Fortune - Nobel laureate Paul Krugman agrees Beijing is making too much stuff: 'The world will not accept everything China wants to export'
Fortune - Nobel laureate Paul Krugman agrees Beijing is making too much stuff: 'The world will not accept everything China wants to export'
China's economy suffers from "vastly inadequate" domestic spending, the Nobel Prize-winning economist said in a television interview.
China’s leaders are “bizarrely unwilling” to use more government spending to support consumer demand instead of production, according to Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman.
“The fact that we seem to have a complete lack of realism on the part of the Chinese is a threat to all of us,”
Krugman echoed criticism by U.S. economic officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that China can’t simply export its way out of trouble. The comments come amid renewed concern in the U.S. and Europe over what is viewed as Chinese overproduction and the dumping of heavily subsidized products overseas
China’s whole economic model is not sustainable because of “vastly inadequate” domestic spending and a lack of investment opportunities, he added. Beijing should be supporting demand not more production, he said.
The same clown prize winning economist who said the economy is recovering and thriving if you ignore every metric a human needs to survive?
China’s whole economic model is not sustainable because of “vastly inadequate” domestic spending and a lack of investment opportunities, he added. Beijing should be supporting demand not more production, he said.
When china promotes domestic consumption the west gets mad at them for “skirting sanctions” and thriving independently. When they export their products then it’s “a threat to us all.”
Yeah that’s the part I don’t get, China running an export-heavy economy for decades was fine but now all of a sudden it’s a problem? I don’t buy that the neoliberal economists are that concerned with domestic alternative energy corporations being competitive, if so they’d be pressing the U.S. government to subsidize the domestic industry in turn.
What I suspect their real qualm is China limiting foreign investors from investing in those subsidized industries, but they can’t directly say that, too mask off. So instead they say “China should just focus on domestic spending because reasons,” hoping China will take the bait and limit their industries’ earning potential, make the market more import reliant so Chinese consumers are buying more from foreign corporations western investors can hold shares in.
It's not about competition to domestic alternative energy. It's about competition to fossil fuels.
The fear of affordable Chinese alternative energy syatems is of course the fear of petroleum losing dominance, and thus the loss of power that the petrodollar gives the US, the loss of economic power the US has as the largest exporter of refined petroleum, and the power that petroleum dependence gives the US over the daily lives of billions of people.
US imperialism is tied deeply with the western-dominated petroleum industry and the ongoing gradual downfall of its dominance is directly tied to the ongoing downfall of the US.
“The fact that we seem to have a complete lack of realism on the part of the Chinese is a threat to all of us,”
'Us' being used to mean neoliberal economists and the
system they've forced on the world.
"They're going to kill us all with their...cheap and abundant solar panels, EVs, high-speed rail, and cure for diabetes!"Lol i love their use of words like "world" when they always mean western Europe, Japan and anglosphere shitholes.
Permanently Deleted
So he is admitting that China is only able to export because US (for example) is importing and giving them dollars. Neoliberals are acting like China is destroying the world with its export but the problem is that US gave away all its industrial capacity and started importing from China. The only way to build it back up is with Government spending. And with how bad all the infrastructure bills have been its unlikely.
China’s whole economic model is not sustainable because of “vastly inadequate” domestic spending and a lack of investment opportunities, he added. Beijing should be supporting demand not more production, he said.
Yea but high speed rail being built on deficit spending is bad because profit
And the idea that Chinese Government isn't shifting to domestic spending is wrong, that's their plan, shift to domestic consumption with increased spending. Export led growth is unreliable.
Also the same thing can be said to a much greater extent about Germany. Their export growth model relies on suppressing domestic wages, benefits and creating unemployment. But of course, since they are "western", no mention of it from Krugman.
The only way to build it back up is with Government spending.
You mean communism? Obama? GENDER? Fuck off with that taxation government spending mumble jumble. I want tax cuts NOW. Also be sure to buy American to support freedom!!
This reads like a "smartened up" version of those SUN weekly trash mags at grocery store checkout counters that used to say things like, "Silly China makes Cities where Nobody Lives!", when I was a kid.
Thinking back to the "GhOsT cItIeS" is hilarious while living in a hollowed out US city with rising homelessness and shrinking opportunity. But, hey, we're getting a new baseball stadium, largely subsidized by the city!
My crap-it-all-ist in Christ, you all made our current situation off WalMart and Amazon gutting middle America and domestic production with mass imports of undercutting the nation by flooding it with Chinese goods. You made the richest bastards in the world doing this with companies that make "zero profit" and subsidized them for doing so.
lack of investment opportunities
one of the rare
takes i disagree with is that china needs the us to buy all the stuff they make. while they might currently want closer us ties for safety and us capital, i really don't think they have a structural need for us domestic purchasing. with relatively modest consumption, there's no reason that a fully socialist and developed china would actually need constantly working armies of manufacturing labor.Yeah, they can just start mandating more vacation days until domestic production equals domestic consumption.
But I think China's climate change plan is to dump cheap solar panels on the world until all the countries working on profit logic are forced to switch to solar power. Which does need people to buy their stuff.
It was probably true for a time when their productive forces were weaker. That's been changing the past 5-10 years.
Is the purpose of production to satisfy needs or to create profit for your national bourgeoisie? Paul, Dmdon't get mad, I'm just asking questions.
Was there some meaning this article was trying to convey? I read the whole thing and my response is just
I got literally, absolutely nothing from reading all those words, and I'm pretty sure that's not my fault.
Also, and this is a small thing, I know articles are published with typos all the time, but the following sentence makes no sense, right? Like, the grammar is wrong to the point where the sentence is meaningless, isn't it? I'm not just misreading things entirely?
Krugman reiterated his view that it’s better to cut rates soon with the chance of re-accelerating inflation looks very small if the Fed cuts rates.
Yeah that looks shouldn’t be in there. Also it should have commas somewhere … anywhere
Yeah it used to be true these guys would make arguments I'd have to put effort into debunking, like I'd have to know shit if I talked to people repeating their talking points.
Anyone on the street who tried to repeat this would just sound like a moron
Western crap-it-all-ism is looking at a checkmate senario and China didn't have to fire a single shot.
When your enemy is a total dumbass, all you have to do is whatever you want.
If "with" was replaced with "when" it would be coherent.
Yes. Could they also replace “looks” with “looking?” I’m just trying to make sure my brain still works after reading it.
I genuinely don’t even know what this means. I thought supply and demand were one thing? How does one spend money on supporting demand?
If you cut taxes or give people money (the 2k stimulus checks joe biden owes us) that's money for people to spend on shit, which is more consumer demand
i spent my trump bux on a new computer
Chinese people have all the same garbage products to consume as Americans. I’m pretty sure they consume movies and fast food just like us. Pretty sure they all have smart phones or computer access as well. They have fast fashion. Like I don’t get what they don’t have and are aren’t spending money on
What does it mean to "support demand"? Here I'm thinking if a large group of consumers have demand for a good, the way to support that is producing that good.
I'm probably wrong but my mind immediately went to neoliberal austerity to force people to purchase services on the private market
Oh and my dumbass was thinking it means rising wages so people have more money to spend
This is Krugman we're talking about, so I doubt you're far off.
Probably stuff like reducing the savings rate for consumers by encouraging the use of credit (lower interest rates, losen credit regulations) and lowering state spending on building up productive forces.
Ironically enough, if china develops its productive capacities more and the neocon ghouls stop the military pressure, Chinese planners could easily afford to pivot to more consumption. For right now, china's greatest insurance against the ultra belligerent west is exports. It also needs exports because china still has underdeveloped industries.
I suррose if the state builds a train, that raises demand for train and rail рarts. But somehow i dont think he means that.
He means have giant billboards telling people to consume. I would say his point is valid if we point to China’s media industry. Right now most of the shit they churn out is kdrama clones. If they built up a proper movie/television industry then it would be a good chance to heighten the status of domestic products. But others here have pointed out that Chinese government censorship basically prevent anything interesting or provocative from being made
This is bullshit. The рublishing industry in china is huge. Just the sloр that gets translated is larger in volume than western sloр. And whats translated is the tiр of the iceberg. This is in рart because there is more chinese, so what would be niche audiences in the west are viable demograрhics, but they also read more on average. Censorshiр and whitewashing does get really bad once things are made into tv shows, but it is nowhere near as bad as on the west. Disney caрeshit has a military comissar that suрervices things for examрle.
China be throwing brics at the West's house of cards economy.
Paul Krugman mentioned: https://youtu.be/g9qjnl6jcx0?t=160
Nobel is an award for the most Status Quo removed, when it isn't for the most fascist.
Even when is Science of Nature we have a history of deepshits winning