Again, look forward, not backward.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Okay we can have another look at the data in November 2030 if you insist; I will be there.
My point is there is neutrality in terms of preference - i.e we like growth equally. That doesn't mean growth will necessarily be equal. Jesus, you need to read specifically what I mean.
My bad for interpreting your claim charitably in that I assumed it was testable.
If lower tier cities grow more -> "See, they prioritized them because that was more effective at fostering growth"
if growth rates equalize -> "this disproves the notion that lower-tier cities are prioritized"
Either way you're right! all it cost was the ability to do anything other than post-facto rationalization. That seems to be a common thread here.
Last edited:
Funnily enough I was going to respond and bring up this exact point.
We know for a fact, that auto manufacturers are squeezing up-stream suppliers, with BYD being the most prominent (because they are the most successful, and therefore with the largest market power). This isn't an example of "deflation through tech/economies of scale", this is just BYD taking money out of someone's pocket to put into their own, which does flow to the customer (presumably), but also reduces cash flow for their up-stream suppliers to expand and do their own R&D.
And I doubt that this is the only industry where it happens. In any case, the conversation is becoming far too dogmatic again. It just feels like people are looking for confirmation bias or positive trends rather than discussing the minutia of unpleasant circumstances.
IMO I dont really agree on some anti involution solutions. I believe the way forward is to print the hell of money and give it to parents with children. Government debt is good, it's a private sector surplus. Why slow down your manufacturing when you can just print money and give it to people so they can spend more? Do the MMT.
That's hilarious. All the tough talk from Bessent and others about how quickly they'll be building out their own supply chain, but it looks like China is going to be fighting them, with all it has got, over every single inch of that chain.
Do you have trouble understanding ex-ante preferences and ex-post results? Because I have a sense you do not understand the difference between "having no preferences" as an ex-ante condition and "one did better than the other" as an ex-post result. That Lower Tier do better or worse does not necessarily mean ex-ante they prefer one does better than the other.
Still waiting....
I have already explained this multiple times; I was referring to RE stimulus via credit to developers. You know, like how every single stimulus from 2008 through the immediate post-pandemic stimulus in 2020 worked. In fact I explained it preemptively in my first reply to you, something I should have pointed out earlier, my apologies:
I guess you and I will just have to disagree with what constitutes a "huge" stock market rescue plan. In my mind, something that is just sufficient to get markets going up again for a little while, specifically in reaction to Trump's tariffs, before they resume volatility a few months later, cannot be reasonably equivocated with an effort to basically engineer an extended years-long bull market in order to spur consumption of wealthier citizens. Moreover I think it should be pretty obvious that the latter is what I was referring to given the broader context of this argument.
You have been ferociously stubborn in refusing to actually commit to any position whatsoever. I asked you at the start to explain what your core point was, and you never have. I did at the beginning. Of course, this allows you to always dance around my attacks and claim I am misunderstanding, or misreading, or that I am wrong on some technicality. In the continued absence of any statement of a specific, falsifiable belief about Chinese policy intention on your part I can only assume that you do not have one, or are otherwise unwilling to share them because they have already been proven wrong.
Last edited: