|
So what you're saying is, thanks for the Ebola China.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
While China is a large country and so a major factor in any global issue, I still don't see a fixation on any individual country as justified. World population rose by a billion between 2000 and 2014. China's share of that rise is actually small relative to its share of the global population. I also don't really see long term extrapolation as reasonable here. Yes, Chinese people are eating more meat, but is the amount of meat eaten at all likely to grow unstoppably at the same rate for the next ten years? Doubtful. This is what the OECD is predicting, anyway: quote:Crop prices are expected to drop for one or two more years, before stabilizing at levels that remain above the pre-2008 period, but significantly below recent peaks. Meat, dairy and fish prices are expected to rise. In real terms, however, prices for both crops and animal products are projected to decline over the medium term. The expected stock-to-use ratios for cereals improve significantly, which should ease concerns about their price volatility. http://www.oecd.org/site/oecd-faoagriculturaloutlook/overview.htm EDIT: The majority of China's grain deficit is a -10Mt trade balance in coarse grains, which sounds like a lot, until you note that the US is exporting 30Mt more than they are importing for coarse grains. EDIT2: quote:Future projections for Chinese per capita food energy use in kcal forecast a steady, constant growth in China until the 2050s. Yes, and those projections are bunk for that reason. Constant growth is *assumed* in those forecasts, but there's literally nothing to back those projections up. No one expects say, Chinese economic growth to proceed at the current rate for 50 years. If it was 10 years ago and we're making projections, we would have an extremely different result. Look at this graph, do you really think it's reasonable to make the extrapolation (dashed line) from the historical trend (solid line)? Hey, continue this line for long enough and you'll be predicting that chinese people will each eat a cow every day. 
Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Look at this graph, do you really think it's reasonable to make the extrapolation (dashed line) from the historical trend (solid line)? Hey, continue this line for long enough and you'll be predicting that chinese people will each eat a cow every day. That graph isn't actually a real prediction, but a hypothetical situation where the average Chinese resident in 2035 consumes exactly the same amount of materials as the average US resident today. The point of the graph isn't to show a realistic projection into the future, but to demonstrate that the entire world can't work on the current Western lifestyle. Either larger parts of the world need to stay oppressed and poor, or the western lifestyle needs to find a way to consume/waste less stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Either larger parts of the world need to stay oppressed and poor, or the western lifestyle needs to find a way to consume/waste less stuff. And the latter is happening. I mean there are stupidly easy ways to reduce resource consumption right now that aren't being implemented simply due to inertia. If we didn't have (e.g.) the incandescent lightbulb brigade we'd save about 90% of the energy on lighting that we currently consume. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: The majority of China's grain deficit is a -10Mt trade balance in coarse grains, which sounds like a lot, until you note that the US is exporting 30Mt more than they are importing for coarse grains. Some thing to consider when you look a numbers like this. Some of the export bulk grain from non-US and non-European countries is of pretty terrible quality. When the corn crop went south a few years back, bunch of grain terminals set up for some import vessels for that year (to be used as animal feed). Some of the cargo was pretty terrible. Talking large pieces of steel, chains, even whole dead animals. I heard some horror stories from FGIS. and 10Mt (million tonnes) is 10,000,000 MT (Metric Tons) which is a lot. That's like 200 decent sized (50,000DWT) bulk carrier loads worth of grain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Crap in grain loads is pretty much standards though, I had stevedores pull a cat out of a hold once. Pigeons and rats you don't even notice... Rust flakes never happen  How much crap there is depends on where you loaded it and how it was inspected, of course.Human consumption stuff is usually inspected to a much higher standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:depends on where you loaded it and how it was inspected. Yep and if it's a US export load it's usually pretty good. The holds must be: Free of rust, paint scale, and prior cargo residue. Hatch covers and gaskets in good condition bilges clean and dry. And usually FGIS is sampling during the entire load on exports. Which is not to say the occasional pigeon doesn't accidentally end up on the conveyor when it starts. I guess I'd say it this way. I'm comfortable sticking my hand into and eating grain loaded in the US for export. I'm talking the to be used for animal feed stuff too. US exports are always fumigated too. Edit: Well maybe I shouldn't say always, I think I saw one (in nearly a decade) to Mexico that wasn't. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
I don't understand any post that complain about China's population size since China is the only country that has a population control policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Fangz posted:No one expects say, Chinese economic growth to proceed at the current rate for 50 years. I would hazard to say that the media does. I remember one projection that predicted that by 2100 the Chinese economy would have a GDP of like 125 trillion or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 06:15
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I would hazard to say that the media does. I remember one projection that predicted that by 2100 the Chinese economy would have a GDP of like 125 trillion or something. "Long term economic projections are essentially an especially boring genre of science fiction"
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I don't understand any post that complain about China's population size since China is the only country that has a population control policy. Chinese people complain about China's population size constantly and rarely mention the population controls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Chinese people complain about China's population size constantly and rarely mention the population controls. Lets assume that's true, so you are saying you should make pointless complaint because Chinese make pointless complaint in Chinese forums?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Lets assume that's true, so you are saying you should make pointless complaint because Chinese make pointless complaint in Chinese forums? I don't think anyone's complaining about China's population size in and of itself, the issue is whether or not the kind of economic growth the Party needs to maintain support is realistic given the demands required. It's more an issue of "not enough resources" than "too many people".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
"Not enough resources" + "Too many people" = I hope nobody's patented my 'soylent' idea yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Mozi posted:"Not enough resources" + "Too many people" = I hope nobody's patented my 'soylent' idea yet. Well, someone literally named their nutrition shake as "Soylent" not too long ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, someone literally named their nutrition shake as "Soylent" not too long ago. To me, the funniest part of that is that they weren't aware that the Soylent company in both the book and the movie makes food that isn't from people (in fact in the book, Soylent's food is solely made from super cheap crops and trash/sewage, depending on the level fo the product).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
And another one goesAustralian Financial Review posted:Macquarie link to China bankruptcy
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Lets get this motherfucking default smorgasboard on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Lets assume that's true, so you are saying you should make pointless complaint because Chinese make pointless complaint in Chinese forums? The point is that it's hardly a pointless complaint. There are too many people in China. When someone on the street says that to you, you just nod. It's true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The point is that it's hardly a pointless complaint. There are too many people in China. When someone on the street says that to you, you just nod. It's true. OK, I will game. What's your suggestion on China's population problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:54
|
|
whatever7 posted:OK, I will game. What's your suggestion on China's population problem? In my opinion they should have some kind of policy, where each family is only allowed to have a certain number of children, perhaps even only one allowed per family!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Morkyz posted:In my opinion they should have some kind of policy, where each family is only allowed to have a certain number of children, perhaps even only one allowed per family! This in addition to a proper social safety net with chinese characteristics to reduce reliance on family should do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Vesi posted:This in addition to a proper social safety net with chinese characteristics to reduce reliance on family should do it. They're probably going to do this as the country becomes more urbanized. Right now they're just trying to avoid the rush to the cities that India currently struggles with, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Speaking of retarded graphs, today I read an article on The Economist that predicted that the population of Nigeria would triple to surpass that of America within 25 years. Nigeria is a pretty small country in area compared to the US, is in a region that is constantly struggling with food and political stability, and is one of the most prone to climate change. Sure it's theoretically possible that Nigeria's population will triple in 25 years, but only a moron would seriously forecast that purely because the population has been rising quickly in the past.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:Speaking of retarded graphs, today I read an article on The Economist that predicted that the population of Nigeria would triple to surpass that of America within 25 years. Nigeria is a pretty small country in area compared to the US, is in a region that is constantly struggling with food and political stability, and is one of the most prone to climate change. Sure it's theoretically possible that Nigeria's population will triple in 25 years, but only a moron would seriously forecast that purely because the population has been rising quickly in the past. I'll raise you: Standard Chartered thinks China will have double the GDP of the US in 16 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
When China's GDP get close to the United States' GDP, there will be all kind of accounting tricks go into effect to lower the reported number. There is a Chinese saying "The bird that stick its neck out gets shot."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:When China's GDP get close to the United States' GDP, there will be all kind of accounting tricks go into effect to lower the reported number. There is a Chinese saying "The bird that stick its neck out gets shot." This regime seems quite happy to have a very long neck, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:I'll raise you: Standard Chartered thinks China will have double the GDP of the US in 16 years. Is part of these ridiculously inflated forecasts simply the fallacy of "China has more people therefore China's GDP will eventually be higher than the US's by a proportionate amount?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is part of these ridiculously inflated forecasts simply the fallacy of "China has more people therefore China's GDP will eventually be higher than the US's by a proportionate amount?" Partly. It's more, the rate of Chinese consumption of goods with more complex supply chains is increasing at a faster pace than similar growth forecasts within America. Due to the political structure of China, either those rates continue with their expansionary trends, or the Chinese house of cards blows over to political unrest. It is far safer (read profitable) to predict continued and stable growth than it is to criticise Chinese policy while also engaging with business within China.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:When China's GDP get close to the United States' GDP, there will be all kind of accounting tricks go into effect to lower the reported number. There is a Chinese saying "The bird that stick its neck out gets shot." Probably just switching to per-capita GDP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Isn't China like 60th in the world for per-capita GDP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
No, it's even worse than that, like 93 at PPP, slightly ahead of Turkmenistan and Albania and slight behind Thailand and the Dominican Republic. At nominal GDP it's at 83, ahead of Peru and behind Maldives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Chinese housing market appears to be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4bb4...k#axzz3BVUMEGGr quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Probably just switching to per-capita GDP. Per-capita GDP IMO is not really useful tool to describe an economic. China's economic doesn't resemble economic of the other countries in the similar per-capita blanket. When you economic is large enough, you have access to all kind of tools such as currency manipulation, Shanzhai World Bank to reshape the world economic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
The word your looking for is "economy", the noun. Economic is an adjective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The word your looking for Haha, you tell 'er paragon1!! Don't let these foreigners mangle the English language!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:18
|
|
paragon1 posted:The word your looking for is "economy", the noun. Economic is an adjective. The date you were looking for was the 26th.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
I'm sorry I didn't realize I was offending whatever7's e-honor by pointing out a simple mistake to someone for whom English appears to be a second language. Good thing he or she has you guys here to stand up for him or her! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
It was less a case of white knighting and more a case of you being retarded and using the wrong "you're" when you were defending the Queen's English
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Chinese housing market appears to be fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked So what you're saying is that building tons of office parks and buildings in order to create a supply of tenant businesses was an rear end-backwards idea?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 06:18
|
|
