Maybe this is in the context of their much deeper relationship with China in latter year(s). If China leads in most tech categories in research by a large margin all while tech transfers and university and research cooperation (and investment) between Russia and China has increased notably lately then Russia may get simillar or greater benifits in R&D while spending less
Do you trust the DPP to not try some dumb shit together with a US anti-china neocon administration. Like an independence refferendum, constitution change or some (in)formal US bases popping up
Fun fact: The chinese province of Guangdong alone has more active factories than the number of total cruise missiles ever built by the US since 1980. Roughly by about an order of magnitude.
Just something to think about and laught when you see Americans jerking off to war with China and the mighty american military superiority
One the one hand it would be very cool if she wins. On the other hand her opponent is a Chinese Boxer and since the final Gold medal count of US vs China will be very close so every Chinese Gold gets us closer to some first grade US copium
On the other hadn the US Navy admitted that they had instances of last second intercepts of Houthi missiles that got through to the last line of ship defences. A limited number of older iranian missiles managing that doesnt bode well for the carrrier group against an order of magnitude more modern chineae missilies
First of all China's average Monthly Money supply has more trippled in the last decade. I agree it must pick up but its by no means sluggish.
The real issue rn is the sluggish credit cycle. Who is generating the debt that drives the exponential increase in money circulation that you want now that you (China) are killing land finance. What is the asset base backstopping financial activity that goes hand in hand with that money generation now that land is not the fulcrum? Helicopter money drops still require central bank operations to issue a ledger, aka debt. No market economy has a choice on this matter. You either generate collateralized asset to drive money circulation or you don’t have a market economy. China right now is a market economy through and through. The USSR in the 30s and 40s ? Orders of magnitude less so. A weakness to that comparison to keep in mind
So, one should think of land sales in the Chinese economy the same way one thinks of Treasury Bills in the US economy. T Bills are the US’s unique magic sauce. That’s what the US economy discovered when FDR made war bonds go BRR. Capital formation is whatever collateral you can issue as a promise for future repayment. It doesn’t need to be land. China is trying to shift the basis of capital formation from land sales to more abstract financial instruments but it cant happen overnight. What is needed is a new ,mature, credit generation mechanism that fits China's current state of development,administrative capacity and local finances.
Details MUST be very ironed out before attempting such expansions. Sure China is attempting to develop their bond market for example and is slowly itching twoards tax reforms but its not nearly there to support what you are advocating. Comparing it with a mid 30s NON capitalist, non market, massively planned and non globalized /financialized to the slightest USSR economy (with completely different resources and demographics as well as regional disparities and levels of development) doesnt help. Until local finances are sufficiently unlinked from land sales and the bond markets and tax system are sufficiently mature and reformed what you are saying cant happen. Restructuring must come first before any large monetary expansion but also happen slow and controled enough to not cause a bigger crisis. A delicate balance but one that China is walking at the momment quite efficiently
Many chinese economies advocate (more conservatively) for the direction you describe ,even before and during this plenum. The holdup is in the details of what the specific circulation and dept generation mechanisms will be and how they should work, how to steer them to the right kinds of activities and behaviors, use of credit, resources mobilised, the system’s turnover velocity etc
A Chinese EV sold in the EU has a profit margin of 10 TIMES the same EV model sold domestically in China
I imagine you are refering to this cause this is the only "10 time profit margin" thing i have come across
Im gonna link this long breakdown of someone that seems to know way more than i (or you i assume) that argues that this figure from this particular research research that, while interesting, understates the amount of variable profit per incremental vehicle sold in China by a notable margin(25%, not 6%). That Incremental onshore profit for each BYD Seal would be €5,395, not €1,306 and also that it overstates the profit margin per unit in Europe by ignoring some additional costs .
Here https://x.com/GlennLuk/status/1809563664615198784
Overall this would mean that European markets , while important, arent nearly a "lifeline" for Chinese EVs and that the vast majority of profit is and will be made in domestic sales and in sales in SEA and 10-20k GDP per capita countries. European automakers are dependent from the Chinese market way way more than Chinese EV makers ever will from the EU market. Let alone the US that isnt a relevant market in the first place.
When Nick Mullen pinned an Avengers Engame spoilers post and a ton of capeshit enjoyers had a meltdown in the comments
tbf based on other comments they seem to have also visited Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities which in their own right are seeing faster development and are as impressive as a lot of well functioning European cities. So the overall impression is somewhat representative of the lives of more people than the populations of the US or the EU
Hey now OP probably wants all the girl and queer comrades to be ripped and veiny as well
Hexbear doing the clickbait anti-china thing where a random proffesor/media person/low level official says something means "China says", weird
Either way expecting the retirement age to never change from an age set when the average life expectency was 50 years is naive. Cuba has higher RE, some eastern bloc countries had higher than China before the change, some the same ,some lower.
Uniquely tho China does need to bridge its current level of development and economy to a highly automated and cleanly electrified one in 30-40 years that can sustain and provide without the same anormous enormous human capital demands as today and for that to happen, since indeed their labor force is slowly shrinking and aging and there is a missmatch of labor demand and supply in certain sectors, a gradual 3-4 year retirement age raise from a low base seens like a huge help.
Idk what the "socialist" idea is? Magicaly make automation increase by an order of magnitude in a decade or import one hundred million workers from the global south