This is just the reverse, actually, China isn’t afraid to go so far as to jail CEOs. There is no such thing as too big to fail in China, and all the Chinese domestic companies know it. The bailout playbook is a western thing.
[1] Why China Is Hoping $1.6 Trillion Can Fix Its Hidden Debt Problem - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-16/china-eco... | https://archive.today/HsaHV - April 16th, 2025
It’s why China’s real estate company debt is dragging down the economy as a whole. It’s all connected.
China very much is held to the same rules as the US, especially as it engages with the global financial system.
Which is why they are in so much trouble. The economy is anemic. The last stimulus package barely made a difference. Debt overhang remains.
It doesn’t matter how much you think China is in trouble financially, at the end of the day they still manufacture a third of everything in the world.
False.
It may not be the same as debt owed to other parties, but not paying it still has consequences for things like money supply.
Otherwise, why would the government not just lend endless amounts of money? Even the Chinese government knows they can't do that.
> It doesn’t matter how much you think China is in trouble financially, at the end of the day they still manufacture a third of everything in the world.
Their output doesn't really matter when it comes to their financial situation. You can produce a lot and still be in trouble. And it's not me that is calling out China's problems, China is talking about it as well.
The constraint is on real resources, which China has plenty of, regardless of how much debt they have.
The financial situation is an accounting detail. China could decide to write off all debt it owes to itself tomorrow, and literally nothing would change.
You did say...
> There actually literally is a free lunch. Debt owed to the government by itself isn’t real
Which I think is reasonable to interpret as lending infinite money.
> The constraint is on real resources, which China has plenty of, regardless of how much debt they have.
I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Constraint on what? Money? Economic growth?
Assuming you mean money, it doesn't make much sense. Ok, China has lots of real resources. In order to pay down debt, they need to turn those resources into money. They can certainly create the supply, but they also need demand.
It's like Canada saying they have infinite resources in their timber. "We'll just cut down the wood and sell it". Well there isn't infinite demand for timber, so in fact, having a lot of resources doesn't mean you have endless money.
> China could decide to write off all debt it owes to itself tomorrow, and literally nothing would change
Absolutely not true. Look at the real estate developers. China is working hard to get them out from under the crushing debt they have. If, as you claim, they could "write off all debt, and literally nothing would change", why didn't they.
The answer is that China is mostly a market economy. Writing off debt has massive consequences bothing domestically and internationally.
This is the trade off China made when relying on the free market for growth. If they want to leverage the free market, then they are held to the free market's rules (which they are currently dealing with).
Can you imagine a world where a government could spend infinite money without any problems? If you can’t, then why would someone else think that? If you thought my understanding of macroeconomics was different from yours and you were genuinely curious, it would have been a good idea to start by asking questions. Or if you thought I was an idiot you could have just ignored me. But you chose to assume an obviously ridiculous premise to my comment and reply based on that. That’s the definition of a straw man argument.
If you still care to know, the constraint on government spending is real resources (and whether they can be usefully utilized of course).
I don’t know about the real estate situation in China, and I don’t know if it was financed by private debt or public debt, so I can’t comment on it.
> There actually literally is a free lunch
In response to you saying that there is no free lunch since debt is always owed to someone.
This sentence doesn't make sense. "Debt issued to it's government"?
I presume you mean government debt issued to the central bank, whereby the central bank prints new money as a part of the loan?
It absolutely can be inflationary (see US inflation during Covid) if the money eventually makes it into the economy (e.g. by paying workers).
And yes, debt is always owed to someone. Whether that someone is the central bank doesn't mean it's a free lunch - not paying back the loan has consequences to the economy.
That said, it's very difficult to be sure if what I see from the outside is propaganda. Or rather, it is always propaganda even when it's true, and I can't tell how much of it is China's own self-promotion vs. other people giving negative propaganda.
Example of cheating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officials_implicated_by_the_an...
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal#Arre...
Nevertheless, it would be interesting if someone could, you know, prove, and not merely allege, that Xi Jinping's family or friends cheated.
Even with the sub-heading "It's legal, and that's the problem."*, and even though this kind of cheating is broader than this reply chain from "There is no such thing as too big to fail in China", this is absolutely within bounds for what I asked for :)
* and the not-proof-read AI generated image, that never helps…
There's ways to invest in stocks that are not cheating, for example.
Or, you know, they might have done what I myself am doing right now and be landlords. That's not cheating. Or at least, I don't think it is, I don't know what the Chinese government considers it to be, what with communism and all.
For this context: cheating is in the sense of "large bets where the cost of failure will be paid by the state and yet they get to keep the profits in the event of success": I think that if any of them have made such bets, those bets have paid off. I think that if any such bet had been made and failed, it would have been noticed by people outside China.
As I said:
From the outside, it appears that "upset the regime" includes "cheating your way into profits".
In the event they make a bet and it fails and we spot it, that specific chain is what would make it cease to "appear" to be so "from the outside".