5 ms·
China surpasses US as world's largest trading nation
- powertry 13y agoInteresting, quite a few no.1 positions being taken over by China recently! Looking stronger than ever, in-spite of the various territorial issues.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoWell it is the most populous country in the world and all.
- refurb 13y agoGood point. The most impressive point won't be when Chinese GDP surpasses the US, but when Chinese GDP surpasses 4.2*US GDP.
- craftsman 13y agoOr just: when China's per capita GDP surpasses that of the US (since the 4.2 probably won't remain constant).
- w1ntermute 13y agoFrom what I've read, with current Chinese growth trends, that won't happen for another 100 years. Unlike other, smaller East Asian countries (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) that have grown on the back of export-based manufacturing, China is far too large to base its growth on exports alone.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoIt may take much longer than that. China's birthrate is low, so the nation may experience severe greying related problems. India, however...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bnegreve 13y ago6 or 7 countries already surpasse the GDP per capita of the US [1], so that's not really a a landmark milestone. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoFive or six postage stamp countries plus Norway, an extremely oil rich nation (in oil per capita terms). The US remains the landmark.
- bnegreve 13y agoIf you're suggesting that we take into account how well the wealth is distributed, then again, the US isn't a landmark. However it's hard to evaluate, maybe [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equ...
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago>If you're suggesting that we take into account how well the wealth is distributed I'm not. Why on earth would you think I meant that?
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoRumor is that if you include the grey markets in China, their GDP already surpasses that of the US as well.
- craftsman 13y agoNPR's Marketplace did a story on this recently and it turns out that there are some tricks they play that, if properly accounted for, indicate that China is not the world's largest trading nation. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/paper-chinas-trade-surpasses-us-lets-get-real http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/paper-chinas-trade-s...
- yapcguy 13y agoIf you believe that China, or Chinese corporations, play accounting tricks, would you accept that all countries and all corporations play tricks to boost their figures too? We know for a fact that Starbucks, Google, etc perform accounting tricks to shift sales from the UK to Ireland. In the end, doesn't this all trickery cancel each other out, meaning that the rankings are a fair reflection?
- craftsman 13y agoI'll let the accountants and economists weigh in on that. But I'd rather rely on data than the argument "they all play accounting tricks therefore it must all cancel out". In other words, I'd like to see a similar analysis of the US's trade numbers and see if the resultant 'trickery' adjustment results in a significant shift in the trade numbers.
- afterburner 13y agoDo I have to accept that China and all other governments are exactly the same in order to accept this?
- skwirl 13y agoIt's possible, but the argument that Starbucks/Google shifting sales from the UK to Ireland implies that the United States is playing accounting tricks with imports and exports is non sequitur. And the implicit assertion that if all countries were playing tricks, they must be playing it equally enough to cancel each other out is also not valid without providing additional supporting evidence. The article provides an estimate that 1/3rd of Chinese imports were from China itself. I have never heard any kind of claim of that magnitude leveled against the present United States.
- beachstartup 13y agothe same quote and facts are repeated no less than 3 times in the first few paragraphs of the article. why do journalists do this? it's incredibly annoying to read because i'm just reading the same thing over and over, restated. it makes me feel like i'm a 6 year old with a big-print book. do certain paragraphs get chopped off in syndication? are they going for a threshold word count by repeating things? i can think of no other reasons why this style of writing would be popular.
- DateK 13y agoI'm of an European descent and I'm not talking on behalf of Japanese nation. Just my personal thoughts. Japan (Tokyo) is my permanent home and I feel unease with all the economic developments of our immediate neighbor. I'm more than happy that they could lift themselves up from poverty and I'll be happy if we could be good mutually respecting partners. But I'm also quite concerned about my future in the next 10-15 years. Quick economic success can lead a nation to feel they are better than others. History tend to repeat itself. Here is an outlook for the coming Great Siberian War: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/china/09-F-0759theGreatSiberianWarOf2030.pdf http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/c...
- oscargrouch 13y agoAnd to make things worse, lets say Japan has a "collective karma" against China.. I dont know how this generation(post-war) handle this... and if its just buried in the past.. Also we got one more powerful actor into the club of bullies (together with US and Russia)... If one of those 3 bullies clash with each other (and boy, they like a fight).. say farewell to our beloved peace..
- _random_ 13y agoChinese don't have to start wars, they just need to keep (em)migrating. A peaceful conquest. Also by 2030 Tokyo/Japan will be a one big retirement centre, so you will have to enable more immigration (or finally come up with really good robots/rejuvenation pills).
- xux 13y agoAnd how did Japan get to where it is today, without fast economic success?
- notastartup 13y agoI think you have nothing to worry about. Big powerful countries rarely fight each other because they both lose. China would always back down from a war because they have most to lose, unless they were facing direct invasion by outside forces. Also nobody wants Siberia and I'm willing to bet the cost of annexing it and trying to revitalize it as some new economic zone would be a fruitless effort. I mean if Mongols didn't want it back then I'm sure nobody else wants it now
- smoyer 13y agoWith four times as many people as the US, isn't passing the trade per person a more notable milestone? (If you have to define one). I'm a bit leery of announcements like this since it's really hard to compare economies to each other (like comparing apples to oranges), but as a US citizen, I can tell you that I'm much more concerned about the state of our political system than our economy.
- raganwald 13y agoWith three times as many people as the US, isn't passing the trade per person a more notable milestone? That's certainly notable, but not interchangeable with this one. The total size of your economy reflects certain opportunities for scale, regardless of your population and/or productivity. If we think about corporations, when you have certain purchasing power, you can extract certain concessions from your vendors regardless of how many employees you have. When you manufacture and ship a certain number of products, you can profitably invest in infrastructure, again regardless of the number of employees you have. I feel that the same argument extends to trade on the scale of countries. Which does not devalue the milestone you describe, just that they have different consequences.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoBut when I think of governments, the largest ones are almost always the most corrupt and inefficient. Compare US to UK. California to Washington (state). EU to formerly more independent nations. In each case the larger state delivers services less effectively, with more waste, arguably more corruption, and more useless nanny state rules.
- raganwald 13y agoI won't take that bait, but I will say that wasteful or not, the US can lean more heavily on its trading partners for concessions, just as whether wasteful or not, giants like WalMart can lean on their trading partners. Size is might, even if it's blundering, wasteful, and inefficient. (Although I am not saying the US is any of those things).
- redwood 13y agoIndeed a major milestone, though more interesting will be when they surpass the EU and US in imports. To some extent being the world's chief importer proffers the most power: because suddenly everyone is dependent on you for what they sell. You become the customer. Once China becomes the "world's customer" the US's power will be severely eroded.
- 11thEarlOfMar 13y agoEven if we discount the accuracy of the published numbers, are the trends correct? What I'd want to understand is: Is China's economic activity growing faster than their population? Wouldn't that indicate rising wages and improving standard of living? Perhaps we'd need to adjust for inflation, but the trade they report is largely with countries where the published inflation rates are more trusted. And I think the experience of US manufacturers, who report rising costs in Chinese manufacturing, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324767004578488233119290670 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732476700... , bears that out. Another consideration, and different topic entirely that I think will play into the trends over the next decade, is what is the ecological cost of this growth, regardless of whether it is 5, 10 or 15%. What I expect over the next 10 years, is a slowing and reversal of 'going to China' for contract manufacturing. That reversal will be accelerated by increasing reports of this same manufacturing decimating China's ecology, and the pollutants seeping across international borders.
- _random_ 13y agoEmpires rise and fall at ever-faster rate.
- notastartup 13y agoChina doesn't exactly have a good track record of integrity and transparency so this article really does not portray the intended shock. People still remember the Air Defense Zone China expanded but how nobody really gave a crap, because as the old Chinese proverb goes, "Empty Wheelbarrow Is Always Loudest"
- iaw 13y agoI agree with your sentiment, but Obama flying a couple B-2's through that zone is the opposite of not giving a crap. There's a lot of concern about their efforts to expand territory and naval dominance in that region.
- notastartup 13y ago> Obama flying a couple B-2's through that zone is the opposite of not giving a crap. It wasn't just America, it was South Korea, Japan which largely ignored it and South Korea ended up expanding their own territory. I would have to agree with the rising naval tension in the region, but the new lines drawn by China is not at all being respected nor will they be expected to unless China is willing to challenge the United States in a direct confrontation.
- iaw 13y agoAgreed. Ultimately it's all bluster unless someone is willing to pose a direct military challenge.
- pjg 13y agoThis is incorrect (not the first time Guardian has published misleading articles ) The headline says "world's largest trading nation" Total trade is the sum of trade in goods and services. China may have become the largest trader in goods but it is sixth largest in services. US is still the largest in trade in services by far and if the sum of trade in goods and services is counted, looks like China will still take few years to pass America. Year 2012: US total trade in services = $1.02T China total trade in services = $0.471T Source: WTO http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres13_e/pr688_e.htm http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres13_e/pr688_e.htm (look at Appendix 2 at the end of the article )