D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
5.5% NGDPpc growth seems plausible but still hard
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
This is not an apples to applies comparison
- inflation rates were much higher between 1970-1990
- each economy achieved >$10000 USD per capita in different years when the USD had very different values. Specifically, $100 US dollars in 1985 in the case of Japan was worth more than $100 US dollars in 2021 in the case of China.
(USA)
Japan period (1966-1985): 100 (1965) to 341.73071162 (1985)
Taiwan period (1976-1993): 100 (1975) to 268.467113758 (1993)
S.Korea period (1977-2001): 100 (1976) to 311.255487677 (2001)
China period (2001-2021): 100 (2000) to 155.560179362 (2021 [average of Jan-Jul])
Adjusted Figures for Inflation >> (assuming your per capita figures are correct)
Japan: 11584 / 3.4173071162 = $3389.80 >> increased from $1058 USD$ (1965) to $3389.80 USD$ (1985)
Taiwan: 11242 / 2.68467113758 = $4187.48 >> increased from $1158 USD$ (1975) to $4187.48 USD$ (1993)
S.Korea: 11561 / 3.11255487677 = $3714.31 >> increased from $1055 USD$ (1976) to $3714.31 USD$ (2001)
China: 11819 / 1.55560179362 = $7597.70 >> increased from $1053 USD$ (2000) to $7597.70 USD$ (2021)
When you adjust for the depreciation of the US dollar over the time periods you used, China's growth from >$1050 US dollars to >$11000 US dollars wiped the floor against Japan, Taiwan and S.Korea. It's not even remotely close. However, even though this comparison is less flawed, it's STILL flawed. A baseline year using constant US dollars that all 4 economies could be compared against needs to be used. In this comparison, it would need to use 1965 constant US dollars since Japan has the earliest baseline year where we measured growth at 1966. Even then, this ignores fluctuating currency rates which can be overvalued or undervalued despite whatever the market value moved that currency or whether economies enforced currency pegs like what was going on with all of these economies at some time.
The best way to measure and compare these economies is to use constant US dollars of 1965 using PPP, not nominal rates. Despite it looking like China comes out the clear winner here after adjusting for inflation, aka. US dollar depreciation, it is a fact that the S.Korean Won was very overvalued in 1975 at around 500 to 1 USD$ whereas it stands at around 1175 today. I don't have stats for PPP since this wasn't used until 20 odd years ago. However, we do know the discrepancy today between the nominal GDP per capita in S.Korea is somewhere between 1.25-1.35 and for China somewhere between 1.7-1.9. If we apply these ratios of PPP to nominal GDP, then China marginally beats S.Korea with Taiwan following and finally Japan. This is a fun exercise but we should keep in mind that Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan were propped up with favorable policies by the US for decades and those policies continue to this day for S.Korea and Taiwan. Japan was doing gangbusters until they became too big for their britches in the late 1980s and we all know about the lost decades since then.
- differing currency exchange rates between the time periods you used for each economy skew the comparison
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Not at all, considering 5.5pct nominal growth can be achieved with a real growth rate of around 4pct.
China can easily maintain real growth rates of 5-6pct until end of decade before dropping down to 4-5pct for the second decade.
Also this is assuming the RMB does not appreciate against the USD, which is very unlikely.
China deliberately cooling the economy through tightening credit to prevent overheating, bubbles and inflation.
They are targeting a more gradual but long term sustainable growth curve.
If you type 'common prosperity china' into google.com here's the first 3 results I get back
On page 2 of the search results are some 'Chinese media' articles
This has an infographic which summarises the read out of the meeting
I suppose because of what's been written in western media CGTN also did a piece this morning to discuss some view points
I am not going to add anything to these items but to raise a couple of simple questions
Do the articles between the 2 categories of media produce the same common understanding of common prosperity?
If not would CGTN and the the global times more accurately reflect the intent of the Chinese government or the western media?
If the Chinese media reflects the intent of the government then does the phrase 'Adjust excess incomes and prohibit illicit incomes' equate to taxing wealth ?
(emphasis is mine)
Can anyone tell me whats going on here. Has the trade war moved into airline industry?
US Imposes Limits On Chinese Passenger Capacity For Four Weeks
- by
- August 19, 2021
DOT order limits passenger loads on four Chinese airlines
According to an , the four Chinese airlines currently providing scheduled China-US passenger services will have their passenger capacity capped at 40% on defined routes for a set period of time.Link:
Our debates always seem to end in straying from the original topic at hand, if capital gains tax on property is the means to rein in illicit wealth then surely those with wealth won't need to be borrowing money from banks, if the wealth is not illicit then it would just be punitive, besides raising money would be an issue for the buyer not the seller for whom the tax applies, not to say the professions won't need to be involved in a transaction which would be valid.
If it isn't then not sure what we are debating if its just housing then simply capping 2 properties per person (which is already done in some regions) would be a much simpler and easier to enforce way to dampen the market rather than introduce a new tax system and followed by ironing out any loop holes.
To my simple minded concept of 'governance' taxes are the means to raise money for the state, rules (laws) and by extension penalties are the means by which a state adjusts societal behaviour. Not to say you can't use taxes as a means to alter behaviour or penalties to fund the state but wouldn't it be preferable to use the right 'tool' for a task and if you are starting with a clean slate why wouldn't you?
However, if its just we fundamentally disagree then I hear your viewpoint but there's not much more to talk about
China restricted United because of Covid cases
This is simply the US government protecting their daddies (big corporations)
I don't want to get into too deep about the redistribution of wealth. Not because it's not interesting. But it's very complex social and economic issues. I often set homework for my students on this subject matter.
So after saying this, I just want to focus on two things. Tax or regulation. You proposed to use regulation to capped property ownership to two. As opposed to use the tax system to discourage more than one home ownership.
In this case I would said in general the tax system is more preferred as it will generate income where's the capped system would be a net drain on the taxpayer as it increases bureaucracy and cost to the government plus issues of enforcement, and legal defination of ownership.