中国的“王牌”与人民的枷锁——外汇、低工资与人口困局
China’s "Trump Card" and the People's Shackles—Foreign Reserves, Low Wages, and the Population Dilemma
Translated by ChatGPT
Li Bin, Deputy Director and spokesperson of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, recently stated that in 2024, China's international balance of payments will continue to maintain basic equilibrium. The current account surplus amounts to $422 billion…
China’s foreign exchange reserves and its ability to maintain a current account surplus are the core of the country's competitiveness—they are the trump card in the hands of the Communist Party.
For China to maintain a long-term current account surplus, the welfare of Chinese workers cannot be too high. China’s manufacturing workforce numbers around 100 million, with migrant workers making up 80% of that. Where does this massive trade surplus come from? It comes from them. What would happen if you doubled the minimum wage? If export prices increased by 20%? Would Chinese goods still be competitive in the global market?
China's national strength is increasingly disconnected from the purchasing power of its ordinary citizens—in fact, the two are almost inversely related. If the common people have more money, they will have more choices, making them harder to control. If the government spends money on social welfare for the people, then the government itself will become poorer.
As stated in Han Feizi's "Six Counterarguments": "Even if the people are well-off, how can they be governed?" If the common people have money, how can the state govern them? The Book of Lord Shang elaborates on this idea: "If the people are humiliated, nobility is honored; if they are weak, officials are respected; if they are poor, rewards are valued… If the people achieve private wealth and glory, officials are despised; if they are rich, they disregard rewards."
For Chinese people to be neither poor, nor weak, nor ignorant, nor humiliated—it would be against the natural order. If one day they become wealthy and hold their heads high, the system will collapse.
Throughout history, China’s most successful politicians have all followed Legalist principles—Qin Shi Huang, Emperor Wu of Han, Mao Zedong… Take Emperor Renzong of Song, who advocated for power balance, governance through cooperation between ruler and ministers, and allowing the people to rest and recuperate—did he leave a lasting mark on history? No. The Song Dynasty is remembered as an era of national humiliation.
In his final poem before his death, Mao Zedong wrote: "The spirit of the First Emperor lingers on… For a hundred generations, the Qin system endures."
He called himself "Marx + Qin Shi Huang," and described his rule as "a monk holding an umbrella—lawless and unrestrained."
Emperor Wu of Han ruled for 53 years, waged continuous wars, and drove the Chinese population to near collapse. Historical records state that he "exhausted the people's wealth and resources, lived in extreme extravagance, left the land desolate, forced people into exile, and caused half the population to perish." Yet, he is still glorified in history.
Over the next 50 years, China’s population will shrink by half. By the 2070s, China will have only around 700 million people—a simple calculation.
By the 2070s, almost all Chinese people born before 1990 will have died. From 1990 to 2024, around 500 million people were born. How many more will be born between 2024 and 2070, given the current plummeting birth rate? The answer is obvious.
The problem is that, by the 2070s, half of these 700 million people will be elderly. Between 1990 and 2010, China gave birth to 380 million people—they will all be elderly in the 2070s.
What is the point of supporting so many elderly people? Aren’t they just a burden? The post-90s and 00s generations—what does their future hold? The government has already planned it out for them.
The image below shows a monument erected by modern Chinese people to Emperor Wu of Han—the ruler who caused half of ancient China's population to perish.