Chinese Economics Thread

antiterror13

Brigadier
hmmmm. You need to consider the appreciation of Yuan against US$ and the inflation as well

perhaps you need to grab some economic books from your local library to educate you well. Also CIA fact book explain it quite clearly :)
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Just curious, can somebody please explain to me China's GDP(Nominal) numbers? I don't quite understand them. These are from Wikipedia and various other sources.

2006 - $2,712,917 US
2007 - $3,494,235 US
2008 - $4,519,950 US
2009 - $4,990,528 US
2010 - $5,878,257 US

I don't understand the growth each year part. I was under the impression China's growth has been about 10% each year. Yet these numbers are like 20% growth each year ???? wtf. Like 2007-2008 was almost a 30% jump ???? wtf That doesn't even make sense to me. Thats whats been confusing me.
I obviously misread. My bad.

That's the nominal GDP, which is GDP in US dollars not adjusted for inflation.
 
Last edited:

Quickie

Colonel
Just curious, can somebody please explain to me China's GDP(Nominal) numbers? I don't quite understand them. These are from Wikipedia and various other sources.

2006 - $2,712,917 US
2007 - $3,494,235 US
2008 - $4,519,950 US
2009 - $4,990,528 US
2010 - $5,878,257 US

I don't understand the growth each year part. I was under the impression China's growth has been about 10% each year. Yet these numbers are like 20% growth each year ???? wtf. Like 2007-2008 was almost a 30% jump ???? wtf That doesn't even make sense to me. Thats whats been confusing me.

China's GDP in Yuan comes up to about 10% growth for those years. The GDP measured in U.S. dollars will have to take into account the two currencies' exchange rate.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
This doesn't dispute that China is merely exercising its rights on its own resources. So again, what's your point? Some sort of threat? Really, the West wouldn't be complaining right now and would be exercise its leverage if it has any to begin with. If China determines not to sell, then short of military pressure the West won't get its hands on those rare earth resources, and we know that isn't possible either. So this sounds like empty threat to me. And the West has ignored China's interests for the longest time anyway, so what's happening here is more like China returning the favour and the West doesn't like the taste of its own medicine.

I overlooked it on the first occassion, however I still think its worth a reply.
No I do not think it is a case Western propaganda giving a distorted account on how China became the main source of R.E.M.'s
For clarification , China was more than willing to sell its R.EM's at market prices it was actually giving its producers , tax rebates for exporting the stuff. If it was a victim of the Wests requirements, then it was pretty obvious that it was a willing one. In this case I think China is like the girl who engaged in consensual sex in the evening and then claimed rape when she woke up in the morning is a suitable analogy.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

".......In the 1990s, the Government encouraged enterprises to export their products by refunding the value-added tax that producers paid on exported products................"


As I suggested earlier under Deng it had set out to become a major player in the production of REM, even if it meant undercutting the competition.

Actually rather than a losing situation for China, its become one of win win for China if this article is anything to go by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


".......A decade earlier, in 1995, two Chinese government-backed companies — together with Sextant Group, a private-equity firm headed by Archibald Cox Jr., son of the former Watergate prosecutor — bought Indiana-based Magnequench, one of the last U.S. makers of neo-magnets.
Magnequench's unique manufacturing process was developed by General Motors — and the Chinese wanted it, according to Stanley Trout, a former Magnequench scientist.....................
America also lacks skilled rare-earth experts. In the 1980s, the U.S. magnet industry employed 6,000 workers, according to Richardson's association. Today's figure: 400.
An even greater gap exists at the scientific level's top echelon. The United States has about 60 scientists and engineers with specialized knowledge of magnet production, to China's 6,000, Green says.
"U.S. leadership in (rare-earth element) technology is eroding," according to a Carnegie Mellon University report. It found that the end of U.S.-based manufacturing "led to the removal of over 90 percent of domestic R&D activities on rare-earth permanent magnet materials."
Conclusion: The "knowledge for producing (neo-magnets) within the U.S. has been lost."
"The knowledge drain is a long-term strategic problem" for America, Molycorp's Sims acknowledges.
Molycorp has hired 20 scientists and is seeking more "as fast as we can," according to CEO Mark Smith. He says the company has contacted retired Japanese experts interested in helping the American firm.
Peter Dent, vice president of business development at Electron Energy Corp. in Landisville, Lancaster County, outlines the challenge: "Japan, China and Germany are extremely good. ... Molycorp is going to have to be competitive against people who are doing very well. It's a big hill to climb."
Thomas Sanderson, deputy director and senior fellow on transnational threats for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, is equally pessimistic.
"In some ways, it's too late," he says, because China "bought up the market. It will be difficult for us to regain our position. Some skills and industries are perishable.................."

Read more: U.S. control of 'rare earth' minerals slipping - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So in essence it was a brilliant concept but perhaps not quite as well executed. Perhaps China got caught out with the increasing demands and ended up having to play hardball a lot earlier before all the pieces were in place.
For example China has been trying to become a major player in Australian R.E.companies has met with failure whenAustralia's Foreign Investment Review Board rejected a 51% bid by CNMC that would have seen the world's richest deposit "Mt Weld" owned by Lynas Corp having CNMC as its majority shareholder. I think that might also leave her on the outside when it comes to the major refinery in Malaysia.
and along with a few other attempts to increase share holdings in mining companies (Rio Tinto) going astray, is what I mean't by "her actions coming back to bite her in the buttocks."
When China joined the WTO she agreed to abide by its rulings. However I think it would probably be better all round for the WTO to come up with some form of compromise.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
No I do not think it is a case Western propaganda giving a distorted account on how China became the main source of R.E.M.'s
For clarification , China was more than willing to sell its R.EM's at market prices it was actually giving its producers , tax rebates for exporting the stuff. If it was a victim of the Wests requirements, then it was pretty obvious that it was a willing one. In this case I think China is like the girl who engaged in consensual sex in the evening and then claimed rape when she woke up in the morning is a suitable analogy.
Strawman. No one ever contents how China became the main source of rare earth metals. China willing to sell rare earth metals before, so what?! That does not mean China is obligate to continue the high level of supply today and into the future. Your analogy is also flawed; the correct analogy would be a girl participating in consensual sex before but now wants it no more, but the partner (the West) complains, thinking he is entitled for more as if the girl owes him.

For example China has been trying to become a major player in Australian R.E.companies has met with failure whenAustralia's Foreign Investment Review Board rejected a 51% bid by CNMC that would have seen the world's richest deposit "Mt Weld" owned by Lynas Corp having CNMC as its majority shareholder. I think that might also leave her on the outside when it comes to the major refinery in Malaysia.
and along with a few other attempts to increase share holdings in mining companies (Rio Tinto) going astray, is what I mean't by "her actions coming back to bite her in the buttocks."

So, essentially China got screwed over in these attempts and got bit in the ass long before the idea of curtailing rare earth exports gained any momentum. This is what I have pointed out before: the West has long ignored China's interests, so reducing rare earth exports is China returning the favour, which the West complains about now because it doesn't like the taste of its own medicine.
 
Last edited:

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Strawman. No one ever contents how China became the main source of rare earth metals. China willing to sell rare earth metals before, so what?! That does not mean China is obligate to continue the high level of supply today and into the future. Your analogy is also flawed; the correct analogy would be a girl participating in consensual sex before but now wants it no more, but the partner (the West) complains, thinking he is entitled for more as if the girl owes him.

Nope its your analogy thats flawed.

Im not complaining about China reducing the amount of REE they were prepared to export or what they were charging
I merely refuting the attempts by some in painting China as the injured party, when it was China doing the enticing by deliberately selling the products below what it cost to produce in the West when it didnt have to.

So, essentially China got screwed over in these attempts and got bit in the ass long before the idea of curtailing rare earth exports gained any momentum. This is what I have pointed out before: the West has long ignored China's interests, so reducing rare earth exports is China returning the favour, which the West complains about now because it doesn't like the taste of its own medicine.

You assumed wrong and your reply is nothing but /spin with aspects that dont suit your line of arguement being left out. Why dont you read the link I provided in the earlier post WHICH SAID


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"In 2008, China reduced the rare earth export quota for domestic rare earth producers and traders by 21.6 percent from that of 2007; in 2009, it reduced the quota by an additional 2.5 percent. "

Are you suggesting that a 21% cut in 2008 isnt significant ? ROFL
The 2008/9 financial crisis probably dampened the impact however the smart boys over at "Lynas" had it figured.


So essentially Mt Weld and Lynas Got some more traction with interested parties after the2008 reduction announcement made by China. When China wanted to increase her shareholding she got told to Fu--k O... by the board in late 2009.
and you convieniently ignored the failed attempts to increase a shareholding in Rio Tinto which happened long after China announced a reduction.::p


Addition

IMO China wanted to increase her shareholding in Lynas Corp so she could play the part of "Spoiler"as some sources suggest that she was against the refinery being built in Malaysia.But after the fishing boat incident with Japan when China witheld REE exports to Japan, Japan stepped in and gave Lynas Corp the financial boosts that it needed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


IN A bid to break China's stranglehold on global supplies of rare earths, Japan Inc has directed Lynas Corp to raise $75 million from an institutional placement and a shareholder share purchase plan.The $55 million institutional placement at $2.07 a share and the $20 million SPP takes to $325 million the amount that the Japanese and Lynas are putting in place to fund an accelerated expansion of Lynas's Mount Weld rare-earths project near Laverton, in Western Australia, and the project's associated processing facilities in Malaysia.As previously announced, Japan is providing $250 million of the total through the trading house Sojitz and Japanese government agency financing. There is a slight difference in that $25 million of the $250 million is to come from a share placement to Sojitz at $2.12 a share. Lynas last traded at $2.18 a share.Lynas said yesterday that the Sojitz placement and the loan facility from Sojitz/Japanese government agency financing had been conditional on Lynas raising the additional $75 million.Lynas said it considered the condition a "prudent step to ensure that sufficient funds are available for additional expenditures that may arise".The Japanese deal is underpinned by a supply agreement under which the Japanese market will be allocated a minimum of 8500 tonnes of rare earths a year for the next 10 years, which represents as much as 25 per cent of Japanese demand........."
 
Last edited:

petty officer1

Junior Member
Just like what I was worrying in post #214

Monetary tightening in China is hurting small start-ups businesses.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the eastern city of Wenzhou, one-fifth of the city's 360,000 small and mid-sized businesses have stopped operating due to cash shortages, China's official news agency Xinhua reported on Thursday.

"Effective measures should be taken to contain the trend of usury, crack down on illegal fundraising and properly handle the problems of collateral and capital shortage in order to prevent risks from spreading and evolving on a regional scale," Mr Wen said while visiting the city.

On the other hand China manufacture index jumps again, source from Bloomberg News Service.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A Chinese manufacturing index advanced for a second month in September, as a measure of new export orders rebounded to the highest level since May.

The Purchasing Managers’ Index was at 51.2, compared with 50.9 in August, the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing said in a statement yesterday. The median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey of 13 economists was for a reading of 51.1. A level above 50 indicates expansion.

September’s manufacturing reading, the highest in four months, suggests the world’s second-largest economy is weathering Premier Wen Jiabao’s campaign against inflation that has included higher interest rates, lending curbs and home- purchase limits. Room for further tightening may be limited by a heightened risk of recession in the U.S. and euro-area economies and the impact of that on Chinese exports.

“The PMI should be relatively positive for the market, which is increasingly receptive to overly bearish calls,” said Lu Ting, a Hong Kong-based economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “China’s growth is slowing at a gradual pace,” he said. “A hard landing is of small probability.”

The manufacturing index compiled by the logistics federation and National Bureau of Statistics is based on a survey of purchasing managers in more than 820 companies in 20 industries. It hasn’t fallen below 50 since February 2009.
In contrast, a separate manufacturing index released Sept. 30 by HSBC Holdings Plc and Markit Economics indicated a third straight month of contraction. The reading of 49.9 was unchanged from August and higher than the preliminary figure of 49.4.
HSBC PMI

HSBC’s index, which reflects a survey of more than 400 companies, is weighted toward small businesses that have been hit harder by the government’s tightening measures, according to economists including Merrill Lynch’s Lu and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.’s Liu Li-Gang. The official PMI has a greater focus on larger enterprises, they say.

China’s benchmark Shanghai Composite Index fell on Sept. 30 to its lowest close since April 2009 on concerns that the nation’s growth is slowing and Greece may default on its debt. The gauge sank 15 percent in the July-to-September period, the biggest drop since the second quarter of 2010. Chinese markets are closed next week for the National Day holiday.

The data released yesterday by the logistics federation and statistics bureau showed that the measure of new export orders climbed to 50.9 from 48.3 in August. A gauge of input prices declined to 56.6 from 57.2 and the employment index gained to 51, the highest level since April.

‘Good News’

“Good news is that export orders rebounded to above 50 and the input price index declined,” said Shen Jianguang, chief Greater China economist for Mizuho Securities Asia Ltd. Economic growth may slow to 9 percent on year in the third quarter, with the possibility of a “hard landing” still “unlikely,” said Shen, who previously worked for institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.

Fifty-nine percent of respondents in the quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll of investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers said economic growth in China may decline to less than 5 percent annually by 2016. Growth was 9.5 percent in the second quarter.

Premier Wen, speaking at a banquet Sept. 30 in Beijing marking the weeklong National Day holiday that celebrates the start of Communist rule in China in 1949, said that relatively fast increases in consumer prices have been controlled. The government aims to keep prices basically stable and to further implement property control measures and policies for the construction of social housing projects, he said.

No Policy Easing

Merrill Lynch’s Lu said China has “no reason” to ease monetary policy at the moment. Inflation in China rose to a three-year high of 6.5 percent in July before moderating in August to 6.2 percent. The People’s Bank of China has raised interest rates five times and increased the reserve requirement nine times in the past 12 months.

The statistics bureau is scheduled to release inflation data for September on Oct. 14 and gross domestic product figures for the third quarter on Oct. 18.

China should be prepared for “the worst of a eurozone crisis,” which could cause a “hard landing” in the nation, Lu said. The financial woes in Europe and the U.S. may also result in a lower reading for new export orders in October after the “surprise” level see in September, he said.

“The headwinds in the global economy will be felt by China’s exporters in the coming months,” Lu said.

Petty officer1
 

Engineer

Major
Nope its your analogy thats flawed.
Nope. The analogy is perfectly fine. China isn't the one who is complaining here, but the West is. China is giving reasons (environmental and finanical) as to why it doesn't want to export since the West is demanding answers. The West doesn't accept them, and thinks China is obligated to continue the export citing WTO agreement, etc. Your very own argument reflects such a mentality when you reharsing "but China exported before".

Im not complaining about China reducing the amount of REE they were prepared to export or what they were charging. I merely refuting the attempts by some in painting China as the injured party, when it was China doing the enticing by deliberately selling the products below what it cost to produce in the West when it didnt have to.
Another strawman. We have been pointing out China is merely exercising its rights over its own resources. It is a very simple principle but obviously you seem to have an issue with it since you keep on trying to refute it with irrelevant points (ie. "but China exported before").

When China first decided to reduce rare earth export, you start seeing articles and people in the West saying they will go to someone else for the materials, that they will have invented new materials soon and it's a matter of time before rare earth metals are no longer needed, that they could even try extracting rare earth materials from scrap metals, and that China would soon regret its decision. Then, when these same people finally realize they are powerless in this situation, and that China actually wants the amount of export to reduce, these people do they only thing they could -- villify China. Except that their arguments are flawed. They treat China as some monolithic block that delibrately sells rare earth materials at dirt cheap price when in fact that's not the case; China had no such control. Chinese government simply didn't have a monopoly on rare earth materials then. By clamping down on illegal mining, closing of private mines, and nationalizing the remaining ones, China is taking the right steps to making such monopoly a reality.

You assumed wrong and your reply is nothing but /spin with aspects that dont suit your line of arguement being left out. Why dont you read the link I provided in the earlier post WHICH SAID
You mean how you in your own replies constantly spin with irrelevant points so that you can leave out the aspect that China is merely exercising its rights over its own resources? You are projecting your own attitude right here.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


"In 2008, China reduced the rare earth export quota for domestic rare earth producers and traders by 21.6 percent from that of 2007; in 2009, it reduced the quota by an additional 2.5 percent. "

Are you suggesting that a 21% cut in 2008 isnt significant ? ROFL
The 2008/9 financial crisis probably dampened the impact however the smart boys over at "Lynas" had it figured.

So essentially Mt Weld and Lynas Got some more traction with interested parties after the2008 reduction announcement made by China. When China wanted to increase her shareholding she got told to Fu--k O... by the board in late 2009.
and you convieniently ignored the failed attempts to increase a shareholding in Rio Tinto which happened long after China announced a reduction.::p
So essentially, in 2008 China got screwed over by Rio Tinto, then China reduced rare earth exports by 21% in 2008. Gotcha. And it is now 2011, China continues to reduce rare earth exports, the West keeps keeps on complaining and has pretty much been told by China to f**k off on the matter. Sounds to me like the West got served its own medicine.

Addition

IMO China wanted to increase her shareholding in Lynas Corp so she could play the part of "Spoiler"as some sources suggest that she was against the refinery being built in Malaysia.But after the fishing boat incident with Japan when China witheld REE exports to Japan, Japan stepped in and gave Lynas Corp the financial boosts that it needed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This would still happen regardless of whether China withheld rare earth exports to Japan, which is another damn good justification for China to continue to reduce export.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Just like what I was worrying in post #214

Monetary tightening in China is hurting small start-ups businesses.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yet more non-sensical scare mongering by the usual suspects.

If China's economy grows at the rate it did before, these 'experts' 'worry' about overheating, but China's economic growth slows and it's suddenly a debt crisis. :rolleyes:

These same experts were berating Chinese banks for not jumping onboard their derivatives and sub-prime ponze-schemes just a few years back and insisting China's financial sector was it's weakspot and the only way the Chinese economy could grown without fear of a a massive collapse was to do exactly what western banks do. Who isn't glad China didn't take their stupid advice?

These same experts have also been pointing at China's high savings rate and saying that that is a massive problem for China, and China should follow the western approach and borrow and spend money it does not have. The Greeks must be so pleased they followed the advice of these experts right now.

These experts say plenty but get precious little right.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sort of off topic but this just shows in general how the media manipulates, exaggerates, spins and lies in what they report. They're trying to make Michelle Bachman out to be some tin foil hat loon when she's only repeating information to a short term memory public. All of the sudden the accusations a few years ago that China blinded US surveillance satellites with lasers is the talk of crazy people. And this article dares to nitpick on the definition of words. Michelle Bachman is not saying anything different from what the media reported back then. What does it say that the media can't even remember a story they put out there that Michelle Bachman just repeated and as result paints her as a loon. If they can't remember their own words from just a few years ago, what else crap are they putting out there without thinking? And the world is suppose to believe they're professional about the truth?
 
Top