>Saudi will have a violent revolution

Very very unfortunately, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a reasonable prediction. The ways in which modern states can maintain power and suppress their people is overwhelming. China can and has built perhaps the most oppressive totalitarian state ever to have existed. Saudi is diversifying its absurd wealth to resist downturns in oil, and the "first world" is still hapelly grovelling and kissing the rings of that disgusting despot, selling them weapons and propping them up diplomatically. All in all, I don't have my hopes up.

It's all rather depressing.

Their highly leveraged economy will not survive at "6%" growth over the next decade. It is not clear that they will escape the Middle Income Trap [1]. They are struggling with zombie companies and transitioning from manufacturing to a services-based economy. Their manufacturing is also being slowly eaten away by countries like Vietnam.

As the PRC maintains its legitimacy through the economic growth that has happened under its existence, a recession could trigger political upheaval or force the CCP to distract the populace, e.g. they might try to annex the ROC (Taiwan and its other holdings) by force. A military conflict in which a large number of one child families lose their sole child would have disastrous ramifications as far as government stability, too.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap

(No opinion on Saudi as I only follow the economy/demographics of the PRC and Eurozone countries)

A key difference with middle income countries that only earn export income as manufacturing base is that there are quite a few Chinese companies that possess its own technology and brands. DJI, Oppo, Xiaomi are some examples. Many of these brands are not well known in the US but have become increasingly competitive with global brands, at least in some respect, in Asia and perhaps elsewhere.

It might make sense to compare them to Korean brands a while back, with an additional advantage of massive domestic market.

Their forward-looking focus on major industries of tomorrow like AI, EV, and biotech does not hurt either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21868570

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21692002

Since there are many areas in China that could be further developed, the service sector will also likely grow.

My point is that the US ought not get complacent and believe in wishful thinking that competition from China will simply go away in time.

When people are fat and comfortable, they tend not to rock the boat too much for vague ideals.

Very very unfortunately, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a reasonable prediction.

The truly troublesome part is that predictions about social phenomenon can be self-fulfilling prophesy. If you basically want to see a bloody revolution instead of a better solution, that actively increases the odds of it happening.

The reason modern western leaders support house of Saud isn't that they're the good guys. They're just the best of what all realistic possibilities in the region, unfortunately.

I doubt it. Saud family were interested in fighting the Ottomans, as were the British in WW1, and their interests aligned then. And during WW2, once it was found to provide access to oil, it only made sense for the west to make sure a stable regime was established. The US/Brits support the Sauds in whatever they want to do, and the Sauds provide oil and purchase weapons. Keeps the region nice and unstable for future weapons orders and to prevent a situation like Norway where the oil wealth is distributed to everyone and no longer able to be controlled by a handful of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Origins_and_earl...

For further proof, the more modern socially liberal Iran was destabilized in favor of a fundamentalist leader by the US for their refusal to play ball:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Khomeini's_c...

It's just business, it's easier to deal with a small country's king than a democracy.

This is a good book about the circumstances that result in the modern situation:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64594.A_History_of_the_M...

Isn't the wealth distributed to the saudis to keep them happy and inline?

And if the Saudi king decides to stop the payments or kill you for speaking out against them (see Kashoggi assassination), what good is a few thousand in oil money while the royalty splits the billions with the US.

>6. Saudi Arabia will have a violent revolution

why do people make these kinds of predictions. they're so uninformed it's beyond the pale.

china and SA are two of the most authoritarian and simultaneously well-funded (effective and efficient) governments on the planets -- we're not talking libya here (let alone syria, venezuela which still stand in their pre-upheavel form). how do you practically imagine either of these things happening? like a superhero comes down and leads the charge?

do you know what it actually takes to organize on such a massive scale as to bring down a state? here in america we can't get enough grass-roots organization for free health-care and tertiary education. and you think somewhere in china is a political mind so brilliant that they'll be able to organize some portion of 3x the population to violent revolution (since they don't have elections)?

Monumental changes can happen, and shockingly quickly.

Many of those Soviet Republics were very reluctant participants, forcibly occupied with underlying resentment going back centuries in a couple of cases, to WW2 in others.

There seem very few parallels with Saudi or China.

When has social change ever not been unique?

It's always easier to explain collapse with hindsight. :)

Edit: or maybe I'm wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio...

SA has the 12th highest purchasing power parity in the world. what parallels do you see exactly with the soviet union?

The Saudis are much more comfortable in their position. MBS can and will dangle individual rights for women, one by one, like red meat for the laity. He will garner applause throughout the next two decades for his progressive attitude towards women, even as he is a bloodthirsty despot.

Probably because there is no such thing. The people who vote against them realize that you’re still paying for them via taxes and that you’ll be destroying the entire market.

Destroying the market with the best healthcare research and the market with much of the best academic research shouldn’t be taken lightly.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-...

and yet we can't get organized enough to pass it.

Someone who “somewhat” supports Medicare for all doesn’t really like the actual proposed implementation. With less than a majority strongly supporting it, are you really surprised?

The item on your list I have the biggest issue with is 10. We'll still be catching plenty of fish in the wild (but some places that fish are plentiful today won't be that way) in another 10 years.

So even if over fishing is not a threat any more, our ocean food source is still at huge risk.

Hope you're right about the CA housing market coming down, but I think more likely is just that Gavin Newsom and ilk get booted out for their failures to reign in PG&E and housing prices aren't particularly effected one way or the other.

Wildfires are generally not in the densely populated areas, so I don't think they'll move the needle much.