The problem with China's economic strategy is that they keep building stuff with their own taxpayer money to "keep jobs" and to "increase the GDP", which makes it look like the economy is going well. But this can only last for a while before the economy collapses on itself, because they can't keep spending with no real returns.

This is why giving people Government jobs to solve the "unemployment" problem is only going to work in the short term at most, if at all. There are 3 problems with this:

1) These are not very productive jobs, they are wasteful, and only exist to keep some people employed

2) You're transferring money from some people to keep others employed, on their own money, with no real economic benefit for them

3) The money could be used for much more productive jobs or investments

1) The same could be said for many private sector positions.

2) This assumes your money is yours & not a form of currency issued by the country you're doing business in. Suggesting that you'd make a whole lot more money or hire a lot more people if the government hadn't existed or wasn't taxing you as much or at all is a rather naive view. Many have flocked to China exactly because of the outcomes from the way it's government runs the place. Also pushing back an impending economic collapse isn't entirely without short-term economic benefit.

3) People have different ideas on what a productive job or investment is.

One could even paint the opposite picture with the US, suggesting that lower interest rates, taxes & deregulating private sectors to "create jobs" lead to a lot of meaningless construction jobs & is just another way to get to the same result.

According to the article, the Chinese government was partially responsible for stopping this project, not start it to "increase the GDP."

Regardless, whatever China's economic strategy, it seems to be working quite well and not just "for a while." This project was started/abandoned over a decade ago and China is still experiencing close to double digit GDP growth every year.

Giving away free jobs or free money is actually not such a ridiculous proposition. If the recipients actually use that money, whoever they spend it on now just got more business and can in turn employ more people, who will use their paychecks to buy other things and thus continue the economic cycle. The public works jobs in the New Deal and the rebate checks in 2008 are a couple examples of this in practice in the US.

According to the reporter, this abandoned theme park is a harbinger of doom for China's economy. But couldn't it instead be viewed as evidence of entrepreneurial risk-taking activity? Taking risks, by definition, involves projects that don't pan out.

Imagine if, every time a silicon valley startup abandoned 100k lines of code to pursue a better idea, reporters swooped in and pointed this out as evidence of impending doom.

(Note that I'm not addressing, and certainly not condoning, China's societal/governance problems, e.g. whether the land was taken unfairly from the farmers, etc. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.)

"Imagine if, every time a silicon valley startup abandoned 100k lines of code to pursue a better idea, reporters swooped in and pointed this out as evidence of impending doom."

Don't we just get "the bubble is bursting!" articles instead?

Also note, it was years ago. The China of 2002 was nothing like the China of 2012 - it had a completely different set of problems.

there is one real Disney Resort in construction (Shanghai) and with $3.7Billion a massive undertaking, not all gloom and doom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Disney_Resort

there is one in hong kong from 1999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Disneyland_Resort