3 ms·

>it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. How slow? "Japanification" is 1% growth.[0] That's ridiculus for a growing economy. I can't take the claim tha

>it is going to have a long and slow stagnation. How slow? "Japanification" is 1% growth.[0] That's ridiculus for a growing economy. I can't take the claim that China will have 1% growth seriously. If you mean "stagnate at 6%," my claim is that 6% is "enough" for a low middle imcome economy, Cf. Japan in 1970. So your claim in that case is wrong that it will be "a big deal." At most we can say that China will reach a mid-1980 Japan level economy more slowly than Japan and Korea. However this is very different from the claim that China is 1990 Japan, or that "China might never catch up with the US," implying that China will always be third world (although we can debate the meaning of that sentence). [0]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230512283_2

stale2002 3y ago
Sure, stagnate at 1 or 2% for a couple decades. That's both bad for china, while also not a literal revolution. > That's ridiculous for a growing economy. It is low for a normal growing economy, sure. But China has a lot of problems, which is the entire point. If you want to call low and stagnate growth as something that is very bad, sure. But most people, when they are objecting" to the term "dying" are simply objecting to the idea of a sudden collapse, which is it not likely to happen. Instead was is likely is very low growth for a long time. Which you are free to call very bad if you want, but that's not the same definition as what other people are referring to.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  Sorry, a decade of 1-2% growth is just not happening. There is still so much low hanging fruit in the Chinese economy and plenty of talented (perhaps overqualified) workers to pick them. I suppose this is where we disagree. Thier automobile industry is just begining in earnest, for example. They are in 1965-1970 era Japan, not 1990. This was Japan's economy: Junk -> steel -> automobiles -> computers/chemicals China is only now geting to automobiles. They are making good progress on electronics as well. Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. They also aren't strictly speaking as dependent on exports as Japan was considering the size of their domestic market. To me all of this signals that China will stay in the 6-7% range and will reach 40k GDP per ca in 15-20 years or so.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Growth isn't just determined by some video game tech tree. It is determined by a large number of other factors. > Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. One way that "growth" can go down is by simply marking down the value of existing capital projects. In China's case, this would be all the debt and real estate that they have, which is overvalued. You can borrow lots of money over the short and medium term, to create fake growth, but eventually there is a limit to debt fueled projects. And china is starting to hit that limit of an overleveraged economy. IE, that powerplant, that was previously "included" in previous growth rate metrics as being "worth" 1 billion dollars, is actually only worth 500 million dollars, even if "the books" say otherwise right now. If all those capital intensive to create buildings that they have are actually worth half as much as they are incorrect marked on the books right now, that would account for the "apparent" decrease in growth that will happen over the next decades, even though technically it would just be revealing past fake/debt fueled growth. Does that make sense how if they lose X trillion dollars (but over time!) because of overvalued real estate/capital projects, that this would account for an apparent decrease in growth, even if china still has gains from other parts of the economy?

stale2002 3y ago

Sure, stagnate at 1 or 2% for a couple decades. That's both bad for china, while also not a literal revolution. > That's ridiculous for a growing economy. It is low for a normal growing economy, sure. But China has a lot of problems, which is the entire point. If you want to call low and stagnate growth as something that is very bad, sure. But most people, when they are objecting" to the term "dying" are simply objecting to the idea of a sudden collapse, which is it not likely to happen. Instead was is likely is very low growth for a long time. Which you are free to call very bad if you want, but that's not the same definition as what other people are referring to.

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
Sorry, a decade of 1-2% growth is just not happening. There is still so much low hanging fruit in the Chinese economy and plenty of talented (perhaps overqualified) workers to pick them. I suppose this is where we disagree. Thier automobile industry is just begining in earnest, for example. They are in 1965-1970 era Japan, not 1990. This was Japan's economy: Junk -> steel -> automobiles -> computers/chemicals China is only now geting to automobiles. They are making good progress on electronics as well. Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. They also aren't strictly speaking as dependent on exports as Japan was considering the size of their domestic market. To me all of this signals that China will stay in the 6-7% range and will reach 40k GDP per ca in 15-20 years or so.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Growth isn't just determined by some video game tech tree. It is determined by a large number of other factors. > Thinking they will suddenly go to 1% is just ridiculus in my view when they have so much left. One way that "growth" can go down is by simply marking down the value of existing capital projects. In China's case, this would be all the debt and real estate that they have, which is overvalued. You can borrow lots of money over the short and medium term, to create fake growth, but eventually there is a limit to debt fueled projects. And china is starting to hit that limit of an overleveraged economy. IE, that powerplant, that was previously "included" in previous growth rate metrics as being "worth" 1 billion dollars, is actually only worth 500 million dollars, even if "the books" say otherwise right now. If all those capital intensive to create buildings that they have are actually worth half as much as they are incorrect marked on the books right now, that would account for the "apparent" decrease in growth that will happen over the next decades, even though technically it would just be revealing past fake/debt fueled growth. Does that make sense how if they lose X trillion dollars (but over time!) because of overvalued real estate/capital projects, that this would account for an apparent decrease in growth, even if china still has gains from other parts of the economy?