hiring process tilting the scales with his dick. You notice this phenomenon heavily in any industry in China where direct Western influence is at play, such as the offices of Western press agencies. This kind of lopsided female hiring just doesn't happen at actually Chinese controlled businesses.
    , @random rand
    If you're Chinese you should not entertain any such idea of giving up Xinjiang. China should not give up an inch of land. Land is basically one of the greatest strategic asset one can have in present year and given technological development currently useless land may have much more practical uses in the future. Do you see ANY country in the world giving up territory willingly? If you entertain the idea that because people don't like living in a country and therefore have the right to independence then China might as well split up as a country. I'm guessing you entertain the idea of granting Taiwan and Tibet and Hong Kong independence as well? Third rate powers in the Middle East will never allow the Kurds to gain independence. Not even Spain is allowing Catalonia independence. And yet you entertain the idea of China giving up Xinjiang? Anyways what is this enlightenment mindbug that you are hoping spread across China? That Chinese people become so stupid from liberalism that they allow self determination???
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Vishnugupta
    You have demonstrated your own rather low IQ with this post.

    India is in terms of GDP per capita roughly where China was 10-15 years ago.

    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer.

    India is in terms of overall technological ability is superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia.

    Those are irrefutable facts.

    Only a low IQ dimwit will describe a country with nuclear weapons and ICBMs,the world's fourth largest Air Force and a million man army as one of the weakest in the world.

    I agree that India is not totally insignificant. But I think my original point stands: India is not where it should be in terms of military power based on its aggregate GDP and military spending data.

    It doesn’t mean that the India-hating squad is fully correct. But it’s not going to catch up with China in the foreseeable future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. anonymous[281] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vishnugupta
    You have demonstrated your own rather low IQ with this post.

    India is in terms of GDP per capita roughly where China was 10-15 years ago.

    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer.

    India is in terms of overall technological ability is superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia.

    Those are irrefutable facts.

    Only a low IQ dimwit will describe a country with nuclear weapons and ICBMs,the world's fourth largest Air Force and a million man army as one of the weakest in the world.

    India currently has a GDP per capita where China was in 2005-06. But India doesn’t grow as fast as China due to lower growth rate and currency depreciation (while the RMB appreciated). Taking into account India’s growth in the last 10 years, expected currency depreciation, and inflation, India should reach China’s current level sometime between 2045-50.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @anonymous

    nominal terms (2-3x that of the United States)
     
    I think this should be evaluated carefully because the difference between 2 or 3-times is huge in terms of global influence.

    In 2040 the Chinese population: 1.45 billion; US population: 400 million.

    In 2017, South Korea GDP per capita in nominal terms was exactly 50% of US GDP per capita.

    If in 2040, China can manage to get to a GDP per capita of 50% of the then US GDP per capita, the Chinese economy will be 1.81 times larger than the US economy.

    China has some advantages and also quite a few disadvantages in its way compared to South Korea.
    China’s biggest advantage is simply that America won’t be as strong in the future as it was before. In 2040, America will not be as economically efficient as it was 20 years before due to a more diverse population. However, California is minority-majority and it is only a moderate drag on the economy in overall terms. Due to a more diverse population, I think America will be a rich country rather than a very rich country in 2040.

    I’m not a China skeptic. I’m Chinese and work in the financial economy so I want to see success. However, I must admit flaws and would rather focus on how to eliminate or ameliorate the flaws rather than premature victory.

    Underinvestment in human capital – Unlike South Korea or Taiwan, at this stage the under investment in childhood nutrition and education in rural areas is worse and the results from PISA of rural Chinese children shows it. There’s still malnutrition in some parts of China because the welfare state for even the poorest areas is very feeble.

    Urbanized Chinese males are laggards compared to East Asian peers – Something that seems entirely unnoticed even in the HBD sphere is how unusually bad urbanized Chinese males are doing in the advanced economy. In finance and law, Chinese women are making a better show than their East Asian peers. In venture capital, at the partner level, women in China are almost twice as represented than women in Silicon Valley. In one big investment firm’s legal department I encountered 28 women out of a department of 30. If urbanized Chinese males don’t contribute as much as their East Asian peers to the advanced economy, will it have an ultimate effect on GDP?

    Aging population – Although the aging population problem is finally recognized, there’s not much 2nd child incentives can do at this point considering the cost of raising a kid in a Chinese city and apartment ownership. China is 20 years behind South Korea but only 5 years younger.

    Xinjiang – This is the most minor problem in terms of economic damage but pacification of the Uighurs is proving to be very expensive and a huge distraction that will get worse when Syria is finally liberated and the surviving 10,000 or more Uighurs fighters and their families try to come back home. I hope enlightenment seizes hold across China and also Russia and finally there can be a conversation about getting rid of problem border regions and the minorities that can't be assimilated living in them by granting independence. With China that means southwest Xinjiang and Russia it’s the NCFD.

    What do you think is the possibility of very draconian policies to reverse birthrate declines being implemented in China.

    I think everyone recognizes the need for birthrates of roughly 2.1 and China can see Japan’s stagnation in large part due to falling birthrates so do you think policies like extremely high penalties for couples who don’t have 2 or more Children after say 7 years of marriage ( With exceptions for medical conditions)comparable to those imposed on couples that had more that one child at the height of China’s one child policy likely?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I can't imagine how that would be practical. The power of the state over people's lives has dwindled considerably.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Sean says:

    By the 2040s, China will have by far the world’s largest economy in both PPP-adjusted and nominal terms (2-3x that of the United States), its most powerful military, and comparable navalpower and elite scientific production.

    Yes, if the US does not use military force after economic measures fail to slow China’s growth.

    As with my standard “futuristic” projections, all this assumes there are no radical discontinuities in our world – no machine superintelligence,

    Dennett expects that machine super intelligence will be a good 50 years away, but he only started saying it was possible after reading Pedro Domingos’s 2015 book. China will be in a position spend the money necessary to to create machine superintelligence by 2040, I expect there will not be much of anything by 2050.

    Any views of Verzilov’s sudden heath problem days after being in police custody.He disrupted the World Cup and Putin loves his sport (promoting Ice his Hockey team members ect).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. anonymous[281] • Disclaimer says:
    @Duke of Qin
    One of my deepest disappointments with the post Deng leadership is the relatively poor state of the Chinese military today as opposed to what it theoretically could have been. Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%. The US is spending almost 18% of it's budget on defense. Even assuming this is modestly underreported, China's naval and air buildup is still far too modest. If it had spent in proportion to what the US budgets, it would have today a massively overwhelming presence in the Western Pacific. I'm talking 90 guided missile frigates and 60 guided missile destroyers in 15 years massive, bigger than every other country combined massive. 150 new tactical fighter aircraft per year massive.

    As iffy as Putin is on Russian security (Putinsliv and Soviet relict ideology and all that), the Russian deep state still is still keenly paranoid about US intents and maintains robust military and nuclear force relative to it's economy. The essence of strategy is to do what your enemy doesn't expect. The Trumpidor and various neolibs/neocons expect China to fold under a protracted economic war. China should massively expand in preparation for a kinetic one and increase it's nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    increase it’s nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.

    Why? What does 1,000 nukes v. 100 nukes do in terms of deterrent effect?

    Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%.

    Why does China need to spend 4% of GDP on defense rather than the current 2%? Does the Chinese military have global responsibilities like the US? No, it just needs to be concerned with the Pacific (and currently an inexplicably small presence of 2-3 divisions facing India). 2% of GDP is more than adequate.

    Have you considered how much more economically weaker China would be if an additional 2% of GDP went to the military rather than the high speed rail network and other infrastructure over the last 3 decades? Do you think China with a larger military and a GDP per capita of $6,000 is stronger than the currently smaller Chinese military with a GDP per capita of $9,000?

    Have you at all factored in how much more secure China is now since the Maidan in Kiev and its consequences have made it impossible to blockade China because Russia and China are now firm allies? Military spending should actually be adjusted downward to 1.5% of GDP since the Maidan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You can't just rely on someone else to do the fighting for you.

    And simply by providing the appearance of weakness, you will invite further aggression. This misses also the valuable material science knowledge, etc. gained from buildup of a MIC.

    This is a terrible mentality.

    , @random rand
    No, China absolutely should not be adjusting its military spending downwards because of Maidan. For one thing, China and Russia aren't formally military allies yet. Russia is under no obligation to fight for China. For another, Great Powers should only rely on themselves for military strength. Just because Russia-China relations are good now does not mean they will stay forever good. Making your military less strong than it can be to rely on a country that is not even in a formal military alliance with you is crazy. Are you the same poster that wrote China should become "enlightened" and give up Xinjiang? This is crazy thinking and no Chinese should think like this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. anonymous[281] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vishnugupta
    What do you think is the possibility of very draconian policies to reverse birthrate declines being implemented in China.

    I think everyone recognizes the need for birthrates of roughly 2.1 and China can see Japan's stagnation in large part due to falling birthrates so do you think policies like extremely high penalties for couples who don't have 2 or more Children after say 7 years of marriage ( With exceptions for medical conditions)comparable to those imposed on couples that had more that one child at the height of China's one child policy likely?

    I can’t imagine how that would be practical. The power of the state over people’s lives has dwindled considerably.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Sean says:
    @Bliss

    Richard Spencer supports Russia because he views Russia as “the sole white power in the world”.
     
    What kind of neo-nazi is Spencer? Hitler and Himmler would be aghast: the Russians are mongrelized untermensch, dummkopf.

    Btw Putin, like Lenin, Yeltsin and many if not most Russians, does looks a bit mixed. Check out his Chinese doppelgänger:



    https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/af-composite-putin-looalike.jpg

    And the head of the Russian military is half asian:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Sergey_Shoigu.jpg

    So is the Mayor of Moscow:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sergey_Sobyanin_official_portrait.jpg

    First Sea Lord Jackie Fisher

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @anonymous

    increase it’s nuclear deterrent by an order of magnitude to match.
     
    Why? What does 1,000 nukes v. 100 nukes do in terms of deterrent effect?

    Defense spending as a total proportion of the government budget is down to 5%.
     
    Why does China need to spend 4% of GDP on defense rather than the current 2%? Does the Chinese military have global responsibilities like the US? No, it just needs to be concerned with the Pacific (and currently an inexplicably small presence of 2-3 divisions facing India). 2% of GDP is more than adequate.

    Have you considered how much more economically weaker China would be if an additional 2% of GDP went to the military rather than the high speed rail network and other infrastructure over the last 3 decades? Do you think China with a larger military and a GDP per capita of $6,000 is stronger than the currently smaller Chinese military with a GDP per capita of $9,000?

    Have you at all factored in how much more secure China is now since the Maidan in Kiev and its consequences have made it impossible to blockade China because Russia and China are now firm allies? Military spending should actually be adjusted downward to 1.5% of GDP since the Maidan.

    You can’t just rely on someone else to do the fighting for you.

    And simply by providing the appearance of weakness, you will invite further aggression. This misses also the valuable material science knowledge, etc. gained from buildup of a MIC.

    This is a terrible mentality.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:

    Your comment doesn’t sound like it has any analysis behind it. I have 3 questions for you.

    You can’t just rely on someone else to do the fighting for you.

    Russia doesn’t need to join in any fight with the US, it will be instrumental if it keeps on shipping oil while the US blockades the world’s sea lanes.

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you? In particular, this means supporting Iran. China will take over a lot of the financial burden of Syria reconstruction as announced in July to allow Iran to concentrate on building its defenses.

    misses also the valuable material science knowledge, etc. gained from buildup of a MIC

    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000? Money diverted not just to the MIC but a huge military payroll and pensions sucks up economic development. Imagine in what shape the economy would be in currently after 30 years of military spending diverted from railway construction. Having a bigger economy funds mega science projects and more mundane research and development a lot more than high levels of spending on the MIC. And this doesn’t even address how much weaker of a position economically and geopolitically China would be with a lower GDP per capita at this point. Too many people who advocate for high military spending seem to essentially have the mentality that money grows on trees and is not a limited resource.

    simply by providing the appearance of weakness, you will invite further aggression.

    It is simplistic to say everything short of acting tough right now is a sign of weakness and doesn’t take into account the specific context of China’s rapid potential and the long term path to acquiring truly impervious strength. If military spending were reduced to 1.5% from 2%, the slowdown would be noted and I suppose some in US strategic circles would regard it as a sign of a less confrontational stance, the success of US pressure, and China’s underlying weakness. I’m not certain though it would be interpreted as such in the mainstream US strategic view as China’s economic clout and Belt and Road outreach would continue and US strategic circles would feel threatened by the vitality of expansion of non-military sphere of influence.

    And then your view doesn’t take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage. At almost 2-times the size of the US economy, it will be very hard for the US to consider a strategy to confront China. That’s true strength and it is risked by the current stupidity in the South China Sea.

    Have you considered how prematurely showing strength in military spending and confrontation will result in an early response from the US that could cripple China’s ability to clear the final 15-20 years before becoming nearly economically impervious?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you?
     
    Because you're assuming that they are either 1)stupid, or 2)profoundly belligerent in a fashion that'll completely exclude you from the need to commit to violence. Neither is going to work in the long run, and at best, actually makes you a hostage of forces that you are employing to do violence for you. This is in fact, the exact fall of the Song by relying on "allies" and you're committing the same mistake.

    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000?
     

    Not being destroyed. And while its always a balance between butter and guns, leaving oneself completely vulnerable results in enormous political weaknesses with economic consequences in itself, not to mention a lack of ability to mature the military later. Money doesn't grow on trees; but neither does military experience. Every mistake not made early in peacetime during practice is a mistake that will be made when under attack, with far greater consequences.

    And then your view doesn’t take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage.
     

    This just demonstrates a near total lack of awareness of how the Western MIC works. Chinese behavior, especially reduction of military strength, is basically irrelevant to whether aggression will happen or not(witness Libya). Wars happen when it benefits the MIC, and against anyone who is vulnerable enough to suffer it. The only realistic way is to make the "simulated war" so costly that it will not be attempted.

    The "early response" in some fashion is coming whether you want it or not, whether being "nearly economically impervious" happens or not. Hostility is inelastic and will only increase. And all of the money won't solve the lack of experience, the weaknesses in military-specific technology, and coordination.

    This entire application of "true strategy" is projecting an essentially timid mentality upon the US. This is not how it works at all. Aggression happens as soon as it is possible, not as a result of calculations; it is the default stance - lack of aggression only happens when forced to back down due to fear of losses. You assume that pacifism is the default stance of the US. I'd say its "profoundly questionable" but that's too generous. Its completely against everything we know at present.

    Again, this is a terrible mentality, made even more terrible because its essentially projecting a certain Chinese shyness, almost cowardice, upon the world.Its terrifyingly self-deceptive.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    There's scant good evidence that military spending below 10% of GDP has any negative economic effects, let alone 5% of GDP.

    The US spent 10% of its GDP on the military in the 1950s, a period of very high growth.

    I am not advocating that sort of hardcore militarization - I think letting spending as a share of GDP drift slowly from 2% to 3% over the next couple of decades would be reasonable - but it's not this ruinous issue that you are making it out to be.
    , @ThatDamnGood

    Have you considered how prematurely showing strength in military spending and confrontation will result in an early response from the US that could cripple China’s ability to clear the final 15-20 years before becoming nearly economically impervious?
     
    We will do it like it like in the old days, when we quietly stockpiling crossbow bolts, food, etc and then when there was enough, we deploy.

    So now the great solution is, we quietly stockpile J-20s, hypersonics, AIP subs, DF-41s, satellite killer missiles, carriers, landing craft, etc and assume the supercomputer chips embargo was a one off thing and that the US will allow us to grow and grow and grow...

    The good ole days...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vishnugupta
    You have demonstrated your own rather low IQ with this post.

    India is in terms of GDP per capita roughly where China was 10-15 years ago.

    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer.

    India is in terms of overall technological ability is superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia.

    Those are irrefutable facts.

    Only a low IQ dimwit will describe a country with nuclear weapons and ICBMs,the world's fourth largest Air Force and a million man army as one of the weakest in the world.

    So you are bragging that India has more technology than Africa and South America? Congratulations…I guess.

    The FACT is that India still can’t get its population to poop in toilets. Anyone who has been to South America and most parts of Africa will tell you that these places feel much more civilized than India. So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.

    As far as the Indian military, when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?

    Indians are the opposite of a martial people, and no matter how many planes you buy they won’t do squat so long as you have Indians piloting them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vishnugupta
    The fact is that you made a factually incorrect post which I refuted.

    As for the rest of your post...

    'the FACT is that India still can’t get its population to poop in toilets...'

    The FACT is that regular bathing slowly caught on in the west towards the end of the 19th century(Why do you think so many perished in the Black death in Western Europe relative to other densely populated parts of Eurasia or indeed places like Finland with their Sauna culture?..Bathing is good for you is a very late 19th/early 20th century discovery for the average W European Country.What of it?

    '...So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.'

    What makes you think I have the remotest interest in convincing you in anything?A country which can send space probes to Mars,design build and launch its own GPS satellites,build its own helicopters,nuclear submarines,aircraft carriers,destroyers,supercomputers etc etc is usually considered by most people with a three digit IQ to have superior technological capability than ones that can't even make their own motorcycles or basic cargo ships.

    'when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?'

    Portugal.Ever wonder how Goa is part of India?
    Other than that we 'Liberated' basically annexed Sikkim in the 1970s and the Chinese could do nothing to stop that back then...

    Historically(Ancient History Wise) the Chola Empire had colonies in S E Asia and the Mauryan Empire ruled northern Afghanistan.

    'Indians are the opposite of a martial people...'

    Yeah sure which is why we could fight Muslins for 1000+ years and not convert to an Abrahamic faith unlike your ancestors who meekly converted to Christianity(We are the only country with the original polytheistic religion still going strong in all Eurasia) and historically neither the Persians under Achamanid,Greeks under Alexander,Arabs under the caliphate or Mongols under the Khanate could conquer despite numerous(50+) attempts the core of Indian civilization(The Gangetic plains).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Ilya says:

    Next few decades:

    US: Hegemon whose full-spectrum dominance will continue to decline with continued “browning”.
    Russia: Sufficient talent and a strong enough streak of the barbarian to play spoiler, nothing more.
    China: Somewhere between the US and Russia.

    Speculatively, once it feels sufficiently threatened, will the US attempt some sort of destabilization of Xinjiang via some Central Asian vector?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    You don't seriously believe that the US isn't involved in the destabilization of Xinjiang now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Jason Liu says:
    @Duke of Qin
    This is a feature, not bug, if you want China to isolate itself from the rest of the world like me. Face it, the developed world is facing declining populations and immigration inundation. The evil empire, the United States, is blessedly the furthest one along this route. The rest of the growing world, is full of stupid and dangerous people whom the Chinese should rightly be wary of and have nothing to do with and are of no account. 100 years is generous. By 2050, the US already only 62% non-Hispanic white, will be in the mid 40's even with ZERO immigration legal or otherwise from today because of differential fertility rates. All the prognostications of eternal American hegemony relished by American imperialists rely on the assumption that new Americans, like New Coke, are just as good as Old Americans and thus Demographics are going to save the day. Karlin, like many of us here, are quietly or not so quietly laughing at this idea.

    Isolationism means China will be surrounded by a hostile, westernized world. It will be outnumbered and pressured from every direction, and increases the chance of western values seeping into China. It’s not a tenable position.

    China might not be interested in a global war of ideology, but ideological war is interested in China. Fight back or the world’s stupid, dangerous people will be at our throats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Isolationism means China will be surrounded by a hostile, westernized world.
     
    the world is getting less westernized as Europe and the US crumble and countries which used to pay lip service to western values for aid money will stop bothering.

    in the most likely (imo) scenario (i.e. assuming America crumbles without a big war between US vs China) China's main external concern will be trying to maintain supply of raw materials from a much more Islamized world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @anonymous
    Your comment doesn't sound like it has any analysis behind it. I have 3 questions for you.

    You can’t just rely on someone else to do the fighting for you.
     
    Russia doesn't need to join in any fight with the US, it will be instrumental if it keeps on shipping oil while the US blockades the world's sea lanes.

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you? In particular, this means supporting Iran. China will take over a lot of the financial burden of Syria reconstruction as announced in July to allow Iran to concentrate on building its defenses.


    misses also the valuable material science knowledge, etc. gained from buildup of a MIC
     
    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000? Money diverted not just to the MIC but a huge military payroll and pensions sucks up economic development. Imagine in what shape the economy would be in currently after 30 years of military spending diverted from railway construction. Having a bigger economy funds mega science projects and more mundane research and development a lot more than high levels of spending on the MIC. And this doesn't even address how much weaker of a position economically and geopolitically China would be with a lower GDP per capita at this point. Too many people who advocate for high military spending seem to essentially have the mentality that money grows on trees and is not a limited resource.

    simply by providing the appearance of weakness, you will invite further aggression.
     
    It is simplistic to say everything short of acting tough right now is a sign of weakness and doesn't take into account the specific context of China's rapid potential and the long term path to acquiring truly impervious strength. If military spending were reduced to 1.5% from 2%, the slowdown would be noted and I suppose some in US strategic circles would regard it as a sign of a less confrontational stance, the success of US pressure, and China's underlying weakness. I'm not certain though it would be interpreted as such in the mainstream US strategic view as China's economic clout and Belt and Road outreach would continue and US strategic circles would feel threatened by the vitality of expansion of non-military sphere of influence.

    And then your view doesn't take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage. At almost 2-times the size of the US economy, it will be very hard for the US to consider a strategy to confront China. That's true strength and it is risked by the current stupidity in the South China Sea.

    Have you considered how prematurely showing strength in military spending and confrontation will result in an early response from the US that could cripple China's ability to clear the final 15-20 years before becoming nearly economically impervious?

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you?

    Because you’re assuming that they are either 1)stupid, or 2)profoundly belligerent in a fashion that’ll completely exclude you from the need to commit to violence. Neither is going to work in the long run, and at best, actually makes you a hostage of forces that you are employing to do violence for you. This is in fact, the exact fall of the Song by relying on “allies” and you’re committing the same mistake.

    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000?

    Not being destroyed. And while its always a balance between butter and guns, leaving oneself completely vulnerable results in enormous political weaknesses with economic consequences in itself, not to mention a lack of ability to mature the military later. Money doesn’t grow on trees; but neither does military experience. Every mistake not made early in peacetime during practice is a mistake that will be made when under attack, with far greater consequences.

    And then your view doesn’t take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage.

    This just demonstrates a near total lack of awareness of how the Western MIC works. Chinese behavior, especially reduction of military strength, is basically irrelevant to whether aggression will happen or not(witness Libya). Wars happen when it benefits the MIC, and against anyone who is vulnerable enough to suffer it. The only realistic way is to make the “simulated war” so costly that it will not be attempted.

    The “early response” in some fashion is coming whether you want it or not, whether being “nearly economically impervious” happens or not. Hostility is inelastic and will only increase. And all of the money won’t solve the lack of experience, the weaknesses in military-specific technology, and coordination.

    This entire application of “true strategy” is projecting an essentially timid mentality upon the US. This is not how it works at all. Aggression happens as soon as it is possible, not as a result of calculations; it is the default stance – lack of aggression only happens when forced to back down due to fear of losses. You assume that pacifism is the default stance of the US. I’d say its “profoundly questionable” but that’s too generous. Its completely against everything we know at present.

    Again, this is a terrible mentality, made even more terrible because its essentially projecting a certain Chinese shyness, almost cowardice, upon the world.Its terrifyingly self-deceptive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Military spending has multiplicative effects, so I wouldn’t just accept the claim that a higher (but still below 5% of GDP) military spending would automatically translate into lower growth.
    , @AaronB
    Stop hyperventilating, Daniel.
    , @anonymous

    Because you’re assuming that they are either 1)stupid, or 2)profoundly belligerent in a fashion that’ll completely exclude you from the need to commit to violence.
     
    I am not speaking in generalities. Specifically, Iran, which is neither stupid or profoundly belligerent. However, it will be attacked and it stands to better survive the pummeling if someone else is paying for life support for Syria.

    Not being destroyed. And while its always a balance between butter and guns, leaving oneself completely vulnerable results in enormous political weaknesses with economic consequences in itself, not to mention a lack of ability to mature the military later.
     
    Is China about to be destroyed? At the current rate of military spending I don't see how the imminent destruction will be inflicted. How would whatever imminent threat be defeated if there was instead 4% spending (also taking into account a poorer the country at that level of military spending)? If spending is capped at either 1.5% or 2% how will that not prevent the maturity of the military later?

    The “early response” in some fashion is coming whether you want it or not, whether being “nearly economically impervious” happens or not.
     
    Do you regard Iran and China as interchangeable in the view of the US strategic community? Your comment implies that the US strategic community views all countries that do not tow the Washington line as equally on the priority list for attack. Obviously, whatever Iran tries to do, give up its nuclear program, etc. it is going to be attacked. That's not true for other countries. After reading Unz Review have you figured out Iran might be a special target above all of the US strategic community? The same zeal is not applicable to China because Zionists are not dedicated to destroying China and nobody has more influence on foreign policy in Washington than Zionists. There is no widespread common view among the US strategic community about what response to take towards China and only some like Clinton and Bannon are of the early as possible attack mode. China can take a more quiet course and reduce the possibility of non-decisional people supporting an early response. At the same time Syrian humanitarian relief efforts can be funded so that Iran is not bankrupted, further preventing an early response.
    , @anonymous

    Again, this is a terrible mentality, made even more terrible because its essentially projecting a certain Chinese shyness, almost cowardice, upon the world.Its terrifyingly self-deceptive.
     
    You can use all sorts of pejorative labels and deceive yourself. My view is measured and realistic based on current capabilities and with patient thought given to the rapid change that can occur in 15-20 years. China is still relatively poor and a vendor country to the US. That is current reality. Only when that reality changes has one earned the right to not act "timidly". I prefer to call it smart and patient in contrast to Indians and their foreign policy.
    , @anonymous

    being destroyed
     
    Hyperbole.

    Aggression happens as soon as it is possible, not as a result of calculations
     
    Zero recognition of the many voices in US strategic thinking. This is an absurd view that implies every single country that is not subordinate to the US is targeted as intensely as Iran. It doesn't even matter whether you are perceived as a threat to the Israeli national interest, aggression just happens immediately!

    completely against everything we know at present
     
    Kind of statement that makes certain the speaker doesn't put a lot of thought into it.

    And while its always a balance between butter and guns, leaving oneself completely vulnerable results in enormous political weaknesses with economic consequences in itself
     
    Have you considered the consequences of being economically weaker at the moment due to 30 years of military spending being diverted from much more efficient production capacity in the form of tens of thousands of kilometers of railways that would otherwise not have been built to cite a specific example?

    I don't see much analysis in your writing or careful thinking. You make all sorts of blanket statements. Not only do you hype the extreme, you also skipped over the downsides of high military spending, not considering the value of a strong economy as the nucleus of national strength. That's a money grows on trees mentality common to people who write about military and strategy. Karlin is an exception and part of what makes his strategy writing exceptional is not only HBD but economic logic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Jason Liu says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I think this is completely wrong.

    First, it's possible to cater to multiple sides. That's what RT (run by liberals and commies) does by alternating between BLM propaganda (previously Occupy Wall Street) and anti-immigration bromides. Other outlets such as Sputnik (run by Nazis) provide the conspiracy theories.

    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can’t appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can’t appeal to the Far Right because it’s not Western.
     
    China can appeal to the left by adopting the anti-racism shtick. It already does that in its annual whataboutist responses to US human rights accusations anyway. Just have people rant on air about it as well, instead of publishing it in some paper that nobody reads. Perhaps scoop up one of those leftist celebrities, such as Greenwald, Blumenthal, Taibbi.

    As for the Far Right, well, you do realize Anglin is a fan? ;)

    * https://dailystormer.name/are-you-aware-of-chinas-program-to-rate-the-social-value-of-celebrities/
    * https://dailystormer.name/chinese-communists-put-a-million-moslems-in-concentration-camps/

    This is the most hardcore Nazi website on the Internet. And they like China already! (even if for mostly made up reasons).

    China has plenty of nationalists, the sort of guys who made up the term baizuo. Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It’s not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there’s a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.
     
    But those faggots are the most influential group in the West so it's still important to target them. Conveniently, China already has good cred with them, so it only needs to reinforce and exploit it. China is more "responsible" than Drumpf, many of them like China's "progressive" attitude to religion, and they really admire China's intensive development of green technologies. They really, really like that. I mean really, what's the contradiction? People who are cool with GloboHomoBezos will be cool with any flavor of technocratic Orwellianism.

    If they had a competent media strategy. Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.

    Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.

    Greatest quote

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @E. Harding
    Yeah; I also found your "It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power" remark weird. What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018? I thought Japan's cultural power peaked in the 1990s, following right behind its economic power, arguably peaking with the Tamagotchi.

    Yes, Japan has been a cultural influence on the West going back to the 1860s when Hokusai’s prints wowed Monet (his wife started wearing a kimono), Degas and de Toulouse-Lautrec. About the only notable recent Chinese artist I am aware of is Ai Weiwei and that is mostly because the authorities keep harassing him.

    http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150409-the-wave-that-swept-the-world

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. neutral says:
    @Vishnugupta
    You have demonstrated your own rather low IQ with this post.

    India is in terms of GDP per capita roughly where China was 10-15 years ago.

    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer.

    India is in terms of overall technological ability is superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia.

    Those are irrefutable facts.

    Only a low IQ dimwit will describe a country with nuclear weapons and ICBMs,the world's fourth largest Air Force and a million man army as one of the weakest in the world.

    India has too many inferior people, the occasional clever Indian with some traces of Aryan blood is heavily outnumbered by the Dravidians. So while I don’t think India is at the level of Sub Saharan Africa, I don’t see it as equal to east Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    The 'inferior' Dravidian state of Tamil Nadu is one of the most industrial states of India. Many southern Indian states are quite developed. The tech capital of India is in Bangalore, Karnataka. Way down south. Meanwhile the 'superior' Aryan north is home to the (in)famous BIMARU belt. Basically the balkans of India.

    There are still rich Indian non-southern states like Gujarat or Maharashtra, but it is more accurate to classify them as western coastal states. The myth of the 'inferior' Dravidians really is outdated.

    , @notanon
    i don't know if there's a north vs south difference in maximum *potential* - i doubt it personally cos reasons - but my guess is India's current IQ distribution is more coast vs inland cos coast = iodine.
    , @Chuck
    The southern Indians are actually more developed than the northerners. The Afghans are even more indo-european than the northern Indians and even less developed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. notanon says:
    @E. Harding
    Yeah; I also found your "It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power" remark weird. What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018? I thought Japan's cultural power peaked in the 1990s, following right behind its economic power, arguably peaking with the Tamagotchi.

    What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018?

    big among the youth (Korea is as well), girls too (if not more so), which is interesting

    looking at it from the outside i think it’s partly a reaction to the poz with one half of the kids being sucked into twerkworld and the other half trying to escape.

    (this is actually the most important cultural power for everyone not just China – kid’s entertainment – that hasn’t been poisoned by the US media – which is easy, just reskin old school Disney)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. neutral says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I think this is completely wrong.

    First, it's possible to cater to multiple sides. That's what RT (run by liberals and commies) does by alternating between BLM propaganda (previously Occupy Wall Street) and anti-immigration bromides. Other outlets such as Sputnik (run by Nazis) provide the conspiracy theories.

    RT has market share in the West because there are receptive market segments for it. Namely, the old school, anti-neoliberal and anti-American Left, which was pro-Soviet or at least Soviet apologists during the Cold War. And the Alt-Right and the anti-neoliberal and anti-American and ethnonationalist Right, who view Russia as traditionalist and at least semi-Western.

    China obviously can’t appeal to these market segments. If it went full Maoist again, it might appeal to some old school Leftists. It can’t appeal to the Far Right because it’s not Western.
     
    China can appeal to the left by adopting the anti-racism shtick. It already does that in its annual whataboutist responses to US human rights accusations anyway. Just have people rant on air about it as well, instead of publishing it in some paper that nobody reads. Perhaps scoop up one of those leftist celebrities, such as Greenwald, Blumenthal, Taibbi.

    As for the Far Right, well, you do realize Anglin is a fan? ;)

    * https://dailystormer.name/are-you-aware-of-chinas-program-to-rate-the-social-value-of-celebrities/
    * https://dailystormer.name/chinese-communists-put-a-million-moslems-in-concentration-camps/

    This is the most hardcore Nazi website on the Internet. And they like China already! (even if for mostly made up reasons).

    China has plenty of nationalists, the sort of guys who made up the term baizuo. Mutually bullyciding SJWs is the road to true friendship of peoples.

    That leaves the neoliberal, woke, and hip hop based cultural mainstream market. It’s not worth trying to appeal to this market, and there’s a great cost to trying to do so, namely spreading this culture domestically.
     
    But those faggots are the most influential group in the West so it's still important to target them. Conveniently, China already has good cred with them, so it only needs to reinforce and exploit it. China is more "responsible" than Drumpf, many of them like China's "progressive" attitude to religion, and they really admire China's intensive development of green technologies. They really, really like that. I mean really, what's the contradiction? People who are cool with GloboHomoBezos will be cool with any flavor of technocratic Orwellianism.

    If they had a competent media strategy. Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.

    Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.

    What media narratives and strategies would you undertake if you ran RT?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kimppis
    I'd really like to know this as well.

    Speaking of RT: https://www.rt.com/news/438339-scripal-uk-suspects-rt-interview/

    Reiner Tor is certainly going to be interested.

    https://i.imgflip.com/1dsob1.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. notanon says:
    @Vishnugupta
    India is the world's fifth largest industrial producer with industrial capabilities superior to any country outside the West,Russia and East Asia and fourth largest spender on armaments.

    It's economic size is roughly what China's was 10-15 years ago..

    the banking mafia are destroying the West and moving to China (imo) but once (if) that is done and they’re settled in China then they’ll get to work destroying China while building up their next host – which will probably be India – they only want/need one hegemon at a time to be their enforcer and debt collector.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't believe your conspiracy theory. But I also don't think the elites would find India a suitable platform to carry on their deeds if it were true.

    India is a literal shit hole and Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Rye
    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.

    Yes, the Chinese sure embarrassed themselves in the Korean conflict….not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Daniel Chieh

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you?
     
    Because you're assuming that they are either 1)stupid, or 2)profoundly belligerent in a fashion that'll completely exclude you from the need to commit to violence. Neither is going to work in the long run, and at best, actually makes you a hostage of forces that you are employing to do violence for you. This is in fact, the exact fall of the Song by relying on "allies" and you're committing the same mistake.

    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000?
     

    Not being destroyed. And while its always a balance between butter and guns, leaving oneself completely vulnerable results in enormous political weaknesses with economic consequences in itself, not to mention a lack of ability to mature the military later. Money doesn't grow on trees; but neither does military experience. Every mistake not made early in peacetime during practice is a mistake that will be made when under attack, with far greater consequences.

    And then your view doesn’t take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage.
     

    This just demonstrates a near total lack of awareness of how the Western MIC works. Chinese behavior, especially reduction of military strength, is basically irrelevant to whether aggression will happen or not(witness Libya). Wars happen when it benefits the MIC, and against anyone who is vulnerable enough to suffer it. The only realistic way is to make the "simulated war" so costly that it will not be attempted.

    The "early response" in some fashion is coming whether you want it or not, whether being "nearly economically impervious" happens or not. Hostility is inelastic and will only increase. And all of the money won't solve the lack of experience, the weaknesses in military-specific technology, and coordination.

    This entire application of "true strategy" is projecting an essentially timid mentality upon the US. This is not how it works at all. Aggression happens as soon as it is possible, not as a result of calculations; it is the default stance - lack of aggression only happens when forced to back down due to fear of losses. You assume that pacifism is the default stance of the US. I'd say its "profoundly questionable" but that's too generous. Its completely against everything we know at present.

    Again, this is a terrible mentality, made even more terrible because its essentially projecting a certain Chinese shyness, almost cowardice, upon the world.Its terrifyingly self-deceptive.

    Military spending has multiplicative effects, so I wouldn’t just accept the claim that a higher (but still below 5% of GDP) military spending would automatically translate into lower growth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Kimppis says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Obviously, that question was meant as a joke. There is only one country in Asia with the potential to match Russia in military power, and it has yet to do so, despite allegedly outspending Russia by 200% in 2018.

    You need to explain this. At which point China's economic power turns into military power, and they stop buying Russian military equipment?

    People keep repeating how Russia’s conventional military power is still superior to that of China, but I’m really not convinced that is the case anymore. I’d say they’re overall very comparable.

    In certain areas China is quite clearly ahead of Russia, like the surface fleet, and they even have twice as many modern diesel subs. China might even have more “very modern” MBTs (it can be argued that the upgraded Type 96s, T-72s and T-80s are also modern). The PLA has probably close to 1000 Type 99 tanks. How many T-90s are operational in Russia? Maybe 500? That’s just one “surprising” example.

    You are really exaggerating China’s dependence on Russian military technology.

    So when will they stop buying Russian military equipment? Within the next 5-10 years. They might order some additional Su-35s and S-400s, because it would make a lot of sense, but that will be pretty much be it.

    It’s also extremely misleading to say that the MiG-21 (J-7) is the most numerous Chinese fighter. The PLAAF might have more Flankers combined already, if you include all the different variants, it’s very close.

    But in any case, and even more importantly, China actually has slightly more 4th generation fighters in service than Russia. Not to mention those 20-30 5th gen J-20s vs. Russia’s 0. At this rate, in the worst case scenario (for Russia), that gap could increase to something like 200-300 (and I’m not even including some potential surprises, like the J-31 program) vs. 20-50 Su-57s by the mid-2020s. (I guess technically that’s not an increase when the current Russian total is 0, and you could even include those 150-200 Su-35s for Russia, but whatever, the point is clear.)

    Also, hundreds of those 4th gen fighters are actually equipped with Chinese engines (they mostly have issues with single engine J-10s), as I’ve mentioned previously. China’s engine technology is just a meme at this point.

    The only reason why some of those J-7s are still in service is the very simple fact that the Chinese fighter fleet is like 2 times larger than Russia’s and the second largest in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Felix is an interesting contrast to the nationalistic Chinese commentators here. The Chinese stress the need not to underestimate the adversaries and rivals, while you cannot have an enemy or potential enemy or potential rival of Russia who is not dismissed by Felix. Be it Ukraine, China, South Korea, the USA, or Western Europeans, he thinks they are all massively inferior to Russia and Russia could easily handle each of them. This is not the smartest mindset. Felix should learn from Anatoly or the nationalists of the Chinese persuasion here.
    , @Felix Keverich

    The PLA has probably close to 1000 Type 99 tanks. How many T-90s are operational in Russia? Maybe 500? That’s just one “surprising” example.

    It’s also extremely misleading to say that the MiG-21 (J-7) is the most numerous Chinese fighter. The PLAAF might have more Flankers combined already, if you include all the different variants, it’s very close.
     
    Chinese "Flankers" and tanks may not be equivalent to their Russian counterparts. They have never been tested in combat or exported anywhere, so how do we know if they are any good. How do we know if Chinese engines are good? It could be that "Flankers" equipped with Chinese engines are kept in storage, the ones that actually fly are using Russian engines ;)

    Lack of exports from China to me is particularly noteworthy: is this because they fear upsetting Russia or because there are no buyers for Chinese crap?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Anonymous[851] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon
    the banking mafia are destroying the West and moving to China (imo) but once (if) that is done and they're settled in China then they'll get to work destroying China while building up their next host - which will probably be India - they only want/need one hegemon at a time to be their enforcer and debt collector.

    I don’t believe your conspiracy theory. But I also don’t think the elites would find India a suitable platform to carry on their deeds if it were true.

    India is a literal shit hole and Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.
     
    Good for the Indians. I say, power to them.
    , @notanon
    i agree but i think their behavior is more instinctive than rational
    , @Chuck

    Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.
     
    There really should be some kind of basic knowledge test for commenters.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Indians do a fine job mistreating their women all by themselves. They don’t need foreign help.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Anonymous[851] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rye
    You have a point. Recent hunter-gatherer/herder ancestry seems to be correlated with martial spirit and athletic inclinations. Chinese have been Malthusian farmers for longer than perhaps any other population on Earth and have spent most of their history being ruled by external hunter/herder martial elites.

    Hmmm. I seem to recall a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam driving America out of their country.

    The man in the black pajama is a worthy fucking adversary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend

    The man in the black pajama is a worthy fucking adversary
     
    I agree.

    https://i.imgur.com/E2KXWYd.jpg
    , @Rye

    Hmmm. I seem to recall a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam driving America out of their country.
     
    Funny, I can't seem to recall this event. Could you remind me of which battle it was that the Vietnamese won? I was under the false impression that America achieved its war aims by forcing North Vietnam to end hostilities, with North Vietnam only resuming hostilities against South Vietnam after an American military withdrawal and during a period of unrelated political upheaval in the United States.

    Besides, I'm talking about serious explicitly ethnic conflicts over territory and resources, not weird ideological interventions whose aims are ostensibly to benefit the population with whom you are fighting. Also, Vietnamese, like Japanese, serve as exceptions which prove the rule, as both populations have substantial recent non-agricultural ancestry and both have repeatedly proven themselves to be better warriors than the Chinese.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Jon0815 says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Nominal GDP converging with PPP-adjusted GDP is a universal phenomenon when countries become richer.

    The past five years are an anomaly in the opposite direction that just means that nominal GDP should soon start expanding much more rapidly than real growth. (It was expanding at 20% per year during 2005-2012).

    Nominal GDP converging with PPP-adjusted GDP is a universal phenomenon when countries become richer.

    The past five years are an anomaly in the opposite direction that just means that nominal GDP should soon start expanding much more rapidly than real growth. (It was expanding at 20% per year during 2005-2012).

    Yes, I’ve made this point myself in noting that Russia doesn’t need faster real GDP growth than the UK to overtake the UK in nominal GDP. However, I think a 7-year time frame for China overtaking the USA in nominal GDP is probably unrealistic. While convergence between nominal and PPP-adjusted GDP is inevitable, it happens faster when real GDP growth is faster . A 20% annual increase in nominal GDP was possible when China’s real GDP growth was 12%, but those days are over. Also, I think that while the Sino-skeptics predicting a hard economic landing, will probably continue to be wrong, the chances of them being proven right within the next 7 years are nontrivial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Kimppis says:
    @neutral

    Speaking of which, I am offering my services as a media consultant for the very, very low price of $500 per hour.
     
    What media narratives and strategies would you undertake if you ran RT?

    I’d really like to know this as well.

    Speaking of RT: https://www.rt.com/news/438339-scripal-uk-suspects-rt-interview/

    Reiner Tor is certainly going to be interested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Certainly. I actually linked to an article about Putin mentioning that they found the guys.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Kimppis
    People keep repeating how Russia's conventional military power is still superior to that of China, but I'm really not convinced that is the case anymore. I'd say they're overall very comparable.

    In certain areas China is quite clearly ahead of Russia, like the surface fleet, and they even have twice as many modern diesel subs. China might even have more "very modern" MBTs (it can be argued that the upgraded Type 96s, T-72s and T-80s are also modern). The PLA has probably close to 1000 Type 99 tanks. How many T-90s are operational in Russia? Maybe 500? That's just one "surprising" example.

    You are really exaggerating China's dependence on Russian military technology.

    So when will they stop buying Russian military equipment? Within the next 5-10 years. They might order some additional Su-35s and S-400s, because it would make a lot of sense, but that will be pretty much be it.

    It's also extremely misleading to say that the MiG-21 (J-7) is the most numerous Chinese fighter. The PLAAF might have more Flankers combined already, if you include all the different variants, it's very close.

    But in any case, and even more importantly, China actually has slightly more 4th generation fighters in service than Russia. Not to mention those 20-30 5th gen J-20s vs. Russia's 0. At this rate, in the worst case scenario (for Russia), that gap could increase to something like 200-300 (and I'm not even including some potential surprises, like the J-31 program) vs. 20-50 Su-57s by the mid-2020s. (I guess technically that's not an increase when the current Russian total is 0, and you could even include those 150-200 Su-35s for Russia, but whatever, the point is clear.)

    Also, hundreds of those 4th gen fighters are actually equipped with Chinese engines (they mostly have issues with single engine J-10s), as I've mentioned previously. China's engine technology is just a meme at this point.

    The only reason why some of those J-7s are still in service is the very simple fact that the Chinese fighter fleet is like 2 times larger than Russia's and the second largest in the world.

    Felix is an interesting contrast to the nationalistic Chinese commentators here. The Chinese stress the need not to underestimate the adversaries and rivals, while you cannot have an enemy or potential enemy or potential rival of Russia who is not dismissed by Felix. Be it Ukraine, China, South Korea, the USA, or Western Europeans, he thinks they are all massively inferior to Russia and Russia could easily handle each of them. This is not the smartest mindset. Felix should learn from Anatoly or the nationalists of the Chinese persuasion here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Sinotrimph 101 is riddled with magic thinking, any inconveniences are dismissed by Karlin out of hand - how is this smart? I just want to bring some balance into this conversation mainly by poking holes in Karlin's vision.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. notanon says:
    @Jason Liu
    Isolationism means China will be surrounded by a hostile, westernized world. It will be outnumbered and pressured from every direction, and increases the chance of western values seeping into China. It's not a tenable position.

    China might not be interested in a global war of ideology, but ideological war is interested in China. Fight back or the world's stupid, dangerous people will be at our throats.

    Isolationism means China will be surrounded by a hostile, westernized world.

    the world is getting less westernized as Europe and the US crumble and countries which used to pay lip service to western values for aid money will stop bothering.

    in the most likely (imo) scenario (i.e. assuming America crumbles without a big war between US vs China) China’s main external concern will be trying to maintain supply of raw materials from a much more Islamized world.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Kimppis
    I'd really like to know this as well.

    Speaking of RT: https://www.rt.com/news/438339-scripal-uk-suspects-rt-interview/

    Reiner Tor is certainly going to be interested.

    https://i.imgflip.com/1dsob1.jpg

    Certainly. I actually linked to an article about Putin mentioning that they found the guys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Anonymous
    I don't believe your conspiracy theory. But I also don't think the elites would find India a suitable platform to carry on their deeds if it were true.

    India is a literal shit hole and Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.

    Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.

    Good for the Indians. I say, power to them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Tulip says:
    @Ilya
    Next few decades:

    US: Hegemon whose full-spectrum dominance will continue to decline with continued "browning".
    Russia: Sufficient talent and a strong enough streak of the barbarian to play spoiler, nothing more.
    China: Somewhere between the US and Russia.

    Speculatively, once it feels sufficiently threatened, will the US attempt some sort of destabilization of Xinjiang via some Central Asian vector?

    You don’t seriously believe that the US isn’t involved in the destabilization of Xinjiang now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Anonymous
    So you are bragging that India has more technology than Africa and South America? Congratulations...I guess.

    The FACT is that India still can't get its population to poop in toilets. Anyone who has been to South America and most parts of Africa will tell you that these places feel much more civilized than India. So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.

    As far as the Indian military, when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?

    Indians are the opposite of a martial people, and no matter how many planes you buy they won't do squat so long as you have Indians piloting them.

    The fact is that you made a factually incorrect post which I refuted.

    As for the rest of your post…

    ‘the FACT is that India still can’t get its population to poop in toilets…’

    The FACT is that regular bathing slowly caught on in the west towards the end of the 19th century(Why do you think so many perished in the Black death in Western Europe relative to other densely populated parts of Eurasia or indeed places like Finland with their Sauna culture?..Bathing is good for you is a very late 19th/early 20th century discovery for the average W European Country.What of it?

    ‘…So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.’

    What makes you think I have the remotest interest in convincing you in anything?A country which can send space probes to Mars,design build and launch its own GPS satellites,build its own helicopters,nuclear submarines,aircraft carriers,destroyers,supercomputers etc etc is usually considered by most people with a three digit IQ to have superior technological capability than ones that can’t even make their own motorcycles or basic cargo ships.

    ‘when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?’

    Portugal.Ever wonder how Goa is part of India?
    Other than that we ‘Liberated’ basically annexed Sikkim in the 1970s and the Chinese could do nothing to stop that back then…

    Historically(Ancient History Wise) the Chola Empire had colonies in S E Asia and the Mauryan Empire ruled northern Afghanistan.

    ‘Indians are the opposite of a martial people…’

    Yeah sure which is why we could fight Muslins for 1000+ years and not convert to an Abrahamic faith unlike your ancestors who meekly converted to Christianity(We are the only country with the original polytheistic religion still going strong in all Eurasia) and historically neither the Persians under Achamanid,Greeks under Alexander,Arabs under the caliphate or Mongols under the Khanate could conquer despite numerous(50+) attempts the core of Indian civilization(The Gangetic plains).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think there’s both too much India-bashing and unhinged Indian commentators here in this thread.

    India is going to be a greater power, though constantly behind China, in the future. They will probably be behind the US and perhaps even Russia in military strength (especially counting nukes), but it’s not a big deal. No one will be able to conquer them, and they won’t be much interested in conquering anyone. They will be good enough that their upper class will have it jolly good, but probably their average income level will stay much lower than in Europe.

    No one is interested in how big or small Indian cocks are, so let’s just stop the topic.

    , @Beckow

    ...regular bathing slowly caught on in the west towards the end of the 19th century
     
    That is an incorrect analogy to India's hygiene issues today. What Europe had was increasingly decent plumbing - you know, the pipes in the ground. And pleasant weather and geography. India lacks that; it is a function of India's geography: too hot, humid, insects-infested, materials go to rot there. Extreme over-crowding doesn't help, real infrastructure becomes impossible in those circumstances.

    It is unlikely that the same gradual improvements will take place in India. Geography matters, (I keep saying the obvious), and India is unlucky. So is sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Asia and Middle East. Geography will always limit those areas. There is a reason why mankind over time developed in the more pleasant geographic regions. There is also a reason why most Indians would give their right hand to escape India and move elsewhere. My selfish view is that in a who-whom world, our priority will have to be to keep them out. Comparing plumbing is really just a distraction.

    Beating Portugal? Good, somebody had to do it.

    , @Anonymous
    India won a war against China? I really doubt that.

    The other "war" you site that India won against Portugal in the "Battle of Goa" shows 30 Portugese casualties vs 22 Indian casualties lol. That is not a war which proves my point.

    Bathing slowly caught on in the West because the technology such as piping and hot water was an emerging technology. You can hardly compare that to getting Indians to not poop in the street. Who cares if you launch some satellites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. notanon says:
    @Anonymous
    I don't believe your conspiracy theory. But I also don't think the elites would find India a suitable platform to carry on their deeds if it were true.

    India is a literal shit hole and Indians are too xenophobic to allow foreign elites to move into their country and hit up on their women.

    i agree but i think their behavior is more instinctive than rational

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Vishnugupta
    The fact is that you made a factually incorrect post which I refuted.

    As for the rest of your post...

    'the FACT is that India still can’t get its population to poop in toilets...'

    The FACT is that regular bathing slowly caught on in the west towards the end of the 19th century(Why do you think so many perished in the Black death in Western Europe relative to other densely populated parts of Eurasia or indeed places like Finland with their Sauna culture?..Bathing is good for you is a very late 19th/early 20th century discovery for the average W European Country.What of it?

    '...So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.'

    What makes you think I have the remotest interest in convincing you in anything?A country which can send space probes to Mars,design build and launch its own GPS satellites,build its own helicopters,nuclear submarines,aircraft carriers,destroyers,supercomputers etc etc is usually considered by most people with a three digit IQ to have superior technological capability than ones that can't even make their own motorcycles or basic cargo ships.

    'when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?'

    Portugal.Ever wonder how Goa is part of India?
    Other than that we 'Liberated' basically annexed Sikkim in the 1970s and the Chinese could do nothing to stop that back then...

    Historically(Ancient History Wise) the Chola Empire had colonies in S E Asia and the Mauryan Empire ruled northern Afghanistan.

    'Indians are the opposite of a martial people...'

    Yeah sure which is why we could fight Muslins for 1000+ years and not convert to an Abrahamic faith unlike your ancestors who meekly converted to Christianity(We are the only country with the original polytheistic religion still going strong in all Eurasia) and historically neither the Persians under Achamanid,Greeks under Alexander,Arabs under the caliphate or Mongols under the Khanate could conquer despite numerous(50+) attempts the core of Indian civilization(The Gangetic plains).

    I think there’s both too much India-bashing and unhinged Indian commentators here in this thread.

    India is going to be a greater power, though constantly behind China, in the future. They will probably be behind the US and perhaps even Russia in military strength (especially counting nukes), but it’s not a big deal. No one will be able to conquer them, and they won’t be much interested in conquering anyone. They will be good enough that their upper class will have it jolly good, but probably their average income level will stay much lower than in Europe.

    No one is interested in how big or small Indian cocks are, so let’s just stop the topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Agree with basically every point.

    Peace.
    , @Vishnugupta
    My medium term (15+ year) prediction for India basically matches what you are stating and I do not intend to hazard a guess as to the standing of India in 2050,2100 or some other absurdly long time frame. The variables are too many.A chest thumping right wing Hindu nationalist I certainly am not.

    My comments have been entirely reactive to this particularly odious commentator so it would be unfair to hold me responsible for this regrettable exchange of acerbic views.Though mine are still mostly grounded in facts while his are primarily based on opinions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. notanon says:

    i really don’t get analysis founded on the premise that US elites are acting on the basis of US national interest when everyone knows they off-shored the US manufacturing base to China – you don’t put all your assets in a country you intend to fight.

    the only way the US will end up fighting China is if 1) there’s an internal power struggle and a more nationalist minded elite comes to power or 2) if/when China is forced to stop the current US elite moving their factories from China to somewhere cheaper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  212. Talha says:
    @reiner Tor
    I think there’s both too much India-bashing and unhinged Indian commentators here in this thread.

    India is going to be a greater power, though constantly behind China, in the future. They will probably be behind the US and perhaps even Russia in military strength (especially counting nukes), but it’s not a big deal. No one will be able to conquer them, and they won’t be much interested in conquering anyone. They will be good enough that their upper class will have it jolly good, but probably their average income level will stay much lower than in Europe.

    No one is interested in how big or small Indian cocks are, so let’s just stop the topic.

    Agree with basically every point.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @reiner Tor
    I think there’s both too much India-bashing and unhinged Indian commentators here in this thread.

    India is going to be a greater power, though constantly behind China, in the future. They will probably be behind the US and perhaps even Russia in military strength (especially counting nukes), but it’s not a big deal. No one will be able to conquer them, and they won’t be much interested in conquering anyone. They will be good enough that their upper class will have it jolly good, but probably their average income level will stay much lower than in Europe.

    No one is interested in how big or small Indian cocks are, so let’s just stop the topic.

    My medium term (15+ year) prediction for India basically matches what you are stating and I do not intend to hazard a guess as to the standing of India in 2050,2100 or some other absurdly long time frame. The variables are too many.A chest thumping right wing Hindu nationalist I certainly am not.

    My comments have been entirely reactive to this particularly odious commentator so it would be unfair to hold me responsible for this regrettable exchange of acerbic views.Though mine are still mostly grounded in facts while his are primarily based on opinions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Dmitry
    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.

    Japan won Russo-Japanese War already in 1905, defeating Europe's largest country, and Europe's most important rising power.

    By 1930s, Japan are following the same colonial path in Asia, as European great powers, simply a few decades too late.

    In 1940, Mitsubishi Zero - possibly the best fighter plane in the world in this stage of the war.

    There was disruption ending in nuclear bombing by America. But inevitable rapid recovery of Japan surprises not more than equivalent postwar recovery in West Germany.

    Japan's engineering ability, high cultural contribution and civilized lifestyle - it's demonstrably known to the world over the century. In China, we have almost an opposite story of modern history. China were a disaster zone and failures until the early 2000s. Some of this attributable to communism of course.

    Now finally, we some sparks potential from them - I think of surprisingly quality of Huawei smartphones. But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there's no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).

    In military terms, Japan was a major military power by beginning of 20th century, while China has showed no military ability


    -

    So I agree with overall theme. I'm sure China will continue developing and they will become the world's largest economy by around 2030.

    But there is not evidence yet of a "spark of genius", - yet this "spark" was evident to observers of Japan over a century ago, and observers of Germany over two centuries ago.

    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.

    But China influenced Europe more in the 18th century. The Enlightenment thinkers admired its system of government, which was in many ways more laissez-faire than the contemporary order in Europe. There was an early version of CafePress – (very rich) Europeans would sent their porcelain designs to China, the Chinese would produce it, and ship it back, all within a year. (If you’re ever in Oxford, the Ashmolean Museum has a wonderful exposition on this trade).

    It was then that the key divergence began. China actually slipped in not only relative, but absolute terms during the 19th century, whereas Japan continued ploughing ahead, rapidly building up its human capital during the 18-19th centuries (literacy was at 40% by mid-19th century IIRC), so it was in a much better position to be competitive once it opened up.

    All of this – a 20 year lead of South Korea due to effects of Maoism, and a 40 year lead by Japan due to that plus “deeper” history – is perfectly consistent with my arguments.

    But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there’s no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).

    Worth noting that the Japanese themselves were quite pessimistic about their potential during that period:

    Wealthy we do not at all think [Japan] will ever become: the advantages con­ferred by nature, with the exception of climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves, forbid it. The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much. – Japan Herald, 9 April 1881

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The Enlightenment thinkers admired its system of government, which was in many ways more laissez-faire than the contemporary order in Europe.
     
    There might have been a bit of vanity mixed in there. It was, IIRC, Tocqueville who remarked that the Philosophes loved the Chinese way of doing things precisely because they envisioned a society where they were at/near the top.
    , @AaronB

    Wealthy we do not at all think [Japan] will ever become: the advantages con­ferred by nature, with the exception of climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves, forbid it. The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much. – Japan Herald, 9 April 1881
     
    Jesus that's hilarious, to hear it stated so plainly.

    Of course the significance of this flew over everyone's heads here, esp Anatoly.

    We've figured out how to close the racial achievement gap lol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @E. Harding
    Yeah; I also found your "It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power" remark weird. What progress has Japan made in the world cultural sphere between 2008 and 2018? I thought Japan's cultural power peaked in the 1990s, following right behind its economic power, arguably peaking with the Tamagotchi.

    I might have been overly influenced by Dmitry on this issue in recent months, instead of assessing it independently.

    He is correct that Japanese culture in Russia specifically has never been stronger.

    However, come to think of it, its peak in the US came much earlier. And I don’t think it has influenced Europe (or Britain, at any rate) much at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Toronto Russian

    And I don’t think it has influenced Europe (or Britain, at any rate) much at all.
     
    On anime and manga in France: anime got big there in the 1970s, when Space Pirate Captain Harlock and Candy Candy were dubbed for French TV. Pretty much all the kids watched them; an episode of Candy Candy where the heroine's love interest died caused such shock and outcry around the country that they had to change the dub urgently and retcon him as alive. Lots of manga books have been officially translated to French (not fan translated like manga usually was in America) and are sold together with their own very popular BD comics. Combined sales of BD, manga and other comics in 2015 were 39 million copies, for a population of 66.9 million people. You can see BD stores, with manga sections, surviving in the very heart of Paris despite enormous rent. Also, recent cartoon series Miraculous was conceived as "French anime", got an anime-style trailer, was eventually made in 3D because it's what modern kids watch, but retained a lot of Japanese cliches and style.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. iffen says:
    @AaronB
    Hikikimori are just intelligent people opting out of the empty culture of making money, hustling, inventing technology, and gaining status that fewer and fewer people can seriously claim is leading anywhere.

    They are all just Bartleby The Sctiveners.

    It is really a return to historical norm - especially for Japan, an East Asian culture. Historically there were always large numbers of people intelligent enough to see through the delusions of the rat race - they would become monks, hermits, wanderers, wandering tradesmen, or take up simple positions as craftsmen that would allow them lots of free time for contemplation.

    Society made space for such people.

    Spinoza was a humble lens grinder - if he was alive today he'd have to work multiple jobs at Starbucks just to scrape by. Einstein was a postal clerk - today, the culture of the USPS is one of overwork and hustle.

    Hikikimori are just a revolt against stupidity and pointless activity. Its entirely natural that this should begin in Japan, because Japan has always passed more quickly through the stages of the disease of modernity, and because East Asia has always had the world's richest tradition of contemplative idleness. This is a country that produced a medieval classic called Essays In Idleness.

    China is going through a rebellious adolescent phase where it has to strut around like a peacock on the world stage, and Korea on a smaller scale has to prove itself also - Koreans are very insecure.

    Only Japan is ready to begin entering the post-modern phase, and rediscover its East Asian cultural heritage.

    I fully predict we will be seeing the same hikikimori phenomenon in Europe, and a bit later, in America, as more and more people opt out of the culture of pointless work, often only to create technology of ever decreasing significance, and we enter the post-modern phase.

    That will be a return to the historical norm.

    It is really a return to historical norm

    We were kicked out of the Garden and not allowed back in, ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    We're already in paradise, just people don't know it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @anonymous
    Your comment doesn't sound like it has any analysis behind it. I have 3 questions for you.

    You can’t just rely on someone else to do the fighting for you.
     
    Russia doesn't need to join in any fight with the US, it will be instrumental if it keeps on shipping oil while the US blockades the world's sea lanes.

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you? In particular, this means supporting Iran. China will take over a lot of the financial burden of Syria reconstruction as announced in July to allow Iran to concentrate on building its defenses.


    misses also the valuable material science knowledge, etc. gained from buildup of a MIC
     
    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000? Money diverted not just to the MIC but a huge military payroll and pensions sucks up economic development. Imagine in what shape the economy would be in currently after 30 years of military spending diverted from railway construction. Having a bigger economy funds mega science projects and more mundane research and development a lot more than high levels of spending on the MIC. And this doesn't even address how much weaker of a position economically and geopolitically China would be with a lower GDP per capita at this point. Too many people who advocate for high military spending seem to essentially have the mentality that money grows on trees and is not a limited resource.

    simply by providing the appearance of weakness, you will invite further aggression.
     
    It is simplistic to say everything short of acting tough right now is a sign of weakness and doesn't take into account the specific context of China's rapid potential and the long term path to acquiring truly impervious strength. If military spending were reduced to 1.5% from 2%, the slowdown would be noted and I suppose some in US strategic circles would regard it as a sign of a less confrontational stance, the success of US pressure, and China's underlying weakness. I'm not certain though it would be interpreted as such in the mainstream US strategic view as China's economic clout and Belt and Road outreach would continue and US strategic circles would feel threatened by the vitality of expansion of non-military sphere of influence.

    And then your view doesn't take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage. At almost 2-times the size of the US economy, it will be very hard for the US to consider a strategy to confront China. That's true strength and it is risked by the current stupidity in the South China Sea.

    Have you considered how prematurely showing strength in military spending and confrontation will result in an early response from the US that could cripple China's ability to clear the final 15-20 years before becoming nearly economically impervious?

    There’s scant good evidence that military spending below 10% of GDP has any negative economic effects, let alone 5% of GDP.

    The US spent 10% of its GDP on the military in the 1950s, a period of very high growth.

    I am not advocating that sort of hardcore militarization – I think letting spending as a share of GDP drift slowly from 2% to 3% over the next couple of decades would be reasonable – but it’s not this ruinous issue that you are making it out to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    You realise that American age structrure and structure of government spending was very different during 1950s? Social security accounted for 6.46% of the budget in 1955. Today Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for 62% of the federal budget spending is their share is projected to grow.

    A country like South Korea won't be able to significantly increase its military spending without gutting its pension programs or exploding its debt. I'm not sure how pensions work in China, but they will probably have to rely on debt as well.

    East Asia is radidly aging and China will need to figure out what to do about their growing army of old people - most likely developing welfare state will take priority over military build-up.
    , @anonymous
    I'm doubtful of this claim but to specifically discuss China, I believe government spending over the last 30 years has been so efficient in not only raising growth but productivity that if there had been a lot more military spending during this period, it would have meant funds used efficiently by the government would have gone to cover a giant personnel payroll, pensions, and some military R&D. There's also a terrible lot of graft in the military.

    To give you an idea of large chunks of the "discretionary" government budget. In 2018, the railway construction budget was 800 billion RMB or 1% of GDP. Another 1% probably goes to subways, highways, and airports. Taxes are also relatively low.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Kimppis
    People keep repeating how Russia's conventional military power is still superior to that of China, but I'm really not convinced that is the case anymore. I'd say they're overall very comparable.

    In certain areas China is quite clearly ahead of Russia, like the surface fleet, and they even have twice as many modern diesel subs. China might even have more "very modern" MBTs (it can be argued that the upgraded Type 96s, T-72s and T-80s are also modern). The PLA has probably close to 1000 Type 99 tanks. How many T-90s are operational in Russia? Maybe 500? That's just one "surprising" example.

    You are really exaggerating China's dependence on Russian military technology.

    So when will they stop buying Russian military equipment? Within the next 5-10 years. They might order some additional Su-35s and S-400s, because it would make a lot of sense, but that will be pretty much be it.

    It's also extremely misleading to say that the MiG-21 (J-7) is the most numerous Chinese fighter. The PLAAF might have more Flankers combined already, if you include all the different variants, it's very close.

    But in any case, and even more importantly, China actually has slightly more 4th generation fighters in service than Russia. Not to mention those 20-30 5th gen J-20s vs. Russia's 0. At this rate, in the worst case scenario (for Russia), that gap could increase to something like 200-300 (and I'm not even including some potential surprises, like the J-31 program) vs. 20-50 Su-57s by the mid-2020s. (I guess technically that's not an increase when the current Russian total is 0, and you could even include those 150-200 Su-35s for Russia, but whatever, the point is clear.)

    Also, hundreds of those 4th gen fighters are actually equipped with Chinese engines (they mostly have issues with single engine J-10s), as I've mentioned previously. China's engine technology is just a meme at this point.

    The only reason why some of those J-7s are still in service is the very simple fact that the Chinese fighter fleet is like 2 times larger than Russia's and the second largest in the world.

    The PLA has probably close to 1000 Type 99 tanks. How many T-90s are operational in Russia? Maybe 500? That’s just one “surprising” example.

    It’s also extremely misleading to say that the MiG-21 (J-7) is the most numerous Chinese fighter. The PLAAF might have more Flankers combined already, if you include all the different variants, it’s very close.

    Chinese “Flankers” and tanks may not be equivalent to their Russian counterparts. They have never been tested in combat or exported anywhere, so how do we know if they are any good. How do we know if Chinese engines are good? It could be that “Flankers” equipped with Chinese engines are kept in storage, the ones that actually fly are using Russian engines ;)

    Lack of exports from China to me is particularly noteworthy: is this because they fear upsetting Russia or because there are no buyers for Chinese crap?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @reiner Tor
    Felix is an interesting contrast to the nationalistic Chinese commentators here. The Chinese stress the need not to underestimate the adversaries and rivals, while you cannot have an enemy or potential enemy or potential rival of Russia who is not dismissed by Felix. Be it Ukraine, China, South Korea, the USA, or Western Europeans, he thinks they are all massively inferior to Russia and Russia could easily handle each of them. This is not the smartest mindset. Felix should learn from Anatoly or the nationalists of the Chinese persuasion here.

    Sinotrimph 101 is riddled with magic thinking, any inconveniences are dismissed by Karlin out of hand – how is this smart? I just want to bring some balance into this conversation mainly by poking holes in Karlin’s vision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Nznz says: • Website

    What are the odds that China will succumb to cultural Westernization, given the enormous number of Chinese tourists and students abroad, plus while Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Wikipedia, and YouTube are banned in China, getting around them is relatively easy to get around if you have a VPN.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    What are the odds that China will succumb to cultural Westernization
     
    westernization in the sense of liberal democracy i'd say the odds of that are declining rapidly as the western nations decay

    westernization in terms of poz i'd say the odds are quite high unless they create an alternative - trying to seal themselves off from US media is a good idea but probably not enough for the reasons you mention - in particular China / Russia etc need their own (oldschool) Disney to set their youngsters on the right path before they eventually come into contact with the poz.

    (this would also be good for any surviving enclaves of homeschooling sanity left in the west)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Anatoly Karlin
    There's scant good evidence that military spending below 10% of GDP has any negative economic effects, let alone 5% of GDP.

    The US spent 10% of its GDP on the military in the 1950s, a period of very high growth.

    I am not advocating that sort of hardcore militarization - I think letting spending as a share of GDP drift slowly from 2% to 3% over the next couple of decades would be reasonable - but it's not this ruinous issue that you are making it out to be.

    You realise that American age structrure and structure of government spending was very different during 1950s? Social security accounted for 6.46% of the budget in 1955. Today Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for 62% of the federal budget spending is their share is projected to grow.

    A country like South Korea won’t be able to significantly increase its military spending without gutting its pension programs or exploding its debt. I’m not sure how pensions work in China, but they will probably have to rely on debt as well.

    East Asia is radidly aging and China will need to figure out what to do about their growing army of old people – most likely developing welfare state will take priority over military build-up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Or they will conquer the world with a massive army of aged kung-fu masters!!!

    C’mon, you all know we’ve been waiting for this!
    https://c7.alamy.com/comp/KKEDP3/keye-luke-master-po-kung-fu-KKEDP3.jpg

    Resistance is KUNG FUTILE!!!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Talha says:
    @Felix Keverich
    You realise that American age structrure and structure of government spending was very different during 1950s? Social security accounted for 6.46% of the budget in 1955. Today Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for 62% of the federal budget spending is their share is projected to grow.

    A country like South Korea won't be able to significantly increase its military spending without gutting its pension programs or exploding its debt. I'm not sure how pensions work in China, but they will probably have to rely on debt as well.

    East Asia is radidly aging and China will need to figure out what to do about their growing army of old people - most likely developing welfare state will take priority over military build-up.

    Or they will conquer the world with a massive army of aged kung-fu masters!!!

    C’mon, you all know we’ve been waiting for this!

    Resistance is KUNG FUTILE!!!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    That was a groan-worthy pun ... and therefore an excellent one.

    But I might have to sue you for PUNitive damages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. notanon says:
    @Nznz
    What are the odds that China will succumb to cultural Westernization, given the enormous number of Chinese tourists and students abroad, plus while Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Wikipedia, and YouTube are banned in China, getting around them is relatively easy to get around if you have a VPN.

    What are the odds that China will succumb to cultural Westernization

    westernization in the sense of liberal democracy i’d say the odds of that are declining rapidly as the western nations decay

    westernization in terms of poz i’d say the odds are quite high unless they create an alternative – trying to seal themselves off from US media is a good idea but probably not enough for the reasons you mention – in particular China / Russia etc need their own (oldschool) Disney to set their youngsters on the right path before they eventually come into contact with the poz.

    (this would also be good for any surviving enclaves of homeschooling sanity left in the west)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Beckow says:
    @Vishnugupta
    The fact is that you made a factually incorrect post which I refuted.

    As for the rest of your post...

    'the FACT is that India still can’t get its population to poop in toilets...'

    The FACT is that regular bathing slowly caught on in the west towards the end of the 19th century(Why do you think so many perished in the Black death in Western Europe relative to other densely populated parts of Eurasia or indeed places like Finland with their Sauna culture?..Bathing is good for you is a very late 19th/early 20th century discovery for the average W European Country.What of it?

    '...So when you say that India is more technologically advanced, I am not buying it.'

    What makes you think I have the remotest interest in convincing you in anything?A country which can send space probes to Mars,design build and launch its own GPS satellites,build its own helicopters,nuclear submarines,aircraft carriers,destroyers,supercomputers etc etc is usually considered by most people with a three digit IQ to have superior technological capability than ones that can't even make their own motorcycles or basic cargo ships.

    'when has India ever successfully won a war against a non-Indian country?'

    Portugal.Ever wonder how Goa is part of India?
    Other than that we 'Liberated' basically annexed Sikkim in the 1970s and the Chinese could do nothing to stop that back then...

    Historically(Ancient History Wise) the Chola Empire had colonies in S E Asia and the Mauryan Empire ruled northern Afghanistan.

    'Indians are the opposite of a martial people...'

    Yeah sure which is why we could fight Muslins for 1000+ years and not convert to an Abrahamic faith unlike your ancestors who meekly converted to Christianity(We are the only country with the original polytheistic religion still going strong in all Eurasia) and historically neither the Persians under Achamanid,Greeks under Alexander,Arabs under the caliphate or Mongols under the Khanate could conquer despite numerous(50+) attempts the core of Indian civilization(The Gangetic plains).

    …regular bathing slowly caught on in the west towards the end of the 19th century

    That is an incorrect analogy to India’s hygiene issues today. What Europe had was increasingly decent plumbing – you know, the pipes in the ground. And pleasant weather and geography. India lacks that; it is a function of India’s geography: too hot, humid, insects-infested, materials go to rot there. Extreme over-crowding doesn’t help, real infrastructure becomes impossible in those circumstances.

    It is unlikely that the same gradual improvements will take place in India. Geography matters, (I keep saying the obvious), and India is unlucky. So is sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Asia and Middle East. Geography will always limit those areas. There is a reason why mankind over time developed in the more pleasant geographic regions. There is also a reason why most Indians would give their right hand to escape India and move elsewhere. My selfish view is that in a who-whom world, our priority will have to be to keep them out. Comparing plumbing is really just a distraction.

    Beating Portugal? Good, somebody had to do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thulean Friend

    So is sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Asia and Middle East. Geography will always limit those areas
     
    This is a leftist cuck argument used when they don't want to deal with the reality of HBD. Lee Kuan Yew pointed out that the invention of the A/C saved Singapore. Israel is certainly far wealthier than its neighbours, including Lebanon which really has an amazing geographical position and very decent weather. There is absolutely no reason why Turkey isn't as rich as France from a purely geographical PoV.

    Why is Chile so much richer than Argentina, despite the fact that Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world 100 years ago? It has everything to do with HBD, but also the system. Chile has decent IQ, not great, but they had wise rulers.

    Much of SSA was in a far better position in the 50s and 60s when you looked at their natural endowment than South Korea, and many western elites, even back then, betted on SSA over the Koreans. We know how that bet aged. The only reason why Korea might have had 'better geography' is proximity to higher IQ neighbours, a.k.a. its the HBD, stupid.

    Long story short, the 'geography killed country X' meme is terrible and you should be ashamed for even buying into such a dumb meme.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Mr. Hack says:

    I don’t know why, but Chinese cultural norms haven’t yet quite reached the fabled heights of other Asian groups? Take the Japanese for instance, I think that their culture is still more greatly appreciated in the West than Chinese. As great a Chinese culinary arts go (and I greatly appreciate Peking Duck) it still seems to take a backseat today to Thai cooking. Which would you rather go to, P.F.Changs, or to any of the ubiquitous Thai restaurants dotting the landcape of most any large U.S. urban center? America is a great country, there’s room for everybody though…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Which would you rather go to, P.F.Changs, or to any of the ubiquitous Thai restaurants dotting the landcape of most any large U.S. urban center?
     
    Those are American fast food places, not Chinese or Thai food. That Americans prefer Thai-flavored American food to Chinese-flavored American food is not an argument for anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Anatoly Karlin

    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.
     
    But China influenced Europe more in the 18th century. The Enlightenment thinkers admired its system of government, which was in many ways more laissez-faire than the contemporary order in Europe. There was an early version of CafePress - (very rich) Europeans would sent their porcelain designs to China, the Chinese would produce it, and ship it back, all within a year. (If you're ever in Oxford, the Ashmolean Museum has a wonderful exposition on this trade).

    It was then that the key divergence began. China actually slipped in not only relative, but absolute terms during the 19th century, whereas Japan continued ploughing ahead, rapidly building up its human capital during the 18-19th centuries (literacy was at 40% by mid-19th century IIRC), so it was in a much better position to be competitive once it opened up.

    All of this - a 20 year lead of South Korea due to effects of Maoism, and a 40 year lead by Japan due to that plus "deeper" history - is perfectly consistent with my arguments.

    But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there’s no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).
     
    Worth noting that the Japanese themselves were quite pessimistic about their potential during that period:

    Wealthy we do not at all think [Japan] will ever become: the advantages con­ferred by nature, with the exception of climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves, forbid it. The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much. - Japan Herald, 9 April 1881

    The Enlightenment thinkers admired its system of government, which was in many ways more laissez-faire than the contemporary order in Europe.

    There might have been a bit of vanity mixed in there. It was, IIRC, Tocqueville who remarked that the Philosophes loved the Chinese way of doing things precisely because they envisioned a society where they were at/near the top.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @EldnahYm
    The U.S. is still the major export market for most of the world, especially China, it is still the top destination for capital flight, has long been the place where people park their funds when economic crises hit. There is no reason for this to change, and if it did, it would leave China with a whole lot of worthless Treasury bills. A collapse of the U.S. dollar would be a disaster for all of East Asia. I also see no reason why the U.S. Central Bank will suddenly become subject to the whims of the Chinese, it doesn't work like that.

    But none of that is going to happen because their is no alternative to the U.S. dollar. No other major consumption led economy with even close to positive demographics. No other large population country with major population centers in both the Pacific and Atlantic. Even in the event of a large global collapse, the countries most impacted would be those most reliant on international trade. That isn't the U.S..

    The idea of Mexican secessionist movement is a laugh.

    Glad you are relatively optimistic in these respects.

    As for Mexican secession being laughable, that may depend in part on how much free stuff the less-assimilated Mexicans here think they can still get by remaining nominally part of the USA. It’s not reasonable to expect that the fed and State governments will be able to sustain the current level of welfare spending. And that’s without a substantial increase in the interest that we are paying on the fed and state gov debts, which also seems likely.

    As for the us currency losing its reserve status, I’m not predicting that it will be supplanted, but at first just supplemented and shunted our of its primary position. A more likely change in the shorter-them would be the adoption of a basket of major currencies, surely including the Yuan and most likely the Euro and the Ruble (if there is still a meaningful Euro as Europe descends into Islamism and ongoing civil strife).

    China, Russia, and others have switched some contracts / transactions to being settled in their own currencies, and the trend will likely intensify. This will have an effect on our US dollar and our ability to print limitless amounts of it, untethered to any tangible good or to any increase in production of goods and services, to fund wars and domestic programs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @E. Harding
    I always thought it to be a good idea to compare today's rising China to the late 19th century's rising United States; the U.S. had surpassed Britain in GDP and population in the 1850s, had surpassed China in GDP in the 1880s, and had surpassed the whole British Empire in GDP during WWI. It was certainly the leading economic power in the world by 1920. Yet, aside from some minor gunboat diplomacy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, its participation in WWI, and the Spanish-American War, the United States was certainly not a world power in 1920 (it didn't even join the League of Nations!), was not a major attraction for famous emigres, wasn't even a more important cultural power than Britain, and was arguably less important in world cultural output than either France or Germany (other than maybe in films). That started to change during the 1930s, and by the end of the 1940s, the U.S. was the world's only other superpower due to a series of accidents highly fortuitous for its status in the world, as well as the world's undisputed leading cultural power. Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment. Those claiming the 21st century will be a second American century remind me of the people saying in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the 20th century will be a British century.

    Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment. Those claiming the 21st century will be a second American century remind me of the people saying in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the 20th century will be a British century.

    Those claiming that China in 21st century will be like America in 20th century are ignoring the fact that Chinese are not Anglos. Heck, they are not even white.

    Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment.

    And you can bet Chinese will let this moment pass by them, because when come down to it, Chinese are not white. Expecting Chinese people to stop behaving like Chinese and start acting like Anglos upon attaining a certain level of GDP strikes me as profoundly illogical, absurd.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @Ilya
    1. China is not a rules-based society -- never has been, perhaps never will be. I'm skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can't efficiently coordinate its population.

    2. It's unclear whether the Chinese can fight. A superpower must have some ability to impose its will militarily on others; a preference to get others to do your dirty work ("cat's paw") isn't enough.

    3. China has no experience with -- and more importantly, perhaps no desire for -- international leadership. As mentioned, it likely wants to be left alone, but the anarchy of international relations means that one must essentially mobilize or be preyed upon (in which case, see 1 and 2, above).

    4. China's GDP figures are inaccurate (Li Keqiang said so many times) -- a consequence of 1, above.

    5. Perhaps most importantly, nobody likes the Chinese. Anywhere. Hell, even the Hong Kongese hate mainlanders.

    China is not a rules-based society — never has been, perhaps never will be. I’m skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can’t efficiently coordinate its population.

    They literally invented legalism, genius. And if they no longer follow that absurd and hypocritical ideology, good for them.

    Legalism by the way was a proto-globalist ideology, used to unite the various Chinese kingdoms under one centralized state and destroying the diversity of thought and traditions of the various states that were conquered by Qin Shi Huang.
    The legalists were tyrannical book burning psychopaths in much the same vein as modern liberals, who also like to babble about “rule of law” a lot and attack anybody they don’t like, be it Putin or Orban or Trump, with vague accusations about “corruption” and transgressions against “rules-based society”.

    That being said legalism does have influence in modern China, but the Confucian elements so far seem to prevail.

    The Qin dynasty which used legalism as its state ideology fell apart extremely quickly, while the Han dynasty that came after them and restored Confucianism while borrowing some practical elements of legalism unleashed such a golden age that the ethnic Chinese are called “people of Han” to this day.

    As for worrying that China does not “efficiently coordinate its population”, are you even fucking kidding me right now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    The point of the American "rules-based" order is that the rules are for them, not us. China could field a viable "rules-based" order as well.
    , @Ilya
    China is an informal society; following the law -- "rules" -- is for suckers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. AaronB says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Japanese artists and high culture, were already changing European art history by 1880s.
     
    But China influenced Europe more in the 18th century. The Enlightenment thinkers admired its system of government, which was in many ways more laissez-faire than the contemporary order in Europe. There was an early version of CafePress - (very rich) Europeans would sent their porcelain designs to China, the Chinese would produce it, and ship it back, all within a year. (If you're ever in Oxford, the Ashmolean Museum has a wonderful exposition on this trade).

    It was then that the key divergence began. China actually slipped in not only relative, but absolute terms during the 19th century, whereas Japan continued ploughing ahead, rapidly building up its human capital during the 18-19th centuries (literacy was at 40% by mid-19th century IIRC), so it was in a much better position to be competitive once it opened up.

    All of this - a 20 year lead of South Korea due to effects of Maoism, and a 40 year lead by Japan due to that plus "deeper" history - is perfectly consistent with my arguments.

    But this potential in limited areas so far (i.e. there’s no vast cultural productivity displayed, unlike Japan which was already a major influence in visual arts in 1880s).
     
    Worth noting that the Japanese themselves were quite pessimistic about their potential during that period:

    Wealthy we do not at all think [Japan] will ever become: the advantages con­ferred by nature, with the exception of climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves, forbid it. The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much. - Japan Herald, 9 April 1881

    Wealthy we do not at all think [Japan] will ever become: the advantages con­ferred by nature, with the exception of climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves, forbid it. The Japanese are a happy race, and being content with little, are not likely to achieve much. – Japan Herald, 9 April 1881

    Jesus that’s hilarious, to hear it stated so plainly.

    Of course the significance of this flew over everyone’s heads here, esp Anatoly.

    We’ve figured out how to close the racial achievement gap lol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    We’ve figured out how to close the racial achievement gap lol.
     
    Brilliant, now, instead of wasting your time here, why don't you spend your free time enlightening the inner-city youth of the lovely city you live in? I am sure they would appreciate your philosophical advice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. AaronB says:
    @iffen
    It is really a return to historical norm


    We were kicked out of the Garden and not allowed back in, ever.

    We’re already in paradise, just people don’t know it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @utu

    Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris
     
    You can find somewhere in Tocqueville his observations that Americans had a great need to be praised and were rather intolerant to be compared negatively with other nations.

    Seems typical for most large or successful countries, if not all countries period. We need to be more willing to admit mistakes, learn from them, and stop doing the same damn destructive, unjust, bankrupting, violent things, to be sure, but we are not unique in not enjoying negative comparison to other countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Why not support other countries so that they can do fighting instead of you?
     
    Because you're assuming that they are either 1)stupid, or 2)profoundly belligerent in a fashion that'll completely exclude you from the need to commit to violence. Neither is going to work in the long run, and at best, actually makes you a hostage of forces that you are employing to do violence for you. This is in fact, the exact fall of the Song by relying on "allies" and you're committing the same mistake.

    What do you think is better: a larger military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $6,000 or the current military and MIC with a GDP per capita of $9,000?
     

    Not being destroyed. And while its always a balance between butter and guns, leaving oneself completely vulnerable results in enormous political weaknesses with economic consequences in itself, not to mention a lack of ability to mature the military later. Money doesn't grow on trees; but neither does military experience. Every mistake not made early in peacetime during practice is a mistake that will be made when under attack, with far greater consequences.

    And then your view doesn’t take into account the benefit of China avoiding military confrontation at such a weak, vulnerable stage when with just 15-20 more years of tranquility, China will be able to reach a developed stage.
     

    This just demonstrates a near total lack of awareness of how the Western MIC works. Chinese behavior, especially reduction of military strength, is basically irrelevant to whether aggression will happen or not(witness Libya). Wars happen when it benefits the MIC, and against anyone who is vulnerable enough to suffer it. The only realistic way is to make the "simulated war" so costly that it will not be attempted.

    The "early response" in some fashion is coming whether you want it or not, whether being "nearly economically impervious" happens or not. Hostility is inelastic and will only increase. And all of the money won't solve the lack of experience, the weaknesses in military-specific technology, and coordination.

    This entire application of "true strategy" is projecting an essentially timid mentality upon the US. This is not how it works at all. Aggression happens as soon as it is possible, not as a result of calculations; it is the default stance - lack of aggression only happens when forced to back down due to fear of losses. You assume that pacifism is the default stance of the US. I'd say its "profoundly questionable" but that's too generous. Its completely against everything we know at present.

    Again, this is a terrible mentality, made even more terrible because its essentially projecting a certain Chinese shyness, almost cowardice, upon the world.Its terrifyingly self-deceptive.

    Stop hyperventilating, Daniel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Pot isn't a basis for theory of mind, either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Anonymous
    There is also geopolitics to consider.

    Assuming Western Europe and Korea/Japan remain American vassals, the alignment of the US-Russia-China would be based on each country's respective relative power. If China was indeed becoming as powerful as you say, the US and Russia would align together to counterbalance China, and China's rise and relative power would be mitigated.

    You’re right. And this should have been happening already.

    But the us government has been so belligerent and consistently dishonest vis-a-vis Russia that the USA and Russia are NOT, in fact, cooperating to check or balance China’s precipitous rise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. @inertial

    It is only in the past decade that Japan has started generating significant cultural power, a generation after they became rich.
     
    Wat? If anything, the Japanese cultural power has slightly declined in the past decade.

    I think people are overestimating the number of people in North America (USA and Canada), at least, who consume or care about anime, Japanese film, whatever popular culture is being exported from japan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @Daniel Chieh
    Probably the most significant being Japanese loan-words coming into the youth I know: tsundere, waifu, zettai ryoiki, kawaii, moe. Other words like kamikaze are so common to basically be naturalized.

    I live in Los Angeles and have never heard a single person say any Japanese word, including young people whom we are around all the time. ALMOST NOBODY knows or cares about Japanese popular culture in the USA, let alone language or even loan words, relative to population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You shouldn't advertise your isolation with such gusto.
    , @The Big Red Scary
    Dude, there's a whole damned Little Tokyo in Los Angeles. You really should go visit. They have a surplus of good food and a shortage of Roman Catholic priests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Anon[157] • Disclaimer says:
    @E. Harding
    I always thought it to be a good idea to compare today's rising China to the late 19th century's rising United States; the U.S. had surpassed Britain in GDP and population in the 1850s, had surpassed China in GDP in the 1880s, and had surpassed the whole British Empire in GDP during WWI. It was certainly the leading economic power in the world by 1920. Yet, aside from some minor gunboat diplomacy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, its participation in WWI, and the Spanish-American War, the United States was certainly not a world power in 1920 (it didn't even join the League of Nations!), was not a major attraction for famous emigres, wasn't even a more important cultural power than Britain, and was arguably less important in world cultural output than either France or Germany (other than maybe in films). That started to change during the 1930s, and by the end of the 1940s, the U.S. was the world's only other superpower due to a series of accidents highly fortuitous for its status in the world, as well as the world's undisputed leading cultural power. Just like America, China will, in the next few decades, have its moment. Those claiming the 21st century will be a second American century remind me of the people saying in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the 20th century will be a British century.

    The myth of American insularity, today, in the twenties, or whenever, is just a myth. (Much like all US national myths.) The country didn’t get that big by mistake. Also, the first invasion of Tripoli by Americans was in 1805. In the 1920s, your specific time point, was involved in “revolutions” in Mexico and Russia, and ran a colony at the antipodes (Philippines). This is beyond China highest abilities, at any time in its history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. Harding

    Also, the first invasion of Tripoli by Americans was in 1805.
     
    Gunboat diplomacy. Used to be very common, now frowned upon. Partly an artifact of per capita income mattering more in being able to afford a competent navy at the time than total income.

    In the 1920s, your specific time point, was involved in “revolutions” in Mexico and Russia, and ran a colony at the antipodes (Philippines).
     
    Direct imperialism was ubiquitous in the early 20th century. It no longer is. The U.S. was a very minor player in that game while it lasted. Under Mao, China promoted a great deal of revolutionary activity in Africa.

    In the 1920s, your specific time point, was involved in “revolutions” in Mexico and Russia
     
    It reacted to them; it didn't start them. In the latter, it was part of an international coalition. The former was roughly on the scale of this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @Talha
    The Pozz Imperium...
    https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0256/01/1372100714926.jpg

    Get thy nails done, warrior.

    Peace.

    Now Talha, you leave the catholic priests alone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @RadicalCenter
    I live in Los Angeles and have never heard a single person say any Japanese word, including young people whom we are around all the time. ALMOST NOBODY knows or cares about Japanese popular culture in the USA, let alone language or even loan words, relative to population.

    You shouldn’t advertise your isolation with such gusto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bukephalos
    I'm not surprised, Jap pop-culture in the form of anime and manga is quite divisive, among youngsters, in some quarters you will find people for whom this is the main culture their consume, while in others people refuse to even touch it and even develop a reaction against the fans, eg "weebos".

    I would say that mangas do seem slightly more 'intellectual' and less naive in outlook (though still very far from "high culture") than American comics, at least when looking at best-sellers.

    In other news The Three Body Problem may become real big in mass pop culture https://io9.gizmodo.com/report-amazon-may-pay-1-billion-to-adapt-the-hugo-win-1824110293 if this goes through
    American production value could make it look real great. But American tropes may as well ruin the thing if inserted. No idea what they're doing with the Chinese film, it's as if the rushes have been lost somewhere.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Yeah, living and working and walking daily in downtown LA, spending weekends in two different locations in suburban LA and Orange Counties, owning property in another State, visiting my home State and several other states in that region for an extended period each year, and having lived in TEN States in the USA and one Canadian province, I’m really isolated and lack real-world experience and familiarity with North American culture and subcultures. You got me, genius.

    And our office has about half a dozen young women in their late teens to late 20s, with whom I’ve talked extensively over years, and they have never mentioned anime or jap culture as an interest.

    By contrast, my wife, who came from the Philippines, used to have some interest in anime.

    PS I was the driving force behind our children learning mandarin, that grating language, but for practical reasons rather than affection, that’s for sure. As you demonstrate, the Chinese are often rude assholes both here and abroad — yes, “even” compared to Americans, Canadians, and Europeans. But the way the US gov is weakening, bankrupting, balkanizing, and dumbing down my country, you’ll probably be able to gloat during your lifetime in a big way. Congratulations.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @AaronB
    Stop hyperventilating, Daniel.

    Pot isn’t a basis for theory of mind, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Ha, I knew you were gonna respond with your beloved pot line :)

    Pot might calm you down, Daniel. You need to relax. Meditate on that quote about why the happy Japanese won't become rich.

    Let all your fears about the inelastic aggression of the MIC drift away in circles of smoke....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Nznz says: • Website

    How was China able to get rid of its opium problem without resorting to legalization, which is the recommendes course of dealing with drug abuse problems like the opoid crisis in North America?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bombercommand
    Very simple. Mao's communists took over. Chiang's KMT government, Big Ear Tu's Green Gang, and China's Propertied Class controlled the heroin trade. Mao evicted the KMT and the Green Gang and China's Propertied Class fled to Taiwan, Hong Kong or The US. This greatly simplified the problem as all heroin had to enter China from outside and the trade was not protected on the inside. The KMT army invaded Burma and set up poppy growing and processing labs but the Burmese government asked China to invade and destroy the KMT army, which they did. There was still smuggling, but it was small time, unprotected by the police. Dealers were arrested, sent to reeducation camps, then given a job. They got one chance,if they returned to heroin dealing they were executed. Problem solved. This will never happen in the US because the American Propertied Class which controls the heroin trade also controls the government/police and organized crime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @neutral
    India has too many inferior people, the occasional clever Indian with some traces of Aryan blood is heavily outnumbered by the Dravidians. So while I don't think India is at the level of Sub Saharan Africa, I don't see it as equal to east Asia.

    The ‘inferior’ Dravidian state of Tamil Nadu is one of the most industrial states of India. Many southern Indian states are quite developed. The tech capital of India is in Bangalore, Karnataka. Way down south. Meanwhile the ‘superior’ Aryan north is home to the (in)famous BIMARU belt. Basically the balkans of India.

    There are still rich Indian non-southern states like Gujarat or Maharashtra, but it is more accurate to classify them as western coastal states. The myth of the ‘inferior’ Dravidians really is outdated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThatDamnGood

    The myth of the ‘inferior’ Dravidians really is outdated.
     
    I hear parboiled rice is better for the brain while wheat is better for the body, see them Punjabis...
    Sadly most of the rice eaten by those Chinese who have rice as a staple are parboiled.
    , @Jeff Stryker
    Punjabi and Kashmiri are better-looking than a black Dravidian and then of course you have the caste-system imposed by the original Ukrainian or Caspian Aryan invaders.

    In Kerala, where I spent much of my time in India.

    St Thomas Christians, actually some offshoot of Jews who showed up who knows when and who knows why, formed the upper class.

    Most of the money in South India is new and a result of Gulf remissions or Silicone Valley outsourcing.

    Prior to the tech industry South India was relatively poor. They have always been a race of migrant workers to the Gulf Arab countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Tulip says:

    Living in an age of Putler, it is astonishing to me that no one seems to notice that China is the closest thing to full-blown NatSoc since Berlin circa 1944, even down to their sensitive treatment of ethnic minorities. They just need yellow Swastika arm bands to go with those pastoral Ron Unz-style farms where they send the minorities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    the media only cares about white natsocs
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @Jason Liu
    I roughly agree with all three, but let me add a fourth: Likeability

    Unfortunately, the world is going to meet the "Ugly Chinaman" stereotype soon. Arrogant, thin-skinned, super materialist and filled with hubris, China's bad national attitude is a strategic threat to itself. It doesn't matter how strong or rich China becomes if it's hated by others and doesn't have a bloc of all-weather allies to fall back on. And I'm saying this as a Chinese nationalist.

    Xi is gonna have to maintain China's image and figure out how to make genuine friends with Asian neighbors, not just buy them off with trade deals. Thus far China has not really put forward a competing, universal set of morals, which means it can only play defense (i.e. lose slowly) in the ideological war against liberal democracies.

    Worse, most Chinese people think all we need for strategic competition is a growing economy and more military hardware. Very few understand the importance of soft power (most cannot really define it), social values, and moral positioning. For long term Sinotriumph, China must at least adopt a benevolent image, learn to take criticism without flipping out and going "what about America?!" and set itself up as an alternative to the west.

    Granted, Chinese society is at an immature stage and things may change. But if Xi simply consulted advisors with social experience overseas, we'd get there a lot more quickly. The next few decades is a critical window for China to establish an alternative to the liberal world order, and it must seize on liberal democracy's current weakness to fortify its position. If everything goes right, liberal democracy may collapse within 100 years, and China will finally have what it wants: To be left alone.

    Ultimately the problem is a low trust culture – which wasn’t the case historically but has increasingly defined modern China. The adage of penny-wise, pound-foolish applies.

    It’s unfortunately an excellent example of how populations can change…for the worse in this case, post Cultural Revolution and Maoism.

    Any “greatness” ultimately hinges on solving this to a significant extent, one way or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB

    Any “greatness” ultimately hinges on solving this to a significant extent, one way or another.
     
    On the contrary. Greatness depends on being unhappy and discontent.

    Since clearly the aim of life is to be great and not to be happy, we must strategically increase the unhappiness of a population if we want it to be great.

    The key is optimizing unhappiness and sowing distrust between people can be a useful tool for us. Of course too little trust can be harmful, but high levels of trust can contribute to too much happiness, and are thus dangerous.

    A wise government will make every effort to increase the unhappiness level of its population and spread discontent by every means at its disposal if it wishes to see them realize the true aim of life, which is greatness.

    America is very very good at this - feminism and all the rest can be seen as a benevolent effort to keep people unhappy and on their toes and thus focused on the important thing in life.

    China has to get much better at creating unhappiness among its people - there are still pockets of relative happiness there. Relations between the sexes are perhaps not as poisoned as would be optimal if young Chinese men are to become great.
    , @ThatDamnGood

    Ultimately the problem is a low trust culture – which wasn’t the case historically but has increasingly defined modern China.
     
    mai gou rou gua yang dou.

    You are lionising us Chinese.
    , @Jason Liu
    No, China's probably always been a low trust culture. The whole selfish materialistic asshole thing predates Mao, and is a consequence of China's large and dense population. How we solve this without becoming too "soft" like the west is the question of our age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Pot isn't a basis for theory of mind, either.

    Ha, I knew you were gonna respond with your beloved pot line :)

    Pot might calm you down, Daniel. You need to relax. Meditate on that quote about why the happy Japanese won’t become rich.

    Let all your fears about the inelastic aggression of the MIC drift away in circles of smoke….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You were better when your speculations on mysticism actually had any basis on what the ancients related to. If Kether is in Malkuth, then Malkuth is in Kether - is it not said? So frivolity and thoughtlessness offends both high and low; as it does as little respect to the higher entities as it does to the material entities.

    It matters not, in that sense, whether this world is "real" or whether "real" has any meaning: the essence of the soul is, and the virtues one bears even in this most material of planes reflect in the most subtle of planes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Living in an age of Putler, it is astonishing to me that no one seems to notice that China is the closest thing to full-blown NatSoc since Berlin circa 1944, even down to their sensitive treatment of ethnic minorities. They just need yellow Swastika arm bands.

    It is a bit more complicated than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    State capitalism, ethnonationalism, expansionist imperialism, hypermodernism, secular but socially conservative, authoritarianism, mass surveillance and absence of civil liberties, eugenics. . . how is it that complicated?
    , @Alfa158
    Well, pretty much everything can be said to be a bit more complicated than a thumbnail description in a comment to a blog post. Reality is complex so as humans we need to simplify and generalize as mental shorthand in order to work with it.
    However that doesn’t change the reality that his comment is essentially correct. China has evolved from Communism to National Socialism, even though they retain the symbols and superficial rhetoric of the old system. When the top Party hierarchy is mostly staffed with millionaires possessing fortunes the Krups would envy, they aren’t Communists anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. @Anonymous
    Hmmm. I seem to recall a bunch of rice farmers in Vietnam driving America out of their country.

    The man in the black pajama is a worthy fucking adversary.

    The man in the black pajama is a worthy fucking adversary

    I agree.

    Read More
    • LOL: Hyperborean
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Tulip says:
    @Spisarevski

    China is not a rules-based society — never has been, perhaps never will be. I’m skeptical that a nation can become a superpower if it can’t efficiently coordinate its population.
     
    They literally invented legalism, genius. And if they no longer follow that absurd and hypocritical ideology, good for them.

    Legalism by the way was a proto-globalist ideology, used to unite the various Chinese kingdoms under one centralized state and destroying the diversity of thought and traditions of the various states that were conquered by Qin Shi Huang.
    The legalists were tyrannical book burning psychopaths in much the same vein as modern liberals, who also like to babble about "rule of law" a lot and attack anybody they don't like, be it Putin or Orban or Trump, with vague accusations about "corruption" and transgressions against "rules-based society".

    That being said legalism does have influence in modern China, but the Confucian elements so far seem to prevail.

    The Qin dynasty which used legalism as its state ideology fell apart extremely quickly, while the Han dynasty that came after them and restored Confucianism while borrowing some practical elements of legalism unleashed such a golden age that the ethnic Chinese are called "people of Han" to this day.

    As for worrying that China does not "efficiently coordinate its population", are you even fucking kidding me right now.

    The point of the American “rules-based” order is that the rules are for them, not us. China could field a viable “rules-based” order as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread