Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

I got a couple of interesting responses to my post yesterday suggesting that China is not a big threat. First this from reader DT, who objects to thinking of China as a single country with a fairly low per-capita GDP:

The issue here is that China is essentially two separate countries: (1) a bunch of really rich cities (population 200M+), and (2) an extremely poor rest of the country. Think of it as Mexico and the US under a single government. Unlike a normal country, authoritarianism and the hukou system keep the two more or less separate.

Per-capita GDP figures completely miss this reality. And it is important because China could become a serious competitor to the US if it had a very rich part of 300M (about the same size as we are) and a dirt-poor remainder of 1 billion people….You might think “oh, well those billion poor people are going to be a drag on the system.” But the bizarre reality of contemporary China is that they might not be. Who knows, the system might sustain itself indefinitely.

And this from reader RC:

I agree with what you said in your piece today, but I think you miss the key point. Yes, the US economy has a dominant lead over China’s, and Chinese internal policy is somewhat self-limiting. But the fight with Huawei (and others) isn’t about that at all. It’s broadly accepted that they are hard-coding access in their telecom equipment and burying various hidden functions in their silicon. The use of this hardware opens up a door to cyber espionage and sabotage that is orders of magnitude worse than the alternatives.

They’re still going to place these chips and switches in Western nations, but to the extent that we can keep that kind of compromised gear out of our networks we probably should.

I don’t know enough about China to have a considered opinion about these points, but I’ll toss out a couple of comments. On the GDP issue, this strikes me as a bit like saying the US is a country of 50 million with a per-capita GDP of $100,000, plus a bunch of poor people no one cares about. But you can say this about every country. Is it legit to make this comparison? Or is it legit only for China because their rich bit is so big in absolute terms?

As for Huawei, I agree that it’s “broadly accepted” that their equipment is compromised. But is it true? It’s not that I’d be surprised or anything, but I guess I’m a little more skeptical of accepting stuff like this on faith than I used to be.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate