Impact of China's rise in the world - Long term predictions (30-50 years)


Junior Member
Registered Member
A poor country with a lot of people is still a poor country. What is India going to do? Invade their neighbors to take their resources to feed the people and economy? Yes the bully option.
Iraq in Kuwait- example of the bully option

They could have successfully pulled it off too if it wasn't for the US being the sole superpower at the time

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
A poor country with a lot of people is still a poor country. What is India going to do? Invade their neighbors to take their resources to feed the people and economy? Yes the bully option.
for 20 years before 1979 china punched way above her weight as measured by her per capita income, which was amongst the lowest in the world, primarily because of her large population.


Junior Member
Registered Member
Oh so India's neighbor's don't have those options...?
Everyone in thier neighborhood except for Pak is thier Allies (even Pak before nuclear option was always succeptable to an invasion infact happened two times in Pak history once successfully defended other time lost half the country - despite being head and shoulders above India in both per Capita economy and millitary tech- moved in disguised soldiers like Russia did in Ukraine and territory was lost in no time)

Allies like centeral asian republics are to Russia

Nepal was acting independent what happened

They recently changed their PM through political back channels without an election I believe (don't holds on this one though) (RAW pulling strings in the background)

Bangladesh, ask anyone in Bangladesh they'll tell you RAW is deeply enterionched in thier political system, infact RAW was helping the current PM stay in power by breaking the back of the opposition

What happened/ and is happening in Sri Lanka is also well known (despite having one of the best standards of living in the region)

So population is a big deal in controlling your neighborhood, which India is succefuly doing even now as recently shown in Nepal


Lieutenant General
India says it has advantages that China doesn't. Well that means it shouldn't be one-fifth of China's economy. It should be beating China. Because it's not, it means India is doing something wrong, not something right... and some people think having more people will solve it...? Yeah if all those people are just seen as cannon fodder in invading other countries because those lives are expendable.


Senior Member
More people means their people doesn’t have to be as rich individually for their country to wield comparable clout.

They can have clout in thier region without doing the heavy lifting of economic transformation

Neighbors are all much smaller then India

That sounds like some kind of a Ponzi scheme: your growth depends more on bringing more people into the game, instead of more on increasing revenue/GDP per capita. Like all Ponzi scheme, it will also end up badly: there is a limit to the size of the population and all these young people will get old eventually becoming burden to the country and the society at large.

I know people like to argue that China also has a demographic problem because its earlier one-child policy. China realized in the late 1970's that it had to take some drastic measures in population growth because it had become unsustainable and run against resource limits. It would never have grown out of the poverty trap if it continued down the same path. China was later able to cash in on its demographic dividends and will now almost certainly grow out of the so-called middle-income trap with a relatively better educated population, increasing wealth, large manufacturing economy and the growing technology base. It will be in a much better position to deal with the coming demographic crunch - think of emerging AI, robots, automation etc. Chinese government has a relatively small social welfare commitment now and it now is considering postpone the retirement age gradually (from 55 for female and 60 for male - yes you read them right). China is also experimenting with some more efficient elderly care schemes such as community and at-home care programs. With China's growing urbanization, strong central and local governments, and more homogeneous and cohesive society with its strong Confucian tradition, China is much better positioned to deal with an aging society, a common problem facing most developed and many developing countries in the coming decades.

India, meanwhile, has now faced a receding globalization tide and failed to develop a self-sustaining industrial economy while its population still grows rapidly, creating an increasing gap between the available productive jobs and its growing large population at its prime in need of gainful employment.
Last edited:


Junior Member
Registered Member
I would argue that China, given the state of economy and social development it finds itself in, may not need a huge 1.4B population to sustain its future development because of automation and AI.
0.7 to 0.8B is perfectly fine for China and actually better, in my humble opinion. Better for the environment too, purer air and water, more lands for forestation and agriculture etc. and less crowding at scenic spots during holiday seasons, haaahhaa.


Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Western elites come to terms with the rise of Asia


Editor's note: Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator at the Financial Times, predicted the rise of Asia in his book "Easternisation." In his latest interview with CGTN, Rachman says the rise of Asian economic powers, especially China, is irresistible. Western elites should take a more sophisticated view with the new reality. Views expressed in the video are his and do not necessarily represent those of CGTN.

Wang Guan: In 2016, you wrote the book "Easternisation: War and Peace in the Asian Century," where you argue that 500 years of Western domination of global politics is now coming to an end, and as a result of the rise of new powers in Asia. How do you think Western elites, policy makers in London, Brussels, Washington, should come to terms with this reality?

Gideon Rachman: I think that the reality of the rise of Asian economic powers is something that's not going to change. How they should come to terms with slightly depends on how it plays out because it's a number of things. I think the most important single thing is the rise of China, it's the single biggest economy. It's five times the size of India, for example, but it's also true that it's not just a story about China. It is a story about India, the other country of over one billion people, about Southeast Asia, and so on.

I think that what is happening is that having seen this as primarily an economic opportunity, and therefore, something that was basically good news for the West – larger markets, cheaper goods, all of that – they're coming to terms with the political realities behind that, which is that richer countries in Asia are also going to be more powerful countries with their own views of how the world should run.
And the debate now has begun. As I was saying, that the previous answer about do we accept that, but also taking a more differentiated view of Asia, because I don't think that there is a single Asian bloc that sees the world in one way. Obviously, Tokyo sees things differently from Beijing. Delhi sees things differently from Islamabad, and so on. I think that the Western countries are having to take a more sophisticated view of Asian politics, decide how much they want to get involved in internal disputes.

Wang Guan: Alright. In your book "Easternisation," you talk about this coming century being the Asian century. In the Western media, the commentators, pundits give us enough opinions of their own, saying that, suggesting that it could be a bad thing. Are there good aspects? If and when we're in a century of Asia, where there's an Easternisation of the world?

Gideon Rachman: Yes of course there are. And one of the aspects of Easternisation is a rapid rise in wealth in Asia and huge opportunities for people to live a better life that they might not have had before.

A friend of mine who said that he's lived through this period where China's gone from relative poverty to being essentially middle-class society in the big cities at least, and saying that he felt that when he first visited Europe, that the living standards he saw there, that may be by the end of his life, China would be the same. He said, in fact, it happened in 10 years' time. Within 10 years, the living standards that he had seen as a student in the UK were there in Asia. And that is an amazing thing, that people can have that opportunity, and not just for Chinese people, because as we were suggesting, the biggest market for Western companies in the future is likely to be China or Asia more broadly, and so the wealth is shared to some extent.

I think it also creates some challenges, the geopolitical ones we've talked about. And managing that is really the central political problem of our era. I'm not totally confident we'll do it incidentally. I think that it's a very hard adjustment for everybody, to go from a period of one superpower dominance to a challenger power. Scholars who are much more distinguished than me have written about it, people like Graham Allison, that has resulted in war in the past. So that's difficult as a challenge. And then there's also the environmental issues. A world in which the whole world is middle class is a much higher consumer of energy, food. And that clearly creates strains on the planet, which we can all see. And we can all say we have to manage these together, but seeing the problem, saying we should manage together and actually doing it are different.

Wang Guan: Gideon, you said once that a large part of America's emerging struggle with China will be a battle for economic influence around the world. America's disarray is China's opportunity. How do you see this economic battle evolve, going forward?

Gideon Rachman: It's very, very multifaceted. But I think that clearly, if you look at pure trade, China now is a more important trading partner for many more countries than the United States, and particularly in Asia. I think that is problematic for the United States. However, there are other aspects to it where the U.S. is stronger. There are certain key technologies. We've seen this, for example, with semiconductor bans and so on, where the United States is ahead and has used that as a weapon at times, for example, by imposing semiconductor export bans.

However, I think those are things that China can with some effort probably match America on. I remember a leading American industrial saying to me, these bans are kind of stupid, because they're just telling China, you have a weakness there, you have a weakness there, and China will go ahead and fix those things.

I think the biggest struggle really though, and the one where nobody in the world, China included, yet has a response, is the role of the dollar in the global financial system. It is the world's global reserve currency. And that gives America enormous power to impose financial sanctions. There are many in America who worry that they're overusing that weapon, and that over time, people will get fed up and develop alternatives, which may be the euro or the RMB for the internationalization, or maybe a kind of currency like bitcoin or something else. But for the moment, there isn't really a challenger to the dollar as the safe haven currency. And that does give America enormous economic power, even though by some measures, China is already the world's largest economy. And it's certainly the world's largest manufacturer and exporter.


Registered Member
hindu nationalism is a vote getting strategy, not an interest that the party represents. If BJP represent upper class hindus, ( i am not saying i agree with it) the legitimate question is which aspect of upper class hindu interest must they serve to retain the support of these Hindus?

Do those specific interests require policies that would stand in the way of broader industrialization? which necessarily lead to enlarged middle class?

Are Christian evangelicals an interest group in the USA?

Then why not Hindu religious nationalists?