Chinese Economics Thread

montyp165

Senior Member
Re: GM sells record 2 million cars in China, bests U.S. tally

Quite impressive, too think not so long ago some people were dancing on GM's grave.

If you ever have the chance to see any GM forum discussions, there are even some GM enthusiasts leaning in that direction believe it or not...
 

Martian

Senior Member
TIME: 21st century China resembles a young and vigorous America

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"How China is Like 19th Century America
By Stephen Mihm and Jeffrey Wasserstrom Sunday, Nov. 07, 2010

chinausflagsreflection.jpg

Illustration by Emiliano Ponzi for TIME

Is China making an unprecedented leap to the top of the global economic hierarchy? Yes, Martin Jacques asserts confidently in his buzz-generating When China Rules the World. He sees the country, which recently passed Japan to become the world's No. 2 economy, rising smoothly to the top spot by continuing to follow a thoroughly distinctive, Confucian-tinged development path. No, say China skeptics like economist John Markin and hedge-fund honcho James Chanos, with equal self-assurance. They predict that bursting bubbles will lead to a Chinese equivalent to Japan's "lost decade" of the 1990s. To them, as George Friedman pithily puts it in his best-selling The Next 100 Years, which is sometimes displayed near Jacques' tome in airport bookstores these days, China is just "Japan on steroids."

While we're too aware of how regularly — and speedily — bold forecasts about China are proved wrong to offer one of our own, our research into 19th century America and contemporary China, respectively, leads us to flag a third possibility: China could stumble but keep climbing upward, much like the U.S. did about a century and a half ago. We find today's China less reminiscent of Japan in the 1980s than it is of the U.S. in the 1850s. (See pictures of the making of modern China.)

Don't get us wrong. We don't expect breakneck growth to continue unabated. China faces daunting challenges, from a rapidly graying workforce to endemic corruption to energy needs that are increasingly hard to satisfy. To say that China faces major challenges, though, doesn't undermine the American analogy. The same was true of the U.S. circa 1850.

The U.S. was then, as China is now, a predominantly rural country undergoing a massive shift toward an urban, industrial economy. By the 1850s, the U.S. was en route to becoming the workshop of the world, rapidly churning out cheap yet high-quality textiles, clocks, guns and other goods. The British dubbed this miracle the "American system of manufactures," and it became the envy of the world. Much as China's capacity for producing seemingly endless quantities of cheap goods is now earning it the ire and admiration of other countries. (Read "The Real Challenge from China: Its People, Not Its Currency.")

U.S. commentators complain that China's success has been predicated on chicanery (like the manipulation of the yuan), dubious business practices and wanton disregard for copyrights. In doing so, they echo things that British commentators once said about America's rise, back when New England factories used reverse engineering to mimic the latest Lancashire technological breakthroughs and Dickens complained of making no money from the pirated copies of his novels sold in the country. To use a line often attributed — probably inaccurately — to Mark Twain, history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. And this is one of those cases.

What of the bubbles that China skeptics flag? Numerous speculative real estate bubbles grew and burst while the U.S. rose. Each time, the economy recovered and went on to grow again at a blistering pace. So too might China's. (See pictures of the largest military parade in China's history.)

And the fundamental contradiction between China's political structure (nominally communist) and its economic structure (largely capitalist)? The U.S. was an extraordinarily different place politically in 1850, but it didn't lack contradictions. It prided itself on devotion to freedom and equality, yet slavery played a pivotal role in its economy, women lacked basic rights and Native Americans were grossly mistreated. Just as the U.S. struggled throughout the 19th century to resolve its contradictions, so will China in coming years. It needs both tighter regulation of the economy and looser control of society, and while the Chinese have ever greater choices to make and spend money, they still do not have sufficient say about how they are governed.

The analogy outlined here is far from perfect. But imperfect historical analogies have value — if they help us see the present in a new light. In this instance, the main payoff of looking back to the U.S. of the 1850s is simply that it gets us out of two boxes. One is that of thinking of China as a purely exotic case — a place that's not just different from but completely the opposite of the U.S. The other is thinking of it as a country whose boom is sure to end soon, just like that of the last Asian country to reach the No. 2 economic spot.

These are boxes Americans need to escape. Otherwise, they won't be able to get a clear-eyed view of the brash young nation (the People's Republic is just 61 years old) across the Pacific: a country leapfrogging its way toward the top of the economic order and in the process stirring anxieties in the U.S. that rhyme remarkably well with those an adolescent America once triggered in the aging empire across the Atlantic.

American historians Mihm and Wasserstrom are the authors, respectively, of A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men, and the Making of the United States and China in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know.

This article originally appeared in the November 15, 2010 issue of TIME Asia."
 

Martian

Senior Member
China's view on world leadership

chinadeputyforeignminis.jpg

China's Deputy Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"China's rising status makes it potential friend or foe
By Jaime FlorCruz, CNN Beijing Bureau Chief
November 11, 2010 -- Updated 2145 GMT (0545 HKT)
...
Deputy Foreign Minister Cui, a seasoned America-watcher, said the U.S. shouldn't fear the rise of China.

"I think the U.S. has to be confident that China will never challenge its position in the world," he told me. 'We will never do that because leadership in the world would be very costly. We cannot afford it. If you want to waste your money on that, you do it. We're not going to do it.'"
 
Last edited:

Martian

Senior Member
BBC News: China's currency war is 'fiction'

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"China's currency war is 'fiction'
Last updated: 12 November, 2010 - 17:13 GMT

The idea that China is at the front of a currency war with the dollar and euro is simply a "romantic fiction", and in fact the yuan has risen by almost 25% against the dollar over the past five years, says noted currency economist Jim O'Neill.

jimoneill226x283nocredi.jpg

Jim O'Neill, the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management

The G20 summit ended with rather vague promises and delayed decisions. There had been talk of targets to settle trade and currency disputes. But the communique only promised new guidelines to identify "large imbalances that require preventive and corrective actions".

World Business News's Mike Johnson asked Jim O'Neill, the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, what the new currency guidelines might look like:

The transcript is below.

Jim O'Neill: Ah good question. You know, importantly as ambitious and as complex as that could be, importantly they're starting from a position where in my judgement global imbalances are already improving.

We had the latest Chinese trade data earlier this week - we've had ten months of the year - China's trade surplus is going to be not much more than 3% of GDP, which is less than half what it was three years ago. Even though the US current account deficit remains large, it is also about half the level it was three years ago. So these two that are at the core of this global issue, and by making some broad commitments, at a minimum it means there's focus on it to make sure policies in both those countries aren't geared towards making those imbalances grow further.

So, it is difficult to find the exact critieria to guide definitive current account target planning, but they're starting from a reasonably strong position of things growing in the right direction, anyhow.

MJ: So do you think, in some senses, this issue of global imbalances - some countries exporting too much, other countries not consuming enough - is that going to just simply resolve itself, for the reasons you've talked about with the Chinese allowing their currency to rise a little bit in recent weeks?

JO'N: Well, I was in Asia myself for much of the preceding two weeks, and on some of these well-used phrases that we use so much here in the UK and the States, you know, many Asian policymakers call the global credit crisis the north Atlantic crisis. You know, the world doesn't look the same as seen from an Asian lens as it does from a European or US one. And European leaders have to realise that.

The second thing is, the Chinese currency has now risen over the past five years by close to 25% against the dollar, and nearly that much against the euro as well. So - so this idea that the Chinese are at the front of some currency war is like some kind of romantic fiction of people's minds - and it's a slightly dangerous one in that as well.

MJ: And what do you think the outcome of this G20 tells us about any new balance of power in the global economy, because it seems that by no means is China being pushed around by the likes of the United States on the issue of currency strength?

JO'N: Well, I think that's certainly one of the features of it, and of course the whole advent of the G20 was done to bring in China and the other so-called BRIC nations into the centre of global policymaking.

One of the consequences of that, which is now perhaps dawning on the US and Europe, is that they're going to hear a different view and ones with a different tone and opinion. But that's the nature of the modern globalised economy and the US and others have got to realise that."
 
Re: China's view on world leadership

[qimg]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/558/chinadeputyforeignminis.jpg[/qimg]
China's Deputy Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"China's rising status makes it potential friend or foe
By Jaime FlorCruz, CNN Beijing Bureau Chief
November 11, 2010 -- Updated 2145 GMT (0545 HKT)
...
Deputy Foreign Minister Cui, a seasoned America-watcher, said the U.S. shouldn't fear the rise of China.

"I think the U.S. has to be confident that China will never challenge its position in the world," he told me. 'We will never do that because leadership in the world would be very costly. We cannot afford it. If you want to waste your money on that, you do it. We're not going to do it.'"
ROFL
LOVE WHAT HE SAID.
btw what'd u guys think of the results of the g20? to me it seemed us lost in attempts to push any of its agendas onto prc. instead, germany, japan, and prc all opposed to deficit/surplus limit
 

Martian

Senior Member
19 To 1 At G-20

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ibdlogo.gif

"19 To 1 At G-20
Posted 11/11/2010 07:08 PM ET

Economics: The G-20 meeting in Seoul to create a new global economic order looks a lot like a rugby scrum, all arms and legs and little clear direction. Yet on one thing the leaders agree: The crisis is largely America's fault.

A couple of headlines show what we mean: "Obama Under Fire At G-20 Summit" (Agence France Presse) and "Obama Flies Into Storm Of Criticism At Seoul Summit," (the Sydney Morning Herald).

Why the anti-U.S. tone? Sure, legitimate gripes can be made about the Fed's renewed $600 billion quantitative easing plan to boost U.S. demand and weaken the dollar. And those who fault the U.S. for its massive debt buildup and trillion-dollar deficits will get no disagreement from us. Both policies are economically unwise.


That said, the idea that the rest of the world has innocently stood by over the last decade of financial turmoil while the U.S. messed things up doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Take China and Germany. Both have followed policies that push up exports at the expense of imports and domestic demand. In 2009, the two countries accounted for 19% of the world's $12 trillion in exports.

The other G-20 countries run big trade deficits and want Germany and China to "rebalance" their economies. Such requests have so far been met with a polite "no thanks" at the G-20.

China in particular is following the same foolish mercantilist policy Japan did 40 years ago — focusing on boosting exports at all costs by undervaluing its currency and building foreign reserves.

Yes, GDP growth in China has averaged over 10% for more than a decade. But because of the frugality China has forced on its citizens, the savings rate approaches 50% — an unhealthy level that leaves little room for buying other nations' goods. So resentment is building.

Meanwhile, U.S. critics in Europe, the G-20's largest bloc of nations, are no less hypocritical. While insulting U.S. fiscal profligacy, their own finances are a bleeding mess — far worse, statistically, than even ours. And that's saying a lot.

In 2009, U.S. public debt as a share of GDP was 53%. In Britain, it was 68%, in Germany 72%, in France 78% and in Italy 115%. In Japan, the debt-to-GDP ratio is at bankruptcy levels: 190%.

True, some brave, bold moves have been made recently, especially in France, Germany and Britain, where political leaders have cut spending to regain control of their public finances. But that doesn't change the fact that plenty of economic policy mistakes have been made around the globe and we're all paying for them now.

These problems aren't easily resolved. G-20 watchers who keep hoping for a "grand bargain" — a deal on currencies, or trade deficits, or government spending, or whatever, that will somehow solve all our problems — are going to be disappointed.

The answer isn't in collective action, or in blaming the U.S. It lies in sound economic principles followed by each nation. These include lower taxes, smaller government, fewer regulations, freer trade, and a respect for private property and rule of law.

A commitment by the nations gathered in Seoul to return to those principles would do more than any deal on currencies or trade deficits to strengthen the world's economy."

My observation:
Fact: "Yuan has risen by almost 25% against the dollar." Five years ago, the exchange rate was 8.26 yuans for 1 U.S. dollar. Today, the exchange rate is 6.62 yuans per U.S. dollar. (See
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Conclusion: The American claim that China is manipulating its currency for an unfair trade advantage is clearly untrue. To the contrary, China's currency appreciation of 25% during the past five years has placed China's manufacturers at a disadvantage in the world market.

Actually, it is the United States that has been manipulating its currency for an unfair trade advantage. The Federal Reserve has been printing money at an unbelievable rate. The first round of "Quantitative Easing" involved $2 trillion dollars during the Great Recession.

Today, the Federal Reserve is engaged in a second round of massive money printing of $600 billion dollars, called "Quantitative Easing 2." Flooding the world with a total of $2.6 trillion dollars of printed money will devalue the American currency. This is currency manipulation. There is no other way to describe it.
 

Maggern

Junior Member
That was a really crap article.

The other G-20 countries run big trade deficits and want Germany and China to "rebalance" their economies.
G-20 asked Germany and China to rebalance their economies because they run huge deficits? I haven't heard anything about that (though this might just be me). What I actually hear is that the deficit problem is primarily American, because the US produces goods both Germany and China produces (though they do it better and in China's case cheaper).

But because of the frugality China has forced on its citizens, the savings rate approaches 50% — an unhealthy level that leaves little room for buying other nations' goods.
The "frugality" of China is what saved them from the crisis, and that will help them avoid terribly bubble bursts (you escape that creditor domino effect when you can't pay your bills, as there are no creditors). Also, the high savings rate in China is more caused by culture and the lack of sound social security.

The answer isn't in collective action, or in blaming the U.S. It lies in sound economic principles followed by each nation.
The answer is unilateral action? NO NO. The interconnected nature of economics, finances and trade mean that you MUST reform in cooperation with your partners, not follow your own policies irregardless of others. Either everyone loses or you lose. Some of the largest crises and problems (also since the financial crisis) has been caused by governments doing what's in their best interest, without regard for the effects in international trade.

These include lower taxes, smaller government, fewer regulations, freer trade, and a respect for private property and rule of law.
The answer is LESS regulation? Dear God....

PS: Don't ask me why I put so much effort into bashing this one article...I think I just felt like ranting at something today.
 
That was a really crap article.


G-20 asked Germany and China to rebalance their economies because they run huge deficits? I haven't heard anything about that (though this might just be me). What I actually hear is that the deficit problem is primarily American, because the US produces goods both Germany and China produces (though they do it better and in China's case cheaper).


The "frugality" of China is what saved them from the crisis, and that will help them avoid terribly bubble bursts (you escape that creditor domino effect when you can't pay your bills, as there are no creditors). Also, the high savings rate in China is more caused by culture and the lack of sound social security.


The answer is unilateral action? NO NO. The interconnected nature of economics, finances and trade mean that you MUST reform in cooperation with your partners, not follow your own policies irregardless of others. Either everyone loses or you lose. Some of the largest crises and problems (also since the financial crisis) has been caused by governments doing what's in their best interest, without regard for the effects in international trade.


The answer is LESS regulation? Dear God....

PS: Don't ask me why I put so much effort into bashing this one article...I think I just felt like ranting at something today.

agreed. PATHETIC article. UNHEALTHY SAVINGS?! it's a chinese cultural thing that was passed down by our generations. chinese always believe in save for the rainy day. and they call us unhealthy?! spending all and saving NOTHING is unhealthy. whoever wrote that article should be slapped
 

Martian

Senior Member
Quantitative Easing Explained

The following new 3-day-old video already has 258,377 views. It performs an excellent job in explaining the U.S. government's "Quantitative Easing" in understandable terms.

The video is relevant to China, because the United States has accused China of currency manipulation to gain an unfair trade advantage (e.g. to sell Chinese goods at a lower price on the world market). However, as Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill has noted, China's currency has actually appreciated by 25% during the past five years (e.g. Chinese goods cost 25% more on the world market than five years ago).

Instead, it is the U.S. that has been engaged in currency manipulation. The federal government has printed $2.6 trillion dollars in the last two years to depress the value of the U.S. dollar.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Top