So anyone care to guess what the World economy is about to enter or has already?
What are you economicalls, well versed in the division and diversion of colourful waters, going to call it as and name it?
Anyone care to have a punt, almost literally if DG is involved?
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2016, 02:27:30 PM
So anyone care to guess what the World economy is about to enter or has already?
What are you economicalls, well versed in the division and diversion of colourful waters, going to call it as and name it?
Anyone care to have a punt, almost literally if DG is involved?
I don't know if it's real helpful to talk about the global economy though.
Minsky was posting some stuff about rumbles of bad things happening in China. I've seen those rumbles as well. Looks to be bad for the Chinese, and is probably going to be negative for commodity producers. BUt frankly China doesn't buy a whole lot from the rest of the world - they're a deeply protectionist company. A slowdown there isn't going to have serious negative repercussions (outside of commodity prices - which they do buy) for the rest of the world.
Everything I've seen has said the US economy is strong, and getting stronger. They seem to be doing fine.
Canada is a tale of two regions. Alberta is suffering from a sucking chest wound. We will survive, but it's very ugly right now. Central Canada is doing... okay. the two probably balance out to flat growth, but it masks the divergent directions of the regions.
Oil producers will continue to suffer. Russia, Saudi, Gulf States... all in for bad times.
Europe - I don't have a great handle on Europe. They seem to be doing okay.
While BC is expected to continue to outpace the rest of the country in job and economic growth. Katmai might have to immigrate to BC or Ontario as movie productions surge back to life with the lower loonie.
My superficial reading of events is that energy is too cheap, so the world economy is collapsing.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 20, 2016, 02:44:47 PM
My superficial reading of events is that energy is too cheap, so the world economy is collapsing.
But that makes no sense.
Cheap oil is FANTASTIC for everyone who isn't an oil producer.
Define oil producer.
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2016, 02:49:28 PM
Define oil producer.
Dead plankton under heat and pressure.
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 02:46:11 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 20, 2016, 02:44:47 PM
My superficial reading of events is that energy is too cheap, so the world economy is collapsing.
But that makes no sense.
Cheap oil is FANTASTIC for everyone who isn't an oil producer.
Certainly isn't. A lot of Danish companies that invested in green energy consumption or production are hurting because they can't compete with the oil prices.
Damn, now that things were on the up over here.
Quote from: Liep on January 20, 2016, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 02:46:11 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 20, 2016, 02:44:47 PM
My superficial reading of events is that energy is too cheap, so the world economy is collapsing.
But that makes no sense.
Cheap oil is FANTASTIC for everyone who isn't an oil producer.
Certainly isn't. A lot of Danish companies that invested in green energy consumption or production are hurting because they can't compete with the oil prices.
Okay - cheap oil is FANTASTIC for anyone not working in the energy sector.
That's still a big majority of the world.
Not just working in the energy sector. One of the biggest companies here produces enzymes to better the efficiency of bio fuel. Also companies who invested heavily in more fuel efficiency isn't getting the expected advantage over competitors, etc.
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: Liep on January 20, 2016, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 02:46:11 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on January 20, 2016, 02:44:47 PM
My superficial reading of events is that energy is too cheap, so the world economy is collapsing.
But that makes no sense.
Cheap oil is FANTASTIC for everyone who isn't an oil producer.
Certainly isn't. A lot of Danish companies that invested in green energy consumption or production are hurting because they can't compete with the oil prices.
Okay - cheap oil is FANTASTIC for anyone not working in the energy sector.
That's still a big majority of the world.
Not fantastic for Gaia.
Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2016, 02:53:31 PM
Damn, now that things were on the up over here.
Cheaper oil is good news for most Spaniards.
I will wait until someone who has the slightest idea of what's going on comments in this thread.
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2016, 03:27:38 PM
I will wait until someone who has the slightest idea of what's going on comments in this thread.
Do we even know for certain that something is going on?
Quote from: Liep on January 20, 2016, 03:28:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2016, 03:27:38 PM
I will wait until someone who has the slightest idea of what's going on comments in this thread.
Do we even know for certain that something is going on?
Certainty typically comes only after the 'event'.
Quote from: Liep on January 20, 2016, 03:28:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2016, 03:27:38 PM
I will wait until someone who has the slightest idea of what's going on comments in this thread.
Do we even know for certain that something is going on?
What we know:
-oil at lowest prices since 2002-2003
-the baltic shipping index is really low, indicating little global shipping
-hard to tell, but bad stuff happening in the Chinese economy - stock market tanking, maybe imposing currency controls
And that's it. It's stuff the perma-bear, buy-gold-and-canned-goods crowd is using to point to the coming armageddon, but nothing to get overly excited about.
Unless you live in oil country, or China.
Markets are doing rather poorly in the last few trading days.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 03:56:41 PM
Markets are doing rather poorly in the last few trading days.
Tends to say very little about the health of the overall economy.
The US created almost 300,000 jobs last month - a much better sign of a robust economy.
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 04:00:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 03:56:41 PM
Markets are doing rather poorly in the last few trading days.
Tends to say very little about the health of the overall economy.
The US created almost 300,000 jobs last month - a much better sign of a robust economy.
The problem is the US economy is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs per month without increasing average hourly earnings very much, a sign that the vast majority are low-quality jobs and that the currently-employed are increasingly worse-off.
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 04:00:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 03:56:41 PM
Markets are doing rather poorly in the last few trading days.
Tends to say very little about the health of the overall economy.
The US created almost 300,000 jobs last month - a much better sign of a robust economy.
You're right. Traders like to think the markets reflect the future rather than the present. But in reality even that is often wrong.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 03:56:41 PM
Markets are doing rather poorly in the last few trading days.
I wasn't following the market today (too busy) but around 10 am I started getting all kinds of low stock price alerts, some of which I set like ten years ago and totally forgot about. :bleeding:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 20, 2016, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 04:00:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 03:56:41 PM
Markets are doing rather poorly in the last few trading days.
Tends to say very little about the health of the overall economy.
The US created almost 300,000 jobs last month - a much better sign of a robust economy.
The problem is the US economy is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs per month without increasing average hourly earnings very much, a sign that the vast majority are low-quality jobs and that the currently-employed are increasingly worse-off.
Agreed. That is the most troubling long term trend. It is also happening here to some extent although our, until now, robust commodity extraction sector has masked the problem. The good news for us at least is now that the loonie has collapsed non commodity extraction based businesses are beginning to thrive and even non energy commodity producers who service the US will get a bit of a boost. But for us to fully recover the US has to recover.
US
+ the stock market has been going down because of earnings weakness, not just change in sentiment.
+ Job growth remains solid but the trend is definitely heading down.
+ Now looks more and more like the Fed tightened prematurely.
Bottom line - US may avoid recession but it is unlikely to be an engine for growth.
Europe: The ECB finally got in gear last year but took a cautious line at the last meeting despite continuing lowflation. There are still big coordination problems in the EZ and the politics aren't getting easier to manage. Bottom line: not optimistic about prospects for improvement.
China: the wildcard. Pace BB - the trade/GDP ratio for China is above 40% - not enormously high compared to smaller countries but quite respectable compared to the US (low 20s). The wild commodity cycle is testament to China's global economic impact. It is clear that growth is trending down. The best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2016, 05:09:09 PMThe best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
The question about that is whether the Party's intervention will prove positive or negative in the end.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 05:14:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2016, 05:09:09 PMThe best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
The question about that is whether the Party's intervention will prove positive or negative in the end.
But the Party has been intervening all along.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2016, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 05:14:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2016, 05:09:09 PMThe best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
The question about that is whether the Party's intervention will prove positive or negative in the end.
But the Party has been intervening all along.
And look where it's got them.
I suspect that because of increased immigration, the NAIRU level is now lower than it has been historically. So instead of 5% for countries like the UK/US, it's probably more like 3-4%. In other words, I doubt real wages will rise significantly until unemployment hits those levels. In that respect the Fed rate rise was probably premature.
A similar effect was observed in the years after World War 2, except that was caused by ex-servicemen joining civvy street.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2016, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 05:14:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2016, 05:09:09 PMThe best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
The question about that is whether the Party's intervention will prove positive or negative in the end.
But the Party has been intervening all along.
And look where it's got them.
Second biggest economy in the world? And shortly to be the biggest in the next decade...
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 02:35:41 PM
BUt frankly China doesn't buy a whole lot from the rest of the world - they're a deeply protectionist company. A slowdown there isn't going to have serious negative repercussions (outside of commodity prices - which they do buy) for the rest of the world.
Chinas biggest importers are South Korea, Japan, USA, Taiwan and Germany - not known for exporting commodities. China buys massive amounts of investment and consumer goods as well as services.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2016, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 05:14:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2016, 05:09:09 PMThe best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
The question about that is whether the Party's intervention will prove positive or negative in the end.
But the Party has been intervening all along.
And look where it's got them.
A world leading economic power projected to be a larger economy than the US in the near future?
Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2016, 06:34:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 02:35:41 PM
BUt frankly China doesn't buy a whole lot from the rest of the world - they're a deeply protectionist company. A slowdown there isn't going to have serious negative repercussions (outside of commodity prices - which they do buy) for the rest of the world.
Chinas biggest importers are South Korea, Japan, USA, Taiwan and Germany - not known for exporting commodities. China buys massive amounts of investment and consumer goods as well as services.
You have to understand BB looks at this from an energy based commodity perspective as his Province is almost entirely dependent on that sector.
German industry (auto, machinery etc.) is in jitters as China is wobbling. Growing demand in the US and Western Europe has so far compensated. But China has become hugely important the last years.
Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2016, 06:49:46 PM
German industry (auto, machinery etc.) is in jitters as China is wobbling. Growing demand in the US and Western Europe has so far compensated. But China has become hugely important the last years.
When the US market crumbled I have a number of clients who created niche markets in China for high quality manufactured goods. They have since become as dependent on that market as they once were on the US market.
MAH STOCKS
I have so much dead money in Sprint (S). :bleeding:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2016, 05:09:09 PM
US
+ the stock market has been going down because of earnings weakness, not just change in sentiment.
+ Job growth remains solid but the trend is definitely heading down.
+ Now looks more and more like the Fed tightened prematurely.
Bottom line - US may avoid recession but it is unlikely to be an engine for growth.
Europe: The ECB finally got in gear last year but took a cautious line at the last meeting despite continuing lowflation. There are still big coordination problems in the EZ and the politics aren't getting easier to manage. Bottom line: not optimistic about prospects for improvement.
China: the wildcard. Pace BB - the trade/GDP ratio for China is above 40% - not enormously high compared to smaller countries but quite respectable compared to the US (low 20s). The wild commodity cycle is testament to China's global economic impact. It is clear that growth is trending down. The best that can be said is that the Party will do everything it can to cushion it.
And when history is written in the future this Age, in which all of these things are true, will be known as "Wednesday."
Walmart closing 269 stores is a pretty worrying sign for the US economy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 11:04:18 PM
Walmart closing 269 stores is a pretty worrying sign for the US economy.
Not necessarily. It could be interpreted as Walmart customers moving upmarket.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2016, 11:11:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 11:04:18 PM
Walmart closing 269 stores is a pretty worrying sign for the US economy.
Not necessarily. It could be interpreted as Walmart customers moving upmarket.
Not necessarily. It could be interpreted as Walmart customers moving online.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 21, 2016, 12:41:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2016, 11:11:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 11:04:18 PM
Walmart closing 269 stores is a pretty worrying sign for the US economy.
Not necessarily. It could be interpreted as Walmart customers moving upmarket.
Not necessarily. It could be interpreted as Walmart customers moving online.
Or both, I suppose. The latter is definitely happening.
Supermarkets are struggling in the UK; but that seems to be due to long-term changes in the way people shop rather than any business cycle effects.
All you making fun of MIM's post should read more of Mono's. China still has a long way to go.
So despite the still glaring failure to hit the inflation target, the ECB stood pat. The reasoning apparently being that to make a move would signal that the ECB agrees with the markets that its last move was insufficient. I.e. they are compounding the error in order not to lose face.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 11:04:18 PM
Walmart closing 269 stores is a pretty worrying sign for the US economy.
Based on the closings announced here in Texas, the stores they are closing are either bad location ideas to begin with or redundant with other, newer stores.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 21, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 20, 2016, 11:04:18 PM
Walmart closing 269 stores is a pretty worrying sign for the US economy.
Based on the closings announced here in Texas, the stores they are closing are either bad location ideas to begin with or redundant with other, newer stores.
Spin! Walmart is DOOOOOMED!!11
Or not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2016, 06:51:08 AM
All you making fun of MIM's post should read more of Mono's. China still has a long way to go.
All of you who think China has a long way to go economically should read the rest of the thread and realize the rest of the world isn't doing so well either.
A lot of economists still forecast something like 6% growth for China next year, which would be spectacular in most countries and is just disappointing because of their two decades of 10% growth...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
All of you who think China has a long way to go economically should read the rest of the thread and realize the rest of the world isn't doing so well either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)
China is in 88th place; their number a quarter of the US.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
All of you who think China has a long way to go economically should read the rest of the thread and realize the rest of the world isn't doing so well either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)
China is in 88th place; their number a quarter of the US.
Aren't we discussing countries and their economies rather than notional individual?
A country's potential wealth is driven by demographics.
But have it your way. China's economy is larger than that of the UK, so why don't you move there and share in the luxury? :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
All of you who think China has a long way to go economically should read the rest of the thread and realize the rest of the world isn't doing so well either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)
China is in 88th place; their number a quarter of the US.
Well done. You win the award for cherry picking.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 10:33:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
All of you who think China has a long way to go economically should read the rest of the thread and realize the rest of the world isn't doing so well either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)
China is in 88th place; their number a quarter of the US.
Well done. You win the award for cherry picking.
What was wrong with this? If I had to think of one statistic to support the assertion that China has a long way to go, that would be the one.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 10:46:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 10:33:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 12:14:53 PM
All of you who think China has a long way to go economically should read the rest of the thread and realize the rest of the world isn't doing so well either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)
China is in 88th place; their number a quarter of the US.
Well done. You win the award for cherry picking.
What was wrong with this? If I had to think of one statistic to support the assertion that China has a long way to go, that would be the one.
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking. Seeking out a stat to support an assertion that the rest of the evidence you have ignored disproves. China has been a rising economic power for a while now. I am not sure why people feel the need to ignore that fact - except for ideological reasons or being petty on Languish.
But even the official line from China is that they still have a long way to go.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:04:49 PM
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking. Seeking out a stat to support an assertion that the rest of the evidence you have ignored disproves. China has been a rising economic power for a while now. I am not sure why people feel the need to ignore that fact - except for ideological reasons or being petty on Languish.
Another reason could be that we may know the difference between position and rate of change of position. You could both be a rising power and yet have ways to go. Despite what way too many people think, the strength of the economy is measured in GDP, not in GDP growth rates.
That's by far the most important stat when judging how a country is doing economically.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 11:15:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:04:49 PM
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking. Seeking out a stat to support an assertion that the rest of the evidence you have ignored disproves. China has been a rising economic power for a while now. I am not sure why people feel the need to ignore that fact - except for ideological reasons or being petty on Languish.
Another reason could be that we may know the difference between position and rate of change of position. You could both be a rising power and yet have ways to go. Despite what way too many people think, the strength of the economy is measured in GDP, not in GDP growth rates.
Sounds more like a very effective way of trying to ignore how far and how quickly they have come.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:29:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 11:15:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:04:49 PM
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking. Seeking out a stat to support an assertion that the rest of the evidence you have ignored disproves. China has been a rising economic power for a while now. I am not sure why people feel the need to ignore that fact - except for ideological reasons or being petty on Languish.
Another reason could be that we may know the difference between position and rate of change of position. You could both be a rising power and yet have ways to go. Despite what way too many people think, the strength of the economy is measured in GDP, not in GDP growth rates.
Sounds more like a very effective way of trying to ignore how far and how quickly they have come.
Know when to concede an argument.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 11:51:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:29:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 11:15:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:04:49 PM
That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking. Seeking out a stat to support an assertion that the rest of the evidence you have ignored disproves. China has been a rising economic power for a while now. I am not sure why people feel the need to ignore that fact - except for ideological reasons or being petty on Languish.
Another reason could be that we may know the difference between position and rate of change of position. You could both be a rising power and yet have ways to go. Despite what way too many people think, the strength of the economy is measured in GDP, not in GDP growth rates.
Sounds more like a very effective way of trying to ignore how far and how quickly they have come.
Know when to concede an argument.
:huh:
The argument I was responding to was essentially what has the Party done for China". Go back and check your stats and compare where they were before the Party decided to begin the economic transformation and where they are now.
And for the effect on the world economy, the GDP PPP per capita of China is less important than the sheer absolute size of its economy in nominal terms.
Quote from: Zanza on January 22, 2016, 11:44:54 AM
And for the effect on the world economy, the GDP PPP per capita of China is less important than the sheer absolute size of its economy in nominal terms.
Yeah, someone would have to be living under a rock for at least the last 10 years not to notice the effect China has had on the world economy.
Does in a box count?
The Party has been in control of China since 1949. I'm not sure another type of government wouldn't have done better.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
The Party has been in control of China since 1949. I'm not sure another type of government wouldn't have done better.
Ok, beyond that fact that you are engaging in pure speculation - akin to the Bush Jr.'s theory that all Iraq needed was democracy - the Party did have this impact. Which is the point that seemed to be under attack.
Being a key part of the world's economy and political order are China's natural position, it was going to assert itself eventually no matter who was in charge.
So they've improved their position vs imperial bureaucracy. Western nations are still far richer. Even the ones with smaller economies.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2016, 12:05:31 PM
So they've improved their position vs imperial bureaucracy. Western nations are still far richer. Even the ones with smaller economies.
ok, backpedal noted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
:huh:
The argument I was responding to was essentially what has the Party done for China". Go back and check your stats and compare where they were before the Party decided to begin the economic transformation and where they are now.
From what I could see, you were responding to and disagreeing with the argument that China still has ways to go. And that argument was a very common conflation of GDP and GDP growth rates. Yes, China as a country already has a lot of economic power (GDP), is still growing quickly (GDP growth rate), but still has ways to go when it comes to development (GDP per capita).
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 12:05:06 PM
Being a key part of the world's economy and political order are China's natural position, it was going to assert itself eventually no matter who was in charge.
There is no "natural position" in the world order. A mismanaged country can stay poor and insignificant even if it has a huge population.
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 12:09:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
:huh:
The argument I was responding to was essentially what has the Party done for China". Go back and check your stats and compare where they were before the Party decided to begin the economic transformation and where they are now.
From what I could see, you were responding to and disagreeing with the argument that China still has ways to go. And that argument was a very common conflation of GDP and GDP growth rates. Yes, China as a country already has a lot of economic power (GDP), is still growing quickly (GDP growth rate), but still has ways to go when it comes to development (GDP per capita).
Go back then and re-read. Good example of strawmen being created to backtrack on a rather silly initial statement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 12:09:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
:huh:
The argument I was responding to was essentially what has the Party done for China". Go back and check your stats and compare where they were before the Party decided to begin the economic transformation and where they are now.
From what I could see, you were responding to and disagreeing with the argument that China still has ways to go. And that argument was a very common conflation of GDP and GDP growth rates. Yes, China as a country already has a lot of economic power (GDP), is still growing quickly (GDP growth rate), but still has ways to go when it comes to development (GDP per capita).
Go back then and re-read. Good example of strawmen being created to backtrack on a rather silly initial statement.
I did. You claimed China doesn't have a long way to go economically. PW brought up the statistics that is most appropriate for measuring "how far the country has to go economically". You called it "cherrypicking". Then you spent the last half of this thread digging while in the hole and claiming that everyone else is backtracking.
If we look at China as a whole (and not just a handful of cities), China is a poor shithole. It used to be a really poor shithole. Because it has a massive number of people, this change has had a profound effect on the world economy.
I think everyone can agree on the above?
You want more direct comparisons? Ok. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950 (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950) 2014 stats in previous link
1950-2014 increase in gdp per capita
China 614-13k ~20x
South Korea 876-35k ~40x
Taiwan 922-46k ~50x
These numbers are good, but these countries were well positioned for growth.
China looks better if you only look at numbers post 1980, but that ignores the fact it was the same regime before that. Also, economic growth is never gonna top stability as their primary motivator. When they're growing 10% a year, everyone's happy and stability is easy to maintain. But with a more mature economy that's no longer capable of such growth rates, they may act to repress growth in instances where it helps maintain order.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 22, 2016, 12:37:39 PM
If we look at China as a whole (and not just a handful of cities), China is a poor shithole. It used to be a really poor shithole. Because it has a massive number of people, this change has had a profound effect on the world economy.
I think everyone can agree on the above?
Of course.
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 12:19:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 12:09:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 11:42:40 AM
:huh:
The argument I was responding to was essentially what has the Party done for China". Go back and check your stats and compare where they were before the Party decided to begin the economic transformation and where they are now.
From what I could see, you were responding to and disagreeing with the argument that China still has ways to go. And that argument was a very common conflation of GDP and GDP growth rates. Yes, China as a country already has a lot of economic power (GDP), is still growing quickly (GDP growth rate), but still has ways to go when it comes to development (GDP per capita).
Go back then and re-read. Good example of strawmen being created to backtrack on a rather silly initial statement.
I did. You claimed China doesn't have a long way to go economically.
:huh:
I didnt deny China has a way to go. I said the rest of the world isnt doing so well economically either.
Unless you are aware of economic data that suggests there is some region that is doing well economically, I am not so sure what is contraversial about that statement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
:huh:
I didnt deny China has a way to go. I said the rest of the world isnt doing so well economically either.
Except for 70+ countries?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
Unless you are aware of economic data that suggests there is some region that is doing well economically, I am not so sure what is contraversial about that statement.
Yes, all of Western Europe, for one. Compared to China anyway. Even Greece.
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
:huh:
I didnt deny China has a way to go. I said the rest of the world isnt doing so well economically either.
Except for 70+ countries?
Are doing well economically?
You would make an excellent Russian propogandist.
Wait a minute. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 01:42:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
Unless you are aware of economic data that suggests there is some region that is doing well economically, I am not so sure what is contraversial about that statement.
Yes, all of Western Europe, for one. Compared to China anyway. Even Greece.
Way to miss the point.
The point is that you have consistently conflated "good" with "getting better". A homeless person who goes from owning one cardboard box to owning two cardboard boxes is growing his material wealth quickly, but Warren Buffett is still doing better, even if he took a couple of hits these last few weeks.
Quote from: Zanza on January 22, 2016, 12:10:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 12:05:06 PM
Being a key part of the world's economy and political order are China's natural position, it was going to assert itself eventually no matter who was in charge.
There is no "natural position" in the world order. A mismanaged country can stay poor and insignificant even if it has a huge population.
True. I guess it was more like 'their position if they are not totally fucking shit up'.
China has a tradition and culture that lends itself to being a political and economic powerhouse as well, when they are not totally melting down into chaos and violence which they tend to do every once in a while.
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 01:48:59 PM
The point is that you have consistently conflated "good" with "getting better". A homeless person who goes from owning one cardboard box to owning two cardboard boxes is growing his material wealth quickly, but Warren Buffett is still doing better, even if he took a couple of hits these last few weeks.
:huh:
More strawmen, or did you really not understand my first point that being critical of the Party intervening in the economy now was odd since the Party has always intervened in the economy. I think you actually didnt read what I said up thread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:45:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 01:42:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
Unless you are aware of economic data that suggests there is some region that is doing well economically, I am not so sure what is contraversial about that statement.
Yes, all of Western Europe, for one. Compared to China anyway. Even Greece.
Way to miss the point.
What is the point?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2016, 01:54:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:45:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2016, 01:42:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
Unless you are aware of economic data that suggests there is some region that is doing well economically, I am not so sure what is contraversial about that statement.
Yes, all of Western Europe, for one. Compared to China anyway. Even Greece.
Way to miss the point.
What is the point?
That being worried about the Party intervening in the economy now is odd. What is the difference between them intervening now and the constant and consistent intervention that has always existed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:56:48 PM
That being worried about the Party intervening in the economy now is odd. What is the difference between them intervening now and the constant and consistent intervention that has always existed.
Because not all intervention is the same?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:56:48 PM
That being worried about the Party intervening in the economy now is odd. What is the difference between them intervening now and the constant and consistent intervention that has always existed.
China's success has come where the Party's intervention was least. China attempted to develop their economy with high levels of Party intervention, and tens of millions of Chinese starved to death. They then backed off from Party intervention, and the economy prospered.
Where "the Party" has been effective in the economy is in infrastructure creation. And that isn't at all ideological, except for the showpieces like the unused maglev train in Shanghai. Germany's "Parties" has been successfully growing Germany's infrastructure for about 150 years (baring a 30-year period of ideologically-driven intervention).
The CCP's intervention in the stock market has been a disaster.
Well, now they're exporting their strategy with this New Silk Road thing they put in the latest "5 year plan". Ghost cities for all.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 22, 2016, 08:46:57 PM
Well, now they're exporting their strategy with this New Silk Road thing they put in the latest "5 year plan". Ghost cities for all.
Build the cities and the people will come?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2016, 12:41:58 PM
China looks better if you only look at numbers post 1980, but that ignores the fact it was the same regime before that.
No the Mao regime is quite different from the Deng regime.
Also, there's the slight problem that the current 6%+ GDP growth figure seems to be based on propaganda/careerism of local officials rather than on reality.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 22, 2016, 10:51:31 PM
No the Mao regime is quite different from the Deng regime.
Mostly the same people involved.
I'm not disputing that Deng went off in a new direction.
Quote from: Camerus on January 22, 2016, 11:29:22 PM
Also, there's the slight problem that the current 6%+ GDP growth figure seems to be based on propaganda/careerism of local officials rather than on reality.
Intelesting.
China is set fair for the middle-income trap, their workforce is decreasing and their dependency ratio gets worse, they are good at making obvious products but there is little creativity.
:weep:
I have six months to decide whether I should risk returning to oil country or disappoint my summer employers by looking elsewhere
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 01:17:42 AM
:weep:
I have six months to decide whether I should risk returning to oil country or disappoint my summer employers by looking elsewhere
You have a guaranteed job? I would stick with it. This depression in oil prices isn't going to quickly reverse itself, but it certainly isn't going to last forever either. These things sort themselves out.
There are five administrative districts in China with per capital GDP (PPP) over 20K. The combined population of those provinces is around 200 million. So one way of looking at it is within China there is a country the size of Japan at the development level of Malaysia and within striking distance of Korea if it can keep growth going at the current 6.5% rate. Those districts BTW don't include the enormous Guangdong and Shandong provinces - another 200 million people - which have some very developed cities in them, and that as a whole currently sit around 17.5 K, i.e. around the level of Mexico.
It's also true that around 400M Chinese are still in grinding rural poverty. The PRC is a very unequal country, both across space and across classes. But there is a very sizable upper end that is already quite developed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:29:07 PM
There are five administrative districts in China with per capital GDP (PPP) over 20K. The combined population of those provinces is around 200 million. So one way of looking at it is within China there is a country the size of Japan at the development level of Malaysia and within striking distance of Korea if it can keep growth going at the current 6.5% rate. Those districts BTW don't include the enormous Guangdong and Shandong provinces - another 200 million people - which have some very developed cities in them, and that as a whole currently sit around 17.5 K, i.e. around the level of Mexico.
It's also true that around 400M Chinese are still in grinding rural poverty. The PRC is a very unequal country, both across space and across classes. But there is a very sizable upper end that is already quite developed.
Thanks for that JR, an interesting way of looking at it. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2016, 12:29:07 PM
There are five administrative districts in China with per capital GDP (PPP) over 20K. The combined population of those provinces is around 200 million. So one way of looking at it is within China there is a country the size of Japan at the development level of Malaysia and within striking distance of Korea if it can keep growth going at the current 6.5% rate. Those districts BTW don't include the enormous Guangdong and Shandong provinces - another 200 million people - which have some very developed cities in them, and that as a whole currently sit around 17.5 K, i.e. around the level of Mexico.
It's also true that around 400M Chinese are still in grinding rural poverty. The PRC is a very unequal country, both across space and across classes. But there is a very sizable upper end that is already quite developed.
There is a PBS documentary called "The Last Train Home" which I use in my Asia Studies class. It describes what the Chinese producer calls "China A" and "China B" very well. China A is first-world, China B third world. There are stringent laws to prevent any Chinese from trying to emigrate from China B to China A. The film describes how residents of China B deal with being guest workers in China A. It's kinda like the Pakistanis in Dubai.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 11:46:47 AMYou have a guaranteed job? I would stick with it. This depression in oil prices isn't going to quickly reverse itself, but it certainly isn't going to last forever either. These things sort themselves out.
well, I turned down their offer because I first wanted to pursue a one-year temporary job post-graduation. I'd like another temporary job right after that one, but the firm wants me back and I feel kinda bad further delaying things. if I went back, it'd be either 2017+ or 2019+ start. if this requires a decade long recovery (most pessimistic estimate I've seen)... oy vey
Quote from: LaCroix on January 25, 2016, 08:01:07 PM
well, I turned down their offer because I first wanted to pursue a one-year temporary job post-graduation. I'd like another temporary job right after that one, but the firm wants me back and I feel kinda bad further delaying things. if I went back, it'd be either 2017+ or 2019+ start. if this requires a decade long recovery (most pessimistic estimate I've seen)... oy vey
How would a shale bust affect you directly?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 08:04:45 PMHow would a shale bust affect you directly?
depends. in the short term, a bust leads to increased litigation. long term, less business, but very few graduates want to live out there (those who do are either from the area or can't find jobs elsewhere). I originally went to oil country because the amount of work there meant substantive work for everyone, even summer interns
Shell profits down 85%, US messing with interest rates....
Doooooooom