China’s leaders are “bizarrely unwilling” to use more government spending to support consumer demand instead of production, according to Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman.
“The fact that we seem to have a complete lack of realism on the part of the Chinese is a threat to all of us,”
Krugman echoed criticism by U.S. economic officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that China can’t simply export its way out of trouble. The comments come amid renewed concern in the U.S. and Europe over what is viewed as Chinese overproduction and the dumping of heavily subsidized products overseas
China’s whole economic model is not sustainable because of “vastly inadequate” domestic spending and a lack of investment opportunities, he added. Beijing should be supporting demand not more production, he said.
Was there some meaning this article was trying to convey? I read the whole thing and my response is just
I got literally, absolutely nothing from reading all those words, and I’m pretty sure that’s not my fault.
Also, and this is a small thing, I know articles are published with typos all the time, but the following sentence makes no sense, right? Like, the grammar is wrong to the point where the sentence is meaningless, isn’t it? I’m not just misreading things entirely?
Yeah that looks shouldn’t be in there. Also it should have commas somewhere … anywhere
Yeah it used to be true these guys would make arguments I’d have to put effort into debunking, like I’d have to know shit if I talked to people repeating their talking points.
Anyone on the street who tried to repeat this would just sound like a moron
Western crap-it-all-ism is looking at a checkmate senario and China didn’t have to fire a single shot.
When your enemy is a total dumbass, all you have to do is whatever you want.
If “with” was replaced with “when” it would be coherent.
Yes. Could they also replace “looks” with “looking?” I’m just trying to make sure my brain still works after reading it.