already reported yesterday.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
As Chinese stock is pretty low now, which stock broker do you guys suggest for a guy in Europe, I wanted to buy some Chinese stocks/etfs especially from new energy markets and semiconductors like Naura.
Who is North Korea?
North Korea was not taking over the pole position in EVs and every type of new energy technology in the 1950s.
Your analogy makes no sense. Everyone in the West is saying China is tanking. But what tanking economy goes and takes over the global number 1 spot in cars exports during exactly that time period?
What tanking economy goes and increases usage of electricity at a exponentially higher growth rate than the West doing the China doom mantra during this same time period?
I'll tell you what, the 1950s North Korea in 2024 is the US while China is well China.
In ten years, what do you think will happen when all the levers (EVs, Semicon ecosystem, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, COMAC, largest percentage of global patents, etc.) come into play for China along with far more usage electricity, the lifeblood of any economy?
BTW, most people who migrate out of China is because free market competition in China is extremely tense. They feel they can do better in the West. The Fujianese snakeheads charge $100,000 per person they smuggle out.
You raise an interesting question.
I think China could significantly increase healthcare spending on publicly funded General Practitioners for example.
At the moment, it's still very hospital-led, which is not ideal.
---
There's like 2 million doctors in China (17 per 10K population).
So if China adds 1 million general practitioners, roughly one-third will be GPs, which looks about right compared to any developed country (excluding the crappy US system of course)
Since GPs spend most of their time on preventative medicine or dealing with minor issues so they don't become major ones, such an upfront investment really pays off in the long-run.
It would mean overall rate of doctors in China would increase 25 per 10K population, which is not excessive compared to developed world countries.
And if each GP costs $100K per year, that is an extra $100Bn, which is 0.5% of GDP.
Plus you've got the upfront costs of building such a system and some years to train the staff, which is the real bottleneck.
---
Another thing is myopia (short-sightedness)
My guess is that at any time, you could easily have 100 million children in China who would benefit from overnight contact lenses or special glasses. This would correct their eyesight during the daytime and more crucially, it reduces or eliminates the progression of their myopia (which mostly happens in childhood when their eyes are still growing)
If this was adopted en-masse as a public programme, my guess is that this would cost say $100 each per year, which is a bargain compared to elsewhere. That is still only another $10 Bn.
But I think such a programme would be worth it, as it has long-term benefits which should outweigh the costs.
---
Looking at the dentist density in China - they could increase from 245K to 1.2 Mn dentists to reach European levels.
Call it another 1 Mn dentists. Maybe that's another $100K each per year?
So $100Bn (0.5% of GDP)
Again, there will be long-term benefits in terms of preventing serious (and expensive) dental issues arising.
---
China's nursing density also looks pretty very low.
So they could aim to double the number of nurses, which means 5 million more.
At $50K each, that would work out as $250 Bn, or 1.25% of GDP.
---
The same applies to the physiotherapist density.
To reach European levels would have to increase from 0.140 Mn to 1.9 Mn
At $50K each, that would be $88 Bn, or 0.44% of GDP
---
So you could reasonably embark on a programme to build local polyclinics (combining a GP, Dentist, Opticians, Physios) within walking distance in every district.
And because Chinese cities are generally very densely populated, you can build many larger and more efficient polyclinics, which both compete and cooperate with each other.
---
So if you total all this up and maybe add some other programmes, that might hit 4% of today's GDP in terms of annual spending. But this doesn't include upfront investment costs and it will take time to train all the staff.
Plus before making such a big expansion, you really want the national health code identification system to be ready, so that all the different healthcare providers can actually communicate with each other.
And the key point is that all these items listed above will result in a healthier population which is also more productive. And that the government sets a reasonable "standard" price for services, but doesn't stop people from choosing to go private and pay more if they wish to, or from opting into a private health insurance plan.
In any case, the return on this sort of government spending should be a large net positive (even in terms of tax revenue alone) in the long term.
Last edited:
You really picked the wrong company to talk about, so why don't you take a seat while I teach you a few facts about the company:
- You should first spell the name of the company correctly
- Legally speaking, Wuxi Biologics is a Cayman Islands entity founded by an American citizen. It happens to be listed in Hong Kong and has majority of its capacity in China, although that is changing quickly with Ireland/Germany ramped up and Singapore to come in 2026
- Over 75% of Wuxi Biologics' clients/projects are from American/European biopharmaceutical companies. The company is a world leader in antibody drug conjugate and bispecific antibody R&D.
- Wuxi Biologics is one of the biggest customers of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Danaher/Cytiva
Now, with the facts out of the way - biopharma is an industry China can go toe-to-toe with the US. Now obviously I wouldn't expect Mike Gallagher to understand this, but it's clear you don't understand this either.
The US could conceivably ban Wuxi Biologics from working with NIH funded companies, but good luck to the hundreds of American biopharma companies already working with them and good luck to Thermo Fisher/Danaher trying to replace their biggest customers.
This would be a classic cutting your nose to spite your face situations but it's pretty clear you don't understand this.
While this is the feature and not bug of the US system, this is not perpetually sustainable. Piketty's book is a must read here.
I think you guys are talking past each other - there's no doubt ipso facto that the US financial industry is much more powerful than that of China whereas the real economy, especially in industrial/manufacturing it's not clear that the US has an advantage. Where I agree with you is that I think the Chinese financial industry needs to improve global competitiveness in the next 10-20 years for the real economy to continue progressing.
Look man, just like you mistakenly attacked me for being sleepy, I don't think it's worth much to try and label anyone who disagree with you as this sleepy person. It's pretty evident that @chgough34 is discussing issues in earnest. BrokenGambler on the other hand....
I wrote that the complete hk biotech index is down 50perc last year and wuxi one obvious example but not the only one. No one is yet speaking of ban but the fact that it's registered in honk Kong is enough. There is nothing to understand and I don't need your judgement, capito?
there a no need to answer me.
Then why wait, again? They have higher GDP, since trump always hit with sanctions, isn't it time to be the first one to strike?, .. at least once for face saving .
there a no need to answer me.
Fine, BrokenGambler is sleepy and he is sleepy's disciple.
Yep. Fully agree. My point was simply that as of now, the “top 10% most of the stocks” doesn’t say much since that involves in its catchment, basically every white collar professional with substantial work experience and a 401(k). And 60% of households own stocks, either directly or through a mutual fund. The stock market helps intermediate collective American savings to wealth building capital projects in the future.
The financial sector intermediates between savers/investors in the real economy and borrowers in the real economy and are broadly mutually reinforcing; I’m not sure there’s a need to draw a distinction between the two. And while China has the scale advantage in industry/manufacturing, if China had absolute advantages in industry/manufacturing, why is it today that US EXPORT controls end up determining the path of Chinese industrial development (and being the talk of everyone for years - if the U.S. was actually behind in manufacturing. Export controls on manufactured items shouldn’t be material) and why are U.S. industrial corporates the world’s largest? Intel, Microsoft, ThermoFisher, Pfizer, GE. and Apple are all industrial and/or manufacturing firms. If the U.S. lacked manufacturing depth, why is it that the U.S. is able to extract substantial industrial profits from cpu manufacturing, GPU manufacturing, aircraft engines, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, etc among others?
I’m aware that this is in flux but this is on how things exist in Feb. 2024.
Legacy advantage, that's all there is to it. China wasn't in the game when these things were first developed and it'll take some time to close the gaps.
The US thinks it can compete with China, like this is a race and it's Usain Bolt. The US is no Usain Bolt, it's just a fatass with a head start.
Even assuming everything you said was true, you effectively concede the original point that for a large portion of manufacturing, the U.S. is stronger than China