[Fasces]

Yes, yes. Xi got a third term.

When Xi took his third term, he also selected a new Politburo Standing Committee, which will lead the government policy. A couple of interesting points from his new standing committee:

1. No successor - There is no clear nominee that meets the age and positional requirement to succeed Xi Jinping. Not super shocking, but does indicate the Xi intends to go beyond 3 terms.

2. Removal of Li Keqiang - Li Keqiang was the former Premier under Xi, and the de facto number two of the government. Li was in favour of economic liberalization and was seen as pragmatist party member. With his removal, the government will likely become more hardline.

Li Keqiang's replacement for Premier is Li Qiang (names sound similar, their record is very different). Li Qiang oversaw the brutal Shanghai lockdowns. He is also a vocal Xi Jinping cheerleader, and a potential yes man. Contrasted from Li Keqiang that would vocalize different ideas from Xi.

Politburo Standing Committee departures also include liberal reformers like Wang Yang and Han Zheng. The only 2 people to remain on the Standing Committee are the hardliners Wang Huning and Zhao Leji. That means less opening of economy and likely more crackdowns.

New additions to the politburo are all conservative hardliners and Xi loyalists. We have shift from a mix of conservative and reformers. Most of the new members have worked directly under Xi.

I think media will cover Xi's unprecedented third term, and not enough attention is going to be given to the men standing behind him that will be running the day-to-day government. We have a more conservative Chinese government that will likely be more Hawk-ish towards US and Taiwan. The feeling of third term President Xi and his new Standing Committee is going to be very different from the last few years.

[Rugoz]

The longer he stays in power, the more hawkish it will get.

[Istanbuller]

He can stay in power as much as he wants. You know he is a dictator.

[Rich]

When is China going to collapse? Is it still next week or has it been put back another week. It seems to me that as long as China can sustain one to two percent growth with a stable or falling population.and I've seen no sign that it can't, the system is quite viable. I will be very happy to be proved wrong and the conventional wisdom to be proved correct, but we've been waiting for over 30 years now for China's inevitable and imminent demise.

[JohnRawls]

Yes, yes. Xi got a third term.

When Xi took his third term, he also selected a new Politburo Standing Committee, which will lead the government policy. A couple of interesting points from his new standing committee:

1. No successor - There is no clear nominee that meets the age and positional requirement to succeed Xi Jinping. Not super shocking, but does indicate the Xi intends to go beyond 3 terms.

2. Removal of Li Keqiang - Li Keqiang was the former Premier under Xi, and the de facto number two of the government. Li was in favour of economic liberalization and was seen as pragmatist party member. With his removal, the government will likely become more hardline.

Li Keqiang's replacement for Premier is Li Qiang (names sound similar, their record is very different). Li Qiang oversaw the brutal Shanghai lockdowns. He is also a vocal Xi Jinping cheerleader, and a potential yes man. Contrasted from Li Keqiang that would vocalize different ideas from Xi.

Politburo Standing Committee departures also include liberal reformers like Wang Yang and Han Zheng. The only 2 people to remain on the Standing Committee are the hardliners Wang Huning and Zhao Leji. That means less opening of economy and likely more crackdowns.

New additions to the politburo are all conservative hardliners and Xi loyalists. We have shift from a mix of conservative and reformers. Most of the new members have worked directly under Xi.

I think media will cover Xi's unprecedented third term, and not enough attention is going to be given to the men standing behind him that will be running the day-to-day government. We have a more conservative Chinese government that will likely be more Hawk-ish towards US and Taiwan. The feeling of third term President Xi and his new Standing Committee is going to be very different from the last few years.

So the better question is what is the economic plan of these people?

[Rugoz]

When is China going to collapse? Is it still next week or has it been put back another week. It seems to me that as long as China can sustain one to two percent growth with a stable or falling population.and I've seen no sign that it can't, the system is quite viable. I will be very happy to be proved wrong and the conventional wisdom to be proved correct, but we've been waiting for over 30 years now for China's inevitable and imminent demise.

Rich fighting his own straw men again.

[Istanbuller]

China and Russia collapse every day according to CNN and BBC. Western media is credible.

[Negotiator]

The really depressing part for fans of democracy like me is to compare how Russia fared turning into a democracy compared to China still being an autocracy.

Russia went through a decade of ruin under Boris Jeltzin. Putin cleared up after Jeltzin, is an extremely successful and very popular democratic politician, and now everyone calls him a dictator for that.

While China is as stable as ever, despite not even claiming to be a democracy.

By the way I wonder what the west will say about India. They've always been a democracy in the first place.

[Fasces]

By the way I wonder what the west will say about India. They've always been a democracy in the first place.

The minute India becomes a technological, industrial, or financial rival to Western hegemony you'll start seeing a lot of news articles about the Kashmir issue, the caste issue, the "growing authoritarian tendancies of the Hindu parties", etc etc. Standard playbook.

[JohnRawls]

The minute India becomes a technological, industrial, or financial rival to Western hegemony you'll start seeing a lot of news articles about the Kashmir issue, the caste issue, the "growing authoritarian tendancies of the Hindu parties", etc etc. Standard playbook.

That is not true. Japan is an example of that.

[Fasces]

That is not true. Japan is an example of that.

Open an American newspaper from the 80s and say that.

[MadMonk]

That is not true. Japan is an example of that.

That is not even close to the truth. When Japan rose to become the number one economic competitor to the US during the 80s, a widespread media-fueled culture of 'Japan bashing' followed.

THE PHENOMENON OF “JAPAN BASHING” IN US-JAPANESE RELATIONS

The paper presents different perspectives of explaining the phenomenon of “Japan bashing”in the United States starting in mid 1980s and ending in mid 1990s. “Japan bashing” can be defined as a harsh criticism, widely voiced, of Japan and its economic policy, which was perceived as a reason for different American problems and a growing threat to the country’s global standing.

Then the explanations provided by the various social sciences are summarized, including the substitution of Soviet Union by Japan as a main competitor, different global economic environment and finally the threat of strong Japan to American identity as well as to the the narrative of asymmetrical US--Japanese relations after the WWII, in which the US played the role of a patron. Concluding remarks place this period of mutual relations in a broader historical context of stereotypical perceiving Japan as a threat but also point out the ambiguities of the discourse of “Japan bashing.”

In the US, Japanese economic policy started to be perceived as aggressive, unfair and threatening to undermine the global standing of the United States. In Japan, those accusations were seen as yet another example of Western bullying of emerging but benign Asian power.

Japan’s economic recovery was nothing short of a miracle and by 1980s it had become the world’s second largest economy. In that time the economic standing of the US was also evolving, albeit in somewhat opposite direction. US economy emerged from the troubles of the past decade with much uncertainty. In globalizing economy it lost its position as the world’s biggest creditor; the title now belonged to Japan, while the US developed a chronic foreign trade deficit. Export from Japan was winning the U.S. markets, and the capital gained was being reinvested in the U.S. Japan became a serious competitor in such traditionally American industries as cars and electronics (Wilkinson 1990:6). Much public attention was devoted to a number of Japanese investments seen as symbolic “trophy purchases,” such as Columbia Studios or Rockefeller Center. At the same time U.S. exports and investments in Japan lagged behind and failed to secure considerable shares of Japanese markets. Trade deficit grew from $1.7 billion in 1974 to $50 billion in 1985 (Morris 2006: 64). At the end of the decade, imbalance in trade with Japan stood for 2/3 of total US trade deficit (Wilkinson 1990: 190–199). Series of economic talks and negotiations dragged, with mixed results, into the ‘90s, in which Washington tried to made Japan to guarantee a given market share for American products, threatening with economic retaliation.

The economic assault from impenetrable and sneaky enemy became a theme of many popular books, with titles such as “Selling Out: How We Are Letting Japan Buy Our Land, Our Industries, Our Financial Institutions, and Our Future,” “Japan’s Secret War,” “Agents of Influence: How Japan Manipulates America’s Political and Economic System,” “Japan’s Secret Weapon: The Kata Factor. The Cultural Programming That Made the Japanese the Superior People.” In the realm of popular culture, Michael Crichton corporate thriller “The Rising Sun” became proverbial when speaking of “Japan bashing,” for its portrayal of Japanese businessman as new breed of “economic samurai” (Morris 2006: 75) warriors, poised to infiltrate the US.

[JohnRawls]

That is not even close to the truth. When Japan rose to become the number one economic competitor to the US during the 80s, a widespread media-fueled culture of 'Japan bashing' followed.

THE PHENOMENON OF “JAPAN BASHING” IN US-JAPANESE RELATIONS

Media fearmongering is nothing new, heck we have French vs British or British vs Europe or Dutch vs the world or Germans vs Italians here in Europe all the time.

One thing is for the media to say bullshit and a whole different level is for the government to actually start undermining the competitor for no apparent reason. Which the US didn't do by the way and negotiated properly in Japan etc at the time. My point being is that if you are a democratic country then you learn how to resolve differences in a reasonable manner. I don't know but EU and US are a good example of that.

Same goes for Japan and America in the 80s.

News are always going to be news though which is good actually.

[JohnRawls]

Open an American newspaper from the 80s and say that.

Sure, fearmongering by newspapers isn't new. But we are talking about different kind of level of hostility here, no? You said that if you become a competitor to US then you become a hostile power. Didn't happen with Japan and also didn't happen with the EU. We manage to solve our problems peacefully by talking because we are democracies.

[Fasces]

Sure, fearmongering by newspapers isn't new. But we are talking about different kind of level of hostility here, no? You said that if you become a competitor to US then you become a hostile power. Didn't happen with Japan and also didn't happen with the EU. We manage to solve our problems peacefully by talking because we are democracies.

The minute India becomes a technological, industrial, or financial rival to Western hegemony you'll start seeing a lot of news articles about the Kashmir issue, the caste issue, the "growing authoritarian tendancies of the Hindu parties", etc etc. Standard playbook.

And in the case of Japan, it was forced to sign the Plaza Accord by the United States to make Japanese exports less competitive, a leading contributor to the Lost Decade.

[ckaihatsu]

Media fearmongering is nothing new, heck we have French vs British or British vs Europe or Dutch vs the world or Germans vs Italians here in Europe all the time.

One thing is for the media to say bullshit and a whole different level is for the government to actually start undermining the competitor for no apparent reason. Which the US didn't do by the way and negotiated properly in Japan etc at the time. My point being is that if you are a democratic country then you learn how to resolve differences in a reasonable manner. I don't know but EU and US are a good example of that.

[EDIT: MISREAD. RETRACTED.]


Happy smiling Europe holding hands! No world wars there!


x D

Same goes for Japan and America in the 80s.

News are always going to be news though which is good actually.

---

And in the case of Japan, it was forced to sign the Plaza Accord by the United States to make Japanese exports less competitive, a leading contributor to the Lost Decade.

From 1980 to 1985, the dollar had appreciated by about 50% against the Japanese yen, Deutsche Mark, French franc, and British pound, the currencies of the next four biggest economies at the time.[8] In March 1985, just before the G7, the dollar reached its highest valuation ever against the British pound, a valuation which would remain untopped for over 30 years.[9] This caused considerable difficulties for American industry but at first their lobbying was largely ignored by the government. The financial sector was able to profit from the rising dollar, and a depreciation would have run counter to the Reagan administration's plans for bringing down inflation. A broad alliance of manufacturers, service providers, and farmers responded by running an increasingly high-profile campaign asking for protection against foreign competition. Major players included grain exporters, the U.S. automotive industry, heavy American manufacturers like Caterpillar Inc., as well as high-tech companies including IBM and Motorola. By 1985, their campaign had acquired sufficient traction for Congress to begin considering passing protectionist laws. The negative prospect of trade restrictions spurred the White House to begin the negotiations that led to the Plaza Accord.[10][11]

The devaluation was justified to reduce the U.S. current account deficit, which had reached 3.5% of the GDP, and to help the U.S. economy to emerge from a serious recession that began in the early 1980s. The U.S. Federal Reserve System under Paul Volcker had halted the stagflation crisis of the 1970s by raising interest rates. The increased interest rate sufficiently controlled domestic monetary policy and staved off inflation. By 1975, Nixon successfully convinced several OPEC countries to trade oil only in USD, and the US would in return, give them regional military support. This sudden infusion of international demand for dollars gave the USD the infusion it needed in the 1970s.[12] However, a strong dollar is a double edged sword, inducing the Triffin dilemma, which on the one hand, gave more spending power to domestic consumers, companies, and to the US government, and on the other hand, hampered US exports until the value of the dollar re-equilibrated. The U.S. automobile industry was unable to recover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord

[ckaihatsu]

By 1975, Nixon successfully convinced several OPEC countries to trade oil only in USD, and the US would in return, give them regional military support.

After *Vietnam*, U.S. foreign policy went off a *cliff*, probably because its *economy* went off a cliff, and so the U.S. military machine became a *mercenary* for Middle East clients.

[ckaihatsu]

The U.S. went to its 'backyard' first, in the '80s, for the Cold War, as with Iran-Contra.

[Tainari88]

That is not true. Japan is an example of that.

Japan was burned to the ground by firebombing Tokyo and two A bombs thrown by the USA. That it was able to rise from the ashes and build itself up from defeat is incredibly interesting to study.

But the US did have military bases in Japan and you tend to always think the US does things democratically and never uses violence, intimidation tactics, and bullying stuff on other countries. The US government is BAD to the BONE with violence John Rawls. How you feel about Stalin and Estonia? Many people feel about the USA in Latin America and also in parts of Asia. That you fail to acknowledge that? When the evidence is overwhelming makes you not objective about what imperialism is. You hate Russian imperialism but you are blind to the USA-based imperialism. Why?

I don't know. Except you think the USA is the world's good guy. They are not. They are power-hungry warmongering immoral freaks in power. Just like all the others. In history.

[Unthinking Majority]

When Xi took his third term, he also selected a new Politburo Standing Committee, which will lead the government policy. A couple of interesting points from his new standing committee:

1. No successor - There is no clear nominee that meets the age and positional requirement to succeed Xi Jinping. Not super shocking, but does indicate the Xi intends to go beyond 3 terms.

1.4 billion people in China and nobody who can do the job besides Xi? Of course they'd say that.

Remove term limits, rule indefinitely = complete

2. Removal of Li Keqiang - Li Keqiang was the former Premier under Xi, and the de facto number two of the government. Li was in favour of economic liberalization and was seen as pragmatist party member. With his removal, the government will likely become more hardline.

Li Keqiang's replacement for Premier is Li Qiang (names sound similar, their record is very different). Li Qiang oversaw the brutal Shanghai lockdowns. He is also a vocal Xi Jinping cheerleader, and a potential yes man. Contrasted from Li Keqiang that would vocalize different ideas from Xi.

Remove all main challengers and solidify power = complete.

Politburo Standing Committee departures also include liberal reformers like Wang Yang and Han Zheng. The only 2 people to remain on the Standing Committee are the hardliners Wang Huning and Zhao Leji. That means less opening of economy and likely more crackdowns.

New additions to the politburo are all conservative hardliners and Xi loyalists. We have shift from a mix of conservative and reformers. Most of the new members have worked directly under Xi.

Surround yourself with loyalists and yes-men who will help purge dissent among the party and general populace = complete.

I think media will cover Xi's unprecedented third term, and not enough attention is going to be given to the men standing behind him that will be running the day-to-day government. We have a more conservative Chinese government that will likely be more Hawk-ish towards US and Taiwan. The feeling of third term President Xi and his new Standing Committee is going to be very different from the last few years.

Not surprising the turning to the right given increased frictions with foreign nations.