I did not expect that there is a continuity from the Cultural Revolution through Deng Xiao Ping's reforms to today's economic structure and achievments. This is the best I have heard about the Chinese economic system for years. Thank you!
This can be misleading.. Talking about cultural revolution, which was the idea of Mao and communist party, and while there was poverty before, there wasn't the kind of poverty of 10s of millions of starving Chinese, which was in huge part to blame on that very communist party. He even made the distinction himself. He is talking about last 30 years, since Chine let their citizens have private businesses. Even today, it's still not completely capitalistic, since past a certain point, once your business becomes big enough, you either join the party or you make a risk of it being taken away by someone in the party at some point. So basically it started bad, got worse, then partly private sector becomes possible, then growth. It's not a continuation, it's a partial change 30 years ago. edit. should really emphasize the starting point, just like he did. It was worse then if you didn't have central planning. There is a saying in my country that says.. "working as hard as Chinese", but it's not a compliment to the business you are working for. It means long hours, certainly hard work, for miserable pay. The "Chine miracle" was built on almost wage slave levels of getting paid. It also means, you don't really have much choice.
@@relight6931 China hasn’t had a famine since the Great Leap Forward, and Deng himself acknowledged that the cultural revolution set the groundwork for the growth seen since, and much of that growth began before Deng came to power. And the nature of private business in China is a lot more complicated than the picture you paint. The purpose of opening up was to bring foreign capital and technology under the utilization of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to grow productive forces. The subordination of large business to the CPC has helped China grow faster than any private system has or could ever accomplish, and the state has made sure the growth has resulted in poverty alleviation on a scale never seen in the history of mankind instead of powerful monopolies exerting control over the economy and political system like western bourgeois countries.
@@lentoperoavanzo4007 ok, thanks for much more comprehensive picture. We are not in a disagreement. The thing about having control over the largest business which would become just self sutaining monopolies is an interesting point I haven't thought about earlier. So thanks for that too, I just got irritated with the description of the whole video as "continuation" of economic progress, since cultural revolution (and giant leap forward was part of this process, or am I wrong), which we both noticed and proff especially mentioned, was responsible for incredibly low starting pointx making the difference between starting point and today, that much more pronaunced. That's 50ies and 60ies. i was just irritated since from OP you would think it was all connected and today was the result over time, instead of completely different policies, especially making private sector legal being actual reason. My comment was over simplified, erroneous, almost as bad as Op. Thanks for your effort in my education.
Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing. A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job. The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly." Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four." Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"
There was a difference in focus. Before the late 70s, the main focus was to prepare for the next war or revolution, hence the production capacity did not produce much that can be measured by modern economic metrics. For example, to prepare for an invasion against the USSR, project "Third Front" was initiated in 1964, i.e. splitting research institutes and factories into multiple units and moving those units from major cities into the mountains and far reaching countryside. Another symbolic project was the R&D of nuclear weapons and its launching systems, i.e. ICBMs. Such enormous projects had contributed absolutely nothing to this so called GDP growth, but were carried out purely from a survival standpoint. What Deng Xiaoping did in the late 70s was to switch China from a war/revolution mode to an economic development mode, as he anticipated a rather peaceful global environment, i.e. no WW3 were to happen in the coming 30-40 years. The rest is history... This guy's view is pretty ridiculous, he has made it sounds like China was nothing, and bang! Everything showed up out of nowhere during the 80s, a textbook neoliberal narrative, which fits his resume quite well. A few very simple metrics that should be taken into context, 1) the live expectancy in China was about 40 years in 1949, and it went up to 65 in 1979; 2) the literacy rate in china in 1949 was around 20% and it went up to 70% in 1979. There are countless metrics like these, that have greatly contributed to the economical development of China in the past 40+ years, intentionally leaving them out is a great injustice to say the least.
So true! I was thinking the same points. China didn't even have a standardised language and script before the Mao era. Not to mention rampant lawlessness, warlords and highway robbers across the vast hinterland and countryside. Things were bad during the Mao era for sure. However they were worse before. Compared to countries like India which couldn't achieve even half of what China could do from 1950 to 1980. There were dacoits attacking in the suburbs of Delhi even in the early 80s!
Deng went to Singapore and learned how to run an economy and implemented it in China , free market capitalism he changed it's name to socialism with chinese characteristics so he wouldn't get lynched by his politburo. He predicted "a rather peaceful global environment" is prob Chinese propaganda cause nobody can predict the future.
So good to get a very good explanation/account of China’s economic development that provides much insight rather than the usual journalistic account. This is really informative.
Chenggang Xu received his PhD in Economics from Harvard University in 1991. Chenggang's research is in political economics, institutional economics, law and economics, development economics, transition economics and the Chinese political economy. 5:14 Prof. Xu is one of the first recipients of China Economics Prize for contributions in understanding government and enterprise incentive mechanisms for the transition economy of China. He introduced the concept of characterizing China’s institution, “regionally decentralized authoritarianism (RDA),” as a determinant factor of China’s past 30 years of successful reform. Source: Asia Global Institute; FSI Stanford; Institute for New Economic Thinking
He just bs. China economy is enabled by Wall Street elite using VIE scam. Without Wall Street elite China econony end in recession. Look at 1989 for clues.
This is dialectics in actions. Material analysis leads to theory, theory leads to practice, which leads to analysis of material conditions. Any society that loses this agility to self correct and experiment is doomed.
@@daishan1234 You mean the country who managed to get marijuana legalized, actually address discrimination and waged a war to end slavery in its borders? Are you historical illetarate or something?
China economy has been boosted so well due to China accounts about 75% of all Bitcoin mining globally. So crypto investment and trading is one of the best way to boost economy in this 2021
I retired at 67 and have saved $ 1.11 million over the years of my investment in crypto. And I'm grateful to God that at least I retired in good health. I would have been more richer than i am if I had known about crypto earlier
This perspective has deepened my appreciation of Chinese culture. I've always felt there is something in, call it the "Chinese System", that succeeds beyond any single philosophy that overlays it. There isn't any one thing that explains the dogged persistence of Chinese people to succeed in spite of all obstacles. And as a personal observation I am struck at the importance of Family Reputation in maintaining social connections. Yet, for many possibly most Chinese, life remain rather grim. Still there is a sense that China will endure all things.
"Yet, for many possibly most Chinese, life remain rather grim." I don't know what you mean exactly by "grim", but I will say that life has improved significantly for the majority of the people since Deng's reform and opening. My opinion is based on dozens of visits over the years since 2002, direct observations of life in cities and villages across the country, and conversations with countless individuals (including relatives of mine that live in China).
@@SwissCheese112 he described the reform history, I'm in China too, lived in this reform process in 30 years, can't say what he said is not true. region competetion in GDP in 90s, reform in using right of land, legalised private economy, they were part of my life.
@Rightful King of the Poles, Grand Duke of Lithuania Mr. Deng never "deregulated", he reformed agriculture in China. The Chinese government will never lose its grip on essential industries because they are critical for the people's prosperity, these industries are not meant for profit but rather for survival.
@@kabzaify in the US , agricultural “system” is almost private because how ineffective the USDA is . You can reference the movie “Food INC”. Nothing much significant has changed since that.
Townships, Provinces and then Regions competing for GDP instead of profit, such a simple concept but effective. Can you imagine in the US cities control their economy and compete for GDP and as to who improved whose people's lives? Can you imagine that? me too, I can't.
also a bit more than 80% of labor forces work for private sectors, state enterprises only employ less than 20% of labor forces. "The combination of numbers 60/70/80/90 are frequently used to describe the private sector’s contribution to the Chinese economy: they contribute 60% of China’s GDP, and are responsible for 70% of innovation, 80% of urban employment and provide 90% of new jobs. Private wealth is also responsible for 70% of investment and 90% of exports.” Today, China’s private sector contributes nearly two-thirds of the country’s growth and nine-tenths of new jobs, according to the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, an official business group".
It should also be kept in mind that for 100s of years China was the wealthiest and self-sufficient economy possibly in history! Once China was forced to interact with Western Europe it quickly fell from being rich and able to poor and helpless. The same is s true for most of the world to varying degrees. China is leading the way out of the illness of Western domination which is why it's cast as a threat and a villain.
As a foreigner who serves the Chinese, Singaporean and the Hong Kong consumers over the past decade, I can safely say those days where Chinese were found shitting by the streets are gone, where Hong Kongers stupidly belittled China for lack of culture are gone. Their resilience took them through the global culture shock, painstakingly endured the economic change, with more holistic and civic-conscious education. Their values of staying brave in the face of humiliation is something I don’t find in other nations.
At the beginning he says, that China cannot be called a superpower because its per capita GDP is so much lower than the one of the US. So I would like to ask:can the US ever challange the current super power and world hegemon Luxembourg?
China has 4x the people living enmeshed within a much more expensive and difficult surveillance & control system, almost 2x the land borders of the United States (the longest set of land borders in the world, and in a MUCH more hostile and competitive neighborhood, I might add!) and is still making less money than the USA even with nominal figures, let alone taking into account the status & cache the American dollar has which the Yuan simply lacks. China has to spread their money a hell of a lot thinner than the United States.
@@slavemonkey5063 Exept that China's money is not just found in stocks the top 0.1% of the country has. China's money is a way more useful. There is a reason its actually making progress as a country compared to the USA.
@@dekaaizer2550 Er... if you think China is a more equitable and fair society than the United States then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you at a discount price.
@@slavemonkey5063 It's not a question of thinking here. It's hard numbers. 90% to under 1% poverty in 40 years is improving. The USA is crumbling under it's weak system. The USA is already crumbling compared to Europe.
Just some high school sociology/history class material, but now in English and everyone’s impressed. Everyone who didn’t grow up in China but know so much about China, that is.
This guy, I love how he explains it. Really awesome and great listening. This helped explained so much. China is a very interesting country, that's for sure.
Clearly a key focus has been reducing poverty and raising standards of living and their regional competition system seems to have had success, although what happens to the losers? The rapid growth of the private sector suggests that, like the west, wealth and income inequality will become an increasing issue if it isn’t already. Also, how will China contribute to reducing climate change. Accepting that the early heavy lifting will have to be done by richer high consumption countries like the US, Uk, Germany etc., China already makes a high contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and with the planned growth and large population this will only get worse. For me a wellbeing focused or “doughnut” economy would be a better option. All countries need to operate in the safe space between providing wellbeing for their people on the one hand and preventing further climate change and other environmental issues on the other. Richer nations need to reduce consumption to reduce their environmental and climate impacts and poorer nation may need to grow, but sustainably, to improve wellbeing. And, I’m not saying this will be easy, but I believe it is the right solution.
lol it's amazing how people can become experts at things they know very little about. As someone who lived through the late 70s and 80s in China I can tell you a much different and much simpler story. In the early to mid 80s right after the end of the culture revolution the gov. started let small measure of capitalism creep into the economy. It started with letting people run food stands , then they started letting people work their own land. The slogan was let a small number of us get rich first so they can pull the rest with them. As gov. allowed more and more private business the economy got better and better it's as simple as that. I do not dispute the regional competition model but that is hardly the real reason for economic growth.
what you are saying is true, so is regional competition. The two happened in tandem. What you described is the civilian engagement in entrepreneurship, at the city and provincial level the government was competing between each other.
Most remarkably, you managed to explain all this in an entertaining fashion, in only a few sentences. As compared to my watching a 15 minute video at double-playback speed only to hear nothing whatsoever said that isn't already widely known, by anyone who has bothered to cast an eye towards China. I love videos packed with information, and this video wasn't it! I love talking to smart people, and you're one! Congratulations! My head spins in wonderment.
China cannot become rich without western elite help. China failed in economic planning in 1989 which caused civil unrest. Wall Street elite set up China to enrich themselves by giving China easy access to technology and capital. They setup China to launder drug money cartel from south america.
Professor Xu recalls the facts correctly but his overall analysis is lacking. There are 2 important flaws with the picture he is trying to present. Now that he has explained what the world misunderstands, let me explain what he misunderstands. 1) The simple comparisons Professor Xu keeps making between the US and China aren't very meaningful. The context of those comparison aren't given and other comparisons that could help to make things more clear aren't made. China did start at 5% of the US level of per capita GDP in 1950 and growth did not begin to close the gap until much later in the 1980s. The context of this is that China actually grew pretty fast during the 1950s and 1960s but because the US also grew very fast back then there was less catching up done. The prospects of catching up so quickly didn't really materialize until US growth started to slow dramatically post Vietnam war. Also the nature of US growth post Vietnam war became extremely poor because it was largely fueled by asset bubbles and speculative mania. This leads to China actually catching up faster than the figures state during this period. The true extent of which will become more apparent once those US asset bubbles pop. Also during the period of low catch up China was still in tumultuous times. The great leap forward was a set of very large natural disasters compounded by a very poorly designed administrative system exposing the flaw of outright copying soviets systems. The Cultural revolution was a soft civil war of sorts to settle the power vacuum left by the decline of Mao. Together with this there were many other challenges such as the Korean War, the Sino Soviet Split, the reclaiming of Tibet and Xinjiang. It was not until the late 1970s when power was recentralized by Deng and peace was made with the existing superpowers did a long period of peace and tranquility hit China. This combine with slowing US growth and the US search for sources of external labor to solve its stagflation problem gave rise to the fastest relative catch up the world has ever seen. Unlike what the professor says the very low starting point of the Chinese economy was only one factor of many and not the main factor. One can see this easily by comparing China to other developing countries such as India, Brazil, Africa and etc... India had just as low a starting point but it went from roughly the same level as china to being less than 1/5 the level of China today. Most of South America and many parts of Africa basically experienced no catching up at all regardless of where they started in their development level (South America fairly high, Africa fairly low) with only some exceptions due to booms in commodity markets. 2) The Professor's description of the Chinese system while descriptively accurate to a degree misses the actually systemic features of the system which are very important to be able to understand this system relative to other systems. "Regionally Decentralized Totalitarian" is not a very good name to apply to anything given that the term is an oxymoron to begin with. This terms tells me that whoever is using this more for political identification than as a natural description. The Chinese system is not a Totalitarian or Regionally Decentralized system. It has aspects of totalitarianism and aspects of regional decentralization but highlighting these aspects alone is misleading about the total picture of the system. Without needing to invent new terms the Chinese system is just another mix market system. Economically, it is a mixture of central planning and self governed markets. Politically it is a mixture of top down and bottom up administration. The main difference of the Chinese system to other mixed systems is that the mixture is rather deliberate and not just the legacy of a series of historical accidents. The Chinese are central planners that have learned to use decentralized systems to achieve centralized goals. Whenever it picks up a difficult problem to solve it will search for solutions among both centrally planned solutions, decentralized autonomous solutions and a mixture of the two. You can see this clearly when you see how they go about making solutions through trial and error. When you look through this system you will see many innovative applications of decentralized automation in combination with central planning. The delegation of management entities by regions with separated scorecards and universal rankings is one such innovation that this system came up with. (If only this system worked as well in the US school system where it is known as standardized testing.) Finding one of its best most well known innovations and slapping that together with the must have "totalitarian" label is a pretty lazy and misleading way to give a name to a system. The true Chinese system is far more complicated than that. While the Chinese economy looks like all the growth is from the private sector and the public sector only grows through leaching the private sector, this picture is actually deeply flawed. The only way to see things this way is to ignore all the externalities that there are between the public and private sectors. Upon deeper inspection you will see that the two sectors are deeply entwined and mostly symbiotic. Without the externalities that the public sector generates there will be much less growth from the private sector. This is the lesson that the Chinese have learned and why they are unwilling to shrink the public sector further today. When you see Chinese administrators leaving what looks like unprofitable and inefficient public entities standing, you should ask yourself. Are they doing this because of corruption and graft? Or are they doing this because of some externality I don't see? Nine times out of Ten it will be because of the later and not the former. In case you don't realize this, the public sector in China is the implicitly provided social safety net. The Chinse are resisting going from this to an explicit public social safety net because the incentives for people work much better with an implicit rather than an explicit social safety net.
Interesting analysis. It seems that how they govern is more based on practicality than ideology. It reminds me of Deng Xiaoping saying: " It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice". It's amazing to see how a one party state can make major policy shifts, which seems to be impossible in democracies. Do you think this a governance model that is heavily influenced by culture and history rather than ideology , making it distinct and unique, and therefor unfortunatly can't be replicated by other developing nations? Or do you think it's goverance model is one of pure practicality?
@@crosstraffic187 My take would be that there is a large degree to which the Chinese governance model is heavily influenced by its own culture and history but also heavily influenced by foreign ideas and modern realities. To replicate the Chinese model exactly would be impossible but to absorb influences from foreign governance models to shape your own governance model is not only possible but often a good idea. To understand the Chinese political system it is best to start with Historical Chinese political systems. Here it is important to understand the spectrum of historical Chinese political thought. People often mention a list of isms, Confucianism, Legalism, Buddhism, Daoism, Mysticism etc... but without providing their context with each other or how they are applied in practice. The best way I can think of to present these ideas in an insightful way is to use the idea of placing them on a left wing to right wing spectrum. The two major poles that hold up the Chinese political spectrum are "Confucianism" on the left and "Legalism" on the right. Drawing analogies from western thought, "Confucianism" has some similarities to ideas like Socialism, Marxism, Moral Absolutism and Utilitarianism while "Legalism" has some similarity to ideas like Political Realism, Hobbesian view of Human nature, Social Darwinism and Moral Nihilism. You can map Western ideas to this Chinese spectrum or you can map Chinese ideas to the western spectrum. There will be some correlation of left and right ideas from both spectrums but also many exceptions. (For instance Rule of Law is not left or right but a universal in western thought but it is a right wing idea in Chinese thought with a left wing counter idea called rule of virtue. Another good example is Authoritarianism. It is a right wing idea in Western thought but it is a universal in Chinese thought. In Chinese thought however they further differentiate Authoritarianism into Paternalism on the left and Tyranny on the right.) Now that you know this historical context you can see that many things that seem like they changed in China actually stayed the same. The political spectrum in China is as it always was and the government is as it always was, a mixture of Confucian and Legalist, usually leaning more towards Confucian. This shows both how the Chinese were able to change and how they were not able to change. Every society is like this in that there are things that can change and things that can't change. The Chinese example is an illustration of how a society could reform by changing what can be changed around what cannot be changed. There is no way to just copy another society's system unless you are near identical societies. You have to work with what you have. See what pieces you can change and see what other pieces can fit the best. Instead of taking systems as a totality you have to break things down much smaller and play with the parts.
@@georgesiew2758 Thanx for the reply George. So from what I understand from your post is that Chinese governance is heavily influenced from culture and history with a large degree of practicality. The Chinese gov't describes itself as a " socialist country with Chinese characteristics", but from what I understand from your post and what appears to me as an external observer (with a limited vision) is that the emphasis is more on Chinese culture and history rather than on the ideology of socialism or communism. Would that be a fair assessment? I don't know how much power unions have in China or the degree of workers rights. I know there is more of a collectivist mindset and philosophy in China than we have in the West, but alot of posts I read online from what I think are Chinese people (but who can be sure if they are) is that they really don't care about the ideology as long as the gov't gets results. Then my other questions would be: 1/ Is China moving towards or is it a capitalist model ? and 2/ Would the Chinese people accept this model? It's clear that the Chinese gov't thinks that democracy is an antiquated system. They may be right. But what kind of economic system they will ultimately accept is still not clear to me. I've seen a video clip where a Chinese investor discribed the Chinese position to European industrialists and policy makers as such :" China is a socialist country. The Chinese people will not allow moneyed interests to take over and control government". That is clearly a socialist governance stance. But does that mean they will or have the will to move toward a socialist economic model? Is there any evidence of this?
@@crosstraffic187 There are many questions and misconceptions to clear up here. Let me do this one at a time in a Q/A format to make it less confusing. Q1) Do the Chinese draw it's social model more from it's own culture and history or more from socialism/communism. A1) From the perspective of the Chinese government and people they don't actually consciously draw anything from Chinese history or culture. The real power of culture it is an internalized force that acts on people with or without their knowledge of it. Put in another way culture is just a manifestation of how people are. Chinese people are governed by their culture whether they like it or not. They don't really have a choice in the matter. So the answer is yes the Chinese do draw a lot from their own culture and history but this isn't actually conscious or intentional. As for "Is this more or less than they draw from socialism/communism"? To answer that you have to understand what Chinese socialism/communism is to the Chinese. To us it is just a modernized version of the social vision from classical Chinese Political thought. Marxism is borrowed to package these old ideas with the legitimacy of modern scientific thinking. Q2) Are Unions an influential part of Chinese social discourse and to what degree do people galvanize around worker's rights? A2) Unions are not influential in Chinese social discourse and worker's rights is not a major social issue for most people. The Chinese don't organize around the same ideas and structure that westerner's do. To the extent people care about social justice which they do, there is no primacy around the issue of worker's rights. Chinese people are as likely to get angry about any number of perceived unethical behaviors. Abusing of workers is not any more special of a thing than anything else. Chinese workers fall into public and private sector workers. Public sector workers were always treated well with their organizations being run more like cooperatives with workers often having a lot of influence on management. Private sector workers on the other hand are not always treated well but because of how lucrative the private sector is with China's high growth most of the highest paying jobs are in the private sector. Given the large size of both sectors, Chinese workers often have a choice between better treatment and greater security or higher pay and greater insecurity. The appeal to unionize doesn't really exist. Q3) Do Chinese people care about ideology or they just care about results? A3) Chinese people absolutely care about ideology just not western ideologies. Ethics has always held a very high if not the highest importance in Chinese society. If you violate those ethics then you skate on thin ice with everyone. However those ethics wouldn't mean much to a western observer and you would easily get the mistaken notion that Chinese people don't care about ethics which is the farthest thing from the truth. Put in another way Chinese people judge the Chinese government based on Chinese ethics. As someone unfamiliar with Chinese ethics this reality may completely elude you. Q4) Are the Chinese moving towards a capitalist model or a socialist model? A4) The Chinese are staying with a mixed market model. After much debate and experimentation the government and the people are quite happy with the close to 50-50 mix they have now. Chinese politics is usually a close system to money when the empire is strong and an open system to money when the empire is weak. When Chinese empires become weak and suffer budget shortfalls it often resorts to selling off the political system for money. Usually this leads to a future loss of revenue (through corruption) for a short term gain in revenue (money collected from selling political offices). The empire is currently strong enough to not give in to this temptation.
What was the incentive for the cities/provinces to rank higher? Were they the same for each level? And if it was a reward, how did the government repel unequal growth through unfair starts , i.e. where the winners' reward advantaged them for the next ranking season?
Priority for economic and political resource. That's the incentive. More recource leads to better conditions which leads to better rankings which also attracts more talents. Whether you are a local government offical, or an ordinary citizen, you want your own city or region to be ahead. That's the engine to fuel the growth. Simply put, Competition! that's all there is. It's in human nature. This has always been the way. The competition is fierce. Unequal growth has always been a problem, but the root of China is CPC and socialists. If somewhere gets too far behind, the central government almost always redirect resources to fix problems. Or you could say level the playing fields to a point that everyone is still competitive. The role for the CPC is to keep this competition healthy, so it can keep going.
@@DetectiveBlackCat Thanks for replying. No passive aggression being thrown, but could you give me some writings or essays you know reporting this. Just want to learn more.
The incentive was leaders who perform and rank higher will get promoted. Current leaders like Xi Jinping moved up the rank this way. It kind of works like a corporation
The key here is that the fully objective regional competitions and rankings are what determines who rises to higher political office. So China had the most meritocratic governmental matriculation system in existence, having neither the personal infighting and purging of the Soviet system, nor the shallow popularity contest of the Democratic west. This was even reflected in a de facto term limit and orderly decadal generational handing over of power at the top most level. But this meritocratic system has been fatally compromised by Xi's total control and abolition of term limits, this threatens to re-Soviet the Chinese system in which loyalty and purging rather then merit determine leadership.
Xi and the CCP understands that China is on the verge of being destroyed by the US. Any transfer of governance will only become the weak point to be targeted by the US. Suppress the US in the coming decade, then and only then can we talk about transfer of power.
@@limitlesssky3050 Nope, you're wrong, corruption is especially pronounced is some countries and it's simply invalid statement to brush off corruption as "happening everywhere anyway".
Private sector in China is not a monopoly. It's local people working with business to improve through innovation and compete as a team with other cities doing the same. The ultimate goal is to involve all the society in participating to advance the whole society. Money is not the goal for individuals It's a better life for everyone!!! This is true social equality. Americans are striving for this but unlike the Chinese government who promote it, our government is standing in the way of the people's wishes to achieve this equality.
If that's true why doesn't China have an immigration problem like the US does? Why do so many Chinese still abandon China to live in the West (including the US)? Why do so many Chinese people send their children to the West to be educated? Even Xi Jinping the President (Dictator) of China sent his daughter to be educated at Harvard University in the United States. Anyone familiar with the China of today knows that money is everything to the Chinese. The secret of China's success is it's dependency on what can only be described as virtual slave labour. China's real contribution to the world is terrible human rights abuses & horrendous levels of pollution.
India followed a centrally planned economic model till 1991. The economy later embraced capitalism to follow rapid growth for 3 decades. Still, long long way to go
Most of the Africa countries and Latin America countries have embraced capitalism， and most of them are failed countries. Capitalism is not the key reason for a successful economy at all.
@@akashin6385 except that no country actually practised socialism, i.e. workers control of production. certainly the eastern bloc didn't practise any of it, germany had more socialism with its strong unions and labour representation on company boards.
That why extreme increase. But the disappointing from labors can not express. The confederate use the dictatorship system for agriculture productions in 7 colonies also the same.
2,600 years ago, Sun Tzu said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." I believe recent China has been following his lesson. Knowing your state-level enemies thoroughly means you have to study them very hard for a long time while gaining useful knowledge from them and applying it to yourself.
@@fonziwang executive branch of the government: A prefecture (from the Latin Praefectura) is an administrative jurisdiction traditionally governed by an appointed.you have "prefectures" in russia, france, the usa, canada, china ... all nations have "prefectures"
@@4x4r974 It is a simple management "by objective" by key performance indicators (KPI) which measure your political performances, as a simple company does.the idea is also to put the different jurisdictions in competition, this is the best way to create prosperity.Deng Xiaoping (邓小平), seeing the corruption and immobility, copied Lee Kuan Yew by creating economic zones in China sheltered from lazy officials and bureaucrats!we also want in europe and the US, economic zones sheltered from tax predators (police, firefighters, bureaucrats etc ...)
@@chase5177 , Most people who find meritocracy distasteful because of past personal experience! Notwithstanding the fact that such an approach is deemed too demanding on many people but as proven over and over again, there is no better alternative at the moment to ensure people with better "understanding of the environment" will be empowered to manage the system. Such environment coupled with centuries of practice seems to make the Chinese people hungrier to try to achieve material gain. That is all. And they are not saying you can't enter the "competition"!
Damn, this is such a simple statement that cuts directly to the point .. I wonder if there will ever be an “open system with an open mind“ .. & who has the chance to create that.
If China has an "open mind' why do the Chinese have to depend on ideas, innovations & technologies created by non-Chinese people? If China has an 'open mind' & the US has a 'closed mind' why has the US won hundreds of Nobel prizes & China has very few in comparison? Why do so many Chinese send their children to be educated in the US? Even Xi Jinping sent his daughter to be educated at Harvard University in the United States. Where is this Chinese 'open mind'? It's obvious if one looks at the evidence objectively that China has not only a 'closed system' with a 'closed mind' but a mind locked in a prison. A very sad situation indeed.
@@autodidact537 The fact that Xi Jinping sends his daughter to the US to study shows the open mindedness of the Chinese system and people. It shows how much the Chinese understands and knows the outside world while the Western world knows next to nothing about the true China within.
@@autodidact537 You're so funny AutoD! Not sure if you have ever thought things right through but here's one to start off with: when the US got independence from GB it pretty much took on all the innovations and technologies created by GB and others in Europe and as such got off to a good start. See there was no IP rights back then which was sort of lucky (for the US) no?
When mentioning GDP from the USA, one has to consider the vast amount of economic bubbles there. For example, a small operation costs only few hundreds dollars in China, while it could cost 20 times or even higher in the states. Let alone meaningless lawsuits, lobbys.... All of these contribute to the GDP of the USA, but not to improving people's living standard. In comparison, China's GDP is solid, made up of "real" changes that indeed improve people's living standard! For example, the Shanghai has a GDP per Capita that is still way far away from the poorest counties in the USA. But if you compare the living standards (education, life expectancy, financial saving, personal properties) between Shanghai and any an US city, Shanghai can even beat New York city in many ways.
excellent presentation and explanation of recent chinese economic/cultural history. I wonder if the contamination and defilement of Chinese agricultural land and water was a product of the shift to privatization/management of the resource or if this had been going on for years before the shift ....
I deeply appreciated that 40 years ago, normal Chinese people did not know how poor we were, how desperate low GDP per capita we had (top 3 in the world..), otherwise, we would not have brave to start our catch-up HISTORY. We could never think that we can arrive here, with GDP per capita >12000 USD this year. We are far from developed countries, that is true, but we started from the level of poorest African countries.
@@ecitb3005 PPP is nonsense, no one really cares about PPP, yes, the price is lower in poor countries for some products, but for international goods, traveling to foreign countries, it really depends on nominal GDP per capita.
@@ecitb3005 Then why does the US have an immigration problem and China doesn't? Why do so many Chinese people continue to abandon China for a better life in Western countries? People vote with their feet, and they don't vote for China. WHY?
30 years of unparalleled economic growth in China was also chronicled by an average 20+ percent growth y.o.y. of manufactured goods exports in the same period. Most of these goods were exported to the US in the first decade and the world followed suite. China was able to organise production in this way because of central direction administered locally. Decentralisation is normally viewed as a bottom up not top down approach. This challenges the decentralisation semantic here. Regional cooperation is also better than regional competition especially when it comes to sharing resources. In terms of services perhaps competition brings out the best in people. Also Chinese still import food. So their food system perhaps needs to be reworked? Depends on what the priorities are.
Centralisation is better for efficient decision making and action, but worse for contextual planning and providing for the specific needs of each region. A mix and interchange of the two is often the ideal.
He is wrong in saying the private sector wasn't "legal" until 2002/04. Not fully institutionalized, maybe. Not explicitly politically endorsed, maybe. But definitely LEGAL.
Mee Choy Owner of the Lemon Grass Restaurant and the Bar across from the restaurant is a Great Proprietor. 20 years I’ve known this man. Aloha 13 years I played piano and sang. Taiwan,Mandarin Chinese,Filipino,Japanese and of course Hawaiian. I know Larry Rivera. KAMALANI. Most beautiful song ever IvoMonroeMiller
regional competition sounds much more robust than profit maximization. Now you can just replace profit with sustainable growth and the machine will churn out the new equilibrium whereas the capitalist system has to deconstruct itself to the core and reevaluate all its categorical imperatives... ccp algo ftw
@Nova Flares why do our corporations keep offshoring american labor if democracy can stop it, it's because the USA is not democratic, it is plutocratic.
Before we get too ahead of ourselves. China gdp per capita is 10K vs the US at almost 60K. There is still a long way to go. Corruption within the local governments is the main cause of this. and not because American workers are way more productive than Chinese workers.
@Nova Flares roughly half of China's economy is run by private sector and other half by the government. Private sector is heavily regulated. It would be a stretch to call it capitalist.
An interesting way to govern and I can see the benefits. However, most of the people would not understand. For a long time, the soviets believed that the Chinese would show them how the “true” shared and state own economy should be implemented. I believe that today we live those days.
@@jrodriguezquiros just the Chinese and other businesses demand yuan. the dollar demand is partly artificial. International transactions are done in dollars especially oil. Once we lose that privilege the dollar is done
@@Michael-st9ky I agree with your logic, BUT when will the US lose that privilege is the big question. In order to be a real big player you need without question an highly accepted reserve curreny … China is lacking that, even with their cryptocurrency they lack the confidence needed by major trade partners.
Fascinating and very informative. Here in the West, we only get a black white type of ‘explanation’. We can’t conceive an economic system beyond our very own, with enormous concentration by now the Fortune 200, twenty years previously the Fortune 300 and early 1970.’s, the Fortune 500. So we have enormous concentration but dress- up as a competitive system which now it isn’t. Along with this enormous concentration very little accrues to the general population.
No seed can germinate without fertile soil. Prof Xu mentions role of the cultural revolution as a precursor to China's economic miracle. Such a short video cannot do justice to the complex subject of the largest country's transformation. It will be nice to see a multi part series looking at various threads of this phenomenon.
Great per. Also important people realise China has done very well but still has room to improve how and what it does. Everyone dislikes the normal propoganda and bs attitude expressed too often. As an Australian i look forward to China restoring trust and joining the merit based economy politically.
unfortunately, the anglo nations have proved themselves utterly untrustworthy. It'll need a thorough regime change in the USA before the anglo economies and political systems can begin to rid themselves of corruption.
1/20 to 1/4 change in personal wealth compared to the USA is a beneficial economic measure of success. However, both countries are running economies that consume too much carbon. Do economists bother to consider the limits of economic growth that climate change is imposing on humanity? The rising rates of carbon emissions say otherwise. The USA and other nations have to reduce their consumption and China/India have to reduce their consumption and population. Economists need to start teaching sustainable environmentalism in economic classes.
I fully agree. In the future I guess externalities will be more readily included in (comparative) economic analyses and evaluations like this one. To advance economics and economic teaching this should be pushed to play a more central role now. My own economics degree is probably a good example for this issue. My final paper is concerned with environmental/sustainability issues, and some of my docents are doing great research in concerning fields, but it still plays only a peripheral role in the curriculum - mostly only being mentioned parenthetically in every course.
Firstly this Climate Change is just a hogwash. Let the West First undo all the climate damage and also stop buying from polluting factories (buy to save money). Then we talk.
@@roshanthapa8487 climate change is relative to past stability. and it has been verified. carbon absorvation technology could drastically revert it though.
It's good to see that China thought outside the box. I wished the US would think of think of something better besides in fighting and printing money for dumb stuff
Basically the person (and his team partners so to speak) who made that progression happened get promoted in the Party thus having the opportunity to work in a higher level of government.
It’s like corporate KPI. Their good performance can get them better positions within the party. Bad kpi would get them low rating in the system and be marked as incompetent, hence be relocated to insignificant positions such as the workers union.
His accent tells me that he is from Northern China, and his command of English, while far from perfect, is good enough for a topic like this. He has probably stayed in U.S. for a few years.
It’s more than “good enough”, it’s well above average, he has taken the the time & effort to spell out in laymen’s terms for the benefit of a wider audience.
@@sterrshow5016 The west has become highly dependent on material resources from china because they have only focused on financial capital wich is not based on the actual material basis wich Industries rely upon, they outsourced Industry to third world countries, like china used to be, they expropriated themselves and now they see the consequences and act hostile to china. You can't base a Economy on non existent Resources, financial crisis every decade is the Consequence.
You are not taking in to account the fact China is MASSIVELY more huge then USSR in population. So you have to take that in to account when comparing these numbers or any GDP numbers. Billion+ people in China they are huge
Steve Kotkin said that capitalism in China was a consequence of the cultural revolution that removed the administrative state that supervised trade. Therefore, when the economic planners were sent to the fields to pick up potatoes, the farmers were left without the trade police. So, they started trading without supervision, based on the real value of goods and not the one established by the state by fiat. Deng did not promote any freedom, he just admitted the reality on the ground because he realized that there was no way to bring the pre-1964 era back. Capitalism was a creation, indirect although, of the most extreme form of communism. I can see both Marx and Adam Smith saying WTF!
The early focus in the talk about relative GDP levels hides some important differences; western economies have largely become financialsed service sector economies and run large trade deficits. The GDP versus real incomes show that in the west money (wealth) is being transferred to the top deciles, while in China manufacturing is producing more and better jobs. The lesson is that neoliberal economic theory is fatally and deliberately flawed to allow for imperialism and plunder capitalism.
There's no doubt China has achieved a lot economically and in terms of progress on poverty reduction. That being said, GDP is an extremely limited measure of overall progress for countries. It is a measure of economy activity, not a measure of whether or not that activity actually benefits people and the planet or detracts from it. Globally, there is a shift happening towards also measuring other important things, like employment rate, productivity, social health and wellness, social cohesion, crime, pollution, economic participation, diversity and inclusion, etc. By measuring these kinds of things, we get a much deeper and broader insight into how well a country is really developing, and how much people are benefitting from key plans, investments etc in the public and private sectors.
There are FOUR REASONS why Chinese statistics do NOT reflect the underlying economic activity 1. Deliberate fabrication by local governments 2. Both productive and unproductive investments add up to GDP’s value, in spite of the fact that unproductive investments do not create valuable economic activity. In China, because of the government’s heavy involvement in the economy, trillions of dollars in wasted investments are counted in GDP 3. The Chinese government, due to the lack of appropriate mark-to-market mechanism, doesn’t write down bad debts (investments recognized as wasted) 4. China’s GDP is a measure of political intention, not economic activity
@@lwilson5594 The point I wanted to state and ensure people understand. If it was not for Mao China would still look like places in Africa or Latin America. The unity and reform was needed. All nations have bad and good history, USA, Europe and etc. The Dark times sometimes turn into light or remain dark, China was able to rise to a higher position and forge itself a path towards Power and Control. Great news for China and all three leaders are very important and Most important the determine Chinese people. They are focus on the Mission of correcting their decline and becoming the powerful nation they were before, this element needs to be highlighted also. It takes a good leader and good people. Mao, Deng, Xi are all important with a constant support of people. Mao made China Unified, Deng made china Economically successful and Xi will make China Powerful
China's attempt on industrialization was also started by Mao. He got the deal with Soviet in the early 50's, then another deal with Richard Nixon in the early 70's. Deng was only walking his path. And cultural revolution was for the people to take back the country from the top 1%, the Capitalist Roader Gang. A true pro-democracy movement. Deng made China economically successful, in a way, yes, but also he's the man made China deeply corrupted, because he's one of the leaders of the Capitalist Roader Gang. Xi is not the one who made China powerful. He became the leader when China became powerful. Military/economic achievements are the results of decades of effort, so it's unfair to give credit to Xi only. However, Xi should be the one purifies the Communism party, and save China from the roader gang. Xi, an absolute Maoist, is now doing what Mao did before.
@@huanglong08 Great reply and I would love to find more about his information and view. I'm from Western countries so the only information I get the usual but I'm very understanding of the western power and when they lie about the truth. It always made sense of what you said, for me it is simple. When Western power support a leader like Deng then I knew there was element about him which they prefer and was not good for China by default.. I just never heard of this gang. I will do more research and the more information which is not Anti China will be great because it is hard for me to find on the internet.
when people say super power, they dont only mean economically. there are countries with higher gdp per capita.. but they arent considered as superpowers bc they dont have enough population to be a military superpower
I did not expect that there is a continuity from the Cultural Revolution through Deng Xiao Ping's reforms to today's economic structure and achievments. This is the best I have heard about the Chinese economic system for years. Thank you!
This can be misleading.. Talking about cultural revolution, which was the idea of Mao and communist party, and while there was poverty before, there wasn't the kind of poverty of 10s of millions of starving Chinese, which was in huge part to blame on that very communist party. He even made the distinction himself.
He is talking about last 30 years, since Chine let their citizens have private businesses. Even today, it's still not completely capitalistic, since past a certain point, once your business becomes big enough, you either join the party or you make a risk of it being taken away by someone in the party at some point. So basically it started bad, got worse, then partly private sector becomes possible, then growth. It's not a continuation, it's a partial change 30 years ago.
edit. should really emphasize the starting point, just like he did. It was worse then if you didn't have central planning. There is a saying in my country that says.. "working as hard as Chinese", but it's not a compliment to the business you are working for. It means long hours, certainly hard work, for miserable pay. The "Chine miracle" was built on almost wage slave levels of getting paid. It also means, you don't really have much choice.
@@relight6931 China hasn’t had a famine since the Great Leap Forward, and Deng himself acknowledged that the cultural revolution set the groundwork for the growth seen since, and much of that growth began before Deng came to power.
And the nature of private business in China is a lot more complicated than the picture you paint. The purpose of opening up was to bring foreign capital and technology under the utilization of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to grow productive forces.
The subordination of large business to the CPC has helped China grow faster than any private system has or could ever accomplish, and the state has made sure the growth has resulted in poverty alleviation on a scale never seen in the history of mankind instead of powerful monopolies exerting control over the economy and political system like western bourgeois countries.
@@lentoperoavanzo4007 ok, thanks for much more comprehensive picture. We are not in a disagreement. The thing about having control over the largest business which would become just self sutaining monopolies is an interesting point I haven't thought about earlier. So thanks for that too, I just got irritated with the description of the whole video as "continuation" of economic progress, since cultural revolution (and giant leap forward was part of this process, or am I wrong), which we both noticed and proff especially mentioned, was responsible for incredibly low starting pointx making the difference between starting point and today, that much more pronaunced.
That's 50ies and 60ies. i was just irritated since from OP you would think it was all connected and today was the result over time, instead of completely different policies, especially making private sector legal being actual reason.
My comment was over simplified, erroneous, almost as bad as Op. Thanks for your effort in my education.
@@relight6931 中国在被西方压榨过后（清朝时期），又经历了二十年的战争，国家已经已经很贫弱了。经济发展不是一蹴而就的事情。。。建国后烂摊子一大堆，但中国共产党在这一时期完成最重要的两件事：1、土地改革（原来的土地是归地主所有，农民为他们干活，改革后每个人都拥有了土地，这是冲撞了很多人经济利益的事情）2、奠定了工业基础；我们常说：磨刀不负砍柴工。在别人看来所谓的“中国奇迹”，是由三十年的积累与布局实现的。而“中国奇迹”背后的人，在西方看来，是“奴隶、无人权、工资低、可怜”的代名词，但你不知道中国原来大多数是佃农（帮别人种地无资产的人）可以在自己的土地上为自己种地（或为自己工作）的兴奋，他们从来没有埋怨过。文化大革命是错误的，就像人难免犯错一样，总结经验以后不发生这样就好，路要向前走。
That's Historical Materialism baby!!
Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing. A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"
That was deep dawg
nah, that's a shady accountant. I mean the economist is just a clever accountant.
yes
Playground Equipment, The kids waiting in line to play, and the entire Playground System.
The people who see economist as "greedy" and "souless" often know nothing about economy.
That's your case.
There was a difference in focus. Before the late 70s, the main focus was to prepare for the next war or revolution, hence the production capacity did not produce much that can be measured by modern economic metrics.
For example, to prepare for an invasion against the USSR, project "Third Front" was initiated in 1964, i.e. splitting research institutes and factories into multiple units and moving those units from major cities into the mountains and far reaching countryside. Another symbolic project was the R&D of nuclear weapons and its launching systems, i.e. ICBMs. Such enormous projects had contributed absolutely nothing to this so called GDP growth, but were carried out purely from a survival standpoint.
What Deng Xiaoping did in the late 70s was to switch China from a war/revolution mode to an economic development mode, as he anticipated a rather peaceful global environment, i.e. no WW3 were to happen in the coming 30-40 years. The rest is history...
This guy's view is pretty ridiculous, he has made it sounds like China was nothing, and bang! Everything showed up out of nowhere during the 80s, a textbook neoliberal narrative, which fits his resume quite well.
A few very simple metrics that should be taken into context, 1) the live expectancy in China was about 40 years in 1949, and it went up to 65 in 1979; 2) the literacy rate in china in 1949 was around 20% and it went up to 70% in 1979. There are countless metrics like these, that have greatly contributed to the economical development of China in the past 40+ years, intentionally leaving them out is a great injustice to say the least.
Deng Xiaoping was China's best leader, Education was a big focus, Xi has ended this vision.
So true! I was thinking the same points. China didn't even have a standardised language and script before the Mao era. Not to mention rampant lawlessness, warlords and highway robbers across the vast hinterland and countryside. Things were bad during the Mao era for sure. However they were worse before. Compared to countries like India which couldn't achieve even half of what China could do from 1950 to 1980. There were dacoits attacking in the suburbs of Delhi even in the early 80s!
@Bringette Awnn gratz, you have gotten nothing right, what an achievement 😂
@Bringette Awnn unfortunately you are the troll here😂 but enjoy your stay anyways🤣
Deng went to Singapore and learned how to run an economy and implemented it in China , free market capitalism he changed it's name to socialism with chinese characteristics so he wouldn't get lynched by his politburo.
He predicted "a rather peaceful global environment" is prob Chinese propaganda cause nobody can predict the future.
So good to get a very good explanation/account of China’s economic development that provides much insight rather than the usual journalistic account. This is really informative.
Chenggang Xu received his PhD in Economics from Harvard University in 1991.
Chenggang's research is in political economics, institutional economics, law and economics, development economics, transition economics and the Chinese political economy. 5:14
Prof. Xu is one of the first recipients of China Economics Prize for contributions in understanding government and enterprise incentive mechanisms for the transition economy of China. He introduced the concept of characterizing China’s institution, “regionally decentralized authoritarianism (RDA),” as a determinant factor of China’s past 30 years of successful reform.
Source: Asia Global Institute; FSI Stanford; Institute for New Economic Thinking
China’s political-economic institution: Regionally decentralized authoritarianism (RDA)
Chenggang Xu
Source: Oxford Academic
Mr.Xu's explanations are well-articulated and being developped in a clear way. Look forward to the next part.
Refreshingly free of any propaganda and preconceived notions.
Nice to see david david
Meanwhile, China is claiming its economy is growing while it has bank-runs everywhere and bans withdrawals from many of its banks
He just bs.
China economy is enabled by Wall Street elite using VIE scam.
Without Wall Street elite China econony end in recession. Look at 1989 for clues.
Prof. Xu is the World’s best economist in explaining Chinese economic history, progressing, and future tendency.
Definitely needs a part 2. Awesome interview
This is dialectics in actions. Material analysis leads to theory, theory leads to practice, which leads to analysis of material conditions. Any society that loses this agility to self correct and experiment is doomed.
Lul self correction happen in any society. Even the worse dictatorships practice it. You are literally praisng something for doing its job.
Isn't this just regular economic analysis and theorizing? Not sure what work the terms "material conditions"/"material analysis" is adding here...
@@royalewithcheese17 it doesn't. Marx's critique of Hegel attempts to exclude _geist_ and reduce history to dialectics of material circumstances only.
@@citus333
>self correction happen in any society.
*ring ring* this is america calling
@@daishan1234 You mean the country who managed to get marijuana legalized, actually address discrimination and waged a war to end slavery in its borders? Are you historical illetarate or something?
This was absolutely great. But at the same time, it only feels like Part I.
I agree, it seems that there's more to it...
China economy has been boosted so well due to China accounts about 75% of all Bitcoin mining globally. So crypto investment and trading is one of the best way to boost economy in this 2021
Crypto should be on every wise individuals list. In a few years you will be esctatic about the decision you make today
I retired at 67 and have saved $ 1.11 million over the years of my investment in crypto. And I'm grateful to God that at least I retired in good health. I would have been more richer than i am if I had known about crypto earlier
@@nathancook8325 have always wanted to invest but have heard about many lost. I'm scared; need someone to guide me here
Amazing analysis. This is why I love this channel. This definitely needs a Part II.
This perspective has deepened my appreciation of Chinese culture. I've always felt there is something in, call it the "Chinese System", that succeeds beyond any single philosophy that overlays it. There isn't any one thing that explains the dogged persistence of Chinese people to succeed in spite of all obstacles. And as a personal observation I am struck at the importance of Family Reputation in maintaining social connections. Yet, for many possibly most Chinese, life remain rather grim. Still there is a sense that China will endure all things.
"Yet, for many possibly most Chinese, life remain rather grim."
I don't know what you mean exactly by "grim", but I will say that life has improved significantly for the majority of the people since Deng's reform and opening.
My opinion is based on dozens of visits over the years since 2002, direct observations of life in cities and villages across the country, and conversations with countless individuals (including relatives of mine that live in China).
False hopes and sheer numbers will be their own downfall regardless
@@pinchebruha405 you're hoping for a downfall of 1.4 billion people. Almost one fifth of all humanity. How nice...
Fantastic summary of the economic reform in China.
I love the way he randomly smiles in syncopation with his sentences
Ruben said syncopation. He is super smart.
@@Frip36 Fuck yeah!
randomly smiling for no reason or only smiling when something unpleasant is said, i've always found to be a bit psychotic
@@emanate0 how about when someone laughs after almost everything they say
@@Frip36 some underlying mental issues mos def
A very articulate explanation Prof. “ in English!” Thank you for sharing a valuable insight.
Thank you professor and NET for sharing!
Very insightful I learn a lot from this very articulate gentleman
doesn't mean its true, he's in china after all.
@@SwissCheese112 he described the reform history, I'm in China too, lived in this reform process in 30 years, can't say what he said is not true. region competetion in GDP in 90s, reform in using right of land, legalised private economy, they were part of my life.
Begin by ensuring a strong agricultural industry, to feed the people domestically, and take the next steps by reforming overall economic policies.
@Rightful King of the Poles, Grand Duke of Lithuania Mr. Deng never "deregulated", he reformed agriculture in China. The Chinese government will never lose its grip on essential industries because they are critical for the people's prosperity, these industries are not meant for profit but rather for survival.
@@wisl8122 Agriculture should never be viewed from profits first
@@kabzaify in the US , agricultural “system” is almost private because how ineffective the USDA is . You can reference the movie “Food INC”. Nothing much significant has changed since that.
@India numba 1, U.S. numba 1, Chyna loser country! Trying to distract from Modi's disaster?
@Black Jock ru really a Jock :)
Townships, Provinces and then Regions competing for GDP instead of profit, such a simple concept but effective. Can you imagine in the US cities control their economy and compete for GDP and as to who improved whose people's lives? Can you imagine that? me too, I can't.
It'd be like sports rivalries except we'd actually have the fruits of our labor.
also a bit more than 80% of labor forces work for private sectors, state enterprises only employ less than 20% of labor forces. "The combination of numbers 60/70/80/90 are frequently used to describe the private sector’s contribution to the Chinese economy: they contribute 60% of China’s GDP, and are responsible for 70% of innovation, 80% of urban employment and provide 90% of new jobs. Private wealth is also responsible for 70% of investment and 90% of exports.” Today, China’s private sector contributes nearly two-thirds of the country’s growth and nine-tenths of new jobs, according to the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, an official business group".
It should also be kept in mind that for 100s of years China was the wealthiest and self-sufficient economy possibly in history!
Once China was forced to interact with Western Europe it quickly fell from being rich and able to poor and helpless. The same is s true for most of the world to varying degrees.
China is leading the way out of the illness of Western domination which is why it's cast as a threat and a villain.
As a foreigner who serves the Chinese, Singaporean and the Hong Kong consumers over the past decade, I can safely say those days where Chinese were found shitting by the streets are gone, where Hong Kongers stupidly belittled China for lack of culture are gone. Their resilience took them through the global culture shock, painstakingly endured the economic change, with more holistic and civic-conscious education. Their values of staying brave in the face of humiliation is something I don’t find in other nations.
China has an insanely calculated economy. great vid, very informative.
Should share this with everyone and their kids ( where applicable) who ruled India post independence.
At the beginning he says, that China cannot be called a superpower because its per capita GDP is so much lower than the one of the US. So I would like to ask:can the US ever challange the current super power and world hegemon Luxembourg?
yea, the GDP per capita comparison is for sure an incomplete way to compare relative international political power.
China has 4x the people living enmeshed within a much more expensive and difficult surveillance & control system, almost 2x the land borders of the United States (the longest set of land borders in the world, and in a MUCH more hostile and competitive neighborhood, I might add!) and is still making less money than the USA even with nominal figures, let alone taking into account the status & cache the American dollar has which the Yuan simply lacks. China has to spread their money a hell of a lot thinner than the United States.
@@slavemonkey5063 Exept that China's money is not just found in stocks the top 0.1% of the country has. China's money is a way more useful. There is a reason its actually making progress as a country compared to the USA.
@@dekaaizer2550 Er... if you think China is a more equitable and fair society than the United States then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you at a discount price.
@@slavemonkey5063 It's not a question of thinking here. It's hard numbers. 90% to under 1% poverty in 40 years is improving. The USA is crumbling under it's weak system. The USA is already crumbling compared to Europe.
It's really a good analysis of the Chineses economy.
Great insights into China's system. We need more of this!
Just some high school sociology/history class material, but now in English and everyone’s impressed. Everyone who didn’t grow up in China but know so much about China, that is.
This a brilliant insight into the Chinese economic miracle.
This guy, I love how he explains it. Really awesome and great listening. This helped explained so much. China is a very interesting country, that's for sure.
Clearly a key focus has been reducing poverty and raising standards of living and their regional competition system seems to have had success, although what happens to the losers? The rapid growth of the private sector suggests that, like the west, wealth and income inequality will become an increasing issue if it isn’t already. Also, how will China contribute to reducing climate change. Accepting that the early heavy lifting will have to be done by richer high consumption countries like the US, Uk, Germany etc., China already makes a high contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and with the planned growth and large population this will only get worse.
For me a wellbeing focused or “doughnut” economy would be a better option. All countries need to operate in the safe space between providing wellbeing for their people on the one hand and preventing further climate change and other environmental issues on the other. Richer nations need to reduce consumption to reduce their environmental and climate impacts and poorer nation may need to grow, but sustainably, to improve wellbeing. And, I’m not saying this will be easy, but I believe it is the right solution.
lol it's amazing how people can become experts at things they know very little about. As someone who lived through the late 70s and 80s in China I can tell you a much different and much simpler story. In the early to mid 80s right after the end of the culture revolution the gov. started let small measure of capitalism creep into the economy. It started with letting people run food stands , then they started letting people work their own land. The slogan was let a small number of us get rich first so they can pull the rest with them. As gov. allowed more and more private business the economy got better and better it's as simple as that. I do not dispute the regional competition model but that is hardly the real reason for economic growth.
what you are saying is true, so is regional competition. The two happened in tandem. What you described is the civilian engagement in entrepreneurship, at the city and provincial level the government was competing between each other.
Most remarkably, you managed to explain all this in an entertaining fashion, in only a few sentences. As compared to my watching a 15 minute video at double-playback speed only to hear nothing whatsoever said that isn't already widely known, by anyone who has bothered to cast an eye towards China. I love videos packed with information, and this video wasn't it! I love talking to smart people, and you're one! Congratulations! My head spins in wonderment.
@@LinasVepstas You forgot the part where an intellectual argument starts with 'lol' is surely going to be an educational banger.
@@iLiveOnFijiTime lol (edit: yes, I agree. The smartest people know how to be funny, among other talents.)
China cannot become rich without western elite help.
China failed in economic planning in 1989 which caused civil unrest.
Wall Street elite set up China to enrich themselves by giving China easy access to technology and capital. They setup China to launder drug money cartel from south america.
Professor Xu recalls the facts correctly but his overall analysis is lacking. There are 2 important flaws with the picture he is trying to present. Now that he has explained what the world misunderstands, let me explain what he misunderstands.
1) The simple comparisons Professor Xu keeps making between the US and China aren't very meaningful. The context of those comparison aren't given and other comparisons that could help to make things more clear aren't made.
China did start at 5% of the US level of per capita GDP in 1950 and growth did not begin to close the gap until much later in the 1980s. The context of this is that China actually grew pretty fast during the 1950s and 1960s but because the US also grew very fast back then there was less catching up done. The prospects of catching up so quickly didn't really materialize until US growth started to slow dramatically post Vietnam war. Also the nature of US growth post Vietnam war became extremely poor because it was largely fueled by asset bubbles and speculative mania. This leads to China actually catching up faster than the figures state during this period. The true extent of which will become more apparent once those US asset bubbles pop.
Also during the period of low catch up China was still in tumultuous times. The great leap forward was a set of very large natural disasters compounded by a very poorly designed administrative system exposing the flaw of outright copying soviets systems. The Cultural revolution was a soft civil war of sorts to settle the power vacuum left by the decline of Mao. Together with this there were many other challenges such as the Korean War, the Sino Soviet Split, the reclaiming of Tibet and Xinjiang. It was not until the late 1970s when power was recentralized by Deng and peace was made with the existing superpowers did a long period of peace and tranquility hit China. This combine with slowing US growth and the US search for sources of external labor to solve its stagflation problem gave rise to the fastest relative catch up the world has ever seen.
Unlike what the professor says the very low starting point of the Chinese economy was only one factor of many and not the main factor. One can see this easily by comparing China to other developing countries such as India, Brazil, Africa and etc... India had just as low a starting point but it went from roughly the same level as china to being less than 1/5 the level of China today. Most of South America and many parts of Africa basically experienced no catching up at all regardless of where they started in their development level (South America fairly high, Africa fairly low) with only some exceptions due to booms in commodity markets.
2) The Professor's description of the Chinese system while descriptively accurate to a degree misses the actually systemic features of the system which are very important to be able to understand this system relative to other systems. "Regionally Decentralized Totalitarian" is not a very good name to apply to anything given that the term is an oxymoron to begin with. This terms tells me that whoever is using this more for political identification than as a natural description. The Chinese system is not a Totalitarian or Regionally Decentralized system. It has aspects of totalitarianism and aspects of regional decentralization but highlighting these aspects alone is misleading about the total picture of the system.
Without needing to invent new terms the Chinese system is just another mix market system. Economically, it is a mixture of central planning and self governed markets. Politically it is a mixture of top down and bottom up administration. The main difference of the Chinese system to other mixed systems is that the mixture is rather deliberate and not just the legacy of a series of historical accidents. The Chinese are central planners that have learned to use decentralized systems to achieve centralized goals. Whenever it picks up a difficult problem to solve it will search for solutions among both centrally planned solutions, decentralized autonomous solutions and a mixture of the two. You can see this clearly when you see how they go about making solutions through trial and error. When you look through this system you will see many innovative applications of decentralized automation in combination with central planning. The delegation of management entities by regions with separated scorecards and universal rankings is one such innovation that this system came up with. (If only this system worked as well in the US school system where it is known as standardized testing.) Finding one of its best most well known innovations and slapping that together with the must have "totalitarian" label is a pretty lazy and misleading way to give a name to a system. The true Chinese system is far more complicated than that.
While the Chinese economy looks like all the growth is from the private sector and the public sector only grows through leaching the private sector, this picture is actually deeply flawed. The only way to see things this way is to ignore all the externalities that there are between the public and private sectors. Upon deeper inspection you will see that the two sectors are deeply entwined and mostly symbiotic. Without the externalities that the public sector generates there will be much less growth from the private sector. This is the lesson that the Chinese have learned and why they are unwilling to shrink the public sector further today. When you see Chinese administrators leaving what looks like unprofitable and inefficient public entities standing, you should ask yourself. Are they doing this because of corruption and graft? Or are they doing this because of some externality I don't see? Nine times out of Ten it will be because of the later and not the former. In case you don't realize this, the public sector in China is the implicitly provided social safety net. The Chinse are resisting going from this to an explicit public social safety net because the incentives for people work much better with an implicit rather than an explicit social safety net.
You are right: "Professor Xu recalls the facts correctly but his overall analysis is lacking."
Interesting analysis. It seems that how they govern is more based on practicality than ideology. It reminds me of Deng Xiaoping saying: " It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice". It's amazing to see how a one party state can make major policy shifts, which seems to be impossible in democracies. Do you think this a governance model that is heavily influenced by culture and history rather than ideology , making it distinct and unique, and therefor unfortunatly can't be replicated by other developing nations? Or do you think it's goverance model is one of pure practicality?
@@crosstraffic187 My take would be that there is a large degree to which the Chinese governance model is heavily influenced by its own culture and history but also heavily influenced by foreign ideas and modern realities. To replicate the Chinese model exactly would be impossible but to absorb influences from foreign governance models to shape your own governance model is not only possible but often a good idea.
To understand the Chinese political system it is best to start with Historical Chinese political systems. Here it is important to understand the spectrum of historical Chinese political thought. People often mention a list of isms, Confucianism, Legalism, Buddhism, Daoism, Mysticism etc... but without providing their context with each other or how they are applied in practice. The best way I can think of to present these ideas in an insightful way is to use the idea of placing them on a left wing to right wing spectrum. The two major poles that hold up the Chinese political spectrum are "Confucianism" on the left and "Legalism" on the right. Drawing analogies from western thought, "Confucianism" has some similarities to ideas like Socialism, Marxism, Moral Absolutism and Utilitarianism while "Legalism" has some similarity to ideas like Political Realism, Hobbesian view of Human nature, Social Darwinism and Moral Nihilism. You can map Western ideas to this Chinese spectrum or you can map Chinese ideas to the western spectrum. There will be some correlation of left and right ideas from both spectrums but also many exceptions. (For instance Rule of Law is not left or right but a universal in western thought but it is a right wing idea in Chinese thought with a left wing counter idea called rule of virtue. Another good example is Authoritarianism. It is a right wing idea in Western thought but it is a universal in Chinese thought. In Chinese thought however they further differentiate Authoritarianism into Paternalism on the left and Tyranny on the right.)
Now that you know this historical context you can see that many things that seem like they changed in China actually stayed the same. The political spectrum in China is as it always was and the government is as it always was, a mixture of Confucian and Legalist, usually leaning more towards Confucian. This shows both how the Chinese were able to change and how they were not able to change. Every society is like this in that there are things that can change and things that can't change. The Chinese example is an illustration of how a society could reform by changing what can be changed around what cannot be changed. There is no way to just copy another society's system unless you are near identical societies. You have to work with what you have. See what pieces you can change and see what other pieces can fit the best. Instead of taking systems as a totality you have to break things down much smaller and play with the parts.
@@georgesiew2758 Thanx for the reply George. So from what I understand from your post is that Chinese governance is heavily influenced from culture and history with a large degree of practicality. The Chinese gov't describes itself as a " socialist country with Chinese characteristics", but from what I understand from your post and what appears to me as an external observer (with a limited vision) is that the emphasis is more on Chinese culture and history rather than on the ideology of socialism or communism. Would that be a fair assessment? I don't know how much power unions have in China or the degree of workers rights. I know there is more of a collectivist mindset and philosophy in China than we have in the West, but alot of posts I read online from what I think are Chinese people (but who can be sure if they are) is that they really don't care about the ideology as long as the gov't gets results. Then my other questions would be: 1/ Is China moving towards or is it a capitalist model ? and 2/ Would the Chinese people accept this model?
It's clear that the Chinese gov't thinks that democracy is an antiquated system. They may be right. But what kind of economic system they will ultimately accept is still not clear to me. I've seen a video clip where a Chinese investor discribed the Chinese position to European industrialists and policy makers as such :" China is a socialist country. The Chinese people will not allow moneyed interests to take over and control government". That is clearly a socialist governance stance. But does that mean they will or have the will to move toward a socialist economic model? Is there any evidence of this?
@@crosstraffic187 There are many questions and misconceptions to clear up here. Let me do this one at a time in a Q/A format to make it less confusing.
Q1) Do the Chinese draw it's social model more from it's own culture and history or more from socialism/communism.
A1) From the perspective of the Chinese government and people they don't actually consciously draw anything from Chinese history or culture. The real power of culture it is an internalized force that acts on people with or without their knowledge of it. Put in another way culture is just a manifestation of how people are. Chinese people are governed by their culture whether they like it or not. They don't really have a choice in the matter. So the answer is yes the Chinese do draw a lot from their own culture and history but this isn't actually conscious or intentional.
As for "Is this more or less than they draw from socialism/communism"? To answer that you have to understand what Chinese socialism/communism is to the Chinese. To us it is just a modernized version of the social vision from classical Chinese Political thought. Marxism is borrowed to package these old ideas with the legitimacy of modern scientific thinking.
Q2) Are Unions an influential part of Chinese social discourse and to what degree do people galvanize around worker's rights?
A2) Unions are not influential in Chinese social discourse and worker's rights is not a major social issue for most people. The Chinese don't organize around the same ideas and structure that westerner's do. To the extent people care about social justice which they do, there is no primacy around the issue of worker's rights. Chinese people are as likely to get angry about any number of perceived unethical behaviors. Abusing of workers is not any more special of a thing than anything else. Chinese workers fall into public and private sector workers. Public sector workers were always treated well with their organizations being run more like cooperatives with workers often having a lot of influence on management. Private sector workers on the other hand are not always treated well but because of how lucrative the private sector is with China's high growth most of the highest paying jobs are in the private sector. Given the large size of both sectors, Chinese workers often have a choice between better treatment and greater security or higher pay and greater insecurity. The appeal to unionize doesn't really exist.
Q3) Do Chinese people care about ideology or they just care about results?
A3) Chinese people absolutely care about ideology just not western ideologies. Ethics has always held a very high if not the highest importance in Chinese society. If you violate those ethics then you skate on thin ice with everyone. However those ethics wouldn't mean much to a western observer and you would easily get the mistaken notion that Chinese people don't care about ethics which is the farthest thing from the truth. Put in another way Chinese people judge the Chinese government based on Chinese ethics. As someone unfamiliar with Chinese ethics this reality may completely elude you.
Q4) Are the Chinese moving towards a capitalist model or a socialist model?
A4) The Chinese are staying with a mixed market model. After much debate and experimentation the government and the people are quite happy with the close to 50-50 mix they have now. Chinese politics is usually a close system to money when the empire is strong and an open system to money when the empire is weak. When Chinese empires become weak and suffer budget shortfalls it often resorts to selling off the political system for money. Usually this leads to a future loss of revenue (through corruption) for a short term gain in revenue (money collected from selling political offices). The empire is currently strong enough to not give in to this temptation.
Interesting insights. My daughter taught english in China many years ago.
What was the incentive for the cities/provinces to rank higher? Were they the same for each level? And if it was a reward, how did the government repel unequal growth through unfair starts , i.e. where the winners' reward advantaged them for the next ranking season?
Priority for economic and political resource. That's the incentive.
More recource leads to better conditions which leads to better rankings which also attracts more talents. Whether you are a local government offical, or an ordinary citizen, you want your own city or region to be ahead. That's the engine to fuel the growth. Simply put, Competition! that's all there is. It's in human nature.
This has always been the way. The competition is fierce. Unequal growth has always been a problem, but the root of China is CPC and socialists. If somewhere gets too far behind, the central government almost always redirect resources to fix problems. Or you could say level the playing fields to a point that everyone is still competitive. The role for the CPC is to keep this competition healthy, so it can keep going.
@@DetectiveBlackCat Thanks for replying. No passive aggression being thrown, but could you give me some writings or essays you know reporting this. Just want to learn more.
Also what would an example of political resources be? And is economic rewards like tax breaks, discounted bonds, just stimulus robustly?
The incentive was leaders who perform and rank higher will get promoted. Current leaders like Xi Jinping moved up the rank this way. It kind of works like a corporation
@@ChickenVeggi yes, for the leaders personally. But we are talking about city rankings.
A lucid and concise explanation that hints at so many other things.
The key here is that the fully objective regional competitions and rankings are what determines who rises to higher political office. So China had the most meritocratic governmental matriculation system in existence, having neither the personal infighting and purging of the Soviet system, nor the shallow popularity contest of the Democratic west. This was even reflected in a de facto term limit and orderly decadal generational handing over of power at the top most level. But this meritocratic system has been fatally compromised by Xi's total control and abolition of term limits, this threatens to re-Soviet the Chinese system in which loyalty and purging rather then merit determine leadership.
Good point. Corruption has always been a problem for Chinese governance. It's the only thing that destroys the nation.
Xi and the CCP understands that China is on the verge of being destroyed by the US. Any transfer of governance will only become the weak point to be targeted by the US. Suppress the US in the coming decade, then and only then can we talk about transfer of power.
@@nsebast Corruption has been a problem anywhere.
I think regional competition helped to rejuvenate the economy but didnt influence governance much.
@@limitlesssky3050 Nope, you're wrong, corruption is especially pronounced is some countries and it's simply invalid statement to brush off corruption as "happening everywhere anyway".
Private sector in China is not a monopoly. It's local people working with business to improve through innovation and compete as a team with other cities doing the same. The ultimate goal is to involve all the society in participating to advance the whole society. Money is not the goal for individuals It's a better life for everyone!!! This is true social equality. Americans are striving for this but unlike the Chinese government who promote it, our government is standing in the way of the people's wishes to achieve this equality.
If that's true why doesn't China have an immigration problem like the US does? Why do so many Chinese still abandon China to live in the West (including the US)? Why do so many Chinese people send their children to the West to be educated? Even Xi Jinping the President (Dictator) of China sent his daughter to be educated at Harvard University in the United States. Anyone familiar with the China of today knows that money is everything to the Chinese. The secret of China's success is it's dependency on what can only be described as virtual slave labour. China's real contribution to the world is terrible human rights abuses & horrendous levels of pollution.
India followed a centrally planned economic model till 1991. The economy later embraced capitalism to follow rapid growth for 3 decades. Still, long long way to go
Most of the Africa countries and Latin America countries have embraced capitalism， and most of them are failed countries. Capitalism is not the key reason for a successful economy at all.
Bureaucratic capital has kidnapped the government
@@hotchi1566 Industrialization is the key to success
@@hotchi1566 And all countries under socialism had it worst. Big intellectual talks, big failures in life.
@@akashin6385 except that no country actually practised socialism, i.e. workers control of production. certainly the eastern bloc didn't practise any of it, germany had more socialism with its strong unions and labour representation on company boards.
That why extreme increase. But the disappointing from labors can not express. The confederate use the dictatorship system for agriculture productions in 7 colonies also the same.
2,600 years ago, Sun Tzu said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." I believe recent China has been following his lesson. Knowing your state-level enemies thoroughly means you have to study them very hard for a long time while gaining useful knowledge from them and applying it to yourself.
Umm... did people who comment actually watched the video...?
They hardly ever do and when they do their comprehensive deficits become obvious.
9:54 local governments are ranked! Great!
by whom?
@@fonziwang executive branch of the government: A prefecture (from the Latin Praefectura) is an administrative jurisdiction traditionally governed by an appointed.you have "prefectures" in russia, france, the usa, canada, china ... all nations have "prefectures"
@@4x4r974 It is a simple management "by objective" by key performance indicators (KPI) which measure your political performances, as a simple company does.the idea is also to put the different jurisdictions in competition, this is the best way to create prosperity.Deng Xiaoping (邓小平), seeing the corruption and immobility, copied Lee Kuan Yew by creating economic zones in China sheltered from lazy officials and bureaucrats!we also want in europe and the US, economic zones sheltered from tax predators (police, firefighters, bureaucrats etc ...)
@@fonziwang exams and ranking system......do you not taking exams going to school? It's a meritocracy system.
@@chase5177 , Most people who find meritocracy distasteful because of past personal experience! Notwithstanding the fact that such an approach is deemed too demanding on many people but as proven over and over again, there is no better alternative at the moment to ensure people with better "understanding of the environment" will be empowered to manage the system. Such environment coupled with centuries of practice seems to make the Chinese people hungrier to try to achieve material gain. That is all. And they are not saying you can't enter the "competition"!
thanks for your recount in detail to make us something more clear
An honest voice is larger than a crowds.
China is a closed system with an open mind. The US is an open system with a closed mind.
Damn, this is such a simple statement that cuts directly to the point ..
I wonder if there will ever be an “open system with an open mind“ .. & who has the chance to create that.
If China has an "open mind' why do the Chinese have to depend on ideas, innovations & technologies created by non-Chinese people? If China has an 'open mind' & the US has a 'closed mind' why has the US won hundreds of Nobel prizes & China has very few in comparison? Why do so many Chinese send their children to be educated in the US? Even Xi Jinping sent his daughter to be educated at Harvard University in the United States. Where is this Chinese 'open mind'? It's obvious if one looks at the evidence objectively that China has not only a 'closed system' with a 'closed mind' but a mind locked in a prison. A very sad situation indeed.
@@autodidact537 The fact that Xi Jinping sends his daughter to the US to study shows the open mindedness of the Chinese system and people. It shows how much the Chinese understands and knows the outside world while the Western world knows next to nothing about the true China within.
@@autodidact537
You're so funny AutoD!
Not sure if you have ever thought things right through but here's one to start off with: when the US got independence from GB it pretty much took on all the innovations and technologies created by GB and others in Europe and as such got off to a good start. See there was no IP rights back then which was sort of lucky (for the US) no?
@@myla6135 and took so many ideas from the natives also
When mentioning GDP from the USA, one has to consider the vast amount of economic bubbles there. For example, a small operation costs only few hundreds dollars in China, while it could cost 20 times or even higher in the states. Let alone meaningless lawsuits, lobbys.... All of these contribute to the GDP of the USA, but not to improving people's living standard. In comparison, China's GDP is solid, made up of "real" changes that indeed improve people's living standard! For example, the Shanghai has a GDP per Capita that is still way far away from the poorest counties in the USA. But if you compare the living standards (education, life expectancy, financial saving, personal properties) between Shanghai and any an US city, Shanghai can even beat New York city in many ways.
KkKkKk
So true!
yes, China's GDP is solid, so solid, especially in real estate
Cuba beats the US in some metrics
Thank you very much publisher , this article is helpful ,hopefully there be more to come
excellent presentation and explanation of recent chinese economic/cultural history. I wonder if the contamination and defilement of Chinese agricultural land and water was a product of the shift to privatization/management of the resource or if this had been going on for years before the shift ....
I deeply appreciated that 40 years ago, normal Chinese people did not know how poor we were, how desperate low GDP per capita we had (top 3 in the world..), otherwise, we would not have brave to start our catch-up HISTORY. We could never think that we can arrive here, with GDP per capita >12000 USD this year. We are far from developed countries, that is true, but we started from the level of poorest African countries.
use PPP. china is richer than US. 1 dollar you can have a meal in China, you buy nothing in the US. Cannot simply comparing in dollar terms.
@@ecitb3005 PPP is nonsense, no one really cares about PPP, yes, the price is lower in poor countries for some products, but for international goods, traveling to foreign countries, it really depends on nominal GDP per capita.
@@ecitb3005 Then why does the US have an immigration problem and China doesn't? Why do so many Chinese people continue to abandon China for a better life in Western countries? People vote with their feet, and they don't vote for China. WHY?
@@autodidact537 They are rich people, and it is better for them to go to more developed countries.
30 years of unparalleled economic growth in China was also chronicled by an average 20+ percent growth y.o.y. of manufactured goods exports in the same period. Most of these goods were exported to the US in the first decade and the world followed suite.
China was able to organise production in this way because of central direction administered locally. Decentralisation is normally viewed as a bottom up not top down approach. This challenges the decentralisation semantic here.
Regional cooperation is also better than regional competition especially when it comes to sharing resources. In terms of services perhaps competition brings out the best in people.
Also Chinese still import food. So their food system perhaps needs to be reworked? Depends on what the priorities are.
China succeeded by using SLAVE labour!
Centralisation is better for efficient decision making and action, but worse for contextual planning and providing for the specific needs of each region. A mix and interchange of the two is often the ideal.
I think the idea of competition between cities is a great idea.
Accurate narrative of recent economic developmental trends of China. 👍
Love this channel, very interesting and informative. Thanks.
1.25 playback speed is perfect!
Excellent, but maybe also point out that the main goal of the local government in the competition is to grow within the party
administratively-planned but not centrally-planned economy
This is so wild. Great content. I'm learning so much!
He is wrong in saying the private sector wasn't "legal" until 2002/04. Not fully institutionalized, maybe. Not explicitly politically endorsed, maybe. But definitely LEGAL.
Mee Choy Owner of the Lemon Grass Restaurant and the Bar across from the restaurant is a Great Proprietor. 20 years I’ve known this man. Aloha 13 years I played piano and sang. Taiwan,Mandarin Chinese,Filipino,Japanese and of course Hawaiian. I know Larry Rivera. KAMALANI. Most beautiful song ever IvoMonroeMiller
Wasn’t the private economy firstly recognized (legalized) in 1988 constitution amendment?
The per Capita GDP is also interesting because of the distribution of the benefit.
regional competition sounds much more robust than profit maximization. Now you can just replace profit with sustainable growth and the machine will churn out the new equilibrium whereas the capitalist system has to deconstruct itself to the core and reevaluate all its categorical imperatives... ccp algo ftw
@Nova Flares states compete to house and give tax breaks to globalized corporations that offshore labor to nations with slave wages.
@Nova Flares why do our corporations keep offshoring american labor if democracy can stop it, it's because the USA is not democratic, it is plutocratic.
@Nova Flares but that is a fair point, i guess there are more issues with our federal government than our state governments specifically.
Before we get too ahead of ourselves. China gdp per capita is 10K vs the US at almost 60K. There is still a long way to go. Corruption within the local governments is the main cause of this. and not because American workers are way more productive than Chinese workers.
@Nova Flares roughly half of China's economy is run by private sector and other half by the government. Private sector is heavily regulated. It would be a stretch to call it capitalist.
An interesting way to govern and I can see the benefits. However, most of the people would not understand. For a long time, the soviets believed that the Chinese would show them how the “true” shared and state own economy should be implemented. I believe that today we live those days.
Very informative and amazing.
Great explanation of China's economic reform with concise examples.
Really enjoyed this video. Earned a subscriber :)
Well said. Brings the situation into perspective. Thank you
Thanks for the unbiased explanation
Unbiased, if you're a leftist :D
Have you heard the expression "fake it 'till you make it" well...
Mao: "Tomorrow we will overtake Britain, next week we will overtake America"
30 years later: 1% down, 94% to go
Where is the other 5%?
The chinese yuan has more assets than any other country. They are almost there
@@Michael-st9ky So? Nobody demands Yuans!
@@jrodriguezquiros just the Chinese and other businesses demand yuan.
the dollar demand is partly artificial. International transactions are done in dollars especially oil. Once we lose that privilege the dollar is done
@@Michael-st9ky I agree with your logic, BUT when will the US lose that privilege is the big question. In order to be a real big player you need without question an highly accepted reserve curreny … China is lacking that, even with their cryptocurrency they lack the confidence needed by major trade partners.
Fascinating and very informative. Here in the West, we only get a black white type of ‘explanation’. We can’t conceive an economic system beyond our very own, with enormous concentration by now the Fortune 200, twenty years previously the Fortune 300 and early 1970.’s, the Fortune 500. So we have enormous concentration but dress- up as a competitive system which now it isn’t. Along with this enormous concentration very little accrues to the general population.
so nice of you to clarify for us the issues :)
No seed can germinate without fertile soil. Prof Xu mentions role of the cultural revolution as a precursor to China's economic miracle. Such a short video cannot do justice to the complex subject of the largest country's transformation. It will be nice to see a multi part series looking at various threads of this phenomenon.
Latin America is like , nah corruption insecurity and poverty is the best way ! Look at us we're doing so good ! Not ..
You tell the truth. Amem
SA and Africa’s time will come no doubt
@@ice1032 SA's time would never come, if US still maintain its current position in the world.
not like there is no corruption in china as well
@@kato2395 corruption is inevitable, in every single country
Incredibly illuminating
China change the game. They show to the world how to build a country without dollar,world bank & imf.
The world bank, imf and dollars are used by the Anglo-saxons to screw people all-over the world.
Agree with you.
🤑
Great per. Also important people realise China has done very well but still has room to improve how and what it does. Everyone dislikes the normal propoganda and bs attitude expressed too often. As an Australian i look forward to China restoring trust and joining the merit based economy politically.
unfortunately, the anglo nations have proved themselves utterly untrustworthy. It'll need a thorough regime change in the USA before the anglo economies and political systems can begin to rid themselves of corruption.
1/20 to 1/4 change in personal wealth compared to the USA is a beneficial economic measure of success. However, both countries are running economies that consume too much carbon. Do economists bother to consider the limits of economic growth that climate change is imposing on humanity? The rising rates of carbon emissions say otherwise. The USA and other nations have to reduce their consumption and China/India have to reduce their consumption and population. Economists need to start teaching sustainable environmentalism in economic classes.
I fully agree. In the future I guess externalities will be more readily included in (comparative) economic analyses and evaluations like this one. To advance economics and economic teaching this should be pushed to play a more central role now. My own economics degree is probably a good example for this issue. My final paper is concerned with environmental/sustainability issues, and some of my docents are doing great research in concerning fields, but it still plays only a peripheral role in the curriculum - mostly only being mentioned parenthetically in every course.
Climate change is a hoax so no
Firstly this Climate Change is just a hogwash. Let the West First undo all the climate damage and also stop buying from polluting factories (buy to save money). Then we talk.
@@roshanthapa8487 climate change is relative to past stability. and it has been verified. carbon absorvation technology could drastically revert it though.
I don't head-to-head GDP comparisons mean anything when so much of our GDP is the result of financialization, whereas China's is industrial.
It's good to see that China thought outside the box. I wished the US would think of think of something better besides in fighting and printing money for dumb stuff
Mr Ma agrees with this miracle.
Anyone knows what these ranking system of the provinces economic progression rewards (or punish)?
Basically the person (and his team partners so to speak) who made that progression happened get promoted in the Party thus having the opportunity to work in a higher level of government.
Or her, sorry
Well we know corruption can lead to death and lifetime in prison
It’s like corporate KPI. Their good performance can get them better positions within the party. Bad kpi would get them low rating in the system and be marked as incompetent, hence be relocated to insignificant positions such as the workers union.
Economics is not about math,,, it's distribution
Watch at 1,5x speed, thank me later
He seems like an Asian American native 😂😂. In terms of talking speed.
no thanks.
1.25 works better but indeed even at 1.25 it sounds as if he is taking breaks :))
@@axelfiraxa Maybe he should speak in Chinese for your listening comfort?
Skip this video altogether, you will thank me.
His accent tells me that he is from Northern China, and his command of English, while far from perfect, is good enough for a topic like this. He has probably stayed in U.S. for a few years.
His English is better than most Americans if you are reading the captions
It’s more than “good enough”, it’s well above average, he has taken the the time & effort to spell out in laymen’s terms for the benefit of a wider audience.
Thank you!
Excellent talk. Much appreciated.
No mention of investment credit creation.
It is a western invention, it is a hox. that is why china never collapse because the economic growth is real.
Investment credit is a fake economic resources, it can collapse when manage badly.
@@changtomy2229 chinas gonna collapse when they cause a war in asia and the west rolls out embargos
@@sterrshow5016 The west has become highly dependent on material resources from china because they have only focused on financial capital wich is not based on the actual material basis wich Industries rely upon, they outsourced Industry to third world countries, like china used to be, they expropriated themselves and now they see the consequences and act hostile to china.
You can't base a Economy on non existent Resources, financial crisis every decade is the Consequence.
That's why China's bubble doesnt pop
You are not taking in to account the fact China is MASSIVELY more huge then USSR in population. So you have to take that in to account when comparing these numbers or any GDP numbers. Billion+ people in China they are huge
By that logic about superpowers, Luxembourg would be the world's greatest superpower.
XDDD he ijust want us to underestimate China
They motivation is to be highest in per capita GDP and highest growth rate and not being biggest gdp in actual terms.
@@Nishith8 You do realize that by achieving that goal there would be no one else on earth that could compete with them in total GDP right?
Steve Kotkin said that capitalism in China was a consequence of the cultural revolution that removed the administrative state that supervised trade. Therefore, when the economic planners were sent to the fields to pick up potatoes, the farmers were left without the trade police. So, they started trading without supervision, based on the real value of goods and not the one established by the state by fiat. Deng did not promote any freedom, he just admitted the reality on the ground because he realized that there was no way to bring the pre-1964 era back. Capitalism was a creation, indirect although, of the most extreme form of communism. I can see both Marx and Adam Smith saying WTF!
The early focus in the talk about relative GDP levels hides some important differences; western economies have largely become financialsed service sector economies and run large trade deficits. The GDP versus real incomes show that in the west money (wealth) is being transferred to the top deciles, while in China manufacturing is producing more and better jobs. The lesson is that neoliberal economic theory is fatally and deliberately flawed to allow for imperialism and plunder capitalism.
we need such reforms in africa...giving autonomy to the varios states in the different countries.
A country doesn’t live by bread alone, economy is not going to solve Chinese metaphysics problems like meaning, purpose and values in its society.
i know Im kinda off topic but does anybody know of a good place to watch new series online ?
@Kaiser Castiel try flixzone. Just google for it :)
@Tobias Reuben yup, I have been watching on Flixzone for since april myself =)
@Tobias Reuben Thank you, I signed up and it seems to work =) Appreciate it!!
@Kaiser Castiel Happy to help :D
There's no doubt China has achieved a lot economically and in terms of progress on poverty reduction. That being said, GDP is an extremely limited measure of overall progress for countries. It is a measure of economy activity, not a measure of whether or not that activity actually benefits people and the planet or detracts from it. Globally, there is a shift happening towards also measuring other important things, like employment rate, productivity, social health and wellness, social cohesion, crime, pollution, economic participation, diversity and inclusion, etc. By measuring these kinds of things, we get a much deeper and broader insight into how well a country is really developing, and how much people are benefitting from key plans, investments etc in the public and private sectors.
“Regional, Decentralized totalitarian system”
🍿👀
In other words a system that works
@@qjtvaddict it’s an oxymoron; decentralization & totalitarian are opposite in meaning.
This video is pure propaganda 😂
There are FOUR REASONS why Chinese statistics do NOT reflect the underlying economic activity
1. Deliberate fabrication by local governments
2. Both productive and unproductive investments add up to GDP’s value, in spite of the fact that unproductive investments do not create valuable economic activity. In China, because of the government’s heavy involvement in the economy, trillions of dollars in wasted investments are counted in GDP
3. The Chinese government, due to the lack of appropriate mark-to-market mechanism, doesn’t write down bad debts (investments recognized as wasted)
4. China’s GDP is a measure of political intention, not economic activity
Yeah of course; if having this illusion will make you happy
@@tonybernoulli7859 Those are facts. You believe CCP numbers? lol
Yes, the Cultural Revolution was Mao's mechanism for keeping power when his Great Leap Forward failed so disastrously and humiliatingly.
Unity Mao provided .. China was divided ..Mao accomplishment set the stage for Deng. Period
Mao set the backbone for the reform to come by establishing industrialization for China, without that, China won’t be able to rise.
@@lwilson5594 The point I wanted to state and ensure people understand. If it was not for Mao China would still look like places in Africa or Latin America. The unity and reform was needed. All nations have bad and good history, USA, Europe and etc. The Dark times sometimes turn into light or remain dark, China was able to rise to a higher position and forge itself a path towards Power and Control. Great news for China and all three leaders are very important and Most important the determine Chinese people. They are focus on the Mission of correcting their decline and becoming the powerful nation they were before, this element needs to be highlighted also. It takes a good leader and good people. Mao, Deng, Xi are all important with a constant support of people. Mao made China Unified, Deng made china Economically successful and Xi will make China Powerful
China's attempt on industrialization was also started by Mao. He got the deal with Soviet in the early 50's, then another deal with Richard Nixon in the early 70's. Deng was only walking his path. And cultural revolution was for the people to take back the country from the top 1%, the Capitalist Roader Gang. A true pro-democracy movement.
Deng made China economically successful, in a way, yes, but also he's the man made China deeply corrupted, because he's one of the leaders of the Capitalist Roader Gang.
Xi is not the one who made China powerful. He became the leader when China became powerful. Military/economic achievements are the results of decades of effort, so it's unfair to give credit to Xi only. However, Xi should be the one purifies the Communism party, and save China from the roader gang. Xi, an absolute Maoist, is now doing what Mao did before.
@@huanglong08 Great reply and I would love to find more about his information and view. I'm from Western countries so the only information I get the usual but I'm very understanding of the western power and when they lie about the truth. It always made sense of what you said, for me it is simple. When Western power support a leader like Deng then I knew there was element about him which they prefer and was not good for China by default.. I just never heard of this gang. I will do more research and the more information which is not Anti China will be great because it is hard for me to find on the internet.
Yes. Yes. Thank you
when you talk and say nothing at all.....this is an art very few can master.
when people say super power, they dont only mean economically. there are countries with higher gdp per capita.. but they arent considered as superpowers bc they dont have enough population to be a military superpower