Chinese Economics Thread

[bladerunner]

Then don't ask, Europe. If they didn't need China, then don't bother. Get all the other countries that are to more your liking to save your butts. But then China is key isn't it or China wouldn't even be part of the question they're pondering. It's just like how the G-20 became important. The G-8 didn't want to include China just because they didn't want China to have that honor. So the G-20 was given a more important role but we all know it was all about China.

Only time will tell. I remember coming across some speculation that financial help from China will come with stipulations such as recognising China as a "market economy", something that EU countries are loath to do.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Like China is alone. Like it's worse than missionaries dangling food in front of poor people in exchange for conversion? Risks comes at a price and China will certainly be most at risk or China wouldn't even be mentioned in favor of more influenced obedient countries. Like I said if they don't need China's money, then don't bother. If they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, that's the price they pay. It's not like China is taking advantage of a costly natural disaster. Greedy people caused their problems thus there should be nothing less than business as usual.

 

[Martian]

IMF: China's 2011 nominal GDP is $7 trillion

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database, September 2011 Edition, Gross Domestic Product, current prices, (Millions of) U.S. dollars. (via

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

The latest IMF estimate for China's 2011 nominal GDP is $7 trillion. Most of the economic data for this year have been collected and the late-year estimates are always very accurate. Only four more years to go before China's economy exceeds $10 trillion in 2015.

 

[Rising China]

China GDP should be higher than that because Hong Kong and Macau GDP must be included, but I doubt that the IMF adds those in. If they were not excluded, China GDP is over 7 trillions.

IMF: China's 2011 nominal GDP is $7 trillion

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database, September 2011 Edition, Gross Domestic Product, current prices, (Millions of) U.S. dollars. (via

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

The latest IMF estimate for China's 2011 nominal GDP is $7 trillion. Most of the economic data for this year have been collected and the late-year estimates are always very accurate. Only four more years to go before China's economy exceeds $10 trillion in 2015.

 

[Quickie]

The above IMF estimates doesn't take into account the changing exchange rates of the 2 currencies. Adding the estimated yearly Yuan appreciation against the US dollar would make a very different outcome from that of the estimation above.

 

[Martian]

IMF: China's 2011 nominal GDP is $7 trillion

Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook (WEO) Database, September 2011 Edition, Gross Domestic Product, current prices, (Millions of) U.S. dollars. (via

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

The latest IMF estimate for China's 2011 nominal GDP is $7 trillion. Most of the economic data for this year have been collected and the late-year estimates are always very accurate. Only four more years to go before China's economy exceeds $10 trillion in 2015.

The above IMF estimates doesn't take into account the changing exchange rates of the 2 currencies. Adding the estimated yearly Yuan appreciation against the US dollar would make a very different outcome from that of the estimation above.

You are correct, but IMF numbers are easier for lay people to understand.

A few years ago, the IMF changed the way it calculated GDP. To smooth out currency fluctuations, the IMF switched to the average currency exchange rate for the entire year; instead of using the traditional currency exchange rate at the end of the year.

It is more appropriate to use the end-of-the-year currency rate for China, because its currency keeps appreciating. It doesn't make sense to use the average currency exchange rate for the year, because it will only reflect half of the currency appreciation and undercount China's economy by a quarter of a trillion.

However, I don't want to confuse lay people and it's easier to just use the IMF numbers. An estimate of $7.25 trillion is closer to China's actual GDP, but it's too complicated to have to explain it to non-economists.

----------

Also, the United States is the largest contributor and has the largest percentage of votes at the IMF. The IMF tends to inflate projections for the U.S. economy (e.g. IMF 2011 projection of U.S. 4% economic growth is silly; it's actually 0.85% for the first half-year of 2011) to keep its largest shareholder happy.

Unlike the IMF claim, the U.S. economy will not hit $15.2 trillion this year. $14.6 trillion x 1.04 = $15.2 trillion. There is no way the U.S. economy can attain 4% growth for this year. Using real economic data of 0.85% growth for the first half-year, a closer estimate is $14.6 trillion x 1.0085 = $14.7 trillion.

From U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2011, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent."

Math:

U.S. economic growth for first two quarters of 2011: 0.4%, 1.3%

Average U.S. growth rate for first half-year of 2011: (0.4 + 1.3)/2= 1.7/2 = 0.85% (not 4% like the IMF is claiming)

 

[Equation]

Only time will tell. I remember coming across some speculation that financial help from China will come with stipulations such as recognising China as a "market economy", something that EU countries are loath to do.

Why is that, just curious?

 

[bladerunner]

Why is that, just curious?

Apparently it reduces the circumstances under which one can take China to the WTO. and place penalty duties for dumping or even alleging China does it etc (well thats the one Ive often heard used) I remember American trade specialist lawyers making reference to it when they were fighting off Chinas complaint in reference to the penalty duties placed upon those tyres last year where the Americans thought that, what to make, how much to make and what to charge was not goverened by the law of supply and demand.


Afterthought NZ was one of the first Western Country with a western style economy to recognise China as a market economy. Something it received a fair amount of criticism for. Most saw it as a trade off for China supporting the nomination of our retiring PM to a cushy UN job.

The biggest bug bear most had against seeing china as a market economy is that her economy had excessive state involvment in areas where private enterprise should be functioning and one uses those grounds to start wacking penalties.

 

[Equation]

Apparently it reduces the circumstances under which one can take China to the WTO. and place penalty duties for dumping or even alleging China does it etc (well thats the one Ive often heard used) I remember American trade specialist lawyers making reference to it when they were fighting off Chinas complaint in reference to the penalty duties placed upon those tyres last year where the Americans thought that, what to make, how much to make and what to charge was not goverened by the law of supply and demand.


Afterthought NZ was one of the first Western Country with a western style economy to recognise China as a market economy. Something it received a fair amount of criticism for. Most saw it as a trade off for China supporting the nomination of our retiring PM to a cushy UN job.

The biggest bug bear most had against seeing china as a market economy is that her economy had excessive state involvment in areas where private enterprise should be functioning and one uses those grounds to start wacking penalties.

Good answer, but I have a question regarding "The biggest bug bear most had against seeing china as a market economy is that her economy had excessive state...". Why does it matter if the company is either run by the state or private? I mean a company is company regardless of who runs it, it's sole mission is to make profits.

 

[Lacrimosa]

Neither method is exactly flawless but the IMF is more nearly correct as an average gives an idea how much a nation can buy and sell at what rate over the course of the year. Appreciating 5% by the end of the year compared to the start does an exporter or importer very little good in January.

Nominal GDP is only a very rough estimate of a nation's economic capacity anyway, I won't bother too much with it.