Soviet analysts in the 70s and 80s were predicting it to collapse but it didn't. Then in the late 80s early 90s Japan was supposed to overtake them but it didn't. Now China looked like it would for real challenge US hegemony but fucking nope. They are growing even faster now relative to the world than they were in the 80s/90s.
Is the world just doomed to global American hegemony?
>>2429799Ignoring the valid aforementioned points above on gdp as a 'compromised' metric of economic strength. The underlying material surplus to invest this new capital growth has been primitively accumulated from the immiseration of their economic hegemony.
The profit crisis of the 70's was resolved through the looting of variable capital held in industrial labour. Japan's emerging powerhouse economy was permanently kneecapped by the plaza accords. Bailing out the 2008 gfc cannibalized the homeowning consumer base and now AI is automating entry level white collar rentiers that replaced them. Each crisis avoided and every increase in GDP came at an equal and opposite reaction in the erosion of the economic base that undergirds the structure.
The analysts' were wrong in their failure to assume capitalisms capacity to cannibalise its base and repeatedly reconstitute a new political economy on whose left. Yet the general tendency towards decline is in proportional parallel with its gdp growth.
Current Position (Latest Comparable Numbers)
< - World Bank nominal GDP (current US$), 2024 estimates (rounded): United States ≈ $29.2 trillion; China ≈ $18.7 trillion.
< - On a PPP basis (adjusted for purchasing power), China’s GDP exceeded the U.S. in the mid-2010s (around 2013–2014).
Why "When Will China Overtake the U.S.?" Is Ambiguous
< - Nominal GDP (market exchange rates): measures financial size globally; U.S. still ahead.
< - PPP GDP: measures domestic purchasing power; China already ahead.
< - GDP per capita: U.S. remains far ahead.
<Nominal GDP Projection Scenarios
< Starting points (2024 nominal): US = $29.18T, China = $18.74T.
< Scenario A — Medium China / Base US (China 6%, US 2.5%): ~14 years → ~2038.
< Scenario B — High China / Base US (China 8%, US 3%): ~10 years → ~2034.
< Scenario C — Low China / Base US (China 4%, US 2.5%): ~31 years → ~2055.
< Scenario D — Medium China / Higher US (China 6%, US 3.5%): ~19 years → ~2043.
< Scenario E — Low China / Higher US (China 4%, US 3%): >40 years.
Mainstream Institutional Views
< - IMF/World Bank: slower but persistent Chinese growth; cautious short-term forecasts.
< - PwC/Goldman Sachs: often project nominal crossover in the 2030s under baseline scenarios.
Key Factors Affecting Timing
< 1. Growth rate differential.
< 2. Demographics: China’s aging/shrinking population.
< 3. Productivity and technological upgrade.
< 4. Debt, financial stability, and property sector risk.
< 5. Exchange-rate movements and inflation.
< 6. Policy and geopolitical developments.
< 7. Data and measurement methodology.
Why Some Analysts Are Skeptical
< - Slower productivity gains, aging, weak consumption, and property weakness may push crossover far out or prevent it entirely.
What Nominal GDP Overtake Would Mean
< - Nominal GDP parity signals market size, not per-capita parity or financial dominance.
< - PPP parity reflects domestic market size, not necessarily global power.
Conclusions
< - China has already overtaken the U.S. by PPP GDP (mid-2010s).
< - By nominal GDP, crossover plausible in mid-2030s to early-2040s under many baselines.
< - Timing is highly sensitive to small differences in growth, inflation, and exchange rates.
< - No single "correct" year; institutions will continue to disagree.
>>2429799Anons, please learn what the fuck "nominal" means when you read it in a GDP chart.
Inflation will drive up nominal GDP without any change in economic activity. And since you can't do country-to-country comparisons on real terms, you end up with crackhead results like this.
Hence why people prefer to measure growth rates, which are more consistent. And Chinese growth is 2.1x US growth.
Or they use PPP, which makes people butthurt.
>>2429799It is still much stronger than the Chinese Century Truthers would have you believe but lots of that growth is mickey mouse bullshit like Onlyfans and Twitch lol.
Not to mention how corrosive for a civilization these things can be when they're sold as viable lifestyle like now.
>>2429970PPP is the metric of Third World Chads
First world soys prefer their cocks noMiNaL