That was the way I read it. The cost here shows something close to the true demand for that piece of property, and if it’s in demand it’s likely for the cost to increase over time.
Sea changes happen. Chiang Ching-kuo (CCK) spent twelve years as a student and young man in the Stalinist USSR, and later, as a reformist dictator, put Taiwan firmly on the road to democracy. His mainland counterpart, Deng Xiaoping, was also Moscow-trained, and was also a reformist, albeit not to the same extent as CCK. Deng certainly could imagine liberal democracy. And achieving it on the mainland today would be easier because his reforms greatly increased China’s per capita income.*
There is no excuse for telling the people of Taiwan that they will be invaded if they declare their independence, as does today’s PRC. And there is no excuse for telling people how many children they can have. Talk about government control of women’s bodies! I can’t see how Chinese collapse could be anything but the greatly to be wished collapse of a tyrannical government.
Although hardly the PRC’s worst crime, perhaps I should remind people here of the Great Firewall. One of our children was there about three months ago and reported to us that, for the first time, he couldn’t manage to get past it. As a foreigner, at least he faced no risk of punishment for trying.
- Here is a balanced article on the evidence that higher per capita income leads to democracy:
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp11-09bk.pdf
The Han make up something iike 95% if the population, so I don’t think it would be much of a war.
Unfortunately, China has 1.5 billion people and nuclear weapons, meaning that any internal conflict (e.g. sea change) is likely to become the largest conflict in human history. As it was, the Tai-ping Rebellion in the 19th century killed more human beings than any conflict prior to WWII. Nobody would benefit if China collapsed, as it would drag down a number of bordering nations with it and the human toll would be incalculable.
China is a fixed entity on the world stage. While it may eventually break up (peacefully) into 2-3 smaller states, for now maintaining its integrity has extrinsic and well as intrinsic value. There are no rational people out there wish for the nation of China to collapse as they now how terrible such an event would be mankind as a whole.
Too pessimistic. Their decades-long history of economic growth (even if followed by a pre-collapse downswing) has taught the Chinese lessons about the need for capitalism and the rule of law – lessons that the people of the USSR have never received. A PRC collapse would be safer than that of the USSR was.
Who are these neighboring people who would be hurt? Not North Korea’s – almost any change will be for the better there, especially if it led to a unified Korea. Yes, that would create problems, but not problems as big as the current North Korean dictatorship creates.
One advantage that the PRC’s people have over those of the USSR, when it comes to regime collapse, is that there already is an excellent example of Chinese democracy in Taiwan. Yea, Taiwan is, coincidentally, in crisis at the moment (should we have a thread on the legislature occupation?), but their messy democracy works.
I agree with you.
It’s true that the Manchus, with less than one percent of population, dominated the Han for centuries, but I think today’s Han are different. If they gave up Tibet, or admitted to having long ago lost Taiwan, it would be a voluntary, rather than due to military defeat.
So, all we need to do is bombard them with orange gazebos (and plague-bombs, goes without saying) . . .
Even though there’s no precedent for liberal democracy in Chinese history?
Think about it. Here in the US, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns collapsed, and all hell broke loose. China is orders of magnitude larger than Lehman Brothers. If it collapses, most everyone else is going to be hurt.
Accordiing to Jung Chang, Empress Dowager Cixi was working on it.
Sun Yat-sen is, at least representationally, a highly publicized precedent.
Taiwan is a beautiful precedent.
In a few years, when the franchise is expanded, Hong Kong should be a precedent.
Besides, there’s no precedent for liberal democracy anywhere until it happens. Globally speaking, liberal democracy is a new invention - and the Chinese are good at adopting new inventions.
China has “collapsed” many times in that 3,000 years.
No, you’re thinking of the Japanese.
Cixi?! That hidebound reactionary?! Rather hard to believe.
One of the common pitfalls of studying history - one I’ve fallen into myself on occasion - is thinking that nations are the same as they were in the past, and what’s more, that they will always be that way in the future. Nations change. The Chinese of today may be similar their ancestors of 100 years ago, but they’re also very different.
Most likely what’ll happen is that their elderly will be left more or less to their own devices, much like they were for most of history. They may get some kind of social-security-esque stipend, but if the Chinese government has to choose between comfortable and long lives for old people on one hand, and peace, stability and its own existence on the other, they’re going to f**k the old people for sure.
One thing American readers might not be aware of here is that the Chinese have a culture of respecting their parents and grandparents. So much so that leaving gramma out on the street to fend for herself is unthinkable.
From my understanding, the “One Child” policy has a lot less to it than meets the eye. If it were actually being carried out, then the country’s population would have dropped drastically, when in actuality it has continued to rise. I’ve read that it’s enforced more in the cities than in rural areas, but in any event it’s certainly not being uniformly enforced as the slogan would sound, and as a practical matter the age distribution in China is probably - based on their rate of actual population growth - not much different than many other countries.
“When you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a trillion dollars, the bank has a problem.”
How do you figure? The policy was only implemented in 1980, and during a time of high fertility and rising life expectancy, so while eventually it should cause the population to fall, that won’t actually happen until around the time the population cohort that was of childbearing age when it was implemented reaches old-age.
What you should see due to the policy is a precipitous fall in birthrates, which is indeed what happened. There are plenty of exceptions to the policy, but they haven’t kept the number of children being born from cratering.
There is an argument that most asian countries have had sharp drops in fertility even without the policy, so China would’ve probably eventually had a similar drop even without the policy. But I don’t think there’s any argument that China hasn’t sharply lowered its birthrate.
No, for most of Chinese history the elderly were cared for (and revered, traditionally) by their extended families.