Chinese Economics Thread

[bebops]

If you look at developed countries, you will see that they have economies proportional to the population. Maybe a small decrease will not cause problems, but it is clear that a large decrease in the population will cause economic shrinkage. I don't understand how such a simple fact can be denied. It is impossible to predict exactly what will happen in the future, but when the population decreases by a large amount and the average age rises, China will have lost much more power and will be at a disadvantage compared to the current population. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the population will remain at 700-800 million, it will become increasingly difficult to take measures against the decline of the population, as the number of young people of childbearing age is rapidly decreasing. In addition, the speed of scientific and technological development is also linked to the population . People do scientific research, not robots. When the population decreases, the pace of development will decrease and there will be a risk of losing technological leadership.

Way too many people compare population age/size to GDP growth. It has some affect but not as much as you think.

I was watching videos of farm/crop harvesting automation in China. It just blows your mind.
An AI autonomous tractor could harvest rice fields like a vacuum roomba and vegetables being harvested without humans picking them off.
In the future, whichever countries have the highest level of automaton will guarantee good growth.

At that point GDP is irreverent if everything is operated by robot including taxi, restaurants, farming, doctors..

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I don't understand how such a simple fact can be denied

Trying to make predictions 80 years into the future is nonsensical. I don't understand how such a simple fact can be denied.

as the number of young people of childbearing age is rapidly decreasing

What is "childbearing age" with the assisted reproduction technologies of 2100?

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the population will remain at 700-800 million

What does that mean when it will be possible long before 2100 to implant human embryos with entirely synthetic genomes into transgenic pigs and bring them to term? What does that mean when governments will be able to manufacture people without any human involvement?

What do you think the average lifespan will be with the medical technology of 2100?

People do scientific research, not robots

Wrong. People with robots do research. Go see how much research you can do in a cave without any modern scientific equipment.

People like you need to answer why countries like Chad, Niger, Congo, and Somalia aren't scientific powerhouses. Given their young populations and "people do scientific research, not robots", they should be, no? Or is there more to it than that?

 

[Umut]

I am sure it will be very difficult for any power to deal with China, at least when China holds its current population. Protecting the population is a sure way for China to maintain its leadership. Instead of working to achieve this, people attach hope to developments that are not certain to happen in an interesting way.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I am sure it will be very difficult for any power to deal with China, at least when China holds its current population. Protecting the population is a sure way for China to maintain its leadership. Instead of working to achieve this, people attach hope to developments that are not certain to happen in an interesting way.

That is the most left-back outdated thinking I've ever heard in the demographics discussion. I've heard people say that population is critical to maintaining innovation but I've never heard anyone say that population is the final guarantor of success and that technological developments are uncertain and thus undependable. It's like you don't live in this world where there are poor powerless countries with huge populations like India and more moderately-sized developed countries that rule the world like the US.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I am sure it will be very difficult for any power to deal with China, at least when China holds its current population. Protecting the population is a sure way for China to maintain its leadership. Instead of working to achieve this, people attach hope to developments that are not certain to happen in an interesting way.

I should have known. Joined in 2021, first post a few days ago in a tangential thread. Welcome back, SleepyStudent. Let's see how long you last this time.

 

[Umut]

Bu, demografik tartışmada duyduğum en demode sol düşünce. İnsanların inovasyonu sürdürmek için nüfusun kritik öneme sahip olduğunu söylediğini duydum ama hiç kimsenin başarının nihai garantörü olduğunu ve teknolojik gelişmelerin belirsiz ve dolayısıyla güvenilmez olduğunu söylediğini duymadım. Sanki Hindistan gibi büyük nüfusa sahip, fakir, güçsüz ülkelerin ve ABD gibi dünyayı yöneten orta büyüklükteki gelişmiş ülkelerin olduğu bir dünyada yaşamıyorsunuz.

I didn't say that the speed of scientific development depends only on the population, the ability of people is also important, but the population is also important. Do you think that while China has achieved the fastest growth in history, the population has no influence? I also don't think India can achieve the same success.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I didn't say that the speed of scientific development depends only on the population,

Right, you didn't. You said,

"Protecting the population is a sure way for China to maintain its leadership."

This means that no matter what else, technological, economical failures, political collapse be damned, having a high population guarantees China's success. It's wrong; you said that China's power depends only on population. That's what "sure way" means.

the ability of people is also important,

It is the most important by far.

but the population is also important.

And now you would have to define a good population and show why. Must China maintain 1.4B? Is more better? 1.8B better? 2.5B better? Or is a little less ok? 1.2B? 900M? 800M? Show your calculations for why. I don't have the answers; I trust that China's natural evolution will result in this new balance upon which birth rate will rise again to achieve and maintain the balance of a newer developed China. But you seem to think you know better than this, so what is the new number and how did you get it? If you don't have any answers, then just saying that a country would suffer from a huge loss of population is an empty meaningless claim. No way to support or debunk it.

Do you think that while China has achieved the fastest growth in history, the population has no influence?

Of course not, but times are different. A large young population is very useful in a backward economy, which is what China was just a few decades back. But entering a modern advanced economy that is at the technological forefront, having less people (than 1.4B) to decrease the crowding and increase per capita resources, having more mature thinkers (55 year old professors) and less young workers (20 year old laborers) is natural and not something we need to fight as if we must stop it to save the country.

I also don't think India can achieve the same success.

This supports the counter-claim to what you said, which is that population is the "sure way" to achieve success.

 

[Umut]

Of course not, but times are different. A large young population is very useful in a backward economy, which is what China was just a few decades back. But entering a modern advanced economy that is at the technological forefront, having less people (than 1.4B) to decrease the crowding and increase per capita resources, having more mature thinkers (55 year old professors) and less young workers (20 year old laborers) is natural and not something we need to fight as if we must stop it to save the country.

When we say backward or advanced economy, we say this by comparing it with other countries. For example, India is a backward economy compared to China or western countries, but it can be considered developed compared to some African countries. Or even the most advanced countries of the world are probably lagging behind compared to aliens. There is no measure of development in itself for me. Therefore, if China cannot maintain its leadership compared to other countries in the future, it will lose its developed country status again. In my opinion, in order to maintain the pace of innovation, the ratio of the young population and the population are important factors in addition to skills.

As to your question what the population should be. It is obvious that the current population is already sufficient, there is no need to increase any more. Even a slight decline will not be significant, but the current rate of decline should at least be slowed down and spread over a long time.

I am writing this not to reason about to make negative predictions about the future, but to discuss what the most correct government policy should be.

 

[Phead128]

Unless you can give concrete numbers, this is a useless discussion of "good population size = good and bad population size = bad, hurr" which is a useless circular discussion. Arm-chair political pundits should leave the population health discussions to real epidemiologists and public health professionals.

 

[In4ser]

I should have known. Joined in 2021, first post a few days ago in a tangential thread. Welcome back, SleepyStudent. Let's see how long you last this time.

I don't think he's SleepyStudent unless Sleepy was Turkish. He quotes Manqiangrexue's post in Turkish, which suggests that he isn't even a native English speaker.