China GDP data corrupt [working paper]
raylopez99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thesis / Abstract:
China GDP data widely quoted is distorted, in particular the GDP and
GDP per capita (Purchasing Power Parity). By measuring energy
consumed, using a suitable correction variable for the energy
inefficiency of communist economies, and triangulating data with
countries of proven economic data reliability, the true GDP and GDP per
capital for China can be computed as between $2.25 trillion < PPP
(China) < $3.03 trillion, which is less than the often quoted figure of
$6.449 trillion (2004 est.) by between 33% to 50%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis:
0. This note arouse from an idea several years ago on China
productivity by economist Paul Krugman, and from a suggestion that data
in China is suspect (in Gordon G. Chang's "The Coming Collapse of
China").
1. I triangulated data as shown below, using the following assumptions,
and found that there were discrepancies that only can be reconciled by
assuming China's GDP is less than the often stated figure of $6.449
trillion (from the CIA Book of Facts website, which admitedly is often
wrong, but widely quoted). My suspicion, which this short note cannot
address, is that the often stated data for China is extrapolated from
the "urban" Chinese, in particular those in large cities, and
multiplied by the total number of Chinese (including those in rural
areas), which are living "hand to mouth" (subsistence level).
2. Energy consumed cannot be as easily distorted as economic output.
So use the below data from the Energy Information Administration
(www.eia.doe.gov)
3. Modern "Western" states include: France, Germany, Italy, UK,
Japan and the US
4. Communist countries are well known to waste energy as input for
every unit of output. For example, and considered representative, is
the case of post-communist Belarus, which by its own admission is today
using only 43% of the energy (in coal) it used to use in Soviet times
(for the same population). As post-communist Belarus is perhaps 33% to
50% as efficient as modern "Western" states, including Europe, the
US, and Japan, the implication is that China uses up to 7.14 times
(inverse of 0.14) the energy that a modern "Western" state uses,
for a given unit of economic output (see figures below). But, just to
be charitable and conservative in favor of the official Chinese
figures, it is assumed that modern China is only 50% as efficient per
unit of output as modern (2 times energy input needed as for a modern
"Western" state). This is very conservative in favor of China.
5. Using the figures below for population (assumed accurate) and GDP,
which are referenced, it can be seen that from a Purchasing Power
Parity, GDP for China is between $2.25 trillion < PPP (China) < $3.03
trillion. The reason there is a range is because the US is not as
energy efficient as Euro-land and Japan (this is a well known
phenomena, as the US likes to waste energy with large cars, and the
population density is not as conducive to mass transportation).
6. The implication is that China is 'equivalent' to 20.4% of US GDP
(PPP), or equal to a population of 60 million Americans, at worse, or,
at best, equal to 121 million European-Japanese, or 3.03 trillion ($).
7. Another statistic that is telling: the vast majority (some say 80%)
of the population of China is still "rural". Multiplying 0.20 *
1299 mil = 260 million "urban" Chinese. If you don't factor any
"inefficiency" energy deflator, x", that is assume x = 1, you get
242.3 million Chinese from the energy figures below. This is
equivalent to a 19% urban population. It is reasonable to assume that
most of the data generated by government organs in China is from the
"urban" sector, consistent with the anecdotal evidence that the
Chinese rural sector is not thriving.
8. The author of this note lives in CA, is a mutual fund investor in
China, is not an economist, and believes in the future of China.
Serious replies welcome.
In conclusion: the data for GDP for China that states GDP is $6.449
trillion is false. Their true GDP is probably at least 33% to 50% of
this figure. Even this range is probably high, since energy efficiency
in communist countries is typically much less than 33% to 50% of their
"Western" counterparts (Europeans, Japanese and Americans).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAW DATA:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Consumption per region (1992-2001) Source: Energy Info. Admin,
Intl' Energy Database.
Country / Population / Energy Consumption (Quadrillion BTU) / Ratio
Million people per QBTU
France / 60.4 mil/ 10.52 QBTU/ 5.74
Germany / 82.4 / 14.4 / 5.72
Italy / 58.1 / 8.11 / 7.2
UK / 60.3 / 9.8 / 6.12
JP / 127.3 / 21/92 / 5.8
Average of above: 6.109 Million People per QBTU (inverse = 0.1637
QBTU/Mil)
US / 293/ 96.32 / 3.04
China / 1299 / 39.67 / 32.7
China: 39.67 QBTU * 6.109 Mil people / QBTU = 242.3 million people
(not deflated)
Or, for US figures: 39.67 QBTU * 3.04 Mil/QBTU = 120.6 million people
(not deflated)
* Communist "inefficiency" energy deflator, "x", of x = between
33% to 43%, or, at best (factor of safety), say 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the production of the unit of GDP Belarus uses 4-5 times more
fuel and energy resources than western countries. The country consumes
annually more than 30 tons of conditional fuel (coal equivalent), i.e.
approximately about 3 tons of conditional fuel per one citizen (versus
7 thousand tons in the Soviet times)(3/7 = 43%) while in the rest of
the world this indicator constitutes 1 ton. (1/3=33%) For example, last
year per capita consumption of gas and electricity was 1,850 cubic
meters and 3,400 kWh [2586 kWh per person], accordingly. This is nearly
twice an average European level. (0.5). [So x = deflator is as low as
(.43)(.33) = 0.14, or (.43)(.5) = 0.215, or as high as .33 or .43 (the
latter two numbers assuming modern post-communist Belarus today is as
energy efficient as the "West" is today, which is not realistic,
but forms an upper bound. By choosing x = 0.50, the factor of safety
is even greater (more conservative in favor of China), by a factor of
between 0.5/0.14 = 3.6 times, or 0.5/0.215 = 2.33 times.
Source: www.nationmaster.com
China electricity = 1019 kWh per person
Japan = 7579 kWh per person
US = 12406 kWh per person
Russia = 5348 kWh per person
This data not directly relevant, except to show that China is unusually
low in electricity per capita, approaching that of African states,
which is not consistent with the thesis of the world's second largest
economy. One can argue this is because of the large population, but,
if so, this is consistent with the assumption is that most of the
Chinese in the 'rural' parts are probably living at a
'subsistance' level, see the note above about "urban" versus
"rural" Chinese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
raylopez99
I forgot to add in the "RAW DATA" section that you must multiply the
figures for Euro-land/JP and USA by 0.50 and then multiply by the
figure for average per capita GDP for Euro-land/JP and USA, which is
$25k and $37.5k per capita, respectively, times "x" (energy deflator).
So, RAW DATA corrected should read:
China: 39.67 QBTU * 6.109 Mil people / QBTU = 242.3 million people
(not deflated) [NOW MULTIPLY BY $25k and 0.50=x]
Or, for US figures: 39.67 QBTU * 3.04 Mil/QBTU = 120.6 million people
(not deflated) [NOW MULTIPLY BY $37.5k and 0.50=x]
--RL
Bill
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106214070....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
On the surface that sounds right. But how do we know that is really true.
Where did these numbers come from? Also, do they still use animals in much of
rual China for farming?
Bill
Sexy
raylopez99
is often quoted. For one thing, and perhaps foremost, the incessant
pressure the US is putting on China to revalue their renminbi from
8.2765 : 1 to something lower is wrong, as China has plenty of unused
demand in their own country (the rural sector).
raylopez99
That is the first fundamental assumption, which I got from the US Dept
of Energy. Forecasting energy consumption is often more art than
science, but at least it is only one variable you are measuring, rather
than a million (such as measuring GDP directly). Then the other, more
controversial assumption is that China is 1/2 (50%) as efficient as
"Western" states (G7/US/Japan) at converting energy inputs to economic
activity output. This is being generous to China, since probably it's
even less than 50%, possibly as low as 10%. State Operated Enterprises
are notoriously inefficient--in farming, for example, the Soviet Union
collective farms used to waste 95% of the crop, according to some
estimates.
Your point about animals is a good one. If in fact the rural Chinese
use lots of animal power, then their horsepower (literally) will not
show up in the statistics and the GDP based on energy consumption will
be too low for China. I assume however that animal power nowadays is
not significant in China.
RL
Bill wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106214070....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > soc.culture.china, sci.econ
> >
raylopez99
estimated GDPs for countries other than China, to see how their energy
computed GDPs compared with their reported GDPs (as reported on the CIA
World Factbook, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ )
Here is what I found, using only Euro-land/JP energy statistics:
India's GDP is inflated by the reported figure of up to around 35%
Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico's GDPs are accurate as reported.
RAW DATA:
India:
12.8 QBTU energy consumed * 6.11 mil. Person /QBTU (Euroland) *
$25k/person = $1.955 trillion (computed GDP) versus $3.033 trillion
reported, so Indian GDP is inflated by perhaps 35%.
Note "x" = 1 here, assuming no 'communist style' inefficiency.
Indonesia:
4.63 QBTU energy consumed * 6.11 mil Person/ QBTU (Euroland) *
$25k/person = $707 billion (computed GDP) versus $756 billion reported,
so Indonesian GDP is not inflated. Again, "x" = 1
Mexico:
6.0 QBTU energy consumed * 6.11 mil. Person /QBTU (Euroland) *
$25k/person = $917 billion versus $941 billion reported, so Mexican GDP
is not inflated. "x" = 1
Brazil:
8.78 QBTU energy consumed * 6.11 mil. Person /QBTU (Euroland) *
$25k/person = $1.341 trillion (computed GDP) versus $1.375 trillion
reported, so Brazilian GDP is not inflated. "x" = 1
Yu
Writing books with sensational titles help sales.
Gordon Chang published his book " The coming collapse of China" in
2001. He predicted China's collapse in 5-10 years, enough time to tens
of thousands of his books :). Li Teng Hui of Taiwan was very fond of
quoting him in Taiwan. Lots of idiots in Taiwan believe him.
Since 2001 China has grown from strength to strength.
China now consumes 50% of the world's cement and steel.
China has become 2nd largest importer of oil.
On the negative aspect, China has acute power shortages in 22 provinces
in 2004.
http://english.people.com.cn/200402/24/eng20040224_135742.shtml
raylopez99
Nobody is doubting that China is burning energy (the English phrase
"burning the midnight oil" for working hard comes to mind!)
The issue is whether burning energy is translating into GDP (productive
output). Think of it this way: I can run fast standing still, and if
I just jump up and down, without moving forward, I will not travel very
far but I will burn lots of energy and get a good workout (and impress
many people with my energy).
As for Mr. Chang, I thought he was very courageous, as a lawyer, to
write such a book. He probably killed his career in mainland China.
Oh well, maybe he wanted to work in Taiwan after all.
BTW, I did the calculations just now for Japan, and found that Japan's
GDP is not distorted (unlike China and India).
Here is the data:
Japan:
21.92 QBTU * 6.11 mil Person/ QBTU (Euroland) * $25k/person = $ 3.348
Trillion, versus a published (on the CIA website) figure of $3.582
Trillion. The two figures are within 10% of each other, well within
any margin of error for such an inexact estimate. Also I assume "x =1"
once again.
Right now, only China and India appear to be "liars"! :-) No offense
of course.
Sincerely,
RL
ltlee1
raylopez99 wrote:
> Thank you, Mr. Yu! I appreciate your insight.
>
> Nobody is doubting that China is burning energy (the English phrase
> "burning the midnight oil" for working hard comes to mind!)
>
> The issue is whether burning energy is translating into GDP
(productive
> output). Think of it this way: I can run fast standing still, and
if
> I just jump up and down, without moving forward, I will not travel
very
> far but I will burn lots of energy and get a good workout (and
impress
> many people with my energy).
>
> As for Mr. Chang, I thought he was very courageous, as a lawyer, to
> write such a book. He probably killed his career in mainland China.
> Oh well, maybe he wanted to work in Taiwan after all.
>
> BTW, I did the calculations just now for Japan, and found that
Japan's
> GDP is not distorted (unlike China and India).
You are quite mistaken about only China and India's data being
distorted.
1. Basically, most economic data are somewhat unreliable. "In theoy,
you're trying to find out what the future is going to be like. That's
difficult when the past keeps changing." Martin Zimmerman, chief
economist, Ford Motor Company. Of course he was talking about U.S.
economic data being unreliable.
Further example: "On April 26, the Commerce Department of the United
States announced that the GNP grew at a moderate rate of 2.3 percent in
the first quarter of 1988. A month later, government statisticians
boosted first quarter GNP growth to 3.9 percent, a change of nearly
70%... the Commerce Department first announced the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the third
quarter of 1992, it later revealed that the figure is 3.9 percent"
LABYRINTHS OF PROSPERITY by Reuven Brenner.
2. More recently, a lot of people complainted about U.S. inflation data
being intentionally distorted with hedonic indexing. Here is an
example.
-----------------
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12064
US computer sales aren't as strong as they appear
Chief Merrill Lynch economist kicks away the financial chocks
By N. Alex Rupp: Monday 13 October 2003, 07:27
Among other things, Rosenberg reports that the money being spent on
computers and other technology by U.S. corporations is nowhere near
what is being reported by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. While
Washington reported corporate spending for technology to the tune of
$133 billion, Rosenberg estimates the actual number is closer to $15
billion in his Sept.5th and Oct. 6th reports. That's about an 89%
margin of error.
The misleading numbers apparently are caused by a technique called
"hedonic price indexing", which massages the investment figures to
account for improvements in technology. Washington economists
rationalize that while businesses are not actually spending more money
on computers and peripherals, developments in computing technology give
them "more bang for the same buck" and apparently doctor the numbers
accordingly, in order to suggest higher growth than is actually
occurring.
If tech spending "accounted for 30 percent of the overall increase in
GDP", Rosenberg's report implies that Washington is reporting GDP
growth at nearly twice its actual rate of increase--not a cheerful
thought for all of those who've recently re-entered the stock markets.
-------------
Many more example, here is another artcile,
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/151105.php
if you look into it.
3. How about Japan's 0.1% GDP growth was reported as 0.7% grwoth
because of 0.6% deflation?
Guru Google
Strange LT Lee don't cite the uncertainty pricinple to argue all
measurements are unreliable.
> Further example: "On April 26, the Commerce Department of the United
> States announced that the GNP grew at a moderate rate of 2.3 percent
in
> the first quarter of 1988. A month later, government statisticians
> boosted first quarter GNP growth to 3.9 percent, a change of nearly
> 70%... the Commerce Department first announced the Gross Domestic
> Product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the third
> quarter of 1992, it later revealed that the figure is 3.9 percent"
> LABYRINTHS OF PROSPERITY by Reuven Brenner.
LT Lee is good to prove USA commerce department data inaccurate. How
about using the PRC published official numbers and show how it is
accurate?
raylopez99
Some final thoughts:
The issue in this thread is whether China distorts their GDP, not that
economic statistics are inexact here and there.
Of the countries where I computed the GDP according to the "energy
analysis" as taught by this thread (namely FR, GER, IT, UK, JP, USA,
Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, India and China, and, in this post, Russia
and Taiwan), only India and China had inflated and distorted GDP (the
published GDP figure was larger than what was calculated). Note for
the first six countries above, by definition, you will not have
distortion, since they are being used in the sample as representative
of efficient energy consuming countries, but note there was no
distortion for Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, which are developing
countries; nor for Russia or Taiwan. This surprised me; I expected
some distortion.
I also just computed the GDP figures for Russia and Taiwan below. BTW,
you can compute the GDP figures yourself: go to US Energy Information
Administration (www.eia.doe.gov) and search for Table 11.3 "World
Primary Energy Consumption by Region, 1992-2001" (Quadrillion BTU),
from the Annual Energy Review 2002 (sorry I only have a hardcopy, not a
link). If you can't find this data, and if anybody wants the data
for a particular country, email me (raylo...@yahoo.com) for which
country and what year desired, and I will try and email you the data.
Then you do the following: multiply : QBTU (Table 11.3) * 6.11 * 25
(see the first three messages in this thread as to why) to get
estimated GDP in USD$ billion based on energy consumption, given the
assumptions, and, for non-communist countries, assuming "x" = 1.
BTW, I was surprised nobody challenged me on why I set "x" = 0.5
for China. The assumption was that Communist countries waste energy,
specifically, if "x" = 0.5 they waste twice the energy for a given
output, compared to "Western" countries (including Japan). Let's
see if this is true. Let's pick Russia as an example, as Russia used
to be Communist.
>From Table 11.3, Russia's QBTU for 2001 was = 28.2. Therefore, the
Russian "energy equivalent" GDP, if Russia is as efficient as
"Western" countries, should be no more than: 28.2 * 6.11 * 25 =
4307 USD billion = $4.3 trillion. According to the CIA website
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ)
Russia's GDP is in fact $1.282 trillion (ignore for a moment that the
data is for year 2004, not 2001, since Russia did grow in 3 years but
not that much to be outside a margin of error of +-10% to 20%). Notice
one important fact: the published Russian GDP is LESS THAN the
"energy equivalent" GDP. This proves Russia is NOT DISTORTING (not
lying) about their GDP. In other words, if Russia was as efficient as
the "Western" countries their GDP should be 4.3/1.282 = 3.36 times
bigger. So the 'inefficiency' of Russia, since it is nearly
Communist, is "x" = 1/(3.36) = 0.298. This number for "x" is
in fact less than the assumption I made about China, that "x" =
0.50; that's why I said earlier I was being generous to China.
Now let's pick Taiwan. From Table 11.3 QBTU= 4.07 (for yr 2001). So
Taiwan "energy equivalent" GDP = 4.07 * 6.11 * 25 = $621.7 bil.
The CIA estimate for Taiwan is $528.6 billion (found here, buried in
the CIA website so I suppose not to offend China! :-)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html ). Again,
since "computed" GDP is LESS THAN "published" GDP, Taiwan is
not distorting their GDP. In fact, the "x" for Taiwan is x =
528.6/621.7 = 0.85. This is within our 10-20% margin for error, but,
possibly, it might also imply that Taiwan is slightly less energy
efficient than the other "Western" countries I used as the
baseline.
Some speculation as to what it means for mainland China's GDP to be
between $2.25 trillion < PPP (China) < $3.03 trillion, and not the
published $6.449 trillion:
1) China's economy today is in fact equal to Italy plus France put
together. A decade ago it was said China's economy is equal to just
Italy, but since then it has grown. This is really a good
accomplishment that China should acknowledge and celebrate; there's
no need to distort the data to make it look even better.
2) Mainland China, if it invades Taiwan, and if the traditional formula
applies that attacking country must have resources greater than
defending country by a factor of 3:1, means that mainland China would
beat Taiwan in a conventional war, since 2250/528.6 = 4.3 or,
3030/528.6 = 5.7. However, it would not be a "pushover" or unfair
battle, as it would be if China really had a GDP of the published
$6.449 trillion. Also I believe the 3:1 ratio applies for a land
attack, not a sea attack, which is more difficult and which might push
the ratio higher. Finally we must rule out nuclear weapons and assume
each side has similar conventional weapons.
3) China's Renminbi is probably not so strong after all, since the
real economy is not that strong (remember the 80% in the countryside),
and therefore there is no need to revalue the currency from the current
8:1 ratio. China should ignore the US demands to revalue. Of course
there is inflation in Shanghai, but that is a classic "city versus
country" problem for China to solve.
4) If in fact the assumption that x=0.50 turns out to be
'charitable' or favorable for China, then one must ask: what is the
'real' "x"? See the above value for Russia, x=0.298, and this
only after a decade of "reform". What is the percentage of State
Operated Enterprises in China? Could "x" be even less than 0.298?
If so, then China's GDP could be even lower than $2 trillion.
5) You might be reluctant to believe in this thread--after all, it is
the Internet, a Usenet group that is unmoderated, from a poster who is
anonymous, and not an economist. Frankly, you have every right to be
suspicious. So don't take my word for it--do yourself a favor and
check out some works by a distinguished economist named Rawski. He
basically pointed this out several years ago (not using exactly my
analysis, but using other tools). Here is one of his papers:
http://www.pitt.edu/~tgrawski/papers2001/caveat.web.pdf
a. One of Rawski's points was that China's GDP seemed to be growing
while energy consumption was declining, which is not very believable:
"Table 1 reproduces official data for GDP, industrial output, and
energy consumption. The aggregate figures depict an improbable scenario
in which GDP grew by 25.6 percent during 1996-99 despite a 12.2%
reduction in energy consumption. China has dispelled a commonly held
notion that economic growth and energy consumption are necessarily
coupled"
6) On a personal note, I am very excited about China, and do feel,
based on its large population --which as Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has
rightly pointed out is a strength not a weakness in the 21st century--
might be destined to be the next superpower. On the negative side, the
population does not speak English well, is a bit too nationalistic (Han
chinese), and is a bit too old (demographically almost as old as the
USA). But the next Silicon Valley for an engineer type like myself
might be Shanghai / Guangdong?! Time to learn Mandarin / Cantonese
maybe? :-)
--RL
<eom>
Yu
raylopez99 wrote:
> Thank you, Mr. Yu! I appreciate your insight.
>
> Nobody is doubting that China is burning energy (the English phrase
> "burning the midnight oil" for working hard comes to mind!)
>
> The issue is whether burning energy is translating into GDP
(productive
> output). Think of it this way: I can run fast standing still, and
if
> I just jump up and down, without moving forward, I will not travel
very
> far but I will burn lots of energy and get a good workout (and
impress
> many people with my energy).
Would you like to explain the tremendous growth in China's consumption
of commodities such as iron ore from Australia, soya beans from USA,
petroleum from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Indonesia. These commodities
prices cannot be cooked up by a few individuals.
> As for Mr. Chang, I thought he was very courageous, as a lawyer, to
> write such a book. He probably killed his career in mainland China.
> Oh well, maybe he wanted to work in Taiwan after all.
Taiwan spent huge amount of money promoting this kind of books.
Bill
> Thanks for replying everybody.
>
> Some final thoughts:
>
> The issue in this thread is whether China distorts their GDP, not that
> economic statistics are inexact here and there.
>
Actually, not really. You have a discrepancy between two pieces of data (after
being processed by your model) which you are not able to explain - much less
attribute it to distortion. For example, I suggested that some of the
difference might be due to the use of farm animals and you agreed that you
assumed that was not a factor. So the energy use data might be wrong, your
model might not work well for this type of economy, or the GDP could be off
for a different reason than distortion.
Bill
raylopez99
China of $6.449 trillion (2004 est.) (from the CIA website:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ ) is
found from this below passage. Note that the estimate for China's GDP
on a PPP basis --$1.68 trillion -- is even less than my estimate of $2
trillion.
"
When Will China be Larger Than the US?
By John Mauldin [financial author with a free email report]
January 21, 2005
Goldman Sachs attempted to answer that question in October of 2003.
Sometime this year, China, in terms of GDP, will be larger than the UK.
Around 2010, they will surpass Germany, Japan by 2015 and will catch up
with the US around 2040.
(As an aside, they also think that India will surpass France and
Germany in the early 2020's and Japan in the early 2030's.)
Let's look at a few comparisons of where we are today. You can look at
a country's GDP in several ways. First, you can look at it in absolute
terms, as the Goldman study mentioned above does. Looking at Gross
Domestic Product in terms of dollars, the United States is roughly $12
trillion dollars. (All of Europe - the so-called EU 25 - is slightly
larger.) China is now the #7 ranked country, with a GDP of around $1.6
trillion. Japan is $4.7 and Germany is $2.7 trillion. (Source IMF)
It gives you some perspective that Italy is bigger in terms of GDP than
China. If California were a nation, it would be larger than China.
China's PPP per capita GDP is about 14% of the US [0.14 * USA's $12
trillion = $1.68 trillion] and close to the bottom of the 40 or so
countries we surveyed. India, for what it's worth, is at the bottom. If
you look in actual dollar terms, China comes off even worse. The GDP
per capita of the US is roughly $40,000. For China that same number is
only $1,213.
"
<eom>
robert j. kolker
raylopez99 wrote:
> Goldman Sachs attempted to answer that question in October of 2003.
> Sometime this year, China, in terms of GDP, will be larger than the UK.
> Around 2010, they will surpass Germany, Japan by 2015 and will catch up
> with the US around 2040.
Does the analysis assume the U.S. is stagnant. If so that is a bad
assumption.
Bob Kolker
Igor
inflation rates. They said the economy was growing at 6% when they were
experiencing deflation and high unemployment. What should that tell you?
ltlee1
Igor wrote:
> The easiest way to show it is off is to look at unemployment and
> inflation rates. They said the economy was growing at 6% when they
were
> experiencing deflation and high unemployment. What should that tell
you?
Commodity price had been going up for the last two three years. Who is
buying and why?
goor...@yahoo.com
> Igor wrote:
> > The easiest way to show it is off is to look at unemployment and
> > inflation rates. They said the economy was growing at 6% when they
> were
> > experiencing deflation and high unemployment. What should that tell
> you?
>
> Commodity price had been going up for the last two three years. Who
is
> buying and why?
U r an expert in chinese media after u find so many "inconsistency" in
westerm media. What did chinese media say?
ltlee1
You know that some Chinese company bought a large Canadian resource
company. Don't you?
goor...@yahoo.com
ltlee1 wrote:
> gooru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > Commodity price had been going up for the last two three years.
Who
> > is
> > > buying and why?
> >
> > U r an expert in chinese media after u find so many "inconsistency"
> in
> > westerm media. What did chinese media say?
>
> You know that some Chinese company bought a large Canadian resource
> company. Don't you?
U know buying a comodity company is diff from buying commodity, don't
u?
Bill
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3597367
Bill
______________
ON TUESDAY January 25th, the Chinese authorities sheepishly confessed that the
economy beat expectations last year, growing by 9.5%. It finished the year
particularly strongly, growing at an annual pace of almost 13% in the last
three months, according to J.P. Morgan. Anywhere else, this would be cause for
celebration. But in China, the firecrackers remain unlit. Instead, analysts
and investors are trying to reassure themselves that this is not bad news.
Economists, who freely mix their metaphors, have spent the past year worrying
that China is "overheating" and hoping that it will make a "soft landing".
Their worries reached a peak in the spring, when China's banks were lending
freely, investment was expanding blindly and prices were rising quickly. This
anxiety was shared by the Chinese authorities. In April, Wen Jiabao, the prime
minister, said China would take "very forceful measures" to cool the economy.
The authorities imposed curbs on investment in sectors such as steel,
aluminium and cement, refused to release land to developers and threatened to
impose price controls if inflation remained out of hand. In October, the
central bank raised interest rates (if only by a little) for the first time in
nine years.
- more at URL -
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106214070....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
raylopez99
which always gives a large percentage increase and the illusion of
progress.
I like the last two paragraphs below: note the rural/city dichotomy,
which has been observed in this thread, and the "dead wood" problem,
which can be interpreted as a lot of blowing hot air (false
statistics).
RL
"Rural incomes, boosted by a bumper harvest, grew by 6.8%. And in the
cities, real disposable incomes increased by 7.7% and retail sales by
14.5%.
According to Tuesday's figures, China's economy is still sprouting
vigorously. But some still fear that too much of this growth will turn
out to be dead wood."