UPDATE: Those that see the glass half full
Written by Uln on March 9th, 2009Oh, thank you, thank you Xinhua and thank you editor Yan.
Thank you for adding now pictures to your yesterday’s article : China’s “scientific development” works to counter economic downturn. And thank you for choosing the most beautiful of the slides you published last week, the one which I call: “La vie en rosy”
Now it has the completeness I was looking for. I will keep your article for further reference in my database of Crisis Commentary, and I will look at your slide every time that Shanghai weather makes me feel down.
9
PM
Not sure if they maybe commented on the pic in the text, but the alleged increase from 2008 to 2007 is nearly 22 % (based on 30 bn RMB), not just 9 % as stated in the picture’s headline. Maybe the rest of this massive increase is due to data revision and inflation? And anyway, why do they state 2008 GDP to be “>30 bn RMB” instead of providing an exact number?
[Reply to comment]
10
AM
Yeah, good observation. I had’t taken the time to look at it in detail, but it is true that the 30B+ looks very weird.
I guess it is the laws of mathematics are not the same in the pink World of Rosy.
And no, the article doesn’t explain anything, you would have to go back to the one last week, around 5th or 6th March when the slides were initially published to get something. If you have the courage and the time to do it let us know what you make of it.
[Reply to comment]
10
PM
I just read that Taiwan’s exports to China were down 50 % year-on-year in January/February. Considering that most of Taiwan’s exports to China are components used by China’s factories, it’s becoming more and more likely that next year’s graph will look somewhat less rosy…
[Reply to comment]
11
PM
In beijing water drainage covers are starting to disappear… not so rosy, not so rosy
[Reply to comment]
11
PM
Yeah, I think this is all about building the confidence of the Chinese people to have them increase consumption.
It makes sense from that point of view, but I am not sure how clever it is for the Chinese government to force this too much.
I mean, OK, they might be right and 2009 might be a good year after all. But there is clearly the possibility that this might not be the case. And then, if things start to go wrong, it is going to be much more difficult for the government to maintain its credibility and explain to all the Chinese why la vie is not rosy anymore.
[Reply to comment]
30
AM
uln:
Thank you for linking me to the informative Xinhua report on China’s scientific development. I read it on the internet, while sitting in my home in Boone, North Carolina, USA. My home is literally on the other side of the world, as far from China as a person can be; yet I do find the information quite fascinating. China’s economic growth in the last 20 years since the opening has been impressive.
Most interesting in the report were the comments of Annette Nijs. I would like to know more about the “5 Balances,” especially the balance between economic growth and social stability.
In 1992, Chen Yuan wrote (Jingji yanjiu #2, FBIS, May 27,1992) that “laissez-faire economic philosophy is precisely something that does not work in China.”
I understand that Chinese leadership has a very precise way of making macroeconomic adjustments, hence the appropriate application of scientific strategies and data.
What I am wondering is this: At the lowest levels of economic activity, where farmers, merchants, shopkeepers and local service-providers do business, is this avoidance of “laissez-faire” business also considered appropriate?
Or are the scientific principles applied to macroeconomy also applied to the microeconomy?
Thank you for the informative presentation and the colorful graph of 2008 GNP.
Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full
[Reply to comment]
30
PM
Hi, thanks for the comment. I didn’t do the graph, it was someone in Xinhua or in the State Council who did it, so better thank them.
It is funny how many people start to see now the “concept of scientific development” as a serious economic theory. Just because the American financial system has failed now this doesn’t necessarily imply that the Chinese system is good. It might fail in its turn, or it might not fail but just go on producing less than optimal output.
Whatever, you are all free to believe in Hu Jintao’s scientific development. Personally I prefer to listen to theories actually done by economists, not by communist bureaucrats.
But above all -and that was the point of my post- I think Xinhua articles are written by a band of clowns and this one is a good example.
[Reply to comment]
Carey Rowland Reply:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:35 am
uln:
I applaud your honesty and humor.
Just yesterday I was quizzing a friend who had lived in China for a few years. I posed the question about to what extent are authorities manipulating the microeconomy. He said it all comes down to “anything for a buck,” at pretty much all levels. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but I’m starting to get the idea that official policy does not always match what actually happens on the street.
Nevertheless, here in the US, we’re getting the story that the Chinese are now our new financiers (to the tune of several trillions in Treasury bonds, and stocks,etc), whereas it was Wall Street and the US banks that dished out the lion’s share of the $ before the derivatives hit the fan.
So those bureaucrats must be doing something right?
Or maybe it’s just a case of the dragon being in the right place (in terms of national development) at the right time (when the Western economies are maxed out with debt and irresponsible consumerism.)
You must be walking a fine line, uln, receiving the bright cheerful graphics as a gift from the officials, while still acknowledging their roles as a certain type of circus performer.
Quite a delicate act it must be. Maybe they’ll recognize your blog as the 6th balance.
Thanks for your very informative writing.
Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full
.
[Reply to comment]