Economy 52,844 Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 economics should be a required course for high schoolers. Official data say China’s economy is barely slowing. Are they believable? http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/10/chinas-data-doubts FOR most countries, delivering resilient growth when investors had expected an abrupt slowdown would be impressive. China is different. The announcement that its economy grew 6.9% in the third quarter, just below the second quarter’s 7% pace, is more grist for the already-brimming mill of scepticism about its data. Such are the doubts about Chinese figures that it is difficult to write a straightforward a--lysis of them without riddling it with caveats about what is and is not credible. So it is sensible to look at the latest numbers in two parts: what the government reported and what ought to be believed. The official data are indeed impressive, not least because they cover a quarter during which concerns about China's economy were so widespread. July began with the stockmarket in turmoil, falling some 40% from peak to trough. Flailing attempts by the government to prop up share prices tarnished its reputation for technocratic competence. A mini-devaluation of the yuan in August added to the feeling that China’s economy was in trouble. And a series of surveys pointed to contraction in the manufacturing sector. Against that bleak backdrop, growth of 6.9% is a remarkably good performance. It might be China’s slowest quarter since early 2009, the nadir after the global financial crisis, but the economy is twice as big now as it was then. A gradual, steady rebalancing of the growth model helps explain the solid figures. As commodity exporters can readily attest, China’s factories are struggling. The industrial sector expanded 5.8% year on year in the third quarter, just about the weakest in more than two decades. But China is changing. The services sector expanded 8.6% year on year in the third quarter, matching its strongest growth since 2011. That is important because, as of a few years ago, services account for a bigger share of the economy than industry does. The transition can also be seen in the seemingly relentless slowdown of investment versus much more robust consumption. Overall investment rose 10.3% year on year in the first nine months of 2015, the lowest in 15 years. But retail sales nudged up to 10.8% growth year on year in real terms in September, a seven-month high. A healthy labour market has supported this rebalancing. Income growth actually improved a touch in the third quarter, accelerating to a 7.7% year-on-year increase in real terms. Just how believable are these numbers? Analysts who question the data can generally be sorted into two camps: those who think that China’s numbers are out-and-out fabrications, concealing the economy’s true, grim state; and those who think that China’s numbers are embellishments, inflating growth but not altogether misrepresenting it. The weight of evidence is on the side of the latter. The most extreme scepticism about Chinese data focuses on a range of indicators that have served in the past as decent barometers for the broader economy. Power output, for example, has risen just 0.1% so far this year, which would normally imply that real growth is far slower than the government's figure. Imports have also been very weak, falling nearly 18% year on year in September. But these indicators are windows onto the industrial sector, the very part of the economy that is suffering the steepest deceleration. Trying to get a full read on growth from import data is even more problematic: plunging commodity prices have depressed the value of Chinese imports. What is more, the shift towards more services-led growth shows up in current-account statistics, not monthly merchandise trade figures. There are stronger grounds for the milder form of scepticism: China does appear to be doctoring its growth data a little. The controversy centres on the way that the statistics bureau adjusts nominal growth figures to account for inflation. In the third quarter, nominal growth was 6.2% but the government calculated that overall prices fell by about 0.7%, allowing real growth to hit 6.9%. That is odd, since consumer price inflation picked up a little in the third quarter, rising to 1.4%. Moreover, much of the apparent deflation stems from falling producer prices, but those, to a large extent, reflect falls in imported commodity prices, not domestic deflation. It is fiendishly difficult to calculate alternative deflators, since they rely on heroic assumptions about sectoral weights and price levels. But a--lysts who have developed rough substitutes for the economy as a whole put growth closer to 5-6%. One partial solution is to look at the government’s nominal data alone, ignoring its deflator. Here, the picture that emerges is more closely aligned with the impression of a sustained slowdown in China. Nominal growth fell to 6.2% year on year in the third quarter, markedly lower than the second quarter 7.1% pace. It was the slowest since 1999 and less than a third of the jaw-dropping 20% nominal rate chalked up in 2011. What’s more, the collapse in commodity prices has flattered China’s growth rate. The resulting fall in imports has translated directly into a big rise in the trade surplus, boosting overall growth. Stripping out net exports, China’s nominal domestic-demand growth is probably closer to 5%, according to a--lysts with China International Capital Corp, a local investment bank. That is a sharper slowdown than the one portrayed by the government. But it is still a good deal better than the hard landing feared for China just a few months ago. i agree tbh. economy is so important and if ppl understood them better they could make better informed dicisions on voting, not to mention theyd put the better kinds of pressure on governments to make tough choices instead of whinning about stuff they dont understand As for China i honestly dont know. they arent the most trust worth with numbers. What comes in and out of there through trade is really all we can measure and thats doing badly. Thier domestic economy we cant really measure it from the outside we have to rely on numbers they give us It is true China is putting emphasis on growing domestic consumption economy because their economy is too mature now to rely on growing exports and industrial sector sustainably at this rate But higher wages and stronger growth in service and retail sector would in fact put pressure on exports and industrial sector so this shouldnt be surprising Its hard to say. Their economic transition to a more mature economy is not a easy one tho we must say! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 China's economy spans are large continent. The overall numbers and trends are somewhat misleading if not irrelevant because of the diversity they now have. Costal and industrial metropolitan regions are a large part of the numbers right now, but the majority of China's human inhabitants are still rural. So when you consider the 'trends' you have to look at just who is actually affected by them ... The rural China has little knowledge or feels little impact from much of any economic issues other than the price of rice and the weather. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 China's economy spans are large continent. The overall numbers and trends are somewhat misleading if not irrelevant because of the diversity they now have. Costal and industrial metropolitan regions are a large part of the numbers right now, but the majority of China's human inhabitants are still rural. So when you consider the 'trends' you have to look at just who is actually affected by them ... The rural China has little knowledge or feels little impact from much of any economic issues other than the price of rice and the weather. true but to rest of 5.5 billion ppl in the world total numbers matter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc 4,776 Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I think China's actual growth is more like 4% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think China's actual growth is more like 4% its really hard to say. We can measure exports and imports but cant measure their internal domestic economy. Since many of their businesses are state owned we cant measure earnings or consumer spending or even private payrolls we get stuck having to trust the data Chineese release its like OPECs oil reserves. They dont allow oitside ppl to survey anything and they have political reasons to inflate their reserves because of their quota system and most OPEC Nations had sudden surges in reserves after the quota system was introduced and most had no explanations for their reserves we know most of it must be BS especially since they never adjust for extraction. But were stuck with the numbers they give us But if OPEC is lying and oil becomes scarse soon that woukd give my Country more power at meast u til oil for transportation becomes obsulete and when we use oil just for products oil demand drops by over 80% and oil price collapses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
politicqxs 358 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 China's economy spans are large continent. The overall numbers and trends are somewhat misleading if not irrelevant because of the diversity they now have. Costal and industrial metropolitan regions are a large part of the numbers right now, but the majority of China's human inhabitants are still rural. So when you consider the 'trends' you have to look at just who is actually affected by them ... The rural China has little knowledge or feels little impact from much of any economic issues other than the price of rice and the weather. Many migrant workers from rural areas work in factories and urban areas, and send money back to their villages. Some trickle-downs. http://www.uschina.usc.edu/w_usct/showarticle.aspx?articleID=18932 the Transition giving up sodomy and moving to 🇦🇪 converting to ☪ and marrying four girls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Many migrant workers from rural areas work in factories and urban areas, and send money back to their villages. Some trickle-downs. http://www.uschina.usc.edu/w_usct/showarticle.aspx?articleID=18932 the Transition That's a good point. The industrial economy would impact agricultural demand and thereby the rural area's would see better prices for their products. I don't necessarily like 'overall' numbers as a barometer tho, I look more at the complexity of interaction between segements of large economies to get a better idea of upcoming trends. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Is Russia The King Of Arctic Oil By Default? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-king-arctic-oil-default-221933052.htmlI'm not sure about all the rig a marole this article spits out, but the fact is, arctic oil has a lot of negative things to deal with...1. No body actually owns any of the land there.2.Its difficult and expensive to operate the type of equipment needed to drill on the ocean floor, much less a frozen ocean. 3. Oil is far less valuable now, and there is enough oil in easier less expensive places to get it.4. Western oil exploration and recovery is private enterprise, so .... no profit ... no do it .... comprende....?Mainly the U.S. is sayn' gehead , gehead, go for it,....good luck makn' any mulah tho....8-/Plus they're gonna get an earful from the environmentalist mentals sooner or later... like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Geothermal Energy Could Soon Stage A Coup In Oil And Gashttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/geothermal-energy-could-soon-stage-220429027.htmlLo and behold, the exact same 'frackn' holes the dirty rotten oil companies been drilln' have another benefit....8-) like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 Geothermal Energy Could Soon Stage A Coup In Oil And Gashttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/geothermal-energy-could-soon-stage-220429027.htmlLo and behold, the exact same 'frackn' holes the dirty rotten oil companies been drilln' have another benefit....8-)were not gonna drive geothermal cars as for electricity, natural gas is super cheap, aboundant and less toxic than oil and coal i say get rid of coal plants first. Cleave natural gas for the end cuz they are less harmful! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 Is Russia The King Of Arctic Oil By Default? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-king-arctic-oil-default-221933052.html I'm not sure about all the rig a marole this article spits out, but the fact is, arctic oil has a lot of negative things to deal with... 1. No body actually owns any of the land there. 2.Its difficult and expensive to operate the type of equipment needed to drill on the ocean floor, much less a frozen ocean. 3. Oil is far less valuable now, and there is enough oil in easier less expensive places to get it. 4. Western oil exploration and recovery is private enterprise, so .... no profit ... no do it .... comprende....? Mainly the U.S. is sayn' gehead , gehead, go for it,....good luck makn' any mulah tho....8-/ Plus they're gonna get an earful from the environmentalist mentals sooner or later... i dont care if they take it and Canada gets none our oil sands reserves of 175 Billion barrels could baloon to 300 billion once new extraction technologies are complete Also theres lots of shale formations in Canada that are believed to have tones of oil tho no official numbers exist yet Arctic isnt nedded Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 were not gonna drive geothermal cars as for electricity, natural gas is super cheap, aboundant and less toxic than oil and coal i say get rid of coal plants first. Cleave natural gas for the end cuz they are less harmful!Replacing coal plants with geothermal, generating plants would reduce co2 emissions. Since about 60 percent of the U.S. is still relying on coal plants for tricity, I believe this is a positive step to reducing the carbon footprint for North America. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolfsmck 2,763 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 States launch legal challenges to Obama's carbon rules http://news.yahoo.com/legal-challenges-obama-administrations-central-carbon-rule-begin-130817171.htmlMy guess is the states with coal mining and production are at the heart of this. like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,844 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 States launch legal challenges to Obama's carbon rules http://news.yahoo.com/legal-challenges-obama-administrations-central-carbon-rule-begin-130817171.html My guess is the states with coal mining and production are at the heart of this. it is possible to change The new Government of Alberta (the only Province in Canada to still get over half of electricity from Coal) has passed legislation to greatly increase invrstment in clean renewables Alberta had the Right Winged Conservatives in power for 40 years straight until may of this year. They also never showed much interest in Environment if it ever so much as costed 1 penny to the economy If Alberta turned around in that aspect, i think any place can Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Better Day 5,766 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The UK economy is a mess. George Osbourne is ruining it. Together You And I! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.99c40bc2a10ded8236a48b4fe15c6be8.jpg)
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.