Chinese Economics Thread

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Here is the proof once for all that Chinese people live did improve over years as wages keep growing and inflation is low From Henri K blog. As I have been saying all along compare to other country
DUDlMDzVAAAEAvv.jpg

The important thing for China to do (and Xi is indeed focusing on) is to raise the bottom 50% so that the middle class can grow. Social stratification is the leading cause for instability in developing countries.
 
now I read
Service sector underpins China's growth in 2018: economists
Xinhua| 2018-01-21 19:55:44
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's service sector, especially internet-based businesses, will continue to outperform other sectors in 2018, supporting China's growth, according to analysts.

Tang Jianwei, an analyst with the Bank of Communications, predicted that the growth pace of the service sector will exceed the industrial sector, with the digital economy thriving.

"China's supply-side structural reform will lead to upgrades within industries, bringing improvement in efficiency and quality of companies," Tang said.

The latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics showed that China's service sector expanded 8 percent year on year in 2017, outperforming the overall economy, which grew at 6.9 percent.

A closer look at the data shows that the contribution from traditional services sectors such as real estate, retail and wholesale, finance and catering all declined or remained flat last year, according to Nomura, a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ese securities company.

The upside was mainly driven by information technology and transportation services, which is a sign of strong performance in the internet-led new economy, it said.

"We believe internet businesses are likely to continue to perform, as China is rebalancing towards the so-called new economy," Nomura noted.

Following the release of better-than-expected
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
data Thursday, Nomura has raised its 2018 GDP growth forecast for China by 0.1 percentage point to 6.5 percent.
 

Mcsweeney

Junior Member
Why? Because inner Mongolia being barren wasteland isn't good for anything, is it? So it needs to be developed, then it can become another metropolis with high GDP. I don't often have to explain simple things like this to people. Reread the portion of my comment that you CUT OFF because more answers to your "why?" are already there.

Chinese SOEs use loans and take up money. So what? They work on gargantuan tasks that need investment to achieve. When you make J-20, Y-20, Type 055, Taihulight, Quantum technology, you think that comes cheap? You think some Joe with a little shop trying to earn profit for his family is gonna make those for the country? We've told you this before: not everything is about profit. This is national capability and it costs money. When everything you do is about efficiency and profit, you are a slave to money. When you know when to earn money and when to spend the money for your benefit, you become money's master. You are clearly stuck in a slave mentality thinking that whatever doesn't bring in immediate profits (road-building, SOEs taking on massive projects) is a mistake. The chains and shackles that you wear are for you to keep, they do not fit the Chinese.

You summed up my feelings so perfectly. It reminds me of all those news articles mocking China's high speed rail lines after they were built because the trains weren't full and they weren't profitable. I guess allowing people to travel across the country conveniently and in several hours less time than before to conduct business or visit family just means absolutely nothing to these people. All that matters is that you make money off ticket sales. What's next, are they going to criticize China for shutting down coal plants and building solar panels because you get more energy for your buck by mining and burning coal?
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Firstly, I and many here are not trying to convince you that "US to get rid of her trade feficit". Not at all. What ever U.S. does with it is her own business, for her own good or bad. What we are arguing with you is that we don't believe that other countries like China will have to live on it for ever, nor benifit from it for ever.
The trade deficit is one way used by the US to bind and use other countries to be part her empire and to represents her interest.
This trade deficit actually is not the interest of the working class of US ( 99% of the population) but the thin psychopatic political elite of US like to use it as a weapon to get that it wants : power .
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
You summed up my feelings so perfectly. It reminds me of all those news articles mocking China's high speed rail lines after they were built because the trains weren't full and they weren't profitable. I guess allowing people to travel across the country conveniently and in several hours less time than before to conduct business or visit family just means absolutely nothing to these people. All that matters is that you make money off ticket sales. What's next, are they going to criticize China for shutting down coal plants and building solar panels because you get more energy for your buck by mining and burning coal?

The money representing time required to make the given proect.

If you spent 1 hours of worker's time to decrease the traveler time by half hour then you wasted the resources.

Simply, isn't it?

This is the same with the automatisation.
If you buy a robot that represents 10000 hours of work investment, to save 5000 hours of work then you wasted money.

You can invest into projects with negative return, but in that case on a contry level that you experience is a decreasing consumption, because instead of diapers, food, clothes, cars and houses you make high speed trains that is not used by anyone (or by not enought people to make it profitable).
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
The money representing time required to make the given proect.

If you spent 1 hours of worker's time to decrease the traveler time by half hour then you wasted the resources.

Simply, isn't it?

This is the same with the automatisation.
If you buy a robot that represents 10000 hours of work investment, to save 5000 hours of work then you wasted money.

You can invest into projects with negative return, but in that case on a contry level that you experience is a decreasing consumption, because instead of diapers, food, clothes, cars and houses you make high speed trains that is not used by anyone (or by not enought people to make it profitable).
@Mcsweeney, heads up, whenever this guy says, "simple, isn't it?" You're about to hear some really funny stupid shit. It's his version of "Hold my beer and watch this!"

Anyway, Ansthnsvg no. If I spent 1 hour of worker time to decrease traveler time by half an hour, I would happily do it. Because the worker investment to build a road is a one time cost while the decreased travel time is a continuous advantage that builds over the years. Also, you're not going to be using more workers on a project than all the people who benefit from the decreased travel time. In other words, 100 workers spent 1 hour each (100 hours) to create a road that saves 1,000,000 travelers half an hour each person (500,000 hours), then compound that by the number of times that commuters use that road over the years.

Simple, right? LOL I love it when you say that. It's like a heads-up for other people to come watch you face-plant.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Intresting part of the story is the diferences between the capitalist way of thinking and other ways.

Best example is the movable type.

In China they made movable types by several hystorians before of Gutenberg.

But now they say that Gutenberg created the book pritning business ,and that was the requirement to create the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, that lead to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and so on.


Anyway, if anyone read the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on the wiki, then I would like to higlight this part:
Gutenberg's workshop was set up at Hof Humbrecht, a property belonging to a distant relative. It is not clear when Gutenberg conceived the Bible project, but for this he borrowed another 800 guilders from Fust, and work commenced in 1452. At the same time, the press was also printing other, more lucrative texts (possibly Latin grammars). There is also some speculation that there may have been two presses, one for the pedestrian texts, and one for the Bible. One of the profit-making enterprises of the new press was the printing of thousands of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the church, documented from 1454 to 1455.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



In 1455 Gutenberg completed his 42-line Bible, known as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. About 180 copies were printed, most on paper and some on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.


Court case

Some time in 1456, there was a dispute between Gutenberg and Fust, and Fust demanded his money back, accusing Gutenberg of misusing the funds. Meanwhile the expenses of the Bible project had proliferated, and Gutenberg's debt now exceeded 20,000 guilders. Fust sued at the archbishop's court. A November 1455 legal document records that there was a partnership for a "project of the books," the funds for which Gutenberg had used for other purposes, according to Fust. The court decided in favor of Fust, giving him control over the Bible printing workshop and half of all printed Bibles.

Can you see?
NOT the technology is the interesting, but the bankruptcy, private contract enforcement, jural and law support of the businesses/ legal and private persons.
NOT Gutenberg was the person that made this technology succesfull, but the creditors who used it up to make money .

So all of the technology, machine design and so on absorbed by the Chinese companies doesn't matter too much ,because it is the result of the underlying sytem, not the important part of it.#


I have to mention that when Gutenberg invented the printing press Europe was a very backward country place compared to China, but in a few hundred years Europe become a monster - not because of the invetion of the gun, but because the invention of the system that can product profitable companies/legal entities that can create things like a gun.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
The money representing time required to make the given proect.

If you spent 1 hours of worker's time to decrease the traveler time by half hour then you wasted the resources.

Simply, isn't it?

This is the same with the automatisation.
If you buy a robot that represents 10000 hours of work investment, to save 5000 hours of work then you wasted money.

You can invest into projects with negative return, but in that case on a contry level that you experience is a decreasing consumption, because instead of diapers, food, clothes, cars and houses you make high speed trains that is not used by anyone (or by not enought people to make it profitable).

That is exactly the problem with Anglo Saxon country they use the surplus for consumption and not investment for the future Now they are saddled with large deficit meanwhile their industry is decrepit and cannot compete on the world market
In europe onlygermany invest in their industry and their people skill

That is not true at all It is stupid to calculate infrastructure investment by fee or ticket proceed only .You forget the multiplying effect of good infrastructuer investment Thing like increase value in land all along the track, Reduced hour to commute, allowing people to live far of the city center, Development of suburb,industry, increase and lower cost of transportation etc

Less oil will be purchased for transportation, Less busses and truck to transport good, Less depreciation of truck that you so complain loudly. Less polution etc
Develoment of transportation industry, consultant, civil engineering that can be sold all over the world
Increase of employment in those industry etc

Balance development in the country allowing social peace and distribution of wealth

I thought you live in europe you should know that transportation can never make money on the ticket proceed by itself Even in europe most transoprtation,cultural event, museum are subsidized
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
@Mcsweeney, heads up, whenever this guy says, "simple, isn't it?" You're about to hear some really funny stupid shit. It's his version of "Hold my beer and watch this!"

Anyway, Ansthnsvg no. If I spent 1 hour of worker time to decrease traveler time by half an hour, I would happily do it. Because the worker investment to build a road is a one time cost while the decreased travel time is a continuous advantage that builds over the years. Also, you're not going to be using more workers on a project than all the people who benefit from the decreased travel time. In other words, 100 workers spent 1 hour each (100 hours) to create a road that saves 1,000,000 travelers half an hour each person (500,000 hours), then compound that by the number of times that commuters use that road over the years.

Simple, right? LOL I love it when you say that. It's like a heads-up for other people to come watch you face-plant.


Not realy.

If I have an operator that doing pin insertion in three seond on every part , and the product lifetime is say 1 000 000 part then I will spend 3 000 000 paid seconds to do the job.
It boil down to 833 hours, and it cost to the business 10833 pounds.

Now, if I buy a pin insertion machine that spare this job for 25000 pounds, including part and labout,then I will lose 14177 pounds WITHOUT consdering the cost of capital and interest.
This works like this in nation size as well.
If I build a fast railway for 10 billion youan, and the travelers will save say 5 billion yuan in time over the usefull life of the artifact, calculated based on they salary, then the railway is wasting the resources.

It is extremly simple, but in every goverment project they try to cheat to cosmetic the numbers, because a big project means big salary, and big oportunity for bribes.
Everywhere, not only in China, but in China they make way more infrastructure poject than in Europe .
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Not realy.

If I have an operator that doing pin insertion in three seond on every part , and the product lifetime is say 1 000 000 part then I will spend 3 000 000 paid seconds to do the job.
It boil down to 833 hours, and it cost to the business 10833 pounds.

Now, if I buy a pin insertion machine that spare this job for 25000 pounds, including part and labout,then I will lose 14177 pounds WITHOUT consdering the cost of capital and interest.
This works like this in nation size as well.
If I build a fast railway for 10 billion youan, and the travelers will save say 5 billion yuan in time over the usefull life of the artifact, calculated based on they salary, then the railway is wasting the resources.

It is extremly simple, but in every goverment project they try to cheat to cosmetic the numbers, because a big project means big salary, and big oportunity for bribes.
Everywhere, not only in China, but in China they make way more infrastructure poject than in Europe .
What the hell just happened? You were talking about roads and I'm talking about roads, and now, you switched it up to pin insertion and pounds?? Why don't you stick to one example? Where does 10833 come from? How long does the machine work? 1 year? 3? 10? Your example only makes sense if the machine dies after doing the amount of work that a guy gets done in those 833 hours. In that case, there's no point in saying what you're saying. Everybody knows not to spend large amounts of money on machines so poorly built, they break shortly and don't even save you the money that it cost to buy them.

Yes, if you build a railway for 10 billion yuan and through the ENTIRE SERVICEABLE LIFE of the railway, you've only saved people 5 billion yuan in resources, then you've made a poor choice in where to build that railway. This is not what anybody is talking about and it's almost impossible in China's case. China's railways are very new and haven't made back their investment yet because they've really only started running. When they're derelict and retired, you can come back tally up how much they've cost and how much resources they've saved/generated. This conversation is not possible right now.

So I'm not sure what's happened here. Either you're 1. making false points (ie. Chinese railways are a waste of money), 2. stating obvious facts just to be talking (ie. Don't buy $1000 machines that break after $500 worth of work; don't build projects/rails/roads that nobody will use and serve no purpose in cultivating any area), or 3. trying to move the goal post to save face (You said there's no need to build roads to develop remote areas if you can just pile rural folk into the cities, which is indefensible so you want to change that to, "If you've made a road in a place so stupid that over its entire service life, not enough people ride it to justify its expense, then you shouldn't have built the road.")

Why people do big projects, whether they want to advance their country or they want bribes/salary, is your guess, likely based on your own country. Chinese big projects advance the nation as their primary goal.
 
Top