Bharat Rakshak

Prices for the Dahongpao tea, which is only grown in a small mountainous area of east coast province of Fujian, have increased tenfold since the middle of last year with online tea traders selling a single kilo for more than £1,000, the country's state media has reported.

"I never thought it would get so expensive," a tea producer, Wu Zongyan said. "It's one price one day, another price another day. Between when we pick the leaves and when it's ready to sell, the price has already gone up."

In the past year auction houses in China and Hong Kong have all reported fetching record prices for everything from Imperial artwork to French claret and, most recently, Communist-era stamps as speculators search for an outlet for their money.

Raghavendra wrote:

Manu wrote:I don't understand why Warren Buffet has still not 'discovered' India.

No Indian member in NWO yet

nukavarapu wrote:

Shankas wrote:Happy to see this and sad to see the US slide...

Didn't get what you meant !!!

abhischekcc wrote:
Indra Nooyi is a member of the most famous seret society in NWO - Bilderberg Conferece.

Shankas wrote: Sorry was not clear...
Happy to see US starting to manufacture things.
Sad to see wages declining in US

Theo_Fidel wrote:

Shankas wrote: Sorry was not clear...
Happy to see US starting to manufacture things.
Sad to see wages declining in US

US is still the worlds largest manufacturer.
Has total dollar value twice the size of Panda.

An average US worker is 12-15 times as productive
as a Chinese worker in dollar terms.

Theo_Fidel wrote: US is still the worlds largest manufacturer.
Has total dollar value twice the size of Panda.

An average US worker is 12-15 times as productive
as a Chinese worker in dollar terms.

zlin wrote:
Meanwhile, the country from which our Lefties, Liberals and Maoists get inspiration, has moved with spectacular success towards a market economy. When I twittered about this, someone twittered back that perhaps we should lease India to the Chinese for the next 200 years. It might come to that if we do not buck up.

China's ruling Communist Party is meeting in Beijing to draw up its next five-year plan for the economy.
The agenda is secret but analysts say that instead of seeking a high rate of economic growth, China's leaders want to close the gap between rich and poor and between coastal and inland areas.
Analysts will also be watching for signs of who will be China's next leader - due to take office in 2012. State media said President Hu Jintao and Mr Wen are expected to attend the gathering "to discuss proposals for the nation's next five-year development plan" from 2011 to 2015.
China has seen remarkable economic growth in recent years - largely driven by exports.
The BBC's Martin Patience in Beijing says China wants to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, which has grown in order to prevent strikes and disputes over pay, which have led to social unrest in the past.
Any instability worries the party because it challenges their authority across the country, our correspondent says.
Analysts will also be watching for signs that Vice-President Xi Jinping and Vice-Premier Li Keqiang - the presumed successors to Mr Hu and Mr Wen - will move closer to power in a reshuffle.

Today the conventional wisdom is that somehow the Chinese economy is better managed than its competitors, very similar to how people viewed Japan in the 1970s and 1980s. Back then people were absolutely convinced that Japan was the superior country with superior policies and that its economy was unstoppable. We all know how that ended.

So, let’s start there. Is China’s system better than everyone else’s? Is it really possible the Chinese economy can keep steamrolling along?

VK: A few months ago, I watched a movie about Ayn Rand and it talked about how Americans in the 1930s looked at the Soviet Union’s flavor of managed economy as being superior to the American version of capitalism. At the time America was just coming out of the Great Depression, so that view made a lot of sense. So in the short run, and especially after the ugly side of creative destruction has paid us a visit, the grass of managed economy may look greener.

So when we look at China, the conventional wisdom says that the government is very, very smart, and therefore they can do a very good job in steering the economy in the right way. Chinese government may have the best intentions, its leaders may have IQs of 250 each on a bad day, but it is impossible to centrally manage an economy of China’s size.

I am a big believer that in the boxing match between a visible and an invisible hand, though the invisible hand may lose a few rounds, it will win the match every time. Last century we had the most amazing economic experiment take place when after World War II, Germany was split into two countries with different economic and political systems. But they were the same people, with the same language and culture, separated by a wall. We know how that story ended.

Of course, for a time, having government control over the levers of the economy can have advantages. For example, by taking prompt action, the Chinese government was able to pull the economy out of the recession remarkably fast, basically by fire-housing the stimulus package that was equivalent to 12% GDP. That’s the advantage. The only problem is that these kinds of short-term advantages come with long-term, painful consequences.

For example, when you have a huge government presence in the economy, you also have a huge bureaucracy, and bureaucracy brings corruption. This is one of the reasons why China is rated so poorly on Transparency International’s annual corruption rating. Corruption breeds misallocation of capital, because the capital flows not to the best use, but it basically flows to whatever the political connection or whatever the bribe is directed to.

In addition, when you have a government-managed economy, it creates excesses. China has huge excesses in the industrial sector, as well as in commercial and residential real estate. We see plenty of evidence of these excesses, but they are likely to be much greater than we can measure today as they are covered up by robust economic growth. The true magnitude of these excesses will come to the surface once the economy slows down.

TCR: In essence, you’ve got a relatively small group of individuals who are making big decisions about China’s economy and where production should be, in what sectors, etc. If history is any guide, that really can’t last, yet many people seem to think it can. That said, China’s economy has certainly done remarkably well in the global economic crisis. In fact, according to their government, their GDP is almost back to where it was pre-crash. Why?

VK: In the same way that everyone in the United States decided they “must” own a house, this belief was reinforced by continuously rising house prices. You can see how big a problem this became in big cities such as Beijing and Shanghai where the affordability ratio is horrible, so the property-value-to-income ratio in Beijing is pushing 15. In Shanghai it is over 12. If you look at the national average, it is over eight times.

TCR: Can you explain that ratio to our readers?

VK: You get the ratio by taking the property value and dividing it by annual disposable income.

Basically, if you spent all your money, after you paid your taxes, just to pay off the mortgage, it would take you 14 years – which means you didn’t pay for food, electricity, etc.

This ratio is important because it helps put the scale of the Chinese real estate bubble in its proper context. In Tokyo, at the peak of the massive Japanese bubble, the ratio stood at nine times. In Beijing it’s already 14 times. In Shanghai it’s over 12 times. The national average for China is pushing 8.2 times right now. So housing affordability is very, very low, and the housing prices are extremely high.

Here is another interesting piece of data: property investment in China in 2009 was 10% of GDP, up from 8% in 2007. In Japan, at the peak of its bubble, it did not exceed 9%; in the U.S. it never exceeded 6%.

As you can tell from my accent, I was born in Russia and spent half of my life in Soviet Russia. From my direct experience, the Russian propaganda machine was very, very powerful, and so many people believed how smart the leaders were and that they could do nothing wrong.

China is not that much different from Russia in that respect. Due to the government’s control of the media, the average citizen has been brainwashed into thinking of the government with respect. They has led to an unconditional belief that the Chinese government walks on water, that the laws of economics are somehow suspended when they touch things (except they also did a fine job convincing not just their own citizens but the West as well). Sure, they have a greater control of the economy, but at the long-term cost we talked about earlier. That’s point number one.

Singha wrote: ..I suppose those who took huge loans to buy such properties will need very robust incomes for 20 yrs to pay it all off.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- China's economic growth slowed for the second quarter in a row, cooling fears that its economy is growing at an unsustainable pace.

On the other hand, economists have worried lately that tighter policies could result in a so-called hard landing, bringing the Chinese economy to a halt.

But Thursday's report shows the Chinese economy is still expanding rapidly.

While annual growth near 10% is not unusual for China, it's still far faster than the 7.5% rate the Chinese government aimed for when it set its 5-year goal back in 2006, said Damien Ma, China analyst with the Eurasia Group.

"China has consistently overshot its plan for the past decade, so it's no surprise there are strong voices advocating for slower growth," he said.

HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- China's government unveiled a free online mapping service, filling the void in the absence of offerings from Google Inc. /quotes/comstock/15*!goog/quotes/nls/goog (GOOG 611.96, -0.03, -0.01%) , as the U.S. Internet giant has yet to apply for a license to operate its service in China, according to a report Friday by the state-run China Daily. The State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping officially unveiled its service, known as Map World, on Thursday, describing it as providing "comprehensive geological data", the report cited government spokesman as saying. The China service which can be accessed at www.tianditu.cn or www.chinaonmap.cn

Insofar as Japan was concerned, the evaluation said — literally — “We approve.” They considered Japanese sovereign debt risk “negligible in the short-term,” and generally lauded the Japanese government’s efforts to prop up internal demand; their only concern was that these efforts not be withdrawn too quickly, in case such a hasty withdrawal kills what they see as a nascent Japanese recovery.

As to the European Union, the evaluation makes it clear how nervous the Chinese were at the ad hoc approach Europe used when dealing with the Greek crisis. They want the EU to strengthen its Stability and Growth Pact so as to “prevent and resolve fiscal imbalances.” At the same time, they see an “urgent need” to set up a whole host of mechanisms to assure “financial stability” — id est, prevent another Greece, or at least to have the mechanisms and structure in place to efficiently handle another Greece.

Regarding the United States, the Big Kahuna: The Chinese are very worried — but they also view America with a bit of contempt.

In their very first sentence, the Chinese state that US fiscal deficit reduction is based on “over-optimistic and unrealistic growth assumptions” — that’s diplomat-speak for “Are you outta your f***ing mind?” The second sentence tears apart US GDP growth projections for 2010 and 2011, both the US government’s, and that of leading US economists.

As to themselves, the Chinese’s self-evaluation is rather interesting: First of all, they see their own easy money policy as having been a great thing. They consider it to have been the reason for sustained rapid growth during the last two-three years. Unlike Jim Chanos’ very smart evaluation — he thinks they are in a bubble, overheating and heading for a fall — the Chinese see their easy money policy as having been essential to keeping their economy going. They have no intention of tightening money anytime soon.

As the table implies, the discussion about the timing and sequencing of the necessary adjustment policies depends heavily on political considerations and on the relative ability of the expected losers and winners to influence the outcome. That is why I always argue that this is a political discussion more than an economic discussion.

RamaT wrote:Good view on the steps the Chinese can take to unwind their asset bubble and what each options consequences will be.

As the table implies, the discussion about the timing and sequencing of the necessary adjustment policies depends heavily on political considerations and on the relative ability of the expected losers and winners to influence the outcome. That is why I always argue that this is a political discussion more than an economic discussion.

http://mpettis.com/2010/09/the-politics ... djustment/

Theo_Fidel wrote: Every one of those prescriptions would cause GDP growth to slow down. Simply unacceptable to the 9 wise mandarins with IQ's of 250 who lead Panda flawlessly.

As far as the "What China is thinking" article this is merely a policy paper. The real zinger is the Chanos presentation on the Panda economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99HNFCn5RP8

Worth a full listen for those interested.

This is simply a input led growth. There is no more efficient economy here. His estimation is that all the office space China needs for essentially the next hundred years has been built.

The odd thing is Chanos is not really shorting China. He is shorting all the economies dependent on it. Namely Australia, Brazil, Canada even Russia. Note the one country not on that list, India. When China falls he predicts real armageddon in these countries.

paramu wrote:^^^
Do the sharp rocket tip of those trains need to be so long, or is that to make it look so futuristic?

SaiK wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/China-ope ... hinatrains

But for the European, Japanese and North American companies that have provided much of the technology for the country’s programme, the visit put the spotlight on a worrying trend.

In what many international executives see as a warning for other industries, these companies have spent years “transferring”, or selling, technology to state-backed partners in exchange for market access – only to be rewarded with shrinking market share in China as a result of state policies that favour local industry.

Now these companies find their high-speed technology has been “digested” – defined by the government as a multistep process of buying foreign technology, innovating on that existing platform then selling it under a domestic brand – by former Chinese partners. Furthermore, the foreigners find themselves competing head-to-head for tenders all over the world with Chinese companies selling digested high-speed technology at discount prices, often with cheap state bank financing thrown in.

In 2002, to challenge foreign dominance, the railway ministry unveiled the China Star, a home-grown high-speed system developed at a cost of Rmb140m by state-controlled manufacturers using only Chinese intellectual property. But less than two years later, the ministry announced that the core technology was “immature”.

The China Star was quietly shunted into a siding and forgotten as the Chinese companies were encouraged to ramp up digestion of foreign technology instead. As they did so, the ministry continually raised its “local content” requirements.

“This high-speed programme is a political project with little economic value,” says Zhao Jian, a professor at Beijing Jiaotong University who favours conventional rail rather than high-speed projects. “The government just wants to have the biggest and fastest number one train set in the world.”

While the two agree that individual high-speed rail lines will not be able to cover their costs, Mr Scales thinks that by removing passenger traffic from existing tracks, the high-speed lines will make way for more freight, which could provide the railway ministry with enough new revenues to pay for all the new lines.

Mr Zhao argues that few passenger trains will actually be taken off existing tracks, because they cannot run on the new high-speed lines and the government is not going to scrap all those old carriages.

The railway ministry accounts for as much as 10 per cent of all outstanding debt in the country, according to World Bank estimates. Chinese analysts say the proportion of railway construction funded by debt has increased from under 50 per cent in 2005 to more than 70 per cent last year.

“This is a real debt crisis building up for the government and it is going to break at some point,” Mr Zhao says.

SaiK wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/China-ope ... hinatrains


Do those trains run on metre gauge or broad gauge tracks? Taking the perspective of the two guys in the picture, the rail tracks look a bit narrower than standard broad gauge. If that's the case the train compartments would be quite narrow I'd reckon.

However, that picture was taken with fish eye lens so it could be the perspective was distorted - which also could have resulted in the TFTA looking noses.

Maybe Wrdos can clarify?

amit wrote:

SaiK wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/China-ope ... hinatrains

Do those trains run on metre gauge or broad gauge tracks? Taking the perspective of the two guys in the picture, the rail tracks look a bit narrower than standard broad gauge. If that's the case the train compartments would be quite narrow I'd reckon.

However, that picture was taken with fish eye lens so it could be the perspective was distorted - which also could have resulted in the TFTA looking noses.

Maybe Wrdos can clarify?

Suraj wrote:Credit needs to be given where it's due for these new trains - to Bombardier Transportation:
Bombardier Zefiro
Bombardier Zefiro 380, a.k.a CRH380