2025: Who will overtake US Economy First?

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Even if one thinks rationally it is easy to understand what problems China is going to face in the future. Gordon Chang makes more sense than any Chinese economist, if there is any.

All your are stimulus is going into Stock bubble, real estate bubble and bad loans. This will obviously come back to bite the Chinese economy.
Maybe because Gordon Chang was saying sth you want to hear. If you look through youtube, you can find many economist of various background are discussing about china's economy. Obviously I would trust these people, who were spending their life on this subject, more than a lawyer.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
The major Chinese stimulus package came in late 2008/early 2009. There's no way that graph could've factored that information in.
I am not talking about that outdated graph. I am talking about the recent comments of Chang.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Well, this guy who wrote that comment looks like a CCP stooge. If the book is published in 2001, how this guy can take his advice from a future book and shorted Chinese markets in mid-1990s.:lol:

It is better if you research a little bit and not post such stupid comments from somewhere.
well, the guy said what you don't want to hear,so the guy must be CCP's stooge,isn't he?
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
It is once you subtract stimulus spending.
case is that you should "add" ,instead of "subtract",because government stimulus always just reduce the proportion of consumption.

do you know what GDP consists of?

GDP = C + I + G +(X-M)

C: consumption
I: investment
G:Government expenditure
(X-M): export-import

Chinese huge sitmulus just increases the government expenditure and improve its proportion of GDP.

So,when the proportion of "G"' is raised, the proportion of "C"(comsumption) is reduced accordingly.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
as per my calculations based on 2007 figures, as a % of the prc's gdp, consumption formed 30-32%. with the exports taking a hit this figure would have gone up without a doubt and the same figure should be in the region of 31-35%.

calculations i had done for the said period, there can be variance but would not be more than +/- 2%.

PRC's GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
=1,083b+1,505b+516+(1220b-904)=3,420b usd

consumption= 1,083b (derived figure, and this will be lower as i do not have their services exports figures for the concerned fiscal, though i recall some one pointing out the figure as 50b odd but i am not sure so not included)
investment= 44% of gdp
government spending= 516b
exports= 1.22t
imports= 904b
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
as per my calculations based on 2007 figures, as a % of the prc's gdp, consumption formed 30-32%. with the exports taking a hit this figure would have gone up without a doubt and the same figure should be in the region of 31-35%.

calculations i had done for the said period, there can be variance but would not be more than +/- 2%.

PRC's GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
=1,083b+1,505b+516+(1220b-904)=3,420b usd

consumption= 1,083b (derived figure, and this will be lower as i do not have their services exports figures for the concerned fiscal, though i recall some one pointing out the figure as 50b odd but i am not sure so not included)
investment= 44% of gdp
government spending= 516b
exports= 1.22t
imports= 904b
And can you tell me the figures for India too. Thanks.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
case is that you should "add" ,instead of "subtract",because government stimulus always just reduce the proportion of consumption.

do you know what GDP consists of?

GDP = C + I + G +(X-M)

C: consumption
I: investment
G:Government expenditure
(X-M): export-import

Chinese huge sitmulus just increases the government expenditure and improve its proportion of GDP.

So,when the proportion of "G"' is raised, the proportion of "C"(comsumption) is reduced accordingly.
Is "reduced" not a synonym for "subtracted" Mr. one for the obvious? :sarcastic:
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
Considering CCP government expenditures are always reported lower than what they are, case in point defence spending... Pentagon reports spending is almost twice as high as reported, domestic consumption is as he says.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
And can you tell me the figures for India too. Thanks.
figures for 2007-08, variance would again be in the region of =/- 2%, also i am not aware about the figure for services imports for the country so the derived figure of consumption would certainly be slightly higher.


GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
= 572.5billion+412.5billion+144billion+(162billion+35billion-230billion)=$1,100billion (for fiscal 2007-08)

consumption = 52% of gdp (derived figure)
investment= 37.5% of gdp
government spending= $144billion
merchandise exports= $162billion
services exports= $35billion
imports= $230billion
size of indian economy in 2007-08= $1.1trillion

p2p,

dont take my figures seriously, the one posted by DD, below would be more apt, since i have searched for these figures from the net and then done my calculations, so there is every chance i might have missed out on a few figures.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
And can you tell me the figures for India too. Thanks.
According to 2007 estimates and based on this formula

GDP = C + I + G +(X-M)

C: consumption
I: investment
G:Government expenditure
(X-M): export-import

India GDP = 629 Billion + 386 Billion + 200 Billion + (255 Billion - 295 Billion)

The GDP comes around 1.171 Billion.


Anyways, here is a good comparison of India, China economy (from wolfram alpha)



The lower Gini Index of India compared to China indicates that distribution of income is much more equal than China's.

PS: Thakurji beat me to it :D
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
According to 2007 estimates and based on this formula

GDP = C + I + G +(X-M)

C: consumption
I: investment
G:Government expenditure
(X-M): export-import

India GDP = 629 Billion + 386 Billion + 200 Billion + (255 Billion - 295 Billion)

The GDP comes around 1.171 Billion.


Anyways, here is a good comparison of India, China economy (from wolfram alpha)



The lower Gini Index of India compared to China indicates that distribution of income is much more equal than China's.

PS: Thakurji beat me to it :D
God....that is just a myth due to different definition and caculation of Gini index between India and CHina.

anyone that has been to India and CHina never buy such a absurd conclusion that India has a fairer wealth distribution than China.

1.India's total wealth is much less than CHina.
2.India has more rich people who are richer than chinese rich ones.
3.India also has more poor people who are poorer than CHinese poor ones.
4.but the GIni index of India is lower than that of CHina

is that a paradox? how can all the 4 points be reached at the same time?

why?

very simple....India has a definition of Gini index different from Chinese one,just as India has a definition of "mid-class " different from CHinese one.

:twizt:
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
God....that is just a myth due to different definition and caculation of Gini index between India and CHina.

anyone that has been to India and CHina never draw such a absurd conclusion that India has a fairer wealth distribution than China.

1.India's total wealth is much less than CHina.
2.India's ricer guys are richer than Chinese rich ones.
3.India's poor ones are poorer than CHinese poor ones..
4.but the GIni index of India is lower than that of CHina

is that paradox?
why?

very simple....India has a definition of Gini index different from Chinese one,just as India has a definition of "mid-class " different from CHinese one.

:twizt:
Please tell us how the definition of Gini index different from India or other countries. As far as I know it is calculated the same way for all the countries.

First, know what Gini index implies. Lower the Gini Index (or coefficient), the better will be the dispersion on distribution of wealth. Here is a world map of Gini coefficient. China has high Gini coefficient than India clearly indicates that wealth distribution is not as equal as that in India. May be all rich people in china are Party members? :wink: :wink:

 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Please tell us how the definition of Gini index different from India or other countries. As far as I know it is calculated the same way for all the countries.

First, know what Gini index implies. Lower the Gini Index (or coefficient), the better will be the dispersion on distribution of wealth. Here is a world map of Gini coefficient. China has high Gini coefficient than India clearly indicates that wealth distribution is not as equal as that in India. May be all rich people in china are Party members? :wink: :wink:


here is a speical ariticle about the comparison of Gini index between CHina and India...

however it is written in chinese...

»ùÄáϵÊý±ÈÓ¡¶È»¹¸ß¾Í±íÃ÷Öйú±ÈÓ¡¶È¸ü²»Æ½µÈÂð

In a simple word, the stupid world bank uses different ways to caculate Gini index.
1. India's Gini index is caculated according to indian's expenditure.

2. Chinese Gini index is caculated according to chinese's income.
As we know, the disparity of expenditure is always much less the disparity of income.
For example, Bill gates earn 1 million times more than you, but he can/need not consume 1 millions times more food than you .

to some extent ,the "Gini index of India" based on people expenditure is meaningless ,because such a "Gini index" in fact reflect not the distrubition of wealth,but the distrubition of expenditures.

if based on people's income, the Gini index of India should be as terrible as Latin America.


guys......I just feel it very strange why you are ready to even accept such a absurd viewpoint that India has a fairer wealth distribution than CHina........just have a look at the NO. of homeless people in the streets of the two countries,then you should know that such a viewpoint is even against the common sense....
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
here is a speical ariticle about the comparison of Gini index between CHina and India...

however it is written in chinese...

»ùÄáϵÊý±ÈÓ¡¶È»¹¸ß¾Í±íÃ÷Öйú±ÈÓ¡¶È¸ü²»Æ½µÈÂð

In a simple word, the stupid world bank uses different ways to caculate Gini index.
1. India's Gini index is caculated according to indian's expenditure.

2. Chinese Gini index is caculated according to chinese's income.
As we know, the disparity of expenditure is always much less the disparity of income.
For example, Bill gates earn 1 million times more than you, but he can/need not consume 1 millions times more food than you .

to some extent ,the "Gini index of India" based on people expenditure is meaningless ,because such a "Gini index" in fact reflect not the distrubition of wealth,but the distrubition of expenditures.

if based on people's income, the Gini index of India should be as terrible as Latin America.


guys......I just feel it very strange why you are ready to even accept such a absurd viewpoint that India has a fairer wealth distribution than CHina........just have a look at the NO. of homeless people in the streets of the two countries,then you should know that such a viewpoint is even against the common sense....
Show me where does world bank say that Gini index of India is calculated based on expenditure rather than incomes. There is no evidence or link given in the article that you have posted where it says world bank used different methods to calculate Gini index for India and China. Gini index, by definition, is calculated based on income patterns rather than consumption patterns.

If you cannot decisively prove that world bank uses different standards then don't even bother to reply.

FYI, Inequality as implied by Gini index is different from poverty rates. There is no correlation because of differences in standard/cost of living in different countries.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Show me where does world bank say that Gini index of India is calculated based on expenditure rather than incomes. There is no evidence or link given in the article that you have posted where it says world bank used different methods to calculate Gini index for India and China. Gini index, by definition, is calculated based on income patterns rather than consumption patterns.

If you cannot decisively prove that world bank uses different standards then don't even bother to reply.

FYI, Inequality as implied by Gini index is different from poverty rates. There is no correlation because of differences in standard/cost of living in different countries.

hi, I don't want to persude you to accept my pointview without any question.

I just don't want you to be misled by unlogical ideas.

I will appreciate it,If What I tell you can provide you some clues to find truth.
 

jxclay

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1
Likes
0
there will be more "except" ,from T-bills to the exhange rate of RMB,from Afghanistan to Iran......let's wait and see.

guy, you will be the lucky guys who can see such a " chinese peaceful take-over of yankee's power"
You r too boasted!
Mr. Golden did some profit for we China in another angle,understand me?
A too much strong country of long long humiliated history could be a threat of developed countries.If all foreigners regard we state a thread to their economy in a future time,what will we country get?U could know the answer.
 

Joshua Thomas

New Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
3
Likes
0
You can do the math. It depends how fast you think the GDP will continue to grow. US is at 13.8 trillion, China at about 7. If china continues to grow at your 12% and the US at 2%, China would pass the US in 2015.
But those are pretty big assumptions. I suspect China will find double digit growth difficult to maintain. So I'd expect that to be delayed a few years, let's see, I change the china growth assumption to 7% it means 2022 before China passes the US. And that might still be difficult to manage.
 

jakojako777

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
2,957
Likes
40
I've said it before and I'll repeat again.
If EU becomes confederation it will automatically become economic and military superpower!
EU was economically in front of USA even before (many people don't know that) let alone China and India who are far behind!
So don't jump to much on conclusions you might be surprised one day
Be cause "Lisbon Treaty" is already step in that direction.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
I've said it before and I'll repeat again.
If EU becomes confederation it will automatically become economic and military superpower!
EU was economically in front of USA even before (many people don't know that) let alone China and India who are far behind!
So don't jump to much on conclusions you might be surprised one day
Be cause "Lisbon Treaty" is already step in that direction.
1.As a whole, the economy of EU is just slightly bigger than USA's.
well, even if EU were to become a conferation, its economy superiorty would remain only one decade before CHina replace its top position.

2. it is always a myth that EU were to become a confederation.
:twizt:
 

jakojako777

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
2,957
Likes
40
1.As a whole, the economy of EU is just slightly bigger than USA's.
well, even if EU were to become a conferation, its economy superiorty would remain only one decade before CHina replace its top position.

2. it is always a myth that EU were to become a confederation.
:twizt:


badguy I already remember you from previous over nationalistic comments that are never based on the facts ! I HATE to talk with you !

1)EU GDP is FAR above Chinese and EU is not in debt like USA
Also EU industry is not based on copies of Western technology like Chinese but TRUE high technology base which China still does not have.
All EU have to do is to unite and it is FINISHED while China has still long way to go......

2)Since when you are the expert to the people who live in EU like me?
"Lisbon Treaty" is first step to unification and as information for uninformed people like you - EU has already first PRESIDENT !

If EU unites China will not be "Super Power", just country in development still full of poverty and problems comparing to EU!

Please talk with somebody else !
I hate to talk to people like you who never bring arguments just exalted patriotism which does NOT interest me!!

PLEASE stay away from me!:ucant cme:
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top