US economy is very well developed as compared to China so it needs stability rather than growth to upgrade lives of millions of middle class...
The 'it' here is US, and you essentially put the intellectual smack down on the Chinese.
The technical side of economy contains the banks, the currency, trade, budgeting, monetary policies, etc. All the things needed to make an economy function. The gears, levers, buttons, switches, cogs, and so on. An appropriate analogy is an engine. Every complex system have an optimum operating range, which is a balance between stability and capacity to compensate for changes. An economy is no different.
This is where the clueless PDF Chinese does not seems to grasp. The car's driver does not need to know the mechanical intricacies of the machine in order to get where he want to go. He just need to know the limits of that operating range. For an established economy, and the largest by most standards, it is better to be stable within that operating range than to go up/down or swing left/right within that same operating range. When other countries, including China, continues to rely on US to sustain and even grow their economies, they need, not just want, US to be stable. They do not need US to grow in order for them to grow. They need US leadership, that driver, to have economic policies that are favorable to that stability.
That does not mean we should be static. Of course, we should grow but it should be controlled growth. It is absurd to take growth rate comparison between economies and set internal policies. One of the most valuable asset of any economy is agriculture, which require arable land. The US and China are geographically identical in size, and yet China's arable land is only %11 of her geography while for the US it is %40. Worse yet, China is losing that arable land due to bad economic policies. In other words, the driver is doing something that is detrimental to a core component of that engine.
Energy is another core component of the economic engine. Currently, the US is essentially energy independent. People can point out that we import oil from Canada and Mexico, but do these critics really believe that we can be threatened by either of those countries ? On the other hand, China's energy needs continues to be externally based. Her oil imports, and from questionable sources, will always be a red light in the driver's line of sight. China's energy needs and policies varies more within her economic operating range than US in our economic operating range.
The clueless PDF Chinese dismisses the social disaster that was the one-child policy. They are the result of it and have yet to feel its effects. On a personal level, they do not know what it is like to have a brother and/or sister, someone you can talk to and rely upon in ways most friends cannot provide. They are the first generation of Chinese whose children will not know what it is like to have uncles and aunts. They will not know what it is like to hold in their arms their children and their siblings' children, and love them all. At the greater level, China will have a declining number of economic contributors, of which no amount of talk about advances in robotics can hide this looming crisis. China's policy makers do not see this as merely a problem but a genuine crisis.
Growth rate figures aside, the US is in the better position than China -- in the long run.
