Chinese Economics Thread

xiabonan

Junior Member
[video=youtube_share;0Nkh_CWzyps]http://youtu.be/0Nkh_CWzyps[/video]

I really like this short interview.

In fact I believe what he said, about helping small businesses. That's exactly what he has done in China.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
[video=youtube_share;0Nkh_CWzyps]http://youtu.be/0Nkh_CWzyps[/video]

I really like this short interview.

In fact I believe what he said, about helping small businesses. That's exactly what he has done in China.

Yeah I saw that on CCTV.
 

A.Man

Major
Why China will unseat US as world's largest economy by year's end

By one measure, China's economy is set to outpace that of the United States by the end of the 2014, according to the latest annual report from the International Monetary Fund.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Forecasters said it was inevitable and now it’s official: China is overtaking the United States to become the world’s largest economy.





In its latest annual report on world economic activity, the International Monetary Fund said that China will have a larger gross domestic product than the US – some $17.6 trillion in overall output – during the 2014 calendar year.

The IMF comparison comes with an asterisk: China’s GDP is still smaller than America’s when measured in raw dollars, but its economy is larger when you account for “purchasing power” – the way a dollar can buy more at a restaurant or store in China than it can in the US.

Recommended: How much do you know about China? Take our quiz.

This “purchasing power parity” method (PPP) has become a standard way of comparing nations’ economic performance.

The milestone for China, by this PPP measure, caps a period of rapid construction and industrialization and construction, centered especially in the nation’s coastal south.

With China having more than three times the population of the US, it was seen as only a matter of time before it overtook other nations to become the world's largest economy. But the gains for China are also a symbolic setback for the US – where a slower-than-hoped-for recovery from recession has coincided with widening income gaps between the rich and a stagnating middle class.

China has surpassed the US faster than many forecasters expected – a testament to China's shrewd capitalization on trade opportunities, as well as to the way steady growth in China has contrasted with America’s weak performance after the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009.

It will still be a while before China catches the US in the simple dollar value of its GDP. By that measure, without the purchasing-power adjustment, China’s GDP will total about $10.4 trillion this year, the IMF predicts, compared with America’s $17.4 trillion.

And Americans are still much better off, on average, than residents of China. The GDP per person in China will be $12,893 this year, the IMF estimates, compared with $54,678 in the US. (Both numbers are adjusted for purchasing power.)

Together, the two nations account for one-third of the world economy, driving much of global growth. China is poised to produce 16.5 percent of world GDP in 2014, compared with 16.3 percent for the US.

Economists by and large welcome China's gains as a sign that global economic development embracing long-poor regions. As China and India have developed, for example, income inequality between the rich and poor has fallen, when measured globally as if the world were one large nation.

That’s the case even though inequality has risen within key nations (including China). The rise of prosperous classes in China brings them closer to Western living standards, even as it widens the gap between them and China’s rural poor.

Still, that pattern of expanding prosperity for many in China hints at one reason the nation’s rise is also a source of controversy and concern. Some economists say those gains have come at the expense of US workers, and that this shift has been aided by US policymakers and businesses rushing to move factories and technology toward rising markets across the Pacific.

China's own economy is not without challenges, notably in the arenas of environmental sustainability and the social-welfare needs of a poor and increasingly aging population. A key step, identified as a vital but difficult goal by China's Communist Party leaders, is to transition toward growth that is fueled more by domestic consumption and not so much by uncertain export opportunities.
 

Lethe

Captain
Huh, cool to discover this thread. Just wondering what you folks think of the following:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Justin Yifu Lin insists China can grow at 7-8 per cent for another 20 years. A contrarian with a remarkable personal background, the former World Bank chief economist's views influence his country's top leaders and their sense of destiny. What he says matters. How, and how fast, China grows will be highly consequential; far more than many realise.

Let's stay well within Justin Lin's timeframe and suppose China grows at 8 per cent in real PPP GDP terms until 2030 [....] If that happens, there will be unprecedented industrial carnage.

If Justin Lin is right, China will 'rule the world' economically, if not by 2030 then certainly before mid-century. Its domestic economy will far surpass anything on the planet, its companies will tower above all, it will be the prime money-mover globally, it must lead technologically and the West's middle and working classes will be industrially and financially sidelined. If he is wrong, but China's leaders insist on his growth imperative anyway, then China will become highly indebted, parched, polluted and frustrated. That is why I am listening closely to Justin Lin.

Personally, I just love that phrase: industrial carnage. ;)
 

Lethe

Captain
Ok I found
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on Justin Yifu Lin's ideas:

First the "advantage of backwardness":

China, which started its modernisation drive in 1949, has had the potential advantage of backwardness in its pursuit of technological innovation and structural transformation (Gerschenkron, 1962). In advanced high-income countries technological innovation and industrial upgrading require costly and risky investments in R&D, because technologies and industries are located on the global frontier. Moreover, the institutional innovation required to successfully commercialise new technologies and industries often proceeds in a costly trial-and-error, path-dependent, evolutionary process (Fei and Ranis, 1997). By contrast, a latecomer country can borrow technologies, industries and institutions from advanced countries at low risk and cost, and potentially grow at an annual rate several times that of high-income countries for decades before closing the income gap with those countries.

In the post–WWII period, 13 of the world's economies achieved average annual growth rates of 7 per cent or above for 25 years or more. The Commission on Growth and Development finds that the first of five common features of these 13 economies is their ability to tap the potential of the advantage of backwardness – 'they imported what the rest of the world knew and exported what it wanted' (World Bank, 2008, p. 22).

And second, how he relates to China's prospects going forward:

No country in human history has ever grown so fast for so long as China did in the past three decades. However, looking forward, China still has the potential, based on the advantage of backwardness, to grow at around 8 per cent annually for another 20 years. This is due to two reasons.

Firstly, in 2008, China's per capita income was 21 per cent of US per capita income measured in purchasing power parity. This gap indicates that there is still a large technological gap between China and the advanced economies. China can continue to enjoy the advantage of backwardness before closing the gap.

Secondly, China's current status relative to the US is similar to Japan's in 1951, Singapore's in 1967, Korea's in 1977 and Taiwan, China's in 1975. The annual growth rate of GDP reached 9.2 per cent in Japan during 1951-71, 8.6 per cent in Singapore during 1967-87, 7.6 per cent in Korea during 1977-97, and 8.3 per cent in Taiwan during 1975-95. China's development strategy since 1979 is similar to that of Japan, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. China has the potential to achieve another 20 years of 8 per cent growth. After 20 years' dynamic growth, Japan's per capita income measured in purchasing power parity was 65.6 per cent of that of US in 1971; Singapore's was 53.9 per cent in 1987; Korea's was 50.2 per cent in 1997; and Taiwan's was 54.2 per cent in 1995. If China maintains 8 per cent growth in the coming two decades, by 2030 its per capita income may reach about 50 per cent of the US's.

Frankly I am not an Economics/Finance person so I am not in a position to assess these ideas, but I find it intriguing that someone in such a high and influential position holds them.
 

xiabonan

Junior Member
is that really possible? I mean is there a precedent for this sustained rate of high growth ?

China's transformation in the past 35 years or so is already unprecedented.

Can you find a precedent where hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty in such a short span of time? No.

Can you find a precedent when a country as large as China, or even half, or one-third the size population wise, has grown at an average rate of 10% year-on-year for three decades and counting? No.

It's never an issue if there's no precedent. If there isn't then that's great, because we will make history by creating one.
 

mr.bean

Junior Member
China's transformation in the past 35 years or so is already unprecedented.

Can you find a precedent where hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty in such a short span of time? No.

Can you find a precedent when a country as large as China, or even half, or one-third the size population wise, has grown at an average rate of 10% year-on-year for three decades and counting? No.

It's never an issue if there's no precedent. If there isn't then that's great, because we will make history by creating one.

i never studied economics so I sometimes get lost when economists go technical in their presentations. I just look at regular things I see in the street to gauge how that place is doing economically. when 2 years ago, GM sold more cars in china than in the entire United States I knew that was serious.
 
Top