You misread Tooze to suggest he does not give any - or only little - weight to authoritarianism. That’s very much a part of imagining a middle course which is captured in the use of hubris, that unchecked power leads to miscalculations. What is most interesting in the current seeming policy vacuum in Beijing (the view that BJ is not tryi…
You misread Tooze to suggest he does not give any - or only little - weight to authoritarianism. That’s very much a part of imagining a middle course which is captured in the use of hubris, that unchecked power leads to miscalculations. What is most interesting in the current seeming policy vacuum in Beijing (the view that BJ is not trying to stimulate a recovery) is that Xi & Co seem to be willing to allow a slow fizzle, the wind back of investment as a share of GDP and in turn increase household share = increase consumption. The problem is how the collapse of a few big corporates and possibly bankruptcy of some local governments can be handled without hurting too many ordinary citizens, many of who have their savings in real estate, and in turn doing injury to the party’s claim to legitimacy based on good eco management.
I have not caught any wiff of hubris in the actions/behaviour of Beijing action players. The fact that they don't share the reasons of their decisions with the west, or that western observers are not versed in Chinese, or wathever the reason, is neither here nor there. But they act. And, as far as I know, all executive power IS authoritarian. That is the nature of power. US presidents have excessive amounts of power as well, etc., etc., etc. Claiming that only the ilk of China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela are authoritarian is just a smearing action of the western world, happy to create a cleavage between "us" and "them" and in the process jump on the high moral horse, for the sole purpose of bamboozling their own population.
ANd in China, if the population has "saved" in housing and are not in debt, the way US population was in 2007/2008, then it shouldn't be that big of a problem - for the population. With Corporates suffer, that might be less problematic. And local governments should stop living only of land sales and maybe start taxing land...
You misread Tooze to suggest he does not give any - or only little - weight to authoritarianism. That’s very much a part of imagining a middle course which is captured in the use of hubris, that unchecked power leads to miscalculations. What is most interesting in the current seeming policy vacuum in Beijing (the view that BJ is not trying to stimulate a recovery) is that Xi & Co seem to be willing to allow a slow fizzle, the wind back of investment as a share of GDP and in turn increase household share = increase consumption. The problem is how the collapse of a few big corporates and possibly bankruptcy of some local governments can be handled without hurting too many ordinary citizens, many of who have their savings in real estate, and in turn doing injury to the party’s claim to legitimacy based on good eco management.
I have not caught any wiff of hubris in the actions/behaviour of Beijing action players. The fact that they don't share the reasons of their decisions with the west, or that western observers are not versed in Chinese, or wathever the reason, is neither here nor there. But they act. And, as far as I know, all executive power IS authoritarian. That is the nature of power. US presidents have excessive amounts of power as well, etc., etc., etc. Claiming that only the ilk of China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela are authoritarian is just a smearing action of the western world, happy to create a cleavage between "us" and "them" and in the process jump on the high moral horse, for the sole purpose of bamboozling their own population.
ANd in China, if the population has "saved" in housing and are not in debt, the way US population was in 2007/2008, then it shouldn't be that big of a problem - for the population. With Corporates suffer, that might be less problematic. And local governments should stop living only of land sales and maybe start taxing land...