Miscellaneous News

G

GulfLander

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison Holdings pledges Panama port deal won’t violate laws
Statement comes after mainland China’s market regulator asked parties involved not to circumvent ongoing antitrust probe
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(I remember seeing a clip of a guy, cant remember where, maybe a CN official in HK(?), saying CN/HK(?) companies should side w their country, kinda thing(?))
 
burritocannon

burritocannon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Randomuser said:
But terms don't mean crap. Build back better, blue dot network, QUAD etc. All these terms went nowhere. The world isn't determined by the west anymore.
Click to expand...
the chinese need to take better stewardship of communication art if they wish to take on softpower leadership. words shape thoughts, because they are the tools with which we interface with the world. this is like the "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" effect. the west demonstrates distinct initiatives in thought leadership; as soon as a concept is developed, they rush to develop terms with which to handle it, and the way they attach the terms to the problem represents their own, western view of the matter. this is the conceptual equivalent of claiming newly discovered land and developing it. those who come subsequently will always be influenced thereafter by the structures left by these initial claimants. you can buy the land afterwards, but you will never be known as a pioneer. there will always be a difference.
 
S

SanWenYu

Major
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
What the fuck are you talking about? I read that post and responded to that point-to-point for why your analysis is wrong. Your numbers are irrelevent and cause a major misjudgement. We're past that.

Miscellaneous News

What kind of title is this? And is she overanalyzing? https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/05/13/china-trade-tariffs-deal-geneva/
www.sinodefenceforum.com

I gave you the relevent numbers, which are GDP growth and export growth. Chinese rising domestic consumption is another relevant and positive number:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

OK, since you did not understand my rebuttal, I will repeat the relevent sections:

"That number should be considered extra money. There are 2 ways to make that number smaller: 1 is for the US to buy less and the other is for us to refuse to sell as much as they want to buy. Neither is going to happen in good business. Our export numbers to the US can be high, but it's most important to make all other numbers from trade with other partners to domestic consumption, higher."

"The only way to make that untrue is to cut off trade relations. These companies didn't get the memo and move to diversify their clients when times were good so now they need to do it in a hurry or die out. They will never do it as long as the times are good so you can't be hung up about them. They were given years from Trump's first trade war to now to rely less on the US. If they haven't done it yet, it's not about time; it's about reason and will."

"Some people don't move until the wolf is knocking at the door. And some of them don't have to, because it's a totally legitimate point to make money while the oppertunity is there for it to be made. But they should have been keeping a fat savings account to help them with the transition when they are forced to make it; the writing was on the wall that selling to the US was a gig, not a career."

Of course. They go to drug rehabilitation centers and their new life is nothing like their old life. You've never heard of a drug rehab center giving people drugs, telling them they can quit cocaine slowly over 5 years, have you? This is the same. Their new life is exporting to other markets now. The American drug is the dead old life.
Click to expand...
Get a life, man.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
FriedRiceNSpice said:
Your calculations of dividing export value by GDP per capita unfortunately does not approximate the number of Chinese that will be impacted. You are not accounting for the cost of inputs, particularly raw materials. Essentially you are assuming that if an export oriented factory closes down, then all of its upstream suppliers will have to close down as well, which does not match with reality.

Let me go back to the factory I brought up earlier in my example. With annual exports to the US of Y600M ($82M), your calculations would imply that 6370 people would be impacted if that factory had to shut down. In reality, the factory employs about 800 employees total. Out of the $82M in export sales, the factory pays for about $47M for inputs. Out of those inputs, 72% are price-inelastic goods that would be sold at that price regardless of whether or not this particular factory purchases them. In fact, 45% of the inputs are actually imported - so in the case of the factory closing down, these goods would simply no longer need to be imported. Of course, these numbers can deviate significantly based on the particular goods produced, but should still suffice to illustrate how your calculation would grossly overestimate the number of Chinese impacted.

Rather than looking at the gross export value, you need to consider the actual value-add contributed by Chinese factories.


For many goods, there are already foreign bidders lined up. There would not be much time needed at all. In many cases US buyers are offering only 2.5-5% higher prices than the next highest (non-US) bidder.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right that it’s a total nonsense to divide total exports (gross revenue) by average wage to calculate number of workers who are dependent on that exports.

The exact number will vary wildly between manufacturers and industry, but labour costs are usually only around 15% of revenue for small scale (low capital investment and margins) manufacturing, and will typically drop the more capital intensive the manufacturing becomes.

However, we should also not underestimate the potential impact because export substitutions can only account for so much.

At the end of the day, America consumes a disproportionately massive amount of the world’s resources. If there is a systemic crash and reset of the world trading order, much of that buying power and consumption will simply disappear, and that net reduction in demand and consumption will have a noticeable negative impact on China as well as the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top