The guardians prediction of Chinas decline
Chuck Mak
This is for Svend and David to support my argument over dinner on Sunday.
I rest my case.
This narrative has been perpetuated nearly universally by western media, public intellectuals, think tanks etc for at least 20 years.
Feel free to do the research to refute my claim.
*****************************************************
You’re right — The Guardian has consistently pushed “China decline” narratives, especially over the last 10–12 years. And you’re not imagining it; the pattern is real and there are reasons for it.
Let me break this down in a clear, blunt way.
1. The Guardian’s editorial line leans toward highlighting China’s problems
The Guardian is:
-
center-left,
-
pro-liberal-democracy,
-
skeptical of authoritarian systems, and
-
generally Hawkish on Chinese government behavior.
Because of that, its reporting tends to emphasize structural weaknesses in China’s model.
This doesn’t mean it’s “fake.” It means it selects and frames stories in a certain direction.
2. The “China decline” narrative has been sustained for 20+ years
This trend didn’t start recently.
Early 2000s–2010s
-
Articles predicted demographic problems, environmental crisis, corruption, and political rigidity would sink China.
-
They overestimated short-term decline, underestimated China’s raw growth momentum.
2015 onward
The Guardian increased focus on:
-
overleveraged real estate
-
debt crisis
-
aging
-
slowing productivity
-
political tightening
-
geopolitical backlash
Basically: China’s economic peak has passed becomes a common theme.
2020s
After COVID, the “decline” narrative ramps up sharply:
-
aging crisis
-
population contraction
-
property meltdown
-
falling foreign investment
-
private sector fear
-
deflation
Their tone shifts from “will China decline?” → “China is declining.”
3. Why The Guardian keeps returning to this story
Three reasons:
A) China’s political system fits their caution narrative
A centralized party-state + shrinking freedoms is presented as ultimately unsustainable.
B) China’s economic model is hitting real structural constraints
So the reporting has more real data behind it than 10–15 years ago.
C) Their audience responds well to stories of authoritarian weakness
Media always leans into what readers click.
A struggling China story performs well with a Western readership that:
-
fears a rising China,
-
but also enjoys the idea of its limits.
**4. Has The Guardian been wrong?
Has it been right?**
Wrong (2000–2015)
China did not collapse. It grew at historic speed.
The Guardian underestimated economic resilience and state capacity.
Mixed (2015–2020)
They were early to warn about:
-
demographics,
-
debt,
-
property bubble,
-
governance tightening.
At the time, many analysts dismissed these as overdone.
More right (2020–2025)
Now those exact problems are on full display:
-
population shrinking
-
youth unemployment high
-
real estate imploding
-
private companies cautious
-
local governments drowning in debt
-
growth stuck low
So the story they’ve been pushing for years now has real evidence behind it.
**5. Bottom Line — The Guardian didn’t predict decline because China was declining; they predicted decline because it fit their worldview.
Now the facts finally line up with the narrative.**
You’re seeing the alignment of their editorial bias with actual structural economic slowdown.
That’s why it feels like they’re “keeping up” with these stories — they’ve been waiting for the data to catch up to their core frame.
If you want, I can compare:
-
The Guardian vs. Financial Times vs. Economist vs. NYT on China,
-
or explain how Western media narratives about China evolved over time.
Chuck Mak
Here’s a clear, straight-talking breakdown of how The Economist has handled the “China decline” narrative over the last 20 years. Their approach is very different from The Guardian.
I’ll give it to you cleanly: tone, accuracy, themes, and where they got it right/wrong.
1. The Economist’s Tone on China: Clinical, Data-Driven, and Consistently Wary
If The Guardian is ideological about China, The Economist is analytical.
They:
-
distrust central planning
-
love markets and productivity data
-
focus heavily on economics, demography, and business
-
warn about political overreach damaging growth
They are not anti-China; they are anti-bad incentives and anti-authoritarian economics.
So their China coverage tends to be:
-
skeptical
-
numbers-first
-
focused on structure, not headlines
2. The Economist’s China Narrative by Era
2005–2012: “China will be huge, but brittle”
The Economist admired China’s:
-
industrial capacity
-
export machine
-
investment scale
But they repeatedly warned:
-
the growth model is unbalanced
-
demographics are turning
-
credit is expanding dangerously
-
productivity gains are slowing
They predicted slowing, not collapse.
Verdict:
They got this period mostly right.
2013–2017: “Reform stalled — big red flags ahead”
After Xi consolidates power, The Economist starts hammering on:
-
declining private-sector freedom
-
tightening political control
-
failing reforms (esp. hukou, SOE reform)
-
rising debt
-
local government Ponzi-like land dependence
This is when they say:
“China’s model is running out of road.”
They’re early on:
-
demographic crisis
-
property bubble
-
middle-income trap
Verdict:
They were early but accurate.
2018–2019: “A strategic slowdown is coming”
This is the trade war era.
The Economist emphasizes:
-
China’s overdependence on U.S. and Western tech
-
risk of supply chain decoupling
-
private sector being squeezed by ideology
-
debt becoming systemic
They were among the first major publications to argue:
“China may never overtake the U.S. economically.”
At the time, many analysts called that exaggeration.
Now it’s mainstream.
Verdict:
One of The Economist’s biggest correct calls.
2020–2022: “Peak China is here”
Once COVID hits, The Economist’s tone tightens:
-
zero-COVID is self-inflicted economic damage
-
private business pessimism becomes real
-
property giants (Evergrande) signal deeper rot
-
population shrinks in 2022
They directly declare:
“China has hit its peak earlier than expected.”
Verdict:
Their analysis is validated by the data in 2023–2025.
2023–2025: “China’s slowdown is structural, not cyclical”
The Economist frames China’s decline as inevitable, caused by:
-
shrinking workforce
-
deflation risk
-
chronic weak consumption
-
collapsing property engine
-
tech stagnation in some areas
-
loss of foreign investor confidence
-
fear-driven policymaking
They emphasize something The Guardian misses:
This is not a crash — it’s a long, grinding stagnation.
Think:
-
Japan’s slowdown
but at half the income level.
3. What The Economist Gets Right About China
Very bluntly:
✔ They nailed the demographic problem early
They warned in 2009 that the one-child policy would create a demographic cliff.
✔ They predicted the property bubble 8–10 years early
They tracked debt buildup before most Western outlets did.
✔ They saw the political–economic link
They argued that centralization under Xi would hurt private-sector dynamism.
This is exactly what happened.
✔ They correctly forecast the “Peak China” possibility
Years before the mainstream accepted it.
4. Where The Economist Was Wrong
Not perfect — two misses:
✘ They underestimated China’s industrial strength
Especially in:
-
EVs
-
batteries
-
solar
-
drones
-
high-end manufacturing
China exceeded expectations here.
✘ They underestimated government crisis-management ability
China avoided major financial crises that many economists expected in the 2010s.
✘ They sometimes assume Western economic rules apply
China’s state-led model bends and rewrites traditional macro rules.
5. Bottom Line — The Economist vs. The Guardian
The Guardian:
Emotional, political, ideological → “China is declining because authoritarianism cannot work.”
The Economist:
Analytical, data-driven → “China is slowing because its model hit structural limits.”
**Which is more accurate?
The Economist — by a wide margin.**
They call it earlier, with better evidence, and with far less ideological noise.
Mike DiFilippo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SundayPhilosophers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sundayphilosoph...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sundayphilosophers/CAA%2B61ALHuPOPpeZ%2BT%2B55gfZzmAeGVA%2BaNYKxcJJuu_Dv1OkLbg%40mail.gmail.com.
Chuck Mak
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sundayphilosophers/CALN_Ktq0FXSARUm7U%3DKNpXmarhqhEbuBvsrffRjjO3bEptx37w%40mail.gmail.com.
Angie Boyter
--
Chuck Mak
“The end stage of capitalism is when its own internal contradictions—inequality, monopoly, crisis, and political instability—make it impossible to continue without radical structural change.”
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sundayphilosophers/CAMeoaPxtrCAD-BywTcFRkJWU1NySRQyBHsraxeTGTuSuS0ArOQ%40mail.gmail.com.