>Persistent deflation poses a serious challenge. When consumers expect prices to fall further, they delay purchases. That squeezes corporate profit margins, dampens investment and makes it harder for firms to raise wages – further weakening demand and entrenching falling prices.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-03/china-economy-6-charts-explain-why-how-economic-growth-is-slowing-down
>>61933971Oh no the people are able to afford stuff. Shut it down
>BloomBERG>Here is why prices falling is BAD!!!
Deflationary growth while employment and wages remain the same is entirely possible, it's just the majority of economists are paid off by bankers.
It's a race towards the bottom. Those retards brought it upon themselves.
>>61933971My heart breaks for them
>>61934004Deflation is easily curable with gold purchases.
>>619339712023 to 2025 isn't long enough, you'd need to know the context of 2023 prices. If the prices of 2023 were elevated it's good, if they were normal or low previously it's bad, especially if there isn't any reason to assume inflation will rise in the near future.
>>61933971>Oh my god, things are getting cheaper! what are we gonna do???
I'm glad to live in america, where at least I know I'm free to pay higher prices every year
>>61933971>Deflation Problemits only problem if you massive debt
Egg prices for the chinese go down 7% every year.I feel sorry for them. What an issue. This is collapsing their economy right?
>>61933975If people were to afford stuff, price would go up, duh
>>61933971Is this bad or is it good?
I hate jews so much its unreal
>>61934157>>61934054
>>61934138that's how periods of high inflation end unironically. prices just go up high enough that people stop buying as much stuff and inflation goes down to normalproblem solved
>>61934200People need eggs and bread though
China’s deflation is uniquely bad for a number of reasons but for the retards in the back I will explain why deflation is bad in general: 1.) deflation cuts into profits for businesses and when this happens they cut jobs. If the business needs import input goods (such as China does for steel), domestic deflation doesn’t help them. When people have less jobs, they don’t have money to put back into the economy, prices go even lower, more jobs are lost, etc. The deflation spiral. 2.) deflation is terrible for people who owe money. Neither banks (who know that their default rate will go up) nor people in debt (who will be increasingly unable to pay) want this to happen, though you could argue that, if there is a winner here, it’s the banks or the entities who purchased their loans. Their loans get better. China’s deflation is uniquely bad because they are already throwing so much at the wall. They already subsidize the living shit out of their manufacturing sector to keep people employed and make sure that, despite falling prices, nobody gets laid off. The problem? Overproduction leads to, you guessed it, more deflated prices. This will only be exacerbated if the EU decides to ramp up tariffs on Chinese industry. So the Chinese have to decide if they want to keep the band aid on and continue to subsidize industry and overproduce or pivot and figure out how to combat deflation and a slashed workforce, neither of which are great options. It’s also bad because the home on the graph OP are artificial—it’s much worse than that. China will not let real estate get sold beneath a certain threshold too quickly, and so millions of homes sit on the market, tying up liquidity that could be stimulating the economy elsewhere. China’s unique real estate crisis is a lengthy bitch to explain but, in essence, it’s virtually the only thing that they allowed their population to invest in. So when the market tanks, it’s the equivalent of a stock market crash.
>>61933971>housing and automobile costs decrease nearly 30%>this is a problemkek
>>61934237They ended both solar and EV subsidies. Their subsidies have a sunset clause baked in.
>>61934237>2.) deflation is terrible for people who owe money.Boo hoo nigger. It's great for people who live within their means.
Lmao how is deflation real just print money
>>61934254Outside of specific industries they still do a lot of subsidizing via input good subsidizes and cheap capital for businesses. They never stopped doing this. >>61934267It isn’t great because defaults on debt ripples to everyone as can be seen in virtually every financial crisis.
>>61934378>They never stopped doing thisAll (and I mean ALL) of their subsidies are for limited periods only. They are intended to make industry champions not to support those dying or those that are already industry champions. That's what "Grasping the large, letting go of the small" means.
>>61934382Bro China been using state-directed industrial credit for over thirty years. They’ve been subsidizing shipbuilding forever. Not all subsidies are in the form of regular cash handouts with sunset clauses attached.
>>61934394I said ALL subsidies. Learn to read.Their cheap industrial credit also has strings attached. It's based on the size of the company and time.China's shipbuilding is mostly SOEs, so "subsidies" literally do not matter there.
>>61934401Kek so what is limited period that you’re defining? Three decades? Give me a break. I suppose all subsidies are technically limited in their scope in that eventually the sun will swallow the earth, that’s true. >I said ALL subsidies Yeah no shit you’re just wrong.
>>61934405They literally ended both EV and solar subsidies recently. That ran for about 10 years (which is the duration of about 2 FYPs). Your example of shipbuilding is retarded on multiple levels since the sector is dominated by SOEs.
>>61934415It’s more than just shipbuilding. It’s in steel, it’s in electronics, it’s in aerospace, it’s in semiconductors. >ok but they stopped in these specific industries I’ve mentioned twice Don’t care. They have extended industrial credit to industries for decades and continue to do so. This is not a secret. Do the bare minimum and look into this yourself.
>>61934423Lmao. This is how I know you know nothing. Steel and aerospace are also dominated by SOEs.Electronics and semiconductor subsidies didn't even start until 2015.
>>61934430First of all, a government can still subsidize an SOE and I’m not sure why you think otherwise. If the government pumps money into an industry that it owns to keep people producing and keep them employed, it is still a subsidy, it just isn’t a subsidy to a private industry. Secondly, >they’ve only been subsidizing semiconductors/electronics for ten years! is weird cope. They’ve been doing it for 3,000+ days lol. It is relevant. It is something they regularly do. What is your point?
>>61934457>a government can still subsidize an SOEIt would just be counted as capex. Is building a road subsidizing? >They’ve been doing it for 3,000+ daysThat it's only been 2 FYPs. Do you think subsidies would work in 5 years?
>>61934463No. It wouldn’t. Providing cheap credit to a SOE would be though. Just please look up if a government can technically subsidize an SOE and let me know what you find out. My initial point was that China subsidies the shit out of its industry and now you’re saying “uhh it’s only been ten years with no end in sight.” Who cares? We are talking about economic conditions in China today.
>>61934475>No. It wouldn’tPatently false.Your original point was "They already subsidize the living shit out of their manufacturing sector to keep people employed and make sure that, despite falling prices, nobody gets laid off." Which is not true. Otherwise, they wouldn't be stopping subsidies, especially if deflation would lead to job losses.
>>61933975China confirmed anti-Semitic. Liberation will commence after Iran is liberated in two weeks.
>>61934483The amount that China subsidizes had increased and continue to increase. I’m honestly getting bored of this conversation man, do some research.
>>61933975It's not really the point
>>61934542Do you think I can't read the article you got that image from?>>Manufacturing subsidies, contrary to common perception, are relatively modest and decentralised>Direct fiscal support rose sharply after 2004 – coinciding with a major expansion of rural support policies – peaked around 2008, and has since stabilised at approximately 0.8% of GDP. This figure aligns broadly with OECD estimates and suggests that while China remains an active user of subsidies, the scale of direct budgetary support has not continued to escalate
>>61933971Oh the horror.China has a totally different banking system. Lets stop pretending deflation in China has the same effect that deflation in the west would have.
>>61934556You have proven my point with this post. >China remains an active user of subsidies manufacturing subsidies have *remained the same* and are modest *relative* to their support in agriculture. My argument has been and continues to be that China has to keep manufacturing subsidies at their current levels because if they loosen them, employment will falter. Find one (1) source that shows that manufacturing subsidies have lessened in total.
>>61934583The increase has only been in targeted emerging industry subsidies (that do have a sunset clause based on company size). They have shed subsidies when an industry develops. The subsidies are intended to boost domestic high-tech industry, not support employment.
>>61933971>Finished goods falling in price>Raw materials China imports are growing in priceThe whole economy is gonna be fucked if this continues
>>61933971If it's driven by production efficiency improvements, it's a non issue.
>>61933975>>Persistent deflation poses a serious challenge. When consumers expect prices to fall further, they delay purchases. That squeezes corporate profit margins, dampens investment and makes it harder for firms to raise wages – further weakening demand and entrenching falling prices.The more content, the less ambitious
>>61934597Well, this obviously does not suggest that manufacturing subsidies have waned over time. Let’s recap the conversation. >you suggested that you can’t subsidize SOEs and that they don’t matter That’s not true. You can subsidize a state-owned industry as the government. >you adamantly argued that all subsidies are temporary This is sort of true in that eventually everyone will die, but it’s hard to see how a 10-year initiative for state-directed industrial credit (with no end in sight) is “temporary” in any meaningful sense of the term. These initiatives have been going on in a broader sense since the 90’s. If the manufacturing aspect is throwing you for a loop, I’ll open it up to industry in general if that’s easier. If China stops subsidizing jobs *IN GENERAL* (whether that’s in manufacturing, agriculture, or whatever industry), these industries will lose jobs, and the loss of these jobs has a deflationary effect on the economy as a whole. The problem is that by subsidizing these industries, China has an overproduction problem, which lowers the price of goods, particularly when they cannot as easily export their products (in the event that Europe tariffs their products in retaliation for perceived currency manipulation). On the whole, it does not very much matter what they are subsidizing so long as whatever it is can be sold and it has a price. If their subsidy focus shifts from EVs to semiconductors, they’re still propping up the workforce-it has simply shifted. Now what of this explanation do you take issue with?
On kirk, i'm starting to believe anti-"anti-deflation" is a scamTheres gotta be a way to do DEFLOOOOTION without destroying the economy. Even if its by giving everybody extra money like how happens on things like cryptos
>>61934747meant anti-pro-deflation but this argument doesnt even make sense to begin with
>>61934739>You can subsidize a state-owned industry as the governmentThis is wrong.>This is sort of trueIt is true, as they just had 2 of the major subsidies end.>they’re still propping up the workforce-it has simply shiftedThe people who were employed in car factories won't suddenly start getting employed in semiconductor manufacturing or AI services sector. Those require vastly different skillsets.>Agricultural subsidiesPlease tell me which country does not have agricultural subsidies?
>>61934765Alright, well it doesn’t sound like you actually take issue with my explanation in general, you just want to drag your heels on a few specifics here. I won’t post the definition of a subsidy again, since that didn’t get us very far. I assume you looked into it and found out you were wrong. Endless initiatives with no expiration date aren’t temporary. The workforce who shifts are retrained—how do you think they get the job in the first place? You think it’s impossible for an assembly-line overseer at an EV plant to successfully make the transition to electronics? Believe it or not, workers don’t simply give up and die when their industry lays people off. They go to other industries with openings. Your last point doesn’t matter because…China has the most subsidies both nominally and in terms of GDP percentage IN THE WORLD. Until you can refute this, my point stands. China heavily subsidizes their economy, which has deflationary drawbacks by way of overproduction, and if they cease to do so, there are deflationary drawbacks in the way of a reduced workforce.
>>61934753based corrective and reflective poster
>>61934671Beyond a certain point, yesThe US been locked in a fucking cold war for 80 years at this point and every globohomo country in the world is a belligerent. The pols keep turning the screws and all of us have to keep running the hamster wheels faster, with less and less to show for it every turn. Inflation or deflation need to run their course without a (((central bank))) arbitrarily changing course. Its just the same problem of statism and all of its downstream effects: people hit a breaking point when they get pushed consistently too hard with no reward. "The west" is checking out en masse because there's no reward unless you're willing to become soulless (or didn't have one to begin with)
>>61934819You're adamantly wrong about SOE funding.Anyways.The subsidies are not for keeping up employment. I have given ample evidence to the contrary. The overall manufacturing subsidies have decreased with increases only in high-tech sectors.>The workforce who shifts are retrained>They go to other industries with openingsThe factory laborers aren't going to get skilled to be employed in high-tech manufacturing suddenly. In fact, most high-tech manufacturing is automated so they won't ever be able to accomodate all the people who lost their jobs.>deflationary drawbacks by way of overproductionOverproduction does not exist. It's called competition and productivity increase. This is the only cause of deflation in China, which is why it's not an issue.
>>61934867What evidence have you given to suggest that subsidies aren’t tied to employment? Seriously, give a source. I’ll give you one here: https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/1223There are plenty of businesses (and growing evidence of more firms) that are propped up by subsidies and, without them, would be insolvent/unprofitable. So using extremely basic economics, you can probably figure out that, if these industries no longer received subsidies, the workers here would lose their jobs. Less jobs, less income, less money for consumption = deflationary pressure. It is honestly a bit funny that you think overproduction (which you argue doesn’t exist) is the only driver for deflation in China since China’s deflation trap is a well-known and well-studied problem and ANY deflationary spiral has at least TWO deflationary pressures: supply and demand. You’re forgetting the demand side. Anyway, this is exhausting. I can’t explain basic economics all morning. Literally just google China’s Deflation Trap and read one of the millions of articles and studies that explain the problem. Hopefully someone in this thread learned fucking something from this Sisyphean exercise of explaining basic supply and demand deflation to a literal retard.
>>61934929>overproduction ... is the only driver for deflation in ChinaOverproduction is not the driver because it literally does not exist. The only driver of deflation is productivity increase and competition.>ANY deflationary spiral has at least TWO deflationary pressures: supply and demandIt's not a "spiral" because deflationary "pressure" has been easing in the last year.
>>61934950If you don’t like overproduction or overcapacity as terms, that’s fine. I understand that. If you want to call it competition or use the Chinese term “involution” to describe it, that’s also fine. The core problem is the same: weak domestic demand coupled with large production load means that companies are producing a lot more than they would without subsidies and prices fall accordingly. There is a deflationary spiral here. 1.) Prices are low and getting lower (first deflationary pressure)OP’s image. This is common knowledge and I assume I don’t need to provide a source illustrating that prices in China are falling. 2.) Demand is weak and getting weaker (second deflationary pressure)https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2025/12/10/pr-25415-china-imf-staff-completes-2025-article-iv-mission-to-the-peoples-republic-of-chinahttps://www.nomuraconnects.com/focused-thinking-posts/china-economic-outlook/I would ask for your source for your opinion, but I keep asking for sources and you keep refusing to give them. Demand is lagging, prices are falling. These feed into each other, and a great case study for this is Japan. When people expect prices to keep going lower, they hesitate to participate in the economy, which yields lower prices. This would be further exacerbated by falling employment which, as I outlined >>61934929 here, is propped up by the same subsidies that create the domestic price competition which in turn generates the falling prices. You cannot argue that China is not experiencing a deflationary spiral because demand and prices are both falling. It is the literal definition of the problem.
>>61935096>things being cheaper fir the consumer is bad
>>61933975>Oh no the people are able to afford stuff.Deflation isn't that. Deflation is "goods literally aren't worth the money to buy them." Deflation also increases the real value of debt, which is a transfer of wealth away from debtors to creditors. Or, in English, from you to The Bank.BTW Japan had a period of deflation after the 1990 bubble they arguably still have not recovered from. It's really bad.Some inflation is good for the economy because it puts an opportunity cost on holding money, encouraging its use and encouraging investment. Deflation likewise imposes an opportunity cost on USING money, as declining prices mean you would have paid X for something worth X - Y in a month, like you bought a shitcoin while it was dumping. People hold onto money, people forgo purchases and investments (in capital equipment, production facilities, R&D, etc), the economy stalls, debt becomes harder to service, and you've overall got ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag.
Look, I get that persistent deflation is really bad for employment. But Americans are getting inflation AND shafted in the ass in terms of also being unable to find graduate employment!
Not once have I heard anyone say>You know what? Eggs are getting cheaper better wait next year to buyKill all economiststeins.
>>61937573>Deflation is "goods literally aren't worth the money to buy them."It can also mean that production and efficiency has increased. As an economy becomes more efficient we are supposed to pay less for goods, not more. >Some inflation is good for the economy because it puts an opportunity cost on holding money, encouraging its use and encouraging investmentIf people simply hold on to their money because stuff is getting cheaper, interest rates will naturally rise and it will reach an equilibrium. The opportunity cost will shift towards encouraging lending.>People hold onto money, people forgo purchases and investments (in capital equipment, production facilities, R&D, etc), the economy stallsSmartphones and computers power has increased and prices have gone down dramatically. Innovation keeps demand up even as prices fall down, people don't hold on forever to their money
>>61933971Bloomberg's family is Jewish,[17] and he is a member of the Temple Emanu-El in Manhattan.[18] Bloomberg's paternal grandfather, Rabbi Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg, was a Polish Jew.[19][20] Bloomberg's maternal grandfather, Max Rubens, was a Lithuanian Jewish immigrant from present-day Belarus, and his maternal grandmother was born in New York to Lithuanian Jewish parents.[21][22][23]
>>61933971>When consumers expect prices to fall further, they delay purchasesyeah gonna delay my purchase of eggplantshowever, what's currently delaying my purchase of a house is1) they are too expensivethe only way to make me buy a house is to lower the house prices
