Economics and China

[Taem]

"There are too many people in the world, it doesn't matter what happens with China's economy" - this is basically what you are saying, and sorry man, but it’s ridiculous on a number of levels. It is a popular argument to be sure, but a bogus one nonetheless.

Firstly, it is a way too generalized argument that reduces all the economic problems of China, or otherwise, to overpopulation - even if we assume the basis of the argument itself can be substantiated (which it cannot). There are approximately 5 empty houses in the USA for every 1 homeless person, for example. This has nothing to do with overpopulation. Granted, this is just one aspect of the economy in one country, but it is an example (among countless other contradictions) of a much more fundamental and deeply rooted problem of the system: Artificial Scarcity. The misallocation of resources and the way production is handled and distributed under capitalism are the problems here, not global population. In fact, I would venture to argue that population has little if any relevance whatsoever in the problems we face today. Distribution of resources, not the number of resources, is the problem. We have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter every human being on the planet MANY times over, but we don't. Because again, it is a problem of resource allocation - a problem that is intrinsic to and necessitated by the very system itself; for obvious reasons.

I was specifically talking about all resources. It's a fact that we've used up a years’ worth of resources in only eight-months. The real calamity of the situation here is in this sentence:

The date is based on a comparison of humanity’s demands – in terms of carbon emissions, cropland, fish stocks, and the use of forests for timber – with the planet’s ability to regenerate such resources and naturally absorb the carbon emitted. That implies the excess demands being placed on natural systems are doing more permanent harm that cannot be easily undone.

Anyway, I feel like the original article I read was discussing all world resources such as minerals (i.e. copper, gold, silver, etc...), natural resources (i.e. trees, wool, silk, etc...), and so on. The issue that I’m trying to discuss is if we as a species keep consuming at the rate we are, with 3rd world countries quickly turning into 2nd or even 1st world countries overnight and having the demands of an "always-on" society, the weight of the requirements to fulfill this need will be far too great for the world to sustain it.

Re: the rest of what you said, would a negative surplus bring about world-wide austerity? I really couldn't say, but I am sure it won't be good. In this world, people consume indiscriminately, and businesses rely on this greed, on you getting a new smartphone upgrade every two years, a new car every five to seven years, a new computer or television every eight to ten years, etc. We live in a throw-away society by design and yes FIT, I acknowledge that this has everything to do with Capitalism. My question is if all 1st world nations stopped consuming indiscriminately, would this solve anything assuming the rest of world would soon catch-up? I doubt it, meaning the only real solution lies in the problem which is not our over consumption, but the lack of resources at the current rate of usance meaning quite simply that we are overpopulated.