icantfindaname posted:

It's essentially stealing from other exporting countries on the financial margins, which will piss those other countries off, and also it signifies a doubling down on their unsustainable export-focused economic model instead of weaning off it like they said they would and have to do to prevent their economy from making GBS threads itself

Warcabbit posted:

Not available. Could you find a link to it or to the phone apps?

BrandorKP posted:

New news is suggesting the explosion was due to 4.3s. Sounds like they might have been fighting the fire with water and sprayed the dangerous when wet. This means that there were major things that were hosed regarding documents, fire plans, emergency contacts and probably placard / markings on the containers with the warehouse.

Hong Kong Free Press posted:

Residential developer Vanke, which has three projects in the area, told the 21st Century Business Herald that it was unaware that tenants were living so close to a dangerous facility. The company told the newspaper that when construction began in 2010 it understood the port was only used by “logistics warehouses for common goods”.

Vanke was not notified when the government approved Ruihai International Logistics’ application to start storing hazardous chemicals in one of the warehouses in 2014, the company told the newspaper.

Chemical storage warehouses need to be kept at least one kilometre away from residential buildings and public transportation, according to a government regulatory document published in 2001.

According to the government’s environmental assessment report on Ruihai’s application, planning officials acknowledged that the proposed projects involved hazardous and inflammable materials, but “risks are within acceptable scope if effective preventive measures and emergency plans are made.”

Grand Fromage posted:

There was a news article where the firefighters said they were never told there were chemicals that would react with water, but all evidence of the interview has been scrubbed from the media. As someone who has worked/lived in Asia for years I 100000% believe they were sent in without being told.

Grand Fromage posted:

There was a news article where the firefighters said they were never told there were chemicals that would react with water, but all evidence of the interview has been scrubbed from the media. As someone who has worked/lived in Asia for years I 100000% believe they were sent in without being told.

quote:

Fire officials have defended the actions of the team who responded to the initial report of a fire on Wednesday night, amid suggestions that using water on some of the chemicals could have led to the blasts.
Calcium carbide reacts with water to create the highly explosive acetylene.

Fire department official Lei Jinde said: "We knew there was calcium carbide inside but we didn't know whether it had already exploded. At that point no-one knew, it wasn't that the firefighters were stupid."
They would not have sprayed water on calcium carbide, he said, although he admitted it was a large warehouse and the team could not be sure where that substance was.
Chemical experts suggest an acetylene blast could then have detonated ammonium nitrate for a much larger blast.

MrNemo posted:

'Well this is probaby ok if we hypothetically do X, Y and Z at some point. So we'll approve it now and someone will probably get round to doing the things necessary for the approval at some point in the future.'

Puistokemisti posted:

Poil posted:

Man.

Wait, how come the residential area looks so different? In the first picture it looks like there are 8 tall buildings but they are gone in the second one and there's no indication of that any housing has collapsed, thankfully.

MrNemo posted:

Wow, when the final part of the whole process is 'Well this is probaby ok if we hypothetically do X, Y and Z at some point. So we'll approve it now and someone will probably get round to doing the things necessary for the approval at some point in the future.'

quote:

In June, a Chinese construction site manager was reported to have screamed at his workers once too often for being lazy, according to the Phnom Penh Post. After their shift was over, a group of workers returned to the site at night and hacked the manager to death with an axe

quote:

In the United States, Chinese companies are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims over drywall imported to rebuild thousands of homes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina; it is alleged to have emitted toxic gas, caused respiratory problems and corroded electrical appliances.

Fall Sick and Die posted:

Chinese managers sent overseas are always shocked at how workers don't just take whatever poo poo they hand out. I can't find the article but several years ago some big Chinese company set up farms in Zimbabwe and had Henan farmers out there managing it. The Chinese managers were constantly complaining about how lazy the Africans were, demanding to be paid regularly for work. They were constantly withholding their salaries ala China, and in the end the Africans burnt down the farm and (I believe) killed the managers.

Broken Cog posted:

Is withholding wages commonplace in China? If so, how does anything function at all?

Broken Cog posted:

Is withholding wages commonplace in China? If so, how does anything function at all?

Shifty Pony posted:

They get paid something eventually. You just keep their wages way behind their current work so anyone who wants to quit faces abandoning six months of pay. If the employees start making noise about it you call up your buddy Mr Politician to get the local police to come in and knock some heads, or to just look the other way while you have your own goons do it.

At least that's how it worked in the US before we started enforcing laws against such abuses. I imagine that it works the same in China, perhaps with some minor tweaks.

Vladimir Putin posted:

I can't believe that poo poo works in a jab market where the workers have other options. I heard the labor market in China favors workers.

Vladimir Putin posted:

I can't believe that poo poo works in a jab market where the workers have other options. I heard the labor market in China favors workers.

Muffiner posted:

Read up on work conditions at Tesla, SpaceX, Amazon and some of the other big brand engineering shops.

quote:

Did China free the RMB to market forces? Yes and no. China is allowing the market to influence the RMB price that the PBOC announces every morning but the PBOC still retains ultimate authority over the official trading price. The PBOC will take into account the actual trading price of the RMB from the previous end of day when setting the new official price. The gives the market influence in setting the new price but the PBOC retains ultimate authority. Think of this as China’s Solomon like attempt to allow the market influence while also limiting its influence. There are three specific issues of notes. First, this is Beijing’s way of having its cake and eating it too. It can say it is increasing market influence while maintaining ultimate control. Second, while the PBOC does appear to set the daily price based upon the previous days trading price, it is also intervening in the market to influence the near end of day price. Third, interestingly, the PBOC appears to be setting the price with a clear nod towards the offshore market which has been priced at an even larger discount than the onshore rate. This would appear to recognize the importance of the global market for RMB or Beijing’s willingness to allow the RMB to sink lower, probably both. In short, Beijing and its critics can both claim that it is brining the RMB closer to the market and maintaining tight control.
Did China take this action with the RMB to try and join the treasured SDR, jump start growth by increasing exports, or due to increasing pressure on the RMB? Probably all of the above in happy coincidence more than masterful design. Let me rephrase the question to make my point. Would China increase market influence on the RMB to please the IMF if the economy was strong and capital was not rapidly leaving the country? I think that would be considered very unlikely. China had no problem thumbing its nose when complaints were flooding in that the RMB was undervalued, so I would consider it unlikely that China is doing this to please the IMF with an eye towards joining the SDR. Rather, I would posit that multiple factors came together that made this move logical. As the Financial Times has pointed out via Patrick McGee, the real test will come when the currency moves in a direction that goes against Beijing’s wishes.
Is China starting a “currency war”? Yes and no but more no than yes. Journalists and politicians have fallen back on the tired cliche that Beijing is starting a currency war as a way to stimulate growth at the expense of other countries. There are multiple problems with this narrative though. First, the total decline so far is a little more than 4%. That isn’t enough to seriously stimulate Chinese exports Paul Krugman has pointed out. For the worlds second largest economy any increase resulting from 4% would be little more than statistical noise. Second, a significant share, though less in recent years, of Chinese exports is processing trade of imported inputs. Consequently, while export prices may decrease, import prices will increase essentially washing any advantage. For instance, a large percentage of “high tech” exports rely heavily on imported components acting effectively as an assembly center. This further reduces the impact of any devaluation. Third, most regional neighbors, and business competitors, have largely fallen in line with the RMB reducing any cost advantage China may gain from the lower RMB. Both for political and market based reasons, emerging market currencies and Chinese competitors are falling with the RMB negating any real impact China hoped to gain. What China may or may not realize is that the falling emerging market currency battle was seen over the past 12-18 months when Beijing refused to unpeg the RMB. Beijing chose to appreciate with the dollar and now is fighting a war that is already over. Short of a massive devaluation, Beijing is stuck with the consequences of its own policy decisions. Fourth, though US politicians may release catchy press releases complaining about the devalued RMB, they have gotten part of their wish, even if it isn’t the outcome they hoped for. Being pro-free market means being more worried about the methodology than the outcome. Beijing have given the market a bigger role in determining the price of the RMB, even if US politicians don’t like the outcome that produces.
China can devalue the RMB because it doesn’t need to worry much about foreign denominated debt. Yes and no. As a percentage of GDP and financial markets, China has relatively little foreign currency denominated debts. According to a recent estimate, China has approximately $1.3 trillion in foreign denominated debt. While that may be small in relative terms, given the nature of a credit stressed economy, the relative concentration in strategic sectors like real estate and carry trading, and the Beijing hope that foreigners would buy a lot of government bonds at friendly rates, the lower value of the RMB is going to have an oversized impact. Given that approximately 500 firms still have suspended trading in shares due primarily to debt covenants that would require additional collateral after share price falls, 3.6 trillion in in provincial debt restructuring due to loans coming due, and now $1.3 trillion in foreign debt, the Chinese economy should be considered a very credit stressed economy. Any significant problem would risk triggering a wave of collapses or defaults. I would add that given the long term inviolable stance China took to the RMB/$ peg, all evidence indicates that Chinese traders and firms are unhedged or poorly hedged. While it is not a large relative part of the economy, there are many real reasons to not overlook the risks.
With $3.6 trillion in reserves, China will have no problem defending the RMB and imposing its preferred value on the market. Yes and no but more no than people think. One of the most common mistakes people make looking at Chinese data is distinguishing between absolute and relative data. $3.6 trillion is a large amount of reserves in absolute terms but much smaller in relative terms. According to my calculations, reserves relative to nominal GDP for 1997-8 Asian tigers is 23% compared to China’s current 34.7%. However, if you compare reserves to M2 money supply the picture is much different. By that measure, China only has reserves equal to 17% of M2 versus 28% in 1997-8 Asian tigers. Given the large demand to move assets out of China, primarily by Chinese firms and individuals it should be noted, the $3.6 trillion in reserve assets looks much smaller against the enormity of its wealth and asset base. If Chinese investors and individuals start to feel significant concern about the RMB, the demand for foreign assets could turn into a flood rapidly if the PBOC fails to arrest the decline. $3.6 trillion is a large number but in the world second largest economy with 1.3 billion, that should be thought of as a small $3.6 trillion.
What is driving the downward push in the RMB? Confidence in the Chinese economy or more accurately, the lack thereof. Beijing officialdom and the PBOC can insist until they are red in the face that the economy is fine and there is no basis for the market pushing the RMB lower, but much like the official 7% GDP growth or Chinese milk powder, no one is buying it. Well heeled Chinese have been moving assets abroad for some time, a process which has sped up, and Chinese firms, especially those with international interests, have been stashing cash abroad as well. Debt and stock markets being propped up to avoid collapse coupled with deflation have never been known to be an investor paradise. These are characteristics of an economy that investors and citizens seek to take their money out of and put it elsewhere. Interestingly, Beijing has said it seeks to better control the offshore market where it exerts less control and unsurprisingly sees an even weaker RMB than the onshore rate. This cuts to the heart of Beijing and the PBOC’s complete lack of credibility as it is hard enough to manage the RMB market Beijing has the most control over much less a global market in trading centers in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, London, Sydney, and New York to name a few. Beijing and the PBOC simply don’t understand the market or the enormity of the FX market if it seeks to control the offshore RMB market. The real risk is that Beijing does not understand global financial markets, as demonstrated by the inept response to the stock market fall, and will turn a declining RMB into a collapse. The PBOC reset expectations about future policy and prices which risks becoming a self fulfilling prophesy. The PBOC will have to rapidly improve its communication and market credibility if it wants to establish confidence in the Chinese economy and RMB pricing. Right now and based upon recent history, that is a risky bet.

quote:

It may just have been bad timing. China’s announcement of a looser renminbi peg came only a few days after a downbeat report on exports. So when the renminbi news hit, there was a common shocked response: China’s economy must be much weaker than we thought.

This reading took hold despite the availability of another explanation: China is keen that the IMF add the renminbi to the list of reserve currencies. This requires that it be more market-driven; the loosening was a step in that direction.

Why is it even possible to regard the peg as an economic indicator? The conventional answer is simple and cynical: you can’t trust the official economic numbers, so you have little choice but to read into official pronouncements and actions.

China’s official GDP growth figure does look suspiciously stable. And plenty of other official figures have been telling a scary story for some months now. Rail freight volumes have been falling, by at least one official measure, since early last year. Electricity production first gave a frighteningly weak reading last summer. Cement output went negative in March. Housing starts have been deep in the red throughout 2015.

These data series are all volatile and, of course, are much easier to read retrospectively. All the same, many of them tell a similar story — which makes one wonder why the news of the last week has constituted a shock.

Big, prominent companies have also been making dreary noises about operations in China for some time. Yum Brands has been reporting double-digit declines in same-store sales in China restaurants even as its supply scandals receded into the past. Hershey cut targets on weak China growth two months ago. Then reports arrived that Audi’s sales growth in China would be negative. United Technologies reported sharp declines in its Chinese elevator and air conditioner businesses in July, too.

Optimistic investors have looked to China for so long that it may have become less stressful to dismiss weak (and unusually unequivocal) data than be cautioned by it — the latest instance of a timeless phenomenon.

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/984a9644-41ce-11e5-9abe-5b335da3a90e.html

http://www.ejinsight.com/20150817-why-renminbi-devaluation-is-a-one-off-move/ posted:

From an economic viewpoint, the renminbi will be excessively strong if it appreciates along with the US dollar.

Such an appreciation will deviate from China’s economic slowdown and cause more damage to the nation’s economic restructuring.

From my point of view, it is a must for the Chinese currency to be devalued against the US dollar.

First, the yuan devaluation has created more room for monetary policy. The surprising fall in China’s export growth in July was partly due to the strong Chinese currency, apart from weak external demand.

As a result, the Chinese central bank had to slash the interest rate and the reserve requirement ratio for banks in a bid to cap the real interest rate rally.

Proper devaluation of the renminbi will alleviate the pressure on monetary policy.

Second, the move will also benefit China’s move to liberalize it capital accounts. The market reform is a key part of China’s efforts to make the yuan a global currency and allow it to join the International Monetary Fund’s special drawing rights (SDR) basket.

However, global investors may stay away from renminbi assets for fear of devaluation if the exchange rate has completely deviated from economic fundamentals.

Some foreign politicians have accused Beijing of meddling with the exchange rate. However, China has in fact kicked off the market reform of its exchange rate regime by allowing the currency to move closer to the market rate.

If not, persistent fears of a yuan devaluation will affect the offshore renminbi market. For example, the CNH interest rate has been steadily higher than that in the onshore market, reflecting tight liquidity in the offshore renminbi market.

Beijing’s yuan devaluation has mitigated market expectations for a long-term depreciation, although there might be some volatility in the short and medium term.

It’s a tough decision, which would cause losses for investors, but it has allowed investors see the future direction of the redback.

Also, it would help stimulate China’s economic growth, which in turn would eventually restore market confidence in renminbi assets.

Global investors would invest in the yuan and yuan-denominated assets if they believe the currency won’t continue to devalue in the long run.

Third, the yuan devaluation will help Beijing gain a bigger say in its foreign exchange policy, even while the United States is on track to hike interest rates in September. The move has offset any massive capital outflow pressure in the future.

The one-time devaluation has helped establish a new range for the renminbi’s exchange rate within a period, allowing Beijing to have a bigger say in its foreign exchange policy. It would avoid a double hit from the impact of a US rate hike on its currency and capital outflow.

And the Chinese central bank still has more than four months to optimize the exchange rate regime and capital accounts liberalization, which would help its fight for including yuan into the SDR basket.

In theory, I believe the central government hopes to adopt a one-off devaluation strategy rather than a gradual depreciation tact. The latter would trigger arbitrage and increase costs for Beijing to manage its foreign exchange rate.

If the Chinese central bank manages to stabilize the exchange rate in the near future, and restores market confidence, the country’s foreign exchange reserve will start to pick up again.

However, the foreign exchange market is set to witness huge volatility in the following days as global speculators take advantage of the opportunity to short-sell.

No central bank would say its currency will continue to devalue, which would lure global investors to attack its currency.

There is no basis for the continued depreciation of the redback from the international and internal economic situation.

China has managed to maintain a 7 percent growth rate in the first half of this year despite internal and external challenges.

The sharp changes in the money supply and bank loans for July are temporary and manageable.

Beijing will continue to stick to a prudent monetary policy.

Meanwhile, recent economic data is encouraging, pointing to positive signs in economic development. That has laid a solid foundation for a stable exchange rate.

Also, China’s current accounts surplus has reached US$305.2 billion in the first seven months of this year. This is critical to the supply and demand fundamentals in the foreign exchange market.

Beijing has accelerated its reforms to internationalize the renminbi and open up its financial markets. Foreign investors have increased demand for the Chinese currency in trading, investment and asset allocation. That has injected a fresh momentum for a steady renminbi.

The market has long priced in the impact of a stronger US dollar following a US interest rate hike. The market is set to stabilize after a short-term reaction to the rate increase.

In addition, China has ample foreign exchange reserves, a healthy fiscal situation and prudent financial systems, which all support a stable foreign exchange rate.

China has adopted a market-based and managed floating exchange rate regime, and as such, investors should treat the exchange rate volatility sensibly.

The central bank will let the market gain a stronger voice in the pricing of its currency, and this will further stabilize the exchange rate and allow it to reach a new equilibrium.

This article appeared in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on Aug 17.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Don't worry, innovation will save China!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...entific-papers/

tl;dr most papers pulled due to hiring chinese clearing houses to pass the peer review stage