Chinese Economics Thread

bajingan

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


A total of 143 Chinese companies have made it to the list of world's top 500 enterprises measured by business revenue, making China top the ranking for a second consecutive year, according to the Fortune Global 500 list for 2021 released on Monday.
China's State Grid climbed to the second place on the list this year, while technology giant Huawei went up from No. 49 to No. 44 despite the U.S. sanctions against the company.

a4cebacb733e44418674cc4abadabd85.jpeg


China's Xiaomi Group, JD.com, Alibaba Group and Tencent Holdings are among the seven internet-related companies on the list this year, while the other three are from the U.S., namely Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook.

Among the seven internet giants, Xiaomi saw the largest increase in the rankings, rising by 84 places, the list shows.
China had 133 companies on the list last year, surpassing the United States for the first time.

There are 122 U.S. companies on the list this year, up by one from last year, while Japan holds steady with 53.

Total revenue for the world's largest companies dropped by 4.8 percent to $31.7 trillion in 2021, the first decline in five years.
Due to the COVID-19 impact, cumulative sales in energy and automotive sectors fell by over 10 percent, while all six airlines on last year's list failed to make the cut this year.
Where does walmart gets most of its goods from? Same question apply to amazon lol
 

Kancil

New Member
Registered Member
Fuck yeah...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) - China's government quietly issued new procurement guidelines in May that require up to 100% local content on hundreds of items including X-ray machines and magnetic resonance imaging equipment, erecting fresh barriers for foreign suppliers, three U.S.-based sources told Reuters.

Document 551 was issued on May 14 by the Chinese Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), with the title, "Auditing guidelines for government procurement of imported products," said one former U.S. government official, who obtained a copy of the previously unreported 70-page catalog and read portions to Reuters, but requested anonymity.

The former official said that when China joined the World Trade Organization, it agreed not to issue such internal documents. The document also violated the spirit of the January 2020 Phase One trade deal with the United States, the former official said. "They need to reduce barriers, not create new ones."

Sent to Chinese hospitals, companies and other state-owned buyers, the document sets local content requirements of 25% to 100% for 315 items. They include medical equipment, ground-based radar equipment, testing machinery, optical instruments; items used for animal husbandry; seismic instruments, and marine, geological and geophysical equipment, the former official said.

The document has not been publicly released by Beijing.

China's Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology did not respond to queries about it.

Some U.S. lawmakers and industry officials are increasingly concerned about Beijing's transparency on trade issues.

The new guidelines affect a wide range of goods, including medical devices, which Beijing agreed to buy more of under the terms of the Phase 1 trade deal. For example, magnetic resonance imaging equipment - a key export for U.S. companies in the past - would face a 100% local content requirements under the new guidelines, the former official said.

U.S. trade experts said China's local content rules differed from planned increases in U.S. "Buy American" thresholds because they were not publicly released, and affect far greater volumes of medical equipment and other goods since China's state-owned enterprises include hospitals and other entities.

BILLIONS IN SALES AT STAKE

China imported some $124 billion in goods from the United States in 2020, much of which was purchased by vast state-owned and government-associated companies that control the education, health, transportation, agriculture and energy sectors.

U.S. medical device exports, made by companies including Johnson & Johnson, GE and Abbott totaled $47.5 billion in 2018, with exports to China valued at $4.5 billion, according to Fitch Solutions data. Chinese imports of such goods fell during the U.S.-China trade war in 2018 and 2019, but rose again after the Phase 1 trade accord was inked.


Doug Barry, spokesman for the U.S. China Business Council, said his group has heard about the document, but has not seen a copy. The group's members who operate in China are reporting new problems in competing for and winning bids there, including areas such as testing equipment and transportation, he said.

The council is urging President Joe Biden's administration to complete its review of U.S.-China trade policies and raise its concerns when Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet in October.

Biden's predecessor Donald Trump, as part of his sometimes contentious China trade policy, was a strong advocate of "Buy American" and "America first."

Biden signed a "Buy American" executive order during his first week in office in January aimed at harnessing the vast buying power of the federal government to boost American manufacturing, and last week unveiled new rules about U.S. content levels in goods procured by the government.

The U.S. Trade Representative's office, which is reviewing U.S.-China trade policies, declined to comment on the Chinese document or whether it violates the U.S.-China trade deal.

USTR spokesman Adam Hodge also declined to give any timetable for when USTR will conclude its review.

One congressional staffer, who was briefed on the document by people who have seen it, said it raised many questions, including whether foreign-owned entities producing goods in China for the Chinese market would meet the new local content criteria.

The non-public nature of the guidelines also meant the Chinese government could play down their importance, the staffer said. "It isn’t posted; it’s not public. It’s being circulated through companies and associations and other groups,” the staffer said. “By not releasing it publicly, the PRC could deny it and say it’s just guidance."

New import restrictions could also make it difficult for China to make up lost ground in meeting its commitment to buy an additional $200 billion in U.S. goods and services under the U.S.-China trade deal, compared to 2017 levels.

With three-fourths of the deal now complete, China is on pace to buy just over 60% of the goods needed to reach its target, according to Chad Bown, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Hahaha, the US-China phase 1 trade deal will be turned into a bargaining chip by the Chinese for the next negotiation.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Ray Dalio: Understanding China's recent moves in it's capital markets

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Content of the article:

Recent Chinese policy moves related to Didi’s listing and controls on its data usage and China’s education companies being converted into non-profits have created a lot of doubt about capitalism and capital markets in China, so I’d like to help clarify what’s going on there.

I understand that it’s confusing to people who are not close to what’s happening. Since I started going to China 36 years ago, I have found that most Western observers who do not have direct contact with policymakers’ and don’t follow in detail the patterns of the changes have tended to not believe that the Chinese Communist Party’s usage of capital markets to foster development is real. They interpret moves like these two recent ones as the Communist Party leaders showing their true anticapitalist stripes even though the trend over the last 40 years has clearly been so strongly toward developing a market economy with capital markets, with entrepreneurs and capitalists becoming rich. As a result, they’ve missed out on what’s going on in China and probably will continue to miss out. In this case the policymakers signaled to Didi that it might not be best to go ahead with the listing and they understandably want to deal with the data privacy issue. In the case of the educational tutoring companies they want to reduce the educational inequality and the financial burden on those who are desperate to have their children have these services but can’t afford them by making them broadly available. They believe that these things are better for the country even if the shareholders don’t like it.

I remember a number of such analogous misinterpretations. For example, I remember how the Chinese retail investor bubble bursting led to government stock buying and then the government trying to manipulate the market for a while. Also, I remember the Chinese currency plunge in 2015-16 resulting from the People’s Bank of China widening the band and how that led to many investors pointing to these developments as evidence that policymakers were turning away from developing capital markets. Some skeptical investors looked at these moves as inappropriate anti-free market interventions even though these same moves happened many times in many capitalist markets and even though the fiscal and monetary policy interventions in the U.S. and other developed markets dwarf the Chinese government interventions in its markets. Through it all Chinese policymakers successfully managed the fallout and pursued their goals; i.e., the direction of their actions never changed. It has been in support of a fast and steady development of capital markets, entrepreneurship, and openness to investment to foreign investors. So I encourage you to look at the trends and not misunderstand and over-focus on the wiggles.

To understand what’s going on you need to understand that China is a state capitalist system which means that the state runs capitalism to serve the interests of most people and that policymakers won’t let the sensitivities of those in the capital markets and rich capitalists stand in the way of doing what they believe is best for the most people of the country. Rather, those in the capital markets and capitalists have to understand their subordinate places in the system or they will suffer the consequences of their mistakes. For example, they need to not mistake their having riches for having power for determining how things will go. You also need to understand that in this rapidly developing capital markets environment Chinese regulators are figuring out appropriate regulations so, when they are changing fast and aren’t clear, that causes these sorts of confusions, which can be misconstrued to be anti-capitalist moves. Also, you need to understand that the global geopolitical environment changing leads to some changes. You can see that reflected in the U.S. governments’ policy shifts such as changing its policies about Chinese companies’ listings in the United States and threats to prohibit American pension funds from investing in China. Assume such things will happen in the future and invest accordingly. But don’t misinterpret these wiggles as changes in trends, and don’t expect this Chinese state-run capitalism to be exactly like Western capitalism.

Having said that, I do think that it is unfortunate that Chinese policymakers don’t publicly communicate the reasoning behind their moves more clearly. As for investing, as I see it the American and Chinese systems and markets both have opportunities and risks and are likely to compete with each other and diversify each other. Hence they both should be considered as important parts of one’s portfolio. I urge you to not misinterpret these sorts of moves as reversals of the trends that have existed for the last several decades and let that scare you away
 

drowingfish

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


A total of 143 Chinese companies have made it to the list of world's top 500 enterprises measured by business revenue, making China top the ranking for a second consecutive year, according to the Fortune Global 500 list for 2021 released on Monday.
China's State Grid climbed to the second place on the list this year, while technology giant Huawei went up from No. 49 to No. 44 despite the U.S. sanctions against the company.

a4cebacb733e44418674cc4abadabd85.jpeg


China's Xiaomi Group, JD.com, Alibaba Group and Tencent Holdings are among the seven internet-related companies on the list this year, while the other three are from the U.S., namely Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook.

Among the seven internet giants, Xiaomi saw the largest increase in the rankings, rising by 84 places, the list shows.
China had 133 companies on the list last year, surpassing the United States for the first time.

There are 122 U.S. companies on the list this year, up by one from last year, while Japan holds steady with 53.

Total revenue for the world's largest companies dropped by 4.8 percent to $31.7 trillion in 2021, the first decline in five years.
Due to the COVID-19 impact, cumulative sales in energy and automotive sectors fell by over 10 percent, while all six airlines on last year's list failed to make the cut this year.
the state grid is actually a bit of a giant itself, with lots of IP's.
 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ray Dalio: Understanding China's recent moves in it's capital markets

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Content of the article:

Recent Chinese policy moves related to Didi’s listing and controls on its data usage and China’s education companies being converted into non-profits have created a lot of doubt about capitalism and capital markets in China, so I’d like to help clarify what’s going on there.

I understand that it’s confusing to people who are not close to what’s happening. Since I started going to China 36 years ago, I have found that most Western observers who do not have direct contact with policymakers’ and don’t follow in detail the patterns of the changes have tended to not believe that the Chinese Communist Party’s usage of capital markets to foster development is real. They interpret moves like these two recent ones as the Communist Party leaders showing their true anticapitalist stripes even though the trend over the last 40 years has clearly been so strongly toward developing a market economy with capital markets, with entrepreneurs and capitalists becoming rich. As a result, they’ve missed out on what’s going on in China and probably will continue to miss out. In this case the policymakers signaled to Didi that it might not be best to go ahead with the listing and they understandably want to deal with the data privacy issue. In the case of the educational tutoring companies they want to reduce the educational inequality and the financial burden on those who are desperate to have their children have these services but can’t afford them by making them broadly available. They believe that these things are better for the country even if the shareholders don’t like it.

I remember a number of such analogous misinterpretations. For example, I remember how the Chinese retail investor bubble bursting led to government stock buying and then the government trying to manipulate the market for a while. Also, I remember the Chinese currency plunge in 2015-16 resulting from the People’s Bank of China widening the band and how that led to many investors pointing to these developments as evidence that policymakers were turning away from developing capital markets. Some skeptical investors looked at these moves as inappropriate anti-free market interventions even though these same moves happened many times in many capitalist markets and even though the fiscal and monetary policy interventions in the U.S. and other developed markets dwarf the Chinese government interventions in its markets. Through it all Chinese policymakers successfully managed the fallout and pursued their goals; i.e., the direction of their actions never changed. It has been in support of a fast and steady development of capital markets, entrepreneurship, and openness to investment to foreign investors. So I encourage you to look at the trends and not misunderstand and over-focus on the wiggles.

To understand what’s going on you need to understand that China is a state capitalist system which means that the state runs capitalism to serve the interests of most people and that policymakers won’t let the sensitivities of those in the capital markets and rich capitalists stand in the way of doing what they believe is best for the most people of the country. Rather, those in the capital markets and capitalists have to understand their subordinate places in the system or they will suffer the consequences of their mistakes. For example, they need to not mistake their having riches for having power for determining how things will go. You also need to understand that in this rapidly developing capital markets environment Chinese regulators are figuring out appropriate regulations so, when they are changing fast and aren’t clear, that causes these sorts of confusions, which can be misconstrued to be anti-capitalist moves. Also, you need to understand that the global geopolitical environment changing leads to some changes. You can see that reflected in the U.S. governments’ policy shifts such as changing its policies about Chinese companies’ listings in the United States and threats to prohibit American pension funds from investing in China. Assume such things will happen in the future and invest accordingly. But don’t misinterpret these wiggles as changes in trends, and don’t expect this Chinese state-run capitalism to be exactly like Western capitalism.

Having said that, I do think that it is unfortunate that Chinese policymakers don’t publicly communicate the reasoning behind their moves more clearly. As for investing, as I see it the American and Chinese systems and markets both have opportunities and risks and are likely to compete with each other and diversify each other. Hence they both should be considered as important parts of one’s portfolio. I urge you to not misinterpret these sorts of moves as reversals of the trends that have existed for the last several decades and let that scare you away
"I do think that it is unfortunate that Chinese policymakers don’t publicly communicate the reasoning behind their moves more clearly"

It's very clear, you just have to read the people's daily.
 

DarkStar

Junior Member
Registered Member
Rather, those in the capital markets and capitalists have to understand their subordinate places in the system or they will suffer the consequences of their mistakes. For example, they need to not mistake their having riches for having power for determining how things will go.
A common mistake for those Anglo oligarchs who will discover soon enough that in China, the government serves the people and not billionaire oligarchs
 
Top