????中國政府上周四宣布，今年的經濟增長目標為7%，比過去三年下調了0.5個百分點。這遠低于本世紀頭十年的水平，當時中國經濟高歌猛進，年均增幅曾達到10%。

????對這條消息有兩種解讀方式。對悲觀主義者來說，造成中國經濟增長放緩的問題看來不會很快消失。房地產市場越發低迷，地方政府債務仍處于難以為繼的高水平，本世紀頭十年的那種發展模式也已經走到了盡頭。當時，中國的鋼鐵和水泥企業把自己的產品賣給國內建筑公司，后者再用這些原材料修建摩天大樓、公路和隧道。面對經濟減速，中國央行上周下調了利率，這已經是央行在三個月內第二次降息。

????對樂觀主義者來說，中國經濟增速可能正在下降，但增長水平仍令人側目。中國仍是全球20大經濟體中發展最快的一個（也可能位居第二，僅次于印度，這要看大家相信誰的數據）。7%的增長目標意味著今年中國的經濟規模將提高1萬億美元。雖然增速不高，但增長規模仍是印度GDP的一半以上。樂觀者還認為，下調GDP增長目標將讓改革變得更容易。三十年來，中國經濟的飛速發展也引發了嚴重的污染問題。對此已有大量論述，解決方案之一就是壓縮排污工業的規模。降低經濟增長目標后，中國應該可以專注于保持高質量發展，而不是簡單地提升GDP。經濟和市場研究機構龍洲經訊分析師安德魯?巴特森絕不是盲目樂觀者，但他對于中國政府降低經濟增長目標持積極態度，安德魯寫道：“這是件好事。這表明政治壓力減輕了，不用再通過提高負債和放任工廠污染來追求不切實際的增長目標。”

????China lowered its economic growth target for this year to 7% on Thursday. That’s half a percentage point lower than the past three years, and a far cry from the heady 2000s when gross domestic product grew by an average 10% a year.

????There are two ways to interpret the news. For pessimists, the problems causing China’s economic slowdown don’t look like they’re going away anytime soon: the real estate market is falling deeper into distress; local government debt remains unsustainably high; and China’s model in the 2000s that supported double-digit GDP growth figures— in which Chinese firms produced steel and concrete and sold it to Chinese firms building skyscrapers, roads and tunnels—has run its course. In response to the slowdown, China’s central bank cut interest rates last weekend for the second time in three months.

????For optimists, China may be slowing, but man is it still impressive! China is still the fastest-growing of the world’s 20 largest economies (or maybe the second-fastest after India, depending on whose statistics you trust more). And today’s 7% target growth rate translates into $1 trillion in additional activity during the year—a marginal increase that is more than half of India’s total GDP. The optimists also argue a lowered GDP target makes reforms easier to stomach: China’s pollution problems, caused by runaway development over thirty years, have been well documented, and solutions include scaling back the harmful industries. Lower targets should allow China to focus on sustained “quality” growth instead of cheap measures to boost GDP. Gavekal Dragonomics analyst Andrew Batson, who is no Pollyanna, offered the positive view on Thursday: “This is a good thing,” he wrote of the reduced growth target. “[I]t means less political pressure to build up debt and run polluting factories in pursuit of an unrealistic growth target.”