Chinese Economics Thread

Red Moon

Junior Member
This should end the energy crisis. However it will also increase industry costs which will result in inflation.

You win some, you lose some
This price adjustment will not by itself "end the energy crisis", because coal prices have been climbing throughout 2021 and have more than doubled since June alone. 20% will not cover that at all, but it will help. This is a "market solution", but alone, it would achieve nothing. Along with this, production is being increased in China (another form of "market" intervention... through state action), more energy is being imported from Russia, and use of natural gas is being increased. As well, they are curtailing activity in energy intensive industries.

But a 20% increase in electricity prices may not push inflation that much either, because it is only one of the factors in the cost of products, and manufacturers will probably be tasked or asked to rein in price increases. The article mentions a requirement of stable prices for residential customers, agriculture, and "public welfare" undertakings. On the other hand, the prices for some energy intensive industries will not be limited by only 20% above the benchmark.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
This price adjustment will not by itself "end the energy crisis", because coal prices have been climbing throughout 2021 and have more than doubled since June alone. 20% will not cover that at all, but it will help. This is a "market solution", but alone, it would achieve nothing. Along with this, production is being increased in China (another form of "market" intervention... through state action), more energy is being imported from Russia, and use of natural gas is being increased. As well, they are curtailing activity in energy intensive industries.

But a 20% increase in electricity prices may not push inflation that much either, because it is only one of the factors in the cost of products, and manufacturers will probably be tasked or asked to rein in price increases. The article mentions a requirement of stable prices for residential customers, agriculture, and "public welfare" undertakings. On the other hand, the prices for some energy intensive industries will not be limited by only 20% above the benchmark.
I think it going to be 20% increase during peak times. China has ample capacity at other times and this market based approach should actually fix the issue.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Normally I would put the Electric Viking's videos in the NEV thread section, but this one is special and sums up the reality that China is hyper capitalism and hyper competitive.


It is the exact opposite. Traditional Chinese culture had 4 classes (四民), in order 士农工商: scholars, farmers, workers and merchants. Merchants were the lowest. China has had protosocialism since the Han Dynasty with the first state owned enterprise in history: the salt monopoly (榷盐制).

One thing that lots of people don't distinguish is the difference between business operational excellence (management), and business ideology (capitalism).

Management is not capitalism. Private profit motive at exclusion of all else is capitalism. If anything is not done for private profit or to facilitate the generation of private profit, it is not capitalism. Management excellence can occur in socialist systems.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, was developed by Soviet economist
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and further developed by Soviet mathematician
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Was the Soviet Union capitalist because they learned from Ford and because it optimized business operations to minimize waste and generate maximum profit? No, because that just makes sense. A business that maximizes waste and minimizes profit is useless in any ideological system.

China today, I don't need to explain. It is self evident. The Chinese economy in general does not solely operate for generation of private profit nor its generation. Proof: poverty alleviation. Giving an uneducated, rural, elderly couple free housing is a low return on investment. They are unlikely to become high value added urban workers, they are unlikely to birth new urban workers, and they will only consume. The capitalist thing to do would be to not give them anything. That is what many actual capitalist countries do: give up on the rural poor.

Yet why does China still alleviate poverty for them despite the very low likelihood of a financial return?

He should stick to EVs, not ideology.
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Published: Oct 12, 2021 08:11 PM

Photo taken on Feb. 26, 2018 shows a screen displaying the 5G technology at the booth of China's telecom giant Huawei during the 2018 Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.(Photo: Xinhua)

Photo taken on Feb. 26, 2018 shows a screen displaying the 5G technology at the booth of China's telecom giant Huawei during the 2018 Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.(Photo: Xinhua)

Amid falling smartphone sales and a shrinking telecom market share globally, Chinese tech giant Huawei set up units in four new segments to boost technologies for customs and ports, smart highways, data centers and solar energy, as the US' sanctions against the company persist.

Following a unit for technologies in coal mining established earlier this year, the company has expanded its footprint into new areas by setting up four new "corps" on Monday, media reports said, citing a document published on Huawei's internal employee community platform.

The internal "corps," in parallel with three other primary business units at Huawei (carrier network business, enterprise business and consumer business), are being personally planned and supervised by Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei, according to a report on financial news website stcn.com.

Amid the US sanctions, which have banned Huawei's from access to chips from US suppliers, industry observers said that Huawei had to make such transformations to survive.

Its revenue has declined for three straight quarters. In terms of global smartphone market share, Huawei's share plunged from 17 percent in the first quarter of 2020 to 4 percent in the same quarter this year, according to Counterpoint Research.

"Huawei's consumer and smartphone segments face huge pressure and are retreating. It's shifting to grow its businesses and services for enterprises by picking industries that will see a fast digital transformation with great value, such as coal mining, port operations and photovoltaic plants," Ma Jihua, a veteran telecommunication industry analyst, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

In an interview with the Xinhua News Agency in February, Ren said that in the 5G era, telecom networks mainly connect enterprises, such as airports, wharfs, coal mines, steel plants, auto factories and aircraft manufacturing.

"These are areas we were not familiar with, so we set up joint laboratories in every industry to learn about the demand from these sectors," Ren said.

However, Ma said that it will be difficult for Huawei to revive its revenue in the short term, and the main aim is to maintain the current level of earnings.

"Serving enterprises means high profits. As long as Huawei remains profitable, its research and development (R&D) capability will be retained," Ma noted.

According to a ranking of Chinese private enterprises' R&D input released on Monday, Huawei was No.1 with an annual input of 141.9 billion yuan ($21.99 billion), surpassing the sum of three Chinese tech behemoths - Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu.

"The motivation for Huawei's efforts to develop in vertical industries comes from its clear judgment: it has to go through a tough time longer than it expected previously," Ma said, adding that the return of Huawei's Meng Wanzhou does not signal the US is relaxing its crackdown on Huawei, as the Biden administration's aim to contain China's tech growth hasn't changed.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese telecoms giant Huawei Technology set up new business units focusing on providing smart services to ports, highways, data networks and solar plants, tech website TMT Post reported Tuesday, citing internal documents.

The establishment of the new organizations is Huawei's latest move toward diversification and follows the founding of a business unit for coal mining in February.

The report said the four business units would run parallel to Huawei's three major business groups (BG) – carrier network BG, enterprise BG and consumer BG.

The company's founder Ren Zhengfei will oversee the organizations, it said.

Huawei has been expanding its business tentacles into diverse sections with its fast-growing 5G network amid U.S. restrictions on its operations. Last month, it announced a new
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with a coal company under China Energy to digitize the mining industry, making it safer and faster.
 
Last edited:

Franklin

Captain
It is the exact opposite. Traditional Chinese culture had 4 classes (四民), in order 士农工商: scholars, farmers, workers and merchants. Merchants were the lowest. China has had protosocialism since the Han Dynasty with the first state owned enterprise in history: the salt monopoly (榷盐制).

One thing that lots of people don't distinguish is the difference between business operational excellence (management), and business ideology (capitalism).

Management is not capitalism. Private profit motive at exclusion of all else is capitalism. If anything is not done for private profit or to facilitate the generation of private profit, it is not capitalism. Management excellence can occur in socialist systems.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, was developed by Soviet economist
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and further developed by Soviet mathematician
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Was the Soviet Union capitalist because they learned from Ford and because it optimized business operations to minimize waste and generate maximum profit? No, because that just makes sense. A business that maximizes waste and minimizes profit is useless in any ideological system.

China today, I don't need to explain. It is self evident. The Chinese economy in general does not solely operate for generation of private profit nor its generation. Proof: poverty alleviation. Giving an uneducated, rural, elderly couple free housing is a low return on investment. They are unlikely to become high value added urban workers, they are unlikely to birth new urban workers, and they will only consume. The capitalist thing to do would be to not give them anything. That is what many actual capitalist countries do: give up on the rural poor.

Yet why does China still alleviate poverty for them despite the very low likelihood of a financial return?

He should stick to EVs, not ideology.
Then any country that does any kind of social welfare should be considerd as not capitalistic. America and other western economies spend more on welfare than China does.

The reality is that true/pure capitalism never existed. The "invisible hand" has never (allow to) work(ed).
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
According to a ranking of Chinese private enterprises' R&D input released on Monday, Huawei was No.1 with an annual input of 141.9 billion yuan ($21.99 billion), surpassing the sum of three Chinese tech behemoths - Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu.
^^This is why these so-called "tech" companies are garbage and they are now getting hammered by the CPC. Either spend a lot of money in R&D or get grinded to dust.

I consider Huawei as the number 1 company in China for R&D and its disruptive automation solutions to industries

The rest of them, they can break up to smaller business for all I care. All they do is syphoning productive talent and buying out competitors to grow.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Then any country that does any kind of social welfare should be considerd as not capitalistic. America and other western economies spend more on welfare than China does.

The reality is that true/pure capitalism never existed. The "invisible hand" has never (allow to) work(ed).
Social welfare in the US is spent ineffectually and for the purposes of facilitating private profit.

Proof: US education spending as %GDP is 5%. That is higher than Germany (4.8%) and Japan (3.6%).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US education outcomes are worse than Germany and Japan in science and math, and far worse than Japan in fact. They have slightly better reading.

PISA-results_ENGLISH.png


Here's China's federal level spending. Does not account for provincial level spending. Largest categories are health and education.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Spending on welfare doesn't mean not capitalist. We can postulate a slave owning state where one group is completely exploited for profit yet has generous welfare benefits for the ruling class. In fact one of China's neighbors is like that, with 200 million people treated as human and entitled to the protections afforded them by the letter of their law, and 1000 million people living in a state of near feudal exploitation.
 
Top