NationStates Jolt Archive

The country of China is a big economic factor what are all your comments on this?

The country of China is a big economic factor what are all your comments on this?
Well if their workers work 90 hours a week for $0.25 an hour they should have something to show for it.

Eh, 2nd superpower, completely devastated overpopulated asian country. One or the other. Maybe both, we have seen the USSR and how it was kept together by cheap tape and crappy glue while it was still communist.

With such a large population, they have enormous potential for economic growth. I think they probably will overtake the USA.

I remember Americans being all paranoid about Japan in the late 80s' now they are afraid of the Chineese.

Economies go in cycles, sure china has had good growth, but its uneven growth, and ive looked into it greatly, the system is very delicate, if the leaders screw up just one thing, the system could crash out into a decades long depression like Japans has.

Edit: might i add that Chinas economy isnt inovative or free thinking at all. Their entire economy is around ripping off patients and black marketing products from other countries with a Chinnese twist to it. hell even their supposed chinnese made equipment is mostly renamed rip offs of Russian and American equipment stolen from various tech centers.

Im curious to whats going to happen when some time passes since they have not pegged there currency to US currency anymore. There money will adjust upward to compensate for themselves keeping it low. Going to be interesting how they handle an overheated economy. I say they screw it up in the near future. There exports are going to plummet since they will be more expensive. Other countries will benefit due to increased exports. Most likely se Asian countries and India. We will see....

Look at it this way.

If they keep getting richer as a country they'll have more access to more "toys" for the civilian population. It takes more money to buy those "toys."

After a while the Chinese company's will HAVE to start paying their employee's more, and once they do the cheap labor market in China disappears.

Look at it this way.

If they keep getting richer as a country they'll have more access to more "toys" for the civilian population. It takes more money to buy those "toys."

After a while the Chinese company's will HAVE to start paying their employee's more, and once they do the cheap labor market in China disappears.


You hit it right on the head. Alot of people dont take this point of a growing middle class into account. I dont even think the Chinese take this into an acct.

Well if their workers work 90 hours a week for $0.25 an hour they should have something to show for it.

True, but for peasents that previously made only $25 per month its a big increase and although they are payed very low wages the factories are generally clean and safe. The wages will rise eventually like they did in Japan(1950's) and S korea, taiwan( 1970-80's)

I remember Americans being all paranoid about Japan in the late 80s' now they are afraid of the Chineese.

Economies go in cycles, sure china has had good growth, but its uneven growth, and ive looked into it greatly, the system is very delicate, if the leaders screw up just one thing, the system could crash out into a decades long depression like Japans has.

Edit: might i add that Chinas economy isnt inovative or free thinking at all. Their entire economy is around ripping off patients and black marketing products from other countries with a Chinnese twist to it. hell even their supposed chinnese made equipment is mostly renamed rip offs of Russian and American equipment stolen from various tech centers.

Yes economies go in cycles and China's is growing very fast, but china is so vast and populated it can grow at is present rate(8%) for another decade or two before beginning to slow down.

China's not very innovative at the moment, but neither was South Korea or Japan during their early development.

Look at it this way.

If they keep getting richer as a country they'll have more access to more "toys" for the civilian population. It takes more money to buy those "toys."

After a while the Chinese company's will HAVE to start paying their employee's more, and once they do the cheap labor market in China disappears.

And once it does disappears China will have a large enough domestic market to not need to export so many products.

The Chinese economy has some troubles to overcome and there might be some major problems in the future, but the opportunity to rise 1/5 of the worlds population of poverty is not to be overlooked.(same with India)

Im curious to whats going to happen when some time passes since they have not pegged there currency to US currency anymore. There money will adjust upward to compensate for themselves keeping it low. Going to be interesting how they handle an overheated economy. I say they screw it up in the near future. There exports are going to plummet since they will be more expensive. Other countries will benefit due to increased exports. Most likely se Asian countries and India. We will see....
They only revalued their currency by 2-3%, not enough to have a huge effect.

You know who the real sleep country in Asia is?

India. Plain and simple.

Less people to support, but it still has cheap labor.

Watch out. I wouldn't be surprised to see them and China get into a future conflict.

India.
Well it'll have more people in a year or two.

Is there any doubt? China is going to overtake the US sooner or later, it's bound to happen. India too.
Which one of those is gonna be top dog will be seen.

And China's economy is a lot more than just a lack of patent laws... :rolleyes:

Well if their workers work 90 hours a week for $0.25 an hour they should have something to show for it.

That's right. Working for American and European bosses.

You know who the real sleep country in Asia is?

India. Plain and simple.

Less people to support, but it still has cheap labor.

Watch out. I wouldn't be surprised to see them and China get into a future conflict.

They have already had some border skirmishes...

anybody who says China isnt military aggressive is a fool, they have had border clashes with almost every neightbor they have.

They have already had some border skirmishes...

anybody who says China isnt military aggressive is a fool, they have had border clashes with almost every neightbor they have.

TO PROTECT OUR OWN SOVEREIGNTY! :eek:


Well...most of the time...

anybody who says China isnt military aggressive is a fool, they have had border clashes with almost every neightbor they have.
Note the time those happened though. Also check who was in power then, and compare with who is in power now.

I don't think China becomming more of an economic power than the US is realistic. The US is unchallenged and will remain so for several reasons. The world economy is based on the US$. The US is everyone's biggest export market. Nobody but the Chinese wants China to be an economic superpower... And of course, the entire world economy would collapse (including China's) if they outgrow the US.
Oh and... If there's one nation on this globe who isn't ahsamed of waging neverending war for profit, it's the US. And China would ruin themselves if they tried to compete on military might.

Chances are China's economy will end up being slightly more important than that of the EU, and personally I think that's a good thing. I don't believe anyone is insane enough to try to dethrone the US, nor do I think it's possible. Not without crashing everyone's economies and possibly start WWIII.

...The world economy is based on the US$...
But its grip lessens everytime the Fed keeps it artificially low so that the US Exporters stay competitive...and in the Euro there is a viable alternative for international trade.
So it needn't be forever.

I don't think China becomming more of an economic power than the US is realistic. The US is unchallenged and will remain so for several reasons. The world economy is based on the US$. The US is everyone's biggest export market. Nobody but the Chinese wants China to be an economic superpower... And of course, the entire world economy would collapse (including China's) if they outgrow the US.
Oh and... If there's one nation on this globe who isn't ahsamed of waging neverending war for profit, it's the US. And China would ruin themselves if they tried to compete on military might.

Chances are China's economy will end up being slightly more important than that of the EU, and personally I think that's a good thing. I don't believe anyone is insane enough to try to dethrone the US, nor do I think it's possible. Not without crashing everyone's economies and possibly start WWIII.

Nothing is forever, of course the USA is number one, but they keep loosing trade battles to the EU, weakening the USA's grip on the world economy. The EURO after only 3 yearsof being in existence is gaining more and more power. The more countries that join it the more it will go that way...especially if Britain joins, which is why the USA has been putting so much pressure on the UK ot stay out.

Just pesonally i see the American plan as this, the expolite South america for it's raw materials, to ship them to china to make stuff and then sell it back, all using American companies. Unfortunatly this plan is getting sticky as South american countries are rebelling and China is now starting to breed home grown industry.

China will be the number one economy but it depends upon how they respond to the growing fuel crisis. At the moment it would seem their current economic model is the same as anywhere elses, with the emphasis being on oil. With oil rising fast China is in the same boat as everyone else.

IMHO the economies that will suceed in the next 50 years will be those that use as little oil as possible.

China's fast economic growth should be seen in perspective. Their population grows at an insanely high rate, there's less and less land avaliable to work in the countryside, so people are flocking to the cities. China's growth, however big, is barely enough to sustain their domestic economic needs. Besides, despite a relatively high number of scientists and engineers, few invention patents are being filled in China, and the basis for true economic power in the modern world is not manufacture of cheap goods, but advanced R&D. I don't see them outweighting the US or Europe in terms of economic power and importance anytime soon.

China's fast economic growth should be seen in perspective. Their population grows at an insanely high rate, there's less and less land avaliable to work in the countryside, so people are flocking to the cities. China's growth, however big, is barely enough to sustain their domestic economic needs. Besides, despite a relatively high number of scientists and engineers, few invention patents are being filled in China, and the basis for true economic power in the modern world is not manufacture of cheap goods, but advanced R&D. I don't see them outweighting the US or Europe in terms of economic power and importance anytime soon.

But that's the odd thing China is facing population implosin. The Fertility rate in 1.3, where as to sustain the population it needs to be 2.1.

The average age is 42 compared to Japan (oldest population in the world) at 46.

The way things are going China is going to implode.

The fertility rate is kept low by government mandate and the degree to which it has seeped into Chinese culture. This is also why the mean age in China could be as high as 42 (I'd like to see actual DATA, but that's too much to hope for on an internet forum.)

In any case, when you basically have half of your country as populationally dense as the Eastern Seaboard, a low birth rate isn't necessarily a bad thing.

As for economics, it takes a lot less per Chinese resident to make up the amount of money that cycles through America in any given amount of time.

If China's mean income has even a chance of reaching that of the United States, exceeding the GDP of the United States is nearly inevitable.

The country of China is a big economic factor what are all your comments on this?


That your grasp of the obvious is impeccable.

I think that China and India will have larger economies than the US one day. Obviously.Unless something happens, which it very well could do.

But why does it matter if you're not the largest, we (The UK) used to have the largest economy in the world, now we don't and we're alright.

China has hardly revalued it's currency at all, but it has given it scope to fall or rise 0.3% a day. So, if it rase the maximum amount each day, it could move 30% in a hundred days, so we could see a large swing in the Yuan over the coming months.

I think India will be the economic power in 30 years time. As long as they get the infrastructure sorted out. And Kashmir.

One country you don't need to worry about at the oment is Russia. I read that under putin, bribery and corruption has increased tenfold to $316 billion :eek: !

China has hardly revalued it's currency at all, but it has given it scope to fall or rise 0.3% a day. So, if it rase the maximum amount each day, it could move 30% in a hundred days, so we could see a large swing in the Yuan over the coming months.

Well, you should read the news more carefully.

The daily trading price of the US dollar against the RMB in the inter-bank foreign exchange market will continue to be allowed to float within a band of 0.3 percent around the central parity published by the People's Bank of China...
http://english.people.com.cn/200507/22/eng20050722_197693.html

Im sorry, but I dont think thats a very good source at all. Mine ids the Financial Times.

that Chinese website has failed to mention that it will only float in a range 0.3% and the day's closing price will be the next day's opening price.

Great answers I'm suprised that drinks aren't made in China!...

Not solely on US/China, but it mostly is, pretty insightful:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/subs/article/0,15114,1081269-1,00.html

Here are my (worthless) thoughts:


It's hard to say. If things continue as they are, I think it's beyond doubt that both India and China will overtake the US for GDP, though average standard of living will never come vaguely close in even a worst case scenario (for us). What's also beyond doubt is that things never continue exactly as they are on a long term basis; Murphy's law must always be considered (if anything can F up at any time, it must be assumed that it will) for both sides.

History must always be considered when trying to predict the future. China in recent times was largely the world's bitch, an inept giant for Europeans and other countries to bitch slap and plunder at will. Tiny Japan made a fool out of China in the thirties with Manchuotiko and the rest. The Yuan dynasty....it goes on and on back through history. One could argue that its relative weakness considering its size, throughout the 19th and 20th century, will be the same thing which prevents it from forming a long standing stronghold atop the world's economic powers, be it because of racial inferiority (certainly not my position), poor infrastructure, overpopulation, or any other host of reasons. Certainly, their "wall ourselves off from the rest of the world" mentality which kept them technologically inferior in those times has slightly lessened, but they still have a lot of catching up to do. One of the US economy's greatest strengths has always been its flexibility, which will become even more important as technology becomes more and more complex, and China's ability to keep up will be severely tested. It will likely go back to the old US/Russia race between quality and quantity, respectively.

The same history of submission to foreign powers could come back to haunt China's former landlords. I highly doubt they will embark on a war of revenge, but it won't help future relations if any conflict, particularly with Europe, arises, economically or otherwise. The US will very likely utilize a high tariff (proposed by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY) of 27.5% on Chinese goods if they don't end the manipulation of their currency value, which will raise costs to American consumers, but hurt the Chinese economy even more. Taiwan will certainly be a huge issue in years to come, as China is tripling its landing craft force every year (for obvious reasons). They've vowed to take Taiwan back, and the US has vowed to stop them if they try. There is a set of islands in the Pacific (forget the name, it's like...Skatley....or something) where underground/water oil reserves possibly rivalling even those of the Arabian peninsula have been found. China has laid claim to the islands, but so have America, the UK, and several others I forget. China's desperation for oil to support its economy will easily be the chief issue which determines its growth. It will also screw the rest of the world dearly, at least at first, by driving up costs (as well as India's growth, of course). The bicycle will almost certainly continue to take precedent, but oil demand will nevertheless expand almost exponentially. The piracy of technology, music and DVD's is gonna end up pissing off someone awful bad very soon.

The current government has been in something of a benign identity crisis since the Cultural Revolution ended, not knowing exactly what direction it was going in, be it pure Communism, democracy, dictatorship/autocracy, oligarchy, or what have you. It's not necessarily unstable, but the democratic reform movements vs. natural tendencies of power consolidation and the ensuing demands of rights as standard of living improves could create internal turmoil. One could argue that, being that China has little experience a top dog in recent time, any number of devastating errors could be made which would sink it for a long, long time (and if it "fell", it would fall very hard). It will still take them a while, being that their stock market is basically a joke at this point. All that being said, the likelihood does remain that China will surpass us, but it's certainly not inevitable. They are putting out many, many more engineers and college graduates in general. Nevertheless, the only thing the US can do to stay on top will be to continue holding the technology edge in the world, which will become increasingly more difficult, considering out education system among other things. The US worker's demand for pay compared to what the Chinese worker's demand gives an extreme edge to China (as well as India, etc. etc.), which is by far the main thing they have going for them (as well as foreign investment). In the end, the larger questions than will China surpass us are how soon, and for how long. My guess is that it will, unfortunately, happen about 20-25 years from now (though the process has already begun with the US companies they've bought out), but not last for long. It seems that a lot of powers, not limited to the US, have interests in China not becoming the sole superpower, or even a superpower at all. The paradox of the facts that China is both trying to improve technologically with white-collar jobs and creation of the middle class, and the fact their strength is low pay among a massed population of workers is the major issue they will have to overcome.

The value of the Euro has been fairly impressive, though dropped a little bit recently, but I'm not overly concerned with the EU. France, Holland, and the others rejecting that Constitution is going to set them back a way. Like China, they'll need to get it together politically before they can surpass anyone economically. I don't think India will ever overtake us, either. Too many cows in the streets slowing down transportation......

All right, I'll stop pretending like I have an idea what I'm talking about.

But that's the odd thing China is facing population implosin. The Fertility rate in 1.3, where as to sustain the population it needs to be 2.1.
First, their 2005 fertility rate is 1.7 according to the CIA factbook. Given the sheer size of their population, even this is probably still too high a rate that forces them to generate work places at an untenable speed. But there is also an issue of "shadow demographics". 1.7 to 1.8 is an official government estimate, which is "corrected" in accordance with what the Powers that Be want to hear. Chinese demographers at the international conferences tend to operate with the figure of 2.1- which is most likely also a conservative estimate. Combine all that with the steadily increasing life expectancy- and you have a serious overpopulation problem.

First, their 2005 fertility rate is 1.7 according to the CIA factbook. Given the sheer size of their population, even this is probably still too high a rate that forces them to generate work places at an untenable speed. But there is also an issue of "shadow demographics". 1.7 to 1.8 is an official government estimate, which is "corrected" in accordance with what the Powers that Be want to hear. Chinese demographers at the international conferences tend to operate with the figure of 2.1- which is most likely also a conservative estimate. Combine all that with the steadily increasing life expectancy- and you have a serious overpopulation problem.

Acutally if you work it out that's not the case, China is basically looking down the barrel of loosing 10 of it's population every 20 years.

Essentially if you look at the birth levels for 1955 the Fertility rate was 6.22 and even taking your figures of 1.8 (since when has the CIA got anything right ;) ) China is hardly going to be exploding over the comming years.

Factor in the the population between 2000-2005 only grew at .70%, that life expecetency between now at 2050 is only expected to grow by 5 years, (71-76) that the population uner 19 in 2015 will be 19.3% down from 24.3% in 2001. This is happening in a country where less that half the people live in the cities. Imagine what will happen to Fertility rates then. By 2050 the popualtion should be shrinking by .35% per anum which will only go up and up and up.

I'm not even factoring in the AIDS eppidemic that is getting a hold.

April 14, 2005
China's time bombs: Gray China

I'm still working on my observations on the snowballing problems with China's banking and financial systems so as the second installment in my series on the serious problems that China faces we'll concentrate on aging.

Note: much of the information in this post is either supported by or derived from the Center for Strategic and International Studies presentation The Graying of the Middle Kingdom which I strongly recommend you take a look at.

China has transformed itself from a traditional agrarian society to an incipient modern society with remarkable speed essentially in the sixty years following World War II. Each year since 1979 China's economy has grown by 8-10%. Something else began in 1979: China instituted its “One Child Policy”, an official policy to reduce population growth by limiting the number of children a couple were allowed to one. The policy hasn't been 100% effective, particularly in the countryside, but it has had some effect: since 1979 China's fertility rate has fallen to a sub-replacement level. In the cities the fertility rate is substantially below the replacement level of 2.1 children per couple.

The falling fertility rate isn't the only reason for the graying of China: life expectancy is rising as well. Beijing Times writes:

Statistics show that the number of Chinese people older than 60, which accounts for more than 10 percent of the country's population, is increasing at a rate of 3.2 percent per year.

The huge aging population brings various social and economical problems to China, which is still a developing country, said Li Baoku, vice-minister of Civil Affairs.

The elderly will be a big burden for China through the year 2050, when that population will reach 400 million, accounting for 25 percent of the total, according to Zhang Wenfan, president of the Chinese Old-age Association.

Unless trends change starting in about 10 years China's working age population will actually begin to shrink and within 25 years China's total population will begin to decline.

This isn't too different from the situation in Europe where the fertility rate in most countries is below the replacement level (in the United States the fertility rate is slightly above the replacement level at least in part due to recent immigrants). The difference is that China may become old before it becomes rich.

China has no national pension system. Only about 25% of the population is covered by any pension system whatsoever. In traditional Chinese society elders were revered and families were large: children were the pension system for the elderly. From China Daily:

Even though government officials are engaged in handling statistics and reports on the overheated economy and high unemployment rates, some experts warn that China will soon face problems brought by its rapidly aging population unless effective measures are taken in time.

China has the world's largest elderly population, with 134 million people over 60 years old, a figure that is likely to hit 400 million by the middle of this century.

"A flawed population structure has turned out to be a knotty issue for many developed nations, and now it befalls China, which is still a developing country," said Zhang Yi, a veteran demographic expert with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

A sample investigation in 2001 said 7.83 percent of Chinese people were above 65, and in 2020 the proportion would rise to 12 percent.

The aging process is speeded up especially in the cities as the one-child policy was adopted in the 1970s, and more couples now tend to postpone pregnancy or not to have babies at all, said Zhang.

Implementation of the one-child policy in the past decades prevented fast population growth, but it also expedited the aging process.

As most experts foresee, some 20 years from now, a young couple will have to look after at least four parents from both families. By then caring for the elderly will not be a family issue but a social one.

Without either pensions or large families to fall back on what are China's elders to do? Few have much in the way of savings. Continuing to work may not be an option for two reasons. The first is health. According to the American Enterprise Institute:

Hard data on the health status of older people in China and other countries tend to be spotty and problematic-and comparability of method can never be taken for granted. However, some of the survey data that are available through REVES (Reseau sur l'esperance de vie en sante), the international network of "health expectancy" researchers, are thought-provoking. According to a 1989-1990 "health expectancy" study for the Sichuan province, a person 60 years of age would spend less than half (48 percent) of his or her remaining years in passable health. (That study, incidentally, seems to have been heavily weighted toward relatively privileged urban groups: in the rural part of the sample, the corresponding figure was barely 40 percent.) By contrast, a study for West Germany for 1986 calculated that a 60-year-old woman could expect to spend 70 percent of her remaining time in "good health"; for men the fraction was 75 percent. Although one probably should not push those findings too hard, they are certainly consistent with the proposition that China's seniors are more brittle than older populations from more comfortable and prosperous locales.

But the kinds of work available in China's new economy is an important factor, as well. Business Week writes:

There are also structural changes at work. A key factor is a paucity of the young women who are the mainstay of the manufacturing workforce. According to the Labor & Social Security Ministry survey, 80% of Fujian textile plants report they only hire young women workers. But after 25 years of China's one-child policy, there are fewer young people able to leave the farm and staff the factories. The one-child policy also had the effect of favoring the birth of boys over girls, resulting in a population skewed more toward males. "The surplus labor in rural China may be as high as 100 million to 200 million people," says Zhang Juwei, deputy director of the Institute of Population & Labor Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "But women are well under half of that." Meanwhile, companies shun the vast majority of laid-off workers, who are often older people with poor skills.

There's a bitter irony in this, of course. The kinds of children who were preferentially selected out of the population by the “One Child Policy” are precisely the workers needed now by China's factories. In many of China's high-pressure-to-produce factories their young female workers are considered burnt-out by the time they are thirty.

So a rising elder population, many poorly educated, trained, and in ill health, an adverse dependency ratio, and falling fertility rates. The graying of China is another time bomb that China hasn't been successful in dealing with and that won't wait forever for a solution.

Previous posts in the “China's time bombs” series:

China's time bombs: the environment

UPDATE: the next installment in the series is here.

http://www.theglitteringeye.com/archives/000939.html

NIce reading.

I don't think the EU realizes what it's doing. It's helping China out and then one day we'll all wonder why we're speaking Mandarin.

Question though; how long will it keep the US from retaking economic power if China passes us?

Cantonese, not Mandarin (Consider where the capitalists in China are and what dialect they speak); and the US could reclaim its top-financial-dog status in the event of a Sino-Indian war, assuming anything survived.

I don't think the EU realizes what it's doing. It's helping China out and then one day we'll all wonder why we're speaking Mandarin.

Question though; how long will it keep the US from retaking economic power if China passes us?

We will never be speaking Mandarin, because 300 million Chinese are learning English, as it is accepted as the international language. The language of wider communication in India is also English, so there is no threat of it being displaced by another language, such as Mandarin.

When China surpasses the USA, it will do so forever. A country of 300 million people can never hope to equal the economic achievements of one with over 1250 million, if they reach an equal GDP.

The USA will have to accept a fall from 1st to 3rd in the world, 4th if the EU gets its act together. This is part of the inevitable cycle of history, and is inevitable. No nation can remain top-dog forever. As Spain found out in the 18th century, France in the 19th and Britain in the 20th, America will find in the 21st that great power status cannot last forever.

China and India will never go to war, simply because it is in neither of their interests. Also, the Himalayan mountain range that divides the two nations is very difficult to cross, making any invasion almost impossible.

The worst thing is that there isn't alot of jobs here but in China theres to much jobs

Population explosion in China? The annual pop growth rate is less then America or Canada. As for a population implosion, its possible, but like any trend it can be reversed.

Sino-Indian war?? Unlikely since India and China just resolved its last boarder dispute.

The IMF is predicting that China will pass the USA's GDP in about 35 years. At that point the USA's GDP-per capita is estimated to be $83,000, China's at 31,000 and India at 17,000. So at this rate China and India would probably reach roughly the American GDP-per capita in the late 21st-early 22st. Of course, anything that far out is just guessing. Anything could happen to the American, EU, Chinese or Indian economies. One thing is for sure, if there is a problem or collapse in anyone of these economies we will all suffer. So it is in all of our interest to keep them healthy and strong.

The problem is China isnt growing strong, it is just growing fast. There is a difference. The whole thing could crash out at any time it is very very delicate and relies heavily on Chinas ability to either buy tech from other countries or steal it from mostly the US and Russia, if they lose any of that their economy will go into a tailspin overnight.

Hell they still mine coal with pickaxes!

China's population will begin to fall dramatically, and its economy is heading into trouble and is overheating. China's economy is overheating. It cannot sustain even 5% growth rates anymore. I'm seeing this right now. Oil is also too expensive for China. The US can sustain high prices because of better efficency, China cannot. So China's GDP will probably not reach the US anytime in the 21st century based on my own predictions.

I don't predict a collapse at all. I don't see one coming. I see growth for China, but moderate growth of like 3-4%, instead of 9%.

China's GDP has been growing at 8 or 9% for the past 25 years. Eventually it will have to slow down, but China still has a long way to go before its even moderately developed.

For developing countries a GDP growth rate between 5-10% is not uncommon. Example. Pakistan 8.4%, India 6.1%, Russia 6.7%, Brazil 5.1%, Nigeria 6.2%, Vietnam 7.7% etc.

China's GDP has been growing at 8 or 9% for the past 25 years. Eventually it will have to slow down, but China still has a long way to go before its even moderately developed.

For developing countries a GDP growth rate between 5-10% is not uncommon. Example. Pakistan 8.4%, India 6.1%, Russia 6.7%, Brazil 5.1%, Nigeria 6.2%, Vietnam 7.7% etc.

Keep in mind China often overstates its growth because of bureaucratic ineffiency.

Mozambique: +11%.. that's an interesting figure.. said to be one of the fastest in the world...

Also those figures can be hurt quite easily by rising oil prices because their economies are based on industries that are dependent on less fuel efficent means.

The worst thing is that there isn't alot of jobs here but in China theres to much jobs

Not at all. China's getting massive problems with unemployment as their population shifts from rural to urban, and jobs just aren't keeping up with growth. I'd rather be in the US job market than the Chinese right now.

Not at all. China's getting massive problems with unemployment as their population shifts from rural to urban, and jobs just aren't keeping up with growth. I'd rather be in the US job market than the Chinese right now.

Absolutely.. it is estimated that approximately 100-200 million Chinese are unemployed. Unemployment in areas throughout China has actually gone up, even in Urban areas. The figures for unemployment from the Chinese government are insufficient, but commonly recognized figures put unemployment at nearly 20%. The US job market is very stable, and very good. The Chinese job market is horrible. Most of the superficial "growth" was centered on PRC government officials.

The death of China is going to be them trying to expand into other countries and building up their military in general....

Absolutely.. it is estimated that approximately 100-200 million Chinese are unemployed. Unemployment in areas throughout China has actually gone up, even in Urban areas. The figures for unemployment from the Chinese government are insufficient, but commonly recognized figures put unemployment at nearly 20%. The US job market is very stable, and very good. The Chinese job market is horrible. Most of the superficial "growth" was centered on PRC government officials.

Their statistics are very inaccurate, to say the least. Some 120-150 million rural Chinese are unemployed, or 25% of the labor force. The jobs are either vulnerable to the economy or temporary. The picture's only bright for the elite.

It's easy to create jobs when the government bankrolls them.

I predict an economic slow-down for China.

When China surpasses the USA, it will do so forever. A country of 300 million people can never hope to equal the economic achievements of one with over 1250 million, if they reach an equal GDP.


I'm not sure why I didn't catch this earlier. It is projected China's population is going to fall, and the US will still be on the increase. You completely reject the notion of population growth. You think both countries would stay at the same level forever.

Their statistics are very inaccurate, to say the least. Some 120-150 million rural Chinese are unemployed, or 25% of the labor force. The jobs are either vulnerable to the economy or temporary. The picture's only bright for the elite.

It's easy to create jobs when the government bankrolls them.

Correction noted. It is 25%, not 20%. China overestimates everything from GDP per capita growth to shrimp and fish catches..

You completely reject the notion of population growth. You think both countries would stay at the same level forever.
Keeping in mind that according to neoclassical growth theory, the less population growth, the better GDP growth, as less capital investment is needed to stay on the same level...

Keeping in mind that according to neoclassical growth theory, the less population growth, the better GDP growth, as less capital investment is needed to stay on the same level...

Well keep in mind, new immigrant groups will come into the US, and produce initially faster. China will be on the decline in population because of the one child policy. There are simply not enough females.

I predict an economic slow-down for China.
I'm not sure why I didn't catch this earlier. It is projected China's population is going to fall, and the US will still be on the increase. You completely reject the notion of population growth. You think both countries would stay at the same level forever.

Probably a crash is more likely, although a slow-down would be much better for the world economy.

Their central bank just isn't experienced enough with controlling their economy; they'll either overshoot and crash the economy or undershoot and overheat it with their interest rate decisions. They're getting more and more out of control.

China population growth: 0.58% no migration with slight emigration rate
US Population Growth: 0.92% with 3.31 per 1000 migration rate

However, China's growth will slow further as population grows more and more imbalanced (men are rapidly outnumbering women).

Probably a crash is more likely, although a slow-down would be much better for the world economy.

Their central bank just isn't experienced enough with controlling their economy; they'll either overshoot and crash the economy or undershoot and overheat it with their interest rate decisions. They're getting more and more out of control.

I actually think there will be a slow-down and not a crash because there will be an eventual decline in the foreign investment. I think they'll probably overheat the economy causing it to stale. That's what I'm seeing at this point. We will first see capital flight. This will minimize damage to the international economy, but cause huge massive damage to China.. this is what happened in Argentina.


However, China's growth will slow further as population grows more and more imbalanced (men are rapidly outnumbering women).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#People

15-64 years: 71% (male 477,182,072/female 450,664,933)

Already apparent.. big time..

Whoa whoa whoa, are you people saying that the US population could theoretically be larger than the Chinese in a few decades?

That would SOOOOO keep the US as the sole military superpower.

I actually think there will be a slow-down and not a crash because there will be an eventual decline in the foreign investment. I think they'll probably overheat the economy causing it to stale. That's what I'm seeing at this point. We will first see capital flight. This will minimize damage to the international economy, but cause huge massive damage to China.. this is what happened in Argentina.

Hopefully. Foreign investment goes to China mostly because it is an untapped market; years of demand have bottled up and the current economic growth is releasing that pressure. We'll see a slowdown once the excess demand is used up, but any rash moves from the central bank will cause a crash.

We must do something NOW!!! or else our western culture will be screwed.

I don't want to see those chinese bastards become more powerful than the US, look there are many flaws in the US goverment, but still is much more better than chinese, you can't deny that.

NATO should do something to stop the increasingly hostile chinese army, that scum will cause many civilian casualties on the other countries near to china, and let us not forget about rusia, those russians will be glad to join the chinese any minute now... WE MUST ACT NOW!!!

Whoa whoa whoa, are you people saying that the US population could theoretically be larger than the Chinese in a few decades?

That would SOOOOO keep the US as the sole military superpower.

No. I didn't say that. I'm saying China's population will decline. I do not think the US population will be larger then the Chinese population in any time soon. I however think the US population will continue its steady growth.

Vetalia, I just see the Chinese central bank take an unassuming role as it has been doing, and things will slowly overheat and capital flight will start. Capital flight is not good for the country it is happening to, but it minimizes damage to foreign investors.

Vetalia, I just see the Chinese central bank take an unassuming role as it has been doing, and things will slowly overheat and capital flight will start. Capital flight is not good for the country it is happening to, but it minimizes damage to foreign investors.

In some ways, that might be better. China will suffer from capital flight, but the rest of the world may avoid a global slowdown if investors can get out and central banks respond accordingly afterward.

I found this excerpt about the Asian financial crisis. The situation sounds very similar to China's current one:

From 1985 to 1995, Thailand's economy grew at an average of 9%. On 14 May and 15 May 1997, the baht, the local currency, was hit by massive speculative attacks. On 30 June, Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh said that he would not devaluate the baht, but Thailand's administration eventually floated the local currency, on 2 July.

We may see a similar situation with the Yuan if their bank loosens the currency too much, although its effects will be much bigger than Thailand.

In some ways, that might be better. China will suffer from capital flight, but the rest of the world may avoid a global slowdown if investors can get out and central banks respond accordingly afterward.

I found this excerpt about the Asian financial crisis. The situation sounds very similar to China's current one:



We may see a similar situation with the Yuan if their bank loosens the currency too much, although its effects will be much bigger than Thailand.

I think Asian countries, including China learned enough about the Asian financial crisis, and will know what to do and what not to do. That was a learning experience.

We must do something NOW!!! or else our western culture will be screwed.

I don't want to see those chinese bastards become more powerful than the US, look there are many flaws in the US goverment, but still is much more better than chinese, you can't deny that.

NATO should do something to stop the increasingly hostile chinese army, that scum will cause many civilian casualties on the other countries near to china, and let us not forget about rusia, those russians will be glad to join the chinese any minute now... WE MUST ACT NOW!!!

That's the spirit, boyo! Nuke those bucktoothed, rice eatin' bastards back to the Song dynasty! They must dieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Don't sweat any Sino-Russo alliance, they hated each other even when each was pretending to be Communist. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about China, they'll end up screwing themselves, just a matter of when.

What we all fail to see is that while China makes all the big moves and India works its way up, all the while drawing our attention to the side, underneath all our noses the real power that will dominate the course of human events forevermore builds its indestructable armies of darkness, and that nation........is Liechtenstein.

We must do something NOW!!! or else our western culture will be screwed.

I don't want to see those chinese bastards become more powerful than the US, look there are many flaws in the US goverment, but still is much more better than chinese, you can't deny that.

NATO should do something to stop the increasingly hostile chinese army, that scum will cause many civilian casualties on the other countries near to china, and let us not forget about rusia, those russians will be glad to join the chinese any minute now... WE MUST ACT NOW!!!

Calm down you nut, Why is western culture being destroyed when the chinese are adopting modern western culture( cars, fast food, consumerism etc)

By the time China is close to the 'superpower' status the current communist party will either be gone or radically different then it is today.

The chinese government has done an execellent job at managing the economy. The only thing we should worry about is the central bank, which is on shakey ground.

Also keep in mind just because China and India are rising does'nt mean that the US and others will fall. An economically powerful China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan will benefit everyone overall.

The chinese government has done an execellent job at managing the economy. The only thing we should worry about is the central bank, which is on shakey ground.

If you would of bothered reading any of vetalias or my posts you would know why this isn't true. China's entire financial system is weak, unemployment is near 25% and there is severe soil erosion. Why do I bring up soil erosion? There will be crop failure in China resulting in food shortages. The Chinese government is doing a poor job managing the economy.

This has been in the works for over 12 years now. No surprise! EU will become # 1, China # 2 and USA # 3 and eventually a 3rd world country. Then 1 world order, then Israel will get attacked, then Jesus returns and eternal and endless peace will prevail. What a great day to be alive! GOD is ready, are you?

This has been in the works for over 12 years now. No srprise! EU will become # 1, China # 2 and USA # 3 and eventually a 3rd world country. Then 1 world order, then Israel will get attacked, then Jesus returns and eternal and endless peace will prevail. What a great day to be alive! GOD is ready, are you?

The US isn't going to become a third world country.

I also don't buy into religious propaganda. Israel has been attacked many times. Where was jesus then? What a pointless post you made. Prove god. :rolleyes:

TO PROTECT OUR OWN SOVEREIGNTY! :eek:


Well...most of the time...

Mao's army of drones overran non-violent Tibetian monks !

YAY for Chinese sovereignity !

The idea that a communist China will be non-hegemonic when it reaches an economy of that of a superpower, is naive.

Their track record is not very reassuring. "Peaceful rise" :rolleyes:

1950 - Invasion and occupation of Tibet.
1950 - Korean war
1962 - Invasion and occupation of Aksai Chin of India.
1969 - China - Soviet border war
1979 - China invaded Vietnam. Attack was prompted by Vietnam's decision to invade Cambodia and remove the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge ( another genocidal totalitarian regime)

Commie dictators + economic power + military power = ?

Im not going to pretend i know about economics because i don't, but, I was jus reading people saying that China's growth is due to the bad pay they give thier workers and thier economy will collapse once they ask for more money. But, America's economy was build by African slaves, Irish and Asian immegrints who were paid next to nothing for thier work. And America's economy did not collapse after the pay increased, i fail to see the diffrence between the two except for the fact America's growth happend in the last centuary.

Personally Iam glad some one is now competeing with the US, Iam sick of them thinkin they are the rulers of the world. And American influence has destroyed a lot of western culture, i know this is off the point, but just as an example, here in Ireland some children are talking in American accients, children who have never even been to America, call me crazy but this scares me in a way.

If you would of bothered reading any of vetalias or my posts you would know why this isn't true. China's entire financial system is weak, unemployment is near 25% and there is severe soil erosion. Why do I bring up soil erosion? There will be crop failure in China resulting in food shortages. The Chinese government is doing a poor job managing the economy.

Unemployment near 25%>? I have not found any articles that estimated figure.
The offical estimate is 4.3%(yeah right!)
Economists estimate: around 9.5% perhaps as high as 12%. PLus there is great underemployment.

If it was at 25% or roughly 400 million people unemployed that would be a major source of unrest and would surely be more vocal even in an authoritian reigme like China.

And Soil erosion is very much a problem. I said they are good at running the economy, but they are also good at ruining the environment. lol

-snip-
Both Vetalia and Mesa himself are pretty right-wing though. So obviously a country that used to be communist, that still has a lot of direct government control and so far doesn't rely on monetary policy to a great extent presses all their "must be failure"-buttons.

Unemployment near 25%>? I have not found any articles that estimated figure.
The offical estimate is 4.3%(yeah right!)
Economists estimate: around 9.5% perhaps as high as 12%. PLus there is great underemployment.
If it was at 25% or roughly 400 million people unemployed that would be a major source of unrest and would surely be more vocal even in an authoritian reigme like China.
And Soil erosion is very much a problem. I said they are good at running the economy, but they are also good at ruining the environment. lol

The Chinese labor force is currently around 600 million, and that 4.3% figure (although highly disputed) is only urban unemployment. Estimates for rural unemployment are around 120-150 million people, or 20-25%; this is due to the massive population shifts caused by China's increasingly rapid urbanization. It's similar to the conditions in rural Europe at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Communist nations are very good at ruining the environment; look at the damage the USSR did to the Aral Sea region. That entire sea will likely be totally gone by the 2020's. They also dumped toxic wastes and even biological agents in to pits, and totally disregarded safety. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan \suffer many health problems because of the USSR.

Communists are ruining the enviroment??? are you serious??? USA is doing the worst damage by far! They did not sign the Kyoto agreement, i don't care what reasons for, dat was just selfish.

Communists are ruining the enviroment??? are you serious??? USA is doing the worst damage by far! They did not sign the Kyoto agreement, i don't care what reasons for, dat was just selfish.

Kyoto has massive flaws and would result in severe economic damage to US industry. I'd support a treaty, as long as it gave companies enough time to adjust.

The world's two other biggest polluters aren't even part of the treaty.

Kyoto has massive flaws and would result in severe economic damage to US industry. I'd support a treaty, as long as it gave companies enough time to adjust.

The world's two other biggest polluters aren't even part of the treaty.
Personally, i think the state of our enviroment and the global warming ,that is very evident at the moment, are a bit more important than some American fat cats pocket,lol

I don't know about communist ruining the enviroment since no country has every reached even socialism. but Soviet Socialism and 'Socialism with chinese charateristics( Authoritian State capitalism, lol) was very damaging to the environment as Vetalia said a bit earlier.

Personally, i think the state of our enviroment and the global warming ,that is very evident at the moment, are a bit more important than some American fat cats pocket,lol

It wouldn't be the big companies that suffer; they operate in Kyoto nations all of the time. It's the small manufacturing companies that would suffer, which would cost us thousands of jobs.

I don't know about communist ruining the enviroment since no country has every reached even socialism. but Soviet Socialism and 'Socialism with chinese charateristics( Authoritian State capitalism, lol) was very damaging to the environment as Vetalia said a bit earlier.

That's correct. Generally, the Communist nation would harm the environment because decisions would be made by the people who live on it, and industry would be regulated in the same manner.

Both Vetalia and Mesa himself are pretty right-wing though. So obviously a country that used to be communist, that still has a lot of direct government control and so far doesn't rely on monetary policy to a great extent presses all their "must be failure"-buttons.

I don't think that government contol is a bad thing in the early stages of economic development. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia a lot of government planning and investment. Eventually the Market was allowed to take over.

The Chinese labor force is currently around 600 million, and that 4.3% figure (although highly disputed) is only urban unemployment. Estimates for rural unemployment are around 120-150 million people, or 20-25%; this is due to the massive population shifts caused by China's increasingly rapid urbanization. It's similar to the conditions in rural Europe at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Would'nt the rural population be employed in agriculture and therefore be underemployed not unemployed?

I don't think that government contol is a bad thing in the early stages of economic development. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia a lot of government planning and investment. Eventually the Market was allowed to take over.
Would'nt the rural population be employed in agriculture and therefore be underemployed not unemployed?

Government control is aboslutely a wonderful (even form a capitalist viewpoint) means of developing an economy, especially in the third world and places where private investment is scarce; Russia's industrial production rose 400% (a conservative estimate) during the 30's due to government intervention. however, the market should take over to keep these projects functioning and free of bureaucracy once well established.

The rural unemployed population isn't working on farms. Mostly young men, they simply leave their farms and try to find better paying jobs in towns, but much of the employment has left these smaller towns and migrated to the cities. They just aren't working at all, and there is increasing fear of food shoratges, crime, and population imbalances.

This supports Vetalias notion that China is ruining their environment completely:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050720/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_env_china_environment_wa_1

"Across China, entire rivers run foul or have dried up altogether. Nearly a third of cities don't treat their sewage, flushing it into waterways. Some 300 million of China's 1.3 billion people drink water that is too contaminated to be consumed safely. In rural China, sooty air depresses crop yields, and desert quickly encroaches on grasslands to the west. Filth and grime cover all but a few corners of the country."

They are doing such a good job maintaining their economy, blah blah blah blah.. stop buying into the propaganda they print out. 300 million people are drinking very dirty water. 1/3 or 33% of their cities don't have plumbing.. it goes into water ways..

And guess what? China is like a lot of Latin American countries.. most of the wealth is centered amongst 5-10% of the population.

Unemployment near 25%>? I have not found any articles that estimated figure.
The offical estimate is 4.3%(yeah right!)
Economists estimate: around 9.5% perhaps as high as 12%. PLus there is great underemployment.

Most economists agree with me and say it is more like 20-25% unemployment, and 15% underemployment.

If it was at 25% or roughly 400 million people unemployed that would be a major source of unrest and would surely be more vocal even in an authoritian reigme like China.

Yep:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/19/news/china.php

In fact rioting is getting in greater amounts, every year. It is getting worse for the communist regime.

And Soil erosion is very much a problem. I said they are good at running the economy, but they are also good at ruining the environment. lol

They are running their economy piss poor. They are running themselves into the ground. If you can't feed your population, you'll have issues with the economy.

Leonstein:

Both Vetalia and Mesa himself are pretty right-wing though. So obviously a country that used to be communist, that still has a lot of direct government control and so far doesn't rely on monetary policy to a great extent presses all their "must be failure"-buttons.

You don't get it do you? China isn't even communist. I don't care about their form of government. All I'm saying is they are running their economy into the ground. And direct government control can really screw over a lot of people. It shouldn't matter if I'm right wing. Do you even bother reading any of the facts I post here about China's unemployment, economic overheating or anything at all? Or do you have to make these ideologically heated attacks against me?

OH PLEASE. READ THE FACTS PLEASE!

Let me say this.

I visit a site where any speak of America is followed by idiots saying "OMG USA DIS EVIIIIILALALI! DEH TID NOT SIGN DA PROTOCAL! THEY BROKE LAW IN DIRAQ!"

I thought that it wasn't like that on here.

I was right.

Until I read a post saying the EU (an alliance in a region where people decide to kill themselves every 60 years or so) would become the most powerful economy and the US would become a 3rd world nation. But hey, Jesus told him so, he's right... *sarcastic laugh*

Leonstein:
I am reading the facts. Everything is relative in this. None of us has any idea what the Chinese plans are for the future, what the real structure of their economy is like.
The statistics are not reliable enough to draw any conclusions.

The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, between what you two are saying and what the Chinese are saying. I think that some intelligent moves by their Economists now can stabilise things and sustain them.

And Vetalia already recognised that direct Government involvement can be a very good tool to help an economy grow up. Do you?

Until I read a post saying the EU (an alliance in a region where people decide to kill themselves every 60 years or so)
What are you trying to say?

Never say never - there still is a lot to be won in Europe, and Germany is still world leader in exports.

I am reading the facts. Everything is relative in this. None of us has any idea what the Chinese plans are for the future, what the real structure of their economy is like.
The statistics are not reliable enough to draw any conclusions.

Get over your biases with me and start reading the articles I have been posting about this. China will not be able to keep its current level of economic growth. This is not up for dispute. This is not relative. This is based on cold hard facts. Furthermore, my argument has been many times more convincing then anything you posted about China.

The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, between what you two are saying and what the Chinese are saying. I think that some intelligent moves by their Economists now can stabilise things and sustain them.

I don't think so. Most economists see that China is having a high level of artifical growth that will do little for stabiility. There have been major riots throughout the country in recent years. More and more chinese citizens are getting restless with their government. They will not be able to sustained 9% growth, rather 2-3% growth is what I predict. Most economists will agree with me.

And Vetalia already recognised that direct Government involvement can be a very good tool to help an economy grow up. Do you?

No. I do not. I feel government led industries are inferior. Some government subsides and assistance is nice, but the private sector is best left alone. Law enforcement is good too, but I'm pro-free market.

Furthermore, my argument has been many times more convincing then anything you posted about China.
I posted things about China?

Most economists see that China is...Most economists will agree with me.
Most Economists, hey? Can you prove it?

No. I do not. I feel government led industries are inferior. Some government subsides and assistance is nice, but the private sector is best left alone. Law enforcement is good too, but I'm pro-free market.
Why do you feel that way? In a country where there is little social infrastructure, what is the alternative?
Haven't we seen what happens if you let go of it all in Chile?

Most Economists, hey? Can you prove it?

You come here, you provide no valid arguments and then you even try to ask me to prove it?

Dude, wake up. I already did. I posted some links about how China's economy is overheating a few pages back. Please take a look at it then get back to me.

You don't even provide a decent argument.

Why do you feel that way? In a country where there is little social infrastructure, what is the alternative?
Haven't we seen what happens if you let go of it all in Chile?

I think the government can help private industry to some extent in building up private industry. I'm not against all social infrastructure. I feel that private industry should be able to operate, and can do so with some government assistance.

You don't even know what I believe in. I don't think you are reading my posts right.

I already did. I posted some links about how China's economy is overheating a few pages back.
You did not. You posted links about Population Growth, about Riots and about Environmental damage.
Nothing about how the economy is overheating.

You don't even provide a decent argument.
That's because I'm just the Devil's advocate here.

You also never answered my question about Neoclassical Growth Accounting and the Solow-Swan Model.
If you say that population growth is falling in China (which is likely, although repealing the one-child policy could fix that fairly easily), wouldn't that be a good thing for China?

You did not. You posted links about Population Growth, about Riots and about Environmental damage.
Nothing about how the economy is overheating.

My apologies, it was posted in a different thread about China's economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25793-2004Apr19.html

""Some people think that China's economy is already overheated; others think it's in the process of becoming overheated," explained Zhao Qizheng, the minister who runs the State Council Information Office. He told me that China needs "sustainable" growth, and he's right."

Even a government official in the Chinese government agrees with me. Unfortunately most of the Chinese government does not.

That's because I'm just the Devil's advocate here.

You aren't doing devil's advocate or anything. Provide a reasonable argument.

If you say that population growth is falling in China (which is likely, although repealing the one-child policy could fix that fairly easily), wouldn't that be a good thing for China?

Population decline will be very good for China and personally I'd like to see its population start to fall (it isn't at this point, but will in the future). It will put less stress on the already depleted agriculture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25793-2004Apr19.html
Thank you.
But you see, the Chinese Government knows what's happening and is wornking to slow it all down. At least a year ago.

Unfortunately most of the Chinese government does not.
I am under the impression that the people in your article are quite high up in the hierarchy. Also I don't think they would give an opinion, and even use the word "bubble", if it wasn't sanctioned by their employers.

You aren't doing devil's advocate or anything. Provide a reasonable argument.
"In common parlance, the term has come to mean a person who argues a position that they do not necessarily believe in, simply for the sake of arguing; or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in to another debater. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure."
I do that sometimes...

Population decline will be very good for China and personally I'd like to see its population start to fall (it isn't at this point, but will in the future). It will put less stress on the already depleted agriculture.
They'll figure out a way. Those people up there know a hundred times more than you and I do about this. They aren't stupid, and they've got hundreds of billions of Dollars behind them.

Thank you.
But you see, the Chinese Government knows what's happening and is wornking to slow it all down. At least a year ago.

Not good enough.

9.1% growth was registered and that's astronomical and mostly artifical in most senses.


"In common parlance, the term has come to mean a person who argues a position that they do not necessarily believe in, simply for the sake of arguing; or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in to another debater. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure."
I do that sometimes...

Sorry I have to come down hard on you, but...

Cut the crap and start providing your argument. Don't even try to point out any weaknesses in my argument. It doesn't work that way. My argument was pretty solid.

They'll figure out a way. Those people up there know a hundred times more than you and I do about this. They aren't stupid, and they've got hundreds of billions of Dollars behind them.

Really? Sometimes I must wonder if the chinese government is all that smart at all.

Not good enough.
Of course it isn't, but policy makers are always walking on uncharted ground, and they try different things all the time. Like the change in the peg a few days ago, that'll slow things down a little bit.

Cut the crap and start providing your argument. Don't even try to point out any weaknesses in my argument. It doesn't work that way. My argument was pretty solid.
Don't you get it? I don't have an argument. I accept your data and believe that you are mostly right.
But, as others have done to me before, I challenge your view by asking questions and picking at it. Thus you are forced to defend it, and can improve yourself and your opinion.
I might not necessarily agree with all your conclusions, but on the whole, we agree.

Really? Sometimes I must wonder if the chinese government is all that smart at all.
Why? Can you do better?

But if you absolutely want me to make a point then I say this:
China is overheating now. I don't think they'll crash, they won't let that happen easily. But they'll continue to grow at a more realistic rate.
The US though has its own trouble. Personally, I reckon interest rates worldwide are ridiculously low. We live on a huge bubble, in resource prices, in investment and in domestic housing markets.
Add to that the way Greenspan has been keeping the US Dollar low, in a feeble attempt to stay competitive against China.
Potentially the Republicans could also try some strange policies that have potential to really hurt the economy (Social Security....?).
Then there is an enormous deficite and the insecurity that can bring with it for investors.

So I conclude that the US has its own problems that will come back to haunt them too. And once the US$ starts getting wobbly, Globalisation will catch up even harder with the country. The same crap that is happening in Europe can potentially happen in the US - transfer payments have nothing to do with it.

And I'm sure India has its own skeletons in the closet, but I have no idea about those.

EDIT: Oh, and I found this about soil erosion:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/24/content_462810.htm
And this in terms of some official stats:
http://www.chinability.com/2004%20economic%20performance.htm

Of course it isn't, but policy makers are always walking on uncharted ground, and they try different things all the time. Like the change in the peg a few days ago, that'll slow things down a little bit.

My point is the reaction by the Chinese government to the presently overheating economy is inadequate and insufficient.

Don't you get it? I don't have an argument. I accept your data and believe that you are mostly right.
But, as others have done to me before, I challenge your view by asking questions and picking at it. Thus you are forced to defend it, and can improve yourself and your opinion.
I might not necessarily agree with all your conclusions, but on the whole, we agree.

I don't think so. I will not listen to you. I'm not going to debate with someone who is trying to do this to other people. If you do not have an argument you will not debate with me because I will simply ignore you.

Why? Can you do better?

Funny I never said anything about myself. Quit with the strawmans.

But if you absolutely want me to make a point then I say this:
China is overheating now. I don't think they'll crash, they won't let that happen easily. But they'll continue to grow at a more realistic rate.
The US though has its own trouble. Personally, I reckon interest rates worldwide are ridiculously low. We live on a huge bubble, in resource prices, in investment and in domestic housing markets.

I already made points that China will start to slow down dramatically. There won't be a crash, but growth will fall. And the US interest rates are slowly going up. Ah yes, the huge bubble we talk about. I don't agree, I think we live on a curve. Growth will generally fall gradually back in manageable means.

Add to that the way Greenspan has been keeping the US Dollar low, in a feeble attempt to stay competitive against China.

The US dollar is no longer that low anymore, and China has introduced measures to float their currency somewhat. Again, I think the US will keep a huge edge over the Chinese economy.

Potentially the Republicans could also try some strange policies that have potential to really hurt the economy (Social Security....?).
Then there is an enormous deficite and the insecurity that can bring with it for investors.

Always come back to the republicans.. the republicans this, the republicans that.. we really don't agree on anything to this subject. You haven't bothered presenting any links. I think the social security reforms presented by Bush can very well help the economy. Deficit? Budget deficit? Or trade deficit? Both are narrowing, buddy. The budget deficit fell by $90 billion.

So I conclude that the US has its own problems that will come back to haunt them too. And once the US$ starts getting wobbly, Globalisation will catch up even harder with the country. The same crap that is happening in Europe can potentially happen in the US - transfer payments have nothing to do with it.

So I must conclude, you overstated and grossly exaggerated the problems US has. There are some, but the US dollar is only getting stronger. You need to re-think your views and start providing some facts.

Again you provide literally no argument to speak of. Just talk.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/images/swe0305a1.gif

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/images/swe0305a8.gif

And the US interest rates are slowly going up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4636311.stm
3.25% now, is it? It's neutral zone is between 3% and 5%.
More importantly, it was 1% in 2004. Do you not agree that the upswing since then has been fuelled by these artificially low rates?

Ah yes, the huge bubble we talk about. I don't agree, I think we live on a curve. Growth will generally fall gradually back in manageable means.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200504/200504pap.pdf
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I read a number of pieces that did say there is a huge asset bubble at this point, but apparently no one can say for sure.
http://www.moneyweek.com/article/959/investing/other-viewpoints/ms-bubble.html

The US dollar is no longer that low anymore, and China has introduced measures to float their currency somewhat.
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=EUR&to=USD&amt=1&t=2y
We can all think whatever we want, but we have to back it up with something.
My point is that China is a much stronger exporter than the US - for whatever reason. So to compete the US Dollar was set lower.
Figures on US Exports are here:
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/aggregate/H04t01.html
Just in case you don't agree that a lower currency improves foreign trade performance.


Always come back to the republicans.. the republicans this, the republicans that.. we really don't agree on anything to this subject. You haven't bothered presenting any links. I think the social security reforms presented by Bush can very well help the economy. Deficit? Budget deficit? Or trade deficit? Both are narrowing, buddy. The budget deficit fell by $90 billion.
Note the word "potentially". I don't know the current reform plan, so I can not make a reliable decision. Here is one guy's opinion: http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503#3

I was primarily talking about the Budget Deficit, the trade deficit might narrow, but as I pointed out above, mainly due to tampering with the currency.

Budget Deficit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249895/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430565.stm
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles/20041201orszaggale.pdf
It is huge, no matter how you look at it. And if it is becoming smaller, which is what Bush predicts (he would, wouldn't he) then only because he has to cut back on the things he'd like to do.

At any rate - I'm not into Econometrics, and it would be foolish for either of us to think we could predict what happens. We're lowly students, afterall.
I stated my opinion because you wanted me to.
I said we agree on China - we do.
I said the US has its own issues that have yet to be worked out - there are big deficits in the budget and in foreign trade, the current upswing, so often quoted as proof that US policies are great, is partly artificial as well and Globalisation can gut US industries just as easily as any other country's.

That's all I had to say. Carry on with whatever it was you were doing.

More I have to debunk...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4636311.stm
3.25% now, is it? It's neutral zone is between 3% and 5%.
More importantly, it was 1% in 2004. Do you not agree that the upswing since then has been fuelled by these artificially low rates?

I disagree totally with you. I think the upswing was caused by different factors. Even in the 1990s, when interest rates were going up and up, there was still economic growth. Other factors have been responsible for this. You completely reject the notion of other factors causing growth.


I guess we have to agree to disagree. I read a number of pieces that did say there is a huge asset bubble at this point, but apparently no one can say for sure.
http://www.moneyweek.com/article/959/investing/other-viewpoints/ms-bubble.html

I do disagree with you because I don't see the current situation presently at that. I see a slow cool-down. Not a complete collapse.


We can all think whatever we want, but we have to back it up with something.
My point is that China is a much stronger exporter than the US - for whatever reason. So to compete the US Dollar was set lower.

The US dollar is not set in the US. It is floating. Okay? You need to understand the facts. China may be a strong exporter, but its economic situation is not great. I posted articles on riots spinning out of control. This will soon make conditions unfavorable as it would lower favorability ratings.


Note the word "potentially". I don't know the current reform plan, so I can not make a reliable decision. Here is one guy's opinion: http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503#3

Good one! Good job on presenting something from an anti-Bush nut.

I was primarily talking about the Budget Deficit, the trade deficit might narrow, but as I pointed out above, mainly due to tampering with the currency.

The budget deficit has narrowed by a huge amount and soon will be brought under proper control.

Attention people notice how he this guy takes out of date figures from "Oct. 14, 2004". He's just dead wrong.


budget Deficit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249895/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430565.stm
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles/20041201orszaggale.pdf
It is huge, no matter how you look at it. And if it is becoming smaller, which is what Bush predicts (he would, wouldn't he) then only because he has to cut back on the things he'd like to do.

Funny you post a bunch of crappy links that are totally out of date. Please get something up to date. Your argument has totally collapsed now.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050713/pl_afp/useconomybudget_050713170845

"President George W. Bush said new forecasts showing that the deficit will be slashed by 94 billion dollars more than predicted in February, to 333 billion dollars this year, were a vindication of his tax-cutting policies."

Sorry to make you look very bad. It already is becoming smaller. It is official now. It happened. I'm sorry, but Bush's plan is working.

At any rate - I'm not into Econometrics, and it would be foolish for either of us to think we could predict what happens. We're lowly students, afterall.

We are not lowly students. We are some of the few people in the world who get to go to university. I'm very f--king grateful at being in university.

I stated my opinion because you wanted me to.
I said we agree on China - we do.
I said the US has its own issues that have yet to be worked out - there are big deficits in the budget and in foreign trade, the current upswing, so often quoted as proof that US policies are great, is partly artificial as well and Globalisation can gut US industries just as easily as any other country's.

Your opinion is based on obsolete figures.

We do not agree on China.

I said the US has its own issues, but these are much smaller then you want to hink. This isn't artificial. THis shows an increasing tax collection. The current upswing is not artifical. To say it is, shows little knowledge in the field of economics.

Do yourself a favor, update your factbooks and your antiquated argument.

I disagree totally with you. I think the upswing was caused by different factors.
Care to mention any?

The US dollar is not set in the US. It is floating. Okay?
And the Fed can do all kinds of things to move it around. Obviously I don't mean "set" as in a peg, I mean it was kept low by the Fed.

Good one! Good job on presenting something from an anti-Bush nut.
Anti-Bush nut? Why?
Did you read the argument?

Attention people notice how he this guy takes out of date figures from "Oct. 14, 2004". He's just dead wrong.
Attention me mentioning Bush's speech about how the budget was going to get smaller.
Attention me being sceptical until I actually see it happening. So far official forecasts on the deficits have proven to be rather inaccurate.

You are continuously demonstrating a complete lack of flexibility in your poorly formulated positions. Everything that agrees with you is valid, everything that doesn't is not.
Instead of proving that I am somehow saying the wrong thing, you are merely delaring it to be such and engage in attacks on me. You have not disproven one single point of mine.
Try again.

Everyone has to remember, though, that China's society is not as free as some Western societies. There is very little chance of making a good living in China, and fronting a new business is very tough. Very few make it. That said, their workers are exploited, working for low wages, yet putting in massive amounts of labor. The Chinese business oligarchs obviously have something to show for Chinese economy. The real measure of Chinese success will be in the growth of the yuan, which it is cautious to do, and the improvement of living conditions for the average Chinese worker. Until these two criteria are met, China as a whole cannot compete with America as a viable alternative.

China rests on its manufacturing/exporting power. Yet it imports American products, especially the highest-quality technology. China has yet to compete with America in quality and innovation.

In time, Chinese labor can surpass American labor. But the question is if China can modernize to the American level of things.

China rests on its manufacturing/exporting power. Yet it imports American products, especially the highest-quality technology. China has yet to compete with America in quality and innovation.
Which is where I see the long term state of the world economy. Neither Europe nor the US nor Japan can compete on manufacturing, or other labour intensive jobs.
They'll have to move into high-level service industries, pretty much exclusively. There is no point producing food in France or Spain, people in the third world have a comparative advantage in that.
"Quality" is a pretty subjective term though. It's not like China can't produce high-quality goods, but now the market they are in demands low-quality, cheap goods.

And the Fed can do all kinds of things to move it around. Obviously I don't mean "set" as in a peg, I mean it was kept low by the Fed.

The US dollar is on the path of strengthening at this point in time.

Attention me mentioning Bush's speech about how the budget was going to get smaller.
Attention me being sceptical until I actually see it happening. So far official forecasts on the deficits have proven to be rather inaccurate.

It is happening.. dude.. wtf? These are not inaccurate. Not at all. There was another influx of taxes. I mean come.. prove your case for once. Don't go denouncing something that has already been set as a cold hard fact.

You are continuously demonstrating a complete lack of flexibility in your poorly formulated positions. Everything that agrees with you is valid, everything that doesn't is not.

My positions are not poorly formulated. Yours are. Your positions are very poorly backed up (better then not being backed up at all like before). But still, your sources are old. My sources are up-to-date. Re-think your argument method.

Instead of proving that I am somehow saying the wrong thing, you are merely delaring it to be such and engage in attacks on me. You have not disproven one single point of mine.
Try again.

I already showed how you were wrong. You try again. I provided sources to show you how you are wrong. I have disproven you, big time. In fact so badly your entire argument collapsed.

YOU TRY AGAIN! PLEASE!

It is happening.. dude.. wtf? These are not inaccurate. Not at all. There was another influx of taxes. I mean come.. prove your case for once. Don't go denouncing something that has already been set as a cold hard fact.
Again, you must have posted your facts somewhere else.

My positions are not poorly formulated. Yours are. Your positions are very poorly backed up (better then not being backed up at all like before). But still, your sources are old. My sources are up-to-date. Re-think your argument method.
One of my sources was old. Your source about the Chinese Economy overheating was a year old BTW - that's older than mine. I saw newer ones, but thought I'd give an example of the extent it had at that point.
I saw that Bush had made a speech, but decided to ignore it, since it is only a speech.

I provided sources to show you how you are wrong.Again, you should post them on this thread, so that I can see them too.
All I have seen is Bush proclaiming he's done everything right (surprisingly) and his coworkers from the White House agreeing. If that is the best you can come up with, then don't bother.
I even had academic articles for crying out loud.

One of my sources was old. Your source about the Chinese Economy overheating was a year old BTW - that's older than mine. I saw newer ones, but thought I'd give an example of the extent it had at that point.
I saw that Bush had made a speech, but decided to ignore it, since it is only a speech.

Yes it was, but we are talking about the budget deficit, and it has to be current information. If you fail to present current information as far as the deficit is concerned, you are presenting a bad case. The overheating has been happening for some time.


All I have seen is Bush proclaiming he's done everything right (surprisingly) and his coworkers from the White House agreeing. If that is the best you can come up with, then don't bother.
I even had academic articles for crying out loud.

Bush is doing a good job. What? One or two academic articles? I presented raw numbers and articles myself. You are not reading my posts properly, if you think I only post things about Bush proclaiming he's done everything right (He's done most things right).

Your argument is terrible.

Yes it was, but we are talking about the budget deficit, and it has to be current information. If you fail to present current information as far as the deficit is concerned, you are presenting a bad case. The overheating has been happening for some time.
I believe I did post another link which did contain more up-to-date info.

Bush is doing a good job. What? One or two academic articles? I presented raw numbers and articles myself. You are not reading my posts properly, if you think I only post things about Bush proclaiming he's done everything right (He's done most things right).
Well, that's not the topic of the thread. Suffice to say that I don't agree, and that many others here don't either.
But you did post numbers, yes. But the relevant figures you did not back up with links. I don't usually push for verifying everything, but it is what you have been asking me to do, so you should do the same.
You DID NOT post a single academic article in this thread, or in another thread that I have seen.

And when did I say that Bush has done everything right? He said he'd done everything right in the yahoo piece that you posted.

Anyways, I see that we aren't going to convince each other on anything, so I'll do something else now.
Pleasure talking to you.

I believe I did post another link which did contain more up-to-date info.

I believe I was more up to date then you.


But you did post numbers, yes. But the relevant figures you did not back up with links. I don't usually push for verifying everything, but it is what you have been asking me to do, so you should do the same.

I did back up my case with links. You know what? I'm putting you on my ignore list because you are refusing to be reasonable in this argument. I'm not going to stand for this.


And when did I say that Bush has done everything right? He said he'd done everything right in the yahoo piece that you posted.

I said he did most things right and I posted some damn links to prove it. Plenty of them.

Anyways, I see that we aren't going to convince each other on anything, so I'll do something else now.
Pleasure talking to you.

It was not a pleasure talkign to someone as stubborn and unreasonable as you.

-pretty much everything you said-
:rolleyes:

===========================================

To everyone else:
How does an ignore list work? Is there actually such a feature, or is he just doing that for himself?

Flame, flame, flame, flame, flame.

Stop please, thank you.

Flame, flame, flame, flame, flame.

Stop please, thank you.
I'm sorry.
I try to keep things civil, even if that means getting up and walking in the garden for a few minutes....

Most economists agree with me and say it is more like 20-25% unemployment, and 15% underemployment.

I did another search and some economists estimate 20%, some 15% and most around 10% and the government estimates 4%( for urban areas)

They are running their economy piss poor. They are running themselves into the ground. If you can't feed your population, you'll have issues with the economy.

How can you call an average of 8% GDP growth per year over a period of 25 years piss poor? Raising hundreds of milllions out of poverty. And 8% isn't even uncommon for asian tiger economies. South Korea during is major growth period GDP growth at aleast 10% per year. As for feeding their population? of course they can. They would have to change how there agriculture system is managed( ie modernize it) but there is no indication of an immedate threat.

They are doing such a good job maintaining their economy, blah blah blah blah.. stop buying into the propaganda they print out. 300 million people are drinking very dirty water. 1/3 or 33% of their cities don't have plumbing.. it goes into water ways..

Buying into who's propaganda? The IMF,BBC,WTO? As for the water, yes that would'nt suprise me because its a developing country with all that the term 'developing' implies. China is slowly getting is act together by slowly increasing enviromental standards( according to the PBS program NOVA, unless you consider NOVA a propaganda tool of the Chinese goverment)

If i remember currectly America, Canada and Europe had some terrible enviromental problems and some still exist, but for the most part we have cleaned up our act. There is no reason why the Chinese people won't do the same once they have reached a higher standard of living.

I did another search and some economists estimate 20%, some 15% and most around 10% and the government estimates 4%( for urban areas)

I don't believe the Chinese government.

How can you call an average of 8% GDP growth per year over a period of 25 years piss poor? Raising hundreds of milllions out of poverty. And 8% isn't even uncommon for asian tiger economies. South Korea during is major growth period GDP growth at aleast 10% per year. As for feeding their population? of course they can. They would have to change how there agriculture system is managed( ie modernize it) but there is no indication of an immedate threat.

They didn't raise hundreds of millions out of poverty. Again you ignore most of what I said. In fact, many more have gone unemployed. Most of the growth is centered on the government and communist party. Most of the money ends up in their hands. South Korea is a much smaller country (population wise).

If i remember currectly America, Canada and Europe had some terrible enviromental problems and some still exist, but for the most part we have cleaned up our act. There is no reason why the Chinese people won't do the same once they have reached a higher standard of living.

These environmental problems are nowhere near as bad as the one in China. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.
I try to keep things civil, even if that means getting up and walking in the garden for a few minutes....

My goodness! You have a GARDEN? Or just lawn?

I think the Chinese inefficency in agriculture is actually the most telling statistic available.

China's workforce was listed as 760 million in 2003.

In that same year, 49% of that work force (372 million), was employed in agriculture.

Yet China still relies on food imports to feed it's people.

Until China fixes that problem, I have a very hard time believing they will become the dominant economic power on earth.

I think the Chinese inefficency in agriculture is actually the most telling statistic available.

China's workforce was listed as 760 million in 2003.

In that same year, 49% of that work force (372 million), was employed in agriculture.

Yet China still relies on food imports to feed it's people.

Until China fixes that problem, I have a very hard time believing they will become the dominant economic power on earth.

Yep, but the problems are already there. Their soil is ruined because of erosion that is mostly the result of nonsense "reforms" put in place by Mao in the 1960s.

My goodness! You have a GARDEN? Or just lawn?
Hmmm, maybe Garden is not the optimal translation for the German word "Garten"....
Well, it is an area full of grass, along the sides of which you will find various bushes and other plants. Birds live in it, as well as various other animals (and very poisonous spiders...). But it's nothing really fancy.

I think the Chinese inefficency in agriculture is actually the most telling statistic available.

China's workforce was listed as 760 million in 2003.

In that same year, 49% of that work force (372 million), was employed in agriculture.

Yet China still relies on food imports to feed it's people.

Until China fixes that problem, I have a very hard time believing they will become the dominant economic power on earth.

Depends on what kind of food imports those are. If they are mostly staple foods like rice and vegetables, then we're screwed. But I suspect we're importing a lot more foods not native to China, or are catered for richer people who want variety.

Hmmm, maybe Garden is not the optimal translation for the German word "Garten"....
Well, it is an area full of grass, along the sides of which you will find various bushes and other plants. Birds live in it, as well as various other animals (and very poisonous spiders...). But it's nothing really fancy.

Any way, it's called "private open space". I live in a 700 sq m apartment with 4 other people. Chances are that your lawn/garden is bigger than what I live in.

That's the price to pay for the growth of the Hong Kong economy. :p

Chances are that your lawn/garden is bigger than what I live in.
Well, this is the country of the big spaces that no one could be bothered to live in....

Well, this is the country of the big spaces that no one could be bothered to live in....

That's true. :p

Miles and miles of boring desert.

Miles and miles of boring desert.
The weird thing (seemingly) is how property prices in some of the cities have exploded. You would think there'd be enough room, but it seems it's never enough :p

Depends on what kind of food imports those are. If they are mostly staple foods like rice and vegetables, then we're screwed. But I suspect we're importing a lot more foods not native to China, or are catered for richer people who want variety.

I dunno what exactly is it that China imports for food, but China is not food self-sufficient. That is what I read somewhere, I can dig that up for you.

In my country, the situation is reverse. Although India is self-sufficient and is actually a net exporter of food, tonnes of grains just rot in warehouses because of poor infrastructure and distribution resulting in some hunger deaths coupla years ago. Made me sick.

Added Later : China appears to be self-sufficient at a national level, but there is huge disparities between coastal areas and rural interior.
http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/indexcountry.asp?country=156

ive been watching posting of some people here how chinas economy will slow down,implode or whatever..no matter what some jelous people say or evil tongues the china will continue to the suprise of many to show very good maybe impresive results untill the energy sector-the lack of it ,forces it to slow down..even with high oil prices china is doing very well to the suprise of many..but its the electricity demand and ever increasing oil demand that will naturally slow it down to 3% but that wont happen for next 10 years or so at least...

ive been watching posting of some people here how chinas economy will slow down,implode or whatever..no matter what some jelous people say or evil tongues the china will continue to the suprise of many to show very good maybe impresive results untill the energy sector-the lack of it ,forces it to slow down..even with high oil prices china is doing very well to the suprise of many..but its the electricity demand and ever increasing oil demand that will naturally slow it down to 3% but that wont happen for next 10 years or so at least...

This is already showing its effects. Asia is going to start to slow down as a whole because of higher oil prices. Difference is the US can absorb higher gas prices better, China cannot. China's economy will not impress, it will slow down. I know what I'm talking about. China is doing well because 90% of the growth is centered on 5% of the population. It will slow down to 3% in a few years I think. If it does not, hyperinflation will become a factor. And that gets very ugly.

Edit: And it is happening! China's economy is now slowing as oil demand drops dramatically! I WAS RIGHT!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/25/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?section=money_latest

"Although consumption was expected to rise in August after Beijing's retail price rise and yuan revaluation lifted refiners' margins, official June data showed implied demand up only 0.7 percent, according to Reuters calculations.

Beijing's policy of capping prices well below international levels has curbed sales on the domestic market and prompted refiners to maximize exports, effectively limiting usage.

Higher hydropower and coal-fired generation has also replaced some oil demand in electricity, analysts say.

"There is not as much demand... this year, with the high rainfall and more transportation available to get coal to power plants," said Victor Shum at Purvin and Gertz in Singapore.

China's crude oil imports edged 0.1 percent lower in June versus last year, while first-half imports were up 3.9 percent, a sharp slowing from last year's 35 percent rise, data showed Monday. Imports of diesel and fuel oil also fell."

----

This is already showing its effects. Asia is going to start to slow down as a whole because of higher oil prices. Difference is the US can absorb higher gas prices better, China cannot. China's economy will not impress, it will slow down. I know what I'm talking about. China is doing well because 90% of the growth is centered on 5% of the population. It will slow down to 3% in a few years I think. If it does not, hyperinflation will become a factor. And that gets very ugly.

Edit: And it is happening! China's economy is now slowing as oil demand drops dramatically! I WAS RIGHT!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/25/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?section=money_latest

"Although consumption was expected to rise in August after Beijing's retail price rise and yuan revaluation lifted refiners' margins, official June data showed implied demand up only 0.7 percent, according to Reuters calculations.

Beijing's policy of capping prices well below international levels has curbed sales on the domestic market and prompted refiners to maximize exports, effectively limiting usage.

Higher hydropower and coal-fired generation has also replaced some oil demand in electricity, analysts say.

"There is not as much demand... this year, with the high rainfall and more transportation available to get coal to power plants," said Victor Shum at Purvin and Gertz in Singapore.

China's crude oil imports edged 0.1 percent lower in June versus last year, while first-half imports were up 3.9 percent, a sharp slowing from last year's 35 percent rise, data showed Monday. Imports of diesel and fuel oil also fell."

----well the difference is some say slowdown will happen sooner
i say later! the china can grow 8% for next 10 years and the reasons are all with the Booming export and large amount of capital pooring in ,also LOTS of construction work is going on -cranes are everywhere u know so the buildings are going up everywhere so it will 'slow' the slowdown and the tough chineese black market and encreasing tourism[deseases can be a factor like birdflu] will buffer any employment problems..i think chinas 1st national bank is holding on very well and because its a communist government some of the coastal welth is redistributed inland so lot of construction work is going on there too away from the cameras of CNN :sniper: ..also theres 1 more trick up for china - china and russia have decided to go for strategic partneship so enormous resourses in siberia are open for export to china,gas,oil,coal, hydroenergy in the close future,many minerals ,so that could suprise many economist who have [end of chinas economy] scenario...

well the difference is some say slowdown will happen sooner
i say later! the china can grow 8% for next 10 years and the reasons are all with the Booming export and large amount of capital pooring in ,also LOTS of construction work is going on -cranes are everywhere u know so the buildings are going up everywhere so it will 'slow' the slowdown and the tough chineese black market and encreasing tourism[deseases can be a factor like birdflu] will buffer any employment problems..

It is clearly visible that the slow-down is happening as we speak. Unfortunately China is dependent on oil imports and higher prices are pushing their economy down. I'm predict capital flight as their financial system comes under more strain. Look people, if you don't have a strong central bank, you will be in trouble. It doesn't matter if new buildings go up. If you don't have a strong central bank, companies will start to question being there.

china and russia have decided to go for strategic partneship so enormous resourses in siberia are open for export to china,gas,oil,coal, hydroenergy in the close future,many minerals ,so that could suprise many economist who have [end of chinas economy] scenario...

Russia is still economically unstable in my opinion. They may have growth.. but they are too not in the best shape.

But in reality, Russia and US have a much larger partnership in energies then Russia and China. In fact the Russians could account for 10% of US oil imports by 2010.

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=45579

It is clearly visible that the slow-down is happening as we speak. Unfortunately China is dependent on oil imports and higher prices are pushing their economy down. I'm predict capital flight as their financial system comes under more strain. Look people, if you don't have a strong central bank, you will be in trouble. It doesn't matter if new buildings go up. If you don't have a strong central bank, companies will start to question being there.



Russia is still economically unstable in my opinion. They may have growth.. but they are too not in the best shape.

But in reality, Russia and US have a much larger partnership in energies then Russia and China. In fact the Russians could account for 10% of US oil imports by 2010.

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=45579slowdown is happening in all oil-importing countries it is natural and not just specific for china..prices are cheap in china by western standards so theres a long way to go up and capital is pooring in more and more..and countries are still competing with each other for a place in chinas market..the strong government is standing behind chinac central bank ready for any challenge.china has done great job keeping its economy stabile and without any major disturbences just look at asian crisis in 95-96..russia has become very stabile since putin came to power and since russias closest neighbour is china it will have best relations with china but also be good with usa too oufcourse...by 2010 with completition of siberian oil pipeline china will have 20 %..and over 40% of gas also since gas pipeline already exist and its upgraded..i think i should tell u russian press dont like china very much and it has been slow to catch-up with economic trends...

I don't believe the Chinese government.

Neither do I, i'm just posting all the figures I found.

They didn't raise hundreds of millions out of poverty. Again you ignore most of what I said. In fact, many more have gone unemployed. Most of the growth is centered on the government and communist party. Most of the money ends up in their hands. South Korea is a much smaller country (population wise).

I don't ignore what you say, I just don't agree/ believe it. The idea that 25% of the chinese labor force is unemployed it just unbelievable to me and contrary to 90% the articles i found.

As for the enivroment. There was the dustbowl in the 1930's, the love canal, the colorado river no longer reaches the ocean, smog of NYC and LA. London covered in soot in the 19th century. Pollution from the Mississippi killing fish in the Gulf of Mexico and many other examples. China is much worse then us today, but it can still clean up its act.

Chinese economy will slow down, probably to 7% or 8% and that is very reasonable. Eventually it will slow down even further as the economy matures. Ooooor it might crash, the people will become restless overthough the communist party and the rapid growth would contunue once it settles down again. lol.

slowdown is happening in all oil-importing countries it is natural and not just specific for china..prices are cheap in china by western standards so theres a long way to go up and capital is pooring in more and more..and countries are still competing with each other for a place in chinas market..the strong government is standing behind chinac central bank ready for any challenge.china has done great job keeping its economy stabile and without any major disturbences just look at asian crisis in 95-96..russia has become very stabile since putin came to power and since russias closest neighbour is china it will have best relations with china but also be good with usa too oufcourse...by 2010 with completition of siberian oil pipeline china will have 20 %..and over 40% of gas also since gas pipeline already exist and its upgraded..i think i should tell u russian press dont like china very much and it has been slow to catch-up with economic trends...

Um, many countries can absorb it better because they are more fuel efficient and are better developed. China will not absorb it will, even if they place laws up to western standards. The problem with China is they will suffer because of lack of enforcement. China's economy is not stable at this rate, and it will not sustain growth. I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand. You keep sticking by the same old redundancy. Additionally, the US has more "oil ties" to Russia then China ever will have. The US is helping build one of the largest oil terminals in Russia. This will help Russia make up to 10-15% of the US oil market, reducing dependence on middle eastern oil. You are either in denial, or just not paying any attention to what is happening. It is the US putting a lot of money into Russian oil, not China (even if China is investing).

I don't ignore what you say, I just don't agree/ believe it. The idea that 25% of the chinese labor force is unemployed it just unbelievable to me and contrary to 90% the articles i found.

Fine don't believe it. Denial is something a lot of people do these days, and they buy into the official story that may not be entirely accurate. 90% of the articles you have found? Start posting these articles.

As for the enivroment. There was the dustbowl in the 1930's, the love canal, the colorado river no longer reaches the ocean, smog of NYC and LA. London covered in soot in the 19th century. Pollution from the Mississippi killing fish in the Gulf of Mexico and many other examples. China is much worse then us today, but it can still clean up its act.

Listen up, the US has improved greatly... especially Los Angeles. In the past twenty five years, believe it or not, LA has greatly cleaned up its acts. Mexico City has done the same in the past five years. China has a lot more then just air pollution.

Chinese economy will slow down, probably to 7% or 8% and that is very reasonable. Eventually it will slow down even further as the economy matures. Ooooor it might crash, the people will become restless overthough the communist party and the rapid growth would contunue once it settles down again. lol.

That is very reasonable? No it is not. It will slow down anywhere from 2-4% depending on social conditions in the country. There are riots throughout the country and conditions are horrible (take the huge number of coal mining accidents in the country). China's economy will probably slow to 4% in a few years.

Terrific article on this subject:

China: the dragon that isn’t
China just isn't the economic threat many think it is. In fact, it faces a double-barreled economic crisis in coming decades. Here's why.

By Jim Jubak

Not the juggernaut we think it is
China is not as big an economic threat to the United States as some of you seem to think. In fact, I think China is looking at a horrific double-barreled economic crisis over the next 30 years. The real danger to the United States is that the Chinese won't figure out how to solve this crisis and will resort to domestic and international violence, the last resort of all failing regimes. (Or that we'll fail to solve our own economic and demographic crisis over that same period.)

China's still-developing economy is far more inefficient than the juggernaut of our nightmares. And those inefficiencies will, over time, take a bite out of Chinese economic growth.

That may already be happening. The Chinese government recently lowered its forecast for 2005 economic growth to 8%. That's a rate most countries in the world envy, but for China it's a slowdown from the 9.5% growth in the first quarter of 2005 and from 9.4% for all of 2004. And some analysts are projecting that growth could slow to 6% or 7% in 2006.

The problem seems to be a developing profit squeeze -- ironic, no? -- now hitting Chinese companies. The costs of raw materials such as oil and iron ore are up, but Chinese companies can't raise prices. Remember how mega-retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, news, msgs) used the threat of buying from low-cost Chinese manufacturers to wring almost every last penny of profit out of suppliers based in the U.S. and Europe? Well, now Chinese suppliers are getting a dose of the same medicine, and it hurts. And even in China, companies hire fewer people, expand more slowly and build fewer new plants when the books show red ink.

The Chinese profit squeeze
The profit squeeze is widespread. It's hit the petrochemical sector, where Jinzhou Petrochemical on July 13 forecast a loss of $70 million for the first half of 2005. That's 10 times higher than the loss the company predicted for the same period back in April. Profits in China's auto industry are projected to decline by 50% in the first half of 2005, and profits actually have already declined 60% in the first four months of 2005, according to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. TCL, one of the country's largest companies, will lose enough money in its mobile-phone business to throw the whole company into the red for the year.

Press releases from individual Chinese companies and Chinese government ministries reel off a list of reasons for the profit squeeze. The standard causes are sluggish sales growth, fierce price competition and rising prices for raw materials.

Not surprisingly, though, no one in Beijing ever adds to the list the inefficiencies of a Chinese economy that's still relatively primitive and shockingly bad at allocating capital. The result is massive over-investment in sectors already bloated with excess capacity.

Take a look at the steel industry. Steel production in China grew by 23% in 2004 to 273 million tons. It is on trend to grow by another 50 million tons, or about 20%, in 2005, and it is projected to increase by yet another 50 million tons, or about 15%, in 2006.

Considering that major steel-consuming companies are growing at much lower rates -- auto-industry production grew by just 1.5% in the first four months of 2005, for example -- is it any wonder that steel prices are falling?

And yet, it's still remarkably easy to raise massive amounts of money in China to build a new steel plant. On July 12, Wuyang Steel announced a plan to invest $700 million to build an iron ore and steel-plate plant in central China.

Politics drives capital allocation
Why? Because capital in China is still largely allocated by politics. You can raise money to build a steel mill if national politicos, who want to develop the slowly growing inland provinces, put the muscle on national banks to make the loan. (And, of course, you get the loan if you've dressed up your board with the sons and daughters of high-ranking party officials who can put the muscle on just about everyone.)

Any investor in the United States watching the judge hand down a 25-year prison sentence to former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers knows our own capital markets don't do a perfect job of allocating capital. But our markets are still much more efficient than the Chinese system.
After misallocating capital, the Chinese system then requires a top-down plan from the officials in Beijing to fix the mess. For example, a day after the announcement of a new steel plant from Wuyang Steel, China's State Council announced a policy to consolidate the steel industry by driving smaller steel mills out of business. The goal is to put 70% of the country's steel production in the hand of the country's 10 largest steel makers by 2020. (China's top 15 steel makers now produce about 45% of the country's steel.)

I'd give this piece of industrial planning an "F" on capital efficiency: First the banks fund new steel mills, and then the government shuts them down. And an "F" on industrial efficiency: The government is going to pick winners and losers on size. That just exacerbates one of the biggest flaws in the Chinese economy: According to Western managers at joint ventures in China, it's almost impossible to make a decent profit because Chinese companies are fixated on size and market share. They will cut prices to the point of sacrificing profits to gain that share.

China needs fast growth
This would be just a normal cyclical economic problem in the United States, but it is something like a crisis for China, where anything less than 7% economic growth has huge consequences. That 7% growth rate is a rough measure of economic break-even in China. If the economy grows at better than that rate, it creates enough jobs to match population growth and reduce China's huge population of the jobless and underemployed. At anything less than 7%, the Chinese economy isn't producing enough jobs and unemployment rises.

But that's just the start of the problem. China's government needs better than 7% growth if it hopes to do anything about the horrific inequalities that have been produced by China's recent economic growth. In the three-and-a-half years since China got full membership in the global economy with its entry into the World Trade Organization, incomes among the rural Chinese who make up most of the country's population have actually declined, according to the World Bank. Because of an average income of just $318 a year, this 70% of China's population accounts for just 40% of domestic consumption.

Shockingly, and perhaps most shockingly to the Chinese themselves, the divide in China between rich and poor is now greater than before the Communists came to power in 1949. The richest 10% of the population control 45% of the country's wealth, according to government figures, and the poorest 10% hold about 1%. On the GINI Index, a measure of economic inequality, Communist China now rates a 45. The bad ol' running dog capitalist U.S. of A is only slightly worse at 46.5.

Which is quite a problem for the current Chinese regime. The great economic experiment launched by Deng Xiaoping scrapped the Iron Rice Bowl guarantees of an earlier generation in exchange for a promise that, eventually, everyone would be better off -- even if that required that some people would get rich first.

The boom leaves most behind
For a sizeable portion of the population -- those that live in the rural areas of the interior provinces -- that promise hasn't been kept, even as the country's economy as a whole grew by nearly 10% a year. Lower growth, even the 6% to 7% growth some now forecast for 2006, will make it harder, if not impossible, to deliver on that promise.

Delivering on this promise will be made much harder by the demographic crisis that the country now clearly will face somewhere between 2025 and 2040. China, unlike the United States or Europe or Japan, will become old before it becomes rich.

In 2000, the median age was 36 in the United States and just 30 in China. By 2025, however, because of Chinese population controls and U.S. immigration, the two countries will be about equally old, according to the United Nations. The median age will be 39.3 in the United States and 39 in China. By 2040, 26% of the U.S. population will be at least 60, up from just 16% in 2000, according to a study by the Center for Strategic & International Studies. But 28% of China's population will be at least 60.

And that population will be staring at old age without anything like the system of pensions, retirement accounts, Social Security and Medicare that support the aging population of the United States.

Why we should want China to succeed
That gives the current Chinese regime a relatively narrow window of 30 years or so to deliver on the promises of Deng Xiaoping of a better life for those who have so far been left out of the Chinese economic boom, and to figure out how to provide for a rapidly aging population.

I hope they do. And I think it's in the best interests of those who live in the United States that they succeed. Moving China toward a consumer economy (and away from an export-driven emphasis on industrial development) would, in my opinion, be the best way to raise living standards for rural Chinese. It would also be good for workers in U.S. businesses who would have millions of new customers.

The alternative is to hope for Chinese failure. That would eliminate what I think are largely imaginary fears of Chinese world domination. But it would throw more than a billion people in China into violence and chaos. I don't wish that on anyone.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P119985.asp?Printer

Um, many countries can absorb it better because they are more fuel efficient and are better developed. China will not absorb it will, even if they place laws up to western standards. The problem with China is they will suffer because of lack of enforcement. China's economy is not stable at this rate, and it will not sustain growth. I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand. You keep sticking by the same old redundancy. Additionally, the US has more "oil ties" to Russia then China ever will have. The US is helping build one of the largest oil terminals in Russia. This will help Russia make up to 10-15% of the US oil market, reducing dependence on middle eastern oil. You are either in denial, or just not paying any attention to what is happening. It is the US putting a lot of money into Russian oil, not China (even if China is investing).
o well will just have to wait and see who was right,no need for u to get upset!there is much much more high gas consuming cars,suv's,jeeps,trucks in usa then china and bush government is not implementing ecology quotas too but if chineese government want something to enforce dont doubt it they CAN do it! pipeline between russia and china is built and the capacity of it is bigger than u.s. funded terminal that has problems and delayes because its beeing built 100 meters from national park in russian far east.anyways that will benefit russia most as it can now sell oil to E.U. ,U.S.A.,or CHINA whomever offers more money for it..i am not in any kind of denial wtf are u talking about?! and i think i pay attention to some thing more than u do.. :rolleyes:

Special thanks to Six Reich.

This caught my attention:

"This would be just a normal cyclical economic problem in the United States, but it is something like a crisis for China, where anything less than 7% economic growth has huge consequences. That 7% growth rate is a rough measure of economic break-even in China. If the economy grows at better than that rate, it creates enough jobs to match population growth and reduce China's huge population of the jobless and underemployed. At anything less than 7%, the Chinese economy isn't producing enough jobs and unemployment rises."

Really, China's 9% growth isn't really anything much and just barely over that 7% threshold.

o well will just have to wait and see who was right,no need for u to get upset!there is much much more high gas consuming cars,suv's,jeeps,trucks in usa then china and bush government is not implementing ecology quotas too but if chineese government want something to enforce dont doubt it they CAN do it! pipeline between russia and china is built and the capacity of it is bigger than u.s. funded terminal that has problems and delayes because its beeing built 100 meters from national park in russian far east.anyways that will benefit russia most as it can now sell oil to E.U. ,U.S.A.,or CHINA whomever offers more money for it..i am not in any kind of denial wtf are u talking about?! and i think i pay attention to some thing more than u do.. :rolleyes:

I'm not getting upset. I'm just saying you are not understanding the reality. There may be more cars in the US, but nonetheless the US has better environment contrl then the Chinese. Bush government is not implementing ecology quotas? From the Kyoto protocol right? The protocol that would kill the economy? You are just wrong. And it seems like you are losing control when you are confronted with facts. The US most certainly does enforce industrial emission quotas, and in fact the Bush adminstration put down arsenic restrictions that Clinton never got around too.

The oil terminal I talked for the US and Russia is much larger then any project China and Russia are doing. The capacity is not bigger. That's just a lie. The US is building several other pipelines through central asia (uzbekistan, afghanistan, etc).

You are very much in a state of denial.

hmmm ...arsenic well done man that will save the world!!!but thats just a sideshow! this decision commandable as it might be totally ignores the main threat to human kind that could be our #1 undoing .this is all just a distraction from implementing kyoto protocol whitch reduses the global polutents by no more then 5-10% ....and that can kill economy by 100%-obviously u have been brainwashed by j.w. bush!

Special thanks to Six Reich.

This caught my attention:

"This would be just a normal cyclical economic problem in the United States, but it is something like a crisis for China, where anything less than 7% economic growth has huge consequences. That 7% growth rate is a rough measure of economic break-even in China. If the economy grows at better than that rate, it creates enough jobs to match population growth and reduce China's huge population of the jobless and underemployed. At anything less than 7%, the Chinese economy isn't producing enough jobs and unemployment rises."

Really, China's 9% growth isn't really anything much and just barely over that 7% threshold.

China's population growth rate is about .58%. Inflation is around 5%. Wouldn't something around a 5.7% growth rate be break even then?

(In comparision, US GDP is about 4%, US inflation is about 3%, US popgrowth is about 1%. That means that we're barely above water (GDP should be higher then inflation+popgrowth)

GDP stands for Grossly Deceptive Pointer. Using GDP alone to measure economic growth is grossly unrepresentative. Even if China was firing a 15% growth in GDP, much of the population in the interior and dirt poor, and basic amenities are still lacking. Quality of life is still considerably low even in big cities, where corruption and crime and rampant.

Unless Beijing does something solid and drastic, the economic liberalism will eat away the political and social stability China has enjoyed since 1989.

-snip-
GDP can be good, but always in conjunction with other figures.
Anyways, and idea what that solid and drastic action would be?

GDP can be good, but always in conjunction with other figures.
Anyways, and idea what that solid and drastic action would be?
Well, GDP alone can only account for so little things.

Several roads down "solid and drastic". The two extremes are:

1. Re-centralisation: power derived absolutely from the central government, so standards all over the country would be more equal. However, for China, it could be an excuse to trample over some civil liberties again.

2. Complete liberalisation: REVOLUTION!!! REVOLUTION!!!

I haven't done any thorough studying of this, but as always, the best solution should be a little bit of both extremes.

I haven't done any thorough studying of this, but as always, the best solution should be a little bit of both extremes.
Something with a bit of centralisation and a bit of liberalisation? :D

Something with a bit of centralisation and a bit of liberalisation? :D
For example, laws against corruption and the enforcement of those laws should be strengthened. However, the judicial system as a whole, as the protector of public interests, should be loosened to allow more public participation.

It's not likely to happen, you and I both know it. :headbang:

It's not likely to happen, you and I both know it.
Have patience. These things take time.
Didn't they execute a few officials for bribery?

Have patience. These things take time.
Didn't they execute a few officials for bribery?

If the communists wants to save their asses, they're not executing corrupt officials fast enough.

Also, diseases have to stop coming from China. The latest "pig flu" is getting worse and worse and the government there is hopeless. And it's made my government useless too. Grrr...

They've been improving a lot. I applaud that. But they need to do it a lot faster.

They've been improving a lot. I applaud that. But they need to do it a lot faster.
I reckon the KP can't do it any faster because they'll be kicking loose more crap than they can handle. We already see small riots occasionally, if they change things too fast, those riots might become much bigger.
So I reckon they try to keep things stable while they modernise it. It's kind of like balancing an egg in a spoon while running after everyone else...

I reckon the KP can't do it any faster because they'll be kicking loose more crap than they can handle. We already see small riots occasionally, if they change things too fast, those riots might become much bigger.
So I reckon they try to keep things stable while they modernise it. It's kind of like balancing an egg in a spoon while running after everyone else...

Well, if you can't balance the egg, get help. Stop closing your doors on aid. Although those aid may not be genuine, you need to learn to compromise.

GDP growth is more compared to population growth, not inflation added to it. Inflation is compared to GDP per capita income.

GDP stands for Grossly Deceptive Pointer. Using GDP alone to measure economic growth is grossly unrepresentative. Even if China was firing a 15% growth in GDP, much of the population in the interior and dirt poor, and basic amenities are still lacking. Quality of life is still considerably low even in big cities, where corruption and crime and rampant.

Unless Beijing does something solid and drastic, the economic liberalism will eat away the political and social stability China has enjoyed since 1989.

For once I actually agree with you, partially.

What political and social stability? Read the article on those riots occurring in China.

hmmm ...arsenic well done man that will save the world!!!but thats just a sideshow! this decision commandable as it might be totally ignores the main threat to human kind that could be our #1 undoing .this is all just a distraction from implementing kyoto protocol whitch reduses the global polutents by no more then 5-10% ....and that can kill economy by 100%-obviously u have been brainwashed by j.w. bush!

Boy, what a brainwashed jerk. I'm not the one brainwashed. Do you even know what arsenic is? Also Bush signed an alternative energy protocol. The kyoto protocol is fatally flawed, as it allows developing countries to pollute more and more. And like it or not, developing countries like China will be the biggest polluters in a few years. You don't know what you're talking about.. the kyoto protocol wants to push emissions down to 1990 levels. Unacceptable. Allow hi-tech industries to replace older industries.