Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China's Silk Road Illusions

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#21

Post by thablackbull »

aclsid wrote: post #10

Other than the historical facts, this article is kind of a weird read. The author seems to be guilty of the same thing he's accusing the Chinese president, namely using history to support their version of how this might play out.

I get a similar impression that the article was a little odd - I think the author seems to be confusing the intent of the message coming from China's leadership.

China is saying, here is a 'story' to help you understand what we're trying to do with the Belt & Road Initiative. In essence, the focus is not on the truth claims of history, but it is a guidepost of what they want to do in the future.

The author on the other-hand seems to be saying, because the history is inaccurate, the corollary is that the Belt & Road initiative will not succeed (which is not a logically consistent argument).

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#22

Post by fspeech »

dualogy wrote: post #20
fspeech wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As GP said it is easy to underestimate the Middle East because of all the oil. Israel is obviously a high tech powerhouse. Iran alone has over 80 million people. Despite the tense relationship with the US, there are close to 10 thousand postgraduate Iranian students in the US, one of the largest after China and India. https://wenr.wes.org/2017/02/educating-iran-demographics-mas...

True enough, doesn't explain his "there's another reason than the oil for the fighting" suggestion. Germany is also "a high-tech powerhouse and has over 80 million people".. =) Now readers are bound to come up with common tropes like "sectarian strife" or "tribal rivalry", but again.. he made it sound like there's a transdimensional portal hidden in the ME or something.. clearly had a non-obvious aspect in mind, that…

If you read the article, OP was obviously responding to the silly claim that

"More likely, however, China’s dependence on trade, and particularly its interest in Middle East oil, may fall almost as fast as it has risen over the past thirty years."

I think OP was just pointing out that there is more than oil in the Middle East.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#23

Post by aaron695 »

The author seems to think because it Silk Road 2.0 won't directly ship to China it has little value?

All the railways, shipping ports etc also add value to the countries they are in. The same as China is building so many dams around the world. There's a lot of power being played here benefiting China and locally.

Do these countries really care is there's a border dispute in the Caucasus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunming%E2%80%93Singapore_rail...

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#24

Post by salqadri »

aclsid wrote: post #10

Other than the historical facts, this article is kind of a weird read. The author seems to be guilty of the same thing he's accusing the Chinese president, namely using history to support their version of how this might play out.

Agreed. Definitely a very one-sided and biased presentation of even the "facts".

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#25

Post by indescions_2017 »

thablackbull wrote: post #13
chiefalchemist wrote: post #7

Of course such projects have risk. Of course there is historical baggage. But while China is building an infrastructure legacy, the USA et al are using its resources to wages multiple wars. It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.

What we're witnessing today is a chicken-and-egg problem. USA: America is the chicken. To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.). In essence, and to keep it short, the 'free-markets' will take over, and standards of living will boom. China: China is the egg, because they view modernizati…

Personally, I'd like to see the US match China's $1T pledge to the estimated $20-30T total for all infrastructure projects proposed under the Belt and Road Initiative. We often heard during the election about the outcomes if we elected a master "deal-maker" to the oval office. And BRI is "The Great Game" of the 21st Century. With the Trump-Xi relationship being perhaps the most crucial in the world today.

No doubt it is politically, economically and militarily an unpopular notion in the current climate that seeks a tougher stance on China policy. Steve Bannon, in particular, explicitly views American policy of the last 60 years as creating a "tributary state" to the PRC here in the USA.

But an intense negotiation. With lots of concessions for American enterprises in energy, aerospace, engineering, telcom, and transportation across the Silk Road region. And even partial funding coming directly from China's dollar reserves. This could end up being the "Deal of the Century" ;)

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#26

Post by the-dude »

spacetexas wrote: post #17
dmix wrote: post #12

I read the entire article and it's a great read. It's fascinating how much we romanticize about past cultures and how much if it is wrong. I love reading history and this almost always turns out to be the case. Digging into any topic reveals they are always far more complex and multilayered than the the common caricatures you find in media and in generalized accounts. China's popular understanding of the Silk Road se…

Russia didn't have better tanks they had more tanks

The T-34 was better than what the Germans had at the time.

The better German tanks came too late and too little, true.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#27

Post by fspeech »

I don't know how much culture China exported along the ancient silk road but I do know that China imported a lot of culture along it (e.g. Buddhism and other religions), so its importance on the Chinese culture can hardly be over-emphasized. The problem with the author's critiquing of Chinese propaganda is that he adopted a chauvinistic framework. In reality for the Chinese people cultural import is likely more important than cultural export.

Again if we remove the fixation on Chinese export and view the situation more objectively: Pakistan and the Middle East have the youngest populations in the world. If they can develop into manufacturing centers, it will not only alleviate the potential for radicalism. It will also compensate for the aging demographics of China, whether that is what China intends or not.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#28

Post by ivankolev »

spacetexas wrote: post #17
dmix wrote: post #12

I read the entire article and it's a great read. It's fascinating how much we romanticize about past cultures and how much if it is wrong. I love reading history and this almost always turns out to be the case. Digging into any topic reveals they are always far more complex and multilayered than the the common caricatures you find in media and in generalized accounts. China's popular understanding of the Silk Road se…

Russia didn't have better tanks they had more tanks

'Better' is dependent on the viewpoint. Russian tanks were simpler mechanically, ran on diesel, which made them less flammable and in the early years the T34 was actually better than anything the wehrmacht had. The Panther is almost a direct copy of the T34 design. But you are right, at the end the quantities prevailed, it was a war of economies and Russia, having transferred most of its industry far east and out of reach, was going to win, even without the help from west. Most of the german generals knew they were toast after the initial blitz failed in the winter of '41.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#29

Post by justicezyx »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9
chiefalchemist wrote: post #7

Of course such projects have risk. Of course there is historical baggage. But while China is building an infrastructure legacy, the USA et al are using its resources to wages multiple wars. It's likely the USA's ROI (if you will) will be increased debt and enemies for years to come. China on the other hand seems hardly interested in such things. The outlook for their ROI is much brighter.

> The outlook for their ROI is much brighter I agree that American ROI on military spending is negative, though the degree to which this is true is debatable. (The American defense industry doubles as a federal jobs and R&D program.) I do not see how China building an expensive, low-throughput transportation mode that is uncompetitive, even without a traversable Arctic Ocean, is productive.

Stills orders of magnitude more productive than killing people and destroy nations.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#30

Post by thablackbull »

indescions_2017 wrote: post #25
thablackbull wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we're witnessing today is a chicken-and-egg problem. USA: America is the chicken. To be a modern country, it is hypothesized that the developing country needs immediately adopt American systems, laws, behavior & structures (the Washington consensus, etc.). In essence, and to keep it short, the 'free-markets' will take over, and standards of living will boom. China: China is the egg, because they view modernizati…

Personally, I'd like to see the US match China's $1T pledge to the estimated $20-30T total for all infrastructure projects proposed under the Belt and Road Initiative. We often heard during the election about the outcomes if we elected a master "deal-maker" to the oval office. And BRI is "The Great Game" of the 21st Century. With the Trump-Xi relationship being perhaps the most crucial in the world today. No doubt it…

The problem I see is that politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment' and not rooted in economic reality - so even if they wanted to, it is hard to make your proposal to the American public, especially with 'America first'. With respect to the Bannon comment, America has unequivocally benefited economically with China; it is merely how America has chosen to distribute the wealth that was the problem. [1],[2] How America chooses to distribute it's wealth has nothing to do with China.

> Although increasing trade with China might have contributed to the decline in demand for production workers, it clearly wasn't the primary force behind the trend. [3]

It is merely politically convenient to exclaim "China" when talking to the public like during the Zambian elections with Sata. "Michael Sata called Chinese “infesters” rather than “investors,” threatened to kick out Chinese workers, and pledged to implement foreign exchange controls that would prevent Chinese firms from repatriating their profits [...] One month later, Sata told the Chinese ambassador to Zambia and a group of Chinese businessmen, "My dear sisters and brothers from China, you are very welcomed in Zambia because we are all-weather friends." During a one-week visit to China in April 2013, Sata signed several investment agreements and requested that Chinese companies invest in railways, agriculture, and mining. On his return, he proudly announced to residents of a rural district that Chinese companies would develop Zambian wetlands for rice production." [4]

Same with American politics, we just shot nebulous words and concepts like, "Freedom", "democracy", etc. without understanding the underlying implications. The press highlights the any negative news about China, but how often do you hear things like this from American leadership in the mainstream media:

> “I want everybody playing in Africa,” President Obama stated during a press conference in South Africa in late June 2013. “The more, the merrier. I think that’s good. . . . It gives Africans leverage” to ensure that such economic interactions are “good for Africa.” [4] (pg. 106)

[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/impact-ch... [2] https://piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/payoff-america-g... [3] https://piie.com/commentary/op-eds/us-needs-invest-minds-not... [4] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR521.html

Post reply on HN