Chinese Economics Thread

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Already bounced back even though it might be a dead cat bounce. Will wait until the verdict.

P.S A few months ago online folks were talking in zeal about the antitrust actions toward FAAANG especially now Biden has won. Yet, now they are condemning China's antitrust actions lel.

Jack Ma Has Lost $12 Billion in Two Months on China Scrutiny​

  • Increased scrutiny on Alibaba has hit other tech giants
  • China’s internet moguls are still $170 billion richer in 2020
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jack Ma’s net worth has tumbled by $12 billion since the end of October when China stepped up scrutiny of his empire and the country’s tech behemoths.

The 56-year-old former English teacher -- often associated with the meteoric rise of China’s internet sector -- reached a peak of $61.7 billion this year and was poised to regain the title of Asia’s wealthiest person. He’s since slipped to 25th on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a list of the world’s 500 richest people.

Ah, China, where rich people don't get to flout the criminal code at will. Sure, being rich is glorious - just don't trample on others or create Ponzi schemes.


That said banking regulations will hurt Ant/Alipay's bottom line. They gave very generous interest rates when you put money in Alipay. Probably won't see those rates after the regulations are put in place.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Having a smooth bell-like wealth distribution is healthy. Communes don't work for large communities. Communes do work and can work well in small doses (e.g. Kibbutz today and utopian/communistic communities in 19th century America). Experimental results show collective communities starts to break down when population size is in the thousands. We know the lower bound around 4 people work out very well in human history. We call that a 'family'.

When wealth distribution becomes skews or have double spikes, there will be social chaos or even revolutions. In small city states it is possible to have a very large wealthy population and smaller relatively poor population. The threshold seems to be around 15 million. For larger countries, it is far more likely to have a much larger poor population with a rich minority. When the poor feel the current system is unjust and they have nothing to lose, they will rise up (especially the urban poor since they have more spare time and education). This is why having a dominant middle class is the best way to ensure social stability. Today, the U.S. income distribution has been diverging since the Reagan era while China's middle class is growing mainly through urbanization.

The key to longevity for any political system is to provide a mechanism for social mobility so the ambitious poor know they have a chance for successful if they choose to. Chinese have an old saying that wealth does not extend more than three generations. That is social mobility (poor gets rich, rich gets poor). A good system allows a political system to last for millenniums like China's examination system still practiced by every East Asian country today (the dreaded college entrance exam). Bad ones can lead to wars and conquests like 19th century Prussia and Japan where rising up socially through the military system is encouraged and promoted.

In the end, a country's political system is not nearly as important as its economic system. The two are independent but politicians (in the U.S., China, and everywhere else) like to brainwash you into think they are one the same (convincing you to swear allegiance to Apples by showing you how sweet Sunkist Oranges are). In the economic sphere, what most people seek is fairness/equal opportunities (for those that wishes to compete but keep in mind that there is a large population where material wealth is not their life objectives). If the level of fairness is good enough, the political system is viable.

In game theory, there is a simple 'fairness' test. You can ask yourself what would you do if you are A and if you are B. I won't post the answer (minimum amount for over 50% success) here. You can easily google it. The answer explains what astute politicians already know.

Two people A and B on how to share $1. A decides how to divide up the dollar. B decides to accept A's deal or not. If B accepts, both get A's allocations. If B rejects, neither gets anything. For example, if A decided to give himself 1c and leave 99c to B, chances are B will accept. Chances are if B is only offered 1c and A wants to keep 99c for himself, B will walk away. If you are A, what would you do? If you are B, what is the minimum amount you'll accept?

If you take it a step further, a greater number of wealthy leads to "elite overproduction" as Turchin calls it.

So you have a much larger elite competing for the same number of political positions.
This leads to a surplus of bored, arrogant, disaffected wealthy people who try to take power by manipulating the masses, and who want destroy the existing systems (eg. The Trumps, Navarros, Bannons etc)
 

canniBUS

Junior Member
Registered Member
Main perk of unequal wealth distribution is that it motivates individuals to work hard in order to get ahead. Communism fails because the lack of incentives leads to stagnation. The goal of society should not be to create an equal wealth distribution, it should be to promote social mobility and equal distribution of opportunity as much of possible. Of course, society should also aim to protect the weak and the poor and guarantee a minimum standard of living, but otherwise promote the pursuit of wealth.
Keep in mind both China and the USSR made tremendous economic and scientific progress during periods of planned economy. What was motivating Qian Xuesen and his research team? It wasn't wealth. The notion that communism fails due to lack of incentive is a western propaganda point and one that the Chinese government rejects. The notion that communism seeks and equal wealth distribution is also a deliberate misrepresentation of Marxist communism. The maxim: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" implies and unequal distribution since the abilities and needs of individuals are different. Wealth is not money sitting in Jack Ma's bank account, nor is it mansions and nice cars. If anything, the creation of luxuries is anti-wealth, it takes vaulable natural resources and human talent and directs it into creating fancy toys for the few. Even Adam Smith condemned the aristocracy hiring servants as an unproductive drain on the wealth of the nation, luxury consumption is similar. Real wealth is the industrial, agricultural, scientific, and cultural capability of a society. Creating wealth depends on the labour of your entire society, it's only natural that those who did the work partake in the benefits of their labour.
Having a smooth bell-like wealth distribution is healthy.
It's impossible to have a normal distribution for wealth since wealth is positive quantity. Further more, you can actually look at empirical data for income distribution (not wealth but it is the closest proxy) and it shows that income follows two distributions. First for the bottom 97% of the population income is distributed according to boltzmann-gibbs distribution and for the top 3% income is distributed according to power law distribution (pareto distribution). You can see the work for Victor Yakovenko for more details:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This shows that income is already highly skewed and it is even more skewed for higher income groups.
The key to longevity for any political system is to provide a mechanism for social mobility so the ambitious poor know they have a chance for successful if they choose to. Chinese have an old saying that wealth does not extend more than three generations.
Hereditary wealth, and by extension, political power is a real and rots what little promise of social mobility that remains in liberal capitalism. China should carefully study the problems in the west and avoid replicating them.
When wealth distribution becomes skews or have double spikes, there will be social chaos or even revolutions.
As shown above, wealth distribution has always been skewed yet where are the revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries?
In game theory, there is a simple 'fairness' test. You can ask yourself what would you do if you are A and if you are B. I won't post the answer (minimum amount for over 50% success) here. You can easily google it. The answer explains what astute politicians already know.
Game theory is the latest form of apologetics for capitalism. Mainstream economics is so divorced from reality that new forms of economic theology need to be invented to justify the capitalism.
That is a minor factor compared to shut one self from global trade.
This is correct. Except no country in contemporary history has shut itself from global trade. Embargos and sanctions are imposed by outsiders.
 

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
Main perk of unequal wealth distribution is that it motivates individuals to work hard in order to get ahead. Communism fails because the lack of incentives leads to stagnation. The goal of society should not be to create an equal wealth distribution, it should be to promote social mobility and equal distribution of opportunity as much of possible. Of course, society should also aim to protect the weak and the poor and guarantee a minimum standard of living, but otherwise promote the pursuit of wealth.
Lol, sorry for that...if this right wing narrative was...right, builders, factory workers, miners, farmers etc were supposed to be millionaires. But in real capitalist world, millionaires hate sweating ;) they get others to do it for them
 

horse

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Significant portion of these checks will go to stimulate Chinese economy. Paid by depreciating Chinese holdings of US treasuries.

Lol. This world is weird.
It is a weird world.

Capital is global.

All that money they are printing in the United States, that goes abroad and into the Chinese stock market.

What does that suppose to mean?

That means the US Federal Reserve can inflate a Chinese stock market bubble.

The Chinese Communist Party will spend the next decade trying to talk down or deflate the Chinese stock bubble caused by all the liquidity from the US Federal Reserve bank via their QE to infinity.

--------------- ----------------- ----------------

Well, look on the bright side.

At least the traditional role of the communist trying to downgrade the stcok market will be practised.

:oops: :p
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
It is a weird world.

Capital is global.

All that money they are printing in the United States, that goes abroad and into the Chinese stock market.

What does that suppose to mean?

That means the US Federal Reserve can inflate a Chinese stock market bubble.

The Chinese Communist Party will spend the next decade trying to talk down or deflate the Chinese stock bubble caused by all the liquidity from the US Federal Reserve bank via their QE to infinity.

--------------- ----------------- ----------------

Well, look on the bright side.

At least the traditional role of the communist trying to downgrade the stcok market will be practised.

:oops: :p
Hi horse,

good day bro,

Do you think China should maintain it's capital control policy? I completely agree with you, QE had become a means to export American problem to the rest of the world, during the 2008 financial crisis, there is an agreement between the world central banks that QE will be limited as the US sorted out it's problem, as the years goes by the FED instead of using prudent monetary policy had been corrupted by wall street and also allow themselves to be use politically.(unfortunately Powell interest hike policy had been hijacked by CV19).

As China do the opposite, instead of doing QE, they deleverage, reform and open up its financial market , it will attract a lot of investment (hot money)that in return will inflate the bubble inside the Chinese stock market. It is the only Central Bank with a positive interest rate regime.

The Chinese Communist Party will spend the next decade trying to talk down or deflate the Chinese stock bubble caused by all the liquidity from the US Federal Reserve bank via their QE to infinity.

So with the addition of YUAN appreciation, internationalization and Digitalization use of YUAN can it inflate or deflate the Chinese stock market? I know that the Chinese stock market is not an indicator of the REAL ECONOMY, but if left unregulated it will become one. For me Capital control should be maintain until China reaches its goal of Comprehensive National Power.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member

China 2020 Electricity Production Increased Despite Pandemic​


*In November, 2020, China’s power generation was 641.9 billion kwh, an increase of 6.8 percent year-on-year.

*From January to October, 2020, China’s power generation reached 6,028.8 billion kwh, up 1.4 percent year on year. In October, the power generation was 609.4 billion kwh, an increase of 4.6 percent year-on-year.

*In November, 2020, China’s Steel production was 117.34 million tons, an increase of 10.8 percent; cement was 243.3 million tons, an increase of 7.7 percent; ten kinds of non-ferrous metals was 5.49 million tons, an increase of 6.1 percent; ethylene was 1.98 million tons, an increase of 11.6 percent; automobile was 2.783 million vehicles, an increase of 8.1 percent, including 207 thousand new energy vehicles, an increase of 99.0 percent.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member

China Wind Power Up 11%, Solar Power Up 8% and Nuclear Up 5% in 2020​


Nuclear Energy generation increased 5% in 2020 over 2019. China’s nuclear energy production was 331 TWh for the first 11 months of 2020. China generated 349 TWh in 2019 and is on track to generate 367 TWh in 2020.

Hydro power in China was up 5% over 2019.

China’s energy production was:

Type of Energy Generation 2019 / 2020 Estimate
Hydro 1302 TWh (18%) 1366 TWh
Nuclear 349 TWh (5%) 367 TWh
Wind 406 TWh (6%) 413 TWh
Solar 117 TWh (3%) 141 TWh.

China National Bureau of Statistics reported:
* China’s wind power is up 11% over 2019
* China’s Solar power was up 8% over 2019
* China nuclear and hydro were each up about 5%.

1609292479073.png

SOURCES:

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