Chinese Economics Thread

[Brumby]

Wait, what? I never said that Vincent was referring to the present.
I was saying that Vincent was referring to 30 years, that is to say the change from 30 years ago to now.




First of all, I want to repeat that I believe Vincent's statement is not referring to the state of living conditions/satisfacation etc of the "present", but rather the change in living conditions from 30 years ago, to the present. In other words, I view his statement as one of the change in conditions/satisfacations which had occurred from 30 years ago to now.
Going back to the Gallup poll, it is measuring the sentiments of the respondents to their present situation at the time of response, which is asking a different question to what Vincent was describing.
That is why I see the Gallup poll's results as fundamentally being irrelevant to trying to counter Vincent's position.

-----

As for your position...
You wrote in your last post "My rebuttal is that the satisfaction survey shows a falling off from a peak". The problem with the phrasing of this statement, is that we don't have enough data points to know if a peak had already been reached, nor do we know if the fall is part of a long term trend or a short term fluctuation. Putting it simply, the phrase "falling off from a peak" at present has insufficient data points to make that statement.

If you had written something along the lines of "The Gallup survey showed that in 2015 there was a drop in proportion of the population who felt like their standards of living were improving, compared to 2014," then that would be a far more accurate statement which does not make any impositions upon the unknown future to make the statement be logically sound.

Furthermore, no matter which variant of this argument is made, it is still a completely separate one to Vincent's position.

Putting it into plain words:
I see Vincent's argument as this: "there has been a meaningful increase in living standards/satisfaction/etc from 1986 to 2016".
OTOH, your position based on the results of the Gallup poll, is something like this: "in the last few years, the increase in living standards per year may be dropping from its peak growth".

I think that makes it quite clear what the differences between Vincent's position and your position is.
You can say all you want about how the proportion of people satisfied with an increase in living standards may be decreasing in the last two or so years using the Gallup poll, but that doesn't provide evidence against nor negate Vincent's argument that there was still an increase in living standards and satisfaction from 30 years ago to now.

Let's use a more extreme example: let's pretend China's living standards fall to hell in 2017, but that would still not negate the Vincent's argument that between 1986 and 2016 there was an increase in living standards and satisfaction.

Now, I'm not here to say how true Vincent's argument is -- I'm only trying to emphasize that the Gallup poll and your counter argument is arguing against a completely different thing to what Vincent is arguing for.

If you wish to split hair I will entertain that as well.

In Vincent's claim, as you insist it is about relative change over a period. In Vincent's claim, the nature of the curve, how steep it is and the curve development is not known. It is simply a claim that it is better based on one data point. In rebuttal, I have provided a Gallup survey based over 9 comparative years. We know the relative change over that shorter period, we know the relative gradient, we know it peaked and has fallen to historic lows, and we know its relationship to baseline. In short, we have a better grasp of the change over a shorter period. You can argue that it is not similar - I agree. However I can argue it has better qualitative data on sample size, relative change and successive performance. I maintain I have provided a better qualitative measurement and that itself is a negation of Vincent's claim. I will give you the last word on this.

 

[Blitzo]

If you wish to split hair I will entertain that as well.

In Vincent's claim, as you insist it is about relative change over a period. In Vincent's claim, the nature of the curve, how steep it is and the curve development is not known. It is simply a claim that it is better based on one data point. In rebuttal, I have provided a Gallup survey based over 9 comparative years. We know the relative change over that shorter period, we know the relative gradient, we know it peaked and has fallen to historic lows, and we know its relationship to baseline. In short, we have a better grasp of the change over a shorter period. You can argue that it is not similar - I agree. However I can argue it has better qualitative data on sample size, relative change and successive performance. I maintain I have provided a better qualitative measurement and that itself is a negation of Vincent's claim. I will give you the last word on this.

You can say that Vincent's own personal anecdotes are insufficient to support the claim he was making -- I have no problem with that.

But having well conducted/researched evidence which is irrelevant to the question that's being asked, is the same as having no evidence. Being "better" than Vincent's own personal anecdote means nothing when it is still insufficient for negating his claim.

To negate his claim would require some form of a survey to show that there has been no increase in life satisfaction, living standards or so on and so forth among the Chinese populace, from between 1986 to 2016.
However you cut the apple, the Gallup poll is insufficiently relevant in content (and also timespan) to be considered useful for his question, because it is asking about the respondent's feeling of satisfaction at the time of the survey, not asking them to compare from 30 years ago in the past to the present.


This is through no fault of you or Gallup, it is simply that the parameters of Vincent's original claim means one needs literally a tailor made survey to answer his question or to support/negate his position.

 

[ahojunk]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2016-05-28 08:47 | Xinhua | Editor: Huang Mingrui

A data hub designed to help Chinese and ASEAN ports share information was officially launched in Qinzhou Port, south China's Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, on Friday.

The China-ASEAN Port Logistics Information Center will provide support for increased trade and greater use of computers in these ports, according to the Qinzhou City government.

The center is a key sub-project of the China-ASEAN Port Cities Cooperation Network, which was launched during the 10th China-ASEAN Expo and the China-ASEAN Business and Investment Summit in 2013.

With support from the China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund, Qinzhou also broke ground on the China-ASEAN Maritime Training Center on Friday. This will mainly serve China and ASEAN countries with training for international and domestic cruise ship pilots and seamen after completion in December.

Qinzhou also plans to build a center for marine meteorological monitoring and early warning, and a marine search and rescue center for China and ASEAN members.

Qinzhou Port sits at the tip of the Beibu Gulf, connecting China and southeast Asia by both land and sea. The throughput of Qinzhou Port reached 65.10 million tonnes in 2015.

 

[Yvrch]

Speaking of productivity, according to the annual OECD report that came out couple days ago.

 

[antiterror13]

Good solution for farmers's unsold fruit ... China's ways
win-win solutions ... everybody happy .... and cost local govt nothing
Cleaning workers receiving free watermelons

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AndrewS]

The OECD productivity report above is an important point that the China bears don't consider.

In the 2009-2014 period after the GFC in the US and when China was spending using debts, labour productivity was still growing at over 8% per year. That is far in excess of any developed country.

It demonstrates that China is still nowhere near being a developed county, and still has so much catchup growth ahead. In addition, it busts the theory that a shrinking labour force will hobble Chinese growth.

 

[Yvrch]

I don't want to crowd out with more details and data, just a random walk,

I believe these graphs reflect the current political landscape in both US and EU which is the gradual rise of populist anti-establishment, anti-immigration right wing platforms. Income growth is stagnating or dropping for the working class as a whole and they see no clear way out to rectify it any time soon. The disquiet about the problem of income inequality so to speak, and by extension, the yawning gap of wealth inequality.

Part of the problems in OECD group is, like in US, some major OECD countries need to rebuild their depreciated or depreciating capital stock, like roads, bridges, airports, transit systems.

India and US both have a revised system to their GDP, I think India did it last year and US about a few fiscals ago, an increase of about USD 500 billions in US case so their numbers are a bit skewed. US quarterly advance numbers will for the first time in history have full 3 months data starting next quarter. If China do the same thing for her GDP numbers like US adjustment, she would have an extra USD 500 billions easy.

About the local currency denominated sovereign debt in central banks. It's a free debt, for every country with a central bank, except the ones with the currency boards.
QE, QQE are reversible. Fed's $4 trillions long term assets are free of charge debt to the US government. Japanese are smart, everyone would do the same thing if they are in the same situation. Even the helicopter drop would be good up to a point, though it's not reversible.

China's problem is not macro, rather it's micro. On average she needs to pick more winners in her investment portfolio.

 

[AndrewS]

Productivity growth in already developed countries, is going to be much lower than what we still see in China or India.

Realistically, 1-2% per year is what can be expected for a developed country, and in the long-run, it is productivity growth that drives overall GDP growth.

At a macro level, it is that simple.

 

[Jura The idiot]

did you know
Chinese developer Wanda opens theme park to take on Disney
?

China's largest private property developer, the Wanda Group, opened an entertainment complex on Saturday that it's positioning as a distinctly homegrown rival to Disney and its $5.5 billion Shanghai theme park opening next month.

Wanda executives unveiled their $3 billion "Wanda City" in the southeastern provincial capital of Nanchang to thundering music reminiscent of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" theme and hailed the center as a representative of Chinese entertainment culture in the face of encroaching foreign influences.

Wanda's massive site includes an $800 million China-themed park filled with twirling "porcelain teacup" rides and bamboo forests, an indoor shopping mall with cinemas, restaurants, hotels and the world's largest ocean park. Disney is set to open its own resort in Shanghai — the largest Disneyland in the world — in June.

As a leading player in Chinese firms' globalization push, the property group has invested heavily in the film and cinema business and has spoken openly about its nationalistic mission to fend off Disney in the Chinese market and become an entertainment brand recognized around the world.

In remarks at Saturday's opening, Wang Jianlin, Wanda chairman and China's richest man, did not mention Disney by name but said Chinese people "fawned" over Western imports.

"Chinese culture led in the world's for 2,000 years, but since the last 300 years, because of our lagging development and the invasion of foreign cultures, we have more or less lacked confidence in our own culture," Wang said. "We want to be a model for Chinese private enterprise, and we want to establish a global brand for Chinese firms."

Earlier this month he told Chinese state television in an interview that Disney's foray into China would crumble under more competitive pricing from his group, and warned that the "the frenzy of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and the era of blindly following them has passed."

Wanda's dealmaking has been similarly aggressive as it quickly diversifies away from China's weakening real estate market.

The group purchased U.S.-based AMC Theaters cinema chain in 2012 for $2.5 billion and paid $3.5 billion for Legendary Entertainment — the Hollywood studio behind the Batman franchise — earlier this year as it ramped up its international push.

Seeking to capitalize on China's rising middle class, developers are planning dozens of Chinese theme park, along with projects from U.S. firms like Universal Studios, DreamWorks and Six Flags. But instead of seeking to capture China's top tier cities like Beijing or Shanghai, Wanda has built parks in smaller but still massive cities like Wuhan, where it regularly presents the "The Han Show" — a Cirque du Soleil-style acrobatic performance that's based on the traditional culture of the Han, China's largest ethnic group.

Even so, there were signs of Disney's presence in Wanda City. Tourists who opted against paying 198 yuan (about $30) for the theme park and headed for the shopping mall were greeted by what looked like a woman in a Snow White costume as well as storm troopers, the armored soldiers from the Star Wars franchise owned by Disney.

A Uniqlo store was fully stocked with Disney merchandise and sold stacks of Mickey Mouse T-shirts for about $12 each.

In response to a question about the presence of Disney characters, Wanda said in a statement that the company "does not control the promotional activities of retailers."

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I found using google (originally I read the story in Polish Internet:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

Speaking of productivity, according to the annual OECD report that came out couple days ago.

View attachment 28051

View attachment 28052

A good evidence to prove my theory.

Because human capacity is equal, individual productivity will eventually be equal, represented by GDP per capital. Therefore GDP or economy power is only determined by size of population. The factors that can prevent this determination are natural disasters, wars, political turmoil and hindered access to natural resources. Although this perfect world will probably never be realized I do believe that the decline of the so-called western world's economy weight in the world as merely a return to the norms of the past thousand of years of human history. Something similar to the pre 1800 time.

I will leave the details of numbers and charts to the interested folks as I am neither good at them nor interested in them. Mathematics weren't my strength back in the college years. Hehe.