NEWS If War Comes, Will the U.S. Navy Be Prepared?

[WhiskeySierra6]

We're about to face the same thing due to market forces (primarily higher education and health care) making 25-40 year old couples have on average fewer than 2 children.

Not to verge anywhere near Thunderdome territory and trigger a bunch of folks, but anyone seen US population trends without immigration lately…?

True but not to the scale China (or Germany/entire EU really, Russia, Japan, South Korea, or Canada) are. And we have a replacement for the Boomers (largest generation ever in the Millennials (second largest generation ever) plus we are an attractive location for immigration which China certainly isn't.

For reference:

We look much more like Sponge Bob vice the inverted pyramid that the other countries I mentioned look like:

 

[Random8145]

There is a great line in an old movie (I’ll try to think of the name) where one Cold War GI tells another that we won’t beat the Soviets with tanks and bombs but with nylon stockings and Hersey bars. Basically that is the essential truth here. You seem to think that the world needs Chinese consumerism when in fact China needs global consumerism. Also, you need to help me out…what industry has bent a knee to China’s will outside entertainment? Not automotive, not consumer electronics, not even “soft” industries like Social Media who allow China to block things internally but don’t stop open criticism of China around the globe. To your last point on Apple, no I don’t think they would (in fact they banned an app in Hong Kong at the CCPs request) but they (Apple) are hardly the pivot point of the global economy - just ask Samsung. More importantly, read this…

Apple to move production from China to India and Vietnam

The iPhone 12 will be manufactured in India starting this quarter, Vietnam gets iPads and HomePod mini. Apple is moving its production away from China and...

www.gsmarena.com

It isn't that the world needs China but rather that China presents such an enormous economic opportunity that no one individual is willing to take a stand against them, which thus creates the practical outcome of the world acting like it is more in need of China than the other way around.

As for companies bending to China, while I can't specifically quantify it, I'd say any companies and countries that would boycott smaller entities over issues a fraction as bad as what China does.

 

[Random8145]

Honestly, if you’re looking through the lens of 2000-2010, no, the business environment in China was different then than it is today. There have always been certain sacrifices and kiss the ring dynamics at play doing business there, but that environment has hardened in the last several years, to include specifically a more robust legal framework that makes cooperation with the CCP a lot more compulsory and ‘protections against monopolistic business practices’ wielded more often to ensure trade secrets and technologies are shared with Chinese firms, specifically those with government ownership.

In the same way that BRI deals with regional neighbors are starting to be seen as predatory by the intended users, and looked at with a weather eye instead of a “look, free infrastructure!” Handout, same goes for the decision to base Asian business ops in China.

The impression (though maybe wrong) that I've had is that companies doing business in China have had to be willing to share their intellectual property with the Chinese for many years now, but many have been willing to do it because of the large population to sell to.

 

[nodropinufaka]

A good read and relevant to this thread.

“In the near-to-medium term, China will use its military capabilities, operational concepts, and overall doctrine to turn the U.S. military’s technological strengths in the Indo-Pacific into weaknesses by credibly threatening to deliver massive punishment against American power- projection forces while thwarting the United States’ ability to provide reinforcement. This would signal to regional powers a fait accompli too costly to overturn. The PRC’s strategy is not only to prevail but also to demoralize America’s friends and partners by demonstrating that the United States cannot meet its security commitments in the region — at least not quickly or at an acceptable cost. This strategy is especially pertinent to Taiwan.66”

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20-02832-Elements-of-China-Challenge-508.pdf

 

[Griz882]

It isn't that the world needs China but rather that China presents such an enormous economic opportunity that no one individual is willing to take a stand against them, which thus creates the practical outcome of the world acting like it is more in need of China than the other way around.

As for companies bending to China, while I can't specifically quantify it, I'd say any companies and countries that would boycott smaller entities over issues a fraction as bad as what China does.

You are not imaging how a global economy works. This very day nations and corporations across the globe are turning away from China’s manufacturing base but not their business…and I have offered evidence of that. China is, and will always remain, a critical part of a functioning global economy, but it will not and never has been the be all and end all of that system.

As to boycotts…why? Corporations don’t boycott, individuals and governments do.

I think you are working too hard to militarize an economic issue. No one wants to “destroy” China they want China to be an equal partner in the system…and that is where it will end up.

 

[Griz882]

A good read and relevant to this thread.

“In the near-to-medium term, China will use its military capabilities, operational concepts, and overall doctrine to turn the U.S. military’s technological strengths in the Indo-Pacific into weaknesses by credibly threatening to deliver massive punishment against American power- projection forces while thwarting the United States’ ability to provide reinforcement. This would signal to regional powers a fait accompli too costly to overturn. The PRC’s strategy is not only to prevail but also to demoralize America’s friends and partners by demonstrating that the United States cannot meet its security commitments in the region — at least not quickly or at an acceptable cost. This strategy is especially pertinent to Taiwan.66”

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20-02832-Elements-of-China-Challenge-508.pdf

From the same report:

“A booming Chinese economy creates its own vulnerabilities. While the last several decades show that greater economic freedom does not guarantee political liberalization, China’s powerful economic engine, combining choice with state command and control, may still encourage a frame of mind within the middle class and upper-middle class that is at odds with authoritarian government. The opportunity to choose that a growing economy fosters and the prosperity it unleashes tend to produce a taste for more freedom. Making decisions about work and property can increase citizens’ expectations for choice in other realms while producing greater affluence. Choice and affluence, moreover, tend to heighten the demand for the protection of the fruits of one’s labor through property rights and laws that are settled, public, and fairly applied.”

 

[Randy Daytona]

True but not to the scale China (or Germany/entire EU really, Russia, Japan, South Korea, or Canada) are. And we have a replacement for the Boomers (largest generation ever in the Millennials (second largest generation ever) plus we are an attractive location for immigration which China certainly isn't.

For reference:

We look much more like Sponge Bob vice the inverted pyramid that the other countries I mentioned look like:
View attachment 31652

Looks like you have been reading Peter Zeihan. He seems to be one of the most accurate geopolitical analyst- definitely big picture with geography, demographics and energy determining a nation’s fate. Any other analysts that people here want to recommend?

 

[taxi1]

Choice and affluence, moreover, tend to heighten the demand for the protection of the fruits of one’s labor through property rights and laws that are settled, public, and fairly applied.”

Good points

So will the CCP be willing to sacrifice prosperity to maintain control? I’d bet “yes”.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Looks like you have been reading Peter Zeihan. He seems to be one of the most accurate geopolitical analyst- definitely big picture with geography, demographics and energy determining a nation’s fate. Any other analysts that people here want to recommend?

Indeed. I find him to be well-reasoned and typically correct. George Friedman is another. Thomas Sowell for economics. A bit dated but I've gotten into Neil Postman lately and some of the parallels I've been able to draw between his thoughts on television and the current social media environment are shocking.

 

[nittany03]

Good points

So will the CCP be willing to sacrifice prosperity to maintain control? I’d bet “yes”.

And the question @Griz882 is getting at is whether or not the population would go along with that, or whether that would lead to Tiananmen Take 2.

 

[taxi1]

Tiananmen Take 2

Zero doubt on my part

 

[Brett327]

whether or not the population would go along with that

That approach isn't working out so great for the folks in HK. ?

 

[Randy Daytona]

Indeed. I find him to be well-reasoned and typically correct. George Friedman is another. Thomas Sowell for economics. A bit dated but I've gotten into Neil Postman lately and some of the parallels I've been able to draw between his thoughts on television and the current social media environment are shocking.

In addition to being accurate, Zeihan is quite funny - also, I believe he started with George Friedman. At any rate, his books and videos are well worth watching. www.zeihan.com as well as a multitude of youtube videos.

I tend to listen to Ian Bremmer as well, but for some odd reason, he and his G-Zero Media still have China as better for the environment than the US.

Michael Pettis is good on economics with an emphasis on China - he is a finance professor at Peking University.

Finally, I like “The Goodfellows” which consist of roundtable with historian Niall Ferguson, General HR McMaster, and economist John Cochrane all at the Hoover Institute - they normally release a video every week or two on youtube and listen on the drive to and from work.

 

[Random8145]

You are not imaging how a global economy works. This very day nations and corporations across the globe are turning away from China’s manufacturing base but not their business…and I have offered evidence of that. China is, and will always remain, a critical part of a functioning global economy, but it will not and never has been the be all and end all of that system.

As to boycotts…why? Corporations don’t boycott, individuals and governments do.

I think you are working too hard to militarize an economic issue. No one wants to “destroy” China they want China to be an equal partner in the system…and that is where it will end up.

China isn't the be-all, end-all but they are a big enough consumer base that they can call the shots with many. Also corporations can very much boycott. Boycott means to withdraw from commercial or social relations with a business, country, or person as a protest. Companies can very much do this.

I am not seeking to militarize an economic issue, but I do not at all agree that China will end up as any equal partner in the system, at least not anytime soon. Decades down the line maybe, but for the near-term, not in the slightest. Our own country is too soft on them (minus Trump) let alone the rest of the world.

 

[Random8145]

From the same report:

“A booming Chinese economy creates its own vulnerabilities. While the last several decades show that greater economic freedom does not guarantee political liberalization, China’s powerful economic engine, combining choice with state command and control, may still encourage a frame of mind within the middle class and upper-middle class that is at odds with authoritarian government. The opportunity to choose that a growing economy fosters and the prosperity it unleashes tend to produce a taste for more freedom. Making decisions about work and property can increase citizens’ expectations for choice in other realms while producing greater affluence. Choice and affluence, moreover, tend to heighten the demand for the protection of the fruits of one’s labor through property rights and laws that are settled, public, and fairly applied.”

This has been the thinking of the global community for the past few decades, i.e. bring China into the world economy, trade with them, and it will lead to increased prosperity for the people who will then demand more freedom and China will liberalize and hopefully become democratic.

But thus far it hasn't happened. Instead, the very opposite has happened where we have only seen China become more authoritarian. Now maybe that is a short-term aberration and longer-term, we'll see it reverse. But that could be multiple decades for all we know. For the time being, what we have done is to seriously strengthen economically and militarily a very sizable threat.