6 ms·
The point is that doing so would exacerbate their demographic cliff issue.
by tmn 3y ago
The point is that doing so would exacerbate their demographic cliff issue.
- mytailorisrich 3y agoConsidering the numbers I quoted, it would make little difference (which was the point of my reply).
- tmn 3y agoWhen the issue is already manifest, the margins presumably matter. But either way, the point was just to align the reply with the original comment's point.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rnk 3y agoDictatorships don't care. Look at Russia, it's much worse than China, Russia still suffers from ww2 losses. You can distract the people with a "good war". China has so many more people than Taiwan, they can waste a lot. What do they care, many of the leaders believe it's their destiny to be the world leader. That's not a unique view, a certain group of americans believe the same about the US too.
- Balgair 3y agoAprès moi, le déluge -King Louis XV of France to Madame de Pompadour, his favourite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8s_moi,_le_d%C3%A9luge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr%C3%A8s_moi,_le_d%C3%A9luge
- tmn 3y agoThis all may be so. I have no strong opinion on if they will or will not 'waste' their population. But it seems you and others are not addressing the subject issue of the demographic cliff. That point of the demographic cliff is that there are a surplus of old people and a deficit of young (economically productive) people to sustain those old people. Comparison to the population of Taiwan or others are irrelevant in a sense.