对于中国正势不可挡的成为全球最大的经济体，你是担忧还是乐观？ [美国媒体]

Are you worried about China becoming the world's largest economy inevitably, or are you optimistic about it?

对于中国正势不可挡的成为全球最大的经济体，你是担忧还是乐观？



Paul Denlinger, Have lived in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong; fluent in Mandarin (written, spoken)
I am both optimistic and pessimistic.
China is striving to become the world’s largest economy with initiatives like the One Belt One Road initiative and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The reason for China doing this is because it has excess production capacity, and because many developing economies are weak in infrastructure development. On the surface, this looks like a good match.
So where is the problem?
The problem is that China is too rushed in making these plans come to fruition. There is a trick to infrastructure projects: Building infrastructure is good, but markets have to develop in-step with the new demand the infrastructure is supposed to support.
If the markets take too long to develop, then the cost of the debt rises, and after a while, it becomes impossible to grow out of the debt trap. This leads to a Balance sheet recession - Wikipedia.
The perfect example of a long-term balance sheet recession is Japan, which has excellent and very modern infrastructure, but whose domestic economy does not have sufficient demand to grow out of the recession.
Balance sheet recessions are very insidious because they lead to:
Lower birth rates, with birth rates often falling to below replacement levels;
Political instability (just look at all the governments Japan has gone through in the past 30 years);
Lost generations of workers.
My fear about the Trump administration’s policies is that they will not help American workers, but they will slow global growth to such an extent that the global economy will slow, and then stagnate.
This is very dangerous for China, because China is trying to build markets which will create more demand.
There is a problem here: the Chinese government is good at building production capacity, but it has not been good at predicting and creating demand.
This means that some countries which take out loans from China hoping for future growth will fail to meet their expectations, and will be tipped over into balance-sheet recessions with China being the main loanholder.
This will not be good for China or anyone else.
I believe that this is the main strategy behind Peter Navarro, Robert Lighthizer and US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. They want to slow global growth and trade to the point where the countries which are closest to China will be forced into long-term balance sheet recessions, and will blame China for their heavy debt loads.
They are laying a trap, and current Chinese policy is walking right into it.
​
我既乐观又悲观。
伴随着一带一路倡议和中巴经济走廊这样的计划，中国正努力成为全球最大的经济体。中国这样做的原因是，它的生产能力过剩了，而且很多发展中国家的基础设施薄弱。表面上看这是天作之合。
那么问题在哪里呢？
问题在于中国过于急切的想要这些计划产生成果。基础设施工程有个秘诀：建设基础设施是好事，但相应的市场必须与那些基础设施所支撑的新需求同步发展。
如果市场需要花太长的时间发展，那么债务成本将会提高，一段时间后，就不可能走出债务陷阱。这会导致资产负债表式衰退——维基百科。
日本是长期资产负债表式衰退的完美例证，它拥有良好的十分现代化的基础设施，但它的国内经济却没有充足的需求，以至于不能实现增长进而摆脱衰退。



Sla?ana Vi?entijevi?
Serbia is a part of Belt One Road initiative. But China did not invest here to make the demand in Serbian market. They do not need. Demand already exists. Serbia - China already have export-import on very high level.
China is building the road Hungary - Belgrade. China bought the port in Greece. All to shorten the transport of the goods. Mediterranean never freezes. And, nobody can beat China in manufacturing of some goods. Demand already exists not only in Serbia, in the EU. I do not think China miscalculated that part. They just need faster and cheaper way to transport the goods, also one that works the whole year.
I worked for telecommunication company and cooperated with Huawei. That is the cooperation when you tell “It is a pleasure working with you”, feel it, and mean it! They create amazing end user experience. Maybe Huawei needs to improve the part of cooperation when it comes to selling the network, but end users, modems, etc. there is no chance to have an unsatisfied customer! Huawei in Serbia works with all telecommunication companies and I do not know house without a Huawei modem. The same is in FYROM, south of Serbia. I believe similar is in Greece. Siemens there showed themselves too corrupt, to the level of international scandal.
There are things that that China needs to balance, but having a shorter path to transport goods will for sure lower the cost of the good from the order to the moment of delivery, and increase the profit.
And if the US slows global growth they can only help China. It will give more time to China to manage all they have to manage, without trying to keep up with the fast growth all around.
I am familiar with minuses in the whole story. But also, when I understood what China did on global level, it made sense.

塞尔维亚是一带一路计划的一部分。但中国在塞尔维亚投资并不是为了在塞尔维亚制造市场需求。他们不需要。需求已经存在了。塞尔维亚-中国已经有很高的进出口水平。

中国正在建设匈牙利-贝尔格莱德公路。中国买下了希腊的港口。这都是为了缩短货物的运输时间。地中海永不封冻。而且在某些产品的制造方面，没有一个国家能胜过中国。存在需求的不仅是塞尔维亚，还有欧盟。我不认为中国算错了那部分。他们需要的只是更快更便宜的运输方式，而且是全年不间断的运输方式。

我在电信公司工作，与华为合作。它是这样一种合作，你会说“和你一起工作很快乐”，你会感觉到这一点，就是这样！他们创造了令人惊叹的最终用户体验。也许华为需要改进销售网络方面的合作，但是在最终用户、调制解调器等方面，都根本不会存在不满意的客户！华为在塞尔维亚的分部与所有电信公司都有业务往来，我不知道哪一家没有华为的调制解调器。塞尔维亚南部的马其顿共和国也是如此。我认为希腊的情况也类似。而那里的西门子公司出现了太多的腐败，甚至到了国际丑闻的地步。

中国需要平衡一些事情，但运输货物的路径越短，从订单到交货时间的商品成本就越低，利润也就越高。
如果美国拖慢全球增长，那只会有利于中国。这将给中国更多的时间来管理他们必须管理的一切，而不是努力跟上全球的快速增长。
我对整个故事的要义都很熟悉。但同时，当我理解到中国在全球层面上所做的事情时，这也是有道理的。

Paul Denlinger
This is why I am both optimistic and pessimistic.
The Balkans are a region where Chinese products and service have found a welcome home because they were underserved previously. Good grounds for optimism.
My pessimistic cases are two: Venezuela and Sri Lanka. Both carry large amounts of Chinese debt and there is no clear path for them to pay off that debt.
China needs lots of Balkan cases and fewer Venezuela and Sri Lanka scenarios.

这就是为什么我既乐观又悲观。
巴尔干地区是中国产品和服务受到欢迎的地区，因为以前那里的服务不充足。这是我感到乐观的很好的理由。
让我悲观的案例有两个：委内瑞拉和斯里兰卡。这两国都负担着沉重的中国债务，他们偿还那些债务的前景却不甚光明。
中国需要很多巴尔干这样的案例，委内瑞拉和斯里兰卡的情况越少越好。

Sla?ana Vi?entijevi?
I kinda believe China can make it. What I got for now from China’s strategy, China approached the whole world, for comparison, something like a mass market. In that case, it is difficult to be successful in every sales attempt (and it is not the goal), but it is possible to close successfully enough number of sales.
I agree with the point in your answer that China raised really fast, but it was a smart raising, even with those cases for pessimism. When China started to confront the US, lots of things were already done. China was ready for the moment. And I do not think China wants to win the trade war with the US. China knows it is not possible. But China wants to weaken the US economy. With the army China has (what is important), and the economy that raises constantly, China is a leader of the world. Even if it slows global growth, it will make balance in the world that maybe we all deep down wish.

我相信中国可以做到。我从中国现在的战略中认识到，中国接触了整个世界，打个比方，它就像一个大众市场。在这种情况下，很难做到每一次销售尝试都成功(而且这也不是目标)，但让成功的销售数量足够多是可能实现的。

我同意你回答中中国的增长速度非常快的观点，尽管存在那些悲观的情况，但是这种增长是聪明的。在中国开始与美国对抗时，它已经做了很多事情。中国已经为这个时刻做好准备。而且我不认为中国想赢得与美国的贸易战。中国知道这是不可能的。但中国希望削弱美国的经济。中国有了军队(这一点很重要)和不断发展的经济，它就是世界的领导者。即使全球增长放缓，它也将实现世界的平衡，这也许是我们所有人内心深处的愿望。

Paul Denlinger
The problem is that after the decline of the US consumer market, and especially after the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, there has not been a single consumer market which has the strength and size which can replace it. Instead, there are a lot of smaller consumer markets which have different qualities, but do not have the overall strength as the US did for the period from 1945–1970.
So China is dealing with a lot of smaller pieces which do not have that same level of confidence.

问题在于，在美国消费市场衰落之后，尤其是在2008年次贷危机之后，没有一个单一的消费市场拥有足以取代它的力量和规模。相反，存在许多较小的消费市场，而且质量参差不齐，它们没有美国在1945-1970年期间的整体实力。
因此，中国正在应对的是许多小片市场，而它们却没有同样水平的信心。

Sla?ana Vi?entijevi?
I do not think that China bother that much about it. China is applying an individual approach to a “mass market”. By shaking hands with a small economies all around the world China build a confidence of those people and economies.
I know there are things to fix, and things for pessimism and optimism. Anyway, during last 20 years the US was too imperialistic. China is the only one that can change things And China even in the position of the superpower, does not have that imperialistic behavior. At least for now.

我认为中国不需要考虑那么多。中国正在对“大众市场”采取一种一对一的方式。通过与世界各地的小经济体握手，中国为那里的人民和经济建立了信心。

我知道有些事情需要解决，有些事情值得悲观和乐观。无论如何，在过去的20年里，美国过于帝国主义了。中国是唯一可以改变世界的国家，即使在超级大国的地位上，中国也没有帝国主义的行为。至少现在是这样。

Paul Denlinger
There is something else which you are missing.
The big Chinese companies which benefit from OBOR are Chinese state-owned companies (SOEs) which are not very efficient. The Chinese government needs to insure that they prosper because they are a basis for political power. But now, the Chinese economy is led by Chinese private companies, some of which have trouble getting loans from Chinese state-owned banks. This means that there is tension between state-owned and privately-owned companies as they need funding for expansion.
This is why the Chinese government has been actively working with companies like Tencent and Alibaba, because they have attention from users, and more than one billion registered users. They have real-time information on business and how the economy is performing.
This is why President Xi is working so hard to make Chinese SOEs like Tencent and Alibaba; he wants Chinese SOEs to be like them.
But can he do that? I would say that it is very hard.
Fast solid growth hides debt problems, but once growth slows, all the problems come out.
'Looks like a Ponzi scheme': China's debt mountain is growing

你遗漏了另外一些事情。
那些在一带一路中受益的中国大型企业是效率不高的中国国有企业。中国政府需要确保他们的繁荣，因为他们是政治权力的一个基础。但现在，中国经济却是由民营企业所主导，其中一些企业难以从中国的国有银行获得贷款。这意味着，国有企业和民营企业之间关系紧张，因为它们需要资金进行扩张。
这就是为什么中国政府一直在积极与腾讯、阿里巴巴等公司合作，因为它们拥有用户的关注，超过10亿注册用户。他们拥有实时的商业信息和经济运行状况。

这就是为什么中国主席如此努力地让中国的国有企业变得像腾讯和阿里巴巴一样；他希望中国的国有企业能像他们一样。
但是他能做到这一点吗？要我说这很艰难。
快速稳健的增长掩盖了债务问题，但一旦增长放缓，所有问题就会显现出来。
“看起来就像一个庞氏骗局”:中国的巨大债务正在增长。

Sla?ana Vi?entijevi?
Thanks for the info. I did not know exactly how ti works inside China. I noticed some things in some companies that do imply financing by someone (I believe government). But I also noticed that every Chines company I talked to did business the same way, or at least very very similar. I am not sure were those companies state-owned or privet-owned, but they acted like they all worked to achieve the same goal.
China is a very big country. I visited China. I traveled by plane over the Beijing like I travel from country to country in Europe. It was on my way from some smaller cities around China and not rich to Beijing. There is a difference in life standard among a very big number of people. Being a president of such country is at least a challenge. I really respect President Xi for some things, even if he does not manage to finish everything he wants. I respect some things he has already done. It pretend to make a permanent change in international relations, and the way countries communicate to each other. Even if he fails to achieve everything he wants, if it is on me, considering all till now, he writs his name in history in a very positive way when it comes to international relations. It does not mean he is not mistakable, nor he did nothing wrong. He just introduced to the world of politics some totally new approach.



Jayadeep Premnath
Since you mentioned Huawei, i will give some idea of their general modus operandi. Here in the middle east, at least in Kuwait, Huawei won all the telecom tenders from the operators by under quoting. And their service and quality was top notch for years. The rest of the gear vendors slowly wound up their operations in the country as all the operators moved their equipment fully to Huawei. And when it came to new purchases Huawei started asking for above market prices for many of smaller and new equipment. This put the operators in a spot as the other brands’ items even though cheaper are not compatible with the rest of the system which is entirely Huawei IP. They are forced to buy Huawei and that too at exorbitant prices. The operators passed on this rise in cost to the customers and now we are paying much higher rates for our data and calls..almost 30% higher.
The Chinese are damn good at business, and believing that they come in peace and for worlds prosperity is foolish. Their operations are good for their own country and their companies..and nothing else.

既然你提到了华为，我就介绍一下他们的一般操作模式。在中东，至少是科威特，华为通过台面下的报价从运营商那里赢得了所有的电信投标。多年来他们的服务和质量一直是一流的。随着所有运营商都将设备完全移交给华为，其余设备供应商慢慢地结束了他们的业务。当新的采购出现时，华为开始对许多小型和新型设备提出高于市场价格的要求。这让运营商陷入了尴尬境地，尽管其他品牌的产品更便宜，却与剩余的系统不兼容，因为它们完全使用华为的知识产权。他们被迫以过高的价格购买华为的产品。运营商把上升的成本转嫁给了客户，现在我们要为流量和电话支付更高的费用……几乎高出30%。

中国人非常擅长做生意，但如果认为他们是带着和平，并为了世界的繁荣而来，那你就太愚蠢了。他们的经营对自己的国家和公司都有好处……而且仅此而已。

Sla?ana Vi?entijevi?
Well, we maybe have a different definition of someone who comes in peace and for world’s prosperity.
I know how it looks and feels when it is not in peace. It includes bombs, tomahawks, killing, destroying of factories all around to the ground, watching the tomahawks going direct to you, etc. I have been there! I lived that!
China did nothing of it. If China beats anyone in trade, respect for China. No killing, no arms, no war time, no emergency situations, … Even if China conquers the whole wold only by the trade, I will still respect them. It again make them much more caring about the world population than any strong power before them.
The US bombed China embassy in Belgrade during the bombing of Serbia. China was so pissed off, but China did not give the US back the same way. No arms, only trade. If China crush the US by trade without arms and without killing people in the US or anywhere, I still respect China. That is the big step for humanity!

好吧，你我对那些带着和平并为了世界繁荣的人的定义，可能存在差异。
我知道真正的不和平是什么样子和什么感觉。它包括炸弹、战斧导弹、杀戮、把到处的工厂夷为平地、眼睁睁看着战斧导弹向你飞来……我当时就在那里！我在那种情况下生活过！

而中国没有做任何这种事。如果中国在贸易中打败了任何人，你只能尊敬他们。没有杀戮、没有武装、没有战争时刻、没有紧急状况……即使中国只通过贸易攻克了全世界，我依然会尊敬他们。这再次证明：他们比之前的任何强权国家更加的在乎全世界的人。

美国在轰炸塞尔维亚期间轰炸了中国的大使馆。中国十分愤怒，但中国没有用同样的方式回击美国。他们没有用武器，只的只有贸易。如果中国能够不使用武器、不杀戮美国或者任何地方的人，用这种方式击败美国，我依然尊敬中国。这是为人类迈出的一大步！

Jayadeep Premnath
I understand your point. For a country with smaller population like yours, it does make sense to open up to China. There is no strategic value in restricting your market place as primary concerns are job generation and development of infrastructure, which well, like you said were not going anywhere. In the long run, their activities will leave behind a better quality of life for your fellow citizens.
Perhaps mine and my fellow countrymen’s view towards China is more shaped by strategic concerns. I am from India (though working in Kuwait) and for us China is a strategic competitor and it is important that our firms which are in the same field are not uprooted by underhand tactics from the Chinese. As bigger your country the more the problems to solve. Like we need to generate more employment and more tax revenue to cover the vast population. Hence it is important that we have our own homegrown enterprises producing as much as possible at home so that we dont lose on employment and precious forex. Chinas trade tactics are destructive for a country like ours.

我理解你的观点。对于像你们这样人口较少的国家来说，对中国开放是有意义的。因为你们最主要的问题是创造就业机会和发展基础设施，限制你的市场没有战略价值，就像你说的那样，这是行不通的。从长远来看，他们的活动将为你们的同胞留下更好的生活质量。

或许，我和我的同胞对中国的看法更多的受到战略关切的影响。我来自印度(虽然在科威特工作)，对我们来说，中国是一个战略竞争对手，我们在同一领域的公司会不会因为中国人的阴险策略而被连根拔起，这一点很重要。国家越大，需要解决的问题就越多。就像我们需要创造更多的就业和更多的税收来覆盖广大的人口。因此，让我们自己的本土企业，尽可能多地在国内生产，这是很重要的，这样我们就不会失去就业和宝贵的财富。中国的贸易策略对我们这样的国家是破坏性的。

Sla?ana Vi?entijevi?
Well, China trade the way it can. It is on India to find a way to compete. India could also compete on Serbian market with its product, but it did not. China did.

好吧，中国以它能够做到的方式进行贸易。寻找一种竞争方式是印度的责任。印度也可以凭借其产品在塞尔维亚市场参与竞争，但它没有做到。而中国做到了。

Jayadeep Premnath
China is trading the way it can…which unfortunately is not fair. I am not wailing about lack of opportunity for Indian companies in Serbia . I don't think our companies Care about that kind of global peneretration now. Chinese companies get funding at cheaper rates and a cheaper currency to start with. Both these are artificially manipulated by their government. Countries which go by free market rules find their companies getting undercut, which is my only complaint. You don't find any problem as your country is not yet finding competition in any of your products.

“中国正在以自己能做到的方式进行贸易”……不幸的是，这种方式不公平。我不是在哀叹塞尔维亚的印度公司缺乏机会。我认为我们的公司现在并不关心这种全球性的衰退。中国企业以更低的利率和更廉价的货币获得资金，进而开展业务。而这两者都受到他们政府的人为操纵。自由市场规则的国家发现他们的公司受到削弱，这是我唯一的抱怨。你不会认为这有任何问题，因为你们国家还没有发现你们的任何产品面临竞争对手。

Katie Pedro
I will leave the conspiracy part out. The rest of the argument is very insightful. China has learned it from the history that the places which are on the trading route, land or sea, always prosper. China has developed a strategy that it would build the infrastructure first and then wait for the growth to happen. Once the growth happens, the places with good infrastructure always grabbed the best opportunity than the place where the infrastructure are not ready. That’s why people see so many “ghost cities” (these are the places waiting for the growth), or why people see so much railway to be build every year. The growth always catches up, and has been for a few decades.
People have grown confident about this approach, infrastructure first, growth to follow, and think it will happen in other developing countries too. There is one important element in this formula, which is security and political stability. The infrastructure is beneficial for trading. Trading rely on a stable and safe environment to be prosper. If not, either the trading businesses will find another path, bypass the unstable and unsecured region, or the trading would be controlled by mafia-like organization, price gone up, residence on the trading turf and the end consumer suffer.
China’s one belt one route project may only benefit those participating countries who are politically stable and relatively safe to operate a business in.

我会把阴谋论的那部分放在一边。剩下的论证都非常有见地。中国从历史中认识到，那些位于贸易路线上的地点，无论是陆上还是海上，都会繁荣昌盛。中国已经制定了一项战略，即首先建立基础设施，然后等待经济增长的发生。一旦出现增长，基础设施好的地方，总是比基础设施不完善的地方，更能抓住最好的机会。这就是为什么人们会看到那么多的“鬼城”(这些是等待发展的地方)，或者为什么人们看到每年有那么多的铁路需要建设。这种增长一直在追赶基础设施的建设，而且已经持续了几十年。

人们对这种做法越来越有信心，基础设施先行，经济增长紧随其后，并且认为这种做法也会出现在其他发展中国家。这个公式中有一个重要元素，即安全和政治稳定。基础设施有利于贸易。贸易依赖稳定和安全的环境，才能带来繁荣。如果没有安全和稳定，要么是贸易业务会寻找另一条路线，绕过不稳定和没有保证的地区，要么贸易将被黑手党一样的组织控制，价格上涨，贸易地点的居民和终端消费者遭殃。
中国的“一带一路”项目可能只对那些政治稳定、经营业务相对安全的参与国有利。

Adam Fayed, Global Wealth and Insurance Advisor living in Asia
If China and India keep growing, it isn't a worry from an economic perspective as the world economy needs growth. It will be an opportunity for numerous countries.
Just look at how many economics are making money from these markets.
However, I don't think China’s rise is inevitable because:
Of the unsustainable political situation
Demographics which means growth will fall to 2%-4% relatively soon. China has a relatively short period of time to catch up to the US in terms of nominal GDP
India in comparison will have better demographics so may well overtake China in 50–100 years in GDP terms
The trade war and numerous other issues, is pushing the RMB down. In terms of nominal GDP, if the RMB goes Doen to 7:15 or 7:50, it will be hard to close to gap. Take this year as an example. Few people know that American is growing faster than China is common currency terms. Why? China is set to grow by 6.5%, with American at 2.5%-3%. So the difference is 3.5%-4%, but America’s currency (the USD) is appreciating at a quicker rate than the RMB for the second time in 4 years.
China is struggling to go from a manufacturing economy to an innovation society
What is happening with the US now reminds me of the Plaza Accords with Japan in the 1980s. If Trump lasts 6–7 years, it could be bad for the Chinese economy.

如果中国和印度继续增长，由于世界经济需要增长，从经济的角度来看，这并不是一种担忧。而是许多国家的机会。
看看有多少经济学家从这些市场中赚钱。
然而，我不认为中国的崛起是不可避免的，因为:
存在不可持续的政治局势。

人口统计数据显示，中国的经济增长率将在相对较快的时间内降至2%-4%。中国想要在名义GDP方面赶上美国，所拥有的时间相对较短。
相比之下，印度将用有更好的人口结构，印度很可能在50-100年在GDP方面内超过中国。
贸易战争和许多其他问题正在将人民币推向低迷。就名义GDP而言，如果人民币走到7:15或7:50，缺口将很难弥补。以今年为例。很少有人知道，以共同货币而言，美国的增长速度超过了中国。为什么？中国的增长率将为6.5%，美国是2.5%-3%。所以差额是3.5%-4%，但美国的货币(美元)正在以比人民币更快的速度升值，这是四年来的第二次。
中国正努力从制造业经济转向创新社会。
美国现在的情况让我想起了上世纪80年代的广场协议。如果特朗普执政持续6-7年，可能对中国经济不利。

Christopher Martin, former CDL A Truck Driver at M&M Cartage (2014-2015)
I wrote a paper recently for my ENG 102 class about differences in China and the US and the potential for war. Altogether I had 20 sources.
Some brief differences.
1.380 billion vs 324 million people
GDP PPP per capita of 16,600 vs the US’s 59000.
GDP PPP of 23 trillion to the US’s 19 trillion
400 million millenials vs the US’s 80 million
China 2016 STEM Grads 4.5 million vs 500 thousand that year
Agri-Manufacturing-Service Mix of 8/40/52 vs US 4/16/80
300 nukes to 7200 nukes
2.3 million active duty vs 1.3 million
Defense budget: 228 billion vs 610 billion
GDP Growth rate of 6.5% vs 2.5%
50 to 500 protests daily vs 12 daily for the US
China is at GDP level of the 1985 US and agri-manufacturing-service mix of 1950s US. China’s goal is to become a developed nation by 2050. China is 25 years away from having the current per capita GDP of the US at projected growth rates.
China is a communist country and the US has been proselytizing Democracy since after WW2 in a largely US shaped international order. China wants a seat at the table.
Mattis identified state actors in a recent report, instead of terrorism will be the new focus in 2018 going forward and specified China as a economic manipulator and chief rival.
China’s defense budget is growing a 9% a year and will overtake the US within 10 years. A land war with China would be suicide but US has a superior air force and navy and could keep the war away from US shores.
According to the RAND corp a war with China would drop the US’s GDP 10% compared to a 35% drop for China. The US would most likely win the war but it is very uncertain 10 years from now.
China and the US’s allies would mostly likely get involved and there would be a world war. MAD would keep nukes off the table (and assuming the ruling elite wouldn’t like bunker life.)
4.5 million STEM grads a year and a 128 million strong manufacturing sector will turn china into a innovation center.
The US has 10 years to strike China or engineer a coup from pro-democracy movements and mass protests. A coup and overthrow of the CCP is not likely because overall the average Chinese is doing better every year.
The US can choose not to strike and accept 2nd place status and cede power on the international stage to developing countries. A destabilized US is truly scary what with the political trends in the country.
The trade war could be a precursor to a hot war. Free-trade is a great force for peace and mutual interest.
Back to the original question: a multi-polar world is very worrying because of a transition period. There could war that otherwise wouldn’t have happened because of the international institutions weakening and and countries not agreeing on new standards.
EDIT: Thanks to Jiashun Gao for the correct GDP PPP numbers.

我最近在我的ENG102班，就中国和美国的差异，以及战争的可能性，写了一篇论文。总共有20篇引文。

一些简要的差异。
人口：13.8亿 VS 3.24亿
人均PPP:中国16500 VS 美国59000
PPP总量：中国23万亿 VS 美国19万亿
千禧一代人口：中国4亿 VS 美国8000万
2016年STEM（科学、技术、工程、数学）毕业生：中国450万 VS 美国5万
农业-工业-服务业比例：中国8/40/52 VS 美国4/16/80
核弹：中国300 VS 美国7000
国防预算：中国2280亿 VS 美国6100亿
GDP增长率：中国6.5% VS 美国2.5%

中国的GDP与1985年美国的水平相当，农业-工业-服务业比例与上世纪50年代美国的水平相当。中国的目标是到2050年成为发达国家。如果按照预期增长率计算，中国达到美国目前的人均GDP还需要25年。
中国是一个ＧＣ主义国家，自第二次世界大战以来，在主要由美国主导的国际秩序之下，美国一直在劝服他国施行民主制度。而中国希望在牌桌上占有一席之地。
马蒂斯在最近的一份报告中指出，国家行为者将取代恐怖主义，成为2018年的新焦点，并将中国列为经济操纵国和主要竞争对手。

中国的国防预算正以每年9%的速度增长，并将在10年内超过美国。一场与中国的陆地战争将会是自杀，但美国拥有一支优秀的空军和海军，可以让战争远离美国海岸。
根据兰德公司的数据，与中国开战将使美国GDP下降10%，而中国则下降35%。美国很可能会赢得这场战争，但10年后的形势非常不确定。
中国和美国的盟友很可能会参与进来，世界大战也会爆发。MAD（相互确保摧毁）会阻止发生核战争(并假设统治精英们不喜欢地堡生活)。
每年450万STEM专业毕业生和1.28亿强大的制造业部门将使中国成为一个创新中心。
美国有10年的时间打击中国，或者策划一场由民主运动和大规模抗议引发的政变。而政变和推翻CCP不太可能发生，因为总的来说，中国人每年都做得更好。



Joseph Boyle
It means more people living at developed- country standards of living. Does it matter whether the additional people are in one country or multiple countries? Not all that much.

这意味着更多的人生活享受发达国家的生活水平。多出来的那些（富裕）人口出现在一个国家还是多个国家，有关系吗？没有那么大。

Fredrik Payedar, studied Accounting & Economics at University of Gothenburg (2005)
I don’t believe that this is inevitable at all and if it happens, it will probably be very marginal compared to the EU, or USA.
It’s great for the Chinese to become richer, but it would have been better for the world if it had been a democracy.

我认为这件事根本不是必然的，而且如果它发生了，与欧洲或者美国相比，它也可能十分有限。
中国人变的更加富有是一件好事，但如果它是民主国家，那么这件事对世界就更好了。

Ray Comeau, A decade in China, interest in geopolitics
Thanks for request
I am quite alright with changing of the times, as the times seems due for a change.
China has a business culture and a business culture is not conducive to an environment of wars.

谢邀。
对于时代的改变我相当能够接受，因为这个时代似乎应该发生改变。
中国拥有一种商业文化，而商业文化不会催生战争的环境。