3 ms·

Maybe you are taking "China is dying" too literally, although I see that I should have used a different phrase, as it clearly took away from my actual point whi

Maybe you are taking "China is dying" too literally, although I see that I should have used a different phrase, as it clearly took away from my actual point which was a data-based claim. I think it is fair though to say the people who think that China will see "Japanification" while still at ~13k GDP per capita are essentially saying that China is dying — and people actually were saying that China was collapsing after Evergrande; it is a real claim. I didn't mean to say that the linked aritcle meant this, only that people do say it, and the arricle feeds into with the title, which admitedly I did not articulate well. And as I said my main point wasn't even about the name of China's decline (dying, zombifying, ageing) but a comment about what analogous phase China's economy is in within Japan's timeline, which is a topic of the article as well as a common point discussed by economists.

stale2002 3y ago
The point though, is that China isn't going to have a revolution, or dramatic collapse. Instead, it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. Therefore, the people saying "well, people have been talking about a China collapse for a decade but I haven't seen anything dramatic happen!!" Are wrong and missing the point. Because a decade of stagnate growth for China is still a big deal, while not being dramatic in a way that obviously "proves" the China doomsayers correct.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I don’t know. That property bubble, they are still trying to inflate it even more. When it pops, I’m not sure what will happen: will it just be Japan bad and they stagnate for a couple of decades, or will it be much worse? Anyways, I wouldn’t predict a collapse (that probably won’t happen), but I wouldn’t rule one out either. I’m just glad I’m not exposed to either anymore.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  >it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. How slow? "Japanification" is 1% growth.[0] That's ridiculus for a growing economy. I can't take the claim that China will have 1% growth seriously. If you mean "stagnate at 6%," my claim is that 6% is "enough" for a low middle imcome economy, Cf. Japan in 1970. So your claim in that case is wrong that it will be "a big deal." At most we can say that China will reach a mid-1980 Japan level economy more slowly than Japan and Korea. However this is very different from the claim that China is 1990 Japan, or that "China might never catch up with the US," implying that China will always be third world (although we can debate the meaning of that sentence). [0]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Sure, stagnate at 1 or 2% for a couple decades. That's both bad for china, while also not a literal revolution. > That's ridiculous for a growing economy. It is low for a normal growing economy, sure. But China has a lot of problems, which is the entire point. If you want to call low and stagnate growth as something that is very bad, sure. But most people, when they are objecting" to the term "dying" are simply objecting to the idea of a sudden collapse, which is it not likely to happen. Instead was is likely is very low growth for a long time. Which you are free to call very bad if you want, but that's not the same definition as what other people are referring to.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
      Sorry, a decade of 1-2% growth is just not happening. There is still so much low hanging fruit in the Chinese economy and plenty of talented (perhaps overqualified) workers to pick them. I suppose this is where we disagree. Thier automobile industry is just begining in earnest, for example. They are in 1965-1970 era Japan, not 1990. This was Japan's economy: Junk -> steel -> automobiles -> computers/chemicals China is only now geting to automobiles. They are making good progress on electronics as well. Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. They also aren't strictly speaking as dependent on exports as Japan was considering the size of their domestic market. To me all of this signals that China will stay in the 6-7% range and will reach 40k GDP per ca in 15-20 years or so.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        Growth isn't just determined by some video game tech tree. It is determined by a large number of other factors. > Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. One way that "growth" can go down is by simply marking down the value of existing capital projects. In China's case, this would be all the debt and real estate that they have, which is overvalued. You can borrow lots of money over the short and medium term, to create fake growth, but eventually there is a limit to debt fueled projects. And china is starting to hit that limit of an overleveraged economy. IE, that powerplant, that was previously "included" in previous growth rate metrics as being "worth" 1 billion dollars, is actually only worth 500 million dollars, even if "the books" say otherwise right now. If all those capital intensive to create buildings that they have are actually worth half as much as they are incorrect marked on the books right now, that would account for the "apparent" decrease in growth that will happen over the next decades, even though technically it would just be revealing past fake/debt fueled growth. Does that make sense how if they lose X trillion dollars (but over time!) because of overvalued real estate/capital projects, that this would account for an apparent decrease in growth, even if china still has gains from other parts of the economy?

stale2002 3y ago

The point though, is that China isn't going to have a revolution, or dramatic collapse. Instead, it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. Therefore, the people saying "well, people have been talking about a China collapse for a decade but I haven't seen anything dramatic happen!!" Are wrong and missing the point. Because a decade of stagnate growth for China is still a big deal, while not being dramatic in a way that obviously "proves" the China doomsayers correct.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I don’t know. That property bubble, they are still trying to inflate it even more. When it pops, I’m not sure what will happen: will it just be Japan bad and they stagnate for a couple of decades, or will it be much worse? Anyways, I wouldn’t predict a collapse (that probably won’t happen), but I wouldn’t rule one out either. I’m just glad I’m not exposed to either anymore.
Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
>it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. How slow? "Japanification" is 1% growth.[0] That's ridiculus for a growing economy. I can't take the claim that China will have 1% growth seriously. If you mean "stagnate at 6%," my claim is that 6% is "enough" for a low middle imcome economy, Cf. Japan in 1970. So your claim in that case is wrong that it will be "a big deal." At most we can say that China will reach a mid-1980 Japan level economy more slowly than Japan and Korea. However this is very different from the claim that China is 1990 Japan, or that "China might never catch up with the US," implying that China will always be third world (although we can debate the meaning of that sentence). [0]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2
- stale2002 3y ago
  Sure, stagnate at 1 or 2% for a couple decades. That's both bad for china, while also not a literal revolution. > That's ridiculous for a growing economy. It is low for a normal growing economy, sure. But China has a lot of problems, which is the entire point. If you want to call low and stagnate growth as something that is very bad, sure. But most people, when they are objecting" to the term "dying" are simply objecting to the idea of a sudden collapse, which is it not likely to happen. Instead was is likely is very low growth for a long time. Which you are free to call very bad if you want, but that's not the same definition as what other people are referring to.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
    Sorry, a decade of 1-2% growth is just not happening. There is still so much low hanging fruit in the Chinese economy and plenty of talented (perhaps overqualified) workers to pick them. I suppose this is where we disagree. Thier automobile industry is just begining in earnest, for example. They are in 1965-1970 era Japan, not 1990. This was Japan's economy: Junk -> steel -> automobiles -> computers/chemicals China is only now geting to automobiles. They are making good progress on electronics as well. Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. They also aren't strictly speaking as dependent on exports as Japan was considering the size of their domestic market. To me all of this signals that China will stay in the 6-7% range and will reach 40k GDP per ca in 15-20 years or so.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      Growth isn't just determined by some video game tech tree. It is determined by a large number of other factors. > Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. One way that "growth" can go down is by simply marking down the value of existing capital projects. In China's case, this would be all the debt and real estate that they have, which is overvalued. You can borrow lots of money over the short and medium term, to create fake growth, but eventually there is a limit to debt fueled projects. And china is starting to hit that limit of an overleveraged economy. IE, that powerplant, that was previously "included" in previous growth rate metrics as being "worth" 1 billion dollars, is actually only worth 500 million dollars, even if "the books" say otherwise right now. If all those capital intensive to create buildings that they have are actually worth half as much as they are incorrect marked on the books right now, that would account for the "apparent" decrease in growth that will happen over the next decades, even though technically it would just be revealing past fake/debt fueled growth. Does that make sense how if they lose X trillion dollars (but over time!) because of overvalued real estate/capital projects, that this would account for an apparent decrease in growth, even if china still has gains from other parts of the economy?