Fair enough about the Crusades etc. but that was a loooong time ago. Europe has massively changed, it's almost completely atheist now. No one in Europe cares about religion except Muslim immigrants. You seem to be suggesting that European countries TODAY are trying to rule the world through "God and Christ the Savior". They do still practice economic imperialism but it's far disconnected from Christianity.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Fair enough about the Crusades etc. but that was a loooong time ago. Europe has massively changed, it's almost completely atheist now. No one in Europe cares about religion except Muslim immigrants. You seem to be suggesting that European countries TODAY are trying to rule the world through "God and Christ the Savior". They do still practice economic imperialism but it's far disconnected from Christianity.
It may be inappropriate to "blame Europe for Christianity" today. But it is more accurate to substitute "Christianity/religion" with Ideology. Then you will see the continuation of to rule the world through Ideology (Religion => Political doctrine). There is really not much difference between God worshiping and Political fanatics, they all claim to be the sole right way of life that must be forced upon other non-believers. Isn't "universal value" another phrasing of "(my) God's will"?
P.S. Christianity is not the only one to be blamed, all monolithic religions are the same (I am right, everyone else is wrong) including Islam and Judaism (same root after all).
Jura The idiot
General
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I thought this is an excellent oped from Brooking institute
If, on the other hand, the Trump administration simply wants to use China as a boogeyman to score political points, it will own the economic repercussions of the tit-for-tat cycle it sparks with China. Economic interdependence cuts in both directions. The Chinese have ample ways to hurt the American economy if they believe they are under attack.
Tit-for-tat cycle with China will hurt U.S. economy
Monday, February 5, 2018
Editor's Note:
There are legitimate reasons for growing public frustration with China, writes Ryan Hass. The Chinese have overstepped in key areas, and it is appropriate and necessary for the United States to push back against problematic Chinese behavior. But before doing so, the administration owes the American people an honest accounting of the stakes involved in the U.S.-China relationship. This piece originally appeared in the .
Over the past month, the Trump administration has signaled its intention to embark on a new strategy for responding to China’s rise. This approach arises from a judgment that the U.S. and China are locked in an ideological struggle between freedom and authoritarianism. As China’s ascent threatens America’s global leadership position, the thinking goes, a more hard-nosed approach is needed to protect America’s place in the world and the well-being of its citizens.
Proponents of this strategic shift have found validation in Xi Jinping’s recent pronouncements. Xi has predicted that China will reclaim the mantle of global leadership, and he has promoted a “China solution” as an alternative to the Western democratic governance model. In so doing, Xi emboldens those in Washington who view the U.S.-China relationship as an ideological battle for global supremacy.
President Donald Trump also has pushed the relationship in an adversarial direction, harnessing public frustration with China for his political benefit. During and since the presidential campaign, Trump has tapped a vein of public anger by portraying China as stealing American innovation, taking away American jobs, and usurping America’s global leadership. To be fair, Trump has also at various times lavished praise on Xi in attempts to elicit Chinese cooperation, but these efforts have not yielded desired progress, leading Trump to signal recently he will take a tougher approach toward China.
There are legitimate reasons for growing public frustration with China. The Chinese have overstepped in key areas, and it is appropriate and necessary for the U.S. to push back against problematic Chinese behavior. But before doing so, the administration owes the American people an honest accounting of the stakes involved in the U.S.-China relationship, as well as an explanation of what problems need fixing, and how best to do so. To date, Trump administration officials have been quick to highlight problems, but largely absent from offering credible solutions.
Here are the facts: China is America’s largest trading partner, the third-largest (and fastest-growing) market for U.S. exports in the world, and the largest holder of U.S. debt. Trade and investment with China support roughly 2.6 million jobs in the U.S. Any rupture in relations would come at a high economic cost for American citizens, likely leading to downward pressure on the stock market, higher prices for Chinese-manufactured goods like iPhones and weaker economic growth.
In addition, it is worth bearing in mind that China’s rise has not necessarily come at the expense of the United States. According to IMF data, in 1992—at the height of America’s post-Cold War dominance in the international system—the U.S. economy accounted for 26 percent of global GDP in nominal terms. In 2017, the United States still accounted for 24.4 percent of global GDP. The key difference is that Europe’s and Japan’s shares have declined while China’s has risen rapidly during this period, from less than 1 percent in 1992 to nearly 15 percent of global GDP now.
Second, while China’s unfair trade practices are a real problem that must be addressed, they have not been the principal cause of recent U.S. job losses. According to research by Ball State University, 85 percent of job losses have been attributable to increases in automation, not trade with China. Simply put, U.S. factories are producing more with fewer people. As a result, trade protectionism is unlikely to override the forces of automation that are driving the bulk of job displacement. Protectionism could, however, harm economic growth.
In seeking to resolve specific problems with China, the U.S. can draw from its recent experience. In 2015, American policymakers used the threat of sanctions to compel China to enter into a hard-fought negotiation over government-sponsored, cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property for commercial gain. The outcome, while not perfect, induced a significant change in China’s behavior, to the benefit of America’s innovators.
If the Trump administration genuinely wants to solve specific problems, it similarly could press the Chinese to enter into time-bound negotiations, while preserving the credible threat of unilateral tariffs on Chinese products should the negotiations fail to deliver needed results.
If, on the other hand, the Trump administration simply wants to use China as a boogeyman to score political points, it will own the economic repercussions of the tit-for-tat cycle it sparks with China. Economic interdependence cuts in both directions. The Chinese have ample ways to hurt the American economy if they believe they are under attack.
Rather than enlarging areas of friction into elements of some titanic superpower struggle, now is the time to narrow in on specific problems. A serious plan is needed to solve concrete concerns relating to intellectual property protection, industrial policy, and market access for American firms. Hitting China with unilateral protectionist measures and expecting broad concessions in return is not a serious strategy for changing Chinese behavior. On the other hand, an approach centered on maximizing leverage to resolve specific problems holds potential for progress.
If, on the other hand, the Trump administration simply wants to use China as a boogeyman to score political points, it will own the economic repercussions of the tit-for-tat cycle it sparks with China. Economic interdependence cuts in both directions. The Chinese have ample ways to hurt the American economy if they believe they are under attack.
Tit-for-tat cycle with China will hurt U.S. economy
Monday, February 5, 2018
Editor's Note:
There are legitimate reasons for growing public frustration with China, writes Ryan Hass. The Chinese have overstepped in key areas, and it is appropriate and necessary for the United States to push back against problematic Chinese behavior. But before doing so, the administration owes the American people an honest accounting of the stakes involved in the U.S.-China relationship. This piece originally appeared in the .
Over the past month, the Trump administration has signaled its intention to embark on a new strategy for responding to China’s rise. This approach arises from a judgment that the U.S. and China are locked in an ideological struggle between freedom and authoritarianism. As China’s ascent threatens America’s global leadership position, the thinking goes, a more hard-nosed approach is needed to protect America’s place in the world and the well-being of its citizens.
Proponents of this strategic shift have found validation in Xi Jinping’s recent pronouncements. Xi has predicted that China will reclaim the mantle of global leadership, and he has promoted a “China solution” as an alternative to the Western democratic governance model. In so doing, Xi emboldens those in Washington who view the U.S.-China relationship as an ideological battle for global supremacy.
President Donald Trump also has pushed the relationship in an adversarial direction, harnessing public frustration with China for his political benefit. During and since the presidential campaign, Trump has tapped a vein of public anger by portraying China as stealing American innovation, taking away American jobs, and usurping America’s global leadership. To be fair, Trump has also at various times lavished praise on Xi in attempts to elicit Chinese cooperation, but these efforts have not yielded desired progress, leading Trump to signal recently he will take a tougher approach toward China.
There are legitimate reasons for growing public frustration with China. The Chinese have overstepped in key areas, and it is appropriate and necessary for the U.S. to push back against problematic Chinese behavior. But before doing so, the administration owes the American people an honest accounting of the stakes involved in the U.S.-China relationship, as well as an explanation of what problems need fixing, and how best to do so. To date, Trump administration officials have been quick to highlight problems, but largely absent from offering credible solutions.
Here are the facts: China is America’s largest trading partner, the third-largest (and fastest-growing) market for U.S. exports in the world, and the largest holder of U.S. debt. Trade and investment with China support roughly 2.6 million jobs in the U.S. Any rupture in relations would come at a high economic cost for American citizens, likely leading to downward pressure on the stock market, higher prices for Chinese-manufactured goods like iPhones and weaker economic growth.
In addition, it is worth bearing in mind that China’s rise has not necessarily come at the expense of the United States. According to IMF data, in 1992—at the height of America’s post-Cold War dominance in the international system—the U.S. economy accounted for 26 percent of global GDP in nominal terms. In 2017, the United States still accounted for 24.4 percent of global GDP. The key difference is that Europe’s and Japan’s shares have declined while China’s has risen rapidly during this period, from less than 1 percent in 1992 to nearly 15 percent of global GDP now.
Second, while China’s unfair trade practices are a real problem that must be addressed, they have not been the principal cause of recent U.S. job losses. According to research by Ball State University, 85 percent of job losses have been attributable to increases in automation, not trade with China. Simply put, U.S. factories are producing more with fewer people. As a result, trade protectionism is unlikely to override the forces of automation that are driving the bulk of job displacement. Protectionism could, however, harm economic growth.
In seeking to resolve specific problems with China, the U.S. can draw from its recent experience. In 2015, American policymakers used the threat of sanctions to compel China to enter into a hard-fought negotiation over government-sponsored, cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property for commercial gain. The outcome, while not perfect, induced a significant change in China’s behavior, to the benefit of America’s innovators.
If the Trump administration genuinely wants to solve specific problems, it similarly could press the Chinese to enter into time-bound negotiations, while preserving the credible threat of unilateral tariffs on Chinese products should the negotiations fail to deliver needed results.
If, on the other hand, the Trump administration simply wants to use China as a boogeyman to score political points, it will own the economic repercussions of the tit-for-tat cycle it sparks with China. Economic interdependence cuts in both directions. The Chinese have ample ways to hurt the American economy if they believe they are under attack.
Rather than enlarging areas of friction into elements of some titanic superpower struggle, now is the time to narrow in on specific problems. A serious plan is needed to solve concrete concerns relating to intellectual property protection, industrial policy, and market access for American firms. Hitting China with unilateral protectionist measures and expecting broad concessions in return is not a serious strategy for changing Chinese behavior. On the other hand, an approach centered on maximizing leverage to resolve specific problems holds potential for progress.
Oh, we weren't talking about retail sales and consumption; we were talking about why people with declining geriatric economies who only look to the past for comfort try to lecture the country with the most robust growth in the world on "efficiency." Why do you rather run your mouth about shit you don't understand on here than go fix your own economy? Europe's economy is your business, not China's.
Who are you pretending to have this conversation on cars with? Are you babbling to yourself again like about free sex change? LOL Hey, forget about micro-data on cars. China's GDP grew 6.9% in 2017. UK's grew by 0.4% (). China doesn't need to do anything the British way; British need to learn the Chinese way (though I'd prefer they not).
Your mistake was letting people know you are from Europe. Before then, it was fun talking garbage about other people's country because no country is perfect. You threw stones at other people while hiding in the dark. But as soon as people found out the address of your glass house, we put you in pile of broken glass like you deserve to be in and I'll put you back again every time you post.
The story is even worst than it looks on surface.
China passanger car sales actualy grow by 1.4% from 2016 to 2017
The samart phone sales droped by 4.9% , at the same time the US the sales growth by 1.5%.
so, there was same "myth " about the Chinese that doesn't want to take loan.
So, it is a myth, the Chinese like to load up themself with loans like the average US citizen.
46.8% in the second quarter of 17, growing by 1.3% from the previous quarter.
Means it is 5% worth of GDP household consumption comming from the new debt of the households.
Just for reference, in Hungary similar level of household debt triggered a melt down during 2008, and the debt level droped to 19%. So ,if you look for frugal, and saver country then Hungary or Russia is you choice, NOT china.But
So, it looks like the real crisis in China started in 2017
Check the data, EU is on par with US, and bigger than China ( on PPP or whatever you want)
And maybe it is disapointing for you ,but the arabs has bigger infulence for Europe than the Chinese . Way bigger. : )
I don't think that the EU growth is fast, due to the screwed up design of the eurozone .
Either it will change , or the EU will fall into pieces ( doesn't matter).
The growth will came back afterwards, and the free market will put back the politicsan into they place.
Cutlural revolotuion ? China following the same route like Japan ( hundred year earlier) : copy the european systems : )
Anyway, China following the footsteps of the Soviet Union. It is not diferent from that happened in the 50s/60s there. Investment driven growth, textbook case.
See, that is the diference.
Different cutlures, skills, capabilities, viewpoints.
In the past few thousand years in europe everyone mixed with everyone.
Europe never was a composition of pure national countries, and after the end of Pax Americana it will start to be back to the drawing board again : D .
I'm doing my bit, with brexit vote and so on. : )
I vote in two countries to change ,I voted for brexit, later on to kick the current goverment, who interpreted the brexit by his taste.
Personaly, I hope that the EU will fall into pieces, that can make lot of business opportunity : D
Will be fun, there will be millions of customers with money, wanting to buy present for christmass, and there is no chinese toy : )
MEans business opportunity : )
This trump guy doing what he meant to do.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Oh, the story is much worse, I agree. The EU members are leaving, economy much smaller than 2008, going into multiple drop-offs in 2012 and 2015 () even though properly functioning economies like China and the US have resumed growth past the 2009 mini recession (in which China grew ~11%). The key probably lies in the attitude of the people there, who are stuck in the past where their ancestors used to be someone. They would like to find small or non-existent problems in countries growing faster by the quarter than they do by the year (if the EU grew that year at all, which is rare) and try to convince themselves why the Europeans, who were once successful over a century ago, aren't complete failures today compared to their peers in China and the US. This is a mental lifeline for them as they witness single countries obtain GDPs larger than their collective 28-nation block. One of the biggest reasons for poor European economic performance is that rather than spending time improving themselves, they devote their efforts to finding micro-data to help themselves imagine a future that is dark for their peers, and then when the annual data comes out showing that the EU economy shrank by 4% and a rival one grew by 7%, Europeans will look for more data to imagine why this will turn around soon.
You need to attach whatever "data" you have that says the EU economy is on par with the US in nominal GDP and higher than China on PPP because I use official data from 3 global institutions (IMF, World Bank, UN) and they don't agree with your fantasy.
Not disappointing for me, even though I don't know if it's true since you backed it up with zero data, but you have an overly-inflated opinion about how much others care about Europe. But I do think it's really funny when the Europeans voluntarily let terrorists into their countries to fk it up some more. Probably like you, they thought it was a "business opportunity" LOL
You just said before that the EU is the perfect environment for fast-growing economies. Change your mind already?
You have lots of imagination LOL. You imagine Chinese economy has problems, then you imagine EU falls apart. Fancy mind; if only it could be useful... LOL
As I said, European old man mentality, always thinking about the past when capable countries are focused on the future. But OK, I'll play.
See? You gotta get info from both China and Europe to compare... Tsk tsk tsk. Looks much worse for Europe now... I counted 11 for China. I don't even want to count all the European ones, really, too many, and under different names. I stopped at 30 when I realized that I still couldn't even see the bottom of the list yet...
OK, have fun screwing up your house. Good luck selling everything from your country down to your mother for business opportunity! We Chinese love your attitude of selling ANYTHING for money; but only for foreigners. We don't do that for ourselves.
Once again, you are confusing an imaginary hypothetical event with what has already happened.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
2017 went well for China's cellphone market. Of the top 5 cellphone makers in the Chinese market, the first 4 are Chinese and Apple comes in at 5th place. From what we see here, in 2017 compared to 2016, all 4 Chinese companies increased their share of the Chinese market while Apple, even with iphone 8 and X, slipped from 9.6% market share to 9.3%, selling 3.8 million less devices to China. Most of the drop in volume comes from Samsung hemorrhaging blood, likely from the THAAD misstep as their market share dropped from 7% to 3% in Q2 alone (). Huawei and Xiaomi showed the most growth, shipping a combined 28 million more devices in 2017 than 2016.
China's smartphone market slips 4.9 percent in 2017: IDC
Huawei and Xiaomi's market share increased in China last year, according to the research firm, but they couldn't prevent a general slowdown in the market.
By | February 6, 2018 -- 06:27 GMT (22:27 PST) | Topic:
Recommended Content:
Are you currently in the CIO role or do you aspire to be? It's decidedly one of the most challenging C-level roles and CIOs face a daily onslaught of mission-critical activities and shifting priorities based on evolving concerns. This IT Leadership...
The research firm said that a general slowdown in the market was due to Chinese smartphone companies making only minor upgrades to new products, which weren't enough to incite new purchases.
The top smartphone maker by Chinese sales for the year was Huawei, with shipments of 90.9 million and a market share of 20.4 percent, up from 16.4 percent in 2016; second-placed Oppo had a market share of 18.1 percent, up from 16.8 percent in 2016; while third-placed Vivo had a market share of 15.4 percent, up from 14.8 percent in 2016.
Xiaomi and Apple rounded out the top five, with market shares for the year of 12.4 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively. The top five collectively grew their market share to 75.6 percent for the year, up from 66.5 percent in 2016. Once again, Samsung was out of the top five.
"The smaller players continued to suffer as the top five players grew their market share," said Tay Xiaohan, research manager of ICD Asia-Pacific Client Devices team. "A key space to look out for in the coming year would be how the top smartphone companies seek to tickle the fancy of consumers through their $200+ products to drive consumer upgrades."
For the fourth quarter of 2017, Huawei topped Chinese sales, with shipments of 24.3 million and a market share for the quarter of 21.3 percent, up from 16.8 percent in Q4 2016. Huawei's market share grew YoY due to strong shipments of its Honor and Huawei-branded phones under $200; sales of Honor-branded phones were also helped by last year's Singles' Day sale.
In the $600+ premium segment, Huawei's share remains low, IDC said; however, it has gone from making up 2 percent of sales in this segment in Q4 2016 to 8 percent in Q4 2017, meaning it could be a future competitor to Apple for high-end devices.
The reduction in the number of low-range offerings from BBK Electronics-owned Vivo and Oppo contributed to their YoY decline in shipments for the fourth quarter, IDC added. However, in terms of revenue, Oppo ranked second only to Apple.
This time a year ago, Oppo for the first time, with YoY growth of 122.2 percent in the country.
Global smartphone sales dipped dramatically in the last three months of the year and were at best flat for the whole of 2017, IDC .
China's smartphone market slips 4.9 percent in 2017: IDC
Huawei and Xiaomi's market share increased in China last year, according to the research firm, but they couldn't prevent a general slowdown in the market.
By | February 6, 2018 -- 06:27 GMT (22:27 PST) | Topic:
Recommended Content:
Are you currently in the CIO role or do you aspire to be? It's decidedly one of the most challenging C-level roles and CIOs face a daily onslaught of mission-critical activities and shifting priorities based on evolving concerns. This IT Leadership...
- for the first time, with YoY growth of 122.2 percent in the country.
- Global smartphone sales dipped dramatically in the last three months of the year and were at best flat for the whole of 2017, IDC
The research firm said that a general slowdown in the market was due to Chinese smartphone companies making only minor upgrades to new products, which weren't enough to incite new purchases.
The top smartphone maker by Chinese sales for the year was Huawei, with shipments of 90.9 million and a market share of 20.4 percent, up from 16.4 percent in 2016; second-placed Oppo had a market share of 18.1 percent, up from 16.8 percent in 2016; while third-placed Vivo had a market share of 15.4 percent, up from 14.8 percent in 2016.
Xiaomi and Apple rounded out the top five, with market shares for the year of 12.4 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively. The top five collectively grew their market share to 75.6 percent for the year, up from 66.5 percent in 2016. Once again, Samsung was out of the top five.
"The smaller players continued to suffer as the top five players grew their market share," said Tay Xiaohan, research manager of ICD Asia-Pacific Client Devices team. "A key space to look out for in the coming year would be how the top smartphone companies seek to tickle the fancy of consumers through their $200+ products to drive consumer upgrades."
For the fourth quarter of 2017, Huawei topped Chinese sales, with shipments of 24.3 million and a market share for the quarter of 21.3 percent, up from 16.8 percent in Q4 2016. Huawei's market share grew YoY due to strong shipments of its Honor and Huawei-branded phones under $200; sales of Honor-branded phones were also helped by last year's Singles' Day sale.
In the $600+ premium segment, Huawei's share remains low, IDC said; however, it has gone from making up 2 percent of sales in this segment in Q4 2016 to 8 percent in Q4 2017, meaning it could be a future competitor to Apple for high-end devices.
The reduction in the number of low-range offerings from BBK Electronics-owned Vivo and Oppo contributed to their YoY decline in shipments for the fourth quarter, IDC added. However, in terms of revenue, Oppo ranked second only to Apple.
This time a year ago, Oppo for the first time, with YoY growth of 122.2 percent in the country.
Global smartphone sales dipped dramatically in the last three months of the year and were at best flat for the whole of 2017, IDC .
Last edited: