China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Discussion in 'Strategic Defense' started by Phead128, Dec 11, 2013.

  1. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    36
    The manufacturing employment using up 20% of the urban workforce in China, in the US it is 7.9%.

    The US manufacturing inductry 10% smaller than the Chinese.
    The trade unballance is around 4-5% of the GDP.
    So, with over simplify the issue, and considering that hte US economy is 2-4 times more efficient than the Chinese, the manufacturing reallocation can cause higher unemployment in china, and lower in the US ,and mainly high paying industrial jobs.

    A lot of cattering company should go out of business : ).


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States
    https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/manufacturing-employment-china

    researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05809/SN05809.pdf
     
  2. Hendrik_2000
    Offline

    Hendrik_2000 Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    4,740
    Likes Received:
    14,495
    2 years is eternity in Chinese economic The number that you cite is from 2015 Here is the latest
    Retail sales of consumer goods are expected to jump by 10.2 percent year on year to exceed 37 trillion yuan in 2017, contributing more than 70 percent of the country's economic growth, according to an earlier report issued by the China General Chamber of Commerce.

    In 2017, China will forge ahead with the supply-side structural reform by improving the supply structure and consumption environment, the minister said.


    China's consumption to maintain strong growth in 2017
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-02/21/content_28288559.htm

    Xinhua | Updated: 2017-02-21 15:28
    BEIJING - China will maintain strong growth in consumption this year with deepening supply-side structural reform, Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said Tuesday.

    The trend will persist between 2016 and 2020 and feature more online retail sales and consumption of more quality goods and services, he said at a news conference, citing stellar growth in these sectors.

    Retail sales, a key indicator of consumption, have been growing at double-digit rates annually for years, he said, adding e-commerce has facilitated the spike in consumption.

    The volume of online retail sales rose 26.2 percent to hit 5.2 trillion yuan ($755.3 billion) in 2016 over the previous year, he said.

    Consumption is shifting gears with Chinese consumers buying more expensive and premium products.

    Over 28 million automobiles were sold in China last year, up 13.7 percent year on year, while new-energy vehicles posted growth of 53 percent, he said.

    Consumption of services is growing faster than that of goods thanks to rapid expansion in sectors such as catering, housekeeping and care, he added.

    Consumption has become the primary driver of China's economy since 2014, contributing 64.6 percent to China's GDP growth in 2016, up 4.9 percentage points than in 2015, Gao said.

    The ongoing supply-side reform will narrow the discrepancy between the supply of goods and services and shifting market demands, unlocking more potential.

    Retail sales of consumer goods are expected to jump by 10.2 percent year on year to exceed 37 trillion yuan in 2017, contributing more than 70 percent of the country's economic growth, according to an earlier report issued by the China General Chamber of Commerce.

    In 2017, China will forge ahead with the supply-side structural reform by improving the supply structure and consumption environment, the minister said.
     
    #1302 Hendrik_2000, Jan 12, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    Equation likes this.
  3. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    36
    Doesn't add up.
    The household final consumption is 4.405 trillion $.
    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.PRVT.CD?locations=CN

    The above number include ALL household expenses, including housing, electricity, heating, healthcare and so on.

    So, per definition the household retail purchases has to be smaller than the above number.

    Means the retail sales above include industrial and investement purchases, and maybe export numbers as well.

    Or they double count sales,like counting sub components for machiens as sale , and counting the final sale as well.


    And actually not the retail sales is the problem in China, but rather than the low housheold consumption percentage from the GDP.
     
  4. manqiangrexue
    Offline

    manqiangrexue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    3,899
    Don't add up?? LOL Guess it ain't 1+1=2 simple, is it? LOL Different organizations come up with different numbers; IMF, World Bank, UN, all have different figures for every country's GDP. Besides, you can't take 2016 data and try to add it to 2017 data, can you, Mr.Macro-economics-is-as-simple-as-1+1? They said 70% of growth, not 70% of GDP.
     
    Equation and Hendrik_2000 like this.
  5. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    36
    Full life of Keyness was about to keep the unemployment low, and the consumption high.
    One of way of it is the trade barriers .

    https://eh.net/book_reviews/john-ma...al-relations-economic-paths-to-war-and-peace/

    This occurred when, in the early years of the Great Depression, 1929-33, and to quite a bit of controversy, Keynes advocated protectionist measures for Britain, especially higher tariff barriers, as a way of combating the British unemployment of that period.
     
  6. Klon
    Offline

    Klon Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    362
    Retail sales of consumer goods are not 37 trillion yuan.
     
  7. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    36
    It is that simple.

    If the numbers doesn't add up, then there is an issue with the numbers : ).

    Fist Explanation: The Wahsingtonpost retail sales doesn't contain ONLY the household retail consumption . Any other explanation for the discrepency?
     
  8. t2contra
    Offline

    t2contra Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    3,846
    That's your assumption. Do you have any fact to back up your claim that their fear of immigration was due to "an issue from job market standpoint"?
     
    Equation likes this.
  9. manqiangrexue
    Offline

    manqiangrexue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    3,899
    You think I'm not fluent in English or something so you just quote some random sentence and think I'll accept it? Tariffs aren't trade wars. There are US tariffs on Chinese goods and Chinese tariffs on US goods. You said a TRADE WAR, SHUTTING OFF OF TRADE would BENEFIT the US. That is NOT what that sentence says.
    Why the hell not? It was $33 trillion yuan ($4.8 trillion USD) in 2016 and in 2017, it's $37 trillion ($5.7 trillion USD, adjusted for differences in exchange rate between years). http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/20/c_135999803.htm If not, then what number do you think it is?
    Yeah. You don't know which numbers to add. It's not an issue with the numbers; it's an issue with the person adding the wrong numbers to each other. Reread post #1304 for just a few of the other reasons.

    What did I tell you about saying, "It's simple"? That whenever you start with that sentence in your head, you should know that the rest of what you're about to say is probably wrong.
     
    #1309 manqiangrexue, Jan 12, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    Equation likes this.
  10. Klon
    Offline

    Klon Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    362
    Apparently, 37 trillion is the right figure. The issue is with the category "retail sales of consumer goods", which seems to imply something like private spending on "consumer goods". As Anlsvrthng pointed out, in that case it would be too high. But it turns out that it really means
    and is only used in China. The corresponding categories used by the World Bank would probably be "Household final consumption expenditure" combined with "General government final consumption expenditure". I'd say that Anlsvrthng was again right in speculating about what was being counted.
     
Loading...

Share This Page