Chinese Economics Thread

[Serb]

I think that eventually, China will start being pro-immigration for all kinds of best highly educated graduated engineers or scientists from abroad once it maximizes its own potential first, maximizing the gross enrollment ratio for higher education (and secondary education enrolment ratio on the step below that slightly as well) to the level of developed countries. At that time it will probably be rich enough to attract those kinds of individuals from around the world even more. They will probably start accepting more international students as well and easing long-term retention rates for the brightest ones as well.

The reward of doing this outweighs the potential risks associated with allowing more foreigners in regard to national cohesion, not to mention that this is a very small and selective number of people that can't affect anything in any major way (easily controllable population). I don't know when the overall enrollment rates will hit that of developed countries, but once that happens, this policy will probably start, maybe 10-20 years from now. Also, it's important to note here that even with lower tertiary enrollment rates, China already has higher ratios of STEM graduates amongst all graduates, which are many times more valuable than some of the useless jobs in the West for the future world.

However, this is not nearly enough to cover the total demographic and potential consumption losses caused by declining birth rates. And I don't think that China will ever allow for mass immigration of lower-skilled workers, or non-workers at all like the US and EU allow (this mass-immigration of lower quality population is the major reason why for example EU and US have higher TFR than Japan and South Korea and China in my opinion). Accepting only the brightest people can't be a substitute for total demographic internal losses, and for this, I think that it will have to be included 20-30 years in the future semi-mandatory having more children in China. The Chinese government is the one government with the highest chance to pull this off successfully, not to mention the technology and cultural level at that time in the future. There would probably be already technology for artificial wombs and widespread societal mindset changes.

As to why China is fine without doing something this major for at least another 20-30 years, it's because China would also grow automatically in other ways to at least 3-4 times the current real GDP (PPP). They will not only get more graduates every year internally, but their current scientists will also gradually get more efficient and experienced because they are quite young in comparison to developed countries both literally and collectively, hence their individual H-Index scores will also rise (they will also probably get paid more and more raising an overall motivation for every individual scientist in the future).

As the Chinese economy continues to grow at least 5%, this means more total R&D spending for science and technology, better retention rates for their scientists, more infrastructure improvements for science and technology, totally new sci-tech zones, etc. All this will lead to more production in the economy on an average citizen-type basis. So, until all of this is pretty much exhausted, like in Japan, raising average GDP per capita 3X, there is no point in worrying about demographics in China. That is not the biggest priority currently, I think there are way bigger priorities for now.

Just to add, China already as it stands beats the US in every kind of education, science, technology, and related metrics, and I could even argue that is on the level of the entire Collective West combined. So just because it can grow 3-4 times more in the future, it doesn't mean that it isn't already above the West right now, meaning that it should keep a low profile due to that tremendous future potential. That is probably also why the West panics so much.

Chinese schoolkids are already better than the West and are leading the world in standardized international PISA scores, and subject ratings, their students have more total knowledge on average, learn more advanced topics earlier, lead in Olympiads for natural sciences, are more STEM-inclined, have higher IQ scores, spatial awareness, and processing power, higher literacy rates than in the US. Also regarding education, China has the best natural sciences universities in the world and most of them are in the highest category (also in computer science and engineering).

They have the total number of top universities on the level of the entire West combined if we look at practical metrics like their high-quality research output. In the area of science, they also have the most highly-citied top prestigious scientific papers published in natural sciences and emerging and critical technologies, the most 'hot papers', they have the WIPO patents yearly on the level of the entire West combined if not more, they probably have the highest total R&D spending right now (in terms of purchasing parity), in the Nature rankings, they are also ranked the best in terms of research institutions, cities, etc. They lead the world in high-tech exports and have better total high-tech localization rates than the West, and all those advantages I listed are still increasing. Some people see Chinese potential for growth 3-4 times but don't see what China already accomplished, China individually is already on the power level of the entire West combined in my opinion (already far above US).

 

[Maikeru]

I think that eventually, China will start being pro-immigration for all kinds of best highly educated graduated engineers or scientists from abroad once it maximizes its own potential first, maximizing the gross enrollment ratio for higher education (and secondary education enrolment ratio on the step below that slightly as well) to the level of developed countries. At that time it will probably be rich enough to attract those kinds of individuals from around the world even more. They will probably start accepting more international students as well and easing long-term retention rates for the brightest ones as well.

The reward of doing this outweighs the potential risks associated with allowing more foreigners in regard to national cohesion, not to mention that this is a very small and selective number of people that can't affect anything in any major way (easily controllable population). I don't know when the overall enrollment rates will hit that of developed countries, but once that happens, this policy will probably start, maybe 10-20 years from now. Also, it's important to note here that even with lower tertiary enrollment rates, China already has higher ratios of STEM graduates amongst all graduates, which are many times more valuable than some of the useless jobs in the West for the future world.

However, this is not nearly enough to cover the total demographic and potential consumption losses caused by declining birth rates. And I don't think that China will ever allow for mass immigration of lower-skilled workers, or non-workers at all like the US and EU allow (this mass-immigration of lower quality population is the major reason why for example EU and US have higher TFR than Japan and South Korea and China in my opinion). Accepting only the brightest people can't be a substitute for total demographic internal losses, and for this, I think that it will have to be included 20-30 years in the future semi-mandatory having more children in China. The Chinese government is the one government with the highest chance to pull this off successfully, not to mention the technology and cultural level at that time in the future. There would probably be already technology for artificial wombs and widespread societal mindset changes.

As to why China is fine without doing something this major for at least another 20-30 years, it's because China would also grow automatically in other ways to at least 3-4 times the current real GDP (PPP). They will not only get more graduates every year internally, but their current scientists will also gradually get more efficient and experienced because they are quite young in comparison to developed countries both literally and collectively, hence their individual H-Index scores will also rise (they will also probably get paid more and more raising an overall motivation for every individual scientist in the future).

As the Chinese economy continues to grow at least 5%, this means more total R&D spending for science and technology, better retention rates for their scientists, more infrastructure improvements for science and technology, totally new sci-tech zones, etc. All this will lead to more production in the economy on an average citizen-type basis. So, until all of this is pretty much exhausted, like in Japan, raising average GDP per capita 3X, there is no point in worrying about demographics in China. That is not the biggest priority currently, I think there are way bigger priorities for now.

Just to add, China already as it stands beats the US in every kind of education, science, technology, and related metrics, and I could even argue that is on the level of the entire Collective West combined. So just because it can grow 3-4 times more in the future, it doesn't mean that it isn't already above the West right now, meaning that it should keep a low profile due to that tremendous future potential. That is probably also why the West panics so much.

Chinese schoolkids are already better than the West and are leading the world in standardized international PISA scores, and subject ratings, their students have more total knowledge on average, learn more advanced topics earlier, lead in Olympiads for natural sciences, are more STEM-inclined, have higher IQ scores, spatial awareness, and processing power, higher literacy rates than in the US. Also regarding education, China has the best natural sciences universities in the world and most of them are in the highest category (also in computer science and engineering).

They have the total number of top universities on the level of the entire West combined if we look at practical metrics like their high-quality research output. In the area of science, they also have the most highly-citied top prestigious scientific papers published in natural sciences and emerging and critical technologies, the most 'hot papers', they have the WIPO patents yearly on the level of the entire West combined if not more, they probably have the highest total R&D spending right now (in terms of purchasing parity), in the Nature rankings, they are also ranked the best in terms of research institutions, cities, etc. They lead the world in high-tech exports and have better total high-tech localization rates than the West, and all those advantages I listed are still increasing. Some people see Chinese potential for growth 3-4 times but don't see what China already accomplished, China individually is already on the power level of the entire West combined in my opinion (already far above US).

PISA 2022 scores released 11am Paris time tomorrow 5th December.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[paiemon]

However, this is not nearly enough to cover the total demographic and potential consumption losses caused by declining birth rates. And I don't think that China will ever allow for mass immigration of lower-skilled workers, or non-workers at all like the US and EU allow (this mass-immigration of lower quality population is the major reason why for example EU and US have higher TFR than Japan and South Korea and China in my opinion). Accepting only the brightest people can't be a substitute for total demographic internal losses, and for this, I think that it will have to be included 20-30 years in the future semi-mandatory having more children in China. The Chinese government is the one government with the highest chance to pull this off successfully, not to mention the technology and cultural level at that time in the future. There would probably be already technology for artificial wombs and widespread societal mindset changes.

Immigrant TFR drops after one or two generations as people adjust and see whats around them, its a cultural/societal issue with having kids and the lifestyle that accompanies it. In rich countries, you have options to live a fulfilling life with good living standards into your elder years due to social safety nets, opportunities, etc so people also have the choice to not have kids or less kids. In poor countries/societies not so much, if we look at say Renaissance Europe people had lots of kids in order to survive since the kids looked after them in old age or contributed to the household.

I don't think state control of people's bodies (especially women) is going to go over real well if that's the direction suggested to improve TFR, that's a dystopia that not even North Korea will touch and is the domain of religious fanatics. If society wants warm bodies for the sake of the economy, it might as well dump money in cloning or artifical wombs. While some people are dead set against having kids and we have to respect individual choice, there are many others who are on the fence who can be convinced if society put its money where its mouth is when it states "it takes a village to raise a child". Its a quality of life issue, when I think of it as it comes to raising kids that society has to change the calculus around. Right now, for alot of people the mindset is negative.

 

[donjasjit]

This is an imagined scenerio. The truth is, the US always looks for something in China to convince itself that China can be defeated, because otherwise, they would just have to look at how many Chinese people there are, how many study STEM, how they dominate all STEM academics in the West, and conclude they should give up early for some grace. Americans used to talk about "Authoritarian governments create people who can't innovate," a fotal flaw, right? Now Raimundo's screaming at Europe to help stall Chinese innovation LOL. Then there was the "inevitable" hard landing, middle-income trap, etc... Even the only dude who gave you a like on your post, @gadgetcool5, exhibits the exact same pattern. He used to always talk about China's declining or stagnant car sales as the sure-fire sign the China's economy is stalled. No matter what metric you showed him, GDP growth, electricity usage, start ups, whatever, it didn't matter to him; China's economy is doomed because car sales won't go up. Now that that's over and China leads heads and shoulders over the rest of the world in EV, he's never mentioned a car again; he prefers horse carriage now.... oh, and talking about the "demographic crisis," of course LOL.

I'm not worried about it at all. This is just a trend like all others and birth rate will always find homeostatis with resources and needs. China might rebalance into a lower more high-tech, high-standard of living population but once homeostasis is reached with the resources available, the birth rate will reflect that and sustain the population again. And whatever that number is, it will be a more modern, more educated society and way more than what America can handle because even 1 on 1, Chinese kids easily smoke the competition in every American school. Demgraphic "crisis" nothin'.

And don't ever expect a dominant power to throw the fight to you; it has never happened in history. Don't waste your time trying to convince them of anything; they cling to power until it is ripped from them by a greater force. Prepare for the conflict with anticipation; savor your preparation; relish your time waiting for him and your plans of what you will do to him. Be angry and disappointed if your enemy denies it to you by backing down. That is the way to win.

It is very unlikely that China and the West will ever be friends. They have different political systems and different views of life. They will always be rivals in every field of human endeavor.

However, the extremely bad relations between the two will ease once both are convinced of the other’s power. China already accepts the prominent position of the west in the world. The west, on the other do not accept the belief that the rise of China is inevitable.

China at a population of 770 million in 2100 as the UN predicts will still be a great power but it will not be the colossus that the West fears if its population was closer to what it is now. The population in 2100 will almost inevitably will have a greater imbalance of elderly vs the working young.

That is why western politicians are trying so hard to contain China. They are convinced demographic decline will devastate China. They believe they just need to hold it back till then.

They wouldn’t try so hard if the population of China was predicted to remain stable.

 

[TK3600]

Immigrant TFR drops after one or two generations as people adjust and see whats around them, its a cultural/societal issue with having kids and the lifestyle that accompanies it. In rich countries, you have options to live a fulfilling life with good living standards into your elder years due to social safety nets, opportunities, etc so people also have the choice to not have kids or less kids. In poor countries/societies not so much, if we look at say Renaissance Europe people had lots of kids in order to survive since the kids looked after them in old age or contributed to the household.

I don't think state control of people's bodies (especially women) is going to go over real well if that's the direction suggested to improve TFR, that's a dystopia that not even North Korea will touch and is the domain of religious fanatics. If society wants warm bodies for the sake of the economy, it might as well dump money in cloning or artifical wombs. While some people are dead set against having kids and we have to respect individual choice, there are many others who are on the fence who can be convinced if society put its money where its mouth is when it states "it takes a village to raise a child". Its a quality of life issue, when I think of it as it comes to raising kids that society has to change the calculus around. Right now, for alot of people the mindset is negative.

In extreme scenario, state dont need dystopian control of female body. They just need to purge the anti-family like value out of culture. See cultural revolution. Still very extreme, but not cyberpunk level as you described.

Believe it or not humans naturally likes to have family. It is evolution. We only stopped due to cultural shift.

 

[Lethe]

This is an imagined scenerio. The truth is, the US always looks for something in China to convince itself that China can be defeated, because otherwise, they would just have to look at how many Chinese people there are, how many study STEM, how they dominate all STEM academics in the West, and conclude they should give up early for some grace. Americans used to talk about "Authoritarian governments create people who can't innovate," a fotal flaw, right? Now Raimundo's screaming at Europe to help stall Chinese innovation LOL. Then there was the "inevitable" hard landing, middle-income trap, etc... Even the only dude who gave you a like on your post, @gadgetcool5, exhibits the exact same pattern. He used to always talk about China's declining or stagnant car sales as the sure-fire sign the China's economy is stalled. No matter what metric you showed him, GDP growth, electricity usage, start ups, whatever, it didn't matter to him; China's economy is doomed because car sales won't go up. Now that that's over and China leads heads and shoulders over the rest of the world in EV, he's never mentioned a car again; he prefers horse carriage now.... oh, and talking about the "demographic crisis," of course LOL.

Western rhetoric about China has very little to do with China and much more to do with the self-perception of those western nations, chiefly the United States. Liberal democracy is obviously the best form of government, paired with a mixed economic system that, in practice, aims to maximise the role of private enterprise while minimising the role of the state. These features both necessarily follow from universal moral values and produce ideal practical outcomes. Particularly in the United States, these beliefs collectively have most of the characteristics of a religion. Only truly shattering events such as foreign conquest or national collapse through civil conflict can hope to shake them. If China is doing something different, then by definition China is wrong. If China's wrong path appears to be successful, this can only be a limited or temporary success, or even a mirage: the data is wrong or fabricated, at what cost, impending collapse, etc.

Many cultures around the world have experienced profound disillusionment in recent centuries as prior modes of thought proved inadequate in the face of the overwhelming material power of the west. Each has struggled to find its own path forward, vacillating between the two great impulses of productive engagement with western ideas and reactionary retreat from them, between preserving, modifying, or discarding the ways of the past. The challenge that China's rise poses to the self-concept of the west is of course very, very mild in comparison, and the predominant response to this point is simply denial. Nonetheless, I think the historical parallels are instructive.

The fundamental appeal of science fiction, fantasy and alternative history is the notion that things could be other than as they are. That the forms and structures around us are temporary and conditional products of particular circumstances rather than fixed or inevitable features of reality. It is the great hubris of western culture to believe that in recent centuries we have discovered the ideal forms of government and social organization, to persist and be replicated ever forward with only minor modifications. For much of the last century, the Soviet Union stood as a monument to the idea that there were other ways of being, which is why so many on the left were slow to acknowledge the weaknesses of that regime and particularly the atrocities perpetrated under its umbrella. China's rise does not challenge the messianic claims of the west to universality and inevitability with an alternative path to utopia as the Soviet Union (and broader Communist ideology) did. Rather, China simply stands as evidence that there are indeed alternatives that seem to "work" to achieve practical ends.

 

[manqiangrexue]

It is very unlikely that China and the West will ever be friends. They have different political systems and different views of life. They will always be rivals in every field of human endeavor.

However, the extremely bad relations between the two will ease once both are convinced of the other’s power. China already accepts the prominent position of the west in the world. The west, on the other do not accept the belief that the rise of China is inevitable.

China at a population of 770 million in 2100 as the UN predicts will still be a great power but it will not be the colossus that the West fears if its population was closer to what it is now. The population in 2100 will almost inevitably will have a greater imbalance of elderly vs the working young.

That is why western politicians are trying so hard to contain China. They are convinced demographic decline will devastate China. They believe they just need to hold it back till then.

They wouldn’t try so hard if the population of China was predicted to remain stable.

No, once again, this is your imagination that the current trend of the West talking about China's "demographic collapse" is the end-all-be-all. By your logic, 50 years ago, all China would have to do is convince the West that Chinese minds are not inferior and they will conclude that more minds will out-think less minds and give up. We did; we showed them what our kids can do in their classrooms but they didn't give up. They came up with a new hope for themselves: that China's political system is an unsurmountable barrier to innovation. So, 20 years ago, all China would have to do is convince the West that China's system does not stymie innovation and they will conclude that with more innovation than the West, China will win and they should give up. We did again; we showed them that China can beat anyone in the world in patents and scientific publications and start-ups and once again, they didn't give up. They came up with a new hope for themselves: China's economy would crash from and "unavoidable" hard landing. So 10 years ago, all China would have to do is convince the West that China's economy will not be crushed by a hard-landing; it will continue to outgrow the West and then they will give up. We did; we showed them that we have superior control of our economy and it continued to outperform any Western nation, and yet again they didn't give up. They came up with a new hope for themselves: that China would get old before we got strong. So now you're saying we just need to convince them that we can overcome this hurdle and they will give up. See the pattern? Identifying something in China as a critical weakness to convince themselves that they can win is a Western trend and it shifts to something new every time the last one is debunked. So your current thinking that once China convinces the West that its demographics won't be a problem, the West will give up is just silly thinking completely outside of the big picture. They will come up with something else to give them hope that they can beat China. They will always try so very hard. And China will beat them with all their efforts as we have always done. That is a pleasure, not something we wish to or can avoid.

 

[donjasjit]

No, once again, this is your imagination that the current trend of the West talking about China's "demographic collapse" is the end-all-be-all. By your logic, 50 years ago, all China would have to do is convince the West that Chinese minds are not inferior and they will conclude that more minds will out-think less minds and give up. We did; we showed them what our kids can do in their classrooms but they didn't give up. They came up with a new hope for themselves: that China's political system is an unsurmountable barrier to innovation. So, 20 years ago, all China would have to do is convince the West that China's system does not stymie innovation and they will conclude that with more innovation than the West, China will win and they should give up. We did again; we showed them that China can beat anyone in the world in patents and scientific publications and start-ups and once again, they didn't give up. They came up with a new hope for themselves: China's economy would crash from and "unavoidable" hard landing. So 10 years ago, all China would have to do is convince the West that China's economy will not be crushed by a hard-landing; it will continue to outgrow the West and then they will give up. We did; we showed them that we have superior control of our economy and it continued to outperform any Western nation, and yet again they didn't give up. They came up with a new hope for themselves: that China would get old before we got strong. So now you're saying we just need to convince them that we can overcome this hurdle and they will give up. See the pattern? Identifying something in China as a critical weakness to convince themselves that they can win is a Western trend and it shifts to something new every time the last one is debunked. So your current thinking that once China convinces the West that its demographics won't be a problem, the West will give up is just silly thinking completely outside of the big picture. They will come up with something else to give them hope that they can beat China. They will always try so very hard. And China will beat them with all their efforts as we have always done. That is a pleasure, not something we wish to or can avoid.

You still don't get it, western politicians persist in their campaign to hold China down because they have hope. The hope is that demographic decline will crush China's economy no matter how well it is doing in all the things you mentioned in your post. All the achievements you mentioned will be wiped out in the long run if the effects of massive demographic decline are as bad as feared.

A decline in population from 1.4 billion to 800 million is a massive decline.

No, I am not saying the West will ever give up in their campaign to bring down China. But their fervor is fueled by hope of economic decline in China caused by demographic collapse.

What I am saying is, a person fight best when there is hope. When there is no hope, many just give up and try to reconcile with reality.

Right now, the western politicians are full of hope and confident of their future. They know that by present trends by 2100, they will have nearly double the population of China and similar if not better living standards. If that is so, their combined economy will dwarf that of China's. They believe if they can just hold back China for a few decades more then by 2100 they will dominate China once again, like they have done for the past 100 years.

 

[AF-1]

Demographic picture of western countries are much worse than Chinese... Birth rate is horrible, and that weak birth rates would be much worse if not counted those from immigrants from various countries (highest birth rate is among population from muslim countries immigrants). At the other hand, white population is busy with other things like having wonderful life, pets, being feminists, gays (with due respect to all mentioned groups), and many other activities that not lead to population sustainability.
So by 2100, western population will look like mixture of africa/mid east...
Also by 2100, population number wont be such dominant factor to economy as it is today, actually might be quite opposite, having more people to sustain with clean water, air, food...

 

[TK3600]

Western rhetoric about China has very little to do with China and much more to do with the self-perception of those western nations, chiefly the United States. Liberal democracy is obviously the best form of government, paired with a mixed economic system that, in practice, aims to maximise the role of private enterprise while minimising the role of the state. These features both necessarily follow from universal moral values and produce ideal practical outcomes. Particularly in the United States, these beliefs collectively have most of the characteristics of a religion. Only truly shattering events such as foreign conquest or national collapse through civil conflict can hope to shake them. If China is doing something different, then by definition China is wrong. If China's wrong path appears to be successful, this can only be a limited or temporary success, or even a mirage: the data is wrong or fabricated, at what cost, impending collapse, etc.

Many cultures around the world have experienced profound disillusionment in recent centuries as prior modes of thought proved inadequate in the face of the overwhelming material power of the west. Each has struggled to find its own path forward, vacillating between the two great impulses of productive engagement with western ideas and reactionary retreat from them, between preserving, modifying, or discarding the ways of the past. The challenge that China's rise poses to the self-concept of the west is of course very, very mild in comparison, and the predominant response to this point is simply denial. Nonetheless, I think the historical parallels are instructive.

The fundamental appeal of science fiction, fantasy and alternative history is the notion that things could be other than as they are. That the forms and structures around us are temporary and conditional products of particular circumstances rather than fixed or inevitable features of reality. It is the great hubris of western culture to believe that in recent centuries we have discovered the ideal forms of government and social organization, to persist and be replicated ever forward with only minor modifications. For much of the last century, the Soviet Union stood as a monument to the idea that there were other ways of being, which is why so many on the left were slow to acknowledge the weaknesses of that regime and particularly the atrocities perpetrated under its umbrella. China's rise does not challenge the messianic claims of the west to universality and inevitability with an alternative path to utopia as the Soviet Union (and broader Communist ideology) did. Rather, China simply stands as evidence that there are indeed alternatives that seem to "work" to achieve practical ends.

Nah man, sci fi is not always about better future. Popularity of cyberpunk and wh40k shows a general cynicism toward the western future. The default sci fi theme is no longer star trek like. Those who are optimistic are either well off, or actually delusional.

The true reason west wanting to put down China has nothing to do with China itself. It is about their own country. How do they justify to their people that a foriegn government is consistently outperforming them. The plebs would demand them to step up! And all the excuses they used to oppress people like 'invisible hand of free market' are proven lies. People will demand justice. That is what scare them the most, being asked to serve their people instead of oppress them. So they must double down the deception to the mass. In truth it is very unlikely China will send a DF-41 on American ruling class. Getting overthrown and butchered by a revolution is a much more likely screnario.