Would also argue that if a variable - subsidies - explains 60% of chinas growth in export market shares it is pretty important to understand competitiveness.
My prior was that the macro distortions were even more impactful but OECD modelling suggests the subs matter greatly:
Ouch.
Not surprising for those of us who have been paying attention, but a powerful data visual.
I don’t think Röpke Eucken nor Dutch Ordoliberal philosophers would approve of a do nothing response to such distortions. (h/t @tbenner.bsky.social )
Manfred Weber calls for tougher trade defences on China.
To prevent Beijing “flattening parts of European industry”
www.bild.de/politik/ausl...
The Napoleonic tradition really does nail it sometimes.
HSBC: Are chip stocks bubbly? Comparing today to 1999 $SOXX $SMH
I think this is what @sandertordoir.bsky.social @lucasguttenberg.bsky.social and @nilsredeker.bsky.social were suggesting in their paper: include UK, Japan, South Korea in what qualifies for 'Buy European'
www.handelsblatt.com/politik/inte...
I thought the podcast was very good and liked Bowns suggestion to both learn from chinas success without copying the model wholesale.
A company-level OECD analysis of government subsidies across 15 key industrial sectors found that nearly 60 per cent of Chinese firms’ global market share gains since 2005 could be attributed to subsidies
Paging @davidheniguk.bsky.social for comments