4 ms·

> I'm still not sold on the "China is dying" theory. I don't know if it's as much a story of decline as it is one of unmet expectations. China has a declining

by zhdc1 3y ago

> I'm still not sold on the "China is dying" theory. I don't know if it's as much a story of decline as it is one of unmet expectations. China has a declining (and likely overstated) population. They have a very heterogeneous population. They also have an unsustainable growth model and an unwillingness to 'pull the plug', stop manufacturer subsidies, and tackle local governance issues. In other words, China looks a lot like many other East Asian countries in the past that have pursued an export-led growth model with a de-facto single party government. The difference between China and Korea, Japan, and Taiwan is that the country is - much - larger. Modernization is almost always city-first. It's possible to gloss over a significant rural-urban divide when you have a high population density and a relatively homogeneous population. For comparison, Taiwan's population density is three times larger than China, and that's before you account for the fact that much of the island is essentially inhabitable. All of the infrastructure China has built exists. From what I've been told, the east and south coast cities are the most modern in the world. It's hard to imagine - decline. However, the country has very well known and very large issues that they're unwilling or unable to address. Lower growth and - maybe - some form of stagnation are more likely, (I'm thinking it will be the former after a correction of some kind).

brabel 3y ago
> From what I've been told, the east and south coast cities are the most modern in the world. It's hard to imagine - decline. I've been to Shanghai a couple of times, to Hong Kong once... also nearby Singapore... and I can confirm: it looks very much like a futuristic place compared to your average European or American city, though slightly dystopian due to all the surveillance/single-party. But I think the reason for that is simple: almost all infrastructure you see around has been built in the last few decades, so it's all really modern... you go to London and it's the total opposite... the London Underground is like 150 years old!! It's not gonna look very modern no matter how much you improve it. But of course, without a thriving economy you wouldn't build such colossal projects like China has been doing... anyway, if we start seeing all this beautiful, modern infrastructure starting to crumble, or places where infrastructure still hasn't been modernized not getting any improvement, then I think we can start to talk about decline - but China seems to be very, very far from that right now.
dirtyid 3y ago
> unmet expectations TBH PRC "growth rate" is roughly in line with expectations, including PRC will overtake US projections from years ago, caveate being many of those projections assumed PRC would strengthen rmb to iirc 4-6 vs 7 to 1 USD to put PRC at ~25T economy. Regardless, GDP not particularly useful for comparisons of comprehensive national power. > Lower growth and - maybe - some form of stagnation are more likely The distinction is PRC doomers think PRC has peaked and will be declining soon. PRC collapcists narrative is about wanking at the notion PRC stagnating and never eclipsing US. VS relevant indicators suggest PRC is where JP is in 80s, where JP grew 400-500% until post 00s stagnation. PRC "stagnanting" at 3-4x the size of US is a much different geopolitical scenario than narrativet tha PRC doomers/collapcist want to push. Even PRC @2x larger is TBH in the "unmet expectations" column, but that's still relatively the largest country in the world by 2050 and more than enough to compete against US/west. TLDR PRC is at 25% skilled workforce, and moving to 60/70/80% of advanced economies by generating 50-100m STEM + other high skilled labour in next 30 years. FOr reference US on trend to add 40m people total. PRC in process of reaping literally the greatest high skill demographic divident in human history, and why other East Asian countries continued to grow with shit TFR - they replaced unproductive talent with skilled talent. Stagnation comes when TFR can't replace productive workforce at parity, PRC has decades of headroom. Past 25 years = 250M births already baked into future workforce with system that disproportionatlly filters talent towards S&E. The fundmental problem with PRC peak/stagnate narrratives, especially peak/stagnate below US, is deliberately presenting using very questionable suppositions (real estate, demographics, authoritarianism etc) to suggest it will happen soon instead of decades from now, with a PRC larger than it is now, and likely larger than US. Folks over indexing on PRC being good at overbuilding in real estate, tend to a turn a blind eye to that state overcapacity also applying to everything else - like PRC moving up science and innovation indexes, value chain etc - all of which is rapidly building PRC comprehensive national power.
- zhdc1 3y ago
  > TBH PRC "growth rate" is roughly in line with expectations Iirc the expectation in the early teens was a slowdown to 3-5% growth around the middle of the last decade. The argument then was that PRC officials knew they needed to transition to a more balanced growth model. Instead, they continued over investing in manufacturing and infrastructure. The end result is a sizable amount of debt across the entire economy that is, likely, unsustainable if and when a market downturn occurs. > TLDR PRC is at 25% skilled workforce I think there's a bias on here to think that skilled = STEM. There's an argument to be made that what China really needs is skilled service workers. People also need to realize that, when it comes to demographics and population mobility, China is far more akin to the EU than the US. If we go by your argument, Europe also has a very large reserve of unskilled or semi-skilled workers. However, moving from Sophia to Frankfurt != moving from Boise to San Fransisco. I'll even argue that it's much easier to move from Bulgaria to Germany than it is to move from Sannxi to Beijing.

by zhdc1 3y ago

brabel 3y ago

> From what I've been told, the east and south coast cities are the most modern in the world. It's hard to imagine - decline. I've been to Shanghai a couple of times, to Hong Kong once... also nearby Singapore... and I can confirm: it looks very much like a futuristic place compared to your average European or American city, though slightly dystopian due to all the surveillance/single-party. But I think the reason for that is simple: almost all infrastructure you see around has been built in the last few decades, so it's all really modern... you go to London and it's the total opposite... the London Underground is like 150 years old!! It's not gonna look very modern no matter how much you improve it. But of course, without a thriving economy you wouldn't build such colossal projects like China has been doing... anyway, if we start seeing all this beautiful, modern infrastructure starting to crumble, or places where infrastructure still hasn't been modernized not getting any improvement, then I think we can start to talk about decline - but China seems to be very, very far from that right now.

dirtyid 3y ago

> unmet expectations TBH PRC "growth rate" is roughly in line with expectations, including PRC will overtake US projections from years ago, caveate being many of those projections assumed PRC would strengthen rmb to iirc 4-6 vs 7 to 1 USD to put PRC at ~25T economy. Regardless, GDP not particularly useful for comparisons of comprehensive national power. > Lower growth and - maybe - some form of stagnation are more likely The distinction is PRC doomers think PRC has peaked and will be declining soon. PRC collapcists narrative is about wanking at the notion PRC stagnating and never eclipsing US. VS relevant indicators suggest PRC is where JP is in 80s, where JP grew 400-500% until post 00s stagnation. PRC "stagnanting" at 3-4x the size of US is a much different geopolitical scenario than narrativet tha PRC doomers/collapcist want to push. Even PRC @2x larger is TBH in the "unmet expectations" column, but that's still relatively the largest country in the world by 2050 and more than enough to compete against US/west. TLDR PRC is at 25% skilled workforce, and moving to 60/70/80% of advanced economies by generating 50-100m STEM + other high skilled labour in next 30 years. FOr reference US on trend to add 40m people total. PRC in process of reaping literally the greatest high skill demographic divident in human history, and why other East Asian countries continued to grow with shit TFR - they replaced unproductive talent with skilled talent. Stagnation comes when TFR can't replace productive workforce at parity, PRC has decades of headroom. Past 25 years = 250M births already baked into future workforce with system that disproportionatlly filters talent towards S&E. The fundmental problem with PRC peak/stagnate narrratives, especially peak/stagnate below US, is deliberately presenting using very questionable suppositions (real estate, demographics, authoritarianism etc) to suggest it will happen soon instead of decades from now, with a PRC larger than it is now, and likely larger than US. Folks over indexing on PRC being good at overbuilding in real estate, tend to a turn a blind eye to that state overcapacity also applying to everything else - like PRC moving up science and innovation indexes, value chain etc - all of which is rapidly building PRC comprehensive national power.

zhdc1 3y ago
> TBH PRC "growth rate" is roughly in line with expectations Iirc the expectation in the early teens was a slowdown to 3-5% growth around the middle of the last decade. The argument then was that PRC officials knew they needed to transition to a more balanced growth model. Instead, they continued over investing in manufacturing and infrastructure. The end result is a sizable amount of debt across the entire economy that is, likely, unsustainable if and when a market downturn occurs. > TLDR PRC is at 25% skilled workforce I think there's a bias on here to think that skilled = STEM. There's an argument to be made that what China really needs is skilled service workers. People also need to realize that, when it comes to demographics and population mobility, China is far more akin to the EU than the US. If we go by your argument, Europe also has a very large reserve of unskilled or semi-skilled workers. However, moving from Sophia to Frankfurt != moving from Boise to San Fransisco. I'll even argue that it's much easier to move from Bulgaria to Germany than it is to move from Sannxi to Beijing.