Superpower Denied? Why China’s ‘Rise’ May Have Already Peaked

[Eagle9294]

Scary, for once, I agree with you.

Alot of backdoor deals between the two nations. Just look hard at alot of the small things. USA transports supplies through Russia. Alot of other little things that goes unseen for the most part.

[MRAPer]

Well, basically China is facing a growing crisis between the rich coastal regions and the poor hinterland region, while the industrial coastal regions are relatively rich the hinterland regions remain extremely poor, some people say that it's not that big of a problem and some say that it is.

Mind you it's not the only problem facing China but it's the one all the rest of Chinas problems will revolve around.

George Friedman got an interesting take one that in his book "The Next Hundred Years" it's an interesting reading, even if you don't agree with him.

Warder

That is not a strong argument. In America, East (Atlantic) coast were being industrialized while Indians still ruled the Midwest and West. A poorer inland area actually provides an opportunity for continuing high growth rate for China. If whole China is as rich as Beijing and Shanghai, then it would be very difficult for China to maintain a high growth rate.

George Friedman is a right-wing ideologue. I would say his is more extreme than the run-of-mill right-wing types. What he wrote has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I can tell you right away that China does NOT face a demographic crisis. Continued industrialization, increased use of automation process and robotic technology, will continue to reduce human employment. Developed countries has been facing this machine-replace-man problem since industrial revolution. Excessive labor and unemployment have always been the real problem. Those in the Western media that exaggerate China's "demographic problems" are being disingenuous.

Do you have other, more interesting reasons, for declaring China's decline?

[Andrew Chalmers]

That is not a strong argument. In America, East (Atlantic) coast were being industrialized while Indians still ruled the Midwest and West. A poorer inland area actually provides an opportunity for continuing high growth rate for China. If whole China is as rich as Beijing and Shanghai, then it would be very difficult for China to maintain a high growth rate.

George Friedman is a right-wing ideologue. I would say his is more extreme than the run-of-mill right-wing types. What he wrote has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I can tell you right away that China does NOT face a demographic crisis. Continued industrialization, increased use of automation process and robotic technology, will continue to reduce human employment. Developed countries has been facing this machine-replace-man problem since industrial revolution. Excessive labor and unemployment have always been the real problem. Those in the Western media that exaggerate China's "demographic problems" are being disingenuous.

Interesting points.

For me as an outside observer - the biggest question I have re Chinese demographics is how will the government and society absorb the reverse pyramid as retirees increase in 2x the proportion to the younger working population.

[KoTeMoRe]

Mix of two worlds...

Families will take the burden (more money-less expenses-chinese social values come to play- akin to the situation in many former Comm-Bloc countries where the first communist generation like my father was supported largely by myself and two of my brothers) until Nature will make way.

For the others the Red-Face of China will have to assist. In that, the current form of political system will find yet another use for its *roots*.

[Ought Six]

Interesting points.

For me as an outside observer - the biggest question I have re Chinese demographics is how will the government and society absorb the reverse pyramid as retirees increase in 2x the proportion to the younger working population.

This is a huge problem for the developed nations as well. I think that refusing to properly limit immigration here is seen by some of our leaders as a way to bring in more younger workers to pay the way for the retirees. China is so overpopulated that this would not be a good solution for them. They will have to find a different way. I suspect that a lot of elderly people in China will end up working until they are physically incapable of doing so any longer.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Mix of two worlds...

Families will take the burden (more money-less expenses-chinese social values come to play- akin to the situation in many former Comm-Bloc countries where the first communist generation like my father was supported largely by myself and two of my brothers) until Nature will make way.

For the others the Red-Face of China will have to assist. In that, the current form of political system will find yet another use for its *roots*.

But are the strawberry generation going to be able to hack it?

Also with so much domestic spending/resources slated to support the two parents - each family of two working adults will have 4 elderly with no siblings to help shoulder the burden, the future generation is going to suffer and the consumer driven economic growth will see a dive as well no?

[KoTeMoRe]

But are the strawberry generation going to be able to hack it?

Also with so much domestic spending/resources slated to support the two parents - each family of two working adults will have 4 elderly with no siblings to help shoulder the burden, the future generation is going to suffer and the consumer driven economic growth will see a dive as well no?

Not really, in a sense it will create other needs. Specialized care, medecine, transport of the elderly will be a temporary bubble. Furthermore, most of these people have very small economical footprints which they can further reduce by taking care of the grandchildren. Furthermore it will have an impact on social spending funds.

The issues will start when the last *Mohicans* will die. Then the balance being set for around a billion Chinese, the PRC would have to sort out its population trend.

[MRAPer]

Interesting points.

For me as an outside observer - the biggest question I have re Chinese demographics is how will the government and society absorb the reverse pyramid as retirees increase in 2x the proportion to the younger working population.

First of all, the aging process takes time. China has more than enough time to improve its social safety net, and implement senior care policies. This process has already begun. More than 90 percent of population have basic medical insurance now, and the process of expanding coverage and medical care is ongoing. I suspect China will eventually become a welfare society even more than Northern Europe. Because in China, there will be little ideological opposition to socialist policies, which in some ways promote the same ideals that Confucius had advocated more than 2 thousand years ago.

Second, there are ample mitigating factors that will soften the impact of aging. The one-child policy probably will be abolished within the next few years. It is no longer strictly enforced anyway. The fertilization rate in rural areas is bound to increase. Most Chinese, especially seniors, do not have to worry about the biggest expense of their life: home ownership. Chinese have a high rate of home ownership, more than 80% for the urban population, and more than 90% for the rural population. The majority of them probably will have the prospect of moving into newer, larger, and better furnished residencies in their life time. Since so many Chinese are property owners, or so called "stake holders,", they also provide the basis of stability for China. I would view the tens of thousands of demonstrations against local government policies (rarely, or ever, against policies of central government) as a force of progress for China. There is little chance these will get out of control. Instead, they force the government to improve their policies, and the society as a whole, progresses.

Finally, China is not alone facing the aging problem. Western and Northern Europe, Russia, Japan, and most rich countries in the Southeast Asia face the exact same problems, most of them are even in a worse shape than China. As for America, we are facing a different problem: minorities will be the majority in the not too distant future, and there will be quite a different socioeconomic landscape we will be all in.

Anyway, pointing China out as a special example of bad demographic trend rings hollow to me. Any other, more compelling reasons for China's decline?

[Tomek29]

There is currently only 1 superpower. Superpower status is achieved when a country (like the USSR or the US) achieves hegemony on/in their continent/region (ie, no other power can challenge it) and can exert influence on other parts of the world. China is excluded in this because of both India and Russia. China cannot achieve hegemony while these 2 powers retain their Great Power status. Also, because the US is the sole superpower (some consider us the global hegemon), it will act to counter the rise of another super power and so will make it more difficult for China.

I don't think USA is a Superpower anymore.More like the biggest Great Power, but certainly not anything as powerful as USA in the early 90s.Somewhat like Great Britain after Victorian Era.

[Andrew Chalmers]

Anyway, pointing China out as a special example of bad demographic trend rings hollow to me. Any other, more compelling reasons for China's decline?

Who said anything about China's decline?

The question I posed was a general question regarding China's future - I did not say anything about "this is a Chinese specific problem" but rather a problem that China faces.

[Laptop Hobo]

I don't think USA is a Superpower anymore.More like the biggest Great Power, but certainly not anything as powerful as USA in the early 90s.Somewhat like Great Britain after Victorian Era.

The UK after the end of the Victorian era (1837-1901) entered the Edwardian era.....which argueably was the greatest time in British history. Almost every English speaking country with the exception of the US was part of the British Empire, not to mention what is now India/Pakistan, half of Africa and a large free hand in China. They had by far the largest and most advanced Navy the world had seen and could (and did) project power everywhere. This only changed after 1919 when the British Empire was shaken by the first tremors of India and other colonies surging to break away, a staggering war debt from WWI, and the immense growth of the United States economically. Still during the interwar years the British Navy held a slim margin of superiority. Likewise in air-power they were only surpassed by the Luftwaffe around 1937. At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy and British merchant fleet were still the largest in the world. The United States Navy had restarted battleship production in 1937, but the Royal Navy was still a tad bigger. However, once the United States had been mobilized into the war, its industrial capacity created such an enormous fleet that by 1943, it was larger than the combined fleets of all other combatant nations. The British merchant marine was still the world's largest until 1944.

So, if the USA is at the same place that Great Britain was in 1901.....they are actually doing pretty good. It could be argued that Britain was a true superpower at least in terms of global power projection until at least 1944/45.

Therefore, is your argument that you feel the US is akin now to where Britain was in 1945....or what?

[infoleather]

Although they can make a dark and cloudy aftermath of the opportunity in Taipei or Tokyo, they will be stretched to 150 remote-attack aircraft in the world any field. The beauty of Vintage leather satchel bags for men are twice as essential, as they protect your possessions. That is why Handbag detachable shoulder strap are popular.

[muttbutt]

Although they can make a dark and cloudy aftermath of the opportunity in Taipei or Tokyo, they will be stretched to 150 remote-attack aircraft in the world any field.

uh?..................

[susan12]

As far as I know, one reason China's economy is so big is simply that it has 1.3 billion people. But China's per capita gross domestic product is only one-seventh the U.S. level. And in household living standards, China lags even further. Each year, an average Chinese household consumes one-fourteenth the value of goods and services purchased by an average American household.

iPhone App Development

[SuchIsLife]

As far as I know, one reason China's economy is so big is simply that it has 1.3 billion people. But China's per capita gross domestic product is only one-seventh the U.S. level. And in household living standards, China lags even further. Each year, an average Chinese household consumes one-fourteenth the value of goods and services purchased by an average American household.

Hence each household has less debt then the average US citizen.

China's economy is growing whilst the US's is contracting.