The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk

1124 readers

3 users here now

COMM HAS MOVED TO !tankiejerk@piefed.social

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

PugJesus@lemmy.world

PugJesus@lemmy.dbzer0.com

652

Maybe TWO things can be bad at once! Or even three or four! (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/tankiejerk@lemmy.world

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fair point, probably not the best term to use. In the video, Clinton uses "command economy" to describe them, and singles them out as member of the WTO that isn't a market economy.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

China hasn't been a command economy since the 80s, though. And command economies consistently underperform market economies, to a staggering degree.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, they're everyone's largest trading partner. You'd expect a planned economy to under perform the evolutionary pressures of a market. The first time. But the second? Or the third? What about command economy that learns from what didn't work in the past?

If every country is a mixed economy, then they're just the far end of the spectrum. More command than market, at least compared to most other places.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, they’re everyone’s largest trading partner.

They're also the largest country, by population, in the world.

You’d expect a planned economy to under perform the evolutionary pressures of a market. The first time. But the second? Or the third? What about command economy that learns from what didn’t work in the past?

Uh, but planned economies do underperform compared to a market. The spike in Chinese prosperity was because of intense market reforms in the 80s and 90s which significantly increased prosperity and turned the country from immensely backwards and impoverished to increasingly developed.

If every country is a mixed economy, then they’re just the far end of the spectrum. More command than market, at least compared to most other places.

Not really. The Chinese public sector of their economy is actually lower, as a proportion of GDP, than Sweden.

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm curious about the source of this statement

The Chinese public sector of their economy is actually lower, as a proportion of GDP, than Sweden

Can you provide source? Because for State Owned Enterprises I can only find metric ~40% (China) vs 10% in Sweden.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ITA/ZAF/IND/CHL/FRA/GRC/NLD/ESP/RUS

China's private sector has become much larger than in years past - from ~2% of the economy in the 1980s, to ~20% in the late 1990s, to a majority now (though there's some quibbling as to the exact numbers).

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Public sector of the economy as proportion of GDP" is "Government expenditure, percent of GDP" (what you linked) + State Owned Enterprises (public corporations owned by the country) so it's a little bit different.

In my previous comment I though you're misusing the term public sector to mean only SEO (as is commonly done), that's why I asked for source.

The source you linked, while good, is only showing government expenditure without SEO, so it does not cover your original claim though. Unless in the original comment you did misuse public sector to mean only government expenditure?