hyperinflation in centrally-planned economies: the Chinese exception

Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu
Fri Oct 11 22:47:30 MDT 1996

     My posts get read backwards, so I did not see this
until after the later one from Louis G..  Guess he did
emulate his first-name sake after all.  Yes, it would
appear that you have overreacted, Louis G.
     I have already noted that data out of the PRC is very
difficult to interpret.  One sign of this is that estimates
of aggregate Chinese GDP range from having it as the
world's eighth largest to the world's second largest
economy.  Hmmm.
    Only two further points for now:
     1)  The official term used by the Chinese for their
economy is "socialist market economy."
     2)  That a lot of investment is going into the SOEs
but very little growth is coming out of the SOEs as a
result of that investment is a very telling detail,
irrespective of what the precise numbers are, which as my
earlier post indicated is a matter of some difficulty.
     In the meantime, I guess I had better go out and get
myself a very warm jacket for that ice flow...., :-).
Barkley Rosser
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 18:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Louis R Godena
<louisgodena at ids.net> wrote:

> Barkley has the temerity to say:
> > Your numbers on Chinese investment are all wet.
> My numbers are fine.    It is you who are full of shit.
> >I think that you have lumped the centrally owned SOEs with
> >the TVEs, or something like that.  The centrally owned SOEs
> >have produced substantially less than half the PRC GDP
> >since the early 1990s, a percentage that continues to fall
> >as that sector has been allowed to stagnate relative to the
> >others.
> Re-read my post,  dick-head.    Most of the non-SOEs ARE Town and Village
> Enterprises (TVEs).   And the SOEs have not,  as a rule,  been allowed to
> stagnate.    They get most of the investment income,  yet the increase in
> the real output of SOEs was only a FIFTH of the total industrial expansion
> between 1989 and 1993,  when the compound annual growth in SOE output 7.4
> per cent,  against 31 per cent in non-SOEs.
> I have numerous sources on this, although one for
> >starters is Barry Naughton, "Chinese Institutional
> >Innovation and Privatization from Below," _American
> >Economic Review Papers and Proceedings_, May 1994.
> Barkley,  you can read.    Fine.   It won;t do you any good,  because you
> don't know how to read figures,  and you did a piss-poor job of reading my
> post,  to boot.
> > The double-digit inflation rates in the PRC are better
> >than what has happened in many transitional economies, but
> >its performance is hardly the best there is out there on
> >that front.  Where it has done much better has been in
> >avoiding a decline in output, indeed has had a very rapidly
> >growing economy, although disguised unemployment and
> >growing income inequalities are emerging.
> My post did not address that.    I quibble with the term "transition
> economy".    The Chinese call it a "planned commodity economy" as opposed to
> a centrally controlled market economy.    This issue of course needs further
> exploration.     How about some figures on unemployment and income
> inequalities from your precious Barry Naughton?
> Remember,  don't fuck 'em up.
> Louis Godena
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb at jmu.edu

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list