Since Samseau recently brought up slave communist labor in another thread, I feel that it's high time we update this thread.
Quote: (07-03-2017 12:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
Enterprises keep pouring into China mostly due to objective economic laws slave communist labor. It’s most profitable to open your factories there. Not even globalists can reverse that.
Fixed.
As for the globalists controlling China, I am very skeptical. Zel said the globalists would never let Trump win. Zel overestimates what they are capable of. I think the globalists were trying to use China but ultimately it's a plan that backfired because of the reasons Liberty Sea has pointed out. The Chinese are just as ethically racist as most Jews. There's no way they'll fall victim to subversion.
To be sure, Samseau is a smart guy who is often on point. But I have to agree with ovlov here.
First,
Quote:Quote:
Where are you getting your numbers from? Link please. Why should we dispute the World Bank's figures?
He is not disputing the World Bank's figures. He's saying the your graph misreported the World Bank's figure.
Here is the direct source:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.G...cations=CN
The TradingEconomics graph has China's 2007 GDP per capita at 3487. The WB's figure is 2695. The TE graph has China's 2015 GDP per capita at 6497. The WB's figure is 8069. According to the WB's figures, China's GDP per capita increased by a factor of 3 during this time span. This correspond to China's GDP growth (11065/3552 roughly equals 3, adjusted with population growth).
This is because as Ovlov said, there is no other way of calculating GDP per capita.
2. Chinese workers' wages have been steadily raising, way faster than inflation. Life standard have improved, and the middle class is growing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-you-think
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/eco...ductivity/
Quote:Quote:
These days, China's labor costs are only 4% cheaper than those in the U.S. when productivity is factored in, according to Oxford Economics.
That's because wages in China have risen much faster than increases in productivity. Coupled with a strengthening yuan, Chinese labor costs have grown dramatically. Meanwhile, huge productivity improvements in the U.S. have helped keep labor costs down.
The bottom line: Manufacturing in China is no longer a surefire way to save on the cost of labor.
https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/...ening-grip
So low-end manufacturers have been trying to relocate their factories and find cheap labor else, like in SEA, eg. Vietnam.
Quote:Quote:
China doesn’t release data on factory closings or relocations. But according to an analysis by researcher Justina Yung of Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the Federation of Hong Kong Industries trade group, the number of factories owned by Hong Kong companies in the Pearl River Delta near Hong Kong fell by a third to 32,000 in 2013 from a 2006 peak. Many of those that left moved to lower-wage countries.
Labor costs in China have grown faster than consumer inflation for years, according to consultancy BMI Research, and are currently nearly four times those in Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.
Some textile and clothing manufacturers see advantages in Vietnam as well. “Moving to Vietnam is a trend,” says Wang Wei, general manager of Guangzhou Weihong Footwear Industrial Co., which established its first factory in 2013 in the southeast Vietnamese town of Thuan An to supply shoe makers Nike Inc., Adidas AG and Puma SE. Weihong now plans to build a second footwear factory and shift several textile factories to Vietnam from China.
Note that, it's only low-end manufacturing like textile finds advantage in Vietnam. Mid- to high-end manufacturing still finds advantage in China due to the quality of workers there. Some factories moved to Vietnam and then moved back to China because Vietnamese workers can't deliver the quality needed yet. I know this very well living in Vietnam.
Everyone who has been to China should know that the life of the people there have vastly improved every five years they come visit it. The growth is not fake. You can ask our forum's Chinese expats, or go to China to see it yourself.
In the word of one of the most prominent Chinese expat here:
Quote: (06-28-2017 09:21 AM)Fortis Wrote:
I was looking the other day at all the gym girls in my gym.
But seriously, asses are becoming a thing in China since you have a burgeoning leisure class and women who are seriously so rich they have nothing to do all do other than hit the gym.
Betcha all those cars aren't driven by CPC members' relatives only.
There are abut 133 million of Chinese tourists each years, spending lavishly.
McKinsey projection:
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retai...ddle-class
This is reflected in satisfaction rate as well (PEW survey)
3. About Bitcoins, let me quote a Bitcoin expert here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Chines...eph-Wang-9
Quote:Quote:
Question: Why are the Chinese buying so much bitcoins?
Answer: It really depends.
First of all, it’s not just a matter of buying bitcoin. China is the largest miner of bitcoin. This happened because of mix of factors such as the fact that you have a huge electronics industry in Shenzhen, as well as highly subsidized power. Once you produce bitcoin in large numbers then you need a huge industry to process it.
Second, a lot of it has to do just with the fact that there are so many Chinese people. Bitcoin is a very, very minor part of the Chinese economy, and the fraction of Chinese that have anything to do with bitcoin is small. However, a small fraction of a billion people and a multi-trillion dollar economy is huge.
The Chinese government has been tolerant of crazy investment stuff, because if you lose money in bitcoin, it’s not the government’s problem. Also bitcoin isn’t nearly large enough to bring down the Chinese economy (like for example P2P lending) so they haven’t put a huge amount of regulation on it.
Third, the reason really changes from month to month. Earlier in the year, there was a spike in bitcoin prices as people were trying to find ways of moving money out of China. That disappeared, and right now the big spike was because ethereum was hot, and so there was a herd mentality.
The cool thing is that things really change from week to week or even from day to day. For example, after the international banks closed off settlement between different bank accounts, there was a mad scramble for alternative settlement routes which meant that a flood of bitcoin started to move through HK.
Also one reason that bitcoin *isn’t* used is to hide money from the Chinese government. It turns out that bitcoin is extremely traceable, so if you move money with bitcoin, the Chinese government can pretty easily find you. The fact that it’s really hard to use bitcoin for corrupt purposes is why the Chinese government has been encouraging its use.
4. China still holds a production cost advantage over most countries because low labor cost is not its sole advantages. It also has:
a. High quality labor. Millions of well trained industrial workers.
b. World-class infrastructure/excellent logistics. If you want to set up factories, first of all you need good transportation system and reliable utility supply, which China has.
c. A complete supply chain. China is a huge country, it can manufacture all the components of any product, and do so more efficiently than other countries.
d. Economy of scale. The larger the manufacturing industry, the lower the production cost.
e. Management experience. You can get business/finance experience from HK, Taiwan, and overseas returnees. Which
f. Pro-business government officials. Chinese officials see themselves as business partners, and even the most corrupt officials want your business to be profitable and successful, because when you make money, they make money.
g. Low regulation. Developed countries like the US have more regulations regarding worker age, working conditions, etc. which make production more costly compared to China.
...
5. Products of all sorts of quality are produced in China. If the consumer buy a Madein China $50 dollar heater and it breaks, it's their responsibility for not choosing to buy the $150 heater which is also Made in China.
6. Most jobs lost in the US are due to improved production technology/automation, not moving jobs oversea.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/30/news/eco...utomation/
Quote:Quote:
One study by two Ball State University professors found that between 2000 and 2010, about 87% of the manufacturing job losses stemmed from factories becoming more efficient. The chief driver of more efficiency in factories: automation and better technology. The other 13% of job losses were due to trade.
Based on the data available, I conclude that the Chinese government isn't dooming its people to perpetual wage slavery. In fact, income raise is necessary for China to move to a consumer-driven economy. The Chinese government knows this and it's doing this. It's trying to move up the value chain as I have detailed
here and
here.
=============
*Regarding quibble about the Chinese government’s data, I’ll just quote Arthur Kroeber from his book “China’s Economy – What Everyone Needs to Know” here:
Quote:Quote:
Many serious analysts do believe that the government tends to smooth out the quarterly GDP growth numbers, underreporting growth when it is very hot and nudging the figures upward when it is cool. Most other data problems and inconsistencies can be explained by ordinary analytic econometric work, without resort to conspiracy theories about deliberate falsification. Those interested in making sensible use of Chinese data should consult Tom Orlik’s excellent Understanding China’s Economic Indicators (FT Press, 2012).
The falsification theory also fails a simple logical test. If the gov- ernment publishes false data, it must either rely on this false data to make economic policy, or it must keep a secret set of true data. If it uses false data, economic policy will quickly run aground, as it did during the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s, when reliance on bogus agricultural production numbers led within a couple of years to a catastrophic famine that killed tens of millions of people. China’s sustained economic success since 1978 simply could not have occurred if the government had relied on faulty data.
This leaves the possibility that the government uses a secret set of true data to form policy, while feeding lies to the public. No evidence has ever been presented that such a secret data set exists. There are certainly a few data series that are not published but are reserved for the internal use of government officials. What is interesting is how boring these prove to be when occasionally they come to light through a leak— as, for instance, when a clas- sified unemployment figure was accidentally disclosed at a press conference. The figure was 5 percent, compared to the published “registered unemployment” figure of 4 percent. In any case, if the government really kept a full set of secret accounts, the fal- sity of the published data could be exposed by the same statistical tests used by forensic accountants to prove chicanery in corporate Appendix 265 balance sheets. These tests have been applied, and have failed to show any evidence of systemic falsification.
The more serious claim, made by several economists, is that China’s long- run growth rate has been systematically overstated, not because China sought to bamboozle the world but because its statisticians employed faulty techniques. The most recent version of this argument is by Harry X. Wu of The Conference Board, who heroically reconstructed China’s national accounts for the sixty- year period 1952– 2012 in order to arrive at a better understanding of long- term trends in productivity growth. Wu concluded that, thanks mainly to weaker than reported productivity gains, China’s average annual real GDP growth during the reform era (1978– 2012) was 7.2 percent, well below the official figure of 9.8 percent. 2
This is an interesting exercise, but it raises some conceptual prob- lems. If we assume that the size of the Chinese economy was accu- rately measured in 1978, then the lower growth rate compounded over thirty- four years implies that China’s economy in 2012 was less than half as big as the official data say it was. This is impossible, because the economy’s present size is roughly confirmed by a wealth of information, including the government’s own economic censuses, and indicators including exports, foreign exchange reserves and consumption of physical items such as automobiles, oil, steel, and cement that are independently verifiable and not subject to falsifica- tion. If, on the other hand, we assume that the economy’s reported size today is correct, then the lower growth rate compounded back thirty- four years implies that China’s economy was more than twice as big in 1978 as the government believed it to be. This is slightly more plausible than the first case, but not much. Alternatively, we can try to pick values for China’s 1978 and 2012 GDP that are not so obviously incredible, for instance that the economy was two- thirds bigger than reported in 1978 and one- quarter smaller in 2012 (in which case we need merely explain away $2 trillion— an India’s worth— of phantom output). Any way you slice it, it is quite hard to reconcile the arithmetic of these alternative growth calculations with observed reality.
To anyone who has spent much time in China since the 1980s, it is clear that (a) China has grown very rapidly for a long time; and (b) the speed and nature of that growth was roughly comparable to that of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, each of which uncontroversially 266 Appendix grew at 8 to 10 percent a year for about a quarter- century in the post– World War II era. The reluctance of some observers to accept that China achieved similar results to those of its neighbors, using essentially the same economic playbook, is odd. It probably reflects the belief that because China’s government is secretive, authori- tarian, and untrustworthy in many political matters, its economic data must also be untrustworthy. The feeling is understandable, but the conclusion is supported by neither logic nor the preponder- ance of evidence. A government so dependent on sustained eco- nomic growth for its legitimacy, and so keenly aware (thanks to its own recent history) of the disastrous consequences of relying on bad data, has a strong self- interest in maintaining statistics that are approximately right, at least with regard to trends, even if they do not meet the highest standards of modern statistical science. Like all economic data, China’s must be used with care; but they are usuable.