I think the market, by itself, has already ensured that Chinese capital and talent will find hospitable homes- even on campuses in less developed rivals or emerging economies. Traditional guanxi networks are very flexible and appear able to ease capital flight despite greatly increased penalties.



I think some of the promise shown by China won't pan out because audit quality is poor and metrics are more manipulable. No doubt, we have similar problems but our information aggregation is more incentive compatible. At least, it has been thus far.



I think China first has to expand its naval capacity before it becomes vulnerable to a 'sunk cost fallacy' strategic trap. In any case, an expanded Chinese maritime footprint means SigInt has a better chance of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities.



Trade diversion to Chinese rivals- its 'competitive fringe'- can be compensated for in terms of effective demand- China is not a dwarf which can be bullied- but it affects the product cycle in unexpected ways. This increased uncertainty may actually be good for small firms in industrial hubs but its effect would be to reduce the Party's control of the economy.



I don't think 'hurting China' will help anyone. On the contrary, the Chinese should improve their quality of life using their newly acquired R&D and export 'green solutions' to the planet. If this happens because of dynamism shown by small firms and knowledge based networks, then the Chinese leadership may trade-off improved efficiency against the desire for control.



The Chinese, historically, have reason to be suspicious of 'money pit' projects in far flung countries. Interestingly, Chinese workers in Africa and elsewhere may get innoculated against the very ideology the Great Leader still subscribes to.



Still, all this is predicated on Western elites shedding their culture of complacency and penchant for corrupt deals. It may be that China will win through because of superior morality and discipline. But, that is not the lesson of History.