Chinese Economics Thread

[Blitzo]

You don't have to like the definition. The issue is whether there is a flaw in its application.

Tbh I think this entire discussion could have been avoided if the word "stalled" was replaced by something more neutral or less charged.
Maybe something like "Chinese economic growth is falling XYZ% short of govt projections," which is more factual and avoids the undertone of imminent collapse/lack of growth that people are going to naturally infer if the word "stall" is used.

The application of the word is not flawed per se depending on what one views it relative to... but I do think there are many other better words or descriptions that are more accurate and less controversial.

 

[Brumby]

Guys, are you really arguing over the 7% GDP Growth Target for China? It's a goal set for the year based on a multitude of indicators. It can come in + or - a couple points of a percent and be within target. Sometimes economic events occur domestically or globally and a country may revise it's target. This is all 101 stuff.

The problem that we are dealing here is one of mindset. Any suggestion or connotation that the Chinese economy is heading into some headwind is met with all kinds of pushbacks. That is what we are seeing. The % growth is simply a means to an end. The "end" in this case is anything negative about the Chinese economy is sacrosanct and must be reversed into a positive light. If no satisfaction is given, just bog the conversation down into some insensible discussions around definitions and how it is or should be measured. If not attack, the author for being bias.

In the past week or so, we have seen basically a global market meltdown and the precipitous of it as I understand it is some Chinese purchasing index which suggest some problem ahead. The market took the news and reacted or some would suggest over reacted. Time will tell the real story. That is the reality and not some abstract discussions over definition and the meaning of growth.

 

[Brumby]

Tbh I think this entire discussion could have been avoided if the word "stalled" was replaced by something more neutral or less charged.
Maybe something like "Chinese economic growth is falling XYZ% short of govt projections," which is more factual and avoids the undertone of imminent collapse/lack of growth that people are going to naturally infer if the word "stall" is used.

The application of the word is not flawed per se depending on what one views it relative to... but I do think there are many other better words or descriptions that are more accurate and less controversial.

Sure if it gives satisfaction. I shall retract "stall". My point is simply that the Chinese economy is heading into some headwind and possibly the planned target might not be met. Please don't start another round of discussions on the definition of headwind. Lol.

 

[Blitzo]

The problem that we are dealing here is one of mindset. Any suggestion or connotation that the Chinese economy is heading into some headwind is met with all kinds of pushbacks. That is what we are seeing. The % growth is simply a means to an end. The "end" in this case is anything negative about the Chinese economy is sacrosanct and must be reversed into a positive light. If no satisfaction is given, just bog the conversation down into some insensible discussions around definitions and how it is or should be measured. If not attack, the author for being bias.

But it has very much to do with how that headwind is phrased.

Simply stating that economic growth is not meeting projections by XYZ% probably won't be met with too much contention, but if one then tries to use that to support the idea that such performance is predictive of the inevitable collapse of the chinese economy, there will be met with a reaction

I don't think anyone here believes that there are no issues with the Chinese economy, the thing is few here also believe that it necessarily means that the economy will either A) collapse, or B) power through and deliver China into a golden age.
Most people here I think are actually quite modest in their predictions of China's future economic performance -- that is to say few make any big predictions in the first place, neither positive ones or negative ones. So if a big prediction (which is usually negative) based on some economic indicators are made, then people are naturally going to try and look at what makes it tick. The sensitivity to the narrative of a China-economic-collapse because many here have been exposed to it likely for many years now, and it is a narrative often espoused by some news media and a few certain economic commentators whose reasons for predicting a collapse are seen as not driven by unbiased interpretation of economic indicators and evidence, and more a result of their own hopes and/or prejudices WRT the "success" of China.

So really, I don't think people here do not accept the possibility and reality that China faces many economic challenges -- but what people here have a short fuse for is predicting the economic collapse of China based on what they perceive as insufficient indicators for such a vast prediction.


Now, I'm not saying that you've suggested that China is going to collapse in those exact words, but I do think your phrasing could have been made in more neutral terms (like below).

Sure if it gives satisfaction. I shall retract "stall". My point is simply that the Chinese economy is heading into some headwind and possibly the planned target might not be met. Please don't start another round of discussions on the definition of headwind. Lol.

I have no problem with that statement.
I'd personally think it's worth adding that China's economy has been facing headwinds and challenges for the last seven or so years since the GFC (just like every other country on earth), but whatevs.

 

[broadsword]

I can accept that the actual growth rate is lower than official estimates. That has been the line more often suggested by the media since the market meltdown. Even Andy Xie said the actual growth could be just over half. If China is growing at 3-1/2 to 4%, where does that leave the rest of the world?

 

[Blitzo]

I can accept that the actual growth rate is lower than official estimates. That has been the line more often suggested by the media since the market meltdown. Even Andy Xie said the actual growth could be just over half. If China is growing at 3-1/2 to 4%, where does that leave the rest of the world?

I think this is a subject completely different to what Brumby and I were discussing. You're talking about whether the growth rate declared by China is actually accurate -- Brumby and I (and others) were talking about how to interpret the growth rate declared by China (i.e.: is not meeting growth projections by XYZ% considered "stalling").

There are some outlets and economists which have said that the actual growth rate might be lower than the declared rate, but there are also many outlets and economists who have said the growth rate is realistic and similar to their own estimates.
Personally I don't know enough about how the growth rate is calculated for each country and whether the methodology is accurate/reflective of the actual situation... so I try to read widely and see what the overall consensus is to form my own opinion. At present, there are a few places acknowledging that the actual growth might be lower than the declared growth rate, but many places and economists and groups are still taking the declared growth rate as acceptable and it seems to be the dominant narrative.

 

[manqiangrexue]

You don't have to like the definition. The issue is whether there is a flaw in its application.

There is, horrendously. That's what everyone's been trying to tell you.

 

[Brumby]

But it has very much to do with how that headwind is phrased.

Simply stating that economic growth is not meeting projections by XYZ% probably won't be met with too much contention, but if one then tries to use that to support the idea that such performance is predictive of the inevitable collapse of the chinese economy, there will be met with a reaction

I don't think anyone here believes that there are no issues with the Chinese economy, the thing is few here also believe that it necessarily means that the economy will either A) collapse, or B) power through and deliver China into a golden age.
Most people here I think are actually quite modest in their predictions of China's future economic performance -- that is to say few make any big predictions in the first place, neither positive ones or negative ones. So if a big prediction (which is usually negative) based on some economic indicators are made people are naturally going to try and look at what makes it tick -- especially because the narrative of a China-economic-collapse is considered as one of those "narratives" often espoused by some news media and a few certain economic commentators whose reasons for predicting a collapse are seen as not driven by interpretation of economic indicators and evidence and more a result of their own hopes and/or prejudices.

So really, I don't think people here do not accept the possibility and reality that China faces many economic challenges -- but what people here have a short fuse for is predicting the economic collapse of China based on what they perceive as insufficient indicators for such a vast prediction.


Now, I'm not saying that you've suggested that China is going to collapse in those exact words, but I do think your phrasing could have been made in more neutral terms (like below).





I have no problem with that statement.
I'd personally think it's worth adding that China's economy has been facing headwinds and challenges for the last seven or so years since the GFC (just like every other country on earth), but whatevs.

There are three things I wish to state. Firstly, I did not say in any shape or form that the Chinese economy is collapsing. Possibly stalled relative to target and collapsing is so far on both ends that I think it would take an over sensitive individual to equate it on the same terms. I can't change people's mindset but in my view we have a bunch of over sensitive individuals. Secondly, I would aim to be respectful but I do strive to communicate succinctly in accordance with my thoughts and views on a subject and would not be subject to censorship. Finally, issues are never neutral. It is self contradictory to think it is. If a subject is discussed, then my expectation is for arguments and counter arguments to convey your respective views. Unfortunately it requires maturity and goodwill.

 

[Blitzo]

There are three things I wish to state. Firstly, I did not say in any shape or form that the Chinese economy is collapsing. Possibly stalled relative to target and collapsing is so far on both ends that I think it would take an over sensitive individual to equate it on the same terms. I can't change people's mindset but in my view we have a bunch of over sensitive individuals. Secondly, I would aim to be respectful but I do strive to communicate succinctly in accordance with my thoughts and views on a subject and would not be subject to censorship. Finally, issues are never neutral. It is self contradictory to think it is. If a subject is discussed, then my expectation is for arguments and counter arguments to convey your respective views. Unfortunately it requires maturity and goodwill.

Regarding your first point: I did acknowledge that you never said the Chinese economy was collapsing -- "Now, I'm not saying that you've suggested that China is going to collapse in those exact words, but I do think your phrasing could have been made in more neutral terms."
I used the example of the China-economic-collapse narrative to explain why people here are sensitive to certain insinuations -- I was not suggesting that you said the Chinese economy was going to collapse per se.

Regarding your second point: I'm not sure what censorship has to do with anything. I suggested that a more neutral wording might have meant some members would not have reacted as strongly as they did. You're obviously free to phrase your statements however you wish, but you'll also have to accept that people will respond to the tones of different statements in differing ways.
You said before that you believed members here are unaccepting of suggestions that China may be facing headwinds -- I responded to say no, I think many members here are relatively accepting of challenges that China faces. However what many members are generally very sensitive against is the suggestion that the Chinese economy is going to collapse based on limited indicators or challenges, etc. So if the phrasing of a relatively innocuous statement makes people interpret your statement along the lines of a China-economic-collapse narrative then they're definitely going to look a bit deeper into the rationale of your statements.

Regarding your third point: I never said that issues were ever neutral, only that issues and topics can be phrased in more neutral ways or described using more neutral words.

 

[broadsword]

I think this is a subject completely different to what Brumby and I were discussing. You're talking about whether the growth rate declared by China is actually accurate -- Brumby and I (and others) were talking about how to interpret the growth rate declared by China (i.e.: is not meeting growth projections by XYZ% considered "stalling").

The relevance of my point were to both, the accuracy of the official statistics as well as whether it was stalling, slowing down or not meeting target.