Chinese Economics Thread

horse

horse

Colonel
Registered Member
sndef888 said:
Anyone have any idea to what extent the russian gas cutoff in europe will benefit China's economy?

I have a feeling european industrial production is going to be quite hard hit due to higher energy prices, and the us is already struggling with production with high inflation, so china/japan/korea may steal some of their market share
Click to expand...

They're screwed.

No one in the Western media will say much, but it is too obvious.

If your cost go up, either the company makes less money or has to raise prices. That puts them obviously in a disadvantaged position.

Then we have the actual details which are all not clear yet, although these cost increases will be big. Trump size!

:D
 
4Runner

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member
Overbom said:
Here is a link for reading this article.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Its not that surprising. Xi's administration had already made all these plans for domestic R&D since 2013 or so. Anyone who was paying even a minimal attention would have known about this. Even this year, there are have been released multiple transformative 5 years plans.

However, no one is paying attention. Plans for robotics, AI, regulators, R&D, court system, IP system, market factors, data, manufacturing, trade, tech, biotech, semiconductors etc.

However no western media covers these plans. They think its the "commie" "fantasy" plans. And the media also don't want report on long-term plans as it is too "long-term" for their liking.

As a result, we get the above articles where everyone acts surprised to what is happening in China regarding R&D, and economic development
Click to expand...
What the article describes are some tidbits of what have been going on inside China for a few years. There is nothing new or insightful.

Zhuzhou is always a manufacturing base of trains and rolling stocks. When I took old green-skin trains from Shanghai to Shenzhen, the trains passed by this city. In the high-speed train era, it becomes a CRRC manufacturing base. This is kind of tier-2/3/4 cities that are suitable for incubating "little giants", which was one of the aims of the recent big-tech crackdown. These cities and "little giants" are the new growth prospects as tier-1 cities are approaching saturation. Some tier-2 cities like Chengdu are already tech power hourses.

It is no longer "if" as the article subtitle, it is already working. And my observation is that this is yet another brilliant move on Xi's part to grow new-high-tech industries as well as spread common prosperity.

It is not a "gamble" as the article highlighted. It is a surely winning strategy. One of the things foreigners never understand is that each of China's provinces and top cities is its own economic eco-system, even though they are all parts of China as an integrated mega economy. The top party boss of each region is trying to do whatever it takes to grow its own economic eco-system, because their achievements of this kind are the top credentials for their future political promotions. In other words, all top CCP leaders and gov officials of each region are motivated to help, support and push those new-high-tech industries and "little giants". The kick is that they are all good at this practice as China's past 30 years of economic development testifies. So they have got political support, government support, capital support in each region. Then you throw in millions of Chinese college STEM graduates every year and you provide a mega addressable market. It is no fucking gamble, rather, it is as a sure thing as it can be as far as high-tech venture capital is concerned.

The last piece of the puzzle is the advanced semi fab. And it is falling fast ......
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Increased foreign investment in China means China is seen as a safe place for foreigners to put their money. That's why the usual suspects are trying paint a negative picture of China's economy. If that money is being invested in China then it's not being invested in Western countries. China was the firewall of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The West is still waiting for China to collapse because of the 2008 Western Financial Crisis. China won against Trump's trade war by the US and now you only seen China's trade surplus increase during the pandemic. The difference between the West and China is the West is willing to bet it all in a game of chicken hoping the other side flinches. That's what we saw when the US decided to ban chips from China. They thought China would surrender never thinking China would go domestic. Now the international chip industry lost 60% of their business while now people see China's domestic chip production is going to be a reality. The West is making risky threats over Ukraine because they know the real hurt for them is coming so they need the war to end quickly and in their favor in order to stave it off. They're threatening the economic nuclear option on China because it's win or lose big time for the West. You can see why siding with the West is not economically safe.

The Economist is a staunch defender of the old British Empire meaning they defend the old British imperialistic economic practices of the past. That's why they have no credibility when they try to paint China as a negative force in world economics today.
 
S

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
Last year was a record year for fdi into china despite talks of decoupling. If this trend holds up until the end of h1 this year despite the war I'd say US attempt at decoupling has well and truly failed.

In fact we may see even more investment into china after the west has shown it will steal foreign assets as a political tool. I don't get how this spate of illegal seizures isn't bigger news. It should be lighting a fire under the asses of all big companies and oligarchs in the world.
 
B

B.I.B.

Captain
AssassinsMace said:
Increased foreign investment in China means China is seen as a safe place for foreigners to put their money. That's why the usual suspects are trying paint a negative picture of China's economy. If that money is being invested in China then it's not being invested in Western countries. China was the firewall of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The West is still waiting for China to collapse because of the 2008 Western Financial Crisis. China won against Trump's trade war by the US and now you only seen China's trade surplus increase during the pandemic. The difference between the West and China is the West is willing to bet it all in a game of chicken hoping the other side flinches. That's what we saw when the US decided to ban chips from China. They thought China would surrender never thinking China would go domestic. Now the international chip industry lost 60% of their business while now people see China's domestic chip production is going to be a reality. The West is making risky threats over Ukraine because they know the real hurt for them is coming so they need the war to end quickly and in their favor in order to stave it off. They're threatening the economic nuclear option on China because it's win or lose big time for the West. You can see why siding with the West is not economically safe.

The Economist is a staunch defender of the old British Empire meaning they defend the old British imperialistic economic practices of the past. That's why they have no credibility when they try to paint China as a negative force in world economics today.
Click to expand...
You might remember the times when organisations like the"Peterson Institute" published articles on how China was failing to spend an agreed extra $200 billion on grains and other goods as required under the "Trade Agreement" with Trump.
Perhaps it was just as well, otherwise, she would be accused of being selfish in hoarding more than 70% of the world's grain production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top