China 2009: A great leap forward
Albert K. Fung
The exasperated world is, finally, gratified to see the USA,
once again, leading the world and begin solving the intract-
able problem of CO2 emission. Ahead of UN's Copenhagen multi
-national climate pow-wow, US President Ohama announced that
he would attend the meeting. In addition he would commit the
US to reduce her 2005 CO2 emission level by 17% before 2020.
Notwithstanding raucous rumbling from China, she followed.
In response to President Obama's direct challenge, President
Hu announced China's commitment to cut her 2005 CO2 emission
level by 40-50% per unit of GDP. That is a ginormously great
leap forward for the Middle Kingdom.
The anxious world, breathe a collective sigh of relief. With
its top two polluters finally seeing eye-to-eye, the serious
work of earnestly restoring Planet Earth could now begin. It
is also a reflection of the fact that, China is beginning to
learn that she is not any longer the Middle Kingdom and that
stakeholder has real responsibilities.
Two ginormous Thanksgiving presents for the world .... :)
PS: A happy Thanksgiving to all.
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Republica Argentina.
Albert K. Fung
skygod
now it is switched to carbon dioxide generation.
ignoring how serious is the pollution of poisonous gas in Chinkland !!
this is because USA need such obnoxious industries to be shifted to
Chinkland irrespective the lives of abject-chinks.
Albert K. Fung 提到:
Albert K. Fung
>
> The exasperated world is, finally, gratified to see the USA,
> once again, leading the world and begin solving the intract-
> able problem of CO2 emission. Ahead of UN's Copenhagen multi
> -national climate pow-wow, US President Ohama announced that
> he would attend the meeting. In addition he would commit the
> US to reduce her 2005 CO2 emission level by 17% before 2020.
>
> Notwithstanding raucous rumbling from China, she followed.
>
> In response to President Obama's direct challenge, President
> Hu announced China's commitment to cut her 2005 CO2 emission
> level by 40-50% per unit of GDP. That is a ginormously great
> leap forward for the Middle Kingdom.
>
> The anxious world, breathe a collective sigh of relief. With
> its top two polluters finally seeing eye-to-eye, the serious
> work of earnestly restoring Planet Earth could now begin. It
> is also a reflection of the fact that, China is beginning to
> learn that she is not any longer the Middle Kingdom and that
> stakeholder has real responsibilities.
skygod:
> the source of the problem is the poisonous gas in fuel consumption.
> now it is switched to carbon dioxide generation.
> ignoring how serious is the pollution of poisonous gas in Chinkland !!
> this is because USA need such obnoxious industries to be shifted to
> Chinkland irrespective the lives of abject-chinks.
食得鹹魚抵得渴 ....
Certainly, China is quite mindful of the Cantonese 鹹魚 doct-
rine. After all, is it not her desire to be the manufacturer
of the world? And for that, she is willing to pay any price?
Therefore, she can't blame anyone but herself for that Faust
-ian bargain. Poisonous gas, while bad, posts no harm to the
world at large but the Chinese themselves. Understandably it
is unconcerned.
OTOH as global greenhouse gas, CO2 imperils the whole world.
While China's pledge, unlike that of the USA, isn't absolute
reduction by any means. She is merely pledging to use energy
more efficiently. Nevertheless, it is a good first step. One
needs to look no further than her vehement belligerence, and
her finger pointing, victim-is-me attitudes on the issue not
that long ago. Now, as world's largest emitter of greenhouse
CO2, her 180 degree change in attitude cannot be more drama-
tic. The 900 lb gorilla knows she is too heavy to run away.
Now, she is merely making a clumsy attempt to hide .... :)
skygod
against such international politicans, who are giving up their original
attention.
Albert K. Fung 提到:
fyf...@gmail.com
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
I believe if RMB had been allowed a bit more room to move around, it
could have more objectively
optimized the speed of development in the Middle Kingdom.
Unfortunately, what CCP has done
is managed market operation which she believes has done herself and
her high end officials a lot
of good.
Tlee may disagree, of course.
ltlee1
What do you mean by "objectively optimized the speed of development?"
> Unfortunately, what CCP has done
> is managed market operation which she believes has done herself and
> her high end officials a lot
> of good.
>
> Tlee may disagree, of course.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ltlee1
> On the existential global warming ....
>
> The exasperated world is, finally, gratified to see the USA,
> once again, leading the world and begin solving the intract-
> able problem of CO2 emission. Ahead of UN's Copenhagen multi
> -national climate pow-wow, US President Ohama announced that
> he would attend the meeting. In addition he would commit the
> US to reduce her 2005 CO2 emission level by 17% before 2020.
>
> Notwithstanding raucous rumbling from China, she followed.
>
> In response to President Obama's direct challenge, President
> Hu announced China's commitment to cut her 2005 CO2 emission
> level by 40-50% per unit of GDP. That is a ginormously great
> leap forward for the Middle Kingdom.
>
> The anxious world, breathe a collective sigh of relief. With
> its top two polluters finally seeing eye-to-eye, the serious
> work of earnestly restoring Planet Earth could now begin. It
> is also a reflection of the fact that, China is beginning to
> learn that she is not any longer the Middle Kingdom and that
> stakeholder has real responsibilities.
Source please?
Without giving out the source, one do not know whether you are
describing your imagination or the reality. For example, one can
easily one the above with the "America" substituted by "China" and
"China" substiuted by "America." And it will read:
America 2009: A great leap forwar.
Albert K. Fung
>
> Certainly, China is quite mindful of the Cantonese 鹹魚 doct-
> rine. After all, is it not her desire to be the manufacturer
> of the world? And for that, she is willing to pay any price?
> Therefore, she can't blame anyone but herself for that Faust
> -ian bargain. Poisonous gas, while bad, posts no harm to the
> world at large but the Chinese themselves. Understandably it
> is unconcerned.
>
> OTOH as global greenhouse gas, CO2 imperils the whole world.
>
> While China's pledge, unlike that of the USA, isn't absolute
> reduction by any means. She is merely pledging to use energy
> more efficiently. Nevertheless, it is a good first step. One
> needs to look no further than her vehement belligerence, and
> her finger pointing, victim-is-me attitudes on the issue not
> that long ago. Now, as world's largest emitter of greenhouse
> CO2, her 180 degree change in attitude cannot be more drama-
> tic. The 900 lb gorilla knows she is too heavy to run away.
>
> Now, she is merely making a clumsy attempt to hide .... :)
fpfpoon:
> I believe if RMB had been allowed a bit more room to move around, it
> could have more objectively
> optimized the speed of development in the Middle Kingdom.
> Unfortunately, what CCP has done
> is managed market operation which she believes has done herself and
> her high end officials a lot
> of good.
>
> Tlee may disagree, of course.
Worth noting ....
Is the fact that almost all of China's powerful top echelon,
are engineering graduates. None, has any background in agri-
culture. Perhaps this is accidental, or deliberate. But, the
net effect is rather dramatic: China's industrial production
capacity expanded rapidly. While her agriculture shrunk just
as rapidly. China's deserts are expanding, and her farmlands
are retreating. Today, half of China is under the tight grip
of persistent drought and sandstorm.
Due, largely, to lack of investments ....
PS: Today, China is the top CO2 emitter of the world, drama-
tically warming Planet Earth, and imperiling her people.
Subsidized energy encouraged wasteful practices. But her
powerful exporters prevailed.
fyf...@gmail.com
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
Perhaps if the RMB had been allowed more room to reflect the supply
and demand for the currency under a freer marketing setting, her
economic development would have been more balanced in terms of urban
rural growth, import and export industries development.
ltlee1
1. What supply and demand?
The RMB, like all other currency, is a fiat currency. That is, the
Chinese governemnt can print as much as it wants. Which country allows
the market to determine the suppy and demand of its currency without
intervention?
2. What make you think a freer market will lead to more balanced
development?
Does the still ongoing financial crisis, read Dhubai not happen in
under the free market condition?
Albert K. Fung
> Perhaps if the RMB had been allowed more room to reflect the supply
> and demand for the currency under a freer marketing setting, her
> economic development would have been more balanced in terms of urban
> rural growth, import and export industries development.
Hijacked by China Inc. ....
Abetted by the government, the Chinese people are merely the
pawns and victims of questionable economic dogmas. One needs
to look no further than a critical statistics, on the extend
of the grip of China's governmental/industrial cabal, on the
country's national income.
China's (DPI/GDP) ratio, has consistently been under 50%.
DPI is disposable personal income. Which is, for proper pers
-pective, around 70% in the USA. The low ratio is consistent
with the fact that China's domestic consumption is weak, due
to the confiscatory nature of China Inc. As pointed out by a
Chinese born MIT economist, contrary to popular believe, the
Chinese are not spending, not because they like to save. But
because they are not making enough.
Eliminating the RMB/USD peg has the net effect of dramatical
-ly increasing the Chinese people's purchasing power parity,
and with that, their DPI. And would go a long way towards re
-dressing her serious and distorted misallocation of capital
and economic resources. To that sound advice from the inter-
national community, China Inc. reached into their collective
pocket, pulled out a coin and said, "Here's a dime. Call our
boss."
"And see if he cares ...." :)
ltlee1
Shrinking agricultural sector which productivity is low is the
hallmark
of economic development. The same in every country.
> Today, half of China is under the tight grip
> of persistent drought and sandstorm.
>
> Due, largely, to lack of investments ....
Usual AKFung BS.
>
> PS: Today, China is the top CO2 emitter of the world, drama-
> tically warming Planet Earth, and imperiling her people.
> Subsidized energy encouraged wasteful practices. But her
> powerful exporters prevailed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Republica Argentina.- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
> fyfpoon:
>
> > Perhaps if the RMB had been allowed more room to reflect the supply
> > and demand for the currency under a freer marketing setting, her
> > economic development would have been more balanced in terms of urban
> > rural growth, import and export industries development.
>
> Hijacked by China Inc. ....
>
> Abetted by the government, the Chinese people are merely the
> pawns and victims of questionable economic dogmas.
What nonsense?
As if the Chinese people do not having rising living standard.
> One needs
> to look no further than a critical statistics, on the extend
> of the grip of China's governmental/industrial cabal, on the
> country's national income.
>
> China's (DPI/GDP) ratio, has consistently been under 50%.
>
> DPI is disposable personal income. Which is, for proper pers
> -pective, around 70% in the USA. The low ratio is consistent
> with the fact that China's domestic consumption is weak, due
> to the confiscatory nature of China Inc. As pointed out by a
> Chinese born MIT economist, contrary to popular believe, the
> Chinese are not spending, not because they like to save. But
> because they are not making enough.
>
> Eliminating the RMB/USD peg has the net effect of dramatical
> -ly increasing the Chinese people's purchasing power parity,
> and with that, their DPI. And would go a long way towards re
> -dressing her serious and distorted misallocation of capital
> and economic resources.
Nonsense. The household's propensity to spend is independent
of the exchange rate. A higher exchange rate will shift the
compositon
of consumpiton from domestic to import goods. But not the overall
consumption.
Albert K. Fung
>
> Abetted by the government, the Chinese people are merely the
> to look no further than a critical statistics, on the extend
> of the grip of China's governmental/industrial cabal, on the
> country's national income.
>
> China's (DPI/GDP) ratio, has consistently been under 50%.
>
> DPI is disposable personal income. Which is, for proper pers
> -pective, around 70% in the USA. The low ratio is consistent
> with the fact that China's domestic consumption is weak, due
> to the confiscatory nature of China Inc. As pointed out by a
> Chinese born MIT economist, contrary to popular believe, the
> Chinese are not spending, not because they like to save. But
> because they are not making enough.
>
> Eliminating the RMB/USD peg has the net effect of dramatical
> -ly increasing the Chinese people's purchasing power parity,
> and with that, their DPI. And would go a long way towards re
> -dressing her serious and distorted misallocation of capital
> and economic resources.
>
> national community, China Inc. reached into their collective
> pocket, pulled out a coin and said, "Here's a dime. Call our
> boss."
>
> "And see if he cares ...." :)
ltlee:
> Nonsense. The household's propensity to spend is independent
> of the exchange rate. A higher exchange rate will shift the
> compositon
> of consumpiton from domestic to import goods. But not the overall
> consumption.
Commendable ignorance ....
On the effects of price on supply and demand on one hand and
exchange rate on purchasing power on the other. Coincidental
-ly, this humble netter happens to export wine to the HK and
China markets. He is most happy to provide a free lecture on
Economic 101.
His Pinot noir is quite popular in China selling for USD 20.
At the most recent exchange rate of 6.286 Yuan to a USD, his
customer in China pays about 126 Yuan a bottle - assuming no
import duties and misc. taxes. The average income of Chinese
farmer is about 4,761 Yuan a year. He has to work for a week
and half to buy a bottle of this humble netter's wine.
Depending on one's political orientation, the RMB is between
30 to 40% undervalue. It is quite safe to use the average of
35%. If the RMB were to be freely floating tomorrow, then it
takes only 82.0 Yuan to buy a bottle of this humble netter's
pinot noir, or about one week of an average farmer's income.
With that jaw-dropping price, according to supply and demand
theory of classical economics, this humble netter could look
forward to many more Chinese farmers beating on his door.
Demanding a piece of the good life .... :)
FYI: Perhaps HK is a good example for illustrating the power
-ful effect of a 35% discount on demand. The city state
used to charge a 40% duty on imported wine. Last year,
it abolished that. As a result, HK's wine import jumped
an eye-popping 34%. This humble netter is besides him-
self.
With that prosperous prospect .... :)
fyf...@gmail.com
Either you are out of your mind or the economics lessons I learned
years ago constitute
intellectual irrelevance. Whenever the rate of money growth exceeds
the growth rate of
productivity, you get inflation and what inflation does is to
distribute wealth from the poor
to the rich, causing gaps that lead to social instability.
> 2. What make you think a freer market will lead to more balanced
> development?
At least as RMB appreciates, the export sector will grow more slowly
while the import sector
more quickly. The upshot of this development would have been felt all
over the country, which
suggests a balanced development between the urban and rural sector
would have been in place.
> Does the still ongoing financial crisis, read Dhubai not happen in
> under the free market condition?
What has this got to do with what I talked about?
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
fyf...@gmail.com
But the purchasing power of RMB would have gone up to compensate for
the lack of income at least to a good degree.......
>
>
>
> > To that sound advice from the inter-
> > national community, China Inc. reached into their collective
> > pocket, pulled out a coin and said, "Here's a dime. Call our
> > boss."
>
> > "And see if he cares ...." :)
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Albert K. Fung
> > Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Republica Argentina.- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
fyf...@gmail.com
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
Itlee is not that ignorant. I think he is deliberately pro anything
the Beijing regime does out of
a sense of blind nationalism.
ltlee1
Wrong.
Not just money stock. But money and its velocity.
>
> > 2. What make you think a freer market will lead to more balanced
> > development?
>
> At least as RMB appreciates, the export sector will grow more slowly
> while the import sector
> more quickly. The upshot of this development would have been felt all
> over the country, which
> suggests a balanced development between the urban and rural sector
> would have been in place.
The above does not contradict what I had written on governemnts can
print
as much money as they want.
>
> > Does the still ongoing financial crisis, read Dhubai not happen in
> > under the free market condition?
>
> What has this got to do with what I talked about?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> > - 显示引用的文字 -- 隐藏被引用文字 -
>
> > - 显示引用的文字 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Albert K. Fung
fyfpoon:
> Itlee is not that ignorant. I think he is deliberately pro anything
> the Beijing regime does out of
> a sense of blind nationalism.
Most interesting observation ....
Which is a conundrum, if true. For Beijing has never contra-
dicted this humble netter's positions. For instance, China's
Premier Wen told the world, on many occasions, that economic
development of his country was "uneven" and "unbalanced".
China's economic managers all knew the problems of the peg.
However, perhaps out of inertia, they fail to act. Exasperat
-ed, the international community is urging her to jump. None
-theless, she refuse to let go of her training wheels. Which
is consistent with the view that her ruling elites are deep-
ly fearful of changes.
Their phobia, trumps out-of-the-box thinking .... :)
ltlee1
Specious. You are implying something which is not true. For instance,
you are not saying Hong Kongers are consuming 34% more alcohol.
Are you? The HKSAR did not abolish import tax on wine out of the
blue.
Any such policy change was discussed extensively long before the
actual vote. Wine importers, expecting the tax cut, of course will
reduce
import prior to the vote. They drew down their inventory. After the
vote on
import tax had passed, they replenished their inventroy. Viola, a 34%
jump.
Does it mean Hong Kongers' consumsing 34% more alcohol or spending
34% more on alcoholic beverages? Of course not. First of all, the
wine
importers and the wholesalers might not pass the saving onto the
consumers.
Even if they did, Hkers might buy not necessarily consume more
because
the before tax cut level of consumption was already at the point of
diminishing
return.
> With that prosperous prospect .... :)
Wish you all the luck. And the Hong Kong peeople all the luck.
Alcohol is less harmful than opium. Nevertheless not a "the more the
merrier"
consumable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Republica Argentina.- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
What nationalism? Just another way to disparage someone who has
a different view? If my facts are wrong, please say so. If my logic is
faulty,
please say so.
ltlee1
In what way it is uneven or unbalanced?
Please give direct quote and context.
>
> China's economic managers all knew the problems of the peg.
Meaningless statement.
Every single policy has problems sooner or later. Only the truly
ignorant will believe that is a perfect policy for eternity.
Everything has its time. Appreciation has its time, peg has it time.
BTW, in case your memory has failed you. Look the the exchange
rate again. The rmb does not peg the dollar all the time. In
contrast,
the Hong Kong dollar pegs the US dollars within very narrow ranges
for about 30 years.
>
> However, perhaps out of inertia, they fail to act. Exasperat
> -ed, the international community is urging her to jump. None
> -theless, she refuse to let go of her training wheels. Which
> is consistent with the view that her ruling elites are deep-
> ly fearful of changes.
>
> Their phobia, trumps out-of-the-box thinking .... :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Estancia la Serenidad/Chubut, Republica Argentina.- Hide quoted text -
fyf...@gmail.com
>
>
> - 显示引用的文字 -
OK...tell me whether RMB vs US$ is under or over valued. I need to do
some conversion.
I think the exchange rate should be 5rmb to 1 US$.
ltlee1
Don't know. China pricing its rmb is like McDonald selling its Big
Mac. Is the
listed price of big Mac over valued?
The more important question is whether the price will go up or down
tomorrow.
If Big Mac is having a big sale tomorrow and I don't need it today, I
will wait
for tomorrow.
I think the dollar will have a big sale in the not too distant future
after it has
recovered some.
> I think the exchange rate should be 5rmb to 1 US$.
The day will come.
Albert K. Fung
> Specious. You are implying something which is not true. For instance,
> you are not saying Hong Kongers are consuming 34% more alcohol.
> Are you? The HKSAR did not abolish import tax on wine out of the
> blue.
> Any such policy change was discussed extensively long before the
> actual vote. Wine importers, expecting the tax cut, of course will
> reduce
> import prior to the vote. They drew down their inventory. After the
> vote on
> import tax had passed, they replenished their inventroy. Viola, a 34%
> jump.
>
> Does it mean Hong Kongers' consumsing 34% more alcohol or spending
> 34% more on alcoholic beverages? Of course not. First of all, the
> wine
> importers and the wholesalers might not pass the saving onto the
> consumers.
> Even if they did, Hkers might buy not necessarily consume more
> because
> the before tax cut level of consumption was already at the point of
> diminishing
> return.
From 21.45 million liters ....
HK's wine import jumped 34% to 32.5 million liters y-o-y, in
the fiscal year that ended March 31st, 2009. And, if the cur
-rent trend holds, then, this year's import, by volume, will
be even more eye-popping and jaw-dropping.
An astounding 70% jump, y-o-y, is expected .... :)
ltlee1
Hong Kong is well known for being an entrepot. Some of its
imports are intended for export. What is the net import?
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
Albert K. Fung
>
> HK's wine import jumped 34% to 32.5 million liters y-o-y, in
> the fiscal year that ended March 31st, 2009. And, if the cur
> -rent trend holds, then, this year's import, by volume, will
> be even more eye-popping and jaw-dropping.
>
> An astounding 70% jump, y-o-y, is expected .... :)
ltlee:
> Hong Kong is well known for being an entrepot. Some of its
> imports are intended for export. What is the net import?
Admirable ignorance ....
But inexcusable, nevertheless. The esteemed netter is woeful
-ly unaware, that many Muslim countries in Asia ban wine im-
port outright. Those that are not, imposed very hefty taxes,
and duties. In that light, the famed entreport of HK is like
a fish without water. For example, China imposes a ginormous
import tax on wine.
A confiscatory, 49% ....
ltlee1
Why the irrelevance above?
If you have information from authoritative source that Hong Kong
does export or send its wine anywhere, why can't cite the source?