Chinese Economics Thread

[Brumby]

@Brumby, just to show you I am being even keeled, this is also a statement which I would consider lacking in good evidence or logic,

I agree. That is why I only made a general reply and not let it go further.

 

[Blitzo]

I agree. That is why I only made a general reply and not let it go further.

I don't understand, are you suggesting I should have only made a general reply to your post and not let it go further?

 

[Brumby]

I don't understand, are you suggesting I should have only made a general reply to your post and not let it go further?

No. I was referring to your comments regarding Equation's post and why in my post #4790 I only made a general reply.

 

[Blitzo]

No. I was referring to your comments regarding Equation's post and why in my post #4790 I only made a general reply.

Okay.
Though my comments to Equation's post was in context of my post #4788, which I assume you have read and are willing to address.

 

[no_name]

Inequality is going to look like it is temporary widening as long as the economic locomotive of a developing country keep chugging and pulling the masses forward. It is like cars moving from a red light turned green. They are not going to all move at the same speed. The ones at the front will move faster earlier, temporarily creating a widening gap between them and the car behind.

Just keep all the cars moving ahead. The Gini coefficient is more telling for developed countries with saturated potential.

 

[Brumby]

No definition of "wealth transfer" exists, but I think asking any normal individual, they would perceive it as reappropriation and redistribution of existing wealth to move from one group to another. In other words, in wealth transfer, one group must lose wealth while another group gains it. [note, wealth transfer is a different word to wealth redistribution -- if you had used wealth redistribution then possibly this may not have been an issue... though again, wealth redistribution is typically used in a context of creating greater equality rather than inequality, so it might have created additional unnecessary confusion]

I did not checked up on the definition when I used it and it is meant to mean in my mind exactly that i.e. a transfer of wealth from one section of the populace to another. For example, I quoted in a later post "An official study actually estimates that from 1990–02, almost 70 million farmers had their land seized illegally or in return for inadequate compensation." In effect, 70 million farmer's wealth was transferred to another set of the population. It is not a problem if there is fair value in the transfer. So in a rising economy and increasing wealth, this is an example where it is not some natural unequal distribution but one achieved by orchestrated questionable means.

You are suggesting that unequal access to economic growth is occurring, with that unequal access being split between those who are part of the CCP or affiliated to the CCP, versus those who are not. I think that would fall under the general understanding of corruption.

If you insist but technically not necessarily the case.

This is a big, significant claim without without any doubt or acknowledgement of a lack evidence to support the claim. This part of the post begins with "we are witnessing," which suggests that you are assuming this phenomenon is a well documented one which everyone can bear witness to and is proven without a doubt to exist.
Needless to say, the fact that this supposed phenomenon is not well documented at all and that you bring little to no evidence to the table, and that it is being contested heavily right now between us, means the confident nature of this claim is at best misguided.

The word "witnessing" that I used do not have the strength of a legal witness that you seem to suggest. The intended usage was simply figuratively and not legally.

The nature of my claim I agree is assertive but I do not agree is misguided.

This sentence further adds affirmation to the above claim. Now would have been a good part of the post to acknowledge that the claim did lack evidence and that it was based on your own speculation trying to bring various pieces of statistics together... but nope. Just "yes".

I think I am being consistent in that I have not attempted to defend a position that my claims were backed by direct evidence. Bringing a bunch of statistics together was supplemental and meant to be some collective evidence to demonstrate plausibility of my assertions and that it wasn't simply made up from nothing.

This is probably the best supported (or least unsupported) part of your post, as you're at least using well documented evidence to try to support your claim, which is the well known rise in economic inequality in China. But, again, you do not consider any alternative scenarios as to why the Gini coefficient may have risen. The use of a rhetorical question also again seeks to demonstrate part #2 as the obvious answer to the question, yet no evidence is still in sight and no doubt is expressed to the increasingly difficult to defend position.

Consideration of alternate scenarios is for you to make, not me. I am lost though on the rhetorical part as to what you are attempting to say.

And this helps to further wrap up and reinforce the point made in #2 with additional rhetorical questions and a lovely personal anecdote at the end which is based upon the assumption that the population must be stifling under such a degree of economic inequality imposed by the evil government but are too terrified to act.

What is #2?

So to answer your question, yes your original post was phrased in a way where the claims were passed off as obvious and as facts, and any reader would have interpreted your post as such.
If you'd used some phrases such as "it may be worth considering if this may be true," or "yes, there are no actual stats which demonstrate this, but it's probably worth thinking about" or even sprinkling a few "maybes" in there, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Is this a standard solely meant for me? I don't see all these qualification clauses by pro China posters. If the same standard was used in the first place, then maybe I would not have commented.

 

[Blitzo]

Inequality is going to look like it is temporary widening as long as the economic locomotive of a developing country keep chugging and pulling the masses forward. It is like cars moving from a red light turned green. They are not going to all move at the same speed. The ones at the front will move faster earlier, temporarily creating a widening gap between them and the car behind.

Just keep all the cars moving ahead. The Gini coefficient is more telling for developed countries with saturated potential.

I would say that inequality tends to occur in the middle and early stages of a nation transitioning from a developing economy to a fully developed one... but inequality can also continue existing in a developed economy to varying extents.

As for how inequality will go for China, an issue is the lack of good and up to date statistics regarding its Gini coefficient. Just as economic growth is hard to measure, the distribution of wealth seems to be as difficult if not more so. One good thing is that the government recognizes economic inequality as an issue that the populace is concerned about, and it is also something which may result in social instability if left to continue, so I think there is cause to consider that interventions may be implemented to turn the tide.

 

[Blitzo]

I did not checked up on the definition when I used it and it is meant to mean in my mind exactly that i.e. a transfer of wealth from one section of the populace to another. For example, I quoted in a later post "An official study actually estimates that from 1990–02, almost 70 million farmers had their land seized illegally or in return for inadequate compensation." In effect, 70 million farmer's wealth was transferred to another set of the population. It is not a problem if there is fair value in the transfer. So in a rising economy and increasing wealth, this is an example where it is not some natural unequal distribution but one achieved by orchestrated questionable means.

You can definitely say that land seizures are an example of wealth transfer where wealth is directly transferred from one part of the populace to another + you can also say that unlawful wealth transfer (using your definition) in China exists -- both of those things I wholeheartedly agree with.
But if you're saying that the CCP supposedly make up the majority of the middle and upper class, and that they supposedly reached that status through your definition of wealth transfer, then I would strongly dispute such a claim (as I have done).

If you insist but technically not necessarily the case.

Mhm.

The word "witnessing" that I used do not have the strength of a legal witness that you seem to suggest. The intended usage was simply figuratively and not legally.

I was not criticizing your use of the word "witnessing" in a legal sense, but rather how it is understood in common sense by normal people in everyday parlance.
In other words, I'm not saying you necessarily had to witness what you described first hand or in person, but I am saying that the use of the word suggests that there is substantial accepted evidence for what you describe. Of course the point I've made repeatedly is that no such evidence exists.

The nature of my claim I agree is assertive but I do not agree is misguided.

I am saying that the assertiveness of your claim is misguided, not necessarily that the claim itself is misguided.

I think I am being consistent in that I have not attempted to defend a position that my claims were backed by direct evidence. Bringing a bunch of statistics together was supplemental and meant to be some collective evidence to demonstrate plausibility of my assertions and that it wasn't simply made up from nothing.

You asked me to say look at your original post (#4755) and whether it was inferred that your claims were facts.
I am saying that yes, the way in which that post was written would make any normal readers infer that you believed your claims were facts, despite the lack of evidence.

Consideration of alternate scenarios is for you to make, not me. I am lost though on the rhetorical part as to what you are attempting to say.

What I am saying, is the same point from my post in #4774: "you seemed to have been far more confident in your assertions and if it weren't called out by others you would've almost seem to have tried to pass off those claims as accepted and documented fact"

In other words, your claims of post 4755 were excessively confident despite lacking meaningful evidence, and the fact that you were so confident despite the lack of evidence made it seem like you were depicting your claims as fact to potential readers.

You can, of course say that you did not mean to portray the claims as facts, but I am merely explaining that the word choice and phrasing of your claims would've made most individuals interpret it in a certain way like I described.

What is #2?

This part:

#2 We are witnessing the biggest transfer of wealth in world history and that is from the general population of China to an elite sector of the economy and they are called members of the CCP.

If you had written this part as "we have witnessed an immense transfer of wealth in the form of many land seizures" then I could argue with you as it is a less ambitious claim and it is also something which has been well documented with evidence that it has occurred.

But the fact that phrase it in a way which encompasses all aspects of the economy, and the fact that you also then use your definition of transfer of wealth to support the idea that the CCP and party affiliates used it to reach and subsequently become the middle and upper class at the expense of the rest of the population, is the point of contention.

Is this a standard solely meant for me? I don't see all these qualification clauses by pro China posters. If the same standard was used in the first place, then maybe I would not have commented.

I have also criticized pro-China posters on various matters (most of them tend to be defense related, where I challenge their logic on certain things), and I've messaged some of them in PM as well on other matters.
For instance, my post about Equation's post was meant to show that I do actually hold similar views towards equally illogical claims made by both sides.

The difference is that I know I can rely on you or others to call out the pro China posters in a reasonably logical way when they are using poor arguments, but there are few people to call out you in an equal fashion apart from myself, it seems.

 

[Brumby]

If you'd used some phrases such as "it may be worth considering if this may be true,"

I almost missed this but here you go.

Before you pop the champagne it might be worthwhile considering a different read into the numbers.

Does it sound like a suggestion or as you paint it as a picture of fact? Any plans to revise your statement?

 

[Blitzo]

I almost missed this but here you go.



Does it sound like a suggestion or as you paint it as a picture of fact? Any plans to revise your statement?

I'm glad you pointed that out.
Here is what I said in review of that part:

Here, you do indeed use the word "consider," but it doesn't actually instill any doubt as to what you are about to say next, rather it is used in such a way so as to simply present an alternate view to equation's post. If anything, immense confidence is prevalent through this opening part of the post.

If you were to say "consider this different read into the numbers, which admittedly lacks any meaningful evidence to back it up but is worth pondering anyway..." then that would be a different matter.

Subsequently, I then went to describe how, throughout the rest of the post, you plough through your deductive reasoning and make your claims in a way where a reader would infer great confidence without any doubt, and you do not stop through any of that post to consider the lack of evidence.

In other words, it is the lack of doubt about your claims, lack of acknowledgement about the lack of evidence about your claims, and the overall confident nature of your claims and reasoning in the face of a lack of evidence, which would make a reader infer that you believed your claims were fact.

I usually don't like nitpicking at specific words too much, but in this case you invited me to, by asking me if it seemed like you were inferring your claims as fact. I'm saying that yes, any reader would infer that you seemed to believe your claims as fact.