Impact of China's rise in the world - Long term predictions (30-50 years)

[gadgetcool5]

As far as India, it's form of government is not that important.

What's important is that there are more Indians born every year than in the US, Europe, Japan, Russia and China combined (!). India will soon be by far the world's most populous entity united under a single political banner. Even if they are slow and inefficient, by pure demographic power they will have huge weight in the world.

 

[Phead128]

As far as India, it's form of government is not that important.

What's important is that there are more Indians born every year than in the US, Europe, Japan, Russia and China combined (!). India will soon be by far the world's most populous entity united under a single political banner. Even if they are slow and inefficient, by pure demographic power they will have huge weight in the world.

Ahh yes, excess testosterone and surplus of angry unemployed men. Perfect storm for low-income trap, or WW3.

 

[Tyler]

View attachment 73624

Most of the gains of rmb was in second half of 2020. In 2021 the rmb has not moved much and still far away from historic high.

 

[Tyler]

As far as India, it's form of government is not that important.

What's important is that there are more Indians born every year than in the US, Europe, Japan, Russia and China combined (!). India will soon be by far the world's most populous entity united under a single political banner. Even if they are slow and inefficient, by pure demographic power they will have huge weight in the world.

That is why China is planning to increase its population.

 

[sinophilia]

That is why China is planning to increase its population.

If China was planning on increasing it's population it would have removed birth controls long ago, but for some reason it is taking decades too long to act.

I agree, a stable and slow increase in population is ideal though, something like a TFR of 2.4. But population control is very hard, no idea what the future holds for Chinese government policy on this but I hope it happens soon.

Other East Asian fertility has collapsed. If China ends up continuing to decline it will be catastrophic.

 

[Richard Santos]

The fertility of all high or high middle income countries collapses. It is an effect of low infant mortality and high disposable income. In practical long term economic outlook, this fact is a great equalizer of the poorer countries against more developed ones.

 

[AndrewS]

As far as India, it's form of government is not that important.

What's important is that there are more Indians born every year than in the US, Europe, Japan, Russia and China combined (!). India will soon be by far the world's most populous entity united under a single political banner. Even if they are slow and inefficient, by pure demographic power they will have huge weight in the world.

Uh no

There are commentaries on how 50% of Indians are functionally illiterate. That doesn't bode well for India's future economic development.

Plus you have to consider how Hindus are or will soon be outnumbered by non Hindus (like Dalits, Muslims, Tribals, etc)

And the caste/jati nonsense amongst the higher Hindu castes, plus hundreds of languages.

It's more likely that India will end up with constant internecine squabbles than becoming a huge weight in the world.

 

[AndrewS]

I'm saying 6/6 East Asian states (JPN, KOR, TW, HK, SG, CHN) were dictatorships/defacto single-party states, and 3/5 European states (UK, GER, RUS) except FRA/ITA were absolute monarchies during the main phases of their industrialization.

Obviously it's not a clear-cut case, as you have FRA/ITA that some lost absolute monarchy prior to full industrialization, but generally speaking, centralized states produced the bulk of the developed industrialized states today and only later did they become full democracies.

India going against this trend by going full-potato (even beyond FR/ITL) as a full-fledged democracy with all regions jockeying for self-interest... they aren't going to get shit done.

Perhaps it's something more fundamental than the type of government.

The average Indian person talks a lot.
Seriously, you can't get them to shut up.
But they rarely deliver what they promise, because words are cheap.

So perhaps that is the root issue.

 

[Richard Santos]

I'm saying 6/6 East Asian states (JPN, KOR, TW, HK, SG, CHN) were dictatorships/defacto single-party states, and 3/5 European states (UK, GER, RUS) except FRA/ITA were absolute monarchies during the main phases of their industrialization.

Obviously it's not a clear-cut case, as you have FRA/ITA that some lost absolute monarchy prior to full industrialization, but generally speaking, centralized states produced the bulk of the developed industrialized states today and only later did they become full democracies.

India going against this trend by going full-potato (even beyond FR/ITL) as a full-fledged democracy with all regions jockeying for self-interest... they aren't going to get shit done.

that’s patent nonsense. UK became a constitutional monarchy in 1688, a hundred years before industrial revolution even started. Prussian monarchy, which would later become german monarchy, had been a constitutionally constrained monarchy since 1848, when industrial revolution across the german speaking world had barely begun. Russia was only maybe 1/5 through its industrialization when the Tzar fell in 1917. Bulk of russia’s industrialization was accomplished under the bolsheviks.

I might say there has not been an absolute monarchy that has managed to navigate the process of industrialization revolution without running relatively early on into a revolution that threatened to topple the monarchy, and that result either in a severely constrained constitutional monarchy, or replacement of the monarchy.

Marx was right, the process of industrial revolution was the process of class struggle and absolute monarchy relies on the wrong class for its absolute power to be able to work with the class that would be at the forefront of industrial revolution.

 

[Richard Santos]

I think rather than making insinuating remarks about alleged ethnic foibles or sweeping assertions about how high level classifications of forms of government might perform under the challenges of industrialization, more insight might be gained through careful considerations of from which segment of society a actual government, or governing coalition of interests, derive its power, what is the short term common interest of those segments, are those interests aligned with the needs of efficient industrialization, and what constraint it is operating under if it were to retain the support vital to remaining in power.

It is tempting to say dictatorial governments don’t need to worry about those things. that it not true. Even powerful and ruthless dictatorial governments that don’t worry enough about those things still fall all the time.

The common interest of the classes from which absolute monarchies derives it’s power was to retain the traditional prerogatives of the landed aristocracy formed in a large agrarian society, their interest is therefore opposed to the shift in center from wealth snd privilege from the farms to the cities, and from those who hold titles by birth to those who gain influence by reforming modes of production.