A historical indicator of a superpower's decline is when its spending on debt servicing surpasses its military budget. The US crossed this threshold a few years ago, while China is massively increasing military spending. This economic framework offers a stark, quantitative lens through which to view the long-term power shift between the two nations.

Related Insights

Contrary to its goals, the U.S. trade war has resulted in self-isolation. Data shows the U.S. is the only country buying less from China, while U.S. allies and developing nations have increased their trade, leading to a record $1 trillion surplus for China. This highlights a strategic miscalculation in U.S. foreign trade policy.

China's showcase of advanced military hardware, like its new aircraft carrier, is primarily a psychological tool. The strategy is to build a military so 'forbiddingly huge' that the US would hesitate to engage, allowing China to achieve goals like reabsorbing Taiwan without fighting. This suggests their focus is on perceived power to deter intervention.

An emerging geopolitical threat is China weaponizing AI by flooding the market with cheap, efficient large language models (LLMs). This strategy, mirroring their historical dumping of steel, could collapse the pricing power of Western AI giants, disrupting the US economy's primary growth engine.

A nation's leadership class shapes its priorities. China's government, heavily populated by engineers, excels at long-term, systematic infrastructure and technology projects. The US, dominated by lawyers, often gets mired in litigation and short-term cycles, hindering large-scale execution.

China's trade surplus is on track to exceed $1.2 trillion, a scale unprecedented in modern peacetime history. This massive imbalance, driven by a strategy of import substitution, raises critical questions about whether the global economy can absorb these surpluses without significant political and economic backlash.

Despite rhetoric about shifting to a consumption-led economy, China's rigid annual GDP growth targets make this impossible. This political necessity forces a constant return to state-driven fixed asset investment to hit the numbers. The result is a "cha-cha" of economic policy—one step toward rebalancing, two steps back toward the old model—making any true shift short-lived.

After WWII, the U.S. used its naval dominance to guarantee global trade. In exchange for writing its allies' security policies, it allowed open access to its market. This economic "unfairness" was the strategic cost of building a global coalition against the Soviet Union, effectively bribing nations into an alliance.

According to IMF data analysis, China's manufacturing surplus as a share of its GDP has surpassed 2%, exceeding the levels of Japan and Germany during their most dominant export eras. This indicates China is achieving global manufacturing dominance at a scale and speed that is historically unprecedented, fundamentally altering global trade dynamics.

The dramatic drop in China's Fixed Asset Investment isn't a sign of economic failure. Instead, it reflects a deliberate government-led "anti-involution" campaign to strip out industrial overcapacity. This painful but planned adjustment aims to create a more streamlined, profitable economy, fundamentally reordering its growth model away from sheer volume.

While the U.S. oscillates between trade policies with each new administration, China executes consistent long-term plans, like shifting to high-quality exports. This decisiveness has enabled China to find new global markets and achieve a record trade surplus, effectively outmaneuvering U.S. tactics.