"Xi Jinping is reorienting China’s economy around producing a bunch of stuff that Chinese people don’t want or need, because this fits with his idea of what makes a country strong.
That is what industrial policy is all about, though, isn’t it?"
No, it making thing the world wants: Boeing Aircraft.
Hard to believe the comparison between Peter Turchin and Peter Zeihan.
I’ve listened to several of Peter Zeihan podcasts, and his arguments are riddled with factual errors and inaccuracies.
Eg here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UltVl2Qlf6A&t=314s he states that China "imports 75-80% of its energy" while the actual share of imported energy vs total consumed is ~20-25%. More appalling as he fashion himself as an expert of demography, on the same interview he states that China "has more people > 53 than under" (China's median age is 39).
Beyond his clear ideological biases, he lacks any credentials that would qualify him as a legitimate expert.
Peter Turchin on the other side is an rigorous and original scholar
China does not have social cohesion at all; it is an incredibly bitter and antagonistic society in many ways. I think many commentators don't realize that declining social cohesion can take forms beyond political polarization. If anyone is interested, look up The China Show on YouTube, which is a podcast made by two Western guys who lived in China for over a decade and are fluent in Chinese. They translate leaks from the Chinese internet about frequent industrial and construction disasters, "revenge against society" attacks, and social protests against withheld wages, among many other things. China is a very crazy and chaotic place, but that is not reported in the Western media because the CCP is very good at censorship. However, they cannot stop 1.4 billion people with phone cameras from shedding light on unpleasant things 100% of the time. It doesn't help that Western journalists have not known how to do actual investigative journalism for decades. There is also a strong narrative that China is an orderly, unstoppable rising threat to the world, akin to Nazi Germany (which is not entirely untrue).
I like Peter Turchin, but he and most other Western intellectuals form their views based on second-hand accounts of what other Western intellectuals write. If you look at actual primary source evidence, there are daily major disasters from factories burning to "tofu dreg" buildings collapsing. The government has installed bollards in almost all heavy pedestrian areas because disgruntled mentally ill people (with no possible support system) frequently plow through crowds with their cars. You could go on and on about other problems, like demographics or the topics Zeihan often discusses. The point is that the idea that China is nothing but a nation of cutting-edge scientists building high-speed maglev rail, super tall skyscrapers, and world-class AI systems is such a misleading facade.
"That is what industrial policy is all about, though, isn’t it?"
I get that even if you think this is 100% true, there still is probably a bit of sarcasm in this comment but it's not true. It's also about funneling money to political friends.
Ok, that's some sarcasm too. But industrial policy can have some positives too, even if it doesn't always and they are harder to see than the flaws in execution.
Why is it surprising that the left-of-center, industrial policy fan, technocrat Noah Smith believes as Thomas Friedman does in the superiority of the benevolent dictator model?
If only Deng Xiaoping ran China forever, it would be the greatest country on earth.
If demographics is destiny, China will age out before it is able to replace the US empire. So my next candidate is India, which has no resource curse, a highly successful diaspora, and a strong English tradition (in many senses). It may boil down to whether the US can continue to attract the best-and-brightest from around the world or reform its K-12 system...
United States has excelled the last hundred years because of all the discoveries made through our research institutes and research universities. China has realized this and has made a tremendous investment in research that will pay off. Already they may be ahead of us in some areas of research including AI and biomedical sciences are among the best in the world. At the same time we are beginning to disinvest in basic research and it will come back to haunt us. While China made lose its preeminence as the world manufacturer as its population ages is moving into highly lucrative areas where a relatively small portion of the population will make a big difference for it
“Already they may be ahead of us in some areas of research including AI”
Idk about biomedical sciences.
And idk what the further out future holds.
But suggesting that the Chinese may *already* be ahead of U.S. in AI is just stupid talk.
The success of DeepSeek may show that they are not as far behind as the consensus believed a year ago, but it is a MASSIVE step from there to the idea that they are ahead in AI.
I realize you inserted the qualifier “may”. Of course, I *may* be better than LeBron James at basketball…
Do you have ANY evidence at all for your claim that they may be ahead?!?
Some good comments, but they do not take into consideration that China is broke. Adding the debt of all SOEs and local municipalities to the debt-to-GDP ratio is quite remarkable. The share of local government debt rose to more than 60% of GDP from close to 50%. The overall non-financial debt increased to 312% of GDP in 2024, up from 245% in 2023, putting China among the most indebted countries. Think of that - Debt to GDP of 312%
Cracks are appearing in the dams, and if a dam/bank fails, China's domestic situation will become awful.
China is doing so well their citizens are doing everything they can to convert RMB to anything by RMB. It is so bad that all crypto was banned by law. The Chinese are the number one nationality of people seeking second citizenship. Nothing in China is rosy; it's mostly dreary or ominous.
"As the American Empire continues to disintegrate from within,"
To what extent is this long-term versus recent changes by Trump? No doubt withdrawing from TPP weakened our presence and left opportunities for China but what else predates Trump's current term? What else has Trump done this term in addition to reduced foreign aid, reduced state department presence, and reduced trade via higher tariffs? Has he suggested or already reduced protections for shipping routes?
How likely is the next President to be able to reverse international losses from Trump policies?
The premise - disintegrating from within - is simply false.
Not that I deny we shoot ourselves in the foot and reduce our opportunities to grow more and be greater. But it is simply not the case that the U.S. is disintegrating, as that word is commonly understood.
Honestly, if you live in a handful of large cities and that is your daily experience of America then I can see why someone like that might think America is completely falling apart. Luckily the U.S. is not a particularly urban country and not every place is run by the people who run LA, New York, and DC.
I mentioned them because I am familiar with them and have gradually witnessed their decline. DC and NYC are particularly disappointing since COVID because they had become relatively safe and clean by the mid-2010s. There are worse cities in America for sure. However, I think the rapid increase in cost of living, disorder, and de-gentrification compared to a decade ago was most noticeable to me in those cities.
Other than high cost of living, which I don't see as anything akin to disintegration, that doesn't match my perception of DC and NYC. And DC housing market has gotten pretty soft this year.
Did you really mean degentrification? That's opposite of what you seem to believe.
You're right degentrification is the wrong word. I meant neighborhoods that had once been gentrified are becoming dangerous and undesirable again. I'm not sure if there's a word for that, but I think that process is why the idea of revoking home rule has been floated lately.
When you say the DC housing market is cooling, is that within DC itself or the whole metro area? I applied to work at a think tank about a year ago in the area, and the rental prices in Arlington would have been unthinkable when I was a student there 10-15 years ago. The amount of wealth and power that has been concentrated in that area during that time is truly jaw-dropping.
Ok, but the point is a shot in the foot is not fatal.
It’s pretty darn clear that none of the shots to date have been fatal.
Or have caused disintegration for the U.S. overall.
For certain *cities* run by leftists, as ashoka notes, I have more sympathy that the disintegration claim is merely an overstatement, rather than out-and-out falsehood.
I've never understood why anyone would think the US is disintegrating from within. We've almost always fought like cats and dogs within the political arena. That is nothing new, but we have these newfangled things called elections that bring balance and buy-in to the system. The economy is strong and remains innovative even if we do consume too much.
Maybe it was better in the '80s than now. China presents some problems for other countries, and the US influence there is notable, but in the US? I sure don't see it.
Then again, I think Trump is effectively addressing some of the problems that arose in recent years as the US became more like China, and correcting those mistakes.
No. In simplest terms, the Great Society and related repeated indulgences indulgences of the much farther left, has had nightmarish results that we have to pretend are great in a fashion no different from communism.
The body politic and bureaucratic is addicted to the production of the underclass, to the point of course of shopping abroad for its increase; and politics going forward will be entirely a competition for the purchase of these votes, if it doesn’t become a competition for the purchase of office.
The modern history of the sidelining of the environmental movement by both parties, one falling into Fpuvaultian radicalism and the other gleefully co-opting this madness, neatly encapsulates this. Once, a sane and functioning electorate could be swayed by an appeal to something other than gross material consumption. Now, someone like Mike Lee can moot selling off public lands, and never creating another national park for a growing population, and celebrating the extirpation of species, when wildlife even enters the chat - and yes, a few older legacy Americans will be mad about that. But their numbers are too few to matter and in the main newer “Americans“ will never care about that in the slightest.
“We've almost always fought like cats and dogs within the political arena. That is nothing new”
You might be correct if you’re talking throughout U.S. history.
But in the memory of almost everyone living today, the political divisions now are much greater than they were from at least WWII though about 2003-2004 (or even through 2014, if you prefer).
This is true on economic policy.
It is true on Middle Eastern foreign policy.
It is true re: the amount of overlap across the parties on policy (Southern Democrats pre 1980 resulted in much greater overlap than we have now).
It is true on cultural issues (even if, admittedly, those differences have been growing since the late 60s).
And it is true of political rhetoric. Both sides used to talk of being for the little guy and the middle class. And until about 10 years ago, Dems arguably had the better argument there (whatever the reality). Now they have abandoned the lower-middle class so entirely that they call the racists, bigots, deplorables, etc.
Yes, politicians went after each other before, surely. But with the notable exception of vilifying “the rich”, vilification of a large class of *voters* by a major party has just not happened previously.
Now, I do agree with your claim that folks saying the US is disintegrating from within are wrong.
But there is indeed something relatively new about our politics compared to the prior 80 years
Yes, I think you are making a good point about vilification, although it may have existed during the segregation era.
I do worry about the attitudes of younger folks toward Israel—lack of critical thinking, in my opinion, but then I look back and remember how stupid I was and probably still am.
But IMO the problem here is far worse than stupidity. Though obviously it is partially due to ignorance of the facts.
The dangerous part IMO, however, is that it is rooted in the (quasi-religious) belief in oppressor-oppressed ideology, which basically states that the evil rich white Christian (or Jewish in the case of Israel) straight male capitalist patriarchy is responsible for all evil - and little good - in our zero-sum world.
And that the oppressed have the right BY. ANY. MEANS. NECESSARY. to overcome their oppressors.
And so since the evil rich white capitalist Israelis are oppressing the poor without agency PoC Palestinians, Hamas has the right and obligation to butcher, rape and take hostages of civilians, including babies. And should be supported because their goals are just.
And about half of all young people indeed DO support Hamas. Which means *large* majorities of left-voting young people support Hamas.
Sad. And sick.
And WAY worse, and far more dangerous, than the ignorance/stupidity we had in our youth.
Is China dumb enough to adopt suicide policies like open borders, net zero, free trade, drug legalization, defund the police, racial grievances or DEI?
If not, I’m guessing that they will be around to be reckoned with for some time to come.
We agree that free trade is a conceptually good thing. But, what is marketed as “free trade” and what exists in actuality are two different things. Bend over America while everyone else erects silly barriers based the silliest of reasons. China gets this, which is why they have barriers to imports, while the U.S. mostly just bends over because some Ivy League educated economist said we should without providing much evidence.
I support most of the things Trump has done to help American exporters get a better deal selling to other countries. I agree we let things get too one-sided.
I do not support ongoing high tariffs, however, because those hurt American consumers and in many cases American producers as well.
I would prefer Trump to use tariffs as leverage to get other countries to reduce their tariffs and NTBs (Non-tariff Trade Barriers).
We could argue about your list but it should be obvious there are many other things China can do that are as bad or worse. I would argue it already does.
I know nothing of any of the details mentioned by any of those people. But I do know some things.
* As messy as the US and EU are, they are at least democracies whose governments do follow the people's will sooner or later. China is a dictatorship and Xi thinks he can bend the people to his will. He is wrong.
* Governments discourage innovation and encourage group think, dictators more so.
* Flexibility in society is what keeps a government from going stale and brittle. Biden and Trump have been knocking the pendulum back and forth, but it does have a center. Xi has been holding the pendulum still and that does not bode well for when he dies.
* China has 3-4 times the population of the US, 2x the US+EU. India has a little more. I don't know what India's problem is. I know what China's problem is: the CCP. Once those two countries sort out their problems, of course they will outproduce the rest of the world. But until they do, they will be followers, not innovators.
The claims from the last couple of years of Chinese advances in EVs, especially batteries, rest almost entirely on cheap prices, as if no one has ever heard of subsidies. There's been a recent small scandal in Android phones, with a couple of Chinese makers caught cheating on claims of how thin their phones are. That matches my experience with all dictatorships, such as the Soviets fooling Americans about how many planes they had by flying the same three around in circles at a May Day parade. This is the national behavior of followers and sycophants, not innovators. I expect it in politics, and it's been there in spades with Trump and Biden and Obama. But industry? In a free society, it seldom gets very far.
“There's been a recent small scandal in Android phones, with a couple of Chinese makers caught cheating on claims of how thin their phones are. That matches my experience with all dictatorships…”
I doubt that the West is immune from such things. For example, it wasn’t that long ago that Volkswagen was juicing their diesel emissions numbers. That didn’t end too well for them or for clean diesel generally. We could also look to various other accounting scandals over the past 25 years or the Purdue Pharma marketing of opioids or Wells Fargo fake accounts or the Boeing 737 MAX.
As I ponder Dr. Kling’s substack today, I have the Volleyball Nations League finals on and #8 China just took the first set from #1 Brazil before a happy and supportive Chinese crowd. However awful the repression within China, one gets the impression that a majority rof Chinese citizens are more or less content with Xi, the government, and the CCP, and confident in their nation’s future. This seems born out even in anonymous polling where 60% of citizens apparently support the government. (https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/chinese-communist-party-support-lower-when-surveys-anonymous/ ) Indeed, the Chinese Communist Party has about 100 million members which alone would be a significant power base. And the repression perhaps seems targeted against Muslims and Hong Kong dissidents, whom are not significant components of the total population. (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/repression-in-xis-china/ ).
So why does it appear that a stable mass of Chinese are willing to tolerate a political system that most of us on the outside would find intolerable? And does the answer to this question perhaps explain why China has yet to fail significantly and indeed to continue to grow in prestige and power?
Well, my favorite hammer in the toolbox of political concepts is the principle of solidarity and so today I will wail on that nail in the Chinese context.
Yes, China has a strongly hierarchy with centralized control. But so does the Catholic Church and the United States. But like those other entities, the lower levels in the hierarchy exercise authority and offer citizens voice and participation.
Let’s start with how Section 5 of the constitution of China, “Local People’s Congresses at All Levels and Local People’s Governments at All Levels.” (https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html ) establishes a countervailing bottom-up flow of power. Article 95 provides for local government, “Provinces, cities directly under central government jurisdiction, counties, cities, municipal districts, townships, ethnic townships and towns shall establish people’s congresses and people’s governments.” Article 97 provides for direct election of officials at the base levels with people’s congresses at higher levels choosing members of the next higher level, “Deputies to the people’s congresses of provinces, cities directly under central government jurisdiction and cities divided into districts shall be elected by the people’s congresses at the next level down; deputies to the people’s congresses of counties, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, ethnic townships and towns shall be directly elected by their constituencies.” There may indeed be top-down political control, but the local officials who do the day to day local work are not assigned by the central government.
Perhaps much to the dismay of YIMBYs and the delight of NIMBYs local government’s apparently extensive economic power and remit is set out in Article 99:
“Article 99 Local people’s congresses at all levels shall, within their administrative areas, ensure the observance and enforcement of the Constitution, laws and administrative regulations; they shall, according to the authority invested in them as prescribed by law, adopt and issue resolutions, and review and decide on local economic, cultural and public service development plans.
Local people’s congresses at and above the county level shall review and approve the economic and social development plans and budgets of their administrative areas as well as reports on their implementation; they shall have the power to change or revoke inappropriate decisions made by their own standing committees.
The people’s congresses of ethnic townships may, according to the authority invested in them as prescribed by law, take specific measures suited to ethnic characteristics.”
So it would appear that with respect to local economic development, citizens of China have sovereignty somewhat similar to that of US citizens.
Thus, I would argue critiques of China based on a one-sided assessment of top-down centralized power may be failing to take into account the whole picture.
More importantly, highly decentralized Brazil who strongly realizes the principle of subsidiarity has taken the match from China 3-1 thus proving the validity or perhaps maybe offering symbolic support to this argument.
The Catholic church? Talk about an apples to oranges comparison. The Catholic church isn't in charge of the entire US government. Reading constitutions doesn't tell you much about how things work in practice even in so-called liberal Western countries, let alone in authoritarian regimes like China's. I bet the constitution for the Democratic Republic of North Korea sounds good on paper as well. And the principle of 'top-down bottom-up' is just an old idea borrowed from Soviet Communism, not some Chinese innovation evidencing democratization at the local level.
Well there is no denying China's authoritarianism working hand in hand with strong centralized power as is only natural. But many observers describe elements of decentralization as well with local administration in areas in which locals can perform better than remote bureaucracies. An article in Nature states:
"Although hybrid forms of democracy that combine elements of Western democracy and authoritarianism are acknowledged as being possible, the debate over whether the Chinese political system fits the definition of democracy is still ongoing (Tang 2021). In the meantime, it appears that the benefits of traditional democracy are penetrating Chinese legal scholarship, policymaking, and lawmaking to a greater degree. Although the visible role of state structures in the PRC is well known (i.e., that they have historically tended toward centralisation and vertical power), the Chinese state has had to deal with increasingly multi-layered social changes, the decentralisation of the economy, and local governance in the post-reform era (Wu and Zhang, 2022).
From a formal point of view, the Chinese legislator does not define the relationship between the concepts of GG ["grassroots governance"] and the concept of local self-government, which in a sense complicates the understanding of the subtleties of meaning that the Chinese legislator and the subjects of political initiative put into the definition of GG. However, based on the political documents of the CCP, it can be argued that this is about both issues of self-organisation and grassroots initiative, as well as the process of governance at the local level. Of interest in this regard is the relatively recent CCP political act “Opinion of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Strengthening Grassroots Management Modernisation and Management Capacity (April 28, 2021) (Communist Party of China, 2021). The paper notes that GG is the cornerstone of national governance, and the overall promotion of township (street) and urban and rural community governance is a major project to realise the modernisation of the national governance system and governance capacity (Communist Party of China, 2021)."
From this and other articles, I get the impression that there might be some nuance to it all. But the bottom line is that every 5 years a couple thousand delegates to a new National People's Congress, China's supreme authority, are officially elected by local people's congresses at the provincial level. So China is not entirely a military type organization with authority flowing in one direction only.
The titles of the political documents of the CCP you cite remind me of George Orwell's 1984. Doublespeak. If you think the Chinese political system is actually some hybrid form of democracy, why don't you joint Kurt and go live there?
You couldn’t pay me to visit there. I just want to understand why it seems like a majority of Chinese seem to appear content in a system that I would find intolerable.
1) No history of democracy and political liberalization -- you don't miss what you and your ancestors never had?
2) improving living standards and lots of employment opportunities?
3) Freedom to move abroad (if you can find a country that will take you) acts as a safety valve?
4) the majority of Chinese people prefer living in a country where ethnic Chinese people are the dominant majority and Chinese culture is dominant (they don't believe diversity is our strength)?
I visited Hong Kong before the handover and eventually the takeover by the CCP. Interesting place, but I wouldn't want to live there either.
"Thus, I would argue critiques of China based on a one-sided assessment of top-down centralized power may be failing to take into account the whole picture."
Yes. You could expand that idea into several arenas concerning China.
I'm feet on the ground in Wuhan, and generally speaking, there's much less "in your face" stuff from China's government than I experience in the US. Seriously. In fact, the Heritage Foundation, about 10 years ago, stopped with their analysis of the issue in their annual report because China scored better than America.
Well, the 90% own their own homes appears to be true - which I confess surprised me, so thanks for that - but the 80% owning them free and clear is not.
And even the first claim is misleading, since in urban areas - where 60%+ of the population now live - the GOVERNMENT owns the land underneath the home, not the homeowner.
And in fact, mortgage debt is common.
Unless you can show hard evidence for this 2nd claim. But pretty sure it don’t exist.
It's impossible for me to say. Maybe someone else knows.
I know Chinese do not like debt. Debt on consumer silliness is a young people phenomenon. I do know a lot of folks in China own their homes. I and my wife own a few. Income tax is incredibly low (low single digit %) and there is NO PROPERTY TAX. Everyone knows property tax is coming, but right now there isn't any property tax.
This is an interesting post. I consider it weaker than your average post, but the linked article is a good one and worth reading. Without firsthand experience of being in China, it’s difficult to know what people are thinking and discussing there, but based on the Chinese people I’ve met here, they are busy with two important activities: working hard and improving the welfare of their families—similar to us.
Do they have sufficient intellectual independence (and wealth) to create more political independence for themselves? My guess is yes. Things will continue to get better in China on average over the longterm.
What can we do to help them? Certainly we should be pushing for free trade. Arnold, I know it might be mundane to discuss the merits of free trade, but maybe you can come up with a helpful post on this topic? Or something related to China’s economy and culture? More links?
Even the pro-globalist members of 'the blob' who have been the leading proponents of the idea that free trade with China will result in political liberalization in that country now acknowledge that this idea has been thoroughly discredited by actual experience. That should have been obvious from the start of the experiment with globalization. The Chinese Communist Party copied its governance model from the Soviet Communist Party, but as usual, the Chinese 'tweaked' the model, and they did so with the objective of fortifying the model against renegades who might undermine the CCP's monopoly on political power like Gorbachev. Free trade with China not only does not and cannot result in more political independence for Chinese citizens, but in fact it does the opposite by bolstering the existing Chinese political system and helping to maintain the political power of the CCP. This is one of the things that irks me about libertarians who whine about free trade and any interference in their ability to buy anything they want from an authoritarian country like China. At least have the honesty to admit that your principled libertarianism is somewhat hypocritical.
I agree that trade has not resulted in the political liberalization that was expected. That doesn't mean it won't. And it doesn't mean it hasn't increased desire and readiness of the people.
If US traded with China less could we have realistically expected or forced that on the rest of the world? What if we were the only ones not trading with China?
Were Gorbachev's actions expected when he took office? What will Xi's successor do?
Believing that US trade with China under its existing political system has the potential to result in political liberalization when it has failed to do so after decades of such trade meets the definition of insanity. As for Gorbachev, the CCP's system for selecting a successor to the Chairman is designed to weed out troublemaking political reformers like him. How they do that I can't say. In the Soviet case, I think Marxist-Leninist ideology was pretty much dead by the time Brezhnev croaked. I can't say the same about China. Today Trump issued an executive order closing the duty-free 'de minimus' loophole, which has allowed Chinese companies like Temu and Shein to flood the US market with low-cost junk. For all I know, reducing US trade with China has a better chance of resulting in political liberalization by putting millions of Chinese out of work and destabilizing the political system, although I'm not saying that is Trump's goal, just a potential side-effect.
The critical thing to understand about the CCP is that they have closely studied the rise and fall of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and they are bound and determined to avoid the latter's fate at all costs.
It is basically a closed society, at least to us outside of it, so we cannot know until it happens. I havent read anything about it, but did anyone accurately predict what would happen to in the USSR after Stalins death.
And Xi doesnt have to die for a change to occur, but that is the way to bet
The rift between China and the USSR dates back to Krushchev's speech to the 20th Party Congress denouncing the excesses of Stalinism and the cult of personality surrounding him. Mao didn't approve. While it is true the Chinese economic system was liberalized following Mao's death (it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice), there wasn't a comparable official denunciation of Maoism, which went far beyond the excesses of Stalinism in terms of mass murder and brutality. As I said elsewhere on this thread, the CCP has studied and learned from the rise and fall of its Soviet counterpart, and it is determined not to repeat what they view as the latter's mistakes.
"Xi Jinping is reorienting China’s economy around producing a bunch of stuff that Chinese people don’t want or need, because this fits with his idea of what makes a country strong.
That is what industrial policy is all about, though, isn’t it?"
No, it making thing the world wants: Boeing Aircraft.
Hard to believe the comparison between Peter Turchin and Peter Zeihan.
I’ve listened to several of Peter Zeihan podcasts, and his arguments are riddled with factual errors and inaccuracies.
Eg here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UltVl2Qlf6A&t=314s he states that China "imports 75-80% of its energy" while the actual share of imported energy vs total consumed is ~20-25%. More appalling as he fashion himself as an expert of demography, on the same interview he states that China "has more people > 53 than under" (China's median age is 39).
Beyond his clear ideological biases, he lacks any credentials that would qualify him as a legitimate expert.
Peter Turchin on the other side is an rigorous and original scholar
China does not have social cohesion at all; it is an incredibly bitter and antagonistic society in many ways. I think many commentators don't realize that declining social cohesion can take forms beyond political polarization. If anyone is interested, look up The China Show on YouTube, which is a podcast made by two Western guys who lived in China for over a decade and are fluent in Chinese. They translate leaks from the Chinese internet about frequent industrial and construction disasters, "revenge against society" attacks, and social protests against withheld wages, among many other things. China is a very crazy and chaotic place, but that is not reported in the Western media because the CCP is very good at censorship. However, they cannot stop 1.4 billion people with phone cameras from shedding light on unpleasant things 100% of the time. It doesn't help that Western journalists have not known how to do actual investigative journalism for decades. There is also a strong narrative that China is an orderly, unstoppable rising threat to the world, akin to Nazi Germany (which is not entirely untrue).
I like Peter Turchin, but he and most other Western intellectuals form their views based on second-hand accounts of what other Western intellectuals write. If you look at actual primary source evidence, there are daily major disasters from factories burning to "tofu dreg" buildings collapsing. The government has installed bollards in almost all heavy pedestrian areas because disgruntled mentally ill people (with no possible support system) frequently plow through crowds with their cars. You could go on and on about other problems, like demographics or the topics Zeihan often discusses. The point is that the idea that China is nothing but a nation of cutting-edge scientists building high-speed maglev rail, super tall skyscrapers, and world-class AI systems is such a misleading facade.
"That is what industrial policy is all about, though, isn’t it?"
I get that even if you think this is 100% true, there still is probably a bit of sarcasm in this comment but it's not true. It's also about funneling money to political friends.
Ok, that's some sarcasm too. But industrial policy can have some positives too, even if it doesn't always and they are harder to see than the flaws in execution.
Why is it surprising that the left-of-center, industrial policy fan, technocrat Noah Smith believes as Thomas Friedman does in the superiority of the benevolent dictator model?
If only Deng Xiaoping ran China forever, it would be the greatest country on earth.
🙄
If demographics is destiny, China will age out before it is able to replace the US empire. So my next candidate is India, which has no resource curse, a highly successful diaspora, and a strong English tradition (in many senses). It may boil down to whether the US can continue to attract the best-and-brightest from around the world or reform its K-12 system...
Thinking of the future of China and US and not factoring what happens with Taiwan might be found to be a bit lacking.
United States has excelled the last hundred years because of all the discoveries made through our research institutes and research universities. China has realized this and has made a tremendous investment in research that will pay off. Already they may be ahead of us in some areas of research including AI and biomedical sciences are among the best in the world. At the same time we are beginning to disinvest in basic research and it will come back to haunt us. While China made lose its preeminence as the world manufacturer as its population ages is moving into highly lucrative areas where a relatively small portion of the population will make a big difference for it
“Already they may be ahead of us in some areas of research including AI”
Idk about biomedical sciences.
And idk what the further out future holds.
But suggesting that the Chinese may *already* be ahead of U.S. in AI is just stupid talk.
The success of DeepSeek may show that they are not as far behind as the consensus believed a year ago, but it is a MASSIVE step from there to the idea that they are ahead in AI.
I realize you inserted the qualifier “may”. Of course, I *may* be better than LeBron James at basketball…
Do you have ANY evidence at all for your claim that they may be ahead?!?
Some good comments, but they do not take into consideration that China is broke. Adding the debt of all SOEs and local municipalities to the debt-to-GDP ratio is quite remarkable. The share of local government debt rose to more than 60% of GDP from close to 50%. The overall non-financial debt increased to 312% of GDP in 2024, up from 245% in 2023, putting China among the most indebted countries. Think of that - Debt to GDP of 312%
Cracks are appearing in the dams, and if a dam/bank fails, China's domestic situation will become awful.
China is doing so well their citizens are doing everything they can to convert RMB to anything by RMB. It is so bad that all crypto was banned by law. The Chinese are the number one nationality of people seeking second citizenship. Nothing in China is rosy; it's mostly dreary or ominous.
"As the American Empire continues to disintegrate from within,"
To what extent is this long-term versus recent changes by Trump? No doubt withdrawing from TPP weakened our presence and left opportunities for China but what else predates Trump's current term? What else has Trump done this term in addition to reduced foreign aid, reduced state department presence, and reduced trade via higher tariffs? Has he suggested or already reduced protections for shipping routes?
How likely is the next President to be able to reverse international losses from Trump policies?
The premise - disintegrating from within - is simply false.
Not that I deny we shoot ourselves in the foot and reduce our opportunities to grow more and be greater. But it is simply not the case that the U.S. is disintegrating, as that word is commonly understood.
Honestly, if you live in a handful of large cities and that is your daily experience of America then I can see why someone like that might think America is completely falling apart. Luckily the U.S. is not a particularly urban country and not every place is run by the people who run LA, New York, and DC.
It seems odd to me you picked those three cities as examples but otherwise, yes.
I mentioned them because I am familiar with them and have gradually witnessed their decline. DC and NYC are particularly disappointing since COVID because they had become relatively safe and clean by the mid-2010s. There are worse cities in America for sure. However, I think the rapid increase in cost of living, disorder, and de-gentrification compared to a decade ago was most noticeable to me in those cities.
Other than high cost of living, which I don't see as anything akin to disintegration, that doesn't match my perception of DC and NYC. And DC housing market has gotten pretty soft this year.
Did you really mean degentrification? That's opposite of what you seem to believe.
You're right degentrification is the wrong word. I meant neighborhoods that had once been gentrified are becoming dangerous and undesirable again. I'm not sure if there's a word for that, but I think that process is why the idea of revoking home rule has been floated lately.
When you say the DC housing market is cooling, is that within DC itself or the whole metro area? I applied to work at a think tank about a year ago in the area, and the rental prices in Arlington would have been unthinkable when I was a student there 10-15 years ago. The amount of wealth and power that has been concentrated in that area during that time is truly jaw-dropping.
Yes. And even if some shots in the foot are fatal, it's not at all clear that any of these are.
My last question aligns with your comment.
Ok, but the point is a shot in the foot is not fatal.
It’s pretty darn clear that none of the shots to date have been fatal.
Or have caused disintegration for the U.S. overall.
For certain *cities* run by leftists, as ashoka notes, I have more sympathy that the disintegration claim is merely an overstatement, rather than out-and-out falsehood.
It seems like we 98% agree and you are unsatisfied it isn't 100%.
He didn't say disintegrated. Those shots in the feet can still prove fatal. I readily agree the odds are low though.
I've never understood why anyone would think the US is disintegrating from within. We've almost always fought like cats and dogs within the political arena. That is nothing new, but we have these newfangled things called elections that bring balance and buy-in to the system. The economy is strong and remains innovative even if we do consume too much.
Maybe it was better in the '80s than now. China presents some problems for other countries, and the US influence there is notable, but in the US? I sure don't see it.
Then again, I think Trump is effectively addressing some of the problems that arose in recent years as the US became more like China, and correcting those mistakes.
No. In simplest terms, the Great Society and related repeated indulgences indulgences of the much farther left, has had nightmarish results that we have to pretend are great in a fashion no different from communism.
The body politic and bureaucratic is addicted to the production of the underclass, to the point of course of shopping abroad for its increase; and politics going forward will be entirely a competition for the purchase of these votes, if it doesn’t become a competition for the purchase of office.
The modern history of the sidelining of the environmental movement by both parties, one falling into Fpuvaultian radicalism and the other gleefully co-opting this madness, neatly encapsulates this. Once, a sane and functioning electorate could be swayed by an appeal to something other than gross material consumption. Now, someone like Mike Lee can moot selling off public lands, and never creating another national park for a growing population, and celebrating the extirpation of species, when wildlife even enters the chat - and yes, a few older legacy Americans will be mad about that. But their numbers are too few to matter and in the main newer “Americans“ will never care about that in the slightest.
America will have ceased to be.
“We've almost always fought like cats and dogs within the political arena. That is nothing new”
You might be correct if you’re talking throughout U.S. history.
But in the memory of almost everyone living today, the political divisions now are much greater than they were from at least WWII though about 2003-2004 (or even through 2014, if you prefer).
This is true on economic policy.
It is true on Middle Eastern foreign policy.
It is true re: the amount of overlap across the parties on policy (Southern Democrats pre 1980 resulted in much greater overlap than we have now).
It is true on cultural issues (even if, admittedly, those differences have been growing since the late 60s).
And it is true of political rhetoric. Both sides used to talk of being for the little guy and the middle class. And until about 10 years ago, Dems arguably had the better argument there (whatever the reality). Now they have abandoned the lower-middle class so entirely that they call the racists, bigots, deplorables, etc.
Yes, politicians went after each other before, surely. But with the notable exception of vilifying “the rich”, vilification of a large class of *voters* by a major party has just not happened previously.
Now, I do agree with your claim that folks saying the US is disintegrating from within are wrong.
But there is indeed something relatively new about our politics compared to the prior 80 years
Yes, I think you are making a good point about vilification, although it may have existed during the segregation era.
I do worry about the attitudes of younger folks toward Israel—lack of critical thinking, in my opinion, but then I look back and remember how stupid I was and probably still am.
On Israel, I agree with your worry 10,000%.
But IMO the problem here is far worse than stupidity. Though obviously it is partially due to ignorance of the facts.
The dangerous part IMO, however, is that it is rooted in the (quasi-religious) belief in oppressor-oppressed ideology, which basically states that the evil rich white Christian (or Jewish in the case of Israel) straight male capitalist patriarchy is responsible for all evil - and little good - in our zero-sum world.
And that the oppressed have the right BY. ANY. MEANS. NECESSARY. to overcome their oppressors.
And so since the evil rich white capitalist Israelis are oppressing the poor without agency PoC Palestinians, Hamas has the right and obligation to butcher, rape and take hostages of civilians, including babies. And should be supported because their goals are just.
And about half of all young people indeed DO support Hamas. Which means *large* majorities of left-voting young people support Hamas.
Sad. And sick.
And WAY worse, and far more dangerous, than the ignorance/stupidity we had in our youth.
Is China dumb enough to adopt suicide policies like open borders, net zero, free trade, drug legalization, defund the police, racial grievances or DEI?
If not, I’m guessing that they will be around to be reckoned with for some time to come.
As Mr. Rodgers used to say, one of these things is not like the others.
Free trade is not only *not* a suicide policy, it is an “almost everyone gets richer” policy.
We agree that free trade is a conceptually good thing. But, what is marketed as “free trade” and what exists in actuality are two different things. Bend over America while everyone else erects silly barriers based the silliest of reasons. China gets this, which is why they have barriers to imports, while the U.S. mostly just bends over because some Ivy League educated economist said we should without providing much evidence.
Ok, closer.
Words mean things.
Free trade is goodness.
Freer trade is also goodness.
I support most of the things Trump has done to help American exporters get a better deal selling to other countries. I agree we let things get too one-sided.
I do not support ongoing high tariffs, however, because those hurt American consumers and in many cases American producers as well.
I would prefer Trump to use tariffs as leverage to get other countries to reduce their tariffs and NTBs (Non-tariff Trade Barriers).
In other words, free/freer trade.
We could argue about your list but it should be obvious there are many other things China can do that are as bad or worse. I would argue it already does.
I know nothing of any of the details mentioned by any of those people. But I do know some things.
* As messy as the US and EU are, they are at least democracies whose governments do follow the people's will sooner or later. China is a dictatorship and Xi thinks he can bend the people to his will. He is wrong.
* Governments discourage innovation and encourage group think, dictators more so.
* Flexibility in society is what keeps a government from going stale and brittle. Biden and Trump have been knocking the pendulum back and forth, but it does have a center. Xi has been holding the pendulum still and that does not bode well for when he dies.
* China has 3-4 times the population of the US, 2x the US+EU. India has a little more. I don't know what India's problem is. I know what China's problem is: the CCP. Once those two countries sort out their problems, of course they will outproduce the rest of the world. But until they do, they will be followers, not innovators.
The claims from the last couple of years of Chinese advances in EVs, especially batteries, rest almost entirely on cheap prices, as if no one has ever heard of subsidies. There's been a recent small scandal in Android phones, with a couple of Chinese makers caught cheating on claims of how thin their phones are. That matches my experience with all dictatorships, such as the Soviets fooling Americans about how many planes they had by flying the same three around in circles at a May Day parade. This is the national behavior of followers and sycophants, not innovators. I expect it in politics, and it's been there in spades with Trump and Biden and Obama. But industry? In a free society, it seldom gets very far.
/rant
“There's been a recent small scandal in Android phones, with a couple of Chinese makers caught cheating on claims of how thin their phones are. That matches my experience with all dictatorships…”
I doubt that the West is immune from such things. For example, it wasn’t that long ago that Volkswagen was juicing their diesel emissions numbers. That didn’t end too well for them or for clean diesel generally. We could also look to various other accounting scandals over the past 25 years or the Purdue Pharma marketing of opioids or Wells Fargo fake accounts or the Boeing 737 MAX.
That's true. I was mostly struck by how crude the phone thickness fraud was and how they apparently didn't expect anyone would check it.
As I ponder Dr. Kling’s substack today, I have the Volleyball Nations League finals on and #8 China just took the first set from #1 Brazil before a happy and supportive Chinese crowd. However awful the repression within China, one gets the impression that a majority rof Chinese citizens are more or less content with Xi, the government, and the CCP, and confident in their nation’s future. This seems born out even in anonymous polling where 60% of citizens apparently support the government. (https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/chinese-communist-party-support-lower-when-surveys-anonymous/ ) Indeed, the Chinese Communist Party has about 100 million members which alone would be a significant power base. And the repression perhaps seems targeted against Muslims and Hong Kong dissidents, whom are not significant components of the total population. (https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/repression-in-xis-china/ ).
So why does it appear that a stable mass of Chinese are willing to tolerate a political system that most of us on the outside would find intolerable? And does the answer to this question perhaps explain why China has yet to fail significantly and indeed to continue to grow in prestige and power?
Well, my favorite hammer in the toolbox of political concepts is the principle of solidarity and so today I will wail on that nail in the Chinese context.
Yes, China has a strongly hierarchy with centralized control. But so does the Catholic Church and the United States. But like those other entities, the lower levels in the hierarchy exercise authority and offer citizens voice and participation.
Let’s start with how Section 5 of the constitution of China, “Local People’s Congresses at All Levels and Local People’s Governments at All Levels.” (https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html ) establishes a countervailing bottom-up flow of power. Article 95 provides for local government, “Provinces, cities directly under central government jurisdiction, counties, cities, municipal districts, townships, ethnic townships and towns shall establish people’s congresses and people’s governments.” Article 97 provides for direct election of officials at the base levels with people’s congresses at higher levels choosing members of the next higher level, “Deputies to the people’s congresses of provinces, cities directly under central government jurisdiction and cities divided into districts shall be elected by the people’s congresses at the next level down; deputies to the people’s congresses of counties, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, ethnic townships and towns shall be directly elected by their constituencies.” There may indeed be top-down political control, but the local officials who do the day to day local work are not assigned by the central government.
Perhaps much to the dismay of YIMBYs and the delight of NIMBYs local government’s apparently extensive economic power and remit is set out in Article 99:
“Article 99 Local people’s congresses at all levels shall, within their administrative areas, ensure the observance and enforcement of the Constitution, laws and administrative regulations; they shall, according to the authority invested in them as prescribed by law, adopt and issue resolutions, and review and decide on local economic, cultural and public service development plans.
Local people’s congresses at and above the county level shall review and approve the economic and social development plans and budgets of their administrative areas as well as reports on their implementation; they shall have the power to change or revoke inappropriate decisions made by their own standing committees.
The people’s congresses of ethnic townships may, according to the authority invested in them as prescribed by law, take specific measures suited to ethnic characteristics.”
So it would appear that with respect to local economic development, citizens of China have sovereignty somewhat similar to that of US citizens.
Thus, I would argue critiques of China based on a one-sided assessment of top-down centralized power may be failing to take into account the whole picture.
More importantly, highly decentralized Brazil who strongly realizes the principle of subsidiarity has taken the match from China 3-1 thus proving the validity or perhaps maybe offering symbolic support to this argument.
The Catholic church? Talk about an apples to oranges comparison. The Catholic church isn't in charge of the entire US government. Reading constitutions doesn't tell you much about how things work in practice even in so-called liberal Western countries, let alone in authoritarian regimes like China's. I bet the constitution for the Democratic Republic of North Korea sounds good on paper as well. And the principle of 'top-down bottom-up' is just an old idea borrowed from Soviet Communism, not some Chinese innovation evidencing democratization at the local level.
Well there is no denying China's authoritarianism working hand in hand with strong centralized power as is only natural. But many observers describe elements of decentralization as well with local administration in areas in which locals can perform better than remote bureaucracies. An article in Nature states:
"Although hybrid forms of democracy that combine elements of Western democracy and authoritarianism are acknowledged as being possible, the debate over whether the Chinese political system fits the definition of democracy is still ongoing (Tang 2021). In the meantime, it appears that the benefits of traditional democracy are penetrating Chinese legal scholarship, policymaking, and lawmaking to a greater degree. Although the visible role of state structures in the PRC is well known (i.e., that they have historically tended toward centralisation and vertical power), the Chinese state has had to deal with increasingly multi-layered social changes, the decentralisation of the economy, and local governance in the post-reform era (Wu and Zhang, 2022).
From a formal point of view, the Chinese legislator does not define the relationship between the concepts of GG ["grassroots governance"] and the concept of local self-government, which in a sense complicates the understanding of the subtleties of meaning that the Chinese legislator and the subjects of political initiative put into the definition of GG. However, based on the political documents of the CCP, it can be argued that this is about both issues of self-organisation and grassroots initiative, as well as the process of governance at the local level. Of interest in this regard is the relatively recent CCP political act “Opinion of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Strengthening Grassroots Management Modernisation and Management Capacity (April 28, 2021) (Communist Party of China, 2021). The paper notes that GG is the cornerstone of national governance, and the overall promotion of township (street) and urban and rural community governance is a major project to realise the modernisation of the national governance system and governance capacity (Communist Party of China, 2021)."
From this and other articles, I get the impression that there might be some nuance to it all. But the bottom line is that every 5 years a couple thousand delegates to a new National People's Congress, China's supreme authority, are officially elected by local people's congresses at the provincial level. So China is not entirely a military type organization with authority flowing in one direction only.
The titles of the political documents of the CCP you cite remind me of George Orwell's 1984. Doublespeak. If you think the Chinese political system is actually some hybrid form of democracy, why don't you joint Kurt and go live there?
You couldn’t pay me to visit there. I just want to understand why it seems like a majority of Chinese seem to appear content in a system that I would find intolerable.
1) No history of democracy and political liberalization -- you don't miss what you and your ancestors never had?
2) improving living standards and lots of employment opportunities?
3) Freedom to move abroad (if you can find a country that will take you) acts as a safety valve?
4) the majority of Chinese people prefer living in a country where ethnic Chinese people are the dominant majority and Chinese culture is dominant (they don't believe diversity is our strength)?
I visited Hong Kong before the handover and eventually the takeover by the CCP. Interesting place, but I wouldn't want to live there either.
"Thus, I would argue critiques of China based on a one-sided assessment of top-down centralized power may be failing to take into account the whole picture."
Yes. You could expand that idea into several arenas concerning China.
I'm feet on the ground in Wuhan, and generally speaking, there's much less "in your face" stuff from China's government than I experience in the US. Seriously. In fact, the Heritage Foundation, about 10 years ago, stopped with their analysis of the issue in their annual report because China scored better than America.
Well, the 90% own their own homes appears to be true - which I confess surprised me, so thanks for that - but the 80% owning them free and clear is not.
And even the first claim is misleading, since in urban areas - where 60%+ of the population now live - the GOVERNMENT owns the land underneath the home, not the homeowner.
And in fact, mortgage debt is common.
Unless you can show hard evidence for this 2nd claim. But pretty sure it don’t exist.
It's impossible for me to say. Maybe someone else knows.
I know Chinese do not like debt. Debt on consumer silliness is a young people phenomenon. I do know a lot of folks in China own their homes. I and my wife own a few. Income tax is incredibly low (low single digit %) and there is NO PROPERTY TAX. Everyone knows property tax is coming, but right now there isn't any property tax.
This is an interesting post. I consider it weaker than your average post, but the linked article is a good one and worth reading. Without firsthand experience of being in China, it’s difficult to know what people are thinking and discussing there, but based on the Chinese people I’ve met here, they are busy with two important activities: working hard and improving the welfare of their families—similar to us.
Do they have sufficient intellectual independence (and wealth) to create more political independence for themselves? My guess is yes. Things will continue to get better in China on average over the longterm.
What can we do to help them? Certainly we should be pushing for free trade. Arnold, I know it might be mundane to discuss the merits of free trade, but maybe you can come up with a helpful post on this topic? Or something related to China’s economy and culture? More links?
Even the pro-globalist members of 'the blob' who have been the leading proponents of the idea that free trade with China will result in political liberalization in that country now acknowledge that this idea has been thoroughly discredited by actual experience. That should have been obvious from the start of the experiment with globalization. The Chinese Communist Party copied its governance model from the Soviet Communist Party, but as usual, the Chinese 'tweaked' the model, and they did so with the objective of fortifying the model against renegades who might undermine the CCP's monopoly on political power like Gorbachev. Free trade with China not only does not and cannot result in more political independence for Chinese citizens, but in fact it does the opposite by bolstering the existing Chinese political system and helping to maintain the political power of the CCP. This is one of the things that irks me about libertarians who whine about free trade and any interference in their ability to buy anything they want from an authoritarian country like China. At least have the honesty to admit that your principled libertarianism is somewhat hypocritical.
I agree that trade has not resulted in the political liberalization that was expected. That doesn't mean it won't. And it doesn't mean it hasn't increased desire and readiness of the people.
If US traded with China less could we have realistically expected or forced that on the rest of the world? What if we were the only ones not trading with China?
Were Gorbachev's actions expected when he took office? What will Xi's successor do?
Believing that US trade with China under its existing political system has the potential to result in political liberalization when it has failed to do so after decades of such trade meets the definition of insanity. As for Gorbachev, the CCP's system for selecting a successor to the Chairman is designed to weed out troublemaking political reformers like him. How they do that I can't say. In the Soviet case, I think Marxist-Leninist ideology was pretty much dead by the time Brezhnev croaked. I can't say the same about China. Today Trump issued an executive order closing the duty-free 'de minimus' loophole, which has allowed Chinese companies like Temu and Shein to flood the US market with low-cost junk. For all I know, reducing US trade with China has a better chance of resulting in political liberalization by putting millions of Chinese out of work and destabilizing the political system, although I'm not saying that is Trump's goal, just a potential side-effect.
What specific trade policies do you advocate for between the US and China?
The critical thing to understand about the CCP is that they have closely studied the rise and fall of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and they are bound and determined to avoid the latter's fate at all costs.
Xi is an old man. His reign won't last forever. Unless Emperor Xi does something really big soon, China's future depends on who takes his place.
But how likely is that to result in more than a small change better or worse?
It is basically a closed society, at least to us outside of it, so we cannot know until it happens. I havent read anything about it, but did anyone accurately predict what would happen to in the USSR after Stalins death.
And Xi doesnt have to die for a change to occur, but that is the way to bet
The rift between China and the USSR dates back to Krushchev's speech to the 20th Party Congress denouncing the excesses of Stalinism and the cult of personality surrounding him. Mao didn't approve. While it is true the Chinese economic system was liberalized following Mao's death (it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice), there wasn't a comparable official denunciation of Maoism, which went far beyond the excesses of Stalinism in terms of mass murder and brutality. As I said elsewhere on this thread, the CCP has studied and learned from the rise and fall of its Soviet counterpart, and it is determined not to repeat what they view as the latter's mistakes.
The people highest up in China might have better guesses but still guesses.
The US is pretty open and we don't have a clue what Trump's successor will be like.