Says the person who's talked about everything from culture to famine on this forum LOL. I just gave a brief interpretation of your charts, nothing else. Maybe you were so confused about what they mean that you couldn't even recognize their interpretation?You made a quite nice salad bowl piling up unrelated things.
You mean increasing consumption. Increasing not as quickly as GDP growth is all.Check the correlation between the negative interest rate on savings, and the decreasing consumption.
Excellent move by the Chinese government! Export capacity and infrastructure are both great investments into the future. Spending your money to invest in these pillars of success is a very far-sighted and wise move.Considering that prior of 201X the Chinese household hasn't got significant debt but they had savings the negative interest rate was a transfer mechanism from the households to the banks/SOEs to recapitalise them.
They used this money first to make export capacity, second to create a huge infrastructure driven economy.
Not if they were invested, as you just claimed. There's not only consumption and savings.So, you saying that the reason why the Chinese doesn't spend money because they salary growing faster than they consumption?
I think if it is the case then you can expect to see the savings of the households going up.
But if I check the above graph it showing the opposite.
The Chinese household needs loans to reach the expected level of living.
Without wasting time, hell no.Without wasting too much time , don't you think that the three graph ( real interest rate, household share of GDP , household debt) showing a different, and very sorry story about the current state of the Chinese consumers?
I think you didn't look at the actual numbers on your graph; you just looked at the line shape, hoping they make you happy. Your chart says that US households have almost 80% debt to GDP while Chinese have less than 50%. And your first 2 charts show that Americans spend 69% of their earnings while the Chinese spend less than 40%. And then, you said that extra Chinese financial power is being put towards infrastructure and business investments. Sounds exactly like a great model for growth and development. I can see more clear issue with your logic that this is a problem for Chinese people and not Americans.So, check the second part of your reasoning, the US consumer who has to go deeper and deeper into the debt.
So, the Chinese consumer keeping his minuscule share from the GDP by taking loans like madman, and the US consumer keeping his share by saving.
I know that on the internet forums the logical thinking is not so popular, but please, can you see the issue with your chain of logic?