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.

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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...

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago

A vote for ~~Bart~~ China is a vote for ~~anarchy~~ communism!

[–] volcel_olive_oil@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago

the economy is when money