Why China will never be the #1 econ. world power (1 Viewer)

[Lantzolot]

I just posted this in another post after it came to me. I thought i would make my own thread for discussion.

China will never overtake the US for one reason i just thought of. Not just in 25 yrs., but the next 60 yrs. They are going to be facing the same problem that we face today in about 20 yrs. Their population will become very much full of older ppl. They, as you probable know, have made it illegal for parents to have more than one child. This means that a majority population of older ppl will be supported by a minority population of younger ppl. They will be in the same bind as us and our social security and medicare (which it will be worse for them because they have no programs to help). To further my point they will have a larger number of men than women. SO, they will face a period of high population that will be followed by a period of low population. They will end up having large cities that have half the population of today in 40 yrs.

 

[COBRA]

interesting analysis. But We Americans keep seeing more job shipped to India & china Every single day. I mean WTF: i hate talking to OSAMU BUHMMA who claims his name is Charles Smith :doh everytime my internet DSL goes sown :roll: . I really don't see a bright future for the U.S. The president in his state of the union made people feel comfortable about the economy, but I'm sure people In Detroit have something else to comment.

 

[Logos]

You bring up some good points.

Yes China will have a aging population on a scale that America will not by sheer numbers. Although they have some of the best saving rates in the developed or semi-developed world whereas America has one of the worst which is one reason our aging population is going to be in such bad shape. also we hold our aging population to a MUCH higher standard which means we pay a lot more for more health care and a lot better health care overall. lastly our government is help responsible where as Chinese peasants and other lower class people are on their own (communism my A$$) with there government not answerable to two these problems as ours is meaning they can let there old people die.

The sex ratio is also a problem as well. I have seen stats as high as by 2025 China will have 250 million more males then females. what will happen because of this I have no idea. males could leave china to the many overseas Chinese communities in south east Asia something like a exodus. or they could cause unrest. having a large rural young male population without jobs or wives in western china is a possible source for unrest. or nothing major could happen there isn't a lot of studies to base predications on this kind of demographic.

Add on top of the other two their distribution of wealth and the unequal rights of the new middle class and rich compared to the poor and peasants, the restrictions on religion and press, western influence on business and culture, Taiwan, and stretching a little a united Korea or a remilitarized japan china faces quite a few potential problems.

Will this mean they won't do well economically? No! it means they might.

Personally I believe that we are moving toward a more natural multi polar world. America I don't believe is in decline in absolute power so much as America is declining in relative power with other poles rising in absolute power and relative power. sometime in the future yes America might not be top dog but that won't be for decades maybe 50 years. although we will constantly lose influence which is a type of power and other countries will gain influence faster at the expense of America's rank of #1. this will cause a image that America is declining and then you'll get the nostradumius's(sp?) claiming to predict a unforeseeable future.

 

[The Real McCoy]

interesting analysis. But We Americans keep seeing more job shipped to India & china Every single day. I mean WTF: i hate talking to OSAMU BUHMMA who claims his name is Charles Smith :doh everytime my internet DSL goes sown :roll: . I really don't see a bright future for the U.S. The president in his state of the union made people feel comfortable about the economy, but I'm sure people In Detroit have something else to comment.

What about the jobs provided by Asian automakers building plants here in the U.S.?

 

[jfuh]

China will never overtake the US for one reason i just thought of. Not just in 25 yrs., but the next 60 yrs. They are going to be facing the same problem that we face today in about 20 yrs. Their population will become very much full of older ppl. They, as you probable know, have made it illegal for parents to have more than one child. This means that a majority population of older ppl will be supported by a minority population of younger ppl. They will be in the same bind as us and our social security and medicare (which it will be worse for them because they have no programs to help). To further my point they will have a larger number of men than women. SO, they will face a period of high population that will be followed by a period of low population. They will end up having large cities that have half the population of today in 40 yrs.

The elderly vs youth gap is not a big deal for China. They do not have the exceptionally high rates for medication nor living expenses as the US does. So it's not a problem at all.
As for the sex ratio of 1:1.3 of women vs. men. Not an intirely big issue either.

Finally on the note of large cities halving in population. That will never happen. The cities now are largely supported by a large influx of migrant workers from rural areas all across the nation. That influx is unlikely to dwindle even in the face of an aging society.

Now as for this #1 economically.... hmmm very difficult to say. China is as much a free market as the US, only with a huge manufacturing sector that is heavily worker based for now, and a huge market for mechandise. I know China will easily overtake Japan within the next few years as #2. Number 1 though is difficult to say.

However, I can gaurentee that if the US continues ignoring Eisenhowers address to the nation in 1961, his last day in office and continues on its current path of the Industrial military complex, yes China will over take the US as #1. Right now China is much more liked by the international community then the US is, and the Arab world just doesn't seem to care much about China as it does with hating the US. So China deffinetely has a more politically stable atmosphere then the US in that sense.

 

[oldreliable67]

China is as much a free market as the US,

Well, no. It may seem that way to some on the outside looking in. But, in reality, the Chinese gov't and particularly the military is heavily involved in setting the direction and policies in China's mfg sector. Since their gradual adoption of many free market tenents (starting following Nixon's trip to China in '72), each success has encouraged them to continue to liberalize, but make no mistake, the gov't still pulls the strings.

 

[nkgupta80]

The elderly vs youth gap is not a big deal for China. They do not have the exceptionally high rates for medication nor living expenses as the US does. So it's not a problem at all.
As for the sex ratio of 1:1.3 of women vs. men. Not an intirely big issue either.

Finally on the note of large cities halving in population. That will never happen. The cities now are largely supported by a large influx of migrant workers from rural areas all across the nation. That influx is unlikely to dwindle even in the face of an aging society.

Now as for this #1 economically.... hmmm very difficult to say. China is as much a free market as the US, only with a huge manufacturing sector that is heavily worker based for now, and a huge market for mechandise. I know China will easily overtake Japan within the next few years as #2. Number 1 though is difficult to say.

However, I can gaurentee that if the US continues ignoring Eisenhowers address to the nation in 1961, his last day in office and continues on its current path of the Industrial military complex, yes China will over take the US as #1. Right now China is much more liked by the international community then the US is, and the Arab world just doesn't seem to care much about China as it does with hating the US. So China deffinetely has a more politically stable atmosphere then the US in that sense.

yeah, china has a stable future ahead of itself. Its in the neutrality stage taht the US was in back in the late 1800s. US didn't have the might of the european imperialist powers, but it steadily built itself up. When the european powers were on the verge of collapse, we finally stepped in and reaped the benefits.

Of course history doesn't go in mere circles. It more or less goes in upward spirals i guess. so we really can't predict what's gonna happen to the world powers solely based on this history.

 

[jfuh]

Well, no. It may seem that way to some on the outside looking in. But, in reality, the Chinese gov't and particularly the military is heavily involved in setting the direction and policies in China's mfg sector. Since their gradual adoption of many free market tenents (starting following Nixon's trip to China in '72), each success has encouraged them to continue to liberalize, but make no mistake, the gov't still pulls the strings.

Are you then on the inside looking out?
The US is as much controlled by governmenet favorable contracts to most of the high tech sectors and is now today more and more tied to Eisenhower's Military Industrial complex. So major coorperations such as Haliburton, Lockheed, Exxon and so on profit from war.
China today is not at war with anyone, though there is corrupt government officials with big business leaders, however the competition is purly free market. You're making the mistake of giving too much credability to their government.

 

[Lantzolot]

I really don't see a bright future for the U.S. The president in his state of the union made people feel comfortable about the economy, but I'm sure people In Detroit have something else to comment.

Well Detroit is one of the poorest big cities in the US. Im from Northwest Arkansas. The hometown of walmart, the largest retail store and Tyson one of the largest food supply things whatever they called. The local economy here is better than it has ever been. Land is worth 3x what it was 10 yrs ago. There is no shortage of jobs. Any business you open is basically guarenteed to make it. Most people are making upwards of 60,000 dollars a year and it is not uncommon to see someone make 200,000 a year. But then, thats cuz like 1/3 of Bentonville is employed by walmart. Besides there isnt a lot of expenses here. A family of four can get by easily on 30,000 dollars a year.

If you really want to argue the economy well, employment is up and the average pay is up like 7 cents an hour i think, so dont say that its all ppl working in factories making 7 dollars an hour.

The elderly vs youth gap is not a big deal for China. They do not have the exceptionally high rates for medication nor living expenses as the US does. So it's not a problem at all.

Well ya it is. I dont care what costs for living expenses or medication is. How are you going to take care of millions of old people. Do you relize how much that would drive costs up?

How are they going to manage 10's of millions of ppl that have to be taken care of? What are they going to do, put them in a nursing home? no! the family will take care of the older people, thats chinese society. Confucian principles. Thats how its always been and will be for some time, history tells us that.

As for the sex ratio of 1:1.3 of women vs. men. Not an intirely big issue either.

But that is the problem. China's population wont be able to continue to grow. Plz refer to my last few paragraphs to see why im saying that is a problem.

Finally on the note of large cities halving in population. That will never happen. The cities now are largely supported by a large influx of migrant workers from rural areas all across the nation. That influx is unlikely to dwindle even in the face of an aging society.

Ok, scratch the cities. China has always been and remains today a largely agricultural society. If the people all go to the cities how are they going to produce the food to feed the people? What are they going to do, stop being agricultural and import food? NO! they have to support themselves there. They cant afford to feed 1.3billion people with imported food. ONE THING MUST GIVE, either the city population or the rural population.

Now as for this #1 economically.... hmmm very difficult to say. China is as much a free market as the US, only with a huge manufacturing sector that is heavily worker based for now, and a huge market for mechandise. I know China will easily overtake Japan within the next few years as #2. Number 1 though is difficult to say.

However, I can gaurentee that if the US continues ignoring Eisenhowers address to the nation in 1961, his last day in office and continues on its current path of the Industrial military complex, yes China will over take the US as #1. Right now China is much more liked by the international community then the US is, and the Arab world just doesn't seem to care much about China as it does with hating the US. So China deffinetely has a more politically stable atmosphere then the US in that sense.

The Arabs dont mind China because China makes them their money by driving up oil prices.:roll:


One more thing, look at Europe/Japan today. It’s a disaster in my opinion. In a good number of the European countries the population is really starting to get stagnant. Germany 0% growth rate France .2% growth Spain .15% Italy .07% England .28%. Outside Europe Japan .05% China .3% now ten years ago it was like 1.5% ten years from now it might be like -.5%

Now compare those economies that arent looking go to economies that are. You might notice 1 thing. The countries whose economies are getting better also have rising populations. That’s how china got where it is today, its rising population. That’s also going to be their downfall. We been talking about china and their population/production in world history at school.

Why does china produce so much food? Because they have so many people. Why do they have so many people? Because they produce so much food. Why does china produce so much food? Because they have so many people.

It’s a never ending cycle, but what if that cycle is broken? Then what does china do?

 

[jfuh]

Well ya it is. I dont care what costs for living expenses or medication is. How are you going to take care of millions of old people. Do you relize how much that would drive costs up?

Not too difficult really, they already manufacture the medications themselves as well as thier own generic versions that cost literally pennies for blood pressure related drugs.

How are they going to manage 10's of millions of ppl that have to be taken care of? What are they going to do, put them in a nursing home? no! the family will take care of the older people, thats chinese society. Confucian principles. Thats how its always been and will be for some time, history tells us that.

Exactly, the families take care of the elderly, thus taking the burden off of governmental funding keeping medical costs to an affordable minimal for everyone. Thus a very small burden at all for thier growing economy.

But that is the problem. China's population wont be able to continue to grow. Plz refer to my last few paragraphs to see why im saying that is a problem.

you're going to have to elaborate more on why the sex distribution of 1:1.3 is going to be a big issue. Frankly I don't see the "grave" danger.

Ok, scratch the cities. China has always been and remains today a largely agricultural society.

No, entirely untrue for the last 20 years after Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. No longer is it a dominently agricultural society anymore then the US is today. However I will agree that if you are comparing the population working in fields in contrast to the US then yes, however ratio wise, no.

If the people all go to the cities how are they going to produce the food to feed the people? What are they going to do, stop being agricultural and import food? NO! they have to support themselves there. They cant afford to feed 1.3billion people with imported food.

They can do exactly what the US does with regards to agricultural production, and that is mechanisation. Let's contrast, the average Chinese farmer if producing 10 metric tons of "stock" each year the US famer will produce 10000 metric tons. The US farmer is much more efficient then the Chinese farmer is with large assistance from machinery that is not available to thier Chinese Counterparts.

ONE THING MUST GIVE, either the city population or the rural population.

As with any industrialized nation that is always going to be the Rural populice.

The Arabs dont mind China because China makes them their money by driving up oil prices.:roll:

You have sources for this? And no it's only only because the Chinese help thier profits but mainly because the Chinese just don't care and "medel" with arab countries internal affairs or have troops based there.

One more thing, look at Europe/Japan today. It’s a disaster in my opinion. In a good number of the European countries the population is really starting to get stagnant. Germany 0% growth rate France .2% growth Spain .15% Italy .07% England .28%. Outside Europe Japan .05% China .3% now ten years ago it was like 1.5% ten years from now it might be like -.5%

You're growth rate for China of 0.3%, please list your source. From the most conservative estimate of China's economic growth rate that I have found according to the World Bank, China's annual Economic growth rate for 2004 was 8.7%. As for Japan, just one example, Toyota, with a market value that is larger than the big three of the US combined. Every country's economy except China is pretty stagnant.

Now compare those economies that arent looking go to economies that are. You might notice 1 thing. The countries whose economies are getting better also have rising populations. That’s how china got where it is today, its rising population. That’s also going to be their downfall. We been talking about china and their population/production in world history at school.

Wrong, and completely false. The peak of population for China is not today in terms of growth but more then 20 years ago before the 1 child policy was enforced in 1979. However that was also just before Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. The CHinese Economy did not start to take place until the 90's after the succesful special economic zones in costal cities took off. That success is now moving first along rivers towards the inner cities as well as along rail roads. Has nothing to do with it's growing population.

Why does china produce so much food? Because they have so many people. Why do they have so many people? Because they produce so much food. Why does china produce so much food? Because they have so many people.

Circular reasoning is a argumentative fallacy. That is hardly the reason why China has such a large population. Do you know how much food China produces? Not nearly as much as the US. Yet does the US have as large or larger population then China? No.
Another example, India, does India produce as much food as the US, no, do they have a larger population? yes.

It’s a never ending cycle, but what if that cycle is broken? Then what does china do?

As I've clearly prooven, you're logic is flawed and baseless.

 

[Lantzolot]

Not too difficult really, they already manufacture the medications themselves as well as thier own generic versions that cost literally pennies for blood pressure related drugs..

Ok, but China cant do everything, especially when the “workable human” class becomes a minority.

Exactly, the families take care of the elderly, thus taking the burden off of governmental funding keeping medical costs to an affordable minimal for everyone. Thus a very small burden at all for thier growing economy..

But, if the family takes care of the parents then who will be working for china? Taking care of just one parent is a full time job, I can answer from experience. My mom had to quit her job to take care of her mom.

Now take a look at this site:

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/agr-s.html

Here it says that 60% of the population of China earn less than $1 a day. Almost all of the poor are in the agriculture sector. Now, when the young population is forced to take care of the old, then they will have less time to produce food. Food that china needs to feed its population. They cant afford to stay home and take care of their families.

you're going to have to elaborate more on why the sex distribution of 1:1.3 is going to be a big issue. Frankly I don't see the "grave" danger..

It will be a problem because their population will not be able to stabilize like a normal population would. It will slow the renewed growth after the decline.

No, entirely untrue for the last 20 years after Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. No longer is it a dominently agricultural society anymore then the US is today. However I will agree that if you are comparing the population working in fields in contrast to the US then yes, however ratio wise, no..

70% of the Chinese population is rural…I’m guessing that would signify a large agricultural society. And the source I gave above says that 75% of the population was given livelihood by agriculture so, no it is pretty much true.

They can do exactly what the US does with regards to agricultural production, and that is mechanisation. Let's contrast, the average Chinese farmer if producing 10 metric tons of "stock" each year the US famer will produce 10000 metric tons. The US farmer is much more efficient then the Chinese farmer is with large assistance from machinery that is not available to thier Chinese Counterparts..

The average Chinese farming doesn’t own hundreds of acres of land. It is largely subsistence farming.

As with any industrialized nation that is always going to be the Rural populice..

Im saying here that one of their populations will give. As you say the rural population could move into the city, but then who is going to produce the food for the people?

You have sources for this? And no it's only only because the Chinese help thier profits but mainly because the Chinese just don't care and "medel" with arab countries internal affairs or have troops based there..

Well its common sense. Or have you ruled that out? I suppose you expect a source?

You're growth rate for China of 0.3%, please list your source. From the most conservative estimate of China's economic growth rate that I have found according to the World Bank, China's annual Economic growth rate for 2004 was 8.7%. As for Japan, just one example, Toyota, with a market value that is larger than the big three of the US combined. Every country's economy except China is pretty stagnant..

Ahh, here i was talking about population growth, not economic.

Wrong, and completely false. The peak of population for China is not today in terms of growth but more then 20 years ago before the 1 child policy was enforced in 1979. However that was also just before Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. The CHinese Economy did not start to take place until the 90's after the succesful special economic zones in costal cities took off. That success is now moving first along rivers towards the inner cities as well as along rail roads. Has nothing to do with it's growing population..

Well according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/archives/china/part1.html china’s economy has been on the rise for at least 35 years. Now im not sure what your trying to say. I think your saying that China’s growth isn’t related to economy because the economy was getting better just after the child policy, but that wouldn’t matter because it takes years for something like that to really take effect.

Circular reasoning is a argumentative fallacy. That is hardly the reason why China has such a large population. Do you know how much food China produces? Not nearly as much as the US. Yet does the US have as large or larger population then China? No.
Another example, India, does India produce as much food as the US, no, do they have a larger population? yes..

Actually it is why china has a large population. History can show this. China has for thousands of years had a larger population because they have produced more for and had better means of producing it. The US population is smaller than china because of wealth.

As I've clearly prooven, you're logic is flawed and baseless.

Actually, you haven’t proven anything. My logic is not flawed and most definitely not baseless.

 

[jfuh]

Ok, but China cant do everything, especially when the “workable human” class becomes a minority.

Every industrialized nation has gone through just such a phase of declining population I see no problem with it.

But, if the family takes care of the parents then who will be working for china? Taking care of just one parent is a full time job, I can answer from experience. My mom had to quit her job to take care of her mom.

That's not always the case though. many elderly continue to live on thier own with childeren way out. I have an aunt whose 93 years old yet acts 40 years younger her age. Will it be problematic, sure but it's not anything that would be gravely problematic at all.

Now take a look at this site:

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/agr-s.html

Here it says that 60% of the population of China earn less than $1 a day. Almost all of the poor are in the agriculture sector. Now, when the young population is forced to take care of the old, then they will have less time to produce food. Food that china needs to feed its population. They cant afford to stay home and take care of their families.

The statistic of $1/day seems to be exceptionally low. However for a country where you can get a haircut for 5 cents, that's not that bad. You must keep in mind that China's living costs are also very low.
I doubt the youth would ever be forced to take care of the old, as long as there's a cash flow for them you can always hire a care giver. As for food manufacture I've stated you can always mechanise.

It will be a problem because their population will not be able to stabilize like a normal population would. It will slow the renewed growth after the decline.

1:1.3 is not that bad a ratio to stablize against. China has roughly 1.3billion people. Even if halved you still have more than half a billion people.

70% of the Chinese population is rural…I’m guessing that would signify a large agricultural society. And the source I gave above says that 75% of the population was given livelihood by agriculture so, no it is pretty much true.

Yes and as I said earlier it's a population that is moving towards an industrialized state and gradually also shifting to a services based economy as well. Certainly you do not assume that China's "economic miracle" as from your site is the result of massive agricultural production.

The average Chinese farming doesn’t own hundreds of acres of land. It is largely subsistence farming.

The Chinese farmer does not own any acerage at all. All the land in China belongs to the government. So in the instance that even 50 farmer families are wiped out, it's still not a problem when you mechanise the farming. There're also no disputes over the fortune because it's all owned by the same government.

Im saying here that one of their populations will give. As you say the rural population could move into the city, but then who is going to produce the food for the people?

No, I'm not saying that the rural population COULD move to the cities, I'm saying it IS moving to the cities.
Again the answer is mechanization, the same way as it is in the US.

Well its common sense. Or have you ruled that out? I suppose you expect a source?

No, I don't doubt the logic of higher oil being part of China's invovlement, but that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that's not why Arab countries do not hate CHina the way they hate westerners. I feel that you're reading of the remainder of my former post should provide you with why.

Ahh, here i was talking about population growth, not economic.

You didn't clarify that, because you were responding to a post I made about economics then later you were talking about economies again. If you are talking about population vs economy, sorry there's no clear indication of population growth vs economic growth. One simple example: Africa.

Well according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/archives/china/part1.html china’s economy has been on the rise for at least 35 years. Now im not sure what your trying to say. I think your saying that China’s growth isn’t related to economy because the economy was getting better just after the child policy, but that wouldn’t matter because it takes years for something like that to really take effect.

That has more to do with the turn around towards free market trade in contrast to simply population growth. Not to mention even by those figures China's population is not really on the growth. Look at Africa, they have such a growth that thier economic growth is far outpaced by thier population growth resulting in a mostly poverty situation. Now of course that also has a lot to to with western debt, but I will also provide the historical fact that mostly developing and non-developing nations have high population growth rates vs industrialized nations which have a stablized population growth rate, especially when efficiency per populice is raised.

Actually it is why china has a large population. History can show this. China has for thousands of years had a larger population because they have produced more for and had better means of producing it. The US population is smaller than china because of wealth.

Very well, India also has a large population as does Indonesia, however none of which has a agricultural production rate that matches thier populice growth rate.

Actually, you haven’t proven anything. My logic is not flawed and most definitely not baseless.

You used circular reasoning, and unless I'm mistaken that is an incredible falicy of logic.

 

[The Real McCoy]

You're growth rate for China of 0.3%, please list your source. From the most conservative estimate of China's economic growth rate that I have found according to the World Bank, China's annual Economic growth rate for 2004 was 8.7%. As for Japan, just one example, Toyota, with a market value that is larger than the big three of the US combined. Every country's economy except China is pretty stagnant.

You think 3% to 4% growth rates in a 12 trillion dollar economy are pretty stagnant??

 

[jfuh]

You think 3% to 4% growth rates in a 12 trillion dollar economy are pretty stagnant??

I assume you are then contrasting China with the US?
Yes.
China has essentially started from nothing just some 25 years ago. So in contrast to starting from nothing and quickly becoming the 4th(?) largest economy in the world everyone looks pretty slow mo. I mean keep that kind of speed up (unlikly) and it will quickly surpass the US.
3~4% growth with a nearly non-existant inflation rate seems pretty good. However with no socialized healthcare and an ever increasing deficit that's bound to catch up sooner or later that's not too good. China's deficit? about 2~3% of GDP but with an 8% growth. US deficit is roughly 5~7%GDP with a 3~4% growth. That's not looking very favorable, even with a 12trillion dollar economy.

 

[COBRA]

very good info from all of you guys. :smile:

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/agr-s.html

Here it says that 60% of the population of China earn less than $1 a day. Almost all of the poor are in the agriculture sector. Now, when the young population is forced to take care of the old, then they will have less time to produce food. Food that china needs to feed its population. They cant afford to stay home and take care of their families.


.

dame with 60% of the population making what a "McChicken "costs per day how is that they are growing so prodigiously ?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

having a large rural young male population without jobs or wives in western china is a possible source for unrest.

Having a large young male population without jobs or wives anywhere can be a bad problem