China Economy: News & Discussion

Discussion in 'China' started by Rage, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,548
    Likes Received:
    7,665
    OBOR is a tool to utilize Chinese excess capacity. Chinese produce 800 million ton of steel compared to 85 of USA and 100 for india.

    How much Chinese consume? If Chinese can't export this surplus steel then these all factories will have to close. Now repeat this for cement , machinery etc .
    Thus OBOR funding on condition of Chinese cement and steel and equipment to be used.

    Undervalued yuan keeps Chinese export alive without it Chinese export will go down and so will it's gdp. Chinese worker can only be paid when they have jobs. These jobs depend on exports . Export sector alone contribute for 15-20 % of Chinese economy and is labour intensive ( textile , clothing , toys) hence contribute to 20% + employment in china .



    Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk
     
  2. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,257
    Likes Received:
    20,582
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    Drawing those technologies isn't that small job. Specially when semiconductors are a moving target.
    There are lot lot of examples in aviation, naval, space, nuclear, softwares and even techs of daily life.
    It does matter. You're too stupid to explain that China's GDP per capita isn't low because of its high population. But its total GDP is high because of its high population. If China's population would have been likes of Japan & Russia, things would have been different totally.

    Late & early matters very much. A country sustained high growth for 70 years vs another for 30 years have a big difference due to gaps in duration of economic booms.
    Countries who experienced this in 60s are developed countries today, countries who experienced in 90s are not.


    China's population is four times of USA. So, it just has to achieve 1/4th of US GDP per capita to catch up with.
    USA itself isn't most developed but biggest developed country. So is Brazil in league of Latin America and so is India in league of other developing countries except China.
    It's you who has pathetically failed, giving excuses repeating same thing over & over while every single example of any developed or developing country complies with my elaboration. Same case isn't with you.

    I'm still waiting because you haven't been able to bring any single country to contradict me.
    I never refused the fact that resources are important.
    But I rejected your stupid rant that "Wealth is usually a result of natural resources" outrightly.
    Countries who are rich or poor today are rarely because of natural resources.

    Stability, economic diversity, demographic dividend and similar other factors play actual role in countries' development. Countries who produce finished goods make money faster than who produce raw goods.
    Resources don't even make into top 5.
    Most of countries developed lately followed economic diversification and free market within the country. They somehow managed to import resources from other parts of world.

    But countries who didn't do so have failed or are failing. No matter what if they got resources or not.
    Fine, finally stick to the context of "natural resources". As you claimed that prosperity depends upon natural resources per capita, we'll stay on it and argue on it while I rubbish.

    Don't claim that smaller countries imported resources for free.
    Korea managed arrange automotive technology, metal working techs, advanced electronics and so on high end techs to diversify economy with profitable ones. It's high investment in education helped it to create a large skilled labour.

    Natural resources were imported.

    Afghanistan has one of largest reserves of natural resources like rare earth metals and semiconductors which would be very much viable if this instability wasn't there. Soviets attacked them for a reason.
    They never had a long term policy for economic leap and socialism screwed them further.


    And the person who thinks any other way without explaining is an idiot of top order.
     
  3. Vijyes

    Vijyes Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Location:
    Bharat
    Just explain to me how is USA richer than China despite manufacturing much less than China? The answer is clear - USA bloats its currency because of petrodollar agreement. It is simply that USA can print money and pile up huge debt which other countries take. So, it is not rocket science to say that if China bloats its currency and gets rid of petrodollar deal, then it can also become richer than USA. So, even if the production of China decline, it will still have an edge over USA simply due to the scale of infrastructure and capacity it has.

    Arms and semiconductor are the only advantage. Even in aviation, Chinese have reasonable alternative and only advantage of USA is in small fuel saving Technology. So, the major lead is in semiconductor only. Even in semiconductor, China has 28nm Technology which is an acceptable alternative to 22nm if priced lower. So, China is not much disadvantaged here either. It is a small gap.

    China GDP per capita is low because of its high population and currency devaluation. It is also true that its GDP growth is high due to high population. Chinese population only helped in ensuring that China can make cheap goods and forcefully export is items despite political restrictions of USA. But, even here, if China didn't have enough resources to be self sufficient, it would not have been able to manufacture in the current scale. So, it is only partially correct to say that Chinese GDP is because of its large population. It is a combination of various factors.

    We are not taking average GDP for 50 years but current GDP on annual basis. How is it meaningful to speak of early or late? Moreover, you seem to be a fanboy if S.Korea. Korea itself boomed after 1995 and was a shithole even in 1980s with massive anti-USA riots taking place. So, how will your favorite Korea fit in your theory ot early or late boom? South Korea has GDP per capita of $32000, comparable to Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. So, where is the late and early difference?

    I hope you understand that GDP per capita can't be separated from yourself GDP.

    I have listed several example to justify how natural resources access is key to economic success. You simply refuse to accept that and inside in same nonsense if technology and other qualitative aspects. Deal in quantity and numbers instead if qualitative things.

    That is your whimsical opinion without any basis. Every country today is Rich either because of own natural resource or resources via political alliance. Not even 1 single country exists which is otherwise. You just waste time like retards by giving example of city states like Singapore with 50lakh population. Or you insist like retards that korea became rich without resources despite open evidence that usa gifted free resources to korea in the name of investment.

    Again nonsense. Resources is politically controlled and can't be imported without political alliance. So, even if a country has advanced technology, it will be poor without resources. In fact, a country without resources will be continually suppressed from gaining technology by countries like USA by instigating riots and war.

    It is true that manufacturing is more lucrative than resource production but getting the resource is politically restricted and hence it is the Access to critical resources which is the highest priority and what enable wealth.

    It is a fact that countries like korea, Taiwan got free resources from usa political alliance. It is also a fact that Korea, Taiwan got Technology in lease from USA. Wealth depends on resources and technology. But resources is the key component which decide the quantity and hence GDP as long as one doesn't have advantage in Technology Monopoly.

    Korea got all these Technology on LEASE from USA. It also got resources as SOFT LOANS from USA. Regardless of how educated koreans are, it is the gifts from USA that keeps Korean economy high. USA got these resources for free from Arabs and other allies like Australia as well as indigenous reserves.

    Again, retarded socialist bashing. Afghanistan was at war since 1975 with severe Jihadi infestation. Moreover, Afghanistan never was a resource hub even before 1975. Moreover, Afghanistan survives on the basis imported food.

    Soviets didn't attack Afghanistan for resources but for access to middle east to conquer middle east. Afghanistan was always a beggarly state and a desert. If a desert doesn't have energy resources to give cooling (air conditioning) and logistics to its people, then such a desert can never have big time economy even if it has other minerals.
     
  4. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,548
    Likes Received:
    7,665
    Because USA holds the technology and collects rant on it. Chinese pay royalty to Western tech giants to use android , windows , car engine , microprocessor etc.
    Your logic is flawed petrodollars give USA advantage but Europe is also much much richer than china despite euro not being petro currency. Japan also have huge debt to GDP despite not having yen which is again not petro currency.

    China can't unilaterally get rid of petrodollars as OPEC will have to agree to it. And India Japan Korea will also demand same treatment.

    If it was as easy as just bloating currency and getting rid of petrodollars why has China not done that already? Why other nations including Russia India Japan Brazil do that?
    Can you not see the flaw of your reasoning even Chinese know it's stupidity.

    Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk
     
  5. Vijyes

    Vijyes Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Location:
    Bharat
    China doesn't pay royalty for anything. It imports Technology which it doesn't hqve, mainly semiconductor. Rest is made fully in China.

    Japan has high internal debt to gdp, not external debt. I am only speaking of external debt of USA, not total debt to gdp. In geopolitics, only external debt count.

    Japan, Korea are slave states of USA and run on Technology leased from USA. You can't compare independent country like China with these. If USA withdraws its Technology from Korea, Japan, they will go back into stone age.

    European economy is also reliant on alliance with USA. Remember Marshall plan to understand this. European countries have been in alliance with USA and in return USA gives political advantage. USA even convinced GCC into giving preference to us allies of Europe. So, despite not having Petro euro, European countries are rich by piggybacking on petrodollar.

    I agree that petrodollar is difficult to be removed but that still doesn't mean China can be beaten down. GCC and others are waiting for petrodollar to collapse on its own. GCC already has demanded that USA must not import oil for petrodollar to continue. So, the motion of removing petrodollar is in place. China & Russia are asking GCC to use a basket if currency abd not just yuan or Ruble for replacing dollar. Even here, the demand is feasible.

    What i am saying is indeed practical. China is not going it's currency because it does not want to get into USA like position of high external debt uncertainty. USA is collapsing and the Chinese are here for long term, not just appear rich for small periods of time by bloating currency
     
  6. rockdog

    rockdog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    185
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Vijyes likes this.
  7. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,257
    Likes Received:
    20,582
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    I'm wondering how stupid someone could be. Writing same line over & over without any explanation.
    You just need a political engagement and not political alliance for resource. I agree that resources are important but not most important.

    You claimed that "wealth is a usually result of natural resources" which is factually incorrect. It's rather a result of diversified industry working on imported or indigenous natural resources.

    Natural resources usually are not reason for prosperity of nations but industry is. Both rich & poor countries have access to high amount of natural resources but its utilization that makes them different.
    Only manufacturing is lucrative. Rarely any country is world sits without access to natural resources.

    Most of countries who are poor and rich today aren't because of natural resources and you can't write a contradiction. Because there isn't any.
    The fuel saving techs, improved designs and manufacturing basis aren't small advantages at all.
    GDP besides income generated due to basic wealth accumulated with you (including natural resources) doesn't fall straight on head of population.

    GDP is gross domestic income generated by people of a country every year. If you think cutting down population won't cut GDP down, you are even more stupid.
    No, GDP is high due to high population.
    GDP growth is high due to structural reasons. These are letting money flow freely and discovering new fields of manufacturing that add more income.
    Chinese population also used to work & earn. It increased total production, total salaries and hence overall GDP was high.
    Partially yes only because it would be easy to obtain goods from a single concentrated big factory than small workshops around.
    Seriously? How dumb you are?:doh::doh::doh::doh:
    What relevance has a "50 years average GDP" has relevance? In which way your mind moves?
    GDP of every country grows or declines year on year.
    Two countries have a GDP per capita of $100 each at initial point. One grows at 6% for 10 years. Other grows at same rate for 50 years. Gap will be large for sure.

    Countries annual GDP isn't a result of what it just did this year. It has a base.
    Shithole? Korea was as good as any upper middle income economy in 80s. It had a bigger boom after 1995 transforming it into a developed country, won't change the fact that it was one of fastest growing economy for decades even earlier.
    It's actually a waste of time to argue with an idiot like you who believes GDP of a country is definite while only population changes to change GDP per capita.
    You have not a single one. Every country has to use natural resources to make something.

    There are much more countries with resources around world. Successful ones are those convert resources into finished goods.


    Which example you have given anyway? I'd like to know. At least I haven't seen any because every country's disagrees with you. They have periods of economic booms that enriched them.
    It's you who is imposing your opinion as fact despite it being proved factually incorrect multiple. If natural resources are topmost reason of wealth, most countries with them should be rich. But they aren't.

    For me, I've even provided an excellent reference earlier.
    http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings/growth-projections/
    Technology is key component, then secondary is stability and tertiary is free market. Resources are easier to obtain and come after all these things.

    There are rarely any countries without any resources.
    So, natural resources aren't the usual reason of wealth.
    That's called financing. Anyone generates finance from where it can get. US gave and gives aid to lot other countries, why they aren't showing any signs of improvement? Obviously, ROK did something different.

    Most certainly, loans aren't natural resources. Don't spin your argument and stay on your words.
    Elaborate, which resources US, ROK or any country got in "free" from others.

    Add, last time which country enriched because of foreign aids? Countries changed because of structural changes in society and economy. As for USA, it tries to rather control natural resources as part of its dominance to carry out economic sabotages. We all know how much effect it has.
    It's you who's a retard. Afghanistan was same as that of any neighboring states at a time who lagged behind in all aspects due to wars.
    If it survived on imported foods and now even donated stuff, it just proves my point that natural resources aren't primary reason for prosperity. Afghanistan has worth $4 trillions resources. Case is different that never were exploited.
    Soviets had multiple reasons and this too was one of them.
    Unique location of AfPak belt made them surrounded by USSR, PRC, India and Iran. That was enough elevate their geostrategic importance.
    This isn't even argument. Afghanistan isn't poor by default. Nor its neighbor are richer than it by default.
    Afghanistan can't provide facilities to its people isn't result of its economic failure but it's economic failure is the result of former problem.

    Many countries avoided this problem altogether while some partially did.
    US is much richer in PPP as well. Currency appreciation de-appreciation can't affect country's living standard and income levels besides that involved in international trade.

    US has industrialized far far before China, has far more diverse economy and enriched in past. It's slow now relatively. not
     
    Pinky Chaudhary and IndianHawk like this.
  8. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,257
    Likes Received:
    20,582
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    Was my Rahul Gandhi moment.:rolleyes:
    *Afghanistan can't provide facilities to its people isn't reason of its economic failure but it's economic failure is the result of former problem.
     
  9. Vijyes

    Vijyes Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Location:
    Bharat
    That applies to you.

    Resources is like water. You may claim that it is your education that made you successful but if you look at people who live in waterless region like Siberia, you will realize how fallacious the argument is. Resources are the basis of success. Without resources you don't have a foundation at all

    You must remember the quotation from the movie inception - "if you don't know how you got here in the first place, you are dreaming". So, you are disregarding the efforts it takes to get technology in the first place. All people are born as babies with 9nly basic instincts and no knowledge. The people then have to survive by securing food, water and other resources. Only after tht secure their lives, they can think of anything else. So, when resource is minimal, survival & maintenance becomes difficult with little to spare for progress. Since there is no magic wand that enables jumping from bottom to top, access to resources in a reliable manner becomes critical for any Technology growth.

    So, resources form the foundation 9f wealth. If you disregard the method in which developed countries became developed and simply say that currently, wealth depends on Technology, you are not thinking right.

    These are not critical needs and hence are not major deficiency. Critical needs are where there is possibility of destruction. So, the substitution of semiconductor from 14 to 28nm should not he too hard.

    GDP is nonsense and relies on structure of an economy and not on absolute quantitative aspects. I give you 1 crore rupees and you give it back and repeat this 100 times, GDP increases by 200 crore. I am speaking of quantities, especially of production of goods as the basis of economy.

    If you regard service sector as part of GDP, you are a retard. You must first understand that life works on the basis of goods. The services are just luxury and merely a political tool to give employment.
    You can't arbitrarily find new places of manufacturing. Making useless things 9nly wastes time and resources but adds no value. You simply follow the current system of USA based capitalist theory without understanding of the meaning.

    Just answer this question-
    How mauch goods does China manufacture vs how much goods does USA manufacture? Now, tell me how is USA economy bigger than Chinese? 80% of USA economy is service sector! What kind of GDP is this?

    Korea was a poor country till 1980. It grew because USA got wary of anti USA protests and hence leased Technology to make it a manufacturing hub.

    Did I say that?

    In older times, economic boom depended upon weather system and situation of war and peace. I ak speaking 9f industrial system. The basis of every technology developed and every developed country is access to abundant resources and consequent spare capacity to focus on knowledge and Technology. When people don't have reliable access to resources, they become worried about security and have no spare time to develop any Technology.

    As I said, it is foundation and not direct source. Natural resources is like water that is fundamental for survival whereas Technology is education that i done only when the person getting educated has access to water and food. If a person is starving or doesn't have Access to reliable waterz he will be focused on securing them instead of learning things.
    There are plenty of countries without resources. For example, India doesn't have much resources to become super manufacturing giant.

    Financing? Financing what? US dollar is used to buy oil and other resources. USA leased its electronics technology to

    ROK got US dollar which is the currency to buy oil. So, it hot free oil. USA got free oil because Arabs agreed to petrodollar. Europe got USA resources after WW2 in the form of soft loans and then got resources via political deals with Arabs, African dictators etc. USA striking petrodollar deal was the biggest success ever in history. I don't know how you call it as failure
    Afghanistan has no CRITICAL RESOURCES. So, there is no point valuing potential resources by assigning current market price. Afghanistan is a desert and was never rich in over a 1000 year history.

    Afghanistan nevee was rich in 1000 years
     
  10. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle War Mongerer Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    12,257
    Likes Received:
    20,582
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    That only does on you. I've reasoned out whatever I said & have backing of scholastic sources.

    You on the other hand are only defending your words. The things & logics you have given about technology (called it result of conquests) and went on citing resources (not because you actually think these are resources but you just want to reject so called "capitalism" and you failed miserably).

    Then, you kept on changing context. You claimed that countries received natural resources from alliances in free. Then, you went on claiming aid to be resource and reason (do you know how many countries received aid and how many are successful?) as if that petty aid prospered those countries.

    You have been purposely ignoring to talk what different those countries did that enriched them. Because if you do, your claim that "natural resources are reason for wealth, usually" will be rubbished for most world.
    Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    We have plenty of countries with natural resources but dead socio economics.

    Resources are like raw materials and much easier to access unless you are a superisolated and superbarren country. Any such country doesn't exist on planet. Utilization of resources determines country's future. But hey, you just had to attack argument so you destroyed context.

    When you failed, you started destroying logics and finally your this post is culmination of nonsense someone could ever spread. Because the things you are citing have been attributes of failed states in modern world.

    We were talking about what makes developed or developing (actually developing) countries from failed and underdeveloped states. You shoved resources here nothing. As they don't have real gap of accessibility between two.
    Water is a very basic commodity and not basis of prosperity. Many countries with scarcity of water and high upper middle income and developed.

    Any country stripped of everything doesn't exist on planet. Comes to the comparing Asia and Africa where both continents have plenty of natural resources but Africa was 3 times richer than Asia.

    Where is Asia now & why?

    Minimum amount of basic resources are basis means of survival, not success.
    I agree that "basic" resources are critical for "survival". But our context was about "successful". These things are available to full set of developed and developing countries today.

    Moreover, you dishonestly switched from "natural resources" (minerals like things) to basic need of life. How pathetic? You again killed your argument because it doesn't support yet what you want to say.

    Higher wealth doesn't depend upon having basic resources, at least for past 400 years. Producing more from raw materials at low cost and shorter span of time does. It needs technology.

    Again, you won't have any luxuries without technology. So, people who don't have it will purchase these luxuries from you.
    No, you claimed that China is no more than 5-6 years behind US in technology.

    More critical technologies are defense metallurgy and experience with exotic metals, giant atoms, aerospace (overall), space tech, information infrastructure, information tech (why Huaweu is suffering) processors and lot lot.
    First, even 14nm is about to get outdated. Semiconductor manufacturing is a moving target with very high capital required at every installation and not "easy" at all.

    Chinese semiconductors that aren't part of most Chinese electronics are built by companies from outside shores of China. 86% of Chinese semiconductors are imported for a reason. High end phones are just assembled in PRC.
    GDP tells about economic activity in country. More money from wealth is utilized to make in economy to flow, it will become income for some people and better it is.

    Services are as productive as product of any physical goods. Without them, country and can't run.
    The one who only takes a defined set of physical products as a result of economy and reject others, is showcasing his characterstic of embracing medieval economies.
    If you don't, you are real retard. You didn't even bother to study how and why things were made to be so.
    Life works very much on services. Goods can't be produced without them either. They facilitate organized running and hence are a vital kind of production.

    If you think that they are just political tool, just rip them apart from your life and try to live.
    In due time, services who need more amount of brain will be performed by humans and production will be automated.
    If you actually think so, you are even bigger idiot. Facts simply don't agree with you. Discovering any new facility and making it a part economy adds one more way to earn revenue. That's why R&D goes on around world.

    Economic diversification and addition of new markets is common characteristic of developed countries today. Regardless if they were first to invent this thing, they reinvented the wheel or they got from others.
    Seems that you didn't even read what I wrote. US was industrialized far far before China and has generated more wealth and stable sources of revenue than China has today. China is largest industrial hub today, not was 50 years.
    Moreover, US economy is more diversified than even China and has mostly high end working technologies that gives very high profit.

    Asking this stupid question and giving this stupid logic (which logic/explanation is there offered by you BTW?) just shows that the part from you are supposed to understand things is at an offset of 180°.
    Korea had become upper middle income economy till 1980 and qualified as a high income economy even before 1995.

    It's income levels were close to USSR & Eastern Europe, much higher than so called poor countries but well behind that of developed ones.
    Yes you did. You claimed that China's is behind US in income just because of population.
    Economy still depends upon war & peace.
    1. Stable environment and security against internal & external threats.
    2. Free market at least within the country.
    3. Young (not very young) population with a good demographic dividend.
    4. Diversified economy for more sectors. Addition of them facilities evasion of recessions as well.
    5. Skilled labour and continous improvement and diversification of economy to shift to high end sectors as per skill level of labor.
    6. Research and development for innovating new sectors.
    Countries "grow" to become rich and aren't so by default.
    You were speaking that wealth is result of having natural resources which had been proved wrong. Countries obtained them from outside.
    Common characteristics of developed countries today is discovering sectors and not access to abundant resources.
    We aren't talking about foundation. We are talking about what makes developed and underdeveloped world so.

    Why this foundation didn't make them different before 400 years? And why Asia started to catch up only in late 20th century? Abundant natural resources existed with Asia and Africa too.

    Stop jumping on sides of argument.
    India itself is a contradiction to what you said. India has been one of world's fastest growing economies, has transitted from low income to lower middle just last decade and will be upper middle in next decade.
    Long term projections show it to be a high income country till 2050-60. That's what reference what I gave says also. Why China & India didn't seem to have any rosy future 1978 & 1991?

    We import raw materials like crude and export finished products. One of largest exporters.
    South Korea received over $36.5 billion aid till date. Heck, even Pakistan got $44 billions.

    If you think that this amount was sufficient to pay off South Korea's bills and South Korea couldn't have developed without this aid, then you are illiterate on matter of economics.
    USAID was just an assistance to allies for strategic interests. It couldn't change future of countries.
    I never called it failure. But it's not something that's responsible for America's prosperity. It was rather used as a geopolitical weapon to defend from and attack against threats.

    Unilateral dominance on oil will allow US to carry out economic sabotages in China and India. Game will change meanwhile when China & India switch to other sources.
    Afghanistan has $4 trillion reserves of critical minerals including Lithium, rare earths, fossil fuels, most kind of useful metals like copper, gold & iron and gemstones.
    Second largest deposits in critical metals after China.
    Afghanistan was same as that of India till 20th century. It was same as that of India & Pakistan as well till 70s. It's growth stopped due to instability. It's aid exceeded it's GDP yet it couldn't develop.

    Right now, it's per capita income is growing faster than Pakistan again.
    Afghanistan was much better as Kingdom of Gandhar.

    Straight, you have shown here how much you hate reasoning and plain baseless statement why Afghanistan won't ever develop.

    Your only logic is that its a desert (even morr stupid) desperately as if you're trying to just shoo argument away.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2019
  11. Vijyes

    Vijyes Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    1,672
    Location:
    Bharat
    Scholastic source without understanding full context and jumping timelines and chronology! That is why I am rubbishing it. I am asking to talk from beginning to end. You seem to be simply arrogant to not even give time to think properly of all problems and their solution over time and the limits these problems pose to people over time.
    Nonsense again, I am only telling that the world is based on deception of Western countries who have been fooling and outsmarting others by twisting history and misinformation. Even capitalism is a misinformation. The crux of today's capitalism is petrodollar based on Islam
    Are you having extremely low IQ that you can't understand what I am saying ir are you a fanatic flat earth theorist who simply insists on his own theories? In a conversation, people tend to ask questions and get it clarified. That is exactly what I did. Insinuating it as changing the topic is retarded.

    I have consistently maintained that access to resources is political and this is the basis of success.
    Show me where are the countries with plenty of resources but are poor? Resources doesn't mean some random rare earth minerals. I clearly am focusing on critical resources- food, liquid fossil fuel, steel and decent size population with non-crazy mindset (Islam is crazy, for example). Show me which country has all these resources in abundance since 1950 and is still technologically backwards.

    Countries like Saudi Arabia don't have food, countries like Brazil didn't have oil till late 20th century, Venezuela did not have population and lot of European migration happened in 1960-1980s. France has no resources except food and steel but it got support from USA in terms of securing energy like Uranium, oil etc.

    All countries need access to the basic resources of food, petroleum, steel and population to become technology oriented.

    Again,spoken like a retard. Show me how is resources obtained freely? Do you know that in 1940 USA sanctioned Japan from buying Oil? Do you know that Arabs imposed oil embargo in 1973? Where is you free access to resources?

    No country is fully barren. But the critical resources required are the three I mentioned above (food , liquid fossil fuel & non-crazy population of decent size) and even if one is not available, it will cause serious problem. Countries like Germany, Japan don't have petroleum. When they tried to get the resources, other countries tried one way or other to sabotage giving even slightest of excuses. Britain even started a war to curtail Germany giving flimsy reason. USA sanctioned Japan to prevent it from getting Chinese resources.

    We all saw how non access to resources can make a country weak and hence subject to external sabotage. If there is continual sabotage, how do you expect a country to develop Technology? Technology can be developed only if there is enough strength and security to counter sabotage and that strength is derived from presence of abundant resources to be expended during war.

    You mean countries without water can become Technology dominant? It is true that countries devoid of water like Saudi, Libya etc have prospered but that is because of presence of raw materials of high value like petroleum. But nevertheless, they don't have enough Technology as they never got enough time to develop it. Petroleum was discovered in arab land in 1940s and the exploitation became intense only in 1960s. So, these countries git just 2 generation of time till now enjoying the oil prosperity and hence the time needed to develop didn't occur. People need to be given access to important resources for several generation of time, not just some random short duration to take full advantage of them. Sudden changes or discovery without any proper background doesn't bring much benefit.

    The access to water (and hence food) domestically is of utmost value. Next comes energy resources and finally steel and wood. The resources must be available in this order for Technology to be developed. There is simply no way a country can develop Technology without having these important resources.

    African countries (excluding North Africa) don't have enough resources. They are resources poor and have only limited resources or resources discovered too late and in small quantity.

    North African countries are desert with 70% imported food and hence don't satisfy basic criteria of food resources requirement.

    Asian countries do have resources but most of this is in China. All other countries are resource poor in one way or another. India didn't have enough food and was in verge of famines in 1960s, doesn't have oil.

    Only Asian country other than China that has access to the 3 critical resources (Food, oil & population) is Indonesia but it has crazy Islamic population who just want to die in jihad to go to heaven.

    That is why Asia isn't rich. If countries like Arabs who have oil cooperate with other asian asian countries like India which has other non-oil resources, then only Asia can be enriched. This is what I call as 'political alliance'. Arabs, however, chose to make alliance with USA and hence facilitated USA to be largest economy since 1980. Till 1980, USSR economy was comparable to USA but the petrodollar deal tilted it in USA favour.

    RESOURCE OF PETROLEUM IS PRESENT IN ONLY 3 ENTITIES MAINLY - ARAB, USSR & USA. This is the critical resource which makes or breaks everything in normal countries. Other resources like iron and aluminum are abundant and not really a source of crunch. It is the oil that mainly causes imbalance. But in oil rich regions of arab, food deficit is a unique issue and hence they too can't develop.
    Qgain, you simply can't accept the fact that every TECHNOLOGY NEEDS TIME TO DEVELOP. This means you must be ALIVE foe that duration to be able to develop.l Technology. In order to survive, you need to have resources to live and to fight sabotage.

    I can't understand how you find it as changing topic? I am only saying that - NOT GETTING DESTROYED is important to develop Technology. This in turn requires reliable access to resources.

    As I said, the Technology is not discontinuous. Technology is a continuous development. So, it is meaningless to say that China is lacking in Technology compared to USA. China has all Technology which USA had in 2010. It only lacks some Technology developed after 2010. This means that China has slightly older alternative to USA Technology.

    This is why I say that China will get to current USA level in 2025. USA seems to have approached saturation and hence USA Technology in 2025 will be same as it is now.
    Chinese have alternative like spreadtrum which makes semiconductor. Chinese import semiconductor to stay competitive in exports but can make their own cheaper alternative if needed.

    Semiconductor techology has saturated at 14nm. Though TSMC claims that it has made 10nm, Intel has not yet made a single 10nm processor. TSMC likely names wrongly it semiconductor nodes. Reality is that USA has been making 14nm for 6 years and there is no progress in sight. Technology wise, 14nm has some threshold level and it is difficult to reduce it further. So, in all likelihood, USA has stagnated at 14nm and China only needs to catch up.

    Let me make it clear to you that service doesn't just include knowledge services like education. Yes, knowledge services are important but 80-90% of services in USA is not education or knowledge service. Services like finance, fashion, luxury, hotels, tourism and things like media are not really productive.

    Taking useless services as part of GDP and inflating it by 100-200% is really foolish. USA economy, for example has 80% service and in it, 65% is non knowledge oriented service. So, only 35% of economy is meaningful and rest 65% is fake and bloated.
    Seevices are a political tool as they can be dome without. So, it will be easier to discard a person in service sector than in real production. A person in service sector exists as dependent on others and can be easily subject to political pressure.

    Even in older time, people recognised two types of services - knowledge and trade. Trade of goods comes under production and redistribution. Only knowledge is the core service recognized by people since older times. Even today, we can easily live without non-knowledge based services. In fact, every time of crisis like war, people completely discard these non essential services, showing that these are just luxury.

    I agree that USA does get high profit from selling Technology goods at high margins. But even then its its Technology advantage is not too high that it has Monopoly. As I said, countries like China has developed Technology to 2010 levels and hence pose as an alternative if USA increases price too high. So, it can't overcharge beyond a point.

    USA runs external debt of $500 billion a year. That is over 2% GDP of external debt a year. This is simply too much yo be called sustainable. USA just survives because other countries are compelled by petrodollar to get dollars, not because of USA's own strength. This is not called having large economy but simply MANIPULATED ECONOMY.
    No, I claimed per capita income is low, not total income.
    I am saying the last sentence you said - countries grow, not born. I am stating that the requirement is - FOOD, liquid fuel and non-crazy population and then other minerals like steel and minerals as requirement to grow. Without food and petroleum, a country can't develop Technology as it will always live under insecurities.

    No country can obtain critical resources of food, energy from non political allies and become rich from Technology. Any non-ally that supplies these resources will threaten sanctions and sabotage to ensure the importing country doesn't become Technology giant.
    Aftica doesn't have resources. Stop spreading fake news. African oil is very minute except in North Africa. As I said, the critical resources is food and petroleum. Non north-Africa has little petroleum to ever become giants.

    About why Europe developed Technology 300 years back, it was mainly because of muslims blocking suez canal and forcing Europe to find sea routes for spices and other resources.

    Over time, they found USA which was abundant in resources. This gave them resources. In addition, they managed to outsmart the locals of countries like India, Indonesia (who were crazy or stupid) and hence gained access to resources. It is simply that they acquired resources first and then held on to the advantage for centuries by preventing others from getting resources.

    Do you know the difference between being rich because of political convenience vs being rich on one's own Technology? India developed due to political convenience and not by Technology. India is a key country and capable of disrupting oil dominance of west and hence west tried to contain India by linking its economy to USA financial system and hence creating dependency to further exploit India. It was an investment of wet for political reasons and not self sustainable growth. That is exactly why i am disregarding all non education service from economy. These are just political tools and nothing else.
    Do you know the meaning of aid? Aid is given conditionally. It is not that Pakistanis could buy same thing as Koreans. Pakistan received different aid like military sales whereas Korea received direct Technology lease and resources.
    USA doesn't have access to large domestic oil for its self consumption. USA would have run out of oil by 2010 without petrodollar getting it free oil. So, petrodollar is the reason why USA could become a giant economy. It is also the reason why USA could sabotage other economy by denying access to oil. The problem here is that oil is present only in 3 regions primarily- America, USSR and Arab (including north african arabs). So, entire world has to rely on these 3 sources mainly for petroleum needs. This resources deficit was.used yo hamper other economies by USA petrodollar deal
    Food and energy are main resources. Without food and energy, other resources are not exploitable. The main problem that comes in the world is because of Concentration of oil in just 3 regions and this is the main resources crunch.

    Afghanistan was not rich in 1000 years. Gandhar involved parts of Pakistan and included fertile punjab plains. The Afghanistan part was never rich and mainly survived by tacing traders and travellers.

    Afghanistan can grow only if there is political force externally enabling it to grow. Afghanistan can't grow on ita own internal strength. Afghanistan has no manufacturing and its agriculture is not growing either. Only thing growing in Afghanistan is foreign aid and hence it is showing growth. That is temporary
     
  12. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    2,154
    Likes Received:
    705
    Location:
    India
    For PRC is the Bharat people and economy actually helping and assisting in a larger way.

    All other economies (in terms of distance and accessibility) do not provide the benefits of: (i) market testing (ii) large dynamics (iii) open access. Bharat is an open economy and products from all over the world compete within the market place (excuse the simple language).

    Access to the Bharat economy is, in fact, making PRC companies stronger. There is an open competition and other factors. The PRC companies have to adapt to marketing, legal, culture, language, management, etc, etc, etc with a large economy and profitable measurements to take such risks. PRC companies won't find it worthwhile to do the same elsewhere. Further the favorable economic trade relations Bharat has with other countries enables these PRC companies to export from Bharat (more profit). that is not available within PRC itself (due to the controlled economy and barriers as well as now trade barriers and tariffs). In a way, if a PRC company can survive in India they can do well anywhere. This is a premium service given at such a low cost from Bharat to PRC. In America, PRC companies are not provided such favorable measurements. South Korea (with Bharat) understood this with Hyundai, Samsung and more. Japan has also understood this.
     
    Indx TechStyle likes this.
  13. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,095
    Likes Received:
    5,435
    The Chinese economy has just given us a warning sign of how bad things have really become. Carrefour has decided to exit the market placing its 50,000 employees at risk of losing their jobs. It looks like Walmart could be next.
     
    IndianHawk likes this.
  14. smooth manifold

    smooth manifold Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2019
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    277
    80% of Carrefour in China was sold to local company Sunning. Walmart will leave if it can't compete with local brands. Carrefour was indeed very popular in China a decade ago. but more and more people buy stuff online. the last time I walked into a Carrefour might be 5 years ago. Amazon also left China.
     
  15. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,095
    Likes Received:
    5,435
    The move to online retail has put millions out of work and created thousands of ghost malls across China. It is disrupting the social order and balance. CCP better get on it before the entire retail industry is reduced to a few websites.
     
  16. rockdog

    rockdog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    185
    China to top U.S. as world's No. 1 retail market in 2019: Report

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...st-retail-market-2019-report-says/2651447002/
     
  17. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,095
    Likes Received:
    5,435
  18. Rassil Krishnan

    Rassil Krishnan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2019
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Chennai, India
    Why are you always concentrating on bad news in chinese economy every economy has bad news .

    Chinese people and gov are competent enough to solve this problem unlike failed states like pakistan ,basically if you want to beat them you have to try as they will not destroy themselves.

    This is why if you want to win stop the practice of cope and hoping and concentrate on results.

    Usa underestimated china and that allowed china to come so close.

    Stop cope and let us take the threat seriously.
     
    Vijyes and rockdog like this.
  19. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,095
    Likes Received:
    5,435
    Why do people here always post negative news about Pakistan? Same reason...
     
    Pinky Chaudhary likes this.
  20. lcafanboy

    lcafanboy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    3,136
    Likes Received:
    9,280
    Location:
    bangalore
    So basically, just like we don't like and hate KATUWAS (circumcised dicks) you hate pressed Noses...:pound::pound::pound:
     

Share This Page