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.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby amit » 02 Feb 2012 15:24

Dhiman wrote:This graph should shed some more light on such comparisons. India's GDP in 2010 is what China's GDP was in 2003-04 timeframe (six years). But really, I don't see the same level of hype and CCP chest beating that happened in 2003-04 timeframe regarding China .


IMO, the more interesting comparison is between Gross Capital Formation and GDP growth rate

China's GDP growth has been, since around 1998 about 8-10 per cent higher each year. Yet gross capital formation has been in the 20-30 per cent region higher than that of India. (Sorry I don't have time to do a more accurate plotting). What this means is something that is well known among economists and something which investors are now realising: That is India is far more efficient user of capital than China is. In other words China is far more profligate than India.

For example in 2010 China's gross capital formation was 45.15 per cent of its GDP, while that of India was 32.46 per cent. However GDP growth for China in 2010 was 10.3 per cent and for India 9.72 per cent. Even if we take the argument that capital formation on year is reflected in the next year's GDP, in 2009 China's was 47.61 per cent and India's was 36.48 per cent. And the fun part is in 2009 both countries had a GDP of 9.2 per cent.

It's useful to remember this aspect when looking at the real estate bubble, HSR build up, ghost cities like Ordos etc. In short, I'm not very optimistic that China can indefinitely continue such profligacy, particular in a situation where social pressures are forcing wage rises (see the last post of mine on the textile, toys and footwear wage comparisons).

Our Chinese friends step aside when real numbers are presented. Notice my good friend Wrdos made a very sentimental post. However, he didn't even respond to the stats (mind you these are Chinese stats and not Western propaganda) which shows that the Chinese Railways earns an average profit of US$304 million and yet has an annual interest payment (forget the principal) of US$1.8 billion.

Heck Indian Railways is run far more profitable and it hauls more people than the Chinese Railways does.

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wrdos » 02 Feb 2012 17:43

Dear amit

Profit is the last issue you would consider when planning a new railway, otherwise Tibet railway would never been built. During the past 10 years, the China National Railway has built 30,000km new railways (10,000km among them HSR) while electrified the other existing 30,000km railways. And still they have a profit? I am really moved.

BTW, China railway are concentrated on long distance passenger traveling and cargo transportation. Both passenger-kilometer and ton-kilometer are the top of the world. Sir, please come to China once and take a train travel here, then maybe in the future you will not compare China railway anymore.

It is totally different from the Indian railway.

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Hari Seldon » 02 Feb 2012 18:51

amit wrote:The 40 per cent savings rate is because of the amount of cash held by Govt-linked entities. The common citizens do not have sufficient cash to sustain the export driven economy that China has built. So if exports fall off the cliff, there's going to plenty of problems which even the omipresent CPC may find hard to handle.


Saar, underestimating the CPC is a classic mistake most outsiders make. What to do only.. Outsiders don't quiote understand the Mao approach to debt management and the determination of the CPC to staying in power forever,

Creditors may have lent money to the CPC but none will dare collect. All CPC has to do is shoot all the creditors and the debt problem will simply go away. Zimble no?

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 02 Feb 2012 18:53

Dhiman wrote:This graph should shed some more light on such comparisons. India's GDP in 2010 is what China's GDP was in 2003-04 timeframe (six years).


This is an excellent (and heartening) graph. But something doesn't add up here. If:

1. India's GDP in 2010 == China's GDP in 2003, and
2. Consumption as a % of India's GDP is much higher than (nearly double of) China's;

then why are there so many consumer markets where China's market is so many times bigger than India's?

If anything, India's consumer spending in gross dollar terms should be where China's was in say 2006, since as a % of GDP it's much higher. Then why are the consumption numbers for India today not matching the ones for China from 2006?

I'm not talking of industrial products like steel or coal, since those fall under the government over-investment category. But in pretty much every consumer product category, China's sales from what I read are many times more than India's, much more than a 7 year lag would suggest.

Some of these products have non-linear demand curves, where demand shoots up beyond a certain income threshold. But surely that can't be the case for all products.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 02 Feb 2012 19:52

^^^
Look at the Services column. Chinese people can't afford services.

BTW India share in consumption is 69%. Which means at least that amount of the GDP circulates through the public's hands as a percentage of GDP was salaries, wages, investment returns, etc.

In 2012. This works out to ~ $1.5Trillion that the Indian people divided up amongst themselves.
In 2012 Panda wonderland paid out 32% of GDP. So roughly $2.24 Trillion for the Chinese to divvy up amongst themselves.

BTW this was also why during the Foxconn discussion the wages paid to both Chinese and Indians were roughly the same though no one commented on that fact. This is what caused the trolls the most kujili and hence the resort to hysterical claims of overtime pay and mysterious unreported bonuses. I suspect the average Chinese factory worker earns less than the average Indian worker.
--------------------------------------------------------

WRT China Railway profit of 2011 it not true. It is due to accounting shenanigans, where the Railways claimed $5 Billion of bank borrowed money for HSR in its bank accounts as part of earnings and cash reserve. 2 days later the entire amount was disbursed to suppliers. Some profit.
-----------------------------------------------------

Also BTW Shenyang city land area has mysteriously increased to 13,000 sqkm. Half the size of Haryana. That is how they qualified for Metro if wrdos had bothered to read the full article. Core city population is less than 2 million. System needs 300,000 riders to pay interest. Double that to be profitable. Or roughly 1/3 the city must use the single line every day, including weekends, to make it worthwhile.

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wrdos » 02 Feb 2012 20:41

- As for profit, Hong Kong is the only city in the world with a profitable subway company. The company is profitable because of its success in selling houses around the stations.

- Shenyang's core urban population was 3.5million, 20 years ago when i was living there. Now, something between 5.5million to 6milliion, i am not sure.

- Its local GDP is something around 0.1trillion US$ in 2011, and per capita GDP >$11,000, and keeps increasing rapidly.

- Internationally, such a city need at least a 200~300km subway network

- Don't worry. It will achieve it within 3~5 years.

- Let's wait and see.

(Sir, your GDP data has some problem. China's GDP in 2011 was 7.4trillion and India something around 1.5trillion. Your currency depreciated too much. And why you use 2012 data when there are still 11months left??)

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 02 Feb 2012 22:16

Oooo...

Mysterious 1 hour population decline. And even that is incorrect. Core population is still less than 2 million. Suburbs appear to have density of 1000 persons per sqkm or less. Can not support Metro.

Trust the ding dong to ignore the shafting the Chinese are getting in terms of pay. GUBO time. :rotfl:

ashi
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 19 Feb 2009 13:30

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby ashi » 02 Feb 2012 22:19

Dhiman wrote:India's GDP in 2010 is what China's GDP was in 2003-04 timeframe (six years). But really, I don't see the same level of hype and CCP chest beating that happened in 2003-04 timeframe regarding China .


CCP is pretty down to the earth when speaking of China's success. They always claim China is a poor country, a third world country when it comes to per capital number. And they usually don't make claims that they can't achieve.

But talking about chest beating, let's see. Your PM said in 5 years, "people would forget about Shanghai and Mumbai will become a talking point". Your CWG chairman claimed "CWG will be better than Beijing Olympics". And your cute "India Shining" story despite the massive widespread poverty. Not to mention those "we will surpass China in x years" talk pop out every once in a while.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 02 Feb 2012 22:34

Theo_Fidel wrote:In 2012. This works out to ~ $1.5Trillion that the Indian people divided up amongst themselves.
In 2012 Panda wonderland paid out 32% of GDP. So roughly $2.24 Trillion for the Chinese to divvy up amongst themselves.


That's the point. So if Indians have $1.5 trillion to spend, and Chinese have $2.24 trillion to spend, why are consumption figures across a range of consumer products different by many multiples or more? They should be relatively close, but they're not.

For example, as much as we'd like to believe that Audi/VW is the Maruti Suzuki of China, there are no cars in the Audi lineup that can be considered cheap in any part of the world. Yet, as Chola wrote earlier, Audi sold 300K cars in China last year (http://news.yahoo.com/audi-sales-china- ... 15488.html) and 5K cars in India (this is actually for Jan-Nov 2011, http://www.indiandrives.com/audi-india- ... -2011.html).

This points to vastly more purchasing power in the hands of Chinese consumers, even if the official figures say the GDPs are only a few years apart.

Why is this? Are things artificially cheap in China (certainly not Audis, from everything I know), or is Indian GDP overstated, or is Chinese GDP understated? I believe the last has been Chola's refrain here.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 02 Feb 2012 23:18

Abhijeet wrote:Why is this? Are things artificially cheap in China (certainly not Audis, from everything I know), or is Indian GDP overstated, or is Chinese GDP understated? I believe the last has been Chola's refrain here.


It is a economic distortion as with so much else in Panda land. This is the bit Chola ignores.

Chinese spend most of their money on houses and cars. Keep in mind two wheelers are essentially banned in Panda land. So how many two wheelers sold in India? - roughly 20 Million now.

Just like Indians spend so much on Gold, Jewellery, Marriages, festivals and funerals. Spending 20 lakhs on a wedding is nothing in India. Even the local peon does it. It is useful to remember that. Though our distortions are decided by the people.

One odd little statistic is that Petrol sales far far lag the sales of cars. Often by 50% or less.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 03 Feb 2012 00:15

Audis are just one data point. There is category after category of products where I can remember some CEO or other pointing to China as the saving grace for their global sales -- as in, the US and EU are in a funk, but China saved us. I can't remember many similar statements for India.

White goods, electronics, phones -- pretty much across the board. They can't all be distortions.

If the consumer spending really is as close as we think, then the market sizes for at least some product categories must be relatively similar -- not different by a factor of 5. Which product categories are those?

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 03 Feb 2012 00:22

Theo_Fidel wrote:Just like Indians spend so much on Gold, Jewellery, Marriages, festivals and funerals. Spending 20 lakhs on a wedding is nothing in India. Even the local peon does it.


I would gently point out that this is unlikely to be true, unless the peon can save up 15 (or so) years of gross earnings for a single wedding.

Specifically for gold, I remember reading an article last year that pointed out that China is now the world's biggest market for gold, having gone past India. This for a product that should be one of the bastions of the Indian consumer.

With the Chinese consumer not having the same traditional affection for gold that Indians do, what does it say about relative purchasing power that they are still able to outspend us on gold?

Update to the above: it appears that the gold demand is partially due to government incentivization. So the demand for this particular product is not completely market determined, but it is still consumers buying gold with their own money.

http://dailyreckoning.com/china-to-over ... ng-nation/

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby RamaY » 03 Feb 2012 01:00

Audi in China and India

It is hard to overstate the success of Audi in China, the carmakers number one export market. From a standing start in 1988 they sold almost 102,000 units in 2007 and, up to June 2008, they had delivered 60,500 – 15,000 more that they sold in the same period in the USA. Almost 54,000 of the cars sold were locally produced A4 and A6 models. Audi’s route to the front can be traced back more than twenty years and is built on long term investment in production and network development. They reaped all of the rewards of ‘first mover advantage’. By 2015 they expect to sell 200,000 units through a 200 strong dealer network. It all began in 1986, when Audi AG made an initial official contact with China and, together with FAW, began a joint feasibility study for production at Changchun. In 1988, Audi licensed FAW, who were already in partnership with VW. In its 1st year it assembled 499 Audi 200 cars. In 1990, capacity was expanded and, in 1993, Audi joined the FAW-VW joint venture. The plan was to build a China version of the A6, which began rolling off line in 1996. In the same year they set up technician training and imported experts to build their network and brand. By 2000, the first Audi standard dealer was open in Beijing and in 2008, there are 116 dealers in the network. Audi is replicating the operation elsewhere in Asia such as Taiwan and India.


The focus on China slowed down their efforts in India. They only sold 350 units in 2007 – but these were all A6. However, with the launch of A4, and importing A6 and A4 CKD units, they expect to reach 1,000 sales by the end of 2008.


The key difference is an Audi A4 costs Rs 37L in India (~US$70,000) where as it costs below 300000 yuan (36200 US dollars). in Panda land. In India imported luxury cars get taxed at 181%

Read more: Luxury car sales in China and India

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 03 Feb 2012 01:12

That's good information, thanks. That certainly accounts for some of the market size difference. I look forward to owning a similarly cheap-ish Audi when they get their act together in India. :-)

But as I mentioned, the market size comparisons are true across a range of product categories, not just Audis. Surely they can't all be special cases.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1835
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby VikramS » 03 Feb 2012 01:41

First of all, the sale of uber-luxury items, should not be a metric which should get too much attention. It speaks more about the culture than anything. Indians are driven by Value For Money; even at the highest end. In India you will have uber-rich people in Mumbai travelling in the local trains. In China, "face" and looking good is important. Part of the reason is that concept of private ownership and wealth has gone around a full circle in the past six decades in PRC. Such kind of disruptions does alter the perspective of most people.

I think what chola is saying is very important. The size of the Chinese consumer economy is massive and gives them massive global leverage as the West declines. And they have achieved that by linking market access to investments in the sector making China the manufacturing global hub. It is a win-win for the Chinese worker, the Chinese consumer, and the multinationals. A big lesson for India.

I think the HSR debate is kind of pointless from the economic-political point of view. Thanks to the amount of graft in India, it is not surprising that Indians may forget that one role of the government is to fund and maintain this infrastructure :). The lesson to learn of course is that when it comes to investment dollars often the most flashy and highly visible projects, may not be the best investment which helps the most.

Regarding the economic viability of the HSR, think of it as a cost for CPC to stay in power. When compared to the size of the overall economy, a few billion an year spent in keeping it afloat, is peanuts. FWIW, The Rafael deal is supposed to have kickbacked $2B to the G2 family....

wrdos:
Politicians and governments have a very different role in India and China. In India politicians have been promising the moon for 60 years but only to get power. There are multiple parties, each with its own agenda. It clearly creates a lot of friction and distractions but thats the way India is.

It is very different from the CPC based structure, where there is a monolith, which though built from the ground-up, presents a unified face to the rest of the world.

CWC:
In spite of all the hoopla preceding the games, the actual execution of the games was quite good. Things were delayed till 1second to midnight, but the final product was quite good; something which was grudgingly acknowledges by even the "White" critics of India who were hammer and tongs about the mismanagement. What was really bad was the amount of money siphoned off; the head of the CWC organization committee,did spend time in Jail for it.

Shining India:
The interesting thing is that the politicians who were talking about Shining India lost the election. The Indian people who did not agree with the shining part, had the power to throw them out. While a lot here disagree with that decision, that is the way India works; multiple power centers each jockeying for power, but ensuring that everyone has a stake and a say in the decision making.

Mumbai Better than Shangai:
That is a joke, even the most jingo Indian will laught it. The kind of rapid construction, and revamping which goes on in Chinese cities, is almost impossible to happen in India, especially in a city like Mumbai. Land prices and rents are among the highest in the world, and the government just can not take over land for cheap that has happened in the many parts of China.

J10 vs the LCA:
Again very different philosophies. In China there is a correct, and great focus on making sure the domestic arms industry becomes world class. If that requires accepting products which are not the best in class, it is an acceptable compromise. In fact it is the only option; since much of the world is unwilling to sell arms to China.

India on the other hand has access to most major manufacturers. As a result, the armed forces operate independently of the arms industry. A domestic product has higher hurdles to pass; the Arjun tank been a great example where it had to comprehensively beat the T-90 in tests to be accepted. And even then it is not ordered in the same numbers.

The same is true of the LCA. The IAF wants to be sure of its performance and weapon integration before they pay up for it. They know if they accept a product that is not up to their standards, they will be denied a foreign replacement which might fill the gap. So they will not fly it until it is near perfect, and that takes time.

This is very unlike the Chinese philosophy where just because the product is nor perfect, does not prevent its induction and usage; iterative refinement continues to make things better.

This is a tragic scenario, and speaks volume of the strength of the foreign lobbies, and the lack of a nationalist vision, something which India can certainly learn from China. The Chinese arms industry will beg, borrow or steal what it needs to progress; the Indian industry does not have the same philosophy. It does not attract the best talent. You can attribute that to a completely different way of looking at things, and a lack of urgency which I personally find unacceptable.

Incidentally wherever there is an embargo, the local industry is doing reasonably well and creating technologies which would compare with the best in class. Where there is a foreign option, the performance is much worse.


You should spend time in some other forums on BR, to get an idea of what Indians feel about various domestic issues. Coming from a society where confirming to the norm is a core foundation, the non-confirmity would be surprising.

==================
Regarding the future: One thing is clear that the advantages which China enjoyed over the past decades in terms of the infrastruture build-out or the ultra-cheap wages are not going to propel her forward at the same rate as the past. The amount of debt accumulated in China due to the build-out is quite substantial and is likely to put a damper.

Also it is great that the Chinese workers are now getting wages much higher than what they used to get a few years ago. There is no point in having a society where one hand we have tens of thousands driving Audis, and on the other hand have tens of millions working 12 hour shifts, six days a week simply because it is best option they have. A more balanced distribution of wealth, will certainly help longer term stability and prosperity.

The rise in wages in China also provides an opportunity to other countries who lag China to get a bigger share of the global trade. What this means is that the GDP growth in China "should" slow down, to a more natural number, not inflated by huge amount of stimulus and infrastructure spending. I do hope that the Chinese people, and the CPC do not see as a threat but a natural consequence of growing up, and becoming big.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 03 Feb 2012 02:41

Agree that sales of Audis or other luxury goods, in isolation, don't mean much. My point is the broader trend.

For example, I did some cursory digging into the market size for what should be a middle-class household staple in both India and China: a refrigerator.

I'll leave it to the professional market analysts to tell me if these data are wrong, but they look fairly solid to my untrained eye.

In 2009, the "household refrigerator and freezer" market in China was worth 100 billion RMB (about $15 billion): https://bloombergmart.com/products/LUDF ... ket-Report

In 2010, the "domestic refrigerator" market in India was worth about Rs. 100 billion (about $2 billion): http://www.marketresearch.com/Netscribe ... a-6777436/

Note the difference in terminology: household refrigerator and freezer market vs. domestic refrigerator market. I am assuming those segments are equivalent.

Assuming the data check out, there is a 7x difference in market size.

I'm sure people will have various reasons for why Indians don't buy refrigerators:

1. Traditional Indian cooling methods are much better
2. Erratic power supply means that refrigerators are useless for extended periods
3. Indians like their food hot and fresh, not cold and reheated

etc.

However, those arguments should not hide the fact that a 7x difference in market size is gargantuan, and cannot just be explained away with a few "Indians are special" arguments.

Why do Chinese consumers buy 7x more refrigerators than Indian consumers? Are they richer than they let on, or are we poorer than we claim?

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 03 Feb 2012 02:49

My general point is: surely there is a mathematical requirement here.

If the 69% share of consumer spending in India's GDP in year X corresponds to the same $ amount as from China's 32% share of GDP in year Y, then we should see the total size of all consumer markets in each country be roughly equivalent when we compare those two years?

So if there is a large lead for China in market after market, we should be able to find other market segments where India's market size is larger? This is necessary in order to balance things out.

If this is not the case, why not?

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1835
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby VikramS » 03 Feb 2012 03:06

Abhijit:
From 2008 onwards there was a massive stimulus in China encouraging the purchase of everything from automobiles to appliances. That is one reason China topped the US in the sale of automobiles.

While there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Chinese market is huge, you can not rely on the numbers from the past 2-3 years since they are heavily distorted. You would need to get data for the past decade and then normalize it.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Abhijeet » 03 Feb 2012 03:34

True about the stimulus. I might try to get some numbers from the mid-2000s, but I think the general trend will be the same.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 03 Feb 2012 06:01

There is very definitely a 10 million strong filthy rich crowd in China. There is also a prosperous 500-600 million strong crowd. These two have benefited enormously from the stimulus and from government inflation policies. This crowd is larger than Europe and America combined. There can be no argument here. Most of the $2.5 Trillion to $3 Trillion consumption comes from this crowd.

It may be a sign that income is very unequal over large chunks of the population. Rural 800 million ignored. Urban 500 million prosperous. You can see that rural wages are not even keeping up with inflation.

Image

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby ldev » 03 Feb 2012 06:49

Further to the discussion on purchasing power in China this article is quite illuminating:

As China’s car market no longer delivers the obscene growth rates it used to deliver (pretty hard when you compare with prior-year months where car sales jumped nearly 100 percent), carmakers are looking for clever ideas to light a fire under their Chinese sales. They all come up with the same solution: Attractive loans.

But nobody wants them.

An attractive loan, China style, is laid out by Gasgoo: You buy a Honda City for some $16,000. A 30 percent cash down payment is required, and all taxes have to be paid. $6,800 cash on the barrel-head. The remainder is to be settled in 18 monthly payments of $590. For a Honda City.

No wonder that only 8 percent of the Chinese are buying a car on credit. That number is actually trending down. It’s not just that the terms are less than fascinating. Buying anything else than a house on credit just isn’t the Chinese way. You either have the cash, or you have a bicycle.

China’s carmakers look longingly westward, where captive financing arms bring 30 to 50 percent of the profits to their mothership’s bottom line. Not in China. Which doesn’t stop them from trying. Chery started the Chery-HuiShang Bank Auto Financing Co. Other manufacturers are doing the same.

“From 2000 to 2009, the automobile industry has maintained a high speed of growth. However, only 8 percent of consumers choose to buy their cars by loan,” said Xu Xiaohua, General Manager of CITIC Bank Headquarters’ Auto Finance Center. “The car loan market definitely has an attractive prospect of development.”

Or none at all.


It will be interesting to find out the percentage of new car sales in India that are financed. But the Chinese number of only 8% of new car sales being financed and thereby 92% being bought for cash is astounding. Means that there is a lot of personal liquidity sloshing around in China

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wrdos » 03 Feb 2012 06:57

Theo_Fidel
- The total population of Shenyang is 8.1 million, among them a little bit less than 6million, or called core urban population, living in the downtown or its near area. Please, don't waste both your and my and everybody's time on this issue anymore.
- Sir, "the average Chinese's salary is lower than India"? Are you sure?
- Let me repeat once more. It is Feb.2, 2012. Let's use the 2011 data, instead of your imagined 2012 data.
- China's per capita GDP is now more than 4 times of India. Sir, you could hardly find Chinese consumption of any items that is less than 5 times of India, often 6 to 8 times or even more. India drinks more milk than China, that is maybe the only exception.
- You mentioned motor bikes? In 2011, about 26millon sold in China, in addition to the other 20million electricity powered bikes. One thing you are correct, in China, motor bikes are sold mostly in the poor countryside. And you mentioned that 20million sold in India? Sir, please do not always over state the Indian data, it will not add more credit to your opinion.
- You keep showing a tendency to use "future" or imagined India data.
- In 2011, China has more urban population (690million) than rural population (657million), the first time in history.
- In 2011, the average net income of the poor Rural Chinese was 6977yuan ($1073), way lower than the 23979 yuan ($3689) of the urban Chinese, but still higher than the Indian average.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 03 Feb 2012 07:11

wrdos wrote:- The total population of Shenyang is 8.1 million, among them a little bit less than 6million, or called core urban population, living in the downtown or its near area. Please, don't waste both your and my and everybody's time on this issue anymore


Not true. Local government lie.

And you are wrong about everything else as well.
--------------------------------------------

WRT weddings in India, that last estimate was that it is a roughly $40 Billion industry. Yes really. If one includes dowries you could probably double that. So roughly 4% of GDP and definitely non-trivial. My aunts neighbor in Chennai who is an assistant private school teacher and lives in two rooms on a roof spent roughly 20 lakhs on his wedding and got a brand new Santro as dowry.

For wealthier people costs are out of control in TN. In South TN I went to wedding recently where the bride had to be helped to her feet because of the weight of the gold and silver jewellery she was wearing. Must have all weighed a good 5 kg.

With $ 50 Billion you could buy 10 Million Suzuki Zens. Or roughly 1.5 Million Audi's before taxes. So yeah! it is a lot.

10 years we would not have dreamed that India would be selling 3 million cars a year.
Last edited by Theo_Fidel on 03 Feb 2012 07:35, edited 1 time in total.

wrdos
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby wrdos » 03 Feb 2012 07:18

Theo_Fidel wrote:
wrdos wrote:- The total population of Shenyang is 8.1 million, among them a little bit less than 6million, or called core urban population, living in the downtown or its near area. Please, don't waste both your and my and everybody's time on this issue anymore


Not true. Local government lie.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
So their real population is 2 million and they lies to be an 8million city?

Sir, please. You are harming not only your reputation, but also this BR forum. Are you really an Indian or you are from another country to try to harm the reputation of Indian people by pretending to be an Indian and making such laughable comments?

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 03 Feb 2012 08:00

Good read on how absurd the data from Panda land is.

http://blogs.reuters.com/india-expertzo ... -credible/

On one side are 9.2 pct growth last year and 10.4 pct in 2010. On the other is evidence of a far sharper slowdown. Auto sales, for example, plunged to 2.5 pct growth last year from 32 pct growth in 2010. There are also figures which can be corroborated with foreign partners. More than four-fifths of China’s shipbuilding tonnage is for export. New ship orders plummeted 52 pct outright in 2011. Growth in imports of crude oil slipped to 6 pct growth last year from 17.5 pct in 2010.

There are indirect indicators of much slower GDP. Monetary policy has long been extremely loose, featuring negative real interest rates. Yet the central government began loosening further several months ago, a strange reaction to growth still over 9 pct. China still boasts the world’s largest foreign trade surplus and net inward investment. Foreign exchange reserves fell in the fourth quarter, suggesting capital flight. That would translate to a sluggish world economy being more attractive than China’s own.


Some Chinese figures are so absurd they do not require a premier to doubt them. There is no pretence of a true unemployment rate, instead only “registered urban unemployed,” a number not allowed to exceed 5 pct. It is considered too dangerous to announce true urban joblessness, much less the far higher rural number.


Some claim that China is already rebalancing. They cite retail sales as growing faster than consumption as measured in national accounts. But retail sales are a poor economic indicator. This figure is incompatible with official GDP, so both cannot simultaneously be accurate. And retail sales have been quickly rising precisely because they include elements that have nothing to do with consumption, such as building materials and government-to-government transactions.


Money creation like no tomorrow continues.

New loans will be around 8 trillion yuan in 2012, while the growth of M2, the broadest measure of money supply, will be targeted at around 14 percent

Chinese commercial lenders are expected to extend more loans from the targeted 7.5 trillion yuan in 2011, according to a consensus estimate by analysts.

New loans will be around 8 trillion yuan in the new year, while the growth of M2, the broadest measure of money supply, will be targeted at around 14 percent from last year’s 16 percent, analysts say.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1835
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby VikramS » 03 Feb 2012 09:14

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/ ... 7D20101206

(Reuters) - China's GDP figures are "man-made" and therefore unreliable, the man who is expected to be the country's next head of government said in 2007, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

Li Keqiang, head of the Communist Party in northeastern Liaoning province at the time, was unusually candid in his assessment of local economic data at a dinner with then-U.S. Ambassador to China Clark Randt, according to a confidential memo sent after the meeting and published on the WikiLeaks website.


I think the focus on GDP is misplaced. While it is a good broad metric and a useful tool to make comparisons, there is a lot more to sustainable success than raw GDP. Incidentally in Japan, GDP has continued to grow in the two lost decades.

But debt driven growth is eventually have its cost.

Based on 2008 figures China's Debt to GDP was 159% compared to 129% in India.
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-datab ... z1lHpTFttv
Newer figures suggest it has gone up to 184% while it is showing a decline to 122% or India

I know very little to understand the implications of the debt burden but clearly debt has a big part to play in the Chinese growth story.

Image

On a different note, the Indian auto market has a bigger financing component since any cash deal triggers Income Tax audits etc.; a loan keeps you out of Income Tax net.

Dhiman
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 13:56

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Dhiman » 03 Feb 2012 10:52

ashi wrote:
Dhiman wrote:India's GDP in 2010 is what China's GDP was in 2003-04 timeframe (six years). But really, I don't see the same level of hype and CCP chest beating that happened in 2003-04 timeframe regarding China .


CCP is pretty down to the earth when speaking of China's success. They always claim China is a poor country, a third world country when it comes to per capital number. And they usually don't make claims that they can't achieve.

But talking about chest beating, let's see. Your PM said in 5 years, "people would forget about Shanghai and Mumbai will become a talking point". Your CWG chairman claimed "CWG will be better than Beijing Olympics". And your cute "India Shining" story despite the massive widespread poverty. Not to mention those "we will surpass China in x years" talk pop out every once in a while.


I never underestimate the ability of Indian politicians to bullshit. At the same time I never underestimate the ability of CCP to stay deceitfully quiet. Just the nature of things in India and China: a noisy democracy vs. CCP administered ant colony (no offense intended here). But my bad for not properly clarifying the point I was trying to make earlier.

The point was regarding arrogant propaganda that regularly seems to find its way into CCP's official mouth piece. Some of it seriously reads as if kim jong il himself wrote them. A good summary of the latest chest humping is here:

http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/201 ... rike-back/

Southeast Asian nations are like ‘mosquitoes’ that need to be taught a lesson, according to the Global Times, which is published by the official Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily.

…For those who infringe upon our sovereignty to steal the oil, we need to warn them politely, and then take action if they don’t respond.’

The last statement could also be taken to mean India. New Delhi isn’t a claimanent of territory in the South China Sea, but has announced it intends to jointly develop oil and gas in the resource rich region with Vietnam.


Before this there was something about "breaking India into 30 pieces", "teaching India a lesson", and so on a so forth. Frankly I have stopped paying attention to all this rabble rousing. However, one thing that is painfully becoming clearer to CCP (especially over the last two years) is that India may not be in front, but isn't that far behind either and it may not be growing faster, but is still growing and growing fast, and this places a natural limits on CCP's ambitions in Asia.
Last edited by Dhiman on 03 Feb 2012 11:34, edited 1 time in total.

Dhiman
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 13:56

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Dhiman » 03 Feb 2012 11:33

Abhijeet wrote:That's the point. So if Indians have $1.5 trillion to spend, and Chinese have $2.24 trillion to spend, why are consumption figures across a range of consumer products different by many multiples or more? They should be relatively close, but they're not.


China is ahead everyone knows that and there is nothing artificial about it. From what I understand, even Theo ji is not arguing against this point. China is also likely to stay ahead for the foreseeable future as far as I can tell barring any unforeseen events.

Why is this? Are things artificially cheap in China (certainly not Audis, from everything I know), or is Indian GDP overstated, or is Chinese GDP understated? I believe the last has been Chola's refrain here.


Frankly, this isn't very clear and my understanding is that if one filters through the noise this is essentially what is being argued here - how much of China's growth is real and how much of its is being pushed by CCP.

Poverty is higher in India and development indicators are more favorable in China, but then we have almost the same level of cell phone penetration and cell phones aren't exactly free.

I would have to see much more data to make up my mind.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 04 Feb 2012 00:39

Wrdos is right about a lot of things, and VikramS is also right about a lot of things. Theo, on the other hand... I don't think he's right about anything.

Wrdos is most right when he says: let's wait and see. No one knows with certainty how HSR (or any investment for that matter) will work out. There are reasons to think China has over-invested, and there are reasons to think the projects are right. There's really no point in debating about the reasons any further; HSR lines currently in operation have been out there for under a year, but we should have a reasonable idea of its operating success within the next 2-3 years. And considering the operating life-span of these projects, we really have to wait 20-30 years to draw any final conclusions.

Vikram is also right, on the other hand, that India has chosen a different path. I don't think there's any hope of, or reason to, convince India to adopt the Chinese development model. Our histories are just too different. India has been a unified polity for less than 100 out of the past 2000 years; China has been a unified polity for almost all of the past 2000 years. This means our societies are just fundamentally different. That's pretty much the bottom line.

By the way, with all the "Chinese = brainwashed drone" criticism... it's interesting that the two critical articles about HSR on the last page are all from Chinese newspapers.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby heech » 04 Feb 2012 00:40

Dhiman wrote:Poverty is higher in India and development indicators are more favorable in China, but then we have almost the same level of cell phone penetration and cell phones aren't exactly free.

Isn't cell phone penetration in China and India already in the 90% range? You can't really get much higher from that point. Look into mobile internet or broadband internet penetration rates.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4708
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby chola » 04 Feb 2012 18:08

Abhijeet wrote:
This is an excellent (and heartening) graph. But something doesn't add up here. If:

1. India's GDP in 2010 == China's GDP in 2003, and
2. Consumption as a % of India's GDP is much higher than (nearly double of) China's;

then why are there so many consumer markets where China's market is so many times bigger than India's?

If anything, India's consumer spending in gross dollar terms should be where China's was in say 2006, since as a % of GDP it's much higher. Then why are the consumption numbers for India today not matching the ones for China from 2006?


China lies and cheats. But it lies and cheats in a way that many like Theoji cannot understand or accept because of jingogiri that dictates that India Shining must not be that far behind pandaland.

China lies and cheats to the poor side not the rich. That is why the chini consumption numbers are so much bigger than the Indian ones when comparing consumption levels. Those numbers do not add up unless its GDP is far bigger than the PRC lets on. Every MNC out there knows this is the case and they take full advantage.

Indians assume that the PRC lies about being wealthier than it is. The US, Japan and Europe assume that China lies about being poorer. You do not trust Chinese GDP numbers you trust what you can sell on the ground. The sales numbers from MNCs support the US, Japanese and Europeans position not ours.

If you look at this with a clear calculating eye you will understand that lying about being wealthier gains you nothing in international trade negotiations but lying about being poorer gains you everything. That is why while those like Theoji insist on chiniland being poorer, the governments of the US, Japan and Europe are fighting the chinis to raise their currency by 40% which is the surest indication that the chini economy is far bigger.

The failure to understand how China cheats means not only Indians are unable to take advantage of this market -- sales stats between 2000 and 2008 saw that than 70% of sales for U.S. multinationals in China were from the domestic market, with only around 8% exported back to the U.S. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2 ... -consumer/). Those numbers for domestic sales are much higher today after the current recession.

But it also means that India can adopt a strategy based on false assumption. Take the WTO for instance, if the goras and japs had accepted Theoji's version of things, the dragon would have gotten into the organization as a developing nation on the same level as India. It would have been able to run roughshod over the rules with impunity because developing nations are allowed exemptions. As it were, China has a far tougher regime in the WTO -- inline with those of developed nations -- because the US, Japan and Europe did their homework.

zlin
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 07 Aug 2003 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby zlin » 04 Feb 2012 20:28

Top gear: China's Huawei outmuscles Swedish rival
(Reuters) - When Huawei Technologies posts its annual results in April, they will likely show the unlisted Chinese firm has overtaken Sweden's Ericsson as the world's top-selling telecoms equipment maker.

Annual sales are forecast at around 200 billion yuan ($31.7 billion), around two-thirds of which, some $21 billion, are from telecoms gear, putting it ahead of Ericsson's 2011 network sales of $19.8 billion. Ericsson, which has a market value of more than $31 billion, has led the mobile telecom equipment market for at least the past decade.

About two thirds of Huawei's revenues come from selling telecoms gear -- where it also competes against Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH, Alcatel Lucent and ZTE, another Chinese firm.

As well as consumer gadgets, Huawei has pushed aggressively into selling routers and switches to corporations in the so-called enterprise sector, a growing $35 billion market dominated by Cisco Systems and Hewlett-Packard.

The real future growth driver for Huawei, and ZTE, also based in Shenzhen, is likely to be in red-hot consumer gadget markets, helping take up some of the slack in telecoms.

Huawei's consumer devices -- dongles, mobile phones and tablets -- now bring in almost a fifth of its revenues and these sales are powering ahead at 40 percent, the company said last month, twice the growth seen in 2010.

Huawei had sales of $6.8 billion in its consumer business last year, and is moving up the value chain by selling more of its feature-filled IDEOS and Vision smartphones.




Huawei Spent $3.76 Billion on Research Last Year
Huawei Technologies Co., China’s largest maker of phone equipment, said it spent $3.76 billion on research and development last year to boost its competitiveness in the global market.

The company has invested a total of $15 billion in research over the past 10 years, which allowed the company to file 40,000 patent applications, Ren Zhengfei, chief executive officer of the Shenzhen-based company, said in a speech to the European Competition Forum. His prepared remarks were supplied by the company.

Huawei is spending on research and development to aid its expansion beyond sales of phone-network equipment into cloud computing and mobile devices including tablet computers and smartphones. The products will help the company more than triple sales from 2010’s level to about $100 billion in the next five to 10 years, the company said in April.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 04 Feb 2012 22:02

wrdos wrote:- As for profit, Hong Kong is the only city in the world with a profitable subway company. The company is profitable because of its success in selling houses around the stations.

So dear, the chinese subway company is profitable because it dabbles in non-core areas. Non-core being non MRTS activities. And if it was unable to sell these houses, would it be economically viable?

wrdos wrote:- Shenyang's core urban population was 3.5million, 20 years ago when i was living there. Now, something between 5.5million to 6milliion, i am not sure.

- Its local GDP is something around 0.1trillion US$ in 2011, and per capita GDP >$11,000, and keeps increasing rapidly.

Congrats. This is purely due to the hard working population of China, along with it is high saving rate. Right now the world economy need every piece of good news it gets. Europe might doom us all, including you and me and both of our countries. Personally I wish I could save as a percentage of my income as much as the average Chinese does.

wrdos wrote:- Internationally, such a city need at least a 200~300km subway network

- Don't worry. It will achieve it within 3~5 years.

- Let's wait and see.

Subway trains success depends on two things. One population density and more importantly the ability of the user of the subway to pay for its operation. If the density is high, but the population is poor then the subway becomes unaffordable.

wrdos wrote:(Sir, your GDP data has some problem. China's GDP in 2011 was 7.4trillion and India something around 1.5trillion. Your currency depreciated too much. And why you use 2012 data when there are still 11months left??)

Like you said Let us wait and see.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 04 Feb 2012 23:13

chola wrote:That is why while those like Theoji insist on chiniland being poorer, the governments of the US, Japan and Europe are fighting the chinis to raise their currency by 40% which is the surest indication that the chini economy is far bigger


Who the hell said anything about poorer. Don't make assumptions that are not true. I said the Panda economy is distorted in certain ways. They are doing certain things that obscure the picture. For instance the way they have gone about bridge building in a Earthquake prone territory. Buying 7 times more washing machines does not make you a more efficient and sustainable economy. Not one of you lot is interested in where the money and growth is coming from. Indians agonize about what growth does their people all the time. And BTW your 'discovery' that the Panda economy in Renminbi is bigger than reported is no claim at all. The concept is PPP. By which measure India is even large and much closer to Panda economically. The USA sold 7.5 Million cars last year, while Panda sold 18 million does that make Panda 3 times the size of USA economically. Or India sold 3.6 Million cars does this make India 1/2 the size of USA. Of course not. Both statements are complete nonsense. The situation is a lot more complicated and misleading than the numbers indicate.

And who the hell said India is perfect. If anything this thread is filled with Panda Jingo's and their claims of Panda paradise and those with starry eyes when they look at the dragon. As far as I know no one says the India has the economic power of Panda, -yet... It is that yet that the Panda Jingo's can not stomach. They think that because their GDP is 3-4-5 times India in dollar terms, what ever number they make up today, that this will always be the situation. I don't think so. There are a few of us who point out that the difference is a matter of a few years. A blink of an eye. Keep some perspective. Don't think every thing is 3 month sales report. India has definite advantages that will pan out long term. Those who think India is growing rich because of Y2K money have a certain flawed view of India, in fact most likely no view at all. To them investors in India can seem like Jingo's. I say it is your loss. To you the fact that India is cautious about running over the rights of its people can seem like Jingoistic activity. To us we are building a society to last a thousand years. To you the fact that India does not have access to 0% money can seem like a trivial foolishness. For Indian companies borrowing at 13% is life or death. For those who comment from Island sized blips, the reality of a continent sized nation is incomprehensible. There is no India shining, even when we are a $15 Trillion economy there will be no India shining. Continent sized nations do not shine. This is true of Panda as well. Even when it is a $25 Trillion economy and the largest in the world its feet will remain clay. The Chinese people would be wise to remember that even if their Panda overlords can not.

I say to India stay the course.
--------------------------------------

BTW per RBI the household savings rate in India is 22%. I won't comment on the China number.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Christopher Sidor » 04 Feb 2012 23:50

heech wrote:
India has been a unified polity for less than 100 out of the past 2000 years; China has been a unified polity for almost all of the past 2000 years.


There is concept called shaky foundations. Any building build on shaky foundations tend to collapse. For example the concept that Tibet has always been a part of so called China is again an urban myth, propagated in the 20th century and now taken as an article of faith among the Chinese. Another example is your statement above. Please check your statements before posting them. They are not based on any historical fact.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 05 Feb 2012 03:17

My copy is in the mail.

http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/1681693 ... the-future

November 8, 1961, my mother wrote in her diary (in translation):

This really is a difficult time! This year our Commune has had 779 people die of hunger. Among Guangming’s population of six hundred, 42 died; that’s one seventh. The masses have a severe pessimistic mood.

“They simply buried the bodies. They said nothing,” my mother told me in a conversation several years ago....

...Chen told me that, one day in 1960, he bumped into a peasant house and saw the family eating a dead baby bloated up in a steamer. Working at a local government, Chen reported the incident to his Party boss, but was warned not to tell anyone.


Why, then, in the Mao era, did an unprecedented large-scale famine result in no significant social unrest?
Key question.

Among the factors Yang identifies, one with the most present significance may be the ability of the government to successfully block the flow of information. Kept from knowing the wide scope of the disaster, let alone its true causes, peasants believed that local conditions — or fate — were to blame. Thus, the resignation and lack of a fight. “News blockage makes people benighted,” writes Yang. Such blockage became a two-edged sword: it benighted not only the public, but also the national leadership. The deceptive quietness of the masses further deepened Mao’s inability to assess the situation.

Did the successful control of information prevent uprisings during the famine or simply delay them half a decade? At least in Sichuan, the unreleased emotions about the famine played a big part in the violence of the Cultural Revolution, as in the case of Li and his family. The large-scale social unrest that failed to occur during the famine was merely delayed. Once the dam that blocked the information broke, the resulting flood was more damaging. Here, history is making a prescient warning to today’s government of China, which spares no pain to enforce the Great Fire Wall and Internet policing, to intercept petitioners, and to suppress political dissidents, all in the name of maintaining “stability” and “harmony.” History should teach them that blocking information for the sake of temporary stability can result in much greater, if delayed, instability.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1835
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby VikramS » 05 Feb 2012 03:40

heech wrote:Vikram is also right, on the other hand, that India has chosen a different path. I don't think there's any hope of, or reason to, convince India to adopt the Chinese development model. Our histories are just too different. India has been a unified polity for less than 100 out of the past 2000 years; China has been a unified polity for almost all of the past 2000 years. This means our societies are just fundamentally different. That's pretty much the bottom line.


heech:

That India did not exist less than 100 years old is a canard, primarily started by the Westerners who needed some moral justification for their misrule and exploitation of India. Churchill is supposed to have once said that "India ... is no more a single country than the Equator". The problem is that Western concepts of a nation, country etc. have evolved from a different philosophy compared to the Indian philosophy; they lack the intellectual latitude to able to accept a different notion. Part of it has religious-ethno components; Dharmic philosophy in its very nature is very receptive of multiple perspectives, unlike the absolutism, the Abrahamic philosophies have evolved into. There is a nice write-up you can read more about here, http://www.math.iitb.ac.in/~jkv/readings/india.html

The homogeneous structure of modern China came after the costs paid during the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution". It involved massive purges, intellectual cleansing, and tens of millions of deaths. The Chinese society paid a huge cost for those periods of homogenization, which they were able to harness after the focus changed in the early 1980s. The great Chinese miracle post 1980s is built upon the clean slate created after the brutal cleansing of the three decades preceding it; and it was powered by the investments from outside China initially driven by the need to create a counter-balance to the USSR; and post the USSR, the opportunity which the Chinese market offered.

Even within China, a strong central power waxed and waned over different times during history. There is a reason why the "Great Wall of China" runs through the middle of modern PRC. The irony is that after crushing the differences within the different sub-cultures which existed with China, the PRC presents a national structure which many Westerners can relate too; and much more easily than they can relate to the Indian system. So a country which nurses a strong sense of being persecuted and exploited by the West, has dumped the nuances of the old system to create a new system which is a lot more agreeable to the Western world-view!

And the bigger irony is that many Chinese posters believe that Indian focus on individual rights and democracy is a Western notion which does not work. On the contrary the Indian system is very consistent with her historical political and spiritual past; and something which the Westerners have found hard to grasp. While on the surface the Westerners may appear to be favoring India, you just need to scratch under the surface to feel their unease. In a slip of tongue CIA's Panetta recently called India a big threat, probably revealing the behind the scene thinking.

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

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby ldev » 05 Feb 2012 06:00

chola wrote:
Indians assume that the PRC lies about being wealthier than it is. The US, Japan and Europe assume that China lies about being poorer. You do not trust Chinese GDP numbers you trust what you can sell on the ground. The sales numbers from MNCs support the US, Japanese and Europeans position not ours.


Very very true. This reminds me of the constant US internal propaganda during the Cold War always overstating the Soviet military threat. In reality, the US was at parity or slightly ahead. But the constant drumbeat about the "overwhelming Soviet threat" spurred many military innovations - not to mention Reagan's huge increases in the US defense budget. The reality was only exposed after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Chola, by the way, I dont think that Indian policy makers who matter are taken in by the Chinese position about being poor and a developing country any more. I cant say the same about some BRF posters. :)

Dhiman
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 13:56

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Dhiman » 05 Feb 2012 06:43

heech wrote:India has been a unified polity for less than 100 out of the past 2000 years; China has been a unified polity for almost all of the past 2000 years.

By the way, with all the "Chinese = brainwashed drone" criticism... it's interesting that the two critical articles about HSR on the last page are all from Chinese newspapers.


This is one reason why people here refer to Chinese posters here as "brainwashed drones" and I thought you were the smart one. When you guys don't subscribe to CCP propaganda, you end up subscribing to Western propaganda. Really, its about time that Chinese posters here started doing some actual research and making their own independent conclusions then simply believing in hogwash that is pedaled their way by those who are in power.

So let's start with the native (and also current official) name of India, its "Bharat". By conservative estimates, that name and its geographical definition was in use around 2500 years ago. The name still exists today and the geographical definition is also more or less the same as what was defined 2500 years ago.

But may be ancient Indian literature is all hogwash, so in that case what is this, and this, and this, before the British showed up and claimed that they have united India for the first time. A propoganda that you continue to believe long after British empire has died.

As compared to this let's look at the name "China" and how and by who your own country got its name "China". Also consider the fact that China got unified for the first time only in 1300 and then for the second time later in 18th-19th century before the CCP showed up.

So now, explain to me how China has had a unified polity for 2000 years when the fact is that it only got unified for the first time in 1300s while as India is barely 100 years old when the fact is that India was unified for the first time in ~2200 years ago.

But let's forget about name and geographical entities. Let's look at culture. Because more than geography, Indians consider India to be cultural entity of which geography is only one component. The reason being, India has had the same cultural continuity throughout recorded history. As compared to this CCP has pretty much wiped out what existed of ancient Chinese culture and values.

So again, how is it that China has had a unified polity for 2000 years while India's unified polity is 100 years old.

Theo_Fidel

Re: PRC Economy - New Reflections : Dec 15 2011

Postby Theo_Fidel » 05 Feb 2012 07:09

BTW Caixin media is the source of that article on the Metro. It is run by Hu Shuli one of the true hero's of modern China. Sometime back the CPC moved against her previous publication and she resigned along with her entire staff. She will always have my respect. In fact she brings more respect to China than all the ding dong railways the CPC conjures up. Of course this being Panda wonderland her situation remains tenuous. She could 'disappear' at any point as powerful CPC bosses have railed against her. Enjoy her commentary while it lasts.
----------------------------------

WRT heech and his 100 year comment, what can one say.... :rotfl: :rotfl:


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests