|
So by what date should I get my money out of China?
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:I think the point is that if the situation persists there will be no Chinese IP. If you are left twisting in the breeze with nothing but research costs and a bunch of knockoffs, why would you go through the trouble? So would you say you are "not very familiar" with the Chinese tech industry or would "not at all familiar" be a better way to describe your level of knowledge?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
This is a really stupid derail.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Medvedev posted:“One side always wants to sell for a higher price, while the other wants to buy for a lower price,” Medvedev said. “I believe that in the long run, the price will be fair and totally comparable to the price of European supplies.” Ouch. You can tell the Russians ended up with a lower unit price than they would have liked. The BBC was saying that China is pretty much the only customer for Russia's Siberian gas reserves.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
That goes double for the North China Plain! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I read in one of the economy lecture that the forecoming global warming (something like 2-3 degrees in the next 80 years) will be bad for Europe and subcontinent but benefitial to countries like US and China. You're Chinese. Do you think whatever course it is wasn't simply lying to you?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I will give you the exact quote, "....the economic lost according to the mid-range estimate of global warming is smaller than you might expect, at lease for the world as a whole. Standard estimates are 3 degree Celsius of warming by 2100 could lead to a fall in world GDP of 3% at that point. The reason the warming hurt some area and help some area. For example it looks likely that Russia, North America and china could benefit from global warming as their climate gets a little warmer, while say Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Western Europe probably will suffer from global warming. Also alot of world economic are not that dependent on temperature change" Ok cool. I find it hard to believe that China would benefit from increased temperatures though since I can't see the rainfall and desertification situation in north china improving in global warming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Yeah major human-caused climate change is pretty accepted in Africa and Asia.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Canal more like anal can! But seriously 38 meters is higher than the Panama Canal. It would be a big job for no particular reason. Except a temporary boost to GDP so the party boss of the area can get a good report and move up. Party officials at the provincial level are judged by some sort of proprietary scorecard that weights GDP growth heavily. Taking out big loans for massive infrastructure projects boosts your political resume, and you'll be promoted or transferred by the time the party's over so who cares.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
I think that quote about deeper issues is bullshit, these people usually have obvious proximal causes that make them snap. "was unable to prevent his house from being demolished" followed by "we don't know what's under the surface" is a loving lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
pentyne posted:These guys are probably mining and selling ASAP, turning bits of useless data into actual cash from white libertarians desperate to buy a value-less currency that fluctuates more wildly then the tulips did. But are they making economic profits? Fangz posted:Australia never struck me as a major wheat producer. Is that supposed to be evidence? Australia is the #6 wheat producer in the world with about half of US production. The semi-arid West Australian plains have been heavily irrigated and fertilized. Probably a bad idea in the long run like all the irrigation agriculture in California.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I don't understand any post that complain about China's population size since China is the only country that has a population control policy. Chinese people complain about China's population size constantly and rarely mention the population controls.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Lets assume that's true, so you are saying you should make pointless complaint because Chinese make pointless complaint in Chinese forums? The point is that it's hardly a pointless complaint. There are too many people in China. When someone on the street says that to you, you just nod. It's true.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Sounds like Taobao's ranking algorithms are actually at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:China will never be able to up its productivity right now because that would require the country to have realistic hiring and employment policies. The system isn't designed for quality, it's designed for quantity, and I would wager it's topped or topping out. I would honestly say their best bet is hold through the recession, build up the rural areas, and wait for the population drop that's coming. Yeah what does any of this even mean.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Experts are saying the population should drop below 1 billion by 2050 but I've also read that China doesn't want this to happen for some reason. A net population drop is a good thing for China and would only increase its production levels. It's because of the inverted population pyramid and the lack of social services. There will be old people begging on the streets. That's not hard to understand. I was more interested in what you even mean by "hold through the recession" and "wait for the population drop." Like, are they just gonna give up and say "okay recession, you won, we surrender?" Is there something they should be holding back until after the population has fallen? That didn't really make any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Well this isn't surprising. 11% returns? That guy was always going to run with the money.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So how exactly did Japan make it so much further on this model before imploding? I mean China is still significantly poorer than Japan was in 1990, what happened? Japan benefited from the US Cold War era policy of providing its allies easy access to its market. Japan maintained extremely high tariffs by modern standards while the US maintained low barriers to Japanese imports; this was US policy. Until the 1980s the trade imbalance with Japan was seen as an acceptable consequence of US foreign policy towards its allies. The Japanese boosted industry domestically and others have posted about that, but they had the US giving them a free ride on trade policy, intentionally, for 30 years after WWII.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Hehe yeah there's no way the property market might burst.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
They're going to change the CCP scorecard* to count debt levels in addition to GDP growth. Kind of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted but at least we'll have no more ridiculous projects like the Gansu government agency that wanted to level mountains and fill valleys to build more cities. GDP growth as a metric for party advancement has been a big driver of the huge loans taken out by local government to pay for infrastructure projects. It's an incredibly easy way to goose GDP numbers. With major officials rotated from place to place I'm sure there was an I'll-Be-Gone-You'll-Be-Gone mentality towards debt. If that sounds like a recipe for terrible policy, welcome to the last 10 years. *The semi-secret set of metrics by which the tenure of a communist party official is judged. These were first leaked in 2011 I believe. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Oct 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Getting back to the Chinese economy, someone mentioned long-term forecasts for Chinese GDP versus American GDP. You have to take into account that China's population growth is set to become negative soon as its population pyramid inverts and the Cultural Revolution generation* starts to die off, while America's immigration and large first and second generation immigrant families will keep America's population growing quite steadily. You might see China's gross GDP not make large gains on US GDP while China's per capita GDP makes large comparative gains as population growth stops and then reverses. *a generation of motherfuckers if ever there was one, the 80s and 90s generation Chinese netizens have a saying "It's not that old people have become bad, it's that bad people have become old." Also, someone mentioned the CPC cooking China's economic numbers. It's not that the CPC cooks the numbers, it's that everyone in the chain reports false numbers to each other for their own ulterior motives. The CPC doesn't know their own numbers because they can't trust their colleagues. Li Keqiang (Premier of the PRC State Council a.k.a. Xi's Number One) was caught on mic saying "China's numbers are all man-made" but he wasn't gloating that his government manages to fool the rest of the world but saying that he himself, China's #2 man, doesn't pay attention to the statistics because he knows they're rigged. In other words, China's #2 man doesn't have an exactly accurate number himself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Literally every investing and econ publication i have read today has called this an irrational frenzy. Since we know hosed up banking policy has forced investment into non traditional real estate and WMP outlets I'm inclined to believe this huge rally and volatility has nothing to do with fundamentals (iron ore imports still falling, electricity demand still slowing) and is all about ravenous demand for investment that's been suppressed for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, do the ones at the very bottom of the receiving end for the organ of power get sent to have their organs sold off in America? I don't think so. Do you even read the poo poo you post?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Lol "corrupt officials would like to control synergistic posts, therefore they do" and "corrupt officials would like to smooth their incomes, therefore they do. " you'll go far in micro econ.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
Projecting short-term trends as straight lines into infinity is the most powerful form of flimflam known to man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
The Chinese economy certainly isn't looking good but the yuan's slipping valuation against the dollar is hardly a sign of doom. China is an exporter struggling to maintain competitiveness while the US is outperforming the rest of the developed world. A weaker yuan isn't bad for China and a stronger dollar isn't bad for China.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
To add perspective, everyone knew the Shanghai market was insanely overheated. The day it opened (I forget what exactly triggered the runaway) it was up up up and nobody believed it was based on fundamentals. That a regulator stepped in and banned margin trades is probably a good thing. Sure it's a bloodbath but everyone knew it was coming and it would have been worse in the future had nobody come in and stopped the party. This is the important part too: Even after its plunge on Monday, Citic’s mainland shares have still more than doubled since November, while Haitong’s are up over 90 per cent. It's been a crazy market.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-21/china-s-stocks-rise-as-spring-airlines-jumps-in-trading-debut.html You can read the article yourself because I guess Blumberg is blocked now and I broke my dang VPN being a idiot. Anyway the point is that stocks have recovered 95% from last week's rouwt. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Didn't Chinese regulators ban margin trading last month?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Serious post since y'all seem to need it: China is not Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
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. And a much more retarded military, somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
People want to ride the bubble. The property bubble is over and wages are stagnant or declining even in nominal terms. This is the last chance to get rich for a lot of people probably.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
lo;lcaixin posted:The largest loan guarantee company in the northern province of Hebei has been in trouble since investors discovered it did not have enough capital to back its guarantees. english.caixin.com/2015-04-13/100799811.html Note that this was a state-owned regulatory agency like FDIC knowingly violating regulations. 
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
people would be a lot more willing to help strangers
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/11533317/Three-ways-the-rise-of-Chinas-stock-market-will-change-the-world.html The British Conservative party is full of cytpo-autocrats.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Are there any concrete numbers on this? Everything I can find seems to just be anecdotal reports with large quantities of cash. I'm guessing shell companies are being used to shield the true identities but would expect Know Your Customer laws to kick in whenever that much cash moves to fund the companies. You're not trying very hard because the NYT and WSJ have both run multi-page stories on why you're wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
If the government is serious about reducing coal use, the nuclear industry can grow by eating coal's market share. If it's not, nuclear is going to be like a cowboy with assless chaps in a dildo factory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Also, Shaanxi coal barons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Yeah London Vancouver New York all notably racist against Russians Chinese and other foreign billionaires stashing cash in world city real estate. Has nothing to do with class issues. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Femur posted:Again, I don't care about historical answers, I would rather a systemic one. What's the question? If you're asking whether classical economics values a lot of things wrong, the answer is yes. Economists are aware of this. In the last 20 years it's become apparent in the economics field that there are multiple correct answers for how society "ought" to value any given thing, which if you stop to think about it is intuitive. However many "right" values there are for things, there are a ton of "wrong" values in use today mostly because of political and historical reasons. A classic example is that everybody understands that pollution has a non-zero cost to society, but economic and political systems based on property rights don't handle costing pollution very well. Another example would be the diminishing marginal utility of income for which the correct policy remedy, progressive income tax, has been known for decades but which is politically difficult. So don't assume that modern economic policy reflects economics as a field, basically.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 02:59
|
|