Chinese Economics Thread

[Equation]

This is the American politics-I am speechless!

Ahhh...must be an election year coming. The audience will get the best of the worse mud slinging commercials during this time of year as finger pointing and yelling at the opposition candidates party become a decor. Any subjects that can trigger emotional response by 30 - 50% of the national audience gets the biggest spot light: jobs, China, sluggish economy, and the war in Afghanistan.

[AssassinsMace]

Analysis: G7 must look beyond China for euro zone rescuer - Yahoo! News

Analysis: G7 must look beyond China for euro zone rescuer
By Nick Edwards | Reuters – Tue, Jun 5, 2012

BEIJING (Reuters) - Finance chiefs of the Group of Seven industrialized powers hoping China can step in to rescue the euro zone must look elsewhere for a white knight as Beijing increasingly focuses on domestic issues this year.

The G7 policymakers and some members of the wider G20 will hold an emergency teleconference on the euro zone debt crisis on Tuesday in a sign of heightened global alarm about the threat posed by strains inside the 17-nation monetary union. The call comes two weeks before a G20 summit this month in Mexico.

"The question is can the G20 do anything to accelerate and bring forward the date at which China feels it should do something? I'm skeptical," Tim Condon, chief economist and head of Asian economic research at ING in Singapore, said.

China has no intention of over-extending itself near term in pursuit of long-term goals rebuffed back in October 2011 when euro zone and International Monetary Fund officials last asked Beijing for bailout cash, but were unwilling to offer the market access, guarantees, and technology sales demanded in return.

An increasingly inward focus in the final months before a once-in-a-decade leadership transition means only a Lehman-like collapse in confidence that halts global trade and costs millions of Chinese jobs is likely to change Beijing's mind.

"China is totally consumed by juggling what is turning out to be a complicated year domestically. If something coincides with what's good for Europe, happy days, but for them to do something above and beyond... I'm not a big buyer of the view that we're going to have some big kumbaya moment at the G20," Condon said.

The last such moment of unity was in late 2008 when shattered confidence in the world financial system forced central banks to begin printing money to reflate it and led G20 nations to pledge stimulus packages worth some $5 trillion by early 2009 to underpin global growth.

China's 4 trillion yuan ($635 billion) contribution to that effort, unveiled at the end of 2008 and launched in 2009, was vital. The world's biggest single contributor of economic growth essentially underwrote business activity into 2010, but it did so at substantial domestic political cost.

SPECULATION, CORRUPTION, INFLATION

"China's 2008 stimulus led to widespread speculation, corruption and inflation. It won't want to do that again," said independent economist Andy Xie.

China's stimulus was supported by extremely loose monetary policy, fuelling rampant property speculation that saw prices double in key cities in little more than 12 months, let local governments rack up 10.7 trillion yuan of debt and pushed consumer inflation to a 3-year high.

A two-year tightening campaign since has barely brought inflation back under control, a worry for Beijing as it starts to ease economic policy again to cushion falling growth.

It has eased banks' required reserves in three steps since the autumn of 2011, cutting 150 basis points in total to 20 percent and freeing up an estimated 1.2 trillion yuan for fresh lending.

It has also cut taxes and slashed red tape, fast-tracked infrastructure investment, provided consumption subsidies in some household sectors and pushed ahead with financial reforms to help safeguard growth.

But Beijing is wary about loosening too much too quickly again and setting off a fresh round of price hikes that put social stability at risk.

High inflation has preceded political tension in China in the past - something the ruling Communist Party is desperate to avoid ahead of a leadership change and already complicated by the purge of populist politician Bo Xilai and the murder scandal surrounding his fall.

CAPABILITIES CURTAILED

The sudden collapse in exports during the 2008-09 crisis threw some 20 million migrant workers out of work, an incentive behind the massive stimulus package. The economy may be slowing right now, but labor markets are tighter, wages are rising and employers are struggling for staff.

The combination makes it particularly difficult for Beijing to make big statements of international importance to global markets, just as hopes ride high that it will.

Brazil wants coordinated action to end the European crisis to be the defining action point of the next G20 summit meeting, due to be held in Mexico on June 18-19.

Separately a G20 official in Asia said the group could look to put pressure on Germany to switch to stimulus mode as part of a wider call for strong, developed economies to step up spending.

Faltering domestic and external demand have set China's economy on track for its slowest full year of growth since 1999, curtailing Beijing's ability to offer others aid as well as lowering growth prospects for neighboring Asian economies.

India recorded its weakest quarterly growth between January-March in almost a decade and Brazil barely expanded during the final three months of 2011, casting doubt on how much support emerging markets can offer the soggy world economy.

While a forecast in the latest Reuters poll that China's economy will growth this year by 8.2 percent might look brisk to recessionary Europe, it comes very close to the level many economists believe is the bare minimum China must achieve to create enough jobs for its 1.3 billion strong population.

So while things haven't got any better for the euro zone since October 2011 when Klaus Regling, who runs Europe's bailout fund, and the IMF were last in Beijing asking for help, China's economy has taken a clear turn for the worse.

And that's bad news for global policymakers, business leaders and investors who had been banking up to now on China to provide the lion's share of economic growth this year, Kenneth Courtis, co-founder of Asia-focused private equity fund, Themes Investment Management, said.

Beijing's reluctance to engage in a new round of 2009-like mega-stimulus, has dramatically raised concerns from a policy perspective, said Courtis, in Stockholm for meetings of this week's IMF-convened International Monetary Conference.

"What they more and more desperately want is a clear sign from Beijing that it will be taking forceful measures to put a floor under its economy... with the object of assuring that China deliver 8-9 percent growth this year and next," Courtis told Reuters.

"That is also I understand what the group which originated today's G-7/G-20 conference call also hope and expect will be the message China will deliver during the call."

(Editing by Neil Fullick)

I love the misleading title. Look beyond China to manipulate China. The West has spent so much time spelling out doom for China but they still want China to bail out Europe. The problem is the West acts like they deserve it without any concessions yet when anyone wants something from them, countries have to do backflips and a whole slews of superficial gestures first and then maybe they'll consider it. They can't even give what China superficially wants like look at the existence of the G7. They never wanted China to have that honor so they put more emphasis on the G20 yet the G7 still exists. Look how they want to manipulate China by the threat of loss of jobs. China can use the same logic because helping the West maintain what they have only continues to deny what China wants from them. Look beyond China suggests they want lesser developed countries to give them money but they know that would look bad which is why like I said before it's getting these countries to manipulate China into giving money. Depending on their whims of the moment they contradict themselves in making China full of poor at one instance so they can feel superior and declare China imcompetent and then another time rich so they can like at this instance demand money. They can't ask non-G7 countries to cough up cash for the rich because it looks as horrible at it is.

[Preux]

The West is not a monolithic bloc with one hive-mind any more than China is.

We are not locked in a Manichean struggle to the death and the sooner we recognized that the better.

You can criticize the article without generalizing about The West.

[AssassinsMace]

I did. Just like that child that was ran over by a car in China reported as if the Western media were the ones to bring this attention or else it would've been ignored. Oh what generalizing of the Chinese people as one. Or just like at Copenhagen every country but those of the West was demanded to restrict themselves.

[Preux]

.... are you seriously saying that in a post where you mentioned 'The West' as if it were a single entity no less than 3 times that you were not, in fact, generalizing?

Anyway, your remark on the Copenhagen Summit was a bold-faced lie. You can argue all you want about the morality of the restrictions due to the developed countries' earlier industrialization (and I think they have a point), but to claim that 'the West' did not demand restrictions of themselves is just factually incorrect. Australia, New Zealand, the EU and even America all made emission cut commitments. Hell, do you remember the ETS? That's a European initiative.

[AssassinsMace]

Again take you're own advice and read carefully. I did say, "I did." Did I deny it? No. I do what they do.

And yes the Western countries demanded everyone else restrict more than for themselves. And I wouldn't call the US and EU trying to punish China making alterntive energy technology cheaper as a sign they want to save the environment.

[Preux]

Again take you're own advice and read carefully. I did say, "I did." Did I deny it? No. I do what they do.

And yes the Western countries demanded everyone else restrict more than for themselves. And I wouldn't call the US and EU trying to punish China making alterntive energy technology cheaper as a sign they want to save the environment.

That's not what you said.

You said "Or just like at Copenhagen every country but those of the West was demanded to restrict themselves."

Which is flat out wrong. You are backpedaling here.

Post included for your reference.

I did. Just like that child that was ran over by a car in China reported as if the Western media were the ones to bring this attention or else it would've been ignored. Oh what generalizing of the Chinese people as one. Or just like at Copenhagen every country but those of the West was demanded to restrict themselves.

---------- Post added at 03:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 AM ----------

I am pretty sure going on about the sort of US and THEM confrontation counts as 'country bashing' so let's restrict our criticism to the article itself without dragging the entirety of Western Civilization into it.

[AssassinsMace]

That's not what you said.

You said "Or just like at Copenhagen every country but those of the West was demanded to restrict themselves."

Which is flat out wrong. You are backpedaling here.

Post included for your reference.

How is that a denial I wasn't generalizing? You're seeing something that's not there just to make your argument.

[Maggern]

Although i don't appreciate the tone i preux' posts here, i must agree with his points. I'm sure you can find some obscure media article presenting facts in the way assassins mace suggest, but the idea that the west is some kind of monolithic bloc of anti-china sentiment, where every article is written with full intent to present a negative view of china, and often by order of the government, is quite ridiculous. It's tantamount to saying all of Asia is one bloc, including everything from russia to china, Japan, Iran, Thailand etc. I will say that even americans are guilty at overlooking the complexity of the west, as I've met many that considered europe pretty much similar within, with variation between countries only true insofar as there are differences between states in the us. Also a ridiculous idea. I see assassins mace's view in so many chinese articles. I guess it boils down to lack of understanding.

[AssassinsMace]

When the Western countries put all the blame of the failure of Copenhagen on China, they're speaking as a block. There were no one country from the West that opposed this. These talks are negotiated long before the actually meeting. So they know the outcome before it even starts which is why the spin to blame China. The US representive, Todd Stern, was from the start blaming China setting up the conspiracy. The fact is the US Congress was never going to pass anything from Copenhagen because of domestic politics so they needed a distraction which was to blame China. There was a concensus by Western countries to do this. There was no Western country that was the exception. They went along with it even though they knew the US Congress wasn't going to pass any legislation that restricted American business. To blame China was a conspiracy by Western countries. Demanding the rest of the world to restrict themselves more than the developed world was intentional because they knew the emerging economies would not accept this. Then they could blame China instead of going through the motions of hammering out a sensible deal to which in the end was going to fall apart anyway because of domestic politics in the US was never going to ratify it and thus all eyes would be on the US to blame. At the Copenhagen summit China was not the biggest polluter per capita. And it didn't account that a significant portion of China's pollution came from the critic countries that outsourced their pollution to China. Because this was not factored in and China was blamed, the West did speak as a block especially since every other country was expected to restrict themselves more than any developed country who are the source of most pollution. The biggest advocates for the environment didn't pull the trigger and they colluded to blame China to hide that shame. The US and the West did not make this much noise about the environment when the US was No.1 polluter. It's only when China spewed out one more carbon particle spec in total than the US is when it became a big deal. And the West knows this which is why they waited to make the environmment a big deal when only they could villify someone who wasn't Western. If you took all the countries together that weren't expected to restrict themselves, they pollute more in all categories. So expecting the rest of the world to comply to more restrictive pollution controls weren't going to do anything for the environment.

As regard to bailing out Europe... The countries that are opposed are only against it because they don't want to submit to Chinese concessions not opposed to be bailed out. I don't see any Western mainstream entity from people, government, or the media making a case that China shouldn't bail out Europe. They're just opposed to China getting anything out of it.

And I love hypocrisy of the accusation of generalization. As mentioned many times before the BBC conducts an annual world opinion poll of perception by countries of other countries. The worst opinions of China all are highest in the West. The most favorable opinions are from the developed world yet everytime the BBC spins it that the world has a negative opinion of China. Generalization is a plus when it works in your favor but not when it doesn't. That's hypocrisy.

[Equation]

Most of Western media hates China, but many Western people don't. I can say the same for Chinese people view on Western people. In fact more people are interested in China nowadays, all thanks to the media that keeps China on the spotlight regardless if the news are for good will or ill. I'm finding the rhetoric rather more interesting to read and how it effects the audience and to what level of education and upbringings does it has upon the readers.

[Preux]

How is that a denial I wasn't generalizing? You're seeing something that's not there just to make your argument.

I see you carefully misquoted what I wrote. Here, let me do it for you.

I did. Just like that child that was ran over by a car in China reported as if the Western media were the ones to bring this attention or else it would've been ignored. Oh what generalizing of the Chinese people as one. Or just like at Copenhagen every country but those of the West was demanded to restrict themselves.

[COLOR="Silver"]

To which I replied:

Anyway, your remark on the Copenhagen Summit was a bold-faced lie. You can argue all you want about the morality of the restrictions due to the developed countries' earlier industrialization (and I think they have a point), but to claim that 'the West' did not demand restrictions of themselves is just factually incorrect. Australia, New Zealand, the EU and even America all made emission cut commitments. Hell, do you remember the ETS? That's a European initiative.

And then you said:

And yes the Western countries demanded everyone else restrict more than for themselves. And I wouldn't call the US and EU trying to punish China making alterntive energy technology cheaper as a sign they want to save the environment.

That is a very clear case of backpedaling.

You can concentrate on the 'generalize' issue all you want, to which I have only one thing to say.

Today, 02:14 AM

Last edited by AssassinsMace; Today at 02:53 AM.

It is my distinct recollection that you in fact denied it. If you didn't, then I misread you and I accept that you did not say it and apologize.

That does not however mean you can ignore every other point I made and that you are therefore right about the backpedaling.

[AssassinsMace]

I see you carefully misquoted what I wrote. Here, let me do it for you.


[COLOR="Silver"]

To which I replied:



And then you said:



That is a very clear case of backpedaling.

You can concentrate on the 'generalize' issue all you want, to which I have only one thing to say.





It is my distinct recollection that you in fact denied it. If you didn't, then I misread you and I accept that you did not say it and apologize.

That does not however mean you can ignore every other point I made and that you are therefore right about the backpedaling.

You charged I was generalizing and I said I did. How is that backpedaling? I cannot very much deny something I admiited I was doing. You did misread everything. I gladly generalize just like China is generalized as slave and child labor or everyone eats dog. Like I said the West likes generalizing when it works for them but when it doesn't someone hypocritically cries foul.

[lostsoul]

You charged I was generalizing and I said I did. How is that backpedaling? I cannot very much deny something I admiited I was doing. You did misread everything. I gladly generalize just like China is generalized as slave and child labor or everyone eats dog. Like I said the West likes generalizing when it works for them but when it doesn't someone hypocritically cries foul.

QFT.

Also there is No conclusive evidence for AGW.

[solarz]

There can be no doubt that Western Media is actively biased toward China in the reporting of its news. The reasons for this bias is debatable, but the fact that it exists is undeniable.

QFT.

Also there is No conclusive evidence for AGW.

Do you deny that the presence of gases such as CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere works to trap more heat from solar radiation?

Do you deny that human activity has increased the amount of those gases released into the atmosphere?