|
ocrumsprug posted:The Shanghai-A is Chinese only no? Vanguard Group starting shifting over to more class A exposure last year for their emerging market funds.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
China appears to be imposing controls on capital outflows on the sly: http://www.chinalawblog.com/2016/01/getting-money-out-of-china-what-the-heck-is-happening.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Zohar posted:China appears to be imposing controls on capital outflows on the sly: Well if this doesn't convince more people to put their money in China
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
So China's official Q4 GDP numbers are in and suprise, they're worse than expected. Only by a tenth of a percent, but still http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/business/international/china-gdp-economy.html quote:HONG KONG — China’s growth slowed further last year, adding to the troubling economic picture that is unsettling investors around the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Even that data is blatantly bogus yet people eat it up for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
I'm more interested in seeing their import/export data along with the raw materials report because everything is pointing to those numbers being not so good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
rex rabidorum vires posted:I'm more interested in seeing their import/export data along with the raw materials report because everything is pointing to those numbers being not so good. The premier said earlier that not only did China's GDP grow at roughly 7% in 2015 but "half" of that was from "consumption." Think about that for a moment. In the span of one year they claim to have moved the economy from being almost entirely based in industry to one that grows by 3.5% from "consumption" alone. I get irrationally angry when I think of how many people are believing such obvious lies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Archimago posted:In GOP debate last night the issue of China imposing tariffs on goods imported from USA was brought up several times and used by some as a justification for imposing a tariff on Chinese goods. Trump being an idiot was proposing a flat tariff. Most tariffs are item specific. I think the US is trying to get a 200% tariff on some Chinese steel because they were unfairly dumping it. We can also limit the amount imported. I read a Reagan book where he discussed shoe import limits with China. Because apparently in the 1980's shoes were still made someplace other than China.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Trump being an idiot was proposing a flat tariff. Most tariffs are item specific. I think the US is trying to get a 200% tariff on some Chinese steel because they were unfairly dumping it. Isn't labor in China getting too expensive so all the shoes are made somewhere else now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Isn't labor in China getting too expensive so all the shoes are made somewhere else now? Who needs China when the southern neighbor is ready to step up and embrace freedom while also defending international law? Vietnam's got a real future as a preferred trading partner of the United States. China? Their economy's the paper mache tiger of Asia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Isn't labor in China getting too expensive so all the shoes are made somewhere else now? I don't know if shoes follow the same trends as other clothing/textiles. There might be more involved supply chains that make it difficult to just switch countries like you can with most apparel. For right now almost all shoes are made in China. I can't think of any other product so completely dominated by one country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I don't know if shoes follow the same trends as other clothing/textiles. There might be more involved supply chains that make it difficult to just switch countries like you can with most apparel. Vietnam is growing these days. For instance, Nike has a plant there and I think like 40+% of their output is from Vietnam now. Compared to like 30% from China. The rest is mostly Indonesia, and then a tiny amount from latin america. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is, among other things, about encouraging the development of rival industry to China's in the various poorer countries that are party to it, by making it easy for them to sell to richer countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
China has very real economic problems and things will probably continue to get worse in the short term or even the medium term, but I think there's a danger in extending the recent trend line too far into the future. I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where the world's largest country by population doesn't eventually become the world's largest economy. Some combination of structural problems in the economy (not to mention the political system), unfavorable demographics (lopsided sex ratio, etc), corruption, disastrously bad decisions by the political and business elite, internal and external events, and/or just plain bad luck can certainly slow or even reverse growth for a time as we're seeing now, but what happens after that? You could have the business savvy of George W. Bush and the luck of William H. Macy in The Cooler, but when you get to draw four times as many cards as everyone else at the table you're still going to win unless some external event disrupts the game before you stumble your way to victory. With roughly 4x the population of the US, they only need to reach 1/4 of the economic activity per capita of the US to reach parity in the overall size of the economy. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but you get the point. The only way that China DOESN'T eventually become the largest economy in the world is if somehow it breaks up or doesn't survive as a unified state long enough to reach that milestone. You don't exactly have to be Hari Seldon to predict that the economy with the largest number of participants is probably going to become the largest overall at some point when you extend the time horizon far enough into the future. The interesting questions to me are whether they ever reach parity on a per capita basis, and whether the political system manages to survive the type of reforms needed for that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:China has very real economic problems and things will probably continue to get worse in the short term or even the medium term, but I think there's a danger in extending the recent trend line too far into the future. I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where the world's largest country by population doesn't eventually become the world's largest economy. Try "the last 200 years" Besides India is going to overtake China in population soon and have better demographics to boot (albeit they have their own problems.) And yes, economics is more complicated than "if each person is worth one hammer of production then having more people is better." The political economy is extremely important and the chief reason why countries with larger populations still have smaller economies than the US. The only way that China becomes the world's largest economy is with political liberalization and that's not something that will happen as long as the CCP has anything to say about it. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
I don't think it's as simple as population. One scenario is that their growth cools off and gets stuck at some low number because they can't manage a transition into a modern economy. The low paying manufacturing jobs start to go to cheaper venues but their hosed up system of government and state owned enterprise and corruption are so bad that they can't bring enough of the higher value industries and the accompanying growth. You know China should really follow in the footsteps of Taiwan and South Korea and transition from a dictatorship to democracy. This is just about the right time for them to do it. But that means the CCP is going to be dead and nobody knows what a China without the CCP looks like. So no I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that China will be the world's biggest economy at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Why would political liberalization increase or support economic growth? Could the state owned industry be reformed/privatized and corruption decreased without democratization or the end of single party rule?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Why would political liberalization increase or support economic growth? China's political system is closer to Tsarist Russia or Ancien France than any actual socialist state. And in contrast to what the CCP would have you believe, factionalism inside the party is rife with many powerful people having their own in-pocket police forces and military units. Its not even that liberalization would lead to a friendlier, more moral China (which I doubt) but instead a simply more efficient and rational one. Why would you want to invest somewhere where your partner can run away with the money and get away with it because his dad is Li Gang? quote:Could the state owned industry be reformed/privatized and corruption decreased without democratization or the end of single party rule? Lol no. China's SOEs are probably their biggest albatross right now and will probably be the thing that hurts regular people the most when they fail. Also the CCP is been trying to cozy up to Singapore as the ideal one party state, yet clearly have no idea why they are successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Why would political liberalization increase or support economic growth? Could the state owned industry be reformed/privatized and corruption decreased without democratization or the end of single party rule? Yeah ironically a lot of the China's problems arguably stem from the fact that the central government's actually not powerful enough where it matters - stuff like rule of law and policy implementation - which makes it hard for them to do anything and scares off legitimate business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where the world's largest country by population doesn't eventually become the world's largest economy. For pretty much all of recorded history China has had an enormous population, only rarely has their economy been really outstanding. England is a small island with a relatively small population and yet for >200 years they had one of the wealthiest economies in the world. I don't think +population = economic success. Anyway, when Shanghai exchange starts falling again, where do we think it will stop? 2200?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Vietnam is growing these days. For instance, Nike has a plant there and I think like 40+% of their output is from Vietnam now. Compared to like 30% from China. The rest is mostly Indonesia, and then a tiny amount from latin america. I didn't realize Vietnam was taking that much of a bite out of China. I guess it makes sense with the new trade pact and American support for Vietnam and the Philippines against China. All I know is trying to find shoes made somewhere other than China is ridiculously difficult. I've just had to accept that my English shoes are at least made in a country once dominated by England. Murgos posted:For pretty much all of recorded history China has had an enormous population, only rarely has their economy been really outstanding. Then again, a big country can be poor and still have a huge market. The middle class in India is bigger than all of the United States. So these emerging markets have an outsized influence. It's like GM keeping the Buick nameplate not because it's popular in the United States, but because the Chinese like it. I can't wait to see the shitstorm when GM tries to sell Chinese-made Buicks in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
I think command style economies don't do well with internal consumption driven growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Murgos posted:For pretty much all of recorded history China has had an enormous population, only rarely has their economy been really outstanding. Great Britain actually had a fairly large and growing population when it mattered, especially compared to other parts of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Great Britain actually had a fairly large and growing population when it mattered, especially compared to other parts of Europe. I think the take home message is that access to resources alone (and population is a resource) don't gaurantee economic or political power. You have to be able to strategically parlay that resource into a commanding position or manage it so that it can pay economic dividends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I think command style economies don't do well with internal consumption driven growth. What people under a dictatorship don't want consumer goods? Is there any source I can read on this subject?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Murgos posted:For pretty much all of recorded history China has had an enormous population, only rarely has their economy been really outstanding. Lol. The Chinese economy was an enormous weight dictating the flow of the world's goods for a good couple of millennia even though it was mostly inwardly focused. All the gold and silver from the New World merely stayed over in Europe, it went to live in China. (When it didn't go straight there by way of the Philippines.) It wasn't until some assholes in Manchester really got their heads around steam and spinning jennies and took a good look at the putting out process that this changed. It doesn't look like GB had the economy or natural wealth to turn that into a real runaway lead, and maintaining a colonial empire to try and secure that proved too costly once the locals decided to agitate. Plus they pissed away a lot of their head start in Flanders, that doesn't help. Good old US of A has stepped up with a big population and a lot of resources and a good per capita output. Inertia give the number 1 a certain self-reinforcing advantage, though per capita increases in productivity do have powerful multiplier effects. I think long run China's going to run into the One Child, 8 Grandparents generation though, that's going to be an anchor on per capita productivity for a while. Squalid posted:What people under a dictatorship don't want consumer goods? It's not that they don't want, it's that the market can be slower to react. In a true command economy, only the govt. is dictating what gets built, and tend to look more at direct metrics (food, infrastructure, dachaus for party leaders, tanks for with to crush the dissidents). I think it's unfair to call China that, a big part of the 80's reforms was an attempt to let a market form, and there are clearly some products in China that have worked in that regard. But the government and general structure of the country do make it a lot harder to get things off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
The notion that China was the centre of the world for most of its history is a fallacy. "The world" as a concept which we recognize didn't exist until the last few centuries. China has literally never been the centre of the world. To be perfectly frank only the USA can really claim to have ever been so central.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The notion that China was the centre of the world for most of its history is a fallacy. "The world" as a concept which we recognize didn't exist until the last few centuries. China has literally never been the centre of the world. To be perfectly frank only the USA can really claim to have ever been so central.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Murgos posted:For pretty much all of recorded history China has had an enormous population, only rarely has their economy been really outstanding. Prior to the industrial revolution China's GDP was certainly the largest according to Paul Kennedy. e: Beaten by the JJ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Prior to the industrial revolution China's GDP was certainly the largest according to Paul Kennedy. That's not actually a statistic that anyone can know for certain. GDP is itself a hard to measure statistic even today, and declarations that China is historically the world's largest economy are usually based around China's population. And even then if you use the same measurements the Roman Empire at its height probably had a larger economy than its Han Dynasty contemporary which itself challenges the notion that it's China's historical destiny to be the world's largest economy. So people who argue that the past few centuries of Western economic dominance were a historical anomaly can easily have their positions reversed with the argument that Chinese economic dominance in the Middle Ages was a historical anomaly. In other words there's no such thing as historical destiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The notion that China was the centre of the world for most of its history is a fallacy. "The world" as a concept which we recognize didn't exist until the last few centuries. China has literally never been the centre of the world. To be perfectly frank only the USA can really claim to have ever been so central. Not center as is there was a global cultural centering, but certainly center of gravity, and the moment the market starts becoming global (e.g. New World) China's* demands dictated where and how trade was flowing. Anyway, the point is that the "gently caress it, more people doing more poo poo" was the way to have a bigger economy** until coal lifted the sort of 'natural' ceiling on that and made setting up factories (another multiplier) worth the societal cost. I think the question is whether the current leaders (US, Germany et. al.) will hit a ceiling before China does. I certainly think the CCP's need to fake good news while embezzling the poo poo out of each other isn't helping, but it's not like the West hasn't hosed itself by gross incompetence before. *At least, the demands of the market in what is now geographically China. Certainly the state (or states lol) in area weren't always able to tap that. Aligning state with economic interest and vice versa is a super weird process but... yeah. **If that matters in anyway...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That's not actually a statistic that anyone can know for certain. GDP is itself a hard to measure statistic even today, and declarations that China is historically the world's largest economy are usually based around China's population. And even then if you use the same measurements the Roman Empire at its height probably had a larger economy than its Han Dynasty contemporary which itself challenges the notion that it's China's historical destiny to be the world's largest economy. Oh sure, the historical destiny is bullshit. The historical fact that the-entity-known-as-China* had the worlds largest economy is pretty well loving attested to. I agree that the sudden rise of the British economy in the face of that is a great argument against historical destiny bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
quote:Not center as is there was a global cultural centering, but certainly center of gravity, This isn't true though. Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans couldn't have cared less about what China was doing for most of its history, if they were even aware of China's existence at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I didn't realize Vietnam was taking that much of a bite out of China. I guess it makes sense with the new trade pact and American support for Vietnam and the Philippines against China. Dunno, a lot of decent shoes are still made outside China, too. Spain is popular, and there's a lot of English shoemakers who still make stuff in England - Charles Tyrwhitt, Herring, Loake 1880, etc. In the US Allen Edmonds is still around. If anything, it's actually hard to find a decent good quality shoe that is made in China. Yeah shoes cheaper than that (<$300) are hard to find not made in China but my answer to that is don't buy cheap lovely shoes that are less than $300, it's a waste of your money anyway. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Like we need to expand what time-frame we're talking about. Yeah, China was probably the economic centre of gravity from the Yuan Dynasty towards the end of the Ming Dynasty but that's almost entirely due to the Mongol Empire establishing it as such before its fall. Immediately before that it's really up in the air and the edge might actually go to the Abbasids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This isn't true though. Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans couldn't have cared less about what China was doing for most of its history, if they were even aware of China's existence at all. Even if trade wasn't direct it still happened. It isn't remembered as 'trade with China' since it went through intermediaries but the Eurasian markets were pretty well liked up with regards to a lot of goods. The linkage between Iberia and, say, Austria was a matter of distance, but as is was Austria to Anatolia, Anatolia to Persia, Persia to the Indus Valley, and so on. It's not like there was an uninhabited waste between the two. Roman's stole silkworms, statues of Vishnu turn up in Pompeii, Manichean Christians had a quarter in the imperial capital in, like, the 4th Century or something. Even then the relatively isolated backwater that was Europe was a smaller relatively isolated backwater than China for most of that time. Of course 'Europe' and 'China' are pretty arbitrary. It gets a bit funkier if you break it down by, say Greco-Semetic intellectualism vs. Confucianism (roughly linking the Islamic world plus Christendom vs. China, Korea, Vietnamish, the Japanese when they can be arsed to pretend to be civilized.) or Indo-European vs. whatever the gently caress is going on in China linguistically vs. Turkish vs. Semetic vs., for giggles, Basque.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The notion that China was the centre of the world for most of its history is a fallacy. "The world" as a concept which we recognize didn't exist until the last few centuries. China has literally never been the centre of the world. To be perfectly frank only the USA can really claim to have ever been so central. The Chinese couldn't even beat the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:It's like GM keeping the Buick nameplate not because it's popular in the United States, but because the Chinese like it. Not to derail too much, but I've always found it hilarious that Buick out of all the GM nameplates is the one that really took off in China. Apparently the public image of Buick is the exact opposite of what it means to a lot of Americans nowadays. Rather than being seen as essentially a car for the 70+ age group that likes GM but can't afford a Cadillac, it's seen as this cool edgy brand favored by the new rich, business/tech elites, and of course ordinary people who want to project that image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
China wasn't the center of the world, but you have to look at the historical context. The opium wars started because the British were consuming large amounts of cultural products (the eponymous 'China', tea, silk and other goods) while China really wanted nothing from Britian which they considered from a cultural/artistic standpoint to be inferior. Fashion and artisans in Europe also mimicked the Chinese style in various crafts. Things like the civil service exam were admired and copied throughout Europe. Britain's trade imbalance led to a series of consequences which included a large amount of formerly British silver in the hands of the Chinese which could only be resolved by the trafficking of opium via their colonies in India. Thus began the opium wars and the annexation of HK and subsequent humiliations for China. While it's not accurate to say that China was the center of the world Chinese civilization and culture was advanced enough that the British people were able to acknowledge it through their demand for Chinese goods. So you have to acknowledge that China had some sort of cultural fulcrum in the world. Unfortunately, the British were really good at being colonizers and destroying people in war so that China's advanced culture meant little during subsequent wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:Not to derail too much, but I've always found it hilarious that Buick out of all the GM nameplates is the one that really took off in China. Apparently the public image of Buick is the exact opposite of what it means to a lot of Americans nowadays. Rather than being seen as essentially a car for the 70+ age group that likes GM but can't afford a Cadillac, it's seen as this cool edgy brand favored by the new rich, business/tech elites, and of course ordinary people who want to project that image. I think the history there is that Buick was popular in China back in the 40s and 50s. The popular story you hear in China is that the last Emperor of China drove a Buick, and then after the revolution that car passed on to Mao's number two Zhou Enlai. When GM came back to China in the 90s, they knew the brand had cachet and started making Buicks there. For a lot of government officials and businessman types who needed to buy a Chinese-made car for political reasons, it was the best/only luxury car available at the time, so they all bought them and since those are the people who got rich in the ensuing liberalization the Buick brand came with them. Also Buick made boring, super-soft luxobarges, which are now passe in the US but the Chinese still love them, especially considering a lot of people in China are chauffered around anyway and many people are proud that they own a car but don't know how to drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:14
|
|