Some really thought-provoking insights on the Chinese and US economy here by @gave_vincent, the CEO of Gavekal.
For instance he explains why the stock market is really not that important in China, especially when compared with the US. This is because the Chinese economy is really not that financialized and only a tiny proportion of the Chinese, 10%, hold stocks as opposed to 70% of Americans: "So if tomorrow the US stock market goes down two-thirds, 70% of people feel very poor. In China, if the stock market goes down two-thirds, 90% of people don't care."
He also pinpoints a fascinating paradox, which is that there is much more competition between firms in the Chinese market, and many more bankruptcies than in the US: "I can name you 10 Chinese bankruptcies over the past three or four years of automakers, solar panel manufacturers, real estate developers, etc. Here we are in the Western world, whether in France, in the UK, in the US, and we pat ourselves on the back about how capitalist we are, about how we're red-blooded capitalists, etc. Yet when was the last big bankruptcy? Are we capitalist if nobody ever goes bust? How does that work? How does capitalism work without bankruptcy?"
As he explains, the way the Chinese economy works is that there is stronger management of the market by the government but this paradoxically leads to a situation where the market works more dynamically in creating new companies, as well as destroying companies that don't work anymore. Whereas in the US, where it is arguably the reverse situation with capital having more control of the government, monopolies are being created in most sectors and companies are bailed out by the government in myriads of ways to avoid bankruptcy.
So interestingly we're arriving at a situation where "communist China" might be today the best example of free-market 'creative destruction,' whilst the "capitalist U.S." seems to be calcifying into a form of corporate protectionism where big corporations are increasingly insulated from failure. This really raises fascinating questions on the role of government with regards to the economy... It sort of makes sense when you think about it that when you effectively let capital regulate itself, they'd want to move towards a situation where they can't lose and establish monopolies. And that you paradoxically need a strong referee above capital in order to foster a truly dynamic economic system.
I would be careful using China as a paragon of Capitalism. For a few reasons:
China is still totalitarian, and with tyrannical governments, you can't really trust what they say
A significant part of China's economy is the "shadow economy" which doesn't get recorded, talked about, or accounted for anywhere, and can be upwards of 50% of their GDP
There is still significant Chinese government involvement in the economy, which isn't capitalist
Playing devils advocate, but it is something to think about
Some really thought-provoking insights on the Chinese and US economy here by @gave_vincent, the CEO of Gavekal.
For instance he explains why the stock market is really not that important in China, especially when compared with the US. This is because the Chinese economy is really not that financialized and only a tiny proportion of the Chinese, 10%, hold stocks as opposed to 70% of Americans: "So if tomorrow the US stock market goes down two-thirds, 70% of people feel very poor. In China, if the stock market goes down two-thirds, 90% of people don't care."
He also pinpoints a fascinating paradox, which is that there is much more competition between firms in the Chinese market, and many more bankruptcies than in the US: "I can name you 10 Chinese bankruptcies over the past three or four years of automakers, solar panel manufacturers, real estate developers, etc. Here we are in the Western world, whether in France, in the UK, in the US, and we pat ourselves on the back about how capitalist we are, about how we're red-blooded capitalists, etc. Yet when was the last big bankruptcy? Are we capitalist if nobody ever goes bust? How does that work? How does capitalism work without bankruptcy?"
As he explains, the way the Chinese economy works is that there is stronger management of the market by the government but this paradoxically leads to a situation where the market works more dynamically in creating new companies, as well as destroying companies that don't work anymore. Whereas in the US, where it is arguably the reverse situation with capital having more control of the government, monopolies are being created in most sectors and companies are bailed out by the government in myriads of ways to avoid bankruptcy.
So interestingly we're arriving at a situation where "communist China" might be today the best example of free-market 'creative destruction,' whilst the "capitalist U.S." seems to be calcifying into a form of corporate protectionism where big corporations are increasingly insulated from failure. This really raises fascinating questions on the role of government with regards to the economy... It sort of makes sense when you think about it that when you effectively let capital regulate itself, they'd want to move towards a situation where they can't lose and establish monopolies. And that you paradoxically need a strong referee above capital in order to foster a truly dynamic economic system.
I would be careful using China as a paragon of Capitalism. For a few reasons:
Playing devils advocate, but it is something to think about