Chinese Economics Thread

Victor1985

New Member
Registered Member
Victor, this is something that with a little research you can discover yourself.

China has a very large population. There are still a lot of people who live in poverty conditions compared to western standards.

At the same time, because of the huge technological and economic boom, China is moving a lot of people out of poverty. Like hundreds of millions. Probably the largest and fastest improvements to the most people in history.

There are still a lot of people to address...but China is working at it steadily.

So...yes, there are poor people in China, and in numbers, quite a lot of them.

At the same time...no, China is not a "poor" country. They are making great strides in improving their society and modernizing it.

Generally...on SD, we do not discuss these things in detail. This is a military forum, not a cultural or sociological forum. Our experience has been that such discussions lead to arguments, misunderstanding and high emotion. I recommend you steer away from such discussions.

Come here to discuss military issues and its technical and technological details.
Ok ill try. Anyway your post is exacly like i finded from some sources on www. Thank you and i will try to stay away from politics.
 
Oops, I should have posted this here rather than in the Silk Road thread.

Looking at the list of founding members and those who have applied to be a part of the AIIB I see some non-participants notable because one would think they would want to participate due to their geographic location:
- Turkmenistan
- Afghanistan
- Iran
- Also not a single African country signed up if we consider Egypt being really a part of the Middle East.
Perhaps the US position was heeded by more than just Japan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Lethe

Captain
More likely the governments of these nations just aren't organised enough to get their act together in time, and their economies and/or broader geopolitical significance marginal enough that China didn't bother to chase them.

If you look at the 20 largest economies by GDP, the only ones missing from the AIIB list are United States, Japan, Canada, Mexico.
 

getready

Senior Member
there are certain financial and proper governmental rules that countries need to pass before getting to the AIIB. Most African countries probably are not eligible. North Korea was rejected because it could not pass those requirements.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
there are certain financial and proper governmental rules that countries need to pass before getting to the AIIB. Most African countries probably are not eligible. North Korea was rejected because it could not pass those requirements.

North Korea is in economic sanctions of all kind to be able to meet the standards anyway.
 

getready

Senior Member
The U.S.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of Britain earlier this month for its participation in the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has put the spotlight on a set of questions that have dogged policymakers and economists for years: Who is in charge of global economic governance? Who sets and manages the rules? And should they be set multilaterally?

Given China’s controversial lending to countries with murky track records — not only in terms of good governance and political stability, but also credit ratings — the concerns about the direction of the new bank and the role that all shareholders will be playing are spot on. But the U.S. stance vis-à-vis the new institution and the role that China might play in it is also highly hypocritical. With Congress’s approval of International Monetary Fund (IMF) reform
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, is the United States in the best position to preach to others on the risk of using China’s mold for shaping the new bank?

As big developing countries, in particular China, have transformed in the last two decades, so has global economic governance along with it. But governance seems to evolve at a much slower pace than the world economy. The so-called Bretton Woods institutions — the IMF, the World Bank and, to some extent, the World Trade Organization (and its previous incarnation, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) — that have been in place since the end of World War II, reflect a world economic order dominated by the United States. Despite their 188 states-strong membership, both the IMF and the World Bank continued to be managed by the United States and western European countries — Britain, Germany, and France. The United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF, contributing approximately $65 billion, which gives Washington veto power on other countries’ deliberations thanks to the Fund’s weighted voting system.

For years, many around the world have called for reforms to the IMF’s governance to give other countries a greater voice in decision-making. To date, those efforts have been largely stymied. As a consequence, both the IMF and the World Bank continue to be seen as an extension of U.S. economic and geopolitical influence. This is despite the softening of the so-called Washington Consensus — policy measures that have been part of the IMF’s conditional lending — since the excesses of the 1980s and 1990s. And the fact that both the IMF and the World Bank are now much more diverse than they used to be — for instance,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are from developing countries now — also has done little to change the perception that both organizations answer to Washington.

The AIIB’s creation is a response to Asia’s large infrastructure financing gap, which has been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to be about $8 trillion between 2010 and 2020. However, besides this purely economic argument it would be difficult not to detect, behind the establishment of the new bank, China’s urge to advance its influence in the region. Under the current arrangement, the Asian Development Bank (ABD), which is a part of the World Bank, is primarily responsible for Asian infrastructure financing and other development projects. But China has limited impact on the Asian Development Bank, which is in the grip of Asia’s established powers, the United States and Japan.

But even if the AIIB’s creation is in China’s interest as the new regional power, the move does little to respond to the need to improve multilateralism and to strengthen global economic governance. In fact, it may do the opposite. The risk now is the creation of two blocs of economic influence in Asia: one led by China and the other by the United States and Japan. Demand for infrastructure investment is large enough to accommodate both — even a third development bank could probably find demand — but this is not the point. At stake is good governance and multilateralism — for instance, in a world of fragmented governance what would be the incentive for Congress to finally approve the IMF reform?

In addition to fragmented institutions and governance, the AIIB could present a risk of establishing divergent investment standards — a risk already significant in trade as China has reacted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, of which it is not part, by accelerating its own trade arrangements in the region. Can the rest of the world — not only the United States — afford to leave China to set up its own standards on both trade and investment? The concern here is not on the quality of these standards — and the assumption is not that Chinese-set standards are by definition inadequate. It is on maintaining a harmonized, consistent, and multilateral framework of rules and standards that help integrate, rather than fragment, the world economy.

Rather than venting their frustration on Britain, the United States would benefit most from leading by example and embracing a two-fold strategy. First, Congress could press ahead and approve the IMF reform with no further delay. Second, the administration could engage with China on the issue of the new regional banks — the New Development Bank, better known as the BRICS bank, is the next down the line — within the setup provided by the G20.

Since the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the G20 have been the leading forum for global economic and financial affairs, having taken over from the G8 after November 2008. Even if the G20 remains an informal forum without a secretariat, it has better adapted to the changing dynamics of the world economy than the IMF and the World Bank. In particular, the G20 have been better than the existing institutions at bringing in and engaging with emerging economies – all major emerging markets economies are members of the G20.

The outbreak of the global financial crisis was a catalyst, and a turning point, for global economic governance. The G20 have become critical for managing the world economy and, especially, for dealing with economic disruption and financial instability. This is why this forum should provide the context to discuss the setup of new multilateral institutions, such as the AIIB and other regional organizations, and to set the tone, and the rules, of the new global governance.
 
Top