Chinese Economics Thread

dingyibvs

Senior Member
As chairman Mao used to say, quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes. I think a qualitative change is on the horizon. You have to look at it through the perspective of human history. For tens of thousands of years humans survived on subsistence, where people who could not work essentially perished because there were no extra provisions to keep them alive. Since the first tools revolution a few thousand years ago, the stone age, humans have gradually become able to provide for some of the sick and elderly, but usually only limited to within one's only family/clan. Since the second tools revolution a couple hundred years ago, the industrial age, we've gradually become able to provide for entire sections of the population. The labor force of the US is well less than 50% of the population, for example, and less than 70% even if you count only 15-64 year olds.

To summary, the trend of human history shows an explosive decrease in the labor force to population ratio, from tens of thousands of years of near 100%, to thousands of years of still close to 100%, to now a few decades of less than 50%. Maybe the industrial revolution wasn't quite the death knell to employment, it was after all concurrent with an education revolution that brought mass literacy and now almost universally accessible higher education. I think we're at an exponential phase right now, and the next strike will be the final one for mass employment.
 

Franklin

Captain
Article on how China uses its supercomputers

Putting the Rise of Chinese Supercomputing in Perspective

In June 2016, China leapfrogged the HPC competition with its 93-petaflop Sunway TaihuLight supercomputer. Then in November it reached parity with the US on the TOP500 list in total number of systems and aggregate performance. But China’s supercomputing capabilities are in many respects still a work in progress.

China’s newly won respect in high performance computing is largely based on the top petascale machinery the country has been churning out over the past five years. TaihuLight, Tianhe-2, Tianhe-1A, and Nebulae have, at various time, held the number one or number two spots in the TOP500 rankings. The first two, TaihuLight and Tianhe-2, are currently the top two systems on the list. That’s a notable achievement for a country whose most powerful supercomputer just a decade didn’t crack the top 50.

However, much of China’s current supercomputing capability is concentrated in these top two systems. Together they represent more than half of the aggregate Linpack performance of all the country’s TOP500 systems -- 126.9 petaflops out of 223.6 petaflops. That’s because the majority of Chinese machines reside in the bottom half of the list. While both the US and China have the same number of supercomputers in the TOP500 (171), China’s median rank is 316, compared to 227 for the US.

More importantly, most of the Chinese systems in the list are probably not being used to run HPC workloads. Of the 171 total systems, 114 are generic x86/Ethernet clusters installed at internet companies, cloud service providers, telecom firms, and electricity companies. Another 25 or so are installed at unnamed government installations. A couple dozen of these generic systems are equipped with NVIDIA Tesla GPUs, suggesting they are being used for some sort HPC work (for example, neural net training), but the vast majority look like large clusters running web-based or back office applications. There are only a handful of systems installed at commercial sites, mainly in the financial services sector.

Liu Jun, Inspur's HPC general manager, admits as much. In a China Daily article published in November, he noted that most US-based supercomputers are installed at national labs, universities and research institutes. “But many of our supercomputers are just Internet data centers,” he said. “In the US, they are not considered supercomputers. Universities and research institutes in China need this infrastructure, but our investments for them are small, so much more work needs to be done.”

A more visible problem for the Chinese HPC community is their lack of software expertise in both the application realm and in system software. The latter is especially critical because China is devoted to using home-grown processors and interconnects (like the ShenWei 26010 chip that powers TaihuLight and the TH Express-2 network in Tianhe-2) for at least some of its top-flight supercomputers. It also makes developing applications and algorithms on non-standard hardware all the more difficult.

That didn’t prevent a team of developers from using TaihuLight to capture the Gordon Bell Prize in November. The developers were able to scale their weather research application to 10 million cores (8 petaflops) on the reigning TOP500 champ. It represented the first time a team from China had been awarded the Gordon Bell Prize, and it did so on highly customized hardware.

Not every Chinese supercomputer is the recipient of such devoted attention, however. A recent article in the South China Morning Post noted that powerful Tianhe-1A supercomputer located in Tianjin is not able to contribute very much to forecasting smog levels in Beijing and the northern parts of the country. Instead, meteorologists there rely on an older, much less powerful IBM Flex System p460 to perform the needed simulations. The article stated that according to state media reports, when Tianhe system was launched, it was supposed to provide forecasts for the entire mainland. (The machine is somewhat notorious for its lack of application support.) It’s noteworthy that Tianhe-1A is based on standard Intel Xeon processors and NVIDIA GPUs.

The larger problem for China, and one that is shared with other nations, is that there is no de facto standard platform for supercomputers going forward. According to James Lin, Vice Director of the HPC Center at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, three pre-exascale systems are scheduled to be deployed in China later this year, each based on a different design. The first is a National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) system using ARM processors of some kind, which will be deployed at the National Supercomputing Center of Tianjin. The second is a Sugon x86-based platform to be installed at the Shanghai Supercomputer Center and the National Supercomputing Center in Shenzhen. (The technology will supposedly be licensed from AMD). The third system will be powered by the next generation of the ShenWei processor and be built for the National Supercomputing Center in Jinan. In July, Lin tweeted that “the winner will be chosen to build the ‘exascale system’ in peak performance by 2020.”

In a sense, China is unlucky that it picked a time of great architectural flux to build up its supercomputing credentials. Another complication is that to some extent the US government forced China’s hand to develop some its technology domestically. In 2015, the US slapped export restrictions on China, blocking Intel and other chipmakers from selling high-end processors to certain government-run supercomputing sites that were suspected of using the technology to develop nuclear capabilities. Whether China ends up relying completely on home-grown designs or those licensed from ARM, AMD, OpenPOWER, or whoever, remains to be seen.

Ultimately though, China’s supercomputing prowess is more likely to be driven by the depth of its demand for HPC, rather than its ability to supply the technology. And in this regard, the country'a size and aggressive industrial policy provide some real advantages. A Wall Street Journal report published last month documents China’s ambitions to move to the forefront across a range of 21st industries – artificial intelligence, robotics/drones, internet infrastructure, and quantum communications, among others.

To accomplish this, China is ramping up its federal R&D spending significantly. Accord to the Journal report, funding for science in China rose to $10.1 billion in 2015, a five-fold increase from 2010. That trajectory enabled China to overtake Japan in 2009 and Europe in 2013. At the current pace, it is expected to eclipse US R&D spending by 2020.

Conveniently, that would be just in time for the first deployments of exascale supercomputers. But more significantly, world-leading R&D spending would jumpstart the fledging HPC vendor community in China. Lenovo, Sugon, Inspur and Huawei all have aspirations to bring their HPC products to a global market. But once demand for Chinese HPC takes off, these companies will vie with the likes of HPE and Dell for market leadership. For China, the best is yet to come.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
For those who have never had good training, they should think about getting one in time of change. This is not limited to highend jobs. My own grandpa was a farmer during the WWII in China. When farmig became impossible in time of war, he became a miner and started working in a coal mine. Coal mining needs a completely different set of skills than farming. My grandpa never learned how to read and only knew what his own name "looked like" in Chinese. Yet, in time of change, he adapted. We should be flexible enough to adapt to different situations.

I have read your post. Again, my point is that what we have here is simply a quantitative improvement in productivity, not a qualitative one.

If you keep insisting that what we are seeing now is something fundamentally different than before, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I still don't think you are giving me any direct solutions to all the problems I have listed before. I think you are way under estimate how hard its to get everyone educated. I mean we Asian family take granted of the importance we put on education, personally my parent would probably disown me if I did't get a college degree, but that is not the case at all for other people, many working class Whites, Blacks, Latino, Native American never had the tradition of the importance of education. For them, sometimes even getting a high school degree is a problem, and there are many things that are holding them up, social, cultural, a history of abuse or grow up in abusive conditions, growing up in single parent household, drug abuse, growing up poor in general, growing up in a repressive condition etc... that have your spirit crushed that you so focus on day to day living, you have no time to planning for anything else, its a sad existence. Telling them to grow up and get a college degree is like... telling poor people who cannot afford bread to eat meat instead.

Those people will always stick around, and for them the future is going to be bleak, as I already pointed out that automation is already starting to have effect today, low skill labor are getting increasingly less valuable while high tech jobs are getting paid even more. What you will have is concentration of wealth at the top as time goes on, because in the future for people to make money, you don't need to hire that much labor, you only need capitals. But that's another discussion.
 

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
As chairman Mao used to say, quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes. I think a qualitative change is on the horizon. You have to look at it through the perspective of human history. For tens of thousands of years humans survived on subsistence, where people who could not work essentially perished because there were no extra provisions to keep them alive. Since the first tools revolution a few thousand years ago, the stone age, humans have gradually become able to provide for some of the sick and elderly, but usually only limited to within one's only family/clan. Since the second tools revolution a couple hundred years ago, the industrial age, we've gradually become able to provide for entire sections of the population. The labor force of the US is well less than 50% of the population, for example, and less than 70% even if you count only 15-64 year olds.

To summary, the trend of human history shows an explosive decrease in the labor force to population ratio, from tens of thousands of years of near 100%, to thousands of years of still close to 100%, to now a few decades of less than 50%. Maybe the industrial revolution wasn't quite the death knell to employment, it was after all concurrent with an education revolution that brought mass literacy and now almost universally accessible higher education. I think we're at an exponential phase right now, and the next strike will be the final one for mass employment.

That is correct, the current system is not sustainable in many ways.

1. As you pointed out, we are getting extremely productive than before, and thus producing things so much easier and cheaper than before. But many people are not always aware that this this explosion in productivity is also base on mass extraction of earth's resources and destruction of our eco system. We are so focused on making money, we are destroying the very foundation of the home that we live in.

2. Overall everyone benefits universally to some degree with technology advancement, today the poorest poorest African nations (not in a state of war) has higher life expectancy than then richest nation on earth 200 years ago. But yet, not everyone is happy, everyone wants more.

3. The destructive power of weapons and increase in population has increased exponentially then before, but yet, world is still relatively peaceful, for this I do give US some credit, despite all the things they have done in the past..... my defense... US would have done so much worse. Imagine if Mongols has the same military US have, you and I would not be alive today.

Something will happen to end all of this, I feel like AI and Automation will push us towards it, time will tell.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Yes I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I still don't think you are giving me any direct solutions to all the problems I have listed before. I think you are way under estimate how hard its to get everyone educated. I mean we Asian family take granted of the importance we put on education, personally my parent would probably disown me if I did't get a college degree, but that is not the case at all for other people, many working class Whites, Blacks, Latino, Native American never had the tradition of the importance of education. For them, sometimes even getting a high school degree is a problem, and there are many things that are holding them up, social, cultural, a history of abuse or grow up in abusive conditions, growing up in single parent household, drug abuse, growing up poor in general, growing up in a repressive condition etc... that have your spirit crushed that you so focus on day to day living, you have no time to planning for anything else, its a sad existence. Telling them to grow up and get a college degree is like... telling poor people who cannot afford bread to eat meat instead.

Those people will always stick around, and for them the future is going to be bleak, as I already pointed out that automation is already starting to have effect today, low skill labor are getting increasingly less valuable while high tech jobs are getting paid even more. What you will have is concentration of wealth at the top as time goes on, because in the future for people to make money, you don't need to hire that much labor, you only need capitals. But that's another discussion.

When I said "training", I didn't necessarily mean college education. It doesn't need to be any kind of formal education at all. It simply means your willingness to change and to learn new things.

As manufacturing jobs go away, service sectors become more important. No matter how advanced the society becomes, you still need people to provide all kinds of services. You could become a mechanic. A few months of training will get you a certificate. Or you could simply get a job at a local auto shop and promise your new boss that you can learn.

You could also become a chef. Of course, you can go to culinary school, or become a dishwasher and work your way up.

As population ages, we need more health care professionals. Of course, you can go to med school to become a physician, or take a short course to become a nurse.

What about an oil rigger? How about opening your own business to sell your own hand-made stuff? And what about becoming a fisherman?

Most of these jobs don't need dedicated and extensive training. You will be a "greenhorn" when you first step on a fishing boat, but will be able to move your way up the chain simply by watching and learning how others are doing things.

Instead of being stubborn and complain about why my old job is gone, be willing to change. Be willing to adapt. You don't need a college diploma to be flexible. Of course, many people are stubborn and don't want to change. Then these people would suffer the most during time of change.

What the government needs to do is to first give a clear message to these people that their old ways will be no more. Tell them that they must change to adapt. Then provide fundings to open more workshops to train people new skills. Again, I don't mean college education. I mean new skills to become a construction worker, a chef, a fisherman, an auto mechanic, etc. these jobs don't need advanced degrees, just willingness to learn and to change. Then more funding and tax breaks for small business owners. Let them open their own business, be it a diner or a food truck...
 

sanblvd

Junior Member
Registered Member
When I said "training", I didn't necessarily mean college education. It doesn't need to be any kind of formal education at all. It simply means your willingness to change and to learn new things.

As manufacturing jobs go away, service sectors become more important. No matter how advanced the society becomes, you still need people to provide all kinds of services. You could become a mechanic. A few months of training will get you a certificate. Or you could simply get a job at a local auto shop and promise your new boss that you can learn.

You could also become a chef. Of course, you can go to culinary school, or become a dishwasher and work your way up.

As population ages, we need more health care professionals. Of course, you can go to med school to become a physician, or take a short course to become a nurse.

What about an oil rigger? How about opening your own business to sell your own hand-made stuff? And what about becoming a fisherman?

Most of these jobs don't need dedicated and extensive training. You will be a "greenhorn" when you first step on a fishing boat, but will be able to move your way up the chain simply by watching and learning how others are doing things.

Instead of being stubborn and complain about why my old job is gone, be willing to change. Be willing to adapt. You don't need a college diploma to be flexible. Of course, many people are stubborn and don't want to change. Then these people would suffer the most during time of change.

What the government needs to do is to first give a clear message to these people that their old ways will be no more. Tell them that they must change to adapt. Then provide fundings to open more workshops to train people new skills. Again, I don't mean college education. I mean new skills to become a construction worker, a chef, a fisherman, an auto mechanic, etc. these jobs don't need advanced degrees, just willingness to learn and to change. Then more funding and tax breaks for small business owners. Let them open their own business, be it a diner or a food truck...

All very good suggestion, but I guess my argument is that you overestimate the ability of people doing something out of their comfort zone and change.

And of course, my original argument still stand, none of this will matter in the future, because AI and Automation will make it all obsolete, there will be jobs, there just won't be jobs for everyone.

Like I said, time will tell which of us will be correct.
 

Orthan

Senior Member
Bloomberg article about the belt and road projects.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is mentioned that chinese officials privatly expect to lose 30% of the investments in central asia and in pakistan, to lose up to 80%. Perhabs china is only investing in pakistan for strategic reasons.
 

vesicles

Colonel
All very good suggestion, but I guess my argument is that you overestimate the ability of people doing something out of their comfort zone and change.

And of course, my original argument still stand, none of this will matter in the future, because AI and Automation will make it all obsolete, there will be jobs, there just won't be jobs for everyone.

Like I said, time will tell which of us will be correct.

Yes, I do have to admit that not many people are willing to get out of their comfort zone. That's unfortunately where evolution comes in. Those who can't adapt will perish...
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Bloomberg article about the belt and road projects.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is mentioned that chinese officials privatly expect to lose 30% of the investments in central asia and in pakistan, to lose up to 80%. Perhabs china is only investing in pakistan for strategic reasons.
There isn't enough context to 30% and 80% lost estimates. Are the losses short-term, mid-term, or for the life of the project? Is the calculation commerce only or does it include security and intangibles? Do the losses involve China only or other nations too? What about new economic activities of host countries/counties/cities?
 
Top