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.