73
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
73 points (98.7% liked)
Slop.
821 readers
571 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The criticisms echo what several posters on here have argued, that the government isn't providing enough of a social safety net and could do more to stimulate domestic consumption, but I imagine the prescription differs and it is a bit rich coming from the Hudson Institute.
Isn't that literally the whole focus of their current 5 year plan? It was Made in China, now it's increasing living standards and domestic consumption?
That was also a big reason for the poverty alleviation initiatives. To bring those poorer areas into the national labor force and develop them enough that they can participate more in the domestic economy...
It is weird seeing bourgeois media, economists, and think tanks trying to urge the Communist party of China to adopt stronger social welfare policies. Makes me think that the party is right to be skeptical of expanding the safety net in the short term
Are we dead ass going to argue against social safety nets because a small subsection of the bourgeoise are advising the Chinese to adopt them?
Especially as it’s clearly a “the card says moops” scenario where the reactionaries are just reaching for any argument that they think will make China look bad. They don’t actually believe in social safety nets as a political agenda.