Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
I had to look it up, but the Arab world is considered to have about 400 million people, and that region does $432 USD of trade with China last year according to the article.
In comparison, ASEAN region is China's biggest trade partner, and growing, with a regional population of 630 million and almost $1 trillion USD in bilateral trade.
Kind of shows the inroads that China has made into West Asia is yielding positive outcomes, for all involved.
China India trade last year was $136 billion USD if we really wanted to know for comparison sake.
Of course, everyone has that political question in the back of their mind, but we do not talk about it everyday. This constant demonizing of China by the Americans, and these accusations of the PRC abusing the Muslim Uyghurs population, has been repudiated by all other Muslim countries.
West Asia and ASEAN consists of several rather important Muslim countries. Does not appear they believe a single word the Americans are saying about the Uyghurs.
In comparison, ASEAN region is China's biggest trade partner, and growing, with a regional population of 630 million and almost $1 trillion USD in bilateral trade.
Kind of shows the inroads that China has made into West Asia is yielding positive outcomes, for all involved.
China India trade last year was $136 billion USD if we really wanted to know for comparison sake.
Of course, everyone has that political question in the back of their mind, but we do not talk about it everyday. This constant demonizing of China by the Americans, and these accusations of the PRC abusing the Muslim Uyghurs population, has been repudiated by all other Muslim countries.
West Asia and ASEAN consists of several rather important Muslim countries. Does not appear they believe a single word the Americans are saying about the Uyghurs.
I disagree. China's system is a mixed-economy. There's much more room for state intervention and the CCP dropped the ball on the real estate sector, bigly, for decades.
Moreover, in large parts of the West we used to have a much more active government. In Sweden we had the "million programme":
It was a state-led programme with private firm participation. It managed to build an ungodly amount of housing in a very short period of time for what was only 7 million people living in Sweden at the time of its initiation.
The result? Housing affordability massively improved. It takes direct state intervention to do it. Sweden was much more like a mixed-economy in the 1950s the way China is today.
What has happened in the West since the 1980s is the total abandonment of the housing market by the state combined with ultra-low interest rates in the recent past, with the combined effect of sending valuations sharply above real wage growth for decades.
So the West itself had the ability to be much more interventionist but chose not to since the 1980s. In theory China can do it like the West used to, but apparently the CCP had other plans. There's no way of sugarcoating it. Young Chinese are facing an absolutely brutal housing market that even makes the Western one pale in comparison. Yes, home ownership is high but that's because of the 1 child policy and the fact that young Chinese can count on borrowing money from the extended family. But it shouldn't have to be like that. Housing policy has been a failure in China. Affordability is completely broken.
Not sure if this has been posted, but a sign of the times.
Developing countries can now get perfectly good substitutes from China in case they run afoul of the West. That makes the Yuan very valuable. There's only a few exceptions, such as if you want to buy aircraft, but even that is changing (Comac).
There can still be political resistance to settling in Yuan. Apparently this happened with India, which refused to settle oil trade with Russia in RMB, but I suspect that's an outlier among developing countries.
Developing countries can now get perfectly good substitutes from China in case they run afoul of the West. That makes the Yuan very valuable. There's only a few exceptions, such as if you want to buy aircraft, but even that is changing (Comac).
There can still be political resistance to settling in Yuan. Apparently this happened with India, which refused to settle oil trade with Russia in RMB, but I suspect that's an outlier among developing countries.
you are a subject matter expert in economics, robotics, analog semiconductor and software? Quite a wide array of interests and skills.
I am very simple with some minor knowledge in narrow fields. But I may have some casual knowledge of other fields.
Let's look at the analog semiconductors.
Nexchip is an analog semiconductor fab in China.
Then there's CR Micro, also an analog semiconductor fab, also with revenue
Both of them seem comparable in revenue to rank 8-10 of
Let's look at volume.
Nexchip volume: (paywall but search engine showed number preview)
CR Micro volume: . New 300 mm facility just finished.
Renesas (top Japanese analog fab) volume:
Looks to me like China's doing well in analog semiconductors both by revenue and volume.
It's easy to criticise, but any policy has advantages and disadvantages. If more homes had been built in the past, the construction industry would have grown even larger, only to then contract massively once all the homes have been built. You also wouldn't want all houses to be built to the standard of 1990, which would mean another massive round of demolition and construction 40 years later. When building houses you also need to add infrastructure. And anything spent on real estate is of course not spent on research and development.
Then there's the problem of people choosing to live in expensive cities. As is often repeated in western media, China actually has too many homes, they just happen to be in the wrong place. Nobody has a right to affordable accommodation in a tier one city. And would you really support further growth of tier 1 cities? If you keep building affordable homes in Beijing, you'll end up with 100 million people or more in the city. Is that really a good idea?
Yes, there's a short term problem with affordability. But maybe that is worth it considering that the money was spent on other priorities. Spending it all on cheap houses would not have been a good idea
ICBC - Industrial and Commercial Bank of China had revenues of 875bln RMB in 2022.
Then there's Bank of China which had revenues of 657bln RMB in 2022.
Both are biggest banks in the world.
Bank of China's balance sheet over 30trln RMB and ICBC's balance sheet is over 42 trln RMB.
Looks like to me China's banks are doing well by both revenue and balance sheet size.
I don't know much about banking but I think that banking is very different than analog semiconductors.
This is a total non sequitur