7 ms·
Amazing that the US economy is growing at a faster rate than the Chinese economy: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-q3-gdp-grows-49-yy-above-market-fo
by andrewmutz 3y ago
Amazing that the US economy is growing at a faster rate than the Chinese economy:
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-q3-gdp-grows-49-yy-above-market-forecast-2023-10-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-q3-gdp-grows-49-y...
- berserk1010 3y agoREAL, unofficial Chinese gdp is probably at near 0% or negative. you don't get 20-30% decline in all metrics like export, import, home price, tax revenue, land value, employment, salaries, etc etc and still have 5% gdp growth. There's a reason why Xi Jing Ping came begging for relief in APEC San Francisco. Which he got none.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y agoHow was he begging for relief?
- berserk1010 3y agoHe rarely travelled abroad in the last 4 years. He made a special trip to the home turf of US. The country that just choked their AI ambition He was trying to get American business to come back to China. Instead, not much deals happened. Furthermore, it was rumored that Goldman Sachs bought a seat at dinner with Xi, just to let him know that Goldman was selling huge amount of properties in China. He was also protesting US giving arms to Taiwan. Nothing happened.
- bsder 3y ago[flagged]
- cced 3y ago[flagged]
- radicaldreamer 3y agoThese aren't the Epoch Times forums or weird WeChat groups, please source your claims and innuendo b/c this doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to the discourse.
- hmm37 3y agoLOL. That's exactly what China states about the US, when the US sent multiple high up officials to China prior to Xi's trip to San Fran., in order to pave the way for Xi to come to the US because Biden was begging to meet with Xi. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
- berserk1010 3y agoOne country has a 22% youth unemployment rate, before stopped reporting. Another country has a 8% youth unemployment rate. One country has the primary investment sector being real estate, where their top 2 companies are bankrupt. Another country has the primary investment sector being stock market, where their tech top company is worth 30 of the other country's top tech companies. Easy to figure out which one was begging for money
- hmm37 3y agoAgain. It's a matter of perspective. If Biden didn't ask Xi to attend the APEC meeting, Xi probably wouldn't bother to attend. But based on your viewpoint, I guess no one needs to worry about China anymore because it's about to collapse. And whatever reserves China has is just all illusionary/fictitious, just like everything else in China. I also wouldn't necessarily take current market values of companies to be their actual worth. A product from e.g. Apple and e.g. Xiaomi are 95% similar and more than likely sell roughly the same amount of e.g. phones. Apple's value is in its brand, not necessarily that the goods are vastly technologically superior, etc., nor its capabilities as a company to produce goods.
- refurb 3y agoJuxtapose the "warrior wolf diplomacy" of not even a year ago with the hat-in-hand meeting with Biden in San Francisco. Xi bet he could stare down the US and win. He lost that bet.
- mkii 3y agoIn your world, what would a Xi victory have looked like?
- refurb 3y agoI think the intention was clear? To have the US back down. China wants to be the dominant power in Asia. It despises the US alliance (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia) that projects force along the entire Pacific Rim. However, much of China's growth is dependent on trade with the US and its allies. So it's in a bit of a pickle. Xi thought China could win the political battle without losing the economic one. He assumed the alliance would split apart, and the US would be forced to back down. At that point China would be free to project it's power across most of Asia without interference from the West. Whether that's taking back Taiwan, or at least the entirety of the nine-dash line islands. The US or any other foreign vessel couldn't transit the South China sea without the OK from China. He tried to pick off the members of the alliance one by one (the trade battle with Australia is a great example), but failed. Eventually the US and other nations said "enough is enough" and instituted sanctions on China. In addition private companies decided the political uncertainty was too high a risk. Combine that with the demographic bomb the country is facing, the debt-bomb from Chinese real estate and Xi realized he lost his gamble. The Chinese economy couldn't survive long enough under sanctions for China to win the political battle. But to be honest, he burned too many bridges. The Chinese economy is struggling. The embargo on technology is going to hurt China way more than it hurts the West. He came to San Francisco in hopes of repairing enough of the relationship as to not entirely sink the Chinese economy.
- fancl20 3y agoIt's not that clear and much more complex. If you follows the whole history of China's foreign policy, it's surprisingly consistent and the focus is never "competing with someone". To the topic of ‘Wolf Warriors’, the policy dropped as early as May 2021 so it's highly possible that the change itself is not economic related (https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/is-china-putting-wolf-warriors-on-a-leash/ https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/is-china-putting-wolf-warrio...). The targeted audience (of the foreign policy) may not be the West, but global south. There is a paper (I'm too lazy to find the link) claim that the ‘Wolf Warriors’ rhetoric used by China's diplomats in non-west country doesn't change much. If you are intrested in the changes under Xi, Kevin Rudd has a series of deep analysis: https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/WorldAccordingtoXi_FA.pdf https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/WorldAccordingtoXi_FA.pdf. Generally China's decision making process doesn't care too much about winning or competing or any particular goal especially in short term. They are based on long-term analisys of "what will happen inevitably" and back track from that conclusion. Many of these decisions make no sense from West's perspective under a cost-benefit analysis.
- humanxperiments 3y ago[flagged]
- cced 3y agoTrust me bro
- somenameforme 3y agoDeficit spending is considered part of the GDP. Print a quadrillion dollars and we could have thousands of percent GDP growth! Part of the reason that GDP can be a highly misleading metric. The article alludes to this in a pretty amusing way: --- "The U.S. economy grew at an even stronger pace then previously indicated in the third quarter, the product of better-than-expected business investment and stronger government spending. ... Government spending also helped boost the Q3 estimate, rising 5.5% for the July-through-September period. However, consumer spending saw a downward revision, now rising just 3.6%, compared with 4% in the initial estimate." ---
- candiddevmike 3y agoYea everywhere is glossing over this... What would the GDP be without government spending? How much longer can the government float the economy?
- exclusiv 3y agoNot much longer when interest rate payments are well on their way to $1T per year ($659 billion as of October), the bulk of the budget (66%) is non-discretionary and unfunded liabilities are $211T.
- 4death4 3y agoGDP is inflation adjusted, so simply printing money won't work unless you also control inflation (although I will say I don't think the inflation calculation necessarily reflects the true value of the dollar).
- brnaftr361 3y agoInflation adjusted, but lended money is accounted for as growth isn't it? Which itself is often "printing money".
- ptero 3y agoInflation from money printing can be lagging compared to the effect on GDP (depending on how the printed money is distributed). Not saying that this is what we have today, just pointing out the possibility.
- magnio 3y agoThe US reports GDP growth as annualized growth rate, which is the annual rate that would occur if the QoQ rate is maintained for a full year. To get the QoQ rate, we need to roughly divide the rate by 4 (not exact but not far off). This means the US GDP grew 1.3% in the third quarter, matching that of China. Have to say the concept of annualized GDP growth rate is kinda gobshite. Why would you report that instead of YoY and QoQ rates is beyond me.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoGDP is itself kind of a shite metric, annualizing a quarterly is just a drop in the bucket
- stefan_ 3y agoYes, we know what annualised means. People also report annualised inflation and many other things this way. Pick a metric, report it consistently, it really doesn’t matter too much exactly which you choose. (It is ironic you would compare to China because of course their GDP reports are made up. I’m sure they use non-annualised though!)
- John7149 3y ago[flagged]
- orangepurple 3y agoGiven this where do you think $VTI will land in Q1 24? Do you think we will see a 25% contraction (~annualized) like we saw Jan to Oct 2022? The huge November rally (this month) makes NO sense. I feel like the hammer is about to fall.
- candiddevmike 3y agoStudent loan debt repayments started back up in September, you'd expect them to have some effect on spending habits that haven't surfaced yet.
- orangepurple 3y agoStudent loan debt repayments starting back up plus impending layoffs sounds like an impending engineered disaster which will significantly suppress stocks in Q1. I can't decide if it will trigger enough of a panic to dip $VTI under 190.
- idiotsecant 3y ago>Joe has been widely known manipulated election What does this mean, exactly?
- nopromisessir 3y ago[flagged]
- anonylizard 3y agoThe bad news is the US has a ballooning, titanic budget deficit that is at wartime levels and is completely unsustainable. Greece too can have booming economies when the government is raking up debt. The good news is there are genuine, revolutionary innovations in the economy, namely AI. You can't explain away AI as a mirage propped up by government spending. The entire stock market is held up by the magnificent 7, and these stocks in turn are held up investors' AI dreams.
- JohnMakin 3y agoHow will AI possibly help the economy? if it achieved even 1/10th of what the techno optimists think, you’ll see massive unemployment and likely collapse of credit markets that have been hanging on for a thread for a long time (like the trillions in student loan debt). I just can’t possibly see how AI is going to revolutionize the economy, unless you define the “economy” as the nasdaq, then yea, i guess so, but that’s a real simpleton view.
- GreedClarifies 3y agoAt a minimum it will automate which will increase productivity and almost certainly increase aggregate supply. In a more AI maximal case it will solve new problems, the increase in GDP from this case is very large.
- katbyte 3y agoYou didn’t address the main issue asked about: what happens with all the people out of work?
- cwalv 3y agoThey can keep working, just more effectively
- aurareturn 3y agoWhat happened when electricity put so many manual laborers out of work?
- tehjoker 3y ago[flagged]
- distortionfield 3y ago> lol so biden is juicing the economy for the election nice Right, the other three years he was just completely ignoring economic policy /s
- wholesomepotato 3y agoWhat's amazing about it if the debt increased more in the absolute terms? :D . If I max out credit cards I can at least show spending (GDP) growth at least the same as what I borrowed... How is it not obvious to everyone that this is the end game? Increasing rates will rapidly increase debt, which increases inflation, which pushes increasing rates ...
- avmich 3y agoWhoever's lived long enough in USA would laugh about end game questions. Inflation? 3.2% is absolutely peanuts to what it was some 3-4 decades ago. Unemployment? Are you kidding? Pandemics? Did you compare what it is today with what it was 2 years ago? COVID is just 4th - which is a lot, but very far from mortal danger - cause of death, and the country even inches up in life expectancy. All fundamentals are pretty much positive, and only debt/GDP is vaguely comparable to the worst numbers in US history. Now, what about alternatives? If you don't like US numbers, can you get anyplace better on Earth? I'll wait. Meanwhile, there are forward-positive questions and topics - USA is about to jump in 2, count 'em, two very consequential areas, which are AI and space exploration, within this decade. Are you sure your better bets are against USA? Did you take the history lessons into account, or it's business as usual?
- mkii 3y ago> Did you take the history lessons into account, or it's business as usual? Did we take the same history lessons? Lots of what led to the fall of the Roman Empire has been happening in USA the past few decades. And then we have China literally opium-warring us with fentanyl and killing tens of thousands of US citizens each year. But yeah, count on the cool shiny AI and space exploration to save the US.
- wholesomepotato 3y agoI'm sorry but most of your comment has nothing to do to what I said, and seems like random rambling. Except: > 3.2% is absolutely peanuts to what it was some 3-4 decades ago. But 3-4 decades ago governments, all institutions and economy as as whole were not so much in debt. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S . And this chart doesn't include all the "unfunded liabilities". You can hike rates to curb the inflation only if it doesn't bankrupt everything and everyone. And 3-4 decades ago boomers globally were ahead of most productive years of their lives, without the "baggage" of tons of kids and globalization had plenty of room ahead to increase productivity. I don't want to waste time talking about nonsense like AI and "space exploration". The financial system is screwed. That's all I'm saying.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]