6 ms·

> $21,000 per capita GDP by 2100 Good lord, they must be tired of winning over there. That's just under Latvia!

dirtyid 4y ago
Yes, a unrealistic hypothetical handicap that assumes no growth PRC still escapes middle income. Realistically it will be significantly higher, i.e. stupid low growth of 2% until 2050 = ~30T with 1.2B people or 25K USD per capita by 2050, which at current PPP is 40K, which is solid. @3%, it's 38T and 47K per capita PPP, 4% and it's 5TB @ 62K per capital PPP. PRC shedding unproductive people in 100s of millions is a massive, massive win. BTW PRC current at 12550 per capita (2021), latest world bank high income cut off 12700. If PRC grew @2% last year and it'll be high income right now, but likely next year after covid recovery rebound. All of which is to say, PRC entering high income by per capita GDP is forgone in short term, but that's an exceedingly stupid measure since again, the trap in middle income trap is being stuck in industrial upgrading, which PRC has blown past most developed countries with much higher per capita GDP. Apart from US, no one else has nearly as complete an industrial chain as PRC.
- amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  India will very soon (if not already, because the CCP's official numbers are propaganda) have more people than China and has better demographics. They will eat China alive. Doesn't help China pissed off literally every single neighbor they have with their arrogance and aggression. China'd be lucky to exist in 2050.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    >India eat China alive Of all the Zeihan tier analysis this one is the weakest. The entire point was PRC simply had too many excess people, more than even a competent state can handle. India having 1.7B by 2050 with significantly less capability to organize or generate talent is recipe for much greater disaster. BTW if you think CCP lying on population (like the 1.3B guestimates) then it would have entered high income years ago. Keep in mind if PRC was going to lie, it's going to over report population or under report GDP, in combo to NOT become high income since she'll lose developing nation perks. Anyway, India has much worse demographics trend than PRC. All the productive Indian states with good HDI indexes like education are trending where PRC is in terms of births - most births are being generated in back water states, the kind that produced 600M informal workers in PRC. For reference, reason so many left behind in PRC was manufacturing peak employment was like 300M, world demand was not enough uplift every PRC citizen like it did small Asian Tigers with fraction of population. India is never going to get 300M manufacturing jobs, geopolitics won't allow such concentration again, and most of it is going to ASEAN or held in PRC with automation. The PRC path for India is gone. In short, India is trending towards the problems PRC planners were trying to avoid - 1.7B with majority doomed to poverty simply because there's no opportunity or resources. Combined with medicore governance and it gets even more grim. Like PRC relative to where India is right now in terms of gdp / level of development already had hosts of supply chains connected by massive amount of infra, HSR rolling at scale. India is way behind PRC milestones, which Indian systemically is not capable of correcting fast like in PRC 5 year plans. Again, those plans have 10-20 year lag effects - all the indigenous innovation, R&D, S&T from building up industrial and research base to convince top talent to stay vs getting brain drained to west is unfolding now. In short, India currently does not remotely have her shit together, and likely won't until mid century, if lucky, and by then she'll have a MUCH worse demographic transition to than PRC to handle. If anything expect her best and brightest to continue be brain drained to west while country hobbles along. >China pissed off literally Yet surveys last few years in region consistently conclude countries view PRC to be most important future partner, reflected in exploding trade / economic integration. Decompose out western influenced opinions (i.e. NGOs) and focus on leadership opinions it's embrace PRC economic orbit and balance US for security just in case. >China'd be lucky to exist in 2050 Insert PRC will collapse 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004... meme.
    - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      For the record, I don't think "excess population" is bad. I think more population is good, if the rest is done well. I just think the CCP has done a really, really, bad job at this by directing the economy (and birth rates) too much. While I wouldn't go as far as to say India has "its shit together" currently, their way of governance is way less centralized and heavy-handed, which I believe is way more efficient and sustainable and won't lead to such disasters as in China. Of course India won't take exactly the China route - and it shouldn't, because that is (in my opinion) a bad route. Then again my opinion is heavily Zeihan-influenced, so I suppose we'll see :) The trend in recent years has certainly seemed to reverse really quickly. Even 5 years ago, most people I knew were positive on China generally, or at least they'd argue that the economic benefits might outweigh the human rights violations. Now that's completely shifted, not just in The West, but also among pretty much any other nationality I've talked with in America, Europe, and Asia.
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        I think if more population is good then immigration driven developed nations would have open border policies. But they don't, instead reserving space to brain drain high end talent while limiting low end labour (i.e. farm hands) to transient / seasonal work. There's a need for low skill labour, but not that much. For reference US agriculture has 2M farmers and imports 2M seasonal foreign workers. Combine with automation that's all it takes to become one of the largest ag producers in the world. Meanwhile PRC has 200M farmers doing labour intensive farming simply to maintain a massive rural jobs program. India is even worse. There is a thing as having too many unproductive people. As for attitudes toward PRC, it's sunk among US led order countries, had a big dip during covid, but is recovering in the last few years in the rest of the world, especially global south which all the western surveys and news reports leave out and pretend 1st world consensus is somehow world consensus. Ultimately, compare US containment proposals from 5 years ago and what actually got done, the TLDR is despite heavy lobbying by two US admins, and its evident economic benefits still drive most relations with PRC, and most US aligned parties aren’t voluntarily falling into US orbit, i.e. there’s a reason US had to announce unilateral export controls, because they couldn’t get CHIP4 partners to play ball. Cordially dropping out of this thread now.
- amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  Just checked, the $12,000 upper bound on the Middle Income Trap is defined in constant 2011 USD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap). That means the bound has moved from $12,000 and is now $15,833.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    Income classification is defined by World Bank, not extrapolating from wikipedia. For 2022 WB adjusted high income to 12,695 from 12,535. PRC current gdp per capita is 12,556, and with released 2022 GDP of 3% (worst in a while), current per capita is 12,932 (read: high income). Unless World Bank readjust high income above that figure later this year, PRC is already high income. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2021-2022 https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-...
    - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/90... This World Bank list classifies China as "Upper Middle-Income" which they define as $4,256 to $13,205. On the other hand they classify Taiwan as "China" which is just pure CCP shilling lol. Fun fact: the Communist Chinese are the poorest Chinese in the world. The Chinese are a brilliant and industrious people, and they succeed everywhere - but especially in America, Taiwan, Singapore, and formerly Hong Kong. Only the CCP is holding them back lol.
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        So with readjustment PRC is 2-3% from high income, another year or two. Gap is closing faster than income group adjustment even with zero covid GDP. Fun fact: communist Chinese is the most SUCCESSFUL chinese by virtue of developing every major sector under adverse geopolitical conditions (active US containment), so much so that in the words of state department, "China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge" US order. That's, you know, the actual measure of comprehensive power, not some dummy measurement like per capita GDP. Otherwise we'd all be scared of Qatar or Luxembourg. The Other Sinosphere countries did well on easy mode (often with active US support at height of hegemony, i.e. daddy's credit card), meanwhile PRC aced it on hard mode. Like US / TW wouldn't be banning semi talent from working in PRC if conditions in mainland didn't enable Chinese to succeed. Nor Chinese researchers wouldn't be flooding back to PRC for opportunities in the last few years.

Yes, a unrealistic hypothetical handicap that assumes no growth PRC still escapes middle income. Realistically it will be significantly higher, i.e. stupid low growth of 2% until 2050 = ~30T with 1.2B people or 25K USD per capita by 2050, which at current PPP is 40K, which is solid. @3%, it's 38T and 47K per capita PPP, 4% and it's 5TB @ 62K per capital PPP. PRC shedding unproductive people in 100s of millions is a massive, massive win. BTW PRC current at 12550 per capita (2021), latest world bank high income cut off 12700. If PRC grew @2% last year and it'll be high income right now, but likely next year after covid recovery rebound. All of which is to say, PRC entering high income by per capita GDP is forgone in short term, but that's an exceedingly stupid measure since again, the trap in middle income trap is being stuck in industrial upgrading, which PRC has blown past most developed countries with much higher per capita GDP. Apart from US, no one else has nearly as complete an industrial chain as PRC.

amalgamated_inc 4y ago
India will very soon (if not already, because the CCP's official numbers are propaganda) have more people than China and has better demographics. They will eat China alive. Doesn't help China pissed off literally every single neighbor they have with their arrogance and aggression. China'd be lucky to exist in 2050.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  >India eat China alive Of all the Zeihan tier analysis this one is the weakest. The entire point was PRC simply had too many excess people, more than even a competent state can handle. India having 1.7B by 2050 with significantly less capability to organize or generate talent is recipe for much greater disaster. BTW if you think CCP lying on population (like the 1.3B guestimates) then it would have entered high income years ago. Keep in mind if PRC was going to lie, it's going to over report population or under report GDP, in combo to NOT become high income since she'll lose developing nation perks. Anyway, India has much worse demographics trend than PRC. All the productive Indian states with good HDI indexes like education are trending where PRC is in terms of births - most births are being generated in back water states, the kind that produced 600M informal workers in PRC. For reference, reason so many left behind in PRC was manufacturing peak employment was like 300M, world demand was not enough uplift every PRC citizen like it did small Asian Tigers with fraction of population. India is never going to get 300M manufacturing jobs, geopolitics won't allow such concentration again, and most of it is going to ASEAN or held in PRC with automation. The PRC path for India is gone. In short, India is trending towards the problems PRC planners were trying to avoid - 1.7B with majority doomed to poverty simply because there's no opportunity or resources. Combined with medicore governance and it gets even more grim. Like PRC relative to where India is right now in terms of gdp / level of development already had hosts of supply chains connected by massive amount of infra, HSR rolling at scale. India is way behind PRC milestones, which Indian systemically is not capable of correcting fast like in PRC 5 year plans. Again, those plans have 10-20 year lag effects - all the indigenous innovation, R&D, S&T from building up industrial and research base to convince top talent to stay vs getting brain drained to west is unfolding now. In short, India currently does not remotely have her shit together, and likely won't until mid century, if lucky, and by then she'll have a MUCH worse demographic transition to than PRC to handle. If anything expect her best and brightest to continue be brain drained to west while country hobbles along. >China pissed off literally Yet surveys last few years in region consistently conclude countries view PRC to be most important future partner, reflected in exploding trade / economic integration. Decompose out western influenced opinions (i.e. NGOs) and focus on leadership opinions it's embrace PRC economic orbit and balance US for security just in case. >China'd be lucky to exist in 2050 Insert PRC will collapse 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004... meme.
  - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
    For the record, I don't think "excess population" is bad. I think more population is good, if the rest is done well. I just think the CCP has done a really, really, bad job at this by directing the economy (and birth rates) too much. While I wouldn't go as far as to say India has "its shit together" currently, their way of governance is way less centralized and heavy-handed, which I believe is way more efficient and sustainable and won't lead to such disasters as in China. Of course India won't take exactly the China route - and it shouldn't, because that is (in my opinion) a bad route. Then again my opinion is heavily Zeihan-influenced, so I suppose we'll see :) The trend in recent years has certainly seemed to reverse really quickly. Even 5 years ago, most people I knew were positive on China generally, or at least they'd argue that the economic benefits might outweigh the human rights violations. Now that's completely shifted, not just in The West, but also among pretty much any other nationality I've talked with in America, Europe, and Asia.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      I think if more population is good then immigration driven developed nations would have open border policies. But they don't, instead reserving space to brain drain high end talent while limiting low end labour (i.e. farm hands) to transient / seasonal work. There's a need for low skill labour, but not that much. For reference US agriculture has 2M farmers and imports 2M seasonal foreign workers. Combine with automation that's all it takes to become one of the largest ag producers in the world. Meanwhile PRC has 200M farmers doing labour intensive farming simply to maintain a massive rural jobs program. India is even worse. There is a thing as having too many unproductive people. As for attitudes toward PRC, it's sunk among US led order countries, had a big dip during covid, but is recovering in the last few years in the rest of the world, especially global south which all the western surveys and news reports leave out and pretend 1st world consensus is somehow world consensus. Ultimately, compare US containment proposals from 5 years ago and what actually got done, the TLDR is despite heavy lobbying by two US admins, and its evident economic benefits still drive most relations with PRC, and most US aligned parties aren’t voluntarily falling into US orbit, i.e. there’s a reason US had to announce unilateral export controls, because they couldn’t get CHIP4 partners to play ball. Cordially dropping out of this thread now.
amalgamated_inc 4y ago
Just checked, the $12,000 upper bound on the Middle Income Trap is defined in constant 2011 USD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap). That means the bound has moved from $12,000 and is now $15,833.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Income classification is defined by World Bank, not extrapolating from wikipedia. For 2022 WB adjusted high income to 12,695 from 12,535. PRC current gdp per capita is 12,556, and with released 2022 GDP of 3% (worst in a while), current per capita is 12,932 (read: high income). Unless World Bank readjust high income above that figure later this year, PRC is already high income. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2021-2022 https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-...
  - amalgamated_inc 4y ago
    https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/90... This World Bank list classifies China as "Upper Middle-Income" which they define as $4,256 to $13,205. On the other hand they classify Taiwan as "China" which is just pure CCP shilling lol. Fun fact: the Communist Chinese are the poorest Chinese in the world. The Chinese are a brilliant and industrious people, and they succeed everywhere - but especially in America, Taiwan, Singapore, and formerly Hong Kong. Only the CCP is holding them back lol.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      So with readjustment PRC is 2-3% from high income, another year or two. Gap is closing faster than income group adjustment even with zero covid GDP. Fun fact: communist Chinese is the most SUCCESSFUL chinese by virtue of developing every major sector under adverse geopolitical conditions (active US containment), so much so that in the words of state department, "China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge" US order. That's, you know, the actual measure of comprehensive power, not some dummy measurement like per capita GDP. Otherwise we'd all be scared of Qatar or Luxembourg. The Other Sinosphere countries did well on easy mode (often with active US support at height of hegemony, i.e. daddy's credit card), meanwhile PRC aced it on hard mode. Like US / TW wouldn't be banning semi talent from working in PRC if conditions in mainland didn't enable Chinese to succeed. Nor Chinese researchers wouldn't be flooding back to PRC for opportunities in the last few years.