Chinese Economics Thread

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
August imports increased 33.1%, 26.8% expected, previous 28.1%
August exports increased 25.6%, 17.1% expected, previous 19.3%,
these y/y numbers are particularly impressive because of the higher bases for comparison from last year.
the double whammy of covid outbreaks and floods has taken its toll on the economy, the economic data are soft across board for Q3 so far.
Yep. Good thing that in they set a target for this year growth at 6%. Pundits were then saying that it is too low, should be higher etc.

Fortunately the Gov knows its business and put a low target in order to have a buffer for any possible emergencies
 

escobar

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

One view is that China’s actions have had little effect on Australia because of our capacity to sell into other markets. Our conclusion is more pessimistic.
This paper fnds that, to date, diversifcation has generally not matched markets lost through China’s economic coercion and discriminatory purchasing. Analysis of average monthly data on the gains in exports to third countries and the losses in the Chinese market suggest that losses are much greater when comparisons go back a year to eighteen months.
 
Last edited:

bettydice

Junior Member
Registered Member
Australia and Canada, being Anglo limbs, are the two main culprits. Fundamentally, in the long term, something needs to be done on those two countries. They two are occupying the ridiculous size of land and living off selling natural resources they are occupying. Trying to diversifying import sources away from them has limited availiability because the two countries are occupying too much part of the earth. Taiwan and South Korea (by North Korea) should be the first step though.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I'm hearing a lot about Evergrande problems in the MSM these days. Will it become systemic issue similar to the 08?
China cannot have an 08 crisis simply because it doesn't have a failed political system. Debt/financial crises are ultimately political crises, and China's political system is more than capable of handling crisis. From a purely economic standpoint, Evergrande is a bit player nowhere near as integral to the Chinese financial system as Lehman Brothers.
 

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
China cannot have an 08 crisis simply because it doesn't have a failed political system. Debt/financial crises are ultimately political crises, and China's political system is more than capable of handling crisis. From a purely economic standpoint, Evergrande is a bit player nowhere near as integral to the Chinese financial system as Lehman Brothers.
Latest circlejerk
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pj4qfb
 

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'm hearing a lot about Evergrande problems in the MSM these days. Will it become systemic issue similar to the 08?
Well, actually, default could happen, not only to Evergrande but other over-leveraged property companies. Everything is in the central government's decisions, if the credit gates won't open, like how the chinese economic ground looked like for the last few years, we are going to see a bust of the zombies like Evegrande. The current direction is that way, with deleveraging at a high level. We'll see what will be the plan soon.
 
Last edited:

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Michael Hudson smashes Soros' anti-China propaganda.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In a Financial Times op-ed, “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” (August 30, 2021), George Soros writes that Xi’s “crackdown on private enterprise shows he does not understand the market economy. … Xi Jinping, China’s leader, has collided with economic reality. His crackdown on private enterprise has been a significant drag on the economy.”

Translated out of Orwellian Doublethink, the “crackdown on private enterprise” means cutting back on what the classical economists called rent-seeking and unearned income. As for its supposed “drag on the economy,” Mr. Soros means the economy’s polarization concentrating wealth and income in the hands of the richest One Percent.

Soros lays out his plan for how U.S. retaliation may punish China by withholding U.S. funding of its companies (as if China cannot create its own credit) until China capitulates and imposes the kind of deregulation and de-taxation that Russia did after 1991. He warns that China will suffer depression by saving its economy along socialist lines and resisting U.S.-style privatization and its associated debt deflation.

Mr. Soros does recognize that China’s “most vulnerable sector is real estate, particularly housing. China has enjoyed an extended property boom over the past two decades, but that is now coming to an end. Evergrande, the largest real estate company, is over-indebted and in danger of default. This could cause a crash.” By that, he means a reduction of housing prices. That’s just what is needed in order to deter land becoming a speculative vehicle. I and others have urged a policy of land taxation in order to collect the land’s rising site value, so that it will not be pledged to banks for mortgage credit to further inflate china’s housing prices.

Warning about the economic consequences of China’s falling birth rate, Soros writes: “One of the reasons why middle-class families are unwilling to have more than one child is that they want to make sure that their children will have a bright future.” This is of course true of every advanced nation today. It is most extreme in the neoliberalized countries, e.g., the Baltics and Ukraine – Soros’s poster countries.

Soros gives his game away by stating that “Xi does not understand how markets operate.” What he means is that President Xi rejects rapacious rent-seeking, exploitative free-for-all, and shapes markets to serve overall prosperity for China’s 99 Percent. “As a consequence, the sell-off was allowed to go too far,” Soros continues. What he means is, too far to maintain the dominance of the One Percent. China is seeking to reverse economic polarization, not intensify it.

Soros claims that China’s socialist policies are hurting its objectives in the world. But what he really is complaining about is that it is hurting America’s neoliberal objectives for how it had hoped to make money for itself off China. This leads Soros to remind Western pension fund managers to “allocate their assets in ways that are closely aligned with the benchmarks against which their performance is measured.” But the tragedy of financializing pensions is that fund managers are rated on making money financially – in ways that hurt the industrial economy by promoting financial engineering instead of industrial engineering.

“Almost all of them claim that they factor environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) standards into their investment decisions,” Soros writes. At least, that’s what their public relations advisors advertise. Exxon claims to be cleaning up the environment by expanding offshore oil drilling in Guyana, etc. As for “social standards,” the neoliberal mantra is trickle-down economics: by making our stock prices rise, by stock buybacks and higher dividend payouts, we are helping wage-earners earn a pension, even though we are offshoring and de-industrializing the economy, de-unionizing it and “freeing” the economy from consumer and workplace protection laws.

Soros has a radical solution, which he suggests “should obviously apply to the performance benchmarks selected by pensions and other retirement portfolios: … The US Congress should pass a bipartisan bill explicitly requiring that asset managers invest only in companies where actual governance structures are both transparent and aligned with stakeholders.”

Wow. Such a bill would block Americans from investing in many American companies whose behavior is not at all aligned with stakeholders. What proportion: 50%? 75? More?

“If Congress were to enact these measures,” Soros concludes, “it would give the Securities and Exchange Commission the tools it needs to protect American investors, including those who are unaware of owning Chinese stocks and Chinese shell companies. That would also serve the interests of the US and the wider international community of democracies.” So Mr. Soros wants to block the United States from investing in China. He seems not to see that this is President Xi’s objective also: China doesn’t need U.S. dollars, and is in fact de-dollarizing.

George Soros is obviously upset that President Xi is not Boris Yeltsin, and that China is not following the kleptocracy dependency that warped Russia’s economy. Soros thought the ending of the Cold War would simply let him buy up the most lucrative rent-yielding assets, as he has aimed to do in the Baltics and Ukraine. China said “No,” so it is not deemed to be a “market economy,” Soros-style. It has not made its social organization marketable, and has avoided the financial dependency that makes “markets” a vehicle for U.S. control via sanctions and foreign buyouts.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Comparison with past years exports for China

2019(Jan-Aug):
US$1607.04 billion
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2021(Jan-Aug):
US$2.1 trillion
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So thats an increase of half a trillion in just 2 years (should be 1 due to covid..)
Or, ~30% increase in 2 years.

Guys, I might be wrong but I think that Made-in-China 2025 might be working, to the dismay of western "analysts"
 
Top