China or America's century?

[Bannor]

It has been a long held discussion weather or not China will take over the hegemony of USA in the world soon. Is this a myth, or does it hold any facts to it?

I put up a suggested gdp growth chart for USA and China towards 2040, to look at where they would be by then:

China:

(Year) (total nominal gdp)
2011 7 298
2012 7 874 (+7,9%)
2013 8 528 (+8,3%)
2014 9 235 (+8,3%)
2015 9 974 (+8%)
2016 10 742 (+7,7%)
2017 11 537 (+7,4%)
2018 12 357 (+7,1%)
2019 13 197 (+6,8%)
2020 14 055 (+6,5%)
2021 14 940 (+6,3%)
2022 15 852 (+6,1%)
2023 16 787 (+5,9%)
2024 17 744 (+5,7%)
2025 18 720 (+5,5%)
2026 19 712 (+5,3%)
2027 20 717 (+5,1%)
2028 21 732 (+4,9%)
2029 22 754 (+4,7%)
2030 23 778 (+4,5%)
2031 24 800 (+4,3%)
2032 25 817 (+4,1%)
2033 26 824 (+3,9%)
2034 27 816 (+3,7%)
2035 28 790 (+3,5%)
2036 29 740 (+3,3%)
2037 30 662 (+3,1%)
2038 31 551 (+2,9%)
2039 32 403 (+2,7%)
2040 33 213 (+2,5%)


USA:

(Year) (total nominal gdp)
2011 15 094
2012 15 471 (+2,5%)
2013 15 858 (+2,5%)
2014 16 254 (+2,5%)
2015 16 660 (+2,5%)
2016 17 077 (+2,5%)
2017 17 504 (+2,5%)
2018 17 942 (+2,5%)
2019 18 390 (+2,5%)
2020 18 850 (+2,5%)
2021 19 321 (+2,5%)
2022 19 804 (+2,5%)
2023 20 299 (+2,5%)
2024 20 807 (+2,5%)
2025 21 327 (+2,5%)
2026 21 860 (+2,5%)
2027 22 407 (+2,5%)
2028 22 967 (+2,5%)
2029 23 541 (+2,5%)
2030 24 130 (+2,5%)
2031 24 733 (+2,5%)
2032 25 351 (+2,5%)
2033 25 985 (+2,5%)
2034 26 635 (+2,5%)
2035 27 300 (+2,5%)
2036 27 983 (+2,5%)
2037 28 683 (+2,5%)
2038 29 400 (+2,5%)
2039 30 135 (+2,5%)
2040 30 888 (+2,5%)


What this suggests:
- USA's average gdp per capita will still be at over 3 times that of China (USA population 2040: 400 million. China's: 1.4 billion). What China can do about this is to implement a major reform on education, where focus is driven on innovation. USA does have a huge advantage in having their major corporations of today, and would loose big if deciding to sell some of these to the chinese.

- From 2030 and onwards, these figures are highly dependant on China's 1-child policy. China's growth numbers can fall even quicker if nothing is done to curb this destructive demographic trend. But I assume China will soften its policy slowly towards the 2020, and then get rid of it altogether. If it is removed tomorrow, china's growth rate after 2030 will probably be 1-1.5% higher per year.

- These are nominal figures. In terms of purchasing power parity, the chinese figures will most likely be at least 20-25% higher than that of USA by the end of this period due to economics of scale.


Uncertainties:

- How much of China's production today will move to other countries in south and south east asia, or even Africa? This will determine the world inflationary rates. But I am assuming a moderately high degree of "chinese uotsourcing" to countries like vietnam, philippines, indonesia, india, bangladesh and soon even myanmar, pakistan and north korea. Towards the end of this timeframe, even east african countries like kenya, ethiopia, madagascar and perhaps even somalia and yemen (middle east).

- USA's imigration policy. Looking at charts of USA's food production compared to that of China, where USA can cultivate 27% of its landmass, and China only at around 10%, the USA has room for a much higher population than that of today. USA can easily house 2 billion people in a few centuries if oceanwater salitation plants are built and water is brought in from the coast to make up for the shortfall in groundwater. USA should also need to move away from grains like wheat, and more into rice in its southern states in order to maximise its output more. The economy of USA is highly dependant on constant population growth, and when they don't make enough children themselves, they need to take in immigrants. 1% populationgrowth per year should be their goal.

- Black swans like huge improvements in nanotech or robotics can make these numbers obsolete. A dilemma is climate change.

- How can china tackle disease control as people get more affected by the same diseases as we are in the west. Diseases caused over time by pollution, traffic smog and toxic foods. Bad drinking water (fluor, rusty pipelines etc), and radiation (electrical instruments like tv's, PC monitors, telephones, etc). And can new technologies worsen or improve this?

[endymar]

The gdp of both of those countries are utterly irrelevant to my life.

[drunkenmunkey888]

The one child policy is very interesting. Even relaxing the policy around 2020 will not produce a dramatic effect on the demographic trend in my opinion because many urban couples have gotten acquainted and familiarized with the concept of one child that having two or more might be seen as unfeasible because of the established parenting model of devoting all resources into one child. It may slow the demographic shrink but not reverse it.

One thing that China can do however, for quick demographic turnaround to keep its economy chugging is loosen immigration requirements. I'm not saying it should do this immediately. Not when most of the country are still poor and there are still plenty of cheap labor. But around 2030 or so, when the labor shortage becomes acute enough and the demographic shrinkage among the younger generation reaches crisis levels, China will have no choice but to allow immigration on the scale of the United States, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. Also, by then China's social, economic and educational systems would probably be mature enough to the point where it will become attractive for immigrants from far poorer third world countries. It would also make metropolitan areas like Shanghai a true global city when you will find over a hundred languages spoken in its neighborhoods and only fifty percent of the people in the streets are of East Asian origin.

[ssiguy2]

The 20th century was definately the American one and the US will always remain an economic and political superpower. Asfar as the 21st century I would say that the first half will be China but the second half will be India. India will be more populac that China in less than 20 years but India has the advantage of having a large english speaking populace, extremely high level of science and engineering graduates, a free and democratic society and institutions which helps breed creativity and innovation far more than does a sterile and autocratic dictatorship.

China will also probably the first under developed country to suffer from a fast aging population. Due to the one child policy, in 20 years China will have huge numbers of retirees but relatively fewer young people but at the same time will not have the public and private institutions and economic wealth to help support them.

[Skyrazer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

India will be more populac that China in less than 20 years but India has the advantage of having a large english speaking populace, extremely high level of science and engineering graduates, a free and democratic society and institutions which helps breed creativity and innovation far more than does a sterile and autocratic dictatorship.

India, a free society? I beg to differ.

[VECTROTALENZIS]

Originally Posted by drunkenmunkey888

It would also make metropolitan areas like Shanghai a true global city when you will find over a hundred languages spoken in its neighborhoods and only fifty percent of the people in the streets are of East Asian origin.

I can only accept Asian immigrants but too many non-Asians. By Asian I mean south- and north east Asians.

I don't want any immigration of non Asians in China.

[the spliff fairy]

^why not??

[SE9]

Originally Posted by VECTROTALENZIS

I can only accept Asian immigrants but too many non-Asians. By Asian I mean south- and north east Asians.

I don't want any immigration of non Asians in China.

This policy wouldn't help you at all.

[Crash_N]

Originally Posted by the spliff fairy

^why not??

Because he's xenophobic. And quite short-sighted, seeing as it's precisely the educated and experienced workforce from the West that China would need, to help develop the domestic high-tech and knowledge industry and improve its service sector in general.

[the spliff fairy]

As Chinese we have emigrated to every corner of the world, and faced historic prejudice, slavery and targeted racist legislation so many times (as late as 2001 for Wyoming), and much of it undocumented or swept under the carpet. Given this history, it would be tarnishing to see the self same policies enacted against immigrants to China.

[Ulpia-Serdica]

Originally Posted by VECTROTALENZIS

I can only accept Asian immigrants but too many non-Asians. By Asian I mean south- and north east Asians.

I don't want any immigration of non Asians in China.

[drunkenmunkey888]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

China will also probably the first under developed country to suffer from a fast aging population. Due to the one child policy, in 20 years China will have huge numbers of retirees but relatively fewer young people but at the same time will not have the public and private institutions and economic wealth to help support them.

Exactly, and loosening the one child policy won't help because even if more babies are born in 2020, they won't enter the workforce until 2040's. However, if immigration is allowed on a massive scale, then the workforce shortage can be addressed almost instantaneously.

[ssiguy2]

Immigration would help but not much.

First, let's call a spade a spade.......... there is not much to go to China for. Even in 25 years, the standard of living will be much lower than US/Can/Aus/NZ whether that be lower wages, smog chocked cities, enviornmental degredation, over crowded cities, a conservative society, or corruption. This backed up by being in a military dictatorship with near non-existent human right's legislation, lack of free press or expression, and poor labour laws. Despite all the economic growth, China is still a tin-pot military dictatorship.

Who would move to such a place? Some may but only for economic reasons but not quality of life. People who's education put's them in high demand will be in high demand any where in the world. The well educated will have their choice of nearly any country on the planet and China's quality of life is and will still be far to low to attract them enmass. For those who go to China most will do so for short term financial gain or work experience but will probably not stay for long and certainly won't retire there.

Look at all the Chinese who are emigrating. They tend to be very wealthy and their money goes a lot further in China with it's much lower labour costs than it would do in any Western country but they leave because the quality of life is poor and the government a corrupt and oppressive one.

One also has to remember that the skills shortages in Western countries maybe even a few million in places like the US or maybe even Canada but with the hundreds of million of soon to be retirees in China, well there just won't be enough high skilled workers on the whole planet to make up that kind of shortfall.

It's main rival is India but India, while not a beacon of liberty, is still a free and democratic society. You can vote your government in or out and tell your government to go to hell and not be rounded up the next morning. India also has a society where free thought and expression are encouraged as their are fiercly proud of being the largest democracy on the planet. People who are very well educated need a free country that encouraged free thought in order to prosper whether financially or spiritually. India also has the benefit of having a very large english speaking populas and english is the language of business. This is why so many high tech jobs have been outsourced there in the first place.


That may rub some the wrong way but it doesn't change the fact that whether it be today or 40 years from now, China will offer little to most high skilled workers when they can pick and choice from any country they want.

[oliver999]

country VS country

[ssiguy2]

Doesn't have to be.

The question of who will the 21 century will belong to is a very important one for everyone on the planet regardless of where they live. My point was simply that, unlike many, I don't think China will be the leader over the long term. By the time China manages to catch the US in economic, political, and social influence I think India will quickly upsurp them.

Whether one thinks that is a good news story or not is irrelevant as the reaality is that China is aging and aging very fast in 30 years will begin to decline inpopulation and would have been far surpassed in population by India.

[null]

An overpopulated India doesn't seem to be very promising either.

[LADEN]

China

[Bannor]

The question regarding China and their recentment to immigrants comes from one thing. And one thing only in my feudean view on life. east asian men are suffering from a schlong minority complex, and fear the competition. After having noticed myself (and lots of western friends) from my time living in Singapore that every friendship with an east asian guy has the question about our schlongsize inherent during the first week, there is no doubt.

When that is said, I do not think China "needs" to import people due to lack of people in the workforce. That is nothing but a western gimmick in my view. We take them in here in order to keep our world superiority. Getting the bright heads to leave their own country is more of a reason than actually making them come here. The other big deal is housing prizes. Unless we have immigration, housing will collapse, and with it goes the economy. Housing is way too important in the market economy.

So, why does China need immigration? Well, as said, it is not due to shortages in their workforce. Just consider how many of China's jobs that are in manufacturing. And then consider how many of these jobs will get obsolete once manufacturing moves out of China into even cheaper countries. That will probably be something like a 20-25% higher unemployment just from that. Then consider the workforce loosing their jobs in 15-25 years time once China has built all their roads, railways and subways. By then, China will have to make the choice of building infrastructure into nowhere, or move another 10-15% of their workforce into unemployment. Some of this will ofcourse move into service sector jobs. But we all know how useless service sector jobs really are. And China has a modern culture regarding where and how they buy stuff. Just think AliBaba and you know what I mean. Internet removes all the middlemen, and east asians are IT savvy.

I think China will have a much bigger problem in keeping enough people in jobs before they reach 2040 than the other way around. This can lead to revolts against an oppressive government, and thus pressure China to go to war. Thats why USA is moving towards Asia with tehir 7th fleeet these days. To keep a close watch on chinese employment.

But then some may wonder if the economic system is destructive. Does it lead to an ever decreasing population? Well, that depends on your policies regarding new children. China better move away from the 1 child policy into investing huge sums given to couples having 2, 3, 4 and 5 babies (and more to baby girls? lol).

Now I do believe China should take in some people from abroad from the same reasons the west has opted to do so (from my perspective on why we are). Some people will want to go to China from the west ahead of going to us, canada, australia because of the different culture, the huge market and truth be told, the way of life. However, something pointing against this won't be the low salaries, because that is a lie. Engineers make more money in Shanghai than in Norway I read a few months back, so even norwegian engineers go to work in China! (mostly teaching the chinese how to build ships and operate machines, which might be silly, but gets them the deals). It is the non-liberal laws. The non-sexually open society. It is of my freudean view on life a long held belief that chinese are a sex starved people, and that is the main thing holding them away from innovation. Their minds are trapped in an environment where there is no sex for them to be had (20% more males at some agegroups etc), and selling sex is even illegal. There has been studies showing that the more open a city is to liberal laws on sex, the more innovation you see in that city. There is a very strong correlation. San Fransisco, Amsterdam and Berlin are skyhigh on charts regarding both innovation, liberal views on gays, prostitution and drugs (ok, maybe drugs is pushing it considering the good of a society).



Regarding India, I don't think India will have their century. What is pointing against this is that India does not have any means of stabilizing population growth at all. The population will peak, and then fall like a rock afterwards. Just compare Vietnams and Thailands estimated future population trees. Indias will look more like that of Vietnam, while other countries are more like that of Thailand. This is because there simply won't be sufficient planning and will to handle the huge children boom India is having today. Kids will be left dead in the streets, in cities booming like there is no tomorrow. In addition, India will by the time of aging be even poorer than China will compared to the west and considering inflation. They are a democracy. But a democracy spends 20 years building something China with their system can build in 2 years. Innovation will come from India, but not so much. They will suffer from being a country in the south, where people stay outdoors. In the west, people barely go outdoors. People are not really social, and all we do is work. Because social life sucks so much. India doesn't have that. So innovative people will spend their time doing "fun" stuff instead of being innovative...

Well, if you are still with me, that was my 2 cents.

[the spliff fairy]

erm you have some strange views on sexual society in China. As a proto-communist state its officially frowned on as per norm but in society its different. Chinese are the world's most promiscuous in terms of relationships for starters (average having had 23 sexual partners at time of interview), and you only need to look at the booming sex trade (haircut, karaoke anyone?) to see how things have reverted back to the bad old days of pre-communism. Don't forget when the missionaries first came to China they were appalled at the openly bisexual, polygamous and promiscuous society with a roaring trade in male, female and child prostitution that involved a large percentage of society at some time in their lives. Today joining the sex trafficking are immigrants, notably from Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Portugal, Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda, and the industry now operates in rural areas also (where population density can be just as high). It is also proliferating among men as the ubiquitous gay bars, clubs, saunas and businesses, now tolerated, set up cross country. China still has far to go, even in comparison with states like Turkey and even Bangladesh where prostitution is not only legalised but regulated.

Having conservative sexual mores is an import to east Asia, the one region that didn't court Abrahamic religions and colonisers. The two countries that were never colonised of course being Thailand and Japan as examples, also the two countries with the world's most open sexual societies (rape scenes in your kiddy comics, dildoes in your local grocery store). Contrast with Catholic Phillippines, Islamic Indonesia, Christian South Korea, or Communist North Korea.

[the spliff fairy]

dbl post