This is an excellent and stimulating discussion, but in my view, there is a fundamental flaw in the Cold War paradigm. Yes, the United States and China, and their strategic rivalry, will provide the overall orientation for the world political economy. But there is a fundamental asymmetry between them, and that is equally important in shaping both their rivalry and the choices facing third parties (and corporations). This asymmetric parity is more than just a situation of incumbent power facing rising power. China’s relative growth changes its proportionality with the United States, but it is neither “doing the same thing, only better,” nor taking growth away from the U.S. The difference between two GDP measures is an indicator of the profundity of the asymmetry: in purchasing power parity terms, China passed the U.S. in 2010, but in exchange value, the crossing point lies somewhere in the indefinite future. China can’t do with comparable ease what the U.S. does; the U.S. can’t do at a comparable price what China does. Both run different risks of self-isolation. The U.S. can box itself in as an isolated, over militarized, boutique economy. China can over-produce itself into posing an existential threat to both developing and developed political communities. The implicit symmetry in the high-adrenaline face-off distracts from the asymmetry of the actual dynamics.
Of course, the original Cold War was also asymmetric, but it had quite different dynamics. To the extent that the analogy holds, the United States is now in the position of the Soviet Union, militarizing, building walls, and abusing its allies, while China promotes free trade centered on its interests.
Very interesting and positive writing. But that is not what I see today, the Trump "Clown Buzz" of syncopants are not able to rectify anything. A president that acts by His "Guts" does not work for pease but ads the risk for WW3.
This is very good, thanks much. I did like the semi-critical description of the unnamed book comparing the "engineers vs. lawyers" structuring of differences between China and America. It's a bit of a silly book, imo.
I have been reading several accounts recently of "reform" actually starting as a grass roots countryside phenomenon...not direct refutations of Party policy, but as millions of individuals doing small incremental steps toward developing their own initiatives while (kind of) playing the game of making it look like reform came from the center. The local governments were put in a position of "There go my people, I must follow them for I am their leader"...situation.
What are yours (Mr. Huang) or anyone else's thoughts on this?
(I live most of the year in Wuhan, with most of my time spent in rural West Hubei.)
Very interesting and informative piece, especially now with "Taiwan identity" as an important part of the cross strait conversation. Another good book on this topic is Bill Hayton's "The Invention of China." I learned a lot from it, and quoted it in my own book, "The Fragile Dragon." I also had spirited debates with my editor about where to use the term "China" versus "Qing dynasty." They are not the same thing. There's a lot to learn and debate about the fundamental question: what is China?
This is an excellent and stimulating discussion, but in my view, there is a fundamental flaw in the Cold War paradigm. Yes, the United States and China, and their strategic rivalry, will provide the overall orientation for the world political economy. But there is a fundamental asymmetry between them, and that is equally important in shaping both their rivalry and the choices facing third parties (and corporations). This asymmetric parity is more than just a situation of incumbent power facing rising power. China’s relative growth changes its proportionality with the United States, but it is neither “doing the same thing, only better,” nor taking growth away from the U.S. The difference between two GDP measures is an indicator of the profundity of the asymmetry: in purchasing power parity terms, China passed the U.S. in 2010, but in exchange value, the crossing point lies somewhere in the indefinite future. China can’t do with comparable ease what the U.S. does; the U.S. can’t do at a comparable price what China does. Both run different risks of self-isolation. The U.S. can box itself in as an isolated, over militarized, boutique economy. China can over-produce itself into posing an existential threat to both developing and developed political communities. The implicit symmetry in the high-adrenaline face-off distracts from the asymmetry of the actual dynamics.
Of course, the original Cold War was also asymmetric, but it had quite different dynamics. To the extent that the analogy holds, the United States is now in the position of the Soviet Union, militarizing, building walls, and abusing its allies, while China promotes free trade centered on its interests.
Very interesting and positive writing. But that is not what I see today, the Trump "Clown Buzz" of syncopants are not able to rectify anything. A president that acts by His "Guts" does not work for pease but ads the risk for WW3.
This is very good, thanks much. I did like the semi-critical description of the unnamed book comparing the "engineers vs. lawyers" structuring of differences between China and America. It's a bit of a silly book, imo.
I have been reading several accounts recently of "reform" actually starting as a grass roots countryside phenomenon...not direct refutations of Party policy, but as millions of individuals doing small incremental steps toward developing their own initiatives while (kind of) playing the game of making it look like reform came from the center. The local governments were put in a position of "There go my people, I must follow them for I am their leader"...situation.
What are yours (Mr. Huang) or anyone else's thoughts on this?
(I live most of the year in Wuhan, with most of my time spent in rural West Hubei.)
Great interview. Thanks 👍👍
Very interesting and informative piece, especially now with "Taiwan identity" as an important part of the cross strait conversation. Another good book on this topic is Bill Hayton's "The Invention of China." I learned a lot from it, and quoted it in my own book, "The Fragile Dragon." I also had spirited debates with my editor about where to use the term "China" versus "Qing dynasty." They are not the same thing. There's a lot to learn and debate about the fundamental question: what is China?