How will China ever recover?

>they fell for the political centralization meme

>>2965330
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming
Getting buttfucked twice by steppeniggers will do that to you.

But by the time they're done industrializing, China will dwarf Europe in terms of GDP. Not even the United States will be as big.

>>2965343
They were heavily centralized in their high period prior to the Mongol conquest, and the Manchurian Qing dynasty were backwards isolationists who forcefully decentralized China and made sure that everyone was a backwoods mud farmer by the time Europeans arrived

>>2965330
>1990 international dollars

Biggest red flag right here. If you understand economics, you will notice the flaw as well.

>>2965410
im confused

>>2965330
Good wording, but it lacks context.

Italy/Holland/England are tiny compared to China. So what does the wording mean? It means on average, China as a whole is poorer than Italy, one of the richest if not THE richest place in Europe at the time.

However the richest Chinese cities are still very rich if not richer than Italy at least during the 1300s.

So what happened during that time? Did China regress and stagnate? Or did the Europeans found a new source of wealth that propelled them upwards? The answer is both, but much more on the second part. Chinese dynasties experienced wealth drains and hardships throughout the centuries to come. This was due to the Mongol's ruthlessness and also the coming turmoil to come. Wars and turmoils in Europe in the Chinese scale didn't exist in Europe till the WW1 and WWII.

Few hundred thousands? That's nothing. Chinese were casually and consistently waging wars that would kill millions of people at time. However that didn't mean it was always like this. Periods of long peace reigns in China.

While the Chinese state were in turmoil, Europe was busy plundering gold from the New World. It was busy building its trade routes with the Old World. There is also the fact that the Europe had a great field day at the Qing's expense. Still, the main part is colonial exploitation in Europe propelled their GDP and at the same time turmoil in China slowed their growth. They never really stagnated, only experienced periods of slow growth due to large scale wars/famines. China was too large to stagnate unless the whole country was underseige at the time from multiple forces (during Qing).

>>2965427
All previous estimates utilized a somewhat different definition of international dollars. For example, Angus Maddison's seminal work "Contours of the World Economy."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

This new analysis does not actually reveal much more than what he already found. The new authors just cherrypicked the three richest per capita places in Europe post-1600.

If you include all of Europe, China was ahead until 1700. That is the problem with the new study, it ignores the rest of Europe and focuses on only three "European" nations.

Meanwhile Japan, a nation know in the 1600's for impressive literacy and life expectancy, is poorer than China until the 1800's?
That is another question for this new study.

t. International Development economist who works in DC at the IMF (although I am low level)

>>2965330
Italy, Holland/Flanders, and England were the richest places in Medieval Europe along with northeastern France, it's pretty nitpicky to compare them to all of China.

Guys better begin learning Chinese.

File: PWC-GDPpercapita.jpg (93KB, 728x322px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 728x322px

>>2965354>>2965456
>>2965465
>>2966032

AHAHAHHA CHINESE COPE

>>2965330
>1300s.
>"""Italy"""

Also everyone knows the later Qing sucks. Literally what is new.

>>2966041
2030 is closer to us than 2000.

In 2000, China's GDP (ppp) was under a trillion dollars. US was at 10 trillion
In 2010, China's at 6 trillion and US @ 15 trillion.
In 2016, China's at 21 trillion and US @ 18.5 trillion.
In 2030, China would be at 38 trillion and US @ 23.5 trillion.

It seems like the history is going in reverse. If US can capitalize on space before China does, it might create a repeat of economy boom. If China does so before US can take advantage, then they will completely dominate the solar system economy.

>>2965354
>But by the time they're done industrializing, China will dwarf Europe in terms of GDP. Not even the United States will be as big.

Is this really supposed to be suprising though? China's population is larger than both of them combined. Just by sheer numbers alone, China will have the largest economy (until maybe India industrializes at the same level).

The only statistic that really matters is GDP per capita.

>>2967890
>The only statistic that really matters is GDP per capita.
Not quite

You can have quite high GDP per capita yet small GDP as a country. See Singapore/Nordic countries.

GDP as a country matters on geopolitical level. This will control the overall world economy. Per capita will rise as overall GDP increases.

This is even more relevant with China since its a state capitalism. Thus market forces is directly tied with overall GDP.

>>2965364
>Manchurian Qing dynasty were backwards isolationists who forcefully decentralized China
Qing didn't decentralize China, the whole political system basically directly inherited Ming minus eunuchs interferences.

>>2965465
>International Development economist who works in DC at the IMF

Do you have any book recommendations for this sort of economic pissing contest or any good analysis of the evolution of the Chinese economy?

>>2965354
China didn't really lost the supremacy in east Asia even at these 2 dynasties. There are more complicated reasons than steppniggas which caused the stagnation of China after 18th century.

>>2965456
>>2965465
In a sense, the problematic analysis is still used in the present day. The ~100 million people living in the top 3 Chinese city-provinces of Beijin, Shangai and Tianjin plus Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau enjoy European standards of living, as evidenced by HDI and GDP/cap PPP

>>2966041
>China will have a similar ppp to Brazil
Bullshit

>>2966202
>It seems like the history is going in reverse. If US can capitalize on space before China does, it might create a repeat of economy boom. If China does so before US can take advantage, then they will completely dominate the solar system economy.

Totally wrong. Space mining will not be feasible until we create space elevator, and fusion energy(100+ years). The next great divergence will be about AI. The first country to create ASI will essentially have a thousand year lead when it comes to technological progress.

>>2967967
Fusion energy will never be feasible.

>>2967967
At the rate China's super computer is going, it will probably be the first if not close to the US in terms of creating an ASI. This is assuming ASI will be created sometime in the 2050s at earliest.

By 2050s, China would be nearly twice the economy of US, so it will have a huge population of scientists working on the problem. Meanwhile the US will still be denying evolution and climate changes because God.

>>2967904
Actually they did.

They let a lot of Provinces run their own economy and fund their own State militias which contributed to the rise of the Warlords once the military became aware they were the real power.

File: future-human-evolution-ward-Cyborg.jpg (6KB, 148x193px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 148x193px

>>2967967
>The next great divergence
The world economy is too interconnected for that. Whoever creates it first will definitely have an advantage, but through trade the rest of the world will eventually acquire the same technology in relatively short span.

And considering that most of Wall-street is already being managed by algorithmic software, it's likely that creating intelligence which is truly sapient will be a soft, gradual process, and whatever insights we discover into the nature of consciousness will be insights we can apply to our own consciousness.

>Space mining will not be feasible until we create space elevator, and fusion energy(100+ years).
Not necessarily. A space elevator will require materials of far greater tensile strength than what we currently have, and would be a public works project of far greater scale than we are currently capable of funding. One of those is probably centuries away.

Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is an area of active research. Once we have fusion reactors we'll have residential electricity too cheap to meter, warships which never run out of fuel, planes which can stay airborne for weeks, and torchships with insane delta-v capable of approaching relativistic speeds. At that point we just send the mining equipment to the asteroid and use magnetic slings to send them on a controlled descent to the Earth's surface.

>>2967985
they've already made fusion reactors which give more energy than was required to build them. The hurdles to overcome are technical, not theoretical.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/02/12/scientists-reach-nuclear-fusion-milestone/

>>2967910
Well I cited the one book many of us consider to be the most important work in the field. I'm no historian, so I can't say with certainty who is correct or what books are most useful in this issue.

I'm just pointing out that the new research did not exactly change the previous research of Maddison.
The Economist tends to utilize some sensational content for obvious reasons.

>>2967949
Agreed. PPP per capita China overtook Brazil PPP per capita last year. The implosion of Brazil is a very disturbing event because many in the IMF praised its policies only a few years ago.

>>2968251
Brazil is a country of tomorrow. And it will always be that.

>>2965330
>These findings challenge a hitherto common belief that China and Europe had similar living standards for centuries until the West’s industrial revolution began in the late 18th century

I've genuinely never understood how anyone could ever believe this.

>>2967967
>The first country to create ASI will essentially have kickstarted human extinction
ftfy

>Let's create a machine that renders humans obsolete, what could go wrong?
I want to split open every egg-heads skull with a hammer and watch the yolks run.

>>2968012
ASi will probably need some form of 3D integrated neuromorphic chips that are yet to be invented . We are a long way from creating ASI or even knowing the hardware requirements for ASI. One thing I know is, the silicon Vonn Neumon based chips that are used in current day supercomputers will be considered outdated technology within a decade.

>>2968120
>they've already made fusion reactors which give more energy than was required to build them.

This is nice, but there are practical issues like having to replace the inner armor that protects the machine from high energy neutrons, which means dismantling the massive yet delicate device and puting it back together, which is expensive not only in money, but also in time. And since you’ll have to do it quite often, the chance of fucking up and blowing the expensive internal parts of the device goes skyhigh.

It’s a pipe dream.

>>2968459
Same is true for every emerging market.

>>2968494
>assessing GDP in 1 AD
Meme tier graph.

File: LAUGH.png (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>2968494
>that fucking graph

>>2965330
>>2968508
So is no one else going to point out the obvious problem with the methodology here?

Comparing China against specific European states doesn't make sense because of the scale involved. It makes far more sense to compare China against all of Europe or parts of China against specific European states. Once you start comparing parts of China against European states, i.e. Yangzi river delta vs England, the supposed gap disappears until the 18th century.

I only know about this because I saw papers pointing out this problem years ago. It is probably because of those old papers showing the gap disappears if you do parts of China vs European states comparisons instead of all of China vs European states comparisons that the belief in similar living standards became common in the first place. This "new" paper basically wants to go back to a previous point before the problem was pointed out.

Do modern day historians not read old papers anymore?

>>2965456

the wars and turmoil part is wrong

the Wars of Religion affected all of Europe and devastated Germany more than the world wars.

The war of Spanish Succession and the Peninsular war devastated Spain as badly as world wars

The period between the French Revolution to the fall of Napoleon was as devastating for France as a world war, and there was war in Europe because of France from Portugal to Russia.

>>2969153
Imagine someone comparing China as a whole to a small opium-riddled part of the Appalachians, and using that to prove China has had higher living standards than America since day one. Would the Economist publish that?

>>2969282
The Wars of Religion are the only Euro conflict that came anywhere close to the scale of the civil wars China was experiencing every half-century or so. Nevermind the wars against steppeniggers.

>>2968120
>send them on a controlled descent to the Earth's surface
That sounds completely unfeasible in any way, compared to mining them in Earth or Moon orbit and doing the refining there.

>>2965364
>>2968103
Warlordism and decentralization occured as a result of the Taiping uprising. The Qing state prior to the uprising was highly centralized.

>>2968494
>1000 years
>500 years
>100 years
>100 years
>120 years
>50 years
>43 years
>37 years
>23 years
>30 years

>>2969644
>What is the Hundred years war
>What is the seven years war
>What are the napoleonic wars
>What is the war of Spanish succession
>What is the War of Austrian Succession

China was always shit compared to Europe

>>2969913
>What is the Hundred years war
A regional scuffle.
>What is the seven years war
A big meme where the casualties were often in the high hundreds or low thousands, basically a lot of scores being settled at the same time in different theaters. It was mostly Spain getting their shit wrecked in completely one-sided battles that racked up the body count, with an honorable mention for Prussia and Austria for actual fighting something resembling a war.
Compare the An Lushan rebellion that lasted about as long and killed at least 10 million people (that's the lowball estimate)
>What are the napoleonic wars
Dwarfed by no less than 5 Chinese internal conflicts and even Europe's own Thirty Years War
>What is the war of Spanish succession
>What is the War of Austrian Succession
Comparable to minor Chinese rebellions.

>China was always shit compared to Europe
I don't get it, instability and infighting is nothing to brag about. What's pathetic is giving unwarranted importances to little border skirmishes.

>>2969913
More people died in the Taiping Rebellion than in all of those conflict combined. Same goes for the Dungan Revolt and the Qing Conquest of Ming.

>>2970014
>>2970043
>It's important because china has a really big population
None of these wars had any impact on human history outside of China, whereas a major conflict in Europe could literally change the modern world as we know it.

Also the majority of casualties in the Taiping rebellion are attributed to Famine and Disease, not the actual war.
Also the Napoleonic wars involved more soldiers than any of these Chinese civil wars

>>2965330
I'm more surprised about Japan. I was fairly sure Edo Japan was more developped than China under the Qing.

File: 1359864982739.jpg (41KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1280x1024px

>>2969652
>That sounds completely unfeasible in any way
You mean verses bringing an asteroid into Earth orbit? I highly doubt that even with torchships that would be something which could be accomplished in a timely fashion.

We're already at the point where we can sling probes on a one-way collision course with a comet, it would not be very difficult to come up with a series of magnetic mass-drivers which bring the raw material in a disposable canister with a parachute on a controlled descent to the Earth's surface. The first time you get a dump-truck sized load of platinum or other precious rare Earth metals, and they keep falling at the same spot at regular intervals (maybe a few times a week?) the infrastructure starts easily paying for itself.

>>2967985
Nobody knows enough about fusion energy to say that

>>2970078
>Taiping Rebellion had no impact on human history outside China
>None of these wars had any impact on human history outside of China
[Citation needed]

Anons, this is the level of intelligence of your average /pol/tard on /his/.

>>2967949
>CHINA WIRR GROW FOREVER

the chinese delusion makes me kek every time

>>2969153
Europe isn't a country, retard

>>2966202

China is just another asian tiger like Japan was. And, like Japan, they will have a stock crash and be stuck in economic stagnation for decades due to low growth. Their falling birthrates is indicative of this, long term.

As for space, it's not going to be a major component of the global economy because there's no way to cheaply get stuff down from space in bulk.

>>2970743

yes it is and it's capital is brussels

>>2970632
Let's compare the effect of the Taiping Rebellion on the USA with the effect of the American Civil War on China.

>>2970909
>Taiping Rebellion on the USA
One of the major causes for the Scramble for Concessions as well as THE cause for the large influx of Chinese immigrants to the American West

>the effect of the American Civil War on China
I can't think of anything.

>>2970942
>I can't think of anything.

Maybe not immediate effect, but you can't deny there must be some influence even by cultural interaction via it's effect on the American character.

>>2966202

Just like how Japan was going to own half the USA by 2000

>>2970949
Nope. The Chinese were too preoccupied to notice the American Civil War, considering the second bloodiest conflict (at mean estimate, by far the bloodiest at the greatest estimate) of all time occurring during the same time frame.

>>2967967
>The first country to create ASI
Anon, if ASI is created none of this even matters, the AI can just self-improve until it figures out the economy on its own.

>>2970967
Oh so the USA hasn't had any influence on China, culturally or economically. Good to know.

>>2970966
Japan lacked the population, territory and resources for limitless growth, and basically benefited from having an headstart in industrialization over the rest of the Asia, which ended when most of the pack caught up. There are no physical limitations on China surpassing the US and Europe, and after industrializing and developing so much they have started relying on their internal market more.
Incidentally Japan is still the second largest investor in the US (after the UK) and is responsible for "over 80 percent of all FDI in the United States that originates from Asia-Pacific."
It also holds the largest share of US foreign debt along with China, they each hold 4 times as much as the next few creditor countries.

>>2971005
You should fuck off down the yellow brick road with that strawman, Dorothy.

>>2965330

If you expand the timeline you'd see they've had bigger dips.

>>2970967
>you can't deny there must be some influence
>Nope

you just failed to understand the assertion. Undoubtedly the ACW had an effect on the US, and undoubtedly the US had an effect on China.

Even just considering the opening and modernization of Japan.

>>2971037
>>2971023

>>2968459
There's no reason to think that.
"Country of tomorrow" is just a meme, and these come and go.

>>2971016
Oh, it should be mentioned that Japanese investments in the US are being dwarfed by their investments in Western Europe.

>>2971037
>>2971040
That wasn't your original argument you stupid fuck. You originally asserted that the Taiping Rebellion had no effects on outside states which is patently false (literally caused one of the largest immigration booms in U.S. history) and then falsely implied that because the ACW had negligible effects on China that the U.S. had no effect on China which is a strawman argument. Your entire premise has been proven false and you just keep making it worse. The ACW had little to no effect on China. The Taiping Rebellion had direct and easily measurable effects on the United States. Now fuck off down to Oz so you can hide your head behind the curtain instead of sticking it further up your ass.

>>2971051
>You originally asserted that the Taiping Rebellion had no effects on outside states
you have me confused for someone else, I'm not >>2970078
just someone who jumped in

you're new here, aren't you?

>falsely implied that because the ACW had negligible effects on China that the U.S. had no effect on China which is a strawman argument
lol reading comprehension
get your panties sorted out faggot

>The ACW had little to no effect on China.

pls

File: chinksbtfole.png (73KB, 1338x898px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1338x898px

>>2965456
>Good wording, but it lacks context.

>Italy/Holland/England are tiny compared to China. So what does the wording mean? It means on average, China as a whole is poorer than Italy, one of the richest if not THE richest place in Europe at the time.

>However the richest Chinese cities are still very rich if not richer than Italy at least during the 1300s.

they used administrative records of economical output, and textual evidence of the price of everyday things like grain, and how much it went for. The data is mostly derived from cities anyway.

Pic-related. China always has been underdeveloped shithole.

>>2971063
>>The ACW had little to no effect on China.
not him but it really didn't tbqh. Maybe you should post some sources to back up your claim. Is there even a single Chinese source document about the American civil war?

>>2971063
>The ACW had little to no effect on China
It did. Prove otherwise. You can look at immigration statistics, the Central Pacific portion of the transcontinental railroad, and the histories of various Chinatowns in California if you want to see the direct and lasting effects the Taiping Rebellion had on the United States. You can do nothing of the sort for the reverse.

>the rest of your post
Not an argument.

File: DOITAGAIN.jpg (53KB, 380x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 380x500px

>>2971071
again
>Maybe not immediate effect
>cultural interaction
>Japan

>>2971079
So what you're saying is
>America in general, at some point, had an effect on certain countries near China, maybe not immediately and only through "cultural interaction"
>Therefore the ACW affected China
really makes me think

>>2971083
>implying the English Civil War didn't affect Germany

>>2971079
>Japan
You keep mentioning this like it means something but Sakoku ended 6 years BEFORE the ACW happened and it wasn't just an American effort despite all the memery. Russia, Britain, France and the United States played equal parts in "opening" Japan. If anything, Russia played the biggest role in opening Japan.

>>2971097
he's also forgetting that Japan isn't in fact a chinese province

>>2971112
>Japan isn't in fact a chinese province
HAHAHAHAHA
RICE

but seriously tell me how American culture hasn't influenced China. Tell me how American culture was unaffected by the ACW.

>>2971097
>Sakoku ended 6 years BEFORE the ACW happened
thanks

>>2971130
m8, "American culture has influenced China" != "The ACW affected China at the time". I don't know how else to explain it to you, others have said the same thing. maybe it's just time to admit you're wrong, this is an anonymous board, it won't cause you any shame

>>2971139
>ACW affected China at the time
notice what I never implied

>>2970909
>>2971148
We compared and you got BTFO

>>2971152
WE
>Let's compare the effect of the Taiping Rebellion on the USA with the effect of the American Civil War on China at the time.

broaden your horizons

>>2965330
>when the mongols hit real hard

>>2971164
>move goalposts because you got BTFO
>continue to cry like a child because no one acknowledges your fallacy
Want to have a real trip on how the United States affected China?

As we both know (hopefully you're not as retarded as you've made yourself seem so far, if you are, just try to keep up), the United States favored the Republic of China over the People's Republic of China in the One China Policy until 1992 with the One China Principle. The Republic of China has a fairly long history (longer than the PRC) which starts with Sun Yat-Sen who argued for things like democracy and what not, very similar to the United States which makes sense because he studied in Hawaii (not yet a state or even a territory of the United States when Sun was there so influence is out at that point in time). The U.S. saw this Sun Yat-Sen guy and thought he was a pretty good dude and liked what he was preaching so they backed his overthrow of the Qing and the Kuomintang (The party that Sun Yat-Sen founded) ever since. This was a huge boon for the Kuomintang as it allowed them to stave off attempts at further colonization by Europeans and help hold back the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War/Pacific War. This is the part where you say "Hey! The United States really did affect China!" right? Wrong. Sun Yat-Sen moved to Honolulu due to the aftermath of the Taiping Rebellion. His inspiration for overthrowing the Qing didn't come from the United States either. His inspiration came from studying the Taiping Rebellion in Hong Kong. In essence, the Taiping Rebellion, which affected Sun Yat-Sen influenced the United States which influenced China which ultimately means that any American influence on China between 1911 and 1992. When you consider that the PRC considers Sun Yat-Sen their founder as well, that date moves from 1911 to the present.

tl;dr
U.S. influence on China stems from Chinese influence on the United States and thus you are still wrong. LAWYERED

File: satellites.jpg (53KB, 550x321px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 550x321px

>>2970825
>As for space, it's not going to be a major component of the global economy because there's no way to cheaply get stuff down from space in bulk.
The telecommunications industry would like to have a word with you.

If you only considered the eastern cities or even just the first tier municipalities as China proper and the provinces as merely sources of raw materials and cheap, readily-exploitable labor (which is pretty much how the country is presently administered), you'd realize that China has already won and the west is good and fucked. Decolonize now before you have to, nerds.

>>2971304
>before you have to
Who's going to make us? China? With what navy?

>>2971310
Funny you say that, they're already have 2 aircraft carrier and a third under construction and fourth in plan.

While it may not be a match for the US, its already a match for any European country today.

>>2971294
>in bulk

That ain't bulk nigga

>>2971326
Exactly 0 super carriers and an inability for blue water operations mean they're not any threat for Europe either. China may be a global power economically, but militarily they're a regional threat at best.

>>2971338
Yeah, right now. The 3-4 aircraft carrier will be had within the next 5 years-10 years. Not exactly that far into the future.

The main plan for PRC seems to drive the US away from the Pacific arena by making it costly. This loss of US regional power will change the dynamics of economy for the world. Europe is dependent on the US for its protection right. If the US scales back in the coming decades, the EU will lose its economic edge as it will have to start investing more into defense and less into social programs.

>>2971350
Except the Chinese aren't using those for blue water operations. Their stated goal and the assumed goal by experts is regional sea power because they just don't have the logistical capability for blue water operations. Even with the new carriers, they're going to be forced to operate in pairs while the rest stay in port.

>This loss of US regional power will change the dynamics of economy for the world
Unless the PLAN somehow makes 50 years of advances overnight and the U.S. remains stagnant (it isn't, the USMIC is the one guaranteed portion of U.S. government funding since it's factored into mandatory spending rather than discretionary which means Congress can realistically do fuck all about it) that's not a likely scenario. They don't even have the means to keep U.S. air forces out of the South China Sea, let alone the USN.

File: Debris_objects_-_mostly_debris_-_in_low_Earth_orbit_LEO_-_view_over_the_equator.jpg (2MB, 3508x2694px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3508x2694px

>>2971329
There are over 2,200 satellites in orbit.

Disposable rockets are not ideal, but they can serve well enough for use to send a fully automated car sized roving science lab to Mars. If Emdrive and nuclear fusion pan out, rockets will become even cheaper and more effective.

Space is for the robots. They don't need much more than a few grams of silicon circuitry and a solar array, and they can be purpose-built to fulfill a single purpose. You send the explorer probes to the asteroids to scope out the resources, digger probes, refining probes, and then slinger probes to shoot them into Earth orbit, to be grabbed by collection probes and parachuted to the ground. And the best part is that you can just leave them there when they've served their purpose.

This sort of technology is not totally out of reach, but we'd need a way to manufacture a shitload of insanely high tensile strength materials before a space elevator becomes feasible. The problem is that our society just isn't prioritizing the industrialization of space.

>>2970743
Every time we get this argument on /his/ people will point out that"China" is a meme and didnt really exist until 1949 but now suddenly its fine for China as a geographical entity to be compared to small states in Europe on the basis of stated meme?

Like I'm not even surprised by the findings and my headcanon is that the chinks never really recovered from being MONGOL'd but this is just hypocritical

>>2971400
Chinese are just trying to cope with the fact that they fell behind several centuries ago and still have not caught up

>>2971400
>Different dynasties rule China.
>"DURHURR CHINKNA IS LE MODERN INVENTION."

>>2970743
Yet you don't object to England, Holland and Italy being treated as countries 1400-1850

>>2971413
Who are you quoting?

>>2971432
Cunts who say China didn't really exist until 1949.

>>2971359
The PRC has already established their status quo in the South China Sea. US can't do anything about it unless it can orient itself towards the orient. Right now, US has no ability due to lack of leadership.

One of the big problems that the US will face is rising interest payment taking over the debt payment. When that escalates, US government will have to scale down either economic defunding or military defunding or social defunding just to stay afloat. This will create a huge problem for the coming decades too.

>US stagnation
US isn't stagnating but its slowed to crawl. With 1-3% growth, it wont be enough to keep up the regional defense of Pacific much longer. China's meanwhile is growing 5-7% and will be easily able to afford regional defense perimeter around South China Sea.

>lack of blue water navy capabilities
Mostly due to their planned rise and not necessarily a reactionary rise. They are going to have a fleet capable of projecting itself across the world, but it will come int he decades to come. This is so that US won't immediately overreact and China wont overexert itself. Once China has fully capable force to match the US in the Pacific, it will also have the capability to extend it even further due to its sheer economic size(by 2050s it will be double the size of US economy of 2050s).

Right now China's defense spending is around $215 Billion USD and US is at ~ $610 Billion. They're spending roughly 2% and 3.3% of their GDP respectively, China would be $46 trillion economy and US @ $40 trillion.

By 2030, if China stays at 2%, their defense would be at ~900 billion USD and if US stays at 3.3% it would be at ~1.3 trillion USD.

At roughly similar level of technology, the US wouldn't be able to stand up to China in the region at all unless it scales back most of its operations around the world. It would be very costly for the US to fight the arms race.

Keep in mind, 2030 is only about a decade away from now.

>>2971476
This whole discussion literally has nothing to do with this thread. Fuck off all you /pol/int/ shitters and go discuss this on reddit/worldpolitics or w/e.

Or you could just kill yourself.

>>2971485
Its about China's rising economic and military powers.

The thread is about how china will rise again after the "fall".

Seems relevant enough to discuss this.

>>2971476
>This is so that US won't immediately overreact and China wont overexert itself. Once China has fully capable force to match the US in the Pacific, it will also have the capability to extend it even further due to its sheer economic size(by 2050s it will be double the size of US economy of 2050s).

Barring extreme idiocy on the part of the US, there will either be a naval race or a gradual hatching up of both their navies, but the US would be foolish to let itself get outpaced. They're basically working on the same idea that the British used to, their security is entirely founded in maintaining naval superiority in order to ensure a hostile power can't actually threaten their clay.

I would say the US would sooner bankrupt itself on a naval race than China would, in terms of the geographic incentive the US has. If the US had to sacrifice its army for its navy, I think it would.

File: dark.jpg (401KB, 1194x824px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1194x824px

>>2968494
>United States controlled 20% of the world's economy before it even existed
Graph checks out

>>2971476
You're assuming that both countries are alone.

Unless China's diplomatic situation changes dramatically, it's going to be the US + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, and maybe some of NATO.

>>2971590
I think you're confused. The US is the darker blue.

>>2971591
Taiwan will probably get absorbed by China in next decade or two.

Japan/South Korea working together is quite a long way. Especially if South Korea gets bribed by China and Japan is left to itself (the most likely outcome).

>>2971591
Taiwan is SO cucked they won't join. I'm not even meming or anything they are utter degenerates and it would be hugely unpopular for them to go to war unless they were attacked first.

>>2971485
It's impossible to have any actual discussion about this kind of stuff on /pol/ or /int/ and lots of people don't want to use reddit.

>>2971633
>cucked
>degenerates
Fuck off /pol/

File: photo.jpg (41KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 900x900px

>>2971650
*wahhh im oppressed in the place where i actually belong so i will go somewhere else and shit it up*

really boils the noodles

>>2971654
He's right though. Taiwan is liberal East Asia. And by liberal, I don't mean "free speech and democracy" liberal but "34 genders and tradition is bad because reasons" liberal.

>>2965330
Based fucking broadberry, I love his articles. Always great stuff on global economy

>>2965354
Yeah but this is measuring GDP per person. China's economy is already vastly larger than the Dutch economy, but Dutch people are much richer than the average Chinese person. I'd much rather be born and live in the Netherlands than China.

>>2965354
Does that take into account the inevitable shift toward full automation? It seems like America would have the advantage in having to support fewer people.

>>2971872
The Chinese will start automating on industrial scale soon. The Chinese population will switch to service industry soon enough along with its automated machines staying true to its industrial might. China is also starting to diversify and cropping up factories in Africa.

>>2971906
>The Chinese population will switch to service industry
Why do you believe this won't be automated as well?

>>2971668
You know very well. Are you Chinese/Taiwanese? I'm surprised a foreigner/westerner can know our present issues so well. And not only that, our economic and birth rate are seriously stagnated. I can guarantee you, we'll be annexed by PRC in next 20 years, and I'm actually kinda looking forward to it.

Literally no critique itt is valid. Here, take an old article of his and read it, all criticisms he's already addressed or accounted for.
https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/Broadberry/AccountingGreatDivergence6.pdf

>>2972046
Tbh, that doesn't really matter actually, China will not stop developing and growing just because someone want to rewrite history or shitpost.
China will become a super power rival with US and Western powers in future, not matter how reluctant Westerners are. The real questions are how fast and how long China.

>>2972055
I was just referring to the article and the handful of people who actually talked about it.

I don't care about chinaboo wet dreams

>>2972055
People said the same thing 20 years ago about Japan tbqh. Just saying "it's inevitable" really isn't sufficient

>>2972082
Actually by year 2000, the Japanese giant had already started slowing down.

The actual Japanese giant scares was back in 80s when the car/electronics were being dominated by the Japanese.

In comparison, China's growth to superpower status is within a decade or two. Literally. Unless something dramatic happens to change the course of history, it will happen.

>>2970632
>I need you to teach me history
>haha le /pol/ boogeyman
Anons this is the level of intellectual discourse performed by chinese """historians"""

Great counterargument, I love how you expertly analysed and broke down my post before responding with a comprehensive and well-informed thesis

>>2970909
Taiping Rebellion directly led to the severe weakening of the Qing, which enabled Japan to conquer Korea and Taiwan, and later the collapse of the Qing completely changed global history.

I honestly have no clue how someone can claim the civil wars in China had no effect on world history when they clearly affected Korea/Vietnam/Taiwan/Japan.

>>2972708
Are you really defending these claims>>2970078 #
>Taiping Rebellion had no impact on human history outside China
>None of these wars had any impact on human history outside of China

What the fuck? These claims are obviously incorrect and only our local /pol/tards make them.

>>2972090
You seem very sure of that but haven't actually adressed the point that everything will probably end up automated, aside from some proclamations about the future that seem to rely more on wishful thinking and questionable logic than actual sensible reasons.

>>2973084
Then explain what impact the Taiping rebellion had on Africa, Europe, North America, or South Asia. How did the Taiping rebellion actually influence history in any region outside of China
(Also both those posts are mine)

>>2968012
>Meanwhile the US will still be denying evolution and climate changes because God.
Don't you have some sweat shop to be working in, Chong?

>>2968012
>build cool super computer
>can't even program it right

>steal design for one of the most advanced fighter jets ever
>build a version that's barely even halfway functional

>publish scientific papers like crazy
>a shit ton of the data is plagiarized from the west

>building "decent" automobiles with about half as many gears as western cars but at least they're better than the weedwhacker-powered rickshaws they were pumping out
>only happeneed after Chinese manufacturers started stealing western automotive designs wholesale

If we're looking at patterns, China will probably never get a legitimate technological edge over the west simply because they haven't learned any other means of progressing without theft and adaptation. Until the west invents something, China can't steal it.

>>2973231
>China will probably never get a legitimate technological edge over the west simply because they haven't learned any other means of progressing without theft and adaptation.
Japan had to start off the same way. Give them time, they'll innovate eventually.

>>2971044
That's the joke you fucking retard.

>>2973185
>China was not a closed system (...) The Qing Empire was deeply integrated into the world’s economy through trade, and there were thousands of foreigners living in Hong Kong and Shanghai. By consequence, the war in China was tangled up in threads leading around the globe to Europe and America, and it was watched from outside with a sense of immediacy.

>Furthermore, to compound the miseries of China’s dynastic rulers, Britain and France mounted an entirely separate war against them in the late 1850s over trading rights and the stationing of ambassadors, which overlapped with the ongoing Taiping Rebellion and helped push the empire to the brink of total collapse.

>Americans should know about the Taiping Rebellion not just for the sake of understanding China’s history, or because their own countrymen were involved in it, but also because it helps to illuminate the wider effects of the U.S. Civil War far beyond America’s borders. The simultaneity of the Chinese and American civil wars was no trivial matter, and (...) the launching of hostilities in the United States in 1861 helped shape the final outcome of events in China, by forcing Britain’s hand.

>The United States and China were Britain’s two largest economic markets, and to understand Britain’s role in either war we need to remember that it was faced with the prospect of losing both of them at the same time. Order had to be restored on one side or the other, and while Britain could have intervened in the United States to reopen the cotton trade, it chose to launch itself into the civil war in China instead.

>In hindsight, the British prime minister would point to his country’s intervention in China as being the reason why Britain could survive economic ruin while it allowed the U.S. Civil War to run its full and natural course unmolested. Or in other words, Britain’s neutrality in the U.S. Civil War came at the expense of abandoning it in China.

Source: Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom, SR Platt

>>2973262
>Japan's superpower projections fell through, China is nothing like them!
>Japan had to rely on copycat tactics and look at how well off they are now, China is just like that!

Might want to get your story straight there.

>>2973274
>China must be either EXACTLY like Japan or NOTHING like Japan!
wew lad I never even mentioned the "Japan is going to buy the whole planet!" predictions, you gotta cool your jets a little.

>>2973280
>try to chinaboo without any substantial claims
>have the obvious issues pointed out
>"nuh uh china is super special and awesome and only good trends apply and china will win because I said so!"

C'mon man.

>>2973296
>more strawmen than a scarecrow convention

>>2973269
Tbh they didn't decide to not get involved in the ACW because they were 'preoccupied' with China. It was basically because they thought that China was simply the most at risk of collapsing, and Abraham managed to smooth things out diplomatically. The only reason the UK was even considering going to war was because they thought that the CSA was a seperate nation and the US was wrong when they arrested diplomats trying to open relations between the CSA and London.

Great post overall, none of that typical ">>>/pol/" shit that every pro-china poster seems to be using these days

>>2967949

The 2014 economy statistics for Brazil are now false since their ex-president was publishing bullshit about their economy to get re-elected. Wouldn't get too concerned about it.

>>2973308

Apparently the Russians also threatened to intervene if the British or French took sides

>>2965330
>These findings challenge a hitherto common belief that China and Europe had similar living standards for centuries until the West’s industrial revolution began in the late 18th century: a point often referred to by historians as the “great divergence”.

This view has been around for a few decades at most (See Needham, Pomeranz and others). If you look at 17th, 18th or 19th century writers they all wrote that China stagnated around the time Marco Polo visited it.

>>2973312
It still doesn't change China's position relative to the US.

>>2974163
True, China still has that housing bubble, an impending sex ratio crisis it's now racing desperately to fix, and an inability to accomplish anything without relying on theft. Pretty dire for China.

>>2973231
Lot of countries started that way, you know.

US was seen as a copy cat country at first when it was becoming a world power. Japan/Korea/Taiwan/HongKong/etc were all seen as copy cats.

Once they get the competitive edge, they will start innovating. I mean its not like the Chinese will stop competing when they have the slight advantage. US didn't. Japan didn't. SK didn't. Taiwan didn't.

>>2975312
The big difference is China is at the point where they shouldn't need to copycat anymore and yet they have no incentive not to. Their whole culture endorses doing dishonest shit so long as it gets them ahead and so far it's the main reason they've gotten as far as they are. It's doubtful they'll invest in being self-reliant when so much of their economy revolves around pirating from anyone desperate enough to employ their factories.

Well, until American automation makes their asian gypsy sweatshops the worse bargain, which is actually starting to happen.

>>2975334
What do you mean they shouldn't need to? When there's a profit to be gained, people will seek the easiest route. Once it dies up, they will start innovating.

The Chinese are still a developing country. It hasn't reached the parity with developed country. Huge chunk of its population can still make huge gains by selling copied shit.

When the people of country reaches similar level of development to that of average western nation, then they would have no real need for it.

>>2975377
The unresolved question is whether a society as autocratic and corrupt as the PRC can successfully transition into a knowledge economy in the same way that the West has.

Signs unclear, ask again later.

>>2975377
At what point could the transition even occur when the Chinese government pointedly ignores international intellectual property laws and makes lawsuits against pirates impossible? There's always a market for knockoff shit, and the more China invests in making good but cheap knockoffs then the more that market will grow. China will never need to transition because it's found its niche and has no incentive, let alone ability, to change.

>>2975397
China isn't an autocratic system, its more an oligarchy. Mao was too much for them and the people after Mao resorted instead to put a party-led chairman.

As the country is run with a technocratic elites, I doubt it would have any real problem with knowledge based economy.

>>2975431
When it wants to seek international recognition. Right now, China is on the edge of wanting to be ignored(of its crimes) and wanting the edge over other countries.

The west is propelling China's rise without raising any issues that are wrong with the system. I have long suspicion that it will hurt the west in more ways than one when the Chinese are strong enough.

>>2965354

No it won't.

>>2975444
>When it wants to seek international recognition.
The reality is that China knows it already has both. No one can ignore its influence due to heavy manufacturing and trade investments and at the same time China is playing strongman with the South China Sea with no real repercussions in sight. Again, they've found their sweet spot and lack the capacity to leave it anytime soon.

>>2975478
All part of China's "peaceful rise." People know they can play the long game. American politics will not allow US to think of long term plans, only short term gains. So we will only deal with China when its too late.

>>2975496
China's fake economy imploding first would be a more realistic scenario.

>>2975504
Is that just your kneejerk reaction or do you actually believe that?

>>2975496
There is no long-term game the US can play and win. China simply has the numbers to be the biggest and greatest and there is only so much you can do to hamper with this immense innate potential.

Unless the US invades and fucks them up I don't really see what they can do about it.

>>2975515
US has a shot if they can help India as its their natural counter. But the US choose to side with CCP and threaten to nuke India/side with Pakistan. It then seeked to isolate it

Not only would India make a natural ally due to its democratic principles, its also natural ally of US because both nations share same British colony heritage. US shortsightedness always baffles me.

>>2975511
Considering that whenever I bring up a potential issue the answer is "let's ignore that while I once again declare that China will magically improve," there didn't seem to be much reason to keep putting in a superior effort.

I mean, >>2975515 ignores the issue of widespread automation and an enormous unemployed population yet again. Kind of a pattern.

>>2975538
You have to understand that a shitty China is still great and that the days of overwhelming western supremacy like during modernity is over. The gaps are closing in and everyone will be on board with most new technologies from now on.

>>2975538
Here's my thought.

Widespread automation will happen, but not over night. It will all come down to cost factor whether or not labor or automation is cheaper. Some industries who are new might hire people to make it cheaper to start up.

The point is, the industry will adapt. If China can pull itself together on automation, I think it will create huge amount of abundance/cheap stuff to flood the market. Cheaper goods + less work + steady profit will make China into the world's richest country by mile imo.

Lets look at the same automation in the US. Labor is very expensive. Machines can easily disrupt it. So what happens next when the US economy is facing major automation disruption while labor force is out of job? Economy crash.

Unironically I dont know which country, between US/China, will create a national credit/universal income system first. The other will follow however. China's already experimenting with their own credit system that ties in with social network. So they might be on road, however the US already has social security, and all it needs to do is ramp up the system.

>>2975542
>You have to understand that a shitty China is still great
See, there's that wishful thinking with very little in actual reasoning to back it up. Here's an alternative:

China is late to the party. If they'd gotten around to industrializing then their greater population could have been a huge boon and they may have pulled ahead at some point. Instead, we're all quickly heading into an era where manpower is irrelevant. It's all about how many robots you can build for the manufacturing sector and how well you can implement AI for service industries. Populations become a drag rather than an asset, and China by far will suffer the most unless they can figure out a way to seriously cut down on their numbers.

That said, America has its own problems. It's just very unlikely at this juncture that China is going to end up the dominant world power due to the upcoming circumstances.

>>2975542
My thinking is like this.

The natural counter to China isn't a single nation, but an international system.

The US, EU, Japan, and India combined will always be more than a match for China.

The challenge is creating the diplomatic and legal framework to force China to abide by international law, even if they have a plurality of force. Read: get enough niggas together that won't run at the first sign of trouble.

>>2975567
I can see how manpower would become less relevant, but I don't see why it would become a drag unless a large portion of the population becomes neglected - which is problematic no matter what age.

Why would a smaller country benefit more from automation and AI than a bigger one? Scale always applies.

>>2975586
>Why would a smaller country benefit more from automation and AI than a bigger one? Scale always applies.
If they want to participate in global market, they need automation.

What if one person in the small country uses automation and undercuts all others? The others will join in or die.

>>2975567
>there's that wishful thinking with very little in actual reasoning to back it up
It's simply the case. Russia is doing shit, but it's still powerful in the grand scheme of things.

>>2975592
>What if one person in the small country uses automation and undercuts all others? The others will join in or die.
But why would China not be able to pick up the task and do it to a larger extent?

>>2975586
>I can see how manpower would become less relevant, but I don't see why it would become a drag unless a large portion of the population becomes neglected
It would actually be less of a drag if the population *was* neglected. Think about it: The government will have to provide housing, food, water, possibly bread and circus stuff so people won't get bored and disruptive, plus there's the need for a universal basic income scheme prior to accomplishing post-scarcity (and that's going to be one very rough ride). Most of China's population becomes dead weight; to maintain the automated infrastructure will not require nearly so many people. Sure, China can scale up its production facilities, but so can any other country. That's not super dependent on population size.

Now, if China neglected a huge swath of its people like some sort of cyberpunk dystopia and conserved resources that way, it might have a chance.

>>2975594
>Russia is doing shit, but it's still powerful in the grand scheme of things.
Russia's economy is dependent on the petrodollar (precarious situation) and outside of fucking with backwards countries like Ukraine and Syria they don't matter much at all.

>>2975656
Who the fuck matters then?

>>2975656
Currently, both China and America matter a lot because they're tied into the world economy so hard that a failure at either end could launch a new Great Depression. If you have a country that falls through and the rest of the world can keep on going just fine after maybe a year or two of problems, you're not a huge deal. See Venezuela as an example of what can happen.

That said, going onward the Big Boys will be the ones embracing automation while working out the social kinks with the greatest speed and effectiveness while also capitalizing on new resource acquisition, i.e. asteroid mining and such. Automated labor can only accomplish so much; resources are going to be the name of the game soon. That said, attempting to set up strangleholds there could also lead to new conflicts.

That's a guess, anyway.

>>2975694
Whoops, meant to reply to >>2975659