|
Yeah London Vancouver New York all notably racist against Russians Chinese and other foreign billionaires stashing cash in world city real estate. Has nothing to do with class issues. 
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
I am sorry for bringing this back up, but i thought i had posted in other China thread and didn't see any response. I didn't just want to give a "hot take" and leave if people misunderstood me. I want to know how wrong I am on this, since I believe this to be the central problem with the world. Nintendo Kid posted:Because an average Chinese person makes about $1000 a year while the average American makes 30 times that. Also $20 is pretty expensive for a hair cut in the US, most places you can get it done for $15 or less. I understand the principles of supply and demand, but I was asking a more simple question why that imbalance? Based on nothing but geography, a coincidence of birth; which is pretty much history. I am not pointing this out because I believe the world should be perfect or anything, but this is a fatal flaw of economics. We are all the same everywhere, but a dollar truly is not. This is the opposite of how the economics sees it, so it is worthless. This is important because the world is denominated in US dollars; copper, Microsoft Windows, education. The talk about service economy is like talk about reincarnation, work hard now so later you don't. Its all very nice and karma based logic is very compelling. There is little reason the west is a "service economy" other than it has the best ships, and with all the massive layoffs over the last few decades, with no effect on production, there is little long term value provided by service. With how the west value it's services, for the system to work, those service have to be useful to the rest of the system in the same amount for the future to work out. This is obviously not true.. So the world is a pyramid scheme? Economics is just propaganda I mean, I am a gambler, I can look at a spreadsheet and divine truths too. . I see their con.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Has any authoritarian state successfully transitioned to consumption-based economy before?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Has any authoritarian state successfully transitioned to consumption-based economy before? Taiwan, South Korea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Femur posted:I understand the principles of supply and demand, but I was asking a more simple question why that imbalance There be a billion people there and they were all dirt broke 40 years ago or so with vastly inferior infrastructure plus the disastrous effects of things like the cultural revolution and other Mao stunts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Taiwan, South Korea. So, two nations completely unlike China, two states which have democratic institutions, rule of law, and American support. Has any nation like China, a state unwilling to work in the American system, ever made the transition successfully? Because I don't expect rule of law to be coming to China any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Femur posted:I am sorry for bringing this back up, but i thought i had posted in other China thread and didn't see any response. I didn't just want to give a "hot take" and leave if people misunderstood me. The west is rich because it has capital and a well educated/trained population. China doesnt. Hence labor is cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:So, two nations completely unlike China, two states which have democratic institutions, rule of law, and American support. "Consumption based economy" is an obfuscatory twist on "not poor". China does work with "in the US system".
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The west is rich because it has capital and a well educated/trained population. To expand on this, a belief about economics that is often held by the layman is that economic power is a measure of how many tangible things can be made by a given economy in a given period of time for a given cost, when that isn't really the case anymore, at least in post-industrial economies (which we collectively refer to as "The West" nowadays.) This is a result of both overestimating the difficulty of making tangible things and underestimating the difficulty of producing intangible things (capital management, worker and supply management, basically management in general.) Producing the latter requires a well educated and a reasonably wealthy population (these two things, education and personal wealth, tend to feed one another.) The big question is HOW do you produce a population that is wealthy and well educated and what happened in the West that resulted in that where the rest of the world didn't, which is still a hotly debated question. Liberalism and democracy seems to play a big role in creating these conditions simply looking at historical correlation, which is among the main reasons myself and others think that China is hosed. They won't liberalize and democratize as long as the CCP has its lock on power and no authoritarian government has ever escaped the middle-income trap (a situation where a country's economy is stuck in a position where average personal wealth is too high to be considered impoverished but too low to be considered developed.) China seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it too by, for example, sending Chinese youth overseas to Western institutions to be educated, but as it turns out Chinese who excel academically rarely ever return to China, because they simply will not make as much money in China with a PHD as they could in the West, resulting in a brain drain which further exacerbates China's economic problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Liberalization is necesary for economic growth to an extent which is why I think a desire for growth is going to continue driving liberalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Liberalization is necesary for economic growth to an extent which is why I think a desire for growth is going to continue driving liberalization. What about Singapore?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
point of return posted:What about Singapore? Singapore is liberalized in a number of ways that aren't civil liberties. Edit: For one there is a consistent rule of law in Singapore. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
point of return posted:What about Singapore? I agree with the above and also think that's less likely in a country as large and diverse as China. Continued growth and liberalization is the thing I find most likely among a list of possibilities including financial collapse, stagnation, or growth without liberalization. But those others are certainly possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Continued growth past middle income range without liberalization is without precedent. Sure it isn't impossible in theory but nobody has ever pulled it off and not for lack of trying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Its an ideological battle between Washington Consensus (free market directed development model) vs Beijing Consensus (Authoritarian central directed development model). It will be interesting to see what path some 3rd world countries choose in this century, particularly Burma, Thailand and Vietnam. .
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
The so-called "Beijing consensus" is only tempting for countries that are already authoritarian because, again, it's a way to keep everyone pacified ("Look at how much richer we're making you!") without having to give up power. It only can work for so long though before the internal contradictions of such a system begin to unravel the state (Like the Soviet Union) or force substantial liberal reforms (Like South Korea/Taiwan). Capitalism is a boom-bust cycle and I'm not convinced that an authoritarian development model can handle a bust. At least not without soldiers and purges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Taiwan, South Korea. Arguably the only true consumption based economy in the world is the US, even Germany and Japan are still dependent on exports to a degree, and South Korea and Taiwan are even worse. The basic problem is that high growth is just straight up not possible in the absence of an export economy. China's just too big to use that anymore, and unless they do serious reforms of their country, which won't happen, growth is going to collapse whatever7 posted:Its an ideological battle between Washington Consensus (free market directed development model) vs Beijing Consensus (Authoritarian central directed development model). The third world tried socialism already, it was called "the 20th Century". The reason the Washington Consensus is a thing is because economic planning failed miserably at producing growth, at least in countries that were not suckling at the teat of exporting poo poo to the USA. The Beijing Consensus is basically just China giving out free money to third world countries, but without economic growth accompanying it they will be unable to compete with the US in the long run. The Soviets tried the same thing, propping up places like Cuba and NK with economic aid, but they still lost in the end because the American economy is an unbeatable 800 pound gorilla that could double or triple the aid that the Soviet economy was putting out without lifting a finger. The idea that the American economy is stagnating or in decline is the opposite of reality, and if the CCP is basing their calculus on this assumption then lol they're going to get their rear end beat bad icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There be a billion people there and they were all dirt broke 40 years ago or so with vastly inferior infrastructure plus the disastrous effects of things like the cultural revolution and other Mao stunts. Again, I don't care about historical answers, I would rather a systemic one. They have to put in their time on the bench is the gist of your point, which is compelling logic, as I've said, but being younger is always better, so this is just Like didn't most great thinkers had their greatest ideas in their young age? Physically, it is obvious also. But to economics, this is not accounted for at all, it is the opposite in fact. So your affect on the system, your value increases with age, when your best is behind you, and the world has changed from when you really saw the world correctly and provided great value to it; the past is not a predictor of the future through, so.. The numbers like gdp, ppp, means nothing to me, we define these numbers, they are what we feel they are? Money is just about choice, and the person who gets to win is the person who provides the least to it, by this I mean his person, as an input into the system. If we can't probably value what the inputs are, how are we predicting output?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Femur posted:Again, I don't care about historical answers, I would rather a systemic one. Pass me some of that poo poo man. Realpost: if what you're trying to say is that economics and money are basically social constructs and the only things that matter are perception, that's sort of true and not true at the same time. One of the ways you're right is that the perception of, say, stability, matters. One of the reasons the US is so economically pre-eminent is because its perceived as being the most stable major economy in the world. Nobody is going to invade it, you aren't going to have a corrupt rear end in a top hat steal your investment because you can actually fight him in an American court with recognizably legitimate power, the government isn't going to suddenly nationalize your industry and take all your poo poo when it becomes convenient for them. Is that what you're talking about? Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Femur posted:Again, I don't care about historical answers, I would rather a systemic one. History is the system, kid. Nobody started from an even playing field, and you can't hope to explain any country's current economic situation without relying heavily on its historical conditions and actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
There's no reliable playbook to go on for development. In fact, the one that many countries push (drop all trade boundaries and invite foreign experts to build things up) will likely condemn you to poverty forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Femur posted:Again, I don't care about historical answers, I would rather a systemic one. What's the question? If you're asking whether classical economics values a lot of things wrong, the answer is yes. Economists are aware of this. In the last 20 years it's become apparent in the economics field that there are multiple correct answers for how society "ought" to value any given thing, which if you stop to think about it is intuitive. However many "right" values there are for things, there are a ton of "wrong" values in use today mostly because of political and historical reasons. A classic example is that everybody understands that pollution has a non-zero cost to society, but economic and political systems based on property rights don't handle costing pollution very well. Another example would be the diminishing marginal utility of income for which the correct policy remedy, progressive income tax, has been known for decades but which is politically difficult. So don't assume that modern economic policy reflects economics as a field, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:So, two nations completely unlike China, two states which have democratic institutions, rule of law, and American support. Ugh China believes in the rule of law, I have this very nice China Daily article explaining how Hong Kong doesn't understand
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:There's no reliable playbook to go on for development. In fact, the one that many countries push (drop all trade boundaries and invite foreign experts to build things up) will likely condemn you to poverty forever. Hence Philippine dropped US's Trans Pacific Partnership and joined China's AIIB bank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Hence Philippine dropped US's Trans Pacific Partnership and joined China's AIIB bank. Good for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Speaking of Development cash, China is about to invest a whopping 46 BILLION dollar investment into Pakistan, to develop an energy and transportation super highway from the western most part of china, across the entirety of Pakistan and straight to the ocean. just to give you an idea of the scale of it, the Chinese AIIB's initial entire capital will have 50 billion, that's just barely above what china will throw at Pakistan for the next decade. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32377088 it's interesting to see how different the world is going to look like now that cash power and influence being directly made by china. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Has it been mentioned that the PBOC has reduced bank capitalization rates by 1%?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Has it been mentioned that the PBOC has reduced bank capitalization rates by 1%? I read about it but i didn't think it was exciting enough to post about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Bro, it's like pouring petroleum fumes on an acetylene torch
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Hence Philippine dropped US's Trans Pacific Partnership and joined China's AIIB bank. They haven't dropped the TPP. Al-Saqr posted:Speaking of Development cash, China is about to invest a whopping 46 BILLION dollar investment into Pakistan, to develop an energy and transportation super highway from the western most part of china, across the entirety of Pakistan and straight to the ocean. Pakistan is a borderline failed state. Can't wait for someone to blow the highway up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Bro, it's like pouring petroleum fumes on an acetylene torch So awesome?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Bro, it's like pouring petroleum fumes on an acetylene torch Your wish is my command master. China Central Bank Checks Europe Playbook on Credit quote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-central-bank-cuts-banks-reserve-requirement-ratio-1429436676 I would blow Dane Cook fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Pakistan is a borderline failed state. Can't wait for someone to blow the highway up. It'll just be used to funnel arms and materials to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang once the Taliban or some other extremists take over Afghanistan. I'm sure India will take great offense to this too if it strays into Kashmir, which would be the shortest route. That is if this thing ever gets made and isn't just a trail of abandoned construction equipment. This thing will never be made. So China is going to create a massive transportation infrastructure in SEA while doing the same in one of the most unstable countries in the world right now? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Bro, it's like pouring petroleum fumes on an acetylene torch It's like pouring $200 billion of petroleum fumes on an acetylene torch. Quartz posted:China’s latest massive monetary easing policy, announced this weekend, could add more than $200 billion in liquidity to the economy—but only if the government can convince the mostly state-run banking sector to actually make new loans .... Reserve requirements for China Agricultural Development Bank and rural and village banks were reduced even further, by 2%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
What's the per capita on petroleum fumes right now anyway? How much would @300 billion by?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
They are also going to run up against some of the fundamental limits of monetary policy, it really isn't designed to do what they want to do with it. They can add liquidity to the banking system to keep it functioning, but at this point they for the most part have a consumption problem and that is largely tied to wages and discretionary spending, both which are low in China. Anyway, someone mentioned that there is no way to reach "higher than middle income status" without liberalization, but that isn't really true. Look at the gulf states as an example to the contrary, they are very wealthy and very unliberal. Admittedly they got this way because of commodities, but commodity exports are what many if not most middle income countries going be relying on in the first place. The second strange argument is that somehow "the Washington Census beat communism," this is nonsense since it was coined in 1989 as the Berlin Wall was falling. The "Washington Census" isn't just a by-word for free market economics or liberal democracy, but it is about deregulation, cutting of public spending, and tax reform that moves the focus of taxation on lower income groups. Ultimately, the relative success of Western countries during the Cold War wasn't because of those policies but quite the opposite, capitalism was quite tame during the period. Social Democracy, Fordism and reformed capitalism were wide spread as were unions and enhanced worker rights in both North America and Europe. There is a reason it worked, the West had the wealth to keep wages high and consumption flowing which kept their populations happy, but still allowed enough resources for technological investment and defensive. The whole irony is ultimately without competition against capitalism in the the West, it become more extreme and unreformed. Ultimately, the secret of the Cold War was that the West needed the threat of Marxism to keep it in line. As each "communist' country was crushed, it also ironically made the entire system more unstable since there was less and less consequence for unraveling the social and wage systems that had been set up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
The washington census would be interesting to read about
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The washington census would be interesting to read about "The Commanding Heights" by Yergin and Stanislaw gives a good general overview of globalization and what would become the Washington Consensus from a liberal perspective of the period. It may very be out of date by this point since it was written in the late 1990s. Otherwise, there are far more critical perspective from the left in various books from by Stiglitz and Harvey among others. Anyway, while China has obviously a much more state focus, I don't think "capitalism with Chinese characteristics) is fundamentally incompatible with the Washington Census. China's recent prioritization of monetary policy if anything falls straight in line with other developed economies, and while SOEs are obviously still a big part of China's economy, there is already talk of considerable privatization of them and cost-cutting measures. China's real issue is that for all it spends local governments and infrastructure, it doesn't actually focus much at all on its own working class. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
 What does it mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:
Basically, that shadowing banking has taken its toll on state and semi-state banks, and it is time to raid the piggy bank. The issue for China is that its currency reserves while quite large, they are starting to decline fairly rapidly, and the Yuan isn't a major reserve currency. The US can hold a large amount of debt, by virtue of the US dollar being so widely used and it won't devalue unless the Fed wants it to. China isn't in that position, and if you are trying to talk about a "Chinese century" it is something to consider. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 13:05
|
|