A valuable rubric for prediction is "people overestimate the change the will happen in a year, but underestimate the change in a decade".
People see that China isn't overtaking the U.S. right now and assume all is well. It is not. China's economy is growing much faster than the U.S. and its natural growth will soon make it at least twice as large as the United States even if they do not escape the middle income trap. China also likely has on the order of 10 times as many people with an IQ over 130 as the U.S.
Nothing needs to change. Natural trajectory already has China far eclipsing the United States within a decade or two. Only a deus ex machina, such as AI or another Mao in China can prevent this.
China's economy is growing faster than the economy of the US, but the difference between the two has been decreasing as China's growth slows. I'd expect that slowing growth to continue for a number of reasons.
1 - The middle income trap and more generally the fact that catch-up growth is easier than innovative growth.
2 - Increasing centralized statist control in China, as opposed to the relaxation of such control in the past which allowed for tremendous growth (it is very unlikely to get anywhere near as bad as Mao, but it still been getting worse to a much lesser extent than that disaster).
3 - Demographics.
4 - The US and to a lesser extent a number of other rich countries becoming more hostile and less open to the US, while China itself is doing a bit of the same from the other side. Many countries are seeking to source outside of China. For things that don't need very low wages to be successful there is some attempt to bring the production home. For things that do, purchases will be more from places like Vietnam (and many other countries, I"m not saying Vietnam is going to grab everything from China). Not just from more hostility and less open trade to/from China but also as China's economy grows it will be less and less a low wage place.
5 - The extent of wealth and income in China that's related to a large real-estate bubble.
I still think that China's economy will pass the US's as the world's largest. But I don't see "at least twice as large" soon. Also China has a lot more people. That is the main reason it will become the largest economy. But OTOH that economy is spread among more people. As Chinese living standards improve (and if they don't that we'll create its own problems, but its very likely they will) a huge amount of national income will be needed to cover those living standards. 50% greater economy with over 4 times the people, doesn't give you 50% greater surplus to spend on military adventures or whatever.
Or, alternatively, 'Mao' already prevented this, and the global evaluation has been erroneously calculating compounding Chinese economic and demographic claims for decades now despite known systemic data integrity issues.
It's not exactly new news that Chinese data is unreliably optimistic. China has admitted as much internally and internationally for over a decade now. What's less common knowledge is that this isn't just economic growth claims, which allow for compounding growth estimates, but the demographic data as well. Chinese demographic data is suspect for many of the same reasons as the economic data- because regional administrators have incentives to over-estimate their numbers in exchange for resources from the central government, and repeated because it serves the national governments geopolitical / national pride purposes to maintain it's claim. Being the largest country in the world (especially vis-a-vis India) assumed its own national prestige purpose just as the 4% growth figure became like a talisman for showing that the party was maintaining real growth.
Estimates on when China is going to overtake the US are inevitably going to depend on when you believe China started over-reporting its numbers, and by how much. I've seen little to indicate that China hasn't been overestimating for decades, and even fewer attempts to recreate estimate comparisons retroactively factoring such in. That was bad enough when it was just economic growth numbers- demographics just compounds the compounding discrepancy of future economic potential. The UN, which is far from the most bear-ish observer of China, moved it's estimate of China's demographic peak forward by almost a decade to last year between 2019 and 2022, and that's not even the most bearish estimate on demographic over-counting. Yi Fuxian, as the most easily searchable, has estimated that China demographically peaked almost half a decade ago, in 2018.
It's not merely that the economic size is based on over-estimated growth resulting from over-estimating growth, but that it's been projected on the basis of over-estimated fertility rates based on people who never existed. It doesn't take much until you're losing an entire United State's worth of population over the next 80 years.
The demographic over-estimation is part of why the middle income trap is as significant as it is for China in modern analysis. It's not simply that China's economic growth will slow down more sharply than predicted, but also earlier, and also with greater burdens than expected. We've vaguely known for some time the sort of population size China will need to take care of as the population ages out of the work force- we haven't been thinking in terms of the population to not only replace them, but support them. This would already be a substantial headwind, and it doesn't factor in real looming threats to the Chinese economic system, such as the still-unresolved debt issues that have been a significant part of the government fueling bubbles that help support those prior GDP figures.
Yi Fuxian is one guy. The demographic collapse is an over played anyway.
Without much evidence we are told that China’s demographics will slow down their growth to levels lower or equal to the US. However the US also has a demographic crisis, and China can still play catch-up on a GDP per capita basis.
We’ve already seen that China has in fact slowed down from its extraordinary 10% a year to the 2010s.
Last year growth was 3% growth, the worst non covid year, but it faced the headwinds of the zero Covid policy and some American actions. Nevertheless the last Q had a rebound. They also have a persistent over valued housing market which is correcting. So I expect that the next few years will be slow but China will probably hit 4-6% again mid 20s.
Agree that a demographic crisis is looming, but we don't have to extrapolate growth very far, only the next 20 years or so during which China's working age population will be higher than the U.S. as a percentage.
As for the idea that China's numbers are all fake - I suppose many of them are but they are succeeding at many impossible to fake things. China is the #1 trade partner of most countries in the world. This cannot be faked. And its no secret that they are by far the world's #1 manufacturer. We import (going by memory) 4 times as much from China as we export to them. Maybe the numbers are faked a little. This is cold comfort to me. China's capacity to produce physical goods dwarfs the U.S. by so much that it doesn't change the story much.
As for the idea that China's numbers are all fake - I suppose many of them are but they are succeeding at many impossible to fake things. China is the #1 trade partner of most countries in the world. This cannot be faked. And its no secret that they are by far the world's #1 manufacturer. We import (going by memory) 4 times as much from China as we export to them. Maybe the numbers are faked a little. This is cold comfort to me. China's capacity to produce physical goods dwarfs the U.S. by so much that it doesn't change the story much.
But of course. You're buying into the argument that not only the numbers mostly correct rather than compounding differences over decades, but the numbers you're choosing are even relevant.
Numbers can be both really big for real, and still not surpass the US in relevant metrics, because as the expression goes the US is really, really, really stupid-big in relevant numbers... and so when you want to make your own country look good, choose a different number. Trade export partner numbers is one of them. This is not really a relevant metric of how the US and China compare, because the US is not configured as an external export economy, and China is not configured as an internal continental economy. Then there's dynamics such as the value-added chain, or the export/import dependence levels, and so on. Some of these exact basis of comparison have been memes of the American electorate for years- like the idea that as manufacturing declined as a share of employment that the US manufacturing base was declining.
There certainly are arguments that China is beating the US in critical areas- I'd argue that east china sea anti-ship cruise missiles is relevant- but these aren't the macroeconomic arguments being pointed at for growth.
Another thing that people don't realize is that Chinese military expenditure is practically much greater than the United States. The U.S. headline budget of $800 billion or whatever says more about bloated salaries than it does about how much war materiel can be produced. China greater productive capacity is quickly eroding the advantage of materiel which the U.S. has accumulated over decades. At some point, they will have significant advantages in missiles, armaments, planes, ships, drones, etc... They are wanting only in supplies of raw resources - a situation which they are rapidly improving.
Its greater then their headline spending numbers. If you adjust for purchasing power there is even a bigger difference then their official numbers. But its still less than the US's spending (although something like 85 or 90 percent instead of a much smaller fraction. Perhaps the numbers should be adjusted by a bit less than purchasing power parity (the difference between costs for high tech, or even more mundane military items isn't likely to be the same as it is for civilian production, and at least for the more advanced items is likely to be less), but even then you still get well over half, and China's spending is growing faster, and at least at the moment (and probably at least for the next couple of decades) any conflict would likely happen nearer to China, where China has almost all its forces while American forces are spread across the world with the largest portion in the relatively distant North America.
The main counterbalancing advantages for the US are
1 - The US has more built up capability from previous spending. (But military equipment is a depreciating asset, not a productive investment so the importance of this declines over time).
2 - The US is more likely to have allies on its side.
3 - The US has some geographical advantages. China has to get past potentially hostile countries in the first (and depending on the scenario 2nd) island chains. Also its easier to interdict shipping to China (at least with a distant blockade, a close blockade would be too costly) than it is to the US.
4 - (This one is weaker and less certain) China would probably be seen as the aggressor and get a more hostile world reaction then the US would. The US isn't going to invade China, or just start lobbing missiles at if for the lols. A war with China would most likely start over a Chinese attack of Taiwan, and the other scenarios mostly involve China grabbing disputed territory as well. If China doesn't make such an attack there won't be any war.
To put on the tinfoil hat, what makes you think that the people in Washington are unaware of China's current trajectory? Beijing protested that the balloon shot down over SC was not a spy balloon but a weather balloon. I am surprised that seemingly nobody has put forth any conspiracy theories about the incident being used to drum up support for a war with China/action over Taiwan. The most I've seen is "the balloon is to distract everyone from the chemical disaster in Ohio."
I suppose nobody's thinking the above because, ironically, China's pseudo-revanchism and the predictable reactions it has to being challenged, combined with its current rise, make it easier to believe that they really did send a spy balloon and that they're trying something, as usual. Never mind that Xi should know that poking the American bear, even with the background noise of Ukraine to supposedly distract it, will probably end the Chinese Century before it even really begins.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A valuable rubric for prediction is "people overestimate the change the will happen in a year, but underestimate the change in a decade".
People see that China isn't overtaking the U.S. right now and assume all is well. It is not. China's economy is growing much faster than the U.S. and its natural growth will soon make it at least twice as large as the United States even if they do not escape the middle income trap. China also likely has on the order of 10 times as many people with an IQ over 130 as the U.S.
Nothing needs to change. Natural trajectory already has China far eclipsing the United States within a decade or two. Only a deus ex machina, such as AI or another Mao in China can prevent this.
China's economy is growing faster than the economy of the US, but the difference between the two has been decreasing as China's growth slows. I'd expect that slowing growth to continue for a number of reasons.
1 - The middle income trap and more generally the fact that catch-up growth is easier than innovative growth.
2 - Increasing centralized statist control in China, as opposed to the relaxation of such control in the past which allowed for tremendous growth (it is very unlikely to get anywhere near as bad as Mao, but it still been getting worse to a much lesser extent than that disaster).
3 - Demographics.
4 - The US and to a lesser extent a number of other rich countries becoming more hostile and less open to the US, while China itself is doing a bit of the same from the other side. Many countries are seeking to source outside of China. For things that don't need very low wages to be successful there is some attempt to bring the production home. For things that do, purchases will be more from places like Vietnam (and many other countries, I"m not saying Vietnam is going to grab everything from China). Not just from more hostility and less open trade to/from China but also as China's economy grows it will be less and less a low wage place.
5 - The extent of wealth and income in China that's related to a large real-estate bubble.
I still think that China's economy will pass the US's as the world's largest. But I don't see "at least twice as large" soon. Also China has a lot more people. That is the main reason it will become the largest economy. But OTOH that economy is spread among more people. As Chinese living standards improve (and if they don't that we'll create its own problems, but its very likely they will) a huge amount of national income will be needed to cover those living standards. 50% greater economy with over 4 times the people, doesn't give you 50% greater surplus to spend on military adventures or whatever.
More options
Context Copy link
Or, alternatively, 'Mao' already prevented this, and the global evaluation has been erroneously calculating compounding Chinese economic and demographic claims for decades now despite known systemic data integrity issues.
It's not exactly new news that Chinese data is unreliably optimistic. China has admitted as much internally and internationally for over a decade now. What's less common knowledge is that this isn't just economic growth claims, which allow for compounding growth estimates, but the demographic data as well. Chinese demographic data is suspect for many of the same reasons as the economic data- because regional administrators have incentives to over-estimate their numbers in exchange for resources from the central government, and repeated because it serves the national governments geopolitical / national pride purposes to maintain it's claim. Being the largest country in the world (especially vis-a-vis India) assumed its own national prestige purpose just as the 4% growth figure became like a talisman for showing that the party was maintaining real growth.
Estimates on when China is going to overtake the US are inevitably going to depend on when you believe China started over-reporting its numbers, and by how much. I've seen little to indicate that China hasn't been overestimating for decades, and even fewer attempts to recreate estimate comparisons retroactively factoring such in. That was bad enough when it was just economic growth numbers- demographics just compounds the compounding discrepancy of future economic potential. The UN, which is far from the most bear-ish observer of China, moved it's estimate of China's demographic peak forward by almost a decade to last year between 2019 and 2022, and that's not even the most bearish estimate on demographic over-counting. Yi Fuxian, as the most easily searchable, has estimated that China demographically peaked almost half a decade ago, in 2018.
It's not merely that the economic size is based on over-estimated growth resulting from over-estimating growth, but that it's been projected on the basis of over-estimated fertility rates based on people who never existed. It doesn't take much until you're losing an entire United State's worth of population over the next 80 years.
The demographic over-estimation is part of why the middle income trap is as significant as it is for China in modern analysis. It's not simply that China's economic growth will slow down more sharply than predicted, but also earlier, and also with greater burdens than expected. We've vaguely known for some time the sort of population size China will need to take care of as the population ages out of the work force- we haven't been thinking in terms of the population to not only replace them, but support them. This would already be a substantial headwind, and it doesn't factor in real looming threats to the Chinese economic system, such as the still-unresolved debt issues that have been a significant part of the government fueling bubbles that help support those prior GDP figures.
Yi Fuxian is one guy. The demographic collapse is an over played anyway.
Without much evidence we are told that China’s demographics will slow down their growth to levels lower or equal to the US. However the US also has a demographic crisis, and China can still play catch-up on a GDP per capita basis.
We’ve already seen that China has in fact slowed down from its extraordinary 10% a year to the 2010s.
Last year growth was 3% growth, the worst non covid year, but it faced the headwinds of the zero Covid policy and some American actions. Nevertheless the last Q had a rebound. They also have a persistent over valued housing market which is correcting. So I expect that the next few years will be slow but China will probably hit 4-6% again mid 20s.
More options
Context Copy link
Agree that a demographic crisis is looming, but we don't have to extrapolate growth very far, only the next 20 years or so during which China's working age population will be higher than the U.S. as a percentage.
As for the idea that China's numbers are all fake - I suppose many of them are but they are succeeding at many impossible to fake things. China is the #1 trade partner of most countries in the world. This cannot be faked. And its no secret that they are by far the world's #1 manufacturer. We import (going by memory) 4 times as much from China as we export to them. Maybe the numbers are faked a little. This is cold comfort to me. China's capacity to produce physical goods dwarfs the U.S. by so much that it doesn't change the story much.
But of course. You're buying into the argument that not only the numbers mostly correct rather than compounding differences over decades, but the numbers you're choosing are even relevant.
Numbers can be both really big for real, and still not surpass the US in relevant metrics, because as the expression goes the US is really, really, really stupid-big in relevant numbers... and so when you want to make your own country look good, choose a different number. Trade export partner numbers is one of them. This is not really a relevant metric of how the US and China compare, because the US is not configured as an external export economy, and China is not configured as an internal continental economy. Then there's dynamics such as the value-added chain, or the export/import dependence levels, and so on. Some of these exact basis of comparison have been memes of the American electorate for years- like the idea that as manufacturing declined as a share of employment that the US manufacturing base was declining.
There certainly are arguments that China is beating the US in critical areas- I'd argue that east china sea anti-ship cruise missiles is relevant- but these aren't the macroeconomic arguments being pointed at for growth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Another thing that people don't realize is that Chinese military expenditure is practically much greater than the United States. The U.S. headline budget of $800 billion or whatever says more about bloated salaries than it does about how much war materiel can be produced. China greater productive capacity is quickly eroding the advantage of materiel which the U.S. has accumulated over decades. At some point, they will have significant advantages in missiles, armaments, planes, ships, drones, etc... They are wanting only in supplies of raw resources - a situation which they are rapidly improving.
Its greater then their headline spending numbers. If you adjust for purchasing power there is even a bigger difference then their official numbers. But its still less than the US's spending (although something like 85 or 90 percent instead of a much smaller fraction. Perhaps the numbers should be adjusted by a bit less than purchasing power parity (the difference between costs for high tech, or even more mundane military items isn't likely to be the same as it is for civilian production, and at least for the more advanced items is likely to be less), but even then you still get well over half, and China's spending is growing faster, and at least at the moment (and probably at least for the next couple of decades) any conflict would likely happen nearer to China, where China has almost all its forces while American forces are spread across the world with the largest portion in the relatively distant North America.
The main counterbalancing advantages for the US are
1 - The US has more built up capability from previous spending. (But military equipment is a depreciating asset, not a productive investment so the importance of this declines over time).
2 - The US is more likely to have allies on its side.
3 - The US has some geographical advantages. China has to get past potentially hostile countries in the first (and depending on the scenario 2nd) island chains. Also its easier to interdict shipping to China (at least with a distant blockade, a close blockade would be too costly) than it is to the US.
4 - (This one is weaker and less certain) China would probably be seen as the aggressor and get a more hostile world reaction then the US would. The US isn't going to invade China, or just start lobbing missiles at if for the lols. A war with China would most likely start over a Chinese attack of Taiwan, and the other scenarios mostly involve China grabbing disputed territory as well. If China doesn't make such an attack there won't be any war.
More options
Context Copy link
To put on the tinfoil hat, what makes you think that the people in Washington are unaware of China's current trajectory? Beijing protested that the balloon shot down over SC was not a spy balloon but a weather balloon. I am surprised that seemingly nobody has put forth any conspiracy theories about the incident being used to drum up support for a war with China/action over Taiwan. The most I've seen is "the balloon is to distract everyone from the chemical disaster in Ohio."
I suppose nobody's thinking the above because, ironically, China's pseudo-revanchism and the predictable reactions it has to being challenged, combined with its current rise, make it easier to believe that they really did send a spy balloon and that they're trying something, as usual. Never mind that Xi should know that poking the American bear, even with the background noise of Ukraine to supposedly distract it, will probably end the Chinese Century before it even really begins.
Maybe “ending the Chinese century before it even begins” is why the US shot down a weather ballon. 🤷♂️
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link