China's economic reforms burst the global salary bubble?
Some commentators pointed out that while China is rising, workers and the middle class in OECD member countries are becoming more and more difficult. One of the main reasons for this trend is that China's open economy has impacted global labor market supply. Some economists have said with great interest that China's reform and opening up has "punctured the global salary bubble". For capital owners, this means that there are no more unions, no more overtime pay and pensions; at the same time, cheap labor and low-cost land have emerged, and regulatory costs have been reduced. This is not to say that the Chinese government is bent on weakening the middle class in rich countries; it means that China uses its vast territory and large population as a comparative advantage to accelerate economic development. This article has some reference significance.
There is now a growing notion that Western-style capitalism is chaotic, harsh and unfair, while another model adopted by a rising China seems more attractive.
There are two arguments in support of this argument. First, democratic institutions do not apply to all countries. Compare India and China, which system has lifted 0.5 billion people out of poverty over the past 20 years? Not to mention the Middle East.
Another argument is that the West has made a key mistake: overestimating the efficiency of its private sector. One can see this by comparing the situation in Russia and China, or by looking at the wave of deregulation that preceded the global financial crisis.
Earlier, Niv Horesh (Niv Horesh), a professor of modern Chinese history at the University of Nottingham in the UK, published a commentary in the South China Morning Post, which was widely circulated. He makes the more controversial argument that democracy is doomed.
The reason for its demise is neoliberalism.
Heriff criticized that Western countries promote individualism, restrict government power, and advocate free markets, which aggravate social inequality and lead to other economic injustices. If it continues, will the world pursue something else ...... like the Islamic State? No, fortunately it's not that bad yet.
"The West is at a disadvantage in this debate, while the Chinese model has gained credibility," Herniff wrote." He continued: "Inaction may threaten the future of democracy." In his concluding remarks, he reminded people that the democracy of ancient Greece lasted only 200 years.
On the surface, this looks like a joke. Is it possible to choose between Reagan's small-government doctrine and central leadership? Can't we follow the Swedish model or something else?
From another perspective, if you agree that extreme free marketism is the main cause of the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the OECD (OECD) member countries, perhaps this statement is not unreasonable.
After all, the largest redistribution of wealth occurred during the Cold War, when then-FBI Director John. Edgar. Hoover (J. Edgar Hoover) went house-to-house searches for Communists, while the American middle class rose. It can also be argued that when competing with other powerful economic models, capitalism is more moderate, but also more arbitrary.
As an emerging superpower, can China, like the former Soviet Union, curb the cruelty and greed of capitalism?
A perfect example is that Chinese bankers have much lower incomes than their Western counterparts-at least those who have not embezzled large sums of money to flee to other countries. The same goes for executives in the Chinese oil and steel industries; in general, for any senior SOE. This example strongly refutes the argument that China's top industrialists will go on strike if they don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in income.
In some emerging countries, the rich can hide their assets abroad, resulting in a lack of investment funds in their own countries. China, on the other hand, keeps a firm grip on the country's capital account and limits deposits to the country. The centrally controlled bank transferred the funds to state-owned enterprises and used them for a series of construction projects, such as highways and high-speed railways, to successfully transform a backward country into a modern power.
China has not completely copied the ideas in the "Washington Consensus", but has become a rich and powerful country in its own way. Many Westerners have also become rich: bankers, factory owners, technical consultants, and Australian mining tycoon Gina. Gina Rinehart-in short, all capitalists.
China's rise has coincided with growing hardship for workers and the middle class in OECD countries.
One of the main reasons for this trend is that China's open economy has impacted global labor market supply. Some economists have said with great interest that China's reform and opening up has "punctured the global salary bubble". For capital owners, this means that there are no more unions, no more overtime pay and pensions; at the same time, cheap labor and low-cost land have emerged, and regulatory costs have been reduced.
This is not to say that the Chinese government is bent on weakening the middle class in rich countries; it means that China uses its vast territory and large population as a comparative advantage to accelerate economic development.
In the process, China is not the antidote to neoliberalism, but one of its best partners.
Time: 2015-08-03 11:37 | Author: Yan Mouse | Source: First Agricultural Economics | Editor: Zhai Tianchang