China. Rural subsidy scheme to boost consumption
0 views
Skip to first unread message
xieu...@gmail.com
Dec 10, 2008, 2:45:55 PM12/10/08
to World-thread
antidefm
Dec 11, 2008, 3:36:47 AM12/11/08
to World-thread
Yes, I guess that is "the" biggest thing happening in China now. It's
exciting to watch how they are doing it.
They are adding the new chapter to the past 30 years of economic
development. I guess the whole world is taking the notes on this.
Wait a minute, that video clip is from "cctvupload", LOL!
I have recently try to get the permission from Russia Today to upload
their videos on the cctvupload channel. It seems they ignore me, they
didn't want to say yea or no.
On Dec 10, 11:45 am, "xieu.l...@gmail.com" <xieu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
exciting to watch how they are doing it.
They are adding the new chapter to the past 30 years of economic
development. I guess the whole world is taking the notes on this.
Wait a minute, that video clip is from "cctvupload", LOL!
I have recently try to get the permission from Russia Today to upload
their videos on the cctvupload channel. It seems they ignore me, they
didn't want to say yea or no.
On Dec 10, 11:45 am, "xieu.l...@gmail.com" <xieu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
xieu...@gmail.com
Dec 11, 2008, 11:40:22 AM12/11/08
to World-thread
I agree, and in my opinion, this can be one of the biggest thing for
the humankind as well if we have success rising the welfare level of
700 mill. people. That is what this policy is about.
There are several indicators to size how welfare raises. My favourite
one is very easy, life expectancy at birth, as it is objective and it
is a consequence of many other indicators. I include here a chart to
see how it evolved in recent years.
http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/china.php#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=100;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2.63354838709677;ti=2006$zpv;v=1$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pp59adS3CHWfKPVb7dEexFA;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=pp59adS3CHWfZMwdMLgucCw;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=20;iid=pp59adS3CHWcajNS5Y44uLw;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID1;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=746;dataMax=29481$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=55;dataMax=84$map_s;sma=40;smi=2$cd;bd=0$inds=i30_d001990cLbt;i1_d001990cFeM;i9_p001990akak;i96_d001990aybr;i24_p001990bbbs;i21_l001990bBbw
I compared three areas that were rural in 1990 with two urban areas at
that time. Also, I added Denmark. Denmark is considered the happier
wountry (1), good reputation of high welfare and very developed (*).
We can debunk two myths at a time with this chart. And finally, to see
why this policy is so important.
Firstable we can check the myth of of the Chinese urban workers. Let
us see how urban areas evolved compared to Denmark. We see that
starting from below, Beijing (73 years in 1990, 78 in 2006) reached
Danmark (75 years in 1990, 78 in 2006), while Shanghai starting at the
same level (75 years in 1990), nowadays (80 in 2006) is higher than
Danmark. It seems that, in urban areas, Chinese workers enjoy a
welfare level similar (or better) to Danmark even with lower income
per person. Not too bad.
If we compare income per person in US$ of 1990, we can see that Bejing
($4,784 in 1990, $20,234 in 2006, growth pace 4.23) and Shanghai
($5,459 in 1990, $23,146 in 2006, or growth factor 4.24) might catch
Denmark ($18,452 in 1990, $24,899 in 2006, or growth factor 1.35) in
2007 or 2008 in income per person too.
The second myth is about the growth pace between rural and urban areas
in China. I took three areas, Hebei -Northeast-, Yunan -Southeast
where Han ethnicity is 67%-, and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region -
West-.
Hebei grew from $1,247 per person in 1990 up to $6,817 in 2006, or
growth factor 5.47. Yunan from $1,153 up to $3,597, or growth factor
3.12. Xinjiang from $1,649 to $6,014, or growth factor 3.65. We can
see that growth does not depend on rural versus urban, as much as some
particular areas that start to become urban from rural.
Regarding welfare. Hebei raised from 70 years in 1990 to 74 in 2006,
Yunan from 63 to 67 and Xinjiang from 63 to 70. All of them above
Danmark and more or less as the same pace than Beijing or Shanghai.
This subsidy tries to improve welfare in rural areas. It makes the
goods that produces welfare at their homes (home appliances) cheaper
than in urban areas, then is narrows the gap in welfare between rural
and urban areas. And, at the same time, pushes growth as you,
antidefm, explained in your vid. It makes sense because there are lot
of savings, without savings this plan would make no sense.
We have to combine it with the investment plan on transporation, cheap
houses and energy addressed in particular to rural areas. In rural
areas the opportunity is higher and the efficiency of investments in
terms of employment is also higher.
Also, there are services that improve welfare, such as healthcare and
education. I do not cite them because universal healthcare and "near
free" education is already a fact, or is close to be, in all rural
areas.
All aspects that have influence on welfare and growth are into those
plans. In my opinion, this new development model will change China
deeply as the decission from people to move from rural to urban areas
will not make too much sense as it does today. At least in economic
terms and in terms of welfare.
Peace and best wishes.
Xi
(*) I selected Danmark because it is welknown for those features, but
same happens in most developed areas around the world. However pace of
economic growth and welfare area might be different.
the humankind as well if we have success rising the welfare level of
700 mill. people. That is what this policy is about.
There are several indicators to size how welfare raises. My favourite
one is very easy, life expectancy at birth, as it is objective and it
is a consequence of many other indicators. I include here a chart to
see how it evolved in recent years.
http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/china.php#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=100;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2.63354838709677;ti=2006$zpv;v=1$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pp59adS3CHWfKPVb7dEexFA;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=pp59adS3CHWfZMwdMLgucCw;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=20;iid=pp59adS3CHWcajNS5Y44uLw;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID1;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=746;dataMax=29481$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=55;dataMax=84$map_s;sma=40;smi=2$cd;bd=0$inds=i30_d001990cLbt;i1_d001990cFeM;i9_p001990akak;i96_d001990aybr;i24_p001990bbbs;i21_l001990bBbw
I compared three areas that were rural in 1990 with two urban areas at
that time. Also, I added Denmark. Denmark is considered the happier
wountry (1), good reputation of high welfare and very developed (*).
We can debunk two myths at a time with this chart. And finally, to see
why this policy is so important.
Firstable we can check the myth of of the Chinese urban workers. Let
us see how urban areas evolved compared to Denmark. We see that
starting from below, Beijing (73 years in 1990, 78 in 2006) reached
Danmark (75 years in 1990, 78 in 2006), while Shanghai starting at the
same level (75 years in 1990), nowadays (80 in 2006) is higher than
Danmark. It seems that, in urban areas, Chinese workers enjoy a
welfare level similar (or better) to Danmark even with lower income
per person. Not too bad.
If we compare income per person in US$ of 1990, we can see that Bejing
($4,784 in 1990, $20,234 in 2006, growth pace 4.23) and Shanghai
($5,459 in 1990, $23,146 in 2006, or growth factor 4.24) might catch
Denmark ($18,452 in 1990, $24,899 in 2006, or growth factor 1.35) in
2007 or 2008 in income per person too.
The second myth is about the growth pace between rural and urban areas
in China. I took three areas, Hebei -Northeast-, Yunan -Southeast
where Han ethnicity is 67%-, and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region -
West-.
Hebei grew from $1,247 per person in 1990 up to $6,817 in 2006, or
growth factor 5.47. Yunan from $1,153 up to $3,597, or growth factor
3.12. Xinjiang from $1,649 to $6,014, or growth factor 3.65. We can
see that growth does not depend on rural versus urban, as much as some
particular areas that start to become urban from rural.
Regarding welfare. Hebei raised from 70 years in 1990 to 74 in 2006,
Yunan from 63 to 67 and Xinjiang from 63 to 70. All of them above
Danmark and more or less as the same pace than Beijing or Shanghai.
This subsidy tries to improve welfare in rural areas. It makes the
goods that produces welfare at their homes (home appliances) cheaper
than in urban areas, then is narrows the gap in welfare between rural
and urban areas. And, at the same time, pushes growth as you,
antidefm, explained in your vid. It makes sense because there are lot
of savings, without savings this plan would make no sense.
We have to combine it with the investment plan on transporation, cheap
houses and energy addressed in particular to rural areas. In rural
areas the opportunity is higher and the efficiency of investments in
terms of employment is also higher.
Also, there are services that improve welfare, such as healthcare and
education. I do not cite them because universal healthcare and "near
free" education is already a fact, or is close to be, in all rural
areas.
All aspects that have influence on welfare and growth are into those
plans. In my opinion, this new development model will change China
deeply as the decission from people to move from rural to urban areas
will not make too much sense as it does today. At least in economic
terms and in terms of welfare.
Peace and best wishes.
Xi
same happens in most developed areas around the world. However pace of
economic growth and welfare area might be different.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages