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.
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.
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).
“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?
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.
They’re also the largest country, by population, in the world.
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.
Not really. The Chinese public sector of their economy is actually lower, as a proportion of GDP, than Sweden.
I’m curious about the source of this statement
Can you provide source? Because for State Owned Enterprises I can only find metric ~40% (China) vs 10% in Sweden.
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).
“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 sectorto 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 sectorto mean only government expenditure?