Ethnocentrism is run of the mill stuff for the classical economists, often in virulent form. China causes them particular headaches, given its wealth, population, and sophistication. Isn’t Western Europe, especially England, the most advanced place on the globe. What do to do about China? Forget facts, just make up stuff. For instance, Adam Smith opines:
The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence. ( Wealth of Nations, I.viii.24)
And these fantasies are by no means original to him, since they are standard fare in these woeful works. Come to think of it, I hear comments like this today, even from Lefties who should know better.