This paragraph is hilarious:
This programme is cogent as a national strategy, but unfriendly to financial investors. The emphasis on investment means that supply will always run ahead of demand, leading to deflationary pressure, which is bad for corporate profits. Even the favoured high-tech sectors face intense competition that will erode margins.
In normal language: According to western economists, investing in manufacturing is bad because it decreases prices (as goods become easier and faster to manufacture) and increases competition (due to more goods being made), making price gouging harder.
This is a textbook case of the falling rate of profit due to capital investment.
self-sufficiency (Is this Chinese ‘Juche’?)
Zhuti gang, represent!
Didn’t the DPRK adapt it’s Juche framework based off of China?
I could be wrong, but that was always the impression I had.
I thought it was derived off the U.S.S.R?
One such “mistake” was the big infrastructure programme of 2008-09, which helped China recover quickly from the global financial crisis, but also began the pile-up of local-government debt
Haven’t these guys been fear mongering about Chinese debt? Then why is “mistake” in quotation marks?
But this new debt will refinance some local debt and subsidise households and businesses to trade in old appliances and equipment for new. Its function is to make investment more effective, not to give consumer demand a bigger role.
Nice to see that the cpc has found a balanced approach to the problem of the “slump”/“overcapacity”.
