• AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Sir, our youth unemployment rate is 25%! What should we do?”

    “Easy, just stop reporting it. If we don’t know what it is then it’s not a problem we have to deal with”

    Brilliant

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’ve participated in the unemployment tallying in the US. That’s not how that works.

        The only thing that I can possibly imagine you’re alluding to is discouraged workers, who are people without jobs who stopped looking. They drop off because it’s really hard to hire people who won’t apply for any job, which is important to know about when you’re trying to determine the number of people available to fill job vacancies.

      • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        We just change the calculation. If 25% are unemployed, what if we added a stipulation that they also received a survey from the last job they applied to on whether they were employable. See? We can drop unemployment by calling people unemployable and ignoring those that didn’t apply for a job! Math!

    • Riddick3001@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Sir, our youth unemployment rate is 25%! What should we do?"

      If iirc, unemployed chinese youth below 30 yo, were considered " Students " now. Don’t know if that’s still used though.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    Your annual reminder for the past ten years that “China is about to collapse any day now”

    • CluckN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      Closely followed by, “Trump is in trouble this time” articles that we’ve been getting for the last 6 years.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Per the article:

      Now, these problems have been fairly obvious for at least a decade. Why are they only becoming acute now? Well, international economists are fond of citing Dornbusch’s Law: “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” What happened in China’s case was that the government was able to mask the problem of inadequate consumer spending for a number of years by promoting a gigantic real estate bubble. In fact, China’s real estate sector became insanely large by international standards.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is a well known feature of all complex systems. How they change is “not at all, and then suddenly”.

        Yet people always insist they must change slowly and steadily.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t understand this take. Comments like this suggest collapse happens overnight. Which means if china didn’t catastrophically collapse in the last 24 hours it means it isn’t happening at all or never.

      The reality is collapse happens very slowly. There is no question that the health of the economy both in china and the rest of the world is steadily getting worse year by year.

      Collapse isn’t going to happen. It’s already happening. It’s just a steady and slow march to the bottom.

    • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yeah, it’s a believe it when you see it thing at this point. They might stagnate out economically or have internal supply issues, but there’s a world of difference between that and actual regime instability.

      Case in point: Zimbabwe is still run by largely the same group of guys that ordered the 100-trillion dollar bills made.

    • MechanicalJester@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yep you can definitely build lots of skyscrapers, then just demolish them without any financial repercussion.

        • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Reactionary in the sense of maintaining the status quo, would actually be a good thing under those circumstances! Although I’m very much economically left-wing, I try to recognise that. Makes me understand why the rich skew conservative, because obviously to them everything is already good.

          • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            “Reactionary” specifically means trying to go back to a (often imagined) previous state.

            reactionary <-> conservative <-> progressive

              • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Yeah, I kind of wish there was another word for the idea, because it’s a bit confusing. I think originally it was “in reaction to progress”.

                Big and small c conservative is sometimes used to make the distinction in commentary, with big C being the reactionary stances that are common in right-wing parties that call themselves “Conservative”, but I don’t think everyone gets that either.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Same problem as anywhere else. Instead of the money getting back into the economy by giving it to people at the bottom, it leaves the economy by ending up in the hands of a few rich.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Democratic nations like the United States rarely politicize their economic statistics — although ask me again if Donald Trump returns to office — but authoritarian regimes often do.

    President Xi Jinping is starting to look like a poor economic manager, whose propensity for arbitrary interventions — which is something autocrats tend to do — has stifled private initiative.

    Well, international economists are fond of citing Dornbusch’s Law: “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” What happened in China’s case was that the government was able to mask the problem of inadequate consumer spending for a number of years by promoting a gigantic real estate bubble.

    To outside observers, what China must do seems straightforward: end financial repression and allow more of the economy’s income to flow through to households, and strengthen the social safety net so that consumers don’t feel the need to hoard cash.

    And when it comes to strengthening the safety net, the leader of this supposedly communist regime sounds a bit like the governor of Mississippi, denouncing “welfarism” that creates “lazy people.”

    Will it try to prop up its economy with an export surge that will run headlong into Western efforts to promote green technologies?


    The original article contains 877 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      So basically they are saying China should become capitalist and it will fix their problems 🤣

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    China is completely fine but Western media will keep mashing on it for no reason

    • Jin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago
      • Youth unemployment rate, was so high they stop rapporting it.
      • Foreign investment leaving, doing to stupid laws etc.
      • Property crisis
      • Their GDP is made up