SkyscraperCity banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Mind Reader
Joined
·
3,535 Posts
china has 700m peasants,not 900m.furthermore,NOT ALL peasants are poor(most are)

WHAT IF it wasnt a country with a huge population?
it could be richer,but less skyscrapered.

not many nations can handle 1.3b people so smoothly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,333 Posts
Population should not be too high(India, China) or too low(like some European countries). If the population of India and China were more like 500 million or so, they would have been superpowers rt now..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
HariR said:
Population should not be too high(India, China) or too low(like some European countries). If the population of India and China were more like 500 million or so, they would have been superpowers rt now..
0.3 billion is just right.. like America
 

·
Geili
Joined
·
944 Posts
Population is a big burden to China, that's why China carrys out the One Child Policy. But actually the governement has release the policy on some degree this year after the CPC. The population in Shanghai actually is decreasing.

From another hand, China gets a lot of advantages by her population.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
There's are two examples you can look to in order to see how china might have developed if she weren't so massive: Taiwan and Hong Kong. both did fantastically, as did South Korea, another Asian Tiger.

of course, there is also the point that those three tigers were democratic, capitalist and stable, which enabled investment and industry to flourish much earlier.

china's large population makes it inherently less stable, because it is impossible to spread rapid development so that everyone benefits immediately. This is very much a problem today in China, as rural people who don't get many of the benefits often are neglected and receive much of the pollution and environmental degradation that accompanies rapid industrial development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
ChinaboyUSA said:
Population is a big burden to China, that's why China carrys out the One Child Policy. But actually the governement has release the policy on some degree this year after the CPC. The population in Shanghai actually is decreasing.

From another hand, China gets a lot of advantages by her population.
no ,shanghai's population incrasea because of immigrant from other provinces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
schreiwalker said:
There's are two examples you can look to in order to see how china might have developed if she weren't so massive: Taiwan and Hong Kong. both did fantastically, as did South Korea, another Asian Tiger.

of course, there is also the point that those three tigers were democratic, capitalist and stable, which enabled investment and industry to flourish much earlier.
South Korea and Taiwan were not democratic until the late 80's and 90's. Hong Kong never became fully democratic. SK and Taiwan weren't exactly models for political stability either, and existed beside hostile communist neighbours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
China probably wouldn't be much different either way. Don't forget that the China of say, twenty years ago was the result of Communism (the hardcore variety) 1.3 billion or twenty million...probably would have still been the same. As it stands the population is detrimental to the Chinese economy but that may well change in the future. Of course, usually once a nation gets to a certain GDP per capita the birthrate starts dropping and never stops. Possibly the leaders of China are hoping for just such a trend.

In any case, once the middle class becomes sizeable enough China will definitely be the world's economic engine. However, that is still decades away assuming nothing bad happens between now and then as far the Chinese economy is concerned. With no huge and untouched natural resources of note except for the people, China is forced to invest in them for its well-being. This is a good thing but since the middle class is only a paltry 70 million right now, you can see that it's a long way off from being as prosperous as the westernized world.
 

·
A B C
Joined
·
1,669 Posts
If it population is lowered, then it will be similar to US with enough money for developers to build towers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
Huhu said:
South Korea and Taiwan were not democratic until the late 80's and 90's. Hong Kong never became fully democratic. SK and Taiwan weren't exactly models for political stability either, and existed beside hostile communist neighbours.
SK and Taiwan also only became "Asian Tigers" in the 80's and 90's. And as for stability, there is probably little that can make a place more stable than when a foreign power is threatening obliteration.

That is true about Hong Kong, though from the british they did get a individual property-rights oriented capitalistic system that is typical of many full democracies.

I don't know much about singapore's development.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
I think that in the start of the Chinas recent boom its population was a bad thing, with to many mouths to feed and what not. But now as all of those people start to become middle class citizens (which I know will take time) there will be a greater economy with more wealth and trade. Imagine a China with 800 million middle class citizens? For some reason Im seeing dozens of cities similar to Vancouver, with hundreds of high-rise stuctures around the country. All that power and wealth concentrated there in those cities. A good thing for China, a bad thing for the United States.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
schreiwalker said:
SK and Taiwan also only became "Asian Tigers" in the 80's and 90's. And as for stability, there is probably little that can make a place more stable than when a foreign power is threatening obliteration.

That is true about Hong Kong, though from the british they did get a individual property-rights oriented capitalistic system that is typical of many full democracies.

I don't know much about singapore's development.
I am less clear about South Korea; but in regards to Taiwan, it was quite developed and already an "Asian Tiger" by the time the first presidential elections were held in 1996.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Huhu said:
I am less clear about South Korea; but in regards to Taiwan, it was quite developed and already an "Asian Tiger" by the time the first presidential elections were held in 1996.
But politically, it was really a dark age until the 80s...
It's kind of like China nowadays, economy is growing extremely fast, but the government system is still corrupt. Democracy probably comes later when the economy is mature enough.
 

·
Premium member
Joined
·
10,012 Posts
SDfan said:
I think that in the start of the Chinas recent boom its population was a bad thing, with to many mouths to feed and what not. But now as all of those people start to become middle class citizens (which I know will take time) there will be a greater economy with more wealth and trade. Imagine a China with 800 million middle class citizens? For some reason Im seeing dozens of cities similar to Vancouver, with hundreds of high-rise stuctures around the country. All that power and wealth concentrated there in those cities. A good thing for China, a bad thing for the United States.
Why is it a bad thing for united states. I think the us will profit the most of chinas boom. Just think about all those chinese people who buy american software, planes and other stuff. Of course there will be more competition, but competition is good for business.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top