▲ 43 ▼ Made in China 2025 has been a success, but at what cost? (www.economist.com) submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/sino@hexbear.net 18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 38 points 2 years ago (6 children) “But at what cost?” permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 33 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Made in China 2025 has, then, achieved most of its aims. But at what cost? the answer will shock you The fiscal expense is impossible to calculate. One attempt by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, estimated that China spent over 1.7% of GDP on industrial policy in 2017-19, which would add up to over $3trn in today’s dollars if sustained for a decade. That money could have been spent on other things, such as health care, which might have better served the public: fewer EVs, more ICUs. Did you miss it? Less than 2% of GDP. I assume you have now fainted in horror at the cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KatGirl@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bold of then to say China should stop developing industry and just have more health clinics when the USA has no industry, shitty healthcare, and spends 3.5% of GDP its military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago huh, ok that 3.5% actually puts the 1.7% into better perspective. Guess it is a pretty substantial investment. Still smart and definitely worth it, of course. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago And the yanks wants the rest of us to waste 5 percent of GDP on the military permalink fedilink source parent [–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago The sad thing about this is that they would be complaining about how China built too many clinics, and not enough EV's if it was the other way around. And even that doesn't make sense because cheap EV's also have an indirect benefit to public health, reducing smog in the cities. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BennyCHill@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago i love it when they add "a think-tank" so you know when to discard something as complete and utter BS permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 33 points 2 years ago* (5 children) Made in China 2025 has, then, achieved most of its aims. But at what cost? the answer will shock you The fiscal expense is impossible to calculate. One attempt by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank, estimated that China spent over 1.7% of GDP on industrial policy in 2017-19, which would add up to over $3trn in today’s dollars if sustained for a decade. That money could have been spent on other things, such as health care, which might have better served the public: fewer EVs, more ICUs. Did you miss it? Less than 2% of GDP. I assume you have now fainted in horror at the cost. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] KatGirl@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bold of then to say China should stop developing industry and just have more health clinics when the USA has no industry, shitty healthcare, and spends 3.5% of GDP its military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago huh, ok that 3.5% actually puts the 1.7% into better perspective. Guess it is a pretty substantial investment. Still smart and definitely worth it, of course. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago And the yanks wants the rest of us to waste 5 percent of GDP on the military permalink fedilink source parent [–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago The sad thing about this is that they would be complaining about how China built too many clinics, and not enough EV's if it was the other way around. And even that doesn't make sense because cheap EV's also have an indirect benefit to public health, reducing smog in the cities. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BennyCHill@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago i love it when they add "a think-tank" so you know when to discard something as complete and utter BS permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KatGirl@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago (2 children) Bold of then to say China should stop developing industry and just have more health clinics when the USA has no industry, shitty healthcare, and spends 3.5% of GDP its military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago huh, ok that 3.5% actually puts the 1.7% into better perspective. Guess it is a pretty substantial investment. Still smart and definitely worth it, of course. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago And the yanks wants the rest of us to waste 5 percent of GDP on the military permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago huh, ok that 3.5% actually puts the 1.7% into better perspective. Guess it is a pretty substantial investment. Still smart and definitely worth it, of course. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago And the yanks wants the rest of us to waste 5 percent of GDP on the military permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago The sad thing about this is that they would be complaining about how China built too many clinics, and not enough EV's if it was the other way around. And even that doesn't make sense because cheap EV's also have an indirect benefit to public health, reducing smog in the cities. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BennyCHill@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago i love it when they add "a think-tank" so you know when to discard something as complete and utter BS permalink fedilink source parent
“But at what cost?” “But at what cost?”