Ukraine is/was a major food exporter, so food prices are likely to go up a lot this year. That will likely reduce spending on consumer electronics, especially in countries where food represents a larger share of household expenditures.
No, it is the loss of sales to Russia which has a population over 200,000,000.
Despite its population, I’m not sure that Russia consumed that great a quantity of consumer electronics.
Certainly the large metropolitan areas like Moscow and St. Petersburg, but outside those areas Russia is surprisingly unsophisticated and rather backwards.
I’ve often heard Russia described as a third world country with a big military and the bomb.
The kleptocracy of those in power have severely restricted Russia’s move into western prosperity, as do all autocracies. The only reason China has done as well as it has is due to the fact that western countries have willingly exported so much manufacturing to that country.
One of the major differences between China and Russia was that Chinese people were moving all over the globe and prospering. Many were successful and eventually set up businesses with links back to mainland China.
Russians, in stark contrast, didn't really venture too far from the mainland.
Decades later and with everything else that has happened in terms of trade (Hong Kong and geographical considerations included), China is thriving.
On paper, Russia had everything going for it to slowly become a major source of revenue for more developed nations.
All that potential has probably been set back a few decades now.
Go back and look at the China from 40 years ago. Look at the changes.
And why are you confusing Shanghai with China? Why are you confusing an exceptional and unpreventable health related situation (a pandemic) with the bigger picture?
Unpreventable? True, but China's zero tolerance strategy, built on lockdowns and authoritarianism, and unwillingness to procure Western mNRA vaccines, in the face of Covid strains that are even more transmissible, will only add to the West's desire to reorient supply chains for increased resilience.
China's "stunning" growth is partially myth, and almost certainly going to come back to slower growth. That is in fact the bigger picture, and on top of that, China's demographic problem, ie, an overaged population, is beginning to kick in.
The major blunder is support of Russia, at the risk of further alienating the West. You don't agree, but you don't post arguments or links otherwise.
So what is the breaking point in China's zero-Covid policy? As Zeng Guang, a top government health adviser said last summer, China would start to open and coexist with the virus when the cost exceeded the benefits.
What he did not foresee is that weighing of the cost and benefits of the policy is now highly politicized. Under China's performance-based legitimacy, pivoting away from zero-Covid due to the high socioeconomic cost would undermine Xi's personal leadership right at the moment he is seeking a third term. And he has tied his personal interest to the policy.
Indeed, a recent Xinhua article reiterated that Xi was "personally issuing commands and personally arranging deployments" in China's battle against Covid-19.
Furthermore, abandoning the policy would also hurt the legitimacy of the regime since it can no longer claim China's political system is superior to the western ones. In January 2021, Xi said: "Judging from how this pandemic is being handled by different leaderships and [political] systems . . . [we can] clearly see who has done better."
The party, and Xi himself, have benefited greatly from curbing the spread of the virus within China despite the initial mishandling of the Wuhan outbreak.
A recent article published in a Shenzhen newspaper framed the debate between zero-Covid and coexistence with the virus as "fundamentally" a competition between political systems. If China manages to use a zero-Covid approach to avoid large-scale outbreaks when all other nations opt to live with the virus, it will make the arguments about the resilience and resourcefulness of the Chinese state much more convincing.
With the political stakes so high, the tremendous cost associated with the policy becomes a secondary concern, and zero-Covid becomes a by-all-means and at-all-cost approach. Unless the top leadership changes its zero-Covid mentality, the policy is here to stay. In the words of a nationalist blogger, China should "prepare to live with zero-Covid for at least ten years."
Ukraine is/was a major food exporter, so food prices are likely to go up a lot this year. That will likely reduce spending on consumer electronics, especially in countries where food represents a larger share of household expenditures.
No, it is the loss of sales to Russia which has a population over 200,000,000.
Despite its population, I’m not sure that Russia consumed that great a quantity of consumer electronics.
Certainly the large metropolitan areas like Moscow and St. Petersburg, but outside those areas Russia is surprisingly unsophisticated and rather backwards.
I’ve often heard Russia described as a third world country with a big military and the bomb.
The kleptocracy of those in power have severely restricted Russia’s move into western prosperity, as do all autocracies. The only reason China has done as well as it has is due to the fact that western countries have willingly exported so much manufacturing to that country.
One of the major differences between China and Russia was that Chinese people were moving all over the globe and prospering. Many were successful and eventually set up businesses with links back to mainland China.
Russians, in stark contrast, didn't really venture too far from the mainland.
Decades later and with everything else that has happened in terms of trade (Hong Kong and geographical considerations included), China is thriving.
On paper, Russia had everything going for it to slowly become a major source of revenue for more developed nations.
All that potential has probably been set back a few decades now.
Go back and look at the China from 40 years ago. Look at the changes.
And why are you confusing Shanghai with China? Why are you confusing an exceptional and unpreventable health related situation (a pandemic) with the bigger picture?
Unpreventable? True, but China's zero tolerance strategy, built on lockdowns and authoritarianism, and unwillingness to procure Western mNRA vaccines, in the face of Covid strains that are even more transmissible, will only add to the West's desire to reorient supply chains for increased resilience.
China's "stunning" growth is partially myth, and almost certainly going to come back to slower growth. That is in fact the bigger picture, and on top of that, China's demographic problem, ie, an overaged population, is beginning to kick in.
The major blunder is support of Russia, at the risk of further alienating the West. You don't agree, but you don't post arguments or links otherwise.
So what is the breaking point in China's zero-Covid policy? As Zeng Guang, a top government health adviser said last summer, China would start to open and coexist with the virus when the cost exceeded the benefits.
What he did not foresee is that weighing of the cost and benefits of the policy is now highly politicized. Under China's performance-based legitimacy, pivoting away from zero-Covid due to the high socioeconomic cost would undermine Xi's personal leadership right at the moment he is seeking a third term. And he has tied his personal interest to the policy.
Indeed, a recent Xinhua article reiterated that Xi was "personally issuing commands and personally arranging deployments" in China's battle against Covid-19.
Furthermore, abandoning the policy would also hurt the legitimacy of the regime since it can no longer claim China's political system is superior to the western ones. In January 2021, Xi said: "Judging from how this pandemic is being handled by different leaderships and [political] systems . . . [we can] clearly see who has done better."
The party, and Xi himself, have benefited greatly from curbing the spread of the virus within China despite the initial mishandling of the Wuhan outbreak.
A recent article published in a Shenzhen newspaper framed the debate between zero-Covid and coexistence with the virus as "fundamentally" a competition between political systems. If China manages to use a zero-Covid approach to avoid large-scale outbreaks when all other nations opt to live with the virus, it will make the arguments about the resilience and resourcefulness of the Chinese state much more convincing.
With the political stakes so high, the tremendous cost associated with the policy becomes a secondary concern, and zero-Covid becomes a by-all-means and at-all-cost approach. Unless the top leadership changes its zero-Covid mentality, the policy is here to stay. In the words of a nationalist blogger, China should "prepare to live with zero-Covid for at least ten years."
Look. There are no two ways about it. China is thriving. There is no myth.
Year after year for decades. Growth and development on every level.
Don't tell me what you think will happen in the future. I wasn't talking about the future. I was talking about how it reached its current status.
Take a snapshot of China from 40 years ago and take another for every subsequent year. Compare.
You really must be blinkered if you cannot see improvements across the board.
Ukraine is/was a major food exporter, so food prices are likely to go up a lot this year. That will likely reduce spending on consumer electronics, especially in countries where food represents a larger share of household expenditures.
No, it is the loss of sales to Russia which has a population over 200,000,000.
Despite its population, I’m not sure that Russia consumed that great a quantity of consumer electronics.
Certainly the large metropolitan areas like Moscow and St. Petersburg, but outside those areas Russia is surprisingly unsophisticated and rather backwards.
I’ve often heard Russia described as a third world country with a big military and the bomb.
The kleptocracy of those in power have severely restricted Russia’s move into western prosperity, as do all autocracies. The only reason China has done as well as it has is due to the fact that western countries have willingly exported so much manufacturing to that country.
One of the major differences between China and Russia was that Chinese people were moving all over the globe and prospering. Many were successful and eventually set up businesses with links back to mainland China.
Russians, in stark contrast, didn't really venture too far from the mainland.
Decades later and with everything else that has happened in terms of trade (Hong Kong and geographical considerations included), China is thriving.
On paper, Russia had everything going for it to slowly become a major source of revenue for more developed nations.
All that potential has probably been set back a few decades now.
Go back and look at the China from 40 years ago. Look at the changes.
And why are you confusing Shanghai with China? Why are you confusing an exceptional and unpreventable health related situation (a pandemic) with the bigger picture?
Unpreventable? True, but China's zero tolerance strategy, built on lockdowns and authoritarianism, and unwillingness to procure Western mNRA vaccines, in the face of Covid strains that are even more transmissible, will only add to the West's desire to reorient supply chains for increased resilience.
China's "stunning" growth is partially myth, and almost certainly going to come back to slower growth. That is in fact the bigger picture, and on top of that, China's demographic problem, ie, an overaged population, is beginning to kick in.
The major blunder is support of Russia, at the risk of further alienating the West. You don't agree, but you don't post arguments or links otherwise.
So what is the breaking point in China's zero-Covid policy? As Zeng Guang, a top government health adviser said last summer, China would start to open and coexist with the virus when the cost exceeded the benefits.
What he did not foresee is that weighing of the cost and benefits of the policy is now highly politicized. Under China's performance-based legitimacy, pivoting away from zero-Covid due to the high socioeconomic cost would undermine Xi's personal leadership right at the moment he is seeking a third term. And he has tied his personal interest to the policy.
Indeed, a recent Xinhua article reiterated that Xi was "personally issuing commands and personally arranging deployments" in China's battle against Covid-19.
Furthermore, abandoning the policy would also hurt the legitimacy of the regime since it can no longer claim China's political system is superior to the western ones. In January 2021, Xi said: "Judging from how this pandemic is being handled by different leaderships and [political] systems . . . [we can] clearly see who has done better."
The party, and Xi himself, have benefited greatly from curbing the spread of the virus within China despite the initial mishandling of the Wuhan outbreak.
A recent article published in a Shenzhen newspaper framed the debate between zero-Covid and coexistence with the virus as "fundamentally" a competition between political systems. If China manages to use a zero-Covid approach to avoid large-scale outbreaks when all other nations opt to live with the virus, it will make the arguments about the resilience and resourcefulness of the Chinese state much more convincing.
With the political stakes so high, the tremendous cost associated with the policy becomes a secondary concern, and zero-Covid becomes a by-all-means and at-all-cost approach. Unless the top leadership changes its zero-Covid mentality, the policy is here to stay. In the words of a nationalist blogger, China should "prepare to live with zero-Covid for at least ten years."
Look. There are no two ways about it. China is thriving. There is no myth.
Year after year for decades. Growth and development on every level.
Don't tell me what you think will happen in the future. I wasn't talking about the future. I was talking about how it reached its current status.
Take a snapshot of China from 40 years ago and take another for every subsequent year. Compare.
You really must be blinkered if you cannot see improvements across the board.
Perhaps it is you that is blinkered, about the future, happening as we speak.
Comments
China's "stunning" growth is partially myth, and almost certainly going to come back to slower growth. That is in fact the bigger picture, and on top of that, China's demographic problem, ie, an overaged population, is beginning to kick in.
The major blunder is support of Russia, at the risk of further alienating the West. You don't agree, but you don't post arguments or links otherwise.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/opinions/china-xi-zero-covid-shanghai-huang/index.html
Year after year for decades. Growth and development on every level.
Don't tell me what you think will happen in the future. I wasn't talking about the future. I was talking about how it reached its current status.
Take a snapshot of China from 40 years ago and take another for every subsequent year. Compare.
You really must be blinkered if you cannot see improvements across the board.