• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Chinese Economy Larger Than Originally Thought

Stunt

Diamond Member
If this report is true, the Chinese will be 20% richer than we originally thoguht. This could move the Chinese economy from 7th to 4th behind Japan, Germany and the United States.

One expert suggests that China will need MORE labour intensive jobs to make up for the 200million unemployed.

Does that meant that China is not only cheaper per person, but more productive per person (taking out standard of living effects)?

China preparing report that experts say could push up economy's official size
December 14, 2005 - 15:01
By JOE MCDONALD

BEIJING (AP) - Walk into a bustling Beijing mall or pricey Shanghai restaurant, and official figures that say China's annual economic output is just $1,000 US per person seem much too low.

When the Chinese government releases a new survey of its economy next week, outsiders expect it to make a greater effort to measure such thriving service businesses, possibly revealing that China has been even more successful than reported over the past decade.

Economists say China's already stunning figures that show growth at more than nine per cent this year understate output by up to 20 per cent - a hidden $330 billion out of the reported $1.65 trillion in goods and services produced last year.

It isn't clear by how much the government might raise its estimate of China's economic output. But the results could have a far-reaching impact on economic and social policy, debates with the United States over the value of China's currency and investment decisions.

"You could say China is actually 20 per cent richer than anybody initially thought," Qu Hongbin, an economist for financial services firm HSBC Corp. in Hong Kong, said Wednesday.

The key problem lies in China's statistical system, a communist-era throwback that focuses on manufacturing and relies on businesses to have a full-time employee to report statistics, which mom-pop shops and other small, private companies rarely do.

The biggest weakness is in services, ranging from restaurants and Internet retailers to taxi drivers and barbershops, areas that represent China's fastest-growing industries.

This year, economists say Beijing has made an effort to reflect their contribution by sending researchers to get data from restaurants, shops and other service industries.

The results are due to be released Tuesday by the National Bureau of Statistics.

Estimates by Chinese academics and private economists of how much they might raise figures for economic growth range widely, from almost nothing to a full 20 per cent.

Chen Xingdong, an economist in Beijing for BNP Paribas Peregrine Securities, said he believes current statistics undercount China's output by a minimum of 20 per cent.

A woman who answered the phone Wednesday at the Statistics Bureau's Census Center and would give only her surname, Deng, refused to give any details of next week's report.

But when asked about suggestions that it might raise the figure on China's economic output, or gross domestic product, by up to 20 per cent, the woman said, "this figure is totally wrong."

For years economists have said China's figures understate the strength of its economy, because the low cost of goods and services adds considerable buying power to the Chinese currency, the yuan.

A large revision next week could push Beijing up the rankings of economies, from No. 7 to as high as No. 4, Chen said. That would put China behind only the United States, Japan and Germany and could provide fodder for trading partners who complain that the yuan is undervalued and contributes to China's huge trade surplus.

The U.S. trade deficit with China surged to a new monthly record of $20.5 billion in October, the U.S. Commerce Department reported Wednesday. Through October, the deficit with China is running at an annual rate of $200 billion. That surpasses last year's imbalance of $162 billion, which had been the biggest U.S. deficit ever recorded with a single country.

A large revision also could alter industrial and social policy, changing the belief that China relies too heavily on manufacturing, said Qu. He said current figures show that services account for 30 per cent of the economy, versus manufacturing's 45 per cent.

"This could easily turn the story upside down and say China's service sector is a world competitor, and if anything there's room for China to expand its industrial base," he said.

That could be critical for Beijing, which is trying to create jobs for 200 million unemployed people. It is pushing many to go into what were thought to be underdeveloped service industries.

"If this turns out to be true, the reality is that China has no choice but to increase labor-intensive manufacturing if they really want to absorb this surplus labor," Qu said.

But Wu Kangping, an economist at Tsinghua University's Institute of Economics and Management in Beijing, cautioned that there might be little or no revision. He said officials know their limitations and might have adjusted figures all along to compensate.

"If the discrepancies are not big and the government has already taken the bias into consideration, it will not have a big influence on government policy," he said.

Jonathan Anderson, chief Asia economist for the UBS brokerage in Hong Kong, wrote Wednesday in a report to clients that a bigger estimate of the size of China's economy could reassure investors and policy-makers, making surging investment in new factories, shopping malls and other assets look smaller by comparison.

Chinese leaders are trying to slow such spending, arguing that it is reckless and could ignite inflation and cause financial problems if new projects turn out not to be needed.

"With more realistic numbers, the macroeconomy looks much more sustainable," Anderson's report said.
Source
 
I hate to sound stupid, but economics realy baffles me. If we are the richest country in the world, then why do we borrow so much money, and why do we have a 5 trillion dollar defecit ? Maybe someone can point me in the right direction (google hasn't helped me) of a "economics for dummies" or something like that.
 
Originally posted by: Captain Morgan
I hate to sound stupid, but economics realy baffles me. If we are the richest country in the world, then why do we borrow so much money, and why do we have a 5 trillion dollar defecit ? Maybe someone can point me in the right direction (google hasn't helped me) of a "economics for dummies" or something like that.

1) We have a government deficit because the pols want to spend more money than they have coming in.
2) They do not want to raise taxes to cover the difference. Result = deficit
3) $$ to spend must still be obtained, therefore they borrow via bonds. ie. Loans from a bank.
4) Bonds can be purchased by anybody, US citizens or foriegners.

Cycle repeats every year.
Similar to going to loan shark #a the first time, and then next month going to load shark #b to pay loan shark #a plus needing to use loan shark #c to pay the vig on loan shark #a.
Next month visit sharks #d,e,f,g.

 
Originally posted by: Captain Morgan
I hate to sound stupid, but economics realy baffles me. If we are the richest country in the world, then why do we borrow so much money, and why do we have a 5 trillion dollar defecit ? Maybe someone can point me in the right direction (google hasn't helped me) of a "economics for dummies" or something like that.

The Deficit isn't $5trillion. The Government Deficit is $400billionish, Trade Deficit $500-600billionish. It's the Debt which is in the trillions and that's at $8.x trillion. Deficits are Annual shortfalls, Debt is all Deficits added together.
 
Originally posted by: Captain Morgan
I hate to sound stupid, but economics realy baffles me. If we are the richest country in the world, then why do we borrow so much money, and why do we have a 5 trillion dollar defecit ? Maybe someone can point me in the right direction (google hasn't helped me) of a "economics for dummies" or something like that.
Some years even Donald Trump spent more money than he made. Having lots of money does NOT mean you have lots of self-control.
 
Originally posted by: dullard

Some years even Donald Trump spent more money than he made. Having lots of money does NOT mean you have lots of self-control.

And incurring a deficit does not neccessarily mean you lack self-control. If the deficit is spent on investments which will increase future productivity, or if it can act to stimulate a stagnant economy (it is debatable if the latter is even possible,) then the deficits may be justified.

The current federal deficit, however, is doing neither.
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo86
And incurring a deficit does not neccessarily mean you lack self-control. If the deficit is spent on investments which will increase future productivity, or if it can act to stimulate a stagnant economy (it is debatable if the latter is even possible,) then the deficits may be justified.

The current federal deficit, however, is doing neither.
When it comes to businesses, yes, deficit spending is a requirement at times. But honestly, how much of our federal spending is really going towards future productivity increases? There are very, very few items that I can think of. It is probably a very small fraction of the overall budget, and even a small fraction of the size of the overall deficit. So, this argument is really not relavant to governments.

I don't think it is debatable if you can stimulate a stagnant economy. I can easilly show for a simple country that it temporarilly stimulates the economy. There is no reason that a complex country wouldn't also receive that stimulation.
 
Originally posted by: Captain Morgan
I hate to sound stupid, but economics realy baffles me. If we are the richest country in the world, then why do we borrow so much money, and why do we have a 5 trillion dollar defecit ?
It's actually really simple. Altough we are the richest nation, we spend a ton of money. Now matter how rich you are, it's possible to spend even more money than you have. You can see it here:
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Concerning what you said in your post - I believe you actually meant to use the word "debt" and not deficit. The debt is about 8Trillion and the deficit is about 300 billion. The deficit is merely one years contribution to the debt. The debt is the accumulation of all the previous deficits.

The reason we borrow money is really simple. It's simply because congress has the power to borrow and being frugal doesn't get politicians elected. Cutting spending on programs like social security or military spending has always been a loser at the polls. So our nations fiscal irresponsibility is simply a product of the irresponsibility of the voters and of the politicians they elect.

Recently (within the last few years), we've been borrowing a lot from Asian countries because those countries are intentionally devaluing their currencies to bolster their exports and the US needs a lot of money to fight in Iraq and because the dot com burst reduced tax receipts. I'd get into more detail but it complicated.
 
Originally posted by: frankie38
I believe this is another case of Lies, Damn Lies and then there are Statistics.

RAW GDP numbers are only one measure of an economy. A more meaningful measure is Per Capita GDP.
Depends on your point of view. Clearly as a resident, China has a lot less money per resident. But as a citizen of any other country, that statistic is virtually meaningless. Why should I care?

However, that GDP number has a lot of meaning in another viewpoint. Suppose you are running a business.
1) China: $5600 per capita GDP, total GDP of ~$7 trillion.
2) Samoa: $5600 per capita GDP, total GDP of ~$1 billion.

Which country would you rather break into? China or Samoa?

See how that total GDP number is now very meaningful?
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Depends on your point of view. Clearly as a resident, China has a lot less money per resident. But as a citizen of any other country, that statistic is virtually meaningless. Why should I care?

However, that GDP number has a lot of meaning in another viewpoint. Suppose you are running a business.
1) China: $5600 per capita GDP, total GDP of ~$7 trillion.
2) Samoa: $5600 per capita GDP, total GDP of ~$1 billion.

Which country would you rather break into? China or Samoa?

See how that total GDP number is now very meaningful?
Obviously Samoa...the liberal protectionists tell me trade with China will *ruin* our way of life.
 
Originally posted by: frankie38
I believe this is another case of Lies, Damn Lies and then there are Statistics.

RAW GDP numbers are only one measure of an economy. A more meaningful measure is Per Capita GDP.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

1. Luxembourg $58,900
2. United States 40,100
....


121. China 5,600.

Where do you want to live? US or China?
Depends. Shanghai was pretty damn nice. Heck, a couple of US films were going on over there. Everyone knows Tom Cruise was over there filming the next sequel to Mission Impossible and, albeit on a much smaller scale, Jeremy Miller (Ben Seaver from Growing Pains) is working with a Shanghai film company on a mostly-Mandarin language film (he was sitting in front of me on the flight to LAX).

And that apartment in a building in Pudong I saw...wow...beautiful (and pricey)...just like any newer apartment building in Manhattan.
 
Back
Top