it would be better if you can keep this stuff in the same thread as the science and technology post that I already put in.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Sorry, I don't know how to move posts, and I wasn't sure whether to post this in the China Economy, Electric Vehicles, or Technology sections.
Still, “entrepreneurs” who tried to become too big to fail to get the state to subsidies their business as was the case with Evergrande, should still be liable for the debts incurred. It was just for the state to force the head of ever grande to sell his personal assets to make up for the shortfall and complete the homes already bought and paid for
I hope the government will enact strict laws to prevent corporate financial fraud. In the past, I've seen some individuals who exploit legal loopholes to take on debts for others.
supercat
Colonel
Spending increased 15% during the holidays of National Day and Mid-Autumn Festival.
Penn World Tables now uses China's official GDP data instead of Harry Wu's estimation. Wu's estimation implies that China's economy grew 50 times since 1952, while the official data indicate a growth of 150 times since 1952 - huge difference. Should Michael Pettis and his ilks change their calculations too? They are the ones who used Wu's data to gauge China's GDP and total factor productivity (TFP) growth.
The way Harry Wu underestimates China's GDP and TFP growth reminds Glenn of the way Zhao Jian dismisses China's HSR.
Penn World Tables now uses China's official GDP data instead of Harry Wu's estimation. Wu's estimation implies that China's economy grew 50 times since 1952, while the official data indicate a growth of 150 times since 1952 - huge difference. Should Michael Pettis and his ilks change their calculations too? They are the ones who used Wu's data to gauge China's GDP and total factor productivity (TFP) growth.
The way Harry Wu underestimates China's GDP and TFP growth reminds Glenn of the way Zhao Jian dismisses China's HSR.
Bad data source aside, the fundamental problem with people like Pettis is not that all of his (economists in general) theories and conclusions are wrong per se, it's just that they are trivial (in a mathematical sense). Yes, China will eventually reach a point where building any more HSR would be a net negative. But saying that is same as saying 'Drive carefully'. Ya, you should, but it doesn't really tell you anything.
The real challenge is predicting, reasonably close, when that point will come. Michael Pettis once considered that China has already built all the HSR it needs, and should stop building more. When did he write this? !
Same with his emphasis on consumption. Yes, any country needs to boost domestic consumption to lock in/sustain deep economic growth. At what point in time should the policy change happen? Your guess is as good as mine as his.
The collapse of the Brazilian growth miracle (LATAM in general) in the 1980s disillusioned a whole bunch of economists about industrial policy/developmentalism. Pettis is one of them. The problem is, that they haven't come up with any proven alternative either.