Chinese GDP will be more than double that of the US in under a decade, if recent growth rates persist. : worldnews

[–] Ocommie63@lemmygrad.ml 43 points 6 months ago

Great news, truly the death of capitalism and neoliberalism in particular is imminent, I dont know what will happen to me or others stuck in the belly of this dying monster but at least I can be glad that it is in fact, dying.

[–] RedQuestionAsker2@hexbear.net 23 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Can recent growth rates persist? China's GDP has been running hot for decades now. Seems like they need to level off at some point.

[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 37 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Geopolitical Economy Report did two long video discussions on China's growth last month which are worth watching if you're interested.

In short, yes. China can keep up about a 5% average annual growth rate. Because capital is controlled by the state, and the state invests in developing the means of production and improving people's quality of life, China is indeed capable of achieving their development goals.

Interestingly enough, just as the decade or so of near ten percent annual growth was planned and achieved, the recent deceleration to about five percent growth was also planned.

[–] ProlePunk@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Interesting, which videos are these?

[–] LVL@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not the commenter you replied to but it's most likely this one and this one.

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 months ago

I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

Link 1:

Link 2:

[+] destroyamerica@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] RedQuestionAsker2@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I'm just speaking colloquially. I just mean the GDP has been very high for a long time now.

[+] destroyamerica@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] RedQuestionAsker2@hexbear.net 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

My common reading is that GDP is an indicator of growth. China is currently developing, so it's GDP is going to be higher. However, at some point they will be considered developed and there will be less reason to grow and it will be more difficult to grow. So the GDP will level off. This has been the trend in capitalist countries.

Whether or not this will apply to the Chinese economy, I don't know. But I believe this is the framework that people are using when they make this argument.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

'Developed' by capitalist standards. They all stopped and went backwards from about the 1970s. Since then, they started measuring growth by counting nothing as something or counting some things twice. Not to mention that capitalism is crisis.

Liberal/welfare democracies didn't stop growing because there was no room to grow. They stopped growing because the workers stopped organising and demanding infrastructure and housing, etc. They could've kept on growing by developing rural areas, hospitals, schools, public transport, etc. Instead, they decided to tarmac over everything and let all the bridges fall into the water.

Communists will blow right past those concepts of development and growth. Already, China is living in a different century. We're going to need a concept of 'post-development' to make sense of what comes next (where we will likely see development without the capitalist notion of infinite growth).

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

We’re going to need a concept of ‘post-development’ to make sense of what comes next

I think that wouldn't be needed for a long time yet, there is still a lot of room for even current development in China, later would come improvement, modernisation and developing other countries etc. I don't think, barring some worldwide catastrophe, that development will ever reach the levels of what libs always claim about socialism, stagnation. Or even what utopian socialists say about just stopping.

[–] RedQuestionAsker2@hexbear.net 9 points 6 months ago

Liberal/welfare democracies didn't stop growing because there was no room to grow.

Gotta partially disagree with you on this one. After WWII, imperialists got a free pass to expand throughout most of the world. All the way up through the fall of the USSR, the US was privatizing and gutting the public sectors of their client states and the eastern block.

However, with the neoliberal consensus overtaking most of the world, the US didn't have any more big markets to crack open, which is why they had to turn their sights on gutting their own public sectors which they had free access to. Foucault's boomerang and such

[–] Trudge@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 months ago

In the long-run, it's impossible as the current high growth rates come from technological and infrastructural catchup.

It'll be possible for roughly about a decade more as China's still developing. Obviously subject to material conditions.

[–] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 months ago

Here's hoping that it doubles it, and then some- and that the rest of the global south and east follows its course as well. It's about time that actual production, actual civilizations, societies with actual human decency returned to the forefront of the world again, and imperialists who have never evolved their societies past pillaging and genocide have no place there. The west will have to undergo revolutionary change, or be left in the dustbin of history as they deserve.

[+] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev -13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

https://xkcd.com/605/

[–] RedClouds@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, as a response to intelligent analysis, here is a meme.

The height of politics online... 14 year old boys yelling "nuh uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!"...

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm 15 at least, maybe even 15 and a half.

But fine, from the article:

What might alter this perspective Any number of factors might derail China's growth, even in the short term, including war over Taiwan, mismanagement of the Chinese economy linked to its poor Governance rating, and further attempts by America to reduce trading links with China.

So as long as nothing unexpected happens, yeah, the graph will keep going as it has been. Great article, well worth a much better response than I gave it.

[–] RedClouds@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can read the other responses. They have references.

You'll be reminded of this when China's GDP is officially twice Americas.

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is that supposed to be menacing, being reminded? And if it becomes twice America's, their population is currently more than three times America's, so it's not the brag you seem to think it is. Not that GDP is how countries should measure their economic dicks anyway.

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 months ago

It's a big deal when their PPPGDPPC in 1950 was 50 USD. In 1990 they were poorer per capita than Afghanistan, Cambodia, DR Congo, Ghana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, The Philippines, Sudan, Zimbabwe. Both where they were then and also where they are now in the cases where they've gotten poorer.

[–] Pili@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Because it is know that GDP growth is a one time thing.

[+] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org -18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The star on the bottom of that chart is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 6 months ago

it is needed because just nominal GDP is at the point just illusion, once you factor in how much virtual economy and finance tricks are counted in.

World News