Chinese Economics Thread

Franklin

Captain
Surprisingly according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) China's massive nearly 700 billion dollars a year infrastructure spending still falls short of its needs. Asia as a whole has a shortfall of 26 trillion dollars worth of infrastructure investments.

Asia’s $26tn infrastructure gap threatens growth, ADB warns

Asia needs to invest $26tn by 2030 to resolve a serious infrastructure shortage that threatens to hold back some of the world's fastest-growing economies, the Asian Development Bank has warned.

This requires countries across the region to double total annual spending to about $1.7tn in areas ranging from transport to basic sanitation, the ADB says in a report.

The warning signals that even a big improvement in infrastructure in the past two decades has failed to keep pace with the rapid growth of economies, population and urbanisation. The shortfall is most acute outside China, which is already spending at more than 90 per cent of the levels it is projected to need.

"The demand for infrastructure across Asia and the Pacific far outstrips current supply," Takehiko Nakao, president of the Manila-based ADB, said. "There is a huge gap still to provide power and roads and railways. All these things are missing."

The 45 countries surveyed in the report, which covers 2016-2030, are forecast to need investment of $26tn over 15 years to maintain growth, cut poverty and deal with climate change.

The region is estimated to spend about $881bn a year at present. This means a gap between actual and required spending of about 2.4 per cent of forecast gross domestic product in 2016-20.

More than half the estimated spending should go to transport and a third to power, the report says, pointing in particular to a lack of ports, railways and highways to link countries to regional and global markets. Another $800bn is needed for projects to help the 1.5bn people who have no access to basic sanitation and the 300m without safe drinking water.

Critics say some ambitious regional infrastructure projects — such as the East-West Economic Corridor spanning the Mekong subregion between the coasts of Myanmar and Vietnam — have been slow to materialise or failed to yield benefits. Other ventures — such as a proposed high-speed rail line linking the southern Chinese city of Kunming, the Lao capital of Vientiane, Bangkok and the Thai coast — have been hampered by political tensions or wrangles over financial terms.

Difficulties had been met in developing infrastructure, particularly cross-border projects, Mr Nakao told the FT, but he also cited successes from road-building in Pakistan to natural gas supply for Bangladesh. The private sector would need to play a big role in filling the financing gap, as in existing projects to harness geothermal power in Indonesia and to expand Mactan Cebu airport in the southern Philippines, he said.

The size of the infrastructure gap varies greatly, the report says. The Pacific and south Asian subregions are projected to need annual financing equal to about 9 per cent of total 2016-30 GDP, falling to less than 6 per cent in southeast Asia and east Asia.

China accounts for nearly half of the $1.7tn total annual requirement but its infrastructure gap is much smaller than the Asian average after a quarter century of unprecedented investment.

The world's second-largest economy is estimated to need $754bn in annual investment in the five years through 2020 — not far shy of its estimated 2015 investment of $686bn.

Between 2000 and 2012 the annual average increase in China's electricity generation capacity was 10.7 per cent, creating one of the region's most reliable networks in terms of limiting outages and transmission losses.

Similarly aggressive investment in mobile telecommunications infrastructure provided the basis for average annual subscriber growth of 19.2 per cent between 2000 and 2015.

But Chinese infrastructure investment has been mostly debt-funded, fuelling concerns about rising levels of corporate indebtedness. Growing numbers of countries around the world are being attracted to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which was created last year with 57 founding shareholders.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

vesicles

Colonel
Surprisingly according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) China's massive nearly 700 billion dollars a year infrastructure spending still falls short of its needs. Asia as a whole has a shortfall of 26 trillion dollars worth of infrastructure investments.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Actually, according to the article, China nearly meets its targeted spending on infrastructure. Most of the improvement needs to come from outside of China.

India was never mentioned in the article. I would imagine India should be among those who need to dramatically improve its infrastructure.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Not sure if this article suggests some law was broken. So what if a government helps a company develop technology. Sounds like a violation of sovereignty to suggest they can't do that. The US has a history of helping out US corporations to this very day no matter how they spin it. They say most technological advances in the US have roots in US military research and development. Isn't that what this article seems to have a problem with when China does it?

Just because the US wants to privatize everything, it doesn't mean the world has to follow. That seems to be the problem the US has in general with China and "communism." That's why Google thought it had the right to rule China. If Google were allowed to freely operate in China like they demanded, they would've snuff-out domestic Chinese start-ups. There would be no Alibaba or Baidu. There would be no Xioami or Huawei if US telecom corporations had free reign in China. They want to say that's following capitalist principles. No its establishing their domination over China which has always been their ultimate goal. They don't want to have to cater to Chinese consumers. How dare that Hollywood has put Chinese elements into their movies just to get Chinese consumers to want to watch them! They want to dictate what Chinese consumers want. Chinese only exist to make them rich and serve their interests. Anything else is considered a threat to their interests as this article suggests. They can threaten your interests but you're not allowed to do it to them all the way down to assisting a company into competing against theirs. Yeah, Xiaomi has to develop technology on its own without any outside assistance because that's what's fair.

Most people who say they believe in this or that like in rights are actually only talking about it for themselves. It's not as heroic where they think they should be rewarded or something like they want to make it out to be. Not hard to stand up for in believing in things for yourself only. Yeah they believe in capitalism... when they're the ones that benefit most by it. All their rules for everyone else are more communist. Very confusing if you believe in what they say they believe in. Not confusing and you can see everything fall into place if this is pure self interest at work and not any morals and principles involved. You can do anything you want within living in cage and they'll call that freedom.
 

KIENCHIN

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Not sure if this article suggests some law was broken. So what if a government helps a company develop technology. Sounds like a violation of sovereignty to suggest they can't do that. The US has a history of helping out US corporations to this very day no matter how they spin it. They say most technological advances in the US have roots in US military research and development. Isn't that what this article seems to have a problem with when China does it?

Just because the US wants to privatize everything, it doesn't mean the world has to follow. That seems to be the problem the US has in general with China and "communism." That's why Google thought it had the right to rule China. If Google were allowed to freely operate in China like they demanded, they would've snuff-out domestic Chinese start-ups. There would be no Alibaba or Baidu. There would be no Xioami or Huawei if US telecom corporations had free reign in China. They want to say that's following capitalist principles. No its establishing their domination over China which has always been their ultimate goal. They don't want to have to cater to Chinese consumers. How dare that Hollywood has put Chinese elements into their movies just to get Chinese consumers to want to watch them! They want to dictate what Chinese consumers want. Chinese only exist to make them rich and serve their interests. Anything else is considered a threat to their interests as this article suggests. They can threaten your interests but you're not allowed to do it to them all the way down to assisting a company into competing against theirs. Yeah, Xiaomi has to develop technology on its own without any outside assistance because that's what's fair.

Most people who say they believe in this or that like in rights are actually only talking about it for themselves. It's not as heroic where they think they should be rewarded or something like they want to make it out to be. Not hard to stand up for in believing in things for yourself only. Yeah they believe in capitalism... when they're the ones that benefit most by it. All their rules for everyone else are more communist. Very confusing if you believe in what they say they believe in. Not confusing and you can see everything fall into place if this is pure self interest at work and not any morals and principles involved. You can do anything you want within living in cage and they'll call that freedom.
That has always been how the West not just the Americans have always look at China, since the Portuguese first set foot. It is the lure of it's massive population. Even so now with a rising middle income population.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
The structure of Chinese economy is changing no more flip flop,trinket or T shirt instead solar panel, cell phone, train, steel etc

China's New economy is about 30% of the overall economy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Whether the country can enjoy sustainable growth critically depends on the growth of the new economy sector. However, there is little information about the structure and growth trend of this sector. This article constructs for the first time the New Economy Index to provide a framework for measuring the new economy sector in China. The article defines the scope of the sector and uses a big data approach to identify the new economy sector and enterprises belonging to it. The New Economy Index is used to describe the growth pattern of the new economy sector. The findings show that the sector accounts for about 30 percent of the whole economy, and the New Economy Index is negatively correlated to several traditional economic indices, such as the Purchasing Manager Index of the manufacturing industry.

An industry as belonging to the new economy sector if it satisfies the following standards.

1. an industry is considered to be in the new economy sector if it is human capital intensive, technology intensive, and has a ratio of fixed capital that is relatively low. We use the Industry Input-Output Table for 2010 and the Sixth Economics Census data to identify industries satisfying these standards. We consider an industry to be human capital intensive if the sum of labor income and operating surplus is more than 70 percent of value added, the average level of education is more than 12 years, and the share of research and development (R&D) is among the top 10 percent in the industry.

2. new economy industries are those that are in accordance with the country’s industrial policies. In recent years, China has issued a series of documents to provide guidance for industrial development, including Guidance for Accelerating the Development of High-Tech Service Industries, issued by the State Council in 2011; Decision to Accelerate the Cultivation and Development of Strategic Emerging Industries, released in 2012; and Made in China 2025, released in 2015.

Based on these standards, researchers identified nine industries with 111 sub-industries in the scope of the new economy. These are
energy conservation and environmental protection,
new energy,
new energy vehicles,
new materials,
new information technology and information services,
high-tech services and R and D, biological medicine,
financial and legal services, and
high-tech equipment manufacturing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The labor sub-index shows that new economy industries recruit labor with higher education, and the sector’s demand for high-quality labor is probably increasing.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!






SOURCES - China Economic Journal - Measurement of the new economy in China: big data approach
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Not sure if this article suggests some law was broken. So what if a government helps a company develop technology. Sounds like a violation of sovereignty to suggest they can't do that. The US has a history of helping out US corporations to this very day no matter how they spin it. They say most technological advances in the US have roots in US military research and development. Isn't that what this article seems to have a problem with when China does it?

Just because the US wants to privatize everything, it doesn't mean the world has to follow. That seems to be the problem the US has in general with China and "communism." That's why Google thought it had the right to rule China. If Google were allowed to freely operate in China like they demanded, they would've snuff-out domestic Chinese start-ups. There would be no Alibaba or Baidu. There would be no Xioami or Huawei if US telecom corporations had free reign in China. They want to say that's following capitalist principles. No its establishing their domination over China which has always been their ultimate goal. They don't want to have to cater to Chinese consumers. How dare that Hollywood has put Chinese elements into their movies just to get Chinese consumers to want to watch them! They want to dictate what Chinese consumers want. Chinese only exist to make them rich and serve their interests. Anything else is considered a threat to their interests as this article suggests. They can threaten your interests but you're not allowed to do it to them all the way down to assisting a company into competing against theirs. Yeah, Xiaomi has to develop technology on its own without any outside assistance because that's what's fair.

Most people who say they believe in this or that like in rights are actually only talking about it for themselves. It's not as heroic where they think they should be rewarded or something like they want to make it out to be. Not hard to stand up for in believing in things for yourself only. Yeah they believe in capitalism... when they're the ones that benefit most by it. All their rules for everyone else are more communist. Very confusing if you believe in what they say they believe in. Not confusing and you can see everything fall into place if this is pure self interest at work and not any morals and principles involved. You can do anything you want within living in cage and they'll call that freedom.

Basically it's a WTO violation.
A nation can have only limited participation in development of items that is going into the market since the private entities that pioneered the item on their own risk.
Nations can provide loans and or tax breaks but funding money without liability to the private entity is seen as unfair trade and will be banned from entering the international market.

You can argue all you want but you would probably make the same defense if you were in the private entity's shoes facing a similar situation.

By the way a US NPO Intellectual Property Owner Association recently announce that the US lost in sum of 600 billion US dollar last year alone through piracy,corporate espionage and illegal usage of intellectual property pointing the blame mostly to the Chinese stating that the PRC government is advocating infringement.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Basically it's a WTO violation.
A nation can have only limited participation in development of items that is going into the market since the private entities that pioneered the item on their own risk.
Nations can provide loans and or tax breaks but funding money without liability to the private entity is seen as unfair trade and will be banned from entering the international market.

You can argue all you want but you would probably make the same defense if you were in the private entity's shoes facing a similar situation.

By the way a US NPO Intellectual Property Owner Association recently announce that the US lost in sum of 600 billion US dollar last year alone through piracy,corporate espionage and illegal usage of intellectual property pointing the blame mostly to the Chinese stating that the PRC government is advocating infringement.
Actually, I wouldn't make that argument at all. Not everything is about being fair towards me. The target should be to get the best product possible to the people for the lowest price. If a foreign government wants to spend its money subsidizing its businesses that develop that field, then good! I get to buy their superior products at a subsidized price; works for me! If my government won't do the same for me and I don't have the resources to compete, then it seems that that industry is too big and challenging for a small guy like me and it's time to move out. I wouldn't play the sore loser card yelling how unfair it is that other companies were able to provide a better product than me for blah blah blah reason because I know that all life is unfair. You just do it or you can't. No excuses.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Basically it's a WTO violation.
A nation can have only limited participation in development of items that is going into the market since the private entities that pioneered the item on their own risk.
Nations can provide loans and or tax breaks but funding money without liability to the private entity is seen as unfair trade and will be banned from entering the international market.

You can argue all you want but you would probably make the same defense if you were in the private entity's shoes facing a similar situation.

By the way a US NPO Intellectual Property Owner Association recently announce that the US lost in sum of 600 billion US dollar last year alone through piracy,corporate espionage and illegal usage of intellectual property pointing the blame mostly to the Chinese stating that the PRC government is advocating infringement.

It ironic you said that the US government has been subsidizing Boeing in the form of grant for their military program that is applicable to the civilian sector of Boeing aerospace. And generous tax incentive
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Major win for the EU in the WTO dispute on Boeing
The United States’ massive support for production of the Boeing 777X is in breach of international trade rules, according to today’s WTO panel report.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The WTO confirmed that the US 2013 decision to extend tax breaks for Boeing until the year 2040 goes against previous WTO rulings. By making these tax breaks depend on the use of domestically produced wings, the US also discriminated against foreign suppliers.


EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said: "Today's WTO ruling is an important victory for the EU and its aircraft industry. The panel has found that the additional massive subsidies of USD 5.7 billion provided by Washington State to Boeing are strictly illegal. We expect the US to respect the rules, uphold fair competition, and withdraw these subsidies without any delay".


This is the second ruling concerning the US subsidies to Boeing. The American measures considered under this case alone amount to USD 5.7 billion, and have now been recognised by the WTO panel as subsidies that are illegal.


This is the first time in the history of Airbus/Boeing litigation that a WTO panel finds that one of the disputing parties has granted such outright prohibited subsidies that discriminate against foreign producers.

In the spring of 2017, the WTO is expected to issue a report on another long-standing case, which will confirm the extent of the US WTO-incompatible subsidies to Boeing.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
Let me focus on the important portion:

The WTO confirmed that the US 2013 decision to extend tax breaks for Boeing until the year 2040 goes against previous WTO rulings. By making these tax breaks depend on the use of domestically produced wings, the US also discriminated against foreign suppliers.

But, heck, China also break the rules. Many nations break anyway, until someone complains.
 
Top