[throwawaymaths]

There's a lot to criticize in peter zeihan but the demographics stuff is pretty ironclad. Like I dunno man do you not know how fucking biology works. The CPC is absolutely freaking out about it because they know they are boned -- within a handful of years not only repealing one child but trying to incentivize three and four children families, illegalizing divorce, etc. it won't matter. It takes about 20 years for a newborn human to become productive in modern society.

>cost of the deaths on the Chinese economy

If the economy is what you care about, it's not the deaths so much as the infertility that will hurt china in the long run.

The (likely under-)estimated infertility rate in China is at 16%, compared to US at 8%.

[cjbgkagh]

You don't think it's weird that I knew where you got your info from? Peter Zeihan uses an overly simplistic model which allows him to be very confident about his findings and convincing to those who listen to him. He also tells those in power what they want to hear and makes them feel smart while doing it. He seems to believe what he says so he comes across sincerely. These are all great qualities for a charlatan.

One of the problems with the simplistic models is that GDP is often conflated with wealth, GDP is money spent so many things which are damaging to wealth show up positively in GDP. I once did GDP models for people working on HIV vaccines and the result of the modelling was less HIV -> less GDP. I tried to get permission to model wealth instead but those in charge only cared about GDP because that is the only number policy makers care about. We can all safely assume that HIV vaccines are good for an economy ravaged by AIDS but there was a limit to how much I could contort the models to have that presumed positive effect show up in the numbers. Because my assessment didn't show what they wanted to see the report was buried. Someone else redid the report and basically just made up the numbers which was good enough for those interested.

The world has changed tremendously and irrecoverably in just the past few years and will continue to change very rapidly in the years to come. Entire careers are being wiped out by AI and this is sure to continue. How can we both need more people and be facing a likely surplus of people to such an extent that a UBI appears like a political necessity? It must be one or the other, they can't both be true.

I'm firmly in the camp that as the useful skill threshold keeps rising more and more people will find themselves under that threshold and will no longer able to contribute value to society. I'm also of the view that policy makers will promise UBI to stymie opposition and then not deliver UBI for the same reason. There are many people who see a society based on equity as their only hope for survival and I think they've made an accurate assessment.

Tools that increase efficiency exacerbate inequality, there is the idea that the consumer surplus from such efficiencies show up as a general wealth across the board so even the poor will see their wealth increases. In my view once inequality has cross a certain threshold that is no longer true and the poor will become poorer due to being pushed completely out of the market.

Better tools beget better tools, it's a self reinforcing and accelerating cycle. It's my view that the productivity increased from better tooling will dominate the economy much more than losses from deaths or infertility. So much so that even with a massive loss of population there will still be the problem of an unproductive underclass.

I think the CCP is prepping for war and wants a mass of relatively disposable soldiers which means having families with more than one kid is especially important. It would also make sense for them to appear to be panicking over population loss to hide this real reason. I don't hold this opinion strongly as it is a bit too conspiracy theorist even for my liking. I can certainly believe that the CCP thinks population loss will be devastating to their economy and I would still disagree with them.

[throwawaymaths]

Why do you think I "got it" from Peter zeihan? I was aware of this long before I found out about Peter zeihan, because I have been watching china. And like I said, when pz entered my algorithm, I identified that he was getting some things very right and also many things wrong.

Look, if you are so convinced that China has shit figured out, go put 10,000 on a china index. The markets just collapsed a bunch so it "should" be on an upswing. You can't lose!

I think you toss around a lot of glib shit like "move fast and break things" without really thinking. Look man china really breaks things a lot, like bridges, or whole ass crumbling luxury residences. In the end, "breaking things" alone is not enough, you must also have the introspection to learn from your mistakes. I do think the Chinese in the small are quite good at learning from their mistakes but it's clear that societally there is a problem that policy is reactionary, often driven by goodheart's law, and there is little to no introspection or incentive to "do better".

But by all means, don't let me stop you from putting your bets on that sort of a system.

[cjbgkagh]

I think the markets in China are subordinate to the government so I wouldn’t use them as a proxy for how well China is doing. I see markets as a proxy for financialization which I consider in general to be a net negative. The supposed benefits of efficient allocation of capital seems to always give way to Ponzi schemes and those are very inefficient. There are some that argue that the frenzied investment in boom part of the boom bust cycles pays off in the long term, e.g. investment into telecoms. But I’m not one of those people, it’s hard to AB test it.

My example of ‘moving fast and breaking things’ was not an endorsement, I was making the general point that your example is not necessarily a sign of a things going bad.

It is hard to bet against a Ponzi economy as there are no limits, but my general thesis that there will be a crushing of the middle class and with that a transition from a high trust society to a low trust society. The society will still largely function but will be less efficient because of the increased security costs. So I’ve been investing in private security ventures which as you could imagine are booming.