3 ms·

I think the difference might be that in China, the TFR is regulated, while the nation's economy is growing rapidly. In a declining economy, it would make sense

I think the difference might be that in China, the TFR is regulated, while the nation's economy is growing rapidly. In a declining economy, it would make sense that fewer children are being born, since the parents on average can't support as many, but in a growing economy, we would usually see many more children being born because times are good, and parents can afford to care for more children - something that isn't being allowed in China. Also keep in mind that according to that Wikipedia article, the US is also below the replacement level. I think the article intends to focus more on the social implications that the policy has.

Mz 17y ago
In a declining economy, it would make sense that fewer children are being born, since the parents on average can't support as many, but in a growing economy, we would usually see many more children being born because times are good, and parents can afford to care for more children - something that isn't being allowed in China. WWII dragged America (and the world) out of The Great Depression and into the post-war boom. Part of how that happened: American families were forced into having two incomes (so the wife could work in the factory and the husband could be in the army), no new children being conceived/born (what with hubby being off at war on another continent) and war time rationing forced very high savings rates on America -- as high as 50% at one point -- because there wasn't much to spend your dual income on (especially since they were also encouraging people to grow "Victory Gardens"). We went from people moving every 13 months to take advantage of new rental deals (where you got the 13th month free if you could make your rent the first 12) before the war to Levittowns sprouting like mushrooms to try desperately to meet the sudden high demand for middle class housing after the war. So it's not like something like this has never happened before. Maybe nothing so protracted, but the precedent I am aware of is generally considered to be a good thing.
- kiba 17y ago
  It would seem to me that warfare is the worst way to solve the population crisis because wars must involves the destruction of existing capitals(Human capitals, mostly) and high opportunity cost(Delaying the introduction of television and other consumer technologies).
  - Mz 17y ago
    I wasn't in any way suggesting that warfare per se was related to my point. My point was that birth rates in America were very low during WWII due to men being off at war and incomes were astonishingly high, while at the same time there was little to spend it on, resulting in high savings rates. So this phenomenon of a growing economy and low birth rate has occurred before, right here in the USA. And the results of that -- the post-war boom time -- are generally looked upon as an idyllic time in America's past. So I don't see why this would be some kind of "problem" to do the same thing in China.
dkersten 17y ago
You forget that the Chinas economic boom is artificially propped up by China [1] forcing its banks to lend money to other countries so that they can buy Chinese goods. I read an article recently which had a great analogy, comparing Chinas lending to the US (so that the US can continue to buy Chinese exports) to Lucent Technologies in the nineties, lending money to dot com startups so they could keep buying Lucent hardware - economic growth continues steadily, but eventually when these loans are to be cashed in, the economy will crumble. Of course, China has an exit that Lucent did not, as mentioned here (and the article mentioned it too) - China has the option of war! It seems to me that the Chinese economy is a giant bubble; one which I'd rather not see burst, but bubbles tend to do that... China isn't stupid though, so hopefully they can buy themselves enough time to figure something out and avoid a giant crash (and most likely a war). [1] meaning that it can (and probably should) be treated as a declining economy

Mz 17y ago

In a declining economy, it would make sense that fewer children are being born, since the parents on average can't support as many, but in a growing economy, we would usually see many more children being born because times are good, and parents can afford to care for more children - something that isn't being allowed in China. WWII dragged America (and the world) out of The Great Depression and into the post-war boom. Part of how that happened: American families were forced into having two incomes (so the wife could work in the factory and the husband could be in the army), no new children being conceived/born (what with hubby being off at war on another continent) and war time rationing forced very high savings rates on America -- as high as 50% at one point -- because there wasn't much to spend your dual income on (especially since they were also encouraging people to grow "Victory Gardens"). We went from people moving every 13 months to take advantage of new rental deals (where you got the 13th month free if you could make your rent the first 12) before the war to Levittowns sprouting like mushrooms to try desperately to meet the sudden high demand for middle class housing after the war. So it's not like something like this has never happened before. Maybe nothing so protracted, but the precedent I am aware of is generally considered to be a good thing.

kiba 17y ago
It would seem to me that warfare is the worst way to solve the population crisis because wars must involves the destruction of existing capitals(Human capitals, mostly) and high opportunity cost(Delaying the introduction of television and other consumer technologies).
- Mz 17y ago
  I wasn't in any way suggesting that warfare per se was related to my point. My point was that birth rates in America were very low during WWII due to men being off at war and incomes were astonishingly high, while at the same time there was little to spend it on, resulting in high savings rates. So this phenomenon of a growing economy and low birth rate has occurred before, right here in the USA. And the results of that -- the post-war boom time -- are generally looked upon as an idyllic time in America's past. So I don't see why this would be some kind of "problem" to do the same thing in China.

dkersten 17y ago

You forget that the Chinas economic boom is artificially propped up by China [1] forcing its banks to lend money to other countries so that they can buy Chinese goods. I read an article recently which had a great analogy, comparing Chinas lending to the US (so that the US can continue to buy Chinese exports) to Lucent Technologies in the nineties, lending money to dot com startups so they could keep buying Lucent hardware - economic growth continues steadily, but eventually when these loans are to be cashed in, the economy will crumble. Of course, China has an exit that Lucent did not, as mentioned here (and the article mentioned it too) - China has the option of war! It seems to me that the Chinese economy is a giant bubble; one which I'd rather not see burst, but bubbles tend to do that... China isn't stupid though, so hopefully they can buy themselves enough time to figure something out and avoid a giant crash (and most likely a war). [1] meaning that it can (and probably should) be treated as a declining economy