China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Klon said:

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.

Click to expand...

Ohhhhh, OK I see. So he said that a figure "doesn't add up," then you said that it can't be $37 trillion, and it turns out that it is $37 trillion and it does add up, and you two made that mistake because you didn't even understand or bother to check the definition of the figure you were attacking. And as a result, that makes you two right, according to your standard; am I understanding you correctly? LOLOL

I hope you two don't work in a hospital. "We diagnosed the patient with a broken arm; turns out he was having a heart attack. So we treated him for a broken arm as he died of myocardial infarction. BUT, if he did have a broken arm, then that would have been the proper treatment, which means we were right."

PS. He didn't have to speculate on a known definition that you can check. That is not what is considered an accomplishment.

Anlsvrthng said:

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 : ).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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

Click to expand...

That is just statistics for manufacturing, trade and efficiency. You did not factor in amount of consumption, which in China will increase by magnitudes in the years to come, and the type of industries target in a trade war. So China may have more job losses in the manufacturing sector, the US may have losses in the high tech and farm sector. The US losses in terms of value and opportunity cost will be much higher than China's due to the rise of China's consumption.

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 is weird, very weird logic. No immigrant camps, no fear. So, let's wait for them to set up camp. Yeah, the British people had no access to the media to know what was happening in Europe, ISIL attacks and immigrants stoways.

manqiangrexue said:

Ohhhhh, OK I see. So he said that a figure "doesn't add up," then you said that it can't be $37 trillion, and it turns out that it is $37 trillion and it does add up, and you two made that mistake because you didn't even understand or bother to check the definition of the figure you were attacking. And as a result, that makes you two right, according to your standard; am I understanding you correctly? LOLOL

I hope you two don't work in a hospital. "We diagnosed the patient with a broken arm; turns out he was having a heart attack. So we treated him for a broken arm as he died of myocardial infarction. BUT, if he did have a broken arm, then that would have been the proper treatment, which means we were right."

PS. He didn't have to speculate on a known definition that you can check. That is not what is considered an accomplishment.

Click to expand...

It's not 37 trillion dollars. Like I said, glass houses.
That category name is only used in China and thus it's unlikely that anyone would know what it means without checking. It's reasonable to say that it sounds like it's a subset of household final consumption expenditure, but it's actually the other way around. I'm pretty sure you knew none of this before my comment.
Mocking and hostility don't help your case.

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...

Let's put it this way: whether in the UK or the US employers/investors via trade/investments undoubtedly re-distributed wealth from their own workers to themselves and to overseas employers and workers in countries such as China, also via and to recent immigrant workers in their own countries. Unsurprisingly while both the relative and the absolute standard of living and opportunity for advancement have significantly improved for millions of poor and middle class Chinese the same cannot be said for millions of poor and middle class Britons and Americans.

Klon said:

It's not 37 trillion dollars. Like I said, glass houses.
That category name is only used in China and thus it's unlikely that anyone would know what it means without checking. It's reasonable to say that it sounds like it's a subset of household final consumption expenditure, but it's actually the other way around. I'm pretty sure you knew none of this before my comment.
Mocking and hostility don't help your case.

Click to expand...

Ohhhh ok I see. So this (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-strategy-in-korean-peninsula.t6680/page-131#post-491121) said yuan. And then you (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-strategy-in-korean-peninsula.t6680/page-131#post-491153) said yuan. But now, suddenly, you deserve some credit because before it was confusing cus you thought it was US dollars, right? Does that make you "right" again by your standard? LOLOL

So you didn't understand the definition of a term before criticizing it but by your standard, that is it's OK and it makes you right because hypothetically, you think that I also didn't know the term, right? LOL Should I spend the next few posts retrospectively trying to prove that I knew something so I don't "live in a glass house?" LOL Which, of course, I live in, because you were wrong but hypothetically, I could have been as well, right? By your standards LOL

For road, there are many things that I don't know, but before I criticize them as being wrong, I CHECK THEM. Maybe you should too. Mockery doesn't help my case? I don't have a case that needs to be helped; you're the one making claims: "It's definitely not 37 trillion yuan. (Half an hour later) Oh, apparently, it is 37 trillion yuan. But I was RIGHT, because I didn't know what 'retail sales of consumer goods' meant (and it's definitely not my fault because it's not my responsibility to check things before I criticize them, of course) but also because it's not 37 trillion USD!"

How about instead of lecturing other people about glass houses and mocking and hostility, you say you're sorry for being wrong? You wanna know why you got mocked? Because you attacked other people's knowledge, made an obvious big mistake, tried to spin it to look like you were right, and then tried to salvage it like a dog coming back to its feces with some yuan/dollar excuse. Look at your own actions and the apology that you owe before criticizing why other people aren't "really cool" with your mess-ups and attitude.

manqiangrexue said:

Ohhhh ok I see. So this (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-strategy-in-korean-peninsula.t6680/page-131#post-491121) said yuan. And then you (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-strategy-in-korean-peninsula.t6680/page-131#post-491153) said yuan. But now, suddenly, you deserve some credit because before it was confusing cus you thought it was US dollars, right? Does that make you "right" again by your standard? LOLOL

Click to expand...

This is getting ridiculous. You used the dollar sign, so I pointed out your mistake.
As for the rest, I acknowledge I was wrong about "retail sales of consumer goods". I also explained why the mistake happened. I'm reasonably sure that you were right about this without knowing what you were talking about. After all, if you knew the definition of the indicator, you could have posted it instead of writing this

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...

which, besides being irrelevant, is wrong.
What you're doing here, apart from writing LOLs, is unclear.

Klon said:

This is getting ridiculous. You used the dollar sign, so I pointed out your mistake.
As for the rest, I acknowledge I was wrong about "retail sales of consumer goods". I also explained why the mistake happened. I'm reasonably sure that you were right about this without knowing what you were talking about. After all, if you knew the definition of the indicator, you could have posted it instead of writing this

which, besides being irrelevant, is wrong.
What you're doing here, apart from writing LOLs, is unclear.

Click to expand...

Oh, this got ridiculous the moment you started rolling around in mud trying to cover your own mistake.

Other than being right, I'm here to stop trolls like you, who "admit" to being wrong, but add a "but you were right by accident." Doesn't count, right? LOL Say, what are you doing here? Trying to back someone up who was wrong by being more wrong in comparison? Usually, when people are wrong, they show humility and shut up. To be honest, I didn't even bother to analyze why he thought it "didn't add up." I knew that he couldn't quote someone properly and he thought that the US deficit was a very simply problem to solve. So this cemented the image of big mouth, no ability in my mind. Given these 2, when he questions professional articles with official figures because he couldn't figure out how the numbers were arrived at, I'd just assume that he's wrong, and I was right. And you were wrong in saying that he's right. And then, you looked at an official figure, 33 trillion yuan, and went, "Nah, impossible." So that's how I knew I was dealing with twins.

Oh I was wrong, huh? LOL Here's what I wrote:

"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."

Kindly point out the part that's "wrong." And look it up before you write this time. I don't want another, "Oh, you said IMF; I didn't know that it stood for International Monetary Fund. I thought it was Icelandic Monkeys Foundation. So, clearly not my fault and I was right because the Icelandic Monkeys don't have ways for measuring GDP. And I'm sure that you didn't know that either, so even if I was wrong, which I wasn't, it cancels out."

manqiangrexue said:

Other than being right, I'm here to stop trolls like you, who "admit" to being wrong, but add a "but you were right by accident." Doesn't count, right? LOL Say, what are you doing here? Trying to back someone up who was wrong by being more wrong in comparison? Usually, when people are wrong, they show humility and shut up.

Click to expand...

Well, are you going to apologize for wrongly using the dollar sign and then misunderstanding my correction and attributing the error to me? Are you going to show humility and shut up?

To be honest, I didn't even bother to analyze why he thought it "didn't add up." I knew that he couldn't quote someone properly and he thought that the US deficit was a very simply problem to solve. So this cemented the image of big mouth, no ability in my mind. Given these 2, when he questions professional articles with official figures because he couldn't figure out how the numbers were arrived at, I'd just assume that he's wrong, and I was right. And you were wrong in saying that he's right. And then, you looked at an official figure, 33 trillion yuan, and went, "Nah, impossible." So that's how I knew I was dealing with twins.

Click to expand...

This is not an accurate summary of events. I already explained why I had made that mistake.

Oh I was wrong, huh? LOL Here's what I wrote:

"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."

Kindly point out the part that's "wrong." And look it up before you write this time. I don't want another, "Oh, you said IMF; I didn't know that it stood for International Monetary Fund. I thought it was Icelandic Monkeys Foundation. So, clearly not my fault and I was right because the Icelandic Monkeys don't have ways for measuring GDP. And I'm sure that you didn't know that either, so even if I was wrong, which I wasn't, it cancels out."

Click to expand...

That quote is actually closer to being "not even wrong", in that it doesn't address the issue and is barely coherent. Since you asked, different organizations don't come up with different numbers; in the vast majority of cases, they're reporting the numbers as provided by the country in question. Where do you see anyone adding 2017 and 2016 data? What were you addressing with "70% of growth, not 70% of GDP"? Be honest, you didn't even know what was being spoken about.
We can also talk about "US deficit was a very simply problem to solve", you'll learn a lot.

PanAsian said:

Let's put it this way: whether in the UK or the US employers/investors via trade/investments undoubtedly re-distributed wealth from their own workers to themselves and to overseas employers and workers in countries such as China, also via and to recent immigrant workers in their own countries. Unsurprisingly while both the relative and the absolute standard of living and opportunity for advancement have significantly improved for millions of poor and middle class Chinese the same cannot be said for millions of poor and middle class Britons and Americans.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are absolutly correct : )
However I have to say that this condition created (unnecessary) a zero sum game for the US/Chinese elites (I don't think that we can diferensiate them at this point any more) , for the US workers and for the Chinese workers.

Additionaly it created deep rooted imballances and tesnions in the Chinese / US economy and job markets.

I mean, the trade surpluss and crazy level of investment activity in China doesn't benefit the masses at all, it creating the illusion of wealth for the Chinese elite.


The most interesting from this standpoint is how the North Korean economy will transform in the comming years.

China / Russia/ eastern europe choose a way to integrating the with US economical system by different level, but in North Korea thye made a biizare mixture of wild west style , everything free without taxes and rules economy living together with state owned enterprises.

IT reminds me to the 80s Hungarian economy.

The most interesting is they are doing it with minimal, mainly Chinese support and capital injection, and even the later is in the form of machines ,and oil.

I think NK doing at the moment the most interesting economical / political experiment on the earth : )


Anyway, the most interesting will be how they will handle the widening efficiency gap between the SOEs and the street rat style, extremly efficient micro businesses.

In China they can cover this gap by using up foreign capital, but in NK they can't .

Very interesting : D