• BodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    7 天前

    The criticisms echo what several posters on here have argued, that the government isn’t providing enough of a social safety net and could do more to stimulate domestic consumption, but I imagine the prescription differs and it is a bit rich coming from the Hudson Institute.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      7 天前

      Isn’t that literally the whole focus of their current 5 year plan? It was Made in China, now it’s increasing living standards and domestic consumption?

      That was also a big reason for the poverty alleviation initiatives. To bring those poorer areas into the national labor force and develop them enough that they can participate more in the domestic economy…

    • HamManBad [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 天前

      It is weird seeing bourgeois media, economists, and think tanks trying to urge the Communist party of China to adopt stronger social welfare policies. Makes me think that the party is right to be skeptical of expanding the safety net in the short term

        • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          7 天前

          Especially as it’s clearly a “the card says moops” scenario where the reactionaries are just reaching for any argument that they think will make China look bad. They don’t actually believe in social safety nets as a political agenda.