Has been debunked by us here frequently.
uS total debt is over 700%. Japan and EU are worst than china so this is not a significant concern.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
uS total debt is over 700%. Japan and EU are worst than china so this is not a significant concern.
Summary is the author think China can handle 300% GDP debt
Gordon Chang was for the boomer and Gen X copers. Jordan Peterson, Peter Zeihan, Economics Explained, and other trash channels like that are for the Gen X, Y, and Z copers.
He basically used total debt to gdp for China instead of just public debt, if you used total debt for USA it would be 300% of gdp too lol. Also, debt isn't as problematic as people think, the worst-case scenario China defaults to itself and the debt would be wiped even though all the assets (factories, machinery etc.) are still there. Only countries with incompetent governments need to worry about debt because for fiat currencies you could just inflate away all the debt if you needed.
Increase the minimum wage(not the peanuts but bigly) and print the money and the inflation will be back, companies will probably stop in that environment with lowering prices to the bottom which currently is being the case. Central government is clearly not doing enough. More is needed to kill deflation.
Last edited:
Where are the "deflation is good" fanboys now? Go ahead and quote your electricity production figures to somehow justify that things were absolutely fine.
The main hit will be to the currency & house hold wealth if China had to default on its debt. Also, China’s debt outside of corporate & house holds debt is around 130% if you combine central government debt with LGFV debt, the latter component is not counted in official numbers but is significant and unique to China’s situation. LGFVs owe debt both to Chinese banks & to bonds investors (often banks but could also be house holds via banks), and have no real way to pay them back since they mostly do infrastructure & real estate based financing that is often just not profitable and so must ultimately be subsidized.
Last edited:
Another thing folks should consider is that such intense competition burns a lot of resources. Now yes, it does produce better products and stronger companies, but it also leads to a lot of waste. If 3-4 companies finally exit the EV race, this is ultimately billions in human capital, investment, and perhaps most importantly, time, that could've been allocated to more productive use.
In my eyes, while Huawei is certainly useful in the EV sector, I don't really see them as indispensible there. The resources and capital Huawei expended in this space could've been more useful elsewhere, and I don't think the EV sector would've suffered enormously from their absence.
Huawei is among the world leaders in FSD and it enables other EV companies to make their EVs.