Chinese Economics Thread

[Gatekeeper]

You don't get it, TFR that china currently has is literally a population decline, the population will perish down to 0 and it's just a matter of time unless it's offset by mass immigration like in western countries. TFR 2.1 means population will be stable, and above that the population will grow. Someone else mentioned about raising the age of retirement, but to keep on working in your old age since the government is clearly hampered economically with the unsustainable population pyramid is clearly not a good indicator.

Let's try to take a middle ground then, let's just say that we want to keep the population number stable, it's not going to be easy to raise the current TFR to the stable level of 2.1. It would take decades to reverse the effect of the one-child policy, and the related sector of government has already looking into ways to solve it. Recently the matter has been discussed in formulating the 14th 5 year plan, written by the minister of civil affairs li ziheng. Look up articles

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for more info.

I don't know what you guys been smoking here. No one is going to see China's population down to zero over night.

Population management is high on the government agenda. And as I said earlier, the Chinese government believed around 600 to 800 millions is optimum. (This might have changed, that was some years ago when I read that). And that's the target they are working towards that target.

The 800 million figures is still larger than US and EU combined. So no fear of market size. Etc.

Yes, at the moment, the TFR is not at replacement level. But that's not China is looking to do if it's goal was to reduce population from the current 1.4 billion to 800 million .

It's like flying a plane and trying to soft land. What you're proposing it's more lift and take away because the soft landing is too difficult. All you end up doing is storing trouble later on.

You are proposing to undoing 60 years of hardwork and sacrifice of two generations of Chinese not ever knowing what is like having siblings. Let alone the sacrifice of not having a male heir.

The Chinese government knows that, which is why it already done away with the 1-child policy. And adapt a 2-child policy. It may even increase this at a later stage to 3-child. And with tax inducements etc.

But the point is we are not at the stage where you guys are crying out for mass baby produced because...... because. So stop panicking, China has a long way to go before it hits it's optimum population level.

 

[Gatekeeper]

We all want China strong and prosperous, tall and proud among nations.
It's only that sometimes some of us forgot the families and humans that make up the entire endeavor, and see them only as a bunch of statistics to measure with something or someone else so that they feel superior coming out with a larger number.
It makes no sense to do that without considering their welfare and well-being in the first place.

Yes thanks. I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that some members here, wanting China to be strong etc. Are impatient and young. They do not know the sacrifice previous generation of Chinese have endured to get China where she is today.

Nor, thanks to China's success in alleviating poverty, are they old enough to see the abject poverty (I've seen personally with my own eyes).

The problems of over population and poverty and hunger is all too real. If you think the poverty in Africa and India is harsh. Then you haven't seen China's poverty of the past.

 

[sndef888]

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.

Truth is, population is power. China had been a dominant power for centuries because of its population. If the land can support 1.5 billion chinese, and I do think it can, I don't see why the population should reduce to 800million.

Just because China had poverty caused by large population in the past doesn't mean it will be the case in the future. Modern technology has made it possible to farm much more efficiently

 

[localizer]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/kkylvf
Pretty much the gist of it, planning is authoritarian in the west

 

[sinophilia]

You're having a laugh. Aren't you?

So according to you. Deng and everyone else that advocated the one child policy are......... enemies of China!

@zgx09t

In his mind. Yes! You know he lives on another planet, let alone pie in the sky.

Population decline hasn't happened in China. Not during Deng or any other leader in modern history. What are you talking about? They wanted to slow down the growth, which is completely fine, as I alluded to in my post. Implying people are insane when you can't even get the most basic facts right.

Also, you were just saying the reason India and Africa are starving is because of population. So I assume they were starving proportionately less in 2010? 2000? 1980? It is interesting that starvation and famine is becoming less of an occurrence in both regions as time goes by. You would think that the population has been decreasing by the hundreds of millions.

Except it isn't.

 

[Gatekeeper]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/kkylvf
Pretty much the gist of it, planning is authoritarian in the west

That's pretty much all the town planners loosing their jobs in the New year. All the accountants and sales and marketing people can forget about budget and business plans.

You see, I've seen all this before, back in the iron curtain days. When the west says look at those commies. They planned everthing. We are free spirit, we don't plan. Yet every business conduct business plan and budgets. Western government too plan everthing from war games to economic policy.

Yet, remember, they don't plan.....

My tutor said to me when I was a student.

If you fail to plan. Then you've plan to fail!

 

[Gatekeeper]

But those advocating for population decline are enemies of China.

Population decline hasn't happened in China. Not during Deng or any other leader in modern history. What are you talking about? They wanted to slow down the growth, which is completely fine, as I alluded to in my post. Implying people are insane when you can't even get the most basic facts right.

Also, you were just saying the reason India and Africa are starving is because of population. So I assume they were starving proportionately less in 2010? 2000? 1980? It is interesting that starvation and famine is becoming less of an occurrence in both regions as time goes by. You would think that the population has been decreasing by the hundreds of millions.

Except it isn't.

I was answering to your assertion that "those advocating for population decline are enemies of China."

Now if you think that the one child police is not design to reduce population growth and therefore decline in population. Then I don't know what I can say to you to convince you otherwise. Please carry on living in your world that the one child policy is merely to "slow the growth".

I've never implied people are insane. That's your interpretation. I say "you're having a laugh". It could have multitude of meanings. But if the hat fits. Hey who am I to say any different.

Gee. The second part about Africa and India is just a rant. I suggest you go and search relative poverty and see what you find. I'm not even going to bother to educate you.

All I will say is I never said the two, that's population growth and poverty are correlated like the way you suggested. What I'm trying to say was that, and this is for sure, the UN programme of poverty alleviation would be a lot easier if India and Africa control population growth a lot better.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Truth is, population is power. China had been a dominant power for centuries because of its population. If the land can support 1.5 billion chinese, and I do think it can, I don't see why the population should reduce to 800million.

Just because China had poverty caused by large population in the past doesn't mean it will be the case in the future. Modern technology has made it possible to farm much more efficiently

Yes this is true. Population is power. But like any curves on the graph. There's an optimum point somewhere. Otherwise all nations should pursue a policy of having as much babies as possible. See?

I didn't come out with the figures of 800 millions. The Chinese government did back in the days. I dont remember whet I read it. So I already said don't quote me on it. It is something I read years ago in my studies.

Yes China have problems of poverty caused by population in the past, and it doesn't mean it will in the future. But it also mean it won't again in the future!

In any case, all of you are missing the point. Even if it Won't happen in the future, surly a pie that is shared more is better than a bigger pie that's shared less?

I feel all you young guys are born in a time of plenty. And not experienced life of eating rice with soy sauce only!

I remember my brother coming home with a bag of sugar so we can have rice mixed with sugar. And don't forget, even having that we were considered the lucky ones!

 

[sinophilia]

I was answering to your assertion that "those advocating for population decline are enemies of China."

Now if you think that the one child police is not design to reduce population growth and therefore decline in population. Then I don't know what I can say to you to convince you otherwise. Please carry on living in your world that the one child policy is merely to "slow the growth".

I've never implied people are insane. That's your interpretation. I say "you're having a laugh". It could have multitude of meanings. But if the hat fits. Hey who am I to say any different.

Gee. The second part about Africa and India is just a rant. I suggest you go and search relative poverty and see what you find. I'm not even going to bother to educate you.

All I will say is I never said the two, that's population growth and poverty are correlated like the way you suggested. What I'm trying to say was that, and this is for sure, the UN programme of poverty alleviation would be a lot easier if India and Africa control population growth a lot better.

Well saying someone lives on another planet, let alone having pie in the sky ideas isn't much more different than saying they are insane but no problem.

"Now if you think that the one child police is not design to reduce population growth" ... I've literally said that exact same thing twice now. It doesn't translate that therefore it *must be* to cause negative growth rates. You are acting like people should think this is some straight line logic when it isn't. And even if it was true, that doesn't make it the best decision. But it isn't anyway, anymore than attempting to slow debt creation belies the belief that this is an attempt to cause debt creation to go negative until there is zero debt.

As for your comments about Africa and India, you could have just said it was a rant and left it there but you had to add another generalized factoid with a hint of insult lol. Yea, their poverty relative to everyone else is more significant. Who denied that? Has nothing to do with the conversation. Are they less well-off, more likely to incur famine, more hungry, than they were in 2010? 2000? 1980? 1950? The answer is no.

The main reason their populations are starving and poverty-ridden has nothing to do with their population sizes.

 

[zgx09t]

Population decline hasn't happened in China. Not during Deng or any other leader in modern history. What are you talking about? They wanted to slow down the growth, which is completely fine, as I alluded to in my post. Implying people are insane when you can't even get the most basic facts right.

Also, you were just saying the reason India and Africa are starving is because of population. So I assume they were starving proportionately less in 2010? 2000? 1980? It is interesting that starvation and famine is becoming less of an occurrence in both regions as time goes by. You would think that the population has been decreasing by the hundreds of millions.

Except it isn't.

I'm not sure why people are having an emotional meltdown based on some bogus imaginary number like TFR or some statistical nonsense, anointing other people some hurtful labels like 'enemy of the state' willy nilly. Just take a chill and walk it off.

Do we even have actual number of deaths and births for last 40 years or so? I mean you need to show me the product if you want to sell it, not some imaginary statistical number that a few bureaucrats and PhD's cooked up over a white table cloth dinner and dry martini a while back.