Chinese Economics Thread

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
The consumption GDP of China (more so the comparison of it vs the US) would be correct had China accounted for its social consumer surpluses on the government level as imputed monetary value in its final conclusion or if the US was of a similar economic and political framework as China. The same for the different accounting standard interpretation, imputed rent interpretation, and unregistered business activity situations as well, they are all not leveled up to the same methodology. Otherwise, we can't know the true ratio of Chinese vs US real GDP until that happens, we can only speculate, I say around 180% to 200% of the US GDP for China. Anyway, way more than on the US MSM.
The product accounts are available so you can equivocate if you want
No, judging by a short search and prediction, it would take at least a couple of hours to find.
People interested in economics should be able to navigate the website of a national statistical agency and read an input-output table
That isn't always the case due to various reasons. And if it is undercounted in one method, it could also be in the other 2 irrelevant methods.
If you wanted to measure production outright, those exist and are equal to the consumption approach to GDP.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Since people are debating US and China GDP. Some interesting stats on US GDP in 2023 based on the latest BEA report.

Service Consumption is 2x higher than Goods Consumption. Health care consumption alone is 11% of GDP; Housing is also 11% of GDP. Health Care, Housing and Insurance service consumption is almost 30% of US GDP.

Food spending (including restaurants/hotels) is also 10% of GDP.

IP Investments (software, R&D, movies/music/etc) is 5% of GDP, which is higher than residential investment.


View attachment 124678


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Compared to China, US consumption is 2/3rd of GDP while China is about 1/3rd. Fixed investment, the ratio is flipped and government expenditures is about the same at 16-17%.
So from your data, consumption as typically imagined when people talk about the US, like everyone is living large, buying luxury products, changing TVs and phones and clothes all the time, etc, is misleading.

Based on your data, mandatory payments to maintain a modern society like housing, utilities, healthcare, insurance, education and food are the greatest contributors to US GDP. Reducing costs in these, good for ordinary consumers, would ironically lead to a decline in GDP.

According to that data, discretionary spending like automotive, retail, all intellectual property and research, etc. is dwarfed by survival concerns.
 

fishrubber99

New Member
Registered Member
I want to add something that will not be popular among many members. China is not third world country in the sense of Burundi. China has always been technically superior to Africa with the exception of white-ruled apartheid South Africa. Contemporary China is in many ways similar to the United Kingdom during Victorian era (1837-1901). A small and rich industrial and government elite that rule the people through a class of modestly wealthy and well-paid cohort of civil servants and professionals in the private industry.
Victorian Era England had far higher degree of wealth inequality,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
while it is currently
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Below the managerial class you find the working class. A class that to large extent consists of semi-skilled workers that work unsafe and dangerous factories for little money. China has also a growing class of poor urban workers. They sell what they find along the streets or in small shops. Many of them also work in the bottom of the service sector - driving food to the aloof managerial class. These workers live in slums with diseases, crime and poverty between the skyscrapers and modern high-rise buildings. Rural China is still intact and 7.5% of Chinese GDP stem from a agriculture. The lives of Chinese rural peasants lives has not changed much and they contribute little per capita to the economy.
For healthcare, China pays approximately
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(with US GDP per capita being around 7 times larger, so outstripping the nominal GDP difference), while having a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and lower degree of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. China has a better HAQ (Healthcare Access and Quality index)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (Lithuania has an HAQ of 0.679 vs China's 0.709).

If a majority of China's population can be considered to be living in slums riddled with disease, I would like to see what the conditions are in the US or Lithuania which is causing such a disparity in healthcare outcomes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This trend will probably continue as China's overall educated workforce grows and they continue their industrial upgrading (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
The average salary in the private industry is $770/month (2022). The average salary for a worker in government is $1340/month. These massive diffrences between an overpaid class of civil servants and everyone else are typical for developing countries. The median salary is no doubt much lower. This is how Chongqing look behind the finance, business and shopping districts.


Of course images like above is expected as Chinese workers make so little money. In June 2023 the youth unemployment in China hit 21%. By the end of 2023 it had dropped to 15% more in line with 2022. China, like so many other countries, think that (mass)production of college students will solve this issue. This has been tried and failed all over the world., in Sweden, India, South Africa, Brazil, Canada and the United States. With automatization, increased corporate efficiency and lack of opportunity other than menial work many college educated Chinese youth will stay poor.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Having an educated workforce is key in increasing worker productivity, which is what China is doing currently. The EU also has a comparable rate of youth unemployment,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Really, China's rate of youth unemployment rate isn't really irregular compared to certain other economies.

You can find images of many countries or regions of the world with some degree of material inequality to see scenes of poorly built housing, e.g. Taiwan has around 3x the GDP per capita of mainland China, but has to contend
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and hazardous rooftop construction due to their housing crisis (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Presenting a video like this basically just amounts to anecdotally cherry-picking evidence to support your thesis that China is failing in its economic development.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Only a few countries have been able to reach a developed social and economic level. These are the Eastern European EU-members that were lifted by the European Union and Israel. Israel was lifted by the United States and the Jewish diaspora. The others are Singapore, South Korea and Japan. The only countries in Asia that show potential are China and Vietnam. China seem to fail it´s mission.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, such as Hungary or the Czech Republic, and comparable to the per capita wealth level of Europe (at around $27,273 per capita vs Europe's $28,611). This is already 3x larger than the world average.
 

meedicx

Just Hatched
Registered Member
According to that data, discretionary spending like automotive, retail, all intellectual property and research, etc. is dwarfed by survival concerns.

If you look at personal Good consumption only, China and US are very similar in nominal dollars at around $6 Trillion USD in 2023. It's service consumption that makes up the huge gap.

Many western economists urge China to increase it's consumption to match the US. But what this means numbers wise is to massively increase spending on services like health care, housing and insurance. This will look great for GDP, but it's questionable how much real world material benefit this will yield.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
If you look at personal Good consumption only, China and US are very similar in nominal dollars at around $6 Trillion USD in 2023. It's service consumption that makes up the huge gap.

Many western economists urge China to increase it's consumption to match the US. But what this means numbers wise is to massively increase spending on services like health care, housing and insurance. This will look great for GDP, but it's questionable how much real world material benefit this will yield.
So it seems there isn't much that China can do that would boost GDP other than monetizing what would otherwise be social services.

Urbanization will likely drive continued increase in healthcare, housing and transport sectors but that will be tapped out within 10 years as China transitions to a stable 75-80% urbanization rate.

Consumer spending on personal goods is nearing saturation and investment is tapering off as infrastructure is built out. R&D spending is getting close.

So what's the next step? How to raise GDP without destroying the middle class? It seems like all the possible avenues of growth, even software, autos, semiconductors, etc are just so small compared to the frankly ridiculous levels of privatized healthcare, housing and insurance spending.
 

meedicx

Just Hatched
Registered Member
So it seems there isn't much that China can do that would boost GDP other than monetizing what would otherwise be social services.

Urbanization will likely drive continued increase in healthcare, housing and transport sectors but that will be tapped out within 10 years as China transitions to a stable 75-80% urbanization rate.

Consumer spending on personal goods is nearing saturation and investment is tapering off as infrastructure is built out. R&D spending is getting close.

So what's the next step? How to raise GDP without destroying the middle class? It seems like all the possible avenues of growth, even software, autos, semiconductors, etc are just so small compared to the frankly ridiculous levels of privatized healthcare, housing and insurance spending.

Interesting perspective. It's also worth keeping in mind that GDP is ultimately a number that may or may not reflect improved living standards. US health care consumption is a good example of it not matching expectations.

Like you said there's much growth left in the next 10 or even 20 years as urbanization increases to 80%. Consumer good spending also have much room to increase. Car sales per capita is still low and there's still a lot of room increasing the quality of cars and electronics. Smartphones are a good example, in the past 5 years the average price sold of a smartphone in China has gone up like 1000 CNY.

In theory, if China masters and deploys existing technology like semi and new energy, it will reduces the need to import semiconductors, oil, gas and other commodities. If China also invents and controls a new core technology that no other country has, there would be huge demand for CNY as China import needs decline while there's huge demand to invest / buy things from China. Compared to other countries, nominal GDP will greatly increase.
 

Pepper

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Where in these GDP statistics is the mass swathe of black (prison) slave labor and illegal immigrant close to slave labor accounted for? I can't stand the self righteousness of liberals who claim they are the savior of PoC while being the biggest beneficiary of their exploitation xD
 

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
So from your data, consumption as typically imagined when people talk about the US, like everyone is living large, buying luxury products, changing TVs and phones and clothes all the time, etc, is misleading.

Based on your data, mandatory payments to maintain a modern society like housing, utilities, healthcare, insurance, education and food are the greatest contributors to US GDP. Reducing costs in these, good for ordinary consumers, would ironically lead to a decline in GDP.
There’s a subtler point here that those mandatory items have improved in quantity and quality. Ex., for housing, average house sizes have grown substantially for decades, and even things that are normal such as indoor plumbing were not common, ex., in 1970, 7% of US housing units did not have plumbing (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Ditto for utilities, ex. air conditioning used to be very rare in the 1980s but is in nearly every building today (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) or the growth in second and third refrigerators (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). All of this will increase demand for electricity and natural gas. Healthcare costs and cost growth is concentrated in a small group of people, this is mainly due to technological developments that make previously fatal conditions, chronic diseases and thus very costly. Insurance isn’t dispositive - the fact that people now have substantial insurable interests - in both the life and property/casualty contexts shows greater affluence. Similarly for education - educational attainment at all levels has grown substantially, 40% of the US had a high school diploma in 1960 but 37% of people have a college diploma today (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). At higher levels of education, it is indeed largely discretionary spending or a reflection of affluence that people can afford to not work for many more years to attend school. Food spending includes a lot of discretionary restaurant spending (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) as well as discretionary spending on meats and processed foods.

This is all to say that a high percent of income spent on “necessities” is not proof of a lack of substantial improvement or discretionary spending.
 

chgough34

Junior Member
Registered Member
How about the fact that US maternal mortality for some ethnic groups is now higher than some African countries and even for the ruling whites is now higher than prewar Palestine of all countries?
It’s not. It’s a methodological difference in where U.S. death certificates ask if the person that died was pregnant anytime in the last number of days (and it all gets lumped into maternal mortality, even if it’s something like a car accident) while other countries only count specific pregnancy-related mortality causes such as eclampsia or sepsis. Maternal mortality statistics are simply not comparable across countries since they are measuring completely different things


 
Top