pull down to refresh

By Lipton Matthews

While China’s economy has boomed, many people wrongly associate that success with the Chinese government’s industrial policies. Intervention has created many problems there—just as it has done elsewhere.

I gotta do it!!

@Solomonsatoshi thoughts?

if Beijing is subsidizing its way to dominance in semiconductors, electric vehicles, and advanced manufacturing, surely Washington cannot afford to stand on free-market principle while the factories disappear. It is a compelling story, and it is also, on closer inspection, largely a myth.
Between 2006 and 2013, the Chinese government channeled the equivalent of RMB 624 billion, roughly $91 billion, into the sector through entry subsidies, production subsidies, and investment subsidies, with entry subsidies alone accounting for RMB 431 billion of the total, dwarfing the RMB 156 billion directed at production and the RMB 37 billion at investment. These were not marginal interventions nudging an industry in a preferred direction; they were transformative injections of public money that reshaped a global industry,

and the question is whether the returns justified the cost.and the question is whether the returns justified the cost.

The evidence suggests they did not. When the lifetime profit gains of domestic firms are measured against the total subsidies disbursed, the gross return rate stands at just 18 percent. For every yuan spent supporting the sector, domestic producers gained fewer than twenty fen in net profit, a result substantially depressed by the fixed costs that shipyards must bear regardless of whether any vessels are actually being built.
reply

You reap what you sow

reply

Hahaha this is a good article!! It explains how the “Chinese miracle” was always a scam!

reply

Just like the Japanese Miracle from the 90's or the hype around Soviet productivity before that.

reply

Japan was always monetarily and militarily subservient tribute state to the US-Zionist Military-Banking-Industrial combine.
USSR was never able to compete with the west in terms of manufacturing efficiency- it was always dependent upon its fossil fuel supply advantage and when it lost the Afghanistan war to Stinger armed Teleban and could not export Khazakstans vast oil and gas reserves via Iran that was it- finished.
Economic wealth and power is a derivative of state power projection and strategy- free markets are not the final solution but just one component of overall economic competition.
China is not subservient to Zionist bankers or US military.
China has already won the trade war dominating manufactured goods and commodity markets.
Chinas proxy Iran has defeated the US-Zionist military using asymmetric tactics.
The petrodollar hegemony is in decline.
Hormuz is the US empires Suez moment.

reply
Chinas proxy Iran has defeated the US-Zionist military using asymmetric tactics.

We don't even have boots on the ground in the mainland yet and you're already declaring victory?

reply

China will never need to be in direct conflict as US military dominance has already been shown to be incompetent and incapable.
You lost the trade war and now you lost militarily to a Chinese proxy.
How humiliating for US exceptionalists...all their delusions shattered.
The petrodollar empire is finished.

reply

It doesn't have to be competent or capable. Maybe you win. I'm only thinking of killing as many communists as possible since they started it.

You clearly do not understand the strategy Chjina employs to gain mercantile dominance.
Its complex and I suggest you read 'Country Driving' by Peter Hessler, if you actually want to understand it.
Otherwise keep spouting the ignorant drivel that supports your pre existing biases and continue dreaming in your fools paradise.
Clue- China looks at the whole system, not just individual components.

reply