Chinese Economics Thread

[manqiangrexue]

I try to make it simpler : , you can spend 12000 $ / year , you have 13000 $ debt that you need to service ( say credit card).
Now, the GDP of the country where you live is 24000$/year.

If the GDP of the country goes up to 55000 $/year, but your available money to spend stay the same, is it makes easier to service the debt ?

(Answer : no , you can pay the debt from your available money ,not from the synthetic number of GDP : D )

That's entropy. Your question doesn't even make sense. The GDP of your country going up has nothing to do with whether you can pay your own debt if your earnings aren't changed; China has no situation like that. Your numbers don't make an equation. You can make it simpler or more complicated all you want; it doesn't make a difference because you don't make sense.

China's disposable income rising beautifully:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wage growth looking awesome:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's retail spending is growing, GDP is growing, income is growing. That is the definition of a healthy economy. The END. Mental midget "math" has no place here.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

China's disposable income rising beautifully:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wage growth looking awesome:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China disposable income growing as fast as the USA one : )

So, with this speed the Chinese consumer will have the same income like like the USA consumer in a time of - never : D
Actually, it worst than that, the USA consumers keep on level the debt, the Chinese piling up faster than the income growth.

 

[manqiangrexue]

China disposable income growing as fast as the USA one : )

So, with this speed the Chinese consumer will have the same income like like the USA consumer in a time of - never : D
Actually, it worst than that, the USA consumers keep on level the debt, the Chinese piling up faster than the income growth.

I'm getting to know you too well! I knew you were going to say that, because I know you can't read charts! I also looked at the USA data before I posted and was shocked that it looked like it was growing at the same rate as China's! But then, unlike you, I'm not a man-child and I know to actually look at the numbers instead of the lines drawn! The Y-axis isn't the same scale between the countries! Between 2016 and 2017 (2018 data not available for China), China's disposable income grew by 8.27% and its wages grew by 7.72%. In the same time, American disposable income grew by 4.38% and US wages grew by 1.64%. On a 10-year scale, China flipped nearly 250% while the US numbers grew by about 30%. This is how China can race past the US. This is why you have to read the numbers instead of only looking at the pretty pictures, little boy LOL

And that was a really obvious attempt to shift the goal post. I cannot imagine why you thought that Chinese wages were stagnant at first (maybe you should do a Google check before guessing), but when I proved that they were growing at a very healthy clip, you moved the goalpost to saying that they were not growing faster than the US! Now, you see you are wrong again... so embarrassing...

 

[Anlsvrthng]

I'm getting to know you too well! I knew you were going to say that, because I know you can't read charts! I also looked at the USA data before I posted and was shocked that it looked like it was growing at the same rate as China's! But then, unlike you, I'm not a man-child and I know to actually look at the numbers instead of the lines drawn! The Y-axis isn't the same scale between the countries! Between 2016 and 2017 (2018 data not available for China), China's disposable income grew by 8.27% and its wages grew by 7.72%. In the same time, American disposable income grew by 4.38% and US wages grew by 1.64%. On a 10-year scale, China flipped nearly 250% while the US numbers grew by about 30%. This is how China can race past the US. This is why you have to read the numbers instead of only looking at the pretty pictures, little boy LOL

And that was a really obvious attempt to shift the goal post. I cannot imagine why you thought that Chinese wages were stagnant at first (maybe you should do a Google check before guessing), but when I proved that they were growing at a very healthy clip, you moved the goalpost to saying that they were not growing faster than the US! Now, you see you are wrong again... so embarrassing...

Thank you for checking my calculation : )

You are right, I made a mistake. Finally you had same useful comment : )

And thank you for validating all of my previous calculation : )

So, let check the numbers again :
Chinese consumer spending : 8.2%, USA 2.3%. (16 vs 17 )

Now check the funding. With the original calculation it doesn't make sense to get here, but with the new numbers now makes : )
China : consumer debt increased by 4.7% to GDP ----> 7% increase compared to the income
USA : consumer debt decreased by 0.5% ( 16 vs 17 july both )

The consumer spending is in the 40s %for China (38% if the consumer spending compared to the GNP, that is in yuan on the tradingeconomics ) , and 66% for the USA.

Means 100% of USA consumer spending coming from earning + they paying off debt, and 86% of the Chinese coming from debt .

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[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!

China's private equity funds were worth 12.79 trillion yuan ($1.85 trillion) at the end of November, data released by the industry association showed

 

[taxiya]

China hasn't reached the level when Argentina/ Chile / Brasil and so on hit the wall.

So at the moment it sounds like " he finished the high school well, so he will be as good in the university . : P

And at the moment China do the same mistakes that Argentina did....

That is called "middle income trap" which is when a country can not move up to the value chain and got stuck at where it was as a less advanced technical and industrial base. The reason of many countries stuck there is because they don't have the industrial and technical base to effectively force their way to the higher up, neither do they have the size of domestic market to sustain such advancement when pressed by the existing powers.

Now compare China with all these countries, where is the similarities? None.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

That is called "middle income trap" which is when a country can not move up to the value chain and got stuck at where it was as a less advanced technical and industrial base. The reason of many countries stuck there is because they don't have the industrial and technical base to effectively force their way to the higher up, neither do they have the size of domestic market to sustain such advancement when pressed by the existing powers.

Now compare China with all these countries, where is the similarities? None.

See the highlight from your post.
And if your read my posts from the last few dozens pages I argued about that the Chinese consumers has no word, and they has negligible share from the economy, and even that is based on credit.

Are you aware of that Argentina has as many Noble prize laureates as China ? (Japan has five times more than China)

Interesting, isn't it?
So , Argentina had the scientific/technological background, but that was not sufficient to make possible to escape the middle income trap.
The consumer is the important.

 

[hkbc]

See the highlight from your post.
And if your read my posts from the last few dozens pages I argued about that the Chinese consumers has no word, and they has negligible share from the economy, and even that is based on credit.

Are you aware of that Argentina has as many Noble prize laureates as China ? (Japan has five times more than China)

Interesting, isn't it?
So , Argentina had the scientific/technological background, but that was not sufficient to make possible to escape the middle income trap.
The consumer is the important.

No it's not interesting, Chinese households have one of the highest savings rates in the world and your so called "analysis" is 'Chinese consumers has negligible share from the economy and even that is based on credit'

The only reason there's a dozen pages is you insist on writing here, do us all a favour goto this link

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

call the number, send a email and make a new friend I am sure he's eager to here what you have to say

 

[Anlsvrthng]

No it's not interesting, Chinese households have one of the highest savings rates in the world and your so called "analysis" is 'Chinese consumers has negligible share from the economy and even that is based on credit'

The only reason there's a dozen pages is you insist on writing here, do us all a favour goto this link

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

call the number, send a email and make a new friend I am sure he's eager to here what you have to say

Where you see "saving " ?
Or you mean negative saving ? : D

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

See the highlight from your post.
And if your read my posts from the last few dozens pages I argued about that the Chinese consumers has no word, and they has negligible share from the economy, and even that is based on credit.

Are you aware of that Argentina has as many Noble prize laureates as China ? (Japan has five times more than China)

Interesting, isn't it?
So , Argentina had the scientific/technological background, but that was not sufficient to make possible to escape the middle income trap.
The consumer is the important.

Market size is the size of population times their wallet, period. Don't drag in anything else, that is metal gymnastic.

Who cares about Noble prize? Chinese don't. Noble prize is award to theoretical research to INDIVIDUAL person, not a measure of a COUNTRY's industrial and technological base. You can write a paper and get the prize, BUT you CAN NOT have a shoe factory to feed thousands people, the prize means nothing more than your personal ego.