Why Xi is Quietly Re-Nationalising China’s Economy 

Damn.... "Periods of catastrophe" that is definitely one way to describe the death by starvation of over 30,000,000 people, and more by other methods.

好景気の後の不景気は辛いぞ 日本から🎌🇯🇵

China doesn't have a private sector. CCP has members overseeing every company and CCP members on the board of companies.

Oh god, the tech industry had 1 trillion dollars disappear? they better watch their airspace...

Why is the Yen symbol used in this video? Yuan has one less stroke

The return of Lil Tartary

Xi jinping is doing what Mao zedong did "Great leap backwards"

This is not surprising. About 60% of the Chinese economy was always state own. Heavy industries like steel and coal and oil was never privatized.

Shock therapy defies common sense. It would always prefer a more sensible approach of "One step at at time".

Because obviously the public sector worked so well the first time under Mao.

This video was of pretty shoddy quality for TLDR standards. Such a reductionist view of China's development

Can you please stop using hyperboles? Every time countries have their routine political issues or China releases lukewarm economic data, TLDR's thumbnails are always as if there's a real diplomatic/economic catastrophe.

He’s lost his way

Not exactly quiet. Chinas government in exile (not taiwans) posted about it in 2022.

After a year of “china is collapsing” videos, now i am excited to be exposed to a new propaganda series of “china is re-nationalizing” videos for the next year. 🎉

So well researched! Giving lots of important historical contexf

The public sector built china to where it is today, its estimated that without the hsr system 30 million more cars would be on the roads leading to way more imports and less money circulation in the economy. Plus state owned companies have built more factories in China than private companies even if they were built and sold to the private companies

First step: China is preparing te decouple from the West. Second step: China will do business with the West but focus more on the Brics economies. Step 3: The west will let go of China on the long run. Goods will be produced in "India, East Europe and Middle+ South America.

Not much solid data. The market cap is not accurate, big private internet companies are not listed in China mainland, but in HK and US, it seems here not included. Also, even shrinked for the private secter, in the chart, it's still on the same level of 2019.

Re- nationalisation of industries, is still capitalism. China is facing financial crisis and the state does anything possible to stop it.

Perhaps I'm wrong but some of the graphs seem to be conveniently framed, it almost exaggerates recent trends whereas the start of the video looks back decades 🤔

I wish they added more to these videos. They end abrupty talking about sponsers making the video feel half finished. Maybe they should consider adding some dicsussion about the topic with an expert or between the presenters.

Because west is withdrawing investment

Its the next step, We're seeing that a true free market economy is not possible as industries like Utilities and energy will never be able to have true competition forming monopolies and oligarchies that extort the consumer. Where it is possible to have competition (ie the current state of fast food) it does benefit the consumer as it leads to innovation and low prices but very few industries have a low enough barrier for entry, investment and scale up potential for that competition.

Love your reporting but the beginning about Mao was kinda bad reporting. You should research those policies and look at the book Thucydides Trap. Just better context.

Nice graph. GDP per capita in "thousands". Thousands of what?

Government is a damn dear thing. But China achieved a cheaper government with the unique party, since all the infighting does not have to be paid by the taxpayer

Is this asset stripping China-style

Chinas economic history started in 1950???? That must be news to the Han dynasty :D

Short answer : because capitalism is expiring and facing its dying period!

The pervasive bribe culture in China has led to staggering losses in the financial industry, amounting to hundreds of billions. This systemic issue has resulted in a significant number of bad loans being issued in exchange for substantial bribes, undermining the integrity of the financial system and contributing to widespread economic instability. Reforms and changes may be painful, but they are essential. It's time to confront rampant corruption and reckless spending head-on. The banking industry has become entangled in a culture of bribery, which has not only compromised ethical standards but also resulted in substantial losses that will take decades to recover. Those who issued billions in loans while pocketing substantial kickbacks must be held accountable. China cannot allow these practices to continue if we hope to restore integrity and stability to any financial system. How else can China recover from the hundreds of billions in bad loans if not through austerity measures? The responsibility for these big losses rests with those who exchanged bad loans for gifts, not with President Xi. Hong Kong has a long-standing reputation as Asia's financial center, and leveraging its resources and expertise would be highly advantageous. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in Hong Kong has extensive experience in combating financial crimes and is renowned for its commitment to transparency. The pressing question is whether China is prepared to embrace such reforms and whether Hong Kong will continue to be regarded as an outsider in this evolving landscape. Engaging Hong Kong's strengths could be crucial for fostering greater financial integrity across the region. A Hong Kong-based external auditing team could play a crucial role in enhancing the integrity of China’s financial system. By providing independent oversight, this team could foster greater transparency and accountability, essential for a stable economic environment. Their expertise in international financial standards could help identify risks and improve regulatory practices. While the team would need to navigate the complexities of operating under Xi’s regime, their involvement could serve as a critical step toward modernizing and stabilizing the financial landscape. By establishing a framework for independent audits, they could help build trust among investors and the global community, ultimately benefiting China’s economic standing. The collaboration could pave the way for a more resilient financial system, capable of withstanding future challenges.

I still think a lot of this is just part of necessary transitions within the Chinese economy. For example, the real estate sector could not have continued in the way it did during the 2000s and 2010s. More state ownership seems to be a more sustainable path for the sector in general, even if the short term pains result in a depressive economic environment. People are out here comparing Xi to Mao, but they fail to realize this is the only way forward. If Xi continued to inflate the property bubble, those same people would be criticizing him for doing so. The Chinese miracle is definitely over, but it's about time when you consider the large structural flaws within their unsustainable model of growth.

Reading the comments before watching the video: it just sounds like the state is stepping in to fill the gap left by collapsing private enterprise. Sort of like QE2 and other nationalisations in the west, then?

Why are there Yen symbols all through this video?

What is wrong with that

Interesting.

Why is chinese economy more independent than european economy even tho they were poor compared to european countries 20 years ago and the EU was already formed at that time.🤔🤔.

If GDP per capita is growing in china, so why many of them are migrating t Australia and canalia so fast even tho those locals don't like them😮.

Ok

Everyone in the comments complaining about the lack of diversity in Western countries but No one is talking about the lack of Diversity in China even tho china is talking Africa and South east asia countries.

People should stop buying. Chinese products and stop investing.

So take a lesson big US companies, academics have warned that China would and would nationalize there stuff if something went wrong.

For anyone interested in actual history of China: Mao literally improved China more than any western leader ever. The west left China in a absolutely dire state. And it was Mao who laid the foundations of what you see today. But now the same colonizers would never accept how difficult it is to bring a country back after these oppressors destroyed them. But hey, communism bad. To dissociate Deng from Mao is also stupid. Not only Mao's reforms paved the way for the socialist AND NOT CAPITALIST reforms Deng proposed, but also Chinese Govt still maintained control over banking ensuring finance capital would not take hold. That is like completely stopping a supposed capitalist at the second mile in a 10 mile journey. But gey, China bad, communism bad, capitalism good. Hurr durr.

Georgina!!!

In my view, the quickest fix for this issue would be to integrate more LGBTQ+ parades and drag shows into the Chinese economy, as they could play a significant role in economic development.

This is a good thing. Industries are not for profit but for people. All the capital of these industries came from Chinese central bank. For two countries of same development level according to world's systems theory(like countries who produce low added items are one category, countries who are at top of the industrial ladder are their own category, then many categories in between), the one with more socialization will always deliver better results to its people in metrics from infant mortality to life expectancy etc etc. Sure you can argue that socialization hurts a nation's progress in the industrial ladder but China has beat these beliefs. 40% of their economy is SOEs. They know their country better than WEF.

While it doesn't get much mention, speed running Russia through this significantly contributed to what is happening now.

This will backfire, why because there is no single person or entity thats wise enough to understand human beings or what new technology will make things cheaper and more efficient

There´s a lot wrong with this. For starters China actually overall grew in the Mao period. Yes, there were disasters like the great leap forwards, but overall China grew faster than Britain did during its industrialisation. Indeed, initially Mao was one of the more pro-Market Stalinist leaders, he moved away during the Great leap forwards, but then Deng moved the economic policies to the right again and that did increase growth some more. The Deng reforms did plenty of economic good, though I think he should have left more of the social welfare system intact. Indeed, Deng was quite influenced by Bukharin´s NEP implemented after the Russian civil war. It´s not quite true that "privatisation" fuelled the economy either, it was more that private industries were allowed in more sectors. I would argue myself that this was a justifiable move to get more US capital, but it´s important to recognise that this was done in a very controlled way, i.e the Chinese government retained a lot of control of the economy. Indeed, the Chinese state railways have played a big role in industrialising the country, as have the state owned energy companies. Myself, If you ask what economic model I like, I think there´s a lot of evidence that having a balance like China´s, i.e 35-50% state owned, 50% private works. I think markets can reduce the kind of bottlenecks that the Soviet Union had. I also think it´s now time for China to implement a proper welfare state, if you´re an officially socialist country, it does look a bit embarrasing if there are people with difficulties getting access to healthcare or if there are huge wealth inequalities. Also, it´s time to give people some more holidays, the country can easily afford it. I see myself as a pragmatic socialist, I think the CCP have done a fair bit of good for China. In the West, we may not agree with everything they do, bu they have improved ordinary people´s living standards a lot. I myself am a democrat, I support having a parliamentary democracy, but it´s no surprise that China, given its history, isn´t one and that most Chinese people don´t really want one.

Commenting 4 algorithm

Its still capitalisms but more centralized and controlled by the government.

Based China

Make sense Naomi Oreskes predicted this exact scenario and makes perfect sense considering the needs related worsening climate change

Good. Capital must always be inferior to the state and the workers

pretty

Ah yes, increasing government ownership. That always works well...

Back to the good ol' starvey times-

The country does not have a bright future either way so who cares

Some people forget that china was always comunist. Similar to Russian, oligarchs thought they could flaunt their money at the face of less wealthy...... and thats not healthy anymore. There certainly is a good middle road . Let's hope they find it.

You seem to have a slight Pro-Capitalism undertone. Of course, if follow the best practises of Market-economic theory, it will be good for 'the machine'. I am not for the tyrannical rule of the CCP or GenSec Xi, but you make it sound as if one has just to do more exploiting capitlism and everything would be fine. We are rich, because they are poor and get more exploited, even if they now have washing machines too.

Don't you think you might have euphemized What mao did just a little too much?🤬

1st

Ah, Winnie the Pooh just won't share that jar of hunny...

I think it's interesting how some western countries have relied on austerity to manage recessions, meanwhile China fund nationalised growth which they then sell off when the economy feels stronger. Considering this relies on heavy external trust in Chinese markets it is interesting to see it play out.

Zero charisma

I don't know why Western Europe is represented as so large while its the size of texas or DR Congo

Because he's a controlling tyrant. Not much more to say