Chinese birthrates would have fallen anyways due to increasing education and prosperity.

The one child policy only accelerated the decline. When it was lifted, birthrates hardly budged.

Every developed country is a slow motion demographic car crash. China is in a bad position, I'll grant, because the CCP's legitimacy depends upon demographic dividend-scale growth rates when the dividend has already peaked. Democratic countries have pressure release valves built into their political systems that China lacks.

I think it's easy to say their "legitimacy" or "stability" depends on high growth rates, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. I would love to hear even one genuine expert on the subject make the case for a revolution in even the 30 years following a drop from insane growth back to earth.

China growth rate during recovery was actually depressed compared to several developing nations. So even the basic premise doesn’t fit the actual data.

Long term compare the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) after the war based on per capita GDP and the mainland is still catching up. The CPP maintained power after completely wrecking the countries economy, so a period of stagnation seems unlikely to be a major issue. More recently you can see how the CPP is placing Hong Kong’s economy as a lower priority than increased control.

While dictatorships like China can fall surprisingly quickly, I doubt slower growth is that critical of an issue.

I think CCP legitimacy does depend upon a social contract of rising living standards, compared to the Mao era when political idealism had more purchase.

Moreover rising expectations beget rising expectations, and the genie is out of the bottle.

I don't foresee a revolution either, rather a perestroika movement that will be forced from below but embraced out of necessity from above. As the video said, all of the energy needed to address domestic unrest will drain from China's ability to project their national interest.

This [0] is a much more interesting and enlightening documentary about China and Xi Jinping. It's in French but english subtitles are available.

[0] https://youtu.be/7QDktp_i6eY

Hans Rosling explained very well why advancements in National wealth leads to smaller families (less children per family) and longer lives

It's linked to becoming richer countries, which China has become

https://youtu.be/hVimVzgtD6w

There is a chance that the Americans can change that in a few months though.

If so, Trump may become just a footnote in history, and hopefully a valuable lesson, at least for a few generations.

Meanwhile, we people in Hong Kong and China can choose between "strongly support", "reluctantly support", "disapprovingly support", etc... Xi to continue as the head of PRC.

Get out and vote. Ask the people around you to do so. Explain to them why it's important to vote. Discuss with them how it may affect them. Learn to discuss serious topics without a confrontational attitude.

Cheers.

I see no evidence that Biden would be tough on China. He seems more likely to want to appease and try to profit from it than anything else.

Was responding to the OP that the "Trump administration who in 4 years totally managed to end the standing of the US on the world stage."

Have heard that Biden would be soft on China/Xi because of his commercial interest, but I haven't done enough research to justify this viewpoint myself.

It's kind of ironic for me, who identify both as a HKer and a Chinese, to hope that the world can get tougher on China, or Xi/PRC to be more exact. What they're doing is IMO damaging to the Chinese people in the long term, and let's not begin to discuss HK.

OTOH, I also understand that every country, including the US, has her own dark side as well. But then, when you put everything on a balance... It's just overall a complicated, difficult and sad situation, as life often is.

Cheers.

This.

Complicated and difficult is absolutely the correct analysis.

No country really holds any monopoly on fairness and justice.

These debated often turn into... well this nation has this problem, and that nation has that problem.

But the bigger problem is there simply has never been a way to structure a government that fixes all its citizens problems.

Protests all over the world prove this.

How many of the world's countries haven't had major protests in the last 5 years covering some sort of injustice -- whether perceived or real?

Nevertheless, the below article may provide a glimmer of hope -- especially the paragraphs under the last sub-heading.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201307/is-protest-t...

Aye, I respect your willingness to fight for China. I fear that it may be a lost cause but that's just from the outside looking in. The iron grip the CCP seems to have just looks like it's getting stronger. I hear that Britain will offer HKers citizenship in the UK. What are your thoughts on that?

If by "China" you mean Xi or PRC, no I'm not (willing to fight for them). Am just speaking on humanitarian terms I think, I support everyone's freedom in pursuing a better life and/or happiness without infringing someone else's rights, or, put in another way, I support or seek to defend people whose rights are being violated... something along that line.

As for the rumored UK offer, I guess that would be nice although personally I'm not keen on emigration. But if the situation keeps getting worse, who knows... Shall be thankful to the UK. OTOH it's going to be a problem for the UK on integration, if it comes true I hope HKers who leave for UK learn and do their best to contribute and integrate with the society... Also I'm concerned about the young people who're born after 1997 (the handover), they may not be qualified... Meanwhile, it seems Taiwan may accept political refugees from HK later.

FWIW, many many HKers were refugees or descendants of refugees to begin with.

Cheers.

I think the world more or less understands that American politics oscillates between periods of conservative control and liberal control.

I don’t think the world has forgotten about America’s massive military or its massive economy.

To say Trump has “ended America’s standing” is extremely short sighted... Whether you like him or not, he has not changed in any material way the military or the economy or the political systems that form the foundation of America.

Imagine the world in only 10 years from now. 2030. Will the American economy still be intact and humming along? Will the military still be well funded? Will the political system still be the same?

Am I the only one to consider US massive economy as a lightyear remain ? It really seems that US (politics or companies) lost their ways and can't handle their own power. Inertia is not good enough.

The US economy has produced multiple new world-changing businesses every decade in living memory. The idea that it's solely coasting on inertia just doesn't make much sense.

Probably, I have only shallow gut feelings about this, but the financial blunders, the changes in education and technological differences around the globe (asia is becoming more and more independant and creative), the very very strange political state.. I'm not sure the thing will hold itself. I have this model where everything is non linear and if you stop claiming your position on the ladder, everything else will evaporate under your feet.

But what Trump represents to allies is not just an oscilating to conservative control. It represents the willingness of the american public to put someone in charge of foreign policy that has a complete disrespect for America’s allies, and a strong willingness to turn America more isolationist and less supportive of free trade.

Ultimately, I don’t think Trump alone will really effect things long term though, no. If it becomes a pattern in the sort of person the conservative party elects, or even more so if the liberal part also swings that way, other countries could definitely start banding together more strongly against the American hegemony.

When Germans elect a Chancellor who doesn't make sure that Germany meet their NATO commitments are they being disrespectful to their allies? I understand that the comment may come off a bit incendiary, but I'm genuinely asking.

In as much as the other members of NATO (particularly the US, who is the primary funder of NATO) care about those commitments, yes. Which is to say, I’m not sure how much it maters historically when the US did not seem to particularly care. Now that the US has brought up the matter, to not make an effort to spend more is disrespectful to me.

(But the concept of disrespect aside, I would consider allies not fulfilling the agreements of a treaty made to lower my trust in them to fulfill the obligations of current and future agreements. And that trust is also quite important.)

In fact they don't tweet like a crazy man

They use official channels

Which is the respectful way

We're in a cold war with China and our manufacturing base has eroded over the past 40 years thanks to free trade. Now we are in a relatively weak position to be fighting a cold war. Say what you will about Trump, but he did start calling out China with his 2016 run. I have no doubts about the U.S.'s adaptability but often times we have to get punched in the face before we really appreciate the gravity of the situation. Covid was that punch. If free trade costs you your autonomy and resiliency, then it's not worth it.

Functionally, I agree with you on China in many respects. Ultimately no trade with them is really free trade regardless due to the way they manage their own economy. The problem with Trump in this regard is that he didn’t just call out China. He called out everyone, starting trade wars not just with China, but Mexico, Canada, more general sweeping sets of tarrifs, and also weakening our alliances separately. And this is a big deal if one actually wants to take on China economically. A big block of allies all getting into a trade war with China would have a substantially higher chance of success than the US just going it alone. Instead it was just us vs them and nothing really came of it. The cold war was not just US vs USSR. It was the western bloc vs the eastern bloc, and all other allies those groups picked up along the way. And any geopolitical fight between entities the size of China and the US would need to be carried out similarly to be successful.

To the final point on whether free trade is worth it, that’s a decision that can be made. But it is a decision, and would have pretty extreme effects on the US’s standing on the world stage, along with tons of other knock on effects on how the economy works. Whether that’s a trade off that’s worth it is a much more complicated discussion, but certainly far from simple.

> American politics oscillates between periods of conservative control and liberal control

Trump is not a conservative, and he's not enacting especially conservative policies.

He plays those conservative wedge issues masterfully, though. It works.