China's strategic vulnerabilities

nugroho

Junior Member
One more thing to consider:

It is projected 13 million people will be born in China this year, 20 million will be born in India.

China's population base and thus market size potential will eventually be much smaller than India's.

China's working age population is starting to shrink and its overall population will shrink soon after, following Japan. Even if you add SEA, the entire East/Southeast Asia region's population as a share of world population is set to steadily shrink this century.

Over the long term this will weaken China if it cannot find allies or other markets.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Demographic bonus become " bonus " if managed well , but become catastrophe vice versa.
China had applied AI , robotic, and other technological things, if the pace is not reduced, China will be able to overcome the demographic " decline " for some time.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Yes, China focusing on the non-Anglosphere has to be a key strategy.



No. When some Chinese officials accused the USA of starting the Coronavirus it backfired.

Only people already hostile to the USA believed that narrative, as it reinforced their existing views.
China doesn't need to win these people over.

But China does need to win over the people who are neutral (like in Europe).
The obviously fake narrative of the Coronavirus starting in the USA created a huge backlash.

Everyone knows the Coronavirus almost certainly did come from China, but many had the view that it was an unfortunate act of nature that happened to start in China.

Except for the US regime no one is saying with certainty it comes from China. Currently scientists have found it most early in Italy in a groundwater supply, followed by confirmed case in France and then China's Wuhan, symptoms have been spotted earlier than even that in USA but USA refuses to allow an investigation.

Chinese officials can be diplomatic but they should not self censor, the truth must be said. If what the scientists are saying seems to point towards a certain finding, then its within their rights to talk about it and offer their own opinions.

They're 100% right to talk about the findings of foreign scientists who without doubt face immense political pressure to change science to suit propagandabut have forged on anyways.
 

Mt1701d

Junior Member
Registered Member
One more thing to consider:

It is projected 13 million people will be born in China this year, 20 million will be born in India.

China's population base and thus market size potential will eventually be much smaller than India's.

China's working age population is starting to shrink and its overall population will shrink soon after, following Japan. Even if you add SEA, the entire East/Southeast Asia region's population as a share of world population is set to steadily shrink this century.

Over the long term this will weaken China if it cannot find allies or other markets.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
But you admit that a smaller population means less national power and less market power, even if the population is highly educated and works high skilled job, right?

Singapore has a highly educated and skilled population, but it is not a world power by any means.

The only reason China can even think of success independent of the US is that it has a large population.

What, in your view would be the ideal population level for China?
I think you are getting bogged down in terms of raw numbers without an examination of other factors such as gov will, tech and advancements.

China was in a position to enjoy the single greatest moment of comparative advantage in the history of mankind back in the 1980s - 1990s. At the time manufacturing was shifting / has shifted from the advanced economies to other areas of the world including Asia, in Asia this took the form of the 4 Asian tigers, and throughout that time the 4 Asian Tigers benefited immensely because of it, but the wages and land in these small territories was already becoming an issue, and the economies of these place was starting to transform. Thus they needed a new place with lots of land to build factories, lots of people to work in factories and a gov with the will to make it all happen, and the rest is history.

But that's not the whole story, of the 3 main factors, I think the third was actually the most important, the political foresight and will of the gov, whilst arguably the other 2 factors were only contributing factors to allow for the will of gov to manifest. A factory isn't isolated to itself, it needs efficient transports to get goods in and out, a work force to work and finally a management to oversee the place.
At the beginning, places close to the coast of China were the main beneficiaries because of the ease of transport and an already large population. But what people seem to forget is that it wasn't enough, huge movements from the inland areas to the coastal areas took place, and as such the need to transport these people back and fore was also needed and thus more industries and infrastructure was needed and this is where the gov come in. China's gov took on this task built infrastructure and created industries to cater for these tends fueling more productivity in other sectors, other than manufacturing alone, but it also fueled more manufacturing for domestic needs. This had the knock on effect of developing inland areas with wages raising and becoming less attractive in the coastal areas, as the infrastructure was already there, it would be cheaper to stay in the country and move to other parts, rather than up and leave for some other country and start again. This allowed low end manufacturing to move and higher end manufacturing to take its place as the coastal area was getting richer and the needs/wants of the people shifted. If there was no will by the gov to continue making China into the factory of the world we would likely see only the east coast of China being developed and inland areas like Wuhan would still be in the third world.

The Second main point labor: at the time when manufacturing moved from more advanced economies, manufacturing despite the automation already in effect was still a very labor intensive, which was one of reason why China had the greatest comparative advantage in human history at the time. This in turn allowed a lot of people to work, earn and change their lives. As this was taking place the population slowly gained more riches allowing for non-manufacturing industries to be fueled and thus as mentioned above transform the economy of those areas. This also has an additional effect of train mass number of people in techniques and know-how, producing a new class of people who would with capital from the richer population further fuel industries, be it manufacturing, services or otherwise.

The Third main factor of land: This I believe played the least role in this transformation but is still a great contributing factor in itself, because unlikely other places where you have to negotiate with god knows how many parties to use the land, In China the gov can go 'we have great need for sake of the country, thus we are having that'.
 

Mt1701d

Junior Member
Registered Member
Continue....

So after describing all that, I can get to why I think you are wrong to equate raw numbers = comparative advantage/bigger market.

First, larger number of people does mean a larger market in general since there are more people to consume but the pre-requisite is that the population of this market can consume. No-one would think that China could be anywhere near what it is today in 1980s, primarily because, although there was a huge population there were not enough people with the ability to consume much, other than maybe the cheapest of goods. There was a conscious effort by China gov to move things in the direction they wanted, instead of just leaving everything to the free market.

Second, advancements, this would be the greatest factor as to why India despite its huge population may have problems in the near or longer term future. The buzz word Automation, isn't just a buzz word anymore. There are significant advances in automation over the last 20 years and it has arguably moved more than the advances that has happened, from the time of first industrial revolution to the year 2000. We are at an age where factories can literally run 24/7 without further human input after setup, barring repairs and troubleshooting. This is further accelerating as technology continue to advance. As technology advance, the cost of setting such a factory will continue to lessen over the years. Manufacturing as a driving force of poor economies to rich economies is getting closer and closer, to coming to an end. This is not some doomsday fortune telling but the literal changing environment we are living in. I am pretty sure you can understand the meaning behind this.

Third, like @Hendrik_2000 said, population is as much a burden as it is a blessing. Aside from feeding the population, which in turn necessitate industries to do so. The bigger problem in the modern world is providing jobs, an economy ultimately runs on consumption of goods and services, if you cannot provide enough jobs for the population then no matter how big your population is, it is useless to the country and is a burden instead. This also create class disputes and destabilizes the country from within. This point reinforces point 1 above and will be further exacerbated by point 2. No matter how cheap manual labor is, once automation reaches the point of no return, machines will take over the manual labor. They don't need rest, time to eat or drink, they can preform the task with greater precision with faster time. It is no longer a matter of how or ifs, it is only a matter of time. A larger population without the ability to work is no use at all.

Fourth, the dream and, yes the dream, of forcing major sections of manufacturing out of China is ridiculous as least for the foreseeable future. The reasoning is simple, China isn't just the factory of the world but also it's supply chain. Manufacturing in China means you have pretty much all the supplies you need, from land needed for factories, raw materials, to machinery, to machinery components for repairs, a ready made work force, an advanced and educated work force, most of the world automation advancements, an unbeatable infrastructure network and a consumer base ready and willing to consume, need I go on. What more could a manufacturer ask for. You can go from designing, to prototyping, to refining, to manufacturing and to selling all in one place. prototyping and refining designs would be cheaper than anywhere else as well, considering the all the components or the ability to manufacturing the components is already there.

In the long run, if India doesn't get its act together and soon, it may never have the chance. The Made in India campaign was a case in point, of the inability or unwillingness of the Indian state to facilitate the advancement of the country, and the nationalist sentiment is only making it worst, not better. India will have to swallow it's pride and accept made in china goods for now, if not end-products then machinery and components and maybe even skills/skilled labor to teach them, otherwise they may not have the choice in the future. The time of no return is closing in on them and they are concerned about boycotting China and dreaming about their place in the world, whilst they should be working on transforming their industries not as a free market but as a gov lead centralized effort. Without the necessary reforms India will not be a desired market anytime soon in the future, but merely a dumping ground of irrelevant and unwanted tech, be it weapons or manufacturing machinery.

At least, Iran with all it's sanctions and limitations can still produce their own military equipment, what of India, open the markets of the world and barely able to produce a fighter after 40 years, a tank after 30 years, missile with massive Russian input and most of all, they can't do without foreign components for any of the so called indigenous equipment.

So spare me the numbers argument, comparative advantage and market size is not as simple as merely the number of population. And for the ideal population of China, one that balances burden and blessing, there is no set number and it is more to do with situation at hand.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
I never said China population is too small. You cannot use Singapore as yardstick . Singapore natural position should be in Malaysia but because of rasicst Malaysian politic it not possible So she had to go on her own.
Singapore benefit a lot from it too because of insecurity many Indo and Malaysian chinese park their money in Singapore allowing it to invest in industry, port and education. Coupled with liberal open policy and liberal immigration, relatively competent civil ,allowed it to propel into the first world
Due to small geography and small population base the impact of this policy is immediate and striking

But China is continental size country with huge and disparate population hobbled by century of poor policy and neglect coupled with geopolitic animosity from western world

It is much more difficult situation to advanced economically Only DXP with his enlightened policy change the mind set of the Chinese and yes Singapore and Hongkong open his horizon and confirm that with right policy Chinese society can prosper. With he did is to allowed the Chinese to get rich and take the responsibility of their own life and retreat from interfering in the day to day life of chinese people

So chinese population size is both burden and blesses at the same time. China is actually 2 countries the easter seabord is close to the first world and the western part is more third world.In other word inbalance development They make huge effort to equalized it but it is not easy It will take generation to bring th the western part of the country to the level of eastern board.

I think the egregious Hukou system should be discarded It is one of the worst perpetrated injustice and unfair practise to the Chinese society They should discard it . But they met with high resistance form the large city due to burden on social service and tax.

They already started to dismantle it by allowing the migrant worker to migrate to 2nd and 3rd tier cities but still too slow. If implemented right it might get China second wind of prosperity if they are allowed to buy properties in the cities and get social service

The point is that there is no country with a small population, an autarkic economy, and no allies, that can stand up to the U.S. or be strong on its own.

This is a bad combination on all fronts.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
Continue....

So after describing all that, I can get to why I think you are wrong to equate raw numbers = comparative advantage/bigger market.

First, larger number of people does mean a larger market in general since there are more people to consume but the pre-requisite is that the population of this market can consume. No-one would think that China could be anywhere near what it is today in 1980s, primarily because, although there was a huge population there were not enough people with the ability to consume much, other than maybe the cheapest of goods. There was a conscious effort by China gov to move things in the direction they wanted, instead of just leaving everything to the free market.

Second, advancements, this would be the greatest factor as to why India despite its huge population may have problems in the near or longer term future. The buzz word Automation, isn't just a buzz word anymore. There are significant advances in automation over the last 20 years and it has arguably moved more than the advances that has happened, from the time of first industrial revolution to the year 2000. We are at an age where factories can literally run 24/7 without further human input after setup, barring repairs and troubleshooting. This is further accelerating as technology continue to advance. As technology advance, the cost of setting such a factory will continue to lessen over the years. Manufacturing as a driving force of poor economies to rich economies is getting closer and closer, to coming to an end. This is not some doomsday fortune telling but the literal changing environment we are living in. I am pretty sure you can understand the meaning behind this.

Third, like @Hendrik_2000 said, population is as much a burden as it is a blessing. Aside from feeding the population, which in turn necessitate industries to do so. The bigger problem in the modern world is providing jobs, an economy ultimately runs on consumption of goods and services, if you cannot provide enough jobs for the population then no matter how big your population is, it is useless to the country and is a burden instead. This also create class disputes and destabilizes the country from within. This point reinforces point 1 above and will be further exacerbated by point 2. No matter how cheap manual labor is, once automation reaches the point of no return, machines will take over the manual labor. They don't need rest, time to eat or drink, they can preform the task with greater precision with faster time. It is no longer a matter of how or ifs, it is only a matter of time. A larger population without the ability to work is no use at all.

Fourth, the dream and, yes the dream, of forcing major sections of manufacturing out of China is ridiculous as least for the foreseeable future. The reasoning is simple, China isn't just the factory of the world but also it's supply chain. Manufacturing in China means you have pretty much all the supplies you need, from land needed for factories, raw materials, to machinery, to machinery components for repairs, a ready made work force, an advanced and educated work force, most of the world automation advancements, an unbeatable infrastructure network and a consumer base ready and willing to consume, need I go on. What more could a manufacturer ask for. You can go from designing, to prototyping, to refining, to manufacturing and to selling all in one place. prototyping and refining designs would be cheaper than anywhere else as well, considering the all the components or the ability to manufacturing the components is already there.

In the long run, if India doesn't get its act together and soon, it may never have the chance. The Made in India campaign was a case in point, of the inability or unwillingness of the Indian state to facilitate the advancement of the country, and the nationalist sentiment is only making it worst, not better. India will have to swallow it's pride and accept made in china goods for now, if not end-products then machinery and components and maybe even skills/skilled labor to teach them, otherwise they may not have the choice in the future. The time of no return is closing in on them and they are concerned about boycotting China and dreaming about their place in the world, whilst they should be working on transforming their industries not as a free market but as a gov lead centralized effort. Without the necessary reforms India will not be a desired market anytime soon in the future, but merely a dumping ground of irrelevant and unwanted tech, be it weapons or manufacturing machinery.

At least, Iran with all it's sanctions and limitations can still produce their own military equipment, what of India, open the markets of the world and barely able to produce a fighter after 40 years, a tank after 30 years, missile with massive Russian input and most of all, they can't do without foreign components for any of the so called indigenous equipment.

So spare me the numbers argument, comparative advantage and market size is not as simple as merely the number of population. And for the ideal population of China, one that balances burden and blessing, there is no set number and it is more to do with situation at hand.

The problem is that your entire argument is that

1) A large population by itself is not sufficient to be a great power

I argue this is true yes, but it is necessary. Proportionately a small population will only mean you can be a subordinate power.

2) India will never be able to industrialize

I would argue that you underestimate India. India is a great country with very smart people.

You say they will never be able to have manufacturing out of China and into India, but
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

India's steel output by 2018 was 2nd the world, ahead of Japan and the United States.

Between 2010-2017, India's Internet users increased from 8% of the population to 34% of the population.

Gradually the supply chain is moving, and alternative supply chains are being created. This is the choice of companies like Apple, and other foreign companies. Assembly can be moved anywhere with enough will and prodding from government policy. But what China cannot do is move advanced photolithography manufacturing to China, because China lacks the know-how to do it, no matter how much willpower or what the government investment is. Thus this is a vulnerability.

India is rising.

So spare me the numbers argument, comparative advantage and market size is not as simple as merely the number of population. And for the ideal population of China, one that balances burden and blessing, there is no set number and it is more to do with situation at hand.

So it is a burden and a blessing, China's economy would be just as good with a population of 500 million? 100 million? 10 million?
 
Last edited:

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
Demographic bonus become " bonus " if managed well , but become catastrophe vice versa.
China had applied AI , robotic, and other technological things, if the pace is not reduced, China will be able to overcome the demographic " decline " for some time.

Yes but not forever.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
India has almost the same population as China. How come India's economy is not anywhere close if population size is an indicator of wealth? More nonsense. What about all those African countries with large population sizes but no wealth?

So many countries hate China... When did that happen? Was it recent or was it always like that? You wonder how did China get to be the second most powerful country being hated by so many. Especially in Asia where there's so much hate in general yet they need China yet their number one trading partner is not the US who they like more but China who they hate. It's because being liked is important to countries that have nothing else positive to say about their countries. They know they're always dependent on bigger fish in order to survive and that's why they're angry all the time.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
China was not hated until very recently. During the Deng, Jiang and Hu eras China was seen as opening up and liberalizing. This belief persisted until around 2015. Now China is beginning to be hated, but still coasting on past successes. It will still have some successes, but it is being more and more hated and this will eventually stall out China, as it is already beginning to do. It is foolish to say that being hated is good.
 
Top