|
enraged_camel posted:People have been predicting China's crash for well over a decade. Predictions like that are made by economic incumbents (USA and allies, i.e. the West) to sow doubt in people's minds about China's upcoming rockstar status. It's the way a veteran boxer looks at a young trainee, shakes his head and goes, "tsk tsk... he's training too hard." And then gets beaten a few years down the line by said trainee, who is now the champion. That's not the narrative I've been seeing pushed over the past decade, which is that China is destined to dominate the world with a super-powerful economy that will leave the West in shame. This narrative has been so prevalent that shitloads of people already believe that China is the most powerful country in the world. Widespread worry about the stability of the Chinese economy wasn't really a thing until the past few months. This looks a lot more like Japan in the 80's, where everyone thought it was going to surpass the West and become the most powerful country in the world for the same reasons they think that China will now (that reason being Asian Magic apparently.)
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
ronya posted:Important thing to remember is that there's a lot of ruin in a nation, and when the inevitable financial crisis finally occurs, it is not likely to reverse all of that growth. Right, but even now after decades of lightning-fast growth the Chinese economy is only half as big as the American economy and it's starting to cool. Narratives of China surpassing the US are exaggerated in basically every way but China will definitely be a great power for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:That's why I find this topic fascinating. China's gone from an agrarian medieval society to 21st century economic titan in the span of 60 years. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Slaan posted:So when he said 'China, which was uncharted unlike the US/UK' I read it as this. Except that is literally not the combination of words I used to form my sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:There's been some noise That China is just about to overtake the United states as the largest economy in the world by Purchasing Power Parity I dont know if this really means anything because it's not really as decisive as GDP per capita is in terms of true economic power but I guess the wind is blowing in that direction, doesnt mean that china is ACTUALLY a more developed country than the US by a long shot. The Economist has been really excited about the idea of Chinese economic dominance for some reason and keeps on writing articles like this that don't mean anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Between that and Ukraine, the final nail in the coffin of all that 90s "hyperpower" rhetoric and the ascendance of a multi-polar world, the likes of which we haven't seen since the First World War (which multi-polarisation of power arguably caused). You have a strange definition of a multipolar world.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:And while this is being presented as a serious proposal, should it be taken seriously? I wouldn't, particularly since it offers no tangible benefit over flying. At first I thought that it was supposed to be a prestige project but even that wouldn't really be true if this thing was built unless the entire thing was built by Chinese laborers under the control of the Chinese government and good luck getting anyone to agree to that. I'd lump it in with that super-subway Elon Musk idea that was floating around the internet a few months ago. A neat idea but it'll remain an idea. Adventure Pigeon posted:They need huge infrastructure projects to keep their GDP flying high, and this would be a hell of a lot more useful to them economically and politically than another empty city. "Rest of the world please help us keep an unsustainably high rate of GDP growth in order to keep the CCP in power by letting us build useless crap that nobody will use in your countries too."
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Freight from Chinese factories arriving in the Americas faster ships, but still significantly cheaper than air freight isn't exactly insignificant. Sure they talk up the passenger stuff, but fast freight would be pretty major. True, I didn't consider freight. That still seems to presume that China will have a manufacturing-based economy forever though, and I can't see anyone allowing China exclusive control over such a massive project, particularly one that crosses multiple national borders. That of course presents a problem, because if other nations get heavily involved it ceases to become a "Chinese rail" and hence lowers the prestige associated with building it.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
I also just noticed that judging by its lack of mention in the article the ideal Chinese international rail system is one that completely bypasses Japan.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
The Chinese had the Russians by the balls and likely knew it, hence the apparent twisting of said balls.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Did the Chinese actually say that they unequivocally support the Russian position on Ukraine? I hadn't heard about that and sounds like a pretty stark reversal from their neutrality.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
If I recall the US produces a substantial surplus of food. The North American plains are possibly the most fertile farmlands in the world and farming technology has advanced very rapidly over the past century. Regarding feeding China, I don't think people on either side of the pacific are going to be very receptive to "well then everyone should be less prosperous" arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:I was specifically responding to a comment about the North American plains. :P North American and European populations are pretty stable and the world isn't going to turn into a massive desert. This is a problem that will be felt everywhere but it is unlikely to impact the life of your average Joe Westerner like it will if you live in China, India, or Africa.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Isn't it supposed to be beneficial for Britain? Like, you'll be able to have wineries in Scotland? North America has such an huge amount of geographic diversity that yeah it'll probably be fine. I don't know enough about China's geography but isn't most of China's farmland in the south?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that a 2-3 degree temperature increase would be anything but devastating for China. Granted China is large and according to that map has a great deal of geographical diversity so I'm sure it'll be beneficial to some areas, much like in the United States, but when you're talking about a billion+ people it seems like anything that could disrupt food supply would instantly be a crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
I hear that official reports should be taken with a grain of salt. Should we take this with a grain of salt?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Fangz posted:No one expects say, Chinese economic growth to proceed at the current rate for 50 years. I would hazard to say that the media does. I remember one projection that predicted that by 2100 the Chinese economy would have a GDP of like 125 trillion or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:I'll raise you: Standard Chartered thinks China will have double the GDP of the US in 16 years. Is part of these ridiculously inflated forecasts simply the fallacy of "China has more people therefore China's GDP will eventually be higher than the US's by a proportionate amount?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Isn't China like 60th in the world for per-capita GDP?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Doesn't Japan also have a problem in that for a country known for producing high-tech goods its management style is still surprisingly low-tech? Like, "I have to fax poo poo to my boss because he doesn't have a PC or e-mail?" That's just based on an anecdote from a friend but if it's widespread I could also see it holding the economy back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:One thing is that China is seen as a counter-balance to the US and the only real "chance" to replace the US as a the largest economy on earth. However, that reasoning also accepts what China (and the US ironically enough) has done to make that result happen. This plays a significant part in it. There's a narrative that's been permeated everywhere since the 2008 Financial Crisis that developing economies will soon be the masters of the world and that America and the West are in decline. There are a ton of true believers in this, particularly in countries like Russia and China and I suspect that plays no small part in why they've both acted far more belligerent as of late.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:America is in "decline" relative to earlier but that's because there's nowhere to go but down after the post WW2 situation. The key point though is that some believe the narrative is "[BRICS country] will take the US's position" when in reality it will be "[BRICS country] will be comparable with the US in 20XX but will not have a very large share of the pie". Even that is questionable since the middle-income trap has already claimed several of the vaunted BRICS economies and seems poised to capture China as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
quote:Even if China starts growing at a far slower path it will still have exceeded the US as the largest economy in the world, or will do so eventually if you use nominal measure of GDP. This assumes a permanently stagnant US economy which is not the case. quote:None of the major geopolitical rivals to the US in the 20th century: Germany, Japan and the USSR, has came even close to match the amount of economic resources the US possessed. The USSR did, it just turns out that central planning is a really inefficient way to run an economy. quote:Yeah, it's really problematic, and the solution to it is political change in the PRC. And the result of that might very well be a 50/50 between wonderful and disastrous. Avoiding the middle-income trap by adopting western style democracy is the way that Japan and South Korea managed to avoid it, and if China does so it may be able to avoid it as well, though I will point out that under such circumstances a US-China rivalry probably wouldn't exist anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:That's right, all democracies are friends. They tend to be more inclined to tolerate one another's competition.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Argentina re: The Falklands. Argentina was run by a military dictatorship when it went to war. Nowadays they grumble about it but aren't antagonistic about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
And arguing that adopting democracy automatically makes you a western puppet is precisely the kind of argument that authoritarian regimes including the CCP regularly employ.computer parts posted:Define hostile, since apparently Russia doesn't count. Russia as of 2014 I would say is definitely hostile, what I would question is whether it's actually a democracy rather than a sham democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
I'm not sure I buy the Chinese government suddenly pulling out an extra 3.4 percent for last year the moment it becomes obvious that they won't meet their GDP goals for this year.quote:In terms of market exchange rates, which are viewed as a better measure of a country’s relative weight in the global economy, economists expect China’s economy to become the world’s largest sometime in the 2020s. That's weird, four years ago they were predicting 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That's if it kept growing by 15% each year. I know, I just find it amusing that the date of the inevitable Chinese takeover keeps getting pushed back.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
So this is an attempt to avoid a hard landing and economic crash, rather than an attempt to maintain growth levels, yes?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
So there's lots of hemming and hawing about China having the largest economy when adjusted for PPP. But when I look at nominal GDP and GDP per capita China is still way behind. How meaningful is the PPP adjustment?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Sauzer posted:China Economy Megathread, 2025: I'm not sure there will be a 1929-esque hard landing but the Chinese economic miracle is definitely over and there are tough times ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
So lots of ink has been spilled about China's attempts to "rebalance" its economy away from production and towards consumption. I'm a little bit confused as to how that's supposed to work though, because doesn't becoming a consumption-based economy necessitate also being a high income economy? China is still 82nd in the world for GDP per capita and the average Chinese income is still below $5000. How exactly are people envisioning a consumption based economy will work?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
What of those countries don't want the Chinese to come and build a bunch of infrastructure that nobody will use? I doubt India would be keen on the prospect of the Chinese building most of their stuff for example. In fact China has cheesed off most of its neighbours in Southeast Asia as well. That leaves Africa but Africa remains a very unstable place to invest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That's good if you're a foreign company exporting things to China, but the relative size is important for the structural health of China's economy. This is true. If China's middle class only makes up a small segment of its population then a consumption based economy will be impossible, and based on the numbers China's middle class is small and not growing fast enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You're seeing this in parts of Africa---China came in, built infrastructure in exchange for mining and land concessions, elimination of trade unions, death of the African garment and refining industries. Now you have hospitals and schools with no doctors, no teachers, no electricity, and populations quite displeased with officials who work eith Chinese rather participate in American and French development projects. Not only that but aren't there multiple cases of China investing in African dictatorships only to have said countries take the investment and then tell China to piss off? Because what's China going to do, invade? Sanction them? Shut them out of trade organizations?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
So apparently the inevitable overtaking of US GDP by China is going to happen around 2030 now. Last year they were predicting it'd happen in 2024 In 2011 they were predicting 2018 Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:2017 is for GDP by Purchasing Power Parity. 2030 is for nominal GDP. By some estimates China already has a larger GDP PPP. Yeah I edited my post when I realized that some said PPP. It should all be nominal predictions now. Still noticing a pattern.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:According to your numbers, new year's prediction will be 2038. Most articles I've read expect China to miss its 7% growth target this year and are already seeing a more noticeable amount of capital flight. So yeah it will probably be pushed back again. And again. And again. Especially as the US economy surges.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:National PPP GDP is a useful measure on the potential war economy of a country. 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. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Advanced military hardware no (which is only made in advanced economies and therefore imported). Basic supplies, basic weapons, food etc, maybe. None of which are as relevant in warfare as they used to be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 21:31
|
|