Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: China Page 1 of 12

Four Randon Econonic, Political, Geopolitical and Scientific Musings

By

On September 15, 2025

Comments

First economic: The US dollar is down 5% over the last six months against a basket of currencies. And over the past year, it’s lost 9.6%. The biggest winner against a dollar has been the euro which has gone up 13% however, which truly is a win for Europe because it makes their natural gas imports from the US less expensive. But their natural gas imports are still a poison chalice. Expect the dollar to continue its slide, perhaps precipitously at some point in the New Year.

There were large moves out of US equities in the spring confirming the adage “sell in May and go away.” What September will look like is anyone’s guess, especially as Israel is more than likely to start the second phase of its war against Iran? Or October—that worst of months for Wall Street? What happens if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz and oil goes above 100 dollars a barrel? That would be great for oil producers, but it would be terrible for markets across the globe, even China, possibly leading to a worldwide recession, especially with Chinese growth being somewhere between 4% and 5% at present.

Regardless of what happens in September or October—both always being bad month’s economically for the US economy, America’s bond market and the value of the dollar will continue its downward trajectory because America’s lenders are now demanding gold for loans instead of treasuries. This smells to me like the beginning of the end of dollar hegemony.

It makes me wonder what kind of “store of value” the BRICS will adopt to support their currency? Will it be a basket of their currencies? Will it be backed by gold and petroleum? That would be truly hard-core, because it would mean we were in for a long era of tight money. Our entire lives, actually, the entire history has been based on easy money. And as you know money creation is only possible when using a fiat currency.

There are many ways to imagine what they’ll do. Maybe blockchain? Who really knows? But there are other commodities that do have a store value, silver among them, maybe even rare earths and others they could use. It certainly is an interesting time to live.

Second domestic political: Niall Ferguson in his interview by Charlie Rose posted a week ago on the Internet was asked about Trump‘s challenges of outright ignoring the constitution with the following question: are we the Roman Republic, is this or are we witnessing the collapse of the constitutional order like the Roman republic. Rose asks if Trump is Augustus. He clearly is not. I would say that Trump is more like Marius and the Kennedys were more like the brothers Gracchi. In fact, I made this argument on a graduate school paper that I got a very good grade on, but in which my professor seriously disagreed with my analogies. Regardless I would say that we are at the beginning of the end of our constitutional order, and that we are looking down the barrel of Caesarism. It’s on the way. Maybe two years, maybe four years but it’s coming. Will it be a general? Will it be a politician? Those are questions we simply can’t answer. But as Ian Welsh has consistently predicted America is heading for a collapse, be it constitutional or economic or both it’s gonna happen and there isn’t anything anyone of us can do about it. Besides, Ferguson, while whip-smart, is kind of a tool.

Third is about some weaknessess the SCO currently must contend with if they are to become the anti-NATO military block. Here they are in no particular order of importance: One, the nations that make up the SCO are too diverse and often times their interests do not align with everyone in the SCO. For example, China and India have serious border issues. Pakistan and India have serious issues in Kashmir. Those are just two examples of several potential conflicts between members of a block, supposedly to oppose NATO. The issues between Pakistan and India make the intra-NATO issues between Greece and Turkey look like a family arguement on Thanksgiving.

Second, as the former director general of Russian international affairs Council said in a recent interview, “ the mandate of the SCO is too general.” The SCO can focus on security, development, or terrorism. Not all three.

Third, China is by far the most powerful member of the SCO and that creates a dangerous asymmetry in the organization. Much like the United States dominated NATO for so long and skewed it’s purpose after the Cold War for its own unfathomable means.

Fourth: This essay on the relative merits of “Superradiance,”.  Is well worth the three minutes it will take to read, plus it is comprehensible to the layman. The essay describes Superradiance as “a collective quantum optical effect in which a group of emitters, such as atoms or molecules, emit light in a highly coherent and amplified manner.  In the context of mammalian neural systems, superradiance occurs when a group of neurons collectively emit photons, resulting in a stronger and more coherent signal compared to individual neuron emissions. This coordinated emission of photons across vast networks of microtubules within neurons could potentially achieve the long-range coherence necessary for the emergence of consciousness.”

The essay stands as a correction of sorts to Sir Roger Penrose’s “Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR)” theory of human consciousness, which Wikipedia describes thusly: Orch Or “is a controversial theory postulating that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons (rather than being a product of neural connections).” In short, says Penrose, “Consciousness does not collapse the wave function; instead it is the collapse of the wave function that produces consciousness.”

One thing we do know is that consciouness is decidely not computational and most likely occurs in the quantum realm.

As you can tell, I dig this kind of stuff.

If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.

The Solution to The USA’s Taiwan Dilemma

By

On September 11, 2025

Comments

“The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.”

三国演义 ~by Luo Guangzhong

Earlier I promised to post my plan to prevent a war between the United States and China over Taiwan. I’ve traveled and met with Taiwanese diplomats. They are some of the most sophisticated operators I’ve ever encountered. Taiwan is a highly advanced technological country. Very wealthy, with a sophisticated full coverage heath care system and a vibrant democracy. Furthermore, based on the Shanghai Communique issued on February 27, 1972 by Nixon and Mao, both mainland China and the USA formally acknowledged that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China”.

The Communique goes on to state the US side does not accept a violent solution to the unification of the two parties and the Chinese side retains the option to violence if Taiwan ever declares independence, paraphrasing here, folks. It’s been a long time since reading my Kissinger.

Conversely, I have traveled seven times to China. Here is an idea most Americans will probably never understand. China’s potential to utilize enormous amounts of soft power is profound. This is based on China’s circular view of history and that China has been invaded and ruled by foreign powers many times in its history. In each and every case China has overcome said invaders very differently than the way the Russians have. Or anyone else for that matter. Where the Russians trade space for time to husband their resources for a great counter attack and push the invader out of the country, China seduces the invader, with its ancient, deep, amazing and incredibly seductive culture. I cannot emphasize enough the depth, breadth, and tantalizing sophistication of its culture, be it material, artistic, political or spiritual. I do, after all, practice Chinese Chan Buddhism in my own life. Every time China has been invaded and completely taken over by a foreign power this strategy works. Even today we’re watching Chinese movies on Netflix. That is the use and export of soft power. And unlike America, that has only 250 years of history to draw upon its soft power, China has almost 4000 years of history to draw upon. The efficacy of Chinese soft power is not to be underestimated. It is indeed seductive.

Now the question moves to goals and intentions. And here an understanding of Chinese history can aid us in a better understanding of the present Chinese leader, Xi Jing Ping.

What are Xi Jing Ping’s true goals? Simple, he seeks membership among the greatest of Chinese emperors. The greatest of Chinese emperors are judged by a single metric: did they unify all of China? As the opening sentence of the great Chinese novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, I quoted at the beginning of this essay, unification is the way the Chinese see themselves when in a golden age.

This compulsion to unify all of China is the defining source of Xi’s ambitions. And that means Taiwan. Taiwan is the last remaining province of a fully unified China. China equal to that ruled by the Qin Shih Huang Di, the very first emperor to unify all of China, or the great conqueror Han Wu Di, or Li Shimin of the mighty T’ang or Zhu Yuanzhang of the wall building Ming. It is to this rank of Chinese men that Xi aspires.

What should America do? I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to avoid a war with China that most people are certain is inevitable. They call it the “Thucydides Trap.” But, if the study of history has taught me anything it is that nothing is inevitable, contingencies matter, and human agency means the most. We may live in a complex adaptive system, but nothing, nothing is inevitable. Therefore, America must find a way tone down its arrogance and find a way to peacefully unite Taiwan with China.

Here is how I would do it if I were president.

First, I would engage in a series of CBM’s (Confidence Building Measures in diplospeak) with Xi Jing Ping regarding our naval stance in the Straits of Taiwan. I would make it policy that no American naval ships traverse the Straits of Taiwan any longer. Then I would halt the sale of advanced weapons to Taiwan.

Second, I would begin preparing the Taiwanese to consider peaceful unification with the mainland along the lines of the British handover of Hong Kong to China in the 90s. I would make it clear that we would not consider unification unless Taiwan was allowed to keep its democracy, and democratic traditions for a minimum of 80 years. I would do this to assuage the Taiwanese about a possible authoritarian takeover of the island in the case of unification. China did one nation, two systems successfully once before. They can do it again.

Third, I would secretly engage Xi Jing Ping with the following proposal: the United States of America would fully encourage and accept the unification of Taiwan with the mainland under the following conditions. Number one, Taiwan would have three representatives on the politburo, one of which would be a power ministry, either interior, defense, or foreign affairs. My fallback position, which is my true goal of course, would be the acceptance of two politburo members from Taiwan, but I would not relent on one serving as a power minister in one of the three ministries aforementioned.

I am relatively certain that Xi and the current politburo would agree to this proposal. It would serve to put Xi in the exhalted ranks of Chinese leaders in which he craves to be included. Mos timportantly, it would not harm a single vital national interest of the United States. The Chinese might have a salient in the first island chain, that being the island of Taiwan, but the United States would still have Korea, Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines. Not to mention the defenses in depth that the second island chain provides us in the Pacific ocean. Much less the great fortress of the third island chain of Midway, Wake and Hawaii. Defenses in depth matter much more than a salient in the first island chain.

Now, I recognize this goes against every national security intellectuals thinking. It is completely contrarian. But the more I’ve thought about it over the last few years the more I believe that is the best way to avoid general warfare between two nuclear great powers from the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea and into the deep blue waters of the Pacific.

If you’ve read this far, and you’ve read some of my articles and most if not all of Ian’s, then you might wish to Subscribe or donate. Ian has written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, need the money to keep the shop running. So please, consider it.

Follow Up On My China Post

By

On September 3, 2025

Comments

Someone asked me to back up my claim that since 1976 China has lifted more humans out of poverty than all of nations combined in the entirety of human history. Since it would be hard to go back to Greek and Persian times I made an executive choice (capricious no doubt) to begin with the year 1500.

Global population was estimated tobe between 450-500 million world wide and fully 90% lived in dire, subsistence poverty. You can google those numbers, they are everywhere. So, 50 million humans were not poor at this time. Way to go humanity!

By the year 1900 the worldwide population had grown to between 1.6 to 2 billion. Of those, fully 75% lived in dire subsistence or industrial poverty. Yes, the incipient industrial revolultion had lifted about a quarter out of poverty, some into a middle class, but most fabulously wealthy. At this time between 400-500 million people were not poor. Better but still shitty.

Now, lets talk about China between 1976 and 2018: their standard of living multiplied 26 times. While the United States lifted 28 million people out of poverty between 1945 and 1975, China lifted 800 million people out of poverty between 1976 and 2018.

Now, go back and do the math between 1500-1975 and compare world growth versus Chinese growth between 1976-2018. My claim may not be 100% accurate but it is damn close.

 

If You Understand Only One Thing About Chinese Government

By

On September 2, 2025

Comments

It should be that almost always they do what they promise, and they meet their goals. An American-Chinese silicon valley type spent some time in China recently (I don’t agree wit the whole article, but you should read it), and among the bits that stood out to me was this:

In the US, when politicians make campaign promises, I never actually expect them to follow through. But Chinese leaders do—for better and for worse. The 2025 plans to build 1,350 Shenzhen parks or reduce China’s energy dependence aren’t mere propaganda. (Neither, tragically, was the one-child policy.) Accountability is built into China’s bureaucratic system through KPIs, and you can see the results firsthand.

This echoes what Naomi Wu noted: that the Communist party attains their goals, and that many of them are the smartest most capable people she knows. (I think the one child policy wasn’t a mistake, as it happens, though it probably continued too long.)

This chart is of average rent as a percentage of income.

As a westerner this is mind boggling. My entire life rent prices have just increased and increased and increased. So have housing prices. One of my big criticisms of China for years was that they had overly-relied on housing bubbles to fund their growth and that it was causing significant discontent. Every young Chinese person mentioned it as a problem.

So then they just… went and fixed it? And yes, it’s been painful, and led to some softness in the economy, but when it’s done, the economy will be much stronger. (See, “China is Transitioning, and So far successfully“).

China faced a challenge during Trump’s first term: he slapped export controls on chips. They didn’t have a significant domestic industry. So they built one. They knew that if America had done this with one industry, they could do it with all, so they set a national goal to become self sufficient industrially: to be able to make everything they needed. As this was happening, they realized housing was too expensive, so they made that part of the solution, they rotated investment out of real estate into industry.

To a Westerner who has lived their entire adult life under neo-liberalism, this is mind-boggling. Wait, the government can “just do things?” And when it decides to do things, it succeeds? It isn’t just bullshit?

I mean do things other than de-regulate and say “well there isn’t anything we can really do, this is just how the world is.” Do things other than just make the rich even richer? Do things other than constantly de-funding science and engineering and the humanities? Do things other than making medicine fantastically expensive? Do something other than blowing another asset bubble?

I’m 57, and I remember the world before neoliberalism, but I remember it as a child. In my entire adult life I have not seen a Western government capable of doing what China does: set an important goal which benefits the population as a whole and crush it.

China is winning because China deserves to win, because it is better run. I’m not going to whitewash it: there are a lot of things I don’t like about how China is run. But bottom line, it’s run more for the benefit of ordinary citizens than most Western countries, and those countries which seem to be run for the benefit of the population as a whole are running on legacy systems: the entire EU it seems, is considering gutting their social welfare systems to spend more money on American weapons. For my entire life things have been getting slowly worse in France and Germany, and quickly worse in the UK. In China, on the other hand, life keeps getting better for the majority of the population.

Are you worried about Democracy? You should be. But one simple threat is this: China isn’t a democracy and its actions clearly benefit the majority of its people more than the actions of American or British or EU governments benefit their people.

Democracy isn’t just a something word you wave around. If it doesn’t produce better results, people will stop believing in it.

China’s winning because the CCP gets results and the results it chooses to get are, much more often than in the West, good for the majority of its people. That means it deserves to win, and we deserve to lose.

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

China is a Rich Society. No Western Country Is.

By

On August 20, 2025

Comments

Chinese and American flags flying together

Saw this recently, from the University of Chicago:


The commentary is a bit of an exaggeration. But not too much.

Now if this was just one data point, it wouldn’t matter, but the bottom line is that funding for universities, including university research, in being massively cut in America and the UK, with issues in most Western countries. It’s not just about the humanities, science is getting hit hard, as is engineering.

As best I can tell, China has opened about 1,700 new universities and colleges in the past 25 years. Those that existed have expanded enrollment. It’s very reminiscent of the post war period in America. And the best of universities are excellent.

Americans are ostensibly rich, yes, but the society is not. A lot of the apparent wealth is false: if it costs one fifth as much to get dental or health care or one tenth as much to buy a good pair of earphones; if it costs one-third as much to buy an electric car, well, all of the extra cost in America goes to GDP, and Americans have higher incomes, but who’s actually richer?

And when you look at Chinese cities and provinces they are building infrastructure massively. The cities are beautifully lit up at night. There is a huge space program, even as the American space program is cut, and cut and cut. There are dozens of EV companies and in general there is competition in most of the cutting edge parts of the society. Coffee is cheaper (which is why Starbucks is getting shellacked in China). Everything is cheaper, there’s more of it and the government and private actors spend money on huge new projects, on research and on infrastructure.

China is a rich society, because they can do things. America’s last real gasp as a rich society was the Apollo program, ever since then, it’s been in retreat. Europe, well, Europe had a good time in the post war period, but since then, despite some success in the 90s and early 2000’s, it’s been in retreat and it has recently chosen the path of de-industrialization and xenophobic isolationism, which is not going to serve it. University cuts in the UK, in particular, have been savage, but Europe, even taken as a whole is behind China, the US, Japan and South Korea in research and technological advancement.

 

 

The Chinese have built massive high speed rail, lead in civilians drones, in robotics and are competitive in AI, which is 20x cheaper to run (more importantly, it uses FAR less energy than American AI, which draws more energy than entire countries.) They are ahead in most material sciences, catching up in civilian aviation (soon they will be ahead), have vastly more shipbuilding capacity, are ahead in missile technology, will soon eat SpaceX’s lunch  in launch costs (no, I will not be wrong about this.)

China does thing. The government is rich. Corporations are not spending all their money in stock buybacks and acquisitions, but are actually competing and trying to create new and better products than their competitors.

The best parallel is probably not post-war America, but pre-WWI America. China has taken the lead from America, there is zero chance of America catching up absent a large meteor hitting China, but they don’t actually spend much on their military. I was shocked to find out that the Chinese military has about 2.2 million soldiers out of a population of 1.4 billion. All of this with a sincere effort to provide a decent standard of living to everyone and a genuine attack on inequality. (Chinese inequality is very high, but it is concentrated in the top 10%, not the top .01%, which is being attacked by the government.)

China is a civilian society, with a civilian economy. It is in a vastly expansive phase, one which could last as much as sixty to eighty years, assuming environmental or international issues don’t derail it. (They will.)

China is where the future is. If you are younger, learn Mandarin. It will be as essential as English was for the past hundred and twenty years.

Hope for the future now rests in China. You may not like that, but it’s just a fact. They’re the country that can actually do things, and whether our problems are fixed, or mitigated (more likely) is up to them, just as for a long time it was up to the US (which failed almost completely, play “I see no evil, I hear no evil” every since 1980.

I don’t know if I for one welcome our Chinese overlords, but it doesn’t matter. They’re here. The West has already lost the race and is retreating into a poorer, more backwards second world situation, similar to the late USSR and Warsaw Pact.

It will end as well for the US and NATO as it did for the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Why Does The CCP Accomplish Goals Meant To Better China’s People?

By

On July 3, 2025

Comments

Chinese and American flags flying together

When I originally formulated this article it was just “Why does the CCP accomplish its goals?”

But that’s a stupid article. Certainly there are governments which fail to accomplish their goals, in countries which lacks state capacity or are in constrained positions. But for most of my life most Western governments haven’t been all that constrained, they just acted as if they were.

The truth is that Western governments have mostly accomplished their goals over the last 45 years: it’s just that their ur-goal was to make the rich richer. If that meant burning everything else down, they were OK with that. There are a number of reasons for this, but basically political elites were bought: do what the rich want and even if you lose office you’ll be very well taken care of. Instead of viewing government as “theirs” and their countries as “belonging to them” they viewed political office as a way to get rich. Instead of viewing the rich as their competitors for power, to be kept under control, they viewed them as their benefactors and as the ones who could put them into office. Or, put another way, most elected representatives saw themselves as de-facto employees, or contractors, of the rich and corporations.

This view has explanatory power: politicians do what you’d expect them to do if it were true. Take a look at Trump: his budget has 4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, and to partially pay for those cuts, it is getting rid of 800 billion in Medicare funding. The idea that he’s some sort of economic populist is laughable. He’s making the rich get richer, just like every other President since Carter (though Reagan was the real inflection point.)

This wasn’t always the case. From 33 till around 68 or so, the primary policy goal in America was the growth and prosperity of the middle class, and most politicians, while they’d take the money of corporations and rich to some extent, saw them as the enemy, to be kept under control.

So, let’s turn to the CCP. They have lifted more people out of poverty than every other country combined. The one-child policy, whether you agree with it or not, did get China’s population growth under control. They are ahead in 80% of techs, when 20 years ago that number belonged to the US. They have the largest industrial economy in the world. They are reducing housing prices, which was their goal. They are reducing inequality and smashing the number of billionaires. They are installing more renewable energy than the rest of the world combined. They are building industrial stacks so that nothing they actually need comes from the rest of the world—they’re not quite there yet but they will be. (Don’t invest in TMSC long term, their near monopoly position is almost over and they will soon be overtaken by the Chinese. Three to five years at most is my guess.)

The CCP accomplishes its goals. Its primary goal is:

The Preservation of its own power. There are two branches to this: avoidance of foreign military conquest or regime change, and avoidance of domestic collapse or revolt.

To be powerful, and thus not be at the mercy of foreigners (one of Mao’s main goals) requires an educated, prosperous population and an industrial economy, because military power post-industrial revolution is primarily a result of technology plus industry. If another country can defeat you militarily, you won’t stay in power if they don’t want you to.

Domestically if the population loves you (and all polling shows vast support for the CCP) you will keep power. If they despise you, you will eventually lose power. The Soviets, with all their tanks and soldiers, fell in part because neither the people nor the elites believed in rule by the Party any more. So making the people prosperous is job one for protecting the CCP’s rule. Prosperous people don’t revolt. The Chinese believe this more than any other civilization. The entire “Mandate of Heaven” is based on this, and for over two thousand years the Chinese have regarded the government as responsible for prosperity. When it can no longer provide it, not only is overthrowing it justified, it is even virtuous. On the other hand, to overthrow a government which takes care of the people is vile, and understood as such.

Likewise, if one doesn’t want a change in which elites control the country, one can’t allow domestic power centers other than the party to spring up. This is why the CCP has been crushing billionaires. This is why the CCP banned the Falun Gong (who had widespread membership, including members in the CCP.) Bilionaires were particularly pernicious, because they corrupted party members, and those members goals changed from keeping the CCP in power by making China stronger and people more prosperous, to making a small number of people rich at the cost of general prosperity.

Xi was absolutely correct to make going after corruption his first and most important goal, because the CCP had split into factions and those factions were putting their own prosperity and strength above those of the party and the country. Left unchecked China would have fallen into a corruption spiral, inequality would have spiralled out of control and even if the CCP existed in form, it would no longer be its own power center, but controlled by others.

Now it should be understood that the CCP’s basic ideology isn’t “stay in power at all costs”. Like all ideologies it justifies it otherwise. It would say, and many party members, probably including Xi, would say that the party wants to stay in power because it can make China powerful and prosperous.

Given China’s progress since the party took over (and there was plenty of progress under Mao, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise — education and lifespand went way up), the CCP feels entirely justified in this belief.

Of course all things pass, and at some point the CCP will fail and be replaced, either in form (abolished) or by takeover. The Democratic party still exists in America, after all, but FDR or even LBJ would not recognize it, nor have any respect for it. Even Carter, the original neoliberal, by the end of his life, found it abominable. (I suspect young President Carter didn’t fully understand the consequences of what he helped birth.)

But for now, the CCP stands in its glory, having accomplished much of what it originally set out to do. It kicked out foreign occupiers. It made China strong enough that it could no longer be pushed around or occupied. It made the Chinese people prosperous. It gained the technological and industrial lead over the West.

It did so because it regards China as belonging to it, and believes that it has a responsibility to the people of China and that it deserves and will keep its power only if it delivers for the people of China: not for a minority, but for the masses.

None of this is to say the CCP is perfect, just that it’s an effective government which actually wants a prosperous population.

Our governments are effective, but what they want is richer rich people. As a result they will become ineffective and at some point they will either fall and change form and rise again, or they will devolve into full-on failed states.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

Prices of Both Housing And Rent Are Decreasing In China

By

On July 2, 2025

Comments

In 2016, Xi said that houses were for living in, not for speculating. The Chinese government took steps to reduce prices, those steps took time to bear fruit.

 

 

Likewise, rent prices have been dropping recently:

And yes, this is a result of government policy:

While, according to the PBOC, in the pre-pandemic decade, the annual rental inflation in China exceeded 1.2%, it slowed significantly in recent years and has been in the negative in the last twelve months. In March 2025, the rent of the rental housing component of the consumer price index (CPI) showed a 0.1% year-on-year decline, trending upwards, however, from -0.4% and -0.3% annual change rates previously registered in September 2024 and December 2024, respectively.

“In recent years, rents have declined due to lower income expectations and the increase in government-subsidized housing supply. This has provided tenants with more options and increased bargaining power, making lease renewals a key challenge for leasing companies,” noted Savills in their 2025 Chinese Real Estate Market Outlook.

Now you might think “this means the Chinese economy or citizen is in trouble!” No.

In stark contrast to the slowdown across housing and industry, however, Chinese consumers appear motivated to open their wallets and spend on goods. Retail sales grew 6.4% in May, topping expectations and sharply accelerating from April’s 5.1% rise.

Now, standard Western economists think that the real-estate market slumping is bad, and retail trade going up is good, but they’re both good and they’re both a result of government policy. China wants relatively cheap real-estate and to increase the size of its domestic consumer market so its industry is less reliant on exports. (Trump has kindly demonstrated the problem with over-reliance on trade partners.)

The thing is that if real-estate had kept going up in price the way it did in the past, the CCP would be in danger: their legitimacy rests on the idea that people’s lives keep betting better. For many years I kept reading young people in China saying they couldn’t afford to own a home. That was (and still is, to some extent) a problem. Xi acted on it.

Further high real-estate prices increase the costs of every single business, since they increase the costs of employees. China wants to stay an industrial power, not become worthless rentiers and financiers, and as such real-estate can’t be allowed to increase too much.

Now for a long time real-estate is how city government financed themselves. It was an engine which allowed growth. But when it started becoming a financial game, with people owning multiple condos or houses; prices increasing faster than wages and people locked out of ownership Beijing acted.

You can’t be an industrial power if rentiers: people who expect to make money thru time arbitrage and managed scarcity, are in charge of your society.

It is also true that if you aren’t a major manufacturing power you can’t become or remain a major military power. (Britain says “Hi!” America says, “uhhhhh….”)

Anyway, China needs to keep housing and rental prices down. At the very least they need to increase less than wage increases and for many years.

All signs are, that as is most often the case, the CCP is succeeding at the policy goals it set out for itself.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Losing Our Asian Allies – And Fast

By

On June 25, 2025

Comments

Ian in his last post mentioned that our Asian allies are slipping away from us. While we pretend to strategically re-orient the Japanese are engaging in massive rearmament begun by Abe and being continued by the current government. Japan has lost confidence in the American security umbrella because of the deceit we’ve displayed in foreign relations. The Koreans? I lived in Korea. They’re simply apoplectic. Some are even at the point where they are willing to consider a loose confederation with the north, an entente of sorts so the South has the protection of the North’s nuclear umbrella and the North gains goods and services from the South.

This is simply unheard of. When I talked to one of my former students who now works in the foreign ministry and he told me this I was gobsmacked.

Ian’s correct. For 400 years the balance of payments from the rest of the world went to the Littoral seapower states. For the last 50 years the balance of payments has been reversed.  All that gold is going back home. In one generation the United States has squandered all the goodwill and wealth it received during WWI and WWII. China in the last 50 years has lifted more people out of poverty than the rest of the world did during all of recorded history. Chew on that stat for a moment.

I will be visiting China and South Korea to do a 20 year retrospective tour and a 30 year retrospective tour on the former and the latter. I don’t know what to expect, but I remember China 20 years ago and being blown away.

The USA is in deep strategic shit. For 200+ years our power has been based on our complete hegemony of this hemisphere. For 75 of the last 100 years our main strategic goal has been the prevention of one power or an alliance of powers attaining hegemonic power over the Eurasian landmass. In the last six years we’ve abandoned that VITAL national interest for what? We’ve driven Russia into the arms of China. India lost all confidence in us. Now East Asia has.

If a single power or coalition of powers dominate the Eurasian landmass our two oceans will not protect us.

It appears I might have been wrong about the Israeli-Iran pissing contest being the opening act of WWIII. Good. What it really feels like is the first Balkan War in 1912. The calculus is being made in Beijing. And Tokyo. And Seoul. And Taipei. We lack the ability to protect our allies conventionally. And no one wants nukes.

I don’t have any smart quip to conclude with except a Spanish expletive, “la puebla es jodida.”

You get the idea.

Page 1 of 12

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén