[evilgenius]

I think the point that was brought up concerning how the decisions will be made leading up to change is an important one. In the Twentieth Century, at least, capitalism was the best decision maker, in terms of distributing resources. Capitalism doesn't necessarily follow logic. It follows what succeeds, just like evolution. Contemporaneously, China has risen to make decisions based upon their logic. They have a planned economy that has enjoyed some measure of success. Time will tell if it is a real competitor to capitalism, but it has already succeeded for so many decades that it is now hard to recall when China was not important. Certainly the president's rhetoric has lent them whatever credibility they may have lacked, if they lacked any, by insisting on a nationally important policy making level that they are something to be afraid of.

There is another way of making decisions which may be important going forward. Associations of people can make those decisions. Imagine a way of thinking where everything that your average complainer has to say has already been worried about, and solved. Platforms like Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter may only be precursors to such more advanced ways of communal thinking. Somebody only has to make some kind of AI powered database that is created in order to focus these types of groups. One which would function on its own rather than require a company or group of people to facilitate it or give it direction. They wouldn't leave as much to chance as capitalism, therefore not allowing for as wide a margin for error, but they may get it right more often than the Chinese method. They may need a more truly post modern world to operate in, seeing as how too much social change may not only be bad for them, in certain instances, but could be reined in by them as well. It would be harder to be either new or different in such a world. One could argue that capitalism, at least, is protective of those. We don't know about mass consensus when a person lies problematically outside of it. They are more scary, potentially, than anything we have cooked up yet. They might certainly threaten man's nature as a dreamer, for instance. They would also, possibly, be more responsive to issues which are routinely ignored under the other ways of making decisions, like how to integrate electric power in the ways not thought possible today.

[KaiserJeep]

evilgenius, some of us remember the years of the Cold War and the "Red Chinese Menace" that had intervened in Korea a decade before that. We knew there was famine but we had no idea that Mao had starved 64 million Chinese to death to get dissident provinces under his absolute control.

But then again, he planned that.

I admire some Chinese culture, specificly their cuisine(s). Not much else unless they can create a stable and prosperous Middle Class for 5-6 more decades, along with a cleaner environment, and a stable population levels. All of which the Capitalist countries have accomplished already - admittedly with spotty and somewhat uneven results.

My own view is that they are adopting Capitalism gradually, and it's a process not yet complete. I don't know if they are really in charge and planning anything, anymore than is the US Congress and the US Dept of Commerce, both of which claim "planning" responsibilities.

[Newfie]

God help us if they don’t plan. With their population and lack of aerable land they are headed for a world of hurt. And given their size it won’t stay localized.

The USA needs to plan for the collapse of Chinese manugacturing by bringing essential parts home.

[Cog]

War is an inevitable result of not being able to feed your own people.

[dirtyharry]

Stay healthy and out of debt works in almost all circumstances.

Bullseye

[evilgenius]

War is an inevitable result of not being able to feed your own people.

Or the Chinese could develop a continent, Africa, to feed them. They could slowly bring it along, so that its population didn't explode as a result of their investment. Then, when they needed them, they would have not only a friendly relationship with them, but a way to take advantage of that friendship.

[KaiserJeep]

But Africa is NOT the continent that China is developing to feed them. The continent that they are developing - without any doubt whatsoever - is North America, the three countries of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

These three countries have enough petroleum to limp along for decades to come, if that oil is used to fuel mechanized agriculture. Those three countries have large populations with endless appetites for cheap Chinese manufactured goods. These countries do not forbid foriegn ownership of farms, ranches, and the means of production. These countries have corrupt governments that can be bribed for "friendly" trade legislation. These three countries all produce huge amounts of excess food for export.

This is why they are locked in a trade war with us, and why pesoes, US dollars, and Canadian dollars flow in electronic bits from North America to China, along with lots of grains and luxury North American foods such as pork and beef, to say nothing of coal and natural gas. They must be able to afford North American food even longer than North Americans. They must feel that their investments here are secure and will never be "nationalized" by us, a problem that keeps happening in Marxist countries in Central America or South America or the Carribean, such as Venezueala and Cuba.

This is why large swathes of the two major US political parties are under the influence of Chinese money. This is why they wanted a conventional political candidate such as Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton to win in 2016, and did everything they could do with Chinese funding to destabilize oddball candidacies from the likes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. This is why they tried to blame the Russians for meddling in our elections, when all along, it was Chinese money.

I mean, come on, folks, the Russians can't even consistently feed themselves, and never were a credible threat to prosperous places such as North America and China. The Chinese used them as dupes, and pinned their meddling on them. And this meddling absolutely worked, and is working still. Remember those median IQ's by racial groupings/gene clusters? The Asians especially the Chinese are absolutely and undeniably smarter than Caucasians such as Americans, Canadians, and Russians.

Now go stuff yourself with bird flesh, and think about how you were duped, and how you snapped to attention with a "twang" and continue to dance like the little Chinese puppet you are.

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way.

[evilgenius]

That's pretty well said. I don't think that the opposite of isolationism has to mean involving a nation in our corruption. It doesn't have to mean belligerence either, but that is what most people are expecting from the situation, eventually. I think that history has come down on the side of war in most situations where a new world power emerged while the old one was still extant. All it took was the right sort of catalyst. Peak oil is an obvious candidate, as it invites those who think ahead to do so while those who don't simply accept what will happen as destiny.

[KaiserJeep]

I think the only thing that continues to save us is how disruptive to orderly business modern warfare is. The Chinese are not leaving this base uncovered, either - soon they will be the only country with a military to rival ours. They are already building aircraft carriers, attack submarines, stealth fighters, and a space industry.

I think I need to go get the turkey in the oven and to feed myself a late breakfast. This line of thought is all too credible for my own comfort, but a good shot of tryptophan from a turkey carcass is just the cure for that.

[evilgenius]

I know, it's crazy, but the odds are that there will be a war. The emotional construct certainly supports it. I mean that China has been bad mouthed for decades now as this or that bogeyman. I'm sure there is a corresponding meme working its way within the Chinese population. All you need is a bombastic leader to energize such claims. The fact we have one now doesn't help, but I don't believe that war is immediate. There are many reasons why.

China is modernizing and strengthening its military. They are going to have carriers. They probably foresee a need for them in relation to defending countries like the Philippines one day. The Philippines are not yet in their thrall, but the Chinese are obviously interested in that happening. They seek the same kind of political development throughout the Pacific region bordering them. I don't think the development of carriers is all about Taiwan. Similarly, they are into next generation fighter aircraft. Fighter aircraft are probably the singularly most important military asset a country can have if they want to project power. They are also into drones, as far as I know. China doesn't appear interested in having their oil supply cut off in a similar fashion to the Japanese during WWII. Along those lines, they are participating in that "One belt, one road" thing, which is concerned with land routes which can supply them if the sea were to be denied them. They are doing all of that, but it looks like it won't be complete for at least another decade. Of course, given their ability to ramp up the pace of change, it could be sooner.

Even then, you would need some sort of catalyst. I don't know if an accidental confrontation between warships at some future point in time would qualify. A total breakdown of OPEC might, if it came alongside Russian hegemony over what could be politically salvaged from the heap. Yeah, there could be a war if Saudi Arabia has a revolution. But that is assuming the Russians would side with the Chinese, and that no other players would rise up with the gravitas to replace the Saudis in their role mastering the organization. It's probably in the Arab state's best interests to continue to supply the West. The only thing is, as Jamal Kashoggi pointed out, the US has been on the wrong side concerning the turbulence within the Arab world. We are backing the Saudi Monarchy at all costs. It may turn out for us the same as just about every other such actor we have backed, from Asia to Central America.

What Iran will become is anybody's guess. They are essentially the Russian proxy in the region, but they have their own interests to look out for as well. The One belt, one road thing may be their ticket away from US sanctions having much power over them. That would more strongly place them in the Chinese camp. But Iran also has a young population that would like more Westernization. Could something happen between Iran and China that would fundamentally change that? Does China have something to offer the people of Iran, like refining capacity, that might replace the romantic optimism they have over the West? I mean, right now the Iranian currency is dumping again and people there want dollars. I don't think they want yuan. Would they in ten years?