This is an interesting problem and potential solution. In the Chinese Way, frugality is a virtue that has led to the successful ability to eliminate extreme poverty and astonishingly, support 1.4 billion living breathing human beings; and it does it well, considering the challenges faced.
1. Consumption based growth is often seen as a negative. It doesn't boost capacity, but this may not be necessary in this unique case. What is the risk of increased trade deficit/what is the forecasted increased trade deficit?
2. Heavily reliant consumption economies tend to increase equity gaps; and while this path to consumption is somewhat revolutionary and unprecedented, it is counterintuitive to classical economics. Specifically: How will pension distribution occur? Will it be based on annual earnings or will it be a more universal/equitable distribution?
Thank you for your time 🙏
China's measurable success to date can partly be attributable to its ability to achieve dynamic, adaptable policy. This would not be possible without a system where party's were in constant disagreement and opposition. The multiparty cooperative is why this is possible, in my opinion. They cooperate because the path is methodical and the best available approach for the people is always taken. Adjustments are made as and when needed, and this is done as One. That parts important, but it is also what China's adversaries fear (as well as envy). Closing equity gaps, building sustainably, durability, and resilience, these are all things that The Global South can learn from China. Perhaps some day the West will awaken to this too. True, sustainable Communism is still a long way off but perhaps that can change overnight.
One thing is certain, the world needs China right now more than many realize. It just might be... the vanguard of humanity.
I don't think China really needs to worry about the first problem, considering the large amount of trade surplus it already has. For the second, the equity gaps would be enlarged without a proper redistribution system, and that's what the article talking about- redistributing the money to the retired rural residents in need.
It goes against all economic "common sense". That it is not intuitive says a lot about the forethought.
The plan is very good. I think. Best when it reaches its benchmarks then enters its (assumed) next phase which would be consumption economics but with reduced consumption. This is where it comes in line with the goals we must achieve in long term vision (sustainability). GDP as a measure is not the right measure for the next overall phases, I think.
Reduced net consumption needs massive redistribution. Not but then throttled to a moderate sustainable level of shared prosperity. Excess (of which is so high and unnecessary) should be reserve for unplanned events or progressions.
I think that concurrent reduction of the wealth of the richest would be very beneficial here. It would hasten a method that is historically slow, and would if course decrease the gap.
In what ways could you imagine, that would reduce the wealth of the richest, say, 5% in ways that might benefit those Most Vulnerable?
Something that comes to mind for me right away is obvious in the rift between public and private sector workforce wages: public sector is nearly double that of the private sector. Perhaps increasing the minimum in the private sector slightly faster than the rate in the public sector (but not so fast as to encourage a shift toward the private sector). While price and markets c is set to throttle inflationary effects and slowly reduce the top 5% or so.
I'm just exploring how this can be expanded. Please correct me or add to this if you are interested.
I like the ideas put forward by Liu Shijin. I think they are feasible and could be adopted.
What is holding this back? It is not a “political” matter; it is just innate conservatism.
This is an interesting problem and potential solution. In the Chinese Way, frugality is a virtue that has led to the successful ability to eliminate extreme poverty and astonishingly, support 1.4 billion living breathing human beings; and it does it well, considering the challenges faced.
1. Consumption based growth is often seen as a negative. It doesn't boost capacity, but this may not be necessary in this unique case. What is the risk of increased trade deficit/what is the forecasted increased trade deficit?
2. Heavily reliant consumption economies tend to increase equity gaps; and while this path to consumption is somewhat revolutionary and unprecedented, it is counterintuitive to classical economics. Specifically: How will pension distribution occur? Will it be based on annual earnings or will it be a more universal/equitable distribution?
Thank you for your time 🙏
China's measurable success to date can partly be attributable to its ability to achieve dynamic, adaptable policy. This would not be possible without a system where party's were in constant disagreement and opposition. The multiparty cooperative is why this is possible, in my opinion. They cooperate because the path is methodical and the best available approach for the people is always taken. Adjustments are made as and when needed, and this is done as One. That parts important, but it is also what China's adversaries fear (as well as envy). Closing equity gaps, building sustainably, durability, and resilience, these are all things that The Global South can learn from China. Perhaps some day the West will awaken to this too. True, sustainable Communism is still a long way off but perhaps that can change overnight.
One thing is certain, the world needs China right now more than many realize. It just might be... the vanguard of humanity.
I don't think China really needs to worry about the first problem, considering the large amount of trade surplus it already has. For the second, the equity gaps would be enlarged without a proper redistribution system, and that's what the article talking about- redistributing the money to the retired rural residents in need.
It goes against all economic "common sense". That it is not intuitive says a lot about the forethought.
The plan is very good. I think. Best when it reaches its benchmarks then enters its (assumed) next phase which would be consumption economics but with reduced consumption. This is where it comes in line with the goals we must achieve in long term vision (sustainability). GDP as a measure is not the right measure for the next overall phases, I think.
Reduced net consumption needs massive redistribution. Not but then throttled to a moderate sustainable level of shared prosperity. Excess (of which is so high and unnecessary) should be reserve for unplanned events or progressions.
I think that concurrent reduction of the wealth of the richest would be very beneficial here. It would hasten a method that is historically slow, and would if course decrease the gap.
In what ways could you imagine, that would reduce the wealth of the richest, say, 5% in ways that might benefit those Most Vulnerable?
Something that comes to mind for me right away is obvious in the rift between public and private sector workforce wages: public sector is nearly double that of the private sector. Perhaps increasing the minimum in the private sector slightly faster than the rate in the public sector (but not so fast as to encourage a shift toward the private sector). While price and markets c is set to throttle inflationary effects and slowly reduce the top 5% or so.
I'm just exploring how this can be expanded. Please correct me or add to this if you are interested.