All interesting, but what is the economy for? And can be all sectors very productive (few people per output)? In Services we call that enshitification, don't we? Also, from the article, the one absence that is very conspicuous is the mention of the word "robot" which is not there. How does China stand on this area?
What the economy should be for is to improve people's living standards. Other goals are means to this end. Productivity is key because one cannot consume what one does not first products. All sorts of services are far more productive than they used to be.
Yes, all true, and again, I will not dispute any of the points made. I am just concerned that things not captured (by omission, not commission of course) might lead to a more nuanced view. I was just wandering, as I said, about robots, which do make certain sectors of Chinese economy much more productive and profitable an competitive than anyone else. And this is why we hear accusations of Chinese overcapacity and such. Even in agriculture there have been improvements from what I heard, especially in animal farming. Land is harder though, given the property structure and so on. ANd let us not forget how subsidized is the US agriculture for that matter. If the Chinese were to be even more productive, the rest of the world would need to take a brake almost. In fact, Adam Tooze made an analysis of the productive capacity China has on solar panels and the conclusion was that China could rig up the whole world, for a faster transition...
The Plaza Accord of 1985 aimed to correct trade imbalances by agreeing to a controlled depreciation of the U.S. dollar, which made American exports cheaper and foreign imports more expensive, thereby influencing U.S.-Japan trade relations by reducing the trade deficit with Japan.
Result: US deficit ballooned due to increased cost of imports in US dollars. This is the cost of owning the reserve currency and imposing it on the rest of the world and failing to make the sort of vehicles that cash strapped American consumers preferred to drive.
All interesting, but what is the economy for? And can be all sectors very productive (few people per output)? In Services we call that enshitification, don't we? Also, from the article, the one absence that is very conspicuous is the mention of the word "robot" which is not there. How does China stand on this area?
Also, how financialized is the Chinese economy?
But furthermore, the issue of Chinese productivity is ultimately secondary or tertiary to other, more important issues China maybe should concentrate upon: https://squirrelbrain77.substack.com/p/peoples-republic-of-china
What the economy should be for is to improve people's living standards. Other goals are means to this end. Productivity is key because one cannot consume what one does not first products. All sorts of services are far more productive than they used to be.
Yes, all true, and again, I will not dispute any of the points made. I am just concerned that things not captured (by omission, not commission of course) might lead to a more nuanced view. I was just wandering, as I said, about robots, which do make certain sectors of Chinese economy much more productive and profitable an competitive than anyone else. And this is why we hear accusations of Chinese overcapacity and such. Even in agriculture there have been improvements from what I heard, especially in animal farming. Land is harder though, given the property structure and so on. ANd let us not forget how subsidized is the US agriculture for that matter. If the Chinese were to be even more productive, the rest of the world would need to take a brake almost. In fact, Adam Tooze made an analysis of the productive capacity China has on solar panels and the conclusion was that China could rig up the whole world, for a faster transition...
Lets not ignore trade barriers.
The Plaza Accord of 1985 aimed to correct trade imbalances by agreeing to a controlled depreciation of the U.S. dollar, which made American exports cheaper and foreign imports more expensive, thereby influencing U.S.-Japan trade relations by reducing the trade deficit with Japan.
Result: US deficit ballooned due to increased cost of imports in US dollars. This is the cost of owning the reserve currency and imposing it on the rest of the world and failing to make the sort of vehicles that cash strapped American consumers preferred to drive.
It's not a level playing field.