The Ingenious Chinese Political System

[Corvus]

China's workforce is already shrinking and yet their population is still rising, all thanks to the 1 child policy, which also led to the demographic imbalance mentioned.

Historically, when you have a lot of men who have no chance at getting married, it leads to all kinds of social unrest. When you have 33 million of them, well, its going to get ugly.

Plus the shrinking workforce is going to bite hard very soon - it won't be long until there are just 2 workers having to provide for each retiree. And that is just retirees - it doesn't count children, public servants, the army etc.

China's economy is going o crash hard when that hits.

[Warning]

Are we now going to have people tell us about the marvels of authoritarian China alongside our established cast of "Russia is wonderful, putin is great" bots and trolls? I think I'll pass on both.

[Mormolyce]

I don't even know where to start. The Chinese system for determining political leaders is amazing. Instead of electing leaders democratically, the Chinese political department hires recent grads that have to slowly work their way up a sophisticated politically latter managing larger and larger populations (village => larger village => city => county => larger city => larger county => state =>etc) along the way. The systems framework is designed to weed out individuals until only the most competent people are in the top positions. What a brilliant way to insure that leaders are always competent. In contrast, democracy is a crap shoot. We may elect a competent leader or we may elect a rotten apple. The electorate is fallible; therefore, it cannot always elect competent leaders.

Sounds like an interesting syste... oh wait never mind massive endemic corruption makes the whole exercise meaningless.

Still that's less an artifact of the system and more just where China has been as a society for decades if not centuries now.

- - - Updated - - -

China's workforce is already shrinking and yet their population is still rising, all thanks to the 1 child policy, which also led to the demographic imbalance mentioned.

According to what I've read, the one child policy actually had very little impact on birth rates. China's rapid modernisation likely would've handled that problem unassisted.

[Slant]

Damn man my hat is off Chinese comrades. You are doing it right!

Except, a technocracy doesn't always listen to the will of the people. It is an oppressive system by nature and as such it costs live. Tian Anmen massacre ring any bells? The cultural revolution? No, man. They're not doing it right. If you have to slaughter your own population to get things done, it's wrong.

[BuckSparkles]

If there's one government that I can claim to be objectively worse than our modern "democracy", it's China.

Censorship, disappearances, cultural homogenization and constant surveillance mean that people in China live under the thumbs of one of the worst authoritarian regime on Earth.

So no, thanks but no thanks.

That isn't a bad thing. Having a country where a majority of the population has similar views is a plus, instead of forcing conflicting cultures to live amongst eachother.

[Ripster42]

According to what I've read, the one child policy actually had very little impact on birth rates. China's rapid modernisation likely would've handled that problem unassisted.

It had an impact on demographics. The composition of the population. Which is why they're mentioning the M/F ratio, and the 33 mil extra males.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't a bad thing. Having a country where a majority of the population has similar views is a plus, instead of forcing conflicting cultures to live amongst eachother.

This is pretty strongly contradicted by the US constitution, so if you're in the US and saying this, realize this runs counter to one of the founding principles of this nation.

[Blur4stuff]

You mean voting for a presidential candidate based on whether or not you'd have a beer with them isn't a good thing?

Millions of Americans choose their candidate with silly or even stupid reasoning. Goes for both sides. I would agree (to a point) that China does it better.

For example, there were people that voted for Clinton simply because she was female. There were people who voted Trump simply because they wanted to piss off liberals. Along with many other types. Those kinds of people aren't exactly helpful.

[BuckSparkles]

This is pretty strongly contradicted by the US constitution, so if you're in the US and saying this, realize this runs counter to one of the founding principles of this nation.

I have nothing wrong with US being a melting pot, but you should be an american first and foremost.

Instead of shit that progressives encourage like burning the American flag while waving a flag of some other country. Get that garbage out of here.

[Sky High]

My fuck sparkles you’re so one note... don’t you get bored at some point of it?

[Machismo]

The Chinese government represents a great many things I oppose. They are authoritarian, oppressive, and based on classism and predetermined outcomes. Sure, they are orderly, but at the expense of free thought and free action.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't a bad thing. Having a country where a majority of the population has similar views is a plus, instead of forcing conflicting cultures to live amongst eachother.

Nobody has to force multiple cultures to live together, just don't try and use force to stop it. If you want want to embrace other cultures, don't.

- - - Updated - - -

I have nothing wrong with US being a melting pot, but you should be an american first and foremost.

Instead of shit that progressives encourage like burning the American flag while waving a flag of some other country. Get that garbage out of here.

There's a problem, what that means to one person is not the same as what it meas to another.

Your version of "America First" seems vastly more authoritarian than what someone like me would believe.

[Sky High]

Well considering he thinks flag burning is a big deal (or any sort of deal for that matter) I’d say no doi. It’s just classic projection to act just like the group you say you despise so much.

[Mormolyce]

It had an impact on demographics. The composition of the population. Which is why they're mentioning the M/F ratio, and the 33 mil extra males.

That part does seem likely.

Though it's a little exaggerated, that's 33 million over China's entire population.

[Ripster42]

That part does seem likely.

Though it's a little exaggerated, that's 33 million over China's entire population.

That's 33 million mainly in the age group that was born from 1980-2016. It's not like it's spread out to people older than 40. It's concentrated in an age group where the major change in birth rates occurred. Well, the change in how many children survive the first day after birth since so many were killed because of the one child policy. That's about 1/2 of china's population. China's pop-1.4billion. So 33 million gender disparity in a population of 700 million. That's a pretty big skew.

Edit for clarification: That's almost 1 in 10 men who won't have a mate even if 100% of women marry.

[Mormolyce]

That's 33 million mainly in the age group that was born from 1980-2016. It's not like it's spread out to people older than 40. It's concentrated in an age group where the major change in birth rates occurred. Well, the change in how many children survive the first day after birth since so many were killed because of the one child policy. That's about 1/2 of china's population. China's pop-1.4billion. So 33 million gender disparity in a population of 700 million. That's a pretty big skew.

Edit for clarification: That's almost 1 in 10 men who won't have a mate even if 100% of women marry.

I've seen nothing to suggest that the 33 million are specifically in any age group, where is that from?

[Ripster42]

I've seen nothing to suggest that the 33 million are specifically in any age group, where is that from?

The gender gap only started with the one child policy. Which started about 40 years ago.

[Mormolyce]

The gender gap only started with the one child policy. Which started about 40 years ago.

I would be careful about hypothesising that the entire 33 million are directly attributable to the one child policy and are therefore confined to a particular age cohort. In short, I'd want to see the numbers.

[Ripster42]

I would be careful about hypothesising that the entire 33 million are directly attributable to the one child policy and are therefore confined to a particular age cohort. In short, I'd want to see the numbers.

Well, we can talk about normal demographic distributions and talk about how there's usually fewer males than females after the cohort is about 25 in the absence of outside societal pressures (the one child policy) and get to the answer that way (which works if you know that datum).

Or I guess I can link you to the actual numbers.

[Ahovv]

I can never tell when someone is trolling about something like this.

Are you seriously making an argument for China's political system? ...Really?

[Ripster42]

I can never tell when someone is trolling about something like this.

Are you seriously making an argument for China's political system? ...Really?

Pretty sure nanook is a parody account just like kurata.

[Zarc]

You are in denial of the future.

[/IMG]

You forget that China has well over a billion people. That's why they're "#1". In GDP per capita they are 79th at 15,399 International dollars, just above Palau and Brazil, the latter a currently quite dysfunctional democracy. I'd rather live in Brazil than China. Or why not move up a little and settle in the Dominican Republic with a GDP per capita of 16,049, just below the World Average of 16,318. Source: IMF.

Compare that to the capitalist economy of the US at 57,436 international dollars in GDP per capita. About 4x that of China.

Also, being jailed or executed for political dissent kind of sucks.