China Economy: News & Discussion

[Indx TechStyle]

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.

Was my Rahul Gandhi moment.
*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.

 

[Vijyes]

I'm wondering how stupid someone could be. Writing same line over & over without any explanation.

That applies to you.

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.

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

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.

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.

The fuel saving techs, improved designs and manufacturing basis aren't small advantages at all

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 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.

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.

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

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.

Seriously? How dumb you are?
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Did I say that?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are plenty of countries without resources. For example, India doesn't have much resources to become super manufacturing giant.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Afghanistan nevee was rich in 1000 years

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

 

[Indx TechStyle]

That applies to you.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

These are not critical needs and hence are not major deficiency.

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.

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

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 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.

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 regard service sector as part of GDP, you are a retard.

If you don't, you are real retard. You didn't even bother to study how and why things were made to be so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

Did I say that?

Yes you did. You claimed that China's is behind US in income just because of population.

In older times, economic boom depended upon weather system and situation of war and peace.

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.

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.

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.

As I said, it is foundation and not direct source.

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.

There are plenty of countries without resources. For example, India doesn't have much resources to become super manufacturing giant.

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.

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

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.

USA striking petrodollar deal was the biggest success ever in history. I don't know how you call it as failure

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 no CRITICAL RESOURCES.

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.

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 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 nevee was rich in 1000 years

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.

 

[Vijyes]

whatever I said & have backing of scholastic sources

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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°.

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.

Yes you did. You claimed that China's is behind US in income just because of population

No, I claimed per capita income is low, not total income.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

 

[Compersion]

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.

 

[Armand2REP]

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.

 

[smooth manifold]

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.

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.

 

[Armand2REP]

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.

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.

 

[rockdog]

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.

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.

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/

 

[Armand2REP]

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/

China’s retail sales growth slumps to 16-year low as trade war risks rise

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/chi...s-to-16-year-low-as-trade-war-risks-rise.html

 

[Rassil Krishnan]

China’s retail sales growth slumps to 16-year low as trade war risks rise

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/chi...s-to-16-year-low-as-trade-war-risks-rise.html

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.

 

[Armand2REP]

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.

Why do people here always post negative news about Pakistan? Same reason...

 

[lcafanboy]

Why do people here always post negative news about Pakistan? Same reason...

So basically, just like we don't like and hate KATUWAS (circumcised dicks) you hate pressed Noses...

 

[Armand2REP]

So basically, just like we don't like and hate KATUWAS (circumcised dicks) you hate pressed Noses...

I was thinking more like seeking the truth in an ocean of lies.

 

[nongaddarliberal]

Why do people here always post negative news about Pakistan? Same reason...

What positive news is there about pakistan, LOL? Even their chief justice came out saying there is nothing positive happening in pakistan.

 

[Rassil Krishnan]

What positive news is there about pakistan, LOL? Even their chief justice came out saying there is nothing positive happening in pakistan.

Exactly pakistan is so incompetent the constant bad news makes sense and fits.

China is one of the major economies and did a lot of things right and hence it could bring a lot of its people out of poverty and to constantly underestimate it is weird like how usa underestimated it and think it could not do something only to be like the hare in the hare and tortoise finding that china has reached very close to it.

Pakistan's strength are it's people willingness to eat grass through constant and deep self deception by the people in power that is the military,constant generation of Abdul's that they can sacrifice without remorse in sub conventional warfare.Its economy and military are not the threat and intact are a joke when it comes to the purpose of having a good economy or military.The economy exists just to fund the military and auxiliaries so as to fight another day and the military exists now as purely a defensive holding force to prevent overrunning of the land by other militaries to protect their real and only way of attack that is sub conventional warfare.

This is the pakistani strategy and we should act to degrade these strengths as even though economy and military are important targets the real targets should be their internal narrative propaganda which should be countered by heavy and constant counter propaganda and also attack the facilitators and infra of attack arm of pak that is entirely jihad arm. By wrecking finances ,sympathizers and terrorist narrative,removal of article 370,etc.

China on the other hand is almost opposite,it has strong sense of chinese civilizational identity and it's main attack arm against other countries is it's economy and military might buttressed by evergrowing tech mastery.basically the opposite of pakistan so take it seriously.even weaknesses are mostly opposite.it cannot lose a lot of sons like suicide bombers and terrorists and it can not lie too much about economy as it might backfire ,and chinese citizens will only get more informed about economic situation which CCP cares about as it is ultimate for survival of regime.

 

[rockdog]

I was thinking more like seeking the truth in an ocean of lies.

I don't care about you like to post "bad news" of China or not, i just feel you don't have ability to judge the news.

I was IT supplier for BestBuy China 4 yrs ago, they are slow, insensitive and even lazy to Chinese market, by the end of 2016, BustBuy quit China, and nobody felt sad about it or 3000 employees lost their jobs, since they failed in business in here and the local competitor was much better and evolves two generations during the time...

The Sunning who merges Carrefour has Alibaba's share (2nd biggest), by using Alibaba's big data, Carrefour would hasaccurate data on regional consumer's purchasing behavior and importing more SKUs, this is call EMPOWER, obviously the Carrefour China's sales has never driven by any online data.

So don't use your Indian Concept to judge news from China, check out the "New Retail" from outside world, even checkout how Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi doing in India would give you some clues...

 

[Armand2REP]

I don't care about you like to post "bad news" of China or not, i just feel you don't have ability to judge the news.

I was IT supplier for BestBuy China 4 yrs ago, they are slow, insensitive and even lazy to Chinese market, by the end of 2016, BustBuy quit China, and nobody felt sad about it or 3000 employees lost their jobs, since they failed in business in here and the local competitor was much better and evolves two generations during the time...

The Sunning who merges Carrefour has Alibaba's share (2nd biggest), by using Alibaba's big data, Carrefour would hasaccurate data on regional consumer's purchasing behavior and importing more SKUs, this is call EMPOWER, obviously the Carrefour China's sales has never driven by any online data.

So don't use your Indian Concept to judge news from China, check out the "New Retail" from outside world, even checkout how Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi doing in India would give you some clues...

Your problem is that you rely on economic data published by the CCP. I have never relied on such numbers as Chinese don't know the first thing about accurate accounting. Foreign companies doing business in China publish actual results. When foreign companies are seeing sales declines it is reflecting the actual trends in the Chinese economy. The online model is fine for sales but where do people go when they need after sales support? This is the biggest weakness of Chinese brands.

 

[rockdog]

Your problem is that you rely on economic data published by the CCP. I have never relied on such numbers as Chinese don't know the first thing about accurate accounting. Foreign companies doing business in China publish actual results. When foreign companies are seeing sales declines it is reflecting the actual trends in the Chinese economy. The online model is fine for sales but where do people go when they need after sales support? This is the biggest weakness of Chinese brands.

That's why i said you don't have ability to judge the news, seems you are making Yes/No choice for any data about China, but the truth never be simple like this.

For example, Benz, Audi, BWM all report China as their biggest single market, each of them sold around 0.6 million cars in China on 2018, plus other luxury brands there are 2.8 millions luxury cars sold in China last year, which reflect how strong the China high income people is, and this volume is even bigger than USA (on contrast, 4 million cars totally sold in India in 2018).

At 2018，China's best selling car was VW's Lavida, with total 0.5 million sales with around USD 20,000 per each And India is Maruti Suzuki Dzire with 0.26 million with USD 9,000 per each; China's USD 9,000 car with best selling was Wuling Hongguang, with 0.47 million sales...

Those above data proved that China already been the biggest consuming market in the world, since the consumer's data are always accurate than government's estimation with less manipulation...

Again, I really don't care about you believe or not, u can fully enjoy yourself ^_^

 

[Vijyes]

That's why i said you don't have ability to judge the news, seems you are making Yes/No choice for any data about China, but the truth never be simple like this.

For example, Benz, Audi, BWM all report China as their biggest single market, each of them sold around 0.6 million cars in China on 2018, plus other luxury brands there are 2.8 millions luxury cars sold in China last year, which reflect how strong the China high income people is, and this volume is even bigger than USA (on contrast, 4 million cars totally sold in India in 2018).

At 2018，China's best selling car was VW's Lavida, with total 0.5 million sales with around USD 20,000 per each And India is Maruti Suzuki Dzire with 0.26 million with USD 9,000 per each; China's USD 9,000 car with best selling was Wuling Hongguang, with 0.47 million sales...

Those above data proved that China already been the biggest consuming market in the world, since the consumer's data are always accurate than government's estimation with less manipulation...

Again, I really don't care about you believe or not, u can fully enjoy yourself ^_^

He is French, not Indian by nationality. So, don't get confused.