Take the example of Britain, where they currently have a larger ethnic British Pakistani population than the British Indian population. Yet there are only 25% Indian households and 33% Chinese households in the bottom income quintile, while there are 44% Pakistani households and 49% Bangladeshi households in the same (White British is at 17%). On the other hand, Indians and Chinese are massively represented in the top income quintile at 20% and 28% of households (compared to White British at 21%). Only 7% of either Bangladeshi or Pakistani British come in the top income quintile, even underperforming the Other Asian category (who are 2x at 14%).
Data source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-...
https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/indians-top-list-of-...
Perhaps one could argue that Indian migrants tend to be educational and work migrants, while Pakistani migrants tend to be family reunification migrants. But that again points back to the cultural reasons behind certain communities doing well, based on what they prioritize.
Cultural thing or…selection bias. The people who left were the ones with the personality and work ethic that leads to being successful.
Read up on Chinese migration from Guangdong during the US gold rush and railways and why they left.
Eventually, Chinese people in nearly all countries rise to the top of the income/wealth chart. For example, the richest group of people in Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia are all descendants of Guangdong people who migrated. In Indonesia for example, Chinese are 1-2% of the population but owns 70% of private wealth.
Fun fact, most Chinese people in China do not eat dim sum. Dim sum is a cuisine popularized by Guangdong (Guangzhou/Hong Kong area). There are also many regions in China that don't even eat rice. They eat bread or noodles mostly. Chinese image outside of China are heavily influenced by a small area in Guangdong due to immigration.
In countries like Malaysia, it seems to be an even mix of both but in others like Philippines 90% are actually from Fujian.
Either these people will migrate abroad and improve their host countries, or their home countries will grow a brain and beg them to stay behind with carrots. Lots of carrots. Like China.
Communism does not take off in stable prosperous societies because there isn't a market for it. It quite literally requires an underclass of people unhappy enough to stake their lives on establishing a different social order.
In reality, however, the opposite happened. Russian potato farmers without any machines or capital started industrialising the moment the communists took over.
Communism is a dead ideology, because it failed to evolve in the face of reality disagreeing with the communist world view.
Communists think that capital grants its owners power and that competition leads to exploitation, when the exact opposite is true.
I'm more careful with those kinds of generalizations these days than I used to be. As a rule, Trump-like demagogues don't win elections in stable, prosperous societies, either. It always takes some kind of crisis -- a lost war, oppressive debt, ruined national self-image, runaway inflation, intolerable abuse by the incumbent regime -- yet here we are.
Propaganda is more powerful than I thought it was... and who's better at propaganda than the Communists?
Now let's also give the benefit of the doubt to the author of the comment, and suppose they were pointing to Mao's governance period, rather than communism at a general level. And even if they didn't, that still something to consider actually.
It's not like their society randomly collapsed by itself, either, they had plenty of help with the opium wars...
It's not just China. A big part of why Putin in Russia has managed to hold onto power for so long was that Russia's recovery from the collapse of USSR was happening during his first two presidential terms. Even though very little of that recovery could be attributed to Putin's policies.
The same holds for democracy too. Good economy makes for content population. But if your country's economy is going to shit, that doesn't bode well for whatever party that happens to be in charge - and might even open the doors for an authoritarian takeover.
Besides the ideological component here being embarrassingly incoherent (the bad was caused by "authoritarian power" in general; the good was caused by "a new authoritarian power" in particular) your facts are plain wrong. The low baseline was pre-Mao (and pre-Lenin) when famine, illiteracy, technological impoverishment, and labor immobility was the rule. Deng's opening up certainly was something, but it undoubtedly stood upon the shoulders of the Mao era. Even the WEF agrees: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/how-china-got-rich-4...
> But the “conventional wisdom” ignores the fact that — even inclusive of the serious mistakes, lost lives and lost years that some insist define the early decades after 1949 — the foundations laid during Mao’s rule, including land reform and redistribution, substantial investments in heavy industry, public health, literacy, electrification, and transportation gave China a substantial leg up. These developments positioned China for takeoff well ahead of the official inauguration of Reform and Opening in 1978. While Deng’s reforms catalyzed China’s economic takeoff, they built upon critical foundations established during Mao’s era, which are often overlooked.
Even the WEF is wrong, of course, because they do the usual thing of inflating the importance of GDP; GDP has virtually no applicability to a socialist economy and the "revitalization" you speak of was, as far as its quantitative measure, a magic trick. A literal capitalization upon decades of labor mobilization.
Wow, so we are on rewriting history now?
“Lenin” and his cronies caused a massive famines with his own hands.
Substantial percentage of population died of hunger on a very fertile soil without any natural disaster. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...
The Wikipedia’s article I linked in the previous post has a good overview.
Also the list of famines worldwide [1] does’t confirm your statement with famine every 10 years.
There were just few of such magnitude in the entire world in all of our knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia...
> From the beginning of the 11th to the end of the 16th century, on the territory of Russia for every century there were 8 crop failures, which were repeated every 13 years, sometimes causing prolonged famine in a significant territory.
(That was already right there in your Wikipedia link. Sources are more scattered regarding the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, but it's all there if you search for it. One thing I was just reminded of is that in the 19th century and up until 1917, the Russian Empire maintained communal granaries to combat recurring famine, but to no avail.)
> After 1947 there were no known famines.
Some other cultures still has the practice of “talking to your family” even after you turn 18.
My relatives who remember famine of 1930-x and the help of soviets were still alive when I already was an adult.
And you would fucking be crazy to call a person born in 1920-s in Russia a product of a western state department.
Fantasy history there. No, the actual timeline: USA determined that USSR-CPC split and animosity were real and should be exploited. China, a social and economic basketcase, also saw the benefit of pivoting to the West.
Then (fortuitously for the Chinese ..) Mao died and Deng Xiaping came to power and then to the US and wore a cowboy hat! Western Capitalists* , whether due to their cupidity (or stupidity), convinced themselves that massive investment, funds, and technology transfer to Communist China would somehow engender a "liberal China" in a generation.
Even after CPC crushed the "liberal" front in its cadre in 1989, which should have been a wakeup call to the idiot class that rules the West, we had 8 years of Slick Willy letting China get their hands on all sorts of tech and secret in US and the West.
And now, the Orange Clown is finishing "the job" by laying waste to US aliances and institutions, making sure 21st is irrevocably the Chinese Century.
So that, hn, is how China actually got to "eat the world".
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1kp4mxw/deng_x...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
*: No that ain't you and that certainty ain't me and it's not even the fabled "10%". Try the 0.1%.
I’m going to concur with others here. It’s not irrecoverable. And the future isn’t yet written.
China has had the fortune (even eclipsing the US) of being a giant market of burgeoning consumers and massive amount of labor. The US first won this economic opportunity partially through immigration and a well-timed WW2 victory. Now its chinas turn to wield consumerism.
That said, China also has the misfortune of a serious risk for population collapse due, in part, to the prior 1 child policy. They’re aging faster than the US and others nations, and that will dramatically shift their economic output, consumption, and of course strain government resources. They also don’t have a culture of immigration like the US to slow the change. It would take a major global shift to see large immigration into China. There are other major economic risks they face, like their real estate debt, but the population collapse does pose a significant threat to stunt or reverse their ascendance.
TLDR: China could be the next Japan, not the next US.
What Trump did so far is a farce but it's recoverable.
History is too unpredictable to determine which nation is the winner of the 21st century. Anybody who claims to know the future have too much certainty about the course of history.
My mother tongue (German) has a term (Herzensbildung) that I would like to use here, but I don't know a good english translation. The dictionary gives me "nobleness of heart", but I don't think this captures it, because it is about the education to lead to this, not a final state. Literally it means "education of heart". But this is not about morale, good and evil (that's Gewissensbildung). It's about being educated to want things and to care about them.
When looking at past times, it is often assumed that they were as focused on advantage as much as we are, but I don't think that's true, and I think loosing this is also part of the sickness of "the West".
Channel 4 news made an interview with a financial times journalist if you wanna hear a neat summary https://youtu.be/43PtL0XQeA8?si=bovF8wXeK9Ege4Mz
But it's not exclusive to this video, lots of coverage around, from way bigger channels too.
A good shortcut is to just invent and use new words. USSR-PRC is probably better than arguing over CPC or CCP, which itself probably comes from the Russian CCCP as the Alaska Trump-Putin meeting made me notice.
As per Google: CCCP is the Cyrillic form of the Russian acronym СССР, which stands for Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik).
Other things that may be beneficial to do: not anthropomorphizing countries and using the neuter "it", saying "X government" like USG instead of "Washington DC." Using stand-ins like Washington DC for US Government another word is called metonymy.
- China had a free look at what Japan did so well 70s-90s
- China had a free look at Russia and most definitely did not repeat their mistakes economically. Russia ought to be the most embarrassed of all how well done China has done.
- the above two points are compliments to china: they take statecraft far smarter abd seriously for them. Similarly, China isn't stupid enough to start a war (Ukraine) they couldn't mop up with a low level adversary. But Russia is because they're fragile that way.
- China under Nixon sided with the US and the west, who had solid currency to pay for goods. That helped a lot.
- we Americans made the same mistake germany did with Russian energy: economic ties are not a by way to western liberlization. You can't buy off Russia from invading.
- and as for us Americans: we didn't protect ourselves in job losses through nafta, or China. It wasn't woke liberal politicians who sent jobs overseas or to canada/Mexico or china. It was private corporate owners/boards. And yes, they are a special kind of stupid if they couldn't see the long game china played. China had a long game; US only saw $ signs. Good lord! China was never going to allow dominance in manufacturing or access to Chinese markets by outsiders. The British made sure of that. Period.
- the US is now at a point where job security is more important than cheap crap at 5 and below, while china has moved onto high end. The days of trading lower consumer prices for job losses is waning.
Didn't Russia (and a lot of other folks) think Ukraine was an adversary they could mop up? Or are you saying China wouldn't estimate wrong like Russia did?
Russia as far as I know was told by its own Ukraine was 1 week doable - clearly wrong. I think but have no argument to underpin the claim China is smarter in that the decision makers are not told what they want to hear in foreign wars.
And you say fragile, scared, etc. Countries, especially large countries, don’t operate like that. They had security concerns, which they publicly warned about for months, and then they attacked.
The US for example doesn't take care of it's people. They do the absolute bare minimum in the name of illusionary "freedom". The only people who are free are the rich.
Call it whatever you want.. but there is great benefit in having a government who recognizes that society comes first- not the individual.
But the Chinese are going in the direction of massively expanding these programmes (ranging from medical care to education to housing to elderly and disability care), while the USA is actively gutting their own.
>emergency rooms cannot turn away patients Sure but that's not real "health care".. again, it's the bare minimum.
Saying the US takes care of it's old people is sort of silly. Healthcare is through the roof. Social security is so low. Elder care is insanity expensive. People are worked far older than they should be because they can't afford to retire- especially with medical costs. Old people continue to pay property taxes on a home they might have paid off 20 years ago.
Really just do some searches yourself; it's like most other developed countries than the US.. health care, education is not insanely expensive, a lot of paid maternity leave, childcare assistance, etc. They provide the base people need.
I fully support what they did.
The initial COVID response in 2019 was to punish doctors reporting it. Such solidarity. Much caring.
The ruling group think they are enlighten more than everyone else and justified to use force/coercion to apply their will on other people (or just an excuse/scam to abuse power)
The idea actually works if, and only if, the ruling group has empathy for the population as a whole. Which - in spite of anti-government propaganda in the US - is at least partially possible.
It's catastrophic when the ruling ethic is narcissism and supremacism.
To summarize, you're on the wrong side.
This is so different to China welding people into their homes.
Australia went down a similar path to similar effect until the proverbial dyke burst and suddenly nobody cared about quarantine any more. The lesson here is that human nature being what it is, you can throw citizens overseas under the bus to appease the majority until they get tired of being locked in.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-high-...
Ideally it means a population which is educated, rational, and mature enough to rise to the challenge with minimal prompting and direction. But if that fails, stronger persuasion becomes necessary - which may mean sanctions and enforcement.
US (and UK) individualism struggles with this, which creates a weaker, less resilient, and more dangerous low-trust high-paranoia society for everyone.
The Chinese are more used to 吃苦, which is an alien concept in the US.
You can take that too far - and arguably China has - where there's a complete lack of concern for individuals.
The ideal is a balance, and I'm not sure either culture has it.
Based on my own experience, Chinese society contains traditional thoughts from the feudal era, collective thoughts from the socialist period, and utilitarian thoughts brought by capitalist development, but it uniquely lacks individualism.
( Translate by AI tools: 1. Only by enduring the greatest hardships can one become the best of men. 2. Only by enduring the deepest hardships can one rise above their original social class.)
It's hard to translate, I'd like to demonstrate with code:
if(you '吃苦' && '吃苦' && '吃苦' && '吃苦' && '吃苦' ){ You will have a better future. You will have a good job and a good career. You will get to a higher level than others. ..... }
Sometimes "吃苦 & 吃得苦中苦，方为人上人" encourages people to overcome difficulties. Keep going and conquer it.
But it contains a logical flaw: it treats "吃苦" as a necessary even the only key for success.
In recent years, some young people have changed "吃得苦中苦，方为人上人" to ""吃得苦中苦，一直要吃苦", which means: If you used to "吃苦", you get stuck in this quagmire of "吃苦", you will always need "吃苦" (on the other side, someone enjoys life on your behalf)
They "comprehended" that maybe "吃苦" was been designed. It's "designed" to drives low-level people to bear poor conditions and overcome difficult problems and hard work. but as a low-level young people they found that "only themself 吃苦 and other people enjoy ". It's not fair, maybe it's wrong. So they change the maxim.
Young people start thinking, not just follow.
Unsurprisingly, when you have authoritarianism that’s at least mildly supported by the citizens, you can do wonders with 1.4B people. At some point, we have to give them credit where it’s due.
No matter how rocky the world is the seas are calm when everyone has in close memory how it used to be.
China had double digit gdp growth in 2000s, high single digit in 2010s, and still decent single digit in 2020s - that is until a year or so ago. These are the calm seas that used to be but are no longer.
Geo politically China has and will always be squeezed, just by their geographic location. But economically they were flying ahead in the last few decades, and everything is so much easier while you have strong economic growth. Growth that they are struggling to realize suddenly... this will be a huge change and challenge for internal politics in China going forward.
Because when people are getting wealthier each year then they are happy. But as soon as that stops, then it's like when the music stops and people have to find the first available chair to sit on. Those that don't find one will be unhappy.
That does not seem to be the case anymore under Xi.
I can only recommend a quick read through the Wikipedia page for Syndicalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism
In the rest of the world though, there are actual leftist movements who are genuinely standing for the working class. But they don't get much power these days, and things are mostly going backwards for worker's rights globally.
One thing is sure though, it's that any progress workers enjoyed in the past didn't come from the right. Paid leave, minimum wage, healthcare, retirement... it all came from the left.
And the large fleet of troop transport ships china is actively building is to spread that democracy to neighoring countries
Same with supporting russian invasian in Ukraine
Of course sharp/steady increases in wealth create a lot of stability, but taking that nearly unprecedented former success as the "given", makes the achievement of the latter misleadingly tautological.
This growth has stopped recently...
This applies to neither Russia nor China. Especially not China – authoritarian China if the 50s-70s was a complete clusterfuck every which way, in no small part due to Mao's staggering incompetence. A key part of Xiaoping's reforms of the 80s – which lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty – was renouncing some of Mao's more mad notions.
There are plenty of other examples where authoritarians screwed over their countries quite badly, from Mugabe to Suharto to Maduro. To say nothing of people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and similar jolly fellows who outright murdered their own people by the millions.
In authoritarian regimes you have no meaningful pushback. When Putin says "we're going to invade Ukraine real quick, stoke me a kipper, back before supper" then no one is going to say "you idiot, that's fucking mental" because you risk brutally accidentally falling out of the window while taking a shower. And now Russia is "stuck" in this pointless war because Putin has painted himself in a corner, and there is not going to be a peaceful change of governance in Russia, after which a new administration can change course.
In addition authoritarians are free to be as corrupt as they like of course. Who is going to hold them to account?
In the short term an authoritarian can do the right thing (Xiaoping is an example), but in the long term it never works out because sooner or later an idiot and/or asshole will plant their arsecheeks on the throne, after which you're fucked.
Seems like this can happen in a democracy just the same.
I think it's interesting to talk about. India is a democracy, yet its development is so far behind China in virtually all aspects. Democracy in India seems to create a ton of in-fighting, indecision, and lack of will power. It seems far more corrupt than China as well. India seems stuck while China leads the world in many areas.
So it doesn't seem like a democracy works for all nations (depending on what you measure). Democracy has clearly worked for many. But not all.
Taiwanese people have a life expectancy of 81 to Chinas 76 years. Taiwans GDP per capita is 33k vs 13k of China.
So Chinas regime is stealing 5 years and 2/3rd of the income of its people.
But even so, if you look at life in Tier 1 Chinese cities and Taipei, I think Chinese cities are ahead. I spent quite a bit of time living in Taipei before and have visited a few T1 Chinese cities.
Life in Taiwan is really not that much different than China.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
You can look at this. Local purchasing power is actually higher in Shenzhen than in Taipei. People earn a higher salary and have lower living cost in Shenzhen than in Taipei. Not only that, Shenzhen felt more convenient, cleaner, more technologically advanced, and newer. If not for the internet block situation, I'd definitely prefer to live in Shenzhen than Taiwan.
Perhaps rural Taiwan is better than rural China. But that's to be expected because of the late start in China and just far more people.
So Chinas regime is stealing 5 years and 2/3rd of the income of its people.
Taiwan also has the economic privilege drawing from the US well and the China well. Taiwanese people can live and open business in China freely while also doing business freely with the US. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company that exploited Chinese labor and sold to American businesses as an example.
The average life in Taiwan is very different from the average life in China, even if the top 10%ers live more or less the same.
Going back to my original point - this viewpoint you are espousing right now is setting yourself (and the CCP) up for a fall. China has had a good run for the last few decades and it's tempting to imagine that trajectory will continue perpetually. Lots of suddenly rich people get the same idea, and it ends poorly when reality fails to match their grandiose expectations.
You can see it a lot in this thread - "China is the future! Look how modern and world class!" I'm old enough to remember this said about Japan, and Korea. It didn't turn out that way and it's not looking like it's going to turn out that way for China either. Growth is leveling off, the economy is struggling with massive malinvestment in real estate, and serious people are throwing around the term "demographic collapse". All on top of a potential collapse of world trade.
Do I think China will "fail"? No, not at all. But I don't think it's going to live up to the expectations you're setting. And then it will be interesting to see what happens to the CCP.
Tell me your experiences.
You're right. The fast pace of growth came from the policies that encourage ruthless capitalism. You can see that Chinese government controls business like oil and tobacco, but it gives tons of freedom for business owners to run wild.
This claim is provably incorrect.
> Analysis of all 37.5 million registered firms in China reveals that 65% of the largest 1,000 private owners have direct equity ties with state owners […] The number of private owners with direct equity ties with the state almost tripled between 2000 and 2019, and those with indirect equity ties rose 50-fold.
> Provincial and local government officials in China enforce laws and control resources, such as land and loans, but these officials change positions every few years. […] Publicly listed firms increase perk spending (travel, dining, and entertainment) by an average of 3.6 million yuan (20%) when new local officials take charge. […] The results are consistent with the view that local officials are important gatekeepers and firms seek to influence them with perks and positions of power within SOEs.[1][2]
> China’s domestic politics have changed significantly over the past decade, with the top leadership enacting much more muscular policies to limit the power of large corporations while also deploying extensive measures to support firms, especially in key industries. According to Hsieh, this trend means that companies need to navigate the state’s “two strong hands,” one supportive and the other restrictive which aim to increase the party’s control over the economy even as the private sector continues, in one form or another, to grow. Moreover, political control is likely proving oppressive for companies as the party-state increasingly weights national security over economic growth. […] These findings […] suggest that not all government intervention in the economy is welcome by Chinese companies, especially if it comes with national security strings attached. The findings from the experiment suggest that state and party influence on private firms may have evolved to prioritize politics above economic growth, creating new challenges for companies that would naturally seek to maximize political support alongside autonomy.[3]
[1] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-state-conne...
[2] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/how-do-chinas-fi...
[3] https://bigdatachina.csis.org/unpacking-linkages-between-the...
Maybe. But what happens when that group of people are suppressed and it takes a lot longer for them to become brave and speak up? Meanwhile, the government of China will become more powerful and be more of a hegemonic power than America ever was. That may extend their ability to govern and remain authoritarian. Not just for their citizens, but against other regions they unfortunately control like Hong Kong or Taiwan or Tibet or Xinjiang.
Plus given that the government of China is very authoritarian and controlling and not democratic, I don’t think it’s good for the world when they get more land, resources, and economic power (which turns into military power).
and Han Chinese culture
It’s a very effective way of erasing and controlling people
Plus given that the government of China is very authoritarian and controlling and not democratic, I don’t think it’s good for the world when they get more land, resources, and economic power (which turns into military power).
What kind of people do you think lives in Hong Kong and Taiwan?
the yue?
Questions are to make OP think. Sometimes it’s better for OP to do a bit of research instead merely stating.
The native culture and language is still taught in Xinjiang schools. The RMB/Yuan itself has the Uyghur language printed on it.
And all that's before counting whatever Trump manages to ruin before his time is up.
Who cares if it's the largest economy? What matters is productivity per person, which is around what Thailand produces - $13,000 USD per capita.
One question I love asking is the pro-China faction is - assuming China grows at 5% per year (it's no longer growing at 7-8%), how long would it take to catch up to the US on a GDP per capita basis with the US growing an anemic 2%?
What people forget is the US growing at 2% is equivalent to to China growing at 12% (since per capita GDP is 6x).
China needs to stop their slowing economy all in an environment of reduced global trade and a terrible demographic shift.
But besides GDP per capita, I think your criticism of GDP PPP per capita is wrong. You can live a very decent life in China. In some ways, it’s superior to Americans for many Chinese people. You just have to go to China to see it for yourself.
Sure, China has a fine quality of life - similar to Thailand. But they aren't going to be able to afford cutting edge healthcare, deep social program or a bottomless defense budget on 1/6th the GDP per capita.
Sure the wealth concentrated in tier 1 cities makes them look shiney but China isn’t just its tier 1 cities it includes its rural poverty too.
But I’ve experience things like healthcare and if you think it’s on par with the US or Europe, oh man, that’s painfully not true.
Do you think Americans can afford cutting edge health care? Or even any healthcare at all? You keep mentioning "cutting edge" healthcare like China doesn't have it. In the US, basic health care is expensive and tied to your employer. If you're out of a job, you're out of health insurance mostly. In China, they have universal health care where basic health care is cheap. If you want private health care in China, it's expensive. So you tell me which is better.
I think a ton of people make the mistake of comparing average China to average US and then say "see! I told you China is bad". In reality, many parts of China 30 years ago barely had electricity and running water. It's more important to talk projections rather than August 2025.
Maybe you misunderstood? Clearly Shanghai is nicer than Bangkok, but China is not 1.4B people living in Shanghai, you need to include the people living on a few dollars per days in rural Chinese areas.
> What do you think is the trend for Thailand and China in the next 10 years?
I have no idea, but even if China continues to grow at 5% per year (if they're lucky), in a decade they might have a per capita GDP of what? $20,000? That puts them on par with Panama or Uraguay?
> Do you think Americans can afford cutting edge health care
Absolutely. Just look at things like CAR-T adoption, it's the highest in the world. Far exceeding Europe and Europe exceeds China.
> In China, they have universal health care where basic health care is cheap. If you want private health care in China, it's expensive. So you tell me which is better.
Cheap healthcare in China is just that - cheap. I've been to Chinese hospitals. I've seen doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral infections. I've seen them recommend "hot water" as a cure.
It may be convenient and cheap, but quality is terrible unless you get to the high end private hospitals and guess what? CAR-T therapy cost hundreds of thousands everywhere in the world.
> I think a ton of people make the mistake of comparing average China to average US and then say "see! I told you China is bad".
Why would you not compare averages? Or would you prefer to compare Shanghai to say the top 10% of income earners in the US? We could do that too if you'd like.
The truth is that China, while making great strides, is still about as rich as Thailand on average. They need decades are very strong economic growth to even match the US, let alone exceed it.
All while facing a massive debt overhang and demographic changes that will only slow economic growth.
What this means is the 60%, i.e. largely the newer generations are already at 20000 usd per capita, 40000 by PPP (obviously naive per capita doesn't map to actual spectrum household #s). This also means they generate disproportionate amount of economic activity, i.e. they're responsible for 90%+ of annual growth, growth calc from bigger per capita base. AKA one tertiary educated skill worker making per capital replace 6+ rural farmers/informal economy workers - high skill demographic dividend more than offsets net low population loss concentrated in under productive cohorts.
Structurally all PRC has to do for aggregate population to do well in the future... is for natural mortality to cull those that aren't doing well from statistics in the coming decades. Because most are already doing "well", Reality is T1/T2 cities already have basically developed country life expectancy (80+ years), we can wank about "advanced" healthcare all you want but whatever they're doing is working. And LBH the only reason it's not higher is Chinese men love their smokes. And LB even more honest, they're just spinning up their pharma sector, they will have access to leading treatments on the cheap once sector matures, like they get everything else cheap after indigenization, i.e. out of pocket MRIs are cheap now.
To broadly speculate on PRC per capital GDP trends, this is not economic prognosis but more exploring statistical composition effect for those insisting on using per capital GDP as metric. The TLDR is many scenarios where PRC growing at 3-5% gets them upper high income per capita stats in a few decades:
What we will likely see is PRC is going to continue grow at 4-5% and eventually slap the FX lever, i.e. appreciate rmb 20-30% after they've build out enough industrial sectors to make western incumbents uncompetitive. Statistically, Over time, greater mortality of low-productive cohort = PRC per capital will converge with T1/T2, i.e. skilled worker income. Again effectively already 20k+ /w 3-5% growth over next 25 years gets 42-68k before PPP adjustments by 2050... AKA Xi's "modest prosperous society". Of course we don't know what US/OECD per capita will be by then to compare. Throw in FX switch they can that that with either less growth or end up with higher income, 50-90k 2011 international dollars... BTW modest 5% growth + FX movement combo was how any serious projection on PRC > US GDP, literally no one thought PRC would continue growing at 10%+ because that's retarded expectation. Hence it would be very easy, for PRC to hit reasonable high income levels in the future. It's already statistically forgone/inevitable that future per capital GDP is going to be 2x what it is now, that's demographically baked due to income disparity between generations, the real confounding factor is how much/long of the low productive 600m sticks around to drag down stats, i.e. at current mortality rate there's going to be 300m disproportionate poor dragging down stats by 2050, and maybe none by 2075.
It’s hard to take your comment seriously when you’re clearly just making up numbers.
The truth is that China, while making great strides, is still about as rich as Thailand on average. They need decades are very strong economic growth to even match the US, let alone exceed it.
Cheap healthcare in China is just that - cheap. I've been to Chinese hospitals. I've seen doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral infections. I've seen them recommend "hot water" as a cure.
Maybe you misunderstood? Clearly Shanghai is nicer than Bangkok, but China is not 1.4B people living in Shanghai, you need to include the people living on a few dollars per days in rural Chinese areas.
The average impoverished American on Mediacid is getting far superior healthcare to poor Chinese (I've seen it with my own eyes).
China is spiralling right now, not tomorrow , today.
And China is no longer just catching up in many industries, it is leading innovation[1]. Many in China believe they are simply returning to their natural state being the world’s number one economy.
Your analysis is through the lens of Western culture. The definition and understanding of freedom and harmony are entirely different in China. I was in China and experienced this myself, so this is firsthand experience, not something I picked up from blogs or news. And China is not like Russia at all, Russia fills its government with oligarchs, while China fills it with science and technology experts[2]
> And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on.
In the Chinese context, freedom is defined collectively (freedom from chaos, poverty, or foreign domination etc), whereas here in the West it's individual liberty. Harmony and social stability are seen as more valuable than political pluralism, so authoritarian governance is culturally framed as legitimate. Chinese leaders and citizens remember periods of fragmentation and civil war (warlord era, Japanese invasion, cultural revolution). There is a widespread belief that adopting a Western adversarial political model could reintroduce instability and weaken national unity so something China cannot risk given its size and diversity.
That is the main reason this will not happen, you will not see a liberal style democracy in China. This claim is repeated all the time, but it is a total misunderstanding of their culture, ethnicity, and history. China has a long history of centralized, bureaucratic governance (over 2k years since the Qin Dynasty), where stability and order are prioritized.
1. https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/16/china-is-rapidly-be...
2. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinas-xi-stacks-government...
Western especially the US has long been the release valve for CCP to manage dissidents and alike, and it’s been quite effective, countless young souls looking for freedom was assimilated and became faceless in the capitalism machinery abroad, instead of fighting for their future in China.
The self enshitification of USA will slowly but surely close that loophole CCP has been enjoying, and force more young Chinese to make China a better place for themselves as they will have no other choices.
"any democratic gov can sail a ship in calm sea"
As we see in europe and the usa, when democracy lasts too long, people get too relaxed and free and turn unhappy with random things that annoy them. They used to be at work too much to worry about them, but now they can stare at their neighbour and wonder why this 'migrant' has more than them etc. Or whatever happens to annoy them. And consequently start voting for ultimately authoritarian 'leaders', which will make everything worse for them and most others.
They are less relaxed because power over time concentrated so much that the top is managing to kill the middle class and generally squeeze everyone. The same top is running huge marketing campaigns of blaming everything but them and as solution they offer authoritarianism and even more power concentration.
The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top.
which happened because we all were very relaxed for decades; most gave away all power because it was all going well so why fight instead of going to the beach? It is still too relaxed; people are still not actually doing anything to change it.
> The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top.
what country? in the countries in the EU I hang out in, people seem to all be on some perpetual vacation. They have busy social agenda's, but work not so much.
This fantasy of people not working just doesn't work. Who do you think stocks your supermarket, delivers your packages, bakes your bread, fixes your car? Are you saying it's bad that these people still manage have some social life and some fun? Should they be closed in their tiny increasingly overpriced flats so they don't polute the streets?
You have to be living in different tier of society but around me everybody taking second/odd jobs because their salaries froze 5 years ago didn't even keep up with inflation. Only people i know that are doing well are over 45 who became landlords by buying flats when it was possible.
I'm not saying that at all mate. I'm saying that the people who sweep the streets, stock the supermarkets, sit in the banks etc here have a lot of fun and free days. 34 hour work weeks, many vacation days (bank holidays + free days which you can plan together for large stretches). I was not saying people should not have that ; they should. Not having to work at all is also fine. I was responding to you who said people are not relaxed. I don't see that, but then again, you didn't answer;
> but around me everybody taking second/odd jobs because their salaries froze 5 years ago
Where? And it sure can be that I see other things than you see, it's gonna be different per country and region of the country. I know many people who whine how bad it is (which was part of my start point), but they go on vacation 4-6x / year; then it cannot be that bad right? But I'm not saying you are not seeing something different, I'm saying what I see around me, in, for instance, NL.
They are for sure tied to each other but i am not so sure it would be EU loosing that much more in case of a breakup.
A very large fraction of those work part time. We can see people work less and less over time, so when they said people work less that is just what the stats says.
https://timeanalyticssoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09...
Instead of framing it as “why does this migrant have more than others”, maybe it’s worth looking at the real issue: why is my job being outsourced to someone overseas?
Democracy took away that person's job and now those voters want someone authoritarian who will bring it back.
The current plan seems to be using the meddling in the middle east in the name of the greatest ally as an excuse to effectively replace the current population of europe.
One has to wonder if the "crazy people" from 10 years ago maybe had a point with the thing they said would happen, when they are being proven right again and again but that can't be because that would be [bad-ism] like the news told us.
We going to pretend the crusades didn't happen?
> why import known traumatised and violent people that are cultural incompatible?
Who is "importing" anyone? We accept people who are fleeing because we aren't heartless.
But maybe we should export Europeans who are culturally incompatible? We tried it in the past though, and it worked out to be easier just to gas them. You want to skip onto that step or do you want to talk about other solutions?
People want to come to Europe for a better life because things aren't working where they were born. You can build the walls higher and higher but you're just building more and more resentment, a resentment that will inevitably lead to those walls being broken down, and violently so. It's a much wiser idea to think about how to improve the situation outside of Europe so that both the strain and the comfort can be spread out.
Or is sharing your good fortune and caring about your neighbours' lot in life is culturally incompatible with your European ideals?
Yes because that happened 1000 years ago and they didn't start it anyway.
>We accept people who are fleeing because we aren't heartless
There is a monumental difference between giving temporary refuge to people around your country and permanently shipping people across oceans and country borders to richer countries the make them citizens to the detriment of the natives. Not to mention that most refugees are men, you would think if it was that bad women and children would come first.
>But maybe we should export Europeans who are culturally incompatible? We tried it in the past though, and it worked out to be easier just to gas them
I don't understand how you can joke about this while advocating to bring in more people of a ethnicity and religion who in current year is openly hostile and violent towards them. Maybe you are the one with the solution but are just too ideologically comprised to realize.
I'm not sure how to read this. You were the one who brought up the situation 1000 years ago so I'm not sure how to respond to that without also looking at what was happening 1000 years ago.
> permanently shipping people across oceans and country borders to richer countries the make them citizens to the detriment of the natives.
Maybe it would be helpful to mention explicitly the kind of policies you're referring to here?
> Not to mention that most refugees are men, you would think if it was that bad women and children would come first.
No, the worse it is and the more dangerous the route out is the more I would expect to see only men taking the risk. Men are naturally less risk adverse and have social pressures to literally put themselves in front of their wives and children.
Your argument here is as logical as "if the war was really so bad we should expect to see more women and children on the frontline." It's just not how society works.
> I don't understand how you can joke about this while advocating to bring in more people
I'm not joking. And I'm not advocating for bringing anyone in. I'm advocating for an increase in aid on-site, a move away from destabilising practices and yes, long-term, the eradication for borders and their necessity.
> Maybe you are the one with the solution but are just too ideologically comprised to realize.
I have no idea what this means. Your previous response was also littered with dog whistles. If you want to engage further on this then please be explicit in what you're saying.
> Christian and Muslim states had been in conflict since the establishment of Islam in the 7th century. In the span of approximately 120 years after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632, Muslim forces conquered the Levant (including Jerusalem), as well as North Africa and most of the Iberian Peninsula, all of which had previously been under Christian rule. By the 11th century, Christians were through the Reconquista gradually reversing the 8th-century Muslim conquest of Iberia, but their ties to the Holy Land had deteriorated. Muslim authorities in the Levant often enforced harsh rules against any overt expressions of the Christian faith. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
You can't play the crusades card in this context.
I said there was instability in the region causing issues and the response was "but those issues were already there 1000 years ago." Your own link is about the conflict in the region at that time and your quote points to that conflict having already been quite entrenched for some time.
But even from a purely selfish POV helping to improve things outside of Europe is going to help to reduce to pressure on systems and cultures within Europe by reducing the likelihood of someone needing to emigrate.
The fast pace of economic growth didn't necessarily come from authoritarianism (though I'll accept it helped in some ways) but from the fast catch-up. That isn't going to last forever. Growth will slow - it's slowing already. And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on.
My thesis is something like "any authoritarian can sail a ship in calm seas". The government of China's hard times are ahead of it. It's too early to write an epitaph for democracy.