Comments on Karen Maley “Is China a classic bubble economy?” 3/04/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Is-China-a-classic-bubble-economy-pd20100403-45R9U?OpenDocument&src=sph
While this article lists many of Edward Chancellor's arguments on the so called Chinese bubble and its similarity with "past manias and financial crises".
However, Edward Chancellor failed to mention or even to think about the many differences that exist between China's current case with the past cases.
Did Edward Chancellor mention productivity improvement in china and its implications for the differences?
The "past manias and financial crises" that Edward Chancellor implies presumably were mostly at the forefront of some "new things", but is the China case share any of the characteristics of those new things, that is, a new potential path that was full of uncertainties and may or may not be realisable?
What about the China case?
Is urbanisation not realisable in the sense that there is no precedence, like the internet frenzy that preceded the technology crash in 2000?
What about sustained rapid growth over a long period until a country reaches the world economic frontier?
Haven’t we got ample examples already?
Why did Edward Chancellor mention any of them?
To just take a simple example from the piece: It is said "Bubble-like signs are evident in the Shanghai stock market, and stretched real estate prices." It seems there may be half truth in that statement. Is the Shanghai stock market really bubble like now, based on what?
So, the question is: is Edward Chancellor's arguments convincing?
The answer obviously is negative, I am afraid to say, although the author appears was convinced enough.
Unfortunately, that reflects a fact that how little many people understand history, economics and economic development.