China Derangement Syndrome - Once again, an economic yellow peril is exaggerated.

Reason ^ | December 2011 | Ronald Bailey

[1rudeboy]

We’ve had 3 years in the negative or sub-2% range . . . .

Huh?

[hinckley buzzard]

China today is a superpower in the same way the Soviet Union was a superpower in the 1980's: by allocating a huge proportion of its wealth to military buildup while lying to the world and itself about its command economy.

No economy ever has or ever will sustain double digit growth , bubble free, for more than a few years at the most. China has claimed 8% for a couple decades now which in itself is essentially impossible.

To project 10% growth for twenty years is a daydream, even if beginning from scratch, which China is not. I think the parallels between Japan-hysteria and China-hysteria are very apt. Even fuelled by the same Chicken Littles of the media.

[Olog-hai]

---

Did you actually read the article? It doesn’t even address whether or not China has an adversarial attitude, it just talks about economic reality

---

If you are acting like politics and economics are wholly separate from each other, think again. In communism especially, they are one and the same. Therefore, China's adversarial attitude cannot but be discussed when it comes to their economics, and no, China will not ever move to a more open society without being forced to do so from the outside—by military force.

[Olog-hai]

---

China today is a superpower in the same way the Soviet Union was a superpower in the 1980's: by allocating a huge proportion of its wealth to military buildup while lying to the world and itself about its command economy.

No economy ever has or ever will sustain double digit growth , bubble free, for more than a few years at the most. China has claimed 8% for a couple decades now which in itself is essentially impossible.

To project 10% growth for twenty years is a daydream, even if beginning from scratch, which China is not. I think the parallels between Japan-hysteria and China-hysteria are very apt. Even fuelled by the same Chicken Littles of the media.

---

WADR, I think you're underestimating the zealotry of the Communist Party of China for spreading communism to every corner of the globe. It's their opinion that communism will not begin to work until the entire world is under its sway; therefore, all non-communistic, capitalistic entities must first be swept aside.

[drbuzzard]

You still are missing the point. The article is pretty clear about the fact that China’s growth will slow down inevitably if it doesn’t open up. So if they don’t, fine, they will hit a wall on growth and their economy will stop expanding.

If they keep the type of government which leads them to be adversarial, they are going to limit themselves and thus limit the threat they present.

[Olog-hai]

---

You still are missing the point. The article is pretty clear about the fact that China’s growth will slow down inevitably if it doesn’t open up. So if they don’t, fine, they will hit a wall on growth and their economy will stop expanding.

If they keep the type of government which leads them to be adversarial, they are going to limit themselves and thus limit the threat they present

---

You must really think that the CPC really cares about stuff like that. The more that the naïve West continues to support that communist regime by trading with it, the more resources the Party has to crush dissent, via "tank diplomacy" if necessary. The USSR would still be around if we had traded with it the same way we trade with the PRC.

And the most naïve of all is the statement in the thread title. Neglecting the threat or trying to make light of it is pure ignorance.

[drbuzzard]

This is evidently not going to go anywhere. You don’t seem to care at all about the point of the article, nor seem terribly willing to recognize it.

[Olog-hai]

---

You don’t seem to care at all about the point of the article, nor seem terribly willing to recognize it

---

Actually, you don't "seem to care" that whatever point is trying to be made is utterly invalid, because it's predicated on the impossibility of China "mak(ing) the transition to an open society" by itself—if you continue to strengthen a rival, then he'll remain a rival and not "transition" to a partner (this is one of the basics of foreign policy, or so I thought; to wit, appeasement fails utterly). You can't ignore reality while trying to make a point, or else you'll end up writing a bunch of empty paragraphs.

If wrecking its own economy while bringing the economies of its sworn enemies down with it is the accelerant towards Red China's communist party's final push towards world communism, they will do it; it only gives them an excuse to use their military, which they are building up by leaps and bounds.

[neverdem]

There are many more problems such as dishonest books in provincial banks and a series bogus accounting principles done by the central planners to take nonproducing loans off the books.

I made the same mistake just two days ago.

The way out of our financial mess is transparency

They're (the Japanese) still refusing to resolve all of their non-producing loans, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure the correct term is non-performing loans. Otherwise, thanks for a nice summary of the looming problems facing the Chicoms.

[bert]

There is a lot of thought here that is off base.

CDS is alive and well here every day.

The process under way in China is economically driven political evolution. That is, change. The process of change largely is restricted and constrained by old men. As they die, the society evolves in a new direction. The specific outcome is of course unknown.

I don’t think there will be a revolution. I think the new direction after 50 or 75 years will result in a socialist state more like Europe of the present than China of 1965.

[drbuzzard]

You haven’t offered anything remotely akin to proof that the article is wrong. You don’t even bother to grasp the salient points.

[Olog-hai]

---

The process under way in China is economically driven political evolution

---

No such thing is happening in Red China. Rogue states do not "evolve"—they have to be destroyed, and never appeased. Again, if we had traded with the USSR the way we do China, it would be here today and most likely more malevolent than ever.

[Olog-hai]

---

You haven’t offered anything remotely akin to proof that the article is wrong

---

You haven't offered anything to prove the article right. I, for my part, filled in the missing holes in the argument, which makes it collapse. You cannot predicate anything on a statement that is based on pie-in-the-sky hope (authoritarian Red China transitioning by itself to a more open society, especially while you continue to strengthen the authoritarians). WADR, are you just trolling? because it appears you are just blatantly ignoring the obvious.

---

You don’t even bother to grasp the salient points

---

Invalid points are not salient. Salient points do not ignore reality.

[drbuzzard]

You are mighty impressed with your own arguments. However they aren’t even vaguely close to as good as you seem to think they are.

But it’s also quite apparent that arguing with you is as fruitful as arguing with a wall, so I’ll pass. Have fun with your delusions.

[Olog-hai]

It's not my fault if you want to be evasive. You can't run away from the facts, and whatever ones are posted by the libertarian magazine are already tainted by missing facts. The focus of the government of Red China is not economic growth as capitalists see it, but to acquire as many means as possible to prepare for making the world transition to global communism—this is why they are building up their military, among many other things. If their economy goes, they know that the economies of their enemies will be shattered rather than merely weakened, and they'll have a huge upper hand if they want to inject their military even more into their foreign policy.

And comparing things to Japan of thirty years ago is yet another canard.

[Mr. Jeeves]

It seems the Communists have cut them off from the ancient philosophy (which overwhelmingly rejected anything like modern communism), and so they are shallow.

Well, Confucius was a statist on a grand scale - so they like him enough to start re-introducing his teachings. Lao Tzu and Taoism on the other hand, that kind of free thinking and ridicule of authority they don't really care for. :)

[FromTheSidelines]

What’s been our annual GDP growth over the last 3 years? Will it break 3% annually sometime in the foreseeable future?

[1rudeboy]

I thought you knew.

[FromTheSidelines]

I do, which is why I posted what I did. The flaw in this article is that is assumes much more GDP growth that what we’re experiencing, and what we’re likely to experience for the next several years. China doesn’t need to continue 8+% annual growth to overtake the US, not when we’re muddling along at 2%, 1%, or even lower.