3 ms·

It's only running on vapors when compared to itself, though. It's still vastly outperforming e.g. the US. We'd kill for 4.5% growth.

willcipriano 3y ago
> We'd kill for 4.5% growth. Speak for yourself. I'm not a member of the cult of the always upward line. Regular people don't really benefit from this growth.
- astrange 3y ago
  They very much do. The CCP is in power entirely because economic growth has been so consistently good. The people would've gotten rid of them otherwise. And in the US, do you remember 2008-2010? That's what no growth is like. It means you don't have a job.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    > It means you don't have a job. Only when paired with unlimited immigration, population is on the decline otherwise, no job growth plus a falling population is a great situation for workers.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Immigrants are a positive demand shock and make it more likely that you have a job. No growth may be good for retirees. It's bad for workers though.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        > Immigrants are a positive demand shock Ask low skill workers how that's been working out for them. The effects of this positive demand hasn't made it to them, instead they control less of the economy year after year.
        astrange 3y ago
        Totally untrue in multiple countries! There's only one economist who publishes research supporting this (Borjas) and essentially everyone else thinks he's making it up. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-immigration-doesnt-reduce-wages https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-immigration-doesnt-reduce-... The bottom 10% of US workers have seen faster wage growth than anyone else starting in 2019, and through 2022 were the only people with wages growing faster than inflation. https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/ https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/ That's why I said 2008 - because it's not 2008 anymore: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Everyone with a retirement savings benefits.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
sottol 3y ago
I know this number is from Fitch afair and not the CCCP, but I always wonder if it is overstated. And if overstated, by how much.
astrange 3y ago
That's mainly because it's easier to grow from a lower base. (Also because they lie about their numbers more, but they're still directionally correct, just averaged out a lot.)
bitshiftfaced 3y ago
On a per capita basis, China's GDP is relatively low. If you look at periods where the US was at those levels (it's been a long time), the US was certainly growing at that rate and higher.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  It's probably better to compare the growth slowdown in China today to the Asian Financial Crisis in the 1990s. Most countries impacted during that time period (South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Russia, Mexico) were on the preceipice of becoming upper income countries (similar to China today in 2023). All those countries saw growth stagnate and stall. South Korea and Taiwan only became "developed" in the 2000s and advanced economics in the late 2000s/early 2010s, while Mexico and Russia became developed economies around the 2010s before regressing due to the commodities collapse, and Malaysia and Thailand only recently became "developed" in the 2020s. All these countries had a 20-30 year slog after hypergrowth (Russia excluded) in the 70s-90s. Some decided to invest heavily in human capital (eg. Taiwan, SK), others lagged in the 90s but ended up making it a national priority in the 2000s (eg. Malaysia, Thailand, Russia), and others were unable to prioritize human capital development (eg. Mexico).
gamblor956 3y ago
China would kill for actual 4.5% growth too. You don't have 21.3% youth unemployment with 4.5% growth.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Did you know tearing down a building generates GDP, and so does building it? Just repeat that a few times, and you have infinite GPD. I joke, but you see something like that happening sometimes (a ghost mall is constructed, never used, torn down, turned into something else that is never used, etc...). When America's GDP was middle income, it had high GDP growth also. We made the mistake of extrapolating Japan's GDP growth as if it wouldn't taper off as Japan got rich, which meant, in 2020, Japanese would be twice as rich as Americans. That never happened, of course, because it doesn't really work like that.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  By the way, do you have a gtfo bag ready just in case or are you riding this out no matter what?
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Huh? I’m not invested in China anymore, so it isn’t important to me. I never had the balls to buy Chinese real estate, but another (also foreigner) friend of mine bought a few apartments in tianjin and Beijing. He is still alive water, at least.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Ah, forgive me, my 'mental state' about you wasn't up to date.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I read about that, and about similar things happening in Arabic countries, a lot of people related to the powerful need to have 'important jobs' and because there aren't enough of those fake projects are created that lead absolutely nowhere but that have enough of a budget that large sums of money can disappear without a trace. Those are then written off when the project is written off with nobody the wiser. It's almost a real life Potemkin village economy, with the advantage of being able to charge both for the construction and for the subsequent destruction. In a bad attempt at humor: at least they have figured out how to get as close as possible to a circular economy using this one little known trick.
qwytw 3y ago
> We'd kill for 4.5% growth The Fed estimate for Q3 is 5% (annualized). Q1 was 2.1%, and Q2 2.4%. So, a YoY of 3% or so is not inconceivable. Not quite 4.5% but for instance, if the US GDP would continue growing on average at 1%, while China grew at 5%, China would still need 30 years to even reach 50% of the US's GDP per capita.
jacquesm 3y ago
That's fairly silly because if the US economy goes down so does the Chinese. This is the source of a good chunk of the problems for China, the fact that due to the Russian invasion into Ukraine and the aftereffects of COVID global spending is down considerably and inflation and interest rates are up. That combined effect can absolutely create a problem for Xi and company, who looked very good when the rising tide was lifting all boats but who look exceedingly panicked now that the free lunch is over. China's internal economy is huge but not large enough to sustain all of the industry that it has and nobody wants to sit on a mountain of unsold inventory. Insiders talk of very high unemployment rates for the 20-30 bracket and a lack of motivation for the generation after that because of the reduced job prospects. This kind of combination has the power to make serious trouble for the rulers. If there is one thing Asian leaders fear then it is that the mob one day wakes up and realizes they are in power. Tianmen Square was close, the next time it could well be the real thing and I'm fairly sure that Xi et al would prefer an outside uniting force or enemy over having to deal with a revolution which they certainly would not survive. China has been long overdue for one, and even though the typical sentiment as long as the economy is good is that they should get a pass changing conditions could well flip that on its head and unleash something that won't be that easy to contain. Time will tell. Hong Kong was pretty ugly, but mainland China saw it as a strong move, they may have seen that as a possible try-out for what the West would do if they start to bully Taiwan for real.

willcipriano 3y ago

> We'd kill for 4.5% growth. Speak for yourself. I'm not a member of the cult of the always upward line. Regular people don't really benefit from this growth.

astrange 3y ago
They very much do. The CCP is in power entirely because economic growth has been so consistently good. The people would've gotten rid of them otherwise. And in the US, do you remember 2008-2010? That's what no growth is like. It means you don't have a job.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > It means you don't have a job. Only when paired with unlimited immigration, population is on the decline otherwise, no job growth plus a falling population is a great situation for workers.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Immigrants are a positive demand shock and make it more likely that you have a job. No growth may be good for retirees. It's bad for workers though.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      > Immigrants are a positive demand shock Ask low skill workers how that's been working out for them. The effects of this positive demand hasn't made it to them, instead they control less of the economy year after year.
      - astrange 3y ago
        Totally untrue in multiple countries! There's only one economist who publishes research supporting this (Borjas) and essentially everyone else thinks he's making it up. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-immigration-doesnt-reduce-wages https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-immigration-doesnt-reduce-... The bottom 10% of US workers have seen faster wage growth than anyone else starting in 2019, and through 2022 were the only people with wages growing faster than inflation. https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/ https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/ That's why I said 2008 - because it's not 2008 anymore: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Everyone with a retirement savings benefits.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

sottol 3y ago

I know this number is from Fitch afair and not the CCCP, but I always wonder if it is overstated. And if overstated, by how much.

astrange 3y ago

That's mainly because it's easier to grow from a lower base. (Also because they lie about their numbers more, but they're still directionally correct, just averaged out a lot.)

bitshiftfaced 3y ago

On a per capita basis, China's GDP is relatively low. If you look at periods where the US was at those levels (it's been a long time), the US was certainly growing at that rate and higher.

alephnerd 3y ago
It's probably better to compare the growth slowdown in China today to the Asian Financial Crisis in the 1990s. Most countries impacted during that time period (South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Russia, Mexico) were on the preceipice of becoming upper income countries (similar to China today in 2023). All those countries saw growth stagnate and stall. South Korea and Taiwan only became "developed" in the 2000s and advanced economics in the late 2000s/early 2010s, while Mexico and Russia became developed economies around the 2010s before regressing due to the commodities collapse, and Malaysia and Thailand only recently became "developed" in the 2020s. All these countries had a 20-30 year slog after hypergrowth (Russia excluded) in the 70s-90s. Some decided to invest heavily in human capital (eg. Taiwan, SK), others lagged in the 90s but ended up making it a national priority in the 2000s (eg. Malaysia, Thailand, Russia), and others were unable to prioritize human capital development (eg. Mexico).

gamblor956 3y ago

China would kill for actual 4.5% growth too. You don't have 21.3% youth unemployment with 4.5% growth.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Did you know tearing down a building generates GDP, and so does building it? Just repeat that a few times, and you have infinite GPD. I joke, but you see something like that happening sometimes (a ghost mall is constructed, never used, torn down, turned into something else that is never used, etc...). When America's GDP was middle income, it had high GDP growth also. We made the mistake of extrapolating Japan's GDP growth as if it wouldn't taper off as Japan got rich, which meant, in 2020, Japanese would be twice as rich as Americans. That never happened, of course, because it doesn't really work like that.

jacquesm 3y ago
By the way, do you have a gtfo bag ready just in case or are you riding this out no matter what?
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Huh? I’m not invested in China anymore, so it isn’t important to me. I never had the balls to buy Chinese real estate, but another (also foreigner) friend of mine bought a few apartments in tianjin and Beijing. He is still alive water, at least.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Ah, forgive me, my 'mental state' about you wasn't up to date.
jacquesm 3y ago
I read about that, and about similar things happening in Arabic countries, a lot of people related to the powerful need to have 'important jobs' and because there aren't enough of those fake projects are created that lead absolutely nowhere but that have enough of a budget that large sums of money can disappear without a trace. Those are then written off when the project is written off with nobody the wiser. It's almost a real life Potemkin village economy, with the advantage of being able to charge both for the construction and for the subsequent destruction. In a bad attempt at humor: at least they have figured out how to get as close as possible to a circular economy using this one little known trick.

qwytw 3y ago

> We'd kill for 4.5% growth The Fed estimate for Q3 is 5% (annualized). Q1 was 2.1%, and Q2 2.4%. So, a YoY of 3% or so is not inconceivable. Not quite 4.5% but for instance, if the US GDP would continue growing on average at 1%, while China grew at 5%, China would still need 30 years to even reach 50% of the US's GDP per capita.

jacquesm 3y ago

That's fairly silly because if the US economy goes down so does the Chinese. This is the source of a good chunk of the problems for China, the fact that due to the Russian invasion into Ukraine and the aftereffects of COVID global spending is down considerably and inflation and interest rates are up. That combined effect can absolutely create a problem for Xi and company, who looked very good when the rising tide was lifting all boats but who look exceedingly panicked now that the free lunch is over. China's internal economy is huge but not large enough to sustain all of the industry that it has and nobody wants to sit on a mountain of unsold inventory. Insiders talk of very high unemployment rates for the 20-30 bracket and a lack of motivation for the generation after that because of the reduced job prospects. This kind of combination has the power to make serious trouble for the rulers. If there is one thing Asian leaders fear then it is that the mob one day wakes up and realizes they are in power. Tianmen Square was close, the next time it could well be the real thing and I'm fairly sure that Xi et al would prefer an outside uniting force or enemy over having to deal with a revolution which they certainly would not survive. China has been long overdue for one, and even though the typical sentiment as long as the economy is good is that they should get a pass changing conditions could well flip that on its head and unleash something that won't be that easy to contain. Time will tell. Hong Kong was pretty ugly, but mainland China saw it as a strong move, they may have seen that as a possible try-out for what the West would do if they start to bully Taiwan for real.