4 ms·

Did it confuse per capita with overall? I thought it made it clear that: in terms of per capita GNI, China isn't a developed country. But in the context of the

Did it confuse per capita with overall? I thought it made it clear that: in terms of per capita GNI, China isn't a developed country. But in the context of the WTO, Trump has framed the question of whether China is a developed country as a matter of fairness. Developing nations get perks – they're allowed leeway in phasing out their trade policies that protect certain sectors. A central question here is that China is more powerful than any single per capita metric is able to reflect, and therefore may not deserve the kind of flexibility that WTO affords to unquestionably weak and "developing" countries who struggle to transform into a market economy. China sees itself a developing country, but it's arguable whether it needs the kind of flexibility the WTO gives other developing countries. The logical next question in this context is, are the labels "developing" and "developed" good enough to determine which countries should get preferential treatment in international trade? That the labels are no longer adequate in many applications is further highlighted by the fact that China is so diverse and vast that there are parts of it that are basically developed countries in their own right, judging by their per capita income levels. On the other hands, there are many provinces that are indisputably low-income by all accepted standards. The point that China is by and large poor by Western standards is addressed in the first part of the article, and stressed again later. But again, does having a large population of people who live in abject poverty warrant a country differential treatment by an international trade body in areas that have little to do with the poverty?

jimmydef 8y ago
> The logical next question in this context is, are the labels "developing" and "developed" good enough to determine which countries should get preferential treatment in international trade? Many economists would think so and the WTO was set up with that rule precisely because people knew that it is an uneven playing field between the companies from rich and poor countries. Without protectionism, the nascent industries in developing nations would get crushed. Almost all major industrialised nations developed by starting out with protectionism. > That the labels are no longer adequate in many applications is further highlighted by the fact that China is so diverse and vast that there are parts of it that are basically developed countries in their own right, judging by their per capita income levels. On the other hands, there are many provinces that are indisputably low-income by all accepted standards. Here, you are confusing per capita and overall again. Why do labels no longer matter just because China is larger than most nations? Does per capita income no longer work the same way if the population size is larger? There are rich areas in many South American countries but no one would claim that these labels no longer matter for those nations just because there are some rich people or places. Why is it so different for China?
- dnomad 8y ago
  > Here, you are confusing per capita and overall again. Why do labels no longer matter just because China is larger than most nations? Does per capita income no longer work the same way if the population size is larger? What really scares people about China is that it is a developing country that does not behave like a developing country. It is actually getting better, making more right moves than not, and it is setting itself up to become a major contributor to the planet's wealth. This absolutely terrifies many in the West who had always thought China would "follow the playbook" and not become much more than a corrupt, heavily indebted "workhorse economy" where manufacturing could be easily outsourced. > There are rich areas in many South American countries but no one would claim that these labels no longer matter for those nations just because there are some rich people or places. Why is it so different for China? The anti-China bigotry at work here by definition must take China to be exceptional. Any rational comparison of China to other nations would conclude pretty obviously that China is still, on the whole, desperately poor. But this is not about rational analysis and it probably never was.

jimmydef 8y ago

> The logical next question in this context is, are the labels "developing" and "developed" good enough to determine which countries should get preferential treatment in international trade? Many economists would think so and the WTO was set up with that rule precisely because people knew that it is an uneven playing field between the companies from rich and poor countries. Without protectionism, the nascent industries in developing nations would get crushed. Almost all major industrialised nations developed by starting out with protectionism. > That the labels are no longer adequate in many applications is further highlighted by the fact that China is so diverse and vast that there are parts of it that are basically developed countries in their own right, judging by their per capita income levels. On the other hands, there are many provinces that are indisputably low-income by all accepted standards. Here, you are confusing per capita and overall again. Why do labels no longer matter just because China is larger than most nations? Does per capita income no longer work the same way if the population size is larger? There are rich areas in many South American countries but no one would claim that these labels no longer matter for those nations just because there are some rich people or places. Why is it so different for China?

dnomad 8y ago
> Here, you are confusing per capita and overall again. Why do labels no longer matter just because China is larger than most nations? Does per capita income no longer work the same way if the population size is larger? What really scares people about China is that it is a developing country that does not behave like a developing country. It is actually getting better, making more right moves than not, and it is setting itself up to become a major contributor to the planet's wealth. This absolutely terrifies many in the West who had always thought China would "follow the playbook" and not become much more than a corrupt, heavily indebted "workhorse economy" where manufacturing could be easily outsourced. > There are rich areas in many South American countries but no one would claim that these labels no longer matter for those nations just because there are some rich people or places. Why is it so different for China? The anti-China bigotry at work here by definition must take China to be exceptional. Any rational comparison of China to other nations would conclude pretty obviously that China is still, on the whole, desperately poor. But this is not about rational analysis and it probably never was.