Chinese Economics Thread

S

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
1703926972041.png




A similar total advantage in rare earths, steels, metals, electronics, rubber and plastic, textiles, cement, chemicals for explosives, and basically everything for a wartime economy. Just imagine all of these 31% machine tools accumulated for many years all of a sudden all switching toward military production as China's government perfectly controls its private sector and can quickly make those adjustments and society is supportive.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Serb said:
View attachment 123179




A similar total advantage in rare earths, steels, metals, electronics, rubber and plastic, textiles, cement, chemicals for explosives, and basically everything for a wartime economy. Just imagine all of these 31% machine tools accumulated for many years all of a sudden all switching toward military production as China's government perfectly controls its private sector and can quickly make those adjustments and society is supportive.
Click to expand...
This is unacceptably low for China. If it were proportional to industrial product output, China should have 40% market share. I suspect China is lacking a lot of market share for high margin high precision machine tools. Once those are obtained China will have 40% as it should. I expect number to get very close to 40% after 2025, and it should stay that way.
 
mossen

mossen

Junior Member
Registered Member
resistance said:
Hiking tuition fee especially in STEM and science area is bad.
Click to expand...
It's good actually. China has an insane amount of young people going into university now, which is bad for fertility (delayed family formation). Most of those people are not cut out for STEM but go anyway because they are pressured by society/family.

By increasing fees, you are raising the threshold of entry. This would only be a problem if China was dirt-poor and had tons of super bright but penniless talents in the countryside. This is no longer true.

Besides, for those exceptional talents, there will always be scholarships anyway. The whole world is overeducating its youth. Most people shouldn't go to university. I think this goes against the conventional wisdom, but a system where only the top 10-15% go to university and the rest to trade schools or start working right away is better.
 
R

resistance

Junior Member
Registered Member
mossen said:
It's good actually. China has an insane amount of young people going into university now, which is bad for fertility (delayed family formation). Most of those people are not cut out for STEM but go anyway because they are pressured by society/family.

By increasing fees, you are raising the threshold of entry. This would only be a problem if China was dirt-poor and had tons of super bright but penniless talents in the countryside. This is no longer true.

Besides, for those exceptional talents, there will always be scholarships anyway. The whole world is overeducating its youth. Most people shouldn't go to university. I think this goes against the conventional wisdom, but a system where only the top 10-15% go to university and the rest to trade schools or start working right away is better.
Click to expand...
The thing is we are in fourth industrial revolution where AI will disrupt most, if not all of blue collar jobs. We need more stem graduates to make pools of talent. I think about 40% percent of them should graduates.

The best ways to limit is via examination and fair competition. This is why the rich kid with poor performance don't get handicap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top