>
i am not sure i agree with your trickle-down philosophy. it has never worked in the west .. it's a mirage that the elite have foisted on the plebs. it serves to more quickly widen the gap between rich and poor .. and ultimately will erode democracy as the richest gain more power .. tending to push india into a corporatocracy like the west.
your point re obedience in china is valid. china is just one person: xi. he doesn't want diversity .. which ultimately will not stand the test in time. and besides, he won't be at the helm forever (if only bc nobody lives forever), and his successor probably won't be as skilled at suppressing the masses. >


china is just one person: xi

There are 1.4 billion humans in China, maybe let's tone down the casual dehumanization of non-western people >

i wasn't making a statement about non-western people. it was an observation about the government of china .. i.e. xi .. which also happens to be quite different to most of the rest of the world, including other asian nations. 
and for that matter, i wasn't even making a statement about the rest of the 1.4B .. only about its autocratic leader >

That's still an ignorant outsider's perspective. You should read up on the Politburo Committee to get a better idea. >


with Russia's population so small, is there a time when they will reasonably be considered a second rate power?

In military terms the Soviet Union was once a significant power on par with Europe as a whole but Russia has never been equal to that.  Since the collapse of the USSR they've been a corrupt hell hole broadly propper up by oil sales to Europe that happened to inherent a vast amount of military equipment.  But decades have rolled by without investment, maintainence and with widespread corruption and apathy so their arsenal lost much of its power.
These days Russia ranks alongside France or the UK on their own in terms of force projection and now they've blown all their armour and artillary up in Ukraine they've lost their trump card of heavy armour for a land war.
In economic terms Russia is nothing, its smaller than some US states or European countries and in competition terms it would need to take on their compined might.  It does provide food, fertiliser, energy and minerals etc so it will be a pain to switch over to alternatives. >

Don't the UK and France have better force projection than Russia? Russia currently doesn't even have a single active aircraft carrier. >

Sure, but it isn't exactly clear how the UK navy vs the Russian navy would go.
It doesn't really matter of course, as it would be all of NATO vs Russia and that's a very quick fight. >



China is heading not only to a demographic crisis, but a hidden debt crisis from all its book cooking. Tons of projects that don't turn out the inflow of cash expected and a tax base that frequently doesn't file anything. 


India definitely has the potential to seize the opportunity to replace China as a dominant power. Their corporations have been doing very well recently. 


Russia bungling their invasion of Ukraine has defanged them. They no longer appear to be polished manipulators or rational tacticians. Russia really should have balkanized further than it did, and this may be a catalyst. >

Is it really that insane to expect China to experience crises the same way that literally every other country in world history has? >

Does every other country get accused of cooking their books and having a tax base that doesn’t file anything? >

Sure it might not be exactly 8% every year, but you can’t deny the actual progress in terms of bullet trains connecting the entire country and >10M population cities popping up over a decade >


Can India, which now boasts the world's single-largest country population ever capture the same power of China?

It certainly has the potential, huge numbers of relatively poor people that speak English and have trade relationships with the West are extremely well placed to work in manufacturing etc for prodominently western countries.
One issue is their alliance with Russia which has surely cooled things for a while and is likely to damage future integration.  A heck of a lot of people in the West likely assumed that Indians were close partners and friends, but I've met a lot of hostile and bitter people online that are defending their support of Russia's genocidal behaviour.  That's not a good look.

The next, related to population, is how will China contend with their dwindling population figures

Who can really say, these things come and go in boom and bust and there's no roadmap for this process.  They do seem to be making many smart (if sometimes abusive) investments in the very long term and seem to have enough sense not to provoke military conflicts with the West.  
They have connections around the globe, stockpiles of raw materials and one advantage to their political system is they can move mountains wuickly when needed and can keep a singular focus over very long periods of time. >

Thanks for this. What sorts of smart (and abusive) investments are they making? I only know of infrastructure in Africa, but no other region. >

Well building artifical islands and attempting a hostile take over of international waters is a problem.
Buying up huge amounts of rare earth elements and stockpiling them is aggressive and blatently ripping off any and all intellectual property is unkind to say the least.  The African loans system was also something I was referring to. >

That. And also IP theft, currency manipulation, fake economic and financial data, and no environmental controls. >

Agree with you and all those points but China is also a lot more centralized in governmental structure than India. In regards to politics, even with competing factions, the Chinese political body is a lot more unified so it is a lot easier to move things along once the plans are set in motion >

Yes, agreed. But Xi Jinping can screw  up progress just as fast by removing opposing thought just like Putin did. Who to answer the second question, Russia  is a nuclear power and clearly not a world power. >

another problem with Xi is the bureaucracy around him is afraid to tell him bad news in case he punishes them. He is in a bubble of his own making
common problem with most autocrats >

This isn't really the case, Xi has surrounded himself with people from various factions and political ideologies and apparently behind closed doors, they're pushed to speak their mind. >


and apparently behind closed doors,

If it's behind closed doors, how are you getting this information? >

He is the bolt on the closed door. >

It shouldn't be ignored that China's growth was also aided by cheaper communications infrastructure as the rural areas went directly to wireless technology. >

No, unless a Communist Revolution takes place and completely changes the social relations within india, it will never compete seriously with China.
One of the large issues with India is it's Hindu caste system which means huge swaths of the population aren't tapped for potential economic growth.
The CCP is also ruthlessly efficient and extremely realist with a heavy materialist ideological outlook on the world. The CCP is also able to react very quickly to public demand and issues due to a system known as Mass Line, where the CCP seeds ideas to the public as a "grassroots" idea, then gauges the reaction, they also test policies by basically formenting protests about various issues and policy and gauge the public reaction that way. The CCP also funnily enough, has more ideological representation and "big tent" through factions within, than you will find in any Western Democracy. Neoliberals, Maoists, Communists, Market Socialists, Libertarians, Embedded Liberalists, Nationalists, Leagalists, Confucianians, Stalinists, Trotskyists and all sorts of political ideologies unique to China etc etc all under the same banner, they're given more free reign to speak their mind behind closed doors, but are made to present a unified front to the public once a decision is made.
A good insight into how the CCP is so successful.
Such an efficient, centralised system that is so heavily tested simply isn't the case of the political reality of India, that with the rise of radical Hinduvta, and the caste system on top. >


The CCP also funnily enough, has more ideological representation and "big tent" through factions within, than you will find in any Western Democracy. Neoliberals, Maoists, Communists, Market Socialists, Libertarians, Embedded Liberalists, Nationalists, Leagalists, Confucianians, Stalinists, Trotskyists and all sorts of political ideologies unique to China etc etc all under the same banner, they're given more free reign to speak their mind behind closed doors, but are made to present a unified front to the public once a decision is made.

While certainly interesting, this kind of 'political freedom of the few' is not particularly comparable to ideological diversity found in western democracies. >

How much ideological diversity is there really at the top of western elite circles? Trust me, it’s a lot of the same people with similar values just expressed a little differently. >


Trust me, it’s a lot of the same people with similar values just expressed a little differently.

There's a lot to unpack here. I originally wrote a big comment about how the lack of Trotskyists in many or most western political systems isn't an indictment against them even when you take into account legit political oppression in places like the US during the Red Scare but stopped myself.
Ideological diversity isn't meaningful in a political system if the people at large aren't allowed to participate in it. That's the long and short of it. China is a success story, undoubtably, but their political structure is not one to emulate if you value political freedom. >

Has any platform that is opposed to lobbyist interests and actually “draining the swamp” ever gained meaningful power in the US? We have an illusion of freedom but it’s the same elites that control everything >

I'm sorry this how you think the US works, it's an easy narrative to believe, but it's just not a particularly useful or accurate view. It's really more Veep and less House of Cards. >

Show me examples of any legislation in the last decade where issues benefitting the average American over special interest groups has passed >

I got a couple options in responding to you. Either I Gish gallop you with a dozen links to different bills, or I focus on one which you'll inevitable either (a) disregard as not doing what the bill says its doing or (b) selective pick out parts that are indeed influenced by special interests while ignoring the rest.
But I'll give it a shot: Respect for Marriage Act >

a bill which effectively does nothing >

My local LGBT community has a number of people who would disagree with you on that. >

No. India is a wildly disorganized and insanely corrupt country in which logistics and “doing business” are incredibly difficult >

I recently was introduced to Peter Zeihan (zeihan.com).  A geo-political analyst/economist.
He has some very interesting perspectives on the demographic, economicand political "doom" of globalization and its inevitable negative impact on China, India, etc.
According to him,China AND Russia have (for various reasons) only one or two generations before serious collapse.
Interestingly he believes that the US retreat from providing global sea lane security  which has beenthe foundation of globalization will  contribute disproportionately to the collapse of global supply chains causing depression, famine and war.
Fascinating but depressing at the big picture level. >

I've concluded that while plausible he's more of a pop geopol guy and therefore lacks the serious credibility of a Fukuyama or Kissinger, both of whom are much more illuminating to read than I found in Zeihan. >

Pop geopol guy?  Kinda like Brian Cox being a pop sci guy?
ONe mans' illumination is another's darkness.  Subjective assessments being what they are and all. >

That's exactly the space he occupies. He has legit connections but his doom and gloom conclusions are played out on a time frame longer than any expert could credibly predict. In other words his speculation is what makes him a pop geopolitics guy. 
I don't understand your illumination=darkness point. If that's some sort of a dig you may want to read Fukuyama, Kissinger, or any other serious geopolitics expert. >

He makes no bones about it being speculation.  Nobody would consider predictions of economic/political/social outcomes some two generations hence as being anything other.  
Not a dig,just a poor word play attempt on subjective assessment. >

Then it should be clear that he is operating in a pop geopolitical space due to his creativity which a serious author would avoid. That's fine. He's interested in clicks and books.
I have no bones to pick with Zeihan. I think if you speak to others who take geopolitics seriously you would find their assessment to be similar to mine. >

India faces an issue when it comes to resources like water and minerals. China is just a much richer nation in that angle too. 
Also, while China's economic policy has been about enriching and empowering China, India has been more at the mercy of the market. >

Let the maoists take over India and they will maybe surpass China, otherwise no. The only reason China is as successful as they are is because of the CPC. 
China will probably surpass US in gdp in the coming decades and will probably be fine.
Russia has too many natural resources to decline as much as people would want them to. They will also probably be fine. >

China didn't take off economically until Mao died, though. >

Chinas economy grew a ton under Mao, it just kept growing after him as well. >

I mean initially yeah but I wouldn't exactly label the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution as "growth" >

Obviously Mao did a ton of wrong things, but we're just talking about the economy here >

Economically, those years were disastrous, in addition to all the other horrible aspects of it. >

India has a caste system.
Indian women are some of the most oppressed women in the world.
No India will never be like China in terms of development until their women receive equality and freedom. >

For all our sakes, I hope not. 
We need the west to draw down CO2 emissions while the rest of the world stays relatively steady.
It's a big ask for India, and why we should be helping them fund their green infrastructure. >

The answer is no. India is too corrupt and the government is too unorganized to get things done. >

Only if all of India actually becomes secular. But then nations lose their own color upon becoming secular. >

India is only becoming more secular >

Production efficiency?  Poor quality items (like their water pumps in our case that did not work - more than one, back to back) is not efficient.  We went months without water because they had inefficient production. Forced labor or slavery has always created economic imbalances and eventually lead to war. >

Yes I agree with the poor quality part but their manufacturing is on a spectrum. They are capable of producing high quality parts as well, only you pay more. They did not rise as quickly as they did onto the world stage by only make poor quality products. That iPhone or Android you are using: Chinese high tech made it. 
Brazil is a country that had four times the number slaves as the US, yet they have not had war. Inequality created make issues of polarization for sure but to fear war with China as inevitable would not be right. 
More importantly your understanding of China is off. Chinese people from the countryside are still extremely poor. Leaving the country to earn an income in the city is a lucrative prospect for them, and they work extremely hard and enthusiastically for it. The film "American Factory" would be worth watching if you are interested in understanding. >

I understand Corporate America has sold us overseas.  I understand China has over saturated our economy because of it.  Americans suffer in some cases due to lack of quality, but what else can be expected from forced labor?  We outlawed slavery over a century ago.  Maybe its time for China to catch up.  Economic imbalance has caused wars in the past.
America has poor people who work hard as well.  Most of us had our farms stolen from us back in the 80s and 90s, by driving farmers into crippling debt.  Yet, everyone needs to eat. Corruption and greed is ruining the world we live in. >

China is not operating an incredibly intricate multi trillion dollar global system simply using forced labor. Watching American Factory would disuse you of that notion when you see how enthusiastically the Chinese embrace their jobs.
I don't mean to diminish your real concerns, which is that many Americans have been left behind while we are prosperity on foreign shores that could possibly have remained in the US if not for the greed you mentioned. This is my concern too. We must correct our system which sees the richest getting richer. You may find the documentary "Inequality for All" empowering as it speaks directly to your concerns. 
I only mean to say that two things can happen at the same time. One is the selling out of working class Americans by corporations, and also that China is not a slave society. To miss the spirit of ordinary Chinese is to misunderstand what's really going on there, and therefore our future. Neither the US nor China are seeking war, and it is not inevitable. >

They absolutely could, if they wanted to.  I don't think they really want to though.  China has pursued an industrialized export-based economy in order to drive massive economic growth, in hopes of one day reasserting itself as a global power.  India, an agrarian democracy, has pursued pro-agrarian (arguably anti-growth) policies and largely ignored the international politik game.  They were the founders of the non-aligned movement after all.  If they wanted to switch gears and assert themselves economically and politically on the world stage, then their population will be a massive asset.  
I think China is banking on economic growth outpacing their demographic issues.  If their working population is halved, but they're good per capital has tripled, then there's no problem, right?  But there's a limit to economic growth; currency manipulation and IP violations will only get you so far.  And once Congress workers stop seeing their real wages go up, they're going to be upset.  Which is a huge problem for the CCP, because they've justified their autocratic rule for decades based on "do as you're told, and we'll make you richer than you were".  If that's not true anymore, then the workers might stop doing as they're told.
Despite what we've seen in Ukraine, Russia is still undeniably a top 5 power at least.  They're failing badly in their invasion, but not many countries could even attempt an invasion of a country like Ukraine.  So I guess it really depends on what you mean by "second rate".  The terms typically used are "great power" or "middle power" (USA is the only current super power).  The difference between the two is often measured by ability to influence countries around the globe.  Russia currently has some global influence, but it is rapidly deteriorating. >

Thanks cockroach! Or do you go by cock or roach for short?
In what other ways has Putin mishandled geopolitics for Russia? Certainly Ukraine is an obvious failure. Where else can that be seen? >

I would honestly say that, from a purely realpolitik perspective, Putin has been incredibly successful geopolitically up until Ukraine.  He was well on his way to Europe utterly relying on Russian gas, his troll farms were doing great disrupting American politics, and his numerous frozen conflicts in the former USSR were giving him massive leverage over those countries, including Ukraine.  There's an alternate timeline where Putin has rebuilt the majority of the Soviet Union by now.  It would be more of a EU of Eurasia, but still.  
But then came the Ukraine invasion, which was a masterstroke of failure.  I think the success of Crimea made him too cocky.  Putin has completely and permanently undone all the progress he's made in the past two decades.  Europe was able to ween off Russian gas, the former Soviet states are in open rebellion (except Belarus), and Ukraine has become pretty much the only thing Americans can agree on. >

Thank you. I think I agree with you on that assessment. Can you speak more to the Frozen conflicts? I only know about the intrigue which led to the invasion of Chechnya, which led to him consolidating power. How about the other former USSR countries? And isn't Chechnya still on board? >

China has its problems and so does India. Both have major population and social issues from Massive numbers of sex selective abortions, and in India's case murders as well. This could cripple both countries eventually. >

They'll probably never scale as high as China did but since China is literally collapsing and India is on the rise, I would be shocked if India doesn't become one of the regional superpowers over the various Chinese States that will make up what used to be China. >

Can you explain what you mean by noting that China is literally collapsing? I don't think I'm following. >

Nope. India is a backward country. More so than China. It is the birth place of major religions going back six or more thousand years. And this ancient religious tradition is their worst enemy. It hinders progress and modernisation. India needs to catch up with the West. Where religion has been dumped in favour of education in STEM. Science Technology Mathematics. >

India is focusing on Africa. China is focusing on South America and the Caribbean. Which one is more threatening to thr US? >

That's irrelevant to my question >

I think they absolutely will. 
Authoritarianism is great when it works but the thing about democracy is that it's a relief valve for bad outcomes more than providing a good outcome in itself. Basically, dictators can run bad ideas all the way to their grave while in a democracy you eventually get kicked out for mismanagement. At some point China will err massively (something to make zero covid look like child's play) and will have no mechanism to fix it.
So one of my biggest lessons I've learned from a lot of risk taking is that it's much more important to not lose than it is to win and India is much better situated on that front. >

China grew the least when it was the most authoritarian, imagine how it would have boomed if it were run by the government of Taiwan or pre-Marxist Hong Kong?
China would be the undisputed #1 nation on earth were that the case. 
Therein lies the answer for India: Liberalize.
My favorite economist (Thomas Sowell) said the vast majority of the Indian economy is underground / black market because of how inefficient the bureaucracy is. They need to completely re-engineer their system, it is as snarled as many of their electrical and other wires tend to be. I heard a story about Indians being declared dead by a greedy relative (who claims insurance / inheritance or etc), then spending decades working with the legal system trying to get declared alive again. >

Is that why China has risen?
You can’t start out with a massive premise like “1+1=8, therefore…” Well now I’m far too distracted to even address your actual question. 
What has the CCP actually done to facilitate Chinese economic growth? The Cultural Revolution? Great Leap Forward? One child policy? These have collectively put China in a catastrophic demographic situation. As the saying goes, “China will become old well before it becomes rich.”
Three year long covid lockdowns? Overtly hostile economic relations with key trading partners, triggering a massive trend of insourcing? Politically driven over regulation of key technology businesses? The CCP is not done hamstringing the economy
China owes its economic success to the talent of its people, an explosion of globalization, and a unique (unreciprocated) effort by rich western countries to integrate China into the global order. 
China’s success has been in spite of the CCP, not because of it. >

I don't think so. Despite what some people are saying about the caste system, it's still alive and well. It may have changed some, but definitely, some people are only allowed to have some jobs. Lots of people don't want to work with certain people. And people treat people like crap if they're lower than them. 
I have an old friend who spent a LOT of time in India training people for a very large tech company and he talked about running into this issue often, and even getting in trouble for pushing back against it. So it's a thing. I've heard from people working at tech firms here in Seattle that some POC here in the US even feel like they "bring it with them". 
India is very nationalistic and there's a lot of pride and I think there's a real reluctance to admit to their big issues. The remnants or continuing caste system, the HORRIBLE treatment of women and minorities like Muslims. It doesn't get as much press here in US as the problems in China but India also imprisons Muslims and excludes Muslims from being citizens. You can hardly read the news from there day to day without hearing about some atrocious, violent rape of some woman. 
Say what you will about China, but they aren't preventing huge portions of their population from increasing their economic status, or being citizens, getting educations, or working. 
I don't see how India ever emulates them without getting rid of that stuff. And I don't see the people there getting rid of it any time soon honestly. Though I wish they would, for many reasons. Hindu nationalism is really taking off in recent years, not abating. 
After Mao, China decide to pretty much dump everything he did, turned heel on many, many policies and focused intently on beating the US - no matter what. I don't think India can unify their population or dump their ideological baggage in the same fashion.