Chinese Economics Thread

[manqiangrexue]

They call it as sceience . : )
I mean, to quantify the conditions of the enviroment, make theories about the internal connections between parameters, and test them.
: )

It's really sad that you exposed your ignorance again. Economics is not a science (or "sceience" either); it is a pseudoscience/social science precisely because it is not possible to isolate variables and test hypotheses in true economic models. You can only guess; at best, it is an "educated" guess but mostly, it is just a guess that cannot be proven nor the results reproduced.

That you tried to classify economics as a solid science exemplifies how woefully unprepared you are to make arguments on the topic and your explanation for what a "sceience" is demonstrates your poser disposition, pretending to know things that you don't by wording incorrect statements as intelligently as you can.

 

[Orthan]

This article says that the US, EU, and japan will jointly complain to the WTO about forced tech transfers to china. Has anyone read about it anywhere else?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AssassinsMace]

Yeah... forced like US corporations are forced to outsourced jobs? It's called a deal. If making money in China is more important than transferring technology, that's their fault. They don't have to do it. See the key here is the West thinks making money from others is their right so they're not just going to think I don't have to make money here. It's their exclusive right. Something they deny from others.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Physical science has long had consistent empirical measures by which to make comparisons for hypothesis testing, sociological conditions by comparison lack these (the Laffer curve for example lacks a standardized output format because conditions and even assumptions vary so greatly) to the extent that it more resemble intellectual gambling than consistent analytical rigor for a proper science.

I agree generaly, 90% of the economics science is simple smoke and mirror.

I think it is more resebling to a control loop, that is depending on the target value, that you want to control.

It you target is to keep the unemployment low, and the wages growing then it will works like that.

IF you target to keep the wealthy hapy and they money growing then that happens.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

You are wasting your time. You cannot make a claim and then providing "supporting evidence" that has nothing to do with reality and is entirely made up by yourself.



There is not a shred of evidence that on a national level the overall ROI of China is less than those in EU and the U.S. By making such outlandish claims you sound like that you are really living in your own world.

Let stop for a bit.

How can you profe that the overal ROI of the chinese investment is the same or better than the EU/US one?

I mean, my example was about that the indvidual planners (probably) irrelevant , if the loans are abandunant then the low ROI project will receive more financing simply because infinitivly many poject can be done with 0/negative ROI, and only finite investment with positive ROI.

The only thing that can ballancing it is the bankrupcy courts ,efficient liquidations, transparent goverment and coprorate reporting, effective and money interested owner/shareholder/goverment control.

If we define it like that, then your argument will be defined like " The Chinese corporate reporting is as tranparent and precise (or more, considering the higher level of investment compared to GDP) like the EU/US one.

I don't know if it is true or false , but I see that how it works in Spain and UK, and there is BIG diference between the two county.
And if China works as efficiently like the Spanish one, then ther will be big trouble over there.

 

[supercat]

Let stop for a bit.

How can you profe that the overal ROI of the chinese investment is the same or better than the EU/US one?

As I said before, it's because EU and US have much higher per capita GDP than China's. As a result, diminishing returns is more of a problem in these already highly-developed countries.

I mean, my example was about that the indvidual planners (probably) irrelevant , if the loans are abandunant then the low ROI project will receive more financing simply because infinitivly many poject can be done with 0/negative ROI, and only finite investment with positive ROI.

I don't understand your logic. Since investment is always finite, there are only a finite number of projects that can be done, whether or not they are profitable.

The only thing that can ballancing it is the bankrupcy courts ,efficient liquidations, transparent goverment and coprorate reporting, effective and money interested owner/shareholder/goverment control.

If we define it like that, then your argument will be defined like " The Chinese corporate reporting is as tranparent and precise (or more, considering the higher level of investment compared to GDP) like the EU/US one.

I don't know if it is true or false , but I see that how it works in Spain and UK, and there is BIG diference between the two county.
And if China works as efficiently like the Spanish one, then ther will be big trouble over there.

My argument is that there is no convincing evidence that China's return of investment (ROI) is much worse than those in the developed nations. It is probably comparable to other developing nations with similar per capita GDP. On the other hand, if you compare China and Spain's GDP growth rate, you will realize that they probably work quite differently.

 

[plawolf]

Excessive focus on ROI also misses a huge, if not the primary reason for building infrastructure in the first place - positive externalities that stimulate economic growth and development.

A big part of why western economies have higher ROI is because the state doesn’t build much infrastructure anymore in the west. That is pretty much all outsourced to the private sector, who cherry pick the most profitable projects to fund while not giving a solitary toss about broader economic ramifications.

Far from contributing to economic growth, western infrastructure projects often have the opposite effect because private firms are so good at extracting ROI that they are sucking the local governments and economies dry.

And the crowning irony is that in the market obsessed west, often such high ROI is only possible because of government subsidies in all but name.

America’s crumbing infrastructure; Britain’s eye watering rail fairs for poor and unreliable services on slow trains; and the massive profits private companies are reaping from from PFIs are just some obvious examples of this in action.

Western economic reporting on infrastructure projects, especially those of China’s also take a pretty ridiculously short view. In popular western reporting, if a piece of infrastructure isn’t immediately filled to capacity as soon as it is opened, it’s a white elephant and obvious massive failure!

The only way that new infrastructure projects can fill to capacity that rapidly is because existing infrastructure was massively under provided to start with, and this new piece of infrastructure wasn’t planned with any future growth potential and pretty much needs to be extended as soon as it opens.

Just because that’s how it goes in the West these days doesn’t mean that’s remotely like how it should be done.

Western journalists loved to report on Chinese ‘ghost cities’ soon after they are built, and harp on about poor ROI. But funny thing is they never come back to follow up a few years after those cities were first built.

Because if they did come back, they will find bustling new cities generating employment, growth and development where previously there was only wilderness, and that just doesn’t fit with the story they are supposed to tell at all.

China’s primary concern isn’t so short sighted and narrow as to insist on making money hand over fist on every new piece of infrastructure as soon as it opens. Far more important to China is the broader economic impact this piece of infrastructure will have on the local economy and residents.

China might lose a few pennies on lower ROI, but it will be making many time more back from taxes and GDP growth those infrastructure will help stimulate.

 

[PiSigma]

Excessive focus on ROI also misses a huge, if not the primary reason for building infrastructure in the first place - positive externalities that stimulate economic growth and development.

A big part of why western economies have higher ROI is because the state doesn’t build much infrastructure anymore in the west. That is pretty much all outsourced to the private sector, who cherry pick the most profitable projects to fund while not giving a solitary toss about broader economic ramifications.

Far from contributing to economic growth, western infrastructure projects often have the opposite effect because private firms are so good at extracting ROI that they are sucking the local governments and economies dry.

And the crowning irony is that in the market obsessed west, often such high ROI is only possible because of government subsidies in all but name.

America’s crumbing infrastructure; Britain’s eye watering rail fairs for poor and unreliable services on slow trains; and the massive profits private companies are reaping from from PFIs are just some obvious examples of this in action.

Western economic reporting on infrastructure projects, especially those of China’s also take a pretty ridiculously short view. In popular western reporting, if a piece of infrastructure isn’t immediately filled to capacity as soon as it is opened, it’s a white elephant and obvious massive failure!

The only way that new infrastructure projects can fill to capacity that rapidly is because existing infrastructure was massively under provided to start with, and this new piece of infrastructure wasn’t planned with any future growth potential and pretty much needs to be extended as soon as it opens.

Just because that’s how it goes in the West these days doesn’t mean that’s remotely like how it should be done.

Western journalists loved to report on Chinese ‘ghost cities’ soon after they are built, and harp on about poor ROI. But funny thing is they never come back to follow up a few years after those cities were first built.

Because if they did come back, they will find bustling new cities generating employment, growth and development where previously there was only wilderness, and that just doesn’t fit with the story they are supposed to tell at all.

China’s primary concern isn’t so short sighted and narrow as to insist on making money hand over fist on every new piece of infrastructure as soon as it opens. Far more important to China is the broader economic impact this piece of infrastructure will have on the local economy and residents.

China might lose a few pennies on lower ROI, but it will be making many time more back from taxes and GDP growth those infrastructure will help stimulate.

China also have under planned and undersized infrastructure projects that meet the" its already too small when completed" criteria. Just look at Beijing airport! It was too small one year after it was complete in 2008, now they got to build a new one south of Beijing. Damn them for the lack of foresight to create a perfectly sized airport design! I guess all the critics want is a Heathrow expansion project in China where everything is behind schedule and too small before it even went into operation. My 3 hours waiting in a line at Heathrow taught me never to use London as a transit stop or to fly to Gatwick. China seems to have learned from the Beijing airport project management and just build it bigger than predicted, since it will get filled in China.

 

[supercat]

India and China groups clash over Dhaka Stock Exchange stake
Bangladesh under pressure over bids for 25% share in growing market

Indian and Chinese companies have locked horns over a 25 per cent stake in Bangladesh’s main stock exchange, with the proposed investment threatening to descend into a geopolitical clash.

The Dhaka Stock Exchange has accepted an offer from a consortium of the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges to buy the shares for Tk22 ($0.26) each — significantly higher than the Tk15 per share offered by India’s National Stock Exchange — valuing the stake at Tk9.9bn.

But now the Indian company is lobbying Bangladeshi regulators, who must approve the deal, to persuade the DSE to reconsider, arguing that China wants to use the investment to further its growing political power in south Asia.

“India is trying to create a ringfence against Chinese aggression,” said one person briefed on the talks between the Indian NSE and the Bangladeshi Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Nepal and Myanmar have already gone, and if China wins this bid it will be one step closer to dominating south Asia.”

The Bangladeshi economy is growing at about 7 per cent a year, fuelled in part by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and shares in the benchmark DSEX index have risen roughly 8 per cent in the past 12 months.

The DSE’s share sale is part of a process of demutualisation which has attracted interest from bourses around the world.

The remaining shares are being sold to smaller investors. But the final round of bidding, between the Indian NSE and the Chinese consortium for the biggest stake, has political implications.

New Delhi has become increasingly nervous about Chinese power and investment in countries around India, such as Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Those fears were exacerbated this week with the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that Khadga Prasad Oli, head of Nepal’s Communist Party, would become his country’s prime minister. During Mr Oli’s first stint in power he won a reputation for being close to Beijing, signing numerous deals including importing fuel to end India’s control over Nepal’s market.

India sees Bangladesh as especially important because it borders the thin strip of land that connects the bulk of India with its most easterly states.

While politicians in New Delhi have not yet become involved in the DSE dispute, several people involved in the talks said the Indian NSE has been using political clout to further its bid.

“We have accepted the Chinese bid, but the Indians are lobbying our regulator very hard,” said one member of the DSE. “The issue seems to have become as much political as financial.”

Last weekend, Vikram Limaye, chief executive of the NSE, visited Bangladesh to talk to the regulator. He

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

afterwards: “The process is still on and we’re hopeful. India and Bangladesh have a strong relationship.”

The company would not comment further. The Chinese consortium also did not comment.

Shakil Rizvi, a director at the DSE, told the Financial Times: “The board has accepted the Chinese bid because it is higher. Now it has to go for final approval by the BSEC. If they want to approve it they can, but they do not have to.”

Saifur Rahman, a spokesman for the BSEC, said: “We are waiting for the recommendation of the DSE, then we will decide. We need to decide in the interest of the current shareholders, but also in the interests of the country as a whole.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Dhaka Stock Exchange picks China's bid for stake over India's
Decision by Bangladeshi bourse could intensify Beijing-New Delhi rivalry

NEW DELHI -- Bangladesh's stock exchange has selected a Chinese offer for a 25% stake in the bourse, although the decision still requires a green light from authorities, which appear to favor a competing Indian bid.

In an effort to modernize, the Dhaka Stock Exchange is selling a quarter of its 1.8 billion shares to foreign players. A consortium of China's Shanghai and Shenzhen bourses offered to pay 22 taka per share for a total of 9.9 billion taka ($119 million), in addition to $37 million worth of technical support. Meanwhile, India's National Stock Exchange, Nasdaq of the U.S. and other partners offered 15 taka a share.

The DSE board unanimously chose the Chinese bid, according to Chairman Abul Hashem. The proposal now awaits final approval from the Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission, which met with Vikram Limaye, CEO of the Indian exchange, who flew to Dhaka on Feb. 11 to urge the securities industry watchdog to consider non-financial factors as well.

The fight over the DSE is part of a greater rivalry between China and India in their efforts to boost geopolitical influence in South Asia. The future of Bangladesh's financial market could impact on the outcome of their competition.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[manqiangrexue]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

These losers could save all that garbage talk and offer 23 taka instead of acting like beggars hoping to foul up someone else's deal just because they can't afford it.