But at what cost?
Voldenort
One attempt by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, estimated that China spent over 1.7% of GDP on industrial policy in 2017-19, which would add up to over $3trn in today’s dollars if sustained for a decade. That money could have been spent on other things, such as health care, which might have better served the public: fewer EVs, more ICUs.
Ohh! Now do the US, but military spending over a decade instead of industrial policy!
“They basically think that rich countries are those that make stuff and the richest countries are those that make the most advanced stuff,” says Gerard DiPippo of the RAND Corporation, a think-tank. Although in many ways China’s big bet on industrial policy has paid off, there have also been large downsides. Just as Voldemort twisted the behaviour of the people he possessed, the policy that must not be named has skewed the evolution of the economy it inhabited.
Braindead RAND guy, large downsides must just be that this author keeps calling them Voldemort.
The Economist try not to predict chinese collapse for 1 second challenge (impossible)
Something something Lenin quote about The Economist
Lol first sentence is a comparison to Voldemort, seems that organ of aristocracy of finance finally getting dementia after 180 years.
LIKE LORD VOLDEMORT from Harry Potter
nah I’m out don’t bother with a mirror link
ah, but you missed out on this stellar concluding paragraph;
But even if America had not taken a hawkish turn, it is difficult to imagine the Communist Party under Mr Xi pursuing a different strategy. “They basically think that rich countries are those that make stuff and the richest countries are those that make the most advanced stuff,” says Gerard DiPippo of the RAND Corporation, a think-tank. Although in many ways China’s big bet on industrial policy has paid off, there have also been large downsides. Just as Voldemort twisted the behaviour of the people he possessed, the policy that must not be named has skewed the evolution of the economy it inhabited.
honestly though, I kinda think these first and last paragraphs exist to placate readers who are coming into this with their State Department approved anti-China framework; the actual body of the article is just yeah they’ve basically achieved everything they set out to do, though computer chip and aircraft manufacturing is taking a little longer to develop
these first and last paragraphs exist to placate readers who are coming into this with their State Department approved anti-China framework
I had the exact same thought, but I’ll go one step further and say that this kind of language is deliberately used to signpost to normies (who otherwise might have no idea what the article is about) that “China like Voldemort, China bad.”
Gerard DiPippo
Gerard De Pee poo lmao be serious
Exactly what I did - 3 opening words and I noted right tf out
lol yeah I didn’t even read beyond the subtitle
“But at what cost?”Made in China 2025 has, then, achieved most of its aims. But at what cost?
the answer will shock you
The fiscal expense is impossible to calculate. One attempt by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, estimated that China spent over 1.7% of GDP on industrial policy in 2017-19, which would add up to over $3trn in today’s dollars if sustained for a decade. That money could have been spent on other things, such as health care, which might have better served the public: fewer EVs, more ICUs.
Did you miss it? Less than 2% of GDP. I assume you have now fainted in horror at the cost.
The sad thing about this is that they would be complaining about how China built too many clinics, and not enough EV’s if it was the other way around. And even that doesn’t make sense because cheap EV’s also have an indirect benefit to public health, reducing smog in the cities.
Bold of then to say China should stop developing industry and just have more health clinics when the USA has no industry, shitty healthcare, and spends 3.5% of GDP its military
And the yanks wants the rest of us to waste 5 percent of GDP on the military
huh, ok that 3.5% actually puts the 1.7% into better perspective. Guess it is a pretty substantial investment.
Still smart and definitely worth it, of course.
