Xi's Plan to Revive China’s Economy with "Science"

[@onlyDoti]

Me in Civ 6:

[@Thissentenceisfalselosers]

“I’ll just build a copy of the Pyramids and magically win the game in a few more turns, dude trust me”

[@yensteel]

@@onlyDoti The way they plan cities resembles sim city and cities skyline players. Drag a rectangle, designate it for wind farm. Drag another, designate it for housing.

[@nicolasvidal92]

I was about to say, Qin Shi Huan's been cooking recently with this Campus district spam

[@lakdav]

Every day I'm more and more convinced that Xi plays 4X games.

[@Rattler808]

​@@lakdavso true! I've thought this as well 😂

[@corwin32]

Xi: C'mon, invent something

[@Nookdashiddole]

Do you even ccp?

[@_jpg]

"Xiaomi someting new"

[@yensteel]

​@@_jpgHehe

[@nasseq]

when a population has been cultivated to be obedient and lacking any enforcement of IP, they lose the ability to critically think and try risky things, which are prerequisites to having actual innovations.

[@_jpg]

@@nasseq And those who actually try something or even change the system from within...end like Jack Ma

[@C104-k5m]

Also: correction. The soviet union overspend for military, the humanities weren't particularly well funded comparatively

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

They invested heavily in resource and heavy metal innovation though. It did see some success, they were the first to mass produce titanium, America straight up going around the Iron Curtain, dodging trade restrictions like modern day Russia to get it's hands on some to build planes.

[@chaddixon9764]

Humanities? Which part of STEM is in the humanities?

[@GetFochD]

Was healthcare free?

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

@@GetFochD If you had access to it. And if you did, it sure wasn't top tier medical care you were getting unless you had important connections or were important yourself.

[@C104-k5m]

@@chaddixon9764 STEM likes to pretend they are important, but when budgeting rolls around and us thinktanks (mostly populated by Economists, Political Scientists that agree with the govermnent, as well as Socilogists) they suddenly turn real quiet. Stem cant get shit done without the humanities - and pointless investment is the exact thing economic research is meant to prevent

[@darrylbonner7208]

As one man said: “Yay Science”.

[@IamJackTheRipper]

As Jesse Pinkman said: Yeah, science!

[@alburaq3290]

Soviets invested in military technology. They didn't make anything that consumers wanted. China on the other hand is the powerhouse of consumer products manufacturing. China won't share the same fate as the Soviets.

[@GetFochD]

Microwaves, nuclar reactors.

[@doujinflip]

Not yet anyway. But the world is trending back towards local manufacturing, and this will especially hurt the PRC who are already overcapacity for most products. The recent Canton Fairs are alarming at how most of the customers come from rising competitor economies, scouting how cheap Chinese suppliers can go before setting up shop at home becomes economical.

[@JonTan-z3e]

@@doujinflip yes local manufacturing, because u know most americans are willing to get out of bed and sit at a conveyor belt 12 hours a day for anything less than $14 an hr.

[@agfagaevart]

@@JonTan-z3e That's what Tr0mp is banking on.

[@nicolasbenson009]

In light of the ongoing global economic crisis, it is crucial for everyone to prioritize investing in diverse sources of income that are not reliant on the government. This includes exploring opportunities in stocks, gold, silver, and digital currencies. Despite the challenging economic situation, it remains a favorable time to consider these investments.

[@sharonwinson-m8g]

The pathway to substantial returns doesn't solely rely on stocks with significant movements. Instead, it revolves around effectively managing risk relative to reward. By appropriately sizing your positions and capitalizing on your advantage repeatedly, you can progressively work towards achieving your financial goals. This principle applies across various investment approaches, whether it be long-term investing or day trading.

[@ClarkeGriffiny7]

People often overlook the value of financial advisors until they experience the downside of emotional decision-making. I recall a few summers ago, after a difficult divorce, when I needed help reviving my struggling business. I did some research and found a licensed advisor who worked diligently to grow my reserves, even amid inflation. As a result, my reserves grew from $285k to around $720k.

[@ScottKindle-bk3hx]

Please can you leave the info of your investment advisor here? I’m in dire need for one

[@ClarkeGriffiny7]

My CFA ’ Sophia Maurine Lanting’ , a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.

[@JohnSmith060]

Thanks a lot for this recommendation. I just looked her up on google, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

[@baiwuli6781]

Some possible reasons why the CCP doesn't want to rebalance the Chinese economy: 1. Rebalancing the economy means Chinese consumers and workers will have higher incomes and salaries, which will make Chinese exports more expensive, thus hurting exports, the largest contributor to Chinese GDP. 2. Rebalancing the Chinese economy means giving citizens more influence over it. However, the CCP doesn’t want that; they need to convince the people that the party is necessary for China’s prosperity. If GDP can grow without centralized economic planning, what use does the CCP have? 3. The CCP doesn’t need to rebalance the economy. The status quo is perfect: inequality is rising, and Chinese employers and the CCP are becoming richer. This is ideal for them, as Chinese workers are poorer and more desperate than ever, giving employers significant leverage over employees. It's like getting legal slaves, you know ? edit : TLDR; shifting the economy toward consumption could mean redistributing power and wealth from the party (bosses) to the people (workers). That is probably why CCP prefers focusing on exports and developing technology, as it creates more wealth rather than redistributing it.

[@nntflow7058]

Bing Bing Bing!

[@dalfokane]

1. Higher living standards is the main goal of reform and opening up of Deng 2. China has a "socialist market economy" and the CPC does no effort in denying that. The CPC controls the economy through dirigisme, not through state actors such as the USSR 3. Whilst there are many opportunists and bourgeois interests within the CPC, it's absurd to suggest that it wants the population to be poor and employers to be rich. Despite its ideological deviations, it's still a communist party. Additionally, average worker's wages have risen extremely throughout the years.

[@badluck5647]

The Communist Party is the largest billionaire organization in the world. They own all the factories that benefit from an export driven economy. They would be the biggest losers in a shift to a consumer based economy. Basically, economic special interests are blocking progress.

[@ParzivalKings]

@@dalfokaneCCP not CPC They won’t get away from what they did at Tiananmen Square with a name change (Reason they did it so that story didn’t show up when you google the CCP that was the reason for change ) Now we’ll bring it up every time people say CPC

[@soalkous2054]

​​@@ParzivalKings Right, the communist party changed their name from CCP to CPC in 1989 so that they can get away with tiananmen slaughter, because ppl were googling ccp in 1989 so frequently. Lmao why dont u pick up a book once in a while instead of being so confidently stupid on the internet

[@xiphoid2011]

Having left China to study in the US, I actually agree that technological advancement is what keeps the economy going in the long term. But I also agree that Xi is taking a huge gamble for 2 reasons. The main reason is that Xi might be underestimating just how hard, long and expensive real technological advancement are. So far, most of China's technological growth has been by copying Western leaders. It is much easier and cheaper to reinvent a wheel once it you have seen one. Also, much of the advancement has been done via IP theft (unfortunately IP theft is not really seen as theft by most Chinese) which is a lot cheaper doing original R&D. So Xi may well be underestimating the cost and how long it takes by basing on past growth. The other mistake is underestimate just how much the ordinary Chinese might be willing to tolerate. Remember that Xi wanted China lockedlock down COVID for much longer, but it was finally that the rare mass protest, overpower all of the protest suppression methods, made him finally realize that the pressure cooker was about to explode that he finally lifted the lock down. The economy in China has been poor since 2022 even in the most prosperous city of Shanghai where I'm from. Youth unemployment is sky high, and even new graduates who can find jobs are being paid less than the year before. Now young Chinese are forced to look for jobs in the rural areas. Science and R&D are long term projects, outcomes are often not what's desired, and investment can become huge and total losses. Younger generations are not as hardy as the old due to the one child policy, and they are less likely to tolerate lowering living standards for year and decades. They are already loudly complaining about why the government giving money to Africa when they are poorer. The risk of telling them to "eat bitterness" year after year might reach another COVID boiling point. These are the two reason why I don't understand why Xi isn't willing to adopt a more balanced and realistic approach. Unless there isn't enough money to do both. Which could be true since I read that the total government debt (both central and provincial debt) are about as high as the US. I think Shanghai was the only government with a budget surplus this year.

[@philoslother4602]

I agree with your point, as smart and capable as Xi is, he is a mortal, creating something like the steam engine or electricity or something that totally changes life on earth is highly unlikely in a decade or two.....I will give it a 10% chance It's a huge gamble and if they pour 100s of billions of dollars into R and D and the result is nothing more than, 'we made....Foldable phones, but it's 8 screens!' then it would be a huge slap to the country Already the government is spending 100s of billios of dollars on Chip manufacturing but to recreate the entire ecosystem inside China including the lithography machines and all the parts might even take a trillion dollars, and it's not really going to lead to a great investment since it might actually be cheaper to buy them from abroad There's also not a lot of time left considering that the birth rate this year is 1.00 children per woman, 16-20 years more and the country will become as old as modern day Japan and the reign of the gentocracy will start, no innovation, no new thinking

[@doujinflip]

There's not enough money. It was all spent on redundant infrastructure, "real estate" builds, and their growing intensity of "internal security" programs. Plus the stifling life under Chinese managers and law enforcers. There's a reason the vast majority of its STEM students who studied overseas choose to remain abroad after graduation and seek work with Western firms instead of Chinese branch offices.

[@leroydanny4072]

Traitor

[@asdfghjkl92213]

⁠​⁠@@leroydanny4072not traitor, your futures depends on the likes of him

[@danielbenner7583]

@@leroydanny4072 boot-licker.

[@anshulmishra5521]

I don't think it is a bad strategy at all to invest in technology. Look at what has happened in Germany, where they didn't invest in technology and infrastructure and now it is hard for German manufacturers to compete with the Chinese. Who knows.. it might pay off massively.

[@louislux]

There is no point if there are no consumers. Both can be bad in certain circumstances.

[@boiscooka232]

​@@louisluxno consumer 🤣 China have trade surplus to 100 country think about it

[@jameskamotho7513]

​@@boiscooka232Are the buyers infinite? They are already flooding most countries with cheap good as it stands...

[@1queijocas]

Germany is losing because of their energy costs are too high, their manufacturing becomes unprofitable. China is building tons of nuclear so that is not a good comparison

[@roxylius7550]

@@louisluxliterally the entire world is chinese consumers

[@xanderhehe2105]

Guizhou is pronounced like Gway-Joe :)

[@freddiemercury2075]

Gway-Joe sounds korean. The Zhou is heavier in accent.

[@badluck5647]

No one cares

[@nntflow7058]

My friends from Shanghai pronounce it a bit more like Gwiy-ssho.

[@donaldlee8249]

Sounds like trumps yelling go away joe

[@jackjhmc820]

😂😂😂 it only takes 5 seconds to use goggle translate to pronounce the Mandarin properly but no, let s pronounce it the british way!

[@guitarnoob4568]

"When UK built another bridge, it would be a productive investment", best joke ive heard in a while

[@EllieD.Violet]

Johnson's garden bridge, maybe? Or the one between Scotland and NI? 😊

[@chriswilliams8159]

Less consuming population sounds very appealing in hindsight, until you realize that not only are the people paid lesser wages, but the government just keeps on investing in various projects and exports most of the resources (raw or processed) outside. On the other hand, consumerism and materialism are the staples of neo-liberal capitalist economies which pretty much defines the west in one way or another.

[@timothytumusiime2903]

Finding a balance between useful stuff the population does to the amount of pay to give to the people is not something that most economies have found out

[@MagDrag123]

Australia got the worst of both sides

[@olska9498]

If people dislike to high-wage consumerist lifestyle in the West, they're free to send me their money and stop consuming stuff.

[@joaomelo7018]

There's this idea that scientific investment without major breakthroughs is wasted. when that is far from the reality. If we look at the USSR, they decided to shift their research to primary sector in oil and gas exploration and to the military, both of which failed, obviously, to provide any sort of increased production for the soviets. Tech investment as intense and multi-sectorial as the Chinese are engaging in will have visible incremental effects even if they don't reinvent the steam engine. Chinese industries will become ever more competitive and unattainably more advanced compared to their foreign competitors.

[@doujinflip]

In certain aspects perhaps, but probably not as a cohesive force because China's information and financial space is so disconnected from the rest of the world. As fields like behavioral economics and AI development are finding, constant truthful information is critical to avoid the doom loop of a delusion bubble.

[@morisan42]

@@doujinflip This is not true, they do have internet censorship but it's massively overstated. Almost everyone in mainland China uses a VPN to access western internet, and sites like youtube aren't even blocked. It's especially untrue in academia, China publishes to the same journals as everyone else and american/chinese collaboration in academia is massive. I am an academia and almost every paper I read has a Chinese name on it. China is massively influential in science, and it publishes more papers than any other country in the world. Not to mention the enormous number of Chinese people that study in american/british/canadian universities.

[@doujinflip]

@@morisan42 Chinese _people_ are, China the modern state not as much for its size and potential. Take note of where those Chinese names are publishing from, and the quality of research coming from Mainland Chinese institutions (which seems a lot like their supposed prowess in patents: mostly uninspiring and hardly worth pursuing further). I lived in China myself, and pretty much had Astrill activated constantly to access anything useful, i.e. literally everything not specific to directions and payments within China. Most Chinese on the street actually don’t bother with the expense of VPNs (yes plural because crackdowns on encrypted traffic happens) because they don’t have enough command of foreign languages and cultures to explore beyond their Mainland Simplified Chinese media bubble.

[@MUHAMMADHAMZA-jy1lu]

if IMF and west are giving them advise, they are better not to take it.

[@philoslother4602]

IMF and World bank's biggest funder is .. China You can look it up on their websites

[@Lewa500]

Advising China to raise the purchasing power of its citizens is bad advice?

[@RK-um9tu]

​@@Lewa500Name one country the IMF has helped, rather than hurt...

[@James.z-w8x]

You are playing it tricky.

[@利利-x5j]

@@Lewa500 Is it a bad suggestion to suggest that the United States stop wars, stop the flooding of the US dollar, and stop technological and financial monopolies?

[@OncyrX]

I do not think the comparison with Soviet Union is fair, as USSR did their innovating in military technologies, not consumer focused technologies.

[@jameskamotho7513]

To be fair to Xi, I see many economists online making the same argument about innovation driving growth in the economy. He's making a big gamble, so all the best to him... PS: I don't think it's a workable strategy. This comment was tongue-in-cheek...

[@jakeroper1096]

The US is already leading the new AI revolution..

[@ViewOf]

China already has innovation, that is not China's problem. China's problem is low birth rates because people are expected to become brilliant and hard working scientists, while getting poor pay.

[@jamessloven2204]

This video is much more pessimistic about the idea than I think it warrants. Of the many problems with China and the CCP, investing in scientific research over consumer spending doesn’t seem like a particularly bad idea

[@darylbas8216]

@@jamessloven2204The Soviet Union tried it, but it turns out that when you have a system that actively discourages innovation and creativity, trying to orient your economy around innovating and creating is a terrible idea. Even under the best circumstances, I don’t know how feasible it is as an idea to begin with. If you build a new building, nobody can steal that building, but if you spent 10 billion dollars creating a new type of building design, that CAN be stolen, or copied. You’d think that China, a nation which has spent the last 40 years or so actively “copying” things from other countries in an effort to speed up its modernization process would understand that, in the modern world, inventing something often times simply means you paid a huge premium to get it about 5 minutes before everyone else does.

[@danielzhang1916]

That only works if there's enough economic demand, just innovation is not enough to stimulate the economy because consumers can't buy anything

[@constitution7167]

This is a pretty minor critique and doesn’t impact the news really at all but just a suggestion for future videos is to cite figures in USD, or at least convert figures to USD alongside the topic country’s currency like Yuan, just so viewers can get a more accurate perspective to the true costs of projects such as the bridge. A trillion yuan means nothing to me because I haven’t a clue how yuan compares to USD let alone my currency which is AUD so without the conversion, it’s kind of just pointless to even bring up the cost in the first place. Like I said, it has pretty much no impact on the actual news and anyone that is interested could just convert it but by saying the cost in a currency most people don’t even know exist, you are pretty much just saying nothing to the average viewer.

[@blazingsun971]

What will happen is that China will stuck in economic stagnation, but meanwhile making a shit tone of new techs extreamly cheap. Like what they did to EVs, Solors. In the future it will be chips, AI tools, batteries and so on. It will be a good news for western consumers, but bad for western companies. More specificlly those who neither have the innovative prowess like Nvidea, nor the branding power of LVMH. Choose your investments and career path wisely.

[@cia5649]

well china is also facing a demographic change around the 2050s where there will be more old people than young and the population will start to shrink. if there isnt some type of robots it will start facing the problems japan has

[@DavidSmith-nx3zw]

It's kinda like Japan in the 90s and 2000s. Their economy stagnated but they developed a bunch of technologies and products that saw wide spread use around the globe.

[@RBAWintrow]

China steals western technology. In a few years China will be the ones complaining about IP theft.

[@AnimaChronix3]

I dont think markets like the US or the EU will accept for much longer to be a dump for cheap Chinese goods and will grow increasingly hostile with tariffs and protectionism as they should

[@cia5649]

@@AnimaChronix3 i mean they already did with the new chinese EV tariffs

[@commonwombat-h6r]

Soviets invested first and foremost not in science but in defence. They built tens of thousands of T-72 instead of science stuff, which almost in all sectors was miles behind the West

[@maximusprime98]

Correct. This was the primary difference between the Soviet Union and CCP. Soviet Union economic policy was based on the military which it used to bully it's neighbours and theaten it's rivals. China wants to dominate the world economy.

[@yensteel]

They were indeed behind on science, especially when Stalin was around. He thought anything technological as capitalist tools. But when he died they started working on technology more, but were always behind. They got further and further behind in a lot of areas such as computing. They copied more and more and relied on reverse engineering. That's due to mismanagement and a lack of resources. They had a Soviet styled silicon valley dedicated for science, but it wasn't enough. Soviet scientists had a good working relationship with the west at times. This included collaborating for the international space station.

[@markmuller7962]

True but in the same time without public demand and consumption it can be exceptionally hard to start up innovative companies and endeavors no matter if the investments are in the military or not

[@VTh-f5x]

Lazy revisionism. Soviets weren't "miles behind". It was all tech an go stuff. West was ahead in 60% of areas amd Soviets were probably ahead in 40%.

[@Cookinlikesanji]

Ruskis were ahead in nuclear missiles yeah​@@VTh-f5x

[@gren509]

Very interesting, concise and useful - thanks very much 🙂

[@andyjohn_]

You know neither China nor economics well enough...😅

[@BenjaminYau]

2:42 Did Ben really pronounce "Duge" as "douge"? 🤣

[@JvmCassandra]

There is a difference between Soviet Union and China. Soviet cars were inexplicably shit. BYD cars were okay. And burning money on semiconductor is not the same as building like 5 million tanks like Soviet Union. Sure, China build plenty of stuff its own citizens cannot afford but I like Chinese laminated floor boards, Chinese made countertops, Chinese made faucets and Chinese made cooking stoves. Soviet Union didn’t make anything for civilians markets.

[@利利-x5j]

I am from Shanghai. Let me tell you a fact. Most products made in China are affordable for most Chinese people. The price of the Volkswagen ID3 electric vehicle in China is only 30% of that in Europe. Chinese people are not willing to buy the ID3 because Chinese-made brands have lower prices and better quality and performance. China has the most free electric vehicle competition environment in the world.

[@JvmCassandra]

@ do you understand the gap between you and the median of that country. You are probably in the top 5 percentile. The biggest logical fallacy is people assume their individual experiences represent the larger dataset. Domestic consumption accounts for no more than 30% of the GDP. All that industrial capacity is aimed at export.

[@tramsung8175]

2:19 why is it so hard for you guys to research a little bit more when it comes to foreign places or names?. I can't imagine myself talking about London, while calling it "Roondan" and expect for people to find my work truthful🙂

[@systemchris]

Yeh it's gway-jo if said with a British accent

[@andrewdunbar828]

TDLR is pronounced "toddler".

[@MarcelJordan233]

No bridge ever cost a trillion yuan, get your facts right TLDR

[@nachosaenz1828]

unfortunately they throw facts out the window when they talk about China.

[@steveweidig5373]

This is probably an addition of all the bridges that have been built under this scheme in a region, not just one single bridge

[@kortyEdna825]

People try to predict the economy not realizing it is not a capitalistic market, its a command economy, central planning! my concern is, instead of having much dollar in bank that could lose value to inflation, do I save in gold to reserve and grow wealth for now, or just hang on?

[@KaurKhangura]

truth is that gold serves as an inflation hedge in the long run, but not profitable in the short run. only thing you can predict is a strong effort of wealth transfer from the people to the powerful. luckily some folks find solution in financial advisors

[@carssimplified2195]

Sure, investing is plain-sailing with the aid of an invt-specialist, thus I've always delegated my excesses ever since the rona-outbreak in January 2020 using a shrewd advisor, and my investments have compounded by at least 300%, summing up $820k ROI as of today.

[@brucemichelle5689.]

this is incredible! how can I vet your advisor if you please? definitely would love to make money from the market too, but a complete newb..

[@carssimplified2195]

‘’Aileen Gertrude Tippy’’ is her name. She is regarded as a genius in her area and works for Empower Financial Services. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.

[@brucemichelle5689.]

Thanks a lot for this suggestion. I needed this myself, I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

[@CausticLemons7]

“The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”

[@1verstapp]

>redirect that'll need a whole lot more ip theft.

[@ttemp2631]

$1.6 billion USA misinformation campaign in action

[@queen_simp3273]

2005 called, they need your brain back. China is actually innovating far more than the west is nowadays, with it leading in many multidisciplinary fields and it has surpassed the USA in patent applications. I should point out that we've seen a similar trend in Japan in the 80s and 90s, where an export driven planned economy was quickly overtaking the US consumption import economy. Luckily this time the Chinese central bank is firmly under the control of the cpc and can't be exploited by businesses to create an artificial crash to destroy said planned economy

[@levi4328]

alexa please play the saddest arrangement of Chopin’s Funeral March in c minor for each ip stolen by the chinese

[@aaquib90]

From a very very non technical/economic perspective, feels like the Chinese govt decided not to give money to people because they are worried that the people are currently worried and hence would just end up saving the money rather than using it to buy stuff. Just thinking of the area of the world and how generally people are when in rough times, they typically tighten belt and save up. So makes sense the investment going to tech sector (even if Europe or western countries buy stuff they believe the can sell software and tech items to developing countries and still be ok) and then later move into more consumption driven economy. Or you know better technology could mean higher consumption habits

[@4Lights.5Liights]

Good news coverage.

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

So, look at the semiconductor companies and ask this question. Why does Applied Materials exist? What does it do? You will find that the semiconductor industry (and many others) is full of smaller firms that create innovation. Those that do good work either succeed independently or are acquired by established players. Those that don't fade away. Think of a model of portfolio management that I call seed, sapling and trees. Seeds are new innovative things. Invest broadly (not narrowly) and lightly until you can figure out what works. Sapling products are those seeds that are taking off and are consuming prodigious capital to grow. Not making a lot of cash, but growing rapidly (hopefully). Trees are older products that have grown to their full extent and are spinning off cash to fund the entire thing. This is essentially what a VC supposed to do. Fund lots of small investments. Few of these will hit and only one major hit out of 10 or so investments pays for everything. Central planning stifles this model by forcing people to invest single mindedly.

[@Wallacenawa]

The Chinese know what they are doing. They didnt get that big, that fast by chance. The are literally killing EU Automobile industry. In most countries construction vehicles and Trucks are now over 70% Chinese and growing still. They will keep growing until they are bigger the the US

[@agfagaevart]

Europe is killing its car industry on its own. VW imissions scandal. strikes at Peugout Renault's over-priced EVs. etc.

[@rsantana389]

I really hope this works for them! It sounds exciting

[@mephilees7866]

I don't think 4.8% growth would need to be revived. But 2025 growth might.

[@leftovercrumbs501]

Guizhou is pronounced closer to gway joe, not gwee joo. Yuan is pronounced üen, not you aan. You dont have to get the tones right, but can someone in tldr please put in an effort for pronouncing the names of things? It's supposed to cover world news so why does it feel like editors arent even trying to put in an effort?

[@doujinflip]

It's unfortunately a common characteristic with these (seemingly all white male) narrators, who apparently can't be bothered to spend a mere half hour per language studying the basics of native pronunciation. It gets unlistenably bad when they butcher Korean names.

[@nopass6247]

Seriously. The guy is making a story where he's going to say Guizhou 20 times and they don't spend 10 seconds to play a recording of its pronunciation for the guy so he won't butcher it every single time? Seriously cringe worthy lack of production values.

[@allisterlobo7107]

A magical silver bullet that will save the economy? Why didn't anyone think of that sooner?!

[@Ironbanner12]

Yea he's a chemistry major after all

[@InfoSoup]

Consumption driven economy may be good for business, worst for environment.

[@f.w.ordemorton8057]

Modern steel production did not start in the "early" nineteenth century. The first major patent was Bessemer in 1856 and the decisive breakthrough came with the Gilchrist-Thomas patent in 1877 (both British, incidentally).

[@Czarmzy]

Sounds like a decent plan to me

[@alexejvornoskov6580]

I dont get how people still think that consumption is a good and important thing for economy. Consumption DOESNT create wealth. It does only redistibute it. Wealth itself must be created by other means. So building economy on consumtions is building economy on pump - its only works as long as you "create" money by means of debt - which ultimately leads to economical collapse, not to well being of nation or society. Consumtion is good when other people from other countries consume your goods and give you money for that - as only they get in trouble with debt and reduce their wealth. But internal consumption only changes the pockets where the money is in, it doesnt create a single cent. Same as service industry - it doesnt create wealth. Thats why poor countries cannot just skip industry and agriculture and go fully into consumtion/service - they simply dont have enough money to change hands for even illusion of it to work.

[@oguzkaanklc2014]

+9999

[@James.z-w8x]

Actually consumption does create wealth, Because consumption stimulates the investment and productivity and then promote the innovation as well as technology.

[@Kevriyal5654]

The CCP would love for their people to consume more. It is very hard to change a culture that is programmed to invest in housing to consume instead.

[@marvin4758]

I agree you can see it with the trade-in program that it is desired more in improving quality not just quantity. In my opinion, the property sector needs to stagnate for about a decade so that savings can actually be used somewhere else.

[@Ryan-gx3hs]

I actually think that investing in science and technology is the right play.

[@Frothling]

love the subtle hint to get them to fix that UK bridge

[@murilotrigo8578]

With the whole colapse of the biosphere that keeps us alive, it seems like the whole species should be focusing more on science development rather than overconsumption of stuff we don't actually need.

[@marcgtsr]

This!

[@ness6099]

Insightful input from someone who can’t spell collapse.

[@forme1981]

There is never a overcapacity aboard when EU and USA exports. Time to tell Chinese stops making iPhones that they can consume

[@AnimaChronix3]

China had a massive trade surplus that no country in the world has because they prefer to flood internationnal markets instead of stimulating internal consumerism. Can't blame their biggest trade partners to be mad at this increasingly unilateral relation

[@jackballard4523]

that was like one of the darkest endings for a tldr video

[@FarisAl-Said]

I was about to criticise this video for being one sided, thanks for covering the Chinese rationale as well.

[@Harroi]

Investors only want what's best for investors.

[@cjc2010]

Pronunciation of Guizhou makes me a very sad panda...

[@dryyy-fu7ru]

Try Canton.

[@Ugapiku]

It really can, I think people don't think big enough to understand how a country can grow with tech.

[@markmuller7962]

Without public demand and consumption it can be exceptionally hard to start up innovative companies and endeavors no matter if the investments are in the military or else

[@HolyAlric]

Tech for the sake of tech isn't going to go anywhere

[@salvatoreregalbuto5444]

They are offering low interest loans to the Chinese population to put into the stock market to fund this growth. Very bad idea to say the least

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

Yeah, just like the Silicon Tech bubble was super sustainable and had no issues whatsoever, every investor living happy ever after and totally not losing everything on bogus, tax deductible project that claim to solve all the problems of the Earth with zero direction as to how to get there. Throwing money at scientists and yelling : "INVENT SOMETHING" has rarely worked. You need to know what you want, choose your projects, which China already does with EV's and stuff, but it's all exports and the world is no longer interested. That's the point of the whole video, China needs a domestic market first, innovation will meet the new demand.

[@rujotheone]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me The world is not just EU/US, other regions import Chinese EVs too.

[@natedcarr6148]

0:26 "She does have a plan to fix the economy." I hope her plan goes well. On a more serious note, I disagree with the analysis that China is in danger of following the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc's fate. They had command-style, communist-run economies where governments controlled everything, whereas China today, and for quite a while, has a free market style economy. Sure, the CCP is at the top controlling a lot, but they still allow a lot of freedom to businesses to operate in a free market. China may be having economic woes, but nothing close to the USSR or eastern bloc's in my most humble of opinions.

[@Hallo-it5hn]

In the mid to long term, the ultra low birth rates could be a catastrophic issue. We have no idea how countries will manage to deal with its consequences yet

[@hsrocha2479]

​@Hallo-it5hn I think birth rates will be a non-issue in the future because of AI automation, particularly in advanced economies like the US and China

[@dianapennepacker6854]

The CCP likes to medal too much with their tech sector. Lots of heads in China. The more brains the more chances for geniuses. Around 800 million. (The 1.2 billion plus population doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny if you do the math by their own reports. Their real GDP is also questioned.) We shall see. Something tells me Xi is just digging a bigger hole. We should let him. Forcing tech breakthroughs is tough. Props for China for focusing on battery tech. I cannot beleive how many fools are against it. Batteries help more than just EVs.

[@cia5649]

@@hsrocha2479 that really depends

[@ramen5496]

>free market style economy. The gov has economic planning, heavily control the banking sector, have lots of soes in crucial economic sectors, and wont hesitate to intervene/regulate the private sector. Its not free market. Its dirigisme.

[@eldrago19]

That has got to be the first time I have heard neo liberal economists described as suggesting the government should simply give people money.

[@badluck5647]

It's not just "give people money." It's to stop suppressing their wages with protectionism and currency manipulation so they have more money to spend. It is the same argument about lowering taxes.

[@boredphysicist]

​@badluck5647 Its not the same argument as cutting taxes Increasing consumption is a proven way to increase GDP Cutting taxes has no guaranteed effect on GDP GDP is essentially an equation of consumption + investment + government spending + net exports Increasing consumption as you can see increases gdp Decreasing tax reduces government spending, and potentially increases consumption but its not guaranteed that the untaxed income will circulate more than the taxed one If someone doesnt spend that untaxed income then GDP actually decreases

[@badluck5647]

@@boredphysicist It depends. Look at the Laffer curve. If taxes are too high, then people have less money to spend or invest. If taxes are too low, then the government has less money to spend. If taxes are too high, then consumers spend less, so the government collects less revenue and still has less money to spend.

[@boredphysicist]

@@badluck5647 Except most studies on the Laffer curve suggest peaking a anywhere from 20-70% taxation, and also its shape and peak depend entirely on the efficacy of government spending. Its not considered a very good tool in deciding taxation because its a complete guess. Of course a government that spends largely on inefficient investments that fail to increase productivity would have a low peak taxation So as I said, the argument of increasing consumption is entirely different to the argument of decreasing taxation And most economists dont believe countries such as the US are taxing too highly according to the laffer curve Most arguments for reducing taxation for GDP growth end like the Truss Mini Budget, massive gdp shrinkage. Whereas increasing consumption has never reduced GDP (in the short term) even when its been bad or led to financial collapses (overconsumption is unsustainable)

[@knoll9812]

Keynes

[@adamcheklat7387]

2:48: If I fall off, I better bring a parachute.

[@FredSveru.]

At least China is making efforts to innovate and develop new things, while Europe seems to be experiencing a decline at the moment.

[@doujinflip]

Mostly because European governments are more accountable to their people about their budgets and policies. China is still trying to prop up the mountainous walls of debt (estimated at levels that make Japan and America look like prudent borrowers) which enclose their supposedly grand socialist garden.

[@AnimaChronix3]

The EU is starting programs to boost semi conductors like the US chips act and AI applications so its still trying, working with US tech giants. Problem with the EU is spending way to much money on needless stuff

[@the11382]

​@@doujinflipWho does China borrow from?

[@lokesh303101]

Yes! Science goes with Processing Industry. AI-Processing Industry demands more Investments in Science.

[@sherifadel24]

With poor productivity of workers, which depends on medium-advanced tech and dependent mainly on exports, if they did that they will undermine their own exports and the products they produce are not viable to be sold internally in China, which will require a radical change, which will decapitate their GDP and decrease the tax revenue, which will halt the development of China. So I don't think that is the right thing to do.

[@dimes3967]

We might not even survive this century and yet we still won't transition from consuming-oriented culture to innovation culture

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

One thing not mentioned is that massive technological shifts tend to be profoundly socially disruptive. The industrial revolution completely changed the way British society was structured, electricity and home mechanisation played a role in women entering the workforce in early 20th century, the digital revolution has been linked to every social shift to have occurred in the last 30 years. Even supposing China did hit upon the 'next big thing', you have to wonder whether the CCP would tolerate the socio-economic disruption caused by it.

[@falconian_]

Probably the most concise video by TLDR recently, very good analysis that shows both sides instead of either CCP dogma or Neoliberal talking point's

[@nachosaenz1828]

It's literally neoliberal talking points.

[@b.griffin317]

I assume "science" = military.

[@SimonFranck100]

Most of China's investments IS in "science" and not real estate. Please update your understanding of what China is actually investing in.

[@pedrofreire6169]

China, stop pushing foward on consumer technology 😭😭😭 please, don't improve our day to day lifes like that 😢 you have make little insignificant changes over several versions of the same product which become more and more expensive and unaffordable for no aparent reason other than profit, or else we might have too good a life 😔

[@mavrick1992]

Just a pronunciation note. Guizho is hard “g” Guh-way-Joe

[@ny3793]

Investment in science is much better long term than real estate or consumption

[@FatFrankie42]

*_A comment offering for the algorithm gods_*

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

The fundamental issue is that centralized investment control essentially never works. It is simply that all investors make mistakes. The bottom's-up approach allows more investments to fail sooner at a lower price. The top-down approach means that fewer choices are available and when they are wrong, they are wrong with big investments. The classic example of that is vacuum tubes versus semiconductors. Ask the Soviet Union how that turned out.

[@lIIIIlIllI]

Nothing quite like betting the well being of a billion people on an imagined new technological revolution. If Xi’s vision works out as planned, the history books will remember him as the smartest man the world has ever seen. If not, they’ll just change course and try something else.

[@lewismay5909]

This "fewer choices" are not there when China is basically continuing with the science that already exists and making it cheaper to produce. For example, China invested in electric cars: because Tesla has succeeded. China also invested in chips, not doing well, but no one thinks the chip industry is the wrong choice because Nvidia and Qualcomm have succeeded. In the end, US develops cutting-edge science and tries to make something new, while China develops industrial manufacturing technology and tries to make these things cheap.

[@marczhu7473]

Look how usa invest in darpa and musk venture. China do similar thing.😂

[@danielzhang1916]

​@@lewismay5909 the point is that China is only copying what they can do, not innovating and inventing, because they aren't allowed the freedom to do that, central planning stifles investment and inventing

[@xxlvulkann6743]

​​@@danielzhang1916 At the moment, the aim is to copy. They have a free market like any other country which is allowed to explore new directions as they please. They're investing in specific industries with specific geopolitical aims and desired products. It's not like central investment is the only mode of investment. It works in tandem with free market investment, not instead of it. Furthermore, industries like semiconductor manufacturing *require* massive capital to develop new tools and as we all know the degree of innovation and competition is reduced with a higher barrier to entry. Look at the history of Samsung, TSMC, and SMIC, the history of semiconductors has been, in large part, a history of central planning and investment.

[@theconqueringram5295]

They're replacing one issue with another.

[@J_X999]

That's economics for you bud.

[@mondo6595]

me fully informed on the situation, but I know hospitals, schools, and civil servants are facing salary delays for months, while the government continues to provide interest-free loans and even billons grants to other countries.

[@chubletfletcher1462]

the us watching: NO!! THEYRE NOT MEANT TO DO IT LIKE THAT!!! THEY SHOULD BE CLUELESS CONSOOMERS LIKE US AND FOLLOW AMERICAN BOOMER IDEOLOGY!!!!!

[@DJ1573]

Pretty cringe

[@chubletfletcher1462]

@@DJ1573 IMF: DONT INVEST IN HIGH TECH!!! BECOME A SUBURBAN CUCK WHO WORKS AN EMAIL JOB AND DOESNT CREATE ANYTHING AMAZING!!!

[@nononono3421]

Technological progress allows us to do more with less, so it can make everything cheaper and hence reduce the cost of consumption.

[@Esteban-qp2cf]

Science bad, buying useless crap good

[@plagiarisedwords]

Consumption can also be haircuts, gym trainers, accountants, tutors, music teachers, beauty stylists, restaurants, healthcare. The whole point of being "rich" is that a small portion of your population make things and grow food and you use science to automate that work making it high productive. The rest work on making other citizens lives better. Rising wages is the spur for automations (i.e. science)

[@HolyAlric]

In terms of a capitalist market... Yeah, money needs to keep exchanging hands. Hording like a dragon or a population too poor to go into the market is bad.

[@nosuchpersonexisted]

Ask the USSR how their significant investment in science while neglecting everyday goods went.

[@AustrianPainter14]

‘Science’ to neoliberals = race/gender isn’t real, but fake vaccines are

[@HeitorS.-dh2wl]

Yes, but at the same point China uses most of this excess of money to improve efficiency further and, honestly, I don't think any big country is capable of getting to European/ north American levels of development without having a strong control over the global financial system likes the older countries have. Like, think, if the industrial capacity of China were to collapse than what money would there be left? The only way to improve consumerism without losing their factories is if their factories start to produce high tech stuff whose price would not be affected by increase in wages. Which is what Japan, Germany and South Korea ended up doing, China is just starting to enter this market though

[@HasnaaAlaa]

XI is smart, science and technology is how humanity progress not real estate speculation bubbles! Hope china keep prospering ❤🎉

[@DiwashGhimire]

Wrong! Chinese people buy a lot, it doesn't make much in GDP because the stuff is a lot cheaper than Western countries. You buy a mop for ~$50? It's $2 in China. Nobody seems to put this into perspective.

[@picest_]

.......................

[@anamrajbhandari6593]

​@@picest_makes sense

[@Global-yt]

It would make more as increased demand drove up prices... but would be hugely offset by the ensuing collapse in net exports

[@tru7hhimself]

china has been #1 in gdp when adjusted for purchasing power for a while now.

[@doujinflip]

Problem is you don't need dozens of mops. But Chinese factories already have a warehouse full of them.

[@IsYitzach]

While it may be work out about the same to invest in R&D, at least they don't end up with a bunch of stuff that needs maintenance and the people can't use. They just end up with a bunch of technology the people can't use, so no maintenance costs.

[@gabrielfelippemateus]

I'm astonished how sensationalist and western partisan this channel became

[@Peter-qn3vj]

Why astonished it’s a western channel.

[@average_rite]

Yeah Science!! Mr. Xi

[@sturmbrecher88]

GDP is an archaic classical economist's measure of how well a society is functioning. If all needs are met ie food, security, energy, entertainment, fashion, happiness, access to healthcare without huge transactions taking place, would you say that particular society is dystopian and malfunctioning? As long as the quality of life in China for the average citizen increases year by year, who gives a rat's ass about GDP figures?

[@OttoKreml]

At least tech isn't litterally guaranteed to be unproductive. He's right not to pump money into property. But he's not broadening his base enough in my opinion.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

In the dry to grow GDP in a province, makes no sense to me in a world where climate crisis is the top priority. The only thing that should matter in that province that incredibly “poor“ province is it’s residence live comfortable life. They have good food and a good diet wasn’t shelter clothing they could enjoy their lives outside of whatever’s necessary to provide all the basics. The idea that they need to become consumers in the world rapidly collapsing because of idolizing consumption makes no sense. It’s like trying to encourage them to taking up a pack a day, habit of cigarettes

[@langshenyou1750]

No.

[@joetickner2979]

Guizhou is pronounced 'Gway-Jo'

[@markmuller7962]

Meanwhile in Europe we invented modern science and technology but we value it much less than other parts of the world which is a shame

[@DarkHarlequin]

Why would you say that? You can say what you want about the modern EU/European project but its exchange of scholars, young students and academic ideas on a common standard is one of the most beneficial concepts to modern science. Science builds on previous science so exchange of ideas is vital. Conversely a scientific community split into a bunch of small national silos is a disaster for scientific progress. And in most top 10 most scientific countries lists half or more are European.

[@ciybersal3499]

​@@DarkHarlequin Europe is way behind China in most technologies

[@markmuller7962]

@DarkHarlequin Where are we in the 3rd (IT) and 4th (AI) industrial revolutions? We had the first 2 right? What now?

[@DarkHarlequin]

@@ciybersal3499 First off being ´behind´ the worlds 2nd biggest economy doesn`t really mean you`re not doing well. But also don`t confuse research and implementation in everyday society. Two very different things.

[@DarkHarlequin]

@@markmuller7962 Don`t confuse technology implementation in everyday life (i.e. you doctor still working with pen & paper) with scientific research. There is a legit conversation to be had about digitalization in Europe but it`s not the same as scientific research. And that`s what the video is about. Europeans developed half the digital payment networks we`re not using right now 😅XI doesn`t want to install flatscreens everywhere and use AI assistants at the gas station. He wants to boost scientific research/new dicoveries.

[@Nls007]

Hanging your whole hat on something you’ve never been able to do effectively… “It’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for him”

[@queen_simp3273]

This is just bullshit. Chinese science has widely been reported to be outclassed western science in multiple ways. From papers produced, to relevant citations, to patent creations. Not to mention that even before now china created many innovations. Such as how Yuan Longping created hybrid rice and participated in the green revolution in the 70s

[@CARL_093]

i do not think so

[@XraviaEdge]

Didnt they already spend mountains of money in subsidies trying to replicate tmsc chips? whats different?

[@onurturhal6814]

Also, the Soviet Union was famously behind the west on technology. From agriculture to computing, from space technologies to even the military high tech, the Soviets were behind us. Obviously 🇨🇳, beeing paranoiac as to collapsing as the USSR would probably move forward remembering these mistakes.

[@jogennotsuki]

putting "science" in quotation marks makes it look very naughty 😏

[@duhaneyparkclassics7484]

yeah... Political Science.

[@CP-rg5mi]

Isn't that pronounced GWEY-joe?

[@networkgeekstuff9090]

"I build for China!" and "China will grow larger" .... said one nice little dozer once.

[@hungo7720]

Rebalancing the current Chinese economy towards consumption means higher wages for workers which would undermine the economic model China has enjoyed since the 1980s. The CCP is truly in a conundrum at the moment.

[@wernerschonenberger7668]

I didn't know that investing in science is spelled S T E A L I NG or S P Y I N G on foreign governments and companies 🤔

[@knoll9812]

Infrastructure boosts but is a one off development.

[@oguzkaanklc2014]

Gerizekâlı sağlam altyapılar zaten tek seferde olur almanların onyıllardır bozulmayan yollarına bakın.

[@Strykenine]

Seems unlikely to succeed, but if it did in a big way then the whole world could benefit. I remain highly skeptical.

[@delusion2987]

china is integrated in global trade and industry such as software, telecommunications, semi conductors, energy, food, cars, shipping and so on. they are in a better place than the soviet union ever was. investing in tech for the soviet union was to merely catch up with what the west already had. for china it is to surpass the west instead of just catching up. most western countries have big trade relations with china. the sanctions the west has put on china on an effort to halt their progress, ironically western companies want to get around those because the trade is so big with china. china is not isolated from the "advanced west" and trying to develop on its own like the soviet union was. the mindset of western exceptionalism is outdated and countries which try to follow it like it is 1980 (usa) will have it tougher than they expect. china has internal issues certainly. failing demographics, the real estate bubble, dependency on foreign oil, food imports among others but it remains a really important player in the global economy and it is not to any normal person's interest to see china failing because this will mean shortages and higher prices across most of the consumer market. the only people that stand to benefit (and even that is questionable because of the loss of huge market of china for exports) from isolating china are entrenched western industrialists because they would greatly benefit if they didnt have to compete with the big volumes and cheap prices, basically the highly competitive goods coming out of china.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

Investing in infrastructure first is how modern Chinese cities appeared. If you look back at the 90s, economists were similarly saying that building trains to nowhere and massive infrastructure in empty fields is a waste. But now it facilitated the creation cities like Shenzhen. It's different from how western economies work because there are no 4-6 year cycles. It's completely fine to do something now that will only pay out in 20 or 30 years, there doesn't need to be an instant response in quality of life

[@defintity_9951]

In the 1990s nearly all infrastructure projects were extremely productive, this is nowhere near the case today.

[@vinniechan]

This is not true Shenzhen was built up as a manufacturing base due to its proximity to Hong Kong and at the time those industrialist who intended to build factories in China bemoaned lack of infrastructure Basically at the time the industrialisation provided a clear demand for infrastructure The second wave of infrastructure built up was a bit different in the sense that they were built to improve connectivity, hoping it would induce demands and reduce the disparity Even the famed high speed rail had to rely on the annual spring migration to break even let alone start paying back the debts induced for it's constructions At the end of the demand we can do our best to do a cost and benefit analysis but no one has a crystal ball to tell how things might turn out

[@nntflow7058]

That's A LIE. Shenzhen was already a Special Economic Zone in May 1980. Those railway were not "train to nowhere". They are trains to the most economic zone in China at that time. Those train are also used to facilitate people, freights and goods in and out of the Shenzhen SEZ. They are not some random infrastructure that they built in hopes that it would be profitable in the future. They built those infrastructures YEARS after the created the SEZ. They also use Shenzhen as the gateway to Hong Kong.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

@@nntflow7058 And? Similarly China already has a developing tech sector, it's not an investment into empty bubbles like Saudis are doing. There's literally a guy above you saying how those trains weren't profitable, maybe you can decide among yourselves who's lying. It's great to claim how obvious the need was with the benefit of hindsight, and I'm pretty sure in 30 years you'll be able to claim how obvious was the need for investment in tech.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

@@defintity_9951 investment in tech is extremely productive _for China_ because at this point they expect to be completely cut off at will from having access to anything developed in the West. So they have to build end to end production facilities and replace every single Western supplier instead of relying on services and equipment from Europe or the US.

[@Deep_Sorcery]

No

[@mdtrw]

Problem is, if you're smart and got something done on a Chinese scholarship fund, you won't want to work in China.

[@intergalacticotter]

Having to use a European bridge for show because UK infrastructure is a crumbling mess.