ralfy
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2015
- 1,008
- 195
- 138
yes China alone eliminated 40% of world poverty with its switch to global capitalism
From what I know, China employs a state capitalist system with export-oriented industries.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes China alone eliminated 40% of world poverty with its switch to global capitalism
What exactly does "Share of national/state-controlled companies' capitalization" mean? If the Chinese government owns 10% of a company, is that a "state-controlled" company? Do we count all of its capital in the chart above? Given that the author is obviously a fan of statism and government meddling, I question the accuracy of his statistics.
What exactly does "Share of national/state-controlled companies' capitalization" mean? If the Chinese government owns 10% of a company, is that a "state-controlled" company? Do we count all of its capital in the chart above? Given that the author is obviously a fan of statism and government meddling, I question the accuracy of his statistics.
10 huh? That wouldn't be much controll would it?
Sinopec , the third largest company in 2014 is owned by the government by 50% or more.
Sinopec Group - Global 500 2014 2014 - Fortune
(see the footnote in small print).
Of course it would : there would be no military spending.Arguably it would be better if there were no countries to defend. Just one world.thats true but so what?? There is no point in having a great country if you're not going to defend it? It would be lilke building a great house and not putting a roof on it.
That would not be better.
Yes there would, and there would be even more killing.
It should be noted that conflict-related deaths worldwide increased in absolute and relative terms compared to the past four centuries as military spending increased, although there are many other factors to consider, such as population, environmental damage, resource availability, etc.
What exactly does "Share of national/state-controlled companies' capitalization" mean? If the Chinese government owns 10% of a company, is that a "state-controlled" company? Do we count all of its capital in the chart above? Given that the author is obviously a fan of statism and government meddling, I question the accuracy of his statistics.
10 huh? That wouldn't be much controll would it?
Sinopec , the third largest company in 2014 is owned by the government by 50% or more.
Sinopec Group - Global 500 2014 2014 - Fortune
(see the footnote in small print).
You article doesn't define what "controlled" means, so it's difficult to say. The terms it uses are not well defined. They are deliberately vague and are therefore meaningless.
Your link isn't active.
Got another?
What exactly does "Share of national/state-controlled companies' capitalization" mean? If the Chinese government owns 10% of a company, is that a "state-controlled" company? Do we count all of its capital in the chart above? Given that the author is obviously a fan of statism and government meddling, I question the accuracy of his statistics.
10 huh? That wouldn't be much controll would it?
Sinopec , the third largest company in 2014 is owned by the government by 50% or more.
Sinopec Group - Global 500 2014 2014 - Fortune
(see the footnote in small print).
You article doesn't define what "controlled" means, so it's difficult to say. The terms it uses are not well defined. They are deliberately vague and are therefore meaningless.
What is your point? Are you trying to deny that China has a "state-capitalism" system?
I find the term state controlled quite clear : the state has the last word regarding the decisions of the company . This means the government owns at least 50% of the shares.
As a sample take the top 10 companies of China :
3 Sinopec Group
4 China national petroleum
25 Industrial and commerce bank of china
38 China construction bank
47 Agricultural Bank of China
52 China State Construction Engineering
55 China mobile comunications
59 Bank of China
60 China national offshore oil
86 China railway group
ALL of them are government owned at least by 50%.
Wal-Mart Stores - Global 500 2014 2014 - Fortune
No , it wouldn't be state controlled.So if the state owns less than 50% of the company, is it still state controlled? Those 10 companies hardly make-up 80% of the capital in China, as your article claimed.
Authoritarian capitalist market forces are forcing millions of consumers to buy Chinese junk or not buy anything. Why are you shilling for communist terrorism?dear, nobody is forcing anybody to buy junkie stuff.
http://www.annuaire-affilinet.fr/?Your link isn't active.
Got another?
The Economist is active.
I find the term state controlled quite clear : the state has the last word regarding the decisions of the company .
I find the term state controlled quite clear : the state has the last word regarding the decisions of the company .
dear, its anything but clear!!!!
In his new book titled Markets over Mao: The rise of private businesses in China, Lardy argues that even though SOEs still enjoy monopoly positions in some key sectors in China, such as energy and telecommunications, their role in the overall economy has diminished significantly over the years. Here are some of the facts he presents to back his thesis: in 2011, China’s state-controlled firms only accounted for about a quarter of the country’s industrial output; and their share in exports has dropped to about 11% today; in 2012, state firms were only responsible for about one-tenth of fixed investment in manufacturing. And in terms of employment, SOEs employed about 13% of China’s labor force in 2011, a dramatic decline compared with the 60% figure recorded in 1999.
A couple come to mind, one "free trade stops wars." Two, "a McDonald's hamburger in the US tastes just as awful as a McDonald's hamburger in China."
A couple come to mind, one "free trade stops wars." Two, "a McDonald's hamburger in the US tastes just as awful as a McDonald's hamburger in China."
After looking at the figures from Forbes I would very much like to know how Lardy arrived to such figures.
I am not completely against free trade, it has its benefits, specially if the removal of tariffs and free movement of labour is planned.After looking at the figures from Forbes I would very much like to know how Lardy arrived to such figures.
but why dear?? are you here to play trivial pursuit? Have you given up trying to make the case that we don't need global corporations and free trade???
Selling things too cheaply? Why is that a problem?
A couple come to mind, one "free trade stops wars." Two, "a McDonald's hamburger in the US tastes just as awful as a McDonald's hamburger in China."
Quick question................how many hamburgers have you eaten from a McDonald's in China?