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.
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 -
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