The Great Opportunity the Chinese Nation May Face (Part 1)

2006/2/28 22:51:58

Note: this set of posts is the earliest online writings by yours truly. During the SARS period, I deliberately used the handle "Sneeze Sneeze" (Sneeze Sneeze). Later, because I got into a fight with the Qiangguo Forum leftist figurehead Mathematician, I used a few alternate accounts, but they were all publicly known. After that, I've consistently used "A Girl Who Loves Math" (Girl Who Loves Math) without any alternate accounts. The classic internet sensation that first made Girl Who Loves Math famous was the so-called "Japanese couplet incident" — veteran netizens should all know about it. That was the first time yours truly became famous on the internet. This series of articles, along with the classic post "Currency Wars and the RMB Strategy," were compiled and circulated by others who collected my writings. As for who specifically did it, I truly don't know — what a karmic connection, thank you!

Girl Who Loves Math's writings in this series are the best
From: Mainland
Registered: 2005-09-06 No. 1 Date: 2005-10-26 09:52 (8788 characters) Repost

The post that scared the "He Xin Forum"

Selected Sneeze Sneeze posts from Qiangguo Forum
Qiangguo Forum's remarkable woman's classic masterpiece: The Great Opportunity the Chinese Nation May Face

China's Explosive Population Growth Is One of Chairman Mao Zedong's Greatest Achievements

Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-05-30 21:26:50

"China's explosive population growth is one of Mao Zedong's greatest achievements" — this title wasn't chosen in a fit of rage. Although the fact that I haven't been driven mad by the moderator's dutiful gatekeeping doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that "China's explosive population growth is one of Mao Zedong's greatest achievements," I must still declare that below we will seriously and rigorously explore the relationship between China's explosive population growth and Chairman Mao Zedong's greatest achievements.

We know that populations of 10 million and 50 million were the two fundamental population thresholds for achieving so-called great power status in medieval and modern times. (If you're unfamiliar with this, go find a world history book — there are too many specific examples, and I'm in a bad mood today so I won't list them, haha.) After the Kingdom of Great Britain completed its hegemony at the 50-million level, the next hegemon, the United States, and its erstwhile counterpart, the Soviet Union, both operated at the 250-million level. If this roughly 5-fold pattern-like pattern continues, the next level would be 1.25 billion. Since the level after that would be 6.25 billion, and given the Earth's approximate carrying capacity, everything produced at that level can only be global in nature. Therefore, the 1.25-billion level is the last level that can emerge in a single nation or commonwealth before world unity.

Why does this roughly 5-fold pattern-like pattern seem to exist? I won't go into the specific mathematical model, but roughly speaking, it's because the relationship between overall economic saturation and population has a structure similar to the quantization of electron orbitals. When the frontrunner at a given level can no longer turn the wheel, it must yield to the next level. Whoever gains the upper hand at the next level becomes the next frontrunner or locomotive. So the competition between Britain, Germany, and France was an old-level contest, and the ultimate replacement by the US and USSR only appeared coincidental but was in fact inevitable.

If not for Mao Zedong — if we had listened to a certain Comrade Little Ma — China's population would still be around 400 million, still hovering around the 250-million level under control, and we would have lost the opportunity to be the next frontrunner. Of course, growth can't continue now — stabilizing between 1.3 and 1.5 billion would be ideal, so the later family planning policy wasn't wrong either. You can't read the same playbook forever.

If the above argument holds, it can also explain to some extent why both China and India have experienced rapid growth in the past two decades, and why so-called blocs like the EU have been so fervently pursued during this period. In a word, the old 250-million level no longer works, and we're transitioning to the 1.25-billion level.

Of course, the transition to the 1.25-billion level doesn't necessarily start with a single country. If the EU eventually ropes in Russia, North Africa, and others, it would ultimately reach a similar level — whether it works or not is their business. And of course, the US could also unify the two Americas. In fact, the whole world is working on this right now.

Thanks to Chairman Mao Zedong's achievement, China already has this qualification and opportunity without needing to merge with anyone — it just depends on whether we can live up to it. Moreover, each level has its corresponding economic model, and you absolutely must not read the same playbook forever. As for what the 1.25-billion level model looks like — I'm in a bad mood today, so I simply refuse to say. Deal with it.

Whoever Takes a Wrong Step on Full RMB Convertibility Will Become an Eternal Sinner of the Chinese Nation

Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-05-31 21:47:12

What a country's currency — its exchange rate and corresponding monetary policies — means can be understood by examining the past struggles between the yen and the dollar, the current contest between the euro and the dollar, not to mention the 1997 Thai baht debacle. Yesterday I mentioned that essentially the entire world is currently doing one thing: transitioning from the 250-million level to the 1.25-billion level. In a sense, the euro is one of the foundational efforts by one side for this transition.

From the future perspective of the 1.25-billion level, the most competitive currencies will be the dollar, the euro, the rupee, and the RMB. Of course, from the current perspective, substituting the rupee for the yen seems laughable, but in another 20 years or so, it won't be laughable at all. So how can the RMB ultimately triumph in this currency war? There are roughly three steps:

First: Like the drafting technique in long-distance running — don't lead, but stick right behind the leader. In the first phase, we must insist on maintaining a non-pegged pegged policy toward the dollar, firmly and persistently maintaining RMB-USD exchange rate stability. On this basis, we gradually expand influence over the Asian zone, subtly replacing the yen's position to further become the de facto Asian currency.

Second: The second phase is the most critical, because the first phase is essentially about creating an enormous differential against the dollar. How to exploit this differential well, choosing the right moment to release it, destroying the dollar in one decisive, meticulously planned campaign — this is the most important and wisdom-testing question. Continuing the drafting metaphor, drafting is ultimately about surging ahead to sprint at the best possible moment — the criticality of this timing should not be hard to understand.

Third: The dollar isn't a pushover — a single surprise attack may not truly finish it off, so what follows is a process of repeated back-and-forth tug-of-war. Of course, if steps one and two are done well, this process will be relatively easy; otherwise, there will still be big trouble.

How to leverage the power of currency within the overall national strategic decision-making is a question worthy of great attention. And on this question, if we want China to ultimately be the boss rather than tagging along behind others, the first step above must be accomplished. Whoever takes a wrong step on full RMB convertibility will become an eternal sinner of the Chinese nation, because this concerns whether the Chinese nation can ultimately lead at the 1.25-billion level. This is no child's play.

From the US-India Plot to Build an Asian NATO: The Necessity and Urgency of Deconstructing the "Flying Geese" Model and Constructing a "Triangle" in China's New Geopolitical Strategy

Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-02 12:46:03

Yesterday there were two news items: one was the Three Gorges Dam closing its gates for water storage, and the other was that the US and India are plotting to build an Asian version of NATO. These two seemingly unrelated pieces of news are actually both connected to the so-called strategy of "keeping a low profile" centered on the Yangtze River basin as the axis with North and South China as two wings. I won't elaborate — everyone can figure it out by considering timing, geography, and human factors.

Before using this handle Sneeze Sneeze, I also used another alternate account called Troublemaker, but later forgot the password and stopped using it. There was a post in the Deep Water forum, from which I'll excerpt the relevant parts below:

First: The current strategy centered on the Yangtze River basin as axis with North and South China as two wings is coordinated with the so-called "keep a low profile" and "anger-absorbing diplomacy." It cannot achieve anything significant and conceals enormous danger. The so-called importance of Shanghai and the Yangtze River Delta is merely a confusion drug concocted by foreigners 150 years ago. In Chinese history, any dynasty centered on Jiangsu-Zhejiang was weak — this coincidence is precisely the inevitability inherent in China's geography. Therefore, the state should not continue its current level of investment in that region. When the price is high, it's time to sell — don't end up stuck in mid-air singing to yourself. That region can be an economic center, but it absolutely must not become a strategic center.

Second: From a long-term perspective, a grand strategic triangle should be constructed from the Bohai Rim region, the Pearl River Delta region, and the Qinchuan (Shaanxi) region. Starting from the Pearl River Delta, open up the Southeast Asian line; starting from the Qinchuan region, follow the ancient Silk Road to open up the Central-West Asian line — together forming a dual-line pincer on India. Starting from the Bohai Rim, open up the Northeast Asian line to suppress Japanese and Russian influence in the region. (The interactions between these three corners and the smaller triangles within each are too detailed to cover here.)

Third: Using this grand triangle as a foundation, China will gradually become the king of Asia. Its territory (or vassal-like sphere of influence) should extend from the Urals eastward to the sea facing the Americas, from the Arctic Ocean south to the Pacific overlooking Australasia, forming the world's axis, with Europe and the Americas as its two wings. They were originally split off from the primordial continent by tectonic movement — this would merely restore the original state.

Fourth: To achieve the above objectives, there is a series of comprehensive, all-dimensional specific measures. With too many eyes and ears here, I won't elaborate. Everyone can treat this as a game and think about it. But if the current strategic configuration is not changed before 2010, China will lose its opportunity. No matter how good the economy is, it would just be fattening up a pig for slaughter. Due to personnel reasons, 13 years have already been wasted. Whether this year's changes represent a turning point is not something I can control — I'm merely fulfilling my duty as a citizen.

Someone reading this might say: "Any development plan that departs from the Yangtze River basin can only be castles in the air." I ask: isn't the Yangtze basin within this triangle's sphere of control? The significance of this grand triangle is using it as the basic framework to support all of China, while using its three vertices to break outward through the channels attempting to confine China's development. For example, the Bohai Rim vertex can also be seen as one vertex of an outward-facing triangle, with the other two located somewhere between China-Mongolia and somewhere between China-Russia-North Korea (specifics omitted). The other two are similar. Such a grand triangle is a configuration that combines offense with defense and defense with offense, rather than the current huddled-in-a-corner configuration. Think about it — the goose's head currently faces the Pacific Ocean. What exactly is it trying to do? Stare across the sea at America until it turns to stone?

From the US-India plot to build an Asian NATO, consider the necessity and urgency of deconstructing the "Flying Geese" model and constructing a "Triangle" in China's new geopolitical strategy — think about it, how much time is left? Has too much been wasted? Will this great eastward-facing goose face powerful headwinds from the West? Deconstruct the "Flying Geese," construct the "Triangle" — we can't wait any longer! As for what to do about the Three Gorges — what's built is built. Whether it's good or bad depends on the people. Within the grand triangle, it still has its wondrous uses — I just won't elaborate here.

Mr. He Xin, Your Grand Theory About China's Five Historical Stages and the Feudalism Question Can Rest Now

Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-04 16:54:02

I have clear likes and dislikes. Since Mr. He Xin still has some worthwhile arguments, I won't address him with the same contempt as Old Man Li or Lord Gu — I'll just call him Mr. He below. However, where his arguments are erroneous, they must be severely refuted. There's no room for politeness here.

Mr. He holds a skeptical attitude toward the Five Stages theory. Regarding China's feudalism question, Mr. He first discusses the original meaning of "feudal" from its etymological roots, then explains that China didn't have Western European-style feudal society. Hidden within this seemingly correct process are the following logical flaws: 1. The meaning of "feudal" is consistent with its etymology. 2. There is only one type of feudal society — the Western European type. Neither of these two points holds up logically.

To properly analyze this question, we must first define the Five Stages on a unified classification basis — otherwise, whether going by etymology or specific phenomena, we'll continue confusing deer with horses. What is this unified classification basis? It's a classification of the actual conditions between people and between humans and nature in society: 1. When no part of society is subordinate to another, but the whole society must collectively depend on nature — that's primitive society. 2. When, under the premise of dependence on nature, one part of society has a relationship of dependence on another based on personal servitude — that's slave society. 3. When, under the premise of dependence on nature, one part of society's dependence on another is no longer based on personal servitude but rather on external things such as land, titles, etc. — that's feudal society. 4. When no one in society is subordinate to another, but instead everyone without exception depends on a non-natural external thing: capital — that's capitalist society. 5. When that last form of dependence in stage 4 is also eliminated, achieving complete reconciliation between humans and society, and between humans and nature — that's communist society.

The above classification is perfectly clear: from no interpersonal dependence but collective dependence on nature; to interpersonal dependence based on personal servitude; to interpersonal dependence not based on personal servitude; to no interpersonal dependence but collective dependence on the non-natural entity of capital; to no interpersonal dependence and collective reconciliation with nature. From this we can see that the Five Stages theory is the most complete classification based on the dual relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature — exactly 5, no more, no less. The possible sequential combinations of these 5 stages number 5! = 120, and once the factor of productive forces is added, only the single unique sequence above remains from those 120 possibilities. No real society's development can skip stages in this unique sequence, though within each specific stage there can be a hundred flowers blooming.

Actually, at this point, even someone with one-tenth of Mr. He's intelligence would understand all the issues: China went through all five stages without missing any. Of course the specific manifestations are distinctly Chinese. As for which stage China is currently in — just compare against the above classification and it should be obvious, so I won't spell it out. But here's a bonus insight: in the first 3 stages, humans have a dependent relationship with nature; in stage 4, humans, riding the wave of massive productive force development, think they can break free from nature and depend on capital instead — then massive environmental problems emerge. Only by eliminating capitalism can environmental problems be fundamentally solved; the human-to-human and human-to-nature problems must and will necessarily be solved simultaneously. (There's another question unrelated to Mr. He, but frequently raised by people with questionable intelligence: "What if the Earth suddenly explodes? Then there wouldn't be five stages!" The answer is simple: didn't I just say each stage allows a hundred flowers to bloom? A hundred flowers blooming naturally includes the variety that suddenly wilts. For any specific society, represent reaching a stage with 1 and not reaching it with 0 — then 11111 is one possibility, but isn't 11110 also one? There are 32 possibilities here, including 00000 for those that aren't human at all.)

I know Mr. He sincerely practices Buddhism, so let me conclude with an old Zen saying: "Outside the mind there is no dharma; everywhere you look, green mountains." But where is the eye at the crown of your head?

From the Cyclical Similarity in Chinese Dynastic Succession: The Great Opportunity the Chinese Nation May Face

Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-05 00:09:43

History always possesses a mysterious similarity. To give the simplest example, many of the most critical events in 20th-century Chinese history are related to the number 9. There are too many such examples to list. What follows is something I don't know if anyone has mentioned before — I haven't seen it anywhere, so I'll just ramble here.

In the succession of Chinese dynasties, there is a particular recurring pattern: after a period of division and chaos, if a short unified dynasty appears (always lasting only two reigns), it is followed by a very long and powerful dynasty, the early period of which inevitably features a "woman's rule." The specific examples are: After the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods came Qin — extremely short, lasting only two reigns — then came Han, then came Empress Lü, then the Wen-Jing prosperity leading to Emperor Wu's grand flourishing. After the Three Kingdoms, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties came Sui — extremely short, lasting only two reigns — then came Tang, then came Empress Wu Zetian, then came the grand flourishing under Emperor Xuanzong. Now let's look at the modern situation: since 1840 there has been a period of division and chaos, followed by warlord rivalry, then unification under the Republic — very short, essentially only two reigns (Sun and Chiang) — then came the People's Republic of China, then everyone understands what happened so I won't say more, and then what?

If this similarity continues, what it implies is quite clear to everyone, so I won't elaborate. But learning from history, following the Han dynasty model, the current period obviously corresponds to the mid-to-late Wen-Jing era. So what corresponding situation can we find? Back then there was also the Xiongnu threat — of course, the current situation is far more complex than that time, but the basic approach should be similar.

A few days ago I discussed the competition at the 1.25-billion level, and also the necessity and urgency of deconstructing the "Flying Geese" model and constructing a "Triangle." These are all issues related to this mid-to-late Wen-Jing period. If these issues are not taken seriously, there is a very real possibility of missing this historical opportunity. The two dynasties China is most proud of — Han and Tang — happen to exhibit similarities to the current situation, but historical similarities often represent only a probability, not a certainty. Whether we seize the opportunity still depends on people. If it's tragic when history doesn't offer an opportunity, then it's even more tragic when history offers one and we fail to seize it. If that actually happens, who can we blame? If we cannot turn this probability into reality and create glory comparable to Han and Tang, then everything said here would be nothing but empty talk.

(The article is too long, split into two parts)