[int_19h]

In the long term, perhaps. But US is still dominant today, and that will not suddenly change next year - the gap is just too great.

Besides, China would need to grow its power a lot to even be able to fit the same tier that US does today. And if they can't or don't want to, then the end result is likely a more decentralized world. Not every era is "Pax ..." - there are long gaps in between the fall of the old empire and the rise of a new one.

[mantas]

China has shitty positioning too. USA was positioned to be a beacon of freedom since it's founding. Meanwhile China is position as what... Authoritarian country that loves to slaughter it's citizens in various ways? That's not exactly a great idea to sell to the world. The only way China can get on top is by holding the rest of the world hostage. Either by military or commerce backed by military. But as all relationships built on fear, that'd be quite a fragile position.

[int_19h]

China's positioning is rapid growth and "social harmony". I'm not saying that they actually deliver on this, but that's how it's being sold.

[mantas]

That's their selling point for country managers and boy do they deliver. But it's not that interesting for the general population. Very few people want rapid growth and "social harmony" by themselves.

[int_19h]

You'd be surprised, actually. This is more true in third world countries, and other areas that have experienced instability relatively recently (e.g. ex-USSR countries, including Russia) - at some point people start demanding a "strong hand" and whatnot.

[mantas]

Fun thing is, I am from ex-USSR country.

People still remember Soviet-style "social harmony" and there's a big allergy for that path.

Rapid growth is not exactly popular too for multiple reasons.

Growth-over-ecology brings bad memories from soviet era

Growth-over-labour-rights brings bad memories from 90s and somewhat soviet era

Rapid change itself brings bad memories from 90s and 00s too