This article is very clear - and damning. One point should become more clear: China is also competing against every other country. By undercutting those counties, China is evicerating their future. By undercutting, say, the EU, it is going to put the EU out of business, depleting a generation of productive youth that won't have jobs. As Dionne Warwick sang, "And all the stars that never were are parking cars and pumping gas". I would think that tarrifs by the EU against China in this case would be a good idea, simply to protect their own capabilities. We all learned long ago that cheap ain't always good.
This point also raised a possibility for another useful article - or there may already be one: How big does a "country" have to be to be wealthy? And who gets to say that? Can the EU sell only within itself and be as rich as it is now? Can the US? What are the trade-offs if they aim to do so? I know those are black-and-white questions and that shades of grey are more the truth of the matter.
Thank you, Dr. Smith, for making the science of economics nowhere near dismal. More like "
I think the critical difference between Japan’s “extend and pretend” policies and China’s is the geopolitical element.
Japan feared domestic social and political disruption - and was heavily influenced by “free market” vested interests. There was also a degree of denial by MOF and METI that the gogo years of the post war period up to the mid 1980s were really over.
The CCP and the PRC however are driven by the deliberate aim of de industrialization of critical parts of the OECD supply chain. Loans and other support to the companies that will deliver this outcome are not going to stop for economic reasons.
Sadly policy makers in most of the countries suffering these effects are ideologically unwilling to enact anti-dumping and other defenses to respond. So zombification will not stop in China. Yes the population of the PRC will pay a price. But since when did the CCP care about that?
China fears domestic social and political disruption and if you are working on technologies that may be disruptive, you know you don't have a future in the country.
China is in denial that the gogo years are over. China had an excellent chance to pivot to high tech and a healthy ecology of start-ups and Xi murdered that. No entrepreneur is going to trust the old man ever again.
Xi - as METI before him - is influenced by his traditionalist view of what industry looks like. For some industries that is a good thing, for the county as a whole it is beginning to be bad.
A man obsessed with control of course wants to control supply chain bottlenecks. But there is only so much policy makers abroad can willfully ignore, we're reaching the point where even the most unwilling feel coerced to act.
YouTube has loads of footage of abandoned Chinese malls, amusement parks, and resorts. Shame that the CCP has mismanaged the economy so bad. Chineses people should be enjoying their status as a developed country instead of slaveing away for fewer and fewer gains.
You could put hours of youtube clips together showing abandoned malls, amusement parks and resorts in the US too (and a much longer one showing abandoned factories.)
You could also put hours of youtube clips together showing thriving facitilies in both countries.
A very important topic which adds to the list of significant challenges facing China ... zombification, demographic decline, lack of control of critical supply chain (grains, energy), hostile neighborhood...
If you're like me (and I know I am), you own stock in some "good" Chinese companies (BYD, etc.). How can we ever know just how much money they are really making or if we're gonna get fleeced?
This article is very clear - and damning. One point should become more clear: China is also competing against every other country. By undercutting those counties, China is evicerating their future. By undercutting, say, the EU, it is going to put the EU out of business, depleting a generation of productive youth that won't have jobs. As Dionne Warwick sang, "And all the stars that never were are parking cars and pumping gas". I would think that tarrifs by the EU against China in this case would be a good idea, simply to protect their own capabilities. We all learned long ago that cheap ain't always good.
This point also raised a possibility for another useful article - or there may already be one: How big does a "country" have to be to be wealthy? And who gets to say that? Can the EU sell only within itself and be as rich as it is now? Can the US? What are the trade-offs if they aim to do so? I know those are black-and-white questions and that shades of grey are more the truth of the matter.
Thank you, Dr. Smith, for making the science of economics nowhere near dismal. More like "
I think the critical difference between Japan’s “extend and pretend” policies and China’s is the geopolitical element.
Japan feared domestic social and political disruption - and was heavily influenced by “free market” vested interests. There was also a degree of denial by MOF and METI that the gogo years of the post war period up to the mid 1980s were really over.
The CCP and the PRC however are driven by the deliberate aim of de industrialization of critical parts of the OECD supply chain. Loans and other support to the companies that will deliver this outcome are not going to stop for economic reasons.
Sadly policy makers in most of the countries suffering these effects are ideologically unwilling to enact anti-dumping and other defenses to respond. So zombification will not stop in China. Yes the population of the PRC will pay a price. But since when did the CCP care about that?
I do not think there's a big difference.
China fears domestic social and political disruption and if you are working on technologies that may be disruptive, you know you don't have a future in the country.
China is in denial that the gogo years are over. China had an excellent chance to pivot to high tech and a healthy ecology of start-ups and Xi murdered that. No entrepreneur is going to trust the old man ever again.
Xi - as METI before him - is influenced by his traditionalist view of what industry looks like. For some industries that is a good thing, for the county as a whole it is beginning to be bad.
A man obsessed with control of course wants to control supply chain bottlenecks. But there is only so much policy makers abroad can willfully ignore, we're reaching the point where even the most unwilling feel coerced to act.
YouTube has loads of footage of abandoned Chinese malls, amusement parks, and resorts. Shame that the CCP has mismanaged the economy so bad. Chineses people should be enjoying their status as a developed country instead of slaveing away for fewer and fewer gains.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_3En84hbc&t=2133s&pp=ygULdXJiZXggY2hpbmE%3D
You could put hours of youtube clips together showing abandoned malls, amusement parks and resorts in the US too (and a much longer one showing abandoned factories.)
You could also put hours of youtube clips together showing thriving facitilies in both countries.
A very important topic which adds to the list of significant challenges facing China ... zombification, demographic decline, lack of control of critical supply chain (grains, energy), hostile neighborhood...
If you're like me (and I know I am), you own stock in some "good" Chinese companies (BYD, etc.). How can we ever know just how much money they are really making or if we're gonna get fleeced?
You don't. China's official policy of financial non-transparency means only well-connected elites will have any real idea of specific equity value.
If the CCP--and Chaiman Xi--had a lick of sense, they'd invite Buffy over, and teach her Mandarin.
What's up with loans to households collapsing so low? Families no longer buying housing?