[Xi today in China governs a huge population that copes with the threat of famine, environmental ruin, desperately needs a political reality that enhances its export markets and favors a steady supply of grains, protein sources and energy. ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Despite less than 10% market share, GM alone sells about as many cars in China as all car manufacturers combined sell in India.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-china/gms-third-quarter-china-vehicle-sales-down-17-5-as-u-s-automakers-cede-ground-idUSKBN1WP0L0
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/car-sales-dip-most-in-2-decades-in-2019/articleshow/73063244.cms
This is from a base in the late 70’s when China and India had the same rough per capita incomes.
Re imports, Xi Jinping can acquire China’s needs on the open market like everybody else. I don’t think it’s escaped anyone’s attention that China runs a net trade surplus against the rest of the world, so there’s no shortage of foreign exchange to purchase imports. You really think the US is going to invade and occupy China’s suppliers to prevent them from selling to China or seize China-bound ships to inspect for products other countries are selling to China?
People come up absurd rationales based on what leaders say. IMO, the one constant element in the world is that when what leaders want requires considerable sacrifices from all below them, they will dissimulate endlessly.
Re Alexander, the richest of his conquests was Persia. He spent his entire life in the field, living a spartan existence like the rest of his men. Someone who was after luxury would have spent it resting on his laurels instead of engaging in campaign after campaign. He only gave up when his soldiers were on the brink of mutiny. In fact, he probably pushed them past that point - there’s a long series of rumors that he was poisoned. What is not in dispute is that after his death, his family line was exterminated.
Xi Jinping doesn’t have a problem with popular disaffection. The shibboleth of our time is that the Chinese people are naturally docile, so *any* public expression of dissatisfaction is an indication of impending regime collapse. However, the historical record, dating back to China’s Spartacus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Gaozu_of_Han, indicate that the average Chinese is fairly contentious and not shy about asserting his rights to the extent tolerated by the authorities. And the rampant lawbreaking and corruption is not an indication of drone-like behavior but of not directly challenging the emperor until they perceive an opportunity to eliminate him (and his kin) and personally occupy his seat.
You are very much mistaken if you believe that China is economically stable. It is true there was the expected economic growth and wealth creation when in the late 1980s China abandoned doctrinaire socialism and allowed some economic freedoms to its underproductive, inefficient masses with the communists still controlling central banking and capital allocation ( to their detriment).However the nation’s economic well being depends on the export of consumer products ( mostly designed by foreigners) that cater to foreign markets and tastes. The trade surpluses are absolutely necessary to support the military, the non productive huge bureaucracy and guarantee the import of essential grains, materials and energy. Its, at this point, a very precarious balance. Economic and overt military imperialism is necessary for China to prosper and even survive.