|
here's a good article from 22 years ago about why china's hosed: http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/myth_of_asias-miracle.pdf
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:I doubt they're heading towards an economy destroying catastrophe, more an economy handicapping one like what happened to Japan at the end of the 80's. The difference between Japan and China in this case is politics. I think the PRC's popularity is largely tied to economic growth, and it won't be smooth sailing once it slows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:The difference between Japan and China in this case is politics. I think the PRC's popularity is largely tied to economic growth, and it won't be smooth sailing once it slows. This is a highly complex and contentious issue; I would recommend Holbig and Gilley's "Reclaiming Legitimacy in China" for a good overview if you have access to academic databases. TL: DR is that the CCP is and has been aware of the danger in relying on economic legitimation and has been building strong nationalist and "culturalist" credentials for the past decade or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
In other words, China is slowly weaning itself onto the statist right-wing ideology that has served Japan so well over the years
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
The CCP is also better able to bury things in money, propaganda, and censorship. They're also a bit more pragmatic than the LDP, who just seem unwilling to do anything new when it comes to fixing Japan's ills. This isn't to say the CCP is progressive, innovative, or incredibly competent, just that they'll do something other than pray at the shrine to Keynes and hope staying the course will correct things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Gordon Chang Gordon Chang-ing: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/will-2016-bring-the-collapse-chinas-economy-14753
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Chang's only real mistake is that he's constantly saying that a Chinese breakdown is imminent when he should just stick to pointing out its inevitability on its current course. It gives critics too much ammunition to ignore his argument in favor of personal attacks and "oh well it didn't happen last year so I guess you're wrong about everything"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Chang is hugely biased though. And always wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
blueyedevil posted:Chang is hugely biased though. And always wrong. Basically anyone with a hat in the ring vis-a-vis China is biased, and he hasn't always been wrong. Like I said, his chief problem is that he takes what's probably going to happen and claiming that it's both imminent and that it'll be spectacular. The evidence he uses to arrive at his conclusion is typically good, he just can't resist making his conclusion "and then it's the warring states period again"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
It's happening again. Trading halted after five percent drop on the Shanghai Composite. Edit: well that was quick, -7% and trading closed MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:It's happening again. Trading halted after five percent drop on the Shanghai Composite. what set off the drop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:what set off the drop? The index took a hit just before New Year's when investors sold off a bunch of B shares, so I'm guessing further concerns about liquidity and capital flight. This is the biggest drop since August apparently. Also: bad manufacturing news http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-economy-idUSKBN0UI06120160104 The ban on share selling they implemented in July also ends this week, so buckle up. Here's a rosy assed Bloomberg piece that already looks a bit too good to be true. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-29/china-seen-ending-share-sale-ban-that-drew-foreign-fund-scorn edit: old article MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Nobody chanted anything about reviving the B shares
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Anecdotal, but my good friend just got laid off from his job at a Shanghai tech company and told me that he was, for the first time since he arrived in China, having trouble finding another job, because all the other companies in the area were cutting down as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:The ban on share selling they implemented in July also ends this week, so buckle up. Here's a rosy assed Bloomberg piece that already looks a bit too good to be true. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-29/china-seen-ending-share-sale-ban-that-drew-foreign-fund-scorn This is amazing. I didn't realize that the Chinese government had been quite that draconian. If you were a rational investor and found out that you could be indefinitely forbidden from selling your stock when you wanted (i.e. most needed to) would you own any stock in that market? I really doubt it. It's almost like they guaranteed that everyone would sell the moment the ban was lifted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Ouch. And I bet this is not the end either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
 lol!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
3% down and it hasn't even opened yet, according to google finance
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:The index took a hit just before New Year's when investors sold off a bunch of B shares, so I'm guessing further concerns about liquidity and capital flight. This is the biggest drop since August apparently.  Oh man, I can't wait to see this again--will this mean that everything is back on the market, or is it mostly still frozen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Goffer posted:3% down and it hasn't even opened yet, according to google finance 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
-3% start, cash pumped, back to -0.4% More pensions for the stock gods
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:here's a good article from 22 years ago about why china's hosed: This is really interesting. So I get what input-driven economies are, where suddenly more in being produced by more people who now have money to buy stuff that gets produced. What is an efficiency driven economy? More automation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Ccs posted:This is really interesting. So I get what input-driven economies are, where suddenly more in being produced by more people who now have money to buy stuff that gets produced. What is an efficiency driven economy? More automation? Innovation, to put it into a dumb buzzword. Better education, research, entrepreneurship, etc, produce productivity and efficiency growth and technological improvements. The USSR produced 0 of that and grew by shoveling money into infrastructure with little efficiency or technological improvement, and having population growth. China's doing the same thing, and because its population is set to stagnate and decline so will their GDP Krugman in that paper quotes Solow as saying that 80% of American GDP growth since 1860 has been in efficiency and productivity growth. China's probably like 0 icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Pretty flat after an hour of trading, Sellers have all been shot i presume.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Innovation, to put it into a dumb buzzword. Better education, research, entrepreneurship, etc, produce productivity and efficiency growth and technological improvements. The USSR produced 0 of that and grew by shoveling money into infrastructure with little efficiency or technological improvement, and having population growth. China's doing the same thing, and because its population is set to stagnate and decline so will their GDP quote:The Plenum put forward that, in order to persist in innovative development, we must put innovation in a central position in the overall picture of national development, incessantly move theoretical innovation, institutional innovation, scientific and technological innovation, cultural innovation and innovation in all other areas forward, let innovation penetrate into all Party and state work, and let innovation become common practice in all of society. We must put the basic point of development on innovation, create mechanisms and frameworks to stimulate innovation, and mould a form of guided development that is ever more reliant on the drive of innovation, and gives ever more rein to the development advantages of innovation. https://chinacopyrightandmedia.word...ommunist-party/
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
That's just word salad and I bet they know it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
i love communism-speak
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I wonder if people noting that the Chinese seem to have trouble innovating has made the CCP insecure or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
If you say it enough times I guess innovation will just happen. No need for policies dealing with the messy structure of actually figuring out systems that spur innovation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Ccs posted:If you say it enough times I guess innovation will just happen. No need for policies dealing with the messy structure of actually figuring out systems that spur innovation. Nobody is going to innovate poo poo in a country where you can get disappeared for owning a bookstore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
The Nazis invented the v2. Stalin put a man in space first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
For some reason Technion is thriving despite binyamin netanyahu
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The Nazis invented the v2. Stalin put a man in space first. The nazis failed at the most critical innovation of all: the atomic bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The nazis failed at the most critical innovation of all: the atomic bomb. Delivering nuclear bombs without a subsonic plane was far more important and we didn't get that without Nazi jet engine tech and nazi rocketeering for the ICBMs. Check and mate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Delivering nuclear bombs without a subsonic plane was far more important and we didn't get that without Nazi jet engine tech and nazi rocketeering for the ICBMs. Check and mate. They stole that poo poo from Britain anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:They stole that poo poo from Britain anyway. There were kind of parallel development tracks on jets for a while, the Brits had their jet and the Germans had theirs. WWII German jets lasted like 10 hours tops because they couldn't get enough the more exotic alloys you need to make a durable jet engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:
Well the initial response back in July was to prevent large numbers of people from selling their A class shares for a few months. Now the people with frozen accounts will be able to trade again, most likely dumping their stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
Nazi innovation was doomed to failure anyway because a bunch of smart people were forced to step down from professional life, put in concentration camps or left the country all together when they saw what a shithole the country was becoming. The US did a good job of scooping all these people up as Europe became increasingly destabilized. The British and Americans had their own jet engine development program that wasn't as advanced as the German one but wasn't that far behind. The German nuclear program basically didn't exist while the American one basically produced several bombs by the end of the war. If the war kept on dragging on in Europe, the Americans could simply nuke Germany and they could not respond in kind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 15:25
|
|