Or, alternatively, 'Mao' already prevented this, and the global evaluation has been erroneously calculating compounding Chinese economic and demographic claims for decades now despite known systemic data integrity issues.
It's not exactly new news that Chinese data is unreliably optimistic. China has admitted as much internally and internationally for over a decade now. What's less common knowledge is that this isn't just economic growth claims, which allow for compounding growth estimates, but the demographic data as well. Chinese demographic data is suspect for many of the same reasons as the economic data- because regional administrators have incentives to over-estimate their numbers in exchange for resources from the central government, and repeated because it serves the national governments geopolitical / national pride purposes to maintain it's claim. Being the largest country in the world (especially vis-a-vis India) assumed its own national prestige purpose just as the 4% growth figure became like a talisman for showing that the party was maintaining real growth.
Estimates on when China is going to overtake the US are inevitably going to depend on when you believe China started over-reporting its numbers, and by how much. I've seen little to indicate that China hasn't been overestimating for decades, and even fewer attempts to recreate estimate comparisons retroactively factoring such in. That was bad enough when it was just economic growth numbers- demographics just compounds the compounding discrepancy of future economic potential. The UN, which is far from the most bear-ish observer of China, moved it's estimate of China's demographic peak forward by almost a decade to last year between 2019 and 2022, and that's not even the most bearish estimate on demographic over-counting. Yi Fuxian, as the most easily searchable, has estimated that China demographically peaked almost half a decade ago, in 2018.
It's not merely that the economic size is based on over-estimated growth resulting from over-estimating growth, but that it's been projected on the basis of over-estimated fertility rates based on people who never existed. It doesn't take much until you're losing an entire United State's worth of population over the next 80 years.
The demographic over-estimation is part of why the middle income trap is as significant as it is for China in modern analysis. It's not simply that China's economic growth will slow down more sharply than predicted, but also earlier, and also with greater burdens than expected. We've vaguely known for some time the sort of population size China will need to take care of as the population ages out of the work force- we haven't been thinking in terms of the population to not only replace them, but support them. This would already be a substantial headwind, and it doesn't factor in real looming threats to the Chinese economic system, such as the still-unresolved debt issues that have been a significant part of the government fueling bubbles that help support those prior GDP figures.
Yi Fuxian is one guy. The demographic collapse is an over played anyway.
Without much evidence we are told that China’s demographics will slow down their growth to levels lower or equal to the US. However the US also has a demographic crisis, and China can still play catch-up on a GDP per capita basis.
We’ve already seen that China has in fact slowed down from its extraordinary 10% a year to the 2010s.
Last year growth was 3% growth, the worst non covid year, but it faced the headwinds of the zero Covid policy and some American actions. Nevertheless the last Q had a rebound. They also have a persistent over valued housing market which is correcting. So I expect that the next few years will be slow but China will probably hit 4-6% again mid 20s.
Agree that a demographic crisis is looming, but we don't have to extrapolate growth very far, only the next 20 years or so during which China's working age population will be higher than the U.S. as a percentage.
As for the idea that China's numbers are all fake - I suppose many of them are but they are succeeding at many impossible to fake things. China is the #1 trade partner of most countries in the world. This cannot be faked. And its no secret that they are by far the world's #1 manufacturer. We import (going by memory) 4 times as much from China as we export to them. Maybe the numbers are faked a little. This is cold comfort to me. China's capacity to produce physical goods dwarfs the U.S. by so much that it doesn't change the story much.
As for the idea that China's numbers are all fake - I suppose many of them are but they are succeeding at many impossible to fake things. China is the #1 trade partner of most countries in the world. This cannot be faked. And its no secret that they are by far the world's #1 manufacturer. We import (going by memory) 4 times as much from China as we export to them. Maybe the numbers are faked a little. This is cold comfort to me. China's capacity to produce physical goods dwarfs the U.S. by so much that it doesn't change the story much.
But of course. You're buying into the argument that not only the numbers mostly correct rather than compounding differences over decades, but the numbers you're choosing are even relevant.
Numbers can be both really big for real, and still not surpass the US in relevant metrics, because as the expression goes the US is really, really, really stupid-big in relevant numbers... and so when you want to make your own country look good, choose a different number. Trade export partner numbers is one of them. This is not really a relevant metric of how the US and China compare, because the US is not configured as an external export economy, and China is not configured as an internal continental economy. Then there's dynamics such as the value-added chain, or the export/import dependence levels, and so on. Some of these exact basis of comparison have been memes of the American electorate for years- like the idea that as manufacturing declined as a share of employment that the US manufacturing base was declining.
There certainly are arguments that China is beating the US in critical areas- I'd argue that east china sea anti-ship cruise missiles is relevant- but these aren't the macroeconomic arguments being pointed at for growth.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Or, alternatively, 'Mao' already prevented this, and the global evaluation has been erroneously calculating compounding Chinese economic and demographic claims for decades now despite known systemic data integrity issues.
It's not exactly new news that Chinese data is unreliably optimistic. China has admitted as much internally and internationally for over a decade now. What's less common knowledge is that this isn't just economic growth claims, which allow for compounding growth estimates, but the demographic data as well. Chinese demographic data is suspect for many of the same reasons as the economic data- because regional administrators have incentives to over-estimate their numbers in exchange for resources from the central government, and repeated because it serves the national governments geopolitical / national pride purposes to maintain it's claim. Being the largest country in the world (especially vis-a-vis India) assumed its own national prestige purpose just as the 4% growth figure became like a talisman for showing that the party was maintaining real growth.
Estimates on when China is going to overtake the US are inevitably going to depend on when you believe China started over-reporting its numbers, and by how much. I've seen little to indicate that China hasn't been overestimating for decades, and even fewer attempts to recreate estimate comparisons retroactively factoring such in. That was bad enough when it was just economic growth numbers- demographics just compounds the compounding discrepancy of future economic potential. The UN, which is far from the most bear-ish observer of China, moved it's estimate of China's demographic peak forward by almost a decade to last year between 2019 and 2022, and that's not even the most bearish estimate on demographic over-counting. Yi Fuxian, as the most easily searchable, has estimated that China demographically peaked almost half a decade ago, in 2018.
It's not merely that the economic size is based on over-estimated growth resulting from over-estimating growth, but that it's been projected on the basis of over-estimated fertility rates based on people who never existed. It doesn't take much until you're losing an entire United State's worth of population over the next 80 years.
The demographic over-estimation is part of why the middle income trap is as significant as it is for China in modern analysis. It's not simply that China's economic growth will slow down more sharply than predicted, but also earlier, and also with greater burdens than expected. We've vaguely known for some time the sort of population size China will need to take care of as the population ages out of the work force- we haven't been thinking in terms of the population to not only replace them, but support them. This would already be a substantial headwind, and it doesn't factor in real looming threats to the Chinese economic system, such as the still-unresolved debt issues that have been a significant part of the government fueling bubbles that help support those prior GDP figures.
Yi Fuxian is one guy. The demographic collapse is an over played anyway.
Without much evidence we are told that China’s demographics will slow down their growth to levels lower or equal to the US. However the US also has a demographic crisis, and China can still play catch-up on a GDP per capita basis.
We’ve already seen that China has in fact slowed down from its extraordinary 10% a year to the 2010s.
Last year growth was 3% growth, the worst non covid year, but it faced the headwinds of the zero Covid policy and some American actions. Nevertheless the last Q had a rebound. They also have a persistent over valued housing market which is correcting. So I expect that the next few years will be slow but China will probably hit 4-6% again mid 20s.
More options
Context Copy link
Agree that a demographic crisis is looming, but we don't have to extrapolate growth very far, only the next 20 years or so during which China's working age population will be higher than the U.S. as a percentage.
As for the idea that China's numbers are all fake - I suppose many of them are but they are succeeding at many impossible to fake things. China is the #1 trade partner of most countries in the world. This cannot be faked. And its no secret that they are by far the world's #1 manufacturer. We import (going by memory) 4 times as much from China as we export to them. Maybe the numbers are faked a little. This is cold comfort to me. China's capacity to produce physical goods dwarfs the U.S. by so much that it doesn't change the story much.
But of course. You're buying into the argument that not only the numbers mostly correct rather than compounding differences over decades, but the numbers you're choosing are even relevant.
Numbers can be both really big for real, and still not surpass the US in relevant metrics, because as the expression goes the US is really, really, really stupid-big in relevant numbers... and so when you want to make your own country look good, choose a different number. Trade export partner numbers is one of them. This is not really a relevant metric of how the US and China compare, because the US is not configured as an external export economy, and China is not configured as an internal continental economy. Then there's dynamics such as the value-added chain, or the export/import dependence levels, and so on. Some of these exact basis of comparison have been memes of the American electorate for years- like the idea that as manufacturing declined as a share of employment that the US manufacturing base was declining.
There certainly are arguments that China is beating the US in critical areas- I'd argue that east china sea anti-ship cruise missiles is relevant- but these aren't the macroeconomic arguments being pointed at for growth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link