[late]

"The crackdown is killing the entrepreneurial drive that made China a tech power and destroying jobs that used to attract the country’s brightest.

Even people within the system are alarmed by the heavy-handed approach. The former head of China’s sovereign wealth fund urged restrictions on the power of regulators. Hu Xijin, the newly retired editor of the official newspaper Global Times and an infamous propagandist, said he hoped that regulatory actions should help make most companies healthier instead of leaving them “dying on the operating table.”

The damage has been done. Some internet companies have been forced to shut down, while others are suffering from huge losses or disappointing earnings. Many publicly listed companies have seen their share prices fall by half, if not more.

The e-commerce giant Alibaba’s profitability declined by 38% from a year earlier. Didi, once the most valuable start-up in the country, reported an operating loss of $6.3 billion for the first nine months of 2021. The video platform that laid off Mr. Zhao, iQiyi, had an abysmal quarter, losing about $268 million. Its share prices fell by 85 percent from its high in 2021, reflecting investors’ concerns...

There will be 10 million college graduates in China in 2022, according to the Education Ministry. About 4.5 million have applied to graduate schools, up by 800,000 from 2021. More than two million people have applied to take civil servant examinations, up by half a million, according to the Chinese state media."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/technology/china-tech-internet-crackdown-layoffs.html?surface=icymi-home&fellback=false&req_id=912279492&algo=identity&variant=0_manual_curation&pool=pool/215befff-e8c1-41b4-947b-d712144a34dc&imp_id=2732990&action=click&module=In%20Case%20You%20Missed%20It&pgtype=Homepage

Do I need to mention where those increases are coming from?

What I try to do is point to a middleground somewhere between the China fan boys, and Right wing hawks (and other reactionaries).


"Yet even as Xi’s ambition and China’s global prominence have become indisputable, many observers continue to question whether Beijing wants to shape a new international order or merely force some adjustments to the current one, advancing discrete interests and preferences without fundamentally transforming the global system. They argue that Beijing’s orientation is overwhelmingly defensive and designed only to protect itself from criticism of its political system and to realize a limited set of sovereignty claims. That view misses the scope of Xi’s vision. His understanding of the centrality of China signifies something more than ensuring that the relative weight of the country’s voice or influence within the existing international system is adequately represented. It connotes a radically transformed international order."

(The next bit shows how we are on a path that could wind up in open conflict)

"Xi’s efforts to intimidate Taiwan have failed to convince the island nation to embrace unification. Instead, they have produced a backlash both within Taiwan and abroad. A greater percentage of Taiwanese than ever before—64 percent—favor independence, and few Taiwanese retain faith that a “one country, two systems” framework could ever work, particularly in the wake of the crackdown in Hong Kong. A growing number of countries have also stepped up to offer support to Taiwan. In an unprecedented policy shift, Japan asserted in 2021 that it had a direct stake in ensuring Taiwan’s status as a democracy. Several small European countries have also rallied to Taiwan’s diplomatic defense: the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Slovakia have all welcomed the Taiwanese foreign minister for a visit. For its part, the United States has supported a wide array of new legislation and diplomatic activity designed to strengthen the bilateral relationship and embed Taiwan in regional and international organizations."

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-12-09/xi-jinpings-new-world-order

That's just a taste of FAQ's (Foreign Affairs Quarterly) article. For example: "Beijing’s coercive use of PPE early in the pandemic also raised alarm bells over dependence on Chinese supply chains, leading countries to encourage their companies to return home or move to friendlier pastures."

Historically, autocrats and dictators often use war or aggression to try to unify the people to support him. That seems likely here.. But there should be a way to accommodate China without winding up in a major war. Striking that balance won't be easy.

[Rancid]

I'm pretty rabidly anti-ccp, but dude, you are on another level.

Let the crackdown be. let the chips fall where they may. If it's really as bad as you think, it will become evident in due time.

[late]

I'm pretty rabidly anti-ccp, but dude, you are on another level.

Let the crackdown be. let the chips fall where they may. If it's really as bad as you think, it will become evident in due time.

"Yet it appears equally plausible, if not more so, that China has won a few battles but is losing the war. Xi’s bullish assessment of China’s pandemic response may resonate at home, but the international community retains vivid memories of Beijing’s bullying diplomacy, coercive PPE practices, military aggression, repression in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, and continued belligerence around determining the origins of the virus. Xi wants China to be “credible, lovable, and respectable” in the eyes of the international community, but his actions have yielded public opinion polls that reflect record-low levels of trust in him and little desire for Chinese leadership. Many initiatives to cement Chinese centrality, such as the BRI, the Confucius Institutes, and global governance leadership, are now sputtering or stalling as the full economic and political costs of acquiescence to Chinese leadership become clear to the rest of the world."

[Patrickov]

The question is always how and when it would end, not whether.

EDIT: Or more precisely, what do you plan the endgame is.

[late]

The question is always how and when it would end, not whether.

EDIT: Or more precisely, what do you plan the endgame is.

Sorry, what's going to end?

The 'endgame' is to keep diplomacy working. There is a video game with a cute title that explains the situation: "Keep talking and nobody blows up".

[Patrickov]

Sorry, what's going to end?

China's aggression.

The 'endgame' is to keep diplomacy working. There is a video game with a cute title that explains the situation: "Keep talking and nobody blows up".

Sorry, I have been believing some kind of blowing up is necessary at least since 2003, and my belief has only been reinforced by the events over the two decades. Diplomacy seems only to delay the inevitable.

[Rancid]

Diplomacy seems only to delay the inevitable.

There is certainly something to this statement. Short sighted diploymacy which is what most nations engage in can certainly lead to worse long term outcomes.

[late]

Sorry, I have been believing some kind of blowing up is necessary at least since 2003, and my belief has only been reinforced by the events over the two decades. Diplomacy seems only to delay the inevitable.

Peaceful outcomes are rare when hegemony changes in a region. But I hope we keep trying.

[quetzalcoatl]

There's an underlying reality that brackets this "crackdown": the transition from an export-based economy to a consumer based economy. Development of the internal economy requires a certain level of private debt, and in the context of China's brand of market socialism this has become a necessary evil - one that is constantly threatening to spiral out of control.

The Chinese, generally speaking, have been pragmatic about allowing markets a certain measure of free reign - with one glaring exception. They have been ferocious about containing the power of the independent financial sector. They are right to do so, imo. The Chinese have studied in detail the financialization of the US economy, and the transfer of power of power and resources away from productive enterprise, and the simultaneous impoverishment of its working class.

They have been so far relatively successful in managing the "monsters from the id" that accompany any version of a market economy, but there is no guarantee of success in the future. It all comes down to competence, agility, and freedom from dogmatic strictures.

[As an aside, the American crackdown on capital during the New Deal/ WWII era tends to get stuffed down the memory hole.]

One good sign for China is their decision to allow RE development giant Evergrande to fail. They've observed the devastating consequences of the US policy of backstopping the big players while allowing the little guy to take the hit.

Don't get me wrong. The US policy is rational in context. It's governed by an extractive oligarchy, and their interests will come first. It's not rational in terms of a stable, long-term polity, but that's an irrelevance.

The Chinese studied the mistakes of the Soviet Union and watched the crumbling of the US empire. They've played their hand well, but they face hard realities that are mostly out of their control.

China won't be able to insulate itself from the planetary eco-catastrophe that's already well underway (of which climate change is only a small part). Nor can they hope to manage it without the capitalist West's cooperation.

It's worth noting however they are in a much better position to switch into the inevitable "mission economics" mode than the West. This puts them in a position to be the clear leader when the crunch starts biting down really hard.

[Rugoz]

China's brand of market socialism

Private wealth is like 2-3x larger than public wealth in China. Hence most of the "exploitation" is done by capitalists (instead of state capitalists).

It's a brand of capitalism.

The Chinese have studied in detail the financialization of the US economy..

Ah yes, the "financialization of the US economy". Everbody seems to agree it's BAD yet keeps pumping money into it, including China. And myself.

China won't be able to insulate itself from the planetary eco-catastrophe that's already well underway

"planetary eco-catastrophe"? That's a stretch.

It's worth noting however they are in a much better position to switch into the inevitable "mission economics" mode than the West.

Well China's per capita CO2 output is larger than Europe's and they even had power outages recently. I don't think it's easier for China.

[Unthinking Majority]

"The crackdown is killing the entrepreneurial drive that made China a tech power and destroying jobs that used to attract the country’s brightest.

Entrepreneurial drive? The business model for the vast majority of Chinese companies that sell their own goods is to steal IP from other countries and then sell a cheaper quality copy at a discount. If anyone here has been to a Chinese mall they'll know what % of goods they sell are counterfeit, and what % of those goods fall apart in the car ride home.

[Patrickov]

Peaceful outcomes are rare ... but I hope we keep trying.

I will not discourage that either. I am merely being "educatedly pessimistic".

[Fasces]

If anyone here has been to a Chinese mall they'll know what % of goods they sell are counterfeit, and what % of those goods fall apart in the car ride home.

Spoken like someone that hasn't been in a Chinese mall.

[Patrickov]

If anyone here has been to a Chinese mall they'll know what % of goods they sell are counterfeit, and what % of those goods fall apart in the car ride home.

Not as precise, but those two kinds will appear to make up the majority, and I dare to say the latter (quality) is more of an issue than the former (originality) -- if people imitate well enough and are not so cowardly as to deny what they have done, it's totally ok.