# DopeZine vol. 1: The Long Bust **URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dopezine-vol-1-the-long-bust/965536 **Category:** Great Debates **Created:** [June 2, 2022, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dopezine-vol-1-the-long-bust/965536 "2022-06-02T00:08:07Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 3
### Author: ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT) #### Post date: [June 2, 2022, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dopezine-vol-1-the-long-bust/965536/3 "2022-06-02T00:09:14Z")
_The Long Bust – Point 1: Tensions between the US and China escalate into a new Cold War – bordering on a hot one._ _“China: ‘Wired Magazine said **what**?’”_ by Central Writing Committee #4 (JohnT) I literally have no words. From _The Long Boom_ (TLB): > [@](#): > > With the reemergence of China’s economic might, the 3,500-year-old civilization begins to assert itself and play a larger part in shaping the world. Chinese clan-based culture happens to work very well within the fluid demands of the networked global economy. Singapore and Hong Kong prove the point through the 1980s and 1990s, when the two city-states with almost no land mass or natural resources become economic powers through pure human capital, primarily brainpower. > > For years, Chinese expatriates have established intricate financial networks throughout Western countries, but especially in Asia. Many Southeast Asian economies—if not governments—are completely dominated by the overseas Chinese. By about 2005, the mainland Chinese decide to capitalize on this by formalizing the Chinese diaspora. Though the entity has no legal status vis-a-vis other governments, it has substantial economic clout. That date also marks the absorption of Taiwan into China proper. > > By 2020, the Chinese economy has grown to be the largest in the world. Though the US economy is more technologically sophisticated, and its population more affluent, China and the United States are basically on a par. China has also drawn much of Asia in its economic wake—Hong Kong and Shanghai are the key financial nodes for this intricate Asian world. I think the prediction here is that China both informally, and then formally, floods the world with Chinese people who then form an intricate network dedicated to pushing Chinese government and economic interests? And it’s in this manner that China takes over SE Asia, including an absorption of [Taiwan](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-about-the-republic-of-china/516705) into China proper? Yeeesh. I wouldn’t call the above racist, but it definitely has some ‘white-guy assumptions’ where non-Western cultures are seen as different, because different words get attached to the same behaviors. The ‘clans’ were ‘natural’ for future dominance? I don’t think this is unique to the Chinese, guys. You know who else made it government policy to send offshoots of various families and estates to establish dominant commercial networks in far-away lands who didn’t want them there? The English. Anyway, predictions are hard and there’s no fun in saying “you got this detail wrong” because in 25-year prediction pieces like _The Long Boom_ (TLB), the details are all too commonly wrong. The real question is: are the details wrong, but in the right way? Did China actually follow the prescriptive path laid out in _The Long Boom_? I had a philosophy professor at the University of Georgia (GO DAWGS!) who said the following: “If reality doesn’t match your assumptions, check your assumptions.” Made a massive impression on young, conservative me, and this one sentence… and how I reacted to it… are largely the reason why I am no longer conservative. Reality didn’t match up to my assumptions. _The Long Boom_ was written with assumptions as well. And I’m interested in how those assumptions themselves held up to reality, for the assumptions may be right even if all the drawn-out inferences were wrong. And when it comes to China… the question is, did China follow the development pattern assumed by the following: > [@](#): > > In a nutshell, the key formula _(‘assumption’, authors)_ for the coming age is this: Open, good. Closed, bad. Tattoo it on your forehead. Apply it to technology standards, to business strategies, to philosophies of life. It’s the winning concept for individuals, for nations, for the global community in the years ahead. If the world takes the closed route, it starts a vicious circle: Nations turn inward. The world fragments into isolated blocs. This strengthens traditionalists and leads to rigidity of thought. This stagnates the economy and brings increasing poverty. This leads to conflicts and increasing intolerance, which promotes an even more closed society and a more fragmented world. If, on the other hand, the world adopts the open model, then a much different, virtuous circle begins: Open societies turn outward and strive to integrate into the world. This openness to change and exposure to new ideas leads to innovation and progress. This brings rising affluence and a decrease in poverty. This leads to growing tolerance and appreciation of diversity, which promotes a more open society and a more highly integrated world. In reality, the Chinese responded by ignoring _Wired_ Magazine and the Two Peters. Via their implementation of [The Great Firewall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall), a combination of spyware, limited access to apps and websites, legislative actions, economic protectionism, and outright arrests and social control, much of this in place by 2005, they rejected the “Open: good. Closed: Bad” mantra. China didn’t care about global network openness, apparently. Not from where I sit. And yet… and yet the Chinese economic boom continued apace. They were not prevented from manufacturing Android smartphones because of a governmental preference for Baidu over Google. They still rode the expansion wave from 2000-2022. They just didn’t allow the world to freely participate in their internet, and they don’t allow their citizens to freely participate in the world’s internet. And nobody in the West really cared either. The Americans still made their deals with China because capitalism is concerned with capitalism, not with internet openness or human rights. In addition to manufacturing our smart phones (as well as the lithium needed to power the things), China did show little problem playing the “open” capitalist games of [data mining](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/08/tiktok-shares-your-data-more-than-any-other-social-media-app-study.html), financialization of networks by [microsubscriptions](https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/live-subscription-invite-only), [Chinese hedge funds buying into the global economy](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-24/hedge-fund-cuts-china-stocks-to-zero-seeing-worse-year-than-2008), and more. China has zero problem profiting from our openness, especially in the realm of copyright – China is mentioned no fewer than 23 times in [this summary](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-trade-representative-releases-2022-5770177/) of the recently-released _U.S. Representatives 2022 Special 301 Report_, dealing with Intellectual Property theft. China is open where they want to be. They are closed where they want to be. And as a defined ‘limit to growth’ of human progress in TLB, the ‘open network’ assumption, er, ‘formula’ of ‘Open, good. Closed, bad’ was not predictive of China’s success. So the Long Boom’s assumption is wrong, at least on the time scale covered: closed internets do not necessarily lead to dire consequences, at least at first. After all, going from no internet to a closed internet of a billion people is still pretty damned transformative and that alone will have beneficial networking effects. It may even be so big that it overcomes “economic stagnation and increased poverty” for decades on end. Lastly, none of this came even close to erupting into a [new Cold War](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-do-you-consider-to-be-the-main-adversary-nation/920370/63), as the sidebar warns. So while this is a largely inaccurate prediction for TLB, it is also an inaccurate prediction from the sidebar. At least for now. A 3,500 year-old civilization knows that things may change and if they find openness is a prerequisite for their goals, they may go there. But Western techbro 1997-style openness was not a prerequisite for modern, 2022 Chinese civilization, and it is difficult to see how they suffered because they followed different assumptions that those laid out in _The Long Boom_ regarding internet openness. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dopezine-vol-1-the-long-bust/965536)._