Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: China Page 4 of 9

Growth Through Real Estate Bubbles v.s. Sustainable High Income Growth (China)

By

On November 4, 2022

Comments

All right. Let’s talk some basic development stuff, primarily in the neoliberal era.

Because industrial policy was disallowed with a few marginal exceptions due to the “rule based order” enforced by a variety of trade agreements and organizations, the traditional route of protecting domestic industries and growing behind tariffs became very difficult to do.

Various countries used different dodges. Russia, to get out of the Yeltsin era collapse, went whole hog into resources: advanced nations had to have oil and natural gas and minerals, and bribed key financial regions like London’s city with huge influxes of resource-money.

China did something different. They opened up partially and let foreign companies in, but they used bureaucracy to keep them under control (as had Japan, in part) and offered foreign elites huge labor arbitrage profits. They bribed the West’s elites with personal wealth, in effect. In exchange they insisted on, generally very strictly, in real technology transfer. Meanwhile, they created a protectionist bubble thru monetary policy, keeping the exchange rate in their favor.

But the other thing they did is what Turkey tried. They created a self-reinforcing property bubble. Municipalities and states built tons of new homes, people flooded in from the countryside to get the new factory jobs and the service and government and construction jobs which supported industry. Prices went up, municipal and state budgets went way up and a virtuous cycle was created, for a time.

Turkey did the same thing, but the problem is Turkey didn’t have an expanding industrial base, and that’s why Turkey imploded sooner.

All bubbles, including property bubbles are time limited. The more of a real economy you have, the longer they can run, but eventually inflation in property becomes too high, and most citizens can’t afford the housing. Meanwhile, inflationary increases in living costs make workers too pricey, and the industrial base begins to suffer.

You can start from three positions.

  1. Like the US or UK or much of the EU you can start with an industrial base and cannibalize it, or..
  2. Like Turkey you can start with a poor but big country and cannibalize an increasing part of your population, plus what little industry and agriculture you have (India is similar, but much larger and managed to get some industrialization out of this strategy), or..
  3. Like China you can build your industrial base at the same time.

Whatever you do, this strategy eventually runs into the roadblock of a cost structure which becomes too high to allow actual productive industries.

At that point, you have to tame the housing market and other out of control costs (medical, food, whatever). If  you don’t, you’re pushed back from 3 to 1, or if you did 2, the artificial prosperity begins to collapse. (India’s calories per capita have spent decades decreasing and someone who spent time there in the 80s, I can tell you Indians weren’t overfed to start with.)

So China’s now in a position where rather than bubbles, especially the housing bubble, being synergistic with industry and improvements in technology, they’re starting to strangle growth.

The route out (minus mercantalist imperialism, which is long run a loser too) requires you to stop relying on property bubbles, and start strangling your cost structure. The “free” money from asset bubbles has to go away, and you have to create a consumer society: not one like we have now, but one like we had in the post-war liberal era. Housing costs have to be kept at a level where people can buy or rent homes fairly easily: 30% of wages for rent or so, and at most about 5 years wages to buy a small home or condo.

Since the free profits of bubbles and speculation have to go away, companies have to make real money by providing real services and not just count on “real estate always goes up” or (America) “people have to have health care, so we’ll increase prices thru the roof.”

This is the task that China now has. It’s a hard task, akin to getting of hard drugs like heroin or SSRIs or Xanax. It hurts, because the financial pipes are reliant on what amounts to free or easy money.

During this transition, headline GDP and so on will suffer, there is no way around it minus looting expeditions, especially since simply running the printing press (something we’ll talk about in another article) defeats the point, which is making companies earn their money by providing goods and services for small markups at scale. (The post war liberal era worked on 3-4% markups for most mass goods.)

This is where China is. Where America and most of the West is similar: except it’s after destroying much of the industrial base and real consumer economy that doesn’t rely on massive price gouging on items people must have. There is no way to bring the good jobs back for most of the population in the US or UK or Canada or Australia without crushing the cost structure, strangling property speculation and prices and in the US tackling the medical and drug cartels.

China’s making the attempt. A lot of what they’re doing is clumsy and crude (but then, so was the one child law, but it worked even if it caused future problems.) So far the UK and Canada and the US and most of the West are not even trying, which is why you hear more about friend-shoring (aka to cheap places that are Western allies) rather than re-shoring, which can only be done for the goods that are either very high margin or which elites have realized are too militarily strategic to do in other countries.

This is why, as far as I’m concerned, the smart money is still on China, and if it wasn’t for climate change and ecological collapse, I’d consider it a done deal even if it took a couple more decades and a lot of screaming and shooting.

As it is, we’ll see. But China’s at least trying to do the right thing.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

The Rules Based International Order is the Minority

By

On October 31, 2022

Comments

I’ve said this for a while, but now we have empirical proof that most of the world likes Russia and China more than the US (h/t Johnstone):

“Among the 1.2bn people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75%) now hold a negative view of China, and 87% a negative view of Russia,” the report reads. “However, for the 6.3bn people who live in the rest of the world, the picture is reversed. In these societies, 70% feel positively towards China, and 66% positively towards Russia.”

However, across a vast span of countries stretching from continental Eurasia to the north and west of Africa, we find the opposite – societies that have moved closer to China and Russia over the course of the last decade. As a result, China and Russia are now narrowly ahead of the United States in their popularity among developing countries.

While the war in Ukraine has accentuated this divide, it has been a decade in the making. As a result, the world is torn between two opposing clusters: a maritime alliance of democracies, led by the United States; and a Eurasian bloc of illiberal or autocratic states, centred upon Russia and China.

Now, what they’re saying without quite saying it is that the Ukraine war correlated with even better public opinion towards Russia and China.

I find the next chunk predictable:

However, what matters may not be so much the presence of democratic institutions, but
rather, whether they are valued and appreciated by citizens. If so, attitudes towardscountries such as Russia or the United States might take into account their potential to assist – or damage – the health of their democracy. For a closer look at Figure 20 reveals anumber of electoral democracies, such as Indonesia, India or Nigeria, in which the public remains sympathetic to Russian or Chinese influence, in spite of a difference in political regime. Thus it is not simply whether democratic institutions exist that countsbut rather, the degree to which they are seen as functional and legitimate.

This seems reasonable, at first glance. Here’s the chart:

Eyeball those nations above and below the 50% mark.

What does the grouping below 50% all have in common? What does the grouping above 50% have in common?

Whether or not they could be considered part of the Westerns sphere. Those above the line are generally not those who have done well under US hegemony and who are not Western allies.

So, yeah, this looks to me to be a case of “correlation is not causation”. I would gently suggest that what creates the legitimacy of “democratic institutions” is whether they have delivered for people and that those countries under 50% tend to be those who have been inside the Western (US/EU/close allies bubble.)

So, yes, it is actually about the new cold war.

Now remember, China now does most of the world’s development. It isn’t even close. They build the new ports, airports, hospitals, roads, bridges and even cities. Further, they do it cheaper than the West does it.

So, if you’re a developing nation who isn’t inside the “blessed bubble”, even as bad as that bubble has become under neoliberalism, China looks good and America looks… well, not so good, especially since the US has been the primary driver of trade and finance rules which have been very bad for the third world.

This has been going on for a long time, but since the collapse the USSR there hasn’t been another option. China offers one, and Russia is thumbing its nose at a global order that has gone out of its way to screw over the countries which are above that 50% line.

So, I wouldn’t say it’s exactly about “democratic legitimacy” — that legitimacy is a dependent variable and it is associated with America, NATO and to a lesser extent the EU. When a global regime doesn’t deliver it is discredited, and in fact even in countries under the 50% mark, most have been losing trust in “democratic legitimacy” as well. Americans and British will know well of what I speak.

The end result is that most of the world now slightly favors China and Russia and the important part is that trend is likely to continue. There will be a cold war, and most of the world wants to remain neutral or slightly favors China/Russia. On election Lula in Brazil said they would keep trading with both sides and not be drawn into the cold war, but Brazil is one of the founding members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) the most important economic bloc that doesn’t include the US. Brazil will remain “neutral” but 31% of Brazil’s exports now go to China and 11% to the US. If the US is stupid enough to push, and military might isn’t determinative, Brazil would be foolish not to go with China.

Power follows industrial capacity and popularity follows treatment. With a few notable exceptions, if you’re a third world country, China treats you better than the US has in ages. As for Russia, well, they may screw with nearby countries, but otherwise they don’t get involved much (remember Syria invited them in, and is a long time ally.) Indians, in particular, remember that Russia was a friend for generations when the US and Europe were not. As for Africa, China has been developing good relations thru trade and development for decades now.

In this cold war, the West is going to be the one isolated, as the above (older) map from the Economist suggests. Yes, they are “neutral” for now, but if forced to choose, don’t assume they’ll choose the current order.

The “rules based international order” is rather small and how it has been run has damaged democratic legitimacy far more than “China” or “Russia”.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

China “To Those Who Have Everything”

By

On September 12, 2022

Comments

This is why you don’t give away your manufacturing base. China is “gaining market share in both low and hi-tech sectors.”  It is “now a more important international supplier than Germany, the U.S. and Japan combined.” China’s share of manufacturing exports grew from 17% in the 2017 to 21% in 2021.

The US recently put a ban on sending advanced AI chips to China, and the CHIPS act forbids any company which takes money from setting up new fabs in China, but it isn’t going to matter. Just as China jumped two chip generations (from 11 to 7nm) far faster than any western expert I know of thought they could, they will catch up in AI chips.

Then they will surpass.

As people at least as far back as Adam Smith pointed out, scale matters for efficiency in a lot of industrial processes. China has it. Once the US did, and before that England. Where the manufacturing floor is matters as well, it leads to faster iteration and more understanding of what works and doesn’t: “to those who have everything, more is given.”

America efforts to stem the rise of China aren’t working. The current anti-Russia sanctions are hurting Germany in particular. The entire “globalization” nonsense was a huge mistake for the West, and it will lead to a civilizational transfer of the locus of power from Europe/America to China/Asia unless climate change interferes (which it might.)

But the key thing to understand is that this is accelerating, not slowing down. In the 19th century, Britain deliberately helped America industrialize so its rich could make more money, without looking at the fact that it was a continental power with a larger population. In the late 20th and early 21st century, America did the same with China.

Helping Japan and Korea and Taiwan industrialize or reindustrialize didn’t matter that much: at the end, they are population constrained.

China isn’t. And for a few coins the West’s elites gave another civilization the opportunity to surpass it in perhaps the most important source of power in the post-industrial revolution world.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Correct Priorities in China’s Response to the Mortgage Boycott

By

On July 29, 2022

Comments

So, China’s construction market has a problem, and vast numbers of Chinese have stopped paying mortgages on stalled out or behind construction projects.

The government’s likely response?

…a typical scenario would involve seizing land from a distressed developer and giving it to a healthier rival, which would in turn provide funding to complete the distressed developer’s stalled projects.

And there is this:

The focus on completing projects is the latest sign that policy makers are prioritizing homeowners over bondholders, who have been burned by a record number of defaults by real estate giants including China Evergrande Group.

This is a correct response. Investors who lend money (which is what bondholders are) are gambling. If whoever they gamble on can’t pay, they should lose their money. That’s how it’s supposed to work, and it’s how it has to work if markets are to do their job. A market assumes that someone making a profit is producing something other people want for less than they’re willing to pay. Investors are supposed to direct capital towards those sorts of producers. If they make bad bets, they should lose their money, and someone else should make the bets.

Lenders and developers exist to do things. Investors finance those enterprises which provide “utility” and make a profit. Developers construct buildings (which have utility) at a profit. If you can’t both provide a service or product with utility and make a profit, you should not survive in a market economy. That’s how it works.

So the bond-holders should lose their money, and the developers who can’t construct buildings at a profit should go out of business and, yes, the consumers should be protected as long as they acted in reasonable good faith. Ordinary people aren’t developers or financiers; unless there was an obvious reason to expect fraud which an ordinary person should have seen, they should be made almost whole. Not entirely, so that they become a little more wary in the future, but the delays already do that.

China’s central government should have acted on this much sooner, but if they go with this response, it’s a good one. Westerners should learn: Investors, traders, and businesses can’t be protected classes in a market economy.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

China Jumps Two Chip Generations Ahead: Why Chip Sanctions Backfired

By

On July 26, 2022

Comments

Faster than most expected:

Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC, 中芯) has likely advanced its production technology by two generations, defying US sanctions intended to halt the rise of China’s largest chipmaker.

The Shanghai-based manufacturer is shipping bitcoin-mining semiconductors built using 7 nanometer technology, industry watcher TechInsights wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.

That would be well ahead of SMIC’s established 14 nanometer technology, a measure of fabrication complexity in which narrower transistor widths help produce faster and more efficient chips.

Since late 2020, the US has barred the unlicensed sale to the Chinese firm of equipment that can be used to fabricate semiconductors of 10 nanometers and beyond, infuriating Beijing.

Now, there’s a question if they can scale, but this is still a huge step. This means that they are ahead of Europe and the US, and behind only Taiwan and Korea. This is also sooner than almost all experts predicted: China did what Western technologists thought could not be done so quickly.

This speed, as I have noted in previous articles, is not that surprising; the technological lead always moves to the country which holds the world’s manufacturing floor. When Britain fell behind the US, it took about 30 years for them to lose their tech lead, but lose it they did. The same will happen with the US and Britain, but likely faster for obvious reasons like jets, the internet, and so on.

To put it simply, when you are right there with the factory floor, your innovation cycles are far faster, or in modern-speak, you iterate more quickly. You also have more practical experience with what actually works.

The “ban semi-equipment and semi-sales” to China card was a card, like the freezing of Russian foreign reserves, that you only get to play once at a great power. China is more than happy to subsidize chip manufacturers to learn how to make this tech domestically, and they are also crashing other key techs they’re behind in (like aviation), because it’s clear if the West would put a ban on semis, they’ll do it to anything or everything else.

China’s Job , and Xi has stated this publicly, is to make it so that they can’t be choked out by the US (the “West” is mealy-mouthed; the US makes the decisions, and the EU, Japan, and so on just do what they’re told, with occasional exceptions). Making Russia a locked-in junior ally with the sanctions regime made it so that China couldn’t be choked out on natural resources, and making it clear that crippling sanctions are on the board caused China to scramble to close the deficiency.

Unlike with choking out Japan over oil before WWII (which is why the Japanese felt they had to attack the US), however, the partial sanctions on China were not crippling, because unlike pre-WWII, the US is not the world’s primary industrial power, and it has its own dependencies on Chinese trade.

In realpolitik terms, because this is the case, sanctions should have been all at once, followed by war (I’m not for this, I’m massively against it, not least because of the issue of nukes). Half-assing it just gave China time to decouple its key dependencies and, as noted above, the anti-Russia sanctions were a gift from heaven to China.

The game continues, and if it were not for climate change, all the smart money would be on China as the pre-eminent world power within 20 years, probably sooner. As it is, a lot will depend on variables that humans have chosen not to control and soon will lack the ability to significantly control.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Who Wins and Loses Because of the Ukraine War?

By

On May 16, 2022

Comments

I’m basing this on current trends and what I see as the most likely outcome.

Russia will take about 30% to 40% of Ukraine: the East and the coast along the Black Sea, areas that are generally Russian ethnic or speaking. While they were pushed back from Kharkiv, I think they’ll take the Oblast by the end of the war. Basically, see where Russians are the majority and that’s the land that Russia will feel it can keep and not fight an endless guerilla war.

They make have to take more land than that to force a peace on terms they can stand, but they won’t want to keep it because everyone knows the West is trying to draw them into a long term guerilla war. (Such a war could be won in Ukraine because of the terrain, but doing so would require a lot of killing, deportatons and camps and many years. It’s not worth it for Russia.)

The Russians original goals will not be met, and Finland and Sweden will joint NATO (although they were already quite integrated), so in one sense it can be said that Russia has “lost”. In certain other senses it can be said to win.

But let’s look at the major players, one by one.

Ukraine: the big loser. Unless this war goes far different than I expect (possible and I’ll admit it if it does) they’re going to come out of it a smaller country with no coast, who has lost their industrial heartland and even if the gas is turned back on, they will lose most of the transit fees in a couple years max as the EU transitions away. They will find that the “rebuilding” they were promised is IMF style neoliberalism and the average person will wind up worse off.

Verdict: Disastrous Loss.

The EU: In the win column, the EU should have built up a larger military long ago and will now do so. They will be more unified, at least initially, feeling they have all supported a war and with fear of Russia acting as unifying glue.

In the lost column they have firmly moved into the US satrapy column. In order to move out they would have to create their own army that is not dependent on US built military equipment and that’s the opposite of what they’re doing. (Foolish, because the US is losing its ability to build either ships or combat planes. The F-35 was a boondogle, Boeing has lost its engineering chops, and they recently decided to decommission built ships because they are so bad.)

The increase in price of fuel (US gas is about 50% more expensive than Russian), commodities and food as well as the general inflation shock from the Ukraine war will lead to a poorer Europe. Spending more money on the military will make ordinary people feel worse off and so will inflation. Industry will be badly damaged by increased fuel and mineral prices. All of this will lead to increased political instability and is likely to help the fascist right and possible the more radical left (if the left ever gets its act together.)

Joining the US in such huge sanctions and seizing Russia’s reserves (“frozen”) means that they are choosing to join the US side of the new cold war world rather than being a third pole, and this will eventually limit their trade options, as they, like the US, cannot be trusted with money.

The EU is, overall, likely to come out of this war poorer, more isolated and with increased political instability, but with a much larger military and feeling more unified at the elite and country to country level (at least until and if political instability changes that.)

Veridict: Slight Loss.

The US: The US has gotten Europe firmly back as a satrapy. NATO expands, the Europeans will spend more more on US military goods and buy expensive US gas and oil. The possibility of Europe becoming independent and forming a third pole in the upcoming cold war between the US and China is now minimal, and essentially zero for at least a decade or two.

On the negative side, Russia is now firmly in the Chinese sphere. Because the US’s strategy in the case of a war with China would be to strangle China with a military enforced trade embargo, this is a big problem. Russia can supply China with massive amounts of food, fuel and commodities, making the “choke them out” strategy against China unlikely to succeed. Likewise a friendly Russia means China has a relatively secure flank to the Northwest. There are even signs of Chinese-Indian rapprochement, and though I’ll believe it when I see it, India not joining against China would be a huge boon to China.

Since China is the “real” threat, not Russia, the one country that can replace the US as the world’s most powerful nation, strengthening China’s position is a loss.

The US also will suffer due to inflation from knock on effects of the Ukraine war, and that will cause increased domestic instability. Elites continue to funnel massive money to the domestic security apparatus (police of various varieties, spies who target US residents), however, and elites feel fairly secure, though I think they’re wrong as they’re funneling resources to police who stand a good chance of joining a right wing uprising.

The final major effect for the US is that freezing Russian reserves and encouraging the massive level of sanctions, is seen by most of the world as evidence it’s not safe to keep money in the US lead banking system, or even to trade with them. This has accelerated de-dollarization and I suspect will be seen as the precipitating event of losing reserve status for the American dollar. The world will split into two financial blocs, one centered around China-Russia, the other around the US-EU. The US receives huge benefits from reserve status and from being at the center of the world financial system, and as with Britain after WWI, it will suffer mightily when it loses this position.

My evaluation is that what the US will likely gain from the Ukraine war is less than it has or will lose: dollar hegemony and being the financial center of the world are a big deal, and confirming Russia as a junior Chinese ally makes their main geopolitical rival far stronger.

Verdict: Loss

Russia: Russia has weathered the initial economic storm well, but most EU countries will move off Russian gas and oil. Some of that gas and oil cannot be brought to market anywhere else for a few years (probably 3) until new pipelines are built and while there are customers, they will pay less than the Europeans did.

Sanctions will not cripple Russia, but there are goods like advanced semiconductors and, more importantly, some tech needed for gas and oil extraction, that they will be cut off from. China cannot immediately replace those oil and gas related goods, and they are at least ten years behind in semiconductors (and themselves cut off from some key capital equipment they can’t yet build). That said the oil and gas tech is probably within quicker reach, and Russia doesn’t need the most advanced semiconductors in large quantities so far as I know.

In most economic terms Russia will be OK: they have a big food surplus; they have more than enough fuel, of course, and they can buy almost everything they don’t make from China, who is not going to cut them off; indeed, rather the reverse. India is also rushing to cut deals with Russian businesses. Sanctions will force more import substitution and help overcome the “resource curse”, making it cost-effective to make more things in Russia (if they aren’t overwhelmed by cheap Chinese goods.)

Sanctions will not cripple Russia the way they have many other countries, though they will be felt. Nor will they cause a revolution and if there is a coup it will be because Putin is old now and may be ill with Parkinsons or something else.

In territorial terms Russia likely to wind up larger. They get the industrial part of Ukraine and the coast, they can send water to Crimea (which has been cut off from years, and whose agriculture was devastated as a result) and while many will say they didn’t win the war, etc… people who want to stand up to them will not be keen on “winning and losing 30% of our country.” If that’s victory, it looks pretty bad.

A unified Europe with more countries in NATO and a bigger military is a loss for Russia, and one can expect that NATO will move more missiles and ABMS close to the Russian border, including hypersonic missiles as soon as they have them. In that sense the war is a clear loss: Russia wanted those weapons removed from near its border, and there will probably be even more of them.

In the end Russia will be able to credibly claim it won the war as a war: it took territory and kept it and it’s hard to say that a country which took its enemy’s territory lost a war. That said, there will be a case that it is a Pyrrhic victory, in that there is an economic hit, NATO has expanded, Europe will have a bigger military and so on.

The counter-case is simple: Ukraine was talking about getting nukes and had started shelling Donetsk in what looked like a prelude to invasion. Russia didn’t get its maximal goals, but it did gut Ukraine as a threat and did secure Ukrainian land in what is likely to be a semi-permanent fashion absent an all out NATO/Russia war.

The maximal goals didn’t happen, but in a bad situation Russia may reasonably claim it got quite a bit. As for sanctions, every year there had been more of them, none had ever been rescinded and all the war did was move them up.

Verdict: Marginal victory.

China: Yes, strictly speaking China isn’t involved in the war, but the war affects China greatly. China needs about 10 years to get to a reasonable parity with the US in semiconductors and aviation, the golden technologies of US hegemonic rule. The Ukraine war has made it clear they probably have less time than that, and that the world economic order is likely to split sooner because China is stuck between US demands to support sanctions and its own strategic needs, which require Russia as an ally, or at least a reliable supplier. Russia being decisively defeated or economically crushed would be catastrophic for China, so they must keep it alive and viable.

Still, all in all having Russia unable to sell to or buy from the West is unbelievably good for China: there is no alternative for Russia. If they can’t go to the West they must go to China. India may be willing to trade, but India’s economy is tiny compared to China’s and its industry scarce. China can make almost everything Russia needs and everything it can’t make it’s working on learning how to make. And, as previously discussed, Russia as an ally makes it impossible for the US to choke China out in a war.

Verdict: Victory

Concluding Remarks: Of course all of this based on a model of how they war will go which may not be the case. Perhaps the maximalists in the West are right, and the Russian military is fundamentally incompetent, can’t do logistics to a disastrous degree, and is on the verge of collapse. If you think Russia can’t even win the conventional war, all of this is is nonsense because a definite loss is likely to lead to regime change and possibly even collapse.

Likewise if you think that sanctions will have much more effect than I do, or that China will not integrate with Russia economically, then this is all wrong.

But overall, this war looks like a case where Russia gets a marginal victory; the US and the EU get some wins but their victories are effectively Pyrrhic, and China is the big winner.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

The Possible Dire Consequences of NATO & Ukrainian Escalation

By

On April 28, 2022

Comments

So, UK foreign secretary Trus has said that the war in Ukraine must continue until Russia is forced out of Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.

Meanwhile, the UK is shipping weapons to Ukraine that are capable of striking Russian cities.

As a moral matter, of course, the Ukraine has the right to strike Russia, same as so many countries have the right to assassinate American leaders and bomb American weddings in which “high value targets” might be involved.

But let’s consider the state of the war. Putin calls it a special military operation. Reserves have not been called up, and a great deal of care is being taken in the use of force. Unlike in Iraq, Russia has not taken out power, sewage, water systems, most roads, or rail. It has not unleashed level bombers for massive bombing of Ukrainian cities.

Russia has also not called up its reserves. Putin appears to think that would be unpopular. Russia has millions of men in its reserves. It could call up two million men and not exhaust them. They’re not the best troops, but they would swamp Ukraine.

Now, if Ukraine hits Russian cities, however fair that is, what will happen to Russian public and elite opinion? Imagine Iraq somehow managed to hit New York and cause real damage in the 2000s (if you want a scenario: perhaps they could have smuggled bombs into the harbor on cargo ships).

How would Americans have reacted?

That’s how Russians will react. Add in some atrocity propaganda (and there are plenty of videos of Ukrainian soldiers doing horrible things, they aren’t saints) and Putin will easily have all the backing he needs to go to total non-nuclear war. In fact, even if he doesn’t want to escalate, it would be difficult to avoid.

This would mean, as a start, bombing every road and rail crossing leaving the Ukraine that Russia or Belarus doesn’t control, so more weapons can’t get into Ukraine. It would likely mean removing all power and water from western Ukrainian cities and forcing most of the remaining population in those areas to flee: 20+ million people. And it would mean taking major cities, which Russia will have the manpower to do.

Further, the idea that any Russian government would ever give up Crimea is insanity (that Russia would fight a war to keep Sevastopol is why I was able, in 2008, to predict the next war would be over Crimea).

This idea that NATO has that it can safely fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, without any chance of war-spillover is insane. Likewise, China CANNOT afford to let Russia be broken up. If it is, then China can almost trivially be blockaded and forced into subjugation. They need Russian oil, gas, coal, minerals, and food and without them they cannot survive a confrontation with the West. It is literally impossible.

What China sees is that the US wants to fight wars where they aren’t at risk. If there’s a war in Asia against China, without using nukes, China has little ability to hit the US mainland, while the US can hit China. Yes, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan (if they’re stupid enough to join in) get devastated, but the US laughs as the damage is done overseas.

I strongly suspect the Chinese now see this as the US plan for them. The US has stated it wants to place hypersonic missiles in the first island chain off China, which includes Taiwan, the same sort of movement of weapons which contributed to Russia’s demands before the Ukraine war (the US is a year or two from hypersonic, but the placement of other missiles and ABM close to Russia has been protested by Russia for years), and recently there has even been talk of putting US troops in Taiwan as a trip wire similar to the one in South Korea.

This means China needs a conventional deterrent; they need missiles that can hit the continental US, and they need to increase their navy to the point where it can fight the US navy in international waters and win. Remember that China’s ship-building capacity is VASTLY larger than that of the US.

The US and UK, both of whom think that Russia and China can’t hurt them, are pushing this war in ways that are very dangerous. This is a bet, in fact, that Russia and Putin are entirely “rational”, despite the rhetoric and won’t risk escalation. But Putin is reputed to have spent hours watching the video of Gaddafi being sodomized by a bayonet before being killed, and the CCP knows that “regime change” is what the US wants for China.

Regime change in China will leave a lot of CCP members, and especially leaders, dead.

This is an existential issue for China and Russia. If they lose to America, their leaders are overthrown. Russia will be dismembered (this is what multiple NATO leaders have said they want), and China will be relegated to permanent 2nd tier status at best. Many of the leaders will die, and many of those will die ugly.

This is understandable for the US. They have a wasting asset: China, given enough time, will inevitably have a larger military, since it has the larger economy, and they are catching up in technology. The US Navy has been shrinking for decades and the US has lost the ability to build ships: they have had to cancel recent designs because on testing, they suck. The US’s ability to build planes is also in doubt: the F-35 was a massive mess and is far too expensive.

Since the US also judges that any escalation short of nuclear won’t hit them, except economically, and will hurt their enemies and their satrapies worse (making Europe weaker economically and stronger militarily is a win for the US), they have a great deal of incentive to escalate as much as possible, and just make sure it doesn’t go nuclear.

This isn’t in anyone else’s interest, but Europe is consumed with fear of Russia, and Western European leaders have accepted the narrative of Eastern Europe and the USA about Russia as a completely rogue power which must be destroyed, because it can never be trusted.

Meanwhile, the US’s ability to control foreign countries outside of Europe is dropping fast. Three of the four Gulf States (creations of the UK and kept in existence by the US) refused to side with NATO in the UN. Saudi Arabia has basically told the US to fuck itself. The Solomon Islands signed a military pact with China which spawned threats from Australia and the US of military action if a base is built because apparently the right to make military alliances and do what you want in your own territory is available only to would be American allies.

India has not gone along with sanctions and Malaysia is wavering.

US hegemony is breaking. Western hegemony is breaking. As alarmed and scared as Chinese and Russian elites are, American and Western elites are furious: absolutely livid that anyone dare challenge them, or that the days of their hegemony may soon be over. Right now, calculating that the costs of wars to stay in charge will not primarily be born by them, they are willing to escalate recklessly.

Since passions are up, I note that this is not a moral analysis about who is good or bad. There was certainly moral justification for going to war against the USSR at various points, but we didn’t and we avoided escalating beyond certain levels because we knew that war with them was unthinkable.

War with Russia is still unthinkable. War with China is abominable.

Our time is done. We sold our patrimony to the Chinese from the 90s thru the 10s, so that our elites could break our working class and get richer than if they had to pay 1st world wages and costs. That’s the truth. Our elites thought they were international elites, not national elites, and they were wrong. The Chinese knew they were a national elite, and, in effect, bribed our elites to give away the most important sources of their real power: having the largest industry, and having a huge tech lead.

Our elites gave it all away, for a few trillion dollars, and China paid happily. Our elites now see that their only chance to retain power is to use the waning asset of military supremacy. First they need to take out Russia, then they can choke China out.

This is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. Even if it doesn’t blow into nuclear war, it can easily blow into hot war. American allies in Asia, I would suggest, would be well advised to decouple militarily. This especially goes for Japan: build your own nukes and conventional deterrent and sit this one out. China can’t reach the US mainland yet, but it can reach you.

On top of all of this extraordinarily dangerous nonsense is the opportunity cost: we should be spending trillions on preparing for climate change and ecological collapse, not playing war games. NATO and Russia, over the last 10 years should have been disarming near mutual borders, not rushing troops, missiles and planes to the borders.

We are acting insane, chimpanzees trying to maintain dominance, locally or globally. And we are going to pay for it, even if we avoid nuclear war, with hundreds of millions, probably billions, of unnecessary deaths.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

 

How Big Is The Chinese Economy Compared to The West?

By

On April 21, 2022

Comments

I recently came across these charts, of the biggest trade partner of each country, from 1990 and 2020.

To simplify: China is now more dominant in trade than the US at the height of its recent power. (Also of interest is the change in the UK and Japan’s position, though the collapse of Japan is overstated: it’s not , but it’s still a big trade power.

Let’s put the 2020 chart in numbers, bearing in mind that doing it in US dollars will overstate the relative size of the US.

For imports (from Wikipedia):

So, China is the primary trade partner of far more countries than the US. It exports more than the US, and imports less. These numbers understate the situation, though, since they are “goods and services.”

French Economist Jacques Sapir recently did an economic comparison by adjusting GDP numbers (not trade) as follows. First, change them for purchasing power parity (PPP), which is to say you can buy more with the same amount of money in China or Russia than in the US or Germany. Then adjust for the service sector being overvalued, so you’re left with manufacturing and the primary sector (digging things up and refining them) as the primary drivers.

Do this and Russia’s economy is 5% to 6% of the world economy, and much larger than Germany’s. China is about 30%, and the EU + US are about 30%.

Now I don’t entirely endorse this, there are some useful things in “services” like parts of the tech industry (much is worthless though, serving ads better does not increase a country’s actual economic strength. It might sap it.)

But it puts the situation in better perspective than using raw GDP.

Really there are three primary drivers of actual economic power: manufacuturing, resources and technology. Everything else either exists to service those 3 areas, or is nice and maybe even important to social stability (law, entertainment) but not primary.

China is the world’s primary manufacturing power. Russia is a powerhouse for resource exctraction. Russia is a leader in some types of military technology and not far behind in many others, and China is rapidly closing on the West in terms of tech and is even ahead in many areas (5G, for example, or hi speed trains, civilian use of drones, and so on.)

China also has something the US doesn’t have: a belief in technology. Robots and drones are common, technology is viewed as good, not bad and a threat. The Chinese believe in the future in a way that the west hasn’t since the 50s.

On top of all of this China is the world’s largest developer of nations: if you want ports, roads, train stations, hospitals, schools, smart cities or anything else, China will build them for you. They’ll finance them, and some exceptions aside they offer good loan rates because usually they’re more interested in good trade relations and getting your food/oil/minerals than they are about making a profit off building the infrastructure. In addition, Chinese construction companies building overseas infrastructure means those industries don’t have to downsize: they build China, now there isn’t enough work, so they’re off in Africa and South America.

To summarize then: China is:

  1. the number 1 trade partner of more nations than anyone else, and more than the US had in 1990.
  2. the world’s largest manufacturing nation
  3. Technologically near even with the West, and in some places ahead.
  4. The nation that helps the most other nations develop.
  5. When you adjust for PPP and service sector crap, a larger economy than the US. With Russia, a larger economy than the US and the EU combined.

And this is the nation we want to enter into a Cold War with? We shipped them so much of our industry that they now have more than we do, and after doing that we decide it’s time to pick a fight?

One thing is true of post-industrialization great politics: industry, access to resources and tech are what determine power. Since there is no longer a situation where the West has technology that is vastly ahead of everyone else’s, it really comes down to industry + resources.

And with Russia locked in and South America and Africa tending to prefer it, China is ahead or secure in both of those those categories.

If we wanted to keep our supremacy, we had to not ship China our industry and our tech so we could make some of our elites even richer. The Chinese accurately sized up our elite’s weaknesses and exploited them to the hilt. They thought they were “international” elites and it didn’t matter where the manufacturing was done, or who had the technology. The Chinese, however, were a national elite, and they knew it did.

I’m not sure this was exactly a bad thing. The West, in the unipolar moment (and heck, before) vastly misused its power, over and over again. Maybe a two-polar world will be better, if it isn’t, at least all power won’t be centralized in America with a few satrapies getting a voice and maybe that will be better for many countries and billions of people.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

 

Page 4 of 9

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén