The "Belt Road Initiative" - China's New Silk Road

[Shiranu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvXROXiIpvQ


While the West is busy tearing itself apart, be it through populist movements in Europe destabilizing the E.U. and leading America back into isolationism... or through conflict and disorder often times orchestrated by the Russians... , the rest of the world isn't sleeping and resting on it's laurels.

China has invested trillions of dollars across the world to expand their influence; I've posted a video before about the money and effort they are putting into upgrading African infrastructure and basically setting off a new era of African colonialism.

But this is different... this isn't about creating puppet states indebted to you for resources... this is instead building a transport system that will almost fully shift the focus of trade away from the West and instead back towards China, using the blueprint of the Silk Road.

Think about that for a second... for basically our entire lives and for several hundred years before that... all the world's trade was centered around us. But in one man's mid-life, Xi Jingping is managing to completely focus the entire commerce of the world back towards his country.

For all the horrible things he has done and how repressive his regime is, I have to give him his due respect for that. The BRI is a project as ambitious and historic as it gets. It is actually pretty exciting, though it sucks living on the losing side of that fight.

[Baruch]

Rather old news.  The problem is, will there be a China at the other end after Genghis Trump is done with it?

Generally, it is good to have both a land route for trade, and a sea route.  Back in olden times, sea routes were preferred, because you hadn't been conquered by the Roman legions yet (they put in good military roads, just like Ike did in the US).

The thing that made the Silk Road work best, was Mongolian conquest from one end to the other.  But at a high cost in genocide to the people in between.  Before the Mongols, trade was a series of trade between one caravan city to the next, with goods eventually making it all the way to England (silk).  Though the Byzantines took some wind out of it, by stealing the secret of silk.  BTW ... originally the intermediary step was created by Alexander the Great.  Without him, the intervening barbarians wouldn't let any caravans thru.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Rphg_lwwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZpIBfBr4UI

The Muslim conquests also improved the Western leg of the Silk Road.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH9UhfRKAOc

This was how the West got modern paper (invented in China as a substitute for unobtainable papyrus).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjS1FbHLIxM

Greatest ancient massacre, but it made it possible for the Polos to travel from Venice to Xanadu, because they had diplomatic passes from the Great Khan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KTMi9l-bu0

Marco Polo's story inspired Columbus of course.

[Baruch]

Ibn Battuta 100 years later took his own amazing journey, from Morocco to Canton China, and back again.  But not over the Silk Road.

[Cavebear]

China is likely to be the next superpower.  If its artificial economy based on technology theft doesn't fail first.

Decades ago, it was supposed to be Germany, then Japan, then the EU. 

[Hydra009]

China is strange in that on one hand, it's making huge strides forward - taking pollution seriously, expanding its economy and trade network, expanding its influence abroad, etc.

But on the other hand, China has huge internal problems and has been making disquieting steps deeper into authoritarianism.

I say this tounge-in-cheek, but China is fast becoming a country with tourist resorts on the same road as a concentration camp.

[Baruch]

China is strange in that on one hand, it's making huge strides forward - taking pollution seriously, expanding its economy and trade network, expanding its influence abroad, etc.

But on the other hand, China has huge internal problems and has been making disquieting steps deeper into authoritarianism.

I say this tounge-in-cheek, but China is fast becoming a country with tourist resorts on the same road as a concentration camp.

To the Han, anyone else is just Uigher.

[Shiranu]

China is strange in that on one hand, it's making huge strides forward - taking pollution seriously, expanding its economy and trade network, expanding its influence abroad, etc.

But on the other hand, China has huge internal problems and has been making disquieting steps deeper into authoritarianism.

I say this tounge-in-cheek, but China is fast becoming a country with tourist resorts on the same road as a concentration camp.

Edit: Holy pho, I did not mean that to become a full essay. Sorry.

I've been wanting to comment on this for a minute, but haven't really been able to fully solidify my thoughts on it. Still haven't, but whatever...

I don't believe anymore that there is a 'right' way in terms of freedom vs authoritarianism. While freedom is certainly the ideal, it is also ultimately impossible to maintain. Like tolerance it is by it's very nature paradoxical... too much freedom or tolerance means that people will use their freedom to deny other's, or your tolerance of their misdeeds means they will then exploit that to their advantage.

I don't feel it's necessary to say, but I will anyways... what China does to it's minorities such as the Uyghur or Tibetans is fucked up and one of the biggest human right violations happening today, and it's implementation of a social credit system and heavy citizen observation has very obvious risks of being corrupted and abused.

But would China be any better off as a democracy? Nearly 60% of the world lives in countries that are proper democracies, but the overwhelming majority of those are still living at sub-par levels when compared to the truely elite countries. Democracy is no guarantee of stability or improved living conditions.

Likewise, in 1978, 90% of the population of China lived in "Extreme Poverty" conditions. Under Xi Jingping, that number has dropped to 3.1%. His efforts to eradicate poverty in China is absolutely mind blowing, and I'm actually going to save those numbers for another thread because... well, they are mind blowing.

What Xi has done for his country is lead the biggest improvement in living conditions for the masses in world history. Literally over a billion people in his country alone are living an immensely better life because of his actions, and I can understand why the state wants to be very heavy handed in making sure it stays that way. And while there are obviously caveats, hidden fees and deception... the humanitarian aide China has provided globally is inarguably improving the lives of millions upon millions more. It remains to be seen how long they will remain improved, however.

As I said before, it's a very complicated but exciting time and one I don't enjoy living on the wrong side of... but in my opinion, Xi Jingping, for good or bad, will go down as one of the most influential human beings to have ever existed on this world and like every other great person of history... it's complicated and also like most of them it was done through authoritarianistic means. Perhaps that's just the way we work; while individuals, the people, inherently are good and tend to do the right thing, societies and communities have to generally be forced with a heavy hand to do what is best for them or the whole.

A while we may have moral issues with what he does now... who knows, in 100 years it may have been completely written out of history or even viewed as the morally "right" choice of sacrificing a few to save the many, and we will be the "bad guys" for opposing it.

[Hydra009]

It's certainly a complicated topic, and while democracy is no guarantee of stability or prosperity, I'm reasonably sure there's a fairly significant correlation.

Democracies are certainly plentiful around the world - but their quality varies drastically.  Some regularly practice what are essentially sham elections.  No doubt that factors into an analysis on democracies - you can't lump in mold-ridden bread with fresh bread and declare that bread is inherently dangerous to eat.

And while there are certainly perils associated with individual freedoms, I think that a balanced approach that generally favors freedom is ideal.  (Though explaining why I think that would no doubt be a very lengthy thread)

And even assuming Xi has the purest of intentions - abandoning the pretense of elections and setting up a permanent ruler is an incredibly dangerous precedent - all it takes is one idiot ruler to ruin and every successor is a roll of the dice.  One thing I've noticed in my history books is how dynasties collapse due to poor rule.  Democracies are far more self-correcting (although current events cast some doubt on this claim, I maintain that hindsight is 2020)

And finally, to put it simply, would you prefer to live in a country where you can elect your leader or one in which you cannot?

If I asked that question to a million random people in the world (in complete confidence), I would be surprised by more than a few percentage points saying the latter answer.

[Baruch]

Without Americans and Europeans buying all the Chinese stuff, their market revolution wouldn't have gotten anywhere.  Was Xi or Deng responsible for that too?

If hindsight is 2020, then that election will be epic!

Perhaps, Shiranu likes his authoritarians, as long as they aren't Trump?  That is the problem with being multicultural.  Modern democracy is Anglo-Saxon, the majority of humanity thru most of history has had authoritarian monarchy.  Xi and (a jealous Putin) are angling to be Emperor and Czar.  Exporting democracy to Russia failed immediately in 1917, failed in Germany in 1933.  China isn't a "one party" democracy, that is an oxymoron, same as the state of the new Kerensky post 1991 in Russia.

[Shiranu]

Edit: Actually, just going to condense these to the keypoints.

To answer your last question first...

And finally, to put it simply, would you prefer to live in a country where you can elect your leader or one in which you cannot?

I would prefer to live in a country with a competent ruler/ruling class. Corruption and greed are what makes a terrible ruler, not if they were elected into power or born into it.

Remember, the bloodiest war in human history was essentially democratically chosen by the people (minus Japan)... the French, Germans, Italians and English all elected leaders that not only set the stage for WW2 to be inevitable but in Germany's and Italy's cases outright voted for the war and genocide.

No doubt that factors into an analysis on democracies - you can't lump in mold-ridden bread with fresh bread and declare that bread is inherently dangerous to eat.

True, but it also hampers the idea that bread is inherently the greatest food to ever exist and you couldn't feast on any other substance.

165 countries in the world are considered democracies, of varying degrees of success... but of those, only 19 are considered fully democratic by the EIU... and that's seven less than we had about 10 years ago.

The bread itself may not be the problem, but there is clearly something plaguing it. Perhaps a diet of bread alone is not sufficient.

And even assuming Xi has the purest of intentions - abandoning the pretense of elections and setting up a permanent ruler is an incredibly dangerous precedent - all it takes is one idiot ruler to ruin and every successor is a roll of the dice.

While democracies have a few more fail-safes, they are still incredibly fragile... and I would say they are potentially even more fragile than an authoritarian regime. Democracies may not fall apart as quickly, but they also do not recover anywhere near as quickly as well.

It all matters much more on corruption than on manner of government as to what the standards of living will be for it's citizens, and that seems to be the case throughout all of history from what I have seen.

[Shiranu]

Modern democracy is Anglo-Saxon...

Come now, that's not even remotely accurate. If anything Anglo-Saxon government would be much more akin to China or North Korea, depending on what stage they are at.

[SoldierofFortune]

This iniyiative is a part of realizing the global world.

the investments in Chine are by the ultra rich from west world and wr can say Chine is a half-exploitee

[Baruch]

Come now, that's not even remotely accurate. If anything Anglo-Saxon government would be much more akin to China or North Korea, depending on what stage they are at.

You are ignorant of history.  Democracy arose out of particular cultures, not out of all cultures.  Same with religious tolerance.  You also assume stages ... that is the old "white man's burden" theory of 100 years ago.  Everyone will become, eventually, just like Rudyard Kipling ;-)  And by helping the "little sambo" out of commercial interest or power interest or religious humanitarianism, we can show the "deplorables" how to jump ahead on the Progress sequence, to be more like "us" quicker.  Only now, you see the Dark Continent not as Africa, but in "fly over country" in the US.

I am not saying the Greeks or English are superior, only that they are unique.  Can you imagine China communist, unless there was some atheist Jew from Germany?  Peasant revolt, sure .. happened before.  But not communist.

[Baruch]

This iniyiative is a part of realizing the global world.

the investments in Chine are by the ultra rich from west world and wr can say Chine is a half-exploitee

That is why the Rothschilds moved all the London gold from London to Hong Kong (now part of China, not the British Empire).  Globalism isn't viable, unless we are one ethnic group with one ideology and one language (see tower of Babel).  That uber-race is Han today (to any Chinese), just as it was British (to any Brit), 100 years ago.

[Hydra009]

I would prefer to live in a country with a competent ruler/ruling class. Corruption and greed are what makes a terrible ruler, not if they were elected into power or born into it.

Imo, the process and result are highly related.

Remember, the bloodiest war in human history was essentially democratically chosen by the people (minus Japan)... the French, Germans, Italians and English all elected leaders that not only set the stage for WW2 to be inevitable but in Germany's and Italy's cases outright voted for the war and genocide.

WWII had authoritarian regimes on both sides.  And I note that fascists tended to not be super into democracy in general (understatement) and were somewhat opposed to continuing that tradition (massive understatement).

But enough of WWII.  Those were a handful of bloody years out of millennia of history.  Since then Europe has largely rejected fascism and democracies have bloomed, especially in the wake of the Soviet collapse.  How peaceful/warlike has it been since then?  And not just in Europe, but in strong democracies in the Americas, Australia, and eastern Asia?  Now compare that to juntas and dictatorships and theocracies and other authoritarian regimes.  How many wars have they been involved with?  How stable has their political system been?

Surely you're already aware of this, but I'll bring it up for the lurkers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory  While it's not exactly ironclad, it does seem to generally be the case that democracies rarely resort to violence against other democracies.

True, but it also hampers the idea that bread is inherently the greatest food to ever exist and you couldn't feast on any other substance.

It isn't a perfect analogy...but that works.  You could certainly live off something else.  It's not the end-all-be-all of everything, just a useful invention that spread far and wide from its humble roots.

165 countries in the world are considered democracies, of varying degrees of success... but of those, only 19 are considered fully democratic by the EIU... and that's seven less than we had about 10 years ago.

Indeed, democracy has been under threat of late (I hardly think I need to introduce the villains, especially to you) and there has been a global decline for the past decade or so.  Some states are more vulnerable than others.

It all matters much more on corruption than on manner of government as to what the standards of living will be for it's citizens, and that seems to be the case throughout all of history from what I have seen.

If fighting corruption is your chief concern, then applauding a president for life seems like a strange position to take.  Wouldn't it be better to rotate the position out so that corruption does not take hold?  Perhaps some sort of special day where the public might put forth candidates for office and choose among them?