The Chinese Century Is Already Over

[Dalit]

No doubt lol

Most Mexican Americans would be far more angry about a White American insulting Mexico than a Chinese person insulting the USA. In fact a sizable amount would probably empathize or support the Chinese person doing that. Lol

 

[tower9]

But, again, when the muscular Blacks gain power in US, it can also be argued that they will likely to prey on nations with populations the Blacks see as phsically weaker as they do to Asians now in US.

Not at all. If anything, in the unlikely scenario that Black nationalists actually gained power in the US, they’d be so consumed with petty and myopic cultural battles with White Americans to focus much on foreign policy. But again it is not likely they’d even be in that position of power. The only Black Americans allowed to be that powerful are those that serve the deep state agenda as figureheads like Obama.

 

[etylo]

Not at all. If anything, in the unlikely scenario that Black nationalists actually gained power in the US, they’d be so consumed with petty and myopic cultural battles with White Americans to focus much on foreign policy. But again it is not likely they’d even be in that position of power. The only Black Americans allowed to be that powerful are those that serve the deep state agenda as figureheads like Obama.

Exactly, that is my point, Black Obama is the first president that treated China as American all out enemy, his pivot to Asia set fire on all the neighbours surrounding China in order to destroy China. Many in China at that time thought Obama would be friendlier to China becos he is Black, but, the opposite happened, be became the first ever worst anti-China president. The narrative is, he cant fight the Whites and Muslims, and so he pick his enemy and fight with China.

 

[tower9]

Exactly, that is my point, Black Obama is the first president that treated China as American all out enemy, his pivot to Asia set fire on all the neighbours surrounding China in order to destroy China. Many in China at that time thought Obama would be friendlier to China becos he is Black, but, the opposite happened, be became the first ever most anti-China president. The narrative is, he cant fight the Whites and Muslims, and so he pick his fight against China.

Obama was just a figurehead. He did not represent the Black agenda contrary to what right wing whites may think. The US security establishment was moving towards containing China anyways and Obama happened to be the president in charge.

 

[Meengla]

To be honest, the govt structure of the USA is simply not capable of governing a country with a population of 800 million. If immigration continues to increase, the USA will accelerate recession and fall into chaos.

The Chinese govt can rule 1.4 billion people because China is a single ethnic country, with the interests of the vast majority of its citizens converging. Moreover, Chinese culture values unity, abides by discipline and the law.

If the USA has too many people, it will only be a strengthened version of India.

The rulers of the USA are not foolish, they know this truth, which is why they control the number of immigrants.

Some seriously healthy food for thought!
Here we ALL are talking about something which has only happened in human history on fairly small levels: The population decline affecting a country's growth, such as in Japan. The richer 'Asian' countries seem to be reluctant to immigration?? Xenophobia?? But in case of Western countries, they know that immigrants are badly needed and hence they are much more open to immigration. The West is rich and more open to immigration.
Honestly, it would be premature to judge the 'Demographics' as 'timebombs' or 'dividends' at this point; we need to set aside our geopolitical biases to begin to evaluate what is coming. Humanity has never been in such a situation in the recorded history on such scales. Personally, I'd like a border-free world! After some decades of frictions, it will be all sorted out!!! So let's get over our Xenophobia, globally and collectively.

 

[etylo]

Obama was just a figurehead. He did not represent the Black agenda contrary to what right wing whites may think. The US security establishment was moving towards containing China anyways and Obama happened to be the president in charge.

All the anti-China agenda couldnt carried out with out his knowledge and approval in the final stage. He could had stop the agenda, but it probably was going to cost Obama prestige and support. So, he choose to go along with the agenda put before him, so he is also responsible for the anti-China plot.

 

[kankan326]

But, again, when the muscular Blacks gain power in US, it can also be argued that they will likely to prey on nations with populations the Blacks see as phsically weaker as they do to Asians now in US. I am not that opimistic about Blacks on China.

No worries. Black majority country will become powerless. See what happened in South Africa

 

[tower9]

All the anti-China agenda couldnt carried out with out his knowledge and approval in the final stage. He could had stop the agenda, but it probably was going to cost Obama prestige and support. So, he choose to go along with the agenda put before him, so he is also responsible for the anti-China plot.

Any president who was in charge would have approved it. However, Obama never casted a personal enmity on his China policy unlike Trump, who was emotionally invested in not seeing the White man lose. Obama was actually far more hostile to Russia than he was to China even if he signed off on the pivot to Asia. Trump personalized and capitalized on Anti China rhetoric, because he identified with it on a racial level, which Obama never did. Obama grew up with Asian friends in Hawaii, his sister is part Asian and his brother in law is Chinese American.

 

[etylo]

Any president who was in charge would have approved it. However, Obama never casted a personal enmity on his China policy unlike Trump, who was emotionally invested in not seeing the White man lose. Obama was actually far more hostile to Russia than he was to China even if he signed off on the pivot to Asia. Trump personalized and capitalized on Anti China rhetoric, because he identified with it on a racial level, which Obama never did. Obama grew up with Asian friends in Hawaii, his sister is part Asian and his brother in law is Chinese American.

I agree, Trump is the worst of all to China, he is a very white racist Mafia who has deep personal hatred for non-white China. But, Obama is not friendly to China either becos he didnt do the correct and right things in US-China relation. Maybe credit should not be that easily given to Obama for his role in US China relation and maybe he is not that innocent after all, he has to be loyal to US interests first after all.

 

[tower9]

I agree, Trump is the worst of all to China, he is a very white racist Mafia who has deep personal hatred for non-white China. But, Obama is not friendly to China either becos he didnt do the correct and right things in US-China relation.

The deep state and security establishment is overwhelmingly made up of old Anglo and Jewish men. Period. Their policies reflect their worldview. Obama was just a figurehead. He would not have been allowed to take power smoothly if he was not approved by the establishment.

Anyways during Trump’s tenure, he was excessively hostile to China and painted the relationship with deeply stark and racial terms which Obama never did. On the other hand, Trump was very friendly to Russia, because he saw it as a White and Christian country and in fact was trying to work towards an alliance with Russia against China. However despite all of this, the US security establishment doubled down on its anti Russia stance and forced Trump to sign off on many policies that were anti Russia, which he had to in order to prove he was not a Russian agent as the media claimed.

So again, the US President is merely a figurehead.

 

[FuturePAF]

Please. China can solve whatever "demographic problem" it has a thousand different ways before importing a single Pajeet.

China: 1.3 billion
Russia: 100 million
Central Asia: 100 million
ASEAN: 750 million
Pakistan: 300 million

That's 2.55 billion. America is pretty much done.

Building out the rail infrastructure to link China and Pakistan as well as rebooting CPEC once Pakistan’s political mess is sorted out can really allow China to harness Pakistan’s large and growing population (5.5 million babies born last year in Pakistan alone) for Chinese companies. Sure there will be issues to sort out but it could be a way to cover the gap until China inventories it’s own public to have more kids, and in the meantime it would help build up Pakistan to keep labor costs low for Chinese companies as well as sit along the route to the rest of most of Eurasia and Africa, as well as build up a market that would be very likely to buy more and more Chinese products if their buying power increases.

A rail corridor over the Himalayas for fast freight would make it very possible. It would also link China to major food producing regions.

A rail corridor from Xinjiang, over the Himalayas, all the way down to Karachi and over to the massive natural deep harbor of Gwadar could be connected by ship to the GCC countries and Africa, where the GCC is looking at a rail network. There are also plans for trans-African rail corridors, so a ship between Gwadar and Djibouti could then connect to a rail route between Djibouti and West Africa. So many people; consumers/lower labor costs for joint ventures as well as mining resources.

All this via a rail corridor through Pakistan that would keep time low for crucial products like food stuffs.

 

[kuge]

The study’s projections show the U.S. population would grow to nearly 500 million people by 2050 if U.S. immigration levels were doubled, about 100 million more than if immigration levels were kept at recent levels

Increasing Future Immigration Grows U.S. Competitive Advantage

A new report shows how, if it fails to significantly boost legal immigration now, the U.S. will sacrifice its position as the world’s largest economy by 2030.

www.fwd.us

Continued immigration could crowd the US with 500 million people by 2050. China will never overtake US.

​

ok. you can rip knowing your children will be in good hands....

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

Please. China can solve whatever "demographic problem" it has a thousand different ways before importing a single Pajeet.

well that is only reply they are getting from me, a hypothetical solution to a hypothetical problem.

 

[Dalit]

DISON, WISCONSIN – In January, China officially acknowledged that its population began to decline last year – roughly nine years earlier than Chinese demographers and the United Nations had projected. The implications of this are hard to overstate. It means that all of China’s economic, foreign, and defense policies are based on faulty demographic data.

For example, Chinese government economists have predicted that by 2049, China’s per capita GDP will have reached half or even three-quarters that of the United States, while its overall GDP will have grown to twice or even three timesthat of its rival. But these forecasts assumed that China’s population would be four times that of the US in 2049. The real figures tell a very different story. Assuming that China is lucky enough to stabilize its fertility rate at 1.1 children per woman, its population in 2049 will be just 2.9 times that of the US, and all its key indicators of demographic and economic vitality will be much worse.

These faulty predictions do not affect only China. They imply a geopolitical butterfly effect that could ultimately destroy the existing global order. Chinese authorities have been acting in accordance with their longstanding belief in a rising East and declining West. Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin believed that as long as Russia maintained stable relations with a rising China, the declining West would be powerless to hold him accountable for his aggression against Ukraine. And in its haste to abandon Afghanistan in order to focus its resources on China, the US may have unwittingly emboldened Putin further.

Population aging will be a permanent major drag on China’s economy. After all, as Italy’s experience shows, the old-age dependency ratio (the number of people over 64, divided by those aged 15-64) has a strong negative correlation with GDP growth, as does the median age and the proportion of people over 64.

In 1950, Japan’s median age was 21, compared to 29 in the US. As one would expect, Japan subsequently benefited from years of faster economic growth. By 1994, however, the prime-age labor force (15-59) began to decline, whereas the US working-age population is not expected to fall until 2048.

By 1992, Japan’s median age was 5.5 years above that of America’s, and its old-age dependency ratio began to exceed that of the US. Not surprisingly, its GDP growth has been lower than America’s ever since. Japan’s per capita GDP rose from 16% of the US level in 1960 to 154% in 1995. But by 2022, that figure had fallen to 46%, and it is likely to decline below 35% in the future.

Similarly, owing to their young populations, Taiwan and South Korea achieved rapid economic convergence for more than five decades, with per capita GDP soaring from 5% of the US level in 1960 to 42% and 53%, respectively, in 2014. But both economies have since stagnated as their workforces have shrunk, putting them on track to fall below 30% of US per capita GDP. 1

Now consider China. In 1980, its median age was 21, eight years younger than America’s, and from 1979 to 2011, its GDP grew at an average annual rate of 10%. But China’s prime-age labor force (15-59) began to shrink in 2012, and by 2015, GDP growth had decelerated to 7% before slowing further, to 3%, as of 2022. An average of 23.4 million births per year from 1962 to 1990 made China “the world’s factory.”

But even China’s own exaggerated official figures put last year’s births at just 9.56 million. Chinese manufacturing will continue to decline as a result, creating new inflationary pressures in the US and elsewhere.

While China’s population was 1.5 timeslarger than India’s in 1975, even the Chinese government’s exaggerated official figures show that it was smaller last year(1.411 billion compared to 1.417 billion). In reality, India’s population surpassed China’s a decade ago, and it remains on track to be nearly 1.5 times larger than China’s in 2050, with a median age of 39 – a full generation younger than China’s (57).

By 2030, China’s median age will already be 5.5 years above that of the US, and by 2033, its old-age dependency ratio will begin to exceed America’s. Its GDP growth rate will begin to fall below America’s in 2031-35, at which point its per capita GDP will hardly have reached 30% of its rival’s – let alone the 50-75% predicted by Chinese official economists. If the US is overtaken as the world’s largest economy, it will be by India, not China.

To be sure, China is investing heavily in artificial intelligence and robotics to offset the economic drag of aging. But these efforts can go only so far, because continuing innovation relies on young minds. Moreover, robot workers do not consume, and consumption is the major driver of any economy. 2

China’s decline will be gradual. It will remain the world’s second- or third-largest economy for decades to come. But the huge gap between its waning demographic and economic strength and its expanding political ambitions may make it highly vulnerable to strategic misjudgments. Memories of past glory or fear of lost status could lead it down the same dangerous path that Russia has taken in Ukraine.

So, China’s leaders should heed the lessons of Russia’s botched invasion and wake up from their unrealistic “Chinese Dream” of national rejuvenation. The government’s current policy approach is a formula for demographic and civilizational collapse. 3

The US also has lessons to learn, given its apparent failure to manage a declining Russia. America and its allies – including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea – will also be dealing with societal aging and resulting economic slowdowns. Their combined share of the global economy already fell from 77% in 2002 to 56% in 2021, and that trend will continue.

The geopolitical implications should be obvious. If the major powers are wise, they will cooperate in good faith to forge an enduring global order before they no longer have the power to do so.

The Chinese Century Is Already Over | by Yi Fuxian - Project Syndicate

Yi Fuxian traces the profound global implications of the country’s declining population and economic prospects.

www.project-syndicate.org

This is the same guy who used to claim that Pakistan was finished at the height of Afghan war... You guys might have forgotten. I haven't.

 

[Tamerlane]

What we’re seeing is the end times of the European dominance of the world.

All European countries are suffering a serious decline in population. Average age is going up and they have to bring in immigrants to bolster the number of younger tax paying workers.

The world is running out of young whites as immigrants, something America used to rely on. Until 1952 non-white immigration was banned. Now they’ve become so desperate they’ve been reduced to importing Africans and Indians. Mexicans come by themselves.

There are three things that have bankrupted America.

1. Loss of religion, hedonism and feminism resulted in decline in white birth rates. Plus, there’s no sense of morality left.

2. Constant wars have misallocated resources. The War on Terror (Islam) cost $23 trillion, financed with a deficit that is now $32 trillion.

3. Large scale legal and illegal immigration is changing the demographics of the country.

It’s easy to see that the US is in terminal decline and there’s no way of stopping it. It’ll probably fade away like Great Britain did before.