COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.

China could put reforms on hold to boost economy: analysts

By Joëlle GARRUS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

China's communist planned economy has shown itself as a winner. 7% growth! Growing middle class! Why would they want to tinker with that?

China has long been snubbing its WTO commitments, so it's not serious about "reforms" anyway. The real goal is merchantilistic self-sufficiency.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sadly the people of the world must suffer for some nations to understand and appreciate the sense and the need for fairness and mutual benefit within an environment of safety, security and well being for the entire world.

Sad too that some do not feel the responsibility and commitment behind every rhetoric (word) and action in any relationship.

While one may say and do as they desire within their own environment or country, in the world perspective not go much as global (single world order) but international (inter-related) world, there must be mutual respect and mutual and fair communication, coordination and cooperation.

China now suffers along with the rest of the world...

One does not expect changes in China, but the rest of the world will change and adjust with or without China...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A command economy planned by central bureaucrats will always be inflexibly rigid with massive miss allocation of resources, perfectly evidenced by China, with cities no one lives in, pointless massive projects and money poured in to the gaping maw of incompetent zombie state enterprises.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )


"...massive miss allocation of resources,"

Which will make China the world's No. 1 economy. Not a bad deal. Not to mention unprecedented eradication of poverty and skyrocketing growth of a middle class.

If you want to see a real "massive miss allocation of resources," then take a look at the 2008 global financial meltdown. All due to capitalist lightly regulated private sector greedy corporations that lent money to people who couldnt afford to pay it back. Doh!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I've read that the problem with capitalism is that no country really does it. All govts try to bend the markets to their will by stimulus, interest rates, buying/owning companies, depending on level of power. If we replaced all corporations with limited liability partnerships where everyone who worked there had to be a partner, we wouldn't have to have so many govt intervention or regulations (ie no minimum wage as all partners got percentage of profits, partner/worker would vote in the best interest of themselves as they live in the same area they work and want to make more money, etc). Contrary to what some believe, even giant multinational companies like walmart could be limited liability partnerships. That means, even if half the revenue were reinvested, each employee would get $108,000 ($500 billion revenue, 2.3 million workers). Even Adam Smith despised corporations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

jefflee, in a market economy, the cure for miss allocation of resources is the company goes bust and closes down. In 2008 governments interfered with the process and propped up the incompetent, socialising the risk and privatising the profits so increasing the moral hazard without solving the problems. The massive miss allocation was by central governments interfering and preventing the natural solution to the problem.

juminRhee, quire right, Waitrose in the UK operates that way for nearly a century very successfully.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 In 2008 governments interfered with the process

If they didn't, the global level economic activity would be still be a fraction of what it is today and the recovery would have taken decades, not years. The wealth destruction was immense, in the multi-trillions, with all Wall Street on the verge of bankruptcy. My own private pension fund lost nearly half its value in a matter of months.

Capitalism has only flourished after it's been controlled and managed by govts. Before that happened, in the industrial revolutuion, most people worked 50-60 hours a week, lived in abject poverty, died at age 40, Manhattan and central London were mostly slums while pollution levels were lethal. Govts started to intervene because they had to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


I am definitely glad for a limited hour workweek, but if all businesses were limited partnerships, we would set our own hours as there would be no employees, all workers would also be owners. I can imagine myself working 15 hours per week.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites