My reply to a blog post that states that China is concentrating on its domestic policy.

http://blogs.dfid.gov.uk/2009/10/is-china-a-developed-or-developing-country/comment-page-1/#comment-41064

It would seem to me that this idea that China is actually concentrating on their domestic policy is completely shadowed by the basic data set I will point out.

The US deficit spends at about 66% of its GDP. This means that is how the US is able to spread out its wealth. By taking out loans from itself to make sure its people have a common spread out welfare. However, the US account balances which represent capital inflows are the world's worst. This is mainly due the reserve countries wishing to keep their status and ability to buy international markets with their reserves instead of spending it on their domestic policy. This is more than blatant with China. As China could very easily spend more of their reserves on their poverty and per capital income to spread out the wealth via very basic welfare and legislation as such we have seen in countries like Japan, Canada, and the US. However, it is China's belief that they are to afraid to spend money on their own domestic welfare. We see this as China's deficit spending is at a low of 3.8% of their GDP.

   Now we get back to the so called citation from their leaders regarding amount of humans in their country. Well then that would mean with the US at a 300 million mark of legal citizens and then China at a 1 billion mark that it is obvious that China's domestic policy should be stronger than its  international policy.

   However, again this is not true. As we have seen that China spends massively and creates unfair loans and market places for specific industries that will create unfair competition in the means of SOE Champions. Thus this is shown in data sets of loans to SOE's versus loans to private enterprises or other wise entities that produce a higher quality if life in the domestic realm by spreading out the domestic market place. As free enterprises usually concentrate on their domestic market first which means, the areas that are undeveloped become developed as those free enterprises need more market shares. As we have seen in free market domestic quality of life creation.

   We see this hugely in the US. Were the US makes sure to give more loans to free enterprises than duopolies. This is because the US cares about is individuals first and its international dominance second. The Chinese dominance is seen to be the first and foremost strategy of their economic policy.

  This is shown as the Chinese believe that the only way they can survive is by high exports and low imports. As China is the world's 6th highest barrier to its economy. Thu  this is also shown through their SOE's strategies which instead of following outlines and treaties. They merge their SOE's to be gigantic instead of allowing their free enterprises to compete for the new market shares that the falling SOE's should have left behind. However, we find massive unfair competitive SOE's which work together in cartel movements like the car industry. Which then means the free enterprise car industries of China can't compete fairly for the market shares of China's car industry. As such we then see the Chinese government stopping free enterprises from places like the US and other countries from entering its domestic market place. Mainly due to the fact that it has destroyed its own domestic market and the ability to spread out its economic and quality of life through uncompetitive centralized economics.

   Were as the US and free markets, do not allow business to cartel or work together to market share or set prices or to compete unfairly against international or domestic competition. Thus we then see the accumulation of an actual country that does not concentration their domestic market place or even their own quality of life yet places more emphases on international dominance than domestic quality of life. As a great cold warrior stated. The Communist wish for international dominance. Were the Free markets wish for individual quality of life. The Communist work for the governments needs while free markets work for the individuals needs. This then allows communist markets to be stronger and scarier in competition as they are unfairly strategized to win at all costs, including constant recapitalization or even mergers of falling SOE's for their market shares to bigger SOE's to create champion SOE's. Were we see the free markets concentrate more on entrepreneurship and free enterprises.

   Thus through China's deficit spending, its massive trade surplus, its unfair loans to non domestic quality creation and a list of other things. I would have to say that you my friend are wrong. It is in China's best interest to stay a developing country. They will do this until they believe that they have enough of the international market shares so as to create a dominance for China. Were as free markets just wish for fair competition, Communist wish for single dominance through unfair play. This is a truth and has been known for some time. From politics to economics Communist wish for dominance not for fair play or competition.
Rider i
http://rideriantieconomicwarfare.blogspot.com/


I would just like to say. For a country that claims to be for the Commune. They really spend more on aquisition than they do on their own people. Which means they are centralizing the world's wealth and market shares, while not sharing it properly with their own people through deficit spending and loans to free enterprises. Which inherently create a higher quality of life as natural law means those entities have to go out and find business and will then create it by mere natural law of economics. However, SOE's and centralized strategies are basically for government dominace and not for domestic quality of life or spreading of welfare. As they centralized the wealth and create huge disparties.
Rider i