
Can China Turn the Middle of Nowhere into the Center of the World Economy? - mooreds
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/29/magazine/china-globalization-kazakhstan.html
======
ajmurmann
This reminds me of Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grant Chessboard. It describes
how the US secured its empire. China is not only building for economic growth
but also building up valuable relationships and influence. Also keep in mind
that one of Rome's greatest military innovations might have been its roads.

Meanwhile the US is seems to be played by everyone from the outside and
tearing itself apart from the inside. It seems like we aren't only losing the
fight for global hegemony but barely actively taking part.

~~~
magduf
>It seems like we aren't only losing the fight for global hegemony but barely
actively taking part.

We've actually shot ourselves in the foot with a shotgun in the last few
years. We're doing everything we can to cripple ourselves and let other powers
take over.

~~~
mensetmanusman
The U.S. lost claim to leadership with Vietnam, and then doubled down with
Iraq. It is common in history for the most powerful leaders to mess things up.
It is the cycle of life.

~~~
magduf
Yep, every powerful nation or empire in the past has collapsed or faded in
significance after some time. The question is, in our case, will it be a rapid
collapse or a slow fade (like the British empire), and when?

~~~
isostatic
British empire was a rapid collapse. From really starting in the 16th century
it reached a peak in 1945 -- nearly 400 years. It collapsed within 20

Rome by comparison took 700 years to grow, and 200-plus to collapse

~~~
vorg
> British empire was a rapid collapse [...] It collapsed within 20

It would be better to treat the British Empire and the United States as two
forms of the same empire, as they both speak the same language The capital of
the empire simply moved from London to Washington via an internal revolution,
a process that's happened many times in the past, e.g. Lisbon to Rio de
Janeiro, St Petersburg to Moscow, Xian to Hangzhou, Kyoto to Tokyo. So the
British Empire/United States reached a peak after 400 years, and is now
declining for perhaps a few hundred.

~~~
mensetmanusman
With that reasoning, you could argue we are still an extension of Rome.

~~~
vorg
The British Empire and the United States spoke the same language. Their
homelands, i.e the places where they make up the majority of residents, are
the same: the British Empire with its American colonies then, and the United
States and its "special relationship" with the U.K. and other Five Eyes
nowadays. The leaders of the American Revolution were leading British
Imperialists immediately before, e.g. George Washington led the 1760's
campaign against the French in the Mississippi valley.

------
jdsudo
Woah "According to the United States State Department, between 800,000 and two
million people, or up to 15 percent of Xinjiang’s Muslim population, have been
incarcerated in a growing network of more than 1,000 concentration camps."

------
peteretep
> that its promoters say is poised to become the next Dubai

I think its promoters have some funny ideas about what Dubai is and why people
go there

~~~
mac01021
Why _do_ people go there, and why don't you think Chinese developers can
replicate that?

~~~
whatshisface
Dubai is fueled by oil money, something that China doesn't have a lot of
(relative to their population size). You can explain a lot by looking at the
oil money to population ratio of various polities. The ebb and flow of the
balance sheets of Texas, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Venezuela and Norway all have a
lot to do with the price of oil and their local production. In many places
around the world, successful socialism means oil production, and failed
socialism means failures in oil production. Government-owned oil reserves
allow countries to "cheat" the taxes-versus-services dilemma, but that never
lasts for long. Presently Saudi Arabia is feeling the pressure of decline and
may not be able to pay their people to be happy for much longer. Venezuela is
practically collapsing right now, and it all started when they had a series of
oil production disasters that crippled their national reserves. Texas and
Norway might be better prepared, because they have been investing the money,
Texas in roads and education and Norway in their country in general.

~~~
vorg
The "middle of nowhere" location isn't just one city, but also a hub near the
border of Kazakhstan which has been booming from abundant natural gas
resources backed by a low population to land area density, and other useful
exports such as a third of the world's uranium extraction.

~~~
HeadsUpHigh
But gas isn't as ubiquitous as oil and it's probably never going to be. Oil
consumed everything in the last century and now even if it declines
significantly chances are it will be replaced in certain markets by other
energy sources. Gas doesn't have much opportunities for growth. And the same
can be said about uranium and it's future. Sure it's not going to be
completely phased away in the near future but even if the world is suddenly
going to make a turn to nuclear it only makes sense that newer technologies
will be used.

------
melling
China appears to be ensuring that their economy continues to grow rapidly with
the Belt and Road initiative. By some measures they have already passed the
United States.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-10-18/who-
ha...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-10-18/who-has-the-
world-s-no-1-economy-not-the-u-s)

At some point soon, shouldn't the ability to grow the economy 6-10% a year
become impossible?

~~~
dragonfly02
The real growth rate is never the same as the official published rate. It was
said last year China only grew less than 2%.

~~~
doanguyen
Just curios, do you think the earth is flat?

------
sonnyblarney
Unlike so much of the ugly narrative, even the ugly bits and pieces of this
project (i.e. buying up ports, putting countries into debt traps etc.) - this
one is different because there's a real, underlying material reality here.

It's rational economic impetus, and probably a 'good idea' for the Chinese.

Frankly, it may be good for many more than the Chinese.

a) Other nations will be connected

b) It can be 'two way' as well.

Just like the UK, and later the US controls the high seas for the benefit of
every merchant, and developed important projects like the Panama Canal and
ensures _everyone_ , even economic competitors have access (Russian, Iranian
warships through the Suez during peacetime, even though the US has de-facto
control), China is to some extent doing the same.

The Belt-and-Road is 'what China needs' but it will also be beneficial to
others so long as it does not get politically messy.

~~~
ssnistfajen
Belt-and-Road itself is a reasonable plan, however the Chinese gov's political
system determined that all of its projects are politically charged in one way
or another. This is why many countries involved in the initiative are now
trying to push back.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Yes. Whatever gets built is a good thing on the whole. But the politics will
be a mess.

------
Tsubasachan
The Roman Senate once called my country the middle of nowhere and 2000 years
later it all worked out nicely (meanwhile Rome's glory days are long gone).

------
corybrown
Great photos, but why did they publish this w/o a map of any kind? Would be
great to see this in geographic context

------
chriselles
Hi All, I’m working on a submission envisioning the environment in 2030.

Looking at China’s stated “One Belt, One Road” initiative, is it feasible this
could expand?

Soecifically, to include: “One Platform, One Network”

By that I mean the deep integration and alignment between the Chinese
government and BAT(Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) enabling a shift from rising
Superpower to Superplatform primacy.

Superplatform > Superpower

Geodigital > Geopolitical

Exorbitant Data(superplatform) > Exorbitant Privilege(currency)

Network Effects based thinking > Kinetic Effects based thinking

US/FAANG appear to be cannibalising each other and in constant conflict with
the US government and potentially less competitive in a relative, clinical,
and Machiavellian sense with China/BAT.

Could we see a war for superplatform primacy?

Thoughts?

~~~
NicoJuicy
Only if dictatorship ( of countries) are ruling the world.

Currently, I don't see it happening. The greatest interest is in duplicating
the great firewall.

Then some competition for payment systems exists, but it's currently based on
giving Chinese expats an alternative payment method.

A.I. will have an advantage in China because of the extreme adoption. But I
don't see worldwide adoption because of the language barrier. The world speaks
English currently, which is a huge influencer/barrier.

They are trying to change things with Chinese universities.

Not sure where it will end.

~~~
chriselles
Agreed that dictatorships/authoritarianism is not preferred option.

But does the integration of China/BAT offer an opportunity for China to inject
it’s near 100% ubiquity of its domestic platforms onto its trading partners
via debt trap diplomacy?

Does the incredibly high level of Chinese government/commercial platform
integration and ubiquity provide a competitive advantage with the bottom half
of the planet over the US/FAANG?

Would the extension of China/BAT to developing world countries with less than
stellar records of freedom and Nd human rights provide a platform for both
growth and sustainment of power?

~~~
NicoJuicy
debt trap diplomacy vs democracy is my guess why they will fail.

Racism in China is extreme and as soon as the outsiders leave China for that
reason, the cookie will crumble. Chinese only look out for themselves

~~~
chriselles
Hypothetical scenario.

Rather than China seizing infrastructure collateral for debt trap loans
instead China compels governments to push for ubiquity of a China/BAT
superplatform, say "WeChat+" thru which all local government services and
commerce will be conducted.

Also concurrently providing outsourced support for local regime continuity due
to persistent surveillance provide by a "WeChat+" platform integrated with
local and Chinese government.

~~~
NicoJuicy
Only China / Russia / Korea can currently push platforms because of
dictatorship and censorship.

You are forgetting that the WTO was already asked by multiple countries for
help. There are other options than China ;)

The source of the money is partially already from Europe and America. China
borrows a lot of money too.

[https://www.cgdev.org/blog/china-borrows-lot-money-world-
ban...](https://www.cgdev.org/blog/china-borrows-lot-money-world-bank-and-
thats-okay)

------
mooreds
To me the interesting question is, can land transportation ever compete with
water transportation for moving goods.

Edit: updated wayer -> water

------
pjc50
The combination of free movement of goods and extremely restricted rights and
movement of people is going to put a lot of tension on that project, I'm sure.
Or maybe not; after all, it works for Dubai.

Then there's the technical problem of rail trans-shipment across different
gauges. I wonder at what point it makes economic sense to rebuild several
thousand miles of trans-Siberian railway.

~~~
peteretep
> extremely restricted rights and movement of people [in] Dubai

While that's true of South and South-East Asian low-paid workers, I'm under
the impression that neither of those is particularly true of Dubai in a more
general case?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _neither of those is particularly true of Dubai in a more general case?_

Correct. For investors and businesspeople, getting in and out of as well as
around the Emirates is intentionally easy.

------
peteretep
This became [Flagged][Dead] pretty quickly, although vouching for it seems to
have fixed it again. How does that happen?

~~~
jerf
I imagine some people are getting a bit tired of this topic, or at least the
rate at which stories are making it on to the front page, and honestly, the HN
community doesn't have all that much to add to this discussion. Heck, it's not
particularly clear the NY Times does either. It's a huge topic that probably
nobody really knows in the end.

------
porpoisely
This article exemplifies everything wrong with the nytimes and journalism
today.

1\. It's asking me a question. Don't ask me a question.

2\. It doesn't add anything new or informative. Pretty much a rehash of
everything that's been stated repeatedly for the past 8 years.

3\. Boring standard propaganda. It's interesting how the BRI is covered by
pro-china, anti-china and "neutral" ( if possible ) propaganda organizations.

4\. Written like an annoying travel diary than an article.

5\. Article by Ben Mauk who obviously has insights to khazakstan or china
right? In a world that "is more connected than ever before", the nytimes
couldn't find anyone other than some guy from europe to report on this? Does
the nytimes hire an indonesian journalist to cover brexit?

6\. Nothing gained from reading the article. Are we any closer to answering
the question? Did we learn anything new? Other than Abaiuly is a handsome
liaison to opinion makers and potential investors?

You'd find more insight and "truth" watching youtube vlogs/reports/etc from
the locals/travels or even finding these people on gaming chats and talking to
them directly.

It is correct that the silk road isn't an actual route but a bunch of routes
that changed throughout history. Historically, it was more of an idea of a
connection and trade between the civilizations of china, india and the middle
east. But the idea that it wasn't controlled or administered by anyone is
simply not true. Whatever empires that controlled the region ( most famously
the mongol empire ) controlled and administered these routes.

We ( and the british before us ) have shown that naval power and naval trade
routes define global economic and political strength. Rather than china's
overland silk road ambitions, I'd be more focused on their naval trade route
ambitions. Especially if global warming opens up the northwest passage or the
arctic siberian passage.

~~~
allemagne
You're criticizing this article as though it was intended to be groundbreaking
and authoritative, and then expand your criticisms to the entire New York
Times and an entire profession.

That may or may not be a fair assessment, but I'm not really convinced. This
is a New York Times _Magazine_ article with flashy pictures. It's
entertainment for people who are interested in geopolitics. It's not Ben
Mauk's fault that he's an American and his piece shot to the front page of
Hacker News.

What I think you're looking for is a really good Wikipedia article or research
study on BRI.

Unless you can expand on why this piece is "propaganda" or what exactly the
article got wrong, why not enjoy the piece (or not) as a travel diary with the
BRI as a broad geopolitical context?

~~~
Joe-Z
>Unless you can expand on why this piece is "propaganda" or what exactly the
article got wrong, why not enjoy the piece (or not) as a travel diary with the
BRI as a broad geopolitical context?

Because it does not market itself as such. It makes some bold claim to answer
a question that's probably interesting to a lot of people follwing BRI-
developments. Instead it's 'I've visited the Kazakhstan-China border and
talked to a few people', but I guess that headline doesn't attract as many
clicks.

EDIT: Not the GP and I don't want to claim that this is propaganda.

~~~
allemagne
I might agree that it isn't marketing itself as such if it wasn't written in
the style of a first-person narrative, have "New York Times Magazine" banner
across the top, and didn't have panoramic pictures every few paragraphs.

I don't know about you, but I react a lot differently to information presented
in that format as opposed to something like this:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/business/china-foreign-
po...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/business/china-foreign-policy.html)

