|
TheBuilder posted:This train project is just a front operation to get access to the rainforest for venomous frog dicks and other items usable in TCM.
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Warcabbit posted:What happens to that chinese IMF competitor if China craters? It becomes a mechanism for China to fund other rogue states to generally be a thorn in the United States' and allies' side, like it was from the start and was always going to be?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Can someone please elaborate why Chinese growth is not due to growing internal middle class consumption? I am clueless on the subject. I don't really know what you mean by 'why', it's just a fact that the vast majority of the Chinese economy is built around selling stuff to the US and other developed countries A lot of the Chinese economy is also not liberalized, lots of large conglomerates and corporations are government owned still, and the government is taking its sweet time selling them off
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
China is "borrowing" money from its own people, AKA it's taking money that people would be spending on consumer goods and spending it instead of infrastructure projects and subsidization for export companies. It's the same song and dance Japan did back in the day. The vast majority of Japanese debt was and is owned by Japanese people. They're stealing from their own people to inflate their GDP numbers. The problem is though that you can't fudge numbers forever, some day it has to come crashing back to reality because your country just isn't as wealthy as the numbers make out
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
ductonius posted:This. This will happen. Either the CCP lays the hammer down or great indivisible China will divide into dozens of warring states. Again. I bet the Tibetans and Uighurs will be grieving
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Logikv9 posted:It was already said before, but this is so interesting and magical to see a crash in progress and a government with essentially unlimited power do anything to stop it. You can't stop bubbles so long as markets exist. Unless they're going to go back to a command economy there's nothing they can do. Passive aggressive bitching and angry statements about hurt feelings have failed them in the end icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of what's going is a little beyond me but I'm confused as to what Beijing should be doing. Just let the market collapse? At this point, yeah? They should implement a social security / pension system not tied to the stock market so people don't lose their life savings in stocks, but as for the market itself yeah unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
The government shoveled enough of people's pension money into the market to keep it afloat. It will probably prolong the bubble a few weeks/months and make the crash even bigger
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I thought that the government literally froze most stocks and removed the worst performing ones from the market? If that's the case then why should literally anyone take the Chinese stock market seriously? Why should it be listed next to New York, London, and Tokyo as though it's equally legitimate? And yeah they did that too. I guess they're hoping that when they unfreeze them in a few weeks/months they won't plummet immediately?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
tsa posted:This sort of stuff is nuts. Trying to form a weird hybrid of the old command economy and a standard market economy is just going to be a complete disaster. You can't force prosperity by waving your hands. Going to be? Like 40% of all the food in the country is poisoned with cadmium already
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:So is there a name for this? On the one hand it resembles a pump-and-dump, but with the entire economy instead of a particular security. On the other, you also have this idea of mandating the market can only go up regardless of fiscal soundness and then using the basically conjured funds to pay off real debt. In both regards it's a con-job in the truest sense of the phrase, but it seems unique in being a two-stage con and is playing out on a ridiculous scale. It's a combination of pump-and-dump, capital controls, and massive government subsidies to stave off popular unrest and save face icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
The US and other developed countries don't really sell that much to China besides a few high-value capital goods. For all the Chinese government's talk of switching the economy to domestic consumption Japan has been trying and failing to do that for 25 years now, and China is even more hosed up than they were. It would take decades to make such a switch in full and they don't have decades But the end result is that a Chinese crash would have not all that much impact on the US beyond the initial stock price shocks. If anything it might even be positve because it would cause energy and commodity prices to crater icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Are there untried pie-in-the-sky measures for something like that? Like a small basic.income coupled with steep import tariffs and mandatory workday reductions? They could fix it anytime they want (well, until the demographic decline hits. china has a few more decades at least) , but doing it would require upending literally the entire political-economic status quo in both Japan and China. And given that, as mentioned, Japan has been facing down this problem for literally almost 30 years and has done almost nothing about it even while having at least a semi-functional liberal democracy and rule of law, you should be able to tell how well China will manage it icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
western chauvinism / imperialism / japanese devils
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Supply and demand is not part of China's 5000 years culture, sorry haters
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Are there any signs that China is making structural changes, or is it just "keep holding the dam up and hope it breaks when someone else is in charge"? It's that, although it should be pointed out that the dam breaking is going to be a lot more anticlimactic and more whimper-y than bang-y. I think the government will be able to avoid a dramatic economic crash, but the structural issues will kill off growth unless they're fixed, which the CCP has no real chance of doing. That's economically, at least. Politically it's likely the CCP will do something stupid like invade somewhere or dramatically escalate military tension to shore up support
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:To be honest, devaluing currency is what all countries do when their economy starts taking a poo poo. That's what the fed does when it 'prints money' but it's more of an indirect way of doing it. There's a difference between inflationary monetary policy for the purpose of Keynesian stimulus, and purposefully making your currency weaker than others to give you an edge in exports But yeah, like Lord of Hats said, this is pretty much them abandoning any pretense of the whole switching to a consumer economy thing. Not that the Chinese government cares about pretenses or has any shame at all, and they will probably keep right on trumpeting about it in public statements. As for responses by other countries, I don't think the US will do anything but I can see it setting off a trade war / slapfight between China, Japan, SK, Germany, etc, all states that do basically the same thing to leech off the teat of the US domestic market. That is, if the Chinese economy doesn't just up and implode, which nobody knows for sure isn't what's happening icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Isn't this choice pretty much the middle income trap in a nutshell? The classic middle income countries, Latin American ones, are all more-or-less democracies that aren't pathologically obsessed with social stability, so no not really. Not that China isn't headed for stagnation, but I don't think the causes are that similar. China is more of a Japan-style stagnation than a Brazil-style one, and IMO that's significantly worse icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Estimated 7,000-70,000 casualties Source?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Camera guy might be fine, camera guy's eardrums though probably not
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Peel posted:So much for the end of explosive growth in China. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:The only thing I know about China's Economy comes from a lecture by a visiting professor from China while I was in grad school. The class was centered on market competitiveness, Michael Porter, and Cluster Theory. Basically, the idea is that individual firms are more productive and competitive when they operate close to related firms, even industry competitors. Simple reasons include the ability to draw from a much deeper talent pool, knowledge sharing, and concentrated lobbying power for more favorable political treatment. So basically China is copying Japan with the MITI industrial planning poo poo? Worked out great for the Japanese, so uh, good for them And yes, it is a very efficient way to build lots of empty office buildings. Again, beaten to the punch by 30 years icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:So what is the downside of them devaluing their currency day after day? I know very little about economics so sorry for the stupid questions. 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
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:My dumb question, China's been growing ridiculously rapidly. Whatever the official numbers, the state of the country proves that well enough. So let's say it's been over 10% since Deng's reforms and it slows down to 2%. What's the big deal? 2% is a pretty good normal growth rate for a country. I get why zero or negative would be bad but I don't get what would be so bad about normal growth instead of insane growth. I know a lot of CCP legitimacy is their promise to make people's lives better, but that would still be true as long as the economy is not negative. I do not at all buy that people would be rising up if growth was just normal, the average person here is way too nationalist and pro-CCP for that. Not really no. Poorer countries are supposed to grow faster than wealthy ones, and even the US did close to 5% per year in the 90s and hasn't really dipped below 2.5% since outside of the 2008 crash. China is an order of magnitude poorer than the US and if they can't even manage those numbers something is horribly wrong with their economy. Given China's nominal level of development I'm pretty sure 7% is the appropriate number, which is why it's what the CCP is saying 1 or 2% is like Japan style life support growth icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
The whole "China can't have disorder ever because it's special" thing has always bothered me, premodern China had basically the most stable political regime in the world for literally thousands of years. The Middle East has been at war basically constantly for its entire history, whereas China has a bad civil war every few hundred years and suddenly China can't have democracy or human rights or non-fudged unemployment numbers because of its horrible civil wars? Like literally China was probably the most internally stable premodern society by a long shot. Obviously the chaos of the late 19th/early 20th centuries looms large in the Chinese consciousness, but this is another entry on the list of orientalist garbage vomited out by Chinaboos to excuse the CCP I especially like the casualty figures for the pseudo-mythological war mostly attested in epic literature taken at face value. Did you know that 10 billion people died in Roman-Persian wars just like contemporary historians claimed? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:If wide swaths of the market are still frozen, how are the pension funds going to be able to invest? Just in the shallow remaining market, bailing out the holders of frozen equities privately, or something else? I think "frozen" actually is code for "can only go up". If someone comes to the Chinese SEC with a suitcase full of pension money and says they want to dump it all into the stocks they're trying to prop up those stocks will mysteriously unfreeze for long enough to do that
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:At its heart the issue is that China has probably run up against the end of industrial revolution, and trying to move to a consumer/post-industrial is going to be very rocky for them. (That said, saying the previous sentence 5 years ago in this forum would be met with howls of laughter. Times change I guess.) They've hit the end of the "export poo poo to the US" revolution. Leaving stuff like climate change/resource depletion aside, they should be able to continue developing just fine with their own internal economy, but they're so hosed up they can't. It's not like the US industrialized by being a gigantic export factory selling things to a much larger, wealthier country, at least not past the very initial stages
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah they did, they just called that country "Europe". That's why I said 'beyond the initial stages' The US economy was larger than any European economy by the post Civil War era and at that point demand was mostly internal. The US economy was never nearly as geared towards exports as China is or Japan was in its day
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's why I didn't specify a specific European economy. You're going to have to come up with some kind of evidence beyond a giant reified  if you're saying the US was ever as dependent on exports as China is? Here's a random website with historical data for American exports as a percentage of GDPhttp://www.econdataus.com/tradeall.html  So it peaks in 1920 at 10% probably related to WW1, and between 1860 and 1960 doesn't stray much above 5%. Meanwhile the World Bank says China is at 25% currently and peaked at 35% before 2008 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Alright I must be missing something here. As bullshit as China's government is, I don't understand why things are tanking as hard and fast as they are now. I'm not an economist but I wouldn't think low commodity prices would affect an exporter like China much at all, they would just pass any savings, or costs if commotiy prices rose, on to the end consumer they're exporting manufactured poo poo to. It's good for the US, bad for commodity producers but for manufacturers like China nothing really changes
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Except I was under the impression that the American and European economies were doing better and consumption was expected to increase. So shouldn't that mean good times ahead for China's cheap crap? The problem is that for China to keep relying on the export model the US would have to buy exponentially more stuff than it does now, as opposed to just slightly more stuff which is what a comparatively good US economy means. You can only go so far by hitching your wagon to the US, especially when you have 5 times as many people as the US who all want to have a high standard of living
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Time to get in on the next big thing and build factories in Western/Central Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria quote:Nigeria is considered to be an emerging market by the World Bank;[18] It has been identified as a regional power on the African continent,[17][19][20] a middle power in international affairs,[21][22][23][24] and has also been identified as an emerging global power.[25][26][27] Nigeria is a member of the MINT group of countries, which are widely seen as the globe's next "BRIC-like" economies. It is also listed among the "Next Eleven" economies set to become among the biggest in the world
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so are we gonna see like rioting in the streets in china over this or the Chinese great depression going to just be swept under the rug by the central government. The real trigger of the Chinese Apocalypse would be a housing bubble crash, but that might not actually happen so China might go out with a whimper instead of a bang, with the government cheesetriangles posted:How does letting the market correct gel with hey maybe pump all the pension money into this? If they were going to let it correct and stop burning all their reserves on propping it up why sink pension money into a market that was burning down? I guess they were hoping they'd be able to have the market only drop a little bit, and would then need a suitable excuse for that? But ultimately they couldn't
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I look forwards to posting on the internet 20 years from now about how Vietnam is the inscrtuable Oriental superpower come to reclaim its 5000 year destined place at the center of the universe with its all-knowing bureacratic economic planners and lack of pesky multiparty democracy and free press I wonder if you dug through Usenet logs if you could find this exact thread happening in 1991 w/ Japan instead of China icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
I think putting money on the CCP leaving power in the next decade or two at least is an even worse proposition than buying into the Shanghai Exchange right now. Death is certain, bad things happen to good people, etc. Sucks to be China I guess
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Also after this is all said and done, no one is getting pensions anymore are they? Did they get pensions to begin with? I would just assume all public money disappears into officials' pockets anyways
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Morrow posted:Ethnic Cleansing with Chinese Characteristics would be incredibly, incredibly bad. Like, it would redefine global politics and economics. It's funny because Ethnic Cleansing with Chinese characteristics is what's happening right now as the status quo, just only if you're a Uighyr or a Tibetan or a Yunnan person or a Zhuang
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Splitting off the various non-Mandarin Han subgroups isn't really feasible in part because those groups have basically always been politically united for the last 2000 years, but I don't see how you can say Xinjiang and Tibet shouldn't be split with a straight face. That's not Russia and Tatarstan or Siberia, that's Russia and Estonia or Georgia or Tajikstan Mongolia and Manchuria are weird cases because Mongolia is basically uninhabited anyways outside of a short length of the Yellow River valley which is entirely Han, and Manchuria has been almost entirely ethnically cleansed by Han Chinese farmers, as opposed to Tibet/Xinjiang which haven't been (yet) icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Well obviously the CCP isn't going to let their water supply go independent, but don't pretend there's any justification for it other than naked sociopathic imperialism
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Okinawa? Hokkaido? The Inuit? Basques? The Natives in North and South America? The idea that you're saying China is the only country that should be broken up is also pretty foolish and yet all those other governments will hold those territorials with armed force just as much. "Might makes right" is generally considered not really a good justification for anything by liberal democratic standards? The only legitimate obstacle to national self-determination is the amount of ethnic cleansing required to do it. Hokkaido and Manchuria both would require shittons, but Okinawa and the Basques should probably be independent yeah. Natives in Latin America are another weird case because they're not necessarily strictly separated culturally from the people descended from Euro colonialists, and even then yes the languages should be protected Raenir Salazar posted:It's pretty much a masturbatory fantasy either way but don't pretend it's overwhelmingly something only China should do. It's not something only China should do, but China is the only country that has a legion of people jumping to its defense whenever its criticized for it. If you said that Basque Country or Catalonia or Scotland should be independent most people just nod their heads and say 'yeah sure', any time Tibet is mentioned you get people either outright saying China gets to do it because western imperialism or people saying might makes right and that liberal standards of genocide and ethnic cleansing being bad are for pussies icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 23:44
|
|