Cultural Imperial posted:

That's why I find this topic fascinating. China's gone from an agrarian medieval society to 21st century economic titan in the span of 60 years.

How long did it take America?

Slaan posted:

There have been detailed maps of most of China since like 4000 BCE...

Ardennes posted:

That also has the effect of not having an indigenous base of knowledge to call back on to make your own revolutionary improvements.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

If graft goes unpunished people will do it regardless of their salary.

FrozenVent posted:

Are you saying that the average household income in Chian is one hundred and twenty thousands United States Dollars per year?

Because I don't think that's right.

OwlBot 2000 posted:

What happens when everything collapses, does China blame the market and start rolling back liberalization measures?

icantfindaname posted:

Just to be clear, there is no real chance of political liberalization regardless of what happens, right? Like the scenario required for the Chinese government to actually change here would be basically apocalyptic, correct?

icantfindaname posted:

So just how fundamental to China's economy is corruption? My impression so far is that local party politicians have their fingers in essentially all levels of the economy, and basically interfere in order to enrich themselves and curry political favor. Is this sustainable in the sense that it can coexist with healthy economic growth or is it slowly veering China's economy off track with perverse incentives? Is this one of those questions where nobody really knows the answer and you just have to wait and find out?

Oracle posted:

But India's a democracy!

Eletriarnation posted:

Well, I've heard it stated that America uses 25% of the world's energy with 5% of the population. Given where most of our energy comes from, using 5 times as much of it globally seems pretty perilous if it were even possible.

TheBalor posted:

Unfortunately, plains agriculture isn't something that can be relied on in the long term. Most of the plains are reliant on aquifers to irrigate, and these are all being drained at a rapid clip.

TheBalor posted:

Christ, are people reading my posts at all, or just banging their faces against reply? That's exactly what I'm saying! I'm not saying that Californians will be starving, I'm saying Chinese people will!

whatever7 posted:

I read in one of the economy lecture that the forecoming global warming (something like 2-3 degrees in the next 80 years) will be bad for Europe and subcontinent but benefitial to countries like US and China.

Fojar38 posted:

I don't know enough about China's geography but isn't most of China's farmland in the south?

pedro0930 posted:

I read that as "not beneficial, but not as bad as one might imagine."

I am not certain, but I thought the point of the 3 degrees raise in temperature is that it will be the point of no return where a bunch of terrible stuff well start to cascade and self-reinforcing to the point where human action will pale in comparison?

Kassad posted:

Will we? I thought the effects of climate change were only going to become really obvious by 2100 or so.

Edit: Well, maybe a decade or two earlier than that but I was born in 1985.

Claverjoe posted:

If you said less labor-intensive instead of less relevant, I'd be happy to agree with you. Can't agree with the thought that knowing where food is coming from for 7 billion people isn't important.

icantfindaname posted:

Industrial society and modernism have been around for a bit, I don't think this is ascribable to that when it doesn't seem to happen in any other developed country

icantfindaname posted:

So why exactly don't they just reform the hukou or whatever? It's not like it would be hard to do, just change the law so municipal services are based on residency. What benefit is there for that outweighs the drawbacks? Is it convenient for municipalities and local politicians?

icantfindaname posted:

Isn't the hukou at least partly responsible for the housing crisis there because so much housing is under the table because there aren't enough official registrations to go around? Like is it actually effective at slowing down the migration to cities or is it still happening just with no way to otherwise control or regulate it?

quote:

Figures from the National Bureau of Statistics show that in 2012 the average monthly wage of a migrant worker was just 2290 yuan compared to 3897 yuan for permanent urban residents. Migrant workers also save a far higher percentage of their income than permanent residents due to the lack of a social safety net. Their savings rate is 50 percent of income compared to 30 percent for permanent urban households. In terms of home ownership the disparity is even greater. A 2011 survey showed that just 0.7 percent of migrants had purchased a home in their adopted cities. This compares with a permanent resident rate of typically between 60 and 80 percent.

icantfindaname posted:

Surely at least some of them want to remain there, otherwise why would black market housing be such a big thing? Isn't part of the problem with housing there that housing is built that nobody is buying? Wouldn't getting rid of hukou restrictions mean more people could legally buy housing? Or is the overbuilt housing a different problem?

golden bubble posted:

Either larger parts of the world need to stay oppressed and poor, or the western lifestyle needs to find a way to consume/waste less stuff.

Mozi posted:

"Not enough resources" + "Too many people" = I hope nobody's patented my 'soylent' idea yet.

Vesi posted:

This in addition to a proper social safety net with chinese characteristics to reduce reliance on family should do it.

whatever7 posted:

When China's GDP get close to the United States' GDP, there will be all kind of accounting tricks go into effect to lower the reported number. There is a Chinese saying "The bird that stick its neck out gets shot."

Grouchio posted:

At this rate I'd give the current Communist regime...oh...20-30 years before it implodes into a democracy centered in Hong Kong minus TIbet and Uighuristan. Given that the retirement of the revolutionary generation causes massive socioeconomic upheval.

RocknRollaAyatollah posted:

China, as well as the other countries in East Asia, pad their employment statistics. This leads to inefficiency because businesses over hire and do not use many of the automation techniques most post industrial societies use. Automation and greater integration of computers would streamline production and probably up productivity. It would mean less jobs and corruption though so it will never happen until the population begins to decline. This is all theoretical too because Japan still operates on this model despite it being pointed out that it's not going to work anymore. Experts are saying the population should drop below 1 billion by 2050 but I've also read that China doesn't want this to happen for some reason. A net population drop is a good thing for China and would only increase its production levels.

dilbertschalter posted:

The second point you raise is a very real problem, the first is just CPC style scaremongering.

ocrumsprug posted:

There has been a Khalistan independence movement for decades, and has resulted in some fairly terrible acts of terrorism of the years.

FrozenVent posted:

India's basically China without the veneer of propaganda, and the ridiculous growth rate fueled by a command economy.

quote:

Percentage Urban
2011 2025 2050
50.6 65.4 77.3 China
31.3 37.2 51.7 India

My Imaginary GF posted:

Chinese economics question: Say you're a provincial official with a good unreported revenue stream. What are the investment and banking options open to you?

Fojar38 posted:

This plays a significant part in it. There's a narrative that's been permeated everywhere since the 2008 Financial Crisis that developing economies will soon be the masters of the world and that America and the West are in decline. There are a ton of true believers in this, particularly in countries like Russia and China and I suspect that plays no small part in why they've both acted far more belligerent as of late.

icantfindaname posted:

Pretty much, yes. They don't invade each other and, at least recently, don't put up massive trade barriers

icantfindaname posted:

Do you have any examples of democracies that don't agree with the "West", or have consistently pursued a policy of military aggression towards it?

icantfindaname posted:

The "the West sucks" narrative is bullshit pushed by the CCP as a justification for political control, HTH. There aren't actually any democracies hostile to the West, even countries like Iran mostly just want to be left alone and don't have any fundamental beef

icantfindaname posted:

I think democracies tend more towards isolationism than anything

icantfindaname posted:

Well, the US is far and away the preeminent world power, and faced essentially no consequences of any kind for its militarism, which isn't true for other countries. If China went to war over the SCS and was embargoed by the rest of the world it would be hurt very badly. China has nothing to gain by picking a fight with the US, or even with Vietnam or the Philippines, and a democratic government would take actions that reflect that.

quote:

I think the point is basically that democracies are a much better guarantee of good government.

Poil posted:

Let me see if I got this straight.

A large portion of the Chinese economy is made up of constructing and producing things no one actually buys or uses. And they pay for this by taking loans that aren't regulated. On top off that all of the numbers they have, and presumably also base decisions off of to some extent, are so fudged the whole country could look like Detroit and still be in an economic growth? Please tell me I'm understanding this wrong.