4 ms·

>The Economist projected that China would become the world’s biggest economy by 2018, surpassing the United States. What annoys me about economists is how ofte

>The Economist projected that China would become the world’s biggest economy by 2018, surpassing the United States. What annoys me about economists is how often they redefine how they calculate things like "GDP" and "unemployment" and then try to compare their new oranges to their old data apples. In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output but with the constant revision America still is "number 1". Same goes for unemployment. You can compare these metrics when you change how they're calculated. As for China, their youth is now experiencing what many in the West and Japan are familiar with: NEETs/hikkimori. They don't see the point in working because the cost of living is too high and their wages stagnant so they go the opposite route and do just enough to get by and enjoy life. I don't blame them either.

eatonphil 3y ago
> In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output but with the constant revision America still is "number 1". Maybe, but the Economist is a UK publication. What incentive would they have to prop up the identity of America as number 1?
- freitzkriesler2 3y ago
  When I say economists I mean the professionals, not the publication. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
  - eatonphil 3y ago
    Sure, but it's The Economist saying this in the article as well: > The Economist now claims that China might never catch up with the US
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Fundamentally China’s huge population means they will overtake the US. Government mismanagement, corruption, and capital imbalances can slow it down but the march of progress is inevitable.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Fundamentally China’s huge population means they will overtake the US On one hand, we have reversion to the mean in terms of productivity per capita. On the other hand, we have (a) empirical evidence of the middle-income trap [1] and (b) theoretical underpinning for compounding economic gains as a corollary of economies of scale. In essence, China's dominance is inevitable only if they've solved the middle-income trap problem and either (x) economies of scale cease to matter or (y) the U.S. is destined to failing to capitalize on its own economies of scale. In summary, it's far from certain (though also far from impossible). Also, China's population is shrinking [2]. It's forecasted to drop from over a 4x population advantage over America to less than 2x by 2100 [3]. By that point, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are forecasted to have larger populations than America. Any theory of population determinism must explain how Pakistan will come to dominate America while India dominates China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-shrinks-first-time-since-1961-2023-01-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-shrink... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
      - nonethewiser 3y ago
        Presumably you think India will overtake China then. Is that accurate? Their population is already larger and is expected to grow further while China’s is declining rapidly.
        jandrese 3y ago
        They are in a slightly worse place due to even worse governance, but yes, there is an enormous amount of untapped potential primed to explode. India also has a more serious global warming headwind to fight.
- okasaki 3y ago
  I don't think you can be hired by the Economist if you don't believe in American Exceptionalism + The International Rules-Based Order[0] + America World Police. Plus here in the UK we're obsessed/in love with the US. Endlessly pining for their approval (trade deals, FOM deals, etc), willing to support anything they ask for, invasions, war-mongering, censorship, propaganda, "decoupling", privatization, austerity, etc. Actually we often do much more than what they presumably are asking for. It's a sad and deeply abusive relationship. [0] Whatever the state department decides it wants today.
  - eatonphil 3y ago
    > Plus here in the UK we're obsessed/in love with the US. Well the state department didn't support brexit [0], as one sort-of counterpoint. However, The Economist didn't either [1]. So this doesn't disprove your overall point. [0] https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/28/limitations-of-u.s.-approach-to-brexit-pub-77820 https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/28/limitations-of-u.s.... [1] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexi...
adventured 3y ago
> In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output Which older metrics are you specifically using to support that claim and can you show me what China's GDP figure looks like compared to the US under that different model?
throwaway2990 3y ago
We don’t have real numbers from China to know what their GDP is. There’s theories it could be negative right now which coincides with their housing crisis, huge local debts due to covid, huge cost of living and due to covid less spending which results in less jobs, the world pulling out of China. Etc. any positive numbers would surely be made up, one CCP official already admitted to the numbers being fudged.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Surely you mean GDP growth could be negative, not GDP. How would negative GDP even work? That being said, I highly doubt their GDP growth is negative, you just have to build something to record positive GDP, not necessarily sell it. Whatever target the central government sets the provinces will meet on paper, and probably in reality (even if the activity used to generate GDP isn’t useful). I would say look at the Li Keqiang index, but Li was recently fired, so I’m not sure what they are going by now for real numbers.
gruez 3y ago
>In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output but with the constant revision America still is "number 1". Can you elaborate on this? What are the "older metrics" in question? >Same goes for unemployment. You can compare these metrics when you change how they're calculated. Is the 20% figure cited in the article somehow not comparable to other figures in the G-7?
- anovikov 3y ago
  Simply PPP vs nominal.
  - gruez 3y ago
    But in this case nominal vs PPP GDP are both in use. I don't see how "economists" are "redefining" things. It sounds more like OP is seeing "GDP" in separate articles, thinking they're the same thing, and then thinking there's some sort of conspiracy to mislead when he figures out they're in fact different. edit: I did some searching and found a economist article that claimed china's economy would exceed the US's in 2018: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2011/12/31/how-to-get-a-date https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2011/12/31/h... The article very clearly says that 2018 is the date where its GDP at market rates will exceed the US. So at least for this article, there's no mixups here, only a failed prediction.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    PPP is a weird measure since a lot of things are even more expensive in China than the USA. Unless you are just eating out and taking taxis, your higher PPP isn’t going to help you much.
    - Aunche 3y ago
      Rent helps a lot when it comes to PPP. Also, services like healthcare, plumbing, education, etc
      - 3y ago
anovikov 3y ago
Well there is GDP PPP and nominal and metrics never changed. China has surpassed U.S. in PPP GDP around 2017 and might at some far away future point around it's historical peak (10-20 years away), get up to 2x the U.S. level, but it might never reach U.S. nominal level (currently 67% of it), or if it does, only briefly and marginally so. None of those metrics has "changed". It's just two different ways of measuring it: PPP defines intrinsic economic power/amount of goods consumed, nominal defines power on world markets/purchasing ability. We produce and consume in national prices that are different (and PPP factor corrects for that difference), but we trade in nominal dollars.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  If you trust the official Chinese GDP figures. Big if. Very big if. (All countries seem to do some overcounting but not by 100-400%.)
  - anovikov 3y ago
    I'd say their figures are weird. In some industries, output is truly astounding, making up 60-95% of worldwide total, and that is entirely verifiable and believable. In others, we see obvious lies. No one can really find out the truth, and some attempts to get to the truth only harm reputation of the one trying (like The Economist's own attempt to do it by measuring changes in night illumination, that was incredibly flawed and drew a lot of criticism - https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-of-lights-at-night-suggests-dictators-lie-about-economic-growth https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-...)
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      There was always that guy who was barred from trading in Hong Kong in 2016 because they claimed Evergrande was cooking its books [1]. Safe to say that snooping around China’s economy for real information isn’t going to be appreciated at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Left

eatonphil 3y ago

> In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output but with the constant revision America still is "number 1". Maybe, but the Economist is a UK publication. What incentive would they have to prop up the identity of America as number 1?

freitzkriesler2 3y ago
When I say economists I mean the professionals, not the publication. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
- eatonphil 3y ago
  Sure, but it's The Economist saying this in the article as well: > The Economist now claims that China might never catch up with the US
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Fundamentally China’s huge population means they will overtake the US. Government mismanagement, corruption, and capital imbalances can slow it down but the march of progress is inevitable.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Fundamentally China’s huge population means they will overtake the US On one hand, we have reversion to the mean in terms of productivity per capita. On the other hand, we have (a) empirical evidence of the middle-income trap [1] and (b) theoretical underpinning for compounding economic gains as a corollary of economies of scale. In essence, China's dominance is inevitable only if they've solved the middle-income trap problem and either (x) economies of scale cease to matter or (y) the U.S. is destined to failing to capitalize on its own economies of scale. In summary, it's far from certain (though also far from impossible). Also, China's population is shrinking [2]. It's forecasted to drop from over a 4x population advantage over America to less than 2x by 2100 [3]. By that point, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are forecasted to have larger populations than America. Any theory of population determinism must explain how Pakistan will come to dominate America while India dominates China. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-shrinks-first-time-since-1961-2023-01-17/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-shrink... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Presumably you think India will overtake China then. Is that accurate? Their population is already larger and is expected to grow further while China’s is declining rapidly.
      - jandrese 3y ago
        They are in a slightly worse place due to even worse governance, but yes, there is an enormous amount of untapped potential primed to explode. India also has a more serious global warming headwind to fight.
okasaki 3y ago
I don't think you can be hired by the Economist if you don't believe in American Exceptionalism + The International Rules-Based Order[0] + America World Police. Plus here in the UK we're obsessed/in love with the US. Endlessly pining for their approval (trade deals, FOM deals, etc), willing to support anything they ask for, invasions, war-mongering, censorship, propaganda, "decoupling", privatization, austerity, etc. Actually we often do much more than what they presumably are asking for. It's a sad and deeply abusive relationship. [0] Whatever the state department decides it wants today.
- eatonphil 3y ago
  > Plus here in the UK we're obsessed/in love with the US. Well the state department didn't support brexit [0], as one sort-of counterpoint. However, The Economist didn't either [1]. So this doesn't disprove your overall point. [0] https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/28/limitations-of-u.s.-approach-to-brexit-pub-77820 https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/28/limitations-of-u.s.... [1] https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexitBriefs16.pdf https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/EconomistBrexi...

adventured 3y ago

> In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output Which older metrics are you specifically using to support that claim and can you show me what China's GDP figure looks like compared to the US under that different model?

throwaway2990 3y ago

We don’t have real numbers from China to know what their GDP is. There’s theories it could be negative right now which coincides with their housing crisis, huge local debts due to covid, huge cost of living and due to covid less spending which results in less jobs, the world pulling out of China. Etc. any positive numbers would surely be made up, one CCP official already admitted to the numbers being fudged.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Surely you mean GDP growth could be negative, not GDP. How would negative GDP even work? That being said, I highly doubt their GDP growth is negative, you just have to build something to record positive GDP, not necessarily sell it. Whatever target the central government sets the provinces will meet on paper, and probably in reality (even if the activity used to generate GDP isn’t useful). I would say look at the Li Keqiang index, but Li was recently fired, so I’m not sure what they are going by now for real numbers.

gruez 3y ago

>In many respects, if you use the older metrics China has long surpassed America on its GDP output but with the constant revision America still is "number 1". Can you elaborate on this? What are the "older metrics" in question? >Same goes for unemployment. You can compare these metrics when you change how they're calculated. Is the 20% figure cited in the article somehow not comparable to other figures in the G-7?

anovikov 3y ago
Simply PPP vs nominal.
- gruez 3y ago
  But in this case nominal vs PPP GDP are both in use. I don't see how "economists" are "redefining" things. It sounds more like OP is seeing "GDP" in separate articles, thinking they're the same thing, and then thinking there's some sort of conspiracy to mislead when he figures out they're in fact different. edit: I did some searching and found a economist article that claimed china's economy would exceed the US's in 2018: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2011/12/31/how-to-get-a-date https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2011/12/31/h... The article very clearly says that 2018 is the date where its GDP at market rates will exceed the US. So at least for this article, there's no mixups here, only a failed prediction.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  PPP is a weird measure since a lot of things are even more expensive in China than the USA. Unless you are just eating out and taking taxis, your higher PPP isn’t going to help you much.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    Rent helps a lot when it comes to PPP. Also, services like healthcare, plumbing, education, etc
    - 3y ago

anovikov 3y ago

Well there is GDP PPP and nominal and metrics never changed. China has surpassed U.S. in PPP GDP around 2017 and might at some far away future point around it's historical peak (10-20 years away), get up to 2x the U.S. level, but it might never reach U.S. nominal level (currently 67% of it), or if it does, only briefly and marginally so. None of those metrics has "changed". It's just two different ways of measuring it: PPP defines intrinsic economic power/amount of goods consumed, nominal defines power on world markets/purchasing ability. We produce and consume in national prices that are different (and PPP factor corrects for that difference), but we trade in nominal dollars.

peterfirefly 3y ago
If you trust the official Chinese GDP figures. Big if. Very big if. (All countries seem to do some overcounting but not by 100-400%.)
- anovikov 3y ago
  I'd say their figures are weird. In some industries, output is truly astounding, making up 60-95% of worldwide total, and that is entirely verifiable and believable. In others, we see obvious lies. No one can really find out the truth, and some attempts to get to the truth only harm reputation of the one trying (like The Economist's own attempt to do it by measuring changes in night illumination, that was incredibly flawed and drew a lot of criticism - https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-of-lights-at-night-suggests-dictators-lie-about-economic-growth https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-...)
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    There was always that guy who was barred from trading in Hong Kong in 2016 because they claimed Evergrande was cooking its books [1]. Safe to say that snooping around China’s economy for real information isn’t going to be appreciated at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Left