Why Xi is Quietly Re-Nationalising China’s Economy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Sign up to Imprint (with a 7-day free trial and 20% off an annual plan): imprintapp.com...
After privatisation fuelled China's economy, the CCP seems to be reversing that trend as crises take their toll on the private sector. So in this video, we'll explain China's economic history and why Xi is leaning on state owned businesses once again.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahE...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
Damn.... "Periods of catastrophe" that is definitely one way to describe the death by starvation of over 30,000,000 people, and more by other methods.
Fake news
and they never include the millions of babies Chinese women threw down wells to die...
30,000,000 people for the prosperity of a nation of 1.5B people.
@@mrsunsfan-gz2lxSorry Stalin
@leadwall8264 to be fair, if you saw a bunch of sparrows kept eating your crops and its the fifties you'd think "Let's waste these sparrows for more food".
Turns out, they just lacked the understanding of the web of life we have today that informs its something of a bad idea
好景気の後の不景気は辛いぞ
日本から🎌🇯🇵
Watashi wa Neist desu, adjimemashite! 😄
China doesn't have a private sector. CCP has members overseeing every company and CCP members on the board of companies.
based
Big if true, sadly not reality.
So you want private sector to stab in the back of the nation if it suits them? (private sector) Ever wonder why manufacturers left the US in bunch since 1980s?
That’s true of large corporates. But they still are market entities and have to be profitable. Party members ensure that this private capital doesn’t go against Chinese interests by aligning themselves with the global bourgeoisie.
@@leandro6234Guess which mid-20th century German government did that also
Oh god, the tech industry had 1 trillion dollars disappear? they better watch their airspace...
Why is the Yen symbol used in this video? Yuan has one less stroke
The return of Lil Tartary
Xi jinping is doing what Mao zedong did
"Great leap backwards"
well said .. after all Deng did to fix Mao's mess too
Deng did it to save communist party. Xi did it for the same reason.
.
Its funny that Xi loves power more than the development of China. Xi Jinping is the greatest gift to have happend for the USA. He is single handedly destroying China.
Except printing $50 billion😊 QUIETLY
This is not surprising. About 60% of the Chinese economy was always state own. Heavy industries like steel and coal and oil was never privatized.
Shock therapy defies common sense. It would always prefer a more sensible approach of "One step at at time".
Because obviously the public sector worked so well the first time under Mao.
This video was of pretty shoddy quality for TLDR standards. Such a reductionist view of China's development
I agree I´ve made a similar point.
It's TLDR, too long didn't read, it's literally reductionist that's the entire point.
@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH There´s a difference between summarising things and being innaccurate.
@@MinimmalmythicistI look forward to your video on the topic you can educate us all 👨🏫👩🏫🧑🏫
@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH Ok, you´ve proven that you have the mind of a five year old child
Can you please stop using hyperboles?
Every time countries have their routine political issues or China releases lukewarm economic data, TLDR's thumbnails are always as if there's a real diplomatic/economic catastrophe.
Clickbait is pretty much the only way for these daily youtube channels to survive
re-nationalisation is not a catastrophe
people have made clickbait popular and viable, I blame people for clicking on every single clickbait video
@@Ar1AnX1x "People" haven't.
They have to play the TH-cam game to have their videos recommended. That's just how it is with TH-cam, if you don't abide by its "rules" then you're not gonna be favored.
He’s lost his way
@@GARRYJackson-q1h no, the hundreds of billions in losses caused by bribes finally came to the surface
Not exactly quiet. Chinas government in exile (not taiwans) posted about it in 2022.
After a year of “china is collapsing” videos, now i am excited to be exposed to a new propaganda series of “china is re-nationalizing” videos for the next year. 🎉
Economies don't go into deflation when citizens are confident in the country's future.
it reminds me of the U.S. economy is collapsing, buy gold now, buy crypto types of things, along with people fear mongering how the U.S. is falling apart because migrants are destroying it, and even though none of these things ever actually happen it still works to fear monger on people
Just look at the statistics ccp releases, it ain't looking good
Governments tend to renationalise parts of the economy when they are in crisis. For another current example see the UK government renationalising rail and reintroducing direct state involvement in the energy generation sector. It's not happening because the country is in a healthy situation.
So well researched! Giving lots of important historical contexf
The public sector built china to where it is today, its estimated that without the hsr system 30 million more cars would be on the roads leading to way more imports and less money circulation in the economy. Plus state owned companies have built more factories in China than private companies even if they were built and sold to the private companies
First step: China is preparing te decouple from the West.
Second step: China will do business with the West but focus more on the Brics economies.
Step 3: The west will let go of China on the long run.
Goods will be produced in "India, East Europe and Middle+ South America.
Not much solid data. The market cap is not accurate, big private internet companies are not listed in China mainland, but in HK and US, it seems here not included. Also, even shrinked for the private secter, in the chart, it's still on the same level of 2019.
Re- nationalisation of industries, is still capitalism. China is facing financial crisis and the state does anything possible to stop it.
China is facing a financial crisis from last 20 years according to media.
Well, no. Nationalising industries is the opposite of capitalism. It is in fact socialism. According to capitalist principles the market will solve all problems. So the solution to economic crisis is to allow the market maximum freedom to fix itself. Of course, we all know that doesn’t work. So governments do regularly step in to try to reduce the extreme and destructive volatility that’s inherent to the markets. But that’s not capitalism. Some amount of it is essential for the stable and successful running of an economy, but that’s just because a purely capitalist economy is unworkable. It’s how much government intervention is good that is endlessly argued over
As a Chinese, i really don't see financial crisis around me, can you elaborate?
@@WhichDoctor1 If you want to stick with marxist terminology a state can own companies and still be capitalist
@@1.4billion65 You might not have noticed this but your annual GDP growth rate went from about 10% in 2010 (8% pre COVID) to 5% now
Perhaps I'm wrong but some of the graphs seem to be conveniently framed, it almost exaggerates recent trends whereas the start of the video looks back decades 🤔
I wish they added more to these videos. They end abrupty talking about sponsers making the video feel half finished. Maybe they should consider adding some dicsussion about the topic with an expert or between the presenters.
Because west is withdrawing investment
Its the next step, We're seeing that a true free market economy is not possible as industries like Utilities and energy will never be able to have true competition forming monopolies and oligarchies that extort the consumer.
Where it is possible to have competition (ie the current state of fast food) it does benefit the consumer as it leads to innovation and low prices but very few industries have a low enough barrier for entry, investment and scale up potential for that competition.
it´s a logical claim but I think empirical reality often shows that isn´t true.
Love your reporting but the beginning about Mao was kinda bad reporting. You should research those policies and look at the book Thucydides Trap. Just better context.
Nice graph. GDP per capita in "thousands". Thousands of what?
dollars bro, the reserve currency
GDP in the international context is almost always given in USD
Government is a damn dear thing. But China achieved a cheaper government with the unique party, since all the infighting does not have to be paid by the taxpayer
lol, there are factions in their government.
Is this asset stripping China-style
Chinas economic history started in 1950???? That must be news to the Han dynasty :D
They are referring to the contemporary nation state, i.e: The People's Republic of China, which was established in 1949. Comparing it to the Han dynasty is like comparing the Roman Republic with the European Union or the Maurya Empire with the modern Republic of India. Not particularly a useful or feasible discussion to have in a brief video on contemporary economic issues...
Short answer : because capitalism is expiring and facing its dying period!
For the 20th time...........
Quite literally… Cold War nonsense be popping tho
@@panan7777 NO - for the 1st time
*CORRECT ANSWER*
*Wrong Answer*
The pervasive bribe culture in China has led to staggering losses in the financial industry, amounting to hundreds of billions. This systemic issue has resulted in a significant number of bad loans being issued in exchange for substantial bribes, undermining the integrity of the financial system and contributing to widespread economic instability.
Reforms and changes may be painful, but they are essential. It's time to confront rampant corruption and reckless spending head-on. The banking industry has become entangled in a culture of bribery, which has not only compromised ethical standards but also resulted in substantial losses that will take decades to recover. Those who issued billions in loans while pocketing substantial kickbacks must be held accountable. China cannot allow these practices to continue if we hope to restore integrity and stability to any financial system.
How else can China recover from the hundreds of billions in bad loans if not through austerity measures? The responsibility for these big losses rests with those who exchanged bad loans for gifts, not with President Xi.
Hong Kong has a long-standing reputation as Asia's financial center, and leveraging its resources and expertise would be highly advantageous. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in Hong Kong has extensive experience in combating financial crimes and is renowned for its commitment to transparency. The pressing question is whether China is prepared to embrace such reforms and whether Hong Kong will continue to be regarded as an outsider in this evolving landscape. Engaging Hong Kong's strengths could be crucial for fostering greater financial integrity across the region.
A Hong Kong-based external auditing team could play a crucial role in enhancing the integrity of China’s financial system. By providing independent oversight, this team could foster greater transparency and accountability, essential for a stable economic environment. Their expertise in international financial standards could help identify risks and improve regulatory practices.
While the team would need to navigate the complexities of operating under Xi’s regime, their involvement could serve as a critical step toward modernizing and stabilizing the financial landscape. By establishing a framework for independent audits, they could help build trust among investors and the global community, ultimately benefiting China’s economic standing. The collaboration could pave the way for a more resilient financial system, capable of withstanding future challenges.
I still think a lot of this is just part of necessary transitions within the Chinese economy.
For example, the real estate sector could not have continued in the way it did during the 2000s and 2010s. More state ownership seems to be a more sustainable path for the sector in general, even if the short term pains result in a depressive economic environment.
People are out here comparing Xi to Mao, but they fail to realize this is the only way forward. If Xi continued to inflate the property bubble, those same people would be criticizing him for doing so.
The Chinese miracle is definitely over, but it's about time when you consider the large structural flaws within their unsustainable model of growth.
Xi created the bubble. They need state control to fix all the state control that caused the problem? Lol.
No because the governement is generally worse at managing resources than the private sector, even when it comes to housing.
The housing market isn't doomed to create bubbles. The reason the bubble was born was mostly just governement interference really
No, Xi's wolf warrior diplomacy and xenophobic education and policies has hastened the exodus of trade.
CN would be far more powerful if it had quietly continued prioritizing cooperative business than amping up hate.
For example all its neighbors and trade partners had an ok view of CN until some terrible policy enraged them during Xi's reign.
Define "miracle"! What does it even mean? 10% growth per year? But with 18k billion GDP, how could China maintain that growth rate? if western model is so great, why is Germany in the decline? (zero percent growth)
The bubble was caused by the state too large in the first place.
Reading the comments before watching the video: it just sounds like the state is stepping in to fill the gap left by collapsing private enterprise. Sort of like QE2 and other nationalisations in the west, then?
Japanese central bank also owns so much of their industries and even stock market. People who are calling out China now are crazy.
NO. They are moving from a rapid growth model to a steady state economy model - unlike the west they realise infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet and they know that private companies need to grow infinitely
Well that's not exactly the full stor because the tech secter was smashed up before the economic woes due ot the ideological stance of the ccp.
Why are there Yen symbols all through this video?
Cuz they both use the same characters that's why you have to denote JP yen as the Japanese currency and CN yen for the Chinese currency
What is wrong with that
Interesting.
Why is chinese economy more independent than european economy even tho they were poor compared to european countries 20 years ago and the EU was already formed at that time.🤔🤔.
If GDP per capita is growing in china, so why many of them are migrating t Australia and canalia so fast even tho those locals don't like them😮.
true
australia is rich as fuck how is this a question
Statistically it's a tiny tiny amount of China's population lol. There's just a lot of Chinese people
Why don't you just ask them? Young people in China have an easier time getting into western Universities than local ones.
China is still poorer than western nations and it will take decades to catch up
Ok
Everyone in the comments complaining about the lack of diversity in Western countries but No one is talking about the lack of Diversity in China even tho china is talking Africa and South east asia countries.
Exactly
There are only 10 comments rn. Who is “everyone”?
Literally no one is complaining.
You must be a bot, there's 15 comments and not a single one has mentioned diversity.
Literally no one said that here, chill down lil bro
People should stop buying. Chinese products and stop investing.
So true. It's like going on a holiday to Russia and finance Putler's war in Ukraine.
i agree, but imagine some countries stop buying cheap chinese stuff, and others dont. Isnt this gonna be to the disadvantage of the first?
People are bargain hunters mostly buying the cheapest
Why should people do that?
You would be the first person complaining about higher prices Paul 😂
So take a lesson big US companies, academics have warned that China would and would nationalize there stuff if something went wrong.
For anyone interested in actual history of China:
Mao literally improved China more than any western leader ever. The west left China in a absolutely dire state. And it was Mao who laid the foundations of what you see today. But now the same colonizers would never accept how difficult it is to bring a country back after these oppressors destroyed them. But hey, communism bad.
To dissociate Deng from Mao is also stupid. Not only Mao's reforms paved the way for the socialist AND NOT CAPITALIST reforms Deng proposed, but also Chinese Govt still maintained control over banking ensuring finance capital would not take hold. That is like completely stopping a supposed capitalist at the second mile in a 10 mile journey.
But gey, China bad, communism bad, capitalism good. Hurr durr.
COMMUNISM VUVUZELA MY GRADPARENTS IPHONE
Tens of millions starving to death was a necessary sacrifice then, I take it?
@@ExitusGSZ The Great leap forwards was lunacy, it obviously was. I think people forget how similar capitalist industrialisation was though, the British managed to starve a third of the Irish to death, yet you don´t get the same level of condemnation (outside of Ireland that is).
Likewise, the British conquered, kept several countries unindustrialised, transported people to Australia, yet capitalists seem to think that the British industrialisation was a more peaceful process.
@@Minimmalmythicist Full industrialisation took a few decades to a century, people died overtime as a result. The Great Leap Forward happened in 4 years.
@@MrLabowski the Irish potatoe famine happened really quickly, the Tasmanian genocide happened really quickly. Indeed, the Maoist regime at least has never wiped out a whole ethnic group.
Georgina!!!
In my view, the quickest fix for this issue would be to integrate more LGBTQ+ parades and drag shows into the Chinese economy, as they could play a significant role in economic development.
Good point 🫰
This is a good thing. Industries are not for profit but for people. All the capital of these industries came from Chinese central bank. For two countries of same development level according to world's systems theory(like countries who produce low added items are one category, countries who are at top of the industrial ladder are their own category, then many categories in between), the one with more socialization will always deliver better results to its people in metrics from infant mortality to life expectancy etc etc. Sure you can argue that socialization hurts a nation's progress in the industrial ladder but China has beat these beliefs. 40% of their economy is SOEs. They know their country better than WEF.
While it doesn't get much mention, speed running Russia through this significantly contributed to what is happening now.
This will backfire, why because there is no single person or entity thats wise enough to understand human beings or what new technology will make things cheaper and more efficient
No, I am very smart, I can do it perfectly, I understand it all, you all are just stupid ~ too many politicians' way of thinking
China's economy is 40% SOEs already. Further more the Chinese state provides autonomy to most of these enterprises. Chinese chemical sector is fully government owned and has delivered more than american privatized chemical sector. There is no ONE chinese entity who will own all of them and if you think about this then saying that ONE entity should not own so much is pretty much the applicable to private equity also.
Then how private sector manage to do so? Is it controlled by aliens?
@@MayankTrivedi2-bg3dg State regulations and dictates can never be as efficient as the private sector because the private sector by its very definition cares mostly about themselves. It's the most efficient when it comes to itself. A free-market economy defined as a machine comprised of all of the participants interacting freely is the most efficient system possible.
China can try to overtake the Western world in some instances and they'll be successful but the cost will be lagging behind in other sectors. The closer they get to free-market economies, the harder it is going to be to compete with them without liberalization.
@@sakakaka4064 If private sector is so efficent then why we see economic crisis every 5-10 years? Sure loose money is one thing, but there were 4 recessions in post war economic boom in technical terms.
The idea that private industries are more efficient cause they only care about themselves in unproved, there is no data to back it up. China has the 2nd highest capital efficieny ratio in the world. I gave example of their chemical sector, I can give about their banking, ship building and so on. A government company has access to so many things from technology to capital further more they are only one in China with the capacity to vertically intergrate the supply chain properly. They are certainly more efficient and atleast better from National Security perspective cause private people can betray easily.
There´s a lot wrong with this. For starters China actually overall grew in the Mao period. Yes, there were disasters like the great leap forwards, but overall China grew faster than Britain did during its industrialisation. Indeed, initially Mao was one of the more pro-Market Stalinist leaders, he moved away during the Great leap forwards, but then Deng moved the economic policies to the right again and that did increase growth some more.
The Deng reforms did plenty of economic good, though I think he should have left more of the social welfare system intact. Indeed, Deng was quite influenced by Bukharin´s NEP implemented after the Russian civil war.
It´s not quite true that "privatisation" fuelled the economy either, it was more that private industries were allowed in more sectors. I would argue myself that this was a justifiable move to get more US capital, but it´s important to recognise that this was done in a very controlled way, i.e the Chinese government retained a lot of control of the economy. Indeed, the Chinese state railways have played a big role in industrialising the country, as have the state owned energy companies.
Myself, If you ask what economic model I like, I think there´s a lot of evidence that having a balance like China´s, i.e 35-50% state owned, 50% private works. I think markets can reduce the kind of bottlenecks that the Soviet Union had.
I also think it´s now time for China to implement a proper welfare state, if you´re an officially socialist country, it does look a bit embarrasing if there are people with difficulties getting access to healthcare or if there are huge wealth inequalities. Also, it´s time to give people some more holidays, the country can easily afford it.
I see myself as a pragmatic socialist, I think the CCP have done a fair bit of good for China. In the West, we may not agree with everything they do, bu they have improved ordinary people´s living standards a lot. I myself am a democrat, I support having a parliamentary democracy, but it´s no surprise that China, given its history, isn´t one and that most Chinese people don´t really want one.
lol
@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH Well, you say "lol" I guess you´re so childish that you laugh at facts.
Economic growth was about 3.6% on average during the Mao era.
The UK in the Victorian era had an average growth rate of about 2%.
@@Minimmalmythicistlol
@@WhhhhhhjuuuuuH yeap, you´re a man-baby
Commenting 4 algorithm
Its still capitalisms but more centralized and controlled by the government.
if it's centralized and controlled by the government, it's not capitalism. Capitalism is just another name for a free market economy
what you described is typically called state-capitalism. And it's one of the defining attributes of a fascist government
@@CaptainTodger69 Capitalism is not necessarily a free market economy. Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are owned by private entities. The free market economy refers to the system where parties can decide what to buy and sell and for what price.
There can be a free market economy with state-owned enterprises and that's in fact what China was for the past 20 years. The CCP started to experiment with the economy again though and they're going more towards the regulated market economy with state-owned enterprises, which is going to be very dangerous for them and will lead to corruption and inefficiencies. We'll see how they deal with it.
@@sakakaka4064 Capitalism and free market economics are the same thing. free market economics is literally just liberalism applied to economics. but Engels and Marx started calling it capitalism and the name stuck
When the government starts controlling industries it's state capitalism. And if the state actually owns and controls some industries, but allows all the rest to operate freely (with regulations) then it's just a hybrid economy. Like how Scandinavian economies work
Modern china kind of fits the definition for both. But leans more heavily toward state capitalism. As all their big industries can only operate in ways the government deems advantageous to their broader political goals. And are often assisted by the government in winning foreign contracts
The state owning industries can never be capitalist, because, by definition, the states monolopoly on that industry prevents a free market from occurring
And yes, I agree. The more Xi starts taking power of private industries, the worse it is likely to get for China
Especially considering how much Xi has eliminated any form of opposition and isolated himself politically from people who might criticize his policies
Based China
Make sense Naomi Oreskes predicted this exact scenario and makes perfect sense considering the needs related worsening climate change
Good. Capital must always be inferior to the state and the workers
Lol
Lol
Why?
I agree, but "the workers" are not going to be the beneficiaries here. It's China. Their entire economic model is dependent on seriously underpaying their workers.
There's only one legal trade union in China and it exists because the state allows it to, and thus it doesn't rock the boat. China essentially invented the modern capitalist trick of compartmentalising production to ensure that not enough workers are concentrated in any one place for them to form a union.
@@exdeath64 I agree, but it's China. The workers aren't going to benefit from this.
pretty
Ah yes, increasing government ownership. That always works well...
For certain industries its the only logical way forward. For example utilities in the UK, privatisation of water has been a disaster for the consumer and environment as private companies have raised prices to pay out large dividends to shareholders and not invested into the supporting infrastructure.
This was possible because there's no realistic way for competition to form they have a virtual monopoly of their respected areas. Free market theory works when there's competition, unfortunately not all industries can be competitive.
@@Alexander-yb1zc And this is what China is doing is it?
Back to the good ol' starvey times-
Because people didnt start under private corporations?
@@98TrueRocker98 Because CCP is far more inefficient and ineffective than private corporations. My id is a hint.
@@98TrueRocker98 not all governments are equal, some are far inefficent and ineffective due to corruption, infighting (including disappearances) etc.
The ROI of CCP is terrible when they pay themselves lavishly for very little work done, and criticism are "disappeared".
@@chinesesparrows Judging from rapidly increasing living standards in China and technological advancement, I'd say you're wrong
@@98TrueRocker98 Which happened after they privatized- CN historically was even richer in the past as well.
The country does not have a bright future either way so who cares
They are 40% of all the investment globally, in 2023 they installed more than 20X the solar capacity that US did in the same year. They are leading EV revolution, they are the largest ship builder nation, successful in making own's advance chip(7nm as of now), leading in communication technology, capacitors and so on.
Australian Policy Institute syas that China is already domination 37 out of 44 most important technologies. You think this country does not have a bright future?
@@MayankTrivedi2-bg3dg their horrifying demographics indicate that their industrial potential can maybe last for like 2 decades at best
@@MayankTrivedi2-bg3dg the likes of China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Russia, Italy and Spain will entirely fall off in terms of industrial capacity due to extreme labor shortages and a population pyramid where the retired population heavily outnumber the labor pool
@@MayankTrivedi2-bg3dg China is really good at producing products at cheap prices, they are also really good at copying technologies.
If handled correctly, china could make use of those successes you've mentioned to lift it's country out of the middle income trap.
But what we see is a country with slowing growth, with internal issues, with a bunch of unnecessary foreign policy tensions, and now with a government that wants more control over capital.
China also still hasn't caught up with the west in a lot of tech, their main tech successes aren't even due to their own innovation, but because they produce something that already existed but at cheaper prices. Their chips also aren't as good as the ones from the west, TSMC (Taiwan), ASML(Netherlands) and NVIDIA(US) together make the best chips in the world.
Think of the tech china "dominates", eletric cars were made popular by a US company, EV was already widely produced in europe, Smart phones appeared in the US and were widely popular before china started selling their huwaeis and xiaomis, when covid came, the best vaccines were western, china's vaccine was way worse, self landing space rockets also an american invention, the AI revolution also started in the US.
I can't think of a single tech sector that china actually created, all china did is take over sectors through their cheap labor and unfair trading practices, also with a lot of tech theft.
A country that has a future, must prove itself capable of actually creating new technologies, not just stealing them and appropriating them.
But in china you need government approval to start your innovation, and why would the government take the risk on tech that is totally new?
I'm not convinced, there is a lot of reasons to think that China might fail in it's goal of actually joining the wealthy nations club.
Some people forget that china was always comunist. Similar to Russian, oligarchs thought they could flaunt their money at the face of less wealthy...... and thats not healthy anymore. There certainly is a good middle road . Let's hope they find it.
china hasn't been communist for decades. They're a fascist country now
You seem to have a slight Pro-Capitalism undertone. Of course, if follow the best practises of Market-economic theory, it will be good for 'the machine'. I am not for the tyrannical rule of the CCP or GenSec Xi, but you make it sound as if one has just to do more exploiting capitlism and everything would be fine. We are rich, because they are poor and get more exploited, even if they now have washing machines too.
America was rich before they outsourced their manufacturing to China. China got rich because trickle-down economics works literally every single time. And they are one of the best examples of this
The idea that you got rich because other people are being exploited has been disproven pretty definitively over the last 50 years. To the point where it's like being a flat-earther. Except much more evil and murderous
Don't you think you might have euphemized What mao did just a little too much?🤬
1st
n
2nd
Ah, Winnie the Pooh just won't share that jar of hunny...
I think it's interesting how some western countries have relied on austerity to manage recessions, meanwhile China fund nationalised growth which they then sell off when the economy feels stronger.
Considering this relies on heavy external trust in Chinese markets it is interesting to see it play out.
Mass layoffs and salary cuts are austerity measures. Reducing budgets and cutting spending to recoup hundreds of billions lost in the financial sector.
Zero charisma
I don't know why Western Europe is represented as so large while its the size of texas or DR Congo
If you referring to sizes on a map its because most maps used the Mercator projection.
It's preserves navigational accuracy at a cost of scale. It was used by Naval navigators to easily navigate across oceans when the only resources available were a map and a compass.
There are other projections available but because your translating a globe to a 2D projection something always has to be sacrificed.
? The UK alone is the size of texas
@@koalasquare2145texas is around 3 times the size of uk but thie man still is cracking texas is in no way bigger than western europe even if you only count france belgium and the Netherlands its already bigger than texas and drc is 4 times the size of texas
Because he's a controlling tyrant. Not much more to say