Chinese Economics Thread

[Tyler]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

australia is about to feel real pain, a fifth of of its export goes to China and as an export market for Chinese businesses, australia is almost irrelevant, accounting for just 1.9% of their worldwide sales.
Labor politicians has been for years screaming diversify! diversify! These fools has finally realize that there are no other markets other than China lol for example all of australian lobsters are sold to China

According to this article australia sold 100% of iron ore to China and it supplies about 70% of China’s iron ore imports and its big eastern steel mills couldn’t operate without them, i wonder if this is true? To be so dependent to an enemy state for important commodity is not wise, does China has a plan to replace australian iron ore imports? I guess african ores will be a good subtitute

This article also mention that australia is willing to suffer like cuba did enduring 60 years of embargo to stand up to its "values" lol
I would say that China should grant their wish, let these people be the poor white trash of asia

Where do they get iron ore for ship building?

Countries like Australia and Canada are acting like they are on higher moral grounds, when in fact they are just racist imperialist colonies.

 

[j17wang]

Yes, the shadow economy. But to be fair. Most country got them too.

TBH, i think the shadow economy is likely smaller in china than it used to be. The reason is that china has been leading in mobile banking/e-payments, so most of the financial system is visible, or at least easier to account for. This makes it easier for the central government to capture what was previously the dark pool of the cash economy. I personally couldnt give a shit if china had a shadow economy, its also one that is hard to mobilize in case of national conflict/war.

 

[antiterror13]

You're way too complicated. And future going into 15 years is uncertain.

In order to double is 70/4 = 15.56

That means growing at 4% per year average should lead to doubling of the economy in 15.56 years.

To achieve double GDP in 2035 (15 yrs) ... growth/year = 2^(1/15) -1 = 4.73% ... doable, but I reckon quite challenging

 

[plawolf]

To achieve double GDP in 2035 (15 yrs) ... growth/year = 2^(1/15) -1 = 4.73% ... doable, but I reckon quite challenging

You need to factor in that in that timeframe, China’s BRI will start to yield substantial fruits, creating brand new markets along the route that are effectively captive to China. That will yield a fair amount of GDP growth, and once the route links up with Europe, it will help to massively expand trade, tourism and economic investment.

That is China’s next great project, so if you factor that in on top of continued export growth (especially as China climbs the value chain and automation means she does not need to give up lower-end manufacturing as western economies had) and increased domestic consumption and I think ~5% annual GDP growth could be achieved quite comfortably.

 

[Gatekeeper]

To achieve double GDP in 2035 (15 yrs) ... growth/year = 2^(1/15) -1 = 4.73% ... doable, but I reckon quite challenging

Yes you went about calculating using your calculator or spreadsheet.

As a chartered accountant, we have a trick up our sleeves. Before the days of calculators and spreadsheet. We have the rule of 70. Just use 70 and divided up the growth rate. And it will give you the approx number of years to double your money.

It works a treat within growth rates of 1 to 10%. And impresses the hell out of anyone in the meeting.

 

[OppositeDay]

I was talking to some taiwanese today, he said he earns $20/hr here and a mainland worker can't even earn $20/week.

I laughed my ass off XD.

That's why people are arguing China should overtake Taiwan in GDP per capita (or take Taiwan down) before attempting reunification

The taking down part I think it's quite important. Encourage and financially support mainland companies to compete with Taiwanese companies. Once Taiwanese companies are defeated, hire their employees to work on the mainland. Money spent on economic warfare are investments, actual warfare is just consumption. Economic warfare is far more cost effective.

Also once Taiwanese's economic importance has declined, there's less economic rationale for other countries to intervene in case of war.

 

[antiterror13]

Yes you went about calculating using your calculator or spreadsheet.

As a chartered accountant, we have a trick up our sleeves. Before the days of calculators and spreadsheet. We have the rule of 70. Just use 70 and divided up the growth rate. And it will give you the approx number of years to double your money.

It works a treat within growth rates of 1 to 10%. And impresses the hell out of anyone in the meeting.

I am an engineer, so you know . I knew of finance use something to simplify to get a double investment, I thought it was 72

 

[localizer]

That's why people are arguing China should overtake Taiwan in GDP per capita (or take Taiwan down) before attempting reunification

The taking down part I think it's quite important. Encourage and financially support mainland companies to compete with Taiwanese companies. Once Taiwanese companies are defeated, hire their employees to work on the mainland. Money spent on economic warfare are investments, actual warfare is just consumption. Economic warfare is far more cost effective.

Also once Taiwanese's economic importance has declined, there's less economic rationale for other countries to intervene in case of war.

I was watching them interview south koreans and they say the main reason they don’t want reunification is economic differences.

I think you are right on this issue and CCP might be thinking the same.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I am an engineer, so you know . I knew of finance use something to simplify to get a double investment, I thought it was 72

Yes. But 70 us easier to do in your head. And quicker and it's close enough. And as accountants, we do alot of rounding.

 

[broadsword]

Yes. But 70 us easier to do in your head. And quicker and it's close enough. And as accountants, we do alot of rounding.

Engineers have to be exact. Accountants can make 72 into 70. Or 7.