Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Lethe
Captain
Not sure if this is the most appropriate thread. If not, feel free to move it.
Good discussion from a couple of weeks back between Kaiser Kuo and Adam Tooze about China-Europe economic relations. Tooze's prescription is for both sides to drop the moralism and work towards practical solutions based upon a clear-eyed assessment and understanding of the other's imperatives, e.g. Europe should probably give up on the idea of challenging China's mastery of photovoltaics and batteries and welcome Chinese investment in Europe, conversely China should recognise that Europe will not allow its automotive sector to be smashed by Chinese imports.
But the route to get to that conclusion is more interesting. Kuo brings up China's resentment (委屈) at having followed the developmental playbook and now being blamed for it. Tooze cheerfully admits that the western conception of economic development never had room to accomodate the rise of China, or even the lesser challenge of Japan. The implication is that economic development is only acceptable insofar as it does not fundamentally challenge the hierarchy of nations. In the context of this discussion at least, Tooze just tables this and moves on, but I think it is worth dwelling upon for a moment.
The mythology and self-image of the west is that it has ascertained the essential ingredients for civilisation and modernity, and that to share in the benevolent prosperity of the west other nations need only emulate the economic, political, legal and cultural structures of the west. The west is happy to assist other nations along this journey, because western principles are of course universal principles and westerners are of course nothing if not benevolent.
China makes a mockery of all this, but crucially the real injury here is not to the material interests of western nations but to their self-image: the rise of China compels the west to confront the limitations of its own mythologies. This is most uncomfortable, and so the standard move is to sidestep the issue by pretending that the problem with China is the CPC, or Taiwan, or the nine-dash line, or Xi Jinping, or Huawei industrial espionage, or an undervalued currency, etc. etc. The truth is that, for the west, the real problem with China is China: any conceivable unified, sovereign Chinese polity on a comparable developmental trajectory was destined to be regarded as a disruptive and unwelcome development to be contained.
Good discussion from a couple of weeks back between Kaiser Kuo and Adam Tooze about China-Europe economic relations. Tooze's prescription is for both sides to drop the moralism and work towards practical solutions based upon a clear-eyed assessment and understanding of the other's imperatives, e.g. Europe should probably give up on the idea of challenging China's mastery of photovoltaics and batteries and welcome Chinese investment in Europe, conversely China should recognise that Europe will not allow its automotive sector to be smashed by Chinese imports.
But the route to get to that conclusion is more interesting. Kuo brings up China's resentment (委屈) at having followed the developmental playbook and now being blamed for it. Tooze cheerfully admits that the western conception of economic development never had room to accomodate the rise of China, or even the lesser challenge of Japan. The implication is that economic development is only acceptable insofar as it does not fundamentally challenge the hierarchy of nations. In the context of this discussion at least, Tooze just tables this and moves on, but I think it is worth dwelling upon for a moment.
The mythology and self-image of the west is that it has ascertained the essential ingredients for civilisation and modernity, and that to share in the benevolent prosperity of the west other nations need only emulate the economic, political, legal and cultural structures of the west. The west is happy to assist other nations along this journey, because western principles are of course universal principles and westerners are of course nothing if not benevolent.
China makes a mockery of all this, but crucially the real injury here is not to the material interests of western nations but to their self-image: the rise of China compels the west to confront the limitations of its own mythologies. This is most uncomfortable, and so the standard move is to sidestep the issue by pretending that the problem with China is the CPC, or Taiwan, or the nine-dash line, or Xi Jinping, or Huawei industrial espionage, or an undervalued currency, etc. etc. The truth is that, for the west, the real problem with China is China: any conceivable unified, sovereign Chinese polity on a comparable developmental trajectory was destined to be regarded as a disruptive and unwelcome development to be contained.
Last edited:
1. The slogans from the May 4th movement, was to learn for the West, and learn science and democracy. That will save China, that was the thought basically among the vast majority of Chinese intellectuals.
2. Then the war happened, and Chairman Mao finally won the revolution. That meant all Western ideas for the future of how to make China a modern country, was flat out rejected.
3. When Deng open up the country, and joining the WTO, guess that was what they called the comeback of the rightist forces, Lenin said said something like that, and Mao said that is the cause of the endless revolution, still, it was not a commitment. The idea behind this from Beijing was that China had to to engage the world seek out the best practices. Maybe the West had a line of thought when China went around seeking the best practices in the world, while maybe China had another idea.
4. When the 2008 financial crisis hit, which was 20 years after the Asian Financial crisis, that was the watershed moment, the final nail in that coffin was struck.
5. In conclusion, it went from we are going to learn everything from the West to be a modern country, to Mao saying we are going to do it our way, to Deng saying learn the best practices even if a few flies get in from the open window, to the 2008 financial crisis which closed that coffin for good.
So, that is the only point I would like to make here. That on this question or issue, in a board sense, of modernity, the West, and China, it is too obvious that on this issue, China and the West are living on different planets.
In fact, I doubt most observers in the West would know this basic history, and that China has basically check out of Hotel California in 2008 because it was not working for the West, why would that work in China? It did not in 1997, nor in 2008.
On other issues of psychology such as self-image, China will respect personal boundaries and will not say anything.
