It Could Happen Here - The Chinese Economy Demystified: The State Owned Enterprise on Stitcher
www.stitcher.com
Mia discusses the emerging expert consensus on the Chinese economy and how the actual structure and function of Chinese State Owned Enterprises confounds and refutes it. You can now listen to all Cool Zone Media shows, 100% ad-free through the Cooler Zone Media subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. So, open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “Cooler Zone Media” and subscribe today! http://apple.co/coolerzone See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  • China's economy is 40% state-owned – compare Lenin's NEP period, 70-77%

  • Soviet state-owned enterprises were designed to make a thing (like the water service, like the post office). Chinese state-owned enterprises are different: they are profit-making players in the market.

  • China has enterprises owned by local and provincial government – sometimes they compete with each other! So the state competes with itself on the market!

  • They can sell 49% of their stock on the stock market, even to foreigners.

  • The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) is an institution directly under the management of the State Council. It is an ad-hoc ministerial-level organization directly subordinated to the State Council – http://en.sasac.gov.cn/sasacaboutus.html – It's like the Chinese statist Berkshire Hathaway. In theory, it can control a company as much as a shareholder can.

  • Li-Wen Lin & Curtis J Milhaupt write about Chinese corporate structure. They say when direct state industries (like post offices or Soviet bureaux) turned into profit-seeking state-owned things and essentially bought the party off, made it rich.

  • Hive [none/use name]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see what your saying, but I think this is kinda of a vulger position, which normaly im all I about it, I want the left to inclusive of people of left and right leftist opositions, I think one of the biggest issues within the 20th century left was shuffling of all would be left intellectuals into the university system, I think this damaged the movment( at least as I experienced it in the 70's-80's ) we need working class Intelligencia to be healthy and connected to the working class more directly, id even say the anti intellectualism we see now in people like vash is a result of this era of very radical but disconnected by extention of university carteling of knowledge from the working class in general.

    I guess to support your point I think we should make being left more then seeing your lot with the working class but also even leftist in academic situations do need to be looked at with skepticism as they are insulated from harsh working conditions and the worst wages that working people suffer, they are more so insulated from econmic down turns more then other workers. I guess what I'm saying is we gotta be more picky about what workers get elevated as leaders but also we need more organic Intelligencia who can speak to divisions of labor better. Like how many though leader Marxists are not heavily credentialed university labor. You feel me? I'm not saying all collage educated is bad we need them but we need more then just their perspective like we need other segments of the labors to handle rural workers vs city ect