Chinese Economics Thread

[manqiangrexue]

It is not reflecting the relative development of each country, it just reflecting the size differences.

Say India manage to grow the population to double, an at the same time keeping the GDP on the same level ( 50% in GDP PPP terms of China level).

Now it have the same GDP like China.
Would it means that the Indians live better in that case than the Chinese?

Any EU country is doing better than China.

There can be subgroup of people in China that can live better than the average of a country in EU, but as an average the citizens of any EU country live better than the average of Chinese.

The high population number has its advantage, but from the other side it makes very difficult to manage that big number of humans.

Even the EU struggle with its own 300 million inhabitants.
It manages to pull a good decade worth of nice growth, but now its struggle how to change itself.
It will be more difficult for China, simply because its big size.

Reread this quote from the last post that you clearly did not understand:

That's right, overall GDP is used to measure national development and the ability to expand and upgrade your military. That's what this forum is all about. It doesn't matter if you have a per capita GDP of a billion dollars if you have 8 people in your country; it still has no global power. Per capita PPP is good for determining who can afford to live more decadently and I'm not at all interested in discussing that. Of course, increasing per capita GDP is one way to increase total GDP, but as I said, total GDP is still the go-to number for national power.

So, some people can't accept that China has a lower standard of living (GDP per capita) than some Eastern European countries? Or is it again about not understanding what per capita means (how else to interpret the constant mentions of China's large population)?

No, it's just one person who doesn't understand that the entire conversation is about healthy economic development as a base for national development, technological advancement, and military building, which relies on overall GDP. He's completely fixated on per capita GDP because that's the only area where China is not monstrously huge and wants to use that as if it were the only marker of success to assuage his jealousy and fear. He's literally answering to posts about those national capability with per capita GDP comparisons so I'd say either he doesn't understand the difference or is scared of the implications of understanding the difference.

Even if we were talking only about quality of life, gdp per capita is not always accurate especially when comparing a very small country to a very large country. The country with more total resources can afford to field more national projects and infrastructure upgrades that the smaller country may not be about to build due to sheer smallness in scale. Then, the citizens of the larger country have more advanced buildings/facilities to use, more modern public transport, and other national tech services at his disposal than the smaller country even though the citizens of the smaller country may be able to afford more at the store. In this case, who has the better standard of living would be a matter of opinion.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

Where did you get the population of the EU as 300 million? It's 508 million, which is a huge difference.

So let's take the the 500million people in the coastal Chinese provinces.
That is roughly the same population of the entire EU, and they have a per capita GDP of 90000 YUAN.
That works out as 26,000 USD on a PPP basis. That is above some EU countries, but lower than others.

The EU is structurally flawed, because it is so fragmented with different currencies, laws, languages, political cultures and hostility to internal immigrants.

That is not the case with China, which has transfer payments and infrastructure connectivity projects (from rich coast to poor interior) that the EU cannot dream of doing.

We also see China spending more on technology R&D than the European Union, and also having a larger consumer retail market.

So China should be able to grow the poorer interior a lot faster than the coast, and narrow the wealth gap.

Yeah ,that is the eurozone population. my bad.

The coastal regions are usually more wealthy than the inland, big part because they make income by facilitating the trade between the sea and landlocked regions.

So, it is quite debatable that if you cut off the inland regions from the coastal regions then both GDP should be the same.

There is high chance to see the inland GDP increase and the coastal decrease .

And the EU problem is not the above that you described.

IT is quite simple: the EU central government hasn't got income and real power.

R&D : Japan is in the top three R&D spender in the past decades ( half century maybe? ), but it haven't prevented them to stagnate for close to thirty years.


And generally everyone is playing with the GDP %.
That is a bit tricky, because say if you cut back a country GDP to the quarter , that is a 75% drop.
but now it is possible to show a good 7% growth for 20 years afterwards.

That happened with China.
The imperial system was absolutely rubbish, but generally the Chinese are organised, well behaving and civilised chaps.
Due to the ineffective governance the economical activity in China collapsed to bellow the Nigerian level .

As soon as the country received same leadership who shown competency the economic activity went to the "natural" level.

So, a Chinese can be proud of the growth, or can be ashamed because the politician system of China wasn't capable in the past 300 years to prevent the appearance of Cixi kind incompetent leaders.

 

[vincent]

Blind man and an elephant

 

[solarz]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can't help but feel admiration for this guy. He basically fulfilled all of his life's dreams. After decades of hard work, he went out with a bang and settles down for a quiet, normal life.

In retrospect, the extravaganzas he organized earlier makes complete sense.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can't help but feel admiration for this guy. He basically fulfilled all of his life's dreams. After decades of hard work, he went out with a bang and settles down for a quiet, normal life.

In retrospect, the extravaganzas he organized earlier makes complete sense.

NO I think he should use his considerable wealth to set up foundation to help the migrant worker which he doesn't
I have nothing but contempt to the like of Jack Ma he promised to create 1 million job in Us but nothing in China?
Compare that to Lee Kong China who donated half of his wealth to set up foundation helping poor kid with education bursaries set up school add research institute and any other cultural activities
The foundation has been in operation for 50 years and sofar they give away close to 1 billion dollar amazing and still giving
Chinese billionaire are selfish, Western worshipper

 

[solarz]

NO I think he should use his considerable wealth to set up foundation to help the migrant worker which he doesn't
I have nothing but contempt to the like of Jack Ma he promised to create 1 million job in Us but nothing in China?
Compare that to Lee Kong China who donated half of his wealth to set up foundation helping poor kid with education bursaries set up school add research institute and any other cultural activities
The foundation has been in operation for 50 years and sofar they give away close to 1 billion dollar amazing and still giving
Chinese billionaire are selfish, Western worshipper

I disagree completely.

First, Ali Baba created far, far more than 1 million jobs in China. Jack Ma was responsible for propelling Chinese e-commerce from zero to hero in a few short years.

Back in 2008, when Ebay and Amazon was first becoming popular in the West, Chinese e-commerce was still practically non-existent. There was only this new site called "Taobao" that sounded something like Ebay. Ebay and Amazon relied on credit card and paypal for payment. Chinese back then rarely used credit cards and certainly did not have anything close to paypal. I remember thinking to myself, "how do you make online purchases without credit card"? A few years later, Taobao exploded into an internet giant and created a digital economy revolution.

Jack Ma completely transformed the Chinese economic landscape, and directly improved the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people. No charitable foundation has ever been accomplish such a feat, not even remotely close!

I belive in Policy, not Charity. Charity is like putting a bandage on a booboo while Policy is like diet + exercise. Charity, at best, produces tiny, incremental benefits. Policy, on the other hand, can produce revolutions.

That is not to say Jack Ma does not support charity. He is, in fact, one of the highest contributors to charity in China:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can read from that link he personally donated 14.5 billion yuan to charity. Even converted to USD, that's $2 billion dollars. It puts your "1 billion dollar in 50 years" to shame.

Nevertheless, charity cannot change the world. It takes men of vision to do that, and Jack Ma is one such person.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I disagree completely.


Jack Ma completely transformed the Chinese economic landscape, and directly improved the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people. No charitable foundation has ever been accomplish such a feat, not even remotely close!

I belive in Policy, not Charity. Charity is like putting a bandage on a booboo while Policy is like diet + exercise. Charity, at best, produces tiny, incremental benefits. Policy, on the other hand, can produce revolutions.

That is not to say Jack Ma does not support charity. He is, in fact, one of the highest contributors to charity in China:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You can read from that link he personally donated 14.5 billion yuan to charity. Even converted to USD, that's $2 billion dollars. It puts your "1 billion dollar in 50 years" to shame.

Nevertheless, charity cannot change the world. It takes men of vision to do that, and Jack Ma is one such person.

I think you got it wrong 1 billion is disbursement "money actually spend" not money that he donated Lee Kong Chian set up foundation to generate income in order to disburse the money
So We don't know how much did he contribute but He certainly amassed huge wealth so It is not the capital for the foundation
Sofar I have yet to see Jack Ma personally set up a foundation for charity. His company Ali baba did so 2 billion is the capital of Ali baba foundation not the money that is disbursed

No once again charity does not reward the lazy. Charity meant to help people to improve their life due to circumstance. I know China did splendid job in alleviating poverty But there is still hidden poverty among the migrant worker with so many restriction like hukou system. All the while they still responsible for their kids education which cost a lot of money in China these days
Charity meant to complement government effort. So Far too few Chinese billionaire step up the plate except in the south and too far between

 

[Jura The idiot]

now noticed the tweet

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The growth rate of deposits in China’s financial institutions fell to 8.3 percent in August, the lowest in the past 40 years, according to latest statistics released by the People’s Bank of China

 

[solarz]

I think you got it wrong 1 billion is disbursement "money actually spend" not money that he donated Lee Kong Chian set up foundation to generate income in order to disburse the money
So We don't know how much did he contribute but He certainly amassed huge wealth so It is not the capital for the foundation
Sofar I have yet to see Jack Ma personally set up a foundation for charity. His company Ali baba did so 2 billion is the capital of Ali baba foundation not the money that is disbursed

No once again charity does not reward the lazy. Charity meant to help people to improve their life due to circumstance. I know China did splendid job in alleviating poverty But there is still hidden poverty among the migrant worker with so many restriction like hukou system. All the while they still responsible for their kids education which cost a lot of money in China these days
Charity meant to complement government effort. So Far too few Chinese billionaire step up the plate except in the south and too far between

Taobao and Alipay has enabled millions of Chinese to become entrepreneurs with only little investment. Name one charity that has managed to accomplish anything remotely comparable.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Taobao and Alipay has enabled millions of Chinese to become entrepreneurs with only little investment. Name one charity that has managed to accomplish anything remotely comparable.

Not everybody has the talent to start their won business. For every entrepreneur I bet there are hundred who slave away as courier working 14 hr a day and share a room Can't even afford to bring wife or kids
Charity is meant to send a message that the rich does not forget the downtrodden There is social solidarity here It and a lesson by example. It will strengthen the social cohesiveness of Chinese society and benefit the country a whole.
Beside it is the right thing to do an ever increasing circle of virtue start with you family, clan, village, provincial and country.

Charity is the hallmark of overseas Chinese. It has been so for generation and they still doing it today