Chinese Economics Thread

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
As if it's not already crazy enough, Trump is considering to delist Chinese companies from the U.S. markets. Of course in the meantime, he'll continue to complain about China not opening its economy enough.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trump considers delisting Chinese firms from U.S. markets: sources

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s administration is considering delisting Chinese companies from U.S. stock exchanges, three sources briefed on the matter said on Friday, in what would be a radical escalation of U.S.-China trade tensions.


The move would be part of a broader effort to limit U.S. investment in Chinese companies, two of the sources said. One said it was motivated by the Trump administration’s growing security concerns about the companies’ activities.

Major U.S. stock indexes slipped on the news, which came days before China celebrates the 70th anniversary of the birth of the People’s Republic on Oct. 1, when the world’s No. 2 economy will shut down for a week of festivities.


It was not immediately clear how any delisting would work.

In June, U.S. lawmakers from both parties introduced a bill to force Chinese companies listed on American stock exchanges to submit to regulatory oversight, including providing access to audits, or face delisting.

Chinese authorities have long been reluctant to let overseas regulators inspect local accounting firms - including member firms of the Big Four international accounting networks - citing national security concerns.

“Beijing should no longer be allowed to shield U.S.-listed Chinese companies from complying with American laws and regulations for financial transparency and accountability,” Republican Senator Marco Rubio said at the time.

One of the sources briefed on the matter said the idea of delisting was the latest salvo in this longstanding dispute.

“This is a very high priority for the administration. Chinese companies not complying with the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) process poses risks to U.S. investors,” the source said.

Any plan is subject to approval by Trump, who has given the green light to the discussion, Bloomberg reported
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
citing a person close to the deliberations.

Officials are also examining how the United States could put limits on Chinese companies included in stock indexes managed by U.S. firms, the agency cited three sources as saying.

No decision or action is imminent, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters.

As of February, 156 Chinese companies were listed on the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchanges, according to U.S. government data, including at least 11 state-owned firms. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

NYSE declined to comment on Friday, while Nasdaq, MSCI, S&P and FTSE Russell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

China's yuan currency, traded in offshore markets
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, fell against the dollar after the news to trade near its weakest against the greenback in about three weeks.

PLOY?
Trade talks between the United States and China are expected to be held Oct. 10-11 after months of tit-for-tat moves by both sides which have weakened global growth and driven rollercoaster moves in markets.

While the idea of delisting could be a maneuver ahead of those talks, the main aim was to counteract the civilian-military fusion of Chinese technology firms, the Made in China 2025 industrial development program targeting key industries for domination and a growing surveillance state in Xinjiang, one of the sources said.

The source said there are longstanding concerns about U.S. capital enabling these activities, especially as the lines blur between state-owned and private companies in China.

“It’s all very disruptive, it just adds to uncertainty and it’s a big negative for business investment,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at investment bank Raymond James. He noted, however, that both sides have used aggressive moves in the past ahead of talks.

“You never know if it’s a ploy to get some leverage,” he said.

Trump on Tuesday criticized Beijing’s trade practices in a speech at the United Nations, but the next day stoked hopes that the nearly 15-month standoff could be nearing an end.

“They want to make a deal very badly ... It could happen sooner than you think,” he told reporters in New York on Wednesday.

China says it cannot allow its companies to submit to oversight by PCOAB because of rules prohibiting the storage, processing or transfer of any material considered to be state secrets or national security matters.

U.S. hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, a prominent critic of China, said on Friday that Chinese companies should have to play by U.S. rules if they want to sell to U.S. investors.

“The U.S. should require any securities sold in the US to adhere to US Securities Laws. Crazy huh?” Bass wrote on Twitter.

This is just great! The last bastion of free market philosophy going down the drain!

When I was a student of economics, we have to do thesis on the difference between Capitalist and Communist markets.

And one of the examples we used to epitomize Capitalist is the free market philosophy, and one market we always use is the stock market! (although I always argued that there is no such thing as unfetted free market in its pureist sense)!

And finally, the POTUS has proved me right! Way to go. Long live the Trump!
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
We're a long way from how Trump thought the US had the power through tariffs alone were going to make China surrender to his demands. Trump is one of those people who wants to punish people just because things didn't go the way they thought was going to happen. Like all those so-called experts that said that as China goes through greater prosperity, greater freedoms will come with it. It has just not the ones they wanted and now they want China punished because their prediction was wrong. Trump is still hanging on to his belief that the US needs no one while everyone else needs the US. Don't believe the lie that the US built China. Just like Africa, the West saw it as a lost cause and Africans were never going to get it together. They believed the same things about China. The first people to invest into China were overseas Chinese. The only thing American was that some were Chinese-American. And the US still has the same pessimism about everything else especially when it comes to Chinese technological development.
 
now I read
Hometown construction game spurs patriotism
Source:Global Times Published: 2019/9/28 20:53:40
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Young Chinese are obsessed with a competitive online city-construction game to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, that allows players to learn about their hometown's development and national policies.

The game, jointly developed by the People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party of China, and China's tech giant Tencent, was released on Tuesday to promote patriotism, the People's Daily said.

Players first choose their home city then join the construction of the city - building houses and running businesses, which can earn virtual income for the players.

Each player's income will be converted into the province's total score and serves as the base for the ranking among different provinces.

The conversion ratio varies due to different businesses, according to players reached by the Global Times.

Real estate, although the most profitable industry for players, contributes little to the city, while trade, manufacturing and service industries contribute more, a player surnamed Zhong, 24, told the Global Times. His hometown is Shangrao, East China's Jiangxi Province.

As of press time, South China's Guangdong Province and East China's Jiangsu were the top two, which coincides with the top two on the GDP list of Chinese provinces in 2018.

Players can also learn about the benefits of national policies and strategies - including the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Initiative (BRI), cracking down on gang crimes and establishing a credit system - and apply the policies and strategies to better construct their virtual cities.

For example, players' income will rise by as high as 50 percent after joining the BRI, and as high as 150 percent after entering a free trade zone.

The Global Times found that, on the game's highest level, joining the credit system can increase incomes by as much as 180 times.

About 300 cards that show the beautiful urban scenery and unique regional culture of modern China will also be unlocked one by one as the total score of all the players reaches a certain figure.

Chinese netizens, especially young people, have been addicted to the game.

"More animated residents and cars will appear in the city once I complete a task in the game, which makes me feel proud as I contributed to the city's prosperity and understand the difficulties of building a country," a Beijing-based player, 22, who requested anonymity, told the Global Times on Saturday.

The game app topped the free game ranking on Apple's App Store, and its Android version has been downloaded 398,592 times as of press time, according to Chinese application data analysis website qimai.cn.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
As if it's not already crazy enough, Trump is considering to delist Chinese companies from the U.S. markets. Of course in the meantime, he'll continue to complain about China not opening its economy enough.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trump considers delisting Chinese firms from U.S. markets: sources
Perfect. Winners aren't desperate and the desperate aren't winners. It'll get uglier than this. Maybe a Chinese people registry in the US. Don't feel like sticking around for that. But as long as China's nuclear forces are robust, the bottom line will not be violent and it will be only matter of time before the US gets tired of its own ugliness and just relents. "It's natural to be overtaken by a country of 1.4 billion people. Per capita's what matters; no big deal." That's exactly how the American government de-escalate with the US citizens.
 
Perfect. Winners aren't desperate and the desperate aren't winners. It'll get uglier than this. Maybe a Chinese people registry in the US. Don't feel like sticking around for that. But as long as China's nuclear forces are robust, the bottom line will not be violent and it will be only matter of time before the US gets tired of its own ugliness and just relents. "It's natural to be overtaken by a country of 1.4 billion people. Per capita's what matters; no big deal." That's exactly how the American government de-escalate with the US citizens.
ManQ what is it you're saying? I'm intrigued by your post, but don't understand it (no sarcasm)
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
As if it's not already crazy enough, Trump is considering to delist Chinese companies from the U.S. markets. Of course in the meantime, he'll continue to complain about China not opening its economy enough.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trump considers delisting Chinese firms from U.S. markets: sources

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s administration is considering delisting Chinese companies from U.S. stock exchanges, three sources briefed on the matter said on Friday, in what would be a radical escalation of U.S.-China trade tensions.


The move would be part of a broader effort to limit U.S. investment in Chinese companies, two of the sources said. One said it was motivated by the Trump administration’s growing security concerns about the companies’ activities.

Major U.S. stock indexes slipped on the news, which came days before China celebrates the 70th anniversary of the birth of the People’s Republic on Oct. 1, when the world’s No. 2 economy will shut down for a week of festivities.


It was not immediately clear how any delisting would work.

In June, U.S. lawmakers from both parties introduced a bill to force Chinese companies listed on American stock exchanges to submit to regulatory oversight, including providing access to audits, or face delisting.

Chinese authorities have long been reluctant to let overseas regulators inspect local accounting firms - including member firms of the Big Four international accounting networks - citing national security concerns.

“Beijing should no longer be allowed to shield U.S.-listed Chinese companies from complying with American laws and regulations for financial transparency and accountability,” Republican Senator Marco Rubio said at the time.

One of the sources briefed on the matter said the idea of delisting was the latest salvo in this longstanding dispute.

“This is a very high priority for the administration. Chinese companies not complying with the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) process poses risks to U.S. investors,” the source said.

Any plan is subject to approval by Trump, who has given the green light to the discussion, Bloomberg reported
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
citing a person close to the deliberations.

Officials are also examining how the United States could put limits on Chinese companies included in stock indexes managed by U.S. firms, the agency cited three sources as saying.

No decision or action is imminent, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters.

As of February, 156 Chinese companies were listed on the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchanges, according to U.S. government data, including at least 11 state-owned firms. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

NYSE declined to comment on Friday, while Nasdaq, MSCI, S&P and FTSE Russell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

China's yuan currency, traded in offshore markets
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, fell against the dollar after the news to trade near its weakest against the greenback in about three weeks.

PLOY?
Trade talks between the United States and China are expected to be held Oct. 10-11 after months of tit-for-tat moves by both sides which have weakened global growth and driven rollercoaster moves in markets.

While the idea of delisting could be a maneuver ahead of those talks, the main aim was to counteract the civilian-military fusion of Chinese technology firms, the Made in China 2025 industrial development program targeting key industries for domination and a growing surveillance state in Xinjiang, one of the sources said.

The source said there are longstanding concerns about U.S. capital enabling these activities, especially as the lines blur between state-owned and private companies in China.

“It’s all very disruptive, it just adds to uncertainty and it’s a big negative for business investment,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at investment bank Raymond James. He noted, however, that both sides have used aggressive moves in the past ahead of talks.

“You never know if it’s a ploy to get some leverage,” he said.

Trump on Tuesday criticized Beijing’s trade practices in a speech at the United Nations, but the next day stoked hopes that the nearly 15-month standoff could be nearing an end.

“They want to make a deal very badly ... It could happen sooner than you think,” he told reporters in New York on Wednesday.

China says it cannot allow its companies to submit to oversight by PCOAB because of rules prohibiting the storage, processing or transfer of any material considered to be state secrets or national security matters.

U.S. hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, a prominent critic of China, said on Friday that Chinese companies should have to play by U.S. rules if they want to sell to U.S. investors.

“The U.S. should require any securities sold in the US to adhere to US Securities Laws. Crazy huh?” Bass wrote on Twitter.

It's a ploy to get distraction from his about to get impeachment.

The Trump administration is using China to distract from impeachment
By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
September 27, 2019


As President Trump stares down an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, it seems his administration has tried to deflect attention, using China as something of a red herring.

US stock market indexes dropped today after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reported that the Trump administration was considering delisting Chinese companies. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped about 0.3% while the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
slipped approximately 0.5%. Chinese companies, however, fell further. E-commerce giants
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and JD.com skidded 5-6%, while Chinese conglomerate
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
slid 3%.

Although Trump has increasingly escalated the trade war through
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, his administration’s alleged threat to remove Chinese companies from US stock markets represents a new—and extreme—direction.

“In today’s world, plenty of capital is chasing limited investment opportunities around the world,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, an associate professor of strategy at Washington University in St. Louis, told Quartz via email. “Cutting US institutions from such opportunities [would] not help the US.”

“The ‘Chinese companies’ listed in the US are usually ‘hybrid companies’ with foreign investments from the very beginning,” Zhao observed.

“Take Alibaba, for example. The top five shareholders are Blackrock (US), T. Rowe Price (US), and Baillie Gifford & Company (Scotland), alongside the two co-founders,” she wrote. “In earlier years, Softbank (Japan) and Yahoo (US) own[ed] almost half of Alibaba’s equity.”

Given that US investors own a sizable chunk of Chinese companies, Zhao wondered how the administration would determine if a company is “Chinese enough.” Rather than achieving a foreign policy objective, barring US investors from Chinese companies could artificially depress share prices and actually punish US investors more than anyone else.

“The US financial market is attractive to businesses all around the world because of its sophisticated institutions, and people’s trust in them. Any arbitrary restrictions from the administration will weaken, if not destroy, such trust,” Zhao asserted.

Despite the potential for self-harm, though, president Trump could very well delist Chinese companies. Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Quartz there’s a 30-40% chance of it happening.

Under 1977’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Trump administration “has the power to tell pension funds [and others] not to buy Chinese shares, and tell stock exchanges not to list Chinese companies or to delist existing ones,” said Hufbauer in a phone interview. “The power is there,” he said, but the “political and market ramifications would be severe, as we’ve seen today.”

“If he were to do that, there would be questions as to whether he’s setting a precedent for other countries he doesn’t like,” Hufbauer said. He expressed mild concern that Trump could similarly play hardball with Europe and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

On a macroeconomic level, Hufbauer said, by prohibiting investment in Chinese companies, Trump could inadvertently strengthen the dollar and cause interest rates to fall further. If forced out from China, investors might park their funds in US Treasuries.

Ultimately, Hufbauer said, the Trump administration’s machinations appear, well, self-serving: “I think he’s trying to find anything he can to distract from impeachment.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Economics and Geo-economics Part I: A Cruical Distinction

I will not be venturing much in presuming that every reader is at least casually familiar with the term “economics”. It’s what the *Wall Street Journal* writes about in every issue, it’s what talking heads on CNBC natter endlessly about like gossiping teenagers – usually with all the knowledgeability of gossiping teenagers. It’s what everyone has an opinion about and, of course, the solution to all that ails it. Whatever one thinks of the merits (or lack thereof) of the field of economics, I aim to show here that it’s woefully inadequate to the task of understanding strategic affairs among nations, particularly as it applies to China.

That’s no knock on economics – understanding strategic affairs is simply not what it was conceived to do. That task is better suited to what I’ll unimaginatively call “geo-economics”, and what I hope this essay will briefly introduce and provide a rationale for. To grasp the principal shortcoming of economics in our enterprise, we must first understand a crucial insight: economics – especially popularizations of it – is, to the exclusion of almost everything else, concerned with investment.

Doubtless the reader might think this a gross oversimplification, and I’ll not deny an element of truth to that. In my defence, I’ll point out that most practising economists work for major banks and financial institutions which, for all their bewildering variety, have one thing in common: their ultimate concern is money in vs. money out. Investment. Every column writer and talking head is opining on where they think some market is going, what policy this or that central bank will adopt, which companies are earning how much, etc. All this has a specific purpose: channelling investment. Whatever economic work is done outside this domain is certainly very far from the popular imagination, and has no role to play in the mental framework most people carry when they try to apply economic reasoning.

It cannot have escaped the reader that economic coverage of China is uniformly negative. It’s even entered American presidential politics, with Donald Trump thumping his chest and boasting that his trade war has caused China’s economy to grow at the slowest rate in however many vigintillion years. Criticism of this claim is usually shallow, pointing to other factors that were slowing China’s economy. But a deeper criticism must look at the question more profoundly: why is China’s economy widely taken to be in trouble at all?

The simplest answer is that China used to grow at double-digit percentage rates and it no longer does so, therefore its economy is in trouble. QED, yes? Not quite, as the following simple demonstration would show: If China grew at 10% (the smallest double-digit rate) for the next 30 years as it grew for the last 30, it’s PPP adjusted GDP and per-capita GDP in 2019 dollars would be $480 trillion and $350,000, respectively. The respective numbers today are roughly $27.5 trillion and $20,000. We can safely say that the odds are against this scenario. The natural entailment would be that China’s growth is bound to slow sooner or later, simply because planet Earth is a finite thing. As an aside, at its present trajectory of ~6% growth, China’s PPP adjusted GDP and per-capita GDP in 2019 dollars would be a more modest $160 trillion and $120,000, respectively. As we can see, “slow” is a relative term.

Here we come to what might be called the First Axiom of Geo-economics, and what crucially distinguishes it from popular economics: the size of what’s growing matters every bit as much as how fast it grows.

Yet if a demonstration as trivial as this serves to refute the prevailing ludicrous characterization of China’s economy, why does it persist? I often hew to the maxim that one should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. While it might be too cruel to characterize these entrenched biases as “stupidity” - especially as they do a passable job when one doesn’t venture too far from their narrow, specific domains – they certainly foster fallacious reasoning.

In that spirit, consider this second example: Let’s suppose we have two economies A and B, with A growing at 12% and B growing at 6%; let’s also stipulate that investment risks are equal between the two economies. Any competent investor would greatly favour A to B, as that is where he is mostly likely to maximize the return on his investment. If he’s of notable wealth and prominence, he’d undoubtedly be invited to write a column in the *Journal* or be interviewed on CNBC, where he would crow on and on, declaring A the future and instructing everyone to invest in it. In some narrow sense, he’d be right.

Whatever issues A would face as a result of this flood of hot money is a topic for another essay.

The reader will surely have noticed that the investor did not give one whit about the size of A and B’s economies. That’s because that’s at best a tangential factoid to investors. All an investor cares about is money in vs. money out and how much risk hangs over that money. If B is a hundred times larger than A, then good for B – how is that going to make me more money? To our hypothetical investor, a tiny economy growing at 12% is vibrant, while a gargantuan economy growing at 6% is moribund.

But to those of us interested in geopolitics, this is deeply misleading. Another arithmetical demonstration would illustrate just how misleading, at a size ratio of 100:1, B – growing at 6% - would add A’s entire economy – as it grows at 12% - in 0.174 years, or two months and change. The geopolitical ramifications of this should be obvious.

I will explore other common fallacies that arise when discussing China’s economy in subsequent parts.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Lyign sack of shit pumpndump media
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Treasury says no plans to block Chinese listings 'at this time': Bloomberg
The United States does not currently plan to stop Chinese companies from listing on U.S. exchanges, Bloomberg reported on Saturday, citing a U.S. Treasury official.

"The administration is not contemplating blocking Chinese companies from listing shares on U.S. stock exchanges at this time," Bloomberg quoted bloom.bg/2obHkDb Treasury spokeswoman Monica Crowley as saying.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Lyign sack of shit pumpndump media
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Treasury says no plans to block Chinese listings 'at this time': Bloomberg

Most of the time, it's not about them actually doing what they say.

It's really about doing damage to the consumer and investor sentiment in relation to Chinese investment.

The same thing happened with the Google ban on Huawei when reprieve was given for a period of time but we know the job of damaging consumer sentiment had been done and dusted.
 
Last edited:
Top