[chunghuaming]

> it has not resulted in any meaningful economic consequences for the CCP

I would strongly disagree there.

- china law blog https://harrisbricken.com/chinalawblog/chinas-cultural-revol... has mentioned that now their audience is in agreement of opinion that CCP is becoming increasingly authoritarian and less tolerant of foreigners and foreign businesses. as a result, a lot of their business clients are saying "they will never go to China ever again"

- global equity funds exposure to china and kong kong has collapsed https://www.ft.com/content/daa7a70c-23fb-467a-b245-f57bd47f6... from 0.5% in 2011 to -1.0% in 2021

- Lehman moments with rescuing hourong, and evergrande about to collapse

- CCP obfuscates any official economy numbers, so you cannot judge their economy based on official numbers. You have to see what actions the CCP is taking. And right now they are making crazy moves.

[Arn_Thor]

We can argue about the exact economic significance—my interpretationof the facts you listed is much less severe—but whatever the cost, the CCP seems willing to pay it gladly. If that means running the economy into the ground as the alarmists warn will inevitably happen, then they're still powering on ahead undeterred. The takeaway for critics of China must inevitably be, then, that whatever the cost is it's not high enough to force the CCP to change course.

[ls65536]

I wonder also if perhaps avoiding a change of course, despite the costs of not doing so, in the interest of "saving face" might also be playing a role here. As I understand it (and at some risk of overgeneralizing here), this is a big cultural concept that I think might be underestimated by a lot of people in "the West" as a factor here.

[seanmcdirmid]

> from 0.5% in 2011 to -1.0% in 2021

How does negative exposure to China work, a hedge against? Or are these numbers derivatives (growth)?

[pvitz]

OP is missing the additional phrase "compared to the weight in the MSCI ACWI".