According to US media reported on May 5th, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on May 4 in New York's famous refutation American China scholar David Shambaugh (DAVID SHANBAUGH) of China collapse theory is 'nonsense.' Rudd said, the key issue is China leaders well aware of the problems and has taken major initiatives.
Rudd said the past few months, the United States and China face economic collapse and political rhetoric was important debate, and this is precisely the debate of this important article Shambaugh becomes hot. Thus, Rudd said, 'I To take this opportunity to respond to this statement, to refute his argument. '
China's economic slowdown is a normal phenomenon
Rudd first with four factors demonstrate China's economic downturn is a normal phenomenon.
He said that when Westerners accustomed to the Chinese after decades of double-digit growth, China's economic slowdown is now seen to 7,8%, they think the sky is falling down. It is not logical.
He cited four factors: first, history shows that economic development has entered a stage of rapid growth of the middle class income is automatically adjusted into the slow phase, China, too, which is a normal phenomenon.
Second, changes in China's economic development model in progress, from labor-intensive, export-oriented economic and infrastructure development, the transformation into a high personal consumption, rely on the service sector, the private sector to play a greater role-based development model In this process, the growth rate will slow.
Third, China's reform began in the late 1970s the Chinese environment paid a huge price, Chinese people demand cleaner water, land, food, and therefore, when a new model of development to a higher environmental requirements must be taken into account, this also make the economic slowdown.
Fourth, the Chinese change the mode to protect the world economic slowdown coincided with the environment, the Chinese involvement in the country's economic growth rate to reduce imports to Europe.
He said, ‘West China grew 7% instead of 8% but the development model of collective panic, because they do not take into account all these factors.’