PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 14 May 2013 21:49

TSJones wrote:I would remind everyone that Capitalism has its own mind that it sometimes deposits in a panic. There are business cycles. Things go up and things go down. It's rarely in a straight line. The US goes through through these things every 20 to 50 years.

While what you say is absolutely correct, and the business cycle does apply to future growth in China. But this is really a secondary effect; it's misleading to think of what's been happening in China over the past 20 years as being some how related to the growth side of a normal business cycle.

I think the better question that should be asked is: what are the conditions that allow wealth inequality to persist? Why should Western workers have much more wealth, and a higher standard of living, than those in China? Why, why, why? We all aspire to the same thing.

If the United States and China were plots of farmland... what is it that allows the US to harvest so much more? I'm not going to write a long thesis about this, but I will just briefly say, I think it's a question of providing the necessary conditions. You need the proper fertilizer, you need to have irrigation, you need workers at the right place at the right time. The story of the past 20 years has been China gradually putting together precisely that.

China's now possesses an educated population: literacy rates are through the roof, and secondary/college education rates are very high. Due to cultural influences, we study hard and we work hard; we are firm believers in the importance of both education and hard work. We have capital, and much of it is controlled by domestic sources (not just foreign). We have the physical resources needed to keep building our economy.

So, really, why shouldn't our plot be as fertile as that of the United States? Even if we give the United States the benefit of the doubt (for being "first mover"), and say GDP per capita should always be smaller than that of the US... then perhaps we're 10-20% less productive, certainly not 80% less productive (as we are today). I see what's happening in China as little more than the flattening out of an inequality that shouldn't be justified, and can't be maintained. Business cycle effects might dictate how long it takes for this to happen, but it's only a question of *when*.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby TSJones » 14 May 2013 22:16

heech wrote:
TSJones wrote:I would remind everyone that Capitalism has its own mind that it sometimes deposits in a panic. There are business cycles. Things go up and things go down. It's rarely in a straight line. The US goes through through these things every 20 to 50 years.

While what you say is absolutely correct, and the business cycle does apply to future growth in China. But this is really a secondary effect; it's misleading to think of what's been happening in China over the past 20 years as being some how related to the growth side of a normal business cycle.

I think the better question that should be asked is: what are the conditions that allow wealth inequality to persist? Why should Western workers have much more wealth, and a higher standard of living, than those in China? Why, why, why? We all aspire to the same thing.

If the United States and China were plots of farmland... what is it that allows the US to harvest so much more? I'm not going to write a long thesis about this, but I will just briefly say, I think it's a question of providing the necessary conditions. You need the proper fertilizer, you need to have irrigation, you need workers at the right place at the right time. The story of the past 20 years has been China gradually putting together precisely that.

China's now possesses an educated population: literacy rates are through the roof, and secondary/college education rates are very high. Due to cultural influences, we study hard and we work hard; we are firm believers in the importance of both education and hard work. We have capital, and much of it is controlled by domestic sources (not just foreign). We have the physical resources needed to keep building our economy.

So, really, why shouldn't our plot be as fertile as that of the United States? Even if we give the United States the benefit of the doubt (for being "first mover"), and say GDP per capita should always be smaller than that of the US... then perhaps we're 10-20% less productive, certainly not 80% less productive (as we are today). I see what's happening in China as little more than the flattening out of an inequality that shouldn't be justified, and can't be maintained. Business cycle effects might dictate how long it takes for this to happen, but it's only a question of *when*.


I hate to keep using the US as an example on this thread because there *are* other countries. :) But it's the only one I am very familiar with.

A hundred years ago, the US was about to enter the Golden Age of American Agriculture. It would be based primarily on exports and *WWI*. Europe couldn't get enough agriculture commodities. It was too busy killing each other off. My ancestors, farmers all, scrambled to take advantage of the increase in prices and went all in. More land, more equipment (mechanized agriculture became the status quo), more everything. They mortgaged their land to do this. They had a pretty good run while it lasted. But by 1920 it was all over. Europe had stopped its insanity for a few years and started feeding itself again. My ancestors lost it all. They simply didn't see it coming. They were driven from the land and into poverty for many years with the advent of the Great Depression. Basically *WWII* and mining and construction brought them back out of poverty.

I'll say it again, if China plans to continue its economy to be export based then good luck because China will need it.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby JE Menon » 14 May 2013 22:52

>>Just sad that as a country, Indians will instead of trying to elevate themselves up, spend day and night hoping/praying that another country (China) will fail. Pathetic, really.

And you got this from where? This and a couple of other threads? Like Heech said about China, perhaps you should take a visit to India. No skyscraping downtown areas, at least many of them, but it's an interesting place. You'll need to get involved and talk to people though. Perhaps you'll understand how we operate. Perhaps not. Not that it matters much.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 14 May 2013 23:51

TSJones wrote:I'll say it again, if China plans to continue its economy to be export based then good luck because China will need it.

I don't think enough people actually read China's five-year plans. Here's the highlights from the most recent one, covering the 2011-2015 period:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/c ... 762230.htm

Nothing about exports, but a lot about economic restructuring (including boosting consumption).

kish
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 07 Jun 2010 23:53

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby kish » 14 May 2013 23:57

wong wrote:My grandparents also fled Mao. So what?? Mao's been dead for almost 40 years. Does that take anything away from his accomplishments or his "Chineseness". He's on the faculty of the "Chinese University of Hong Kong" for Christ sake and Indians go through this BS logic that he's not Chinese. Look at his picture. Does he look Chinese ??


Who discredited his accomplishment?

I just pointed to his 'Autobiography', he alluded much of his success to his liberal french and english education.

The BR Indian modus operandi is always the same in these cases. First discredit the Chinese accomplishment. In this case a Nobel Prize is pretty hard to discredit (although someone here called it "Boring").


I know a country which discredited Nobel Prize..! Do you want to know which one. :lol:

Next, pretend the guy is not Chinese.


The point is, he is equally British and American.

Whatever! Just sad that as a country, Indians will instead of trying to elevate themselves up, spend day and night hoping/praying that another country (China) will fail. Pathetic, really.


WTF, Just point me to a post where any member wish/hope/pray china to fail. That's your assumption. 8)

And stop sermonizing Indians and stick to thread topic.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 15 May 2013 01:04

TSJones wrote:A hundred years ago, the US was about to enter the Golden Age of American Agriculture. ... My ancestors lost it all. They simply didn't see it coming. They were driven from the land and into poverty for many years with the advent of the Great Depression.

I'll say it again, if China plans to continue its economy to be export based then good luck because China will need it.

Oh, and by the way... even though your ancestors lost it all, their investment thesis wasn't wrong. 100 years later, the United States is by far the largest agricultural exporter on the planet.

And similarly, while I have no investment advice for those who want to speculate in China's real estate market today... I am also very confident as to the future of China's economy (and real estate) 100 years from now.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Prem » 15 May 2013 02:46

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-ch ... 2013-05-14
Why China doesn’t need the world
Commentary: Nationalism and self-reliance could shut out trading partners


The Chinese mercantilist model is increasingly problematic, as growth slows and weaknesses emerge. China may find it more convenient and productive to adjust to the new global environment by focusing inward.ndeed, if economic pressures lead to a shift to autarky, then the U.S., Europe and China are likely to find closed economies a realistic policy option, although for different reasons. This article looks at China, while subsequent piece will address smaller countries. Previous commentaries observe Europe’s imperfect union and America’s splendid isolationism.China’s policy position is driven by the economic problems of its major trading partners. Given their lower levels of growth, exports to Europe and America can no longer drive Chinese growth, at least to the extent it has in the recent past. China will have to rely on domestic developments to drive the strong growth in economic activity necessary to preserve social stability and the rule of the Communist party.An internal focus would help China to undertake the rebalancing of its economy from one driven by exports and state-directed debt-financed investment to one with higher consumption.Before the financial crisis, the U.S. purchased real goods and services from China, financing them with dollar-denominated I-O-Us with low rates of interest. China’s $3.4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves are invested primarily in government bonds and other high quality securities denominated in dollars, euro and yen.These investments have lost value, through increasing default risk (as the issuer’s ratings are downgraded) and deliberate policies to engineer falls in the value of the foreign currency against the renminbi. Attempts by the Chinese to liquidate reserve assets would result in sharp declines in the value of the securities and a rise in the renminbi against the relevant currencies, resulting in large losses.Independence vs. interdependence
Chinese resentment at the destruction of the value of its savings is increasing. In an opinion piece published in June 2012 in The Financial Times, Jin Liqun, chairman of the supervisory board at the China Investment Corporation, the nation’s sovereign wealth fund, writing with Keyu Jin, assistant professor at the London School of Economics, answered criticism of China’s response to the European debt crisis:“From the outset of the crisis,” they wrote, “China has responded positively and firmly to Europe’s appeal for support. But it should be received as an important and responsible stakeholder, not as an outside creditor relegated to lower levels of seniority in moments of urgency. It should be treated equally with the European Central Bank in the event of any debt restructuring.”Reducing international engagement would allow China to write down its investment over time. This would also minimize the need for further investment to protect the value of existing holdings, freeing up resources for internal requirements.As in any divorce, both partners — China and its major trading partners — increasingly recognize the lack of mutual benefit in continuing existing arrangements.China sees diminishing gains for engagement with external parties other than on its own terms. It resents external pressures on its economic policies, currency value, trading practices, political system, foreign policy and human rights record. China resents the hypocrisy of developed nations in dealing with a great power.Chinese history is shaped by successive humiliations in dealings with the West. Economic disengagement is dictated, in part, by developing breakdowns in the relationship between China and its trading partners.China’s has shifted its priority to food and energy security to sustain its development. China is purchasing food and energy independence, through targeted investment in foreign suppliers, for example in Africa. In some cases, these investments also secure external markets for Chinese goods and services.For China, a reversal of a policy represents a return to traditional economic self-reliance and a limited interest in trade. As Robert Hart, 19th Century British trade commissioner for China, wrote: “[The] Chinese have the best food in the world, rice; the best drink, tea; and the best clothing, cotton, silk, fur. Possessing these staples and their innumerable native adjuncts, they do not need to buy a penny’s worth elsewhere."Engagement with foreigners is the exception, not the norm, in Chinese history.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 15 May 2013 05:38

heech wrote:China's now possesses an educated population: literacy rates are through the roof, and secondary/college education rates are very high. Due to cultural influences, we study hard and we work hard; we are firm believers in the importance of both education and hard work. We have capital, and much of it is controlled by domestic sources (not just foreign). We have the physical resources needed to keep building our economy.

So, really, why shouldn't our plot be as fertile as that of the United States? Even if we give the United States the benefit of the doubt (for being "first mover"), and say GDP per capita should always be smaller than that of the US... then perhaps we're 10-20% less productive, certainly not 80% less productive (as we are today). I see what's happening in China as little more than the flattening out of an inequality that shouldn't be justified, and can't be maintained. Business cycle effects might dictate how long it takes for this to happen, but it's only a question of *when*.


and this is where you lose folks. much of this is simply not true.
china has a literate population certainly not an highly educated one
and it is not thru thr roof just caught up with say thailand in years of education.
the only capital the chinese system has produced is the confiscation of land from peasants and selling over priced apartments to great hordes of speculators. how can you talk of capital without a real stock market even.

the average productivity of a us worker in lowly alabama is 4 times that of the average chinese in car making.
I dont think it is just a question of when, under the present system the question of if remains.

in agriculture the country destroying the most arable each year is china, using by far the most fertlizer per acre.
it not a given that what china is doing is sustainable.

to me it looks like a person burning a candle at both ends to match the light of an led bulb.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby KLP Dubey » 15 May 2013 08:24

Theo_Fidel wrote:to me it looks like a person burning a candle at both ends to match the light of an led bulb.


These guys have seen a little bit of bling and think the whole jewelry store is theirs. :rotfl:

I simply don't understand why they are here all the time. They seem to be doing a disservice to the Chinese propaganda cause by being obtuse.

KL

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 15 May 2013 09:29

Theo_Fidel wrote:to me it looks like a person burning a candle at both ends to match the light of an led bulb.

I really have no idea what that means. I hope that analogy makes more sense to other Indians.

According to the 2010 census, Chinese literacy rates among youths is as high as its going to get... 99.7% of those 15-19 are literate. In urban areas, 70% of 15-19 year olds are receiving high school / college education; this is a significant improvement over the 2000 census. As far as Chinese capital markets... just the domestic exchanges have market caps nearing $10 trillion USD. And obviously many Chinese companies are now listing overseas.

Is what China is currently doing "sustainable"? Well, for those who've been saying "no" for 20 years... I guess there's no reason for them to change their tune. They'll get it right, sooner or later.

Abhijeet
BRFite
Posts: 805
Joined: 11 Nov 2001 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 15 May 2013 10:39

While this discussion is fascinating, I will point out that it's not healthy when the Indian Economy thread gets one post a day, and the PRC thread is full of Indian posters trying to prove how China's growth is a sham. This all feels too much like sour grapes.

subhamoy.das
BRFite
Posts: 1027
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby subhamoy.das » 15 May 2013 14:10

There is a solid reason behind this. PRC and their lovers, are all claiming that China is the next economic miracel after US and has almost eclipsed Japan, Europe, Russia, India all together, and standing sholder to sholder with US as the second super power, or may be has even eclipsed US. But ground realities, social, econmic, political and military, is far far far .... cry. Doing what ? outsourced manufacturing of stuff found in walmart? And on top of that PRC is poking every neigbor with a needle? So a lot of folks like me, are trying to debunk this propaganda and hence the traffic. India, on other hand makes no such claim and always projects as a under performer and low profile and does not poke needles in neighbours hence no traffic there.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Arjun » 15 May 2013 14:57

Must say I agree with Abhijeet on this issue. In spite of the fact that India's economic star has dimmed very considerably over the last three years both in absolute and relative terms - there seems to be a lack of intellectually vibrant debate on the India Economy thread, either regarding underlying causes or lessons for the future. Instead this thread continues to fly along.

Have nothing against bashing up Chinese trolls - but perhaps some posters can spare an occasional thought for how India can get out of its very own doodoo...

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby krishnan » 15 May 2013 15:23

not sure why even bother replying to them....let them be happy atleast here and earn their 50 cents


member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby member_20292 » 15 May 2013 19:36

KLP Dubey wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:to me it looks like a person burning a candle at both ends to match the light of an led bulb.


These guys have seen a little bit of bling and think the whole jewelry store is theirs. :rotfl:

I simply don't understand why they are here all the time. They seem to be doing a disservice to the Chinese propaganda cause by being obtuse.

KL



And I can't understand why BRF can not be a cult, and always bait and flame the chinese posters all the time.

Mind you, I am as patriotic a son of the soil of India as any, and actually live in India....but I see no reason to actually bait the Chinese posters all the time and throw shite at them...as many posters over here keep doing.

Can people please post on the "Chinese economy" please.....and not on "50-cent Its your birthday" or "property bubble bath" or "pork swine Pak" ?

Thank you/ Xie xie ni.

subhamoy.das
BRFite
Posts: 1027
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby subhamoy.das » 15 May 2013 19:44

This article hits it on the nail. I just wonder, the weatlth PRC created by exporing to walmart, was also used to buy papers of US and Japan. Now if US or Japan, refuses to honour these papers by calling PRC currency manipulator, their weatlh will evaporate in a minute. As the USD and Yen shrinks, so does PRC wealth. PRC cannot even sell the forex as it will devastate its own currency due to flooding. So PRC neck is essentially in the hand of its two biggest enemies and i can only apply an Indian wise saying here "idhar khai udhar kuoa" meaning caught between the devil and the deep sea.

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby KLP Dubey » 16 May 2013 10:56

mahadevbhu wrote:And I can't understand why BRF can not be a cult, and always bait and flame the chinese posters all the time.


You are giving too much leeway to the 50-cent drones. They are baiters and flamers par excellence. I think this forum has been very tolerant of them for years, instead of the relentless oppression of speech they are subjected to back in the PRC.

Namaskar,

Kishen Lal P. Dubey

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby TSJones » 16 May 2013 20:39

I realize that forum "group think" has posited that is unpatriotic to post anything on the PRC economy thread but I want to post this little tidbit on what may lay in the future for the Chinese export economy:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart- ... 04667.html

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 16 May 2013 21:48

heech wrote:According to the 2010 census, Chinese literacy rates among youths is as high as its going to get... 99.7% of those 15-19 are literate. In urban areas, 70% of 15-19 year olds are receiving high school / college education; this is a significant improvement over the 2000 census. As far as Chinese capital markets... just the domestic exchanges have market caps nearing $10 trillion USD. And obviously many Chinese companies are now listing overseas.


It may come as a shock to you but many of the western societies were 100% literate in 1930. SoKo & Japan were 100% literate by the 1950’s and Japan certainly was largely literate before 1940. Those statistics you quote are comparable to Thailand 20 years ago. China’s only USP is size and cheap cost of labor. So far nothing else has shown up. And High school and college education are NOT the same thing and should not be lumped together. Even the USA gets 90% of its population through high school. Japan is almost 100% through high school. What also matters is years of education.

Let me say this there is no comparison between the education of Taiwan and the education of China. Not even in the same ball park. Don’t even look at the Japan level of education.

AFA your laughable market cap quote, let me tell you there are very knowledgeable people here who will rip you from stem to stern for pouting such things. China does not have a capital market. I suspect you don’t even know what that means.

China's has achieved some things and is trying to make progress, but your sort of laughable crowing does disservice to the average hard working chinese prole...
The fact that you don't understand what I said makes me question the quality of this 70% HS education, though that is a cheap shot... :)

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 17 May 2013 04:59

Theo_Fidel wrote:It may come as a shock to you but many of the western societies were 100% literate in 1930. SoKo & Japan were 100% literate by the 1950’s and Japan certainly was largely literate before 1940.

Doesn't shock me at all. This is partly why Japan and South Korea were both able to take off so quickly in the aftermath of WW2, despite absolute and complete destruction of all physical infrastructure. You can easily contrast that with China, where literacy rates at a comparable point in history was hovering around 10-20%.

And by the way, one key word here is *partly*. You keep focusing on Thailand for some reason... hopefully you understand the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Yes, I firmly believe education is a NECESSARY condition for growth into developed world status, but it is clearly not a SUFFICIENT one. There are many literate countries caught in a poverty trap... you can look at Cuba, even, for one extreme example. But of course, there are no wealthy countries with large illiterate populations (ignoring perhaps petrodollar/resource sellers). I don't think China, or India, will ever become a developed nation without high levels of education.

Those statistics you quote are comparable to Thailand 20 years ago.

You pulled that out of thin air, and happen to be way off the mark. 20 years ago, in 1990... gross enrollment in secondary education was 30%, for Thailand. In 1990, China's gross enrollment in secondary education was already 47%. China is now at 81%.

As far as the rest of what you had to say... I'm not going to stoop to your level and start flaming back and forth. I'm just not interested, and you frankly aren't worth the effort. I'll just repeat the substance of what I said: China has the *necessary* components in place to maintain a high rate of growth, and escape the poverty trap.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 17 May 2013 09:21

heech the only thin air around is the one in your over inflated balloon that just burst as you run away.

My data is from the development indicators of world bank.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/directory

Go in there and take the time to match up the data.

BTW china 1990 literacy rate was 77%
thailand 1990 literacy rate was 91%

In fact if you go through you will see that China is still not caught up fully with Thailand literacy rate 2012.

From UNESCO
http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/Tabl ... eView.aspx
China Secondary enrollment 1990 is 38%

While we are at it
Thailand 2012 secondary enrollment is 78%

As I said China is now catching up to Thailand.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 17 May 2013 17:53

Theo_Fidel wrote:From UNESCO
http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/Tabl ... eView.aspx
China Secondary enrollment 1990 is 38%

While we are at it
Thailand 2012 secondary enrollment is 78%

As I said China is now catching up to Thailand.

Your link doesn't work. I'll help you with a few that does, since you seem to have difficulties with this:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.SEC.ENRR?page=4
- "School enrollment, secondary (% gross)"
- click first on the tab "1988-1992",
- scroll down to Thailand. (28%, 28%, 28%, 30%, 33%)
- scroll up to China. (37%, 37%, 38%, 40%, 44%)

This thread had some interesting discussion, but now you've managed to change it into a tutorial course on how to use Google. I don't even know why you care what the gross secondary enrollment for Thailand was in 1990, or 2013... but if you're going to insist on talking about it, at least use the right numbers.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 17 May 2013 19:15

The only reason we are talking this data is because you brought it up. And now you don't care.
If you don't care don't trumpet about it, in a easily falsifiable way.
Cherry picking is not going to work.

The sum total of china accomplishment is that china has reached Thailand educational level.
No amount of wild slewing around is going to change this.
This is not a bad achievement but it is what it is.
So whats with your triumphal trumpet blowing and crowing about 'through the roof'. Some roof.

I notice you ignored the literacy numbers which is what I was talking about.
Nothing to say, run out of talking points?

Link works for me, it maybe banned where you are so....
http://www.uis.unesco.org/

Oh my! did you just falsify your own claim that China was this super dupper bright shiny star in 1990.

And you ignore the 2012 data which shows
Thailand 79%
China 81%
So what happened, getting over taken by Thailand are we.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby ldev » 18 May 2013 00:18

This pis*sing match reminds me of a certain section from Nassim Taleb's latest book Antifragile. He talks about cause and effect and how we mistake one for the other. Did western countries get educated before they got rich or was it the other way around? In fact, it is wealth that results in money being made available to raise literacy and educational standards and establish universities and other institutes of higher learning and research. A more recent example (within the last 60 years) that he compares is Taiwan or South Korea in the 1950s with Argentina. Argentina was highly literate and educated compared to the two Asian countries. And yet 60 years later, what has all that education done for Argentina in terms of wealth generation. According to Taleb, education is fine and dandy at the individual level, but there is no empirical evidence that it can cause wealth generation at the level of a country.

subhamoy.das
BRFite
Posts: 1027
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby subhamoy.das » 18 May 2013 20:15

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 121811.cms

More workers kill them selves in the mecca of widget manufacturing outsourcing giant..

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 19 May 2013 02:41

ldev wrote:This pis*sing match reminds me of a certain section from Nassim Taleb's latest book Antifragile. He talks about cause and effect and how we mistake one for the other. Did western countries get educated before they got rich or was it the other way around? In fact, it is wealth that results in money being made available to raise literacy and educational standards and establish universities and other institutes of higher learning and research. A more recent example (within the last 60 years) that he compares is Taiwan or South Korea in the 1950s with Argentina. Argentina was highly literate and educated compared to the two Asian countries. And yet 60 years later, what has all that education done for Argentina in terms of wealth generation. According to Taleb, education is fine and dandy at the individual level, but there is no empirical evidence that it can cause wealth generation at the level of a country.

As I stated, I think a high degree of literacy + achieved education is absolutely a necessary condition for developed status... which is NOT to say it by itself it is sufficient for developed status. There are many countries with high literacy which have not escaped the poverty trap, but I do not know of a single nation able to grow wealthy before its citizens were educated (caveat: 20th century, without relying on selling petroleum). And indeed, Japan's literacy rate in 1950 was extremely high, and its former colonies in Taiwan and Korea were far higher than the rest of east Asia.

wong
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wong » 19 May 2013 19:11

Theo_Fidel wrote:Let me say this there is no comparison between the education of Taiwan and the education of China. Not even in the same ball park. Don’t even look at the Japan level of education.


You routinely pull a lot of non-sense out of thin air on this PRC Economy thread. The statement above really takes the cake.

As anyone who has studied at an elite American university (Top 10 or better) knows (your silly statement tells me you obviously haven't), the 1st year mainland Chinese TAs may speak in broken English and are hard to understand and have funny names we can make fun of (we use to call my math TA named Qi Chen - keychain), they are brilliant (in fact, the best) and there is absolutely nothing lacking in the undergraduate education they received in China. But keep deluding yourself with your complete non-sense pulled out of thin air.

wong
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wong » 19 May 2013 19:18

^^^^

Obviously it's not the English Department.

Math, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, an Engineering discipline at an Ivy or Ivy equivalent like MIT/Stanford/Chicago/Berkeley.

wong
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wong » 19 May 2013 19:49

Marten wrote:Wong, perhaps you are aware - most Chinese students from the mainland have to work really hard the first couple of years to catch up. i.e. they do spend more hours than their peers.


No, they don't. You just made that up too. Math in China is the same Math as in the US. Same for Chemistry, Physics or an Engineering Discipline. The only barrier they face is their lack of practice in spoken English. Their English reading and writing is fine (probably because of computer translators). Seriously, where to you guys get this non-sense? China has over 60,000 graduate students in the US alone. Do you think US professors would accept them into a graduate program to grade papers and teach undergrad TA sessions if their own Chinese undergraduate education was really lacking or a complete failure? Think about it for a minute.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Bade » 19 May 2013 19:59

Having seen students from China in graduate schools and at the top ones to boot, it would be foolish to dismiss them as of low quality. I can attest to the fact that as far as taking courses were concerned there used to be two distinct grade curves, one for the Chinese students and the second for the rest. The Chinese students did above the class average mostly. Now when it comes to research, they did not stand out as much, but as far as under-graduate preparation was concerned PRC did a good job. So that point need to be conceded without debate.

wong
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 27 May 2011 19:21

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wong » 19 May 2013 20:03

^^^^

Thank you! Now, I know at least one person here not smoking the ganja.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 19 May 2013 20:08

Wong,

Stop trolling.
The conversation was about general education. Not the elite top 10. And certainly not about the US.
It is amazing how well trained the 50 centers are in this tactic and divert all down some pointless foxhole.
------------------------------------

While you are at it stop posting racist epithets like ganja smoking.
You just came back from a ban did you not. No lessons learned I see. Education not working?

Ganja is a respected and acceptable part of India. We don't look down on it.
Last edited by Theo_Fidel on 19 May 2013 20:40, edited 2 times in total.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Gus » 19 May 2013 20:18

and it would be really stupid to extrapolate chinese education from looking at chinese enrolled in top US universities.

from what i understand, they have the same goddamn rote learning and standard tests which filter from enormous numbers that we have. this is the norm. the exceptional ones have to still go thru the system to make it to the top and once they have the liberating environment of massa unis, they may become best among peers.

the chinese at my uni, and there were hundreds..were all pretty much in the same bell curve - except they would be close knit group that would take from others and not share....

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Bade » 19 May 2013 20:38

Gus, though the Chinese students were all a well knit group compared to others and likely helped each other a lot more, rote learning by itself would not make them stand out considering the type of exams and questions asked. They were definitely better prepared and I can say this, as the same was observed across top 50 univs where friends in my circle attended too. For example taking the qualifying exams would be a breeze for them, but usually all the gusto always ended there for a majority. The generation from two decades ago, wanted to get out of China and stay in the west. So this was motivation enough for them. Many including a top Schwinger fellow quit physics after topping the qualifiers, (he was even above the Chinese curve) to do environmental engg. :-) pissing off the department chair.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby ldev » 19 May 2013 21:50

heech wrote:
ldev wrote:This pis*sing match reminds me of a certain section from Nassim Taleb's latest book Antifragile. He talks about cause and effect and how we mistake one for the other. Did western countries get educated before they got rich or was it the other way around? In fact, it is wealth that results in money being made available to raise literacy and educational standards and establish universities and other institutes of higher learning and research. A more recent example (within the last 60 years) that he compares is Taiwan or South Korea in the 1950s with Argentina. Argentina was highly literate and educated compared to the two Asian countries. And yet 60 years later, what has all that education done for Argentina in terms of wealth generation. According to Taleb, education is fine and dandy at the individual level, but there is no empirical evidence that it can cause wealth generation at the level of a country.

As I stated, I think a high degree of literacy + achieved education is absolutely a necessary condition for developed status... which is NOT to say it by itself it is sufficient for developed status. There are many countries with high literacy which have not escaped the poverty trap, but I do not know of a single nation able to grow wealthy before its citizens were educated (caveat: 20th century, without relying on selling petroleum). And indeed, Japan's literacy rate in 1950 was extremely high, and its former colonies in Taiwan and Korea were far higher than the rest of east Asia.


Heech,

I would say that in the contemporary economic environment, the winner is the country with the relative economic advantage which could be defined as the country with the highest sum totals of the classical economic factors of production plus intellectual capital. In cases of state directed development or capitalism, as what has happened in virtually all countries in east Asia, I would posit that the level of education required is that which allows that country that relative economic advantage after combining other factors of production in which the country may have an overwhelming advantage e.g. the physical infrastructure that China has built gives it an overwhelming advantage vis a vis India as a production platform and hence I would argue that the level of skills required for that Chinese workforce need only be adequate for that specific purpose. Further economic value addition will depend on intellectual capital which need not be widespread in that workforce.

heech
BRFite
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: California, USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 20 May 2013 02:34

Responding to Idev's point, I think China is absolutely over-educated for its current level of economic achievement. After all, that's exactly the point that was made in the NY Times article quoted earlier in this thread: millions of Chinese university graduates are under-employed, working in menial jobs with levels of pay lower than migrant workers earn working on construction sites. And for that matter, you don't need 9-12 years of education in order to effectively work in a sweat shop sewing sneakers.

But if we're to project outwards 10-20 years, and talk about China's aspirations to developed status... then it should be obvious education + development of human capital is a critical consideration. The basic education level of your workforce (at the age of 15) decides how productive he/she will be for the next 40-50 years. And if you consider the follow-on effects in terms of spreading higher education to their own children, the ultimate impact might be even longer. So, education is really the ultimate infrastructure investment.

I had another thought about real estate. Let's say for the sake of argument Chinese real estate is currently 200% the correct 'fair' price (probably not far from the truth). One possibility is, of course, for real estate prices to plunge 50% and converge to that "correct" underlying price (a price supported by fundamental demand rather than speculation); many China bears are predicting exactly that, and I can understand precisely why.

The other possibility? If the Chinese government can "keep the lid on" and keep prices roughly flat for the next 10 years... well, China's economic plan calls for a doubling of per capita income by 2020, in just 7 years. Prices that are over-priced by 100% all of a sudden becomes fairly priced.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Raja Bose » 20 May 2013 08:00

Theo_Fidel wrote:Ganja is a respected and acceptable part of India. We don't look down on it.


He is a respected and acceptable part of Pakistan too - they just elected him PM! :mrgreen:

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21175
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Prem » 20 May 2013 22:58

Goldman Sachs to Exit Chinese Bank With $1.1 Billion Stake Sale
They Do Know Something We Dont

Goldman Sachs plans to raise about $1.1 billion by selling its remaining stake in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, ending its lucrative seven-year investment it what has grown to become the world’s biggest lender by market value.The Wall Street bank is selling its shares in I.C.B.C. at a price range of 5.47 Hong Kong dollars to 5.50 Hong Kong dollars each, raising total proceeds of about $1.1 billion, a person with direct knowledge of the transaction said Monday.
The sale ‘‘takes out the entire remaining stake,’’ the person said, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information on the planned sale is not yet public.Goldman has been reducing its stake in the Chinese lender over the last year, including a deal in April 2012 involving shares worth $2.5 billion at the time. Most of those shares were sold to Temasek Holdings, the Singaporean sovereign investment firm.The sale comes as China’s banks have been confronting slowing profit growth, as the nation’s economy has become less reliant on traditional bank lending. Net profit at I.C.B.C. rose 14.5 percent last year from 2011, its slowest growth in five years.Chinese companies are increasingly able to tap alternate sources of financing, including offshore bond markets, while local governments have turned to off-balance-sheet financing that is tied to the nation’s huge but more loosely regulated market for alternative investment products.Goldman first bought into I.C.B.C. in 2006, before the Chinese lender’s initial public offering in Hong Kong, paying $2.6 billion for a stake of around 5 percent.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 21 May 2013 00:03

heech wrote:And for that matter, you don't need 9-12 years of education in order to effectively work in a sweat shop sewing sneakers.

I had another thought about real estate. Let's say for the sake of argument Chinese real estate is currently 200% the correct 'fair' price (probably not far from the truth). One possibility is, of course, for real estate prices to plunge 50% and converge to that "correct" underlying price (a price supported by fundamental demand rather than speculation); many China bears are predicting exactly that, and I can understand precisely why.


It definitely helps to have more years of education for even the most simple of jobs. This is how productivity in the west can be so high. Since China's manufacturing productivity despite it good infrastructure is lower than the west the explanation for lower output has to fall on some form of education snafu.

China's USP very has been and remains, throwing million of relatively educated folks to do jobs the largely uneducated did earlier. By paying these relatively high skill folks less than their productivity should dictate.

WRT real estate the other possibility is an inability to maintain. So much of the wests effort goes into maintaining existing investments made over 100+ years that there is lower ability to expand service area. China does not yet have this problem and most/all its capital expenditure can go towards expansion rather than replacement. Typical replacement levels are 5%-6% of GDP built environment in the west. Japan too ran into this wall when its built environment began to age. The possibility exists that China will hit this wall earlier and faster.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests