There have been many books written about the rise of China and great powers going to War.
Harvard political scientist Graham Allison called the problem “the Thucydides Trap,” in which the country in relative decline so fears the rise of a challenger that it chooses to go to war to prevent it. Allison’s book is called Destined for War.
A hegemon is the rule setter and enforcer in the international order. It is typically but is not always the strongest power, because states fight for the right to establish terms favorable to their interests.
Twilight of the Titans, by Joseph M. Parent and Paul K. McDonald, use quantitative analysis of power transitions to analyze the problem. Parent and McDonald survey power transitions since 1870 and look at 16 cases. Most states respond sensibly to relative decline, undertaking prompt, proportionate retrenchment, because they seek strategic solvency—they don’t want to go bankrupt.
Limited Amount of Bullying and Signaling Power
All out war has been virtually not the focus of decisions because nuclear and other weapons ensure a high cost even for a victor. This limits the amount of bullying that can be done. In Wars leading up to World War 2, there was net value and gains to be made from fighting and winning wars against peer nations.
Now there is no net gain possible from fighting peer nations.
However, a dominant power that is able to cleanly defeat inferior militaries can demonstrate and signal readiness and efficiency to peer nations. This was done in the early weeks of the two Iraq Wars by the USA. It was also shown by Israeli in the Six Day War and in the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot in the 1982 Lebanon War.
Economic strength, technological strength, military readiness and military equipment can be acquired and shown to other nations.
The competition is mostly about economic, technological strength and making your own and other nations more money.
The Game of Go and the Nash Equilibrium
The Game of Go is about getting the best position over time and controlling the largest territory. The opponent cannot be completely eliminated but you can have more and the opponent can have less.
A group of players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision possible, taking into account the decisions of the others in the game as long as the other parties’ decisions remain unchanged. Everyone can do better with the best strategy for each nation while also looking for the best outcome for other nations well.
In a World of relatively safe but competing peers then greater influence is gained by enabling allies to earn more under your rules or as your ally.
Strictly Business – an Earning
If we ignore the “regime change” aspect of the movie the Godfather, then there is aspect of organizations getting more power by earning more and by having those who work for them earn more. What is the competition was strictly business?
The World has about $100 trillion in total GDP on an exchange rate basis. Even if China surpasses the US GDP, which is currently at $21 trillion, there is still 60% of the World that is neither China or USA.
The World has grown wealthy with the US and Europe setting the rules. The US, Canada and Europe have a combined GDP of about $40 trillion.
In China can make itself and cooperative nations wealthier with Belt and Road Infrastructure, then it can be a win-win.
If the past those who were more happily under US influence did better than those that were not.
The US Marshall Plan helped Europe recover from WW2. It enabled the US to have a strong trading partners and markets for goods.
South Korea did vastly better than North Korea.
Taiwan performed better economically than China under Mao.
The UK demonstrated this as well. Hong Kong performed better under the British system.
China’s Belt and Road will be spending trillions to build up the infrastructure and technology of Asia and to connect Asia, Europe and Africa.
Mckinsey estimate that from 2016 through 2030, the world needs to invest about 3.8 percent of GDP, or an average of $3.3 trillion a year, in economic infrastructure just to support expected rates of growth. Emerging economies account for some 60 percent of that need. But if the current trajectory of underinvestment continues, the world will fall short by roughly 11 percent, or $350 billion a year.
The world could grow even faster than the expected rates of growth. In order to achieve higher rates of growth even larger infrastructure spending should be made. China has demonstrated an infrastructure focused development model for four decades.
India and the rest of Asia appear to be following China’s rise.
Building more, faster and with better technology would enable even faster rates of growth.
Singapore has been able to develop some of the highest per capita GDP and its has great influence beyond its small population. It was able to do this by being able to export systems and technology that work.
Singapore completed its rise over fifty years and has per capita income that is six times higher than China’s. Singapore’s per capita income is about three time higher than Shanghai.
The competition should is who can be the greater success and leader where others earn more when they copy.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
71 thoughts on “Rise of China and Strictly Business Competition in the World”
You definitely win the argument with your intelligent insights , kid . Thank you
Try that dude, and then the Chinese military will flatten all US cities in a matter of hours, kid
You live in a nice wonderland. Don’t ever stop taking your medication.
Don’t confuse can’t with shouldn’t.
While we may do some drone bombings to stop people from setting off explosives in markets crowded with women and children
-> You are actually the ones who explode women and children in the marets and in the hospitals
China growing 7% per year in the past 20 years
The US growing 2% per year
Who is winning and who is losing?
Try to guess
Learn kid, learn
Open wikipedia here
Check what is the no 1 in the list dude
1) Why don’t you explain why they did. Did we hold a pistol to their heads?
> as you are a colony of the US , I mean the U K
2) I am not a Trump fan, but the Paris accord was useless.
> I agree with you. Maybe not moral, but killing 3000 people in the NYC has maybe done more for climate change than any Paris accord
taking off a few americans here and there may be the most direct way to mitigate climate change
3) We have not tried to cut off China’s ocean trade routes through the S. China Sea even once in the last 150yrs, let alone a million times.
> read what the opium wars was about and think again. True you can not cut China off anymore, they will keep stealing your IP and greedy will become and make them the first power . They are growing 7%per year the US 2% on average
4) Again, it’s like slapping children. Sometimes you have to though to teach them to think and organize their thoughts before opening their mouths.
> You can (try to) slap me, but China is too big for you to slap . Check how fast they grow and then think again They are the new NO 1 dude
And you can not stop them no no
That is the US bureau of economic analysis, suckher !
China has lots of ICMBs too.
Enough to turn most of us cities in parking lots
You may smack me but you cant smack China , dude. They have many nukes and they are becoming the first economy in every sense of the world. They already have the biggest GDP PPP than the US and three aircraft carriers (while others underway). You can not touch China and they are waxing the US. Even US media aknowledge this.
Let alone that OBL went to war against the US and killed 3000 people with a budget of few million dollars, what you say is true also the opposite. Chna and Russia and even Iran are too big for the US to be attacked
You can fudge numbers for one year or two and then you can not fudge number anymore as otherwise they will not add up. China has been growing 7% or 8% per yaear since 1978. I do not see any signs of “their economy will devolve right along with it.” Please if you see them tell me where they are . I believe the US in 30 years will be where Venezuela is today as China is killing it and they will be even stronger in the future
About 52 is my age kid, and what about you?
Sure you can try that route so tell me how it works when China has launched a couple of nukes in retaliation over your city and killed your families and friends.
We will talk after that OK, oh wait, we will not be able to as you will be , uh , dead
Go tell this to yourself and the other Trump supporters, kid, I am not caring at all about Drumpfie. As for the largest exporter, just open Wikipedia and check the number, kids, you already passed 3rd grade I assume so you can read that the total exports of China are bigger than those of the good old and declining US
You can not decapitate any Chinese govt as the Chinese have nukes, got it, kid?
Hi Godfree! You really don’t change your spiel, do you? Cut and paste much?
The only “peer” America has is Russia and that is only in nuclear missiles.
You went to the Trump University to study geopolitics?
We hold this truth to be self-evident.
Only if you are planning on attacking others. If you are only planning on defending yourself you need a lot less. BTW, we don’t have a dominating military. See Iraq and Afghanistan. We have an high tech military but we don’t have enough men. Our military is just a job program. I would take our military serious if we registered everyone from 18 to 65 for the draft. And everyone got six months training minimum with yearly one month refresher. And people get drafted on a continuous basis. As a nation of 340 million people we should be able to field 20 million easily. Everyone should have skin in the game.
If you go to war, you don’t want a comparable military, you want a dominating military. If your military is big enough, no one will ever even go to war with you. That, is the U.S. today.
Never said to reduce it to zero. Defense is easier than offensive. The US just need to reduce spending to a level in sync with the other large military. A 50% reduction is easily doable.
They always fudge their numbers, they are likely closer to 5% (and trending downwards). They subsidize everything, their people would be rioting, except they keep them busy by building cheap buildings that nobody lives in, they just keep up the charade of being a powerful country. Earlier this year Xi Jinping got rid of term limits, and declared himself President for life. With that move (and killing some top officials, he thought had to much political sway) he has continued his authoritarian crackdown on his people. They don’t even get the real internet, it’s highly censored. By 2020 China will be able to use facial recognition to see anyone, anywhere, in their cities. Of course it’s hard to monitor everyone (to keep them towing the party line), which is why Xi implemented their “Social credit system”. Which if you don’t know what that means, please look it up…scary stuff.
It’s easy to read headlines like “Skyscraper built in 3 months” or “fastest maglev train in the world” and think China is killing it. But as they continue their move towards totalitarianism, their economy will devolve right along with it. I feel sorry for the people in China, in 30 years they will be as prosperous as Venezuela is today.
Not sure why I am bothering, but let’s give it a go.
“Why do you think the UK joined the 2003 invasion of Iraq? ” Why don’t you explain why they did. Did we hold a pistol to their heads?
“Yes, this is why you went of not the Iran Deal, the Paris Deal, etc.” I am not a Trump fan, but the Paris accord was useless. Also off topic, this comment was about starting wars with the UN’s blessing. Do try to work on your reading skills.
“As you have no clue of what you talk about you will not grasp
Dude ” Childish insults instead of well thought out rebuttals. No surprised.
“As you have “tried ” already a million times or so?” Again you need to work on your reading skills. We have not tried to cut off China’s ocean trade routes through the S. China Sea even once in the last 150yrs, let alone a million times. That would be nuts, we’re their biggest export trade partner who has done more to help the rise of China than any other country! Our reward? Having the Chinese government use their military to hack us stealing IP, unfair trade practices and openly talk of supplanting us. Trump is just the beginning of the result of that stupidity.
Again, it’s like slapping children. Sometimes you have to though to teach them to think and organize their thoughts before opening their mouths.
Your logic fails at the fact that China has, indeed, militarized the S. China Sea. A lack of ideology does not seem to be slowing them down from putting anti-aircraft missiles on those islands, or their threatening Vietnam with war for trying to build a offshore oil well.
Don’t bother, Luca Mazza is well known on this site as a non-sensicle idiot. Most people don’t even bother replying to him because smacking children is illegal.
If that is what passes for a rebuttal, then you have just displayed that you are not even as intelligent as an Ameritard.
You show more of your stupidity with each post. Keep it up.
How old are you? You really don’t know what decapitate means in this context? It means that the US would be tracking important Chinese military officials and, when given the word, target and deploy weapons to their last known location. It is hard to make war decisions when your general staff and battlefield commanders are dead. Of course this assumes you can get the drop on them. One would hope that a department of the US goverment with 100s of billions of dollars to spend per year would be prepared for such a contingency.
Its going to be beatiful watching you slowly go insane, spaghetti eating-cuck.
They why China has become the world biggest economic force and largest exporter, genious?
It would not make any sense for us to start something like that.
-> It would be not possible for us to start something like that
Corrected for you ameritard . , think again
I suspect that if the US was to do such thing it would decapitate the Chinese government first. The navy would be a distraction until the leadership is taken out.
-> And how would they “decapitate ” the Chinese Government?
By sending Mickey Mouse Trump in Beijing?
How old are you?
12? Just asking
because we have a long track record of not taking advantage of them.
-> Uh? Why do you think the UK joined the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Try think!
We do not try to work unilaterally most of the time.
-> Yes, this is why you went of not the Iran Deal, the Paris Deal, etc.
Not that the world cares anymore
Again, nothing explains militarizing the S. China Sea to protect trade.
-> As you have no clue of what you talk about you will not grasp
It makes me wonder why they would think we would try to,
-> As you have “tried ” already a million times or so?
You cant dictate the terms on China as China is now bigger than the US
Uh? Long fall?
They are growing 6.5% year on year !
Trump’s not renegotiating one or two trade pacts, he’s renegotiating everything in sight, since Americans now feel that the rest of the world has caught up to them, so that there’s no more need to provide such generous trade terms as before.
Meanwhile, China is trying to grab control over strategic swathes of territory like the South China Sea for hegemonic purposes, but the problem is that China doesn’t have a strong Soviet-style ideology to shore up their grip. Do they seriously expect to be able to buy regional loyalties through mercantilism? China has no East India Company, or Warsaw Pact, and is a one-nation, one-party, even one-man show. The result will be that China has to play whack-a-mole, as chafing countries slip in and out of their grasp in the geopolitical tug-of-war.
The US has the advantage of being the Global Reserve Currency through the petro-dollar, and that’s the main thing China will have to go after, if it expects to hold its own against the US in any economic contest.
The World has grown wealthy with the US and Europe setting the rules. The US, Canada and Europe have a combined GDP of about $40 trillion.
-> Not the Africaans who got embroiled in a series of wars fueled by neo colonialism.
Not most of the Middle East who got the same
Not Vietnam during the war
Nor the counties of Guatemala and Haiti destroyed by US imperialism
The world is a much better place now that the US does not rule anymore
Saddam is dead, so he was indeed decapitated(hung). China is an altogether much bigger fish, and so the US wouldn’t go for a direct military conflict first, unless China accidentally provoked one – in which case, both sides would negotiate a stand-down. But America’s first choice would be to clip China’s wings economically, like it’s now doing with renegotiation of trade deals. Whatever grumbling Trump provokes among allies, the fact is that China’s credibility is less-than-zero by comparison. Nobody wants to sign onto China’s hegemony – even Pakistan has balked at some of China’s more one-sided “development” deals under CPEC. Even little brother North Korea continues to keep its nukes close to its chest, rather than put all its faith in big brother China. When even China’s closest clients like Pakistan and North Korea are wary of it, then it means that the Chinese don’t truly have anyone else they can rely upon in a crunch.
China has been on the rise for decades…they have plateaued and are slowly beginning their long fall.
If a nation follows your advice and spends all their money on “education, health care, infrastructure and R&D”, how will that help them when the “other guy” goes to war with them?
You made it sound like we were fighting for liberty around the world. We were acting on our selfish national interest to keep other powers out of our sphere of influence. We did it because we were strong enough to. At that time, European powers were still stronger than us, but it would be foolish for them to fight us all the way on the other side of the Atlantic. Not that dissimilar to SCS today.
Any, it’s been a nice chat. I have to sign off now, but I wish you the best and maybe we’ll do this again soon.
No, we do not bomb the whole world like I said. While we may do some drone bombings to stop people from setting off explosives in markets crowded with women and children, we do not use our power to set back countries so they do not potentially become a threat to us. That is a Roman strategy, not ours. If however they could become a likely threat to our country, not our power but our country, then Congress might declare war. When was the last time that happened? Iraq, neither war I supported. The first was oil dominance with Iraq conquering Kuwait, the second was allegedly about WMD production. They are the reason I left the military.
Seeing as how China’s embassy just about got bombed by fundamentalists recently, they might be conducting their own drone strikes soon right along side us.
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. Wikipedia
So, they’re trying to keep us from colonizing China? Lol, like I said, that makes no sense.
LOL, lots of countries are weak. Do we bomb the whole world? Africa and India has a big population now. Africa is going to be a lot bigger population wise. Should we bomb them too? While they are weak/
This is their version of the Monroe Doctrine. If we go by your assertion, there is no reason for us to have the Monroe Doctrine either. The Europeans were far away and would not interfere in the American Continent. Why do we need to push the Europeans out?
“While we could bomb China sixty years ago, they were not a near peer competitor then. Make no sense to attack them at that time anymore than us attacking Congo today (Though we certainly can attack Congdo today). ”
Actually that would have been the best time to bomb them. China has 4x our population, and bombing a potential threat makes far more sense when they are weaker than to wait until they are strong. If I am fighting a big guy, I would rather punch him while he is in a hospital bed than when he is pumped up and jacked on steroids. We did not then, so why the sudden concern now, unless there is a different agenda and that is used as a pretext to set the groundwork on a long term plan. One thing we know about the Chinese, they are very good at thinking long term. That is probably because of the age of their culture.
Any country can leave a trade pact because we are dictating terms, and we will not be a military threat to them. Our allies know this, because we have a long track record of not taking advantage of them. We do not dictate the terms of trade, but we do to ensure compliance with sanctions. That is why we work through the UN, to give cover or at least a veneer of international backing. We do not try to work unilaterally most of the time.
As for the Saudis, I am not sure what you are saying. We do not dictate the terms, they control a huge chunk of the worlds oil production. You know what they say, he who controls the spice controls the universe. I think that is why Trump is tiptoeing around the Kaschoggi murder.
Again, nothing explains militarizing the S. China Sea to protect trade. It makes me wonder why they would think we would try to, or what they think they are going to do to make us want to.
Like I said, makes no sense. Trump is reworking trade agreements, happens on occasion when a nation feels they are in a pact that benefits the other side and acts as a drain on the country. Trade pacts must be reciprocal for countries to be part of, or the country getting shorted will either renegotiate or pull out. While we have trade problems with Mexico, Canada, China etc., at no time have we threatened them militarily.
That is the problem. To militarize the S. China Sea you are after a goal besides trade. That goal could be local hegemony over a region to force neighboring weaker countries into an order that they would not have followed without coercion. This is what happened with Vietnam when they tried to build an offshore oil platform in their own internationally recognized waters in 2016 (I think it was) and China threatened them with war. Another is to force foreign powers out of an area you control, again in a show of dominance. This is what is slowly happening in the S. China Sea, and it is only a matter of time before China tries to enforce an ADIZ over the area or something along those lines. Other countries will not respect this, leaving China to either lose face by backing down or escalating, possibly to play to their domestic politics. In that situation, conflict is almost inevitable.
All of this is just fantasy talk. They are not North Korea. Even Iraq under Saddam we did not attempt to decapitate the government. What difference does it make if we have 5x stronger military? They can hit us with nukes. You are talking millions of American lives lost in an exchange like that. If their government is hit like that, they might feel inclined to send a few bombs our way.
When I said our allies, I was referring to Trump tearing up the trade regime that the U.S. set up for the last sixty years. While we could bomb China sixty years ago, they were not a near peer competitor then. Make no sense to attack them at that time anymore than us attacking Congo today (Though we certainly can attack Congdo today). There is no need to blockade our allies, we just dictate the terms. Just ask the Saudis.
Economics is taking care of that issue for us. It is getting more expensive to make things in China and ship them overseas, the end of their mercantile period. They are trying to alleviate that by producing products in low wage countries they have influence with like Africa, automation and building a more consumer oriented society.This is all a normal part of economics.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If we were going to do something like that, we had the last 50-60 years to do it. Also, what exactly are we doing to our allies exactly? Are we performing naval blockades against them? Threatening invasion of our allies? Your analysis needs work.
It would not make any sense for us to start something like that. If we wanted to go that route we would have done it sometime in the last 50-60 years. More likely that something would spark the conflict by the militarization of the S. China Sea. At that point yes, we would focus on their command and control. No, we would not rebuild China afterwards, they’re big boys and girls fully capable of rebuilding it themselves. Another likely point of conflict would be the Chinese leadership militarizing the area and try to control/cut the rest of the world off from Asia in an attempt at local hegemony. That likely would cause conflict, and unfortunately as strong as China is we would have to take them out fast and hard (if we could). In the meantime we will just keep arming their neighbors and building up local strength until China’s intentions became clear on why they are militarizing the oceans.
Who says? And what proof is there to back that statement?
This is typical of those who do not actually study history and geopolitics, but learn enough of the ‘buzzwords’ in order to fool themselves into believing that they know what they are talking about.
NBF has consistently proven to not know what they are talking about when it comes to geopolitics and history. So either Brian gets a writer who does, or he should stick strictly to writing about technology instead.
Example: NBF keeps demonstrating blissful ignorance that the US will no longer be ‘setting and maintaining’ the rules. The US is withdrawing from that role…rather late, but is now doing so. Because the only reason the US did it before was to contain the USSR.
India and the rest of Asia appear to be following China’s rise.
appear is not equal to actually doing so.
Give what a try? Convential war? It wouldn’t happen with China. Once they saw a Carrier Battle Group that meant business on the horizon they would threaten to launch nukes.
I suspect that if the US was to do such thing it would decapitate the Chinese government first. The navy would be a distraction until the leadership is taken out. Then strategic targets would be hit.
Frankly, I doubt the US would do it. They would have to take care of China after their government is decapitated. The US doesn’t have the stomach for that nor would they want to pay for it. You can thank Iraq for that.
Remains to be seen, there has never been a conventional war between 2 nuclear armed opponents. Perhaps those 2 should do the world a favor and give it a try.
the reality of global trade is that nobody is allowed to win too much… the system always breaksdown eventually when that happens.
It is about trade. Just look at what we are doing even to our allies. China needs to secure its peripheral and trade route. Just as we enforced rules for free trade, we can tear this up in a moment’s notice. They are not developing their SCS and military to pick a fight with us, just to deter us in case we want to use our military to coerce them.
Its not that complicated. If China wins too much economically and everybody else loses too much, then that it means the end of free trade because people get sick of always losing. Short of the Chinese starting a war, because nobody wants to buy their stuff anymore, there’s nothing they can do about that situation because its the right of other countries to decide if they want the Chinese winning too much.
China would have a difficult time taking on just Japan. The US would flatten China in a conventional war and if China uses nukes they won’t survive as a people. Rock, meet hard place.
A nation can win the competition by reducing military spending and using the money for education, health care, infrastructure and R&D. And a nation can cripple itself by spending all of its wealth on its military.
The analysis doesn’t say anything about what China will do, only what would be best for China to do in the long run. I’m sure you know that there’s a resurgence of nationalistic rhetoric; lots of Westerners living in China are reporting that the government is starting to make things more difficult for them. There’s a very real possibility that things will start going South in the next decade over there…
China is trying to gain power through its military might expending into the South China Sea and the Indian continent, not only through economic incentives. China also has a backward totalitarian regime. It is backfiring as Countries around China and beyond are seeking cooperation with China yet are pushing to stay under the US military umbrella. Therefore the chances of a conflict Between China and the US and its allies is real and cannot be discounted.
Why is China and Asia on the rise? Brenton Woods. What is going away? Brenton Woods. Good luck, you will need it.
Agreed, so why militarize the S. China Sea? That doesn’t fit this analysis. There has to be a purpose to this, and it is not to facilitate trade.
Yada yada yada. Sometime between 2020-2025 every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education, safe streets, health and old age care. On that day there will be more suicides and executions, and more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.
By 2021, 450,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American, their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years ahead of–and outlive–American kids.
Early in the movie “Crazy Rich Asians” a Chinese-Singaporean father admonishes his young kids to finish their dinner, saying, “Think of all the starving children in America.”
This analysis is amateurish. HK flourished as the sole gateway to China. Singapore flourished because it was led by intellectual giants who survived despite being kicked out of Malaysia. This hardly has anything to do with British “help”. If Britain was responsible then why didn’t other colonies also flourish? The author fails to mention the nations that America and its Western allies helped destroy (http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II–Updated/dp/1567512526/). Nor does he understand how Western neo-imperialism enslaves countries with debt traps. Real ones as opposed to the propaganda spewed against China (http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/).
The author is correct about MAD greatly reducing the likelihood of a hot war. The American regime specializes in butchering innocent women and children, but is utterly impotent against its peers.
Comments are closed.