The Porn Dude
Toronto Escorts

China’s Economy, by the Numbers, Is Worse Than It Looks

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
As the economy becomes larger it will be harder for China to goose it along and maintain the lack of transparency we see today.

China’s Economy, by the Numbers, Is Worse Than It Looks

BEIJING — China’s economy is slowing, and the slowdown is probably worse than Beijing says.

Official numbers released on Monday show an economy that is posting new, but manageable, lows. For the last three months of 2018, growth came in at 6.4 percent compared with a year earlier. That’s the slowest pace since a decade ago, when China was grappling with the global financial crisis.

For the full year, according to official data, the Chinese economy grew 6.6 percent. That’s the weakest pace of growth since 1990, when China’s economic miracle stumbled in the aftermath of the crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square the year before.

As slowdowns go, the numbers indicate a mild one befitting a big, maturing economy like China’s. While the figures match historic lows, they show only a small drop from previous periods.

Monthly data released on Monday also suggested better-than-expected consumer spending and industrial production in December, raising the possibility that growth is stabilizing.

More detailed data tell a less positive story.

From investment to consumer spending to factory activity, the Chinese economy slowed markedly in the second half of the year. The figures also indicate that the trade war with the United States is taking more of a bite.

Moreover, the December uptick comes in large part from Beijing’s efforts to get growth going again. While China’s leaders have quite a few ways to juice growth if their current efforts aren’t enough, their options often come with tricky trade-offs that could add to the country’s debt problems or add to other imbalances plaguing the economy.

China’s slowdown is one of many reasons that the world economy is gradually decelerating. At a briefing on Monday afternoon at the start of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the International Monetary Fund said that Germany, Italy, Mexico and Turkey each face slower growth in the year ahead than previously expected, for a variety of reasons particular to each country.

“The world economy is growing more slowly than expected, and risks are rising,” said Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the I.M.F. “Does that mean that a global recession is around the corner? No. But the risk of a sharper decline in global growth has certainly increased.”

By the Numbers

Beijing took steps to rekindle growth at the end of last year, and it showed. Retail sales and industrial output ticked up in December from November, suggesting consumers and businesses alike were feeling a little better as the year came to an end.

But those monthly figures could not fully make up for a lackluster performance in the second half of the year. Retail sales slowed markedly during those last six months, weighted by a steep tumble in activity at China’s car dealerships and broad weakness in smartphone sales. Investment in fixed assets like new factories and office buildings was anemic.

“China’s economy has slowed significantly in recent months,” said Louis Kuijs, a China specialist at Oxford Economics, a large consulting firm.

More broadly, many economists have estimated that China’s slowdown is worse than the government’s figures show, citing more detailed data. Some economists estimate growth is just a fraction of the headline figure, though most economists who crunch the figures say the number is only a percentage point or two lower.

The question now is whether an improvement in December will carry over to the start of 2019. Despite the positive signs, China just two weeks ago decided to pump tens of billions of dollars into the financial system, suggesting that it sees a recovery as fragile at best.

Trade Trouble

China’s economic problems began before Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on Chinese-made goods. That said, the trade war is not helping.

Activity has also slowed lately at many export-oriented factories. Many rushed to ship goods to the United States before a feared increase in tariffs on Jan. 1 that did not end up happening, filling warehouses with surplus goods. Many Chinese factories have eliminated overtime and looked for other ways to trim employment costs.

Economists at J.P. Morgan, the investment bank, on Monday slightly reduced their growth expectations for the first three months of the year, citing weaker-than-expected December trade figures.

“Manufacturing has sunk from buoy to anchor over the past two quarters,” the China Beige Book, an economic consulting firm, concluded in an analysis last month.

Driving the Slowdown

Some economists note that the biggest factor driving the weakness in retail sales in China, which by some estimates has accounted for half or more of the entire slowdown, is a sharp fall in auto sales.

Auto sales have been falling since summer, with sales in December down a precipitous 19 percent from a year earlier. But China had a modest tax break for car buyers in 2016 that became smaller in 2017 and then disappeared entirely last year. Those tax policies may have pulled ahead some demand to 2016 and 2017, leaving the market poised for a drop last year.

“It is because we had a high number in 2017 that the 2018 market has so much pressure,” Cui Dongshu, secretary general of the China Passenger Cars Association, said in a phone interview.

Sliding sales at car dealerships prompted a wave of production cuts at assembly plants across China. That in turn cut into demand for auto parts, steel, glass and other materials.

But help may be on the way. Lian Weiliang, the vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said at a news conference last week that China would draft policies to “stabilize” consumption of cars and household appliances.

How Long Will It Last?

The Chinese government has allowed big-ticket projects, like new subway lines in many cities, to move forward, and it has pumped more money into the financial system. China’s leaders have also pledged to cut taxes to shore up sagging business sentiment.

The efforts “will boost the economy in the second half of this year,” said Shen Jianguang, the chief economist at JD.com, a big Chinese online retailer.

One big option that China still has: help the housing market.

Building and outfitting homes and other buildings represents as much as a quarter of the country’s economic activity by some estimates. China could take measures like loosening limits on mortgage lending and easing the ability of property developers to buy land and deal with their debt. But that approach comes with dangers. The sector is already overbuilt and plagued with speculation, something the Chinese authorities have long tried to contain.

“Property easing will be used as a last resort, not a priority,” said Tao Wang, a China economist at the Swiss bank UBS.
 

azeri99

Banned
Sep 19, 2018
949
1
0
I think the world is headed for a recession, I've been thinking that for about 6 months now.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
The greatest failure of China was the inability to develop the strong internal market.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
The greatest failure of China was the inability to develop the strong internal market.
It’s a little premature to call it a failure. Every developing economy develops their economy using export markets first (taking advantage of cheap local labour). Even Japan was like this, post-war. It’s inevitable that as the Chinese economy grows, their population will start to consume and demand more Western goods. A simple recent example of this is Canada Goose jackets. Tons of copies available in mainland China, but Chinese tourists who are wealthy enough to travel want the real thing. Internal demand will grow - that’s inevitable, and should be encouraged by Western Nations - not only as an engine of growth but also because as the Chines population prospers, becomes more educated and wealthy, it’s also inevitable that Chinese communism will have to evolve towards a more open society. Seeking wealth is human nature and more importantly is baked into Chinese mythology and culture.

The Trump/Navarro stance that the US “wins” if China suffers more is a lose/lose strategy and just delays what would have happened naturally.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
It’s a little premature to call it a failure. Every developing economy develops their economy using export markets first (taking advantage of cheap local labour). Even Japan was like this, post-war. It’s inevitable that as the Chinese economy grows, their population will start to consume and demand more Western goods. A simple recent example of this is Canada Goose jackets. Tons of copies available in mainland China, but Chinese tourists who are wealthy enough to travel want the real thing. Internal demand will grow - that’s inevitable, and should be encouraged by Western Nations - not only as an engine of growth but also because as the Chines population prospers, becomes more educated and wealthy, it’s also inevitable that Chinese communism will have to evolve towards a more open society. Seeking wealth is human nature and more importantly is baked into Chinese mythology and culture.

The Trump/Navarro stance that the US “wins” if China suffers more is a lose/lose strategy and just delays what would have happened naturally.
Well, China has been at this longer than the Japanese were. Japan's internal economy became self sustaining within 25 years or so with a strong middle class emerging by mid seventies. China is nowhere close to that point and the demographic trends point to stagnation. The apt comparisons to Japan would be Germany or, in Asia, Hong Kong and Taiwan or even South Korea.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
Well, China has been at this longer than the Japanese were. Japan's internal economy became self sustaining within 25 years or so with a strong middle class emerging by mid seventies. China is nowhere close to that point and the demographic trends point to stagnation. The apt comparisons to Japan would be Germany or, in Asia, Hong Kong and Taiwan or even South Korea.
That’s a huge stretch. China was closed to a Western Nations until the late 60’s, early 70’s. Their citizens were under very strict travel restrictions outside of China until just one generation ago. It wasn’t until this generation of Chinese leadership that they even ditched their Mao jackets.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Given the OP’s previous posts, I wonder if he thinks this is good news?
One could see it as Trumps leverage at work....
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
One could see it as Trumps leverage at work....

“Trump’s leverage?” Trump has backed himself into a corner as much as Xi. Why do you think it’s been weeks since we heard a peep from the likes of Navarro or even Ross? Trump needs a deal because without it, markets and the US economy will continue to suffer under the Trump slump. His trade tactics have been ineffective (as they have hurt the US market and economy and have negated much of the benefit of his Trillion dollar tax cuts) and his deal making is a joke. The end result will be positioned as a “win”, when in fact it will be a compromise to gain back a fraction of what’s been lost. That will still be a good thing, given the clown show up to this point - but will not gain back all of the lost ground.

So in the end, the expensive deficit financed tax cuts will have been expended for maybe a year of boosted growth. After the shutdown, the next Cogressional hurdle will be the debt ceiling. Further, IF China pledges to balance the trade deficit - then that implies wage pressures because of the tight US employment situation (.e. To fulfill demand will mean hiring in a tight labour market). Thus the Fed will have valid reasons to hike rates, combined with record issuance of US debt to finance the deficit (and China will have a diminishing US $ balance, so will buy fewer treasuries at auction).

There is no such thing as a free lunch, despite what Trump is trying to sell.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
“Trump’s leverage?” Trump has backed himself into a corner as much as Xi. Why do you think it’s been weeks since we heard a peep from the likes of Navarro or even Ross? Trump needs a deal because without it, markets and the US economy will continue to suffer under the Trump slump. His trade tactics have been ineffective (as they have hurt the US market and economy and have negated much of the benefit of his Trillion dollar tax cuts) and his deal making is a joke. The end result will be positioned as a “win”, when in fact it will be a compromise to gain back a fraction of what’s been lost. That will still be a good thing, given the clown show up to this point - but will not gain back all of the lost ground.

So in the end, the expensive deficit financed tax cuts will have been expended for maybe a year of boosted growth. After the shutdown, the next Cogressional hurdle will be the debt ceiling. Further, IF China pledges to balance the trade deficit - then that implies wage pressures because of the tight US employment situation (.e. To fulfill demand will mean hiring in a tight labour market). Thus the Fed will have valid reasons to hike rates, combined with record issuance of US debt to finance the deficit (and China will have a diminishing US $ balance, so will buy fewer treasuries at auction).

There is no such thing as a free lunch, despite what Trump is trying to sell.
In case you missed it from the OP.

Trade Trouble

China’s economic problems began before Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on Chinese-made goods. That said, the trade war is not helping.

Activity has also slowed lately at many export-oriented factories. Many rushed to ship goods to the United States before a feared increase in tariffs on Jan. 1 that did not end up happening, filling warehouses with surplus goods. Many Chinese factories have eliminated overtime and looked for other ways to trim employment costs.

Economists at J.P. Morgan, the investment bank, on Monday slightly reduced their growth expectations for the first three months of the year, citing weaker-than-expected December trade figures.

“Manufacturing has sunk from buoy to anchor over the past two quarters,” the China Beige Book, an economic consulting firm, concluded in an analysis last month
.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
In case you missed it from the OP.

Trade Trouble

China’s economic problems began before Mr. Trump began imposing tariffs on Chinese-made goods. That said, the trade war is not helping.

Activity has also slowed lately at many export-oriented factories. Many rushed to ship goods to the United States before a feared increase in tariffs on Jan. 1 that did not end up happening, filling warehouses with surplus goods. Many Chinese factories have eliminated overtime and looked for other ways to trim employment costs.

Economists at J.P. Morgan, the investment bank, on Monday slightly reduced their growth expectations for the first three months of the year, citing weaker-than-expected December trade figures.

“Manufacturing has sunk from buoy to anchor over the past two quarters,” the China Beige Book, an economic consulting firm, concluded in an analysis last month
.

In case YOU missed it, I will repeat my response (post #3) to your original copy and paste. Do you think this is good news?
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
Do you think this is bad news for America?
Trump's trade strategies (of which China is just one more problem) have been terrible for America. And the worst part - is that they are self inflicted wounds and completely unnecessary. For example: Trump went to war with ALL trade partners (including Canada) and there has been no benefit and only negatives from a US perspective. Higher US Steel prices have benefitted ONE industry - Steel - whose employment numbers and contribution to the economy is dwarfed by Steel consumers (eg: GM, Ford).

For China - Trump should have enlisted his allies to approach as a united front. In fact, he had that opportunity with TPP - which he rejected as his first act. TPP even included an increased access to our Canadian dairy market - all without the disruption of a trade war. China would have been surrounded by signatories to TPP and would have almost no choice but to explore joining the pact. TPP also has IP protections built into the deal. As it stands now - the fear is that Trump (who is backed into a corner, just as China is) will sign a quick deal for a reduction in the trade deficit with China without addressing any of the IP problems. Why would Trump sign a quick deal now? Because the markets and the economic numbers are showing that his tactics have been ineffective - so he is incentivized to stop the bleeding and declare "victory" (ironic quotation marks). China has the same motives but their leadership isn't under the same pressure.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
In case YOU missed it, I will repeat my response (post #3) to your original copy and paste. Do you think this is good news?
Generally a slowdown anywhere in the ROW is a drag on the US economy and not a good thing. In China’s case we are using our leverage to force them to change their ways, in that case other pressures likley help our cause.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
Trump's trade strategies (of which China is just one more problem) have been terrible for America. And the worst part - is that they are self inflicted wounds and completely unnecessary. For example: Trump went to war with ALL trade partners (including Canada) and there has been no benefit and only negatives from a US perspective. Higher US Steel prices have benefitted ONE industry - Steel - whose employment numbers and contribution to the economy is dwarfed by Steel consumers (eg: GM, Ford).

For China - Trump should have enlisted his allies to approach as a united front. In fact, he had that opportunity with TPP - which he rejected as his first act. TPP even included an increased access to our Canadian dairy market - all without the disruption of a trade war. China would have been surrounded by signatories to TPP and would have almost no choice but to explore joining the pact. TPP also has IP protections built into the deal. As it stands now - the fear is that Trump (who is backed into a corner, just as China is) will sign a quick deal for a reduction in the trade deficit with China without addressing any of the IP problems. Why would Trump sign a quick deal now? Because the markets and the economic numbers are showing that his tactics have been ineffective - so he is incentivized to stop the bleeding and declare "victory" (ironic quotation marks). China has the same motives but their leadership isn't under the same pressure.

Thank you for a great reply. Some very good points, and great to see that you recognize that the status quo was not good for the US (in the long run).

The goal of the elected leader of a country should be to get the best deal for his country. I applaud any leader who strives for that goal. The fact is that many of these trade deals are not producing the benefits that were anticipated for the US. The way that Trump has gone about it is another issue.

I agree that a group effort would have been a better approach, but the reality is that most of our allies are afraid of China and would not stand up and be counted.

The Chinese are bigger bullies than the US, but they have managed to hide that from the general public.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
While it’s counter intuitive, I think the US has more leverage on its own. We have two simple goals, reduce trade deficit (by increasing China imports from the US) and IP protection.

The first goal will likely hurt other potential partner negotiators as China shifts spend. This would have been harder to do in a group.

IP is more important to the US than potential partners, we simply have more of it to protect.
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
While it’s counter intuitive, I think the US has more leverage on its own. We have two simple goals, reduce trade deficit (by increasing China imports from the US) and IP protection.

The first goal will likely hurt other potential partner negotiators as China shifts spend. This would have been harder to do in a group.

IP is more important to the US than potential partners, we simply have more of it to protect.

Most of the IP problems are due to the rules for foreign direct investment into China. In fact, companies enter China knowing the rules, so you could argue that the IP transfers were not "stealing" as it is often characterized - but simply the heavily tilted rules going in. THIS is what many countries, not just the US want changed. At any rate - if you are assuming or implying that the US has the most to lose, you'd be wrong - the US is not the top country investing in China - they're behind South Korea, Japan, Singapore (also Taiwan, and HK - but you could categorize these two differently).

It's no coincidence that South Korea, Japan, and Singapore are all signatories for the defunct TPP and now the CPTPP. Trump made a huge mistake by simply rejecting TPP without thought - simply because Obama initiated it. In fact Trump has publicly stated that he wants back in. That is the problem with Trump. He still believes that he's some ace deal maker - when his reputation was the stuff of fiction and reality TV. On the world stage - his deal making has been a complete joke. Case in point - just look at USMCA and the Trump hyperbole of USMCA vs NAFTA. They are 95% the same - with minor tweaks that are not all in the US's favour. As I've repeatedly pointed out- Trump went to war to get access to our dairy market. TPP already offered 3.25% access to our dairy market. USMCA has 3.59% access. That extra 0.34% access amounts to $70 million PER YEAR given the small size of our dairy market. THAT is Trump's great victory - not even a handful of magic beans (also Canada retained the dispute mechanism we wanted, and the 5 year sunset clause is gone). Meanwhile, his own manufacturing base has had to deal with Steel and Aluminum Tariffs that cannot be avoided due to the inertia built into their supply chains. So billions have been lost on both sides of the border.

Trump is a complete imbecile on trade and a joke when it comes to the "Art of the deal".
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Most of the IP problems are due to the rules for foreign direct investment into China. In fact, companies enter China knowing the rules, so you could argue that the IP transfers were not "stealing" as it is often characterized - but simply the heavily tilted rules going in. THIS is what many countries, not just the US want changed. At any rate - if you are assuming or implying that the US has the most to lose, you'd be wrong - the US is not the top country investing in China - they're behind South Korea, Japan, Singapore (also Taiwan, and HK - but you could categorize these two differently).

It's no coincidence that South Korea, Japan, and Singapore are all signatories for the defunct TPP and now the CPTPP. Trump made a huge mistake by simply rejecting TPP without thought - simply because Obama initiated it. In fact Trump has publicly stated that he wants back in. That is the problem with Trump. He still believes that he's some ace deal maker - when his reputation was the stuff of fiction and reality TV. On the world stage - his deal making has been a complete joke. Case in point - just look at USMCA and the Trump hyperbole of USMCA vs NAFTA. They are 95% the same - with minor tweaks that are not all in the US's favour. As I've repeatedly pointed out- Trump went to war to get access to our dairy market. TPP already offered 3.25% access to our dairy market. USMCA has 3.59% access. That extra 0.34% access amounts to $70 million PER YEAR given the small size of our dairy market. THAT is Trump's great victory - not even a handful of magic beans (also Canada retained the dispute mechanism we wanted, and the 5 year sunset clause is gone). Meanwhile, his own manufacturing base has had to deal with Steel and Aluminum Tariffs that cannot be avoided due to the inertia built into their supply chains. So billions have been lost on both sides of the border.

Trump is a complete imbecile on trade and a joke when it comes to the "Art of the deal".
Your posts would be shorter and more on point if you saved the repeated rants....

How about my first point?
 

essguy_

Active member
Nov 1, 2001
4,432
16
38
Your posts would be shorter and more on point if you saved the repeated rants....

How about my first point?
Your first point is based upon your mistaken impression that "IP is more important to the US than potential partners, we simply have more of it to protect." It's not a rant to try to add facts to your misinformation.

In other words, this thread would be a lot shorter if you simply had facts vs opinions (that are based upon wrong information). Oh, and based upon your other posts in other threads - IF you actually read the articles before you cut and paste.
 

Bumblaster

Active member
Nov 3, 2018
146
59
28
China's political system is not compatible with an open society. The two cannot co-exist

Google having to develop a censored version of their search engine is an example of this.

But of course essguy_ has to turn this discussion into an anti Trump tirade
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts