China or America's century? - Page 3

Future Cities · November 28th, 2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by null

China isn't an ambitious nation either.

Lenovo, Huawei, Baosteel, ICBC, Hutchison Whampoa, SIAC Motor..etc disagree with you.

Bannor · November 28th, 2012, 01:36 AM

Crissb: think incentives... After all thats how some countries in europe has managed to increase the rate. Incentives like kindergardens and moneytary handouts. ALthough I suppose you are german, so taking history into account, you are not so good in this. Which is kind of Germany's biggest problem within europe too. France and Scandinavia does it right, but more can be done.

However, I get where you are headed Crissb, but that is also why I don't consider the 1 child prolicy to have been a misstake untill now. And I consider India not having adapted it to have been a huge misstake by them. But, it is about time to change politics now for so many reasons in China. I think Indias problem is that they will hit a wall in population where the lowest low fertility rate will drop to 0.5 in some cities like mumbai and delhi for perhaps even a decade. And we are approaching that wall long before they get rich. The doomsday scenario for India that may very well happen is if they attain Philippino failed state problems with continuous high tfr, and where just more and more people die on the streets, or on the dumps. And things are headed that way as I see it.

Chrissib · November 28th, 2012, 02:29 AM

Incentives, yes, they can raise the fertility rate by maybe 0.5 children if we are optimistic but in most cases not more. Only very few countries were able to raise their fertility by 0.5 children after the end of the baby boom. And the difference is that these nations never had antinatalist policies like the Asian countries so the population was much more likely to accept the incentives. In Asian nations many people grew up with antinatalist policies and were indoctrinated that their countries were overpopulated etc. To change that mindset will take many decades and it will be even harder for China as china had the strictest antinatalist policy that has ever been imposed in history. So you can't expect the Chinese to instantly take a 180° turn of the government serious and accept the incentives.

Singapore for example is the most active nation developing new incentives for families in Asia, but their fertility stays very low (1.1 for Indians and Chinese, 1.6 for Malays). Another "problem" (only demographically) is that Chinese are very education oriented and try to equip their children with very much education so that they can compete with the children of other people. Since such education (special courses or cram schools etc.) is very expensive, many people simply cannot afford to have more than one or two children.

The last factor is simply the crowdedness of cities. Chinese cities consist mostly of appartement buildings whereas in Scandinavia or France you have huge suburban areas with single family housing. Individual houses are by the most peopel judged as more family friendly, so typically people living in single family homes have more children than people living in appartements. So China to increase the fertility rate should encourage more family friendly housing. Because of the lack of space European style suburbs may not be a good choice but rowhomes like around Kuala Lumpur may be a solution. The density of rowhomes is not much lower than the current Chinese model of highrises with much greenery around it.

onosqaciw · November 28th, 2012, 04:53 AM

so do you think at what year china should abandoning it's 1 child policy ?

zaphod · November 28th, 2012, 05:17 AM

I think people forget history. It's not like in 1776 the US magically became this perfect democracy where everyone was free, even if some white males could vote. And we've always been more about representative politics. Populism is a curse everywhere.

Don't forget government used to control trade and exports, appropriated basically all the land from sea to sea to redistribute to settlers, railroads, and industry, censored the press and regulated what could be sent in the mail, we had central banking experiments, political crises, etc. Pretty much every big important thing was indirectly built by Uncle Sam. Was the great leap forward worse than what became of the Indians, or the cultural revolution worse than the Civil War and Reconstruction? It took literally 200 years, until the civil rights movement in the 60s and deregulation and a liberal supreme court in 70s, for the US to really, really, truly become a free country.

This could also go for pretty much every other western country.

Still, it doesn't mean these things are harmless, and real progress was always made by innovators and free entrepreneurs, or activists who needed to upset the status quo. And all the common people working in factories or on farms or fighting in the military, that was never about nationalism, self-sacrifice or patriotism(or "Asian values", same fucking myth), a realist would recognize that everyone is selfish and wants their paycheck. Sometime 100 years ago my ancestors came to the US from eastern Europe because they were draft dodgers and didn't want to pay taxes, not for any noble reason. I'm sure Chinese or "Eastern" people are the same even if they pretend to be conformist.

The element of democracy made the government's power decentralized enough to keep it out of the way and kept the system from becoming too "extractive", as it was in Latin America and Africa.

I hope in the future the world is not dominated by the US, or China, but rather becomes more poly-centric exactly for this reason. If one place has stupid laws, those driving the future can migrate away. I don't think another era of a single superpower, or a one world government, would create peace and prosperity.

Bannor · November 28th, 2012, 05:20 AM

Crissb, I agree with you to some extent, and especially on housing. East asian apartments in general also has way too few rooms. When they build family houses with 2 or 3 bedrooms, you won't need a masters degree to understand that that reduces the rate of large families with more than 1 or 2 kids. However, I am not sure it is a given that just by living in highrises, people have less kids, but having more kids is deffinately a mentality issue as well in China today. Like you mention. One thing they can do in China is to knock down some walls in between the apartments in order to make room for larger families, and in general build more public apartments with 4 bedrooms. That would be an incentive by itself to get more kids.

When it comes to Singapore, I discussed this with a public bureocrat (in Singapore) last year. And they are trying to make incentives. However, it is not anything like how we do it in Scandinavia or France. The problem is that the workhours in Singapore surpassed that of Japan in 2010 (becomming the country in the world working the most), and at the same time the tfr rate dropped down to a then all time low of 1.16. Coincident? I think not! What needs to be done is to implement workinghours from 9 to 4 like we have here. In France they even have had pilot projects of reducing the hours of work even more in order to increase the birth rate. It was only voted against because in the end the workers got less payed. But this is a destructive system like we have it today when that means that we are just getting a 10% unemployment rate instead like they have in France now. Might just as well reduce the workhours a bit more and employ another 7%. China will reach that point as well. In Singapore the general mentality is that you as a worker should stay at work as long as your boss is present. Even if it means that all you need to do is to play Xbox in the creative room... so, less time for the kids and your wife. Not very well thought through.

onosqaciw: they should probably remove the 1 child policy today. Adopt a 2 child policy for another 3 years while public housing apartments catches up. Then remove it alltogether, and then after 3 additional years adopt incentives to get 2, 3 and 4 kids. Because the demographic pyramid of China is starting to look grim. And a complete crash (housing, and spending) in China in 30 years may well be a certain world war.

Zaphod: Do you really think USA is a free country?

In my view it can hardly make that statement. There are too much indoctrination and money involved. Commercials, marketing and PR schemes. Just don't believe everything you hear on the news...

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaphod

I hope in the future the world is not dominated by the US, or China, but rather becomes more poly-centric exactly for this reason. If one place has stupid laws, those driving the future can migrate away. I don't think another era of a single superpower, or a one world government, would create peace and prosperity.

I couldn't agree more! (and we all know this will eventually lead to the communist outcry "All workers of all countries unite!". So you bet there will be some guys at the top working against this. The capitalists ofcourse. But I'd say this is probably at least 2 centuries away...)

dodge321 · November 28th, 2012, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by null

China isn't an ambitious nation either.

Not ambitious in the western colonial sense, but definitely ambitious.

***Taller, Better*** · November 28th, 2012, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oliver999

country VS country

I agree.

November 28th, 2012, 01:36 AM	#42
Bannor Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 375 Likes (Received): 36	Crissb: think incentives... After all thats how some countries in europe has managed to increase the rate. Incentives like kindergardens and moneytary handouts. ALthough I suppose you are german, so taking history into account, you are not so good in this. Which is kind of Germany's biggest problem within europe too. France and Scandinavia does it right, but more can be done. However, I get where you are headed Crissb, but that is also why I don't consider the 1 child prolicy to have been a misstake untill now. And I consider India not having adapted it to have been a huge misstake by them. But, it is about time to change politics now for so many reasons in China. I think Indias problem is that they will hit a wall in population where the lowest low fertility rate will drop to 0.5 in some cities like mumbai and delhi for perhaps even a decade. And we are approaching that wall long before they get rich. The doomsday scenario for India that may very well happen is if they attain Philippino failed state problems with continuous high tfr, and where just more and more people die on the streets, or on the dumps. And things are headed that way as I see it. Last edited by Bannor; November 28th, 2012 at 01:52 AM.

November 28th, 2012, 05:17 AM	#45
zaphod Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 549 Likes (Received): 37	I think people forget history. It's not like in 1776 the US magically became this perfect democracy where everyone was free, even if some white males could vote. And we've always been more about representative politics. Populism is a curse everywhere. Don't forget government used to control trade and exports, appropriated basically all the land from sea to sea to redistribute to settlers, railroads, and industry, censored the press and regulated what could be sent in the mail, we had central banking experiments, political crises, etc. Pretty much every big important thing was indirectly built by Uncle Sam. Was the great leap forward worse than what became of the Indians, or the cultural revolution worse than the Civil War and Reconstruction? It took literally 200 years, until the civil rights movement in the 60s and deregulation and a liberal supreme court in 70s, for the US to really, really, truly become a free country. This could also go for pretty much every other western country. Still, it doesn't mean these things are harmless, and real progress was always made by innovators and free entrepreneurs, or activists who needed to upset the status quo. And all the common people working in factories or on farms or fighting in the military, that was never about nationalism, self-sacrifice or patriotism(or "Asian values", same fucking myth), a realist would recognize that everyone is selfish and wants their paycheck. Sometime 100 years ago my ancestors came to the US from eastern Europe because they were draft dodgers and didn't want to pay taxes, not for any noble reason. I'm sure Chinese or "Eastern" people are the same even if they pretend to be conformist. The element of democracy made the government's power decentralized enough to keep it out of the way and kept the system from becoming too "extractive", as it was in Latin America and Africa. I hope in the future the world is not dominated by the US, or China, but rather becomes more poly-centric exactly for this reason. If one place has stupid laws, those driving the future can migrate away. I don't think another era of a single superpower, or a one world government, would create peace and prosperity. Last edited by zaphod; November 28th, 2012 at 05:44 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 28th, 2012, 02:29 AM	#43
Chrissib Cicerone Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Jena Posts: 1,159 Likes (Received): 265	Incentives, yes, they can raise the fertility rate by maybe 0.5 children if we are optimistic but in most cases not more. Only very few countries were able to raise their fertility by 0.5 children after the end of the baby boom. And the difference is that these nations never had antinatalist policies like the Asian countries so the population was much more likely to accept the incentives. In Asian nations many people grew up with antinatalist policies and were indoctrinated that their countries were overpopulated etc. To change that mindset will take many decades and it will be even harder for China as china had the strictest antinatalist policy that has ever been imposed in history. So you can't expect the Chinese to instantly take a 180° turn of the government serious and accept the incentives. Singapore for example is the most active nation developing new incentives for families in Asia, but their fertility stays very low (1.1 for Indians and Chinese, 1.6 for Malays). Another "problem" (only demographically) is that Chinese are very education oriented and try to equip their children with very much education so that they can compete with the children of other people. Since such education (special courses or cram schools etc.) is very expensive, many people simply cannot afford to have more than one or two children. The last factor is simply the crowdedness of cities. Chinese cities consist mostly of appartement buildings whereas in Scandinavia or France you have huge suburban areas with single family housing. Individual houses are by the most peopel judged as more family friendly, so typically people living in single family homes have more children than people living in appartements. So China to increase the fertility rate should encourage more family friendly housing. Because of the lack of space European style suburbs may not be a good choice but rowhomes like around Kuala Lumpur may be a solution. The density of rowhomes is not much lower than the current Chinese model of highrises with much greenery around it.

November 28th, 2012, 04:53 AM	#44
onosqaciw Registered User Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 998 Likes (Received): 23	so do you think at what year china should abandoning it's 1 child policy ?