Meanwhile in China

[Gatorubet 30791]

On 11/28/2022 at 2:08 PM, Nicole44 said:

Just like we’ve seen all over the world…but man how brave these people truly are. It can’t be said enough. They are brave. ❤️

 

On 11/29/2022 at 4:41 AM, Nicole44 said:

Fuck China! 

The progression when nobody wants to buy your wedding dress on eBay China. 

[FartingMonk 3630]

The spread of COVID fell right into China's lap.  They lock everything down until people fought back.  Instead of quashing the protests they said.  You know what you citizens are right.  We were too controlling.  Go roam as you please.  Huge outbreak so now they can wait and do another lockdown and tell the people see it's for your own good.  They just regained control.

[Parliament 14620]

Seems it might be too late for a lockdown.  They'll (whoever that's still alive) all have her immunity in 6 weeks.

[Schulz2.0 29303]

7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Did I hear right that China never vaccinated its population against omicron - just forever lockdown and masks? 

Their vaccine doesnt work so them being vaccinated doesnt really matter. 

[JesusSweatDuck 18169]

46 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Their vaccine doesnt work so them being vaccinated doesnt really matter. 

Correct and they won't use/allow any of the western vaccines because of political reasons.

 

Let's just hope this burns through their population with creating some super variant

[Schulz2.0 29303]

45 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

Let's just hope this burns through their population with creating some super variant

 

[wild_turkey 3300]

Airfinity expects deaths to peak on 23 January with about 25,000 a day, with cumulative deaths reaching 584,000 since December. Since 7 December, when China made its abrupt policy U-turn, authorities have officially reported just 10 Covid deaths.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/30/china-covid-experts-estimate-9000-deaths-a-day-as-us-says-it-may-sample-wastewater-from-planes

[Parliament 14620]

So the Chinese are 100% stone walling.  Just like 3 years ago.   Cool, cool.

[Gatorubet 30791]

[Parliament 14620]

And in a few weeks they'll have herd immunity.

[Schulz2.0 29303]

18 minutes ago, Parliament said:

And in a few weeks they'll have herd immunity.

The smart, wealthy Chinese should be going to western countries to get a vaccine that actually works. China is reporting 60,000 dead over the last month. It's much higher than that.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Schulz2.0

[Gatorubet 30791]

2 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The smart, wealthy Chinese should be going to western countries to get a vaccine that actually works. China is reporting 60,000 dead over the last month. It's much higher than that.

[Brisketexan 107041]

16 hours ago, Parliament said:

And in a few weeks they'll have herd immunity.

I mean....you're not entirely wrong.

Zero COVID policy + shitty vaccine = "waiting for the dam to break on infection" like this guy:

COVID breaks through in all of China, all at once.  Overwhelmed systems.  Millions die.  But....it burns SUPER hot, and pretty fast.  So, in 90 days, there's little fuel left to burn, and infections plummet.

Not a brilliant plan.  Wasn't even a "plan," really.  But it was their de facto plan.  And we're watching it play out.

[Parliament 14620]

I'm not advocating it as a practice.  Simply and observation.

We're never gonna know how many Chinese people died from this, are we?

[Gatorubet 30791]

3 hours ago, Parliament said:

I'm not advocating it as a practice.  Simply and observation.

We're never gonna know how many Chinese people died from this, are we?

https://youtu.be/yIMH50X0F-4

[JesusSweatDuck 18169]

12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

https://youtu.be/yIMH50X0F-4

 

 

[ChiTownDoc 21350]

16 hours ago, Parliament said:

I'm not advocating it as a practice.  Simply and observation.

We're never gonna know how many Chinese people died from this, are we?

It’s amazing how many people ignore how shitty covid itself is but go after the vaccine the minute they get a pimple.  These same people admit to having had covid - but their one person case study proves it was the vaccine wreaking havoc.  China is a great example of what happens with no effective vaccine.  

[bolverk 30376]

Probably too soon to say "Game over! China's fucked, y'all." But it does indeed appear that China's fucked, y'all.

Quote

 

China’s Population Falls, Heralding a Demographic Crisis
Deaths outnumbered births last year for the first time in six decades. Experts see major implications for China, its economy and the world.

HONG KONG — The world’s most populous country has reached a pivotal moment: China’s population has begun to shrink, after a steady, yearslong decline in its birthrate that experts say is irreversible.

The government said on Tuesday that 9.56 million people were born in China last year, while 10.41 million people died. It was the first time deaths had outnumbered births in China since the Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong’s failed economic experiment that led to widespread famine and death in the 1960s.

Chinese officials have tried for years to slow down the arrival of this moment, loosening a one-child policy and offering incentives to encourage families to have children. None of those policies worked. Now, facing a population decline, coupled with a long-running rise in life expectancy, the country is being thrust into a demographic crisis that will have consequences not just for China and its economy but for the world.

Indeed, data released on Tuesday showed that the Chinese economy last year had one of its worst performances since 1976, the year Mao died.

 

Quote

 

Over the last four decades, China emerged as an economic powerhouse and the world’s factory floor. The country’s evolution from widespread poverty to the world’s second-largest economy led to an increase in life expectancy that contributed to the current population decline — more people were living longer while fewer babies were being born.

That trend has hastened another worrying event: the day when China will not have enough people of working age to fuel its growth.

“In the long run, we are going to see a China the world has never seen,” said Wang Feng, a professor of sociology at the University of California at Irvine who specializes in China’s demographics. “It will no longer be the young, vibrant, growing population. We will start to appreciate China, in terms of its population, as an old and shrinking population.”

Government handouts like cash for babies and tax cuts, have failed to change the underlying fact that many young Chinese people simply do not want children.

“I can’t bear the responsibility for giving birth to a life,” said Luna Zhu, 28, who lives in Beijing with her husband. Both their parents would be willing to take care of grandchildren, and she works for a state-owned enterprise that offers a good maternity leave package. Still, Ms. Zhu is not interested in motherhood.

Births were down from 10.6 million in 2021, the sixth straight year that the number had fallen, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. China’s overall population now stands at 1.41 billion. By 2035, 400 million people in China are expected to be over 60, accounting for nearly a third of its population.

Labor shortages that will accompany China’s rapidly aging population will also reduce tax revenue and contributions to a pension system that is already under enormous pressure.

Whether the government can provide widespread access to elder care, medical services and a stable stream of income later in life will affect a long-held assumption that the Communist Party can provide a better life for its people.

 

Quote

 

The news of China’s population decline comes at a challenging time for the government in Beijing, which is dealing with the fallout from the sudden reversal last month of its zero-tolerance policy toward Covid.

The data on Tuesday showed a small increase in mortality last year, to 10.41 million deaths, compared to around 10 million in recent years, raising questions about how a recent Covid surge may have contributed to the numbers.

Last week, officials unexpectedly reported the Covid death figures for the first month after reporting single-digit daily deaths for weeks. But experts have questioned the accuracy of the new numbers — 60,000 deaths between Dec. 8 and Jan. 12.

On Tuesday, Kang Yi, the commissioner of the National Bureau of Statistics, said the Covid death figures for December had not yet been incorporated into the overall death totals for 2022.

China also on Tuesday released data that showed the depth of its economic challenges. The country’s gross domestic product, the broadest measure of its commercial vitality, grew just 2.9 percent in the last three months of the year after widespread lockdowns and the recent surge in Covid infections. Over the whole year, China’s economy grew only 3 percent, its slowest rate in nearly four decades.

This historical demographic moment was not unexpected. Chinese officials last year conceded that the country was on the verge of a population decline that would likely begin before 2025. But it came sooner than demographers, statisticians and China’s ruling Communist Party had anticipated.

China has followed a trajectory familiar to many developing countries as their economies get richer: Fertility rates fall as incomes rise and education levels increase. As the quality of life improves, people live longer.

“It’s the kind of situation that economists dream of,” said Philip O’Keefe, the director of the Aging Asia Research Hub, ARC Center of Excellence in Population Aging Research.

 

Quote

 

But the government shortened its timeline to prepare for this moment by moving too slowly to loosen restrictive birth policies as the country grew wealthier. “They could have given themselves a little more time,” said Mr. O’Keefe.

Officials have taken several steps in recent years to try to slow the decline in births. In 2016, they relaxed the “one-child” policy that had been in place for three decades, allowing families to have two children. In 2021, they raised the limit to three. Since then, Beijing has offered a range of incentives to couples and small families to encourage them to have children, including cash handouts, tax cuts and even property concessions.

These measures have not been comprehensive enough to stabilize falling birthrates or change entrenched traditional expectations of women’s roles at home, said Zheng Mu, an assistant professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore who studies fertility in China.

“When we talk about child care and the education of children, most of the time women are expected to do the work,” said Ms. Mu.

Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, recently made the country’s demographic challenges a priority, pledging “a national policy system to boost birthrates.” But in reality, experts said, China’s plunging birth figures reveal an irreversible trend.

Together with Japan and South Korea, China has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, below what demographers call the fertility replacement rate required for a population to grow. That figure would require every couple, on average, to have two children.

Meanwhile, India’s total population is poised to exceed China’s later this year, according to a recent estimate from the United Nations.

China’s decline in population would be very difficult to reverse at this stage, said Mr. O’Keefe of the University of California, Irvine.

“I don’t think there is a single country that has gone as low as China in terms of fertility rate and then bounced back to the replacement rate.”

 

Quote

 

Many young people have cited the rising cost of parenthood — including childcare — at a time when the economy is in a precarious state.

Rachel Zhang, a 33-year-old photographer in Beijing, decided before she married her husband that they would not have children. The couple have embraced a lifestyle known as “Double Income, No Kids,” a shorthand for couples in China who have decided to remain childless. Sometimes, elders in the family nag them about having a baby.

“I am firm about this,” Ms. Zhang said. “I have never had the desire to have children all along.” The growing costs of raising a child and finding an apartment in a good school district have hardened her resolve.

Other factors have contributed to such reluctance to have more children, including the burden that many younger adults face in taking care of aging parents and grandparents.

China’s strict “zero Covid” policy — nearly three years of mass testing, quarantines and lockdowns, resulting in some families being separated for long periods of time — may have led even more people to decide against having children.

For Ms. Zhu, who got married five years ago, the pandemic has clarified her decision not to have kids.

“Especially over the past three years of the epidemic,” Ms. Zhu said, “I feel that many things are so hard.”

 

 

[Brisketexan 107041]

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Probably too soon to say "Game over! China's fucked, y'all." But it does indeed appear that China's fucked, y'all.

 

Listened to a bit on this on NPR.  It seems that COVID accelerated China reaching a declining population by a couple of years (and, it may experience a slight bounce as it emerges from COVID, but we'll see).

Family member of ours is an East Asia expert who has worked at very high levels of the US Gov't, and he's been super-bearish on China's prospects, due to demography, for years now.  And he's only getting firmer in his assessment.  Of course, there's another level of concern -- that creates stress in China, and stress is destabilizing, and instability creates chaos risk.  A desperate and suffering China, while some of us may viscerally "enjoy" it, is not necessarily a good outcome for the region or the world.

How to address that?  No f'n idea.  What our relationship with China can and should look like going forward is going to be a moving target, and needs to be deliberate and thoughtful, and NOT emotional (like "fuck China!" or "Chinese people are our friends!").

[bolverk 30376]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Listened to a bit on this on NPR.  It seems that COVID accelerated China reaching a declining population by a couple of years (and, it may experience a slight bounce as it emerges from COVID, but we'll see).

Family member of ours is an East Asia expert who has worked at very high levels of the US Gov't, and he's been super-bearish on China's prospects, due to demography, for years now.  And he's only getting firmer in his assessment.  Of course, there's another level of concern -- that creates stress in China, and stress is destabilizing, and instability creates chaos risk.  A desperate and suffering China, while some of us may viscerally "enjoy" it, is not necessarily a good outcome for the region or the world.

How to address that?  No f'n idea.  What our relationship with China can and should look like going forward is going to be a moving target, and needs to be deliberate and thoughtful, and NOT emotional (like "fuck China!" or "Chinese people are our friends!").

I hear you and agree. One not-so-shining example of how it might work for an autocracy riding down the demographic slide can be seen in the war thread. I, personally, wouldn't want to be one of China's neighbors when/if they start to getting desperate in a few years. But for those of us, like you and me, who've been arguing for years that the US should be encouraging to focus on near-shoring their supply chains to Mexico and Central America, it could do wonders for economic prospects and stability in our neighborhood. 

[Brisketexan 107041]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

I hear you and agree. One not-so-shining example of how it might work for an autocracy riding down the demographic slide can be seen in the war thread. I, personally, wouldn't want to be one of China's neighbors when/if they start to getting desperate in a few years. But for those of us, like you and me, who've been arguing for years that the US should be encouraging to focus on near-shoring their supply chains to Mexico and Central America, it could do wonders for economic prospects and stability in our neighborhood. 

Understood and agreed.  And you know I am a big fan of near-shoring.  But by the same token, yanking the whole economic rug out from under China, and telling them "go back to being a nation of starving rural rice farmers" ain't gonna be helpful.  China will NOT go back.  They MUST have some functional economic foundation that remains, in the interest of maintaining regional and global stability.  You may not like it, you may not think they "deserve it," but it is in OUR interest for them to have a functioning economic foundation.  For the same reason that it's in our interest for our neighbors in Latin America to have functioning economies and local stability (which they are still missing).  That's realpolitik.

[Schulz2.0 29303]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understood and agreed.  And you know I am a big fan of near-shoring.  But by the same token, yanking the whole economic rug out from under China, and telling them "go back to being a nation of starving rural rice farmers" ain't gonna be helpful.  China will NOT go back.  They MUST have some functional economic foundation that remains, in the interest of maintaining regional and global stability.  You may not like it, you may not think they "deserve it," but it is in OUR interest for them to have a functioning economic foundation.  For the same reason that it's in our interest for our neighbors in Latin America to have functioning economies and local stability (which they are still missing).  That's realpolitik.

[Samson's Wig 3230]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understood and agreed.  And you know I am a big fan of near-shoring.  But by the same token, yanking the whole economic rug out from under China, and telling them "go back to being a nation of starving rural rice farmers" ain't gonna be helpful.  China will NOT go back.  They MUST have some functional economic foundation that remains, in the interest of maintaining regional and global stability.  You may not like it, you may not think they "deserve it," but it is in OUR interest for them to have a functioning economic foundation.  For the same reason that it's in our interest for our neighbors in Latin America to have functioning economies and local stability (which they are still missing).  That's realpolitik.

I agree with this, but don't think there's a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.  They're going to crater, and we can't force western companies to continue manufacturing there to prop them up. It will ultimately be up to them to save themselves, and a communist government is damn near incapable of such a thing.  When you stifle competition, and therefore innovation, you're left with a bunch of ass licking bureaucrats to come up with new ways to spark economic growth.  Good luck with that.  In the end, the U.S. will likely just prop them up financially to avoid the fallout, and American taxpayers are not going to like it one bit.  That's when Trump Jr. seizes his opportunity and we get to relive the 2010's all over again.   Letting China fall apart doesn't sound so bad when you think about it. 

[Brisketexan 107041]

5 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Counterpoint.....FA, FO.  A hard landing for China sends up a lot of debris, some of which would hit us and hurt.  There are things that can be done -- but finding the sweetspot will be a bitch, and functionally impossible.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Brisketexan

[bolverk 30376]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understood and agreed.  And you know I am a big fan of near-shoring.  But by the same token, yanking the whole economic rug out from under China, and telling them "go back to being a nation of starving rural rice farmers" ain't gonna be helpful.  China will NOT go back.  They MUST have some functional economic foundation that remains, in the interest of maintaining regional and global stability.  You may not like it, you may not think they "deserve it," but it is in OUR interest for them to have a functioning economic foundation.  For the same reason that it's in our interest for our neighbors in Latin America to have functioning economies and local stability (which they are still missing).  That's realpolitik.

Preaching to the choir, man.

One way on how to "fix it," I think, is what the Party's economic planners were trying to accomplish a few years ago, which was to stimulate domestic consumer demand and become less reliant on exports. Not sure how far they got with that, and I think it's still a somewhat viable solution to their problem, but they may have waited a little too long on that front.

Obviously, I'm not a China expert, but I'm hoping they can manage the transition away from export-growth-at-all-costs to building up internal demand to leverage what wealth they've gained. They still have a shit load of domestic consumers (and will for a long, long time). Of course, a big part of that is making sure they have a healthy middle class, which they've likely achieved in the bigger cities. But, man, I can imagine that the brunt of this demographic decline will be brutal in their rural areas.

[Pods 7638]

It's honestly surprising more companies haven't moved on their own sooner. They lose enormous amounts of money and market share to Chinese intellectual property theft.

China has spent decades now blatantly ripping off our science and intellectual property. In exchange, we get a more competent Chinese military and a whole lot of cheaper, shittier, counterfeit and knockoff products on Amazon.

We need to stop funding our adversaries. The sooner we move our manufacturing back to our hemisphere the better.  

Edited January 17, 2023 by Pods

[RollLeft 5092]

13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Preaching to the choir, man.

One way on how to "fix it," I think, is what the Party's economic planners were trying to accomplish a few years ago, which was to stimulate domestic consumer demand and become less reliant on exports. Not sure how far they got with that, and I think it's still a somewhat viable solution to their problem, but they may have waited a little too long on that front.

Obviously, I'm not a China expert, but I'm hoping they can manage the transition away from export-growth-at-all-costs to building up internal demand to leverage what wealth they've gained. They still have a shit load of domestic consumers (and will for a long, long time). Of course, a big part of that is making sure they have a healthy middle class, which they've likely achieved in the bigger cities. But, man, I can imagine that the brunt of this demographic decline will be brutal in their rural areas.

So more porn sites.  Got it. 

[Brisketexan 107041]

10 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Preaching to the choir, man.

One way on how to "fix it," I think, is what the Party's economic planners were trying to accomplish a few years ago, which was to stimulate domestic consumer demand and become less reliant on exports. Not sure how far they got with that, and I think it's still a somewhat viable solution to their problem, but they may have waited a little too long on that front.

Obviously, I'm not a China expert, but I'm hoping they can manage the transition away from export-growth-at-all-costs to building up internal demand to leverage what wealth they've gained. They still have a shit load of domestic consumers (and will for a long, long time). Of course, a big part of that is making sure they have a healthy middle class, which they've likely achieved in the bigger cities. But, man, I can imagine that the brunt of this demographic decline will be brutal in their rural areas.

It even goes a layer deeper - Chinese consumers need to learn how to be middle class and consumers.  I've shared the story before about being in Montreal at one of the stores operated by First Nations (so, selling ivory, furs, and other luxury items).  We walk in and browse, and there are large wooden crates inside the store, with Chinese lettering.  And there are Chinese tourists literally grabbing ARMFULS of furs off the racks and shoving them in the crates.  Just gluttony of consumption/spending for the same of consumption.  It was "new money" on a massive scale, and it was truly disgusting to watch.  China is going to have to work on instilling some responsible consumership (good luck with that -- we ain't doing great on it here) to avoid real anger and unrest.  Being unable to go to Montreal and buy $50k worth of furs is not an impairment of one's quality of life, so China needs to temper expectations of the masses.  Likewise, having your standard of living fall from "own a car and have a livable flat in the city" to "return to hut in the starving village" won't be acceptable, either.

1 minute ago, RollLeft said:

So more porn sites.  Got it. 

That's a baseline assumption.  In terms of economic planning, it's like the free space in the middle of the bingo card.  Duh.

[BabaYaga 15632]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And there are Chinese tourists literally grabbing ARMFULS of furs off the racks and shoving them in the crates. 

Chinese are huge into furs and COVID shut down a shit ton of their farms, especially mink.  It may be gluttony, or it might be someone looking at a lucrative re-sale market in a country that still has the appetite for the goods?

[Brisketexan 107041]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Chinese are huge into furs and COVID shut down a shit ton of their farms, especially mink.  It may be gluttony, or it might be someone looking at a lucrative re-sale market in a country that still has the appetite for the goods?

Fair point, but this was pre-COVID.

[bolverk 30376]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Chinese are huge into furs and COVID shut down a shit ton of their farms, especially mink.  It may be gluttony, or it might be someone looking at a lucrative re-sale market in a country that still has the appetite for the goods?

That's an interesting bit of info I hadn't heard before. Again, I don't really know shit about China other than what I read in the paper or on this site. 

And to get at @Brisketexan's point about responsible consumerism, I recall back in the early 90s one big point of discussion in a political economy or international studies class was one that questioned our assumptions about the linkage between democracy and middle class consumerism and whether that was possible in an autocratic country.

The question was being raised at an interesting moment, given it was at the end of the Cold War, and I'm sure there's been further study in the subsequent 30 years (oh dear god, I'm old), but I don't know the answer since my career led in a different direction than I'd been planning at the time. 

[BabaYaga 15632]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fair point, but this was pre-COVID.

Pre-Covid.....here.....;)

[Hate 20260]

Can't they get the furs and everything else that goes with it at one of their wet markets?

[BabaYaga 15632]

29 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I recall back in the early 90s one big point of discussion in a political economy or international studies class was one that questioned our assumptions about the linkage between democracy and middle class consumerism and whether that was possible in an autocratic country.

Possible - sure?  Probable? I'd think less likely unless you are directly tied in with the state itself.  Even today virtually every Chinese business has ties to the CCP.  If you do business in China, you are doing business with the CCP.  It's crony-capitalism to the 9th degree.  Think of the Chinese political system as a giant mafia-style cartel 

[bolverk 30376]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Possible - sure?  Probable? I'd think less likely unless you are directly tied in with the state itself.  Even today virtually every Chinese business has ties to the CCP.  If you do business in China, you are doing business with the CCP.  It's crony-capitalism to the 9th degree.  Think of the Chinese political system as a giant mafia-style cartel 

Ultimately, I think you're right on that count. It's kind of in the nature of one-party systems.

After further reflection, the lecture was in the context of why East Asian nations, like Japan, Taiwan, & South Korea were emerging (again early 90s) as economic powerhouses even though they were one-party systems. Taiwan and South Korea were only fledgling democracies back then in comparison to much of Latin America which was arguably more democratic. I'm not sure that was actually true at face value, but that was the argument being made along the lines of which was the necessary precondition for the other: strong democracy and institutions or strong economy with shared prosperity?

I'm sure these policy debates are still raging in the IR world. Maybe @956 Worldwide could weigh in, but I don't want to push the conversation too far afield but bring it back to home on China's prospects. 

[956 Worldwide 35602]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Ultimately, I think you're right on that count. It's kind of in the nature of one-party systems.

After further reflection, the lecture was in the context of why East Asian nations, like Japan, Taiwan, & South Korea were emerging (again early 90s) as economic powerhouses even though they were one-party systems. Taiwan and South Korea were only fledgling democracies back then in comparison to much of Latin America which was arguably more democratic. I'm not sure that was actually true at face value, but that was the argument being made along the lines of which was the necessary precondition for the other: strong democracy and institutions or strong economy with shared prosperity?

I'm sure these policy debates are still raging in the IR world. Maybe @956 Worldwide could weigh in, but I don't want to push the conversation too far afield but bring it back to home on China's prospects. 

Yeah, there were two theories bouncing around and China is a sparkling counter-example. 
 

The first was along the lines of what you describe: A nation that builds a strong enough middle class will create a population that wants security and predictability and the rule of law, which will lead to demands for liberalization and democratization. 
 

The second was that China would profit from and become invested in a rules-based international order led by the United States and would be a responsible player with an interest in maintaining the system. 
 

What we’ve seen is an authoritarian regime mostly successfully cast THEMSELVES as the guarantor of stability and prosperity at home, while demanding a revision to the international rules such that they are the leaders.

[Brisketexan 107041]

25 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Yeah, there were two theories bouncing around and China is a sparkling counter-example. 
 

The first was along the lines of what you describe: A nation that builds a strong enough middle class will create a population that wants security and predictability and the rule of law, which will lead to demands for liberalization and democratization. 
 

The second was that China would profit from and become invested in a rules-based international order led by the United States and would be a responsible player with an interest in maintaining the system. 
 

What we’ve seen is an authoritarian regime mostly successfully cast THEMSELVES as the guarantor of stability and prosperity at home, while demanding a revision to the international rules such that they are the leaders.

Good post.  The lesson being that "experiencing the fruits of liberalization and economic prosperity will only take a people so far so long as there is a sufficiently entrenched authoritarian regime."

A corollary of it is also "doesn't matter how many McDonalds and nice stores you open.....once a serf/peasant, always a serf/peasant."  Also known as the Russian Rule.

[Gatorubet 30791]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It even goes a layer deeper - Chinese consumers need to learn how to be middle class and consumers.  I've shared the story before about being in Montreal at one of the stores operated by First Nations (so, selling ivory, furs, and other luxury items).  We walk in and browse, and there are large wooden crates inside the store, with Chinese lettering.  And there are Chinese tourists literally grabbing ARMFULS of furs off the racks and shoving them in the crates.  Just gluttony of consumption/spending for the same of consumption.  It was "new money" on a massive scale, and it was truly disgusting to watch.  China is going to have to work on instilling some responsible consumership (good luck with that -- we ain't doing great on it here) to avoid real anger and unrest.  Being unable to go to Montreal and buy $50k worth of furs is not an impairment of one's quality of life, so China needs to temper expectations of the masses.  Likewise, having your standard of living fall from "own a car and have a livable flat in the city" to "return to hut in the starving village" won't be acceptable, either.

That's a baseline assumption.  In terms of economic planning, it's like the free space in the middle of the bingo card.  Duh.

[atomheartbevo 90682]

7 hours ago, bolverk said:

Probably too soon to say "Game over! China's fucked, y'all." But it does indeed appear that China's fucked, y'all.

Somewhere, Peter Zeihan is furiously masturbating over this news,

[Schulz2.0 29303]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint.....FA, FO.  A hard landing for China sends up a lot of debris, some of which would hit us and hurt.  There are things that can be done -- but finding the sweetspot will be a bitch, and functionally impossible.

My counterpoint is that their demographics are going to fuck their economy and ability to support large scale manufacturing. China made a couple poor decisions over the decades in regards to family sizes (have a ton of kids followed by the one child policy) that are coming home to roost. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Schulz2.0

[Parliament 14620]

53 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Somewhere, Peter Zeihan is furiously masturbating over this news,

I like that guy, and generally agree with him.  But he needs to take 10-20٪ off the top.  Things aren't as dramatic or inevitable as he says.

[Brisketexan 107041]

I like that guy, and generally agree with him.  But he needs to take 10-20٪ off the top.  Things aren't as dramatic or inevitable as he says.

I dunno. His rant on how much OU sucks seems understated.

[ChiTownDoc 21350]

7 hours ago, Pods said:

It's honestly surprising more companies haven't moved on their own sooner. They lose enormous amounts of money and market share to Chinese intellectual property theft.

China has spent decades now blatantly ripping off our science and intellectual property. In exchange, we get a more competent Chinese military and a whole lot of cheaper, shittier, counterfeit and knockoff products on Amazon.

We need to stop funding our adversaries. The sooner we move our manufacturing back to our hemisphere the better.  

It runs much deeper than most of us know.  For example for years China would steal our NIH research from hospitals.  Our govt gives 10's of billions of dollars for research.  China, under the guise of wanting to help their poor people, invites American scientists and C suite level execs and pay absurd amounts of money for 'collaboration' then basically steal shit for pennies on the dollar.  We worked with Moffitt Cancer Centers and their CEO was all about getting us plenty of 'amazing' work and what would be a very nice check to go 'consult' with him out there.  Well we politely declined then a couple years later he was shitcanned...I mean he 'resigned'.  This is not the exception - it has happened all over the place in many industries.  

Alan List has resigned as CEO of Moffitt Cancer Center. His departure is one of several related to what the prominent facility, in a statement, calls “violations of conflict of interest rules through their work in China."

[atomheartbevo 90682]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

I like that guy, and generally agree with him.  But he needs to take 10-20٪ off the top.  Things aren't as dramatic or inevitable as he says.

[Bigbend1812 13063]

[Parliament 14620]

12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Somewhere, Peter Zeihan is furiously masturbating over this news,

 

11 hours ago, Parliament said:

I like that guy, and generally agree with him.  But he needs to take 10-20٪ off the top.  Things aren't as dramatic or inevitable as he says.

Let's be clear, though.  This is a data point (just one so far) that suggests he's right.  I think we can presume they'll lose population in 2023 as well? And who knows what kinda plagues are gonna run rampant in 2024.

 

[BabaYaga 15632]

13 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

My counterpoint is that their demographics are going to fuck their economy and ability to support large scale manufacturing. China made a couple poor decisions over the decades in regards to family sizes (have a ton of kids followed by the one child policy) that are coming home to roost. 

They'll airdrop cartons of viagra over the entire country if they have to - it's a problem, but something that is going to ultimately cripple them.  

Take Tik Tok - Chinese spyware, we all know this.  The version available in China is also very different from the version here.  Shuts off at night for kids.  Massive focus on science, technology, development, education.  

Quote

“It’s almost like they recognize that technology is influencing kids’ development, and they make their domestic version a spinach version of TikTok, while they ship the opium version to the rest of the world,” Tristan Harris, a former Google employee, and advocate for social media ethics, said of China’s approach to TikTok.

“If you’re under 14 years old, they show you science experiments you can do at home, museum exhibits, patriotism videos and educational videos,” said Harris, according to “60 Minutes,” adding that children in China were limited to only 40 minutes a day on the app.

 

[BabaYaga 15632]

16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Good post.  The lesson being that "experiencing the fruits of liberalization and economic prosperity will only take a people so far so long as there is a sufficiently entrenched authoritarian regime."

A corollary of it is also "doesn't matter how many McDonalds and nice stores you open.....once a serf/peasant, always a serf/peasant."  Also known as the Russian Rule.

Yep.  Take a look at their natural resource situation.  Mexico, like so many other LA countries nationalizes everything and then shit the bed.  Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil.  Many others

To compare the two, any outside investment in China is under the thumb with the CCP.  In Mexico, it's the cartels.  Crony capitalism and corruption are rampant.

Further, you could make the claim that most large companies hate competition.  If they are investing, arguably the best way to ensure a return is the grease the existing wheels....meaning exacerbating the current authoritarian systems that pick winners and losers.  A lack of stability, financial transparency, and a weak legal system to enforce laws/contracts is a significant barrier to entry for smaller investors.  The "WalMart Effect" on a national scale.  Huge companies driving smaller ones out of business while benefitting from the status quo.  

[Schulz2.0 29303]

27 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

They'll airdrop cartons of viagra over the entire country if they have to - it's a problem, but something that is going to ultimately cripple them. 

 

That's not how demographics work. It takes 18-22 years to produce an adult that joins the workforce. Families in China are still mainly having zero or one child. The factors aren't all that different than other industrialized countries. Kids are expensive. It's hard for women to rejoin the workforce or have any life when they have kids, especially more than one. Also for China, most adults are an only child and are expected to take care of their elderly parents.

 

[BabaYaga 15632]

20 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

That's not how demographics work. It takes 18-22 years to produce an adult that joins the workforce. Families in China are still mainly having zero or one child. The factors aren't all that different than other industrialized countries. Kids are expensive. It's hard for women to rejoin the workforce or have any life when they have kids, especially more than one. Also for China, most adults are an only child and are expected to take care of their elderly parents.

 

I get all that - I just mean the state will step in and force draconian measures to ensure a desired outcome, as they did with the one child policy.  For the Uyghurs, for example to forbid procreating they had CCP reps live in their houses to ensure no babies were made.  I could see them simply reversing this if they were desperate enough.

Ore they could hire me.  I'll create dozens of little Yag's all over the place.  Just turn me loose.