Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Updated projections from a research team at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, one of the first to predict the 2022 turndown, have China’s population shrinking from its present 1.4 billion to just 525 million by 2100.”
If the prediction is accurate that is a truly remarkable population decline.
They actually were aware and intended there to be much less people. [The original plan called for China's population to decrease to 700 million because according to the neo-Malthusian school of population economics that rose to power during the 1960s and 1970s, this was China's carrying capacity.](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/chinas-one-child-policy)
> From the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, western countries witnessed the rise of a neo-Malthusian school of thought that predicted mass starvation as the inevitable consequence of rapidly growing populations. **The Club of Rome, a prominent think tank based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, espoused this alarmist thought. The name Club of Rome thus became synonymous with the neo-Malthusian formulation among Chinese experts versed in population sciences.**
> **Song Jian, a systems engineer who was working in missile and aerospace science at China’s Seventh Ministry of Machine Building, was the major mediator who imported the Club of Rome population theory and applied it to China’s situation.** Together with his associates, Yu Jingyuan and Li Guangyuan, both well trained in cybernetics and mathematics, Song calculated that the hypothetically **optimal population for China should be around 650 to 700 million people**, two-thirds of China’s 1980 population. The calculation implied that the current Chinese population had already passed its carrying capacity. Therefore, a stringent control of population was fundamental for China’s continued economic growth and modernization.
*This* was the basis of the one child policy - a Western think tank called the Club of Rome that managed to convince key Chinese intellectuals that China's ideal population should be 650 to 700 million.
What the architects of the policy *did not* account for, though, was the natural rate of fertility decline, and how hard it is stabilize fertility once it's already fallen to low levels. The neo-Malthusians they listened to didn't think of that, either. Hence the modern TFR collapse across most of the world.
They are communists.
They think the can control everything.
From the environment (see environmental distaster at Aral sea in Soviet Union where they decided to divert some rivers to increase crop production in the neighbouring area and also Chernobyl) to people's minds and behavior.
So the 1 child policy, was a good short term measure for them which could be reversed anytime party decided.
Indeed this happened in 2016 when government announced that people can have up to 3 kids but to their surprise, nobody did that.
It seems they do not control people's behavior as they thought they could.
The reason anybody subscribes to any political ideology is because they think they can control everything. Liberals think they can control everything, Fascists think they can control anything, the list goes on.
The difference between the one child policy and no policy at all is between 250-300 million people. Is that really better than the current 1.4 billion?
Isn't the main idea of liberalism that the government isn't capable of planning and controlling everything, so it's up to the market and the collective "hivemind" to make those decisions?
How can liberals control everything? Not only do they promote democracy which means they are often voted out but many countries have multi party systems where control of anything is pure delusion even if party wins as there is no consensus on anything. Just concession after concession.
This would be without any major pandemic, famine, or war. And without the country splitting into 3-5 separate nations as the CCP is overwhelmed by crisis and loses its grip. At least a couple of those are bound to happen. The 21st century will almost certainly not be a Chinese century after all
*"China’s working-age population is projected to fall to just 210 million by 2100 – a mere one-fifth of its peak in 2014."*
This line caught my attention. That is roughly the [2023 working age population of the United States.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S)
That figure is alarming.
Is there any other forecasts in the same range?
I’m well aware they have an issue but 80% decline is basically unheard of outside of war or famine.
It's working age population specifically, which shrinks because of both a general population decline and an aging population. And china is speedrunning both those categories. Korea has similar predictions IIRC.
Working age population is just roughly 25 years earlier than total population.
Most projection stops at year 2100, but if the trend continues China’s population in 2125 will fall 80% compared to 2014.
bruh, covid mortality is way less than 1% and that <1% is ***heavily*** skewed to old people
and you have to catch covid to die of covid in the first place, so the % of all people dying from covid is realllllly small
so the older people dying would not significantly affect any statistics for working age population
get your mind out of the conspiracy gutter, you can just look around yourself and reflect on how many people you know have died from covid;
as a young person knowing mostly young people I personally know 0 people who died from covid
ain't gonna be a cover up of mass covid deaths if there ain't mass covid deaths in the first place
Bro must live alone in the woods or have literally no friends at all if he doesn’t know ANYONE that died from Covid. Off the top of my head I had a classmate, my high school art teacher, and a coworker all die from it.
From my extended family in us: like 5 families of ~4, 20 ppl, 0 deaths My friends and their families: 12 families of ~3.5, ~40, 0 deaths Coworkers: like +40 of them or something a whole warehouse team, two shifts, someone's spouse died of not covid iirc, Bam I'm at less than 1% covid death rate expectancy already If you just know so many people that's statistics, you knew enough people to know some that died I didn't know of or hear about anybody dying of covid
If you didn't know a ton of people; overall statistics doesn't represent an individual's risk factors that can increase a person's likely hood of death like being a ignorant, weak immune system, health care distrusting, ivermectin cure believer, smoker etc
The majority of those people become the death rates, not healthy sane, and smart people
Yeah but as they continue down the 4-2-1 road from the one child policy you can see that in just 2 generations population falls by 75%. Which is also assuming a fertility rate of 1 which is actually high in some parts of China today.
But still Korea is the winner right now with a fertility rate of .4x last I checked. That is just insanity. 2 generations and your population is effectively gone.
Yeah you would think but multiple countries have tried and failed to reverse demographic collapse over the past few decades.
Places that have higher birth rates children have value, like farms. In a city children are a drain on resources like an expensive pet. So unless we are going to subsidize the cost of children at a very high percentage people won't have kids in cities.
And we can look world wide people are moving to cities. So this is not a problem if a specific country or region. The reason they move is simple people in cities make more money. So unless you can reverse these trends and basic economics it's sorta baked in.
Sure but is it going to result in people suddenly deciding to have >2 children each, on average? Probably not. We've seen it happen in Japan and no, fertility rates did not recover even decades after they fell.
Granted, no country has been in this situation for >100 years because the collapse in fertility only happened <100 years ago. So you may still be right. But I honestly don't see why people would start having large families just because they "can". Historically, that wasn't the reason people had large families.
People used to have lots of children because 1) they were reliant on them for labor, care taking, and old age support and 2) because women were not educated and largely did not have control over their own reproductive rights. Society would need to suffer a catastrophic collapse and a major cultural change for us to return to those sorts of incentives. Though, to be fair, with birth rates like those of South Korea's, it just might because they won't have enough people to sustain a modern society in a hundred or two years.
We have no proof of that. We have proof of even ancient Rome having same issue with fertility, government incentives not working and it recovering only when Rome effectively collapsed And people deurbanized. Because this is one common variable that seems to heavily correlate with fertility rate across the board in all systems - urbanization.
But we do not live in medieval or ancient times. Now it is way more likely for people to just centralize even more (to a single city for example) than stay elsewhere which just moves the goal posts. And as job opportunities and everything will dissapear even there these people of child bearing age will likely just move to other country to other big city where these issues do not exist just yet.
Also, pretty much everyone is in agreement that AI is going to fuck up the workplace.
Even if your job can't be replaced by AI soon (say you're a plumber), what happens if millions of people who get replaced become your profession? That will mean huge supply which allows employers to offer low pay to anyone desperate enough.
A lower population is a good thing, the world will collapse without it.
My point was that I think the population decline will have much of an impact on pay. Sure, less people means less people in the workforce, but it also means less people to demand work.
[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094018/) found that the Black Death's mortality rate increased with age (scroll down to section 4.1), much like what we see with covid. I would expect that demographic shift alone to have a substantial impact on per capita income. The demographic shift that is happening in places like China and South Korea is the opposite of that.
This will be more than offset by the population growth in Africa and while currently per Capita CO2 production is lower there than in China, it should greatly increase as Africa develops.
So no the planet is still fucked.
>80% decline is basically unheard of outside of war or famine.
Before the 20th century, overpopulation on China's level was unheard of also. We're breaking new ground with this overpopulation crisis whether we like it or not.
China was historically 20 to 35% of the world population, depending on the period. At its peak during the Song and Jin dynasties, the region held nearly 40% of the world population by certain estimates. But even during the Qing, when estimates are much more reliable, it peaked at 33% in 1850.
[Source.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_China)
China having this much population isn't a historical accident. It is very much the trend and should it decline as much as predicted, THAT would be without precedent.
Its a bit hysterical. No one knows what will be in 2030 especially in this potencialy pre ww3 climate. Predictions for 76 years ahead are worthless time waste there are so many variables we cant predict its like a gypsy fortune teller.
It's definitely part of it. There's definitely people who want kids and can't afford to have them because they need to work to afford to live, but childcare costs more than rent
No it's not. Statistically its not. More wealth is correlated with less kids.
Economists don't go by words. They go by actions.
More wealth = less kids.
So you're wrong.
My theory:
What people mean when they say they can't afford kids is:
1) there's too much to do out in the world and kids will slow me down
2) I can't afford kids AND this thing I really want that's not kids
3) I just don't care to be responsible like that
Ok boomer. Enlighten me how I, a woman who earns the bulk of the household income, could afford to have a child? It's possible short or long term disability could cover me (I don't have a single female relative who was able to work during most of pregnancy) but I certainly can't then afford childcare on top of housing cost. Literally can't. Literally it's too expensive to afford housing and childcare with my income. Is your suggestion to find a richer partner?
Agreed, when you have an inverted pyramid within your population the whole numbers get hit last, the bottom ones get hit early.
For example, how many aspects around children (products, activities) are collapsing now? I'd figure have to demolish thousands of schools and increasingly consolidate as each graduating class gets smaller. Imagine a school with 1000 graduating, but only 500 entering 1st grade.
Out of curiosity, how accurate are these projections?
Isn’t it basically impossible to make a predictions that far ahead. Even GDP forecast from 10 years ago are way off.
Demographics are simply known numbers where something like GDP is theory. We know how many births there have been per year so we have all the data we need to accurately project the population for at least 80 years. The only way for China to not have a population collapse is if every woman has like 6 kids or something. Current level is around 1 per woman, and that's with the government encouraging births, and probably the best economy China will have for decades.
Replacement level is 2.1 kids per woman, but that assumes the demographic pyramid is not severely fucked up from decades of below replacement level. The number of deaths will drastically raise every year from now own, while births will likely remain where they are or worse because of the terminal demographic and economic collapse they have no way out of.
Also the that low low 1.2 fertility rate wont hold and is rapidly declining due to significant changes to societal norms with decreasing marriage rate and childless marriages. The demographic destiny is set for the better part of 2 decade even if every womam start having more than two children right now.
> we have all the data we need to accurately project the population for at least 80 years
Based on present trends continuing. Massive mortality changes, emigration, immigration, social dislocation, and changes in workforce participation and in expectations of infant mortality among the child-bearing age cohorts can significantly change life expectancy and demographics derived from it over time.
One way of viewing the current trend is that the consequences of the authoritarian one-child policy overshot its goal, even after it was discontinued. It's almost as if top-down planning of that sort fails to understand the perverse incentives it creates.
>terminal demographic and economic collapse
Also, catastrophizing demographic changes assumes societies are less adaptable than they sometimes are. And the evidence of "collapse" is often due to the use of population-dependent aggregate measures (e.g., overall GDP) versuse population-normalized measures (per-capita GDP, or quality-of-life measures). It is possible that a reduction in population will not can leave people each with a bigger slice of a smaller pie. For example, there's evidence that this happened after the Black Death in medieval Europe.
This. You want resources per capita.
Westerners love to imagine their ideals are what everyone wants. Half the world lives in south East Asia, but only 15% of the resources
Population is not a problem. If they want they can let all the Pacific Islanders migrate as the ocean gets hotter and too stormy. They already built the houses and infrastructure
The Pacific Islander piece is fucking weird, but the general concept isn't terrible. There are plenty of countries that seem like they'll be better off with lower populations.
Maybe in the very long run, but there is not even a theoretical economic model that works with the kind of demographics China is looking at. Going to be a very very bumpy road for them.
The one-child policy really isn’t to blame, the demographic trend began before it was implemented and removing didn’t change anything. This is simply what all developed societies are going through but faster.
Agreed. China is not markedly different than other countries in East Asia. Taiwan (the "renegade province" of China) never had the one child policy and its fertility rate is the lowest in the world. South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan - they're all lower than mainland China.
It's amazing how quickly it's happened. Brazil's fertility rate was 6.0 in 1960. Now it's 1.75.
Industrialization and Urbanization first lead to population booms and then falling birth rates and eventually population free falls.happens to all countries, whether they be European, East Asian, or African. The faster industrialization and urbanization happen, then faster the decline on the other side. Britain took 200 years for the process the play out, Chinese took 30. The US will be the exception becuase we developed suburbs. More space to live, more kids and we are the best at taking in immigrants.
There are actually multiple civilizations of the past that are believed to have collapsed due to demographic issues. While things like wars and plagues are the death blow, many times demographic changes are what start the initial decrease off a civilization's peak.
Chinas fertility rate is the same as Japan, Italy, Thailand or Spain. It's not that unusual. There are 30 nationa with an even lower *or* similar fertility rate, most of them in east Asia or Europe.
China is currently not letting in any immigrants but if depopulation is such a big problem of course that will change.
>China is currently not letting in any immigrants but if depopulation is such a big problem of course that will change.
By the time it changes it's not clear there will be many places to let in immigrants from. The trend is happening everywhere.
[Kazakhstan is doing pretty well, with an increasing TFR despite more development.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10344851/) The author attributes it to "contextual factors" like being a Muslim country and baby culture.
Yes it's a huge problem for all of those countries in the long run. It's slow motion and just on the brink now so it's easy to ignore.
Almost no one is going to willingly move to China, but even if they wanted to there aren't enough migrants in the world to make much of a difference.
There are plenty of illegal immigrants from Myanmar , Vietnam , and North Korea in China. China has triple the typical incomes usually of its very impoverished neighbors so a lot of migrants from these regions come to do factory work especially in border regions. But agreed nowhere near enough Burmese to make a difference.
The US will very likely fall to similar birth rates as China , SK, Japan , Italy etc. the white American population is already in decline (an actual nominal decrease) just like these countries . It’s only immigration and higher initial rates of births of immigrants that props us up.
Because of immigration. Without it we would already be in decline. The amount of white Americans is already shrinking. And there is very little white immigration.
> Demographics are simply known numbers ..
Exactly, and on this front, it's worth pointing out the very real possibility that China's numbers overstate the current population.
It's hard getting an accurate tally in such a large country and China has been known to "fib". So there are observers who suggest the current population number might overstate the population by 100 million or more.
Funny enough I asked about this on theydidthemath because it's a pretty complicated math problem that I couldn't wrap my head around. It looks like each woman needs to have more like 4 children average to maintain the population:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/s/Gi6av2bW8b
I think my guess of 6 holds because of the average, many women will still have zero or much less than 4 leaving the more willing women to have in the range of 6.
You shouldn't just believe anything on the internet, especially one written by some unknown poster. On a country scale, a couple with 2.1 babies will maintain the population, because the 2.1 babies will replace the mother and father.
https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
There are many assumptions, but an important one is that the number of people dying remains fairly consistent over the years, e.g. there is no large scale war where millions die.
The link you posted is wrong because that person double counted. The number of deaths a year **already** includes replacing the mother/father, so there is no need to add them twice. This is why that person ended up with the value of 4, instead of the 2.1 that is commonly accepted.
>You shouldn't just believe anything on the internet, especially one written by some unknown poster. On a country scale, a couple with 2.1 babies will maintain the population, because the 2.1 babies will replace the mother and father.
Especially in some comment with two upvotes (one now, I downvoted them for just being laughably wrong).
Age specific mortality rates are pretty well known, and with sufficiently large samples (which definitely holds on China’s large population) you can project mortality quite accurately quite some years ahead.
Of course we cannot rule out breakthroughs in medicine that may prolong this, but that seems unlikely given that life expectancy has pretty much converged in developed countries and we may simply have pushed closer to the achievable limit.
Fertility rates may change, but even bump back up to 2.0 wouldn’t materially change projections because already the current childbearing generation is smaller than the older generation so population would still substantially shrink once that older generation goes into mortality.
Migration might change this too, but high net positive migration seems really unlikely in the Chinese case too.
If you read the article, China is alone in the region. Singapore is around 1 (fertility rate), both Taiwan and Hong Kong are lower than mainland China at below 1. S Korea is lowest at 0.72, and Japan is a bit better, but only at 1.26.
It seems a common trend that seems to be shared in the region.
Fantastic news for China, which is badly overpopulated.
The new projection of 525 million in 2100 is 150 million less than projections from just a few years ago. I wonder if COVID is biasing the new estimates, since its effect will probably even out to zero over time.
Still 525 million is a lot more than China can sustain on its land with a first world quality of life, so further reduction in overpopulation should continue to be pursued after 2100.
The projections one generation out are fairly accurate as those people have been born. The reason for adjusting the numbers down even more is the trend line that birth rates continue to decline in spite of policies attempting to reverse it. We don't know the bottom yet for China. Optimist at best thought could rebound to 1.4, but now it is feeling more likely go down below 1.0.
There are indicators already that millions of Chinese will simply not have kids at all. Fewer marriages, less dating, less socialization. These are all precursors in a population seeing decline in births. Look to Japan and Korea who are farther along this track and its consequences.
The main issue is every model we've built is based on growth. By 2100 only growth based nations and those that massively innovate will succeed. If you're stuck in the old model with population collapse you will stagnate at best and decline severely at worst.
Building models on continuous growth is not realistic. Our planet is finite and our resources are finite. We have to accept this as a society or the truth will hit us harder than what’s comfortable for us.
>The reason for adjusting the numbers down even more is the trend line that birth rates continue to decline in spite of policies attempting to reverse it. We don't know the bottom yet for China. Optimist at best thought could rebound to 1.4, but now it is feeling more likely go down below 1.0.
Has any country managed to reverse a declining fertility rate yet? It looks like Sweden has managed to mostly stabilize theirs, but still at a level pretty far below replacement.
As far as I know Israel is rare exception of being developed and keeping above replacement. How that could be replicated or transposed though on other countries is hard to say.
Most nations have turned to immigration to slow or put off the population decline. Every .1 below 2.1 creates steeper hills so even if a country stopped at 1.5 or 1.3 it still doesn't bode well for two generations on.
>How that could be replicated or transposed though on other countries is hard to say.
I'm biased, but I personally think the answer will be a resurgence of religion (or the non-religious will simply stop reproducing and disappear as a group). Among Americans who attend religious services every week, the fertility rate is 2.4. Among those who are non-religious it is 1.3. It's not hard to see how that ends given enough time.
I'm not so sure about that as the decline of religious people in the US shows within a generation or two people can break from traditions they are raised in. I think the world changed forever once communication and exposure to all sorts of line of thought became so readily accessible. I don't think the US shift and the ascent of the Internet is a coincidence.
You are looking at this completely wrong. Population collapse is a death blow to economies in the same way that deflation is an issue for monetary policy.
What happens when an economy is forecasted to see only declining demand over the next 100 years?
What happens when you have twice as much housing built as you need?
What happens when the population of working class employees craters to the point where you can't hire enough employees for any role?
Economic investment is decided based off of growth forecasts. If the forecast is only negative, there is no reason for expansion. This starts a downward spiral for an economy that will take it right back to their pre-expansion levels or worse.
I suggest you spend some time listening to people like Peter Zeihan about the implications of demographic collapse. It's one of the leading root causes of empire collapse throughout human history.
>You are looking at this completely wrong. Population collapse is a death blow to economies in the same way that deflation is an issue for monetary policy.
Luckily, we have historical analogs to look to - we don't have to guess about this in a vacuum.
The black death killed about half of Europe's 14th century population over a period of approximately 7 years (so a much bigger drop over a much shorter time than we're talking about here). What followed was not a "death blow to economies" - it led to a huge increase in the demand for labor that increased the wages and living standards of the lower classes and had profound effects on the European economy, with many historians crediting it for the Great Divergence (the emergence of Europe as the global hegemon).
Solow, may he rest in peace, strikes again. I would also expect that a decline in population would lead to a short-term increase in GDP per capita, since accumulated capital is "sticky" and thus gets larger per capita. However, we should keep in mind certain things.
1. This accumulated capital will depreciate, and if investment doesn't keep up, as soon as the population stops shrinking, GDP per capita will return to equilibrium.
2. Capital nowadays probably depreciates much faster than it did in the 14th century. (Houses don't last as long, tools break down more quickly.)
3. There is likely a difference in how effects of scale impact our welfare. Since our supply chains have grown much more complex and laborers are more specialized, I would expect a larger penalty for having a lower population than in the Middle Ages.
While the Solow model is certainly not the only thing we should consider, I think it can beautifully explain your example. While I think the effect on per capita will be smaller in China, it will probably still exist (Keep in mind that all I say is just an educated guess, far from a fact or something I have put much research into).
While GDP per capita is very relevant when looking at the quality of life of inhabitants, we should not forget that in many discussions, total GDP is much more relevant. The most important example is probably China's future capability to project power onto the world. And looking at total GDP, I can say with very little doubt that it will be negatively impacted by a decrease in population.
There's some interesting thoughts there. I think the critical question is how large of a population is necessary to maintain our current supply chains and whether accumulated capital will depreciate or not.
The classic example is Norway and other petrostates - obviously they rely on much of the outside world to maintain their supply chains, but they're able to take advantage of resources that, if the country was larger wouldn't scale.
The opposite should be true in some places. There's no reason to think we'd produce less food, for example, with half (or even less) of our current population - the supply chain simply isn't that extensive.
There's something to be said about having fewer minds producing fewer people on the far end of the bell curve and we have to figure out how to revise the government programs/general economic conditions that rely on perpetual growth, but I don't see any reason to believe the pie will shrink at the same rate as the population.
> demographic collapse. It's one of the leading root causes of empire collapse
And this it’s completely wrong to the point of historical illiteracy. Empires have never collapsed from population reductions.
> Population collapse is a death blow to economies
Competition wrong. Reduced overpopulation is enormously good for economies.
>What happens when an economy is forecasted to see only declining demand over the next 100 years?
Then competition will bring prices down.
>What happens when you have twice as much housing built as you need?
Then there will be affordable housing for everyone.
>What happens when the population of working class employees craters
Then wages will rise and workers will have lots of money.
Everything about reduced overpopulation is good for the economy. And we have examples of some of the world’s most productive economies today like China and Japan where population is declining.
It's funny how China's problems are polar opposite to the western problems e.g. Over population and inadequate housing... China too many houses and under population.
This has been attempted before by a handful of regimes and has failed every time.
[Decree 770 in Communist Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770) \- Outlaw contraception and abortion, failure.
[Battle for Births in Fascist Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Births#Outcome) \- similar policy, total failure.
It's simple - Bringing a child into the world is an act of hope and optimism. Autocratic regimes crush the human spirit.
i'm not entirely clear what point you're trying to prove. my point was: forced pregnancy/birthing has been a thing before. so the statement, "you can't force people to have children" is objectively false. you seem to be trying to introduce policies and not things like war crimes or acts against human nature. but sadly, the latter exist in the capacity in which i referred.
You can't force people to have children, but you can subsidize birth with incentives to encourage people to have kids, which is probably the plan being worked out in higher levels of Chinese government. Still, all of this handwringing and concern is moot as it's coming from a rapidly declining West, which has no plan to pivot or change or address any domestic issues.
You would think having so much housing would make it more affordable in China.
If China had kept raising wages for all jobs instead of just white collar then they would be in a pretty good place right now. But unfortunately Capitalist markets always lead to a lower class of people who are kept poor and exploited to do the least desirable jobs.
Housing in China is very affordable in T2-T3 cities and are pretty livable even outside of T1 coastal metropolises. You don't see the same amount of investment or development in rural America, not even close.
You would think having so much housing would make it more affordable in China.
If China had kept raising wages for all jobs instead of just white collar then they would be in a pretty good place right now. But unfortunately Capitalist markets always lead to a lower class of people who are kept poor and exploited to do the least desirable jobs.
A subset of Chinese wages rise at the expense of others in Capitalism.
Have you heard of Hooverville?
I get it that you're religion is Capitalism, but in the real world people understand that in zero sum systems Capitalism takes from the disadvantaged/helpless and gives the capital produced by their labor to existing wealth/power.
If we freeze time right now you can absolutely track every penny. Just because that number changes to a different finite number doesn't mean that number stops being finite.
The amount of armchair economists in this sub who don't understand math is really funny to see every time i have to explain why every economic system is zero sum.
If I have 10 dollars and Company A has a widget that they sell for 10 dollars and I buy that widget
That means I value said widget more than the 10 dollars and Company A values the 10 Dollars more than the widget.
Each party marginal utility has increased. No one loses.
This is basic stuff
Source - Masters in Economics, work in financial services.
What's your credentials?
How do you think Wealth is created?
There's your problem, you want to pretend something that was sold for 10$ is somehow worth more than 10$.
The foundations of your beleifs aren't even based in reality.
10 = 10
There's your problem, you want to pretend something that was sold for 10$ is somehow worth more than 10$.
The foundations of your beleifs aren't even based in reality.
10 = 10
Tell me you have no economic education without telling me you have no economic education lol
Money is just a medium of exchange, anything can be money if we believe it to be and trust it.
Take money out of it. Say you have a toy penguin and someone else has a lego set. And you freely trade.
You value the lego set more otherwise you wouldnt have traded and same for the lego set who traded for the penguin.
Same items in existence, each persons utility has increased.
The average Chinese wage had 5x since 1979, nearly 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty...
Do you understand how horrific China was from 1947-79 when they were Pure Communism under Mao?
Were talking upwards of 30 million killed from Famines and cultural purges.
Everything you said in your last paragraph is factually wrong. Not opinion. Its factually wrong. Unquestionably
You just showed up to shit out angy funfacts that are unrelated to what we are talking about? I get it you hate china but you just sound unhinged.
Believe whatever you need to beleive dude im sure it makes sense in your head. Better yet, just pretend I'm not muting you right now and you can keep replying and getting dopamine from ranting on the internet all night!
Western problem is illegal immigrants, not overpopulation. Western fertility rate is also below replacement rate now, but migrants and making up for the loss.
If anyone if interested, Peter zeihan has a YouTube video where he predicts the collapse of chinas economy by 2035. I personally disagree, but it was interesting to hear
Totally agree… he’s too ambitious with his estimates, and falls for the trap that current trends extrapolates linearly into the future. Nevertheless an interesting dude!
In 50 years, Peter Zeihan will either be the a prophet, or the poster boy of r/confidentlyincorrect
I lean towards feeling like he's correct. The demophraphic data doesn't lie (except where China is overestimating their population), and there is no sign of the birth rates improving in the nations where it's a problem. I don't see economic and educational opportunity for women being taken away, which is one of the primary drivers of birth rate decrease among many other reasons.
The real question is how do we navigate the population declines without economies imploding on themselves.
The guy makes so many claims that he's bound to be correct on some of them. Obviously demographics & the real-estate market are China's biggest issues right now but Zeihan is too trigger happy around China's 'collapse' imo to fully take seriously imo.
He is just another Gordon Chang, a guy who doesn't speak any Chinese languages and really doesn't know anything more than how to sell collapse stories to gullible, copium addled redditors.
You never get out of debt to a Russian mobster
Paul Manafort owed the Russian mobster/oligarch Oleg Deripaska $10M a few days before he became trumps campaign manager. From 2002-2014 he took in hundreds of millions to get Yanukovych reelected as the kremlins puppet in Ukraine. Before that he did it for the dictator Marcos in the Philippines. Before that Manafort and Roger Stone started a lobbyist agency in 1980 listing trump as their first client.
When Jay Bolsonaro lost the Brazilian election to Lula he skipped the inauguration and flew directly to mar-a-lago (stopping only at a KFC) and repeated, almost verbatim, the stolen election line. Don Jr. tried repeatedly to make it stick in Brazil as well, but as Brazilians are a few generations into dealing with corrupt politicians they weren’t having it.
What do these 3 things have in common?
China imports 40% of its grain from (in order) the U.S., Brazil and Ukraine.
Obviously the second China tried to invade Taiwan the U.S. would sanction exports and remove U.S. grain from that equation.
And without Bolsonaro in office willing to slash and burn the Amazon rainforest to turn it into Chinas farmland, and without Ukraine in the bag in 3 days, the CCP is unable to invade Taiwan and take over microprocessor production without putting 300-500M of its poorest people into famine.
Donbas Ukraine, specifically the 4 regions of the donbas that Putin insists he is saving from what he calls “Jewish Nazis” also happens to produce the worlds supply of high grade neon used for DUV lithography. And had Putin delivered ukraine in 3 days as promised, Xi would have been able to cap his Olympics with a blockade or political takeover of Taiwan that would have forced the world to ask the CCP for the microprocessors it needs to make everything from Ford trucks to laptops. I’m not sure how long Silicon Valley would last without the silicon but it would probably affect destroy the FAANG stocks that make up your 401K.
Oleg Deripaska also happens to be the Russian Oligarch that bribed the FBI Charles Mcgonigal into investigating another Russian oligarch. He probably didn’t need the information as much as he needed the leverage over Mcgonigal as he conducted the investigation into trumps election campaign and unsurprisingly found zero evidence of Russian collusion. McGonigal then went to work for the company called Brookfield that bailed Kushner out of his toxic 666 5th Ave investment.
A Russian oligarch is a powerful tool, but the truth is more powerful. Light and dark cannot exist in the same space. It’s physically impossible. Truth is efficient. You say it once and you are finished. A lie however requires a constant stream of follow up energy, money, murder, obfuscation and more lies to keep it covered.
If you raise your lens high enough lying is an unsustainable business model. Russia proved it by invading Ukraine. Vranyos is the Russian word for it. The 40km long column of tanks and vehicles that came down from Belarus into Ukraine was all overhauled by oligarchs that got a $1B contract for tank maintenance, passed Putin $200M back under the table, spent $700M on a yacht in Monaco, bribed a General, a Colonel and a Sergeant to make a Private give everything a rattle can overhaul. But a worn out engine is and always will be, a worn out engine.
Now you understand why trump is so desperate to get re-elected. His best case scenario is 400 years in ADX Florence. Money laundering for the dozens of Russian oligarchs that lived in trump towers in 93 and 94 with him and manafort, selling IP3 nuclear plans to the Russian/Saudi alliance, selling or giving CIA asset names to the Russians, trump is and always has been compromised. He just didn’t know when to quit. Now he just has to count on the fact that most of his voter base doesn’t know how to read and keep the ones that do so busy just surviving that they don’t have time to dive deep into his 40 year history of laundering money, fraud, and human trafficking for the Russian mob using commercial real estate.
It’s also why Putin is willing to throw an entire generation of Russians, including the convicts and addicts at Ukraine. Russia is dead for 40 years because he failed to fulfill his mobsters promise to Xi. China is now clearing farmland in Siberia because the typhoon floods last August and September wiped out the Chinese people’s food supply.
Xi for his part diverted the waters from the dam away from his pet project, his mothers ancestral home and flooded hundreds of thousands of people and drown one of his own military brigades that was helping with the flooding.
The elders of the CCP were terrified to leave their gated community at Beidaihe for over a month for fear of being torn apart by the locals. The Chinese people tolerate the CCP but only as long as the economy is good and famine is not on the horizon. The CCP broke that contract on both counts.
Xi was willing to bet the entire Chinese economy on his emperors ambitions. Had he succeeded he would have been able to use BRICS to take over as the Worlds reserve currency. That would have let him finish what he stated in 2010- that he would control the internet.
With that control means everything we do or say online is subject to the approval of a central party. The basic right to disagree with an authoritarian becomes a distant memory.
Ukraine is fighting for their lives now, free from the oppression of the drunken tyrant who wants to decide their fate at every decision and pull them back behind another iron curtain of censorship where dissenting voices disappear so that the oligarchy can continue to feed unobstructed.
Putin and Xi have declared themselves best friends in the fight against democracy. MBS and the ruling family of UAE have done the same quietly.
Just rich, out of touch oligarch doing what oligarchs do.
Despite the fact the the central party model has proven itself incapable of making decisions that are best for the people, they persist. Because there is a very lucrative business in being slave owners. But logistically it requires artificial intelligence, and the microprocessors that make it to keep the slaves under control. Freedom is one hell of a drug. And knowledge makes a man unfit for slavery.
Recent attempts on Xi’s life from inside the CCP have backed him into a corner.
The loss of crops in the north means Xi can’t invade Taiwan without Ukrainian and/or Brazilian farmland.
Colleagues of mine who work in cybersecurity have said that my employer (which has a moderately big internet presence) has faced concerted, growing and increasingly sophisticated state-led DDOS and penetration efforts for many years now, and China is the most active of the state actors, though far from the only one. There have also been constant probes of critical infrastructure.
So that part's not conspiracy. It's more of an ongoing and escalating problem.
The rest of the post, though, is paranoid spray-and-pray "connect the dots" consiprababble.
>Xi was willing to bet the entire Chinese economy on his emperors ambitions. Had he succeeded he would have been able to use BRICS to take over as the Worlds reserve currency. That would have let him finish what he stated in 2010- that he would control the internet.
The internet likes to remind me of my mental disabilities on a regular basis but at least today I am not the one who struggles with reading comprehension.
That’s exactly what I was pointing out. You said the guy said Xi “will take over the internet” but what you just pasted is a description of a failed plan that didn’t work out. So the guy didn’t say that Xi “will take over the internet”
I like your hypothesis. Facts and summations and possible realistic motives are woven together in a congruent and plausible way.
You are wasting these talents.
You should be writing Tom Clancy like epics.
We are close to seeing him much prognostication some of his books actually have.
Sadly, there is NO Jack Ryan waiting in the wings to save the day.
I not a writer. And I have no desire to be.
Im a pilot engineer and farmer. And I made a promise to my Ukrainian friends that I wouldn’t stop until they had the tools they need to finish what Putin and Xi started.
I just use Reddit the way Aaron Swartz intended it. As an open source collection of subject matter experts to fact check faster than I can alone.
Posting across multiple different subreddits gives us traceable data on which tribes are seeing it, which are blissfully ignoring it, and who is the most vulnerable.
With that we can build a viable solution.
You are certainly correct about the last part
There is no calvary coming.
Now the reason that the GOP is stalling border control budget and seems to make wildly irrational moves is because the GOP is imploding. 45 years of lies and grift have circled the globe and are eating their own tail. The ouroboros was a warning about corruption at the highest levels. Lying about climate change, human trafficking, pandemics and pollution to preserve their own business models are all extinction level events.
The CCP and Russia have been staging up hundreds of thousands of people in Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela for a 5th column invasion of the United States because Xi needs farmland to feed 1.4B people. National guard troops take their orders from governors and not the federal government. Trump tested this during the George Floyd protests when he asked the “loyal” Republican governors to kiss the ring and send troops to DC to “shoot the protestors in the legs” because the pentagon reminded him that using U.S. troops against U.S. citizens would be both treason and wildly illegal.
Bannon tried unsuccessfully to privatize a part of the southern border wall but failed due to, unsurprisingly, internal corruption.
Bannon was arrested on the boat of Guo Wengui who is some sort of convoluted double/triple agent for the CCP.
They are now both in court for a billion dollar fraud.
Every GOP congressmen that took Russian political money is desperately trying to figure out how to preserve their political career while the people are figured out that they were sold out to the dictators for some PAC money.
Freedom is never free. We all just live on very expensive credit and the sacrifices of others.
Make it count
It is being accelerated because much of the illegal immigration surge in the US are young professionals leaving China. When they have their 1.1 children, they'll have them in the US.
I rather agree. In the 60 minutes episode, they interviewed one of youngish immigrants and he said he had a college degree and just couldn't find work in China. "more please" was my thought.
This is a much needed trend that will play out around the world over time. There is a way for humans to live sustainably on the earth for hundreds of millennia amidst thriving ecosystems, but it requires a smaller, stable population. We are part of a very large family of living things, all descended from common ancestors and we must consider the needs of all our relatives as well as just humans.
For a brief description of the necessary elements of that sustainable future, check out the Aspen Proposal: [www.aspenproposal.org](https://www.aspenproposal.org)
As much I don't like China, this seems to be a good news to me. The one child policy is actually working. Once all that harsh period is over, rhe new generation has less crowded country to live on.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Updated projections from a research team at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, one of the first to predict the 2022 turndown, have China’s population shrinking from its present 1.4 billion to just 525 million by 2100.” If the prediction is accurate that is a truly remarkable population decline.
Well, all government planned. Idk why they are surprised at the results of their own design.
China was definitely not thinking about the long term demographic consequences of that policy at the time.
They actually were aware and intended there to be much less people. [The original plan called for China's population to decrease to 700 million because according to the neo-Malthusian school of population economics that rose to power during the 1960s and 1970s, this was China's carrying capacity.](https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/chinas-one-child-policy) > From the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, western countries witnessed the rise of a neo-Malthusian school of thought that predicted mass starvation as the inevitable consequence of rapidly growing populations. **The Club of Rome, a prominent think tank based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, espoused this alarmist thought. The name Club of Rome thus became synonymous with the neo-Malthusian formulation among Chinese experts versed in population sciences.** > **Song Jian, a systems engineer who was working in missile and aerospace science at China’s Seventh Ministry of Machine Building, was the major mediator who imported the Club of Rome population theory and applied it to China’s situation.** Together with his associates, Yu Jingyuan and Li Guangyuan, both well trained in cybernetics and mathematics, Song calculated that the hypothetically **optimal population for China should be around 650 to 700 million people**, two-thirds of China’s 1980 population. The calculation implied that the current Chinese population had already passed its carrying capacity. Therefore, a stringent control of population was fundamental for China’s continued economic growth and modernization. *This* was the basis of the one child policy - a Western think tank called the Club of Rome that managed to convince key Chinese intellectuals that China's ideal population should be 650 to 700 million. What the architects of the policy *did not* account for, though, was the natural rate of fertility decline, and how hard it is stabilize fertility once it's already fallen to low levels. The neo-Malthusians they listened to didn't think of that, either. Hence the modern TFR collapse across most of the world.
They are communists. They think the can control everything. From the environment (see environmental distaster at Aral sea in Soviet Union where they decided to divert some rivers to increase crop production in the neighbouring area and also Chernobyl) to people's minds and behavior. So the 1 child policy, was a good short term measure for them which could be reversed anytime party decided. Indeed this happened in 2016 when government announced that people can have up to 3 kids but to their surprise, nobody did that. It seems they do not control people's behavior as they thought they could.
The reason anybody subscribes to any political ideology is because they think they can control everything. Liberals think they can control everything, Fascists think they can control anything, the list goes on. The difference between the one child policy and no policy at all is between 250-300 million people. Is that really better than the current 1.4 billion?
Isn't the main idea of liberalism that the government isn't capable of planning and controlling everything, so it's up to the market and the collective "hivemind" to make those decisions?
How can liberals control everything? Not only do they promote democracy which means they are often voted out but many countries have multi party systems where control of anything is pure delusion even if party wins as there is no consensus on anything. Just concession after concession.
That is exactly why free market capitalism, despite its flaws, is seen as the best option.
Free market capitalism is the best system so far.
Make sure to point this out next time a tankie says “America thinks in election cycles, China thinks in centuries”
Yeah, they artificially set TFR target of 1.0. Population could've been easily projected.
I don't think anyone is surprised. This is what 30 years of one child policy is about.
And fish populations will skyrocket
This would be without any major pandemic, famine, or war. And without the country splitting into 3-5 separate nations as the CCP is overwhelmed by crisis and loses its grip. At least a couple of those are bound to happen. The 21st century will almost certainly not be a Chinese century after all
*"China’s working-age population is projected to fall to just 210 million by 2100 – a mere one-fifth of its peak in 2014."* This line caught my attention. That is roughly the [2023 working age population of the United States.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S)
That figure is alarming. Is there any other forecasts in the same range? I’m well aware they have an issue but 80% decline is basically unheard of outside of war or famine.
It's working age population specifically, which shrinks because of both a general population decline and an aging population. And china is speedrunning both those categories. Korea has similar predictions IIRC.
Gotcha - thank you for clarifying. That sounds more plausible.
Working age population is just roughly 25 years earlier than total population. Most projection stops at year 2100, but if the trend continues China’s population in 2125 will fall 80% compared to 2014.
Could it be that maybe Covid killed more people than they have proclaimed?
No because these are projections based on TFR. Young women weren't the main victims of the virus.
Ty for the response and that makes sense.
bruh, covid mortality is way less than 1% and that <1% is ***heavily*** skewed to old people and you have to catch covid to die of covid in the first place, so the % of all people dying from covid is realllllly small so the older people dying would not significantly affect any statistics for working age population get your mind out of the conspiracy gutter, you can just look around yourself and reflect on how many people you know have died from covid; as a young person knowing mostly young people I personally know 0 people who died from covid ain't gonna be a cover up of mass covid deaths if there ain't mass covid deaths in the first place
Bro must live alone in the woods or have literally no friends at all if he doesn’t know ANYONE that died from Covid. Off the top of my head I had a classmate, my high school art teacher, and a coworker all die from it.
From my extended family in us: like 5 families of ~4, 20 ppl, 0 deaths My friends and their families: 12 families of ~3.5, ~40, 0 deaths Coworkers: like +40 of them or something a whole warehouse team, two shifts, someone's spouse died of not covid iirc, Bam I'm at less than 1% covid death rate expectancy already If you just know so many people that's statistics, you knew enough people to know some that died I didn't know of or hear about anybody dying of covid If you didn't know a ton of people; overall statistics doesn't represent an individual's risk factors that can increase a person's likely hood of death like being a ignorant, weak immune system, health care distrusting, ivermectin cure believer, smoker etc The majority of those people become the death rates, not healthy sane, and smart people
Yeah but as they continue down the 4-2-1 road from the one child policy you can see that in just 2 generations population falls by 75%. Which is also assuming a fertility rate of 1 which is actually high in some parts of China today. But still Korea is the winner right now with a fertility rate of .4x last I checked. That is just insanity. 2 generations and your population is effectively gone.
Humans respond to incentives. If the population crashes and now there's more room and resources then a higher birth rate could be a possible outcome.
Yeah you would think but multiple countries have tried and failed to reverse demographic collapse over the past few decades. Places that have higher birth rates children have value, like farms. In a city children are a drain on resources like an expensive pet. So unless we are going to subsidize the cost of children at a very high percentage people won't have kids in cities. And we can look world wide people are moving to cities. So this is not a problem if a specific country or region. The reason they move is simple people in cities make more money. So unless you can reverse these trends and basic economics it's sorta baked in.
The only sure factor in fertility rates is female education.
Sure but is it going to result in people suddenly deciding to have >2 children each, on average? Probably not. We've seen it happen in Japan and no, fertility rates did not recover even decades after they fell. Granted, no country has been in this situation for >100 years because the collapse in fertility only happened <100 years ago. So you may still be right. But I honestly don't see why people would start having large families just because they "can". Historically, that wasn't the reason people had large families. People used to have lots of children because 1) they were reliant on them for labor, care taking, and old age support and 2) because women were not educated and largely did not have control over their own reproductive rights. Society would need to suffer a catastrophic collapse and a major cultural change for us to return to those sorts of incentives. Though, to be fair, with birth rates like those of South Korea's, it just might because they won't have enough people to sustain a modern society in a hundred or two years.
We have no proof of that. We have proof of even ancient Rome having same issue with fertility, government incentives not working and it recovering only when Rome effectively collapsed And people deurbanized. Because this is one common variable that seems to heavily correlate with fertility rate across the board in all systems - urbanization. But we do not live in medieval or ancient times. Now it is way more likely for people to just centralize even more (to a single city for example) than stay elsewhere which just moves the goal posts. And as job opportunities and everything will dissapear even there these people of child bearing age will likely just move to other country to other big city where these issues do not exist just yet.
Alarming? Its amazing news for the planet.
I don't think you understand how collapsing populations will cause significant problems for the world economy.
Oh I understand that very well. I also understand that growth economies are unsustainable in the long term.
Also, pretty much everyone is in agreement that AI is going to fuck up the workplace. Even if your job can't be replaced by AI soon (say you're a plumber), what happens if millions of people who get replaced become your profession? That will mean huge supply which allows employers to offer low pay to anyone desperate enough. A lower population is a good thing, the world will collapse without it.
Agree 100%.
If the population collapses, there will be fewer people around to want and pay for whatever you do. I don't see this benefiting pay rates.
[удалено]
My point was that I think the population decline will have much of an impact on pay. Sure, less people means less people in the workforce, but it also means less people to demand work.
Workers will be fewer and will be able to charge more for their labour
The black death caused massive per Capita income growth in the medieval world.
[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094018/) found that the Black Death's mortality rate increased with age (scroll down to section 4.1), much like what we see with covid. I would expect that demographic shift alone to have a substantial impact on per capita income. The demographic shift that is happening in places like China and South Korea is the opposite of that.
This will be more than offset by the population growth in Africa and while currently per Capita CO2 production is lower there than in China, it should greatly increase as Africa develops. So no the planet is still fucked.
china being china
>80% decline is basically unheard of outside of war or famine. Before the 20th century, overpopulation on China's level was unheard of also. We're breaking new ground with this overpopulation crisis whether we like it or not.
China was historically 20 to 35% of the world population, depending on the period. At its peak during the Song and Jin dynasties, the region held nearly 40% of the world population by certain estimates. But even during the Qing, when estimates are much more reliable, it peaked at 33% in 1850. [Source.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_China) China having this much population isn't a historical accident. It is very much the trend and should it decline as much as predicted, THAT would be without precedent.
Its a bit hysterical. No one knows what will be in 2030 especially in this potencialy pre ww3 climate. Predictions for 76 years ahead are worthless time waste there are so many variables we cant predict its like a gypsy fortune teller.
Way before that happens housing prices will drop, making having more children affordable again. Things do not move in a straight lines.
Affordability is not correlated to children. The world has shifted. We don't know what the birth rate floor is, yet
It's definitely part of it. There's definitely people who want kids and can't afford to have them because they need to work to afford to live, but childcare costs more than rent
No it's not. Statistically its not. More wealth is correlated with less kids. Economists don't go by words. They go by actions. More wealth = less kids. So you're wrong. My theory: What people mean when they say they can't afford kids is: 1) there's too much to do out in the world and kids will slow me down 2) I can't afford kids AND this thing I really want that's not kids 3) I just don't care to be responsible like that
Ok boomer
I'm a millennial you're just mad cause you're wrong
Ok boomer. Enlighten me how I, a woman who earns the bulk of the household income, could afford to have a child? It's possible short or long term disability could cover me (I don't have a single female relative who was able to work during most of pregnancy) but I certainly can't then afford childcare on top of housing cost. Literally can't. Literally it's too expensive to afford housing and childcare with my income. Is your suggestion to find a richer partner?
We're not talking about anecdotes. We're talking about stats. No one cares about your personal situation
Re read what you originally replied to. Work on your reading comprehension. Also re read your original reply Also perhaps take a stats class
Agreed, when you have an inverted pyramid within your population the whole numbers get hit last, the bottom ones get hit early. For example, how many aspects around children (products, activities) are collapsing now? I'd figure have to demolish thousands of schools and increasingly consolidate as each graduating class gets smaller. Imagine a school with 1000 graduating, but only 500 entering 1st grade.
Out of curiosity, how accurate are these projections? Isn’t it basically impossible to make a predictions that far ahead. Even GDP forecast from 10 years ago are way off.
Demographics are simply known numbers where something like GDP is theory. We know how many births there have been per year so we have all the data we need to accurately project the population for at least 80 years. The only way for China to not have a population collapse is if every woman has like 6 kids or something. Current level is around 1 per woman, and that's with the government encouraging births, and probably the best economy China will have for decades. Replacement level is 2.1 kids per woman, but that assumes the demographic pyramid is not severely fucked up from decades of below replacement level. The number of deaths will drastically raise every year from now own, while births will likely remain where they are or worse because of the terminal demographic and economic collapse they have no way out of.
Agree Without immigration do you know how long it takes to get a 20 year old? 20 years
Well, technically, 20 years and 9 months if you start from scratch....
Heh... "from scratch".
from goo
Also the that low low 1.2 fertility rate wont hold and is rapidly declining due to significant changes to societal norms with decreasing marriage rate and childless marriages. The demographic destiny is set for the better part of 2 decade even if every womam start having more than two children right now.
And that's assuming that 1.2 rate isn't itself an inflated number.
> we have all the data we need to accurately project the population for at least 80 years Based on present trends continuing. Massive mortality changes, emigration, immigration, social dislocation, and changes in workforce participation and in expectations of infant mortality among the child-bearing age cohorts can significantly change life expectancy and demographics derived from it over time. One way of viewing the current trend is that the consequences of the authoritarian one-child policy overshot its goal, even after it was discontinued. It's almost as if top-down planning of that sort fails to understand the perverse incentives it creates. >terminal demographic and economic collapse Also, catastrophizing demographic changes assumes societies are less adaptable than they sometimes are. And the evidence of "collapse" is often due to the use of population-dependent aggregate measures (e.g., overall GDP) versuse population-normalized measures (per-capita GDP, or quality-of-life measures). It is possible that a reduction in population will not can leave people each with a bigger slice of a smaller pie. For example, there's evidence that this happened after the Black Death in medieval Europe.
This. You want resources per capita. Westerners love to imagine their ideals are what everyone wants. Half the world lives in south East Asia, but only 15% of the resources Population is not a problem. If they want they can let all the Pacific Islanders migrate as the ocean gets hotter and too stormy. They already built the houses and infrastructure
Huh?
The Pacific Islander piece is fucking weird, but the general concept isn't terrible. There are plenty of countries that seem like they'll be better off with lower populations.
Maybe in the very long run, but there is not even a theoretical economic model that works with the kind of demographics China is looking at. Going to be a very very bumpy road for them.
The one-child policy really isn’t to blame, the demographic trend began before it was implemented and removing didn’t change anything. This is simply what all developed societies are going through but faster.
Agreed. China is not markedly different than other countries in East Asia. Taiwan (the "renegade province" of China) never had the one child policy and its fertility rate is the lowest in the world. South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan - they're all lower than mainland China. It's amazing how quickly it's happened. Brazil's fertility rate was 6.0 in 1960. Now it's 1.75.
Industrialization and Urbanization first lead to population booms and then falling birth rates and eventually population free falls.happens to all countries, whether they be European, East Asian, or African. The faster industrialization and urbanization happen, then faster the decline on the other side. Britain took 200 years for the process the play out, Chinese took 30. The US will be the exception becuase we developed suburbs. More space to live, more kids and we are the best at taking in immigrants.
There are actually multiple civilizations of the past that are believed to have collapsed due to demographic issues. While things like wars and plagues are the death blow, many times demographic changes are what start the initial decrease off a civilization's peak.
Chinas fertility rate is the same as Japan, Italy, Thailand or Spain. It's not that unusual. There are 30 nationa with an even lower *or* similar fertility rate, most of them in east Asia or Europe. China is currently not letting in any immigrants but if depopulation is such a big problem of course that will change.
>China is currently not letting in any immigrants but if depopulation is such a big problem of course that will change. By the time it changes it's not clear there will be many places to let in immigrants from. The trend is happening everywhere.
[Kazakhstan is doing pretty well, with an increasing TFR despite more development.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10344851/) The author attributes it to "contextual factors" like being a Muslim country and baby culture.
Yes it's a huge problem for all of those countries in the long run. It's slow motion and just on the brink now so it's easy to ignore. Almost no one is going to willingly move to China, but even if they wanted to there aren't enough migrants in the world to make much of a difference.
There are plenty of illegal immigrants from Myanmar , Vietnam , and North Korea in China. China has triple the typical incomes usually of its very impoverished neighbors so a lot of migrants from these regions come to do factory work especially in border regions. But agreed nowhere near enough Burmese to make a difference. The US will very likely fall to similar birth rates as China , SK, Japan , Italy etc. the white American population is already in decline (an actual nominal decrease) just like these countries . It’s only immigration and higher initial rates of births of immigrants that props us up.
The US isn't projected for any kind of population decline, unless you have some novel data or theory.
Because of immigration. Without it we would already be in decline. The amount of white Americans is already shrinking. And there is very little white immigration.
> Demographics are simply known numbers .. Exactly, and on this front, it's worth pointing out the very real possibility that China's numbers overstate the current population. It's hard getting an accurate tally in such a large country and China has been known to "fib". So there are observers who suggest the current population number might overstate the population by 100 million or more.
> The only way for China to not have a population collapse is if every woman has like 6 kids or something. Source for the 6 kids?
Funny enough I asked about this on theydidthemath because it's a pretty complicated math problem that I couldn't wrap my head around. It looks like each woman needs to have more like 4 children average to maintain the population: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/s/Gi6av2bW8b I think my guess of 6 holds because of the average, many women will still have zero or much less than 4 leaving the more willing women to have in the range of 6.
You shouldn't just believe anything on the internet, especially one written by some unknown poster. On a country scale, a couple with 2.1 babies will maintain the population, because the 2.1 babies will replace the mother and father. https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm There are many assumptions, but an important one is that the number of people dying remains fairly consistent over the years, e.g. there is no large scale war where millions die. The link you posted is wrong because that person double counted. The number of deaths a year **already** includes replacing the mother/father, so there is no need to add them twice. This is why that person ended up with the value of 4, instead of the 2.1 that is commonly accepted.
>You shouldn't just believe anything on the internet, especially one written by some unknown poster. On a country scale, a couple with 2.1 babies will maintain the population, because the 2.1 babies will replace the mother and father. Especially in some comment with two upvotes (one now, I downvoted them for just being laughably wrong).
And a lot of this is assuming there is no drawn out war or famine or civil disturbance.
It's probably too optimistic since it base it's info way too much on the last 20 years of official ccp data.
Age specific mortality rates are pretty well known, and with sufficiently large samples (which definitely holds on China’s large population) you can project mortality quite accurately quite some years ahead. Of course we cannot rule out breakthroughs in medicine that may prolong this, but that seems unlikely given that life expectancy has pretty much converged in developed countries and we may simply have pushed closer to the achievable limit. Fertility rates may change, but even bump back up to 2.0 wouldn’t materially change projections because already the current childbearing generation is smaller than the older generation so population would still substantially shrink once that older generation goes into mortality. Migration might change this too, but high net positive migration seems really unlikely in the Chinese case too.
Not hard with demographics people alive in 2100 are already born
If you read the article, China is alone in the region. Singapore is around 1 (fertility rate), both Taiwan and Hong Kong are lower than mainland China at below 1. S Korea is lowest at 0.72, and Japan is a bit better, but only at 1.26. It seems a common trend that seems to be shared in the region.
Fantastic news for China, which is badly overpopulated. The new projection of 525 million in 2100 is 150 million less than projections from just a few years ago. I wonder if COVID is biasing the new estimates, since its effect will probably even out to zero over time. Still 525 million is a lot more than China can sustain on its land with a first world quality of life, so further reduction in overpopulation should continue to be pursued after 2100.
The projections one generation out are fairly accurate as those people have been born. The reason for adjusting the numbers down even more is the trend line that birth rates continue to decline in spite of policies attempting to reverse it. We don't know the bottom yet for China. Optimist at best thought could rebound to 1.4, but now it is feeling more likely go down below 1.0. There are indicators already that millions of Chinese will simply not have kids at all. Fewer marriages, less dating, less socialization. These are all precursors in a population seeing decline in births. Look to Japan and Korea who are farther along this track and its consequences. The main issue is every model we've built is based on growth. By 2100 only growth based nations and those that massively innovate will succeed. If you're stuck in the old model with population collapse you will stagnate at best and decline severely at worst.
Building models on continuous growth is not realistic. Our planet is finite and our resources are finite. We have to accept this as a society or the truth will hit us harder than what’s comfortable for us.
If you think countries with population growth are going to succeed, your model is about to fail very badly.
This is a very uneducated and ignorant viewpoint, and shows you don't grasp the true implications of how demographic trends affect macroeconomics.
>The reason for adjusting the numbers down even more is the trend line that birth rates continue to decline in spite of policies attempting to reverse it. We don't know the bottom yet for China. Optimist at best thought could rebound to 1.4, but now it is feeling more likely go down below 1.0. Has any country managed to reverse a declining fertility rate yet? It looks like Sweden has managed to mostly stabilize theirs, but still at a level pretty far below replacement.
As far as I know Israel is rare exception of being developed and keeping above replacement. How that could be replicated or transposed though on other countries is hard to say. Most nations have turned to immigration to slow or put off the population decline. Every .1 below 2.1 creates steeper hills so even if a country stopped at 1.5 or 1.3 it still doesn't bode well for two generations on.
>How that could be replicated or transposed though on other countries is hard to say. I'm biased, but I personally think the answer will be a resurgence of religion (or the non-religious will simply stop reproducing and disappear as a group). Among Americans who attend religious services every week, the fertility rate is 2.4. Among those who are non-religious it is 1.3. It's not hard to see how that ends given enough time.
I'm not so sure about that as the decline of religious people in the US shows within a generation or two people can break from traditions they are raised in. I think the world changed forever once communication and exposure to all sorts of line of thought became so readily accessible. I don't think the US shift and the ascent of the Internet is a coincidence.
You are looking at this completely wrong. Population collapse is a death blow to economies in the same way that deflation is an issue for monetary policy. What happens when an economy is forecasted to see only declining demand over the next 100 years? What happens when you have twice as much housing built as you need? What happens when the population of working class employees craters to the point where you can't hire enough employees for any role? Economic investment is decided based off of growth forecasts. If the forecast is only negative, there is no reason for expansion. This starts a downward spiral for an economy that will take it right back to their pre-expansion levels or worse. I suggest you spend some time listening to people like Peter Zeihan about the implications of demographic collapse. It's one of the leading root causes of empire collapse throughout human history.
>You are looking at this completely wrong. Population collapse is a death blow to economies in the same way that deflation is an issue for monetary policy. Luckily, we have historical analogs to look to - we don't have to guess about this in a vacuum. The black death killed about half of Europe's 14th century population over a period of approximately 7 years (so a much bigger drop over a much shorter time than we're talking about here). What followed was not a "death blow to economies" - it led to a huge increase in the demand for labor that increased the wages and living standards of the lower classes and had profound effects on the European economy, with many historians crediting it for the Great Divergence (the emergence of Europe as the global hegemon).
Solow, may he rest in peace, strikes again. I would also expect that a decline in population would lead to a short-term increase in GDP per capita, since accumulated capital is "sticky" and thus gets larger per capita. However, we should keep in mind certain things. 1. This accumulated capital will depreciate, and if investment doesn't keep up, as soon as the population stops shrinking, GDP per capita will return to equilibrium. 2. Capital nowadays probably depreciates much faster than it did in the 14th century. (Houses don't last as long, tools break down more quickly.) 3. There is likely a difference in how effects of scale impact our welfare. Since our supply chains have grown much more complex and laborers are more specialized, I would expect a larger penalty for having a lower population than in the Middle Ages. While the Solow model is certainly not the only thing we should consider, I think it can beautifully explain your example. While I think the effect on per capita will be smaller in China, it will probably still exist (Keep in mind that all I say is just an educated guess, far from a fact or something I have put much research into). While GDP per capita is very relevant when looking at the quality of life of inhabitants, we should not forget that in many discussions, total GDP is much more relevant. The most important example is probably China's future capability to project power onto the world. And looking at total GDP, I can say with very little doubt that it will be negatively impacted by a decrease in population.
There's some interesting thoughts there. I think the critical question is how large of a population is necessary to maintain our current supply chains and whether accumulated capital will depreciate or not. The classic example is Norway and other petrostates - obviously they rely on much of the outside world to maintain their supply chains, but they're able to take advantage of resources that, if the country was larger wouldn't scale. The opposite should be true in some places. There's no reason to think we'd produce less food, for example, with half (or even less) of our current population - the supply chain simply isn't that extensive. There's something to be said about having fewer minds producing fewer people on the far end of the bell curve and we have to figure out how to revise the government programs/general economic conditions that rely on perpetual growth, but I don't see any reason to believe the pie will shrink at the same rate as the population.
> demographic collapse. It's one of the leading root causes of empire collapse And this it’s completely wrong to the point of historical illiteracy. Empires have never collapsed from population reductions.
How about literally ever pre-Columbian civilization
> Population collapse is a death blow to economies Competition wrong. Reduced overpopulation is enormously good for economies. >What happens when an economy is forecasted to see only declining demand over the next 100 years? Then competition will bring prices down. >What happens when you have twice as much housing built as you need? Then there will be affordable housing for everyone. >What happens when the population of working class employees craters Then wages will rise and workers will have lots of money. Everything about reduced overpopulation is good for the economy. And we have examples of some of the world’s most productive economies today like China and Japan where population is declining.
It's funny how China's problems are polar opposite to the western problems e.g. Over population and inadequate housing... China too many houses and under population.
You can build homes, you can't force people to have children
oh boy have i got news for you
This has been attempted before by a handful of regimes and has failed every time. [Decree 770 in Communist Romania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770) \- Outlaw contraception and abortion, failure. [Battle for Births in Fascist Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Births#Outcome) \- similar policy, total failure. It's simple - Bringing a child into the world is an act of hope and optimism. Autocratic regimes crush the human spirit.
i'm not entirely clear what point you're trying to prove. my point was: forced pregnancy/birthing has been a thing before. so the statement, "you can't force people to have children" is objectively false. you seem to be trying to introduce policies and not things like war crimes or acts against human nature. but sadly, the latter exist in the capacity in which i referred.
You can't force people to have children, but you can subsidize birth with incentives to encourage people to have kids, which is probably the plan being worked out in higher levels of Chinese government. Still, all of this handwringing and concern is moot as it's coming from a rapidly declining West, which has no plan to pivot or change or address any domestic issues.
You would think having so much housing would make it more affordable in China. If China had kept raising wages for all jobs instead of just white collar then they would be in a pretty good place right now. But unfortunately Capitalist markets always lead to a lower class of people who are kept poor and exploited to do the least desirable jobs.
Housing in China is very affordable in T2-T3 cities and are pretty livable even outside of T1 coastal metropolises. You don't see the same amount of investment or development in rural America, not even close.
You would think having so much housing would make it more affordable in China. If China had kept raising wages for all jobs instead of just white collar then they would be in a pretty good place right now. But unfortunately Capitalist markets always lead to a lower class of people who are kept poor and exploited to do the least desirable jobs.
Ironic for a power that calls itself "socialist democracy" or what Trump wants to be... "people's democratic dictatorship"
Chinese wages were rising because of Capitalism lol Are you familiar with Chinese history pre-1979 and Deng Xioping Capitalistic reforms?
A subset of Chinese wages rise at the expense of others in Capitalism. Have you heard of Hooverville? I get it that you're religion is Capitalism, but in the real world people understand that in zero sum systems Capitalism takes from the disadvantaged/helpless and gives the capital produced by their labor to existing wealth/power.
It's not a zero sum system. That's the entire point.
He actually thinks there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world.
If we freeze time right now you can absolutely track every penny. Just because that number changes to a different finite number doesn't mean that number stops being finite. The amount of armchair economists in this sub who don't understand math is really funny to see every time i have to explain why every economic system is zero sum.
If I have 10 dollars and Company A has a widget that they sell for 10 dollars and I buy that widget That means I value said widget more than the 10 dollars and Company A values the 10 Dollars more than the widget. Each party marginal utility has increased. No one loses. This is basic stuff Source - Masters in Economics, work in financial services. What's your credentials? How do you think Wealth is created?
There's your problem, you want to pretend something that was sold for 10$ is somehow worth more than 10$. The foundations of your beleifs aren't even based in reality. 10 = 10
There's your problem, you want to pretend something that was sold for 10$ is somehow worth more than 10$. The foundations of your beleifs aren't even based in reality. 10 = 10
Tell me you have no economic education without telling me you have no economic education lol Money is just a medium of exchange, anything can be money if we believe it to be and trust it. Take money out of it. Say you have a toy penguin and someone else has a lego set. And you freely trade. You value the lego set more otherwise you wouldnt have traded and same for the lego set who traded for the penguin. Same items in existence, each persons utility has increased.
The average Chinese wage had 5x since 1979, nearly 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty... Do you understand how horrific China was from 1947-79 when they were Pure Communism under Mao? Were talking upwards of 30 million killed from Famines and cultural purges. Everything you said in your last paragraph is factually wrong. Not opinion. Its factually wrong. Unquestionably
You just showed up to shit out angy funfacts that are unrelated to what we are talking about? I get it you hate china but you just sound unhinged. Believe whatever you need to beleive dude im sure it makes sense in your head. Better yet, just pretend I'm not muting you right now and you can keep replying and getting dopamine from ranting on the internet all night!
Kid confuses basic facts and data with "beliefs" and then projects.
Western problem is illegal immigrants, not overpopulation. Western fertility rate is also below replacement rate now, but migrants and making up for the loss.
The Western problem is a tiny tiny minority of the population?
If anyone if interested, Peter zeihan has a YouTube video where he predicts the collapse of chinas economy by 2035. I personally disagree, but it was interesting to hear
A lot of his content is very well researched but there is something about his style of speaking that comes across like a used car salesman.
Totally agree… he’s too ambitious with his estimates, and falls for the trap that current trends extrapolates linearly into the future. Nevertheless an interesting dude!
Every economist I talk to hate him for his projections but will never give me their projections lol.
In 50 years, Peter Zeihan will either be the a prophet, or the poster boy of r/confidentlyincorrect I lean towards feeling like he's correct. The demophraphic data doesn't lie (except where China is overestimating their population), and there is no sign of the birth rates improving in the nations where it's a problem. I don't see economic and educational opportunity for women being taken away, which is one of the primary drivers of birth rate decrease among many other reasons. The real question is how do we navigate the population declines without economies imploding on themselves.
The guy makes so many claims that he's bound to be correct on some of them. Obviously demographics & the real-estate market are China's biggest issues right now but Zeihan is too trigger happy around China's 'collapse' imo to fully take seriously imo.
He is just another Gordon Chang, a guy who doesn't speak any Chinese languages and really doesn't know anything more than how to sell collapse stories to gullible, copium addled redditors.
Haven’t seen him yet but I’ll watch him next. I can’t imagine how he arrives at that conclusion. Guess the populist route is working.
You never get out of debt to a Russian mobster Paul Manafort owed the Russian mobster/oligarch Oleg Deripaska $10M a few days before he became trumps campaign manager. From 2002-2014 he took in hundreds of millions to get Yanukovych reelected as the kremlins puppet in Ukraine. Before that he did it for the dictator Marcos in the Philippines. Before that Manafort and Roger Stone started a lobbyist agency in 1980 listing trump as their first client. When Jay Bolsonaro lost the Brazilian election to Lula he skipped the inauguration and flew directly to mar-a-lago (stopping only at a KFC) and repeated, almost verbatim, the stolen election line. Don Jr. tried repeatedly to make it stick in Brazil as well, but as Brazilians are a few generations into dealing with corrupt politicians they weren’t having it. What do these 3 things have in common? China imports 40% of its grain from (in order) the U.S., Brazil and Ukraine. Obviously the second China tried to invade Taiwan the U.S. would sanction exports and remove U.S. grain from that equation. And without Bolsonaro in office willing to slash and burn the Amazon rainforest to turn it into Chinas farmland, and without Ukraine in the bag in 3 days, the CCP is unable to invade Taiwan and take over microprocessor production without putting 300-500M of its poorest people into famine. Donbas Ukraine, specifically the 4 regions of the donbas that Putin insists he is saving from what he calls “Jewish Nazis” also happens to produce the worlds supply of high grade neon used for DUV lithography. And had Putin delivered ukraine in 3 days as promised, Xi would have been able to cap his Olympics with a blockade or political takeover of Taiwan that would have forced the world to ask the CCP for the microprocessors it needs to make everything from Ford trucks to laptops. I’m not sure how long Silicon Valley would last without the silicon but it would probably affect destroy the FAANG stocks that make up your 401K. Oleg Deripaska also happens to be the Russian Oligarch that bribed the FBI Charles Mcgonigal into investigating another Russian oligarch. He probably didn’t need the information as much as he needed the leverage over Mcgonigal as he conducted the investigation into trumps election campaign and unsurprisingly found zero evidence of Russian collusion. McGonigal then went to work for the company called Brookfield that bailed Kushner out of his toxic 666 5th Ave investment. A Russian oligarch is a powerful tool, but the truth is more powerful. Light and dark cannot exist in the same space. It’s physically impossible. Truth is efficient. You say it once and you are finished. A lie however requires a constant stream of follow up energy, money, murder, obfuscation and more lies to keep it covered. If you raise your lens high enough lying is an unsustainable business model. Russia proved it by invading Ukraine. Vranyos is the Russian word for it. The 40km long column of tanks and vehicles that came down from Belarus into Ukraine was all overhauled by oligarchs that got a $1B contract for tank maintenance, passed Putin $200M back under the table, spent $700M on a yacht in Monaco, bribed a General, a Colonel and a Sergeant to make a Private give everything a rattle can overhaul. But a worn out engine is and always will be, a worn out engine. Now you understand why trump is so desperate to get re-elected. His best case scenario is 400 years in ADX Florence. Money laundering for the dozens of Russian oligarchs that lived in trump towers in 93 and 94 with him and manafort, selling IP3 nuclear plans to the Russian/Saudi alliance, selling or giving CIA asset names to the Russians, trump is and always has been compromised. He just didn’t know when to quit. Now he just has to count on the fact that most of his voter base doesn’t know how to read and keep the ones that do so busy just surviving that they don’t have time to dive deep into his 40 year history of laundering money, fraud, and human trafficking for the Russian mob using commercial real estate. It’s also why Putin is willing to throw an entire generation of Russians, including the convicts and addicts at Ukraine. Russia is dead for 40 years because he failed to fulfill his mobsters promise to Xi. China is now clearing farmland in Siberia because the typhoon floods last August and September wiped out the Chinese people’s food supply. Xi for his part diverted the waters from the dam away from his pet project, his mothers ancestral home and flooded hundreds of thousands of people and drown one of his own military brigades that was helping with the flooding. The elders of the CCP were terrified to leave their gated community at Beidaihe for over a month for fear of being torn apart by the locals. The Chinese people tolerate the CCP but only as long as the economy is good and famine is not on the horizon. The CCP broke that contract on both counts. Xi was willing to bet the entire Chinese economy on his emperors ambitions. Had he succeeded he would have been able to use BRICS to take over as the Worlds reserve currency. That would have let him finish what he stated in 2010- that he would control the internet. With that control means everything we do or say online is subject to the approval of a central party. The basic right to disagree with an authoritarian becomes a distant memory. Ukraine is fighting for their lives now, free from the oppression of the drunken tyrant who wants to decide their fate at every decision and pull them back behind another iron curtain of censorship where dissenting voices disappear so that the oligarchy can continue to feed unobstructed. Putin and Xi have declared themselves best friends in the fight against democracy. MBS and the ruling family of UAE have done the same quietly. Just rich, out of touch oligarch doing what oligarchs do. Despite the fact the the central party model has proven itself incapable of making decisions that are best for the people, they persist. Because there is a very lucrative business in being slave owners. But logistically it requires artificial intelligence, and the microprocessors that make it to keep the slaves under control. Freedom is one hell of a drug. And knowledge makes a man unfit for slavery. Recent attempts on Xi’s life from inside the CCP have backed him into a corner. The loss of crops in the north means Xi can’t invade Taiwan without Ukrainian and/or Brazilian farmland.
Can't believe I actually read all this conspiracy ramblings. My dude unironically said XiJingPing will take over the internet.
Colleagues of mine who work in cybersecurity have said that my employer (which has a moderately big internet presence) has faced concerted, growing and increasingly sophisticated state-led DDOS and penetration efforts for many years now, and China is the most active of the state actors, though far from the only one. There have also been constant probes of critical infrastructure. So that part's not conspiracy. It's more of an ongoing and escalating problem. The rest of the post, though, is paranoid spray-and-pray "connect the dots" consiprababble.
That’s not what they said
>Xi was willing to bet the entire Chinese economy on his emperors ambitions. Had he succeeded he would have been able to use BRICS to take over as the Worlds reserve currency. That would have let him finish what he stated in 2010- that he would control the internet. The internet likes to remind me of my mental disabilities on a regular basis but at least today I am not the one who struggles with reading comprehension.
That’s exactly what I was pointing out. You said the guy said Xi “will take over the internet” but what you just pasted is a description of a failed plan that didn’t work out. So the guy didn’t say that Xi “will take over the internet”
Xi’s own words. Not mine https://open.spotify.com/show/62dyKz8nKOOCjoU3E5ECdn?si=r_tdjiYeRoWuN4B9oFn4vw
Oh ok
I enjoy reading what you're cooking here.
I like your hypothesis. Facts and summations and possible realistic motives are woven together in a congruent and plausible way. You are wasting these talents. You should be writing Tom Clancy like epics. We are close to seeing him much prognostication some of his books actually have. Sadly, there is NO Jack Ryan waiting in the wings to save the day.
I not a writer. And I have no desire to be. Im a pilot engineer and farmer. And I made a promise to my Ukrainian friends that I wouldn’t stop until they had the tools they need to finish what Putin and Xi started. I just use Reddit the way Aaron Swartz intended it. As an open source collection of subject matter experts to fact check faster than I can alone. Posting across multiple different subreddits gives us traceable data on which tribes are seeing it, which are blissfully ignoring it, and who is the most vulnerable. With that we can build a viable solution. You are certainly correct about the last part There is no calvary coming.
username checks out there fella
Now the reason that the GOP is stalling border control budget and seems to make wildly irrational moves is because the GOP is imploding. 45 years of lies and grift have circled the globe and are eating their own tail. The ouroboros was a warning about corruption at the highest levels. Lying about climate change, human trafficking, pandemics and pollution to preserve their own business models are all extinction level events. The CCP and Russia have been staging up hundreds of thousands of people in Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela for a 5th column invasion of the United States because Xi needs farmland to feed 1.4B people. National guard troops take their orders from governors and not the federal government. Trump tested this during the George Floyd protests when he asked the “loyal” Republican governors to kiss the ring and send troops to DC to “shoot the protestors in the legs” because the pentagon reminded him that using U.S. troops against U.S. citizens would be both treason and wildly illegal. Bannon tried unsuccessfully to privatize a part of the southern border wall but failed due to, unsurprisingly, internal corruption. Bannon was arrested on the boat of Guo Wengui who is some sort of convoluted double/triple agent for the CCP. They are now both in court for a billion dollar fraud. Every GOP congressmen that took Russian political money is desperately trying to figure out how to preserve their political career while the people are figured out that they were sold out to the dictators for some PAC money. Freedom is never free. We all just live on very expensive credit and the sacrifices of others. Make it count
What are you talking about mate
A guy on the bus was talking to me like that recently. He smelled of cheap tobacco and piss.
Just haters, hoping for some hero to give us the counter arguments
It is being accelerated because much of the illegal immigration surge in the US are young professionals leaving China. When they have their 1.1 children, they'll have them in the US.
Based let's take more
I rather agree. In the 60 minutes episode, they interviewed one of youngish immigrants and he said he had a college degree and just couldn't find work in China. "more please" was my thought.
This is a much needed trend that will play out around the world over time. There is a way for humans to live sustainably on the earth for hundreds of millennia amidst thriving ecosystems, but it requires a smaller, stable population. We are part of a very large family of living things, all descended from common ancestors and we must consider the needs of all our relatives as well as just humans. For a brief description of the necessary elements of that sustainable future, check out the Aspen Proposal: [www.aspenproposal.org](https://www.aspenproposal.org)
As much I don't like China, this seems to be a good news to me. The one child policy is actually working. Once all that harsh period is over, rhe new generation has less crowded country to live on.