Cherrypicking yet again. What matters is the aggregate economy.
Otherwise what you're saying is effectively the Chinese equivalent of "as long as Google employees and Amazon employees do well, everyone else doesn't matter".
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Cherrypicking yet again. What matters is the aggregate economy.
Otherwise what you're saying is effectively the Chinese equivalent of "as long as Google employees and Amazon employees do well, everyone else doesn't matter".
Yeah, they can import more, in theory, no one denies that. The US is the strongest import market globally after all.
That's one use of looking at nominal GDP. But that's nowhere near the JUSTIFICATION needed to bring it ahead so much from all the other more useful economic indicators.
In fact, the reason it is used so much is that it is best used by the US gov. to whitewash its failures in the real economy.
BECAUSE, yes, John from California can theoretically import more now, but in the process, he lost the ability to do so, since his real wage and disposable income fell now due to the US poorly managed real economy.
In the end, all that nominal GDP excess is just some inflation, and excess profit of some company on some book.
By actually paying for stuff more, John increased nominal GDP but DECREASED his ability to import from China.
Not true, because profit/value gains gained from high-tech advancements alone are enough to push the whole economy forward even though they are just one sub-set of the current manufacturing landscape. This is easily seen from this:
AGGREGATE real wages:
AGGREGATE real wages IN MANUFACTURING overall:
| Urban Annual Average Wages in Private and Non-Private Manufacturing Sector | ||||
| Private | Public | |||
| Year | Salary (RMB) | Growth Rate (%) | Salary (RMB) | Growth Rate (%) |
| 2023 | 71,762 | 6.5 | 103,932 | 6.6 |
| 2022 | 67,352 | 5.3 | 97,528 | 5.5 |
| 2021 | 63,946 | 10.4 | 92,459 | 11.7 |
| 2020 | 57,910 | 9.6 | 82,783 | 5.9 |
| Source: National Bureau of Statistics |
Edit: Now please remember your original first 2 points about how China exports only "cheap" products, and how value added is not tied to increased profits see how foolish you were. Admit the mistake, and move on brother. No doubt there is still a great deal of lower-value-added industries' participation in China's economy, but it is slowly rooted out in favor of more profitable advanced manufacturing as you can see.
People are working longer hours. This isn't productivity growth. This is grinding people harder.
It's pretty fucking clear who enjoys more consumer surplus and welfare here.
The dumbest accusation you've made yet - nowhere did I ever say China only exported low-value added products.
A product can be cheap or expensive relative to its value. China can export the most 'value added products' and have it SUPER cheap vs. its value and still get screwed over. In simple words you can understand, what I am saying is that China is selling dollars for 80 cents - regardless of if its a 3 dollar Temu toy, or a 30000 dollar BYD car (and I believe this also gets to the crux of what @Eventine has been saying).
If you somehow believe that is a good deal, then you should come work for me while I pay you peanuts and for you to do all my work for me.
Last edited:
It has been amazing for developing China's industry.
I suppose the question should be, when is the right time to finally focus on consumer, rather than producer value? Do you believe now is the time?
It depends on the status of the industry. There is absolutely zero reason why CATL should sell 'cheaply' just to 'win market share' because it's already at a stupid high market share globally.
To be fair, I do believe they capture quite a bit of the value in the EV chain.
There's also the question of how to go about this. China could raise minimum wages, increase social spending, raise taxes on producers, etc. This will obviously have an inflationary impact (arguably good), but it'll also make exports less competitive.
There's also the question of whether China's economy wants to do this at the moment of great technological change. General electrification of the economy is arguably not yet complete, and there's still plenty of infrastructure to be built.
Your John Smith could only afford a trip to China if:
1. He could find a McDonald allowing him that many hours per month. And
2. He would have to sleep on streets and eat from dumpsters for the full month to save for the trip.
In addition to the tickets, he would have to pay for a shower, a haircut and/or a shave, some clean clothes, and a ride to the airport.
Let's say after all these he would still have about 1000 dollars left for his spendings in China. Yeah with that much, he could probably have the "80th+ percentile" lavish lifestyle in China for a week at the best. Then he would have to go back on the streets of California.
See what's the flaw in your hypothesis? Your John Smith would have to survive first at home before he could pretend being a lavish "80th+ percentile" person in other countries.
No, they can afford to sell it for cheaper than for example some Western equivalents because they have better efficiency (they also made it for 'cheaper') during production. This is due to technological and business innovation, world-leading government support and policies, etc...
Just because they are selling it for cheaper, doesn't mean that they are getting "screwed over". Value creation is also about cost efficiency.
In fact, by pricing it cheaper, they attract more orders. But, at the end of the day, we still see that they are increasingly profitable, and taking over industry by industry. So, idk what are you about and what your problem is, it is clearly working. This is a standard good business practice btw.
Last edited:
Exhibit A:
English 'Teacher' can help John Smith survive in China. Especially if he's willing to be super bullish/pro China on Chinese social media regardless if he believes what he's saying.