Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.

Equation

Lieutenant General
This is observed fact.

This is unproven theory, with lack of capability to make forward looking predictions.

And up to this point the main argument of everyone was that the SIZE of china make its special : P.


@Jura was so kind to help with the calculations, and by that the consumer spending +saving - debt on a YoY bases negative.
So, there is no income increase compared to GDP.

Make it clear : it simply means China organic growth rate is way lower than the one that we observed.

You simply put a close fitting line onto a few data point ,and call it as theory.

Well. first, you don't read very well. Nobody was talking about the size of China; I was talking about the growth of China. And secondly, Jura has already chimed in on your, "calculations." Perhaps your English difficulties led you to think that he agreed with you by calling you "amazing"? Well this time time, he's a little clearer, isn't he?
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng
don't try to troll me!

what's happened was you posted baloney
#9691 Anlsvrthng, Dec 20, 2018

which I called out to see your stream of irrationality (originally your numbers weren't even of the same unit etc.),

and to see your pathetic attempts at 'winning' that ended with you resorting to
#9749 Anlsvrthng, Dec 23, 2018
"(82.7122e12*0.444-74.3585e12*0.388)/1e8=8.8731*1e4=88 731"
while the correct result is 78731 meaning your one-trillion-Yuan trick pulled to 'support' the trash you posted

of course
Anlsvrthng
give me a sign if you want to me to report you for trolling right away


At the moment the calculation that we talk about is this:
24066-78731+47990 = -6675 CNY HML
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinese-economics-thread.t3715/page-976


The number is negative, my original back on envelope calculation showed it as close to 0.

So, the Chinese consumer income DECREASED during 2017.

This was the end of the calculations.

Agree?
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Well. first, you don't read very well. Nobody was talking about the size of China; I was talking about the growth of China. And secondly, Jura has already chimed in on your, "calculations." Perhaps your English difficulties led you to think that he agreed with you by calling you "amazing"? Well this time time, he's a little clearer, isn't he?


Check it back, hes correction means the Chinese consumer income decreased by -6675 CNY HML, instead my erroneous result of -16675 CNY HML .

So what ? Where is the growth ?


(this is the reason why I like to visit forums, it is hard to found anyone who like to calculate the net disposable income of the Consumer in China, or the required waste flow of RTG submarines : D , so thanks again @Jura : ) )
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Check it back, hes correction means the Chinese consumer income decreased by -6675 CNY HML, instead my erroneous result of -16675 CNY HML .

So what ? Where is the growth ?


(this is the reason why I like to visit forums, it is hard to found anyone who like to calculate the net disposable income of the Consumer in China, or the required waste flow of RTG submarines : D , so thanks again @Jura : ) )

Where is the growth? Here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


See, this is real numbers and economic data. These are collected by professionals, not people who don't understand the difference between debt and net worth, who use made-up formulas that add things with different units together, and who get different answers every time the "calculation" is repeated. Oh, it used to be -16675 and now it's -6675? So cool. Do it again and you'll get +6675. One more time then it's +16675! Your special "math" gives a surprise every time haha You don't know how to "calculate" anything and Jura never said he corrected you; he said you're full of baloney and all your equations make absolutely no sense, which is also the conclusion of everyone else on this forum.

You like forums because people don't calculate these things? Yeah, that's right, people don't waste their time using nonsense math to calculate the givens already provided in official national data.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
All these accusation about stealing and forced handover were never proven or even bring about in the court of justice or WTO. It is case of defamation and pointing finger instead of finding the real reason of China getting ahead in technology How about funding the R&D for new technology, graduating more STEM and providing real job for them. And paid them well so it will attract the best and brightest. Built world class lab and research institution. And get the society excited about bright new future with technology. This Nikkei is a bit more balance In 7 out 10 important research China is ahead in 7 of them via beijingwalker
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China's research papers lead the world in cutting-edge tech

Nikkei and Elsevier place the country atop 75% of the most important fields

YUKI OKOSHI, Nikkei staff writerJANUARY 06, 2019 03:43 JST

TOKYO -- China dominates a global ranking of the most-cited research papers published in the 30 hottest technology fields, a development likely to alarm American leadership already leery of its rising Asian rival.

Though the U.S. accounted for 3.9 million research papers overall compared with 2.9 million from China, the Asian country produced the largest share in 23 of the 30 fields that drew the most interest, while America took the crown for the remaining seven.

Nikkei and Elsevier compiled the ranking based on 2013-18 data provided by the Dutch publisher, covering a total of 17.2 million papers.


Materials known as perovskites, used to make highly efficient solar cells, topped the list of these 30 fields, followed by monatomic layers that are expected to lead to faster and more energy efficient semiconductors. Sodium-ion batteries that are seen providing a low-cost source of power ranked third.

It accoChina led the world in the majority of the top 10 fields, and each of the five areas in the top 10 tied to battery research. unted for more than 70% of all papers on photocatalysts and nucleic-acid-targeted cancer treatment, which ranked 12th and 14th. The U.S. led in three biotechnology fields, including No. 7 genome editing and No. 10 immunotherapy.

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%2Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%2Fimages%2F_aliases%2Farticleimage%2F5%2F0%2F6%2F8%2F18688605-1-eng-GB%2F20181228-High-technology-Table.png


China was previously noted for the sheer volume of its research papers, but the quality of the research has improved in recent years. It accounted for nearly 11% of the papers that made the biggest impact, based on such factors as the number of citations, between 2014 and 2016.

The country's rise in technology research follows a sharp increase in R&D investment. China more than tripled spending on research and development between 2010 and 2016.

China's domestic R&D investment totaled $410 billion in 2016, not far behind the $464 billion of the U.S., data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows. In 2017, 510,000 Chinese papers were published in scientific journals, representing a 27% increase in five years, according to Elsevier. While America remained ahead with 560,000, its output was nearly flat over that period.


The U.S., which has dominated cutting-edge research for decades, is deeply suspicious of China's growing presence. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized Beijing's "Made in China 2025" initiative to advance domestic industry as American concerns over the country's ascent in technology research exacerbate the current trade war.

More than the U.S. or Japan, China has focused its investment in areas with commercial potential, with a particular focus on material science for applications in electronics and electric vehicles, Elsevier said.

Beijing is targeting 10 core fields in its Made in China 2025 campaign. By improving its research and development process, China aims to become a manufacturing power in 2025 and a world-class producer in 2049. The core fields for Made in China 2025 can be seen in the list of research topics the country dominates in the ranking.


Although China is considered the world's factory for its production of goods like home electronics and cars, the U.S., Europe and Japan are still considered to have the lead in key technologies. "China is concentrating investment in research for high-tech industries so that it can also become self-reliant in fields for which it heavily relies on imports," said Naoto Saito at the Daiwa Institute of Research.

The U.S. has responded by taking steps against emerging companies closely linked to Made in China 2025, such as telecommunications equipment makers Huawei and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Tensions between the countries will intensify should the U.S. grow concerned that China will dominate research fields that are likely to be commercialized in five to 10 years.

Meanwhile, Japan lags behind both countries with less than a 10% share of papers in nearly all of the top 30 fields. It 2016 R&D spending came to 18.4 trillion yen ($170 billion at current rates), well under half the American and Chinese totals. The government covered 17.4% of this spending, compared with more than 20% in the U.S. and China.
 
Last edited:

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
NO.


8 is serious debt trap and 23 are in danger of falling into it. That's 1 in 3 that China scammed into giving up their sovereignty.

China helps countries that nobody else wants to help, so 1 in 3 is a pretty good average.

You can argue they are irresponsible with their own finance or they are all illiterates who can't read their contract....

The honest ones are just poor; they underestimated how much help they would need.

But the fact remains - now China is being perceived as PREDATORY. You only need to look at various leaders like Malaysia's PM, the greeks, even Pakistan now threatening to abandoning their contract.

More predatory than the U.S.'s bombs?
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Right now China is doing it all wrong, the One Belt One Road is basically a bust as 72 countries that signed up, 23 countries are in perpetual debt trap that can't get out and have to forfeit their sovereignty over their ports and infrastructures. Its a debt-trap diplomacy.

This is basically a GIANT SCAM and DAYLIGHT ROBBERY.

Yeah, right. According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, for the China-Laos railway, China lent $465 million at 2.3% a year payable over 25 years, with an initial 5-year grace period.

This means Laos pays $25 million a year, and doesn't even have to start the payments for five years -- on a project that, if the usual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
applies, will likely add $2.5 billion to Laos' GDP in the first year of operation, another $2.5 billion the year after, yet another $2.5 billion the year after that, and so on, forever. All for $25 million a year for a few years. This is robbery?

If the Laos deal is typical (and it probably is), China's Belt-and-Road terms are extremely generous -- they're definitely not a scam and not a robbery.

According to the same article in the first link, "the policies of the [US Federal Reserve], and the still-unfolding costs of the 2008 US crash, are likely to cause immeasurably more “debt distress” than China’s Belt and Road Initiative" (emphasis added).[/URL]
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Where is the growth? Here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The disposable personal income is after tax deduction, before interest/ debt payment / savings.

It doesn't represent the money that is available for consumption .
See, this is real numbers and economic data. These are collected by professionals, not people who don't understand the difference between debt and net worth, who use made-up formulas that add things with different units together, and who get different answers every time the "calculation" is repeated. Oh, it used to be -16675 and now it's -6675? So cool. Do it again and you'll get +6675. One more time then it's +16675! Your special "math" gives a surprise every time haha You don't know how to "calculate" anything and Jura never said he corrected you; he said you're full of baloney and all your equations make absolutely no sense, which is also the conclusion of everyone else on this forum.

You like forums because people don't calculate these things? Yeah, that's right, people don't waste their time using nonsense math to calculate the givens already provided in official national data.

You mean the same professionals that created the disaster that called "eurozone" , or that created the current unsustainable international trade regime :, or that who created a policy system that lead to the 20% unoccupied housing stock in china ?

You are right, I am not on that cognitive level like those guys : )

But anyway, if all issue that you can found is a typo in the calculations, then I am happy : )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top