|
Also more than military affairs, in terms of actual financial weight a nominal GDP is going to matter much more since PPP is only showing costs not assets. Also, I assume the discussion is over "international power" and in that sense China only has so much Yuan to work with, they may have lower costs but international markets work with currency. Basically, it will likely take quite a while for it to happen, and it may eventually work out that China gets caught in a middle-income trap/inverted demographics pyramid and the the relative power of the two countries becomes relatively static over the long-term as the "progress" China is making over the US slows to a crawl.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Slaan posted:From what I can tell, this is already starting to happen. Thanks to the one-child policy, there are far more people 45+ than there are younger than 30. As those born before the policy was started are retiring right around now, it's going to be a huge cost sink on their kids. Their kids have to support their own families in high-cost cities like Shanghai, with relatively lovely wages, plus their parents now because there isn't a good safety net in China for the elderly. Ultimately the problem is probably going to be domestic consumption, everyone was expecting the Chinese middle class to grow and develop a consumer culture that would be enough to pull China along but obviously there are problems with that expectation as expenses for the middle class grows. There is obviously a Chinese middle class but discretionary spending is still quite low and with the one child policy, it has caused the demographics of a late-developed country in a country that is still very much developing. Admittedly unlike Japan, China still has a peasant work force to pull from but they are still going to have considerable costs of taking care of the elderly. Right now Chinese nominal GDP is about 60% of US GDP, but it is quite possibly China starts to move toward a more "traditional" growth model in the next 10 years looking at the constantly downward revisions of GDP.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Npr had a story about the Shanghai stock exchange and all the people on the sidewalks giving sure-fire investment advice. This time it is going to be different, no fate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Admittedly, Russia has enough energy and water resources for itself. I think both countries are going to be very dysfunctional and corrupt but in different ways. China's danger is the middle income gap, its labor will be too expensive to compete with the lower rung of developing countries but its middle class won't be broad enough to support a traditional consumer economy. In this case, it will basically act like a poorer Japan with lowered growth, deflation fears and growing demographics crisis. That said, China will be a very large economy in nominal terms, and its military will continue to modernize. Ultimately, it won't dominate the world or disappear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:China would not become like Russia had become because the average Chinese person is aware of how market economics work and the long term benefits of stock ownership. Most Soviet citizens were ill prepared for market capitalism and democracy, which allowed the middle managers who were to come out on top. Yeah, we will see about that. I think a lot of the "average people" are going to lose their shirts in the coming stock crash. Also, there are other issues of massive corruption and inequality in China that are immensely comparable to the type of poo poo that goes down in Russia, hell China may be the teacher rather than the student in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Jesus no China has a manufacturing-oriented export economy, the largest population in the world and gigantic modern infrastructure projects and Russia has an extraction-oriented export economy a relatively small and shrinking population (for its land area) and terrible infrastructure everywhere outside of the Moscow-St. Petersburg corridor. China handled the transition to market capitalism much more smoothly and China has a much larger nominal GDP. I think the point is that China isn't necessary will literally become Russia but face a ton of problems comparable to Russia (but maybe not as bad as the 1990s). China has a bigger population and economy as you say, but its manufacturing-export economy is also heavily dependent on foreign demand, and if anything has maximized its returns. In addition, corruption is still endemic to China and has if anything fed the shadowing banking industry in a way comparable to the Russian black economy. Russia obviously has its dutch disease, but would probably be even worse shape if it didn't have access to energy. Also to be honest China's population is also an issue in itself coupled with the amount of environmental damage that has already happened, plenty of pollution happens in Russia but they have enough space to hide it in under the rug in a way China really can't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:How exactly is china analogous to russia beyond "they have a lot of problems with corruption"? How about authoritarianism, general lack of public input, nationalism/growing militarism and high inequality? Or maybe barely existing social systems and aging demographics (although Russia's certainly is worse overall)? Oh and I guess issues with separatism/regionalism and overall a poor relationship with their neighbors?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Greece would fit your mix-and-match metrics more so than China. Eh not so much, Greece as dysfunctional is it is compared to the rest of the EU, is still a pretty different category. The Chinese were hoping growth itself would be enough to patch together all the problems of contemporary China but it doesn't like it is going to enough. China does have some nice skyscrapers and high-speed rail lines, it also gets 90% of its energy from coal and still has a very large population of peasants. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
caberham posted:Get rich or die trying. Yeah, it is a bit like watching a rerun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
The savings grace is that China does have gigantic currency reserves which they can still call upon for fiscal stimulus, the "Chinese dream" is going to be dimmed but the CCP has a giant warchest. What it will probably mean is that Chinese growth is going to come to earth fairly hard, and China will start having to deal with problems every other middle income developing country has.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
CIGNX posted:China CANNOT use its foreign reserves to bail out its economy because the foreign reserves are, well, foreign currencies. The obligations of the entities that would be rescued in a bailout/stimulus are denominated in RMB. So even if the Chinese government were to use its foreign reserves for fiscal stimulus, in the end those foreign currencies will have to be exchange for an equivalent amount of RMB, which leads to the Chinese government's problem of figuring out where to get more RMB. The PBOC can create more RMB when they want to, the question is defending it, which they obviously can with those very reserves. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-02/china-may-soon-need-its-own-quantitative-easing-program The question is when the losses became insurmountable, but they won't reach that point in at least the mid-term. What most likely is going to happen is China is going to keep a loose policy like Japan did but at the same time growth is going to drop as consumers and exports both get sapped. Chinese population growth is still more positive than Japan, and China still has enough developmental headroom left for some growth but it is going to probably be in "normal ranges" of 2-5% rather than 7-10%. That said, if China is only growing a silver more than the US is, it is going to take far far longer for them to catch up, and at the same time the Chinese military almost certainly is going to eat up more of the budget. China is neither going to collapse nor will it dominate the world ala Looper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Peel posted:I can't wait for all the terrible The Indian Century articles in the ten-twenty year range. In the dark future, the NuRupee is the only world currency and everyone in the "conquered territories" eats only a diet of naan and dal rations. How did it go so wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/15/asia-pacific/forget-fukushima-china-powering-ahead-plans-new-reactors/#.VTCL7PmUd8G Ultimately it probably is going to make not as much of a difference as you think considering how little China gets from nuclear power. 80% of their power still comes from coal and much of it, lower grade varieties. Nuclear power is still only roughly 1-3% of total potential. I guess the decline of some heavy industries may help, but with the lack of environmental controls China has, it is going to be quite a while before you start seeing major changes. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
They are also going to run up against some of the fundamental limits of monetary policy, it really isn't designed to do what they want to do with it. They can add liquidity to the banking system to keep it functioning, but at this point they for the most part have a consumption problem and that is largely tied to wages and discretionary spending, both which are low in China. Anyway, someone mentioned that there is no way to reach "higher than middle income status" without liberalization, but that isn't really true. Look at the gulf states as an example to the contrary, they are very wealthy and very unliberal. Admittedly they got this way because of commodities, but commodity exports are what many if not most middle income countries going be relying on in the first place. The second strange argument is that somehow "the Washington Census beat communism," this is nonsense since it was coined in 1989 as the Berlin Wall was falling. The "Washington Census" isn't just a by-word for free market economics or liberal democracy, but it is about deregulation, cutting of public spending, and tax reform that moves the focus of taxation on lower income groups. Ultimately, the relative success of Western countries during the Cold War wasn't because of those policies but quite the opposite, capitalism was quite tame during the period. Social Democracy, Fordism and reformed capitalism were wide spread as were unions and enhanced worker rights in both North America and Europe. There is a reason it worked, the West had the wealth to keep wages high and consumption flowing which kept their populations happy, but still allowed enough resources for technological investment and defensive. The whole irony is ultimately without competition against capitalism in the the West, it become more extreme and unreformed. Ultimately, the secret of the Cold War was that the West needed the threat of Marxism to keep it in line. As each "communist' country was crushed, it also ironically made the entire system more unstable since there was less and less consequence for unraveling the social and wage systems that had been set up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The washington census would be interesting to read about "The Commanding Heights" by Yergin and Stanislaw gives a good general overview of globalization and what would become the Washington Consensus from a liberal perspective of the period. It may very be out of date by this point since it was written in the late 1990s. Otherwise, there are far more critical perspective from the left in various books from by Stiglitz and Harvey among others. Anyway, while China has obviously a much more state focus, I don't think "capitalism with Chinese characteristics) is fundamentally incompatible with the Washington Census. China's recent prioritization of monetary policy if anything falls straight in line with other developed economies, and while SOEs are obviously still a big part of China's economy, there is already talk of considerable privatization of them and cost-cutting measures. China's real issue is that for all it spends local governments and infrastructure, it doesn't actually focus much at all on its own working class. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:
Basically, that shadowing banking has taken its toll on state and semi-state banks, and it is time to raid the piggy bank. The issue for China is that its currency reserves while quite large, they are starting to decline fairly rapidly, and the Yuan isn't a major reserve currency. The US can hold a large amount of debt, by virtue of the US dollar being so widely used and it won't devalue unless the Fed wants it to. China isn't in that position, and if you are trying to talk about a "Chinese century" it is something to consider. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Peel posted:Japan and European countries that didn't kneecap themselves with the Euro can also print money freely without repercussion. Whatever the criteria are, being a reserve currency is not a necessary one. Actually I would disagree with you there, they can't without devaluation. Ukraine is an example of this at the moment. Greece could print but it would suffer devaluation. The question is if an austerity based depression is better is an whole other matter. Jumpingmanjim posted:So it will make it harder for China to defend the Yuan? Kind of like what happened in Russia. At some point in the future maybe, but right now China has over 3.6 trillion in reserves. That is still a lot of money, and while it is down from 4 trillion, it will take years for it to reach levels that are really a problem. Russia, while it has to spend a consider amount of its reserves to defend the Ruble, didn't run out of them either but obviously they are far thinner than China. Russia greatest decline was from oil fears and speculative bets against it (which to be fair were good bets to make in December/January).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Greece can't print euros. (In the figurative sense of expanding the money supply, not in the sense of actually producing the bills; they do the latter.) I am talking about a situation where the New Drachma came back, Greece couldn't print New Drachma without consequence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Countries often want to devalue their currencies Ardennes. There's no magic line where you cross 5% inflation and you're suddenly WEIMAR GERMANY MONEY SUPPLY NEVER FORGET!!1 You are assuming I am saying it is going to be a Weimar situation in the first place, devaluation can happen and still be quite moderate and sustainable. A sovereign debt crisis can be part of it but it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. That said, if a country has no way to defend a currency, it is going to weaken and if it gets into a cycle where it is borrowing to support a currency it can eventually lead to a crisis. Yes, and sometimes countries do want to devalue, you just don't want to be in a situation where you have to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Why would Greece or China want to defend their currency though? Maybe I'm wrong about what you're thinking about but I don't understand your point. Why would Greece want to endure possibly decades of nominal wage deflation when it could magic real wage deflation into existence in months by printing currency? Why would China want to hurt its enormous export sector by buying Yuan? I don't understand what you're trying to say Ultimately your arguments are not really tracking what I am saying. Countries want to keep their currencies stable for a reason, and there is a big difference between quantitative easing and losing the ability to support a currency. China wants the Yuan relatively cheap, that is fine and it has the ability to fine-tune the Yuan fairly well. However, as I said though, that confidence ultimately comes from their reserves and they wouldn't be in the same position without them. Greece isn't in that position, even if it had its own currency, its reserves are relatively strapped and a New Drachma would fall like a rock if they didn't get support from the EU for it. This is the sword that the EU is holding over their heads, because only the EU or the IMF is going to lend to Greece. Greece almost certainly would in fact be in very bad shape if they left the Eurozone without support, and it may very would face very high inflation and devaluation along with likely continued unemployment. quote:China is not Russia, again. Russia exports natural resources and imports a ton of finished goods from Europe including food. The ruble falling wouldn't be nearly as big a deal if Russia didn't rely so heavily on imports. China exports finished goods and imports mainly luxuries and hi-tech stuff and oil. A falling yuan is good for the export industry as it makes Chinese goods cheaper for foreign buyers, and not nearly as bad for the average person who doesn't rely on imports for food and finished goods like a Russian. Eh, China imports actually quite a bit from the outside world, including much of its energy and raw resources. Maybe it wouldn't in as bad a situation as Russia but it wouldn't necessarily be pretty especially since the gap between imports and exports has greatly tightened. A failing Yuan to a point is a good thing, but they don't want to lose a grip on the Yuan entirely and they don't have the same safety-net the US does. Basically, you are conflating purposeful adjustment of currency with uncontrolled devaluation, and that is a mistake. I don't think even in the mid-term China has to worry about it, but it is something that needs to be outlined. Fojar38 posted:Exporting natural resources such as petroleum is not the same as exporting manufactured goods, particularly when you also account for the fact that the population of these petrostates are sufficiently low that the immense poverty of the working class is balanced by the insane wealth of the oil barons, and considering them "high income economies" as a consequence is misleading. They aren't model economies by any means, but I wouldn't call them undeveloped even if development through the use and abuse of migrant labor. We don't really need to sketch one out because they already exist, and waving away the authoritarian nature of Singapore isn't exactly helping the issue. Also you seem to be trying to connect authoritarian states and a command economy, which is a very tired Cold War argument. As in the case of liberalization in Eastern Europe has certainly been a mixed bag, and while the EU states have mostly liberalized, it is becoming more apparent than it was likely do to a large part in being in a customs union with other high income countries. In addition, you formerly liberal states like Hungary if anything becoming increasingly more authoritarian. To be clear what we are talking about as far as modern-day liberal economics is: deregulation, privatization, high tax burden on working/low income population and the eradication of a social safety net. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:In that scenario the Russkies have to count as "Team East". I don't know, maybe call it "Team Authoritarians" vs "Free Market Fundamentalists" Eh, in that case I think China would be pretty outnumbered considering Russia wouldn't stick its neck out for them and vice-versa.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:An authoritarian command economy and its allies take on the US and the other liberal capitalist states on the geopolitical stage, in a sort of 'cold' war - a thing that has never happened before and definitely didn't end in the complete victory of liberalism. Like I honestly don't understand how or why anyone would take the USSR in the Cold War as a good geopolitical model, considering how badly they got beaten. The only explanation is that people think China is simply special and superior and not bound by earthly realities China isn't an command economy and doesn't offer much of an alternative geopolitical model if that helps. Also, I don't think they are especially that interested in a new Cold War even if so many Americans seem to desperately want one again. That said, if anything it is more likely that Japan and the EU are going to stagnant though. Oh yeah and Trotsky got knocked off in 1940, so it wasn't the worst prediction considering the US was still doing pretty lovely under the late 1930s after a second inflicted double-dip recession. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:China's PR campaign about America's decline and its rounding up of the world's failed states as allies says otherwise I think. They probably don't want to actually have to fight a cold war, but they definitely seem to want the image of being a cold war grade rival of the United States. I don't see why the US should tolerate it, especially if China continues with its policy of annexing other countries' territory at will Ultimately, no one wants to really disturb the rather significant economic and trade connections between China and the West (especially the US) at this point. They can give loans to Venezuela but Venezuela is simply small fries compared to the economic weight China has. If anything if the USSR and the US had a productive trade relationship in 1945, the Cold War wouldn't have happened. We are going to appease them to a point as long as it doesn't involve them actively trying to gobble entire countries. That said, the Chinese are going to test the limits of this, and will almost certainly look to maximize their influence where they can find it and with the world as it is, there will be openings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
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? They are in the same sentence only because I am contrasting the significant differences between them. In particular, I needed an example of what happens to a country that can't control their currency. Either way, you are still wrong, it isn't inconceivable China could run a trade deficit at this point, their current account surplus has dwindled considerably and now is around where it was in 2002-2003. In addition, China has taken the biggest hit to their currency reserves in recent history. It isn't nearly as big as the hit Russia took, but at the same time we don't really know how bad the banking system actually is in China and how far they are going to have go to fix it. Ultimately, China's economy and its financial system is far from invulnerable. Even then I don't see China or the Yuan being in an emergency in the medium term but it seems you want to shut-down any conversation of any long-term consequences. This is a very familiar tactic. I wish you wouldn't fly off the handle and instead actually read what I wrote. Declines in their currency reserves are something that should be mentioned because down the line they could be an arbitrating factor. China taking from their reserves to inject more liquidity into banking is something that probably needs to be mentioned as an issue, even if its consequences may be 10 years away.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Biggest hit to their currency reserves* in recent history. The fact their reserves are declining is something should be pointed out considering to this point they were rapidly climbing. If this is indeed a turning point, and it trends over the long-term, then yes it is a problem. That I said multiple times it isn't a near-term issue. I actually don't know what you think this conversation is about. You seem to be arguing only against yourself, and insulting people you obviously can't or won't honestly engage with as a back up option. quote:You are actively making the world dumber to save face. You need to work on your emotional maturity. CIGNX posted:You're trying to argue that China is in a precarious situation with its foreign reserves because it needs to maintain and defend the RMB's exchange rate with these reserves. China does not have this problem right now nor has it faced such a problem in the past 20 years. This is false, it is an argument I clearly said I wasn't making. You can do better than this. quote:You only need to use the foreign reserves to defend an overvalued pegged or semi-pegged currency, which is the opposite situation with the RMB. Instead, there is pressure on the RMB to appreciate, or in other words it is generally seen that the RMB is undervalued. To defend this kind of exchange rate situation, the PBoC can just print RMB* and use it to buy foreign currencies on the foreign exchange. By defending the RMB exchange rate, the PBoC does not drain its foreign reserves but in fact increases it. In fact, this is one of the primary ways in which China amassed its foreign reserves over the years. The decline is the foreign reserve is also not very important because their foreign reserves are still insanely massive. It went from $4 trillion to $3.5 trillion these past 6 months, but that's still nearly triple of the foreign reserves of Japan (which are the 2nd largest in the world.) and triple what China had in 2008. And again, why would they need that much foreign reserves if they don't have to defend their currency with it? Actually the RMB started to mildly devalue since 2014, we can postulate why this is so but it is actually rather doubtful it is undervalued at the moment. Ultimately, if the Renminbi has already reached an equilibrium point, it completely throws off your entire argument. Their reserves are obviously massive, but ultimately the issue is still the rate of the decline over the long term and hidden dangers we know exist in the Chinese financial sector. They obviously could go on for years with that sort of decline, but I disagree completely they wouldn't have to defend their currency at some point if that happened. Even if you want to pretend I am arguing it is a short-term danger (something I literally said it wasn't), the Chinese Yuan isn't invulnerable. To be clear here both you and Arglebargle are making the argument that it is essential is invulnerable over the long-term, and have been using obsolete data to do it. quote:Also, I need to repeat this again: using foreign reserves to intervene in the domestic economy is meaningless. It all comes back to the central bank to be exchanged back into the domestic currency. This negates the supposed benefit of using these "hard" foreign currencies. Speaking in generalities: ask Ukraine how meaningless it is at this point. computer parts posted:Chinese Role Play? Don't do that. Edit: And oh yeah this was my response if there was a danger to the Yuan: quote:At some point in the future maybe, but right now China has over 3.6 trillion in reserves. That is still a lot of money, and while it is down from 4 trillion, it will take years for it to reach levels that are really a problem. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You would save yourself some time and effort if you figured this out before posting responses. Unfortunately I can't read minds, even if I did, it probably wouldn't help this particular conservation very much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:For some reason this thread causes people to speak with certainty about international high finance. Considering the conventional wisdom when this thread started, there certainly are questions that need answering. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Mar 27 2014 Yeah, a couple months before Chinese reserves peaked I may add.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
China's currency reserves is going to continue to cushion the government, the bigger issue is going to be the chaos a crash will cause in the economy especially if it wipes out the savings of a chunk of the population. Right now China is desperately trying to build up domestic consumption, and this would set them back considerably.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
The Trans-siberian today isn't really there to serve just Moscow-Beijing passengers in the first place but all the cities in between. I assume smaller towns wouldn't get highspeed service, but cities like Kazan or Perm would. Obviously there are declining returns at a point though, aand I don't know if the entire route makes that much sense together, but expanding high speed service to the Urals probably does. Moscow to Kazan is suppose to take 3.5 hours which is still probably preferable than flying if you are taking a train from central Moscow. Maybe they could get to Perm in 5-6 hours, which may be still worth it.. Service between Perm and Irkutsk probably wouldn't be efficiently used ( though Irkutsk would probably benefit from quick service to Mongolia and Beijing). That said, I think Russia has more important spending objectives like its crumbling infrastructure. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:22 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
The ultimate issue though is exactly how productive those investments were compared to other types of spending that could spur consumer demand. China isn't necessarily going to "collapse" because of debt but alternatively they haven't promoted a situation where there is going to be broad consumer spending, and instead they have bailout projects and their creditors that have spent on projects that likely shouldn't have happened in the first place (at least in many cases). In that sense you could say that poor investments (remember the golden years of Macao?) have crowded out government spending that would have in turn promoted consumer spending. So right now the government has a bit of a tricky situation: poor investments will likely continue to be rolled over while consumer spending remains lower than they hope, and mass privatization will likely go as well as other countries it has been tried in. They could try to directly apply spending to consumers, but it doesn't seem the Chinese government is that interest in inducing demand in that manner. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Friendly reminder: none of you are actually qualified to talk with certainty about international macroeconomic finance. You are not qualified to make that judgement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
http://video.ft.com/4302568117001/China-decouples-from-itself/Markets I don't consider the FT a radical source at all, but even they have said for a while that China is in for a difficult transition period and if anything their language has increasingly become more skeptical of China's ability to rely on consumer demand for high growth (and as well as their previous investment strategy). Also, they have indicated if anything the "decoupling" between commodity prices and equity markets in China is a sign of significant danger on the horizon for Chinese markets (and increasingly large parts of the population now exposed to a rather impressive equity bubble). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
So the Shanghai exchange just dropped 8%, the show isn't over folks.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
I wonder when the smoke clears how much this intervention is going to cost? China has (or had) a giant amount of currency reserves but with the amount of firepower they are throwing at a full blown crash coupled with the existing poor debts, a big portion of them has to be going up in smoke.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:Aren't they just printing currency to buy up stocks to keep the price up? Does it really "cost" anything when the central bank does this? I really don't know much about the consequences of this action, could you explain further? I'm going to assume if it would increase inflation and devalue their currency, correct? The Renminbi isn't a reserve currency and Beijing has tried to keep it stable ie they still won't allow it to free float, which means something has to give. Most likely there is going to be a long term drain on reserves. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Freezer posted:To be honest, similar things can be said about some western financial institutions (albeit at a smaller scale). Ain't capitalisma beauty. Sure, financial institutions themselves, but in the case of China, it is even more dangerous since there doesn't seem to be a single honest institution there at any level and the actual state of the Chinese economy seems to be in a quantum state (well somewhere between 7% growth and a moderate recession). It is the worst of both worlds with ridiculously unregulated capitalism ruled over by an single-party authoritarian state that exists only to perpetuate itself. Of course, the only response the Western financial world seems to have to fix this is privatizing remaining SOEs, which all honesty isn't going to solve anything. That said, China still has the reserves to keep on flooding the system with cash but the medium/long-term outlook for China isn't strong. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I don't know why they are risking it at all. Doesn't the government have tons of cash reserves? Also, the stability of the regime is heavily dependent on maintaining those reserves both to support the renminbi and stabilize the banking system. One issue that China has is the renminbi isn't a major reserve currency which is going to complicate massive foreign purchases of debt, and their population is can't support a giant domestic state debt burden like Japan and its postal banking system. They are just throwing the pension systems into the fire because believe they are comparatively expendable compared to the needs of the state itself (we will see about that).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:In the case of the BBC, it's more that they've become very conservative (with a small c) over the past decade due to a number of scandals, and so their reporting tends to err on the side of caution and predicting the status quo will continue. I think the answer overall though is that there is a very large number of true believers of free market capitalism in the British press (no greater example of this than the Economist itself), and they sincerely believed the "Chinese miracle" would cap any argument against them once and for all. It isn't going to be a great week for them emotionally. 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.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted: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 The US had a masysive amount of resources and land compared to it's population versus China. China desperately needed a giant advantage in exports for the whole system to work, and domestic consumption isn't going to be enough. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 03:57
|
|