China Economy Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > China Economy Megathread

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

computer parts posted:

It only took the USSR about 30 years, command economies are good for short term economic growth.

The Soviet Union went from medieval to developed economy by contemporary 1950 standards in ~30 years. That's a much smaller step than the same starting point to 21st century standards. Though I agree command economies can be great for rapid directed development and China is a semi example of that.

Fojar38 posted:

Not that difficult when a decent chunk of the world has already advanced to a post-industrial society and is pouring money and investment into China.

The paradigm of industrialization had already been well established by the time China industrialized, whereas it was completely uncharted when England and the US industrialized.

This is why I find it hard to accept comparisons between early industrialization and modern development. The policy options available to modern developing economies are completely different. No country has or should emulate economic policy from the 19th century.

Helsing posted:

Can anyone think of any economy in the last thirty years that has grown rapidly without relying in part on asset bubbles or the presence of a valuable commodity like oil?

Other Asian Tigers like Taiwan and South Korea? Their starting points were similar but they're way ahead today.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2014 01:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:39

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Helsing posted:

Some policy options are different but there are some very striking similarities in terms of circumstances and strategy that show up in the history of successfully developed countries its foolhardy to dismiss or ignore them.

Quickly which ones? I'm accustomed to hearing about protection, government direction and land reform. I have a hard time with the first two on the grounds that they don't directly lead to growth (accumulation of capital) and at best they can only be a catalyst to its internal production (contrast with trade and foreign investment which can literally net you a crane or a CNC machine).

Industrialization and rapid economic development are themselves a common element when making these comparisons so it's easy for cause and effect to be obfuscated.

quote:

Those countries had a very nasty experience in 1997, and I think its noteworthy that it followed a rather similar path to what happened in the US or Japan. A period of booming growth and lax government regulation leads to asset bubbles and eventually a huge number of non-performing loans which leads to a sharp and contagious economic downturn.

What do you mean similar path to U.S. or Japan (the U.S. started industrializing 2 centuries ago..)?

Are you just contrasting them to China which has so far mostly avoided crisis? I agree that generally centralized systems should be more stable and that China stands as a pretty unique example with both really rapid growth and a highly state driven economy.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2014 13:53

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Helsing posted:

Over the last five centuries there's been a fairly reliable dynamic at play where certain industries, whether its textiles or automobiles or information technology, tend to be growing at a much faster rate than any other industry. This paper gives an overview of this process. As the paper demonstrates industries tend to follow something called a "learning curve".

As we see with these examples from the textiles and footwear industries there is an initial burst of productivity growth that eventually tapers off. Eventually the technology, which was previously transformative, becomes such a ubiquitous and standard part of the economy that we barely even notice it, and productivity growth in the industry becomes measurably slower or basically stops altogether.

Successful industrialization tends to revolve around encouraging industries that are still in the takeoff phase of the learning curve. Poorer countries tend to be countries that are stuck producing goods that have already had all their potential for explosive productivity gains exhausted. Obviously this changes over time. So in the 19th century Britain was specialized in textiles, which were then experiencing a dizzying climb in productivity. As textiles reached the mature phase of the learning curve however the productivity growth tapered off and Britain began to transition to other goods. Today textiles tend to be something that poor countries specialize in.

As Reinert explains:

A successful industrializing strategy tends to revolve around identifying industries that are still in the early phase of the learning curve and finding ways to stimulate this industry domestically. While many countries accumulate capital and foreign reserves by initially producing goods like textiles that have already 'matured', the countries that succesfully reach middle or high income status have economies that are able to make the transition to producing goods with high productivity growth.This high productivity growth makes it possible to have both high wages and high profits and leads to a virtuous circle of development.

That may involve protective tariffs, subsidies, attracting foreign capital, building right kind of infrastructure, establishing the right trade relationships, ensuring you have the right kind of financial system, etc.

By way of analogy there is no precise strategy for winning a boxing match but that doesn't mean that a boxer can expect to win if they don't learn the techniques of boxing. You have to know how to throw a jab, a cross or a hook and how to cover up when your opponent is pummelling you. Similarly, if you want to industrialize your country and reach high income status globally then you need to be familiar with the menu of techniques that can stimulate the right kind of industrial growth so that your economy doesn't end up specializing in industries with low productivity gains and, as a result, low wages.

Really poor countries are really poor because they're not productive at anything. They're not productive at anything because they lack human and physical capital.

When you're starting from low levels of productivity across the board international productivity averages and growth rates don't matter. What matters is figuring out the quickest way to grow the productivity of your workers. Not coincidentally this often means adopting the industries which developed countries figured out and perfected a long time ago.

So for example while textile productivity growth rates may be low and stagnated internationally they still might be far higher than your country's current productivity average. So installing boring t-shirt machines can be a boon. The point is I agree that productivity and productivity growth rates are critical, but so long as productivity is growing it doesn't matter whether it's coming from a cutting edge industry or not.

I think the burden of worrying about that falls primarily on already developed countries. And separately we'd have to decide what the role of government is navigating between productive industries when profit already creates the incentive to do exactly that.

quote:

That could be said of almost any complex process. The role of scholarship is to investigate the underling processes so that we can identify causal mechanisms.

I thought I explained myself pretty clearly in that post. It tends to be the case that when a country is growing really rapidly and at the forefront of technological innovation you'll have a boom period which creates the conditions for so called 'irrational exuberance'. Growth in the real economy leads to growth in the financial economy. Credit and loans get extended to riskier and riskier ventures as the boom persists, creating the potential for bubbles to appear. Eventually something happens that halts the boom and suddenly a lot of the loans made during the boom become none-performing. It turns out that some investments that made sense during the height of the boom were actually not such a good idea. The result is a painful economic slowdown or contraction.

You can see this kind of pattern occurring in the US with the long depression and, a half century later, the Great Depression (arguably something similar may have happened in 2007 / 2008). In both cases a period of very impressive growth in the real economy eventually produced a speculative bubble that popped, leading to an economic contraction. You can also see it in the case of Japan, which grew very rapidly during the 70s and 80s, leading to an asset bubble that eventually popped, which lead to the 'lost decade(s)'.

My point about China was that, based on these precedents, there's reason to believe that sooner or later the Chinese economy will have to face some kind of reckoning. It seems to be a standard part of explosive economic growth.

Yeah bubbles and crisis are obviously part of the process with capitalism and I agree that history suggests China should hit one soon.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2014 02:01

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

flatbus posted:

This narrative isn't what happens in real life, and I'm shocked that people still think this way despite the opposite being heavily documented in mainstream media. There's tons of liberal tearjerkers about sweatshops and cheap labor in Asia and Africa, and you don't hear about developing countries adopting the latest fully automated assembly systems. There's a reason for that - developing countries are competing on the cost of labor and if you have high productivity systems, the cost of labor goes down and so does that advantage. Without a strong state to say 'adopt this less profitable but technologically advanced venture,' there is no incentive for firms in a developing country to adopt the latest productive technologies if it's more profitable to stick with labor-intensive ones. That's why very basic poo poo is still made by humans in poor countries when they can be made by robots, and it's hampering the growth of productivity.

If a country has an abundance of workers doing low productivity tasks then it's likely to be more profitable to distribute cheap capital widely than expensive capital to just a few of them (and given a certain dollar amount, that's the choice). Profit here isn't capitalist profit, but general surplus (and remember, subsidies are money taken from somewhere).

Pointing out that poor workers are engaged in labor intensive and therefore low productivity jobs is obvious, but the latest machinery is going to come out of thin air. It's going to have to be slowly accumulated.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2014 04:22

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

flatbus posted:

This goes directly against the claim that countries can benefit from the path (or technology) taken by previously industrializing countries. China has a very strong state so I'm not counting it here (and this is going to veer off topic so I'll watch myself), but if you're saying that it's obvious that a developing country can't make use of the latest productive tech and should climb up the productivity chain all by its own, how in the world is convergence ever going to happen unless the developed countries stop innovating?

No, you seem to be trying to drive a wedge between "the latest capital" and "capital that's better than we have now". I'm trying to argue that the distinction doesn't matter, so long as it's some capital that improves productivity.

Typo posted:

The latest? No, but look at this way, if a country is at the developmental level circa 1900, and another country is at the level circa 1980, the former can still do very well by adopting the technology of 1950.

This is the best way to sum it up. But you can go from 1900 levels of capital to 1950 levels of capital in far less than 50 years. It's always easier to adopt technology that's already been developed. This helps lead to convergence.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2014 14:22

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Helsing posted:

Yes, at a low enough level of development it makes sense to adopt really basic industries like textiles since they are an improvement over agriculture. England, the US, Japan and Korea all followed a similar path. However that first step has to be followed by developing industries with greater room for rapid productivity growth and that usually requires that you somehow protect or subsidize your strategic industry from superior international competition.

Countries that get trapped in labour intensive low productivity industries won't automatically transition out of it once they magically accumulate enough capital.

Why?

Subsidies of all forms are basically just run of the mill investments - you take money from one place in the economy and invest it in another. At best the government's advantage is it's borrowing rate or size, but like any other investment there are costs and no guarantee of success.

What you're asking for here, choosing high growth industries, is exactly the thing private capital is trying to do at the same time. And after accumulating a certain amount of capital it should be in a position to do exactly that.

Government of course has an incredibly important role doing all the things government is uniquely well suited for - education, infrastructure, regulatory framework etc, but picking and choosing winning industries isn't really among them.

Though I'll note that I think it's obvious from historical examples that government involvement in industry often isn't harmful, especially when the path to develop (get/deploy basic capital) is fairly clearcut. But that remains somewhat far removed from being evidence that it's necessary.

The best argument here I think one of stability - government investment can be more stable than private which is relevant for certain industries. But I see that as a more limited argument applicable to specific industries rather than a general necessity for growth across the board.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2014 03:43

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Nessus posted:

The government has a time horizon beyond 'the next quarter' so there's that at least.

Don't just parrot dumb arguments. The larger implication of the claim that business is exceedingly shortsighted is that the capitalist class is unable or unwilling peruse long term goals. I doubt that's the point you're trying to make.

Generally I think business is too shortsighted too but it's a human trait which government is certainly not immune too. We have ample examples of politically expedient but shortsighted legislation. Government however still has some advantages in terms of long term investment in the sense that the actual interests of the population as a whole can't shift as fast as any individual firm or investor nor can government change policy as quickly as them if it wanted too. Government can also probably safely assume that it's going to be around in a decade or two.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2014 06:21

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

I think this post does a good job zooming in on the disagreements. I'll mostly just rephrase and highlight them here.

Helsing posted:

The government is not compelled by the short term need to realize a profit on its investments. In many cases the industries that are necessary to incubate a high growth economy can be uncompetitive on the international scale for years so relying on private capital to make those investments is simply not feasible.

Predicting what's going to pay off in several years is the hard part and generally the inherent uncertainty behind long term investments is what discourages private capital. When they decide it's worth it businesses make 5-10 year investments all the time (cars, jets, processors for example).

So my problem with this argument is that government doesn't have an advantage on the prediction aspect which is actually the harder part and leaves government at just as much risk of loss.

The two main points that I see on your side here are that while private firms will be focused on their specialty, government can invest without caring where the returns end up coming from. This is an argument for general purpose research for example. And separately, as I commented earlier government should at least assume that it's going to be around in 2+ decades.

quote:

You want to have the presence of certain kinds of industry, such as high value added manufacturing, regardless of whether it can be internationally competitive in the short term. These are the industries that can provide rising wages, that utilize an educated workforce, and which can create spin off innovations.

To ensure the presence of that kind of economic activity you need the government to take a more active hand in managing the economy by encouraging some uses of capital and discouraging or limiting others.

Just to re-emphasize, while an industry requires subsidies it's costing the rest of the economy. Jobs which earn $15 an hour with a $5 subsidy are worse than jobs that earn $11 with none. When you replace the latter with the former you're losing in the immidiate. It's a real cost and it must be recouped.

The key argument is diversity here which I think makes some sense from a risk perspective at the least.

And again a key here is the human side - having a wider range of skills in your population makes the economy more adaptable. If this comes with a short term loss in growth or output I can see the argument that it may be worth it.

quote:

The problem with your suggestions is that economic development is a lot more complicated than just the accumulation of capital.

No, not really*. See below.

quote:

You need the right institutions and the right balance between economic sectors to actually create the conditions for sustainable long term growth in living standards. Having the right industries will create knock on effects that are good for the rest of the economy and the workforce, whereas following the short term dictates of capital will mean that you keep reinvesting your resources in the areas where you already have a 'comparative advantage', i.e. low productivity manufacturing, basic agriculture and resource extraction.

I agree with this because all of these things actually feed back into capital accumulation (physical and human). Countries really are poor because they're lacking capital but then the question shifts to why? That's what's complex and the answer includes most of the things here.

It may be a nitpick but I think it keeps the emphasis where it ought to be.

*How well capital gets used depends on management, workforce participation, working hours etc but all these things vary by only 10's of percent. While capital and skills vary by orders of magnitude and correspond to the roughly two orders of magnitude differences between economies in the world.

asdf32 fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 23, 2014

# ¿ Mar 23, 2014 18:10

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Helsing posted:

As far as the track record of the neoliberal era you can refer to this document. Growth rates have been much worse since the turn toward market liberalization and the 'Washington Consensus'. Even making some allowance for the idea that different eras have different growth potential (i.e. maybe something about the 1950s-1970s made that era more amendable to growth regardless of the economic policies in place) its still quite remarkable just how lovely the real world results of market liberalization have been in contrast to the bad old days of protectionism, capital controls and Keynesian economics.

As for the more specific claims on Peru, this whole paper is worth reading (and quite relevant to a thread on the Chinese economy) but I'll just make an extended quote here:

Getting back to China, I think its hilarious the way free market fundamentalists have tried to use China's economic growth as some kind of vindication of neoliberal policies or of the so called 'Washington Consensus' model of development. While China certainly represents a break from Soviet style central planning its absolutely not an example of a free market success story. Instead it exemplifies how what are basically mercantilist policies continue to be the most reliable toolkit for developing your national economy - provided that you are strong enough to resist other countries when they try to tell you that you'd be better off focusing on your 'comparative advantage' in cheap labour.

Using cheap labour and low value added industries as a stepping stone toward real economic development is acceptable, but it needs to be accompanied by a conscious policy of incubating a strong manufacturing sector with a high level of value added (even if that means protection against superior foreign competitors for an extended period of time, maybe even indefinitely since you're still better off with an inefficient manufacturing sector than you are with nothing at all, as we see in the case of Peru).

Any examples are interesting but being a small country which suffered political instability at the time it liberalized makes it a difficult example to generalize from. I'd like to see more about the claims of government debt too.

Though in your defence a broader discussion could be had here, but I don't think Peru is ideal for it.

Wikipedia: Import Substitution posted:

For the six largest south american economies the phase of import substitution between 1940 and 1980 was the highest growth period in the last century with a growth of 2.7% per year on average. In the export-oriented era from 1900 till 1939 growth was at 1.3% and in the neoliberal era from 1980 to 2000 at 0.6%.[13]

One thing that's important about China for discussions like this is it's size. When China is able to grow and reduce poverty it means a significant chunk of the worldwide population is improving. We don't have to try and generalize from it (though we may want too).

I still don't think you're showing recognition of the fundamental importance of trade, especially for economy like Peru which doesn't have any hope of substituting imports for, well, most things including critical items like industrial equipment, computers, telecommunications etc. And again the landscape has really changed here. Mexico manufactured 95% of it's consumer goods in the 60's - this wouldn't be possible or desirable today. And as the technological gap widens between developed and undeveloped countries comparative advantage becomes more and more powerful.

China does rely on the comparative advantage of cheap labor as a major component of it's growth which is exactly why it gets brought up as an example of that. Personally, I generally don't go a whole lot beyond pointing this out. Trade is key, and a certain amount of liberalization (and not too much protection) is necessary to create it. China is a great example of this.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2014 02:04

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Sure it does, a lack of agency in peoples lives is a well documented source of depression.

What do you mean by agency? If your father was a cobbler or farmer then you were expected to be a cobbler or farmer and/or had no other choice. In terms of opportunity and agency the modern era is better than it's ever been. (To the point where people in developed countries honestly may have too many options and opportunities in life - choices cause anxiety.)

On the other hand in modern times the work we do has become more abstract and less tangible. When you're a cobbler or farmer you see the results of your labor every day. When you're a cubicle worker or button pusher there is often less tangible satisfaction. I think this is a real thing that may have some negative consequences.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2014 03:54

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Fojar38 posted:

No it isn't.

Edit: You can't adjust the price of advanced military hardware and vehicles, like missiles and warplanes, to the cost of living, which is what PPP measures.

Advanced military hardware no (which is only made in advanced economies and therefore imported). Basic supplies, basic weapons, food etc, maybe.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 21:28

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Fojar38 posted:

People talk about how the Chinese and American economies are symbiotic when they aren't. It's more of a case of Americans farming Chinese labour and they'll move on to another farm once it craters.

Except that China's economy cratering only encourages more investment.

US companies will move on if it doesn't crater.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2015 23:35

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

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.

I want to know how wrong I am on this, since I believe this to be the central problem with the world.

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.

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

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

My Imaginary GF posted:

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.

"Consumption based economy" is an obfuscatory twist on "not poor".

China does work with "in the US system".

# ¿ Apr 20, 2015 00:34

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

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: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

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

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Arglebargle III posted:

No it doesn't. You're being ridiculous. Why are you talking about Greece and China in the same sentence? The guy asked "could China have trouble defending their currency?" and the answer is "no, and it's not likely to be a problem in the first place" but you said all of this. What situation could even see a falling yuan anyway? The ruble fell because people stopped buying Russian exports all of a sudden. When is China likely to head into trade deficit? You brought the conversation in this direction talking about foreign exchange as if it mattered in this Chinese banking story, and you're just grasping to make yourself look like you said something relevant. "lose a grip on the Yuan entirely" seriously?

Oh my god this page.

For some reason this thread causes people to speak with certainty about international high finance.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2015 19:30

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

VideoTapir posted:

I don't want to completely dissuade her. I mean I presume she has at least a sliver of financial education (she has a degree in port management of all things) , but it's clear she doesn't know what she's doing. This isn't something one should do unless you understand it.

Managing investments is something most people shouldn't do, including many people who do it.

That said, if it's a smallish amount of money let her do it for the experience or "un. Just don't consider it investing.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2015 14:51

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Friendly reminder: none of you are actually qualified to talk with certainty about international macroeconomic finance.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2015 01:50

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Fojar38 posted:

Oh well might as well close this thread then. Nobody here is qualified to talk about the nuances of the world's second largest economy after all.

There is a line between economic discussion and wild financial speculation. This thread indulges in a lot of the latter.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2015 02:07

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Oakland Martini posted:

Actually if you look at my previous posts in D&D you'll find I'm either telling the truth or I've been telling this sort of lie for a long time. Some posters in the science and academics subforum know who I am I think.

I vouch for this.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2015 04:15

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

dr_rat posted:

You vouch that he's telling the truth, or that hes been lying a very long time?

You don't just say yes to a multiple choice question, drat it.

That he's telling the truth or is lying but also knows lots about economics.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2015 21:23

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Al-Saqr posted:

Can someone give me a quick and dirty on how stock market crashes like this can just magically happen out of thin air? or did a major housing bubble burst or something even happen that I missed?

A stock market bubble is inherently unstable. That's what makes it a bubble. It doesn't necesarily need anything significant to spark a crash.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 15:56

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

EngineerJoe posted:

Yeah seriously, shorting is actually a good thing for a healthy market. Naked shorting is a whole different beast though.

Yes except everyone forgets this in a down market and goes after the short sellers like a witch hunt.

Franks Happy Place posted:

Calling it now: the government will soon grab a random trader/broker/whatever and charge him with "malicious short-selling" and make a public example out of him in a bid to scare others.

Oh you beat me to this.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2015 22:53

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

RocknRollaAyatollah posted:

Yes, they're shipped out of country and imported back in. This is why there's a good deal of iPhone smuggling from Hong Kong and elsewhere because the import taxes make it more expensive than in most markets.

That doesn't necesarily make sense to me but if so they'd have to go on the books as an export first. Though the export value would only be the cost of manufacture. The difference between that and the retail price would be a US import of Apple's software and IP (and this should be true regardless of whether they physically leave or not).

asdf32 fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Oct 13, 2015

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 23:19

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Mange Mite posted:

Lenovo is the only one with name recognition and that's only because they bought a far more famous computer company

They recently also bought Motorola and it looks like quality and design are both going down the shitter there too

They've had the Thinkpad brand for a decade and it's still a good brand. A decade is ample time to gently caress something up. So they get the credit now.

In general this thread is a bit of a headscratcher for me. What exactly is the anti-china thesis? Reminder that economically China is where South Korea was circa 1979 when South Korea was a basket case under martial law and no one had heard of Samsung or Kia. Japan was at China's level in the 50's before Honda had even made a car.

# ¿ May 26, 2016 01:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:39

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

icantfindaname posted:

Chinese smartphones are 'pretty good' in that they're identical clones of Samsung Android phones. Unfortunately Android is a Linux and therefore for autistics and third worlders, so Apple still wins. They're cheaper Galaxies, not cheaper Iphones

Neither SK nor Japan were Leninist single-party states. Neither of them were or are particularly liberal in opinion but they at least had the political economic structures set up in a liberal way, China meanwhile very much does not. And the state-backed export investment economic model, as we've seen with Japan, fails once you've saturated foreign markets for exports and reached the technological frontier in terms of capital investment, which China has. And both Japan and SK, despite having nominally liberal institutions, have failed miserably at moving beyond this economic problem for the last 25 years, so there's no reason to think China will outside of orientalist navel-gazing about 5000 years of history and civilization-state stuff, which seems to have receded pretty strongly in the last year or two

So repeat again: China is where Japan was in the 50's and south korea in the 70's. Japan's 90's stagnation after achieving first world standards of living is literally a dream for the Chinese now. China's economy isn't close to fully capitalized (obviously given their GDP ~$7k).

I'm on board with the idea that liberalization is good but do I need to say again that sk wasn't democratic until the late 80's? A lot can change in a decade or two.

# ¿ May 27, 2016 02:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > China Economy Megathread