Are the big four Chinese banks struggling like abenomics12345 is implying?
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
If the big four Chinese banks are really struggling, then arguing with Mr.subject_matter_expert12345 over the internet would be the least of your worries. I don't think he was implying the big four Chinese banks were struggling, it seemed like he was trying to support his claims that Chinese analog semi companies aren't doing well by comparing them financially to Chinese state owned banks.
no. but also, not sure he was making that point.
I think he was trying to compare the banks to the semiconductor companies, but they're very different industries.
West, Central, and Southeast Asia have been traditional Chinese markets. I am not at all surprised that China is making strong in roads into these regions. It should naturally work to expand its presence there.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.
Based on demographics, the critical markets to capture for the future are Africa, South Asia, and South America.
In South Asia, trade with India is low only because India is a highly protectionist economy and politically interfering in the process. Most likely, India is a lost cause because of their mentality and the fact that they want to be the "new China". However, South Asia is not just India - from Bangladesh to Nepal to Sri Lanka, there are large population centers who'd like nothing more than to balance against India. China should seek to cultivate strong trade relations with these countries.
In Africa, we all know the story. The West is trying to "pivot to Africa" because they see the potential in the region, with its abundant natural resources, vast territory, and fast population growth. But they are at a disadvantage, compared to China, because of their colonial past, on one hand, and the little talked about fact that North Africa is mostly Muslim, with historical connections to the Middle East and West Asia. Through expanding its influence in the Middle East and West Asia, China can also improve its hand in North Africa.
Finally, South America is the US's traditional back yard. It will be more difficult to make in roads here due to the US's constant intervention, but for the same reason, investing in South America is a great way to keep the US busy. Ultimately, if South America were to rise as a great power, that could actually end up containing the US in its own side of the world. So China should be ready to take risks in South America, both because the region has healthy demographics and more room for growth, and because it keeps the US in check.
I do agree that CCP could do something to improve it, I just don’t think they should, young Chinese want to purchase their houses in big cities, and they are facing huge financial problems doing so, however I don’t think most of them deserve it, maybe work hard for ten years and they can then decide whether or not they should stay, high population density is bad for war, especially a nuclear one.
About birth rate, there are no way saving it, Japan and European nations tried, didn’t work, investing in AI and robot technology is much more realistic.
The only really good way to fix this issue is to HEAVILY promote remote work. After all, you can literally live anywhere in China if you work remotely.
WFH has been proven to be very inefficient, plus that jobs could be remotely done are mostly well paid ones
My argument is still valid because if the people who are well paid don't need a house inside a city, it means that housing prices will decrease with reduced demand.