Comments by "foil hat" (@foilhat1138) on "Fortunes shifting for Beijing and Delhi as 2024 nears | DW News" video.

The real estate market is collapsing (30% of the economy) exports are falling off (20% of the economy) and internal consumption is way down. But sure the economy is growing somehow. Just ask them.
4
Do you think there are IMF secret agents who infiltrate China's economy? The CCP self reports their own cooked numbers and the IMF takes them at face value. Chinese exports and real estate are both collapsing (a combined 50% of the economy) and internal consumption is way down. Do you really think they are doing ok?
2
Please. China couldnt even make ballpoint pens until 2017. The ASPI is a fear mongering publications trying to spur Australian military spending. In February 2020, Australian Labor Party Senator Kim Carr described the ASPI as "hawks intent on fighting a new cold war." Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr (no relation) said the ASPI provides a "one-sided, pro-American view of the world" and criticised the group for taking what he claimed was almost $450,000 from the U.S. State Department, to track Australian universities with Chinese research collaborations, and "vilifying and denigrating Australian researchers and their work." Bob Carr's criticism of ASPI came after ASPI president Peter Jennings had raised questions about the donation of $1.8 million by a Chinese billionaire to a group related to Carr. ASPI replied that it "doesn't have an editorial line on China, but we have a very clear method for how we go about our research," and claimed that the true amount of State Department funding was less than half that amount stated by Carr. ASPI was criticized by former diplomats John Menadue, Geoff Raby, and Bruce Haigh, with Haigh referring to ASPI as serving the foreign policy interests of the Liberal Party of Australia. In July 2022 an article in The Economist described ASPI as "hawkish". In October 2018, the Australian Digital Transformation Agency criticised an ASPI report on the Australian Government's digital identity program. The Agency stated that the report "was inaccurate and contained many factual errors", which "demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of how the digital identity system is intended to work". There is much more criticism than this, feel free to read them for yourself before you post such embarrassing 'facts' again.
2
@peabase It's unlikely to be fixed as long as Xi is in charge. He's proven himself quite incapable when it comes to managing the economy.
2
@TheKkpop1 China is the land of shortcuts and facades. I'll leave you to research why China's patent surge doesn't mean much, you can start with 'strategic patenting' but here's a snippet. Most recently, Eberhardt, Helmers et al. (2017), first employing quantitative analysis based on representative firm-level data from SIPO and USPTO between 1985 and 2006, revealed that the patent surge at SIPO was driven by factors other than underlying innovative behavior, including government subsidies that directly encouraged patent filings. Different from the study by Hu and Jefferson (2009) using aggregated patent data, they differentiated between the three types of patents and focused on invention patents that represented for more novelty and inventiveness. Hu, Zhang et al. (2017) further confirmed that the correlation between patents and innovative factor, R&D, has become weaker, especially for utility models, which denoted that the patent surge was driven by non-innovation related motives. Using a more update dataset from 2007 to 2011, they justified the government policy incentive hypothesis. Meanwhile, they manifested that most of the patent growth came from firms that were not active in applying for patents in the past. They also left space for further research on other non-innovative motivations that played a part in propelling the patent boom. What’s more, there have been controversies on the relationship between the quality and quantity of Chinese patents during the patent surge. Li (2012)’s empirical examination based on the ratio of patent grants to applications also implied that the patent surge was not followed by lowered patent application quality. However, this implication was soon confuted by other scholars. Zhang and Chen (2012) estimated a lower value of patents requested by domestic applicants than foreign applicants. After assessing the quality of Chinese patent filings in EPO, Thoma (2013) provided support for the “strategic patenting” hypothesis on the lower value and quality of Chinese patents. Dang and Motohashi (2015) demonstrated that grant-contingent patent subsidies unintentionally encouraged applicants to file for patents with a narrow claim scope to increase the chance of grants, which resulted in lower economic value. Boeing and Mueller (2016) found an over-time quality decrease for Chinese Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications by international comparison, and they found evidence for a negative correlation between patent quality and patent subsidies as well. To sum up, a patent surge is not always a reflection of increases in true innovation
1
Yes, moreover Japan didn't have to deal with the large amount of capital flight ilike China does and were able to offshore much of their industry. China has been trying that to some degree but most of that money will never return to China. And as you already said Japan was rich by the time they hit stagnation. China is still a developing country.
1