The Article Published by "Qiushi" Acknowledges the Economic Temperature Difference While Obscuring Critical Pain Points.

The collapse of the Chinese catering industry began even before the economic downturn hit. (Video screenshot)

[People News] On August 1, "Qiushi" released an article titled "How to View the 'Temperature Difference' Between Macroeconomic Data and Microeconomic Feelings," which admits that "there exists a 'temperature difference' between macroeconomic totals and microeconomic experiences." The article states that "macroeconomic data serves as the 'thermometer' of the economy, while microeconomic feelings represent the 'perceived temperature' of the populace, both of which are valid."

At first glance, the article appears to abandon its previous optimistic narrative about the economy, seemingly adopting a more humble approach by openly addressing the issues present in the microeconomy. This shift might spark hope: has the government finally recognized its own problems and begun to take an interest in the cold realities of the microeconomic situation? Is there a significant intervention on the horizon to rectify the situation?!

However, as one continues to read, the tone takes a surprising turn. The article's explanation of macro and micro diverges smoothly, asserting that "it is merely a difference in measurement dimensions." It calls for a dialectical perspective on the temperature difference and stresses the importance of "not allowing local perceptual deviations to amplify anxiety or skew expectations."

Ultimately, this piece serves as yet another flattering article that seeks to whitewash the leadership of Xi Jinping. It adopts a seemingly professional lens to analyze the trajectory of the macroeconomy, feigning a gentle guidance while presenting facts and reasoning. Yet, it subtly and deliberately defends the economic decline resulting from the disarray of the CCP's policies. The article aims to steer the narrative, set the tone, and conduct emotional interventions and 'cognitive corrections' against any pessimistic expectations that contradict the main narrative, attributing the tangible economic temperature difference felt by the public to a lack of objective support and complex subjective 'perception.'

This brief article in Qiushi Magazine, while not overtly promoting Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party, uses the acknowledgment of macro and micro temperature differences as a starting point and entryway. It attempts to downplay serious issues, confuse concepts, and reshape perceptions, transforming an economic problem that should validate economic slowdown and statistical confidence into a grand political narrative that can almost always maintain internal consistency.

However, readers with a basic understanding of economics and analytical skills can easily identify the contradictions and absurdities present in the article, which often 'dodges the main issue.'

The central problem and key contradiction lie in the fact that while it explains the phenomenon, it fails to address the sharp and critical conflict of 'why macro indicators appear positive while most entities continue to struggle.'

Confusing 'economic growth' with 'welfare improvement'

The article repeatedly asserts that macro data is 'real,' yet it aligns GDP growth, industrial output, and the expansion of new economic drivers directly with improvements in public sentiment. However, in economic terms, GDP merely indicates an increase in output; it does not automatically translate to profit growth, wage increases, stable employment, or a recovery in consumer confidence.

The GDP calculated by the Chinese Communist Party is based on the production and investment sides, summing the total value added across society. This reflects the overall figure rather than the actual circumstances of most individuals. If priority industries, a few leading enterprises, and certain provinces are sufficiently large, they can easily elevate the total figure, creating an average that obscures the underlying distribution. Meanwhile, many small and medium-sized enterprises and ordinary residents continue to face significant hardships.

The article points out that aggregate data overlooks differences among industries, groups, and regions, which is accurate. However, it fails to further inquire: if the disparities are so pronounced that the majority of businesses and residents feel the chill, can the average still represent the actual situation? In economics, when the distribution is extremely polarized, the average can become severely distorted.

In other words, if we observe a billion people with nine hundred million living in poverty, and the article resorts to 'aggregate humor' as a substitute, it is essentially altering the statistical framework and shifting the focus of the contradiction.

Using 'the transformation of old and new driving forces' as a universal cover-up

A common tactic in such articles is to attribute all macro and micro challenges to 'transitional pains,' while avoiding direct confrontation with the issues or acknowledging their own errors. While transformation can explain short-term difficulties, it cannot endlessly justify long-term weaknesses. If traditional sectors like real estate continue to shrink, and the share of new driving forces remains minimal, failing to generate substantial employment, and relying on state subsidies in the long run, while macro investments rise, the corresponding consumption side is in a sharp decline. The so-called transformation of old and new driving forces is merely a repeatedly used tattered cover-up.

The undeniable truth that this cover-up cannot hide is: why is GDP within a reasonable range, while median income among residents, urban employment, bank loans, and corporate cash flow are all alarmingly poor? If employment, wages, orders, and consumer confidence remain weak over the long term, it is not merely a matter of time lag, but rather deeper issues such as insufficient demand, imbalanced distribution, damaged balance sheets, and deteriorating expectations. The Qiushi article does not address or dare to confront these critical issues.

Can AI truly usher in an efficiency revolution?

The article asserts that AI will trigger an efficiency revolution throughout the entire research and development, manufacturing, and service chain, a statement reminiscent of 'technological determinism.' In practice, while AI can enhance the efficiency of certain enterprises, it also results in an increased advantage for leading companies, while small and medium-sized enterprises face pressure. The movement-style development of the national system has led to severe industry involution, characterized by price wars that concentrate profits among capital and technology owners, leaving ordinary citizens largely unaffected. Furthermore, the rapid replacement of jobs by AI is swiftly eradicating traditional employment opportunities; in its quest to open a window, AI has nearly shut all the doors.

In essence, AI may not inherently reduce disparities; rather, it could intensify them. The Qiushi article, in an effort to flatter Xi Jinping, portrays it as a universal accelerator, which is clearly a one-sided narrative, akin to the industry version of 'Why not eat porridge?'

Policy support cannot substitute for endogenous recovery.

The article acknowledges issues such as insufficient consumption, a slowdown in lending, and income improvements that do not meet expectations, yet it still claims that the main indicators are functioning within a reasonable range. The critical question is: if demand from consumers is weak, cash flow from businesses is weak, and credit demand from the financial sector is weak, then where does the so-called resilience actually originate? Whose resilience is being referred to? If growth is primarily driven by investment, exports, policy support, or is sustained by a few sectors, then it cannot be classified as a typical 'endogenous recovery,' but rather as 'policy-driven support.' However, the article fails to explore this issue in depth, making it challenging to substantiate its arguments.

The article points out that the current low price levels will exacerbate the disparity between nominal growth and actual economic experience, a claim that amounts to burying one's head in the sand. Low inflation is not a protective filter; rather, it reflects a lack of effective demand. Consumers are hesitant to spend, businesses are reluctant to invest, prices remain stagnant, and profit margins are shrinking. While the macroeconomic total relies on investment, exports, inventory replenishment, or policy stimulus to stabilize, it fails to address the grim realities of livelihoods, a declining market, and the ongoing spiral of deflation.

In a state of disrepair and difficult to rectify

The article presents the notion that 'the macroeconomic total has not collapsed' as 'the economy is generally stable,' while interpreting 'widespread micro-level pressure' as 'different perspectives and the pains of transformation.' It acknowledges 'temperature differences' but shies away from discussing the deeper underlying issues.

At present, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is grappling with insufficient demand, employment pressures, income inequality, the burden of the real estate sector, a lack of confidence among private enterprises, soaring local government debt, the withdrawal of foreign capital, and export challenges due to tariffs. These issues have become deeply entrenched, leaving the CCP fundamentally powerless. The Qiushi article serves as a flimsy cover that fails to conceal the numerous flaws within the party-state's structure.

(First published by the People News) △