Interesting...thanks. But it sounds to be that the P2P lending and borrowing market was a small, if lucrative segment for a few entrepreneurs to exploit (the 18% interest rate versus the regular banking 3% as one example). Also sounded as if the larger State controlled banks are now tightening up on the rules for this market and trying to make more lending available to the people from the larger State controlled banks. To me, that would be one indication of a renewed emphasis on a transition from a national economy focused on trade surpluses to one more focused on internal domestic growth. That would not necessarily mean more U.S. imports, but rather an acceleration of Chinese sponsored domestic growth, and a step away from a reliance on international capital investment, no? Rising credit card debt might be another sign that it is time for China to turn inward and away from its trade surplus focus regarding growth.
lucrative? are you kidding me... did you watch the video... sports stadiums full of people have lost their money... how is that lucrative. They protested but were quickly brought to heel in a way only the Chinese can. The peer to peer lending is for people who cannot get a loan to borrow money to repay their already unserviceable debt... no one by the way knows exactly how big the shadow banking sector is, last year estimates was around Y12 trillion.. High-profile defaults highlight risk in China’s shadow-banking sector amid asset deterioration https://www.scmp.com/business/banki...defaults-highlight-risk-chinas-shadow-banking The shadow banking sector have been shrinking.. however that doesn't really mean much considering how big it is....or rather how big it is estimated to be... since like its name suggest it operates in the shadows. China's economy is contracting... decelerating... AND GDP have been inflated... so likely closer to 2-3% growth rather than the 6-6.5% garbage they feed you.
China's trade surplus alone is nearly 4%. More than that if you would like to make their GDP smaller.
for the millionth time... China's GDP data is fake... the real figure is unknown.... their debt is astronomical and Trump is working that trade surplus http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ed-economy-work.561303/page-2#post-1071016230
Not disagreeing with you on your last point. But, I would expect them to take a hit on their transition from an economy based on trade surpluses, to a domestic economy based on consumption. The question is not necessarily who is getting hurt, but who gets hurt least? I have a simple test...once they throw Shelton Adelson out of his casinos, we will know they are ready to play ball on their own, without dependence on the West. Obviously the People to People lending and borrowing and loosely regulated "shadow banking" sector (sound familiar...we have them as well...front line mortgage lenders and pay day lenders) isn't working as promised...if people are rioting about losing their money. IMO, I would expect the government to step in, just as we've done in the past, from the Great Depression to the Savings and Loan scandal to our last recession.
Your not listening. So I'll ask you again in a different way. How much do you think the China trade surplus with the world is? What do you think their GDP is? Let me get you started.
Ron.. I just told you their GDP is fake and no one really knows what it is... and what do you do.... you post GDP data can you see why that's a problem?
I'm waiting for you to tell me what the real one is. Read first and post second. I ask because it's a trick question so be careful with your answer.
I honestly don't know Ron... and anyone who tells me they can put an exact figure on it is lying, it's at least a third less than what is stated and if you insist on a figure I have given my wild estimate earlier in a thread at 2-3%
Well, I think it's higher. So there. But really just do the math on China's trade imbalance and the GDP you think is to high and you will see it's more than 2 or 3%. 400 billion divided by 14 trillion is 3%. That is without any personal consumption, business investment or government investment. I see 6% easy.
I have heard different figures bandied about 10%, 20% the first link you give puts it at 30% which seems at the high end of the envelope. But even using 30%. If their stated Growth rate is 6% and this figure is inflated by 30% - their actual GDP Growth is 4.2% - which is double what ours is.
One of the best measures is their Current Account Balance...which includes all transfers, trade, foreign investment, etc. Our most recent measure was a negative $250 billion; theirs a plus $47 billion (approximate figures).
No their actual is not 4.2% because you say so Besides GDP is a shocking measure for a healthy economy... and China's are particularly ill.
I used your number - a number which is at the low end of the spectrum. If you do not agree with the numbers that you post .. What can I tell you.
The current account balance is a wider measure than trade by itself and includes virtually all foreign transactions. I would consider it a measure of economic strength. GDP in itself doesn't show much. In terms of economic strength, it's usually cited in its ratio to national debt. Also, emerging economies tend to grow at a faster rate than more established advanced economies - ergo the comparison of a high Chinese growth rate against a low U.S. growth rate is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges.
I agree that GDP Growth can be misleading - and is certainly not the only - or necessarily the best - indicator of economic strength. Many experts use Purchasing Power - which is one indicator that is better than GDP growth. Current account has problems that are similar to using GDP -Growth. For example - what number does CAB - use for China's export of Iphones to the US ? It is either manufacturing cost or purchase price - likely manufacturing cost. Either way this number is highly misleading as the value add to China from the 400 dollar manufacturing cost of an Iphone is 3%. Compare to a soy bean where the value add to the US is well over 90%. Comparing straight numbers - as Trump has done - is then a huge apples to oranges comparison.
Really... and my number had all the data from all the local provinces who have been fudging their data.... amazing
That was one province... one province admitted they overstated by 30% but by how much the others overstated is unknown. For example I recall reading an article where an official admit to changing negatives to positives. -30% becomes 30%... if caught out he will simply say it's a clerical error... the exact overstatement is difficult to determine
they export 500 bill to us and import 150 bill from us. I rather be the buyer than the seller in a trade dispute.
As stated previously - I have looked into this question myself - https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ne-years-study-finds/articleshow/68330636.cms The article goes on to state the factors you cite - The number in this study is slightly lower than the number calculated from using the 30% -overestimation figure- given in your link but still in the same range. Call it a 1.5-2% over estimate of GDP growth. Whether we go on the high end .. or the low end .. Chinese GDP is growing at a rate that is faster than ours.
Depends - When 250 Billion of that number is consumer electronics - with a value add to china of something like 3% (using the Iphone as an example) vs a Soybean where the value add is 95% - the raw numbers take on a different meaning.
