Chinese Economics Thread

[Anlsvrthng]

Haha you're funny. You really want to stick with using Occam's razor? This debate with you is too easy.

Occam's razor is only a last resort to make a guess when there is no evidence. When there is evidence, people analyze the evidence to see which is true regardless of how complicated it is. Evidence rules above all. Only when there is no evidence can you possibly use Occam's razor to get the best chance of a correct answer even though it is still entirely unreliable and inaccurate. I have provided direct proof against the theory that China's car purchase decrease is due to declining spending power, therefore no philosophical theory, especially not Occam's Razor, can vouch for its truth.

By logic and common sense, you can understand why the statement that "the simplest answer is always true" is entirely flawed, right? I just provided you with a real world example. When iphone sales drop, it is not the Occam's razor solution that people are poorer, but the solution that is more complicated and supported by evidence, which is a purposed withdrawal in anticipation for the new release. What else can you say against this?

Your example of the Ford carrier is wrong and self-defeating as any support for Occam's razor. The correct example to support Occam's razor is if a tree were to be found broken, the explanation that a storm broke it is much better than something random like hundreds of animals kept hitting it through the night to break it. Yes, that's true if there were no evidence, but if there is evidence of blood and carcasses or storm or ax marks or vehicular strike (or even alien activity, for that matter), then obviously, evidence would determine the truth, NOT simplicity and NOT Occam's razor.

Occam's razer is not acceptable as an argument in science or in law. It is a detail of ancient philosophy and theory taught for trivial purposes. It is completely useless to any craft or trade where accuracy is important.

First define the observation.

You can not state "the tree get broken in the last 24 hours".
Say there was a huge storm last night .
Can we say that the tree fall down BECAUSE the storm?
No, because that doesn't give explanation why the other trees doesn't get broken.
If there is 1000 tree in the forest, and we found a broken one in a 24 hours period, then we can say that "there was a storm when the tree snap".

If 20 tree fall in the forest in each average year then then is 5% of chance on every day to see a fallen tree.

So even if there is blood on the tree,or mark of a car or whatever on its own not a proof for anything.
To prove that we have it require not evidence of whatever, but statistically significant evidence.
Example no one said " hey, mate, I found the highs bozon in my beer" , but that "with 6sigma confidence we observed the higgs decay"
Now, get back china.

Next observations :
Phone falling sales >explanation is the lack of iphone features, and lack of whatever with android
Falling pork sales >lot of people get healthy
Falling poultry sales > lot of people eat fish
Falling fish sales>lot of people started to hate fishes
Falling car sales>government wants clean cities
Falling tv sales > lot of people has enough tv at home
decelerate (maybe falling ) house sales > everyone has enough house (or whatever)

Or , we can explain the above by simply falling income, ( consumer spending = income-savings+credit)

Now, all above can be attached a probability.
Now, the 7 first observation explained by seven independent probability, the falling income is one probability.
So, to know how much chance we have to explain the falling sales of everything with 7 INDEPENDENT probability. The sum chance of this explanation against the simpler one is a multiplication of 7 number. It will be infinitesimally small.

This is Occam's razor in probability language....
Same for the argument about "china is different ".
That has a chance, but as the pattern of consumer debt example become similar like many other before recession/crisis/whatever landing it chance will be small.

Sum: if there is several independent probability (each with around 50% ) that sum explain an event, or a single probability then the single one has higher chance.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Stocks Slide As Xi Speech Disappoints: "China May Face Unimaginable Difficulties"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wow, Xi know something.

Maybe the consumer spending run out of steam,and the re-balancing is harder than expected? : O

 

[Equation]

First define the observation.

You can not state "the tree get broken in the last 24 hours".
Say there was a huge storm last night .
Can we say that the tree fall down BECAUSE the storm?
No, because that doesn't give explanation why the other trees doesn't get broken.
If there is 1000 tree in the forest, and we found a broken one in a 24 hours period, then we can say that "there was a storm when the tree snap".

If 20 tree fall in the forest in each average year then then is 5% of chance on every day to see a fallen tree.

So even if there is blood on the tree,or mark of a car or whatever on its own not a proof for anything.
To prove that we have it require not evidence of whatever, but statistically significant evidence.
Example no one said " hey, mate, I found the highs bozon in my beer" , but that "with 6sigma confidence we observed the higgs decay"
Now, get back china.

Next observations :
Phone falling sales >explanation is the lack of iphone features, and lack of whatever with android
Falling pork sales >lot of people get healthy
Falling poultry sales > lot of people eat fish
Falling fish sales>lot of people started to hate fishes
Falling car sales>government wants clean cities
Falling tv sales > lot of people has enough tv at home
decelerate (maybe falling ) house sales > everyone has enough house (or whatever)

Or , we can explain the above by simply falling income, ( consumer spending = income-savings+credit)

Now, all above can be attached a probability.
Now, the 7 first observation explained by seven independent probability, the falling income is one probability.
So, to know how much chance we have to explain the falling sales of everything with 7 INDEPENDENT probability. The sum chance of this explanation against the simpler one is a multiplication of 7 number. It will be infinitesimally small.

This is Occam's razor in probability language....
Same for the argument about "china is different ".
That has a chance, but as the pattern of consumer debt example become similar like many other before recession/crisis/whatever landing it chance will be small.

Sum: if there is several independent probability (each with around 50% ) that sum explain an event, or a single probability then the single one has higher chance.

Uh, no, you indeed don't understand Occam's Razor. It's very simple and doesn't look at supporting evidence. First, you tried to choose Occam's Razor, and then, when that makes no sense, you attempted to use evidence, which is not a part of Occam's Razor so you tried to make this awkward hybrid. Unfortunately for you, you don't know how to use correct logic or evidence so what you wrote was just a mess. It was a combination of arguments that you made up that are wrong and observations that are wrong. A single event can only have a higher chance over multiple events if that single chance isn't already 0% because it has been disproved, like the theory that China's income is dropping.

Repeating your wish that Chinese income is dropping isn't going to counter the proof that it's rising. Yes, I know you like simple things because it's very difficult for you to understand "stuff", but when the simplest answer is against proof, that is not going to work out for you. It is an inconvenient truth for you that more complex answers are supported by evidence and your simple one is not.

I don't know how many times I've told you but Chinese income and spending are all rising together. The big picture is a rise, so finding 5 things that are falling does not counter that. These charts (your old friends; you've seen them before.) means your theory is already incorrect:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Equation]

Stocks Slide As Xi Speech Disappoints: "China May Face Unimaginable Difficulties"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wow, Xi know something.

Maybe the consumer spending run out of steam,and the re-balancing is harder than expected? : O

Unimaginable difficulties! You like that, huh? Now you think Xi knows something, eh? Haha Why don't you listen to all the rest of the stuff he says instead of picking your favorite sentence like picking your favorite (pork) data? This is his battle call for Chinese people to be prepared for economic war; there is absolutely no defeatism in his speech as you and other Western spinsters like to imagine.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

China honor Lee Kuan Yew posthumously via Eldermari

Lee Kuan Yew among 10 foreigners honoured by China for helping its reform

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

18 December 2018, 5:24 AM GMT

Singapore’s late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was awarded the China Reform Friendship Medal on 18 December 2018. (Reuters file photo)

Singapore’s late founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was among 10 foreigners honoured by China on Tuesday (18 December) for his role in the island state’s “deep involvement” in China’s 40 years of reforming and opening up.

Lee, who died in 2015, was posthumously awarded the China Reform Friendship Medal at a ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. The event marked the 40th anniversary of China’s journey of reformation, said a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.


Other foreigners awarded the medal include Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of World Economic Forum; Matsushita Konosuke, founder of Panasonic; Robert Kuhn, adviser to the Chinese government; and Juan Antonio Samaranch, former International Olympic Committee president.

100 Chinese given China Reform Pioneer Award
At the same time, 100 Chinese citizens were given the China Reform Pioneer Award for their outstanding contributions to their nation’s reform efforts. They include Alibaba founder Jack Ma, former NBA basketball player Yao Ming and Robin Li, founder of the Baidu search engine.

In his speech to hundreds of officials, business leaders and diplomats, China’s President Xi Jinping paid tribute to those who have made outstanding contributions to the movement, which was launched by patriarch Deng Xiaoping in 1978.

He also thanked China’s foreign friends for their various roles in helping the nation on its road to reform.

Deng and Lee developed a close friendship after Deng’s visit to Singapore in 1978. Deng had said then that China should learn from Singapore’s modernisation experience.

China has undertaken reformative measures in practically all sectors of society in the last four decades, as it transformed from a planned economy to a socialist market economy.

 

[PanAsian]

Unimaginable difficulties! You like that, huh? Now you think Xi knows something, eh? Haha Why don't you listen to all the rest of the stuff he says instead of picking your favorite sentence like picking your favorite (pork) data? This is his battle call for Chinese people to be prepared for economic war; there is absolutely no defeatism in his speech as you and other Western spinsters like to imagine.

There is a high likelihood of the US and China decoupling.

 

[Dolcevita]

Unimaginable difficulties! You like that, huh? Now you think Xi knows something, eh? Haha Why don't you listen to all the rest of the stuff he says instead of picking your favorite sentence like picking your favorite (pork) data? This is his battle call for Chinese people to be prepared for economic war; there is absolutely no defeatism in his speech as you and other Western spinsters like to imagine.

President Xi's speech was actually very reassuring and balanced. He rightfully reflects on China's accomplishments, prepared the nation to face today's challenges and projects a bright, confident and strong future for China. Nothing wrong with that.

Meantime, Argentina is expected to increase soy production 60% next season starting in February. Good for Argentina and more diverse source for China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Heavy rains in Argentina could be good news for soy-hungry China
BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - Rainstorms are sweeping Argentina’s soy belt, building soil moisture needed to guarantee good yields when crops blossom in February and providing some cushion for China to buy should its trade war with the United States continue to limit U.S. supplies.

Bolstered by strong showers in key parts of the Pampas farm region, which meteorologists expect to continue over the week ahead, Argentina’s harvest should reach 55.5 million tonnes, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Unimaginable difficulties! You like that, huh? Now you think Xi knows something, eh? Haha Why don't you listen to all the rest of the stuff he says instead of picking your favorite sentence like picking your favorite (pork) data? This is his battle call for Chinese people to be prepared for economic war; there is absolutely no defeatism in his speech as you and other Western spinsters like to imagine.

Have you ever heard a "defeat" speech from any politician ?

This is the darkest that he can deliver without anyone sacrifice him.

And it affect not only China, but every country.

One UK firm get rid of 5000 workers, due to the weak Chinese car market ....

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Uh, no, you indeed don't understand Occam's Razor. It's very simple and doesn't look at supporting evidence. First, you tried to choose Occam's Razor, and then, when that makes no sense, you attempted to use evidence, which is not a part of Occam's Razor so you tried to make this awkward hybrid. Unfortunately for you, you don't know how to use correct logic or evidence so what you wrote was just a mess. It was a combination of arguments that you made up that are wrong and observations that are wrong. A single event can only have a higher chance over multiple events if that single chance isn't already 0% because it has been disproved, like the theory that China's income is dropping.

Repeating your wish that Chinese income is dropping isn't going to counter the proof that it's rising. Yes, I know you like simple things because it's very difficult for you to understand "stuff", but when the simplest answer is against proof, that is not going to work out for you. It is an inconvenient truth for you that more complex answers are supported by evidence and your simple one is not.

I don't know how many times I've told you but Chinese income and spending are all rising together. The big picture is a rise, so finding 5 things that are falling does not counter that. These charts (your old friends; you've seen them before.) means your theory is already incorrect:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Can you show any big (more than 5% of average consumer demand group) consumer item that growing?

There is no 0 or 100% probability outside of the theoretical mathematics.

And the military / war science is about probability and game theory, so it is the wrong forum to talk about theoretical math.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(1991) generalize and quantify the original formulation's "assumptions" concept as the degree to which a proposition is unnecessarily accommodating to possible observable data.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They state, "A hypothesis with fewer adjustable parameters will automatically have an enhanced posterior probability, due to the fact that the predictions it makes are sharp."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The model they propose balances the precision of a theory's predictions against their sharpness[

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

]—preferring theories that sharply[

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

]make correct predictions over theories that accommodate a wide range of other possible results. This, again, reflects the mathematical relationship between key concepts in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(namely

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

).

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is a framework that incorporates the Occam's razor principal in its balance between overfitting (i.e. variance minimization) and underfitting (i.e. bias minimization).

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!

If you need help let me know.

 

[Equation]

Can you show any big (more than 5% of average consumer demand group) consumer item that growing?

There is no 0 or 100% probability outside of the theoretical mathematics.

And the military / war science is about probability and game theory, so it is the wrong forum to talk about theoretical math.

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!

If you need help let me know.

The mark of a stupid person who thinks he is smart is one who cites and reads many theories but doesn't understand them or apply them correctly. When someone says that there is no water in the cup, then you look inside and you see water, there is a 0% chance that he is correct. When you say Chinese spending power is dropping but expendable income, wage, and overall spending have official data showing that they rose, there is a 0% chance that you are correct. If you find a theory that disputes this common sense, there is a 0% chance that your philosophical theory is correct. This 0% is utilitarian and applicable to the real world, not a useless philosophically defined abstract 0% that does not exist. I talk about the real world, unlike you, who escapes to imaginary realms of antiquated philosophy when your argument is defeated.

Your request for me to show 5% increase in a big ticket item is funny, because 5% is lower than even the average Chinese spending growth of 9% from the last 3 quarters. I know math is not your strong suit (nor is anything) but you understand that with an average of 9, all the values cannot be below 5, right?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You want 1 item? OK, catering increased by 9.7%. That's in the article above.

I've also heard many many dark speeches by politicians. When the Republicans talk about the fate of the nation should Democrats get their way, or vice versa, they are imagining an apocalypse. When military leaders want extra money, they give speeches about the nation falling behind its rivals and a helpless future having their livelihoods threatened by aggressive foes. More importantly, every Chinese speech made to address the nation that I've heard follows the same pattern, which is to say that the nation is growing strong, making progress and doing well, but we must fight harder and harder because incredible challenges lay ahead. If this wasn't the only speech you'd ever heard, you'd know that. You wouldn't be comparing this speech to your imagination where the president tells the people that the future is all sunshine and rainbows and we've all got it made!

And if a UK company laid off 5,000 workers, it's because they're not competitive enough. If they made great electric cars, they'd have a chance to cash in on China's 60+% annual growth in EV car purchases.