Politics China Trade War

[DaRick]

they are invading India and Russia, albeit it in small sections.

then the border disputes with everyone


I feel they won't invade Oz, as there is no strategic reason outside of a major war.

Those aren't military invasions though, but rather the Chinese expanding their economic influence via third parties.

Again, pretty much what they've been doing in Africa and South America.

As I've noted, the Chinese are fundamentally long-term pragmatists, rather than natural competitors like the US. Long-term pragmatists know that shooting wars are neither cheap nor a particularly great way to expand one's influence, given that the local population will often be hostile.

 

[Power Raid]

Those aren't military invasions though, but rather the Chinese expanding their economic influence via third parties.

Again, pretty much what they've been doing in Africa and South America.

As I've noted, the Chinese are fundamentally long-term pragmatists, rather than natural competitors like the US. Long-term pragmatists know that shooting wars are neither cheap nor a particularly great way to expand one's influence, given that the local population will often be hostile.

they are hot conflicts

granted battles, not wars but still military

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

If you're trying to imply that China could invade Australia, that's not going to happen.

Firstly, invasions are expensive. Secondly, why would you invade when you can just get our venal, short-sighted politicians to sell you key assets for 2 pence?



Mmm?

Non-Aligned Movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that we'd ever join this organisation, but it can be done.

I'm well aware of the non-aligned movement. Are you aware of just how many member countries in that collective have been subject to political interference, coercion and sanctions since its inception? To think we could simply declare ourselves as being non-aligned and that it would be unilaterally respected by the globe is a fantasy.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I'm well aware of the non-aligned movement. Are you aware of just how many member countries in that collective have been subject to political interference, coercion and sanctions since its inception? To think we could simply declare ourselves as being non-aligned and that it would be unilaterally respected by the globe is a fantasy.

we have had the USA try to change our govt in the past (when they thought Whitlam would not do their bidding), and they are supposed to be our ally

at least if we are non-aligned, if we get ****ed it wont be by someone who is pretending to be on our side

 

[DaRick]

I'm well aware of the non-aligned movement. Are you aware of just how many member countries in that collective have been subject to political interference, coercion and sanctions since its inception? To think we could simply declare ourselves as being non-aligned and that it would be unilaterally respected by the globe is a fantasy.

True, but close US allies are certainly not immune from their guiding hand. Let's look at Israel and West Germany, for example:

...in most cases the electoral intervention had an important and decisive effect on the outcome in the “desired” direction. In the 1972 West German parliamentary elections, for example, my model estimates that the Soviet intervention in favor of Willy Brandt and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) was an important factor in its winning a narrow five seat margin (in a 496 seat lower house or Bundestag) over its main rival Rainer Barzel and the CDU (230 to 225).49 Without the increase in vote share due to this intervention, given West Germany’s electoral system, I estimate that the SPD would have narrowly lost the election to the CDU, 216 to 236, probably leading to Willy Brandt’s loss of the chancellorship.

Likewise, the US intervention against the incumbent, then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, in the 1992 Israeli parliamentary elections is estimated, according to my model, to have cost Shamir’s right-wing Likud party the quantity of votes equivalent to about five or six seats in the 120-seat Israeli parliament (the Knesset).50 Given that in this election, the left wing opposition parties won a narrow, one-seat absolute majority in the Knesset for the first time since the 1974 elections, this intervention was likely an important factor in enabling the coming to power of Yitzhak Rabin, following this election, as the head of a center-left coalition.

When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results

Abstract. What are the electoral consequences of attempts by great powers to intervene in a partisan manner in another country’s elections? Great powers frequen

academic.oup.com

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

True, but close US allies are certainly not immune from their guiding hand. Let's look at Israel and West Germany, for example:

When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results

Abstract. What are the electoral consequences of attempts by great powers to intervene in a partisan manner in another country’s elections? Great powers frequen

academic.oup.com

That much is obvious, we already live in a country whose political system is heavily influenced by Washington and before that, the UK. We are not a global hegemon, therefore we need to accept some level of external influence will always prevail in our politics no matter who our allegiances like with. But the underlying point of non-alignment is not to avoid these occurrences, it's to avoid being dragged into conflicts unwillingly and as history has shown, the act of claiming neutrality is often not the magic bullet which people would like to hope it is.

 

[DaRick]

That much is obvious, we already live in a country whose political system is heavily influenced by Washington and before that, the UK. We are not a global hegemon, therefore we need to accept some level of external influence will always prevail in our politics no matter who our allegiances like with. But the underlying point of non-alignment is not to avoid these occurrences, it's to avoid being dragged into conflicts unwillingly and as history has shown, the act of claiming neutrality is often not the magic bullet which people would like to hope it is.

True, but the operative question here is "do we want to tie ourselves at the hip to a decaying power?". The US IMO has too much influence on us culturally and politically, and given the obvious political and social decay there I don't think that's a good thing going forward (also why I wouldn't want us becoming close Russian/Chinese allies).

I do accept, though, that any distancing would have to occur over decades, not years.

 

[DaRick]

they are hot conflicts

granted battles, not wars but still military

India and China have certainly been duking it out (but again, not a military invasion), but a hot battle between China/Russia is honestly news to me.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

India and China have certainly been duking it out (but again, not a military invasion), but a hot battle between China/Russia is honestly news to me.

china and russia have been duking it out since back in the soviet days. the siberian border and the the claim of a number of islands has been subject to open dispute between the two constantly, and the border has had a fair few conflicts

 

[DaRick]

china and russia have been duking it out since back in the soviet days. the siberian border and the the claim of a number of islands has been subject to open dispute between the two constantly, and the border has had a fair few conflicts

Oh, I was aware of the Sino-Soviet split, don't worry.

I was more talking about recent times.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Oh, I was aware of the Sino-Soviet split, don't worry.

I was more talking about recent times.

its still a thing, the claims havent changed and both are territorial

 

[Power Raid]

India and China have certainly been duking it out (but again, not a military invasion), but a hot battle between China/Russia is honestly news to me.

I commented on this in the Russian thread

Russia has responded in a way only Russia could

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

True, but the operative question here is "do we want to tie ourselves at the hip to a decaying power?". The US IMO has too much influence on us culturally and politically, and given the obvious political and social decay there I don't think that's a good thing going forward (also why I wouldn't want us becoming close Russian/Chinese allies).

I do accept, though, that any distancing would have to occur over decades, not years.

The grim reality is that the time to choose our allegiance has come and gone and we're firmly locked in to our present situation, if as a member of the anglosphere we were ever granted real choice in our allies at all. Our relations with the US were not founded on the fact they were the biggest kid in the playground at the time, there are simply many cultural and political traits we share with the US which make us natural allies and trade partners whereas our relationship with China is entirely quid pro quo and limited by the many fundamental differences between our political & justice systems.

I think it's overly optimistic to think we can "decouple" from a US relationship and grow close enough to the new Chinese regional power that we would receive favourable treatment (to the same extent we receive from the US) in a new Chinese sphere of influence without having our country become more alike China in the process. In my opinion we don't have a choice in the matter at all; either China will abandon its goal of being the dominant power in the eastern hemisphere or US will abandon its support of the liberal democracies in the region (including us) and recede from Asia. When the dust settles, the last power left standing will be the one making the rules and that's who our allegiances will lie with.

Is this pessimistic? Yeah. But unfortunately history is full with these sorts of precedents and sometimes I think we forget that the last 70 years where we haven't seen a single conflict between the global great powers is an anomaly in human history. The 'long peace' should not be taken for granted and we have far less control over our destiny than what many would like to believe.

 

[DaRick]

The grim reality is that the time to choose our allegiance has come and gone and we're firmly locked in to our present situation, if as a member of the anglosphere we were ever granted real choice in our allies at all. Our relations with the US were not founded on the fact they were the biggest kid in the playground at the time, there are simply many cultural and political traits we share with the US which make us natural allies and trade partners whereas our relationship with China is entirely quid pro quo and limited by the many fundamental differences between our political & justice systems.

Our relationship with the US took off in WWII precisely because they, rather than the UK, were the biggest kid in the playground as at that time. That the US became a superpower and then a hyperpower obviously gave us no incentive to discontinue that relationship. The political and cultural similarities are the icing on the cake because they made such relations somewhat easier.

I tend to agree though, that our leaders lack the vision to manage a transition to a more non-aligned stance with any subtlety or competency, so we'll likely remain joined at the hip to the US until reality ensues (whether that's because US decline and thus impotency become apparent to everybody or due to outright Balkanisation remains to be seen, but I expect such to occur within 50-100 years). Finlandisation provides a possible model for managing the transition to non-alignment, though.

I think it's overly optimistic to think we can "decouple" from a US relationship and grow close enough to the new Chinese regional power that we would receive favourable treatment (to the same extent we receive from the US) in a new Chinese sphere of influence without having our country become more alike China in the process.

Firstly, we'd ideally aim for non-alignment, not a close alliance with China. China's culture is too dog-eat-dog and nihilistic for my liking.

Secondly, a key difference between the US and China is that the US have historically been more idealistic, in that ideally they want the world to be more like them. Hence the exportation of their cultural/political/social/economic ideas worldwide, along with their military, so that democracy can flourish (or so they believe). Hence, they have quite often done things of dubious pragmatic value, like invading and then rebuilding Iraq. In many ways, they're more like the Soviet Union than they'd like to admit.

China by contrast is IMO more pragmatic, in that they seem less interested in crafting the world to suit their ideals than simply extracting maximum value from their 'investments' abroad. Hence why they imitate norms from elsewhere and then appropriate them to suit their own purposes (for example, their state-managed capitalism clearly took cues from Japan/Singapore/South Korea), and why their imperialism is largely economic in nature.

So I don't believe that China will have anywhere near the same impact on our polity/society/culture as the US has had. This is partially because of cultural differences between Australia and China, but also partially because China doesn't care that much about exporting its political/cultural/social model (hence why Macau and HK are more liberal than the mainland).

In my opinion we don't have a choice in the matter at all; either China will abandon its goal of being the dominant power in the eastern hemisphere or US will abandon its support of the liberal democracies in the region (including us) and recede from Asia. When the dust settles, the last power left standing will be the one making the rules and that's who our allegiances will lie with.

The latter will most likely occur - the US populace have become increasingly isolationist in their outlook. They've become less interested in leading the world and more interested in fixing whatever problems ail them.

I don't see why China would abandon their plans. Some think that COVID will stop them - it will stall them over the short term, but over the longer run they're too important to the global economy and they lack the resource/population constraints of a country like Japan. Demographic issues (gender imbalances) are a problem, but they're even more of one for the US IMO.

Is this pessimistic? Yeah. But unfortunately history is full with these sorts of precedents and sometimes I think we forget that the last 70 years where we haven't seen a single conflict between the global great powers is an anomaly in human history. The 'long peace' should not be taken for granted and we have far less control over our destiny than what many would like to believe.

The reason why we've seen such unprecedented peace between the great powers/superpowers is because of nuclear weapons. Hence why the Soviets and the US did not fight each other directly despite the former being more aggressively idealistic than China has been. I don't expect that to change.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

BHP's Chinese customers seek to defer Australian coal

Chinese customers have requested mining giant BHP to defer coal cargoes coming from Australia as Beijing issues verbal orders for state-owned power stations and steel mills to restrict imports.

BHP's commercial team has received requests for deferral of contracted coal cargoes from some of its buyers in China, the company said, and is seeking further information on the extent of the new import restrictions.

BHP's Chinese customers seek to defer Australian coal

Chinese customers have requested mining giant BHP to defer coal cargoes coming from Australia amid Beijing's latest crackdown.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Our relationship with the US took off in WWII precisely because they, rather than the UK, were the biggest kid in the playground as at that time. That the US became a superpower and then a hyperpower obviously gave us no incentive to discontinue that relationship. The political and cultural similarities are the icing on the cake because they made such relations somewhat easier.

To say they made relations somewhat easier is a massive understatement given that the relations we have with the US would probably not exist were it not for the fact we had the same culture, same political system and same language. It's not so much the icing on the cake as it is the cake. There's a reason that the five eyes are all anglosphere countries.

Had the USA not been a liberal democracy and been a fascist state or a communist single party nation, do you still think we would have enjoyed the same alliance?

tend to agree though, that our leaders lack the vision to manage a transition to a more non-aligned stance with any subtlety or competency, so we'll likely remain joined at the hip to the US until reality ensues (whether that's because US decline and thus impotency become apparent to everybody or due to outright Balkanisation remains to be seen, but I expect such to occur within 50-100 years). Finlandisation provides a possible model for managing the transition to non-alignment, though.

Firstly, we'd ideally aim for non-alignment, not a close alliance with China. China's culture is too dog-eat-dog and nihilistic for my liking.

Secondly, a key difference between the US and China is that the US have historically been more idealistic, in that ideally they want the world to be more like them. Hence the exportation of their cultural/political/social/economic ideas worldwide, along with their military, so that democracy can flourish (or so they believe). Hence, they have quite often done things of dubious pragmatic value, like invading and then rebuilding Iraq. In many ways, they're more like the Soviet Union than they'd like to admit.

China by contrast is IMO more pragmatic, in that they seem less interested in crafting the world to suit their ideals than simply extracting maximum value from their 'investments' abroad. Hence why they imitate norms from elsewhere and then appropriate them to suit their own purposes (for example, their state-managed capitalism clearly took cues from Japan/Singapore/South Korea), and why their imperialism is largely economic in nature.

So I don't believe that China will have anywhere near the same impact on our polity/society/culture as the US has had. This is partially because of cultural differences between Australia and China, but also partially because China doesn't care that much about exporting its political/cultural/social model (hence why Macau and HK are more liberal than the mainland).

The latter will most likely occur - the US populace have become increasingly isolationist in their outlook. They've become less interested in leading the world and more interested in fixing whatever problems ail them.

I don't see why China would abandon their plans. Some think that COVID will stop them - it will stall them over the short term, but over the longer run they're too important to the global economy and they lack the resource/population constraints of a country like Japan. Demographic issues (gender imbalances) are a problem, but they're even more of one for the US IMO.

I think you should look a little deeper at what "Finlandisation" involved and why it was actually a dig at the Finns for so long. The Soviets made it very clear that they would not respect Finnish borders or sovereignty in any conflict against the west, there were very specific clauses in their post WW2 agreement with the Soviets that the USSR would "protect sovereignty" of the Finns using any means necessary. What was being asked of the Finns wasn't particularly novel either, you only need to look back 8 years prior at the countries between Berlin and Moscow which were involved in the Eastern Front either openly against their will or due to sham alliances with the Nazis. Countries like Romania and Bulgaria didn't give a * about Nazi ideology, yet they found themselves on that side of the fence in the aim of securing a guarantee due to the inevitable conflict that everybody could see unfolding at that point.

We can sit here and argue pie in the sky about what non-alignment should look like and I agree that in principle the best scenario for Australia would not be chained to the whims of a superpower that does not act in our best interests, but that's simply not the brutal reality in which the world works. If a hot conflict ever broke out between the US and China, there will undoubtedly be a lot of countries in the area of eastern asia that will find themselves unwilling parties to combat, in fact the only saving grace that we might have is that we're not that close to the area in the scheme of things. At the very least under the current status quo, the United States pays for our defence. I'm opposed to changing the status quo without good reason because I'm not prepared for Australia to pay the shortfall in our defence to actually be defended.

And also when talking about what China has and hasn't done, keep in mind that for the last thirty years the globe has been policed by a superpower that clearly dictates what it will and will not let other countries get away with lest they fall foul of military action or economic sanctions. That same superpower tends to act with impunity towards every other country on the planet, because they're virtually untouchable and few countries are willing to risk their wrath by opposing them. China has historically played by those rules because of the importance of the Chinese having access to the US and Western European markets; they've been "pragmatic" because they had to be. The balance of power in that relationship is starting to turn and now China is starting to test the waters because they're well aware the limit of what the US is willing to let them get away with has increased.

The reason why we've seen such unprecedented peace between the great powers/superpowers is because of nuclear weapons. Hence why the Soviets and the US did not fight each other directly despite the former being more aggressively idealistic than China has been. I don't expect that to change.

The Soviets eschewed world revolution under Khrushchev in the 1950's, they were not "aggressively idealistic" after that point and really you could go as far to argue there were no real geopolitical flash points between the USSR and USA because the lines that mattered were drawn in 1945 by both parties and were respected for the next 50 years, not even Regan asked for the Soviets to withdraw from Eastern Europe.

This is why I view the MAD theory with scepticism the modern context. It was conceptualised during a time of deep mistrust between the east and the west where both sides viewed an attack by the other as in inevitability; we now know with the benefit of hindsight and thousands and thousands of declassified papers that neither Washington nor Moscow harboured plans to subjugate the other without provocation. There are many examples of countries engaging in metaphorical suicidal conflicts over the years because they either grossly overestimated themselves, underestimated the enemy or totally disregarded the consequences. MAD rests on the assumption that humans won't make these mistakes anymore, suggesting that humans before 1950 were far dumber than those afterward, and shows the non-conflict between the USA and USSR as proof despite there being really nothing to fight about. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it conclusive? Not at all.

 

[DaRick]

To say they made relations somewhat easier is a massive understatement given that the relations we have with the US would probably not exist were it not for the fact we had the same culture, same political system and same language. It's not so much the icing on the cake as it is the cake. There's a reason that the five eyes are all anglosphere countries.

Had the USA not been a liberal democracy and been a fascist state or a communist single party nation, do you still think we would have enjoyed the same alliance?

The Five Eyes Alliance emerged during WWII, which again is not a coincidence.

Beyond your question giving rise to a butterfly effect if applied (because if the US was that, then the UK would most likely be similar, and so would Australia), I never made out that Australia and China would enjoy a similar alliance, and frankly nor should we.

I think you should look a little deeper at what "Finlandisation" involved and why it was actually a dig at the Finns for so long. The Soviets made it very clear that they would not respect Finnish borders or sovereignty in any conflict against the west, there were very specific clauses in their post WW2 agreement with the Soviets that the USSR would "protect sovereignty" of the Finns using any means necessary.

I never implied that our case would be exactly like Finlandisation, just that Finlandisation might provide a model which we could appropriate and modify when shifting to a more non-aligned stance, in accordance with our needs. Plus, the ANZUS treaty is not completely unlike the bolded anyway.

We can sit here and argue pie in the sky about what non-alignment should look like and I agree that in principle the best scenario for Australia would not be chained to the whims of a superpower that does not act in our best interests, but that's simply not the brutal reality in which the world works. If a hot conflict ever broke out between the US and China, there will undoubtedly be a lot of countries in the area of eastern asia that will find themselves unwilling parties to combat, in fact the only saving grace that we might have is that we're not that close to the area in the scheme of things. At the very least under the current status quo, the United States pays for our defence. I'm opposed to changing the status quo without good reason because I'm not prepared for Australia to pay the shortfall in our defence to actually be defended.

As I've noted repeatedly, any transition away from the close alliance with the US would be done over decades, and would have to be done with subtlety. That the US will likely be incapable of protecting us properly in 50-100 years (if it exists at all) would for mine represent a good enough reason to alter the status quo ahead of time.

Beyond that, the bulk of US defence spending goes on Europe/Korea/Japan/Middle East. Hardly any seems to be here.

I know we differ on the 'hot war between great powers thing', so agree to disagree on that one.

And also when talking about what China has and hasn't done, keep in mind that for the last thirty years the globe has been policed by a superpower that clearly dictates what it will and will not let other countries get away with lest they fall foul of military action or economic sanctions. That same superpower tends to act with impunity towards every other country on the planet, because they're virtually untouchable and few countries are willing to risk their wrath by opposing them. China has historically played by those rules because of the importance of the Chinese having access to the US and Western European markets; they've been "pragmatic" because they had to be. The balance of power in that relationship is starting to turn and now China is starting to test the waters because they're well aware the limit of what the US is willing to let them get away with has increased.

The Soviets eschewed world revolution under Khrushchev in the 1950's, they were not "aggressively idealistic" after that point and really you could go as far to argue there were no real geopolitical flash points between the USSR and USA because the lines that mattered were drawn in 1945 by both parties and were respected for the next 50 years, not even Regan asked for the Soviets to withdraw from Eastern Europe.

1) I do think that the West is declining but that doesn't mean that Western markets will become insignificant; indeed, I expect that they'll be important well into the future. Even if the US balkanises, the individual markets would remain important for China because of the sheer population.

2) You'll note that Chinese aggression seems to be limited to border clashes, tariffs, embargoes and harsh rhetoric.

3) Clearly we have different definitions of "aggressively idealistic". Even during and after the 1950's, the Soviets continued to fund communist revolutions and governments in the third world, not to mention that they outright invaded Hungary/Czechslovakia/Afghanistan. Again, they're much more like the US than either would admit.

China has not done these things, and indeed there's no evidence that they're trying to export their cultural/political/social/economic ideas worldwide. If that was their aim, then we'd see likely see many little Communist China's slowly emerging in the third world, but we haven't. Also, HK and Macau would be exactly like the mainland, but they are not. It suggests that China's culture inherently lacks the idealism displayed by either the US or the Soviets, and that their focus is more on maximising the economic value of their foreign relationships - which in my mind, is a pragmatic thing to do.

This is why I view the MAD theory with scepticism the modern context. It was conceptualised during a time of deep mistrust between the east and the west where both sides viewed an attack by the other as in inevitability; we now know with the benefit of hindsight and thousands and thousands of declassified papers that neither Washington nor Moscow harboured plans to subjugate the other without provocation. There are many examples of countries engaging in metaphorical suicidal conflicts over the years because they either grossly overestimated themselves, underestimated the enemy or totally disregarded the consequences. MAD rests on the assumption that humans won't make these mistakes anymore, suggesting that humans before 1950 were far dumber than those afterward, and shows the non-conflict between the USA and USSR as proof despite there being really nothing to fight about. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it conclusive? Not at all.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Demographic issues (gender imbalances) are a problem, but they're even more of one for the US IMO.

In what way? Since there is no great gender imbalance in the US, I take it you're referring to the increase of the Latino population. How is that a bigger problem than China's gender imbalance, and how does it by itself make the US any less keen to dominate the world economically and militarily?

That the US will likely be incapable of protecting us properly in 50-100 years (if it exists at all) would for mine represent a good enough reason to alter the status quo ahead of time.

What makes you think the US won't exist? Why will it balkanise? There is no secession movement of any note at present.

 

[DaRick]

In what way? Since there is no great gender imbalance in the US, I take it you're referring to the increase of the Latino population. How is that a bigger problem than China's gender imbalance, and how does it by itself make the US any less keen to dominate the world economically and militarily?

What makes you think the US won't exist? Why will it balkanise? There is no secession movement of any note at present.

Among the younger men/women, there most certainly is a significant gender imbalance. The gender ratios don't balance out there until after 35, even in metropolitan areas. Bearing in mind that metropolitan areas tend to have more women than normal, the situation on a state-by-state basis must be pretty bad. Younger single men are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour than their married/paired up counterparts, and the atomised nature of the modern US leaves many of them quite isolated, and thus more vulnerable to recruitment by radicals (most pertinently fascist radicals), who promise them belonging, inclusion and a sense of purpose that they might otherwise have lacked.

By comparison, Australia's overall gender ratio balances out in the late 20's or early 30's.

The increase of the Hispanic population is an issue because historically race relations in the US have been quite poor. Racism has always been widespread, and there's been very little formal inter-marriage between the various races (unlike in, say, Brazil or even Russia). This provides very little scope for mutual understanding and unity, especially when you have fascists fanning the flames of racial hatred.

China's gender imbalances are serious, and I would assume that 'lone wolf' knife attacks are the direct result of such, but China has attempted to address them, albeit belatedly (two-child policy). Plus I've been reading that the gender imbalance may be overstated. China has simply sidestepped the whole race issue by forcing its populace to behave in certain 'acceptable' manners (as a Chinese you do X and Y, otherwise you get jailed or murdered). Meanwhile, the US appears completely incapable of addressing its demographic issues. So I would say that, for the reasons above, demographic issues are more of a problem for the US.

Looking at the contemporary US more broadly, it reminds me of several other nations:
- Mexico (high crime rate, increasing corruption, cronyism, high inequality, problems with drugs, unacceptable levels of poverty)
- 1980's Algeria (gender imbalances, mass protests, male radicalisation)
- 1980's Yugoslavia/Soviet Union (multi-ethnic state with poor inter-ethnic relations, weak leadership, declining belief in the overlying ideology - just replace Communism with 'the American dream')
- early 1930's Germany (extremists fighting each other)

Also, it seems to me that the US is quite atomised and cliquish. Americans seem to lack a sense of solidarity despite many of them appearing outwardly patriotic, and they seem to mostly mix with their own little ethnic groups.

I personally don't see how a nation with these sorts of issues survives in its current form in the next 50-100 years - bearing in mind that secession movements weren't a thing in Tito's Yugoslavia either (he crushed them). If it somehow miraculously survives, I don't see that it would remain a liberal democracy or a first-world nation.

In fact, I think the US has done extremely well to survive this long in its current state. Federations don't last like the US has.

 

[CD Xbow]

The PRC are now boycotting our cotton https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/c...avoid-australian-exports-20201016-p565ox.html
Now it's wine, beef, barley, coal and cotton.
PRC is not our friend and will never be.
We are in a trade war with them and we better get used to it.
I am going to try to buy products from other countries, though it's hard.

WRT comments regarding PRC foreign policy. They want a 21C version of the Middle Kingdom with smaller countries like Oz paying tribute to them. I fear Xi is pushing for conflict because
1. They have built the toys to have parity with the USN in the western pacific. Boys tend to use their toys.
2. They perceive American weakness currently (militarily, morally etc)
3. The demographic bomb in the future with excess males currently means there may be a window of opportunity for military adventures
4. Xi has led a concentration of power unseen since Mao, and has staked his legacy on Chinese ascendancy.
5. They have a strong sense of historical grievance against the west after the 'century of humiliation' and wish to return the world to a sinocentric future
6. They no longer seem to care about diplomacy, they are willing to squander decades of building diplomatic and trade relationships.
7. Increased aggression in all domains. They have border disputes with 10+ countries, 'Wolf Warrior' diplomacy, aggressive attacks in the cyber domain etc.

One explanation for the above is they are seeking conflict. The Panda has turned into the Dragon.

I am truly fearful for the next decade.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Among the younger men/women, there most certainly is a significant gender imbalance.

All the article says is that there is a significant imbalance in the number of single men compared to single women amongst young people. There's a significant number of same-sex attracted people amongst the young, especially in urban areas, but the article admits it did not control for those people, who won't have any issues with a surplus of single men.

It's well known that more male babies than female babies are born everywhere in the world, but males also tend to die earlier. So we should expect to see an imbalance in gender amongst the young, particularly in this age of improved infant and child mortality and greater focus on safety in all parts of life.

The gender ratios don't balance out there until after 35, even in metropolitan areas.

True. But, the deficit overall in any age group isn't all that large.



Let's take the 20-24 age group. There's surplus of about half a million men, about 4.5% of the total male population in that age group. A sizeable number, but dwarfed by the estimated 13% of men aged 18-30 in the United States that are not heterosexual (Link, page 18). That's a pretty sizeable group that won't suffer from a deficit of women.

Also, the surplus of men in China aged 20-24 is 12.89%, almost three times as much.

By comparison, Australia's overall gender ratio balances out in the late 20's or early 30's.

True. But, this doesn't take into account the actual sex ratio of the young in Australia.



For the 20-24 age group, Australia's male surplus is about the same as the US's, 4-5%.

So rather than being an existential problem for the US, it seems like a passing issue that will only affect those currently between 25 and 35. Targeted immigration programs could address that.

The increase of the Hispanic population is an issue because historically race relations in the US have been quite poor. Racism has always been widespread, and there's been very little formal inter-marriage between the various races (unlike in, say, Brazil or even Russia). This provides very little scope for mutual understanding and unity, especially when you have fascists fanning the flames of racial hatred.

More so with black people. I'm not going to pretend the Latinos don't face issues, but I don't see large-scale riots due to Latino deaths caused by police, or a notable "Latino Lives Matter" movement.

China has simply sidestepped the whole race issue by forcing its populace to behave in certain 'acceptable' manners (as a Chinese you do X and Y, otherwise you get jailed or murdered).

And putting entire races in re-education camps.

Meanwhile, the US appears completely incapable of addressing its demographic issues. So I would say that, for the reasons above, demographic issues are more of a problem for the US.

The US is simply not as brutal in response, due to its founding principles and constitution. But democracy and an open society, if functioning properly, can act as an outlet valve for the pressure of internal strife. The US is a flawed democracy by any measure, but still a recognisable one.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Over population marks success and risk factors for the future of particular species, including humans. The only difficulty I have with China's One Child Policy was its softening. Arguably through arresting population growth, the PRC should have been granted Carbon Credits.

With a lot of luck in 300 years time we will still have historians and demographers. I have no doubt they will look positively on China's fumbling efforts.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Over population marks success and risk factors for the future of particular species, including humans. The only difficulty I have with China's One Child Policy was its softening. Arguably through arresting population growth, the PRC should have been granted Carbon Credits.

With a lot of luck in 300 years time we will still have historians and demographers. I have no doubt they will look positively on China's fumbling efforts.

And yet Bangladesh went from 7 births per woman in the 70s to a healthy 2.06 births per woman today, without any strict one child policy. It isn't necessary when similar effects can be achieved in a more gradual and libertarian way through improving women's education and employment, and offering easy and affordable access to contraceptives. Bangladesh won't face the sort of economic cliff China is going to since the drop was gradual.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Over population marks success and risk factors for the future of particular species, including humans. The only difficulty I have with China's One Child Policy was its softening. Arguably through arresting population growth, the PRC should have been granted Carbon Credits.

With a lot of luck in 300 years time we will still have historians and demographers. I have no doubt they will look positively on China's fumbling efforts.

I've seen some modeling from various agencies that world population will peak at about 9.5 billion and then decline to about 9 billion and remain fairly static but in very slow (over 100's of years) decline

In any event Hawking says we will be start to leave this planet in 100 years and this planet will be abandoned in 1000 years

 

[CD Xbow]

I've seen some modeling from various agencies that world population will peak at about 9.5 billion and then decline to about 9 billion and remain fairly static but in very slow (over 100's of years) decline

In any event Hawking says we will be start to leave this planet in 100 years and this planet will be abandoned in 1000 years

No, the planet will not be abandoned in 1000 years. Where would you go?