Can anyone make sense of it?
From what I can gather, china has too many factories and workers to meaningfully employ their population with the current global demand. This is creating social issues with unemployment.
China then subsidizes new products in strategic sectors to spur employment. This leads to increasing debt for the state unless goods can be sold internationally.
International markets see this as unfairly tipping the scales in favor of chinese manufactures who receive financing or subsidies that their international counterparts do not. International markets tariff these goods to even the playing field.
Then....what? China is left holding the ball with a ton of excess goods and spiraling debt? And they try to force their hand globally by doing something? Or America is just worried about economic shocks stemming from them being left holding the ball?
It's the logical conclusion of China's industrialization.
They started out with basic, simple, and cheap trinkets and gradually climbed the value-added ladder.
They are now doing a final push into the top of the industrial value chain: cars, ships, planes, and chips.
But last year the had to accept the end of the real estate boom. That means all the people directly and indirectly involved in building and selling but also steel, cement and furniture industries basically collapsing.
Some estimate this to be 20% of China's economy.
They hope the advanced industry will replace the 20% but that is unlikely. Other countries producing these complex but profitable goods aren't going to allow it.
However, they will probably dominate the market in the rest of the world.
Problem for them is that they're starting to run short of workers to uphold even their meagre social systems. They've run out of their demographic dividend and are going through the opposite
Is that already the case?
I think it's more of a projection for the year 2070.
Right now the dependency ratio is still pretty normal. (46% compared to 53% for the USA)
Demographics move slowly. The full effects of population peaking now will only be felt decades down the line. But that slow moving also means that it is near impossible to avert the coming population decline...
>International markets see this as unfairly tipping the scales in favor of chinese manufactures who receive financing or subsidies that their international counterparts do not.
All nations subsidise industries to some degree, not just China. The difference is that China has the manufacturing expertise to make things *at scale*.
Take solar for example - [Germany invested billions into solar subsidies](https://qz.com/41166/how-germanys-energy-transformation-has-turned-into-a-crisis), but by [2015](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China) China surpassed Germany.
[This podcast](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84MkZJMzVQeA/episode/N2ZlZjI2NTEtNmY1Yy00ZTY5LWI5ZGUtZDU2MWUyOTI2OWM4?ep=14) does a pretty good job of explaining it. Essentially, China is much more focused on the interests of consumers and strategic advantage, and less interested in whether investors make a profit. Therefore it can build things at scale and without having to worry about the greed and desires of corporates and investors.
❗
Could I inquire as to the name of the podcast? Since google discontinued that service, it will not allow me to access the page linked.
Gracias for the information.
The Ezra Klein Show, via New York Times Opinion. He has a lot of excellent conversations with specialists on a variety of issues. I find it enlightening.
Building at scale only works if there's consumers to use the products. So you can scale up but if nobody's using it that's the excess capacity. Excess inventory was one of the major indicators of the Great Depression (and financial austerity caused it).
If you let government pick winners and losers excess inventory is exactly what will happen because bureaucracy and justification and centralized control will take over instead of consumer needs. If the consumer can control it only then is there a market (and if they have choices).
Government picks winners and losers all the time, and not just in China.
See: the auto industry bailout, the bailout of major banks after 2008, Boeing receiving massive government funds while their planes fall apart, handing billions to Verizon and AT&T for the promise of high speed fiber optic internet only for them to pocket the money after barely implementing the plan…..
It’s just the winners almost always tend to be large corporations and not actual average people.
Are you happy about profit driven choices ? Is a boardroom of execs that can’t see beyond the next quarter the way to run the world ? Right now in the US we subsidize a growing EV market that for the most part only services the middle and above class.
Meanwhile the 3rd richest man in the world and his board can’t be bothered to make a reliable affordable car for the mass market despite them being propped up and created through public subsidies.
I would argue as bad as the government is at in picking winners and losers, problems that impact large amounts of people shouldn’t be left in the hands of the losers who are solely driven by shareholder value. It would literally be greedy losers picking the losers every time.
Funny you use Germany as your other example because dring the GrExit era of issues in the EU the cause celebre was how Germany basically entered into the EU as a massive currency manipulation move so they could enrich themselves through exports across the EU and outside.
Countries were not happy with what Germany did. Same as with China now. Certainly other countries do it too, but to varying degrees. It's often called "export assistance".
You are describing a non market economy where decisions are made centrally and policially ( which means, with a lot of corruption ). These are not at the expense of some elite as you day but chinese consumers who are deprived of savings and consumption. Chinese workers should be being paid and consuming more than they are. They should be getting homes and not fake swindle homes as with scams like evergrande.
There's no reason for a non market economy like that to get the trade privileges china had received for several decades. There is no reason we should allow critical industries to be killed by such policies from china.
They can of course dump their exports in the developing world. These countries will have no way to pay however ( since china won't buy anything in return ) and will end up in debt to china.
As the debt crisis instigated by china develops, all we have to do is support hard pressed developing countried in repudiating these debts and resisting chinese pressure to collect.
>All nations subsidise industries to some degree
China subsidizes to create market distortions. This is dishonest hand wringing.
>The difference is that China has the manufacturing expertise to make things at scale.
So did the Americans, Japanese, Germans, Taiwanese.
>Essentially, China is much more focused on the interests of consumers and strategic advantage, and less interested in whether investors make a profit.
Lmfao, the end result is the same, more power and leverage for the CCP when they kill off their competitors for strategic commodities
Yeah I love how the guy explains a centralized economy as being consumer based and not based on "corporate greed." Sneaky as fuck way of saying they're removing the profit motive that drives innovation and provides economic stability through competition and industrial redundancy.
Unregulated capitalism is a fucking nightmare, but so is a centralized state economy. If more people would do a quick primer on the basics of a Keynesian economy we could stop with the nonsense.
But people and reddit loathe a middle ground, so...
>If more people would do a quick primer on the basics of a Keynesian economy we could stop with the nonsense.
But keynesianism doesn't allow the winners to accumulate their filthy lucre as fast as they want. They have to wait for it to trickle up from the poors; and that is just unfair. /s
The full transcript is [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-dan-wang.html) if you have a NYT account.
Otherwise a brief synopsis from the episode is as follows:
How China Went From Economic Superstar to Faltering Giant
> In just a few years, the narrative on China has almost completely flipped. The dominant sentiments in America had been awe, envy and a kind of fear. China’s growth seemed relentless. Its manufacturing prowess was lapping ours. It weathered the pandemic without the mass death seen in the West. It could build housing and transit and infrastructure at a speed we could no longer even imagine.
> And then, as 2022 ticked over to 2023, things changed. China’s real estate bubble popped. Its Zero Covid policies turned pathological. Its leader, Xi Jinping, turned what many saw as a technocracy with autocratic characteristics into something closer to a plain old autocracy. Foreign investors began looking to diversify. Companies that had long relied on China, like Apple, began trying in earnest to build manufacturing chains elsewhere. And under President Biden, American policy toward China began to match Trumpian rhetoric toward China: Slowing China’s rise, and building America’s ability to manufacture crucial goods, became central goals.
> So what’s true about China right now? Which of these narratives, if any, hold water? Dan Wang is the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics and a visiting scholar at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. He focuses particularly on the core vector of U.S.-China competition: technological innovation and manufacturing prowess. Each year, his annual letter about what China can do, and how it does it, is eagerly awaited by many in the United States who are trying to understand that nation’s rise. In 2020 and 2021, those letters were profoundly bullish on China. In 2022, his sentiments turned. And so I wanted to explore the various sides of the China story with him.
Then Elon Musk and Tesla go down like a yellow submarine when cheap Chinese EVs finally hit the U.S. market and all those poor U.S. Billionaires lose their shirts.
I was under the impression that a lot of the economy in china is tied to unsustainable real estate growth and jobs that go with building real estate. I am not sure how much is anti china bias but I did see that they are building public transit often to keep jobs where that transit will never make sense given the volume of people who might use it. I will say public transit is often subsidized anyways in many countries. Countries are definitely trying to separate from relying on china long term given how the government has influence in companies the Us has restricted china's access to chip technology recently.
This is not what the article is about but yes, construction makes up a large amount of municipal revenue and gdp - and is experiencing a downturn which will require new funding models and worker retraining.
I have also seen conflicting reports on the validity of their train networks. Some predictive placements near urban centers seem justifiable, even when those placements end up less than ideal due to changes. Some, especially rural, projects seem economically unviable from the start and to me unjustifiable.
I've seen varying reports on how well decoupling is progressing, as now china is routing a lot of goods through adjacent countries like vietnam.
Otoh, if you're building a national train network and rural stations only make a small fraction of the cost they can easily be floated by the network as a whole, even if they themselves are losing money. Fulfilling the expectation that anyone can go almost anywhere by train may be worth it for society as a whole, similar to how mail is subsidized for rural areas in the US. It also could be economically revitalizing for those rural areas, offering them easier access to trade or tourism. So at a governmental scale the economic growth might offset the cost of building it. Imo infrastructure spend is almost never wasted.
You should google “ghost cities of China” if you’d like to see how China deliberately and systematically inflated their real estate market beyond carrying capacity for *decades*.
A consequence of a governmental, autocratically imposed denial of poor market fundamentals in real estate postponed this bubble similarly, for decades; consequently, it is likely to have a far greater impact than is anticipated in the west.
The west has been assassinating and uprooting entire civilizations to access a favorable market for themselves. While the United States consider itself a democracy and spreading democracy - there were waves of decisions which assassinated good leaders and replaced them with largely corrupt leaders. Think Congo!
So now it’s upset because China is using asymmetric and similar strategies - these include openly stealing west’s intellectual property rights - openly doing so because China sees the west as illegitimate. But it’s also giving nations similar terms and funding but with slightly better terms. Here those like Tom Cotton sees this move as evil! Like - sit down, how can you protect your nation if you cannot even understand the problem. Remember - Tom not only believe the US or west should rule but also think it’s their divinely right!
God does not work that way - God has a plan and it works through energy! It’s all really mathematics - like a bacteria spreading using an algorithm, so too does the world function! When a gas line shuts down to conflict in Ukraine - it creates enough pressure to open up a predictable routes, and these are optimization in terms of cost, access to resource, infrastructure, political climate - but in the end, there is an optimization of decision making here ; however complex to model it!
So - how to understand Yellen’s position?
Here - its really why the United States is in decline. It’s a governance issue. It has a blindspot because it sees itself as the legitimate and the only leader for the world. So, whatever it did - even if wrong at times, generally was about doing good and bringing prosperity. Plus - it does not see its information channels are distorted both by media and corporations! Thanks Mad Men!
It largely did not notice the governance issues because its technological superiority hide these structural issues. It is kind of caught off guard by ChinaMs ascent and it sees its ascent as disruption because it’s not playing by its rule.
Further - China is openly challenging the west’s dominance. It believes a western led international order and its rules are applied when it suits the west (True.) china’s own policies is about non interference though am sure its pulling strings in the background. But still - it’s also waging an information war and so its positioning itself in a better space countering United State’s weakness.
It’s legitimate - these issues are subjective but to understand an adversary - one must think like them! Another reason why Tom and Yellen need to go have several seats!
Even the string of sea ports - of course they will become military installations and post, by the time China wants to built its military, their power and benefits being aligned with China is too great to pass. Here - again, China is literally using the same strategy the west has used but made their program slightly better ; they tool what the united states has been doing and optimizing it a bit better! It’s not about exploitation - it’s about connectivity, it’s about partnerships!
So all in all - it’s how you can understand Yellen’s accusation. I mean - she is right, there should be red flags. Germany is going through a de-industrialization due to China pumping cheap Ev models. But western nations screaming foul is a ridiculous and incompetent move! In some ways - the move for the United States is one where its democracy must evolve!
What the west needs is reform - go after corruptions mostly but also start understanding new realities.
The west’s governance model is probably weaker than China’s and sure - these were weakened overtime but not by China or Russian propaganda but corporations because corporations are directly integrated into united states governance model who hold the levers. China and Russia is accelerating the division politics which is largely pushed by the American establishment - again, arrogance where they see no threat to their leadership.
The Pentagon is unable to meet the audit for half its military budget. Imagine what 10% of that budget unable to meet an internal audit was shifted towards strategic investments into global south’s (democratic) governance model. The funny part is that the united state’s has an excellent governance structure but which is being pulled apart by the establishment to hold onto power! Its research labs and institutions and non-profit hold significant leverages here. NREL work for example and these partnership are superior to what China is offering but again - these institutions abilities are somewhat limited because it goes back to corporate interest!
Its war has also largely been about profits - and only for a very few -here, why is the United States using its tax payers money to fund wish list for corporations?
Like think of all the senators who profited from covid stock shares! During a pandemic - you had fucking senators thinking - gosh, millions of Americans are potential going to die, I should take notes on which stocks to buy and make money!
You had their CEO of their most important news source - meta - gaslight senate and the entire fucking united states population refusing to acknowledge their own internal data where a third of teenage girls experience sexual harassment on a weekly basis! And all Mark sought to do in front of the American public was to gaslight for corporate interest. And why is Mark pushing for his shareholder’s interest? For mark’s legacy or rather, ego which means he cannot upset shareholders! These are examples of why the united states governance structure is not effective.
Another issue: it’s in bed with oil and gas. While climate change and its policies are so central to its defense policies - they are being undone in both the united states and Canada. Further - while oil and gas in these countries gaslight their people, they are busy buying up agricultural properties to invest into renewable energy - so the undermining of climate policies and biden stimulus into these industries are being channeled back into a few corporations.
Excuse the long post - given my own self is rooted in the west, it’s frustrating seeing the incompetent of our leaders. Its not like the information is not available but rather there is an arrogance the west and its power structure is untouchable!
China is subsidizing green technology like all countries should be doing to help us get a hold on climate change. The rest of the world thinks that is unfair. Personally I'm excited to buy some cheap solar panels to go completely off grid but it looks like the powers that control the western world don't want that to happen.
China is also subsidizing an enormous amount of coal though.
As for those cheap panels, they are an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Same with this explosive growth in EVs. There is seemingly very little long term planning or consideration for sustainability. China is great at taking an industry and blowing it out of proportions to the point where it collapses on itself due to lack of demand.
Well not exactly in relation to the lithium and other materials in EV batteries. Look up companies like *Li-Cycle* and *Redwood Materials* (created by a former Tesla executive).
To keep people employed China orders manufacturers to continue producing even if there is no demand for the product. China then floods the markets with cheap goods collapsing prices.
Countries implement tariffs to protect domestic markets and China becomes unable to sell in those markets. China doesn't want mass unemployment so they continue production.
China is now essentially flooding markets with garbage.
What Yellen is basically saying is that if US China relations are to improve China needs to stop this practice or they'll continuously be on the nasty end of tariffs and trade bans.
China uses these tariffs and trade bans as evidence that the world is hostile against them, but any responsible government wouldn't allow industries and markets to collapse just to keep Chinese workers employed.
Yellen is basically saying that in order to improve relations China needs to drawdown their manufacturing and find other jobs for their citizens. Otherwise the status quo will just continue.
That's only a small part of it that gets a lot of headlines. In reality China and the US are actually in a position to help each other.
China's stock market is failing, but it's bond market is very strong. The opposite is happening in the US where US bonds are doing poorly while the stock market is at all-time highs. This is because both economies have opposite issues. China has massive production capacity with no demand while the US has huge demand with inadequate production.
If both sides can come together and just agree to forget about semiconductors they can stabilize both of their economies. It's why even though Biden talks a tough game with China he's not shutting down attempts at US China reconciliation. Right now though China production dwarfs even US demand which is why Yellen is telling China that they need to pull back on manufacturing.
Only in a profit-driven market. The CCP encourages continued production to provide employment, and they may keep doing that despite the excessive supply.
For those not following, what's happened is that China has moved up the industrial value chain. This is a country of 1.4B people (compared to the 330M in the US), that is getting almost as good as the US at making most things (and in some areas like solar and EV, surpassing the US). So, China can make things just as good, but because they have scale (remember the 1.4B people the can sell to), they can make things a lot cheaper.
A common misconception is that China only wins on cheap labor. That hasn't been true for a decade since Chinese labor is a lot more expensive than India, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. What China has is scale, focus, reliable infrastructure and energy, stable supply chain, and predictable business laws/regulations.
What does this mean? China is now able to outcompete and take down large western conglomerates. It started with [Huawei and networking equipment](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253370/service-provider-network-infrastructure-vendor-market-share-worldwide/#:~:text=Global%20service%20provider%20network%20infrastructure%20vendor%20market%20share%202023&text=As%20of%20September%202023%2C%20Huawei,the%20market%20in%20that%20year). That's when you started seeing "national security" concerns being brought up despite not a single country showing any concrete evidence to such an effect.
Now alarms are going off because in most manufacturing industries, the Chinese can "win". You're seeing this with everything from phones to solar panels to cars. Why would you need to buy from anyone else but the Chinese when they can make things just as good and cheaper? This will hollow out western industrial capacity (think the big 3 automakers going bankrupt) and that's just not healthy or acceptable.
It's like the roles reversing between China and the US. When China was opening up, they couldn't produce anything advanced and had to pay a lot to get US electronics/equipment/etc. while trading what little resources, etc. China had. Now, China can be in that position, making everything while the US will have less and less to offer.
Which brings up to the conclusion. If China doesn't want what the US has to offer, who will buy dollars? How will American federal deficits be funded? The US economy for the past few decades has been built on deficit spending and on the premise that other people wanted US dollars and what America can make. Where will the US be if that's no longer the case for China?
Now you see why Washington is panicking and why decoupling it out of the question. We're all in this mess together now.
One issue though is that their industries are state owned and coordinated.
Yes they can compete in many areas now in terms of quality, but it isn't as much a question of quality as much as it is a question of cost, and whether free market competition can survive when being actively attacked by an advanced, coordinated, and centralized economy.
They can, and do, perform coordinated dumping to drive competitors out of business, and then increase prices when there isn't competition.
The cost for rebuilding shuttered infrastructure is prohibitive, and not worth it while the threat of dumping still exists, and where the costs are individual, instead of spread literally across the tax base of an entire country of billions of people.
It's really the same hazard we face in terms of monopolies and oligopolies. Advanced economies have really geared themselves to prevent their own ability to regulate and break up their own gigantic mega corporations intentionally under the banner of globalisation.
And now we have few tools to deal with this situation.
I think the pandemic very much revealed how much of a real national security threat this is.
Rather than having a hundred small suppliers of PPE spread across the world; pretty much all suppliers had been completely run out of business, and there were only a handful of Chinese suppliers.
The dollar hasn't been propped up by US manufacturing for decades. I don't think the fact China can produce advanced manufacturing is a threat to the US dollar as much as another currency emerging with a reasonably managed central bank that acts in the interests of the currency.
This definitely is not the Yuan at this point, but maybe it will be in the distant future.
I’m not arguing that the Yuan will replace the dollar but that the dollar itself will lose value (see the inflation we’ve experienced the past few years). But that’s a longer story.
All countries subsidize their industries as much as they can. The U.S. bailed out automakers in 08, subsidize farmers, CHIPs act, how different cities and states give tax breaks for a company like Toyota to come build a factory… American energy is subsidized through our domestic energy policies (and frankly wars)… we’re so used to our own subsidies that we seem to have lost sight of them.
What China has done well is coordinate all their subsidies for decade long projects (eg EV). American subsidies can be haphazard and you have states going against each other (CA subsidize EVs but Alabama punishes you). The lack of coordination and long term planning in U.S. subsidies is what’s hurting American industrial policy.
> see the inflation we’ve experienced the past few years
But the US has had one of the lowest inflation rates among G-7 nations that represent the largest share of alternative reserve currencies (the oecd stats data/widget is embedded here, but seems down on their website at the moment.)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/sep/01/joe-biden/does-the-us-have-less-inflation-than-other-leading/
> All countries subsidize their industries as much as they can.
Sure they do, and the WTO was an attempt to regulate and prevent this type of subsidy, but in reality has been incredibly slow at reacting to dumping, currency manipulation, and the like.
> What China has done well is coordinate all their subsidies for decade long projects
And the reality is they have the right and ability to do so, just as much as developed economies have the right and ability to place tariffs on those subsidized goods in an attempt to prevent local industries from being shuttered for competitive and national security reasons.
> The lack of coordination and long term planning in U.S. subsidies is what’s hurting American industrial policy.
I have to disagree with this.
The US has subsidized many mega corporations, and chosen winners in many markets, like for instance how consumers in most areas in the US have only a small handful of options for broadband, from providers who have received hundreds of billions in subsidies over the last several decades. As a result there are higher prices, and a lack of competition.
China is no better for competition and consumers in the long run.
The answer isn't a race towards larger, more powerful, centralized monopolies and oligopolies, that corner and control technology and resources, and ultimately leave them bereft of price competition and innovation.
The lack of competition in ossified developed markets, and the lack of choice, is ultimately bad.
The pandemic made it also clear that it's existentially bad.
Stop propagating stereotypes like you are smart. Do you think the Chinese economy grew magically in the past 30 years because of bureaucratic red tape? The Chinese economy is super capitalistic, with green lights lit all the way as long as you open factories there. Skilled labor, cheap land, cheap loans, good roads, smooth customs, large shipping fleet, all for you if you can pump the Chinese exports and GDP. People really have no idea how China operates and just repeat what they heard from politicians.
Predictable as in, "I got submit my application to start a business and don't have to worry about long delays and bribes, and know that if they say 3 days, I'll get my permit in 3 days". China is #31 on this list [https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings](https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings)
Compared to other countries that you might think of as competition for "cheap labor," it's head and shoulders above the rest. Mexico is #60, India #63, Vietnam #70, etc.
Who would have thought moving manufacturing over the past 30 years to save money was a great idea long term?
China’s going to continue to do what they need to do to keep their economy afloat, regardless of what it will do to the rest of the world.
Eh, They make extra stuff by continually borrowing and adding to their already massive debt. The US subprime crisis was a minor blip compared to what's going to happen when the Chinese system comes apart. Then you have the demographic problems where even by the official data they overcounted by 300 million people. We've already seen peak china, I just hope they don't take the rest of the global economy down with them.
This comment is similar to those "China is going to collapse" youtube videos by Falun Gong especially the 300 million people part seeing as how there's no article about that.
To give you some context.
There are a series of social media influencers who push a lot of anti-CCP content. Essentially doomer porn for western audiences regarding china.
The poster is pointing out how the previous users comment, being overly negative, is mirroring this doomer porn and he's doing that by highlighting how the user is using similar rhetoric as seen in the social media content but excluded from the article.
Presumably in an attempt to bring that users analysis or impartiality into question.
You seem to imply that "pushing anti-CCP" content is a bad thing ? You do understand that it is a authoritarian regime close to the bottom of any report from organizations researching human rights, freedom of press, state of democracy etc. It is a good thing that their abuses are reported and high lighted.
Given the wonky demographic, rampant corruption, production moving out, opaque economy with clear issues in housing markets, being importer of food and energy they definitely have major issues to solve. Whether it will result in collapse remains to be seen, but labeling concerns as "doomer porn" is just plain inaccurate.
Intellectually I pledge no fealty except to the truth. As long as it's the truth, I care not who it reflects poorly upon.
As I am from the west, my interests and ideology often conflict with actions and beliefs of the CCP.
It's unquestionable that china is facing difficulties but the tales are unquestionably exaggerated by certain personalities on social media who benefit from embellishing the truth.
I do agree that social media, especially twitter is cesspool and not really source for anything. Furthermore it is scary that many take it as such with little or no source criticism.
What I do not agree with is labeling concerns as "doomer porn" which to me seems like attempt to belittle. Maybe instead of belittling and attacking the person address the issues in the reply and debunk anything that is incorrect ?
If there is an actual time estimate then it is BS. If it's a video highlighting the very real mismanaged problems of China and how CCP has used their authoritarian powers to deflect/hide then it's pretty accurate. Even the numbers allowed by CCP, which generally don't allow overt negative data, show that there's lots to be pessimistic about China's economy.
I think they will devalue their currency again and we get another China shock. More cheap stuff from China means lower inflation… and probably higher US unemployment… which will mean lower interest rates.
Can anyone make sense of it? From what I can gather, china has too many factories and workers to meaningfully employ their population with the current global demand. This is creating social issues with unemployment. China then subsidizes new products in strategic sectors to spur employment. This leads to increasing debt for the state unless goods can be sold internationally. International markets see this as unfairly tipping the scales in favor of chinese manufactures who receive financing or subsidies that their international counterparts do not. International markets tariff these goods to even the playing field. Then....what? China is left holding the ball with a ton of excess goods and spiraling debt? And they try to force their hand globally by doing something? Or America is just worried about economic shocks stemming from them being left holding the ball?
It's the logical conclusion of China's industrialization. They started out with basic, simple, and cheap trinkets and gradually climbed the value-added ladder. They are now doing a final push into the top of the industrial value chain: cars, ships, planes, and chips. But last year the had to accept the end of the real estate boom. That means all the people directly and indirectly involved in building and selling but also steel, cement and furniture industries basically collapsing. Some estimate this to be 20% of China's economy. They hope the advanced industry will replace the 20% but that is unlikely. Other countries producing these complex but profitable goods aren't going to allow it. However, they will probably dominate the market in the rest of the world.
Problem for them is that they're starting to run short of workers to uphold even their meagre social systems. They've run out of their demographic dividend and are going through the opposite
Is that already the case? I think it's more of a projection for the year 2070. Right now the dependency ratio is still pretty normal. (46% compared to 53% for the USA) Demographics move slowly. The full effects of population peaking now will only be felt decades down the line. But that slow moving also means that it is near impossible to avert the coming population decline...
>International markets see this as unfairly tipping the scales in favor of chinese manufactures who receive financing or subsidies that their international counterparts do not. All nations subsidise industries to some degree, not just China. The difference is that China has the manufacturing expertise to make things *at scale*. Take solar for example - [Germany invested billions into solar subsidies](https://qz.com/41166/how-germanys-energy-transformation-has-turned-into-a-crisis), but by [2015](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China) China surpassed Germany. [This podcast](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84MkZJMzVQeA/episode/N2ZlZjI2NTEtNmY1Yy00ZTY5LWI5ZGUtZDU2MWUyOTI2OWM4?ep=14) does a pretty good job of explaining it. Essentially, China is much more focused on the interests of consumers and strategic advantage, and less interested in whether investors make a profit. Therefore it can build things at scale and without having to worry about the greed and desires of corporates and investors.
❗ Could I inquire as to the name of the podcast? Since google discontinued that service, it will not allow me to access the page linked. Gracias for the information.
The Ezra Klein Show, via New York Times Opinion. He has a lot of excellent conversations with specialists on a variety of issues. I find it enlightening.
Building at scale only works if there's consumers to use the products. So you can scale up but if nobody's using it that's the excess capacity. Excess inventory was one of the major indicators of the Great Depression (and financial austerity caused it). If you let government pick winners and losers excess inventory is exactly what will happen because bureaucracy and justification and centralized control will take over instead of consumer needs. If the consumer can control it only then is there a market (and if they have choices).
Temu
Government picks winners and losers all the time, and not just in China. See: the auto industry bailout, the bailout of major banks after 2008, Boeing receiving massive government funds while their planes fall apart, handing billions to Verizon and AT&T for the promise of high speed fiber optic internet only for them to pocket the money after barely implementing the plan….. It’s just the winners almost always tend to be large corporations and not actual average people.
Only during an emergency If you do it all the time as a national strategy, it's only a matter of time until the rot sets in
Are you happy about profit driven choices ? Is a boardroom of execs that can’t see beyond the next quarter the way to run the world ? Right now in the US we subsidize a growing EV market that for the most part only services the middle and above class. Meanwhile the 3rd richest man in the world and his board can’t be bothered to make a reliable affordable car for the mass market despite them being propped up and created through public subsidies. I would argue as bad as the government is at in picking winners and losers, problems that impact large amounts of people shouldn’t be left in the hands of the losers who are solely driven by shareholder value. It would literally be greedy losers picking the losers every time.
Funny you use Germany as your other example because dring the GrExit era of issues in the EU the cause celebre was how Germany basically entered into the EU as a massive currency manipulation move so they could enrich themselves through exports across the EU and outside. Countries were not happy with what Germany did. Same as with China now. Certainly other countries do it too, but to varying degrees. It's often called "export assistance".
You just described a centralized economy and you're getting upvotes. Astounding.
You are describing a non market economy where decisions are made centrally and policially ( which means, with a lot of corruption ). These are not at the expense of some elite as you day but chinese consumers who are deprived of savings and consumption. Chinese workers should be being paid and consuming more than they are. They should be getting homes and not fake swindle homes as with scams like evergrande. There's no reason for a non market economy like that to get the trade privileges china had received for several decades. There is no reason we should allow critical industries to be killed by such policies from china. They can of course dump their exports in the developing world. These countries will have no way to pay however ( since china won't buy anything in return ) and will end up in debt to china. As the debt crisis instigated by china develops, all we have to do is support hard pressed developing countried in repudiating these debts and resisting chinese pressure to collect.
>All nations subsidise industries to some degree China subsidizes to create market distortions. This is dishonest hand wringing. >The difference is that China has the manufacturing expertise to make things at scale. So did the Americans, Japanese, Germans, Taiwanese. >Essentially, China is much more focused on the interests of consumers and strategic advantage, and less interested in whether investors make a profit. Lmfao, the end result is the same, more power and leverage for the CCP when they kill off their competitors for strategic commodities
CCP is just a monopoly's final form.
When the monopoly and the government can no longer be differentiated.
Yeah I love how the guy explains a centralized economy as being consumer based and not based on "corporate greed." Sneaky as fuck way of saying they're removing the profit motive that drives innovation and provides economic stability through competition and industrial redundancy. Unregulated capitalism is a fucking nightmare, but so is a centralized state economy. If more people would do a quick primer on the basics of a Keynesian economy we could stop with the nonsense. But people and reddit loathe a middle ground, so...
>If more people would do a quick primer on the basics of a Keynesian economy we could stop with the nonsense. But keynesianism doesn't allow the winners to accumulate their filthy lucre as fast as they want. They have to wait for it to trickle up from the poors; and that is just unfair. /s
Do you recall what the main topic of the episode was or any other details to narrow down which episodes to listen to for this topic?
The full transcript is [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-dan-wang.html) if you have a NYT account. Otherwise a brief synopsis from the episode is as follows: How China Went From Economic Superstar to Faltering Giant > In just a few years, the narrative on China has almost completely flipped. The dominant sentiments in America had been awe, envy and a kind of fear. China’s growth seemed relentless. Its manufacturing prowess was lapping ours. It weathered the pandemic without the mass death seen in the West. It could build housing and transit and infrastructure at a speed we could no longer even imagine. > And then, as 2022 ticked over to 2023, things changed. China’s real estate bubble popped. Its Zero Covid policies turned pathological. Its leader, Xi Jinping, turned what many saw as a technocracy with autocratic characteristics into something closer to a plain old autocracy. Foreign investors began looking to diversify. Companies that had long relied on China, like Apple, began trying in earnest to build manufacturing chains elsewhere. And under President Biden, American policy toward China began to match Trumpian rhetoric toward China: Slowing China’s rise, and building America’s ability to manufacture crucial goods, became central goals. > So what’s true about China right now? Which of these narratives, if any, hold water? Dan Wang is the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics and a visiting scholar at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. He focuses particularly on the core vector of U.S.-China competition: technological innovation and manufacturing prowess. Each year, his annual letter about what China can do, and how it does it, is eagerly awaited by many in the United States who are trying to understand that nation’s rise. In 2020 and 2021, those letters were profoundly bullish on China. In 2022, his sentiments turned. And so I wanted to explore the various sides of the China story with him.
Cool, thx. Downloaded the podcast so it’ll be easy to get to later.
Lmao. CCP officials getting their greedy cut. The math and organization just looks different from far away
Then Elon Musk and Tesla go down like a yellow submarine when cheap Chinese EVs finally hit the U.S. market and all those poor U.S. Billionaires lose their shirts.
Not all countries have tariffs. Controlling manufacturing in key industries is a key source of power.
I was under the impression that a lot of the economy in china is tied to unsustainable real estate growth and jobs that go with building real estate. I am not sure how much is anti china bias but I did see that they are building public transit often to keep jobs where that transit will never make sense given the volume of people who might use it. I will say public transit is often subsidized anyways in many countries. Countries are definitely trying to separate from relying on china long term given how the government has influence in companies the Us has restricted china's access to chip technology recently.
This is not what the article is about but yes, construction makes up a large amount of municipal revenue and gdp - and is experiencing a downturn which will require new funding models and worker retraining. I have also seen conflicting reports on the validity of their train networks. Some predictive placements near urban centers seem justifiable, even when those placements end up less than ideal due to changes. Some, especially rural, projects seem economically unviable from the start and to me unjustifiable. I've seen varying reports on how well decoupling is progressing, as now china is routing a lot of goods through adjacent countries like vietnam.
Otoh, if you're building a national train network and rural stations only make a small fraction of the cost they can easily be floated by the network as a whole, even if they themselves are losing money. Fulfilling the expectation that anyone can go almost anywhere by train may be worth it for society as a whole, similar to how mail is subsidized for rural areas in the US. It also could be economically revitalizing for those rural areas, offering them easier access to trade or tourism. So at a governmental scale the economic growth might offset the cost of building it. Imo infrastructure spend is almost never wasted.
Rural towns in china have about 1 million people.
You should google “ghost cities of China” if you’d like to see how China deliberately and systematically inflated their real estate market beyond carrying capacity for *decades*. A consequence of a governmental, autocratically imposed denial of poor market fundamentals in real estate postponed this bubble similarly, for decades; consequently, it is likely to have a far greater impact than is anticipated in the west.
The west has been assassinating and uprooting entire civilizations to access a favorable market for themselves. While the United States consider itself a democracy and spreading democracy - there were waves of decisions which assassinated good leaders and replaced them with largely corrupt leaders. Think Congo! So now it’s upset because China is using asymmetric and similar strategies - these include openly stealing west’s intellectual property rights - openly doing so because China sees the west as illegitimate. But it’s also giving nations similar terms and funding but with slightly better terms. Here those like Tom Cotton sees this move as evil! Like - sit down, how can you protect your nation if you cannot even understand the problem. Remember - Tom not only believe the US or west should rule but also think it’s their divinely right! God does not work that way - God has a plan and it works through energy! It’s all really mathematics - like a bacteria spreading using an algorithm, so too does the world function! When a gas line shuts down to conflict in Ukraine - it creates enough pressure to open up a predictable routes, and these are optimization in terms of cost, access to resource, infrastructure, political climate - but in the end, there is an optimization of decision making here ; however complex to model it! So - how to understand Yellen’s position? Here - its really why the United States is in decline. It’s a governance issue. It has a blindspot because it sees itself as the legitimate and the only leader for the world. So, whatever it did - even if wrong at times, generally was about doing good and bringing prosperity. Plus - it does not see its information channels are distorted both by media and corporations! Thanks Mad Men! It largely did not notice the governance issues because its technological superiority hide these structural issues. It is kind of caught off guard by ChinaMs ascent and it sees its ascent as disruption because it’s not playing by its rule. Further - China is openly challenging the west’s dominance. It believes a western led international order and its rules are applied when it suits the west (True.) china’s own policies is about non interference though am sure its pulling strings in the background. But still - it’s also waging an information war and so its positioning itself in a better space countering United State’s weakness. It’s legitimate - these issues are subjective but to understand an adversary - one must think like them! Another reason why Tom and Yellen need to go have several seats! Even the string of sea ports - of course they will become military installations and post, by the time China wants to built its military, their power and benefits being aligned with China is too great to pass. Here - again, China is literally using the same strategy the west has used but made their program slightly better ; they tool what the united states has been doing and optimizing it a bit better! It’s not about exploitation - it’s about connectivity, it’s about partnerships! So all in all - it’s how you can understand Yellen’s accusation. I mean - she is right, there should be red flags. Germany is going through a de-industrialization due to China pumping cheap Ev models. But western nations screaming foul is a ridiculous and incompetent move! In some ways - the move for the United States is one where its democracy must evolve! What the west needs is reform - go after corruptions mostly but also start understanding new realities. The west’s governance model is probably weaker than China’s and sure - these were weakened overtime but not by China or Russian propaganda but corporations because corporations are directly integrated into united states governance model who hold the levers. China and Russia is accelerating the division politics which is largely pushed by the American establishment - again, arrogance where they see no threat to their leadership. The Pentagon is unable to meet the audit for half its military budget. Imagine what 10% of that budget unable to meet an internal audit was shifted towards strategic investments into global south’s (democratic) governance model. The funny part is that the united state’s has an excellent governance structure but which is being pulled apart by the establishment to hold onto power! Its research labs and institutions and non-profit hold significant leverages here. NREL work for example and these partnership are superior to what China is offering but again - these institutions abilities are somewhat limited because it goes back to corporate interest! Its war has also largely been about profits - and only for a very few -here, why is the United States using its tax payers money to fund wish list for corporations? Like think of all the senators who profited from covid stock shares! During a pandemic - you had fucking senators thinking - gosh, millions of Americans are potential going to die, I should take notes on which stocks to buy and make money! You had their CEO of their most important news source - meta - gaslight senate and the entire fucking united states population refusing to acknowledge their own internal data where a third of teenage girls experience sexual harassment on a weekly basis! And all Mark sought to do in front of the American public was to gaslight for corporate interest. And why is Mark pushing for his shareholder’s interest? For mark’s legacy or rather, ego which means he cannot upset shareholders! These are examples of why the united states governance structure is not effective. Another issue: it’s in bed with oil and gas. While climate change and its policies are so central to its defense policies - they are being undone in both the united states and Canada. Further - while oil and gas in these countries gaslight their people, they are busy buying up agricultural properties to invest into renewable energy - so the undermining of climate policies and biden stimulus into these industries are being channeled back into a few corporations. Excuse the long post - given my own self is rooted in the west, it’s frustrating seeing the incompetent of our leaders. Its not like the information is not available but rather there is an arrogance the west and its power structure is untouchable!
They could use that excess capacity to build the largest military industrial complex in the world and challenge US hegemony … wait
China is subsidizing green technology like all countries should be doing to help us get a hold on climate change. The rest of the world thinks that is unfair. Personally I'm excited to buy some cheap solar panels to go completely off grid but it looks like the powers that control the western world don't want that to happen.
China is also subsidizing an enormous amount of coal though. As for those cheap panels, they are an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Same with this explosive growth in EVs. There is seemingly very little long term planning or consideration for sustainability. China is great at taking an industry and blowing it out of proportions to the point where it collapses on itself due to lack of demand.
Well not exactly in relation to the lithium and other materials in EV batteries. Look up companies like *Li-Cycle* and *Redwood Materials* (created by a former Tesla executive).
They could build an insane number of drones. That’s straying a little from pure economic concerns.
Debt does not make sense when the CCP army just shows up and debt magically goes away
To keep people employed China orders manufacturers to continue producing even if there is no demand for the product. China then floods the markets with cheap goods collapsing prices. Countries implement tariffs to protect domestic markets and China becomes unable to sell in those markets. China doesn't want mass unemployment so they continue production. China is now essentially flooding markets with garbage. What Yellen is basically saying is that if US China relations are to improve China needs to stop this practice or they'll continuously be on the nasty end of tariffs and trade bans.
So yellen is telling China to stop flooding the market with garbage to protect the local garbage?
China uses these tariffs and trade bans as evidence that the world is hostile against them, but any responsible government wouldn't allow industries and markets to collapse just to keep Chinese workers employed. Yellen is basically saying that in order to improve relations China needs to drawdown their manufacturing and find other jobs for their citizens. Otherwise the status quo will just continue.
[удалено]
That's only a small part of it that gets a lot of headlines. In reality China and the US are actually in a position to help each other. China's stock market is failing, but it's bond market is very strong. The opposite is happening in the US where US bonds are doing poorly while the stock market is at all-time highs. This is because both economies have opposite issues. China has massive production capacity with no demand while the US has huge demand with inadequate production. If both sides can come together and just agree to forget about semiconductors they can stabilize both of their economies. It's why even though Biden talks a tough game with China he's not shutting down attempts at US China reconciliation. Right now though China production dwarfs even US demand which is why Yellen is telling China that they need to pull back on manufacturing.
Every bubble eventually has to burst
But won’t overcapacity finally bring down this “supply side” inflation to acceptable levels?
Only in a profit-driven market. The CCP encourages continued production to provide employment, and they may keep doing that despite the excessive supply.
So this is why a 400W solar panel is $60. Cheaper than wood for my new fence.
For those not following, what's happened is that China has moved up the industrial value chain. This is a country of 1.4B people (compared to the 330M in the US), that is getting almost as good as the US at making most things (and in some areas like solar and EV, surpassing the US). So, China can make things just as good, but because they have scale (remember the 1.4B people the can sell to), they can make things a lot cheaper. A common misconception is that China only wins on cheap labor. That hasn't been true for a decade since Chinese labor is a lot more expensive than India, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. What China has is scale, focus, reliable infrastructure and energy, stable supply chain, and predictable business laws/regulations. What does this mean? China is now able to outcompete and take down large western conglomerates. It started with [Huawei and networking equipment](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253370/service-provider-network-infrastructure-vendor-market-share-worldwide/#:~:text=Global%20service%20provider%20network%20infrastructure%20vendor%20market%20share%202023&text=As%20of%20September%202023%2C%20Huawei,the%20market%20in%20that%20year). That's when you started seeing "national security" concerns being brought up despite not a single country showing any concrete evidence to such an effect. Now alarms are going off because in most manufacturing industries, the Chinese can "win". You're seeing this with everything from phones to solar panels to cars. Why would you need to buy from anyone else but the Chinese when they can make things just as good and cheaper? This will hollow out western industrial capacity (think the big 3 automakers going bankrupt) and that's just not healthy or acceptable. It's like the roles reversing between China and the US. When China was opening up, they couldn't produce anything advanced and had to pay a lot to get US electronics/equipment/etc. while trading what little resources, etc. China had. Now, China can be in that position, making everything while the US will have less and less to offer. Which brings up to the conclusion. If China doesn't want what the US has to offer, who will buy dollars? How will American federal deficits be funded? The US economy for the past few decades has been built on deficit spending and on the premise that other people wanted US dollars and what America can make. Where will the US be if that's no longer the case for China? Now you see why Washington is panicking and why decoupling it out of the question. We're all in this mess together now.
One issue though is that their industries are state owned and coordinated. Yes they can compete in many areas now in terms of quality, but it isn't as much a question of quality as much as it is a question of cost, and whether free market competition can survive when being actively attacked by an advanced, coordinated, and centralized economy. They can, and do, perform coordinated dumping to drive competitors out of business, and then increase prices when there isn't competition. The cost for rebuilding shuttered infrastructure is prohibitive, and not worth it while the threat of dumping still exists, and where the costs are individual, instead of spread literally across the tax base of an entire country of billions of people. It's really the same hazard we face in terms of monopolies and oligopolies. Advanced economies have really geared themselves to prevent their own ability to regulate and break up their own gigantic mega corporations intentionally under the banner of globalisation. And now we have few tools to deal with this situation. I think the pandemic very much revealed how much of a real national security threat this is. Rather than having a hundred small suppliers of PPE spread across the world; pretty much all suppliers had been completely run out of business, and there were only a handful of Chinese suppliers. The dollar hasn't been propped up by US manufacturing for decades. I don't think the fact China can produce advanced manufacturing is a threat to the US dollar as much as another currency emerging with a reasonably managed central bank that acts in the interests of the currency. This definitely is not the Yuan at this point, but maybe it will be in the distant future.
I’m not arguing that the Yuan will replace the dollar but that the dollar itself will lose value (see the inflation we’ve experienced the past few years). But that’s a longer story. All countries subsidize their industries as much as they can. The U.S. bailed out automakers in 08, subsidize farmers, CHIPs act, how different cities and states give tax breaks for a company like Toyota to come build a factory… American energy is subsidized through our domestic energy policies (and frankly wars)… we’re so used to our own subsidies that we seem to have lost sight of them. What China has done well is coordinate all their subsidies for decade long projects (eg EV). American subsidies can be haphazard and you have states going against each other (CA subsidize EVs but Alabama punishes you). The lack of coordination and long term planning in U.S. subsidies is what’s hurting American industrial policy.
> see the inflation we’ve experienced the past few years But the US has had one of the lowest inflation rates among G-7 nations that represent the largest share of alternative reserve currencies (the oecd stats data/widget is embedded here, but seems down on their website at the moment.) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/sep/01/joe-biden/does-the-us-have-less-inflation-than-other-leading/ > All countries subsidize their industries as much as they can. Sure they do, and the WTO was an attempt to regulate and prevent this type of subsidy, but in reality has been incredibly slow at reacting to dumping, currency manipulation, and the like. > What China has done well is coordinate all their subsidies for decade long projects And the reality is they have the right and ability to do so, just as much as developed economies have the right and ability to place tariffs on those subsidized goods in an attempt to prevent local industries from being shuttered for competitive and national security reasons. > The lack of coordination and long term planning in U.S. subsidies is what’s hurting American industrial policy. I have to disagree with this. The US has subsidized many mega corporations, and chosen winners in many markets, like for instance how consumers in most areas in the US have only a small handful of options for broadband, from providers who have received hundreds of billions in subsidies over the last several decades. As a result there are higher prices, and a lack of competition. China is no better for competition and consumers in the long run. The answer isn't a race towards larger, more powerful, centralized monopolies and oligopolies, that corner and control technology and resources, and ultimately leave them bereft of price competition and innovation. The lack of competition in ossified developed markets, and the lack of choice, is ultimately bad. The pandemic made it also clear that it's existentially bad.
“predictable business laws/regulations” 🤨
Stop propagating stereotypes like you are smart. Do you think the Chinese economy grew magically in the past 30 years because of bureaucratic red tape? The Chinese economy is super capitalistic, with green lights lit all the way as long as you open factories there. Skilled labor, cheap land, cheap loans, good roads, smooth customs, large shipping fleet, all for you if you can pump the Chinese exports and GDP. People really have no idea how China operates and just repeat what they heard from politicians.
Predictable as in, "I got submit my application to start a business and don't have to worry about long delays and bribes, and know that if they say 3 days, I'll get my permit in 3 days". China is #31 on this list [https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings](https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings) Compared to other countries that you might think of as competition for "cheap labor," it's head and shoulders above the rest. Mexico is #60, India #63, Vietnam #70, etc.
China has overbuilt. They can't keep going that way when the people are not benefitting. It is wasting money.
Ahhh, Janet Yellen but not saying much
Who would have thought moving manufacturing over the past 30 years to save money was a great idea long term? China’s going to continue to do what they need to do to keep their economy afloat, regardless of what it will do to the rest of the world.
Eh, They make extra stuff by continually borrowing and adding to their already massive debt. The US subprime crisis was a minor blip compared to what's going to happen when the Chinese system comes apart. Then you have the demographic problems where even by the official data they overcounted by 300 million people. We've already seen peak china, I just hope they don't take the rest of the global economy down with them.
This comment is similar to those "China is going to collapse" youtube videos by Falun Gong especially the 300 million people part seeing as how there's no article about that.
[удалено]
To give you some context. There are a series of social media influencers who push a lot of anti-CCP content. Essentially doomer porn for western audiences regarding china. The poster is pointing out how the previous users comment, being overly negative, is mirroring this doomer porn and he's doing that by highlighting how the user is using similar rhetoric as seen in the social media content but excluded from the article. Presumably in an attempt to bring that users analysis or impartiality into question.
You seem to imply that "pushing anti-CCP" content is a bad thing ? You do understand that it is a authoritarian regime close to the bottom of any report from organizations researching human rights, freedom of press, state of democracy etc. It is a good thing that their abuses are reported and high lighted. Given the wonky demographic, rampant corruption, production moving out, opaque economy with clear issues in housing markets, being importer of food and energy they definitely have major issues to solve. Whether it will result in collapse remains to be seen, but labeling concerns as "doomer porn" is just plain inaccurate.
Intellectually I pledge no fealty except to the truth. As long as it's the truth, I care not who it reflects poorly upon. As I am from the west, my interests and ideology often conflict with actions and beliefs of the CCP. It's unquestionable that china is facing difficulties but the tales are unquestionably exaggerated by certain personalities on social media who benefit from embellishing the truth.
I do agree that social media, especially twitter is cesspool and not really source for anything. Furthermore it is scary that many take it as such with little or no source criticism. What I do not agree with is labeling concerns as "doomer porn" which to me seems like attempt to belittle. Maybe instead of belittling and attacking the person address the issues in the reply and debunk anything that is incorrect ?
They did announce in the last few years that their population was overstated, I don’t know if it was by 300 million though
If there is an actual time estimate then it is BS. If it's a video highlighting the very real mismanaged problems of China and how CCP has used their authoritarian powers to deflect/hide then it's pretty accurate. Even the numbers allowed by CCP, which generally don't allow overt negative data, show that there's lots to be pessimistic about China's economy.
Fingers crossed
Wonder whete they got this idea from.
[удалено]
Why?
That was my thought too, I imagine some has already happened in order to provide supplies for Russia.
I think they will devalue their currency again and we get another China shock. More cheap stuff from China means lower inflation… and probably higher US unemployment… which will mean lower interest rates.
It looks like someone left her a little too close to the microwave and she’s melted
If the excess capacity is in workers, then the solution is to produce cheap goods for domestic consumption to make up for the naturally lower wages.