Chinese Economics Thread

[Anlsvrthng]

Why are you still talking? This post is a summation of all the ideas that you presented that have been debunked and defeated. You are literally always wrong but y

....

answered and you had nothing that made sense to say in response. Cars, pork, transfer of wealth, all of your ideas/understanding were wrong and now this post is the summary of them. You want a detailed reply? Just reread all my posts in this thread.

You doesn't need to understand what I talk about.

But is is simple: there are events ( car sales, trade deficit , phone sales ad so on) , there are basic economic indicators ,and relationship between them.


All that I do is to make a theory about the connections between parameters, and trying to separate inputs/outputs.

From other side, all that you can deliver is "China is China , and all know that china is growth ,because every other country small, so china is china and growing to the moon" . : )
I think it is safe to say that this kind of logic belong to the religion , not to science : )

Saying random things, like "because of science " or "because of education " or "lot of investment" without taking into consideration all previous country that tried these things, and failed, because these are maybe necessary component to be rich, but not enough on they own.

That I say is the only way to escape the middle income trap is if the country elite willing to give up his wealth, and distribute it among the citizens of country. Best is if it done by extremly low unemployment, and exploding wages and bankruptcies due to workers shortage.

 

[AndrewS]

You doesn't need to understand what I talk about.

But is is simple: there are events ( car sales, trade deficit , phone sales ad so on) , there are basic economic indicators ,and relationship between them.


All that I do is to make a theory about the connections between parameters, and trying to separate inputs/outputs.

From other side, all that you can deliver is "China is China , and all know that china is growth ,because every other country small, so china is china and growing to the moon" . : )
I think it is safe to say that this kind of logic belong to the religion , not to science : )

Saying random things, like "because of science " or "because of education " or "lot of investment" without taking into consideration all previous country that tried these things, and failed, because these are maybe necessary component to be rich, but not enough on they own.

That I say is the only way to escape the middle income trap is if the country elite willing to give up his wealth, and distribute it among the citizens of country. Best is if it done by extremly low unemployment, and exploding wages and bankruptcies due to workers shortage.

That is incorrect.

The middle income trap is when the economy fails to develop hi-tech industries which create value and also provide for high-wage employment.

The best proxy for hi-tech industry is R&D spending, and we can see the NSF is reporting that China should the US on this metric in 2018, and become the world's largest R&D spender. We also see China spending 2.1% of GDP on R&D, which is firmly within developed country territory, and way beyond any other developing/middle income country.

Wealth inequality and redistribution is a separate issue.

 

[Equation]

You doesn't need to understand what I talk about.

But is is simple: there are events ( car sales, trade deficit , phone sales ad so on) , there are basic economic indicators ,and relationship between them.


All that I do is to make a theory about the connections between parameters, and trying to separate inputs/outputs.

From other side, all that you can deliver is "China is China , and all know that china is growth ,because every other country small, so china is china and growing to the moon" . : )
I think it is safe to say that this kind of logic belong to the religion , not to science : )

Saying random things, like "because of science " or "because of education " or "lot of investment" without taking into consideration all previous country that tried these things, and failed, because these are maybe necessary component to be rich, but not enough on they own.

That I say is the only way to escape the middle income trap is if the country elite willing to give up his wealth, and distribute it among the citizens of country. Best is if it done by extremly low unemployment, and exploding wages and bankruptcies due to workers shortage.

Nobody needs to understand what your'e talking about, right? Just you understand yourself...

It is simple; that's cherry-picked data and total consumption is on the rise. Single data points specially picked to depict a false trend, especially explainable ones, are pointless. It is like saying a tree is dying because 4 leaves fell out while 100 new leaves grew in. And you never stop mentioning these 4 leaves. That's how good your argument is.

You made a theory about economics without understanding the definition of debt. That's as good as having a MacDonald's worker design a jet engine.

Maybe you didn't understand what he said, so you thought it was magic or religion but everyone else here understood. You can read them all again, with all the charts and all the evidence in the thread until you understand. There's really no other way if your English is such a level that you can read everything and believe it said something other than what it actually said in English.

Science, education, and investment are not random; they are the pillars of building a future. That you think they are random is a problem for you on par with "calculating" economics without knowing what debt means.

The definition of the middle income trap is stagnant wages because of inability to climb the technology ladder. You were just showed that China's wages and disposable income grow by nearly 10% every year. We also see Lenovo becoming the world's largest supercomputer vendor, China's EV car growth faster than anywhere else in the world, China's 5G leading the globe. This is all evidence directly against both components of a middle income trap. Your whole argument is that you only understand transfer of wages, bosses and CEOs making less money so janitors and assemble workers can make more. It was already explained to you that in China, everyone makes more money, by becoming more educated, expanding operations, and opening new businesses. But this idea is just too difficult for you to grasp because you don't understand economics and you don't understand English. The biggest difference between your model and this model is that your "transfer of wealth" robs rich people and keeps the economy at a stagnant level while the "creation of wealth" means everyone gets more money and everything gets bigger, like in China. And your entire argument is that growth doesn't work because in order to escape the middle income trap, rich people need to suffer and get poorer. That is a joke.

 

[Equation]

Wealth inequality and redistribution is a separate issue.

NO it is wealth opportunity NOT "redistribution" is the answer. NOBODY is entitled to someone else's wealth. That's a liberal and entitled conservative BS that's killing many OECD countries these days.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

That is incorrect.

The middle income trap is when the economy fails to develop hi-tech industries which create value and also provide for high-wage employment.

The best proxy for hi-tech industry is R&D spending, and we can see the NSF is reporting that China should the US on this metric in 2018, and become the world's largest R&D spender. We also see China spending 2.1% of GDP on R&D, which is firmly within developed country territory, and way beyond any other developing/middle income country.

Wealth inequality and redistribution is a separate issue.

CCCP spent extreme amount of money for R&D. So?
Anyway, the reported level of R&D in the economy.
Why should the R&D providing high paying jobs?
IS there a natural rule,like gravity that requiring it?

The R&D is a random data point, it can't forecast the future path of the economy. High value can show a new line of heated toilet seat for the big leaders.


IT is not simply inequality.
That is result, not reason.

Say there is a crisis in a country.
It affecting everyone.
Now , the wealthy can sound they problems directly to the decision makers.
The masses can describe they problems through different data collection offices (like statistics ) in the form of reports to the decision makers.

So, if there is an issue, who voice will be heard, the guy who can't afford a car any more, or the person who worried about his son has to downgrade his car from a bentley to a lexus?

This is the description how the European/USA wealth gap increase in the past 20 years.

Now, in china there is less weight of the words of everyday person.

So, the data that I throwing together showing that the further development require effective using of resources, and the need to give more word in economics matters to the average Chinese.
The decision makers can not simply do the same , again from the obsidian towers, they have to dig deep and make changes on the magnitude like the change from imperial china to communist china. Translation of rebalancing the growth from investment /export to consumption.

 

[AndrewS]

CCCP spent extreme amount of money for R&D. So?
Anyway, the reported level of R&D in the economy.
Why should the R&D providing high paying jobs?
IS there a natural rule,like gravity that requiring it?

The R&D is a random data point, it can't forecast the future path of the economy. High value can show a new line of heated toilet seat for the big leaders.


IT is not simply inequality.
That is result, not reason.

Say there is a crisis in a country.
It affecting everyone.
Now , the wealthy can sound they problems directly to the decision makers.
The masses can describe they problems through different data collection offices (like statistics ) in the form of reports to the decision makers.

So, if there is an issue, who voice will be heard, the guy who can't afford a car any more, or the person who worried about his son has to downgrade his car from a bentley to a lexus?

This is the description how the European/USA wealth gap increase in the past 20 years.

Now, in china there is less weight of the words of everyday person.

So, the data that I throwing together showing that the further development require effective using of resources, and the need to give more word in economics matters to the average Chinese.
The decision makers can not simply do the same , again from the obsidian towers, they have to dig deep and make changes on the magnitude like the change from imperial china to communist china. Translation of rebalancing the growth from investment /export to consumption.

Why are you assuming it is the CCCP spending on R&D?

80% of R&D spending in China is conducted by profit seeking organisations working in a competitive market.

That imposes a certain level of discipline and efficiency.

And what is the point of R&D spending unless it creates new products which have higher profit margins?

 

[Anlsvrthng]

It was already explained to you that in China, everyone makes more money, by becoming more educated, expanding operations, and opening new businesses. But this idea is just too difficult for you to grasp because you don't understand economics and you don't understand English. The biggest difference between your model and this model is that your "transfer of wealth" robs rich people and keeps the economy at a stagnant level while the "creation of wealth" means everyone gets more money and everything gets bigger, like in China. And your entire argument is that growth doesn't work because in order to escape the middle income trap, rich people need to suffer and get poorer. That is a joke.

Copy past works until you have things to copy.

After that you need to develop your method to increase the productivity.

But the skill set that needed to copy / paste is different than that you need to improve the productivity.

Without that there is no growth.

Everyone making generic terms about "R&D" , "investment" and so on.

But the important is how the kebab guy can makes hos food faster/better, and how he can get more market share because he can make better and more food than the competitor? The economy growth starting from this kind of stuff on every level of economy.

 

[antiterror13]

Copy past works until you have things to copy.

After that you need to develop your method to increase the productivity.

But the skill set that needed to copy / paste is different than that you need to improve the productivity.

Without that there is no growth.

Everyone making generic terms about "R&D" , "investment" and so on.

But the important is how the kebab guy can makes hos food faster/better, and how he can get more market share because he can make better and more food than the competitor? The economy growth starting from this kind of stuff on every level of economy.

I don't understand why anybody still responding to your silly posts .. just a waste of time ... until he/she learn basic economic theory ....

I'd just ignore his/her

note : @AndrewS , @Equation , @manqiangrexue and others

 

[Equation]

Copy past works until you have things to copy.

After that you need to develop your method to increase the productivity.

But the skill set that needed to copy / paste is different than that you need to improve the productivity.

Without that there is no growth.

Everyone making generic terms about "R&D" , "investment" and so on.

But the important is how the kebab guy can makes hos food faster/better, and how he can get more market share because he can make better and more food than the competitor? The economy growth starting from this kind of stuff on every level of economy.

First of all, you completely ignored all the points in my last post. I just told you that the middle income trap has parts A (stagnant income) and B (inability to advance tech), and I just showed you evidence of China busting both A and B. The only way you could still be arguing is if you didn't understand what a middle income trap is just like you didn't know what debt is. Your answer is basically a hypothetical country that is not China.

As a matter of fact, it's clear that your entire argument is based on your lack of understanding of China. Copy and paste is what the West wants China to do; one cannot exceed the leader with copy and paste. What's worrying the West now is Chinese innovation. I just gave you three examples (supercomputer, EV car, 5G) of China going into a leading position. There are many more. You just said that without increase in productivity, there is no growth. That's correct, but it has nothing to do with China because it's clear that China is growing. Nobody can deny that, so by your logic, China is increasing productivity.

People talk about R&D and investment because that shows the country's goal for advanced technology in the future. R&D is not a random data-point; it shows the country's commitment to high tech and although there is not law of nature that says you must gain fruits from your R&D, the trend is that investment into R&D translates into new tech and neglect of it means a country is backward. At least I have never heard of a country with very high R&D being backwards in technology or a country with very little R&D spending that has developed very high in technology.

In contrast, a very, very random data point is pork sales. Not all meat&seafood, but just specifically pork.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

That's correct, but it has nothing to do with China because it's clear that China is growing. Nobody can deny that, so by your logic, China is increasing productivity.

People talk about R&D and investment because that shows the country's goal for advanced technology in the future. R&D is not a random data-point; it shows the country's commitment to high tech and although there is not law of nature that says you must gain fruits from your R&D, the trend is that investment into R&D translates into new tech and neglect of it means a country is backward. At least I have never heard of a country with very high R&D being backwards in technology or a country with very little R&D spending that has developed very high in technology.

If a country is extremely unorganised and inefficient (best part of it works in agriculture) then anything that improve it will increase dramatically the productivity.

Like starting to make agricultural tools, fertilisers and so on.

When the country reach the development level, when all inefficient ( potato picker) gone, then the easy parts of productivity improvement gone as well.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I agree ,China productivity increased, but the past and future increase require two separated sets of institutional ,cultural and economics foundation.

Before 2010 any infrastructure investment had positive payback, after 2010 not.

In contrast, a very, very random data point is pork sales. Not all meat&seafood, but just specifically pork.

I choose that because that is the main component of the Chinese meat consumption.

As the people get wealthy the major calorie intake rebalancing from grains to meats.

Seafood is tricky, hard to increase the production, but pork/poultry is easy to scale up.

2017:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pork: 41.3
Poultry: 14.2

Seafood

Actually, I was wrong ,the seafood is the most important.
The 17/18 is forecast.