There is something going on in China.
The government has begun implementation of a plan to forcibly remove 250,000,000 people from the countryside and transplant them in China's cities over the next twelve years.
-Two hundred fifty MILLION people.
-Into China's cities.
To state the obvious, there are few people outside the walls of Zhongnanhai who think this is wise. Or even reasonable. I am not among those few people. I do not know how many people think this is feasible. I am one of those. The government is doing it; I don't think the Chinese people will stop it. So the forcible relocation, with incentives, of 250,000,000 people to China's cities will be accomplished, I predict, but I am not confident in that prediction.
Why is the Center doing this? The Center is desperate; they believe that unless China continues to grow economically at a 7%-8% annual rate they cannot maintain social stability; they know that there is no intellectual foundation in economics for 7%-8% annual growth in perpetuity. There are those, like Elizabeth Perry, non-economists, who believe that since "The China Model" has done that since 1976, it can continue to do it. I, a non-economist also, do not believe they can do it using conventional means. The Center does not believe they can do it using conventional means either which is why they are forcibly relocating 250,000,000 people and so aggressively stealing America's intellectual property. The Center believes: (1) that forced relocation will create internal consumer demand that will permit 7%-8% annual growth as external demand for China's products decreases. (2) that if the economics of this forced relocation don't work out at least they'll have the 250,000,000 people most likely to be pissed about it nearby so that they can ensure the social stability aspect of it. (3) that they can continue to steal America's intellectual property to sustain 7%-8% annual growth but they're not too confident about that.
Is the Center correct to feel desperate? Yes, on the economics of it. No (I say) on the social stability foundation to the economics of it. Professor Roderick MacFarquhar wrote an article last year describing the chronic protests in the countryside as a "bubbling* cauldron" for China. I disagreed. I saw no serious threat to the CCP's writ in the protests, mostly rural, some urban, and cited (I think) to Professor Perry and (I'm sure) to some other guy. I don't see a serious threat to the CCP's writ today. But the Center disagrees with me and Americans are told it's not correct to question the correctness of a person's sincere feelings and presumably that rule of psychological etiquette applies to centers as well as persons.
Oh well.
The Center's feeling of desperation is not correct, there is no reasonable basis for it; Rather, what is going on in China are manifestations of paranoia, i.e. false fear, which is so deeply rooted in China's psyche and which is a product of the soul of China, survival, in this case survival of the CCP. So say I, and I'm pretty sure.
*It may have been "simmering." Some cauldron.
