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

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#51

Post by erikb »

dang wrote: post #4
erikb wrote: post #2

TL;DR it's not like it was in the past. TL;DR it's not what they promise. But where is the news in this? I think the interesting facts are that (a) they still manage to influence countries with their plan (and might for instance gain more influence over Afganistan than both US and Russia have achieved), (b) they still manage to increase internal growth through their projects. Both are really good things for China. Th…

> But where is the news in this? The existence of an interesting article is news enough.

The question basically says "this article is far from interesting" and you answer with "because this article is so interesting"?

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#52

Post by fspeech »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #44
fspeech wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that they need to find more goods to ship on the return trip. The current route actually runs on existing tracks so didn't require a lot of investment. For cities like Lanzhou, Xining, Urumqi etc it makes sense to develop a land route. The economics are even better than Chongqing since Chongqing actually has access to the Yangtze river.

The tracks aren't as important as the trains in this case; e.g. Crews and fuel as well as not using those on more productive routes. Chongqing as a gateway to the western china is a bit weird since it actually isn't that west :) Chinese geography is a bit wonky like that.

Chongqing has access to large ships: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Chongqing The advantage of rail for Chongqing is mainly shipping time, which is important for higher value electronics.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#53

Post by fspeech »

dbcooper wrote: post #46
fspeech wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the author's analogy with the ancient silk road rings as false as the Chinese government's. For example in discussing the rail link, the author failed to note that beyond Xinjiang there lie Shaanxi and Sichuan, two of China's most populous inland provinces. And Xi'an was the ancient Chinese capital for over a millennium. The Chongqing-Europe railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing-Xinjiang-Euro…

Xinjiang is west of Shaanxi and Sichuan. Please get your facts right before playing the know-it-all.

"Beyond Xinjiang" was meant to be looking into China from outside. Xinjiang is the border province.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#55

Post by dis-sys »

dmichulke wrote: post #48
thablackbull wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. I'm just going to focus on one element due to space; one of the core pillars of American economic thinking is the idea of free markets. Through bilateral relationships or organizations like the IMF, etc., developing nations are given a road-map of how to modernize. It may not have to be a carbon copy of America (and that was not my point)…

> However, have you ever noticed that no country has ever modernized through free markets, it always required a lot of protectionism. I think attributing this to protectionism is not really helpful. There are many protectionist states (or states with a "strong industrial policy") that don't develop at all economically. The examples of Europe before the early 20th Century and Far Asia in the late 20th century are cert…

he still has a valid point - no country has ever modernized through free markets. he never argued that protectionism is the key to success.

in fact, after WWII, not any country modernised itself after becoming a democracy. South Korea was in a military dictatorship, Singapore is run by a single family.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#56

Post by dbcooper »

fspeech wrote: post #53
dbcooper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xinjiang is west of Shaanxi and Sichuan. Please get your facts right before playing the know-it-all.

"Beyond Xinjiang" was meant to be looking into China from outside. Xinjiang is the border province.

The only reasonable way to look at it is from the perspective of the transfer of goods along the silk road from China to central asia. That is the way the article was written.

You were fundamentally wrong, and remain wrong.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#57

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

thablackbull wrote: post #30
indescions_2017 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> politics in America has essentially devolved into merely 'entertainment'

I take it you have not read H.L.Mencken's reporting on party conventions in the 1920s. I was a bit incredulous of delegations cheering speeches by marching around the aisles for ten or twenty minutes, but I suppose there was no point in misreporting that ...

No good link in a quick search, but perhaps starting from here: https://www.dclibrary.org/node/32107

Edit: There's a sample down from the page heading "416 A Mencken Chrestomathy" in https://biblio.wiki/wiki/A_Mencken_Chrestomathy . Other books had much fuller accounts of several conventions he reported on.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#58

Post by coldtea »

ant6n wrote: post #35
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…

I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view. Many modern countries these days don't adopt the American system, but are striving towards being modern, pluralist democracies with functioning social systems, good governance, and sane judicial systems.

>I'm not sure who's hypothesizing that a modern country has to emulate the US. That's a kind of cold war point of view.

It's also the de facto point of view of western countries, and the yardstick by which they judge other countries.

(Including various "NGOs" and "world organizations" that measure the world with the same yardstick and are influenced by the same ideologies and even follow the same political goals).

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#59

Post by mcv »

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…

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. The US can be a bit too extreme is their demands to adopt US-style system, but the US system isn't perfect by any means. But I do agree that democratic freedoms are important for the sustainable development of a country. Free press in particular. But selling out your internal market to foreign multinationals seems to be a terrible idea.

I've long felt that the EU should have been doing something similar: instead of barriers around the EU market, they should have offered free trade with any developing country, as long as they follow certain basic values like free press, human rights, and at least some degree of democracy. Economic development in exchange for European values. If handled right, I think that could have done a lot of good in the world. Now China seems to beat us to it.

Re: China's Silk Road Illusions

#60

Post by mcv »

jcranmer wrote: post #33
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…

> Particularly with how Germany really lost the war to the Soviets in late 1942 when they failed to subdue Russia in the early invasion. The west (US/UK/Canada) largely just cleaned up the mess from 1943-45, as the Nazi's were fighting an impossible war after that point. Even then Russia did most of the work in terms of raw combat. But even when this is noted in history books Russia's success is largely dismissed as…

There are no easy shortcuts to explaining the balance of war afford in WW2. The vast majority of the fighting did happen on Russian soil. The sacrifice of Russian soldiers is enormous. It's true that the Russian command had little problems with sacrificing the lives of Russian soldiers, but it's also likely that that sacrifice may have been necessary to stop the German advance.

Lend-lease may well have been the most important US contribution to the European theatre, because it helped the USSR to mobile their forces and move them around faster.

And the Russian tanks absolutely did matter. Russia had the best tanks in the early war, and those sufficiently stumped the weaker German tanks to make them rush the overly expensive and inefficient but powerful Tiger into production.

But it was absolutely a case where every bit helped. British intelligence and bombing, taking Italy out of the war, Overlord, it all mattered. But most of the blood was spilled in Russia.

Post reply on HN