Chinese Economics Thread

[HybridHypothesis]

A two-party democratic society naturally bickers to the point that it seems nothing gets done and that is the whole point of the system!

In other words, Ken is content to belong to a mediocre country with a mediocre mentality.

Is it any wonder why progress and culture have been the same for the past 20-30 years in the West, if people like this are in charge of it?

 

[HybridHypothesis]

You can't be serious. China spent the best part of the past 60 years trying to reduce its population so as not to burdened it with hunger and poverty. And now you're advocating a policy guaranteed to burden China with poverty and hunger.

There is an optimum level of population. I think I read somewhere a long while ago. That China's is somewhere between 600 billion to 800 billion (don't quote me on it).

China still have a long way to go before it needs to encourage any more babies. This is why I think the policy to relax the one-child policy is a right one. But let's leave it at that for now, and maybe encourage a third child in twenty years time.

China needs to increase the birthrate in order to avoid a skyrocketing dependency ratio. Plus the Americans are already thinking of increasing their population to 1 billion.

 

[Tam]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343012467933237248

 

[hashtagpls]

You can't be serious. China spent the best part of the past 60 years trying to reduce its population so as not to burdened it with hunger and poverty. And now you're advocating a policy guaranteed to burden China with poverty and hunger.

There is an optimum level of population. I think I read somewhere a long while ago. That China's is somewhere between 600 billion to 800 billion (don't quote me on it).

China still have a long way to go before it needs to encourage any more babies. This is why I think the policy to relax the one-child policy is a right one. But let's leave it at that for now, and maybe encourage a third child in twenty years time.

You have a typo in your post where you wrote billion instead of million.

A few years ago was an okay time to lift the one child policy and reform it to two children (exceptions are rife). I think the overall aim is to get below a billion people and convert China eventually into a nation that is roughly the same population around double that of the European Union or rather the EU combined with the US. China's landmass is roughly the same as the US and with similar abundance of habitable land and natural resources that help facilitate that. It's a comfortable medium without going too sparse or 20th century industrialisation thinking.

Hard to determine a set of exact science out of a good population size but the worrying thing with China is the age of its population. It will be suddenly going from ridiculously overpopulated to something like 0.8 billion. The technology of the times will probably determine whether it is a good thing and how to better make productive use of the population but going from trends and what we suspect are gov initiatives, China wants to become a self-sufficient consumer economy and move up the value chain. Huge populations will become more of a liability than an asset as everything moves towards becoming more automated. The importance would be to have a highly educated population which China's moving towards. If the entirety of China could eventually become as educated (that includes everyone) as Japan or Singapore or South Korea or any Scandinavian nation, then imagine how productive and efficient it could be if the organisation and motivations were working for it. It would be like five entire Japans with 20 times the land, more resources, and a better position to exploit where it is situated - close to the Eurasian heartland.

I am deadly serious; a large population and the growing wealth of a nation need not be mutually exclusive; they simply are so in the scarcity mindset economy the world is currently in at the moment.

Regarding labour, there is only so much that AI can perform, and given the genetic intelligence of the Chinese people, the more likely that scientific breakthroughs and innovations are going to come out of China when there are simply more Chinese people. America's scientific and technological industry is only at its current apex because of the Chinese researchers which staff many research labs in the material sciences.

The only people who want China to have a smaller populace tend to be the globohomo types or the alt-right western chauvinists who themselves want a billion americans to fight some ragnarok against China.

 

[quantumlight]

I am deadly serious; a large population and the growing wealth of a nation need not be mutually exclusive; they simply are so in the scarcity mindset economy the world is currently in at the moment.

Regarding labour, there is only so much that AI can perform, and given the genetic intelligence of the Chinese people, the more likely that scientific breakthroughs and innovations are going to come out of China when there are simply more Chinese people. America's scientific and technological industry is only at its current apex because of the Chinese researchers which staff many research labs in the material sciences.

The only people who want China to have a smaller populace tend to be the globohomo types or the alt-right western chauvinists who themselves want a billion americans to fight some ragnarok against China.

Big picture this is just wrong....

If the world cant solve and mass commercialize fusion in the next 30 or so years we are all collectively screwed, China included...

Climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, deminish EROEI, these are all why the pyramid scheme of perpetual growth simply cannot continue forever on a finite earth... all the low hanging fruits were exploited first....

Earth natural capacity of humans is under 500 million total... today food that keeps 7 billion alive is grown using oil... without oil there is no fertilizer, no pesticides, no automated farming, no transportation of food logistics... nothing


AI is akin to conservation in this regard. Airline when buying new plane now only care about fuel efficiency, no longer faster, larger more comfortable... AI is about productivity via efficiency... so is work from home or remote work etc... scaling back, cannalbalism and efficiency is the new growth... its whats temporarily holding this unstable system together... but it cant last forever

But if global population doesnt decrease dramatically and fast, we will all be in a world of hurt

 

[gadgetcool5]

The more Chinese people the better; if it's too much for the Chinese mainland, China can export population to Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world where they can help develop the economy & build links back to mainland China. A high population will never stop being an asset. It means more workers, more scientists, more revenue, and a stronger military. China's strength is based on its population. If it had the same population as Japan with the per capita GDP it has today, it would not be able to achieve half the things it does.

 

[manqiangrexue]

China needs to increase the birthrate in order to avoid a skyrocketing dependency ratio. Plus the Americans are already thinking of increasing their population to 1 billion.

I think this is truly an act of desperation for America; it sees Chinese success and just wants to copy what it can without real analysis. It thinks that a population match would allow it to overcome China's advantages but actually, a large, mismanaged population will be like India. China's strength is in the intellect and ambitions of its people, in Chinese parents chasing the best education possible for their children in STEM subjects at any cost. China rises because Chinese culture has made it the ultimate honor to achieve academic perfection. Americans have gotten fat and lazy, long used to being on top. Americans want to be literature, management, hospitality, arts, communication majors (all fields that draw laughter and quiet derision from peers in China) because they seek the easy way out, and the American system was made to give it to them. An American with a bachelors or masters in management can make more money and attain higher corporate rank than the foreign PhDs who work under them powering "American" innovation.

America's strength is in luring foreigners to its lands with promise of easier life. That easier life is only achievable because America has a high resource to population ratio. If you triple the population, then the stresses of life and affordability of common goods will increase and decrease America's allure. No Chinese would move to America and work in an American lab just to live a similar lifestyle compared to what he had in China except he gets to experience language barriers, cultural shock, racial discrimination, etc...

America's problem is in its culture growing lax and becoming increasingly dependent on foreign talent; if it ignores that but just fills its country with more of the same people, it will cause another problem while failing to address the first one.

 

[HybridHypothesis]

I think this is truly an act of desperation for America; it sees Chinese success and just wants to copy what it can without real analysis. It thinks that a population match would allow it to overcome China's advantages but actually, a large, mismanaged population will be like India. China's strength is in the intellect and ambitions of its people, in Chinese parents chasing the best education possible for their children in STEM subjects at any cost. China rises because Chinese culture has made it the ultimate honor to achieve academic perfection. Americans have gotten fat and lazy, long used to being on top. Americans want to be literature, management, business, arts, communication majors (all fields that draw laughter and quiet derision from peers in China) because they seek the easy way out, and the American system was made to give it to them. An American with a bachelors or masters in management can make more money and attain higher corporate rank than the foreign PhDs who work under them powering American innovation.

America's strength is in luring foreigners to its lands with promise of easier life. That easier life is only achievable because America has a high resource to population ratio. If you triple that, then the stresses of life and affordability of common goods will increase and decrease America's allure. No Chinese would move to America and work in an American lab just to live a similar lifestyle compared to what he had in China except he gets to experience language barriers, cultural shock, racial discrimination, etc...

America's problem is in its culture growing lax and becoming increasingly dependent on foreign talent; if it ignores that but just fills its country with more of the same people, it will cause another problem while failing to address the first one.

Good summary. I dont think its cargo cult behavior from America though. The pro-immigration stance is deeply engrained into American strategy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1342683406241587202

 

[quantumlight]

The more Chinese people the better; if it's too much for the Chinese mainland, China can export population to Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world where they can help develop the economy & build links back to mainland China. A high population will never stop being an asset. It means more workers, more scientists, more revenue, and a stronger military. China's strength is based on its population. If it had the same population as Japan with the per capita GDP it has today, it would not be able to achieve half the things it does.

By that logic America would have never become world #1 and India should be right behind China...

China population helped it during initial boostrapping phase, now its a hinderance... with AI, the need for cheap human labor is thing of past...

Its all about tech now, everything is getting software defined and reduced to code and business logic. AI means labor of janitor to CEO all reduced to electricity costs

You still living in the 20th century...

 

[gadgetcool5]

By that logic America would have never become world #1 and India should be right behind China...

China population helped it during initial boostrapping phase, now its a hinderance... with AI, the need for cheap human labor is thing of past...

Its all about tech now, everything is getting software defined and reduced to code and business logic. AI means labor of janitor to CEO all reduced to electricity costs

You still living in the 20th century...

The 20th century? In the 20th century, Japan was stronger than China. In 1940, Japan's population was only 73 million, whereas China's was 400 million. America became #1 even though it had a smaller population. In the 20th century, technology was more important than population. Even then, population was not a hinderance, but it was much less important.

In today's globalizing world however, population is going to become increasingly important. China's rise itself is a sign of this. Much of it had to do with its large population, which gave it a stable base from which to rise. While the population growth of the US, Europe, and Japan are insufficient, declining, and now falling.

The key to China's strength is its large internal market and labor force. The larger the market, the better. It means that China's success is in its own hands and does not depend on exports or other countries. Further, China's large population means a larger pool of potential skilled labor. It means a greater chance for the next genius scientist, who comes up with the next breakthrough. It means more people making better code and improving business logic and AI. Yes, all these things are important, but a large talent pool is a part of the equation.

China is moving to a more inclusive population policy and away from the anti-natalist policy of the past. From one child policy to two child policy, and soon payments for having children. This will help stabilize the population which will be a good thing.