1) What does this mean for Xi's leadership and the CCP? Will this threaten their power?
No, only had you experienced the level and depth of China's indoctrination, can you understand how profoundly it affects the people, I still recall now and then the red songs I was taught and sang. Your whole world view is shaped by the regime to ensure their best interest, you think in their ways even if you are a rebel.
BTW they now teach "politics" in primary schools. The Youth are extremely patriotic and loyal to the party, they are impatient to even let you start your different opinions.
There will be discontent, but the power and reach of the tools the party has built is simply unprecedented in human history.
4) How will this effect China's middle class?
If the condo market collapses, most of them probably will go bankrupt and be in huge debts for a long time, being taught bubble economics the hard way, but the market probably can bounce back since it's CCP monopoly. Worst case senario the party can print money nonstop to keep the prices from crashing.
Being an economic powerhouse does not make you exempt from cause and effect. You can print your way out of a mid-level problem, trying to print your way out of an actual crisis is just going to accelerate and deepen that crisis.
More of the kind of behavior that got you into some problem is usually not the way to get out. Hyperinflation could hit the US, China or the Eurozone in a very hard way. If you do it gradually you may get away with it, do it too quickly and the whole thing will take on a momentum all its own. A bit like pushing a ball of snow down hill. For a while it seems like you are in control and then suddenly you realize you are no longer in control. By then it will be too late to stop it. I was on the fence in 2008. Despite having money in one of the Dutch banks that was hard hit by the sub-prime repackaging I was all for letting them go bust. Instead the state stepped in and propped up the bank. This meant that everybody ended up paying for that and the execs walked.
Hard to make the call on what was the best solution there, it is very well possible that this was the optimum outcome but it set the stage for a repeat, the beginnings of which we are already witnessing today.
Hyperinflation is great for those with debts. For everybody else: not so much. Savings, pensions all end up being worthless overnight essentially anything with future value and without an asset to back it turns to dust overnight.
This happened in Poland a while ago. Everybody with debts in old Zloty such as mortgages and so on was ecstatic, they could pay off their mortgage with three months work after the crash. Everybody else lost their life's work.
Those with property ended up neutral.
Banks learned their lesson: they pegged new mortgages to the Mark initially and later to the Euro, but people still got paid in Zloty...
With the social credit system if you can't pay your debts you become a 2nd class citizen. If there is a more serious downturn in China the social credit system will tear the county apart.
> BTW they now teach "politics" in primary schools. The Youth are extremely patriotic and loyal to the party, they are impatient to even let you start your different opinions.
Are they "patriotic" enough to report family members to the regime as political dissenters? If so, China is really in a bad spot as that is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. At least we would have a pseudo-ironic name for the program ("Xitler Youth")
China has no freedom of speech, the press, religion, or assembly. There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be made. The systems are completely different as to be unrecognizable from one another.
> There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be made. The systems are completely different as to be unrecognizable from one another.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It's true, the two systems are significantly different, but I don't think that rules out that Americans are subject to a form of indoctrination. Look at the stranglehold the two parties have on the electoral system in the US. Just as one example, what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election barely raised an eyebrow. If you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast for several weeks on either side of the last election (particularly after), I'd say it's pretty hard to make a case that the system isn't rigged to a fairly large degree, but how many people are actually aware of this?
I don't know if indoctrination is the perfect word for it, but constantly singing the praises of the system of democracy, while realistically the only alternatives people get have to go through a very thorough pre-screening for "suitability", and almost no one ever asks what the hell is really going on here, seems like a relative of some sort to indoctrination.
A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the Republican primary system.
Superdelegates in the Democratic primary are the following:
1. Elected members of the DNC
2. Democratic governors
3. Democratic members of Congress
4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs.
The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority. It's called an indirect election. That is not 'rigging'. The closest thing to rigging here would be category 4.
> A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the Republican primary system.
That this is even possible is as much a criticism of the process as it is a compliment.
Honest question: if you were designing a brand new system to elect the leader of the US, how likely do you expect it would be for someone of his calibre to be the last person standing?
> 1. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a minority.
Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election? How many people do you think approve of this structure.
> That is not 'rigging'.
For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
>Was this structure designed by the founding fathers?
No, this is a primary, as in, it is how the democratic party elects its own representative to run for president.
>What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the election?
In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically elected.
Superdelegates and how they function is common knowledge for anyone following or participating in the primary. It's heavily covered and talked about every presidential election cycle.
>How many people do you think approve of this structure.
According to a poll run by Rasmussen in 2016, likely democratic voters approved of it at a rate of 30%.
>For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people would agree with you?
Americans understand very well how the election system works. 'Rigged' implies deception or fraudulence.
> In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically elected.
That's actually a pretty convincing argument, I think I'll have to concede victory.
Even if everything you're saying is true, the important point is that you and I and Dan Carlin are free to go around saying it. It's my strong impression that this is not true in China; that it's a de facto if not de jure crime for media personalities to say things like "the Communist Party has rigged the system to a fairly large degree" or "Xi Jinping Thought seems kinda dumb and I'd like to read the alternatives".
> Even if everything you're saying is true, the important point is that you and I and Dan Carlin are free to go around saying it.
I'm not so sure about that either. I'd be surprised if the average Chinese person wasn't fairly well aware that they live in a censored world, and that a government that does that might also bend the truth a bit on the evening news. The average American on the other hand, and even the above average judging by most forums I frequent, seem to be under the impression that the US is truly the land of the free, the home of the brave, with a completely free press (not unlike the completely free electoral system), and that what they see and hear in the news is generally trustworthy and comprehensive.
Chinese people may not know the truth, but I'm pretty sure they know it's being hidden from them. People in the West, defenders of the free world, who not only seem unable to see the various pink elephants that are right in front of their eyes, but will attack and condemn anyone who points them out, worry me a lot more than the indoctrinated in plain sight Chinese.
American newspapers regularly publish state secrets, write about how the people in power are fools, and generally go out of their way to make life more difficult for politicians. That doesn't mean the press says everything true and nothing false, but it's very hard for me to understand how you could look at the situation and suspect the government has some secret censorship power.
It's far from uncommon for a reporter to explicitly say "by the way, the government told me not to disclose this information but I'm gonna do it anyway".
You seem to think in terms of censorship being a binary. Now that I point it out you won't of course, but what about when you (and my downvoters) wake up tomorrow?
No, I’m very willing to bite that bullet. Censorship is indeed a binary. There’s a fundamental and important difference between a system where the government has soft power to encourage stories it likes, and a system where newspapers must not print anything the government doesn’t want them to.
It is certainly true that they're not identical, but my point is that the state in America just maybe might exert some effort in the pursuit of generating an average mindset of ~"all is well with our governance, no need for concern, go about your day". Despite no shortage of fundamental issues in the US (and the west in general), any suggestion that there might be some issues with the current form of the political system itself is typically met with strong resistance. Surely basic human nature plays a part in this, but from reading the way in which the news is presented (the way events are described, which parts are included and repeated, which parts are downplayed or not even shown), I suspect there is some level of persuasion going on. How one couldn't notice this is beyond me, but I seem to be the outlier so perhaps the problem is on my end.
The problem is that you're equating things that aren't the same. There's no way to deny that the American government thinks it's great, and puts in effort to convince people that it's great. That's the explicit goal of e.g. civics education.
What the American government doesn't do is require citizens to believe it's great, or forbid them from saying it's not. If you get on a soapbox and talk about how the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders, a lot of Americans will think you're being silly, but none of them will think that you should be arrested for subversion.
> The problem is that you're equating things that aren't the same.
Actually, I'm not.
If two countries both engage in indoctrination, in different forms and to different degrees, pointing out that one is different, or does it to a lesser degree, is not a proof that they do not do it in the first place.
> There's no way to deny that the American government thinks it's great, and puts in effort to convince people that it's great. That's the explicit goal of e.g. civics education.
I feel like you're implicitly suggesting that's all they do.
> What the American government doesn't do is require citizens to believe it's great, or forbid them from saying it's not.
That isn't a prerequisite for indoctrination, and only a prerequisite for certain kinds of censorship.
> If you get on a soapbox and talk about how the system was rigged against Bernie Sanders, a lot of Americans will think you're being silly, but none of them will think that you should be arrested for subversion.
Of course. But indoctrination and censorship can take many forms, and can be very hard to spot when done well. It also helps if the private sector engages in it so the government doesn't have to.
No no no, in which American city does the condo prices wthin it's urban area are no less than 1 million dollars? In Beijing you have it, it's a city full of (multi) million-dollar-property owners, and the majority of them love the CCP dearly for a reason.
Most American cities have condos available for less than 1m dollars. In fact, pretty much all of them do. In fact, pretty much only in certain areas of NYC, SF, Boston and LA are the median condo prices above 1m. In Chicago, the 3rd largest city in the US, condo prices are like 400k-600k for a 30th floor lakeview 2br in a nice neighborhood.
The indoctrination and politics being taught. Every day children in school stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag and there are constant stories of children being abused for not abiding by it. We're told we're "not being American" if we challenge the official narrative.
The fact that you're being downvoted is just more evidence, people hate being told they're just as indoctrinated into propaganda as China is, but they're just as indoctrinated into their own version.
1. Nothing. No. The CCP retains power without challenge under far more volatile conditions. Xi is the head of the CCP and he is not about to let go.
2. No. Nothing cements the future.
3. Nothing. Their growth is not China's growth.
4. It will continue to grow.
5. No. This "slowdown" has nothing to do with expats. Financial tools being taxed, has curbed Chinese investment outside of China. Anchor babies will continue to be popular.
This announcement, means very little in the long term, imo.
1) It's not great, however it's not Xi's main point, wealth was Deng Xoaping's promise to China, respect is Xi's promise. Xi is actively expending wealth in trade for respect (military, belt and road, space program, etc.). This was foundational in Xi's being chosen as leader, he cut his chops preparing Beijing for the olympics 2008 international show -- a respect event, not an economic one.
2) No. USA is the leading economy not because of economy but because of dollar hegemony, which insulates it from shocks that the RMB is subjected to. If belt-and-road nations start using RMB as reserve currency (and non-swift banking systems), regardless of economic power, that would challenge USA as leading economy. This is being attempted, but not covered much, for example the sino-russian deal to trade oil and gold in RMB instead of using the OPEC petro-dollar.
3) India is a more socially volatile than China, considering regions like Kashmir and social discord like lower-castes. If India were the #2 or #1 it would suddenly have these situations magnified the way China's situations are scrutinized on the world stage, leading to more aggressive challenges. India currently gets a free pass on inequality and climate etc. because it's a 'democracy.' Vietnam doesn't have the framework to challenge either effectively.
4) Not super, but again not terrible. The main thing is income distribution, not GDP. It may mean less iphones but doesn't necessarily mean less Huaweis, inside the mainland a Huawei is only about 60% the price you see in USA and doesn't represent a major drop in quality of life.
5) This is more a function of capital control I feel. They are a long long way from panic-flight ala Venezuela. Expats at this point are more luxury expats. Lots of other asians immigrate into China for a better life. Regardless, the China diaspora is already huge, and largely welcome in every country the immigrate to.
India is in a slump of their own, and the recent government measures there including the effective suppression of the right of habeas corpus, the most fundamental of rights is severely unbecoming of a parliamentary democracy.
Your comment is vague but I guess you were talking about Kashmir issue.
Don't want to start a flamewar, I'll just say Kashmir issue is far more complex than you can imagine and talk of fundamental rights suppression is utterly nonsense. But let's not discuss it on HN.
In the context of this thread and topic, Kashmir doesn't play any significant role in India's economy or growth story. Secondly, the troubled area is quite a small part of Jammu Kashmir state.
Regardless of Kashmir, India's current slowdown appears to be unprecedented. My architect brother contends that the slump in real estate is worse than it was after Demonetization and 2008
I think you're talking about Kashmir. I wish you'd provide more context for what you just said. I think it'd be better to start a separate thread than to take this one off-topic.
> What does this mean for Xi's leadership and the CCP?
Few days of bad mood
> Will this threaten their power?
Who will threaten his power? Han Zheng is the last Jiang loyalist in party's higher tiers, he is under extreme pressure for his handling of HK now.
I bet Xi will come out of that even more powerful, by dumping blame on whomever may oppose him.
> Does this cement the US as the leading economy for the next quarter century?
Leading economy != leading country. The negative feedback on currency will just roll Chinese companies back few years in their market outlook. Companies that were previously aiming for selling to developed economies will thing of places like South Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and such.
> What does this mean for up and coming rivals, such as India and Vietnam?
Not much for India. India just like Russia doesn't really want joining the global economy, and the impediment comes from within.
For Vietnam... good times to come. And for whomever will be working as fixers, bringing Western companies there.
But there is a big BUT. The moment Vietnam will get up on the economic ladder, there is a certain chance US or somebody else will try to pull the same tariff hike on them.
> How will this effect China's middle class?
Chinese middle class largely works in service sector, and that depends near solely on internal demand.
> Will we see an increase in Chinese expats?
Sure, there is always a knee jerk reaction among Chinese rich to any new wave of doomsayers.
When I was living in Vancouver I met quite a few rich Chinese. One of whom was an owner of the 4th largest scrap metal company in China. He sold his business at an insane 60% discount, and ran to Canada the moment he read "Chinese steel bubble is about to pop" in an "esteemed Western publication" in 2010.
The last time I checked on him, he was still living a nice rentier life with 3 houses in Vancouver, but was super cringy about him selling so low, and trusting random rags for making a once in a lifetime decision.
Near same was the case with 3 factory owners. Two had electronic factories, and one did clothing. You can still argue about one with clothing business making a correct decision closing the shop, but for two electronics factory owner, the decision to close their businesses made zero sense.
I asked them separately why they exchanged life in Canada for untold millions to come. None was able to give an answer, saying simply they don't understand their own rationale back then.
To them, people of peasant background, life in the West looked as something near mythical. They grew up thinking that "getting to the West" was something like a once in a lifetime chance, something what exceeds just anything on the list of ones personal achievements. To such people, parting with a few million buck a year business for a house in Vancouver and steady life genuinely looks like a good deal.
The new generation of entrepreneurs of course don't hold the West in such esteem, and some actually thing of it with some degree of contempt.
For those rich guys, the decision to sell and leave often has less to do about profit than fear of becoming a fall guy for the CPC’s latest corruption campaign (and let’s face it, they all have plenty of dirt). They all have plenty of dirty. “Retiring” to Vancouver is an easy way out, and might even be encouraged by the local party (e.g. “you should sell your metal scrap business to my brother at a 60% discount and then get out of town...”).
The new generation of entrepreneurs is a lot more guanxi secure than the one that organically grew up in the 80s. They often are or have friends related to those in power, so we won’t see another transition until Xi passes the baton.
I wonder where did you get such impression. What is the age of you "new generation of entrepreneurs" in question?
People in their thirties and forties make by far the largest cohort of entrepreneurs I know who can support the claim of them making their businesses from scratch, and not being part of state economy machine.
Notably, I knew DJI when they still were a "garage company," along with half of "Shanzhai" crowd.
On other hand, just anybody who somehow got $1m+ out of nowhere in China in nineties would've been a man "from the system." The few ways somebody made such money in China back then were: 1. land auction fraud, 2. privatisation auction fraud, 3. embezzlement from funds of the state or state company, 4. being a relative of somebody who did anything of above.
For the last point of people who got rich during nineties by embezzlement, here's a relatively prominent case: Vancouver's ex mayor's ex girlfriend's mother. She was alleged embezzled 350 million rmb yuan which was supposed to be the compensation for factory workers[1]. When many of the state owned factories became privatized during nineties, many many workers lost their jobs and they needed those compensations desperately. (There's a quite good movie depicting the lives of those people called the Piano in a Factory[2]). Anyway my point is not all people who fled mainland China are freedom fighters.
Insane 60% discount doesn't sound so insane when you are getting life in a country where you can't have your assets seized by the government and be put in jail at a moments notice. Your kids will have great schools and live in a pollution free beautiful place with good future prospects and a Chinese friendly environment. Sure he could have gotten more, but the downside is much worse.
People here are very dismissive of 1, but IMO they are being short sighted. Dictatorships are brittle, their power is extremely secure, up until it isn't. When the communist party rule does end, I think it will happen quicker than people think and catch a lot of people by surprise.
Not willing to stick my neck out with a prediction though.
For 2), I think the answer is yes. Chinas rapid transition from a low to a middle income country was remarkable, but I think the zeitgeist got a bit too excited about it (just as they did with Japan 30 years ago). I don't see any contenders to US economic power in the near future - China will be competing with India, not the US.
1) What does this mean for Xi's leadership and the CCP? Will this threaten their power?
2) Does this cement the US as the leading economy for the next quarter century?
3) What does this mean for up and coming rivals, such as India and Vietnam?
4) How will this effect China's middle class?
5) Will we see an increase in Chinese expats?