What does China really want? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15027319
anasawad wrote:^ :lol: :lol:
Yea, honey, listen.
As much as I am against Chinese domestic policy, we've got to be realistic here; The only reason Hong Kong still has all its freedoms is that mainland China trades with the US and Europe and they pressure the Chinese government, through trade, to allow Hong Kong to have these freedoms.

Now, with the US trade war, the massive expansion of Chinese political influence in Europe, and the rapid growth of African consumer markets, that leverage is dwindling as the Chinese government is no longer in need of appeasing its consumers in the west and at a certain point clamping down on Hong Kong and even the annexation of Taiwan will become to have no effect on its economic interests; When it reaches that point, Hong Kong will become just another province of China under the CCP's control.

It's an unfortunate truth, but that's just the way it is for the time.


Chinies economy is dependant on the access to the most prosperous markets in the world. (Everyone is actually) Currently there are 3-4 major consumer markets in the world:

1) The EU market.
2) The US market.
3) Asia pacific/Japan market.

There is where the most richest consumers live nowadays who buy a lot compared to anybody else. If for some reason China looses access to EU or US markets then its economy WILL spiral out of control and collapse. It is not just a question of them selling to us but a question of our companies operating from China to produce goods and services. So if the links are severed then the companies will significantly downsize and leave China.

As mentioned before, China understands that perfectly well and 2008 crysis was a real eye opener. They have tried to move away from this dependency by growing their own domestic market to the size of the EU or the US to no avail. Their program had some limited success but now China is sitting on the largest toxic debt in history which they own to themselves and the funny part is that China is not that relatively rich per capita. So how are they going to return that debt?

The problem with growing a consumer market is that you have to pay your workers and people more by either higher salaries, subsidies, programs etc. The consumer market works when the people actually have money to buy things basically. That in itself is a problem when your current model is dependant on producing things cheaply or staying competitive globally by devaluing your currency and prices of your goods/services.

The better question people should be asking is how can China make this move without shooting itself in the foot. I don't have a straightforward answer for this but American and European examples are appropriate i think. How the US and EU achieved their current consumer market statuses? Well, the answer i think is that we actually forced this down the throats of our politicians and businessman. Our liberal systems allowed the people to actually carry power and weight which in turn forced the politicians and businessman to act. The problem is that it is not linked to 1 measure of any sort but a hundred thousand of them. As both EU and US examples show, it is possible to build this market in different ways. The US system has less government involvement and achieves it by creating a legal framework that compensates everyone to a degree depending on your contribution. (For example oil rights where local economy gets benefits, the people get benefits and obviously the companies get benefits. This is the main reason shale oil revolution happened in the US and not somewhere else) Europe achieved much of the same but with much larger government involvement through redistribution for example and regulations.

I would say this is the two important examples. So when people talk about ineffective government programs in the US compared to the EU(Healthcare?) or EU businesses not appearing so often compared to the US then you should consider why it is so? Basically our system are similar, yet different. Both have downsides and upsides.

I guess my point being that democracy and liberalism are a must to improve the well-being of people in China. At least this is my opinion.
Last edited by JohnRawls on 18 Aug 2019 16:50, edited 1 time in total.
#15027321
Patrickov wrote:If all my family and social circle -- including many that I actually don't like -- is getting that side, then I fail to see why the other side has a point. Besides, those in power are already spewing out their words all the time, but the FACT is that there are 1M+ people explicitly showing their disagreement by taking onto the streets. Are you suggesting that all 1M of us are "anti-China violence supporters"? If we are violent, isn't it more probable that I am already dead meat now?


I don't care about you, your family or social circle.

What I said was, I've posted videos and articles of violence coming from the protesters, if you want to pretend those things aren't happening, fine, I won't cry like you are, but there's not much more I can say here. For the most part in the West, people think like you do, so throwing a tantrum when another (smaller) viewpoint is shown isn't really a good look, and kinda childish too. Have a nice day.
#15027324
anasawad wrote:@Patrickov
Not really. No offense, but I'm from the middle east and I've lived through scenarios where both ends of these events were tried.
Confrontations with a much bigger foe when you're not prepared never ends well.


I have to repeat: They confronted us first.

anasawad wrote:For the deflection part, well, this might sound bad, but there are many ways to throw someone under the bus. :lol:
Your leaders could've caused some mess with Taiwan as well to divert the focus to them instead, considering that Taiwan is under foreign military protection and already is independent, Some saboteurs could've tried to flare some troubles with neighboring countries diverting the attention there, etc.
Considering that everyone else in the region except for Hong Kong has foreign military protection, your leaders could've worked their way to divert the focus towards any of them without much effect on the other group.


Come to think of it, I think Donald Tsang as Chief Executive had made some progress in this, no less in pushing forward a meaningful step in election reform, and trying to intervene in the Manila tourist incident (where several of Hongkongers died). However, when he finished his term, he's almost immediately persecuted by the hard-line pro-Chinese and thrown into jail. I am not saying that he's innocent, just that CCP already showed us that even this is not tolerated.

anasawad wrote:Underground movements aren't exactly a new thing you know.
I mean, seriously, look at the middle east politics; Not just the headlines but follow the internal news, everyone is manipulating, sabotaging, and throwing everyone else under the bus in one issue or another, especially the smaller nations and groups do this to survive in the face of much bigger foes.


Besides, this is not what we want. By doing this, we will be the same as the scums we are fighting. We won't make any good difference. IMHO this is exactly why Middle East is so messed up.

anasawad wrote:Personally, if I was an organizer there, I'd be looking for a way to flare up something elsewhere in the country right now.


It actually happens all the time, in various places in China, but they are crushed rather quickly because of the information impasse.
#15027327
skinster wrote:I don't care about you, your family or social circle.

What I said was, I've posted videos and articles of violence coming from the protesters, if you want to pretend those things aren't happening, fine, I won't cry like you are, but there's not much more I can say here. For the most part in the West, people think like you do, so throwing a tantrum when another (smaller) viewpoint is shown isn't really a good look, and kinda childish too. Have a nice day.


No one said that didn't happen. They actually did apologize and today's march is our display that we still believe and support them. After all, they are not Saints, but they are surely more honest and morally upright than the authorities.

If what you quoted is true it's impossible that we had such a hard time on the streets today.

Explicitly expressing support and trust for tyrannical and barbaric regimes like the Chinese Communist Party is not well-thought and mature at all. I have every right to tell that you are wrong, even if I have to resort to childish means.

My childishness is exactly because I have been there. I will certainly keep mum if what you said is right. Think about it.
#15027336
@JohnRawls
To some extent you're correct, however, I doubt China would lose access to the European markets; The US market is pretty much gone, but Europe, hardly.
China is already expanding into Europe, and European economies are, likewise, becoming more and more dependent on the Chinese market, so I doubt we'll see this relationship end anytime soon.

On the other hand, we have the growing markets and economies of Africa and South America where not only they're becoming export destinations for China, but they're also becoming China's China if so to say as many Chinese corporations are relocating factories and production facilities abroad for cheaper labor which in turn allows the Chinese workforce to specialize and take on more productive and higher-paying jobs.
The effects aren't instant as this process takes a good amount of time, but it's starting.

I also disagree with the democracy part being a must. China is not like the average European country, it has 1.5+ billion people.
The CCP may be strong, but it's not strong enough to oppress all the people under its control; This is why we see the constant push to build up the middle class and the never-ending development projects. The minute this growth and push stops would be the minute the CCP's reign ends as it becomes far more vulnerable to uprisings and revolts.
Democracy and liberalism are more ideals than requisites since, no matter how many would keep claiming otherwise, the bottom tiers of society still have power even if indirect and even if not through a vote.
#15027346
@Patrickov
I have to repeat: They confronted us first.

I'm talking in a sense of the past decades, not necessarily now. Everyone knew this would come to be, it simply should've been managed better.

Come to think of it, I think Donald Tsang as Chief Executive had made some progress in this, no less in pushing forward a meaningful step in election reform, and trying to intervene in the Manila tourist incident (where several of Hongkongers died). However, when he finished his term, he's almost immediately persecuted by the hard-line pro-Chinese and thrown into jail. I am not saying that he's innocent, just that CCP already showed us that even this is not tolerated.

Not really sure who he is, but either way.
Ofcourse they won't tolerate this, it doesn't matter. Independence wars aren't nice.

Besides, this is not what we want. By doing this, we will be the same as the scums we are fighting. We won't make any good difference.

How else do you propose?

IMHO this is exactly why Middle East is so messed up.

Not really, no.
The reason the middle east has more conflicts than other regions is simply that it has 6 powers fighting for dominance instead of just one big one in control.
#15027351
Jonnorth wrote:According to the document, Beijing does not strive for world leadership, military expansion or the creation of zones of its own influence


That's odd. I'm pretty sure there are quotes from Xi Jingping stating exactly that he wants China to be the world leader and model for how to do things around the world. I recall he was at a world economic summit basically making this point. Communism with Chinese characteristics" is what the world needs, or something like that.
#15027356
anasawad wrote:Not really, no. The reason the middle east has more conflicts than other regions is simply that it has 6 powers fighting for dominance instead of just one big one in control.


I guess you are talking about Iran, Turkey, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Not so simple I am afraid. Actually the Arabs themselves had tried to be united but they failed. IMHO the tribal, ultra-conservative and nomadic nature of (at least some of) the Arabic society means that they almost always resort to barbarism and violence when conflicts of interest occurs, and that they simply cannot get their asses together even when a foreign threat comes up.

This is not necessarily the problem of Islam. Both Turkey and Iran, IMHO, are able to achieve some degree of cultured resolution when the situation calls for it. Iran is unfortunate that they had to choose the ultra-anti-United States route because of the circumstances.
#15027358
Rancid wrote:That's odd. I'm pretty sure there are quotes from Xi Jingping stating exactly that he wants China to be the world leader and model for how to do things around the world. I recall he was at a world economic summit basically making this point. Communism with Chinese characteristics" is what the world needs, or something like that.


Probably this one:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... cesspaylog

Xi recognized that “China cannot develop itself in isolation from the world, and the world needs China for global prosperity.” Yet he also emphasized that “no one is in a position to dictate to the Chinese people what should or should not be done.”
#15027361
anasawad wrote:@JohnRawls
To some extent you're correct, however, I doubt China would lose access to the European markets; The US market is pretty much gone, but Europe, hardly.
China is already expanding into Europe, and European economies are, likewise, becoming more and more dependent on the Chinese market, so I doubt we'll see this relationship end anytime soon.

On the other hand, we have the growing markets and economies of Africa and South America where not only they're becoming export destinations for China, but they're also becoming China's China if so to say as many Chinese corporations are relocating factories and production facilities abroad for cheaper labor which in turn allows the Chinese workforce to specialize and take on more productive and higher-paying jobs.
The effects aren't instant as this process takes a good amount of time, but it's starting.

I also disagree with the democracy part being a must. China is not like the average European country, it has 1.5+ billion people.
The CCP may be strong, but it's not strong enough to oppress all the people under its control; This is why we see the constant push to build up the middle class and the never-ending development projects. The minute this growth and push stops would be the minute the CCP's reign ends as it becomes far more vulnerable to uprisings and revolts.
Democracy and liberalism are more ideals than requisites since, no matter how many would keep claiming otherwise, the bottom tiers of society still have power even if indirect and even if not through a vote.


Right now South America and Africa are neglible markets. They almost don't matter. I mean it is good to have access because they have some consumers but in majority of the cases they are viewed as resource providers honestly.

Africa: $2.19 trillion
South America: 3.990 trillion
Europe including Russia, Ukraine etc: $22.9 trillion
North America including Central America and the Caribbean: $24.43 trillion
It is easy to see who is more important here as consumers. South America doesn't have enough people while Africa has a lot of people who are very poor. In nominal terms Africa is 1/10th of what North America or Europe are as a market.(Not counting anything else as a barrier) South America is 1/5th to 1/6th. Again not counting any other barriers.

Their markets growing by 5-10% every year doesn't change a thing. 2-3% of 25 trillion is 500/750 billions. 5%-10% of 2 trillions is 100 to 200 billions. I hope you understand the point i am making here. The gap is not shrinking actually but growing. It is the same argument that many people made for GDP per capita numbers. If you have 0 GDP per capita then it doesn't matter if you grow 10% every year, the developed countries will be adding more anyways by growing 2-3% per year since their number is huge already. 3% of 50k GDP per capita is 1500 while 10% of 10 000 lets say is 1 000.
#15027362
@Patrickov
Well, not to divert off topic too much, so this should go in another thread, but I'll respond here. :lol:


I guess you are talking about Iran, Turkey, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Actually the US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, EU, and China.
Israel is local, it's not a regional power. And Turkey is likewise not fighting much in the region, it actively creates chaos on its borders to push away any power, but it doesn't go too deep elsewhere.

The EU and China are the unnoticed belligerent in the cold war in the middle east as they don't commit to major moves and policies regarding the region, but both are, nonetheless, active and constantly working to secure their interests, even if it wasn't in the headlines.

Actually the Arabs themselves had tried to be united but they failed.

An ideological ideal that failed to meet reality, not really a grand project.

IMHO the tribal, ultra-conservative and nomadic nature of (at least some of) the Arabic society means that they almost always resort to barbarism and violence when conflicts of interest occurs, and that they simply cannot get their asses together even when a foreign threat comes up.

Yeaahaha, NO.
1- Tribes aren't all nomads, rather only the very small ones, and mostly clans can be nomadic. (EDITED)
2- Not all are ultra-conservative, they all vary in degrees.
3- If all the tribes of the middle east were constantly going to war and fighting, then the world would be an entirely different place, and it's sure as hell there wont be any oil coming out the middle east.
Most of the major tribes in the region, both Arab and non-Arab, have been pretty much inactive politically and militarily in the past century or so. (By or so I mean over a century but vary from one to the other)
And finally, 4- The politics of the middle east aren't as simple as Arabs vs non-Arabs. Not all foreign powers are threats or rivals, nor are all threats universal to the region.

This is not necessarily the problem of Islam. Both Turkey and Iran, IMHO, are able to achieve some degree of cultured resolution when the situation calls for it. Iran is unfortunate that they had to choose the ultra-anti-United States route because of the circumstances.

Do you really want me to start talking about Iran and Islam here?!? :lol: :D
Last edited by anasawad on 18 Aug 2019 17:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15027365
@JohnRawls
I get your point, but it doesn't change the fact that China is pivoting to Africa, both for new consumers and cheap labor.
The US-China trade war and rivalry isn't new, and the only way for China under the CCP to survive goes through Africa and the developing world in general.
Until it builds its own domestic markets atleast, which would take a couple of decades, to say the least.

Noting that the main reason Western and Central European countries along with the US and Canada are the size they are right now is because they used China the same way China is using Africa right now.
#15027366
@anasawad

An ideological ideal that failed to meet reality, not really a grand project.


Well, to be the devil's advocate, the general population's support for pan-Arabism in the Arab world is high though. The Doha Institute did an Arab Opinion survey and one of the questions discussed pan-Arabism. Here are the results:

Image

The failure seems to be political rather than a lack of interest.
#15027378
anasawad wrote:@JohnRawls
I get your point, but it doesn't change the fact that China is pivoting to Africa, both for new consumers and cheap labor.
The US-China trade war and rivalry isn't new, and the only way for China under the CCP to survive goes through Africa and the developing world in general.
Until it builds its own domestic markets atleast, which would take a couple of decades, to say the least.

Noting that the main reason Western and Central European countries along with the US and Canada are the size they are right now is because they used China the same way China is using Africa right now.


Africa can't replace European and American markets. Even in the foreseeable future. Even South America+Africa together can't replace them.

As i said, the US and the EU are not necessarily powerhouses that they are now because of the imperialist days. Its a neat black and white story but our consumer markets as they are now appeared because we gave up our colonial holdings.(We had to sell our stuff somewhere and its much easier to sell it to ourselves) Relatively speaking US was first at doing this and Europe had to follow suit after 2 painful world wars. After WW2 specifically, US was a major force behind decolonisation but in exchange they created a system of open markets which furthered the process for those who participated.

Running a colonial empire desentivises you to have a consumer market on the other hand. In colonial times it was much easier to take over countries and force them to buy our goods due to an absence of an alternative. Now it is much simpler for countries to have a strong consumer market and sell things locally and abroad through the open market system. Open market system also allows for the flow of natural resources to not be constrained or limited while in impereal times it was very easy to constrain and limit this flow between the empires and the only way you could be sure that it won't be constrained is by having an empire of your own.

I don't know, its hard to articulate this in a meaningful way.
#15027389
@JohnRawls
Ok, I probably didn't express my point in a good way.

1- Forget Imperialism, I'm not talking about Imperialism here.

2- Europe isn't going to be replaced, China is buying into Europe, and European corporations need the Chinese market.
Europe wont stop trading with China.

The US however always was a rival for China and the trade war was inevitable. China doesn't have an option not to replace the US market, even though it'll use it however much it can for the time.


3- How will China replace the US through Africa?
first by building its domestic market, to build its domestic market it needs more specialization, and to get more specialization it needs to start shifting its economy and corporations towards these types of highly specialized jobs, something it's already doing.
How will it keep its industries going and maintain their efficiency? Relocate the factories to Africa to use the cheap labor, and occasionally the slave labor. A process that is also going on since Chinese factories are already moving gradually to various African countries.
Ethiopia is a big example here.

This move helps push African economies to grow faster and as such creating more low and middle-income consumers which China can use.

The two steps above is how the US and the post-WW2 European capital centers grew to what they are now, except instead of Africa it was China and India, mainly China though.
This is why I said in my first post that Africa is China's China.

Add to that, that unlike China, Africa is made up of many small countries which means those countries are easier to influence and control, through a mixture of policies China is already managing to extract lots of resources from the continent and is actively expanding to extract more, which means more resources to feed its growing economy and domestic markets.

The same applies to South America but to a lesser extent.


Does China has to pay its ever growing debts? Not really, not all of them, and not now.
It can simply keep the refinancing cycle for a while until it succeeds in establishing its currency as a global reserve currency, which it's also working on at this time.
Noting that China is much larger than the US and has much larger capacity to sustain this cycle for a prolonged period of time.

This doesn't mean that such system is sustainable, obviously. But it's copying the west in this regard.


Now, for the democracy part.
Does China need to be a democracy to succeed? No, it doesn't, it's already maintaining a balance between people's desires and the party line.
The main reason why the CCP is still in control is because it maintains the opportunities for poor people to become middle class, and a huge number of people in China have indeed left poverty behind and joined the middle class. As long as the party maintains this expansion and growth, it's hardly going to lose power.

And the CCP can't just turn its back on the people's needs and wants because, again, China is not like any regular country; It's a country of 1.5 billion people, an uprising or a revolt is not a joke and the CCP leadership knows this very well, therefor it has to pay attention to what people want in order to maintain internal stability.

Sure, China could become a liberal democracy, it can figure out a system that allows it to have a democracy without having the country falling apart, but it's not a requisite to success.
At the end of the day, when considering stability, what matters to maintaining stability isn't ensuring that people vote, it's that people are able to get what they want. How a government ensures that could vary based on circumstance.
#15027394
anasawad wrote:@JohnRawls
Ok, I probably didn't express my point in a good way.

1- Forget Imperialism, I'm not talking about Imperialism here.

2- Europe isn't going to be replaced, China is buying into Europe, and European corporations need the Chinese market.
Europe wont stop trading with China.

The US however always was a rival for China and the trade war was inevitable. China doesn't have an option not to replace the US market, even though it'll use it however much it can for the time.


3- How will China replace the US through Africa?
first by building its domestic market, to build its domestic market it needs more specialization, and to get more specialization it needs to start shifting its economy and corporations towards these types of highly specialized jobs, something it's already doing.
How will it keep its industries going and maintain their efficiency? Relocate the factories to Africa to use the cheap labor, and occasionally the slave labor. A process that is also going on since Chinese factories are already moving gradually to various African countries.
Ethiopia is a big example here.

This move helps push African economies to grow faster and as such creating more low and middle-income consumers which China can use.

The two steps above is how the US and the post-WW2 European capital centers grew to what they are now, except instead of Africa it was China and India, mainly China though.
This is why I said in my first post that Africa is China's China.

Add to that, that unlike China, Africa is made up of many small countries which means those countries are easier to influence and control, through a mixture of policies China is already managing to extract lots of resources from the continent and is actively expanding to extract more, which means more resources to feed its growing economy and domestic markets.

The same applies to South America but to a lesser extent.


Does China has to pay its ever growing debts? Not really, not all of them, and not now.
It can simply keep the refinancing cycle for a while until it succeeds in establishing its currency as a global reserve currency, which it's also working on at this time.
Noting that China is much larger than the US and has much larger capacity to sustain this cycle for a prolonged period of time.

This doesn't mean that such system is sustainable, obviously. But it's copying the west in this regard.


Now, for the democracy part.
Does China need to be a democracy to succeed? No, it doesn't, it's already maintaining a balance between people's desires and the party line.
The main reason why the CCP is still in control is because it maintains the opportunities for poor people to become middle class, and a huge number of people in China have indeed left poverty behind and joined the middle class. As long as the party maintains this expansion and growth, it's hardly going to lose power.

And the CCP can't just turn its back on the people's needs and wants because, again, China is not like any regular country; It's a country of 1.5 billion people, an uprising or a revolt is not a joke and the CCP leadership knows this very well, therefor it has to pay attention to what people want in order to maintain internal stability.

Sure, China could become a liberal democracy, it can figure out a system that allows it to have a democracy without having the country falling apart, but it's not a requisite to success.
At the end of the day, when considering stability, what matters to maintaining stability isn't ensuring that people vote, it's that people are able to get what they want. How a government ensures that could vary based on circumstance.


I get it what you are trying to say. I just see some problems in this:
1) It was much easier to build up Europe after WW2 for America compared to China building up Africa from basically 0.
2) America and Europe will not sit by idly while this is happening. Europe will probably get a much larger chunk of the pie because it is simply closer to Africa.
3) You yourself understand that CCPs current hold on power depends heavily on economic growth. Once something happens to it and something will happen to it then what? No country grows non-stop. We know that our liberal democratic system can cope with the shock and recover. Can we say the same for the modern version of the CCP?
#15027398
@JohnRawls
1) It was much easier to build up Europe after WW2 for America compared to China building up Africa from basically 0.

Well, if we looked it in a more accurate manner, European industries mostly moved to the US during WW2, so when the US rebuilt Europe, it wasn't so hard, especially considering the huge boost it just received during the war.
The stage that we should be looking at is when American and European low skilled industries started moving abroad to China in the post-Nixon era.
If you looked at the production and the level of industries back then, China was worse than what Africa is today, and yet the relocation of these industries is what built China.
(As much as some would like to claim otherwise, Mao was an idiot and he didn't build China, he destroyed it)

The Nixon era and what came after it is what we should focus on it since the modern global economy began there, primarily after the Nixon shock.
China is simply repeating the process the US and western Europe had done with it during prior decades.

So, Africa is China's China. :p

2) America and Europe will not sit by idly while this is happening. Europe will probably get a much larger chunk of the pie because it is simply closer to Africa.

True, which is why the US and China are already starting to flame rivalries in the African continent.
But some countries are already under China's grip.

However, I don't see Europe playing a big role in this regard.
In one hand, the EU is not yet in the full unification mode. I mean just looking at northwest Africa or in the Gulf states and we can already see various European interests competing with each other instead of acting as a unified block. So Europe is still not sufficiently unified to be able to efficiently and effectively leverage its proximity.
The EU is working on it, Brexit isn't helping, but we can expect the EU to become much more active in the next couple of decades or so, but not now.
For the time, the EU not only doesn't have the capacity to industrialize Africa, rather its main interest lies in maintaining trade relations with both the US and China.

On the other hand, you have the political and military aspect, which again, the EU is not unified to a sufficient degree to compete with China and the US.

Heck, even as we speak France is still trying to have and maintain its own sphere of influence in Africa instead of working within the framework of the EU. And France can't compete with China or the US on its own.

3) You yourself understand that CCPs current hold on power depends heavily on economic growth. Once something happens to it and something will happen to it then what? No country grows non-stop. We know that our liberal democratic system can cope with the shock and recover. Can we say the same for the modern version of the CCP?

If it stops, it's gone.
Which is why it's working so hard to expand and achieve its goals.
The main goal for the CCP is to be able to establish its currency as one of the main global reserve currencies, and a major one at that. Once they succeed in doing that, they'll be able to receive blows without losing power and crashing.

That's why we see China declaring projects in the 100s of billions of dollars in worth, it's a race essentially.


Also, on a side note, this is why the US isn't collapsing yet. It's not a democracy anymore, it's an oligarchy, but its currency is a reserve currency. Which is why the US goes into panic mode whenever any country drops the dollar, e.g. Iran, Libya, Iraq.

China is simply trying to replace the US in a way.
#15031271
Hindsite wrote:China has already made it clear that they want to become the leading power in the world.


They always were the most peaceful people in the world and didnt strive for the world hehemony as the U.S.

I hope an effective treatment is found somewhere […]

Are we seriously surprised that a country that we[…]

To be fair, sending scientists to work on a farm […]

Cousin to chaos

@Wulfschilde I think Covid is overblown but no […]