The figure, which marks a rise of 100 million over five years, was released at a time when the authorities are looking to domestic consumption to boost growth.
The primary goal of a privately owned capitalist enterprise is to produce profit for the owners, with any social value being strictly incidental. It’s a vehicle of wealth accumulation. On the other hand, the primary purpose of state owned enterprise is to provide social value, such as building infrastructure, providing social services, producing energy, and so on. Therefore, SOEs are fundamentally different from actual capitalism.
State-Owned Enterprises can be run on the basis of social value, but the reason I emphasize the State Capitalist thing is that it is not necessarily the case that they are run this way, they can be profit-seeking and in China several of them are – look at the China National Petroleum Corporation for instance, which is extremely profitable.
That’s demonstrably false. If that was the case then China wouldn’t be able to do large scale infrastructure projects such as cross-country high speed rail. In fact, these projects are often decried by western economists as being inefficient and unprofitable precisely because their goal is to produce long term social value as opposed to being profit driven.
I think you just misread what I said here. Obviously their transit isn’t in-itself profitable, I already said that, but they are beneficial to the profitability of other companies.
Not only that, but the role of the markets in China . . .
I mentioned the “birdcage economy” thing already, I’m well aware of it. My position is that it’s an empty talking point, just so many words.
If improving the standard of living for the population seems backwards to you, then I really don’t know what else to say here.
I can’t tell if this is a reading issue again or bad faith, but clearly what I was referring to was increasing the capacity for consumption (to phrase it charitably) of the impoverished sections of the population by encouraging them to take on debt. We’ll get to the question of the actual veracity of that . . .
We’ve already established that people aren’t being put to debt, and in fact Chinese personal savings are growing.
You keep using faulty deductive inferences like this. Debt isn’t automatically subtracted from savings, you can hold both.
I don’t understand why you’re back to using this talking point that’s clearly false.
Here we can see Xi himself declaring: “Steps should be taken to reasonably increase consumer credit so as to support spending on housing improvements, new energy vehicles, elderly care, and services related to education, health care, culture, and sports.” Side note, taking on debt for almost all of the things listed seems like something not great to aspire to, because they are either too trivial and don’t merit debt or are vital enough that they should be handled by the state, but whatever, that’s probably too big a question for us.
This is on top of household debt doubling from 32% to 64% relative to the GDP from 2012 to 2022 source. That source does report debt stabilizing, but note that Xi’s statement about wanting to extend it is from the following year.
State-Owned Enterprises can be run on the basis of social value, but the reason I emphasize the State Capitalist thing is that it is not necessarily the case that they are run this way, they can be profit-seeking and in China several of them are – look at the China National Petroleum Corporation for instance, which is extremely profitable.
Overwhelming evidence shows that it is the case for the vast majority of Chinese SOEs.
I think you just misread what I said here. Obviously their transit isn’t in-itself profitable, I already said that, but they are beneficial to the profitability of other companies.
The point is that it’s an example of SOEs providing social value. There are plenty of other examples of that. The fact that these benefits extend to business does not in any way detract from this.
I mentioned the “birdcage economy” thing already, I’m well aware of it. My position is that it’s an empty talking point, just so many words.
So far you’ve failed to articulate any coherent argument for this position, and all the actual tangible evidence is against it.
I can’t tell if this is a reading issue again or bad faith, but clearly what I was referring to was increasing the capacity for consumption (to phrase it charitably) of the impoverished sections of the population by encouraging them to take on debt. We’ll get to the question of the actual veracity of that . . .
You just made up a straw man regarding encouraging people to take on debt. There is no evidence of that actually happening. It’s a thing you just made up, and you keep repeating it. That’s just embarrassing.
You keep using faulty deductive inferences like this. Debt isn’t automatically subtracted from savings, you can hold both.
I’m not doing that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
Here we can see Xi himself declaring: “Steps should be taken to reasonably increase consumer credit so as to support spending on housing improvements, new energy vehicles, elderly care, and services related to education, health care, culture, and sports.”
That doesn’t actually support what you’re trying to claim here.
This is on top of household debt doubling from 32% to 64% relative to the GDP from 2012 to 2022 source. That source does report debt stabilizing, but note that Xi’s statement about wanting to extend it is from the following year.
What the article fails to mention is the relation of household debt to actual savings people have. The fact that debt has stabilized already undermines the narrative you’re trying to craft here.
That doesn’t actually support what you’re trying to claim here.
Please, tell me what “Steps should be taken to reasonably increase consumer credit so as to support spending on [various things]” actually means then, because I fail to read it as anything other than “increase debt to increase consumption”.
The fact that debt has stabilized already undermines the narrative you’re trying to craft here.
Debt certainly stabilized at the time of writing of the second article that I shared, but that’s why I explicitly noted Xi made the above statement the following year, so after a decade of substantial growth in debt, once it stopped growing, Xi looked at the situation and said “It needs to keep growing”.
I find your hostility disheartening. It’s not like I’m some neoliberal from .ee coming in and concern trolling about Xinjiang or something.
Please, tell me what “Steps should be taken to reasonably increase consumer credit so as to support spending on [various things]” actually means then, because I fail to read it as anything other than “increase debt to increase consumption”.
Your assumption is that consumer credit translates into long term debt as is happening under financial capitalism in the west. Yet, this phenomenon is quite recent even in western countries driven by the fact that the economy is run by financial capitalists. There is little problem with people taking out loans that they repay, and this can stimulate the economy which is what Xi is talking about. The reason debt is a problem in the west is because people have no hope of repaying their loans, and living on credit has become the norm. There is no evidence of anything of the sort happening in China, and the record savings people have is a clear contradiction of this narrative.
I find your hostility disheartening. It’s not like I’m some neoliberal from .ee coming in and concern trolling about Xinjiang or something.
I find it disheartening that you just repeat the same couple of points over and over here without actually looking at the facts or the bigger picture. You just brushed off the fact that SOEs operate fundamentally different from private capitalist businesses. You ignore the fact that the private sector in China is shrinking. You never addressed the fact that personal savings in China are record high in 2024. You just keep harping on this one statement from Xi completely ignoring the overall context because it fits with the narrative you’re trying to paint that China is somehow putting people into consumer debt while the opposite is demonstrably happening.
There is little problem with people taking out loans that they repay, and this can stimulate the economy which is what Xi is talking about.
“stimulate the economy” is a vaguery. Be more specific about why it is good for socialist production.
that China is somehow putting people into consumer debt while the opposite is demonstrably happening.
Savings and debt can both be held, as indeed they are in China, I don’t understand how you can say “the opposite is demonstrably happening”. Debt is already very high relative to the recent past and they are looking to increase it. If what you mean to be saying is that the large savings are evidence that the population can handle more debt without being immiserated, sure, I guess that makes sense, but then say that instead of this nonsensical inference that savings means debt isn’t growing.
“stimulate the economy” is a vaguery. Be more specific about why it is good for socialist production.
I think it’s important to stop and define what socialism is here first. Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism where the working class has seized power and a proletarian dictatorship has been established. However, the social relations are still largely inherited from the capitalist stage of development. This is precisely where China finds itself today. While it is a socialist country, many of the economic relations make concessions to capitalism by necessity. Therefore, consumption remains an important aspect of the economy. Stimulating the economy in this context means creating more demand for production of goods and services.
Savings and debt can both be held, as indeed they are in China, I don’t understand how you can say “the opposite is demonstrably happening”.
I’ve already explained the relationship in my previous reply, and once again you’ve proceeded to ignore it. Here’s what I said:
There is little problem with people taking out loans that they repay
If the nature of debt is transitory, as in somebody takes out a loan for a short period, that is later repaid then there isn’t a problem. The actual problem arises when people end up taking on debt that they’re not able to repay, at which point they become indentured to the debt owners. In order for your argument to hold water, you have to demonstrate that this is happening in China.
I guess I still don’t really understand how it is useful. The reason is, if it’s transitory debt, how is consumption increased? You take out a loan for X amount from the state bank, spend it on a spiffy new electric car or whatever, but then later on pay X amount + a little interest back to the bank, i.e. the money you now have to spend on this new purchase is definitionally equivalent to (or a bit less than) the money you will eventually need to pay the bank. Obviously I understand how it is useful to a person, because when a transaction happens might be important for them, but for overall consumption, it seems like it either balances out or is a slight net negative, assuming we are excluding usury from the banks. What is actually being accomplished? As I think I said earlier, I’m not an Econ Guy.
The idea here is that the material conditions will continue to improve, and people continue being lifted into higher income brackets. Your argument is assuming no social mobility, but social mobility in China is actually quite high with millions of people moving into higher income brackets every year. For example, from 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&locations=CN&start=2008
I think social mobility refers to an the ability for an individual within a society to rise or fall in standing in the existing social order, not the whole social order changing shape, but I understand your use of it. I’m nonetheless pretty sure this doesn’t answer my overall question, “How does this increase net consumption?”, even though you have there made a good argument for debt being useful to individuals (something that I already conceded).
State-Owned Enterprises can be run on the basis of social value, but the reason I emphasize the State Capitalist thing is that it is not necessarily the case that they are run this way, they can be profit-seeking and in China several of them are – look at the China National Petroleum Corporation for instance, which is extremely profitable.
I think you just misread what I said here. Obviously their transit isn’t in-itself profitable, I already said that, but they are beneficial to the profitability of other companies.
I mentioned the “birdcage economy” thing already, I’m well aware of it. My position is that it’s an empty talking point, just so many words.
I can’t tell if this is a reading issue again or bad faith, but clearly what I was referring to was increasing the capacity for consumption (to phrase it charitably) of the impoverished sections of the population by encouraging them to take on debt. We’ll get to the question of the actual veracity of that . . .
You keep using faulty deductive inferences like this. Debt isn’t automatically subtracted from savings, you can hold both.
Here we can see Xi himself declaring: “Steps should be taken to reasonably increase consumer credit so as to support spending on housing improvements, new energy vehicles, elderly care, and services related to education, health care, culture, and sports.” Side note, taking on debt for almost all of the things listed seems like something not great to aspire to, because they are either too trivial and don’t merit debt or are vital enough that they should be handled by the state, but whatever, that’s probably too big a question for us.
This is on top of household debt doubling from 32% to 64% relative to the GDP from 2012 to 2022 source. That source does report debt stabilizing, but note that Xi’s statement about wanting to extend it is from the following year.
Overwhelming evidence shows that it is the case for the vast majority of Chinese SOEs.
The point is that it’s an example of SOEs providing social value. There are plenty of other examples of that. The fact that these benefits extend to business does not in any way detract from this.
So far you’ve failed to articulate any coherent argument for this position, and all the actual tangible evidence is against it.
You just made up a straw man regarding encouraging people to take on debt. There is no evidence of that actually happening. It’s a thing you just made up, and you keep repeating it. That’s just embarrassing.
I’m not doing that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
That doesn’t actually support what you’re trying to claim here.
What the article fails to mention is the relation of household debt to actual savings people have. The fact that debt has stabilized already undermines the narrative you’re trying to craft here.
Please, tell me what “Steps should be taken to reasonably increase consumer credit so as to support spending on [various things]” actually means then, because I fail to read it as anything other than “increase debt to increase consumption”.
Debt certainly stabilized at the time of writing of the second article that I shared, but that’s why I explicitly noted Xi made the above statement the following year, so after a decade of substantial growth in debt, once it stopped growing, Xi looked at the situation and said “It needs to keep growing”.
I find your hostility disheartening. It’s not like I’m some neoliberal from .ee coming in and concern trolling about Xinjiang or something.
Your assumption is that consumer credit translates into long term debt as is happening under financial capitalism in the west. Yet, this phenomenon is quite recent even in western countries driven by the fact that the economy is run by financial capitalists. There is little problem with people taking out loans that they repay, and this can stimulate the economy which is what Xi is talking about. The reason debt is a problem in the west is because people have no hope of repaying their loans, and living on credit has become the norm. There is no evidence of anything of the sort happening in China, and the record savings people have is a clear contradiction of this narrative.
I find it disheartening that you just repeat the same couple of points over and over here without actually looking at the facts or the bigger picture. You just brushed off the fact that SOEs operate fundamentally different from private capitalist businesses. You ignore the fact that the private sector in China is shrinking. You never addressed the fact that personal savings in China are record high in 2024. You just keep harping on this one statement from Xi completely ignoring the overall context because it fits with the narrative you’re trying to paint that China is somehow putting people into consumer debt while the opposite is demonstrably happening.
“stimulate the economy” is a vaguery. Be more specific about why it is good for socialist production.
Savings and debt can both be held, as indeed they are in China, I don’t understand how you can say “the opposite is demonstrably happening”. Debt is already very high relative to the recent past and they are looking to increase it. If what you mean to be saying is that the large savings are evidence that the population can handle more debt without being immiserated, sure, I guess that makes sense, but then say that instead of this nonsensical inference that savings means debt isn’t growing.
I think it’s important to stop and define what socialism is here first. Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism where the working class has seized power and a proletarian dictatorship has been established. However, the social relations are still largely inherited from the capitalist stage of development. This is precisely where China finds itself today. While it is a socialist country, many of the economic relations make concessions to capitalism by necessity. Therefore, consumption remains an important aspect of the economy. Stimulating the economy in this context means creating more demand for production of goods and services.
I’ve already explained the relationship in my previous reply, and once again you’ve proceeded to ignore it. Here’s what I said:
If the nature of debt is transitory, as in somebody takes out a loan for a short period, that is later repaid then there isn’t a problem. The actual problem arises when people end up taking on debt that they’re not able to repay, at which point they become indentured to the debt owners. In order for your argument to hold water, you have to demonstrate that this is happening in China.
I guess I still don’t really understand how it is useful. The reason is, if it’s transitory debt, how is consumption increased? You take out a loan for X amount from the state bank, spend it on a spiffy new electric car or whatever, but then later on pay X amount + a little interest back to the bank, i.e. the money you now have to spend on this new purchase is definitionally equivalent to (or a bit less than) the money you will eventually need to pay the bank. Obviously I understand how it is useful to a person, because when a transaction happens might be important for them, but for overall consumption, it seems like it either balances out or is a slight net negative, assuming we are excluding usury from the banks. What is actually being accomplished? As I think I said earlier, I’m not an Econ Guy.
The idea here is that the material conditions will continue to improve, and people continue being lifted into higher income brackets. Your argument is assuming no social mobility, but social mobility in China is actually quite high with millions of people moving into higher income brackets every year. For example, from 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&locations=CN&start=2008
I think social mobility refers to an the ability for an individual within a society to rise or fall in standing in the existing social order, not the whole social order changing shape, but I understand your use of it. I’m nonetheless pretty sure this doesn’t answer my overall question, “How does this increase net consumption?”, even though you have there made a good argument for debt being useful to individuals (something that I already conceded).