Chinese Economics Thread

Zool

Junior Member
The problem that we are dealing here is one of mindset. Any suggestion or connotation that the Chinese economy is heading into some headwind is met with all kinds of pushbacks. That is what we are seeing. The % growth is simply a means to an end. The "end" in this case is anything negative about the Chinese economy is sacrosanct and must be reversed into a positive light. If no satisfaction is given, just bog the conversation down into some insensible discussions around definitions and how it is or should be measured. If not attack, the author for being bias.

In the past week or so, we have seen basically a global market meltdown and the precipitous of it as I understand it is some Chinese purchasing index which suggest some problem ahead. The market took the news and reacted or some would suggest over reacted. Time will tell the real story. That is the reality and not some abstract discussions over definition and the meaning of growth.

The Chinese economy is absolutely slowing down, never mind headwinds. It's been observed in a number of industrial sectors across the country and via raw material imports. This was publicly forecast by the government a couple of years ago now, in part due to reforms and transition to a consumer based hi-tech goods & services market, and in part due to reaching a saturation point on the number of domestic infrastructure projects available for investment.

But what prompted this: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-economics-thread.t3715/page-457#post-360476 , was the preceding posts I read on how the 7% GDP Growth Target was an essential marker (when it is an estimate that can change) and that any potential deviation implied crisis, along with terming the economy as 'Stalled'. My intention was to bring a little perspective to the conversation on what stalled actually means in an economic setting as well as the realities of the Chinese economy if it maintains a growth rate of 'only' 4% - 6% over the coming years, based on it's current size.

I don't think it's a push back or attack to want to keep perspective and use accurate terminology in a conversation, do you? I've seen you have a number of side tracked conversations about the definition and use of certain words during a debate, so I expected you of all people would appreciate the effort, lol.

Anyway, Cheers.
 

Brumby

Major
I don't think it's a push back or attack to want to keep perspective and use accurate terminology in a conversation, do you? I've seen you have a number of side tracked conversations about the definition and use of certain words during a debate, so I expected you of all people would appreciate the effort, lol.

The side tracked conversation about definition came about in my view because the conversation was heading on a different track from my original comment. I had been consistent in my statements and in my explanations in that the economic performance against plan is possibly stalled. What was happening was an interpretation that my statement presented a view that the economy has stalled. That is a very different conversation which I absolutely refuse to be dragged into because it doesn't represent what I said. Posters were attempting to pin me onto a position that I did not take and hence the rather unproductive exchanges that followed. Usage of key words have to be interpreted to the context of the statement. That is basic comprehension but a point that seems to be conveniently ignored.

What is unfortunate in this is the whole conversation turned into a debacle over definitions. The main story in my view is that the market reads into the 7 % growth rate as an important marker in the Chinese economy. The prospect that this may not come in (at best) or that the growth may be much lower (at worst) prompted a major global market selloff. The market is sending an important signal on its collective view of future economic prospects and represent the combined wisdom of all market participants.You may think the market participants are silly people and you are right about the Chinese economy and that is clearly your prerogative. You may take the contrary view that this is just an over reaction but what I do know is that the stock market always lead the economic cycle. Not always, but at every significant turning point. There is proven empirical evidence if you place economic growth rates against market indices. The other thing to note is, economists generally are always wrong when it comes to turning points. Just match what economist were saying in 2009 before the market turned and the subsequent economic decline.
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
An illuminating article for me. I haven't kept up with recent events that much, so it's quite informative.

Financial markets
The Great Fall of China

Fear about China’s economy can be overdone. But investors are right to be nervous
Aug 29th 2015 | From the print edition

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


ONCE the soundtrack to a financial meltdown was the yelling of traders on the floor of a financial exchange. Now it is more likely to be the wordless hum of servers in data centres, as algorithms try to match buyers with sellers. But every big sell-off is gripped by the same rampant, visceral fear. The urge to sell overwhelms the advice to stand firm.

Stomachs are churning again after China’s stockmarket endured its biggest one-day fall since 2007; even Chinese state media called August 24th “Black Monday”. From the rand to the ringgit, emerging-market currencies slumped. Commodity prices fell into territory not seen since 1999. The contagion infected Western markets, too. Germany’s DAX index fell to more than 20% below its peak. American stocks whipsawed: General Electric was at one point down by more than 20%.

Rich-world markets have regained some of their poise. But three fears remain: that China’s economy is in deep trouble; that emerging markets are vulnerable to a full-blown crisis; and that the long rally in rich-world markets is over. Some aspects of these worries are overplayed and others are misplaced. Even so, this week’s panic contains the unnerving message that the malaise in the world economy is real.

Scoot first, ask questions later
China, where share prices continued to plunge, is the source of the contagion (see article). Around $5 trillion has been wiped off global equity markets since the yuan devalued earlier this month. That shift, allied to a string of bad economic numbers and a botched official attempt to halt the slide in Chinese bourses, has fuelled fears that the world’s second-largest economy is heading for a hard landing. Exports have been falling. The stockmarket has lost more than 40% since peaking in June, a bigger drop than the dotcom bust.

Yet the doomsters go too far. The property market is far more important to China’s economy than the equity market is. Property fuels up to a quarter of GDP and its value underpins the banking system; in the past few months prices and transactions have both been healthier. China’s future lies with its shoppers, not its exporters, and services, incomes and consumption are resilient. If the worst happens, the central bank has plenty of room to loosen policy. After a cut in interest rates this week, the one-year rate still stands at 4.6%. The economy is slowing, but even 5% growth this year, the low end of reasonable estimates, would add more to world output than the 14% expansion China posted in 2007.

China's market crash may not spell doom, but it does raise questions about the economy's economic health
China is not in crisis. However, its ability to evolve smoothly from a command to a market economy is in question as never before. China’s policymakers used to bask in a reputation for competence that put clay-footed Western bureaucrats to shame. This has suffered in the wake of their botched—and sporadic—efforts to stop shares from sagging. Worse, plans for reform may fall victim to the government’s fear of giving markets free rein. The party wants to make state-owned firms more efficient, but not to expose them to the full blast of competition. It would like to give the yuan more freedom, but frets that a weakening currency will spur capital flight. It thinks local governments should be more disciplined but, motivated by the need for growth, funnels credit their way.

Fears over China are feeding the second worry—that emerging markets could be about to suffer a rerun of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. Similarities exist: notably an exodus of capital out of emerging markets because of the prospect of tighter monetary policy in America. But the lessons of the Asian crisis were well learned. Many currencies are no longer tethered but float freely. Most countries in Asia sit on large foreign-exchange reserves and current-account surpluses. Their banking systems rely less on foreign creditors than they did.

If that concern is exaggerated, others are not. A slowing China has dragged down emerging markets, like Brazil, Indonesia and Zambia, that came to depend on shovelling iron ore, coal and copper its way (agricultural exporters are in better shape). From now on, more of the demand that China creates will come from services—and be satisfied at home. The supply glut will weigh on commodity prices for other reasons, too. Oil’s descent, for instance, also reflects the extra output of Saudi Arabia and the resilience of American shale producers. Sliding currencies are adding to the burden on emerging-market firms with local-currency revenues and dollar-denominated debt. More fundamentally, emerging-market growth has been slowing since 2010. Countries from Brazil and Russia have squandered the chance to enact productivity-enhancing reforms and are suffering. So has India, which could yet pay a high price.

The rich world has the least to fear from a Chinese slowdown. American exports to China accounted for less than 1% of GDP last year. But it is hardly immune. Germany, the European Union’s economic engine, exports more to China than any other member state does. Share prices are vulnerable because the biggest firms are global: of the S&P 500’s sales in 2014, 48% were abroad, and the dollar is rising against trading-partner currencies. In addition, the bull market has lasted since 2009 and price-earnings ratios exceed long-run averages. A savage fall in shares would spill into the real economy.

Ageing bull
Were that to happen, this week has underlined how little room Western policymakers have to stimulate their economies. The Federal Reserve would be wrong to raise rates in September, as it has unwisely led markets to expect. Other central banks have responsibilities, too. Money sloshing out of emerging markets may try to find its way to American consumers, leading to rising household borrowing and dangerous—and familiar—distortions in the economy. So Europe and Japan should loosen further to stimulate demand.

Monetary policy is just the start. The harder task, in the West and beyond, is to raise productivity. Plentiful credit and relentless Chinese expansion kept the world ticking over for years. Now growth depends on governments taking hard decisions on everything from financial reforms to infrastructure spending. That is the harsh lesson from China’s panic.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
From what I understand, a big cause of the so-called black monday was because chinese stock market volatility caused fears in those of other countries and thus the sell off.
In other words, I think there was a perception in those other markets that the chinese stock market's performance is very predictive or highly tied to actual chinese economic performance. Combined with various other factors such as actual reducing chinese exports and reduced hunger for raw materials, helps create a sense of general unease.

I think the effect of the chinese stock market on its economic performance is far less related than it is for say the US for a variety of reasons that others have mentioned over the last few months which I won't repeat, but I think this interpretation (or possibly mis-interpretation) of the stock market-economy tie was the trigger for all the other more reasonable fears to slot into place in markets around the globe.
 

Brumby

Major
Those who aspire to do better must actually do better or that aspiration means nothing. Aspiration without realization is empty talk. My statement that a B student is a B student regardless of his goals were coming into the year, stands;

Sorry that is not what you said earlier. Your revised statement is about a snap shot in time i.e. a static state.

Your prior statement is about a potential future state because aiming for something is connected to a future state or event.
Basically, a B student is still a B student no matter whether he aimed for straight A's or just wanted to pass.

There is meaning to sentence construction and not whatever way you want it to mean. If you wish to revise your position then there is a disconnect to our discussions as targets or goals are connected to a future state.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I wrote, "Basically, a B student is still a B student no matter whether he aimed for straight A's or just wanted to pass."

You read it as, "Basically, a B student is still a B student no matter whether he aims in the future for straight A's or just wants to pass."

Most people understand it as, "Basically, a B student is still a B student no matter whether he aimed this year for straight A's or just wanted to pass."

The key is that I said, "aimed" not "aims." That implies that those targets are done; next year, what he aims for is a different story. But in either case, a B student wouldn't be considered failing just because he aimed for A's, as you implied by your earlier definition of stalling.

This is literally the smallest thing ever. Stop trying to salvage being wrong.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think manqiangxue's closing sentence of that previous post is very wise:

So I say it is more reasonable to take stalling to mean failure to make comparable progress as assessed against generally accepted guidelines or the performance of peers.
 

Brumby

Major
You said that (your version of) stalling means to stall against one's own targets.
Agree

Then obviously, if that target was lowered, you would no longer be stalling. And if the target was increased enough, then even an amazingly high growth rate could be considered stalling.
That is your version of goal setting - not mine which I term as a farce. The discussions in context is about an economic goal set by the Chinese government. Are you suggesting that the Chinese government is putting on a farce?

Therefore, to prevent stalling, by your definition, you would simply lower the target to well below actual expected performance. That logic is obvious. So I say it is more reasonable to take stalling to mean failure to make comparable progress as assessed against generally accepted guidelines or the performance of peers.

Sorry that is your concorted deduction to present a view that suits your narrative. Stating that the logic is obvious doesn't make it so. Your reasoning contravenes basic principles of goal or performance management. Yours broadly is manipulation of performance measure. I suggest that when you are in a hole to stop digging
.
 

Brumby

Major
The key is that I said, "aimed" not "aims." That implies that those targets are done; next year, what he aims for is a different story. But in either case, a B student wouldn't be considered failing just because he aimed for A's, as you implied by your earlier definition of stalling.
So ........ is next year not a future state regardless when the goal was set and not meeting a goal is not a failure?
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Agree


That is your version of goal setting - not mine which I term as a farce. The discussions in context is about an economic goal set by the Chinese government. Are you suggesting that the Chinese government is putting on a farce?



Sorry that is your concorted deduction to present a view that suits your narrative. Stating that the logic is obvious doesn't make it so. Your reasoning contravenes basic principles of goal or performance management which broadly is manipulation of performance measure. I suggest that when you are in a hole to stop digging
.
Stop digging is what everyone else is saying to you. You don't think my logic is obvious? Then tell me why, according your definition of stalling as failing to achieve your own goals, you couldn't avoid stalling by setting lower goals? Why is this logic perfectly reasonable to everyone except you? Explain why you think it doesn't work.
 
Top