Gao Shanwen, chief economist at state-owned SDIC Securities, had suggested that China’s real economic growth {measured by the Gross Domestic Product, GDP] in recent years may have been closer to 2% annually, not 5% as claimed by authorities. Now, he has been banned from public speaking indefinitely.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has reportedly ordered an investigation into a prominent economist who questioned the credibility of Beijing’s official GDP figures and criticised the government’s economic policies.
Gao Shanwen, chief economist at state-owned SDIC Securities, has been banned from public speaking for an indefinite period, Washington Post reported citing individuals familiar with the matter.
[...]
The move came after Gao’s remarks at a Washington forum last month, where he suggested that China’s real economic growth in recent years may have been closer to 2 per cent annually, well below the 5 per cent claimed by authorities. Gao also expressed scepticism about the government’s ability to effectively implement measures to stimulate growth.
“We do not know the true number of China’s real growth figure,” Gao had said during the December 12 event co-hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a Chinese think tank. He speculated that the actual growth rate might be significantly lower than official data suggested.
Xi is said to have been angered by Gao’s remarks, ordering that he be disciplined. Although Gao has retained his job, his public engagements have been curtailed. A planned lecture at China’s Nankai University was abruptly cancelled in January, reportedly due to “scheduling conflicts.”
[...]
This crackdown on Gao comes as Beijing seeks to manage growing concerns over its economic trajectory. China’s economy faces mounting challenges, including a real estate crisis that has eroded household wealth by an estimated $18 trillion, rising debt nearing 300 per cent of GDP, and industrial overcapacity. Analysts have raised concerns about the risk of a deflationary spiral.
[...]
Beijing has intensified efforts to suppress negative commentary about the economy, with senior officials urging tighter control over economic messaging. In a recent meeting, Cai Qi, Xi’s chief of staff, called for greater “expectation management” to counteract pessimism.
[...]
More recently, discrepancies between official data and other economic indicators, such as wage growth and exports, have fuelled scepticism among economists.
[...]
Such a slowdown would challenge Xi’s goal of doubling the nation’s economic output by 2035.
Yeah sure, I bet China's economy is going to stop improving conditions for its people and stop building infrastructure and collapse any day now.
Your comment reflects a tendency to prioritize appearances over structural critique, echoing the rhetoric of capitalist development. It is crucial to recognize that China’s claims of "lifting people out of poverty" and "building infrastructure" serve as ideological justifications for the contradictions inherent in its system—a system that, despite its nominal commitment to socialism, increasingly operates within the framework of global capitalism.
GDP growth, real or exaggerated, is not an end that inherently benefits the proletariat. It masks the exploitation of labor, the suppression of dissent, and the commodification of essential resources, all hallmarks of capitalist production. While infrastructure projects may symbolize "progress," they often come at the cost of dispossession, ecological destruction, and deepening inequalities—a logic that mirrors the global capitalist order.
The repression of Gao Shanwen illustrates the prioritization of state legitimacy over the dialectical process of critique and reform, which socialism should embrace. Instead of addressing the material realities of stagnating wages, housing crises, and debt spirals, China leans into controlling "expectations," reinforcing an ideology of growth as virtue while deflecting accountability for structural shortcomings.
This is not the collapse of an economy but the entrenchment of capitalist contradictions. True progress lies not in GDP metrics but in the emancipation of labor from exploitation and the alignment of development with human and ecological needs.
@tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
This is one of these pseudo-intellectual comments pretending knowledge but indeed explains nothing. Unfortunately this is widespread here on Lemmy.
Do you mean the comment made by tiredturtle or the comment that tiredturtle is answering to?
I meant tiredturtle's. The other comment appears to be not related to the article at all imho.
Then I disagree. While they wrote a lot of words, in principle they just said: "line goes up does not equal improvement of peoples life" and "so if a country says they care about their people, they should just focus on improving their lives instead of giving the impression that line goes up".
And I agree with that in principle.
The first comment is just tankie for "China can't be wrong because they say they are communist/socialist(, even though they aren't)".
The other comment appears to be tankie speech as well, a lot of words in a tonality resembling what is written in the respective echo chambers. I very much doubt they've ever seriously read a book about these issues, they are just parroting.
I mean, yes the commentator is part of the left political spectrum, as is obvious from their word usage, what they are saying and having an account on lemmy.ml .
They are most likely not a tankie though. "Tankie" doesn't just mean "Leftist I don't like", but rather is for those people who like to be dictatorial and bootlicking while saying they are supporting the little people under those boots. Those people who like Russia, China, Stalin, Mao, etc. and argue that their dictatorial streaks were in fact good and necessary instead of just a different colored boot.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what that commentator said.
They argued that China should shut up about the GDP and instead focus on providing a better life for their citizens. So they criticised China and did not blindly defend them like the first comment in the chain did.
I will not speculate if they haven't read a book on the topic since I don't know them.
But I understood their words just fine and that's what I'm trying to tell you: those are not pseudo-intellectual words but are all completely fine and make sense in the context.
If that makes me a pseudo intellectual as well is up to you now.
Interesting thread of comments. I had joined this instance before I knew about the reputation and let it be. For the topic, the wording felt essential, then again with meme shitposts I write more terse :shrug:
My point was that I have been seeing articles my entire life about how this number or that or some action, real or often times imagined, indicates China is just now about to suffer stagnation or even economic catastrophe.
Yet every year the prosperity of the majority of people and the infrastructure allowing this prosperity has continued to increase.