3 ms·

How do you interpret "Zombie Economy?" >a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions. Edit: I admit that I

How do you interpret "Zombie Economy?" >a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions. Edit: I admit that I used the wrong word. I would correct it to: I'm still not sold on the "China is Japanifying" theory.

duxup 3y ago
I believe you're misunderstanding and taking that term too literally. The term has an established economic meaning that applied to Japan long before China, and Japan didn't "die": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company The article also describes that process.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  Maybe you are taking "China is dying" too literally, although I see that I should have used a different phrase, as it clearly took away from my actual point which was a data-based claim. I think it is fair though to say the people who think that China will see "Japanification" while still at ~13k GDP per capita are essentially saying that China is dying — and people actually were saying that China was collapsing after Evergrande; it is a real claim. I didn't mean to say that the linked aritcle meant this, only that people do say it, and the arricle feeds into with the title, which admitedly I did not articulate well. And as I said my main point wasn't even about the name of China's decline (dying, zombifying, ageing) but a comment about what analogous phase China's economy is in within Japan's timeline, which is a topic of the article as well as a common point discussed by economists.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    The point though, is that China isn't going to have a revolution, or dramatic collapse. Instead, it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. Therefore, the people saying "well, people have been talking about a China collapse for a decade but I haven't seen anything dramatic happen!!" Are wrong and missing the point. Because a decade of stagnate growth for China is still a big deal, while not being dramatic in a way that obviously "proves" the China doomsayers correct.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      I don’t know. That property bubble, they are still trying to inflate it even more. When it pops, I’m not sure what will happen: will it just be Japan bad and they stagnate for a couple of decades, or will it be much worse? Anyways, I wouldn’t predict a collapse (that probably won’t happen), but I wouldn’t rule one out either. I’m just glad I’m not exposed to either anymore.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
      >it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. How slow? "Japanification" is 1% growth.[0] That's ridiculus for a growing economy. I can't take the claim that China will have 1% growth seriously. If you mean "stagnate at 6%," my claim is that 6% is "enough" for a low middle imcome economy, Cf. Japan in 1970. So your claim in that case is wrong that it will be "a big deal." At most we can say that China will reach a mid-1980 Japan level economy more slowly than Japan and Korea. However this is very different from the claim that China is 1990 Japan, or that "China might never catch up with the US," implying that China will always be third world (although we can debate the meaning of that sentence). [0]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2
      - stale2002 3y ago
        Sure, stagnate at 1 or 2% for a couple decades. That's both bad for china, while also not a literal revolution. > That's ridiculous for a growing economy. It is low for a normal growing economy, sure. But China has a lot of problems, which is the entire point. If you want to call low and stagnate growth as something that is very bad, sure. But most people, when they are objecting" to the term "dying" are simply objecting to the idea of a sudden collapse, which is it not likely to happen. Instead was is likely is very low growth for a long time. Which you are free to call very bad if you want, but that's not the same definition as what other people are referring to.
        Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
        Sorry, a decade of 1-2% growth is just not happening. There is still so much low hanging fruit in the Chinese economy and plenty of talented (perhaps overqualified) workers to pick them. I suppose this is where we disagree. Thier automobile industry is just begining in earnest, for example. They are in 1965-1970 era Japan, not 1990. This was Japan's economy: Junk -> steel -> automobiles -> computers/chemicals China is only now geting to automobiles. They are making good progress on electronics as well. Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. They also aren't strictly speaking as dependent on exports as Japan was considering the size of their domestic market. To me all of this signals that China will stay in the 6-7% range and will reach 40k GDP per ca in 15-20 years or so.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Dying implies China will not exist. Zombie economy could mean stagnation or decline. We’ve already seen that with Japans Zombie companies. It doesnt mean the end of China.

duxup 3y ago

I believe you're misunderstanding and taking that term too literally. The term has an established economic meaning that applied to Japan long before China, and Japan didn't "die": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company The article also describes that process.

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
Maybe you are taking "China is dying" too literally, although I see that I should have used a different phrase, as it clearly took away from my actual point which was a data-based claim. I think it is fair though to say the people who think that China will see "Japanification" while still at ~13k GDP per capita are essentially saying that China is dying — and people actually were saying that China was collapsing after Evergrande; it is a real claim. I didn't mean to say that the linked aritcle meant this, only that people do say it, and the arricle feeds into with the title, which admitedly I did not articulate well. And as I said my main point wasn't even about the name of China's decline (dying, zombifying, ageing) but a comment about what analogous phase China's economy is in within Japan's timeline, which is a topic of the article as well as a common point discussed by economists.
- stale2002 3y ago
  The point though, is that China isn't going to have a revolution, or dramatic collapse. Instead, it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. Therefore, the people saying "well, people have been talking about a China collapse for a decade but I haven't seen anything dramatic happen!!" Are wrong and missing the point. Because a decade of stagnate growth for China is still a big deal, while not being dramatic in a way that obviously "proves" the China doomsayers correct.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I don’t know. That property bubble, they are still trying to inflate it even more. When it pops, I’m not sure what will happen: will it just be Japan bad and they stagnate for a couple of decades, or will it be much worse? Anyways, I wouldn’t predict a collapse (that probably won’t happen), but I wouldn’t rule one out either. I’m just glad I’m not exposed to either anymore.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
    >it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. How slow? "Japanification" is 1% growth.[0] That's ridiculus for a growing economy. I can't take the claim that China will have 1% growth seriously. If you mean "stagnate at 6%," my claim is that 6% is "enough" for a low middle imcome economy, Cf. Japan in 1970. So your claim in that case is wrong that it will be "a big deal." At most we can say that China will reach a mid-1980 Japan level economy more slowly than Japan and Korea. However this is very different from the claim that China is 1990 Japan, or that "China might never catch up with the US," implying that China will always be third world (although we can debate the meaning of that sentence). [0]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2
    - stale2002 3y ago
      Sure, stagnate at 1 or 2% for a couple decades. That's both bad for china, while also not a literal revolution. > That's ridiculous for a growing economy. It is low for a normal growing economy, sure. But China has a lot of problems, which is the entire point. If you want to call low and stagnate growth as something that is very bad, sure. But most people, when they are objecting" to the term "dying" are simply objecting to the idea of a sudden collapse, which is it not likely to happen. Instead was is likely is very low growth for a long time. Which you are free to call very bad if you want, but that's not the same definition as what other people are referring to.
      - Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
        Sorry, a decade of 1-2% growth is just not happening. There is still so much low hanging fruit in the Chinese economy and plenty of talented (perhaps overqualified) workers to pick them. I suppose this is where we disagree. Thier automobile industry is just begining in earnest, for example. They are in 1965-1970 era Japan, not 1990. This was Japan's economy: Junk -> steel -> automobiles -> computers/chemicals China is only now geting to automobiles. They are making good progress on electronics as well. Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. They also aren't strictly speaking as dependent on exports as Japan was considering the size of their domestic market. To me all of this signals that China will stay in the 6-7% range and will reach 40k GDP per ca in 15-20 years or so.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Dying implies China will not exist. Zombie economy could mean stagnation or decline. We’ve already seen that with Japans Zombie companies. It doesnt mean the end of China.