Using the word “deflation” like it’s a bad thing for citizens to be able to afford the things they need to live. That’s capitalist propaganda for you. We’re only happy when the blessedly wealthy get to have a good life.
So long as unemployment stays relatively stable, deflation might be a good thing for us. If unemployment rises significantly as a result of deflation, then the discounts we’d get might not be worth the lost income. Since employers control employment in the lack of unions, they hold the power to remove income from workers to offset the falling profits that result from deflation. I wouldn’t mind extra deflation if I lived in a union country.
You don’t see how it’s a bad thing for people to have zero incentive to put money back into the economy? Everyone hoarding money and trying to spend as little as possible will surely have good results!
People still need things, just because their money is getting more valuable doesn’t mean they’re gonna skip this weeks groceries, the next haircut, car repairs, etc. This isn’t a problem that’s going to grind an economy to a halt, especially a command economy. The more worrying thing for China I’d imagine would be the total exports dropping which is also supposedly happening.
If the deflation is just a market correction after exaggerated inflation (retailers raising their prices more than general inflation to increase their short term subs) then it’s no big deal. Prolonged deflation can be bad, as that causes too much saving and not enough spending, which can really hurt the economy and people because of how it takes money out of circulation.
In an economy, the more money can circulate, the more good it can do. I use my salary to pay for for and things, that money then pays the employees of the businesses I went to, and those employees also spent that money, and so on. At each step, both participants normally get a net benefit: I can eat, and the employee can also spend the money they get from me to eat, etc. As long as the money circulates, it keeps doing good. When it stops circulating, due to being put into savings, investments or real estate, it stops doing good (or it does less good). The cycle slows down or stops.
That’s why a small amount of inflation (maybe 1-2% ? Not sure what’s optimal) is actually healthy, because it puts pressure on people with money to spend it before it loses its value, instead of hoarding it.
This is the opinion of most macro economists today, but it’s not universally accepted. Macro-economics is not nearly as scientific as micro-economics, and some people will say that its models are just about who can tell the most convincing story (or the story that’s the most convenient for those in power)
There are some people who point out that things like electronics have been undergoing rapid deflation for decades and this has not caused people to stop purchasing them. The economy is a chaotic system and anyone who claims to be able to predict it’s outcomes is selling something
In an economy as tightly controlled as China, how much does deflation even matter?
Also I wonder how everywhere else having inflation will interact with this. Is China just getting affected because the rest of the world can’t afford basic necessities anymore? The article kinda touches on reduced demand from countries with inflation abroad causing this, but also doesn’t really explain anything other than going “lower number is uh bad”
China has built out enough infrastructure where it really needs consumer demand to take over as a major economic engine.
Nah, that is liberalism. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2023/08/02/china-consumption-or-investment/
Guess which political economic form can handle price deflation gracefully (hint, it’s not capitalism)
Ah yes, China, the city on a hill of Socialism where striking FOXCONN workers are beaten by cops.
LOL, imagine a socialist country where workers needed to organize to create adversarial relationships with other workers. Shake that liberalism from your brain. Unions are an organizational form against capitalists, a protorevolutionary form that wins through threat of harm to the state. No socialist country needs to have unions, because a socialist country is one in which the state is organized in accordance with the long-term interests of the workers as a class.
k, I will tell that to those FOXCONN workers that their system is perfect. I’m sure they will love that.
Cool, let them know that you know what’s best for them and that they should organize themselves in a protorevolutionary formation and threaten to withhold their labor from society. You know best!
I think they would know what is best for themselves considering all those strikes they were doing.
And unionizing wasn’t it
I’ve read your posting history so I’m just going to cut it off here, we are both wasting eachothers time.
Democracy is always superior to authoritarianism, long term. Regulated capitalism is always superior to state owned and directed business.
As ever, “authoritarianism” just means when non- white countries elect people that white people don’t want them too.
When was Xi Jinping last elected by the people?
March of this year.
And who elected him? The people of China or his cronies?
The people of China
Source?
High fives all around!
Lmao gattem
