I'll make it easy for you. A country is a producer at the same time consumer. And when 1 billion souls consume goods and services, it would reflect considerably on its gdp.
The question you need to ask is -- who is providing for the necessities of these 1 billion souls?
And when you look at the restricted and prohibited catalogue, the basic necessities are being produced by the state -- either in its central government or the de-centralized towns.
When you look at the list of restricted and prohibited catalogue, you realize this is only restrictions on foreign investment, not restriction on domestic capitalism. When you realize that 70% of the GDP is under private production, you realize it's a Capitalist economy. And according to the people in China, I'm right. Try again
Towns were given a measure of autonomy from the central government. However else you might want to misrepresent this, a town is still an appendage of the state. They invest like a cooperative and they themselves work.
This is rudimentary developmental economics even the world bank and the asian development bank are promoting in the various under-developed countries of the world. Vietnam has shifted to the chinese (rather than soviet) style socialist model and it has worked tremendously for them as well.
In 1954, the nations of North Vietnam and South Vietnam had developed their own economic structure, reflecting different economic systems with different resources and trading partners. South Vietnam maintained a free-market economy with ties to the west. It established the first Airline under Emperor Bao Dai, named Air Vietnam.
The unification of Vietnam in 1976, led to the imposition of North Vietnam's centrally planned economy into the South. The country made no significant economic progress for the next twenty years. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of Soviet aid, the leadership of Vietnam accepted the need for change. The country introduced economic reforms that created a market economy in the mid 1990s.
Ah good example there! 20 years of failed socialism, and 90s reform to Capitalism! I love it when someone cites evidence that proves I'm right.
The thing is, chinese individuals or corporations are not the ones making tremendous headway. It is still township investments that are more considerable -- which you continuously assert is a form of capitalism. It simply is not.
No I never asserted anything over the sort. The article I list several posts ago listed the failure of Co-Ops here as a reason for the need for the 78 reforms to a Capitalist economy. I love the straw man. Claim I said something I didn't and prove you own false theory wrong. Nice.
While we're at it, how about a source detailing the success of these Co-Ops. As in an article or other evidence, not of their existence, but of their actual progress. I have read that private farms and food production succeeding where Co-ops are failing. That people are leaving collectively owned Co-Ops by droves for privately owned farms that pay much better, and produce far more food.
GDP again?
Who do you think would consume FINISHED PRODUCTS -- the state or individuals, hmmm?
The individual always consumes. But who produces the consumed goods? The state or private sector? According to Fan Gang, 70% of the consumed goods are produced by the Private Sector. Tell you what, if you are right, then you should take all these people to court. Because they all say you are wrong. Let me know how it goes for ya.
Hey look! 1 billion chinese are consuming their own products! That means a huge chunk of gdp is from the private sector! Hurray for capitalism!
Sad that basic ideas escape you. But at least it's fun to debate someone at Forrest Gump's level.
I'm starting to pity how your mind works.
I don't even have pity for you now. I just laugh
You are saying that capitalism exists in china. Of course it does -- in a vastly reduced and regulated scale.
Yeah, that vastly reduced and regulated "70% of the economy" scale.
Feudal land relations still exist in the uk, on a vastly reduced scale.
That doesn't make the uk economy feudal, does it?
Can a private citizen make air conditioners and food products privately and sell them privately? Can they in China? (hint: the answer is the same for both questions)
And since when is 250 people working for a private company the 'people of china', eh?
Not a relevant question. The point undeniably made, was that it can be done by anyone. All the companies in the stories I listed were private citizens of China, no different than any other citizen. They were able to do what they did under the reforms. They didn't get approval from government, they don't answer to government, and they are not controlled by government. This is a hallmark of Capitalism.
Unbelievable! Its like talking to a retard!
I know! I'm not even using reading skills for high school, and still I'm defeating every point you have made! In fact, for the most part, I'm still waiting for you to make a point! lol
Basic reading skills should allow you to know the answer to that question from the articles I posted. If you are lacking in this area, I will find simpler articles that use fewer long words, or I will translate the article into a 4th or 3rd grade reading level and retype them here. Let me know either way.
Your posts in this thread is nothing but simple-minded.
At least I know what Capital was used by the Shi brothers to start the privately owned and run Guiyang Hong Yue Food Products Co.
Look at the equation for gdp and you would realize that only direct private investments are attributable to capitalism. Consumption, state investments (particularly in infrastructure), imports and exports aren't. Duh?
As so you don't know who produced the Consumed goods? You don't know who produced the exports? You can't tell which were produced by a state run company over a private company? Then do tell, how do you really know if the state run industries are producing anything? I'm amused by you. I'd love to debate you in a college setting!
Companies with a majority state ownership isn't exactly private, now, is it?
According to Fan Gang of China, when the state sells off their companies to private ownership, it divests itself 100% from the company. So a company with zero percent state ownership isn't exactly public now, is it?
China was in economic ruin prior to their socialist revolution. The country was divided into spheres of influence by the western powers. During that time, western-led capitalism was rampant.
Not even remotely relevant. The point made was that for 23 years it was 100% socialist. During that time, the country achieved 53% poverty rate. Now after Capitalist reforms, China is an economic power with a poverty rate lower than 8%.
(some babble not really worth responding to because it didn't have a point)
I did. All modes of production, existent and obsolete, underwent development within their respective frameworks. Capitalism was backward once, employing children and starvation wages to squeeze every cent of profit from a human person.
There is no reason why socialism would not develop under its own unique experiences.
If the analogy still doesn't work, perhaps the defect is at your side of the discussion.
Only if you mean by socialism developing, means converting to Capitalism, because that is what China has done. Capitalism hasn't changed, it's been regulated. Before those regulations, the means of production was under private control, and still is after the regulations.
In China, before all means of production was under state control, now 70% the economy is under private hands. This is not Socialism.
Because their soviet-style central economy did not work. Duh?
Nope, socialism never works. It didn't under the Soviet style, the Maoist style, nor the Communist style. Nope, the Capitalist style... works wonders every time.
And just because this particular socialist experiment did not work, there is no reason to suppose that all forms of socialism wouldn't work too.
Its called chinese-style socialism, btw. Duh?
Go read some history. There's no reason to suppose all forms of socialism do not work except history that shows it.
(Maybe they could get jobs with BUSHCO's Homeland Security).
