I guess what I'm trying to say is that this kind of platform abuse is clearly agnostic to inflation in the broader economy. Rapid inflation in the US from 2021-25 coincided with restaurants being squeezed harder than ever before by uber and doordash as you describe. So I disagree that it is relevant to China's contemporary deflation pressures.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
When have I ever claimed this?
That it is a *factor* or an *element* or an *example* of deflation in China is in no way/shape or form the same as that it is a *significant contributor* to deflation in China.
I was not sure if you were trying to imply this, I was asking to clarify.
As to why I inferred that you were linking platform abuses in the restaurant industry with Chinese deflation, in your first message on this matter you chastised Zhao Dashuai for trying to make a positive spin on platforms abusing their market dominance to the detriment restaurants. You then followed this up by saying:
In saying "again" you were clearly alluding to previous debates on this website over the matter of Chinese deflation.
You criticized a (nominally) Chinese poster for making a positive spin on market abuses by Chinese platforms against Chinese restaurants in China, and then directly alluded to previous debates about Chinese deflation on this website dedicated to discussing China. So I inferred maybe you were arguing such abuses were related to Chinese deflation. Not even necessarily the dominant cause, or a cause at all, just related. You have actually directly stated this:
I then argued that it is implausible for such abuses to be related in any way, including causally, since we know they happened in the US in a highly inflationary period. If you disagree with this, that is fine. We could even discuss it more. But I am not interested in arguing over whether you have implied or stated a link between these two things.
Last edited:
They are absolutely related to deflation in China. When have I claimed that they are not related to Chinese deflation?
Did I not just walk through the exact pathway in which the restaurants are getting squeezed by the platforms? In case it wasn't obvious, the reason restaurants are getting squeezed is a function of the demand side falling off a cliff (as I clearly referenced in the article, average ticket size fell 24% over 2 years. Platforms' GMV growth has slowed down drastically, partially offset by the squeeze they've done.
Is it 'abusive'? Or is it legally doing what they can to drive revenue growth?
I don't pretend to be the legal expert as you claim to be to definitively state that food delivery platforms have violated the law in the past two years. So let me flip the question to you
Because
In case this wasn't obvious, regardless of the legality of what the platforms are doing, it is yet another example of involution caused by deflationary pressures in the overarching economy. Whether this is a "significant factor" to the deflation or not does not prevent it from being "related to deflation".
This is a complete strawman argument. Your definition of 'inflation in the US' is in fact stagflation - where actual material outcomes are worse off despite prices rising.
That is simply not what 'normalized' inflation of 2-3% *actually* means.
Last edited:
Have you forwarded the confessions from companies that you've gathered to relevant authorities who can make the legal judgement on the matter?
No as I don't pretend to be a legal expert in this matter, but you are welcome to do so if you are:
Why not? One does not need to be a legal expert to provide tipoffs, you have the evidence, I do not.
SAMR is already involved. But note they're beginning the investigation, without any judgement as to whether the platforms broke the law or committed any abuses.
I love how some people are ready to be judge jury and executioner in this aspect when it comes down to describing delivery platforms, whereas when it comes to corruption in specific people, some people are all like "oh we don't know anything so we can't say anything conclusive".
RIP Intellectual honesty.
但近段时间以来，外卖平台服务行业拼补贴、拼价格、控流量等问题突出，挤压实体经济，加剧行业“内卷式”竞争，社会各方面反映强烈。
SAMR disagrees with you so you should rest your case. Also note they've clearly stated they notice something that is worth looking into, but they've not stated conclusively whether this is 'abuse' or 'illegal'.
But back to my original point, which is Zhao Dashuai was not making a point that is a 'win'. Are you still going to defend him? Lol.
Last edited: