I've noticed that there are a number of books and articles which are trying to chart out a China strategy, but which almost all contain fundamental flaws.
I've come across a promotional article for the following book, which piqued my interest.
Whilst the book isn't released yet, the article has already laid out a HUGE flaw.
In 2050, it projects Chinese GDP at $58 Trillion versus US GDP at $34 Trillion. Figures are using PPP.
If you take the existing 2019 GDP figures (China $27.3 Trillion and US $21.4 Trillion) - you end up with the following average growth rates for the next 30 years.
USA - 1.6% growth per year.
That looks like a reasonable assumption, given sustainable growth is almost certainly between 1.5%-2.5% per year.
China - 2.6% growth per year.
This is a hugely flawed.
It basically assumes that the Chinese economy collapses and stays that way for the next 30 years.
Whilst this is possible, it is NOT a probable scenario.
In a worst-case scenario, let's say the Chinese economy only grows a sustained 4% per year. That is down from 6% today.
Then the Chinese economy ends up 2.6x larger than the USA, not the 1.7x larger in the book scenario.
In other words, the book likely underestimates the size of the Chinese economy in 2050.
And that error is the size of a USA in terms of economics and potentially in military spending.
Such an error would invalidate much of the analysis and conclusions in the book.
Once the book is released, it will be interesting to see what economic assumptions have been applied to India and Indonesia.
My question is why didn't the author use the Australian government white papers as a basis, which estimate the Chinese economy as 2x the USA in the 2030-2035 timeframe.
---
The article itself also skirts around another interesting point.
It doesn't quite say it, but in 2050, Australia becomes insignificant in terms of economic heft or military spending - even in relation to Indonesia.
In other words, if Australia wants to have a healthy relationship as the junior partner to Indonesia, it will have to stop lecturing Indonesia all the time, and actually treat a much larger Indonesia with deference. This will be fascinating to watch, if this actually happens.
---
Also, the author is the Head of the "National Security College at the Australian National University" in Canberra.
Given the author's proximity to the Australian government in Canberra, what is the actual quality of advice being given to the Australian government?
You simply cannot advocate a China strategy, which is based on a Chinese economic collapse which lasts for the next 30 years.
I've come across a promotional article for the following book, which piqued my interest.
Contest for the Indo-Pacific: Why China Won't Map the Future
By Rory Medcalf
Whilst the book isn't released yet, the article has already laid out a HUGE flaw.
In 2050, it projects Chinese GDP at $58 Trillion versus US GDP at $34 Trillion. Figures are using PPP.
If you take the existing 2019 GDP figures (China $27.3 Trillion and US $21.4 Trillion) - you end up with the following average growth rates for the next 30 years.
USA - 1.6% growth per year.
That looks like a reasonable assumption, given sustainable growth is almost certainly between 1.5%-2.5% per year.
China - 2.6% growth per year.
This is a hugely flawed.
It basically assumes that the Chinese economy collapses and stays that way for the next 30 years.
Whilst this is possible, it is NOT a probable scenario.
In a worst-case scenario, let's say the Chinese economy only grows a sustained 4% per year. That is down from 6% today.
Then the Chinese economy ends up 2.6x larger than the USA, not the 1.7x larger in the book scenario.
In other words, the book likely underestimates the size of the Chinese economy in 2050.
And that error is the size of a USA in terms of economics and potentially in military spending.
Such an error would invalidate much of the analysis and conclusions in the book.
Once the book is released, it will be interesting to see what economic assumptions have been applied to India and Indonesia.
My question is why didn't the author use the Australian government white papers as a basis, which estimate the Chinese economy as 2x the USA in the 2030-2035 timeframe.
---
The article itself also skirts around another interesting point.
It doesn't quite say it, but in 2050, Australia becomes insignificant in terms of economic heft or military spending - even in relation to Indonesia.
In other words, if Australia wants to have a healthy relationship as the junior partner to Indonesia, it will have to stop lecturing Indonesia all the time, and actually treat a much larger Indonesia with deference. This will be fascinating to watch, if this actually happens.
---
Also, the author is the Head of the "National Security College at the Australian National University" in Canberra.
Given the author's proximity to the Australian government in Canberra, what is the actual quality of advice being given to the Australian government?
You simply cannot advocate a China strategy, which is based on a Chinese economic collapse which lasts for the next 30 years.