Xi Jinping's historic power grab in China

[DOR]

Freedom of the press in Hong Kong, RIP

This is at least as much due to the rise of Xi Jinping as it is to something originating in Hong Kong

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China effectively suspended freedom of the media in the city. Victor Mallet, the long-time Financial Times correspondent in Hong Kong, was acting president of the 75-year-old Foreign Correspondents' Clubin August this year when it offered a speaking platform to pro-independence advocate Andy Chan.

This week, Mr Mallet was denied a routine renewal of his press visa.

Over its storied history, the FCC has hosted numerous prominent speakers, including Hong Kong Democratic Party Chair Albert Ho, controversial Mainland publisher Bao Pu, labor leader Han Dongfang, and the governors and chief executives of Hong Kong.



Ramzy, Austin, “Hong Kong plans to expel a Financial Times editor,” The New York Times, October 5, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/w...ial-times.html

Lam, Jeffie, Cheung, Tony and Sum Lok-kei, “Backlash as Hong Kong denies visa renewal for Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet,” SCMP October 5, 2018, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...st-who-chaired

Cheng, Kris, “Hong Kong rejects visa renewal for foreign press club vice-pres. who chaired independence talk,” Hongkong Freepress, October 5, 2018, https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/0...pendence-talk/

[DOR]

I have found that there are two interesting ways of explaining things. One is to point to a relevant dataset, pull out a couple of examples, and then let people dig through the rest to discover for themselves what’s what. The other is to do all the work for them, and hope that the sheer volume of the data coming down on one side leads them to admit there might be something to the point you’re trying to make.

Oh, and every step of the way you have to remind people about GIGO.

The second method is a bit tedious, so I tend to use the first. But, when there’s lots of politically motivated fake news to counter, maybe it is actually necessary to go through each sector one by one. Unfortunately, I’m not writing a book on the diminishing role of the state in the Chinese economy . . . and, I’m not sure you’d want to read it. Pretty dry stuff.

The Chinese government can, if, when and where it chooses dominate any part of the Chinese economy. That’s not the same as actually doing it. Yes, Friendship Stores could be the sole retail option available to 1.4 billion people. The first time I visited China, that was the case (everyone hated it). And, if Friendship Stores were the only option, there would be no question that the state dominates retail. But, the state – for whatever reason – chooses not to do so.

Can the Chinese government dominate the retail sector? Sure.
Does it? No.
Can we say the Chinese government is able to control every aspect of economic life? Sure.
Does it? No.

Local municipal governments have in the past use locally registered companies to take an equity stake in economic development projects. That’s pretty much run its course, so it isn’t all that great an example these days. Xi Jinping has enormously recentralized things, so there is a whole lot less leeway than there used to be.

But, on the basis that the government builds infrastructure – what a notion! – we cannot simply say, “the state runs everything.” Much, much too simplistic. Yes, the government orchestrated the whole thing, and it wouldn’t have happened without the government’s direction. The same is true of Highway 80 between Chicago and San Francisco. Replace SOE bank funding with government guarantees and bonds. Substitute regulatory codes for cadre oversight. Repeat as necessary.

The Chinese state structure dominates China. We don’t disagree on that. But, when you look at bits and pieces, and recognize that such enormous power isn’t always and everywhere uniformly applied, well it gets a whole lot more interesting.

And, if Xi Jinping decides to go back to the 2030 report – it’s been abandon – things will get a whole lot more fun.

[citanon]

A few references pertinent to (but not entirely encompassing) the above discussion, specifically encompassing the role of SOEs but missing other ways in which the government influences ostensibly private enterprises:

China 2030 report prepared in 2013 by the World Bank in conjunction with the China State Council:

https://www.worldbank.org/content/da...0-complete.pdf

And the 2018 China Systematic Country Diagnostic by the World Bank:

http://documents.worldbank.org/curat...n-02142018.pdf

From the latter, regarding SOEs:

Despite the expansion of the private sector, China’s state sector still plays a major role in key areas of the economy. China has more than 155,000 SOEs, accounting for 43 percent of industrial assets, 30 percent of revenues, and 15 percent of jobs. By comparison, in OECD countries, SOEs account on average for less than 5 percent of the economy and typically less than 15 percent in most other developing countries. Enterprises managed by the State Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) total 102 and are relatively large and cluster around China’s strategic industries. [/B]Forty-seven of such centrally owned SOEs are in the 2014 Fortune Global 500 list. However, most SOEs are smaller and are owned by provinces or municipalities and controlled by the local governments. SOEs still control around one-third of all investments, and the share has been increasing recently. In 2016, state-owned and controlled enterprises’ investments grew at 18.7 percent, compared with less than 5 percent growth for private investments. Part of this wide divergence may have been due to reclassification of private firms to state firms, but the decline of the growth rate of private (minjian) versus SOE investments started as far back as 2012, when private sector investments grew by 27.5
percent. In addition, the return on assets of SOEs has been below private firms and the gap has widened since the Global Financial Crisis (Figure 1.7). From 2009 to 2013, the average return on assets for state holding enterprises in the industrial sector was 4.4 percent, compared to 12.0 percent average for private enterprises in China.

Entry into some key sectors remains limited for private firms, as regulatory barriers to competition remain relatively high in China, including in oil and gas, electric power, finance, and telecommunications.
The OECD’s Product Market Regulations (PMR) indicators measure the stringency of regulatory policy in specific areas on a scale of 0 to 6, with a higher number indicating a policy stance that is deemed less condu-
cive to competition. The PMR indicators for China are comparable with non-OECD countries, but relatively high on barriers to trade and investment, barriers to entrepreneurship, and degree of state control compared with OECD countries (Figure 1.8). In particular, the services sector appears to have comparatively greater market entry barriers than the manufacturing sector. At present, SOEs account for a much larger share of fixed asset investments in services compared with manufacturing (43 percent in services compared to less than 10 percent in manufacturing), with particularly high shares in transportation, environmental management, and financial service. The government recognizes that further removing market entry barriers would help promote improvements in productivity. In this regard, the National Development and Reform Commission issued a policy document in October 2016 outlining measures to promote private investment, in particular by widening market access to private investments in specific sectors, such as telecommunication, electricity, and oil and gas exploration.

OECD data on Chinese infrastructure investment compared to the rest of the OECD:

https://data.oecd.org/transport/infr...investment.htm

Go to site, select China.

OECD China survey 2017:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/econom...ys-chn-2017-en

OECD reliance of sub-national governments on land revenue:

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/econo...aph17-en#page1

This chapter has some OECD data on SOEs:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...-chn-2017-4-en

Data on transition from manufacturing to services (note World Bank on SOEs accounting for larger share of service sector investments):

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/econo...raph5-en#page1

The drivers of growth:

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/econo...017-graph20-en

SOEs still retain a very large share of corporate debt:

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/econo...aph30-en#page1

IMF's analysis of perimeter government accounts, ie, off-budget local government financing vehicles in China:

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Pu...7/wp17272.ashx

Additional studies and reports

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Pu...7/wp17272.ashx

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu.../#1bf1c444decf

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/fi...blic-china.pdf

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...13/wp13243.pdf

http://web.worldbank.org/archive/web...13/wp13243.pdf

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...16/wp16187.pdf

[citanon]

If you had any experience with how business works in China you’d realize that the scary “nearly arbitrary power” has very little impact – if any – on the vast majority of companies. But, someone on Fox News said so, therefore it must be a fact.

Well, at least you're acknowledging this power. That's an improvement.

Adding banking, infrastructure construction, real estate development, high technology (really?) and small sectors (whatever that is) at this point is changing the subject because you haven’t got any facts to back up what you started with. I'm not sure what you were on about in the rest of the post, so I'll just stop here.

LoL, so you can't actually dispute these facts. You realize that what we are talking about is the power structure is the Chinese economy, and that, more than anything, is a structural issue right? That means it's the ownership structure and support structure that matters. There's zero disputable fact there. What, are you going to contend that ICBC, et al are not state owned? That it's all just propaganda? That's a laughable argument and you know it. So, instead, you're taking good data on the retail economy and throwing it up as FUD because you can't confront the core facts that make people say China is still a state run economy to a far greater degree than typical developed nations.

What is your problem?

That someone is wrong on the internet. I had some hopes when you posted the retail data that we can dig deeper and understand more about the tension between the state's position at the commanding heights and the private sectors position in the daily life, but this has become a useless pissing contest and I'm so done wasting time.

Edit:

Actually you know what, I take back some of my criticism of you, because now I see where there was a miscommunication.

I think what you meant to say with the data set, was: here is a compendium of published economic data on major sectors of the Chinese economy and as an example, here a a few numbers you tallied up. However, if I looked through the other numbers, they would also support your position that the state is no longer dominant. You did not necessarily mean that the numbers you posted could, by themselves, prove that the economy was not state led.

Unfortunately, I lost the signal when you launched into your rant about being an economists for 40 years.

However, my point still stands. The Chinese government the commanding heights of the economy and therefore the direction of the economy. It does so to a much greater extent than occurs on the West. So much so that I consider it to be a state run economy with market economics.

Let me give you an example:

Say you are a local government in China and the provincial and central governments and the state railway development corporation decides to run a high speed rail through your area with a new stop at a particular site. The local government then makes land at the site available for "long term lease" to developers, who have back channel connections to the local officials. The local government also creates government associated development corporation who participates as a minority partner in the developments, but whose presence on the venture allows the venture to obtain loan guarantees from the state development bank. That initial guarantee signals implicit state backing for the venture (whether true or not), allowing other private investment entities to pile in with investments. Meanwhile, back channels with the local government allow the developers to evict existing land users, sail through environmental reviews, obtain all permits for any construction work, and build up the assets in Chinese time.

Now, we look at the result from the perspective of your economic numbers:

The infrastructure spending isn't clearly accounted so it's missing from the tally.
The local government investment vehicle is only a minority partner.
The state development bank just provided a loan guarantee.
So, by all appearances, the majority of the assets belong to the private sector, the majority of the investments came from the private sector, and the urban jobs that result (retail shops, apartment building managers), are 90% private.

Yet, it's also pretty clear that the government planned and orchestrated the whole thing. Nothing would have happened without the government's direction.

Now you might say, same thing with real estate developments in the US. Well, crucial differences: the bank is not state run (the Fed is at least one tier removed), the land is not usually public land, you don't have a massively funded and highly activist state owned infrastructure builder involved, the connection between the local government and the developers are much more structured and under a more rigorous legal framework, and if you had business differences with the local county official you don't run the risk of having the police kidnap you and give you a stern talking to (or worse). In my view, the private sector was just the help. The private sector participants were all replaceable. It was the state sector that was calling all the shots in the example I just gave.

And we can't really see or understand that from the data in the economics year book. That's why I'm saying it's a structural issue. That's why I think state control over the banking and infrastructure sectors, and state support of high tech companies like Huawei are so important. Those are the linchpins. With the largest players in those sectors under state control, state support or heavy state influence, the government has a deep ability to move the economy.

Now, I take your point that the private sector activity in China is so large today that the state can't have a grip on it all. That, I think, is true. However, the state still determines the strategic directions of development, and, should it desire, it can assert itself in any sector it sees fit at any time it sees fit with none of the legal and political limitations that Western governments would face.

Just look at what happened during the recent Chinese stock market crash, or even more recently the heavy handed clamp down on entities such as Anbang. In fact, the An bang shows that large corporations are no less vulnerable to state influence than small ones. In fact, large corporations might be even more amenable to application of state power to greater effect because their well defined management structure lends itself to state takeovers with minimal changes in daily operations. Top level owners and executives are therefore more beholden to soft influence by the state, and just as vulnerable to hard power.

One look at all of the CEOs and companies railing against the Trump administration in the US tells you that's not the case here.

Under Xi Jinping, there appears to be a substantive reassertion of state control so that trends that were handing more economic control to the private sector of the Chinese economy appear to be actually reversing. This is not just my own opinion but current conventional wisdom.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-...ger-role-state

I think if you want to dispute this, you need to either present why you think these effects are not important, or argue why you think the trend towards more market power is irreversible.

[DOR]

So, “nearly arbitrary power over all other businesses at its whim” is a fact because . . . you said it was?

The IRS can confiscate your bank account and wreck your business and your life in the process of investigating whether or not you owe them money. They don’t need warrants or even much in the way of probable cause (although they tend to have some clues before acting badly, at least most of the time). Is that “nearly arbitrary power over all other businesses at its whim”? Do you even know what the typical business in China does vis-a-vis the municipal, provincial or national government?

If you had any experience with how business works in China you’d realize that the scary “nearly arbitrary power” has very little impact – if any – on the vast majority of companies. But, someone on Fox News said so, therefore it must be a fact.

Adding banking, infrastructure construction, real estate development, high technology (really?) and small sectors (whatever that is) at this point is changing the subject because you haven’t got any facts to back up what you started with. I'm not sure what you were on about in the rest of the post, so I'll just stop here.

What is your problem?

[citanon]

Did you think you could throw in “”nearly arbitrary power over all other businesses at its whim” and I wouldn’t notice? I reject the premesis.

And you reject this clear fact because? You conduct business in an authoritarian regime, they have arbitrary power over you. Since I wrote it in a response to you, yes, I meant for you to notice.

If you didn’t want to be so specific that I could easily dismantle your thin excuse for an understanding of what’s happening in China, you should have been less focused. Instead of making a big, sweeping statement that is difficult to counter, you narrowed the discussion down to a small handful of sectors . . . and, ones where the state isn’t all that dominant.

Banking, infrastructure construction, real estate development, high technology, small sectors?

That didn’t go so well,

Really???

so you decided to change the subject and claim I narrowed it to those sectors.

Really? I didn't know retail was banking or infrastructure construction. Maybe you meant, retail banking? *wink* *wink*

Also, are you confused between fixed assets and infrastructure? Do you not know that the former category can exclude the latter or just hoping to pass that under the radar?

Did you know that funds invested in real estate is not the same thing as people making land available for those funds to invest in? Or did that simple logic escape you?

I don't think that word "narrowing" means what you think it means.

But, you forgot that I’ve been debating for a long time.
I keep track of what I say in response to other people’s comments.

Oh, and I was on the China Defense Forum in the early 2000s, too.

Then you've got even less excuse for equating how you debate to how others have discussed matters.

[DOR]

So the state owns the primary lenders snd construction firms and has developers in its palms via control of land, in addition to having nearly arbitrary power over all other businesses at its whim and you don't think the economy is state led?

You cited evidence that doesn't support your point except to show that you can read and use a spreadsheet. What am I supposed to give you a cookie?

40 years huh? I take that as evidence that experience doesn't necessarily equal wisdom.

Since you do not seem to have figured it out in four decades, let me tell you about a little trick in academic discussions, it's called narrowing the field and defining the topic. Namely:

I make a big a sweeping statement like : China's economy is state led.

You counter with here's all this retail data.

I then tell you but your data doesn't speak to the larger issue, and btw, Here are all these authoritative sources that disagree.

This is normally where you break down into butt hurt gibberish. Instead, calm down and apply the trick:

You say: well, here's what I think about when I think about the terms "leading" and "dominating", in my view all these small companies are what employs people and interacts with consumers. Although the state has t/e commanding heights, the small businesses are like little people tieing Down the state Gulliver. For example, during the past 5 yearsthe state has had to reverse course on this this and that issue.

Then I say, oh, how interesting. But, on the other hand, the infrastructure development is continuing a pace, the...

Then you say: well, maybe we can start breaking down this big lump of "state dominated" into a more nuanced viewing the different industries and economic activities...

And so on and so forth it can go while we all get to learn something.

Do you see how this works?

You think people like the Col got the deference and respect they enjoy on this board by simply stating that hey were from the military?

You see that join by date next to my name? I joined this board 11 years ago, AFTER having already known the col and some others for years on China defense forum.

In all I've been talking with some of these guys online for about 15 years. They EARNED our respect by supplying insight after insight, and engaging counter arguments not just with facts glued together into coherent arguments by COGENT LOGIC.

What attracted me to this board is that the members here use their intellect to win respect and stick to the merits of their arguments rather than the bullet points on their resume. You might try it some times.

Did you think you could throw in “”nearly arbitrary power over all other businesses at its whim” and I wouldn’t notice? I reject the premesis.

I cite evidence that supports that part of the issue you raised.
You cite none.
Forget the cookie; give me some evidence that you know what you’re talking about.

March 12, 2018:

The state still controls the majority of assets and investment. Some of the state controlled firms are nominally mixed asset firms. Others are joint ventures with a large state interest. Yet still others, such as local retailers and real estate investment companies, are really partly controlled by local governments. Many of these latter mixed types of firms are operating with heavy state influence, to the extent that they are arguably private sector extensions of the state command economy. Thus, the state's hand is in every sector of the economy, even if its tendrils are diffuse and hidden.

That’s the point where we got started on assets, retailers and real estate.

If you didn’t want to be so specific that I could easily dismantle your thin excuse for an understanding of what’s happening in China, you should have been less focused. Instead of making a big, sweeping statement that is difficult to counter, you narrowed the discussion down to a small handful of sectors . . . and, ones where the state isn’t all that dominant.

That didn’t go so well, so you decided to change the subject and claim I narrowed it to those sectors. But, you forgot that I’ve been debating for a long time.
I keep track of what I say in response to other people’s comments.

You might want to try that sometime.

(That’s your cue to go dig up something I said years ago.)

Oh, and I was on the China Defense Forum in the early 2000s, too.

[citanon]

I only cited retail and real estate.
That shows I understand the data and you can read other people's work. (If you want to find out the public/private split for tin can manufacturers, do your own calculations.)

The Chinese state owns some of htt largest banks and biggest construction companies in the world.
Quit changing the subject when you can't back up what you say. Those companies are not going to out-weigh millions of other businesses.

Local government owns all the land.
In the UK, it's the Queen. Get used to it.

Plain as day.
You've made up your mind and cannot tolerate anything I say.

Onus is on you to show any shred of credibility.

So the state owns the primary lenders snd construction firms and has developers in its palms via control of land, in addition to having nearly arbitrary power over all other businesses at its whim and you don't think the economy is state led?

You cited evidence that doesn't support your point except to show that you can read and use a spreadsheet. What am I supposed to give you a cookie?

40 years huh? I take that as evidence that experience doesn't necessarily equal wisdom.

Since you do not seem to have figured it out in four decades, let me tell you about a little trick in academic discussions, it's called narrowing the field and defining the topic. Namely:

I make a big a sweeping statement like : China's economy is state led.

You counter with here's all this retail data.

I then tell you but your data doesn't speak to the larger issue, and btw, Here are all these authoritative sources that disagree.

This is normally where you break down into butt hurt gibberish. Instead, calm down and apply the trick:

You say: well, here's what I think about when I think about the terms "leading" and "dominating", in my view all these small companies are what employs people and interacts with consumers. Although the state has t/e commanding heights, the small businesses are like little people tieing Down the state Gulliver. For example, during the past 5 yearsthe state has had to reverse course on this this and that issue.

Then I say, oh, how interesting. But, on the other hand, the infrastructure development is continuing a pace, the...

Then you say: well, maybe we can start breaking down this big lump of "state dominated" into a more nuanced viewing the different industries and economic activities...

And so on and so forth it can go while we all get to learn something.

Do you see how this works?

You think people like the Col got the deference and respect they enjoy on this board by simply stating that hey were from the military?

You see that join by date next to my name? I joined this board 11 years ago, AFTER having already known the col and some others for years on China defense forum.

In all I've been talking with some of these guys online for about 15 years. They EARNED our respect by supplying insight after insight, and engaging counter arguments not just with facts glued together into coherent arguments by COGENT LOGIC.

What attracted me to this board is that the members here use their intellect to win respect and stick to the merits of their arguments rather than the bullet points on their resume. You might try it some times.

[DOR]

But yeah, how do you tell what's for internal consumption, what's real?

40 years of experience?

[DOR]

The problem here is you're taking numbers to an interpretation that they don't support.

You want to challenge the accepted wisdom that China's economy is state lead and state dominated, but you only cite retail and real estate.

On the other hand, we know the Chinese state owns the largest banks and the biggest construction companies, backs the biggest infrastructure providers and supports national champions in advanced technology.

We also know that local governments own all the land and the ultimate controls on real estate development.

We don't need some propaganda or conspiracy theory because of course the ownership and the relationships are there plain as day.

That's why it's the conventional wisdom. If you say different, onus is on you to prove it.

I've had the good fortune in my career of dealing with some very smart and distinguished people. Some of them have been at their jobs an awful long time. Never has one said I'm X and have been at it for Y years and so you should just believe me. They are very conscious that the moment they need to say that, they've lost their touch.

I only cited retail and real estate.
That shows I understand the data and you can read other people's work. (If you want to find out the public/private split for tin can manufacturers, do your own calculations.)

The Chinese state owns some of htt largest banks and biggest construction companies in the world.
Quit changing the subject when you can't back up what you say. Those companies are not going to out-weigh millions of other businesses.

Local government owns all the land.
In the UK, it's the Queen. Get used to it.

Plain as day.
You've made up your mind and cannot tolerate anything I say.

Onus is on you to show any shred of credibility.

[citanon]

citanon,

Can you tell the difference between reality and propaganda?

Just as only the most naive people believe Trump’s rants are gospel truth, no one but the most ignorant would believe a State Council statement isn’t designed to send a certain message to some constituency or another.

I had a very nice career “pulling numbers” and interpreting them.
What’s your specialty?
What have you spent more time on that anyone else on this board?

As the literate know, I have a very strong aversion to taking things at face value. If you think the State Council is telling the truth in every press release issued, then you probably also believe the data put out by the National Bureau of Statistics of China.

But, since you’ve already made up your mind, I’m wasting my time.

The problem here is you're taking numbers to an interpretation that they don't support.

You want to challenge the accepted wisdom that China's economy is state lead and state dominated, but you only cite retail and real estate.

On the other hand, we know the Chinese state owns the largest banks and the biggest construction companies, backs the biggest infrastructure providers and supports national champions in advanced technology.

We also know that local governments own all the land and the ultimate controls on real estate development.

We don't need some propaganda or conspiracy theory because of course the ownership and the relationships are there plain as day.

That's why it's the conventional wisdom. If you say different, onus is on you to prove it.

I've had the good fortune in my career of dealing with some very smart and distinguished people. Some of them have been at their jobs an awful long time. Never has one said I'm X and have been at it for Y years and so you should just believe me. They are very conscious that the moment they need to say that, they've lost their touch.

[hboGYT]

citanon,

Can you tell the difference between reality and propaganda?

Just as only the most naive people believe Trump’s rants are gospel truth, no one but the most ignorant would believe a State Council statement isn’t designed to send a certain message to some constituency or another.

I had a very nice career “pulling numbers” and interpreting them.
What’s your specialty?
What have you spent more time on that anyone else on this board?

As the literate know, I have a very strong aversion to taking things at face value. If you think the State Council is telling the truth in every press release issued, then you probably also believe the data put out by the National Bureau of Statistics of China.

But, since you’ve already made up your mind, I’m wasting my time.

But your signature tells us not to trust you precisely because of your past profession. So it is all fair on citanon's part.

But yeah, how do you tell what's for internal consumption, what's real?

[DOR]

citanon,

Can you tell the difference between reality and propaganda?

Just as only the most naive people believe Trump’s rants are gospel truth, no one but the most ignorant would believe a State Council statement isn’t designed to send a certain message to some constituency or another.

I had a very nice career “pulling numbers” and interpreting them.
What’s your specialty?
What have you spent more time on that anyone else on this board?

As the literate know, I have a very strong aversion to taking things at face value. If you think the State Council is telling the truth in every press release issued, then you probably also believe the data put out by the National Bureau of Statistics of China.

But, since you’ve already made up your mind, I’m wasting my time.

[citanon]

So, you like the China Statistical Yearbook? Great.
I’ve been using it since the 1978 edition. Having it on-line means I don’t have to input every digit anymore. Saves a ton of time. But, remember: quantity may have a quality all its own, but is isn’t the same as quality.

Sort of like the People’s Daily. Before they started publishing an English edition, it was pretty easy to recognize the pure propaganda value inherent in the paper. Once it came out in English, suddenly people started to believe it. Very strange.

“Data for private companies is more difficult to come by, but a look at the 2015 China’s Top 500 Enterprises . . .” right there you have hit the nail on the head: the statistical authorities don’t have much data on private sector companies (“hard to come by,” as if that wasn’t true everywhere), so they tend to ignore them. Same for smaller companies, which are the backbone of the economy.
If you can’t easily measure it, ignore it.
Oh, and 2015, which means 2014 data, at best.
Same as Dr. Scissors.

Do you think you know more about China's economy than the State Council because you read numbers from a book that one of their subordinates publish?

As for Fortune and the US government, you won’t find data that they don’t get from the official sources. The exception might be trade, where the US generates its own data. The only original data Fortune has is magazine advertising and circulation.

As for “my statistics” only covering sectors of the Chinese economy, well let’s just agree that the portion of the economy that I did cover – which you pointed to, such as retail – is oceans more than the portion of the economy where you actually brought some data to the game.

But this still doesn't support your original argument that China's economy is not state dominated.

If I was one-tenth as sure of myself in the subject of the armed forces -- of which I am but a casual student -- as you are in your confidence in the inner workings of China and its economy -- several very worthy people around here would have handed me my head, and probably a vacation, long ago.

You are very active about pulling numbers DOR but bad about interpreting them correctly. You can pull all the numbers you want, but when they don't support your point, they are merely interesting, and not convincing.

Pulling numbers since 1978.... well, maybe time to actually start using them for concrete arguments instead of spinkling strawman arguments and red herrings to cover up logical failings?

[hboGYT]

Nvm. delete t