Chinese economy smaller than previously thought

[Nephtys]

This news of China's economy being smaller than projected isn't really surprising. It's a developing economy, that's been rather prominent because of it's rate of increase 'percentage wise' being so much larger than the US's rate of increase.

What people fail to see is... this means pretty much crap that you get an 500% higher rate of growth, if your GDP is ~20% of the US's years ago (China's nominal GDP is about 22% of the US's). It still means in absolute terms, it's not that much... and that doesn't take into account the fact that if it even gets comparably high as the US or other major economies, it's going to slow down by inevitable factors related to economic maturation.

[Tanasinn]

And each time China has fallen it has come back up again and again,

As a badly-polluted, starving state ruled by fascist murderers? That's nothing to brag about.

China hasn't been able to compare even vaguely to its former glory in a long, long time. It probably never will again.

China will still be here long after states such as the US have bitten the dust. That is one bet I can definitely collect on.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[AniThyng]

And each time China has fallen it has come back up again and again,

As a badly-polluted, starving state ruled by fascist murderers? That's nothing to brag about.

China hasn't been able to compare even vaguely to its former glory in a long, long time. It probably never will again.

China will still be here long after states such as the US have bitten the dust. That is one bet I can definitely collect on.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Oh, I don't know. New Orleans and your inner city ghettoes don't inspire much confidence either in the stability of North American civilization.

The counterpoint to " badly-polluted, starving state ruled by fascist murderers? " is the modern face of Shanghai and Guangzhou (and Hong Kong - oh sure, former British colony and all that, but it is still civilizationally Chinese - one could say the same about Taiwan aka the Republic of China - it doesn't need to be chinese politically, culturally it is no less "chinese" or derivative thereoff.)

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Oh, I don't know. New Orleans and your inner city ghettoes don't inspire much confidence either in the stability of North American civilization.

The counterpoint to " badly-polluted, starving state ruled by fascist murderers? " is the modern face of Shanghai and Guangzhou (and Hong Kong - oh sure, former British colony and all that, but it is still civilizationally Chinese - one could say the same about Taiwan aka the Republic of China - it doesn't need to be chinese politically, culturally it is no less "chinese" or derivative thereoff.)

If there's one thing about China that has been a constant throughout its existence, is that money is more important than human life. While that constant still exists, nothing will change.

And just a few cities good doesn't count while the rest of the countryside pollutes itself to the death.

[Flagg]

Oh, I don't know. New Orleans and your inner city ghettoes don't inspire much confidence either in the stability of North American civilization.

The counterpoint to " badly-polluted, starving state ruled by fascist murderers? " is the modern face of Shanghai and Guangzhou (and Hong Kong - oh sure, former British colony and all that, but it is still civilizationally Chinese - one could say the same about Taiwan aka the Republic of China - it doesn't need to be chinese politically, culturally it is no less "chinese" or derivative thereoff.)

If there's one thing about China that has been a constant throughout its existence, is that money is more important than human life. While that constant still exists, nothing will change.

And just a few cities good doesn't count while the rest of the countryside pollutes itself to the death.

And that's not the case with American civilization?

[Tanasinn]

Oh, I don't know. New Orleans and your inner city ghettoes don't inspire much confidence either in the stability of North American civilization.

If you want to use a nebulous, vague idea of surviving "forever" like our friend here does, then I seriously doubt that China will outlast the U.S. It's pitifully easy to argue that a "nation" has "risen again" or is "still going" when you ignore cultural changes due to time and the deaths of governments, whether you're dealing with China or North America.

The counterpoint to " badly-polluted, starving state ruled by fascist murderers? " is [...]

I seriously doubt the previous poster was referring to Taiwan and the like when China was mentioned rising "again and again," so I'm not quite sure what you're driving at. [/quote]

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

And that's not the case with American civilization?

Has America successfully made show trials legal yet?

[Flagg]

And that's not the case with American civilization?

Has America successfully made show trials legal yet?

I was talking about money being more important than human life.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I was talking about money being more important than human life.

Admittedly true. But a peasant challenging a rich man will likely get a death sentence, or a slow death in a Chinese prison.

[AniThyng]

I seriously doubt the previous poster was referring to Taiwan and the like when China was mentioned rising "again and again," so I'm not quite sure what you're driving at.

[/quote]

Well, I think it's implicit if we're having a discussion on "China" rising again and again we are not refering specifically to "China, the People's Republic of", the winning party in the Chinese Civil war over "China, The Republic of", which still exists as the official government of "Taiwan", which was the sucessor state to...er...the Qing dynasty of China, which overthrew the...eh...Ming Dynasty of China, which is itself the result of the overthrow of the...ah I'm not going to look this up, you get my drift.

I'm not going to dispute that China's government and borders are ever in flux, and you could perhaps make a very strong case that the concept of modern China being directly connected to the original empire forged by Qin Shi Huangdi is BS, along with the concept of Han Chinese ethnicity (directly a result of the Han dynasty, still a high water mark of chinese civilization, Tang and Ming notwithstanding) - but there is no reason to believe whatever state entity takes control of China after the PRC is dead and buried will not be still directly linked to the concept of the Chinese civilization.

@Fingolfin:
Well, can't argue with you on the money part, and I'm going to come out and say that yes, I don't think the PRC or the environment is going to do very well at all, but some lessons appearently need to be learnt the hard way, and I'd say that is a universal human trait.

[Straha]

I'm not utterly sure about this to be honest.

A friend of my Fathers, a rather senior guy working for Australia's reserve bank who does a lot of international writing and research once told me that there in fact are two sets of 'books' in China.

The REAL books are added up VERY carefully from the lowest level to the highest level, with redundant, independent methods to check the numbers at each level and make sure no-one is trying to lie their head off.

They then gather all this data in Beijing and get a real, realistic picture of what is going on.

They then make up another set of books which may or may not have the slightest thing to do with the REAL books, which then get published internationally, which drives much of the worlds financial speculators nuts as from the outside, you can only get a very 'raw' and generalized picture of whats going on.

So frankly I find it hard to belive that China has lost 40% of its economy somewhere. I think the most likely case is either:

A. The books they presented to the world were overstating the economy and now they've got what they want from that, so they are going back to a more realistic figure for whatever reason.

B. The books they presented to the world were for once not very far off the mark, but now they want to publicly understate their economy, probably to justify tighter controls over their market, slowing down some economic reforms and opening some trade barriers e.t.c.

With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Even your hearsay anecdote doesn't imply that a high-case estimate of China's GDP is more accurate. For all you know it could've been that things were according to the "loose books" before and just now its gotten corrected. It doesn't usually happen that people's homework mistakes compound and become further removed from reality over time; typically it comes and bites them on the ass as time goes on.

No, IIRC in the past China has published its -yearly- GDP and yearly growth figures in August (Meaning four months before the data collection for that year can possibly be over.) This does not bode well for its credibility in reporting... anything really.

[Nephtys]

And that's not the case with American civilization?

Has America successfully made show trials legal yet?

I was talking about money being more important than human life.

It's much worse in China than the US. In China there's been pretty common cases of stuff like a kid falling into a River, and hundreds rubbernecking as the kid is dying, and comments from a few people that they'd jump in 'for a price'.

Anecdotal evidence and all, but a Chinese friend's family who emigrated a decade back says that stuff is ridiculously common. And it's accepted practice to toss people straight out of hospitals who can't afford to pay, even if mid-treatment for something life threatening.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Although it is funny that it takes the american such a long time to accept china isn't a threat to their power for a while.

Perhaps you haven't heard Stuarts Cold War Story about the Chinese General, the average American doesn't know, but that isn't saying much since Joe Blow is typically a moron. Anyone who has done a fraction of the research can see, that China is no threat.

[Edi]

The biggest problem Chinas has is that it's depleting its natural resources at an unsustainable rate. Soil erosion, air and water pollution, deforestation and just too many people ensure that if they try to build up a large Western style economy, it's going to crash and burn with or without the oil crunch sooner or later. Right now their government isn't giving a flying fuck about the environment, but they can't just pack up and leave if it becomes untenable, which is where it's headed. If they intend to keep the current population numbers, subsistence farming is the best standard of living the great majority can ever expect to have.

[AniThyng]

Guess they aren't murdering people fast enough.

This is a serious question: What steps can be taken to limit the population, seeing as it is clear the already draconian 1 child rule is not doing it fast enough?

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, IIRC in the past China has published its -yearly- GDP and yearly growth figures in August (Meaning four months before the data collection for that year can possibly be over.) This does not bode well for its credibility in reporting... anything really.

Of anything, I'd suspect they would continuously exaggerate their figures in order to a.) prop up the credibility of the regime and its policies, and b.) assuage foriegn investors. Not to mention precedent: look how doctored Soviet economic data turned out to be.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No, IIRC in the past China has published its -yearly- GDP and yearly growth figures in August (Meaning four months before the data collection for that year can possibly be over.) This does not bode well for its credibility in reporting... anything really.

Of anything, I'd suspect they would continuously exaggerate their figures in order to a.) prop up the credibility of the regime and its policies, and b.) assuage foriegn investors. Not to mention precedent: look how doctored Soviet economic data turned out to be.

Actually, there's a 3rd. The provincial officials tend to exaggerate their figures as they try to gain favour and attempt to win chances for promotion. It all builds up to very hard to pinpoint statistics.

[ArmorPierce]

To be honest, I think it's rather academic to discuss who will suffer worse when the oil crunch hits. We'll all be fucked, and when it happens, I suspect we will be only barely aware of how it is affecting other countries.

Despite widespread industrialization in China, there are vast regions of the country which are still living a pre-industrial lifestyle. For them, the economic boom has passed them by, but then again, the crash may just pass them by as well. Meanwhile, the societies we're living in are so dependent upon cheap automotive transport from top to bottom that the entire way in which we live may be transformed when the oil crunch hits, and not for the better.

Can't the same be said to some extent about the American south?

[Illuminatus Primus]

To be honest, I think it's rather academic to discuss who will suffer worse when the oil crunch hits. We'll all be fucked, and when it happens, I suspect we will be only barely aware of how it is affecting other countries.

Despite widespread industrialization in China, there are vast regions of the country which are still living a pre-industrial lifestyle. For them, the economic boom has passed them by, but then again, the crash may just pass them by as well. Meanwhile, the societies we're living in are so dependent upon cheap automotive transport from top to bottom that the entire way in which we live may be transformed when the oil crunch hits, and not for the better.

Can't the same be said to some extent about the American south?

Have you ever been down here? Almost no one lives off the land pre-industrially in the Deep South. The American South was the last region to be developed, and was developed purely in reaction to the cheap gas era. It is probably the most vulnerable region of the U.S.

[CmdrWilkens]

The Chinese government may fall. Chinese civilization and cultural legacy will adapt and change to the situation, but it has and likely will endure

Even (not all, obviously) overseas chinese for whose mother tongue is english and append a western name to thier chinese surname still have a certain pride and identity that ties them back to chinese culture after all.

Despite what I said earlier though, I will admit a certain dark sense of amusement if China does fall spectacularly and I don't have to grin embaressingly whenever I have to admit that I can't speak mandarin and have only the barest colloquial grasp of cantonese.

Again by the standard you are using we should equate the existence of the current German government as a triumph of the Hessians staying power. The cultural and linguistic identity of germanic peoples has existed since before Rome rose to be a world power but no one uses that to contend that Germany always survives.

[Chris OFarrell]

With all due respect,

*snip*

.

I'm not going to pretend I'm an economist, I was simply repeating something I heard which I found interesting. I do trust that person DOES know what he is talking about, even if I might have utterly misunderstood, but I'm hardly going to argue the point.

[Mayabird]

The biggest problem Chinas has is that it's depleting its natural resources at an unsustainable rate. Soil erosion, air and water pollution, deforestation and just too many people ensure that if they try to build up a large Western style economy, it's going to crash and burn with or without the oil crunch sooner or later. Right now their government isn't giving a flying fuck about the environment, but they can't just pack up and leave if it becomes untenable, which is where it's headed. If they intend to keep the current population numbers, subsistence farming is the best standard of living the great majority can ever expect to have.

Actually, China's government is doing a few things on the resource end, particularly getting its claws into Africa. For instance, their deals with Mugab means that as Zimbabwe's population dies off from AIDS and everything else or simply flees to slightly less crappy places they can take the mineral wealth for themselves. It's almost colonial.

We can argue about the morality of this elsewhere.

[K. A. Pital]

As for the China news - that's nothing out of order. 6 or 10 trillion, their country is rapidly industrializing. But there are limits to the effects of industrialization, and if there aren't handy vast natral resources to consume, China is fucked. Belated industrialization, I say. They should have started doing it in hte early XX century, like Russia and some Central European states.

Some countries are demonstrably going to be better off than others in
the short-term. Russia, France, etc.

Russia isn't better off. The MoE projected that with the rise of oil prices on the internal market, much of the gains in the economy will be constantly eaten up by inflation, every year. It could probably lead to a recession if price rates accelerate their accent, as opposed to simply holding incomes low.

[K. A. Pital]

As for the China news - that's nothing out of order. 6 or 10 trillion, their country is rapidly industrializing. But there are limits to the effects of industrialization, and if there aren't handy vast natral resources to consume, China is fucked. Belated industrialization, I say. They should have started doing it in hte early XX century, like Russia and some Central European states.

Some countries are demonstrably going to be better off than others in
the short-term. Russia, France, etc.

Russia isn't better off. The MoE projected that with the rise of oil prices on the internal market, much of the gains in the economy will be constantly eaten up by inflation, every year. It could probably lead to a recession if price rates accelerate their accent, as opposed to simply holding incomes low.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Russia isn't better off. The MoE projected that with the rise of oil prices on the internal market, much of the gains in the economy will be constantly eaten up by inflation, every year. It could probably lead to a recession if price rates accelerate their accent, as opposed to simply holding incomes low.

Ah, but that's the economist in you speaking. In the long term, you will have diesel to put into the combines and trains, and a declining number of mouths to feed as well. Russia's energy resources are capable of supporting its domestic economic activity today. The U.S.'s...are not.