Chinese Economics Thread

[manqiangrexue]

CPC don’t think it’s a good idea to have a shrinking population. I agree with the CPC.

So your argument started with, "You can't have a declining population because consumption won't hold up." Then when challenged, it went to, "China's advantage has always been population; it's just that way." Then when rebuked again, it is now, "Go argue with the CCP, which isn't here. I don't know more." LOLOL

Sure, it would be nice if China could maintain a higher population and still have all the increases in life standards. I'm certainly not opposed to efforts to stimulate marriage and childbirth, so I'm in support of CCP policy. But what I am against is the characterization that things simply won't work or that a collapse will happen if births don't increase to keep China's population stable. The evidence is showing that even with a lower population, China's rise is on track; it could be better if the population was kept up, but it's not a linear relationship because increased population leads to increase crowding, increased costs, diminished standard of living, fueling the desire to emmigrate. It's an unclear relationship; I tend to favor a managed higher population in line with what we have the resources to provide well for, but by no means do I think it is critical to China's future or that China couldn't become the world's most powerful country with a leaner population.

 

[MixedReality]

That's not what you said. You said

You said population size is everything. Now it's "when living standards are similar." Pick a position.

By the way, only one of China's many advantages is the scale of its population. Much more important advantages are its governance, the unity of this population in addition to its size, its mammoth industrial sector, its infrastructure, its capacity to develop advanced technology, etc.

I’ve explained why population size matters pretty clearly.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I’ve explained why population size matters pretty clearly.

No, you haven't. You've moved the goalposts every time you were challenged.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I’ve explained why population size matters pretty clearly.

Your explanation was rejected with logic and reasoning and you just went on to push your arguments onto the CCP like they have to take up your defense now LOL

 

[MixedReality]

No, you haven't. You've moved the goalposts every time you were challenged.

I’ve explained clearly with my example using US and Australia why population size matters. If you think population decline is good for China, then we disagree.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I’ve explained clearly with my example using US and Australia why population size matters. If you think population decline is good for China, then we disagree.

And I've shown that your example contradicts your initial statement. You've not just moved the goalpost, you've put words in my mouth. I'm getting the suspicion you're being obtuse on purpose because whatever "arguments" you made were completely shredded, so I think I'm done with this conversation.

 

[MixedReality]

Your explanation was rejected with logic and reasoning and you just went on to push your arguments onto the CCP like they have to take up your defense now LOL

CPC don’t have to take up my defense. It’s literally the policy to boost birth rates. If you think shrinking population is good for China, then fine. I happen to think all efforts must be done to boost birth rates.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I’ve explained clearly with my example using US and Australia why population size matters. If you think population decline is good for China, then we disagree.

Population size matters of course but are you saying that a China with 2.5 or 3x the population of the US is insufficient to overtake the US and that 4x+ is required??

CPC don’t have to take up my defense. It’s literally the policy to boost birth rates. If you think shrinking population is good for China, then fine. I happen to think all efforts must be done to boost birth rates.

If you think that I think shrinking population is good, then you have a reading comprehension problem. What is the thesis of the paragraph? Read below; this is a reading comprehension exercise for you now:

Quoted from #29884 above:
"Sure, it would be nice if China could maintain a higher population and still have all the increases in life standards. I'm certainly not opposed to efforts to stimulate marriage and childbirth, so I'm in support of CCP policy. But what I am against is the characterization that things simply won't work or that a collapse will happen if births don't increase to keep China's population stable. The evidence is showing that even with a lower population, China's rise is on track; it could be better if the population was kept up, but it's not a linear relationship because increased population leads to increase crowding, increased costs, diminished standard of living, fueling the desire to emmigrate. It's an unclear relationship; I tend to favor a managed higher population in line with what we have the resources to provide well for, but by no means do I think it is critical to China's future or that China couldn't become the world's most powerful country with a leaner population."

The author's main point is:
A) Population growth is bad
B) Population growth is preferable but not required for China's rise
C) The CCP is bad
D) I dunno, check with the CCP

And come to think of it, you've lacked thought and oversimplified everything from the get go. It's first that less people = less consumption, which is wrong because per capita increases more than offset a slight population drop. Then, you went to, "Population is so important because it just is for China." Then, "Go argue with the CCP," and finally now, you're just like, "If you disagree with me, you must think population growth is bad," when I clearly stated that it was preferable but not required. What do you have against advanced thinking?

 

[zgx09t]

As a review of my 2023 predictions:

I initially projected 5.5% GDP growth - in reality this came in at 5.2% with 2 caveats: 1) The country reduced actual 2022 GDP by about 548bln rmb, providing an easier comparable for 2023 growth data; 2) The Central Government increased budget deficit by 1 trln of special purpose bonds used for disaster relief.

The critical takeaway here is that growth in 2023 was below expectations of 1) everyone on this forum (go read your own posts from Jan 2023); 2) most economists for major banks; 3) and most importantly, the central government itself. The last part of this is the most important as otherwise they would not have added the 1trln of stimulus in the middle of the year.

Going forward for 2024 I will say 5% but with a lot less certainty - this of course is going to be very much dependent on how much more stimulus is being done - the outlook for 2024 is going to be a lot less certain than it is for 2023 given this specific issue.

How much additional central government bonds will they issue? What about PSL capacity by the PBoC? Where are they on solving LGFV issues? What about urban village renovation? When will the 3rd plenum happen? What comprehensive reforms will they announce as part of that?

Nobody actually knows the answers to these questions and so I'm personally taking a observe and pivot mindset.

My final point here to everyone on the forum with an interest in Chinese economics - just because you don't like the data doesn't mean the data isn't real. Otherwise you are no better than Western media for calling Chinese data fake.

Are you sure that mid year fiscal revision was all spent? Hate to fact check your sloppy job and you are the one that get paid.

That's the problem with western finance, all returns and extraction for the dollar and society be damned.

 

[MixedReality]

And I've shown that your example contradicts your initial statement. You've not just moved the goalpost, you've put words in my mouth. I'm getting the suspicion you're being obtuse on purpose because whatever "arguments" you made were completely shredded, so I think I'm done with this conversation.

I stand by my point that population size matters and I used the example of the power difference between US and Australia to explain why. Both fully developed countries and one has a vastly bigger population than the other. US enjoys vastly bigger market size, labour pool, taxable base and other advantages over Australia because of its far larger population. No matter what Australia does it won’t be a more powerful country than the US. US just has more people. That’s why population size matters. I can use India and Pakistan as an example too. Pretty similar living standards but India has far more power than Pakistan.