As a foreigner this feels a bit like a US' reaction about their loss of leadership. There has to be something wrong about China's rise. Imagining that it will surpass their own economic power through good management by a central government is something they just refuse to accept. It has to be some authoritarian cheat mode.

I don't think the Atlantic piece is suggesting that at all. The article is making the point that the delicate power balances behind the Chinese Communist Party is very complex, and that the soundbites we hear from our Western media (or any media for that matter) probably do not capture the full extent of the power dynamics, wheeling and dealing, and inner workings of the Chinese Communist Party.

Last time I checked, the power balances are not necessarily complex, they are opaque. They could rely on tea leaves readings for all we know.

Most of the "analysis" you read are pure speculations based more on wishful thinking and prejudice than on facts.

Reminds me of how every "expert" said Trump wouldn't win. It was amusing how everyone was surprised to find out there's a whole landmass between NY and California. Fly over country for sure but eligible to vote.

In general, 'something nefarious is going on overseas', beyond the Anglo cultural domain. Interesting thing to me is, as you point out, how the "mechanics of power" are held to be a byzantine mystery in Communist Party of China, but it is over here just a matter of a 'pick the least ugly' beauty contest over here in US of A.

Of course, what is truly opaque is just which groupings in the West hold the true power and just what is the nature of the "mechanics of power" here in the West.

If there were not something nefarious going on overseas, I would want to know their amazing secret.

Good management is hardly necessary. China has ~5 times the population of the US; it would be shocking (is shocking, sadly...) for it to be economically weaker.

India has almost the same population as China and is much poorer.

Hmmm ... that's pretty speculative, or really completely speculative.

This movie has been made before. The USSR claimed something similar. Now of course, China's aggregate economy could match the U.S.'s when its citizens are only 25% as wealthy, but that is not a sign of great economic performance.

> good management by a central government

I think you mean by an undemocratic authoritarian government (I don't think centrality is the issue). Regardless, I don't see good management, mostly effective suppression and international propaganda. If management is so great, why do they need to censor and propagandize their own citizens on a massive scale, not to mention outlawing dissent and imprisoning dissenters? Who needs the 'Great Firewll', in that case.

I don't think people in Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Xinjian would say China is so well managed, as obvious examples.

Why has this post been downvoted so many times? Would someone who downvoted this post care to put down any word on which of those statements that you don't agree?

Sometimes the downvoting and its related visibility mechanism here really puzzles me...I really feel that perhaps we should give more weights, in terms of visibility, to those downvotes that come with even a little bit of explanation, or otherwise we are not much different from a group of mobs in the Spartan assembly (i.e. "Apella") who would consider themselves democratic and then vote by shouting loudly...

=====

PS: I am not the original poster (so in case anyone feels like to cast his downvote for the sole reason of complaining about downvoting, just go ahead and downvote mine and leave alone the OP's)...but I really don't understand (and feel a bit curious about it...) why it attracted some many downvotes, without any explicit criticism...

the reduced points really do not matter, but the reduced visibility might turn some inexperienced readers away and thus further decrease the probability of having them join in the discussion and share their perspective...

(I posted the GP.)

I can provide some hypotheses based on experience: Comments that support certain political positions are consistently downvoted. IME it happens with comments that are,

- critical of the Chinese government

- discuss Russian propaganda and trolling/astroturfing (other than to deny their existence)

- critical or questioning of the white male supremacist movement (alt-right) principles, in their propagandized 'reasonable' forms - though those comments are regularly voted back up by others; I've seen some wild fluctuations.

- critical or questioning of Elon Musk

I'm sure there are other topics that I'm not remembering. I guessed that the GP comment would be downvoted when I posted it.

Note that the first two subjects in my list have massive, well-documented online astroturfing and propaganda operations, and the third is no slouch in that area. HN policy, in kind of an odd political correctness, protects those people by forbidding any suggestion that such things are occurring - even as a possibility to consider. Don't mention the Emperor's clothes. That must make it heaven for astroturfers, propagandists, and naked Emperors everywhere.

Musk's fanboys are extreme: Drink the kool-ade or die. The man himself seems obsessed with image but enough to run an astroturfing operation? I have no knowledge that he does but would it be a surprise? Certainly he's not in the category with the other three for many very obvious reasons. For example, I hope he isn't in the dustbin of history but succeeds wildly.

Finally, the first sentence of my comment didn't help; it's a bit sharp, but that imperfection shouldn't be a big deal.

EDIT: I also wonder why alphaalpha101's comment is dead. It's not brilliant, IMHO, but certainly sufficient.