America still holds the aces in its poker game over its challenger

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Article in the London financial times by Joseph Nye, the "inventor" of "soft power"

America still holds the aces in its poker game with China
The US has advantages over its challenger that will outlive the present administration

Read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

However, I see a number of analytical errors, as it is trying to look ahead 7 years, past President Trump.

On soft power, it ignores how the China is leading Asian economic integration with RCEP. Plus we can already see that south east Asia places more importance on relations with China than the USA, as per the think tank surveys and books. And recently we saw how Vietnam gave up outright in the face of Chinese demands.

On a US-China trade war, the actual figures from the RAND report on a blockade were a 5-10% decline for US GDP, along with 25-35% decline for China.

But if we rerun the methodology as of October 2017, the US remains the same, whilst China drops to 20%-30%. And in another 2-3 years, it should drop to 15%-25%.

And by the end of President Trump's second term in 7 years time? I expect both China and the US would see a similar decline in GDP (5-15%) if they got into a conflict. And it is likely that China will have a larger economy than the US no matter how it is measured.

And the role of the US dollar? It will probably still be a global reserve currency, but it will be interesting to see what China does with the RMB if the Chinese economy is larger.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
Article in the London financial times by Joseph Nye, the "inventor" of "soft power"



However, I see a number of analytical errors, as it is trying to look ahead 7 years, past President Trump.

On soft power, it ignores how the China is leading Asian economic integration with RCEP. Plus we can already see that south east Asia places more importance on relations with China than the USA, as per the think tank surveys and books. And recently we saw how Vietnam gave up outright in the face of Chinese demands.

On a US-China trade war, the actual figures from the RAND report on a blockade were a 5-10% decline for US GDP, along with 25-35% decline for China.

But if we rerun the methodology as of October 2017, the US remains the same, whilst China drops to 20%-30%. And in another 2-3 years, it should drop to 15%-25%.

And by the end of President Trump's second term in 7 years time? I expect both China and the US would see a similar decline in GDP (5-15%) if they got into a conflict. And it is likely that China will have a larger economy than the US no matter how it is measured.

And the role of the US dollar? It will probably still be a global reserve currency, but it will be interesting to see what China does with the RMB if the Chinese economy is larger.
The real question is why do we need to dedicate a thread for such a poorly written article? Who cares about what one writes in the Financial Times, which just so happens to also have a paywall ...
 

Lethe

Captain
Most people have no conception of time and therefore of gradual, yet significant change.

China was nothing (in the eyes of the world) until the combination of the Beijing Olympics and the Global Financial Crisis meant that that era of Chinese hegemony was upon us. Then the GFC receded and people forgot about China again. At one moment, China will usher in a new era of darkness, in the next China ain't shit and never will be.

The wild rhetoric has only the loosest correlation with reality, where the changes are more gradual, more more mundane, more consistent and ultimately more significant. But the perspective to appreciate that reality, and the language to describe it, are alien to a world that exists in a perpetual 'now' and is more attentive to spectacular events than mundane processes. Western understanding of China is but one of the many casualties of our collective goldfish-like perspective on the world.
 

nugroho

Junior Member
the writer did not include inflation, means he/she did not qualify to write economic article.
The trade war will bring US inflation to astronomic level, and it only bring little effect ( maybe deflation ) to China, so US PPP will be eroded significantly.
There will be no winner, both side lose.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Soft power is the West's attempt to intellectualize the childish teasing of "They like me! They don't like you! Haha!" First thing is why would the US tell anyone how to get power when that means they don't have it? It's like why would the US always tell China what it takes to be innovative when that's just creating a competitor against them? China is an example how the West sounds the alarm bells when China challenges them on anything. I just read an article last week that said India will surpass the US as the number 2 user of smartphones. The comments section was a deluge of insults about India. Mad over who's number two... Americans value being number one. Why would they tell anyone what's in the secret sauce that gets them so many raves?

Soft power is no power at all. It's essentially valuing begging for acceptance. The power doesn't lie in the people seeking "soft power." The power lies with those you're seeking acceptance from. They get to decide if what you have to offer is worth liking. Being liked is overrated. A lot of China's nationalistic neighbors try to tease how they're more liked than China. And if I can I will step in and say China is number 2 in the world and challenging number one without being liked. And number one, the US, always complains how the world disrespects them. So being like is overrated. Being liked just means you're not seen as any competition or threat to anyone who likes you.

The West holds up India as having soft power while China doesn't. They always use the popularity of yoga as an example. So how does yoga being popular equate to having power? Is it like high school cliques. The popular people get to look down and bully those seen as lesser than them? Does it mean Indians have more rights than others that don't have soft power? The only way someone can have more rights is by taking rights away from someone else. Is it surprising that it always comes back down establishing a racist hierarchy?

If the popularity of yoga is an example of soft power, then why isn't Chinese food? How about the popularity of Chinese medicine? How about kung fu movies? Their own definition of what is soft power all of sudden doesn't comply. Having something that is popular with others doesn't get you soft power. Again all the power lies with those get to decide what you have to offer is worthy of being liked. Then there's the lie there's some worldwide consensus that gets to determine what's liked. I remember watching a pop culture TV show and they were talking about how South Korean pop singer Psy's second music video after Gangnam Style hit millions upon millions of views on YouTube on it's first day. One of panelist snidely remarked "But those were all Asians..." meaning only American opinions count. Anyone surprised?

The West is knocking Chinese tech and internet companies as being only domestic companies not international companies like theirs. Yeah but they make just as much or more money than theirs without international markets. Those companies are more likely to withstand international economic turbulence. ... And they don't like that. It's all about power they don't have. The nonsense over soft power as they define is all a big manipulation to get the Chinese to hand them power that their opinion matters and they want China's economy and future to depend on their opinion. They want to make Chinese to believe their opinion matters because then Chinese will choose Amazon over Alibaba, Google over Baidu, Twitter over WeChat. It all comes down to they want to have all the power and all the money.

Why would they be so concerned to tell other countries the secrets to having power, again?
 

supercat

Major
I have a feeling that some western commentators are whistling past the graveyard.

Opinion
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The challenge of Xi Jinping’s Leninist autocracy

Democracies have to recognise their failures to counter a China that sees itself as an ideological rival

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


October 31, 2017

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
!” Thus in 1956 did Nikita Khrushchev, then first secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, predict the future.

Xi Jinping is far more cautious. But his claims, too, are bold. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics has crossed the threshold into a new era,” the general secretary of the Communist party of China told
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
last week. “It offers a new option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving their independence.” The Leninist political system is not on the ash heap of history. It is, yet again, a model.

Khrushchev’s claim seems ridiculous now. It did not seem so then. The industrialisation of the Soviet Union had helped it defeat the Nazi armies. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 indicated it had become a technological rival for the US. Yet 35 years after Khrushchev’s boast, the USSR, the Soviet Communist party and its economy had collapsed. This remains the most extraordinary political event since the second world war. Meanwhile, the most remarkable economic event is the rise of China from impoverishment to middle-income status. That is why Mr Xi is able to talk of China as a model. (See charts.)

upload_2017-11-19_21-34-40.png

Yet how has the system that failed in Moscow succeeded in Beijing? The big difference between the two outcomes lay with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
s brilliant choices. China’s paramount leader after Mao Zedong kept the Leninist political system — above all, the dominant role of the Communist party — while freeing the economy. His determination to maintain party control was made clear by his decisions during what the Chinese call the “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and westerners the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Yet his resolve to continue with economic reform never faltered. The results were spectacular.

Whether the Soviet Union could have followed such a path is open to debate. But it did not. As a result, today’s Russia does not know how to mark the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of a century ago: President Vladimir Putin is an autocrat, but the communist system has gone. Mr Xi is also an autocrat. His dominance over party and country was on display at the party congress. But he is also an heir to the Leninist tradition. His legitimacy rests on the party’s.

upload_2017-11-19_21-10-47.png

What are the implications of China’s marriage of Leninism and market. China has indeed learnt from the west in economics. But it rejects modern western politics. Under Mr Xi, China is increasingly autocratic and illiberal. In the Communist party, China has an ostensibly modern template for its ancient system of imperial sovereignty and meritocratic bureaucracy. But the party is now emperor. So, whoever controls the party controls all. One should add that shifts in an autocratic direction have occurred elsewhere, not least in Russia. Those who thought the fall of the USSR heralded the durable triumph of liberal democracy were wrong.

Will this combination of Leninist politics with market economics go on working as China develops? The answer must be: we do not know. A positive response could be that this system not only fits with Chinese traditions, but the bureaucrats are also exceptionally capable. The system has worked spectacularly so far. Yet there are also negative responses. One is that the party is always above the law. That makes power ultimately lawless. Another is that the corruption Mr Xi has been attacking is inherent in a system lacking checks from below. Another is that, in the long run, this reality will sap economic dynamism. Yet another is that as the economy and the level of education advances, the desire for a say in politics will become overwhelming. In the long run, the rule of one man over the party and that of one party over China will not stand.

upload_2017-11-19_21-15-16.png

All this is for the long run. The immediate position is quite clear. China is emerging as an economic superpower under a Leninist autocracy, controlled by one man. The rest of the world has no choice but to co-operate peacefully with this rising power. Together, we must care for our planet, preserve peace, promote development and maintain economic stability. At the same time, those of us who believe in liberal democracy — the enduring value of the rule of law, individual liberty and the rights of all to participate in public life — need to recognise that China not only is, but sees itself, as a significant ideological rival.

The challenge occurs on two fronts.

First, the west has to keep a margin of technological and economic superiority, without developing an unduly adversarial relationship with Mr Xi’s China. China is our partner. It is not our friend.

upload_2017-11-19_21-18-41.png

Second far more important, the west (fragile as it is today) has to recognise — and learn from — the fact that management of its economy and politics has been unsatisfactory for years, if not decades. The west let its financial system run aground in a huge financial crisis. It has persistently under-invested in its future. In important cases, notably the US, it has allowed a yawning gulf to emerge between economic winners and the losers. Not least, it has let lies and hatred consume its politics.

Mr Xi talks of the “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
”. The west needs rejuvenation, too. It cannot rejuvenate by copying the drift towards autocracy of far too much of today’s world. It must not abandon its core values, but make them live, once again. It must create more inclusive and dynamic economies, revitalise its politics and re-establish anew the fragile balance between the national and the global, the democratic and the technocratic that is essential to the health of sophisticated democracies. Autocracy is the age-old human norm. It must not have the last word.

The original article is behind a paywall. But you can still read it by click the link in this tweet:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Article in the London financial times by Joseph Nye, the "inventor" of "soft power"



However, I see a number of analytical errors, as it is trying to look ahead 7 years, past President Trump.

On soft power, it ignores how the China is leading Asian economic integration with RCEP. Plus we can already see that south east Asia places more importance on relations with China than the USA, as per the think tank surveys and books. And recently we saw how Vietnam gave up outright in the face of Chinese demands.

On a US-China trade war, the actual figures from the RAND report on a blockade were a 5-10% decline for US GDP, along with 25-35% decline for China.

But if we rerun the methodology as of October 2017, the US remains the same, whilst China drops to 20%-30%. And in another 2-3 years, it should drop to 15%-25%.

And by the end of President Trump's second term in 7 years time? I expect both China and the US would see a similar decline in GDP (5-15%) if they got into a conflict. And it is likely that China will have a larger economy than the US no matter how it is measured.

And the role of the US dollar? It will probably still be a global reserve currency, but it will be interesting to see what China does with the RMB if the Chinese economy is larger.

It is true to a certain extent since Hollywood is still strong.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Most people have no conception of time and therefore of gradual, yet significant change.

China was nothing (in the eyes of the world) until the combination of the Beijing Olympics and the Global Financial Crisis meant that that era of Chinese hegemony was upon us. Then the GFC receded and people forgot about China again. At one moment, China will usher in a new era of darkness, in the next China ain't shit and never will be.

The wild rhetoric has only the loosest correlation with reality, where the changes are more gradual, more more mundane, more consistent and ultimately more significant. But the perspective to appreciate that reality, and the language to describe it, are alien to a world that exists in a perpetual 'now' and is more attentive to spectacular events than mundane processes. Western understanding of China is but one of the many casualties of our collective goldfish-like perspective on the world.

Just quoting this to add more weight behind it. So very true. Some Chinese people understand this best. And one moment China being some horrible threat to the civilised world (HA!) and the next, it's a giant sweat shop factory run by corrupt incompetents. Morons of the world will never be able to comprehend any middle ground.
 

delft

Brigadier
I have a feeling that some western commentators are whistling past the graveyard.



The original article is behind a paywall. But you can still read it by click the link in this tweet:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
US went from a dollar based on gold, until 1971 and what the Japanese called the Nixon Shokku, to in 1973 the petrodollar. It means that US can produce unlimited dollars and buy anything they want ( and then the President complains about trade imbalances ) with which they also maintain armed forces to a higher costs than those of the next ten biggest spenders together. But because they are no any more the biggest trading country their dollar might no be acceptable at some time in the future beside gold covered currencies. To prevent that the West needs a cultural revolution of an extend I can't imagine.
In fewer words: The US not able to maintain its huge military, see those two collisions of US warships with merchantmen in Asian waters this year, and it isn't able to maintain in its political system a semblance of competence and legitimacy. Some of its friends are shaky too.
 
Last edited:
Top