Could mass layoffs in China result in a violent crackdown on unrest by the CCP?

Originally Posted by Mr T

So you're saying that they exaggerate the job they have so they'll look good when things don't come true? Seems rather manipulative to me, to knock economic confidence just to look good later.

I'd call it not being complacent. Governments around the world try to 'manipulate' views one way or the other. Some tend to be over-optimistic, some over-pessimistic, Chinese government tend to be the latter at least on their public statements.

Originally Posted by Mr T

......do you expect them to commission expensive research every time the Chinese government comes up with gloomy economic data/statements?

How can that be the case just by reporting a government's view?

That's fine if just reporting on quotes of what is said by officials like, 'our tasks will be arduous', 'jobs is our main concern' etc. But if the reporter tries to stretch it with his own imagination like it'll lead to mass unrest, fall of the government if less than 8% etc he better comes up with studies to back it up. Too bad if it's expensive whether in terms of time/effort/finance, that's what a good report requires. Stick to reporting quotes only if too lazy or daft to do some research. A lot of Western sources these days substitute wishful thinking for research & reports are made more to fill news space rather than due to having new substance to report.

Originally Posted by Mr T

You may dispute that growth of under 8% would lead to mass unrest, but the link between economic trouble and riots/protests is clear. It happens all around the world and has happened in Chinese history. Think back to the 1980s.

Yup, I'll continue to dispute the 8% threshold & see it as nothing but an attempt to set a low 'target' for those 'wishing' for mass unrest in China until good studies backing up this claim up is presented. All I can say is I hope they won't hold their breath waiting for the mass unrest or the banking crisis, as SampanViking mentioned has been 'predicted' for literally decades.
80s has more to do with hyperinflation & blind yearning for political changes like in the USSR then than low growth per se.
Today I see inflation falling back & not only consensus that the changes in USSR then would have been disastrous for China but also unprecedented questioning of the political & economic policies in the west as well.
So you see, using late 80s to gauge the risks of mass unrest in China is like a weatherman predicting rain whenever there's any clouds in the sky. Not totally wrong but seriously lacking in scientific substance.

Originally Posted by Mr T

Then you can't know much about economics. How many developed nations can you name that have had 7% growth for a sustained period of time and not suffered from boom-and-bust? China is a developing economy so it should be expected to have much higher growth.

China has had 7% plus growth for well about two decades now without a boom and bust cycle.

Of course you can. You can say that they're undermining the stock market, spreading rumours, sabotaging this and that, making unfair pay and work demands, illegally striking, encouraging other countries to engage in protectionism. You can say whatever you like - it just depends on whether people will believe you.

And yet they're not. Everyone knows where the source of the economic malaise is. Just read the Western press.

Like Qatar with a population of under 1 million?

China has a huge population so clearly has far more new entrants to its work force every year than most other nations.

Why use a country that subsists on oil as an example. By the way, middle eastern countries do have high unemployment.

Why not Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc,. Every country has a population that needs jobs. China is only bigger by scale. Being big by scale does not mean it really requires this 8% which is a percentage. Smaller countries would still need the same by the same logic whether its one million or one billion.

Its actually a lot more critical for developed countries because of the baby boomers that are retiring, creating a loopside in the economy where the social welfare subsistence is greater than the wage earners, and you don't want that when the wage earners are unemployed. Furthermore, China also have a large savings base (40%+ savings rate) to fall back on, not unlike in developed Western countries where the savings rate is too low, have a large measure of the population in debt (US = over 60%), and where retirement funds are threatened to be wiped out due to the deficits and monetary devaluation through inflation.

Originally Posted by Mr T

Like Qatar with a population of under 1 million?

China has a huge population so clearly has far more new entrants to its work force every year than most other nations.

LOL, are you actually comparing a actual figure with a procentage?
It DOESN'T MATTER at all how large/huge China's population is! Not the slightest! It is a procentage with 8%! How would a countries base population number been able to affect a procentage based economic growth? Go and learn basic mathematic pls!

Originally Posted by Mr T

No, but in a lot of countries they have the ability to vote out incompetant leaders. In China you can starve or riot. And even in democracies you get unrest when times are bad.

Well, except for the first 2 decades when PRC was firs established there was some tumoils, China havn't hade any incompetent leaders like in many democracies around the world have hade for well over 35 years now, thank you for proving the point.
Unrest and incompetancy is what democracy is all about, just look at Taiwan, Thailand, Philipines and several african and south american democracies, more than anything should have proven democracy is simply unsuited for poor or unstable countries.
As I said before, I havn't seen a single country that become prosperous because of democracy, only prosperous countries that later became really democratic. All these democracy superiority complex in some people's head should really end.

the word "competence" just doesnt coincide with "democracy" anymore. the only competent leader i can think of in the past 10 years is vladmir putin and nobody considers him a pillar of democracy. other than that, really "competent" leaders such as Deng Xiaoping, Lee KuanYew, that korean dude, Hu Jintao, Chiang Kai-sek's son i dont know his english name, Zhao Ziyang are all from non-democratic countries. the last really good leader that was from a democratic country was roosevelt,i dont know if you can say the same for reagan he took out the soviet union but his domestic policies isnt really as good

Originally Posted by crobato

China has had 7% plus growth for well about two decades now without a boom and bust cycle.

Err, yes - that's my point. It's a developing economy. I was asking for examples of developed economies that could sustain such growth.

And yet they're not.

That doesn't mean they can't in the future. That was what I was saying.

Why use a country that subsists on oil as an example.

Fine, how about Iceland. Do they have millions of entrants into the job market each year?

Why not Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, etc,. Every country has a population that needs jobs.

You said "Every country has millions of new entrants to the work force every year" when clearly that is not true. You didn't say anything about scale or percentages.

Originally Posted by yehe

LOL, are you actually comparing a actual figure with a procentage?

"Procentage"?

No, I wasn't. I was explaining to crobato why his assertion that millions of people enter every country's workforce every year.

Go and learn basic mathematic pls!

I think you could do with improving your reading and comprehension skills first!

China havn't hade any incompetent leaders like in many democracies around the world have hade for well over 35 years now

Hahaha, that's a good one. Then why were Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang purged? Unless of course you admit they were unfairly persecuted, which would say something about China's ruling party in putting its own good above that of the country.

Li Peng, is he a popular figure in Chinese society?

Unrest and incompetancy is what democracy is all about

I don't see much unrest in the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.

just look at Taiwan, Thailand, Philipines and several african and south american democracies, more than anything should have proven democracy is simply unsuited for poor or unstable countries.

Democracy isn't just about elections, it's about rights, forms of redress, independent institutions, etc. In Thailand you have people working against democracy to institute autocratic rule like in China. Taiwan hasn't been democratic for very long, nor has the Philippines.

In many African/South American states you have the authorities trying to fix elections, have their opponents/critics silenced, etc. They are by far the most unstable countries, where democracy is threatened or a sham. Whereas if you look at a country like Ghana, which is having elections and big-wigs have so far much more respecting the principles of freedom, things are calm and people are enjoying their right to vote.

And of course if you want to cherry-pick, I can do the same by pointing to failed autocratic/dictatorial states like North Korea, Zimbabwe and so forth. Does having strong bullies in charge help them? No, it makes things worse.

As I said before, I havn't seen a single country that become prosperous because of democracy, only prosperous countries that later became really democratic.

Who said countries become prosperous because of democracy? You just made that up. All I've said is that the fact China isn't a democracy means people have few options when they're in trouble other than to riot or cause unrest.

Originally Posted by Schumacher

I'd call it not being complacent.

I'd call it either being truthful or setting expectations low. But as I said, why play with what they really think and damage economic confidence?

But if the reporter tries to stretch it with his own imagination like it'll lead to mass unrest

What would you define as mass unrest? It isn't necessarily the same as what other people think.

Too bad if it's expensive whether in terms of time/effort/finance, that's what a good report requires.

Show me a collection of news reports where reporters have commissioned research (other than simple polling) for themselves. For the media to be affordable it's impossible to do that all the time.

Stick to reporting quotes only if too lazy or daft to do some research.

You're contradicting yourself. First you admit it might be expensive then you imply it's easy. Pick one or the other.

A lot of Western sources these days substitute wishful thinking for research & reports are made more to fill news space rather than due to having new substance to report.

Yeah, like non "Western" media don't do the same. Chinese media are guilty of doing that too.

Yup, I'll continue to dispute the 8% threshold & see it as nothing but an attempt to set a low 'target' for those 'wishing' for mass unrest in China until good studies backing up this claim up is presented.

Again, I'll remind you that supposedly this comes from the Chinese government. Either come down and say it has been made up by the media, or accept that it has not been artificially created/set by them.

All I can say is I hope they won't hold their breath waiting for the mass unrest or the banking crisis, as SampanViking mentioned has been 'predicted' for literally decades.

If you're talking about "decades", then people were proved right by the 1980s.

80s has more to do with hyperinflation & blind yearning for political changes like in the USSR then than low growth per se.

So hyperinflation does cause unrest but increased employment doesn't?!

I don't think you know about that period. It wasn't caused by a desire for political change, it was because of economic trouble and corruption. Because of that only political change in their eyes could resolve the problem. It wasn't because things were peachy but they thought political change would be good anyway.

Today I see inflation falling back & not only consensus that the changes in USSR then would have been disastrous for China but also unprecedented questioning of the political & economic policies in the west as well.

Oh, yes, we're just screaming for one-party rule and being locked into mental asylums whenever we have a grievance. Everything will be great if we are ruled with an iron fist!

Sure, economic policies are questioned but the same has happened in China - e.g. over the causes of the blackouts at the start of the year. It's just that where we live there is such freedom of speech that people are much more likely to speak out. Whereas in China if you disagree with the authorities you are labelled "insane".

So you see, using late 80s to gauge the risks of mass unrest in China is like a weatherman predicting rain whenever there's any clouds in the sky. Not totally wrong but seriously lacking in scientific substance.

Dear oh dear, you don't understand do you?

There is a difference between saying there WILL be mass unrest and there MIGHT be mass unrest. I don't see the majority of newspapers saying the former. You would agree, surely, that clouds indicate that rain might come, yes?

Originally Posted by Mr T

Err, yes - that's my point. It's a developing economy. I was asking for examples of developed economies that could sustain such growth.

I'm sorry WHAT? Somehow you think that a developing country is required to have a high rate of growth and a developed country does not?

That doesn't mean they can't in the future. That was what I was saying.

I'm sorry, the Earth can get hit by an asteroid in the future. That's what I'm saying. If it ain't here, it ain't here. I won't waste my time on hypotheticals because a lot of hypotheticals can happen. Jesus can return and the Mayan Calendar can also end too.

Fine, how about Iceland. Do they have millions of entrants into the job market each year?

Iceland is technically bankrupt. So your point being?

You said "Every country has millions of new entrants to the work force every year" when clearly that is not true. You didn't say anything about scale or percentages.

WRONG. It is true that _every_ country, at least those with significant populations, has millions of new entrants each year. Go check the high schools and the colleges. If a country does not have millions of new job entrants each year, they got a MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM in their hands which is that their population has become sexually STERILE and no longer capable of BIOLOGICAL REPRODUCTION.

Even on small countries that don't have that many people, they still have an equal proportion of young people entering the job market each year.

"Procentage"?

No, I wasn't. I was explaining to crobato why his assertion that millions of people enter every country's workforce every year.

Every country has roughly about the same percentages of youth entering the job market each year, give or take FERTILITY RATES. The percentage of people entering the job market every year is almost equivalent to the number of people born 18 years ago. Or the number of people that is being graduated from college each year, and the number of people graduating from high school that is not going to college.

Originally Posted by crobato

I'm sorry WHAT? Somehow you think that a developing country is required to have a high rate of growth and a developed country does not?

I'll try this one more time.

Developed economies cannot handle repeated annual growth rates of 7%+ without getting thrown into boom and bust.

Developing economies can handle repeated annual growth rates of 7%+ without getting thrown into boom and bust.

My point was referring to a comment (not from you) saying "hey 7% for China is still better than what US/UK can get". What are considered "good" growth rates for countries depend on how developed their economies are.

I won't waste my time on hypotheticals because a lot of hypotheticals can happen.

You were dealing with hypotheticals earlier on in the thread. You said:

That's how accountability in the PRC goes. In a democratic country, with biparty or multiparty setup, one party can blame the other party for the woes. In the PRC, there is only one party, and no one can blame another party but the Party.

That is talking about how political parties hypothetically would pass the blame around. I was only responding to a comment you made.

WRONG. It is true that _every_ country, at least those with significant populations, has millions of new entrants each year.

Ah, so now it's at least every country with significant populations? You didn't say "significant" when I replied to you.

Originally Posted by Mr T

I'll try this one more time.

Developed economies cannot handle repeated annual growth rates of 7%+ without getting thrown into boom and bust.

Developing economies can handle repeated annual growth rates of 7%+ without getting thrown into boom and bust.

And who told you that? Where is the source of these assertions?

Developed economies cannot get high economic growth rates because they no longer have a strong base of young cost competitive labor for one thing, and an aging population on the other due to decreasing birth rates. That is much bigger problem because you have a bigger share of the population that will subsist on welfare.

My point was referring to a comment (not from you) saying "hey 7% for China is still better than what US/UK can get". What are considered "good" growth rates for countries depend on how developed their economies are.

Yes, 7% is a hell a lot of better than 2-3% economic growth. Economic growth actually has to be higher than the inflation rate + inventory replenishment rate (another 2-3%) in order to say that the standards of living is improving, not decaying.

You were dealing with hypotheticals earlier on in the thread. You said:

That's how accountability in the PRC goes. In a democratic country, with biparty or multiparty setup, one party can blame the other party for the woes. In the PRC, there is only one party, and no one can blame another party but the Party.

That's not a hypothetical. That's a fact.

That is talking about how political parties hypothetically would pass the blame around. I was only responding to a comment you made.

What I said is true. There is no blame structure in the PRC.

Ah, so now it's at least every country with significant populations? You didn't say "significant" when I replied to you.

Wrong. If a country has 1000, 100,000, 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion, you have to expect that their 16 to 20 year olds proportion of their population are job entering. You have to expect unless they become sterile, that every year, you have a natural birth rate. Its sheer demographics. Iceland still has a proportion of population entering the job market, probably about the same as China assuming both have equal birth rates. Its just that the Iceland economy is also proportionately much smaller due to their population size. But the problems of unemployment remains the same.

For many countries with unemployment, they may not have social unrest (actually in China you don't have social unrest, you have protest) but they certainly have protest. Another sign of increased unemployment is increased crime rates, and that is also happening. In any case protest, which is legal and legitimate, is a lot better than crime which is illegal.

Originally Posted by crobato

Developed economies cannot get high economic growth rates

They can get high growth - the problem is that they almost always suffer a bust subsequently at some point.

Yes, 7% is a hell a lot of better than 2-3% economic growth. Economic growth actually has to be higher than the inflation rate + inventory replenishment rate (another 2-3%) in order to say that the standards of living is improving, not decaying.

Growth rates take inflation into account at least in the UK. And you are still missing the point. This person wasn't making a general comparison, he was saying that even China's low estimates of growth are "better" than the UK/US' had previously. That isn't true in the slightest because the countries are in entirely different situations.

That's not a hypothetical. That's a fact.

It's no more a fact than that the CCP can spread the blame elsewhere.

What I said is true. There is no blame structure in the PRC.

Of course there is. Look at how the government tried to move the blame for SARS to outside of China.

Wrong.

Actually, right - you did not say significant. You inserted that word in your comment previous to the one I'm quoting now.

actually in China you don't have social unrest, you have protest

Except that the "protests" frequently get violent. I'd say that the riots are a sign of social unrest, even if you want to argue over how severe it is.

In any case protest, which is legal and legitimate, is a lot better than crime which is illegal.

In China protests are often treated as crimes by the authorities.

Originally Posted by Mr T

...What would you define as mass unrest? It isn't necessarily the same as what other people think.

Something on the scale of Tiananmen for example, with nationwide effects etc.

Originally Posted by Mr T

Show me a collection of news reports where reporters have commissioned research (other than simple polling) for themselves. For the media to be affordable it's impossible to do that all the time.

Yeah good ones are few & far in between. I don't collect them, will remember to show you some when I see them in future. That's why I say most of what we see are of low quality.

Originally Posted by Mr T

...You're contradicting yourself. First you admit it might be expensive then you imply it's easy. Pick one or the other.

Where did I imply it's easy ?

Originally Posted by Mr T

...Yeah, like non "Western" media don't do the same. Chinese media are guilty of doing that too.

Sure, as business considerations go into Chinese media business, questionable tactics of the western media also starts to creep into them. This thread started with a western media source, that's why I went there. Feel free to start a topic on questionable Chinese media reports if u like.

Originally Posted by Mr T

...Again, I'll remind you that supposedly this comes from the Chinese government. Either come down and say it has been made up by the media, or accept that it has not been artificially created/set by them.

Not really, Chinese government make projections etc & comments on importance of jobs creation etc. I've not seen them making sensational predictions like mass unrest/fall of government etc as in the western media.

Originally Posted by Mr T

...If you're talking about "decades", then people were proved right by the 1980s.

U need to elaborate.

Originally Posted by Mr T

...Dear oh dear, you don't understand do you?
There is a difference between saying there WILL be mass unrest and there MIGHT be mass unrest. I don't see the majority of newspapers saying the former. You would agree, surely, that clouds indicate that rain might come, yes?

Smart move, a climb down to just MIGHT.
That's what I've been saying, ie a 6 year old kid can also say might this or that. If u don't have any substance to back it up, just saying it MIGHT simply because u wish it so, it's exactly what it is, ie no different than a kid saying something just for fun.

Originally Posted by Schumacher

Where did I imply it's easy ?

Stick to reporting quotes only if too lazy or daft to do some research.

That implies it could be done with some effort. If you don't have the money then effort doesn't come into it.

Sure, as business considerations go into Chinese media business, questionable tactics of the western media also starts to creep into them.

Trying to blame bad reporting on foreigners is ridiculous. The Chinese media only writes such stuff because people will buy it and Chinese journalists can think it up. There were lies and exaggeration in China before foreign media ideas arrived.

I've not seen them making sensational predictions like mass unrest/fall of government etc as in the western media.

Has the foreign media widely been saying that the Chinese government will fall? Not that I can see. And of course the Chinese government will never say openly that if it doesn't get x% there will be mass unrest, but you do get statements expressing concern of the potential for it. Then there are off-the-record comments as well.

U need to elaborate.

1980s - a lot of brown stuff hit the fan in China. Predictions that there would be mass unrest (if there were such predictions decades ago) came true.

Smart move, a climb down to just MIGHT.

Except that I never said anything WOULD happen. Nor do I think the foreign media was all saying there WOULD be mass unrest, though you can correct me on that if you like.

Originally Posted by Mr T

Stick to reporting quotes only if too lazy or daft to do some research.

That implies it could be done with some effort. If you don't have the money then effort doesn't come into it.

So lack of money is the reason for the bad reports ? That fine with me. I'm just calling it for what it is, ie bad reports. Feel free to find reasons/excuses for why they're bad if u like.

Originally Posted by Mr T

Trying to blame bad reporting on foreigners is ridiculous. ....

Not blaming them for anything, just saying many of the reports are lacking in substance

Originally Posted by Mr T

Has the foreign media widely been saying that the Chinese government will fall? Not that I can see. And of course the Chinese government will never say openly that if it doesn't get x% there will be mass unrest, but you do get statements expressing concern of the potential for it. Then there are off-the-record comments as well.

1980s - a lot of brown stuff hit the fan in China. Predictions that there would be mass unrest (if there were such predictions decades ago) came true.

Except that I never said anything WOULD happen. Nor do I think the foreign media was all saying there WOULD be mass unrest, though you can correct me on that if you like.

I've seen many that do say sensational stuffs like fall of government etc.
What brown stuffs ? I was referring to predictions of banking crisis, bad debts etc since decades ago.
Good that u clarify u never said anything WOULD because u really haven't presented any substance to back up such a claim anyway.

Too much HEAT in this thread. Way too much. Calm down gents or I will permantly close this thread.

bd popeye super moderator

Originally Posted by Schumacher

So lack of money is the reason for the bad reports ? That fine with me. I'm just calling it for what it is, ie bad reports. Feel free to find reasons/excuses for why they're bad if u like.

I don't think that a media report is bad because the owner doesn't have a research institute churning out data for it. If the media is to be accessible it must be affordable - otherwise there is no point to it.