Chinese Economics Thread

Ultra

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That was really great article, great find Equation!
The author refute to CFR's nonsensical recommendations to US establishment is just hilarious.
What that CFR's "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China" treatise actually propose is nothing more than superfluous as US adminstration is ALREADY doing it for the past few years. And the strategy is not working.

Einstein once said:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Clearly US strategy is not working, and they are still doing it to expect a different result, so US adminstration is clearly insane.
 

Ultra

Junior Member
Equally interesting read:


TPP Is A Mistake
by Jean-Pierre Lehmann


The proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal is a mistake.

For starters the conventional view that TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is about
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, whereas TPP is about
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is wrong.

TTIP is indeed a proposed agreement between two parties, the US and the EU. It does not include other Atlantic nations such as Canada and Mexico, which are both members, with the US, of the North Atlantic Free Trade (NAFTA). Nor does it include non-EU member European states such as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland or Turkey. By currently common consent, TTIP negotiations appear to have got bogged down in bureaucratic technicalities and would seem to be going nowhere. There are hopes however that TPP might be concluded if President Obama can secure Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) from Congress.

Yet TPP is a really strange mélange of 12 members (see map below), including five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand. In terms of populations the total American contingent which stands at 535 million, more than half the total population of the Americas (947 million), is significantly larger than the Asian population figures which amount to no more than 256.6 million (285 if you add Australia and New Zealand), compared to Asia’s total population of 4.3 billion: almost half of the Asian contingent is accounted for by one member, Japan. Missing are large Asian economies, notably South Korea, India and Indonesia, all three members of the G20.

TPP-map-nn.jpg


Also missing of course is China; but that would seem to be deliberate, the economic arsenal of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
’s (supposedly) strategic pivot to Asia, the fundamental aim of which is to contain China. Thus TPP is above all a geopolitical ploy with trade as a decoy.

Supporters and defenders of TPP argue that the reason China is excluded is not geopolitical but that TPP aims to achieve a very high standard trade agreement. Hence, they say, other Asian nations, including China, can apply and qualify for membership once they commit to meeting these high standards. Whether some of the current members, Vietnam, for example, are in a position to meet the high standards is for now an unresolved question. Though there is opposition to TPP in all member states, including in the two heavy-weight industrialized countries, Japan and US, a key question for developing countries, leaving aside the geopolitics, is whether TPP is what they need at this particular stage of their development.

This is the subject addressed in an interesting publication by the Malay Economic Action Council (MTEM) entitled,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It includes a foreword by former Malaysian
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, architect of Malaysia’s impressive economic growth and development during his tenure, 1981 to 2003. As can be expected from Mahathir, he does not mince his words. He states that “the strongest campaigner of TPP is America … [which seeks] … to contain China and to safeguard its own economic interests [by] exploiting all resources from small but growing independent nations such as Malaysia”. He adds that “TPP is not a fair or free trade partnership, but an agreement to tie down nations with rules and regulations that would only benefit American conglomerates”. Furthermore, as Mahathir points out, the negotiations are occurring entirely in secret, thereby adding to the suspicion that it is a conspiracy. (Similar complaints on both counts can be heard in Europe in respect to TTIP.)

TPPA-Malaysia-oki-menos-3.jpg


The fact is that just as TPP is on the US’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
geopolitical agenda, the Asian nations that became members also did so principally for geopolitical reasons, in order, so they hope, of tightening security links with the US as a means of defense against China.

Besides that, the five Asian members of TPP are rather strange bedfellows. Even stranger is the prospect of putting in the same bed the five Asian and five American members. Whereas there is some cohesion in the membership of TTIP, both the US and the EU share a similar level of economic size and development, and a shared modern economic and political history, TPP is something else. There are growing economic ties between Latin America and Asia Pacific, but these are mainly with China. There is very little in terms of trade or investments between, say, Peru and Malaysia, or Chile and Brunei, nor can it be expected in the foreseeable future. (Brunei is strictly anti-alcohol so it is unlikely to become a market for those delicious Chilean wines!)

Nor is there much integration in their respective regions.

Three of the five American TPP members, Chile, Mexico and Peru, are among the four members of the Pacific Alliance, founded in 2011 – the fourth is Colombia. While the laudable aims are to promote “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” of their economies through the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor,” the current reality is that trade and other forms of economic exchange among the members is tiny in aggregate and an equally tiny proportion of their overall trade.

Whereas there is a great deal of intra-Asia Pacific trade and investment, it is mainly between Southeast and Northeast Asia. Trade and cross-border investment within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is small in comparison. Though there are ambitious plans to create an ASEAN Economic Community this year, in reality, as Professor Barry Desker, Former Dean of the Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS),
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, “ASEAN integration remains an illusion”.

In many respects TPP appears essentially to be coming down to a US-Japan bilateral trade treaty that might complement the US-Japan security treaty.

For many reasons, concluding TPP would end up being a costly mistake. Economically it does not make much sense. The two communities have very little in terms of synergies – and very few prospects of finding them in the foreseeable future. The needs of developing countries would be much better served by concluding the WTO Doha Development Round!

Furthermore, the architects of the post-World War II trade régime sought to de-geo-politicize trade. It is probably impossible to do so completely. TPP, however, is highly geopolitical and highly geopolitically divisive.

Both communities, ASEAN and the Pacific Alliance, should continue to focus on solidifying their intra-regional institutions and ties, rather than seeking to expand to inter-regional, let alone inter-continental, dimensions! That is, as things currently stand, a bridge far too far and a distraction from more immediate priorities. In the jargon of the profession, TPP would definitely feature among the “stumbling blocks”, not building blocks, to greater global economic integration, peace, equity and prosperity.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

broadsword

Brigadier
That was really great article, great find Equation!
The author refute to CFR's nonsensical recommendations to US establishment is just hilarious.
What that CFR's "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China" treatise actually propose is nothing more than superfluous as US adminstration is ALREADY doing it for the past few years. And the strategy is not working.

Einstein once said:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Clearly US strategy is not working, and they are still doing it to expect a different result, so US adminstration is clearly insane.

Don't expect future administrations to be any different. Whether they are donkeys or elephants, they are driven by the same agenda in their approach to China so long as economic, technology and military might are still on their side.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
There was an article recently that said the US told South Korea to hold off joining TPP until Obama gets fast track authority because the free trade agreement between the two already has been a totally one-sided affair in favor of South Korea.
 
Moving on...

A pleasant 180 from the typical Chinese "ghost city" stories we are used to from the English language media. By being more fair and objective it also became more educational and revealing, or vice versa.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Analysis & Opinion | The Great Debate
The myth of China’s ghost cities
By Wade Shepard April 22, 2015

Ghost towns tend to start as boomtowns, and contemporary China more than likely has more boomtowns than any other country in history. No economy has ever risen so rapidly and no place has ever built so much so quickly. This rapid growth has resulted in peculiar side effect: ghost cities, everywhere.

Although the term “ghost town” is technically a misnomer in this case. A ghost town is a place that has become economically defunct — in other words, a place that has died. What China has is the opposite of ghost towns: It has new cities that have yet to come to life.

There are nearly 600 more cities in China now than there were when the Communist Party took over in 1949. This large-scale urban transition began in the early 1980s, when rural areas began being rezoned as urban en masse and the city took center stage in China’s plans for the future. In the early 2000s this urbanization movement was kicked into high gear. New urban developments began popping up seemingly everywhere — along the outskirts of existing cities as well as in the previously undeveloped expanses between them. Many cities doubled or even tripled their size within relatively short spans of time. In just 15 years Shanghai alone grew sevenfold and its population increased to more than 23 million from 6.61 million.

italiantown
Pujiang’s Italian-style New Town, near Shanghai. REUTERS/Courtesy of Wade Shepard

China’s broader urbanization movement shouldn’t be thought of as a developmental free-for-all. There is a method behind all of this building and an overarching framework. Ten massive new urban conglomerations called mega-regions have been proposed in strategic locations across the country. These are essentially city clusters of 22 million to more than 100 million people each that are to be connected through infrastructure, economically, and, potentially, even politically.

China’s fiscal policy all but requires local municipalities to comply with this broader urbanization plan. According to the World Bank, local municipalities must fend for 80 percent of their expenses while only receiving 40 percent of the country’s tax revenue. Land sales make up much of the difference, resulting in a buy low, sell high scheme, as municipalities buy up cheap rural land, re-designate it as urban, and then resell it at the high urban construction land rate — pocketing the difference. According to China’s Ministry of Finance, land sales raised $438 billion for China’s local governments in 2012 alone.

When developers purchase these new plots of land, they are prohibited by law from sitting on them. They must build something. While it is commonly thought that getting in on a new development zone early is key to making a big profit, these areas tend to lie far outside the bounds of mature, built-up urban areas. This often means constructing vast apartment complexes, giant malls and commercial streets in places that do not yet have much of a population base to support them.

Building a new city from the ground up is a long-term initiative, a process that China estimates takes roughly 17 to 23 years. By 2020, Ordos Kangbashi plans to have 300,000 people, Nanhui expects to attract 800,000 residents and 5 million people are slated to live in Zhengdong New District. China’s new cities are just that: new.

newsouthchinamall
The South China Mall, in Guangdong province, is the largest in the world, but it’s mostly empty. REUTERS/Courtesy of Wade Shepard

There is hardly a single new urban development in the country that has yet gone over its estimated time line for completion and vitalization, so any ghost city labeling at this point is premature: Most are still works in progress. But while building the core areas of new cities is something that China does with incredible haste, actually populating them is a lengthy endeavor.

When large numbers of people move into a new area, they need to be provided for; they need public services like healthcare and education. Therefore, a population carries a price tag and there is often an extended period of time between when cities appear completed and when they are actually prepared to sustain a full-scale population. This could be called the “ghost city” phase.

Most large new urban developments in China eventually move through this phase and become vitalized with businesses and a population. Essential infrastructure gets built, shopping malls open, and places where residents can work are created. In many of the biggest new cities, new university campuses will emerge and government offices and the headquarters of banks and state owned enterprises will be shipped in, essentially seeding these fresh outposts of progress with thousands of new consumers. From here, more businesses are attracted — often drawn by favorable subsidies like free rent — and more people trickle in as the city comes to life.

Some of China’s most notorious ghost cities saw phenomenal population growth in recent years, according to a report by Standard Chartered. In just a two year period from 2012 to 2014, Zhengdong New District’s occupancy rate rose doubled, while Dantu’s quadrupled and Changzhou’s Wujin district increased to 50 percent from 20 percent. Though there is still an excess of vacancies in these places, when urban areas of high-density housing are even half full there’s still a large number of people living there — more than enough for the place to socially and economically function as a city.

It generally takes at least a decade for China’s new urban developments to start breaking the inertia of stagnation. But once they do, they tend to keep growing, eventually blending in with the broader urban landscape and losing their “ghost city” label.

This is an example of the attitude change I am hoping to see more of from US sources regarding China, trying to objectively understand rather than demonize or sensationalize China can only benefit the US and improve its relations with China, thereby benefiting China as well - it's a win-win!
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
Moving on...

A pleasant 180 from the typical Chinese "ghost city" stories we are used to from the English language media. By being more fair and objective it also became more educational and revealing, or vice versa.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is an example of the attitude change I am hoping to see more of from US sources regarding China, trying to objectively understand rather than demonize or sensationalize China can only benefit the US and improve its relations with China, thereby benefiting China as well - it's a win-win!

The author of this article is Wade Shepard. I've read most of his blogs at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and regularly check it for new posts.

He has visited a lot of these so-called "ghost cities" all over the country, and has written quite a few articles on them. You can see a clear progress from his earlier articles as he understands the phenomenon more and more.

Check out his blogs. It's quite an interesting read!
 
And Reuters is on a roll with another straight shooting report, this time on China's economic fugitives and the insane amount of $$$ they may have moved out of the country already.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


World | Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:38am EDT Related: WORLD, CHINA
China's Interpol office issues list of economic fugitives: graft watchdog
BEIJING

(Reuters) - China's Interpol office has released a list of 100 wanted economic fugitives, the ruling Communist Party's anti-corruption watchdog said on Wednesday, as the government deepens its fight against suspected corrupt officials who have fled overseas.

The people on the list, published on the website of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, were mostly mid-level officials and company executives.

Among them was Yang Xiuzhu, a senior official who oversaw construction projects in the booming eastern province of Zhejiang. She was eventually detained in Amsterdam in 2005 but, nearly a decade on, China has yet to get her back despite protracted negotiations with the Netherlands.

The move is part of "Sky Net", an initiative that the Chinese government unveiled last month to better coordinate its fight against suspected corrupt officials who have fled overseas, and to recover their dirty assets.

The list from Interpol's National Central Bureau of China showed the suspects' photographs, identification and visa numbers, possible flight destinations and the crimes they were accused of committing.

"Via Interpol and other channels, China has requested law enforcement organs in related countries to strengthen cooperation and help bring these suspects back to justice," it said.

The CCDI said the 100 people were only a fraction of the country's targets, and future suspects escaping overseas will receive the same treatment.

"With intensified effort, a 'sky net' is being weaved," the agency said. "We will strengthen law enforcement cooperation with other countries and mobilize various resources to make these fugitives unwelcome guests and finally bring them back to justice."

The sums of money believed to have been spirited out of China from all types of malfeasance are staggering. The Washington-based Global Financial Integrity group, a non-profit organization that analyses illicit financial flows, estimates that about $2.83 trillion flowed illegally out of China from 2005 to 2011.

(Reporting by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Alex Richardson)

A tidbit on the name "sky net", it is based on a Chinese saying regarding justice and karma, not the Terminator computer system. "Sky net" is the literal translation, the meaningful translation is "heaven's net is gray, it seems sparse yet does not leak" as in everyone gets their due. Apparently it doesn't hurt to get some worldly assistance in enforcement.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
pla101, the discussion is over. No need to add more to it after the fact.

Your posts were deleted because that is exactly what they did...not because they agreed or disagreed with me.

Do not attempt to get another "last word," or "dig," or view in if your posts get moderated.

DO NOT REPSOND TO THIS MODERATION

WalkingTall3.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Do you not get it, pla101?

Your were just INSTRUCTED not to respond to Moderation...and what did you do...immediately responded to try to get in the last word and another dig.

I was going to warn you...but since you have just been warned and responded directly to it...
welcome to a one week suspension.

Do not post during that week. They will all be deleted. And if you do...the suspension will become a ban.

DO NOT RESPOND TO MODERATION
 

broadsword

Brigadier
China's low-carbon electricity on track to be greater than entire U.S. grid in 15 years


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
/
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

April 22, 2015
Nothing is static. Things keep changing. A few years ago, it seemed like China wasn't doing anything but building more coal plants, only caring about the rate of economic growth. The country isn't a Garden of Eden yet, but since then, environmental issues have become the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that authorities can't burry their heads in the sand anymore.

This has led to a big push for renewable energy and cleaner sources of power, primarily to help clean the air and make the country less dependent on external sources of fossil fuels. Take a look at this:
REPN-solar-power-capacity-additions-2013.jpg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg
Renewable Energy Policy Network/Screen capture

These show the 2013 number. Notice how China, which moved up from #5 to #2 in one year, went from a fairly modest amount of solar and more than doubled it,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
? In fact, China almost added as much solar capacity in 2013 as the U.S. had as a whole.

Just last year, China said it
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, triple what they had at the time.
china-low-carbon-2030.jpg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg
© BNEF

The graph above shows U.S. and Chinese power grids today, and what they are expected to be in 2030. The blue bars are low-carbon sources, which include hydro and nuclear (there might be other problems with those, but at least they don't spew CO2 and air pollution the way fossil fuels do), and the red bars show new low-carbon sources expected to be built.
The striking thing is that China's low-carbon capacity (old and new) in 2030 is expected to be larger than the whole of the U.S. power grid. Let that sink in. In a few years, China is expected to have built enough low-carbon power sources to power the whole U.S., which raises the question: If China can do it, why isn't the U.S. doing it to have a 100% low-carbon grid (ideally a 100% renewable grid)?
Here's the global solar capacity:

REPN-solar-power-total-capacity-2013.jpg.jpg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg
Renewable Energy Policy Network/Screen capture

From just 3.7 gigawatts in 2004 to 138 GW in 2013, and a lot more than that today for sure. This is just another way to see the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 
Top