Citation needed given the poverty and gdp numbers over there the last 30 years.

You can compare/contrast with other impoverished nations that followed the IMF agenda, and how that worked out for them.

False dichotomy. The choice isn't mercantilism XOR IMF agenda, and I certainly did not speak up for the IMF agenda (and won't).

Financial repression is a thing in China. It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what?

EDIT: It takes two to mercantilist: the perennial exporter and the perennial importer. Mercantilism has been good for the American consumer, and bad for American industry, so bad for America.

If you're going to attack mercantilism from a free trade perspective, the IMF is at the other end of that pole. That's where your ideas were tried and failed in practice.

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China are all huge success stories due to protecting nascent industries while they caught up with more industrialized states.

Don’t forget the US. The US benefitted from massive import restrictions in its early history. It only lowered the walls when it became competitive. Which was smart (by the way) and is what successful countries have historically done. Countries that didn’t protect themselves were crushed by international companies overpowering local companies.

> . It's true that mercantilism has been better for Chinese people than the IMF agenda for anyone else. So what?

But you wrote: "Not even China! (At least not Chinese people.)"

In one comment you say it didn't benefit the chinese people and then when you are called out, you say it did benefit them.

It's amazing how anti-china propagandists contradict themselves over and over again. You should go work for a news company.

And then I mentioned financial repression.

Also, Chinese companies are being paid in dollar debt that can easily turn out to be worth less than they though. China has all these reserves that, if they really push their model, must move in a big way towards zero. That's not good for them.

China's GDP growth owes largely to the construction of its ghost cities. I have data to show that.

Also you can look at the average income in Tier 2,3,4 cities in China adjusted to inflation, as well as deterioration in food quality. You don't need a middle age taxi driver from Hubei working in Hangzhou to tell you that.

Also maybe look at the pollution levels in most rural areas too?

Middle and Lower Income [1] classes (>90% of the population) in China tend to work really hard for little returns (so long as they're convinced they are gaining lots, which is why hyped-up nationalism and state-sponsored dezinformatsiya are rampent).

This is not healthy.

[1]: Quote from Li Keqiang, "600 million people earning a medium or low income, or even less. Their monthly income is barely 1,000 RMB yuan." http://english.www.gov.cn/premier/news/202005/29/content_WS5...

First off, 600 million is not "90 percent" of China.

Second, do you think 2/3 of China are uniquely brain-washable, in that they're living in really bad conditions yet believe they're good because of the TV programming?

Or is it possible that, while foreign to the US, their bad conditions are actually way better than 30 years ago, let alone 50?

90%+ is both the middle and lower income classes. That’s more than 1.2 billion.

> 600 million is not "90 percent"

600 million are people making 1000yuan or less a month.

> do you think 2/3 of China are uniquely brain-washable

Yes. Everyone is brain-washable.

> ..that they're living in really bad conditions yet believe they're good...

No. It’s more complicated than this.

> is it possible... way better than 30 years ago

Yes. Due to Deng’s policy, which Xi has been reverting. My parents have both experienced the cultural revolution. We know how bad it was. My grandfather (who I never met) committed suicide.

I'm with you that Xi represents a threat to the order Deng created, most scarily by exceeding term limits, but I think invoking the cultural revolution is several steps too far at this point.

Xi is more a fusion of traditionalism with nationalism for political convenience. None of that is compatible with banning monasteries, struggle sessions and sending people to the countryside as he personally was.

The biggest threat from Xi, imo with a crystal ball and huge error bars, is a brezhnev-like stasis where he stagnates the country in order to stay on top for multiple decades. Hopefully he isn't allowed to do that.