Mind your own business.
I asked you a question, do you know the answer? If you don't you should settle down and be quiet.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Mind your own business.
I asked you a question, do you know the answer? If you don't you should settle down and be quiet.
Who picks winners? You? Me?
Local governments pick local winners/champions, and then the national government picks the national winners/champions from them.
As for how they pick them, probably by their objective results, with different KPI metrics probably mostly financial based, but this is inner-government, so I don't know.
That cut the timeframe tremendously and allowed them to leapfrog over the rest of the world. Then those companies that get preferential treatment go and conquer the world with exports, taking the market share of these high-growth potential industries.
This is the best and quickest strategy for self-sufficiency, technological innovation, industrialization, export growth, and GDP growth.
but this is inner-government, so I don't know.
By your logic, all prices and production should be chosen too - why not let local governments can decide what to sell on the markets?
By your logic, all prices and production should be chosen too - why not let local governments can decide what to sell on the markets?
Some state intervention in the economy is very good, unlike what they teach in the West, but too much is not great either. It's not a black and white problem.
I think that China found the right balance. You have to keep in mind that the West had 500 years of wealth accumulation advantage over China due to colonialism.
Ordinary policies wouldn't have helped China rise this much (moving production there). Something extraordinary needed to be done to rejuvenate and this was it alongside great policies and governing.
In my opinion, how can assuring that your industry has cheap and stable prices for materials with SOEs (state refining, mining, and cheap, long-term contracts from developing BRI countries/allies) and cheap energy (similar ways as materials) be a bad practice?
So to answer your question, yes, it is beneficial to have some prices set by the government, but like life, everything is best in moderation.
I forgot infrastructure should be also 100% controlled by the state, both companies, prices, and everything, or you end up like the US.
Not everything that the West says should be taken as the Bible. Their liberal democracy is a shit political system too (they themselves got initial capital accumulation over the world while they were autocracies for example).
I'm not saying that you are saying the opposite, I'm just giving you an example of how you need to take everything you were taught by the West with a grain of salt.
Mind your own business.
I asked you a question, do you know the answer? If you don't you should settle down and be quiet.
There are tons of studies just for it, and/or its contribution in relation to GDP. If you have enough time here, you can have some time to look for them as well.
They all come in different types of road constructions, duration, etc.
Generally it falls into the range of 2% to about 4.5% for the Interstate during early 2000's.
I'm not saying that you are saying the opposite, I'm just giving you an example of how you need to take everything you were taught by the West with a grain of salt.
I am well aware of the Salt & Iron Debates as well as the points made by Sang Hongyang - but the notion that you think things have been balanced is beyond wrong. Otherwise we would've never had this real estate bubble to begin with. The real estate bubble is a function of local governments having too much power and institutional rot:
Rural farming land was converted into commercial construction land with minimal compensation to farmers, turned around and flipped to developers by governments for increasingly higher prices, with corrupt officials skimming off the top. This entire process would not have been happening without local government involvement (if not downright active facilitation) - with local police acting as the goon squad, local banks providing financing, and local MoHURD providing permits. Have a read of Zhou Qiren's book Urban and Rural China if you are interested in learning.
The irony of the entire situation is that the local governments were the ones acting like robber barons during the gilded age - so is this a function of 'big bad barons' or is this a function of 'too much power for local governments'?
Balanced?
infrastructure should be also 100% controlled by the state
Sure, but if you're trying to building said infrastructure with debt issued to private parties, then its a contractual process - fucking around with contracts and property rights is how you have people with money wanting to leave. Much like how rural farmers effectively had their land confiscated via eminent domain with local police acting as enforcers is how you blow up the social contract.
I am well aware of the Salt & Iron Debates as well as the points made by Sang Hongyang - but the notion that you think things have been balanced is beyond wrong. Otherwise we would've never had this real estate bubble to begin with. The real estate bubble is a function of local governments having too much power and institutional rot:
Rural farming land was converted into commercial construction land with minimal compensation to farmers, turned around and flipped to developers by governments for increasingly higher prices, with corrupt officials skimming off the top. This entire process would not have been happening without local government involvement (if not downright active facilitation) - with local police acting as the goon squad, local banks providing financing, and local MoHURD providing permits. Have a read of Zhou Qiren's book Urban and Rural China if you are interested in learning.
The irony of the entire situation is that the local governments were the ones acting like robber barons during the gilded age - so is this a function of 'big bad barons' or is this a function of 'too much power for local governments'?
Balanced?
Sure, but if you're trying to building said infrastructure with debt issued to private parties, then its a contractual process - fucking around with contracts and property rights is how you have people with money wanting to leave. Much like how rural farmers effectively had their land confiscated via eminent domain with local police acting as enforcers is how you blow up the social contract.
I'm not well versed in that area (real estate), and you might as well be completely right about everything you said.
But sometimes, some results that some person, organization, etc., makes, can offset the mistakes they made.
That's how I look at Chinese government in general.
Yes, it makes some mistakes, but in general look like the smartest governing body, in the entire world, to me.
Yes, even the best could be criticized, especially if their mistakes affect you personally, but I'm looking it as an outsider.
Lol since when the Chinese stock market is an indicator of how well the economy is doing? It's been famously fluctuating and sometimes nosediving even when during the double digit growth era when China passed US... It's a total meme, only for day traders to make fast money.
You might as well say the state of US public housing shows the state of US material science overall. The stock market being small and unstable in China is a feature of the political system (just like the funny housing situation in US), not a bug.
You might as well say the state of US public housing shows the state of US material science overall. The stock market being small and unstable in China is a feature of the political system (just like the funny housing situation in US), not a bug.
China is in serious trouble if it doesn't fix its population decline problem. Just like population growth, population decline could get exponential. Without population there is no country.I guess it's an indication that the Chinese economy is less financialized than developed countries. This will change as China's financial market grows and matures.
A 2 million decline out of 1.4 billion is a decrease of about 0.143%. At this rate, China's population will decline about 1.4% over 10 years at most, assuming birth rate and death rate don't improve. I don't think it's a serious decrease in China's population. On the other hand, China aims to double its middle class population from 400 million to 800 million in a decade. So it's almost a certainty that China will become the largest economy on a nominal basis in about a decade.
China will release youth unemployment rate again, after adjusting for students.
I think Chinese government will slowly raise its desperation to fix the population problem with more and more harsh measures. First it will be enticement but slowly it will become mandatory to have children.