China's strategy in Korean peninsula

t2contra said:

If the surplus nation is as small as a nation like Cuba, an economic war would hurt her more than the deficit nation. But China is the elephant in the room with its huge appetite and it is going to hurt the deficit nation or its companies badly if China were to cut off its imports.

Let me clarify further for some certain people who cannot see beyond the past. If China doubles its consumption of natural gas while the ban is in place, the deficit nation will also lose out.

Click to expand...

The manufacturing employment using up 20% of the urban workforce in China, in the US it is 7.9%.

The US manufacturing inductry 10% smaller than the Chinese.
The trade unballance is around 4-5% of the GDP.
So, with over simplify the issue, and considering that hte US economy is 2-4 times more efficient than the Chinese, the manufacturing reallocation can cause higher unemployment in china, and lower in the US ,and mainly high paying industrial jobs.

A lot of cattering company should go out of business : ).





researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05809/SN05809.pdf

2 years is eternity in Chinese economic The number that you cite is from 2015 Here is the latest
Retail sales of consumer goods are expected to jump by 10.2 percent year on year to exceed 37 trillion yuan in 2017, contributing more than 70 percent of the country's economic growth, according to an earlier report issued by the China General Chamber of Commerce.

In 2017, China will forge ahead with the supply-side structural reform by improving the supply structure and consumption environment, the minister said.

China's consumption to maintain strong growth in 2017

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Xinhua | Updated: 2017-02-21 15:28
BEIJING - China will maintain strong growth in consumption this year with deepening supply-side structural reform, Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng said Tuesday.

The trend will persist between 2016 and 2020 and feature more online retail sales and consumption of more quality goods and services, he said at a news conference, citing stellar growth in these sectors.

Retail sales, a key indicator of consumption, have been growing at double-digit rates annually for years, he said, adding e-commerce has facilitated the spike in consumption.

The volume of online retail sales rose 26.2 percent to hit 5.2 trillion yuan ($755.3 billion) in 2016 over the previous year, he said.

Consumption is shifting gears with Chinese consumers buying more expensive and premium products.

Over 28 million automobiles were sold in China last year, up 13.7 percent year on year, while new-energy vehicles posted growth of 53 percent, he said.

Consumption of services is growing faster than that of goods thanks to rapid expansion in sectors such as catering, housekeeping and care, he added.

Consumption has become the primary driver of China's economy since 2014, contributing 64.6 percent to China's GDP growth in 2016, up 4.9 percentage points than in 2015, Gao said.

The ongoing supply-side reform will narrow the discrepancy between the supply of goods and services and shifting market demands, unlocking more potential.

Retail sales of consumer goods are expected to jump by 10.2 percent year on year to exceed 37 trillion yuan in 2017, contributing more than 70 percent of the country's economic growth, according to an earlier report issued by the China General Chamber of Commerce.

In 2017, China will forge ahead with the supply-side structural reform by improving the supply structure and consumption environment, the minister said.

Hendrik_2000 said:

2 years is eternity in Chinese economic The number that you cite is from 2015 Here is the latest
Retail sales of consumer goods are expected to jump by 10.2 percent year on year to exceed 37 trillion yuan in 2017, contributing more than 70 percent of the country's economic growth, according to an earlier report issued by the China General Chamber of Commerce.

In 2017, China will forge ahead with the supply-side structural reform by improving the supply structure and consumption environment, the minister said.

Click to expand...

Doesn't add up.
The household final consumption is 4.405 trillion $.


The above number include ALL household expenses, including housing, electricity, heating, healthcare and so on.

So, per definition the household retail purchases has to be smaller than the above number.

Means the retail sales above include industrial and investement purchases, and maybe export numbers as well.

Or they double count sales,like counting sub components for machiens as sale , and counting the final sale as well.


And actually not the retail sales is the problem in China, but rather than the low housheold consumption percentage from the GDP.

Anlsvrthng said:

Doesn't add up.
The household final consumption is 4.405 trillion $.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The above number include ALL household expenses, including housing, electricity, heating, healthcare and so on.

So, per definition the household retail purchases has to be smaller than the above number.

Means the retail sales above include industrial and investement purchases, and maybe export numbers as well.

Or they double count sales,like counting sub components for machiens as sale , and counting the final sale as well.


And actually not the retail sales is the problem in China, but rather than the low housheold consumption percentage from the GDP.

Click to expand...

Don't add up?? LOL Guess it ain't 1+1=2 simple, is it? LOL Different organizations come up with different numbers; IMF, World Bank, UN, all have different figures for every country's GDP. Besides, you can't take 2016 data and try to add it to 2017 data, can you, Mr.Macro-economics-is-as-simple-as-1+1? They said 70% of growth, not 70% of GDP.

manqiangrexue said:

Yeah, I have an opinion that is different from his but I am not necessarily critiquing his opinion against mine; I am critiquing it against 1. the fact that Keynes never said what he quoted Keynes as saying, and 2. the knowledge of the US government, by not initiating a trade war, which they would logically do if it would benefit the US as he claimed.

Click to expand...

Full life of Keyness was about to keep the unemployment low, and the consumption high.
One of way of it is the trade barriers .



This occurred when, in the early years of the Great Depression, 1929-33, and to quite a bit of controversy, Keynes advocated protectionist measures for Britain, especially higher tariff barriers, as a way of combating the British unemployment of that period.

manqiangrexue said:

Don't add up?? LOL Guess it ain't 1+1=2 simple, is it? LOL Different organizations come up with different numbers; IMF, World Bank, UN, all have different figures for every country's GDP. Besides, you can't take 2016 data and try to add it to 2017 data, can you, Mr.Macro-economics-is-as-simple-as-1+1? They said 70% of growth, not 70% of GDP.

Click to expand...

Retail sales of consumer goods are not 37 trillion yuan.

manqiangrexue said:

Don't add up?? LOL Guess it ain't 1+1=2 simple, is it? LOL Different organizations come up with different numbers; IMF, World Bank, UN, all have different figures for every country's GDP. Besides, you can't take 2016 data and try to add it to 2017 data, can you, Mr.Macro-economics-is-as-simple-as-1+1? They said 70% of growth, not 70% of GDP.

Click to expand...

It is that simple.

If the numbers doesn't add up, then there is an issue with the numbers : ).

Fist Explanation: The Wahsingtonpost retail sales doesn't contain ONLY the household retail consumption . Any other explanation for the discrepency?

Anlsvrthng said:

They opinion/reasoning match the survey, they just made the picture more detailed.

Why the guys in the UK fear from immigration?

There are no immigrants camps in UK like around Calais, or on the streets of Paris.

It is more of an issue from job market standpoint.

Click to expand...

That's your assumption. Do you have any fact to back up your claim that their fear of immigration was due to "an issue from job market standpoint"?

Anlsvrthng said:

Full life of Keyness was about to keep the unemployment low, and the consumption high.
One of way of it is the trade barriers .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This occurred when, in the early years of the Great Depression, 1929-33, and to quite a bit of controversy, Keynes advocated protectionist measures for Britain, especially higher tariff barriers, as a way of combating the British unemployment of that period.

Click to expand...

You think I'm not fluent in English or something so you just quote some random sentence and think I'll accept it? Tariffs aren't trade wars. There are US tariffs on Chinese goods and Chinese tariffs on US goods. You said a TRADE WAR, SHUTTING OFF OF TRADE would BENEFIT the US. That is NOT what that sentence says.

Klon said:

Retail sales of consumer goods are not 37 trillion yuan.

Click to expand...

Why the hell not? It was $33 trillion yuan ($4.8 trillion USD) in 2016 and in 2017, it's $37 trillion ($5.7 trillion USD, adjusted for differences in exchange rate between years). If not, then what number do you think it is?

Anlsvrthng said:

It is that simple.

If the numbers doesn't add up, then there is an issue with the numbers : ).

Fist Explanation: The Wahsingtonpost retail sales doesn't contain ONLY the household retail consumption . Any other explanation for the discrepency?

Click to expand...

Yeah. You don't know which numbers to add. It's not an issue with the numbers; it's an issue with the person adding the wrong numbers to each other. Reread post #1304 for just a few of the other reasons.

What did I tell you about saying, "It's simple"? That whenever you start with that sentence in your head, you should know that the rest of what you're about to say is probably wrong.

manqiangrexue said:

Why the hell not? It was $33 trillion yuan ($4.8 trillion USD) in 2016 and in 2017, it's $37 trillion ($5.7 trillion USD, adjusted for differences in exchange rate between years).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If not, then what number do you think it is?

Click to expand...

Apparently, 37 trillion is the right figure. The issue is with the category "retail sales of consumer goods", which seems to imply something like private spending on "consumer goods". As Anlsvrthng pointed out, in that case it would be too high. But it turns out that it really

Total Retail Sales of Consumer Goods refer to the amount obtained by enterprises (units, self-employed individuals) through direct sales of non-production and non-business physical commodity to individuals, social institutions, and revenue from providing catering services. Individuals include rural and urban households, population from abroad, social institutions include government agencies, social organizations, military units, schools, institutions, neighbourhood (village) committees.

Click to expand...

and is only used in China. The corresponding categories used by the World Bank would probably be "Household final consumption expenditure" combined with "General government final consumption expenditure". I'd say that Anlsvrthng was again right in speculating about what was being counted.