Chinese Economics Thread

[azn_cyniq]

When we talk about the Chinese economy, what GDP growth number would be overperformance or underperformance?

Branko Milanovic has taken all growth data after 1952 and found that growth generally beings to decline after $10,000 per capita in PPP terms. China's 2023 number (5% expected growth) is far above what you'd expect given their income level.

View attachment 122283

Of course, China also gets that growth by adding lots of debt. It would be interesting to see the growth rate without that debt accumulation. I suspect it would still overperform, albeit less so obviously.

South Korea's GDP per capita surpassed $10,000 in 1994. Since then, South Korea has grown at an average rate of 4.24% per year. South Korea's GDP per capita surpassed $20,000 in 2006. From 1994 to 2006, South Korea grew at an average rate of 5.8%.

Naturally, small countries tend to grow faster (Singapore's GDP per capita went from $10,394 in 1989 to $21,553 in 1994). China seems to be doing fine.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[henrik]

Ipjhone served its purpose of building supply chains. It is time to replace it with domestic company. If they are going india then they are not taking our staff.

Bring down the hammer!

There is no way India is making batteries, as they don't know how to make them.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Apple is probably going to get the hammer in a few years in China. Its unacceptable to extract so much wealth from China but won't contribute something back

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do believe Apple should have been banned in China long time ago but not for this. Supply Chains are not so easy to replicate that they can be easily transported to any country. How good a country is industrial development is closely related to that country's politics, culture, education level, infrastructure everything.

Apple can say they want to produce X,Y,Z component in India. But how much, what percentage? If Apple is making 100 million batteries in China and only 1 million in India, then you know this is not a serious relocation. Its just a token political gesture.

Is India even capable of producing these components efficiently, with sufficient quality if Apple did move 100% of production to India? I don't think so. So, Apple is welcome to try to move, but they will shoot them in the foot if they move too much.

 

[Maikeru]

Interesting summary of leading banks expectations for China for 2024:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Umut]

Developed countries rely primarily on technology. Developing countries rely primarily on cheap goods and agriculture. What you said has no meaning to this discussion. The measure is used by the WTO; if you don't use it, that's your problem.

It doesn't matter. The WTO or other definitions are constantly changing. a country that is considered developed today may not be in the future.

Your opinion is countered by fact, and I have showed you why multiple times. Who innovates more, a 20 year old student or a 55 year old professor? Having more young people than old people simply means your population is increasing, or that your country has low life expectancy. It has nothing to do with innovation and that you stick to this despite being repeatedly proven wrong is quite frankly your inability to learn.

Trusting the elderly is a temporary solution. When they die, the number of researchers coming from behind will decrease. The permanent solution is to ensure the continuity of the population. In addition, technological development does not consist only of research conducted at universities or institutes. The founders of technology companies such as Huawei, xiaomi are usually young people, and they also need young staff. The high demand will strengthen the economies of companies engaged in technology and they will have the opportunity to make more R&D expenditures.

Leadership of what? All the European countries that have no leadership in anything maintain their developed country status with no issue. You really don't know what you're talking about...

Europe is actually a good example. In the past, they were leaders in everything and they were overconfident. Today, they are rapidly regressing as the pace of innovation slows down. In the future, they may not even be in the developed country class. China should not repeat the same mistakes.

 

[Maikeru]

Wow! The FT admits certain facts:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[manqiangrexue]

It doesn't matter. The WTO or other definitions are constantly changing. a country that is considered developed today may not be in the future.

What really doesn't matter is you making up definitions with comparisons to Aliens! Name one country that went from developed country to developing country. Let's see your example if you're not just imagining things just to talk.

Trusting the elderly is a temporary solution. When they die, the number of researchers coming from behind will decrease.

Other people get old too. You just have to deal with the fact that in an information age, it takes decades of education for one to make a difference rather than popping out babies.

The permanent solution is to ensure the continuity of the population.

What does continuity mean? No extinction? Growth of the population? Maintain the same level? Some drop? How much drop? You don't even know what you're asking for.

In addition, technological development does not consist only of research conducted at universities or institutes.

LOL That was just an example.

The founders of technology companies such as Huawei, xiaomi are usually young people, and they also need young staff.

Well even those young people are working under the instruction of more experienced and older managers and supervisors. But in any case, these young people are the elitely educated class, which I talked about but you probably didn't understand. With lower population and higher per capita resources, this class can actually expand while with machinization, the unskilled laborers can decline in population as they are replaced by robots.

Do you know how many young Chinese techs dream of moving to the West? A lot. Why? China is too crowded, too few resources per capita; they have to code for 15 hours a day and get cursed out by the manager for mistakes. They go home to small apartments and they have to wait years for a lottery number to buy a car, which they can only drive Mon, Wed, Fri or Tues, Thurs, Sat depending on license plate number in order to mitigate traffic. In the US, they can afford a nice house, nice car to drive anytime, work 7 hours a day with 1 hour lunch and vacation each year. This is the environmental advantage of the West that causes brain drain from China. A lower population can alleviate this situation and a lower population replacing the uneducated unskilled labor with machines and increasing the elitely educated class with improve innovation and talent retention as well as attraction. I've written this before; maybe this time, you can get it.

The high demand will strengthen the economies of companies engaged in technology and they will have the opportunity to make more R&D expenditures.

Yes, this demand will go up to to increased per capita value rather than having stagnant per capita GDP but more and more and more people.

Europe is actually a good example. In the past, they were leaders in everything and they were overconfident. Today, they are rapidly regressing as the pace of innovation slows down. In the future, they may not even be in the developed country class. China should not repeat the same mistakes.

No, Europe is not any example. Europe is like this because they got stupid and let the US use them to pay the bills for American aggression. Europe is stagnant because it's not getting the Russian energy it needs and it's not getting the Chinese goods it needs to grow. Why? Because America picked fights with Russia and China.

And by the way, you still don't know what developed country means. No Western European country, even in the deepest recession, is at risk of becoming a developing nation again. Generally, they have to be crushed by war for that to happen. Your made-up definitions don't count.

 

[Umut]

What does continuity mean? No extinction? Growth of the population? Maintain the same level? Some drop? How much drop? You don't even know what you're asking for.

I mentioned it in my previous message. The population should remain the same or the decrease in the population should spread over a long time.

Well even those young people are working under the instruction of more experienced and older managers and supervisors. But in any case, these young people are the elitely educated class, which I talked about but you probably didn't understand. With lower population and higher per capita resources, this class can actually expand while with machinization, the unskilled laborers can decline in population as they are replaced by robots.

Do you know how many young Chinese techs dream of moving to the West? A lot. Why? China is too crowded, too few resources per capita; they have to code for 15 hours a day and get cursed out by the manager for mistakes. They go home to small apartments and they have to wait years for a lottery number to buy a car, which they can only drive Mon, Wed, Fri or Tues, Thurs, Sat depending on license plate number in order to mitigate traffic. In the US, they can afford a nice house, nice car to drive anytime, work 7 hours a day with 1 hour lunch and vacation each year. This is the environmental advantage of the West that causes brain drain from China. A lower population can alleviate this situation and a lower population replacing the uneducated unskilled labor with machines and increasing the elitely educated class with improve innovation and talent retention as well as attraction. I've written this before; maybe this time, you can get it.

The problems that China is experiencing that you are talking about are not due to the population surplus, but because it is not yet a fully developed country. Less populated developed countries have experienced similar problems in the past, but their populations have continued to grow. It is a big mistake to advocate population reduction in order to find solutions to social problems. China will reach the position of a fully developed country with the current population. With the rapid Deceleration of the population, many negative situations will occur, such as a decrease in demand, a decrease in the income and competitiveness of companies, a decrease in R & D expenditures, a decrease in the labor force participation rate, a decrease in the number of super talented people seen only at a certain rate in the population. China's resources and the technology it has reached are enough to feed the population in a healthy way, there is no nutrition problem in China. There is no population surplus problem in China. What needs to be done is to concentrate on technological developments and spread them to the base of society. Then China will become a fully developed unbeatable country with a population of 1.4 mr.

 

[TK3600]

I do believe Apple should have been banned in China long time ago but not for this. Supply Chains are not so easy to replicate that they can be easily transported to any country. How good a country is industrial development is closely related to that country's politics, culture, education level, infrastructure everything.

Apple can say they want to produce X,Y,Z component in India. But how much, what percentage? If Apple is making 100 million batteries in China and only 1 million in India, then you know this is not a serious relocation. Its just a token political gesture.

Is India even capable of producing these components efficiently, with sufficient quality if Apple did move 100% of production to India? I don't think so. So, Apple is welcome to try to move, but they will shoot them in the foot if they move too much.

I am less concerned of Apple moving into India a be succesful. If they do more power to them, they have right to manage their business.

My concern is Apple taking Chinese talent into India, because local talent is insufficient. Then China lose quality human capital to aid hostile country.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I mentioned it in my previous message. The population should remain the same or the decrease in the population should spread over a long time.

But what you mentioned means nothing. If the population should stay the same, then it can't decrease. Then you said it's ok to decrease over a long time. How much decreasing? How long is the time? China's population appears set to do just that without any numbers.

The problems that China is experiencing that you are talking about are not due to the population surplus, but because it is not yet a fully developed country. Less populated developed countries have experienced similar problems in the past, but their populations have continued to grow.

So other developing countries make you win a lottery number to get a ticket to buy a car and then only allow you to drive it 3 days a week? Which country?

No, most developing nations have people who are too poor to afford cars. China has too many people who want to buy cars but we don't let them because it would screw up traffic (which is already a nightmare) and China's roads are already basically the best in the world. This is a population overload.

It is a big mistake to advocate population reduction in order to find solutions to social problems.

I do not advocate active population reduction; I advocate letting the situation find its new balance of how many people should be there and the system and community seem to be saying that there needs to be less. It is your big mistake to try to force your demographic blueprint based on primitive economies on a modern high tech economy.

China will reach the position of a fully developed country with the current population.

It's already decreasing and China is not classified as a developed nation so you are already wrong.

With the rapid Deceleration of the population

How rapid? War rapid? Then I agree. Currently, no.

, many negative situations will occur, such as a decrease in demand, a decrease in the income and competitiveness of companies, a decrease in R & D expenditures

So you imagined all of these because China's population is currently decreasing but all of these are going up. But then again, you did not define "rapid" by numbers so who knows what you're talking about?

, a decrease in the labor force participation rate,

China has too many jobless youth right now.

a decrease in the number of super talented people seen only at a certain rate in the population.

From last post, because you can't read or learn:

"these young people are the elitely educated class, which I talked about but you probably didn't understand. With lower population and higher per capita resources, this class can actually expand while with machinization, the unskilled laborers can decline in population as they are replaced by robots."

China's resources and the technology it has reached are enough to feed the population in a healthy way, there is no nutrition problem in China.

I didn't say there was.

There is no population surplus problem in China.

That's because you are ignorant of China, and of nature. In any ecosystem, if there was not a surplus, then it would NOT naturally decrease, which is happening now, indicating a surplus for China's ecosystem.

You fight against biology, official definitions for terms, and you fight against the current hard facts in China now with nothing but your own stubborn imagination LOL

What needs to be done is to concentrate on technological developments and spread them to the base of society.

Oh.... so technology matters now? Maintaining the population like India isn't the "sure way" to success anymore.

Then China will become a fully developed unbeatable country with a population of 1.4 mr.

China will become a fully developed unbeatable country with a population of whatever its natural homeostasis decides. It is not up to you to imagine this number.