Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Different people, different cultures, different countries develop differently. There are endless examples of countries that were very poor and rural, but very very few examples in all human history of ones that exploded upwards like China, and India is not one of them. Comparing China to India just because China was poor 40 years ago is like comparing Danny Devito to Usain Bolt just because neither ran very fast when they were babies.
Not really, because of China's sheer size. But even so, it is doing so; did you not see this entire part of my post:
"And China is showing them that tomorrow and showing itself as an alternative, hence China's trade numbers are going up; they are more diversified, and China is building up its trade partners. China is the largest and fastest growing trade nation in the world. The West sanction themselves when they try to sanction China."
Erm... have you maybe even looked at the export numbers of China?
Spoilers, ASEAN is the biggest trade block nowadays (US and EU behind).
And while yes, US and EU does constitute a big % of total trade, but in recent years and basically last decade, we have seen the % of trade going down, while trade to countries not western increase basically.
Soviets were doomed long before the 70s, mainly due to Khrushchev.
Moscow was economically small, but could have developed. However, it never solved major issues with internal corruption, nor did it present a clear direction on its own development. Its education capability was comparable to China's, but it's utilisation of the workers after education was much worse.
Splitting with China because of vestiges in Russian chauvinism set them one foot in the grave, failure to innovate from that point onwards set them the other foot.
Soviets did not properly purge the dregs of society as China did. It did not create strong legal systems. That led to intra party corruption and eventually Gorbachev.
I might sound overly critical of them here, but I don't actually look down on them. They were pioneers in establishing a better alternative, they were just misguided and naive, which is reasonable because they're the actual OGs ffs. China just looked on them as an example of what to do and what not to do.
Moscow was economically small, but could have developed. However, it never solved major issues with internal corruption, nor did it present a clear direction on its own development. Its education capability was comparable to China's, but it's utilisation of the workers after education was much worse.
Splitting with China because of vestiges in Russian chauvinism set them one foot in the grave, failure to innovate from that point onwards set them the other foot.
Soviets did not properly purge the dregs of society as China did. It did not create strong legal systems. That led to intra party corruption and eventually Gorbachev.
I might sound overly critical of them here, but I don't actually look down on them. They were pioneers in establishing a better alternative, they were just misguided and naive, which is reasonable because they're the actual OGs ffs. China just looked on them as an example of what to do and what not to do.
solarz
Brigadier
Cool, I never knew Mississauga had that history.
Also America has a small population. But Americans got rich by getting foreign markets as customers for their products.
If the Soviets gained more markets to sell, their products would have gained investment and improvements as well, being alternatives today.
But Kissinger managed to keep China as an enemy of the USSR and a faithful US trade partner. As a result, there is no longer an alternative to the US in the most diverse sectors of advanced technology. China saved the West economy and now is in process of being replaced by other costumer markets.
And the US will do everything to isolate China and prevent her from being an alternative.
No isolated country grows and becomes an alternative. China needs to ally itself economically with Russia and Iran to have any chance against the US. But to continue to depend for decades on Boeing, ASML, Airbus, Dupont and various western companies? It's the same path of isolation that the US wants.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
US and Soviets were all smaller populations with smaller economy either outright or in potential, which is not comparable to China.
China's actually replacing the US and EU as its main markets and its trade is still growing. Its trade and economy are all outperforming the collective west. No problems here.
Judging by China's trade and FDI growth, they're doing an absolutely miserable job.
This is theoretical, because in real life, China is not isolated nor is it being isolated in the world as both its trade and FDI are growing healthily. You just hear these claims from the west because they think that they are the world and also because western media has the habit or writing what they wish were true as true. So, I don't know how China would perform if it were to be isolated, but with the largest market by PPP, largest potential by far and with the largest competent population on earth, I reason that it would be far less of a problem than it was for the Soviets or could be for the Americans.
Of course, China is in a furious indigenization tech drive right now. It's so obvious, there's no point in saying it.
No country is self-sufficient.
Independent and alternative supply chains are urgent. Investing in strategic partners is necessary to not have to depend on enemies.
But the arrogance of thinking you can beat the West just by population size or culture is naive, and the fate of that thinking is grim. Look what became of Rome.
Independent and alternative supply chains are urgent. Investing in strategic partners is necessary to not have to depend on enemies.
But the arrogance of thinking you can beat the West just by population size or culture is naive, and the fate of that thinking is grim. Look what became of Rome.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
All countries used to be self-sufficient.
China is actually investing in many partners, but they're basically all for economic purposes. When it comes to high tech, 90% of the countries in the world have nothing to offer China. So China's only way to not rely on enemies is to make it ourselves. Only Russia may be qualified to offer some slight assistance in some places, but even then, we generally realize that putting in the work to develop it ourselves results in a far better result not to mention it gets you the momentum to keep improving.
China has the largest population of STEM graduates in the world, larger than the EU, US, Japan combined. China is about to go from a lithography nobody to the only country in the world with a fully indigenized high end semiconductor manufactor line in basically under 10 years from Trump's tech war challenge. From rockets, to supercomputers to satellites to jet engines, we can make it all, under America's desperate bans no less. The packrat mentality is a matter of course for small nations but it cannot be blindly applied to China.
Not even relevant; Rome fell from internal rot and barbarian warfare. China is in a tech war.
Yes, exports and FDI are good, but only with foreign trade. Growth in ASEAN countries largely still depends on Western trade redirections.
At the current level, between American and Chinese brands, in a war with sanctions and embargoes, the world would clearly prefer American brands made in India even with low quality.
If even China prefers to continue investing in hostile companies, when war breaks out, no country will want to invest in China at this pace and attitude shown.
And the US will launch war and sanctions before China develops its own projects. China should cut all investments and purchases of critical western products now, and investing in allies and in preparation for war.