Re: [Marxism] The class nature of the Chinese state.

["Carlos Eduardo Rebello" <crebello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marvin Gandall:

The second (related) difference is that, thanks to their huge store of
> foreign exchange reserves, the Chinese are net exporters rather than
> importers of capital - mostly loans, but increasingly, foreign FDI and
> equity investment. The US, Germany, and Russia borrowed heavily from the
> more developed capitalist economies, Britain and France.  France was
> Russia's banker; Britain financed US development. The relationship between
> the US and China is at this stage is quite dramatically different: China,
> despite its lower level of economic development, is the banker while the
> US
> is the borrower.


True, but the fact remains that the Chinese national currency is not 
internationally accepted and therefore China is dependent on the existence 
of a trade surplus - and therefore on the growth of its foreign curency 
reserves - in order to finance further economic development. Also there is 
the problem that Chinese industrialization so far lacks an element of what 
Schumpeter would call entreprenurial, that is, the absence of some kind of 
cutting edge technological development: so far China is internationallly 
only a giant workshop for low-cost, labour-intensive consumer goods, mostly 
non-durable.

CR 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism