Grey Templar wrote:
They'll tank sometime. Its really an economic inevitability for economies to have down turns and up turns.

Its not a question of if but when.


The question also can be tied into their eventual population crisis as well. They'll be having a serious problem in the next 50 years or so as the consequences of the 1 child policy meets the cultural preference for male children and an increasing amount of elderly people. China could end up being a ghost country and that would have serious economic repercussions.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why would that cause sexual frustration? You can have sex for other reasons than just procreation.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why would that cause sexual frustration? You can have sex for other reasons than just procreation.

Not if males outnumber females by a significant margin and you are male and not gay...

 Fafnir wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They'll tank sometime. Its really an economic inevitability for economies to have down turns and up turns.

Its not a question of if but when.


The question also can be tied into their eventual population crisis as well. They'll be having a serious problem in the next 50 years or so as the consequences of the 1 child policy meets the cultural preference for male children and an increasing amount of elderly people. China could end up being a ghost country and that would have serious economic repercussions.

It's already having some pretty serious repercussions. Apparently there's a lot of sexual frustration going around.

 Jihadin wrote:
We all can say one thing for sure. If we go down we're taking China with us! Europe is just collateral and Russia be stuck cleaning up the aisle due to Putin becoming a Super Power all to himself.

 xole wrote:
Not if they get rid of the old people.

Just force that growth triangle back into place.

 xole wrote:
Not if they get rid of the old people.

Just force that growth triangle back into place.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 xole wrote:
Not if they get rid of the old people.

Just force that growth triangle back into place.

While such a solution could work in the US, or any country with a balanced population of young people, its not going to work here.

The problem is really the fact that the sex ratio of young people is way off. This was caused by the Culture itself preferring male children, and seeing daughters as basically worthless.

They succeeded in bringing down their population, but unfortunately they failed to see what harmful side-effects it would have when combined with their culture.

 Fafnir wrote:
Apparently there's a lot of sexual frustration going around.

 Jihadin wrote:
We all can say one thing for sure. If we go down we're taking China with us! Europe is just collateral and Russia be stuck cleaning up the aisle due to Putin becoming a Super Power all to himself.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the real problem is that Communism does actually work with real people. You have to have perfect people, and that's impossible.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would actually argue they did a better job the way they did it than the Soviets did. The fact its still around speaks volumes about that. So if you want to do Communism, do it the Chinese way not the Soviet way.

 Jihadin wrote:
Well we can say the same. The young here in the states is becoming disillusion with our government. Well not just the youn but over a wide spread of ages.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, the real problem is that Communism does actually work with real people. You have to have perfect people, and that's impossible.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Isn't China sort of dependent on developed countries as cheap labour is one of it's biggest commodities.

 sebster wrote:

China is dependant on developed countries as a place to sell all of its manufactured crap to. It's inability/unwillingness to develop a strong domestic market has basically kept it stuck in the export/take dollars from exporting to invest in more export industry/export even more/take even more dollars to expand investment even more/etc cycle for a long time. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that little loop, it's basically what kickstarted Japan, South Korea and whole bunch of other countries in to becoming modern economies. Mexico is doing the same right now. But at some point you have to transition to sustaining your economic activity primarily through domestic markets.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd say its how the vast majority of economies became developed myself. After all the US got its start exporting luxury items and manufactured goods. We certainly had our downs. Perhaps a crash of sorts is inevitable along the way. Just a natural hick up of becoming a big boy economy? EDIT: A make it or break it moment I guess?

 sebster wrote:
And the idea of make it or break it is interesting, though I can't think of a case where it got too hard for a country and they just settled back in to being a low income economy. I think it might be more of a case that once it starts, the country is going to make it, and whatever breaks along the way, government, social structure, traditions, whatever, will just have to break.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm thinking either China makes the changes needed for its economy to survive by choice or is forced to make them by the system collapsing on itself ala the fall of the USSR, though the economic situations being comparable I'm not sure of. Russia went through a lot of turmoil but survived as a state by repackaging itself. I man, it's pretty much the same political system right in Russia today as in the USSR? They didn't really change as much as one might expect, but maybe they could have? They were in a position for sweeping political changes beyond their economy.