The Coming end of the Western World may have to be postponed (America is NOT in decline)

American Thinker ^ | 10/17/2009 | Ethan Epstein

[SeekAndFind]

Review: When China Rules the World, by Martin Jacques

While the decades since the Vietnam War may be most known for their startling technological developments, they have also spawned a chic genre of literature: the ‘America is in Decline' tract. What started most prominently with the work of Paul Kennedy has turned into a veritable cottage industry. Tomes in this category have included Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West, Bruce Horton's Decline and Fall, and, most recently, Fareed Zakaria's The End of America, which Barack Obama was famously photographed holding last summer. Some of these books argue that the decline is inevitable as a result of "cultural decadence," others argue decline is a result of "environmental devastation," and others still attribute the supposed decline to falling birthrates. In the 1980s and early 1990s, many of the more-economically oriented books of the genre argued that the West's decline was partially a result of the rise of Japan. Today, many are devoted to the proposition that western decline is linked to the rise of another Asian tiger: the People's Republic of China.

Into this presumably lucrative declinist field now enters Martin Jacques, and his new, hefty-looking tome, When China Rules the World: The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World. Jacques' volume, while obviously the result of serious scholarship (he name drops everyone from Confucius to Barack Obama), and fluidly written, has one grave problem: its persistent refusal to deal with facts that negate its thesis.

Jacques' argument has the benefit of being simple, if unoriginal: China, with its huge population, manufacturing might, and (alleged) technical prowess, is destined to surpass the United States midway through this century to become the world's leading economic power. In so doing, so-called Chinese values - stability, authoritarianism, collectivism - will eclipse the (allegedly now outmoded) "Western values" of human rights, democracy, and individualism. (Jacques et al. always forget to acknowledge that Japan, South Korea, India, and other Asian states have happily adopted the "Western" values of democracy and individual liberty.) The reasons for this shift, Jacques' argues, lie in the numbers.

Jacques opens his chapter, ‘China as an Economic Superpower' with some impressive sounding demographic figures, intended to hit home just how big, very big, in fact quite massive China really is. "When the United States began its take-off in 1870," Jacques notes, "its population was 40 million. By 1913 it had reached 98 million . . . In contrast, China's population was 963 million in 1978 when its take-off started in earnest: that is, twenty-four times that of the United States in 1870." These numbers are intended to wow us with their sheer size. And indeed, Jacques makes much of them: he argues that due to the size of China's population, the Middle Kingdom's domination of the world is all but inevitable.

Jacques makes two fundamental errors here. First, he ignores the fact that there is no evident correlation between population size and economic strength. Consider a few examples. Qatar (population 1,600,000) has a per-capita GDP of over $85,000. Luxembourg (population 493,000) has a per-capita GDP of $82,000, and Norway (population 4,800,000) boasts a per capita GDP of nearly $50,000. (One wonders where the breathless When Oslo Rules the World is.) China has a per capita GDP of less than $6,000, placing it below such economic heavyweights as Angola, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador. So despite the fact that China now has the third largest gross GDP in the world (at about a third the size of the United States), this, like the empty skyscrapers that crowd Shanghai's skyline, is merely an illusion of strength. China has certainly made laudable economic and social progress in the past decades, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject levels of poverty. That being said, China remains fundamentally poor. And while its economy continues to grow at a steady clip despite the global recession (though this is illusory as well: the growth is nearly entirely the result of government spending), China is facing a grave problem that will ultimately retard its ascension into the pantheon of truly prosperous countries.

This serious problem, forgotten by Jacques, is simply unavoidable, for it lies in the country's demographics. Simply put: China is growing old - and fast. (Decades of the one-child policy are to blame for this.) At least a third of the population of the Middle Kingdom will be over 60 by the middle of this century. While Shanghai, for example, is widely known as the exciting and dynamic center of capitalist China, it also has one of the oldest populations in the world: more than a fifth of the population is over 60, and by 2030, a full 40% of the population will be at in at least its sixth decade. The Center for Strategic Studies has demonstrated that by 2030, there will be 2.5 Chinese workers to support each retiree - by 2050, there will be a frightening 1.6 workers in that position. So while nattering nabobs in the West fret over aging populations in their countries, don't let's forget that in 2050, a full 438 million Chinese people will be at least 60 years old. For those keeping score, that's more people than the entire population of the United States. This is going to cause crushing - if not catastrophic - problems to the Chinese pension system, sap productivity, and strip the Chinese economy of capital needed for reinvestment.

Meanwhile, a recent report from the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto predicts that China's huge labor force will begin to shrink in 2020. The very reason for China's tremendous success in the past few decades - its seemingly endless supply of teeming masses yearning to breathe factory air - is set to begin evaporating. At the same time, labor in China will become increasingly expensive, dissuading foreign companies from investing here. Little wonder that it has become a truism among more sensible academics and Sinowatchers that, "China is going to grow old before it grows rich." It is more of a curiosity that Jacques chooses to simply gloss over these inconvenient truths, so eager is he to trumpet China's rise and America's decline.

Jacques also spends much energy - both his, and his increasingly exasperated readers' - pushing back against the notion that as China becomes richer, it will become more "westernized." Yet there is much evidence on the ground here in China to refute his thesis. To begin on the surface level, China, like most countries in the world, has a healthy (or perhaps, unhealthy) share of McDonalds, KFC, and Burger King restaurants. It also has a voracious appetite for American movies, music, and sports figures. (Kobe Bryant is probably more popular in China than in the United States.) Meanwhile, women have entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers, the country is rapidly urbanizing, and citizens are demanding an increased amount of accountability from their government. All of there are classic examples of ‘westernization.' Indeed, Jacques' depressing and downright insulting insistence that Chinese people don't care about individualism, human rights, and fair representation is belied by recent developments such as the demands for government accountability by citizens groups in Sichuan province following the earthquake there last year, and the founding of the Charter 08 group.

Moreover, despite the increase in Mandarin-learners in the western, the global supremacy of English continues apace: when I worked for a business magazine in China earlier this year, I attended many business seminars, workgroups, and conferences in Shanghai. Even if the crowd was nearly exclusively Chinese, the meetings were held in English. I even witnessed groups of Chinese businesspeople, all obviously native Chinese speakers, speaking to each other in broken English at networking events. (This can be a truly painful experience.) English remains the dominant language of commerce, even in roaring China.

But Jacques ignores these facts, choosing instead to bang the drum of American declinism, and the alleged rise of China. Brushed aside throughout the book are China's demographic crisis, its steady "westernization," and its persistent poverty.

China may one day rule the world, but, to paraphrase Keynes, when China rules the world . . . we'll all be dead.

-- Ethan Epstein is a business writer based in Portland, Oregon. His work has appeared in the Weekly Standard, the New York Press, Spiked Online, and others.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

“The Divine One” is a symptom of an underlying disorder effecting the American people. There is a place called America but it is rapidly becoming a mere geographical expression. The term America is losing its meaning as a referent pointing to a “People.” For example, human beings still live in Rome Italy, but one would no longer call them “Romans” in the sense of those people who withstood Hannibal and went on to conquer the world. Americans are dying as a “People.”

[The Comedian]

Yes and no.

We're going to go, but we're taking everyone else with us, they just don't realize it yet (and neither do we for the most part).

For example: America goes bankrupt. China ascends into first place using the capital from what, selling air fresheners to Vietnam? Poison dog food to France?

It's back to subsistence farming rice with oxen.

We're the plug in the world economic bathtub. Sure, China might be the bunch of bubbles farthest from the drain, but when we go, glub glub glub goes China.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[penowa]

Everything that’s happening to us we’re doing to ourselves.

That's what happens when a country is run by suicidal lunatics.

[TomasUSMC]

Interesting info

[ModelBreaker]

“Dominance in the world is relative, not absolute. America could go into significant decline in absolute terms and remain dominant as long as competitors decline at equal or greater rates.”

While perhaps true, it is not at all comforting. America is declining rapidly. Until now, the welfare classes have been confined to the elderly, the poor, large corporations, and trial lawyers. Recently, we added public employee unions. By 2010, the left will have achieved it’s goal of making ALL Americans into part of the welfare class with its health care plan. Welfare classes vote differently and think differently.

This is a huge transition that will quickly accelerate our decline. We have much further to fall than do other countries so the relative ranking will perhaps remain but become relatively meaningless because so small.

From a world viewpoint, America has already abdicated its leadership as a proponent of individual freedom and limited government. Fascism is everywhere on the rise, China, Venezuela, Hondouras. We have joined that parade both internally and in our foreign policy.

America’s principal cultural export used to be the notion of limited government and freedom. All that remains of our cultural export today is the debris from Hollywood and rap music, advocating complete behavioral license (one very small and dangerous part of freedom) and group identity politics, so long as it does not endanger our fascist rulers.

So at least we will remain a leader in the “cheerleading moral decline” zone.

[wagglebee]

Excellent article, thanks for posting it.

[Sherman Logan]

I don’t disagree with most of what you say. But most of these articles are about some other country replacing us as dominant in the world, not about the whole world going down the drain.

We may all indeed be going down the drain, but the US is likely to be one of the last circling it.

As you imply, our problems are far more cultural than economic, political or military. Cultural problems do not have easy political answers. Moral rebirth is the only real solution, and I have no real ideas on how to bring that about.

My only point was that most other countries are in even worse shape than we are.

Cheery thought, ain’t it?

[Freddd]

But were United States citizens then.

are we now?

No
We are
African
Hispanic
etc....then Americans. and a lot of them hate America.

[Jacquerie]

America has survived worse.

Yes, we have. The problem is that as opposed to earlier times, our major institutions today have, thanks to the Radical Left, such structural rot I am not confident they can withstand much more. Federalism is dead. Our government makes little effort to remain within the envelope of enumerated powers. The government has spent over 40 years assaulting the family. The list goes on and the government assault on the civil society is only getting worse. Oh, and our currency, which is on life support is a sure goner if Hussein Healthcare passes.

[mrsmel]

I can think of quite a few times, when reading the comments sections of British newspapers, that commenters have salivated over the scenario of China overtaking American as the lone global superpower. It made not one jot of difference to them that the world under the whip of the Chinese government would be a very different prospect to the world being under the benign leadership of the US. I thought then that I’d never seen people so anxious to embrace their chains, if it would pique their “enemies”, but that was before a majority of Americans (both alive and dead) elected Hussein.

[Jabba the Nutt]

What new world beating products, processes or inventions has China given the world in the past 20 years?

It takes freedom to unleash creativity and property rights to take on the establishment with new products?

[SaraJohnson]

Yep. In both parties.

[American Constitutionalist]

What I find interesting is the aging population numbers in this article and in about 2020 that it's effects will start to be felt in China when labor will start to become expensive.
Perhaps companies will start to move back to the USA.
The one child policy of the last few decades in China will have dire consequences in the next few decades in China, no top of that, the same effect will be on the Liberal population here in the USA from abortion.
No wonder Obama and his henchmen are trying to pass anything they can in Congress.... time is slipping for them and they know it so they need to destroy America while they got time.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Actually, the current decline of America, like that in the 70’s is caused by Big Government. Freedom is the cure.

[American Constitutionalist]

He who owes the bank $ 1000 got a problem, He who owes the bank $ 1 Billion, then the bank is the one who got a problem.
Yes, China can influence us because we owe them so much money, but, that is not a debt that China can forget or ignore.

[American Constitutionalist]

Exactly !!!

I couldn't have said it better myself.
I do believe though, the leaders of Russia and China know for certain that if the USA goes, so do them, it's just ? the lemmings and sheeple who voted for Obama and the Liberal hell hole of Europe don't realize it.
Where is China going to find another economic market like the USA ? .... Europe ? ....
All the economic Asian markets are dependent on American consumers as long as we got money to spend, but, once we go under, so do they.
I also still believe that America still has the technical advantage and prowesness inspite of the decline of our educational system, and inspite of Russia and China stealing our technology.

[SuperLuminal]

"(America is NOT in decline)"

That's correct....It's freedom and liberty that are in decline.

Once the transformation is completed, probably in 2013, the U.S. Communist empire will become dominant in it's tyrannical rule of North and South America....Surpassing the level of control that the former Soviet Union had over Eastern Europe.

Its almost as if the Fourth Reich will fulfill Hitler's 1000-year dream...and, as well, Ronald Reagan's 1000-year prophecy / nightmare.

[Steelfish]

Yes- but as the leading capitalist system, the US cannot afford not to play China’s game. If not, and China calls in even a portion of this debt and the US is unable to pay, we’ll have the collapse of the stock market and the entire nation in a state of beggary.

[aquila48]

“Various countries are posited as as replacing America as the dominant power. This is usually done by concentrating on America’s problems while ignoring those of the contender.”

I used to agree with that line of thinking, but with Dumb’O in there explicitely stating that his purpose is to reduce the US to “no better than any other country”, I’ve become a pessimist.

Only another Reagan will be able to undo the coming damage. Is there one in the wings?

Right now I’d put my money on China, especially if they loosen up politically. They sure as hell have no intention of being “no better than the rest”. They have a strong nationalist streak and they’re aiming to be #1.

[Sherman Logan]

China has unique challenges.

The biggest being that they are still a very poor nation, taken on the average, and that they are a very rapidly aging nation. As many have pointed out, China is going to get old long before it gets rich.

Something I haven’t seen discussed is the distinct (to me, anyway) likelihood that China will get more aggressive as its demographic destiny becomes more obvious.

As one fairly obvious example, eastern Russia (Siberia) is absolutely crammed with underexploited natural resources and has always been underpopulated. It is today rapidly emptying, even faster than other parts of Russia.

Geopolitical vacuums tend to not remain empty for long and Chinese movement on empty Siberia against a still heavily nuclear armed Russia could be a very dangerous thing.