45 Trillion Reasons Why China Can't Challenge America’s Economic Might

[anon45]

you clearly have never visited the chinese side of the internet.

Nothing you've said here refutes what I said. China is not the world.

That said I'm sure your domestic discourse has just as much 'whining' on all sorts of topics as exists in the US (as long as the party leaders do not disapprove).

 

[tranquilium]

Nothing you've said here refutes what I said. China is not the world.

That said I'm sure your domestic discourse has just as much 'whining' on all sorts of topics as exists in the US (as long as the party leaders do not disapprove).

Nah, Chinese are pretty open to a wide range of topics. Also remember, 1/4 of the internet users on this planet are Chinese. I would say the Chinese side of the internet are pretty huge.

In fact, take a look at this:
Top Ten Internet Languages - World Internet Statistics

Not to mention there are people like me who went to both English and Chinese sites and I can say Chinese sites have rather good discourse. Far better than Western sources in a lot of areas, such neutral as political views in Middle East, South America. In fact, if you are trying to see some of the more pressing social problems in the western world, you are far better served on a Chinese site than a English site.

The reason is simple-----Both English and Chinese sites are subjected to domestic political pressure. Hence why English sites are not going to touch a lot of problems in the western world with a ten feet pole. English sites are also obligated (due to national pride, reader opinon, etc, very reasonable decisions) to down play or outright ignore achievements by "rivaling" nations. It is also required due to political correctness to ignore a lot of brutality committed by the western world.

Now, the Chinese sites are not anymore political neutral or impartial than English sites, however, the advantage of reading both Chinese and English sites is that you get the views from both side and by analyzing the data from both side, it is much easier to see the real picture.

One thing I will say though, the Chinese language is a heck a lot better language for writing literary work than English.

 

[Tiger Genie]

"Private wealth" yes, because in China the largest corporations are owned by the Government.

But still it is hilarious, America is so far ahead yet they are crying and bitching constantly.

Russia is bombing IS? Oh no America are you going to cry again?

Absolutely disgusting. The guy with all the power crying constantly.

it is not crying or whining. Simply lot less jingoistic than many others.

 

[anon45]

Nah, Chinese are pretty open to a wide range of topics. Also remember, 1/4 of the internet users on this planet are Chinese. I would say the Chinese side of the internet are pretty huge.

In fact, take a look at this:
Top Ten Internet Languages - World Internet Statistics

Not to mention there are people like me who went to both English and Chinese sites and I can say Chinese sites have rather good discourse. Far better than Western sources in a lot of areas, such neutral as political views in Middle East, South America. In fact, if you are trying to see some of the more pressing social problems in the western world, you are far better served on a Chinese site than a English site.

The reason is simple-----Both English and Chinese sites are subjected to domestic political pressure. Hence why English sites are not going to touch a lot of problems in the western world with a ten feet pole. English sites are also obligated (due to national pride, reader opinion, etc, very reasonable decisions) to down play or outright ignore achievements by "rivaling" nations. It is also required due to political correctness to ignore a lot of brutality committed by the western world.

Now, the Chinese sites are not anymore political neutral or impartial than English sites, however, the advantage of reading both Chinese and English sites is that you get the views from both side and by analyzing the data from both side, it is much easier to see the real picture.

One thing I will say though, the Chinese language is a heck a lot better language for writing literary work than English.

Again, while I agree with much of your post, it is missing my point. By the nature of the internet and the actions of both governments in regard to it, China's image, to the outside world, is by default more controlled than the US.

A rather interesting statistic for example...

Usage Statistics of Content Languages for Websites, October 2015

Otherwise I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm not actually in the mood to get into a long discussion on this topic. You can have the last words if you so desire.

 

[tranquilium]

Again, while I agree with much of your post, it is missing my point. By the nature of the internet and the actions of both governments in regard to it, China's image, to the outside world, is by default more controlled than the US.

A rather interesting statistic for example...

Usage Statistics of Content Languages for Websites, October 2015

Otherwise I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm not actually in the mood to get into a long discussion on this topic. You can have the last words if you so desire.

Website based numbers has a problem in this analysis----the fundamental principle of internet is a pool of information contributed by users. Basically, 1 single site contributed by 10 users is generally more informative (whether it is right or not is another story) by say, 5 sites contributed by 5 users. Basically, users are the source of information, hence why picked user number instead of site number.

Well, opinion is a opinion. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. Just saying though, I have seen both side of the web and I can tell the supposed "more discourse" on the English side is rather lacking.

I also don't buy much into the how "image" thing. I am born in the mid 80s and I was old enough when the lingering presence of cold war is still around. The supposed international image at various places can shift as quickly as a few years----mostly depending on political interests at the time. Hence why I don't give much care to it.

 

[mike jones]

I agree China is a business man , why would they do something negative against their biggest consumer ?

However china do have right to protect their own national interest at Sea / Islands and other areas close to their own land

its natural impulse

Some of the most happiest consumers of Chinese products are of course Americans , and similarly some American products like Apple or thet Gopro camera are quite popular in China

Wrong.

"However china do have right to protect their own national interest at Sea / Islands and other areas close to their own land

its natural impulse"

That means India has the right to take your land.

I don't know if you are trolling or just idiotic. Everything you said is not all true.

 

[applesauce]

Nothing you've said here refutes what I said. China is not the world.

kindly point out where i ever said or even alluded that china is "the world"?

you cant because i never said such a thing.

you said "American discourse is more open to the world than China's. You tend to hear American society stream of consciousness while China controls its publicly available discourse."

the reason i said you've never been on the chinese side of the internet is because if you had at all, you would quickly realize that the reason you think the US discourse is more open to the world is because you can't read chinese so of course the chinese public blurbs on the internet is opaque to you(and many others). in fact the chinese internet is quite open about everything and yes it has its fair share of trolls too. the government tries to censor some stuff but discussion is rarely touched unless people start posting sensitive pictures(think new planes with serials numbers on em) or calling for mass gatherings of some kind.

That said I'm sure your domestic discourse has just as much 'whining' on all sorts of topics as exists in the US (as long as the party leaders do not disapprove).

yes there are plenty of everyday whinings, people all over aren't so different.
but you idea of chinese government censorship(for the record i am against non-national-security censorship) seems to be off. many western people think chinese citizens can't say a single bad thing about its government without getting censored or worst arrested. the reality is quite different, people gripe all the time.

 

[baqai]

one also might want to check that how much of that American might have Chinese stakes in one way or the other

 

[zeronet]

You are mistaking this graph for that of income. This is wealth, not income, or capital flows. Many of those people in the far left of low wealth in North America would be students who are in net debt, yet their standard of living is far better than what many people can imagine.

I don't think I mistake anything. Every country has students, China has, India also has, I don't think the students are rich group in any country no matter what. That is not an effect excuse. Move over, pls notice that the left bottom approximately accounts for around 1/4 of US population, if the assumption that the world has much more poor population on the left of the figure than the rich people on the right, is correct, then 1/4 US people on the bottom left is the low limit number. U don't have that many students in ur country on loan, right? However, the truth is, the income data on the figure is normalized to PPP. In china's case, 1USD=3.66 RMB yuan in PPP normalization, and india has much more PPP advantage than China. This means in real world when calculated in real nominal rate, if you keep China's position unchanged in that figure, USA's spectrum should be moved on right direction, while Indian's should be moved toward left.

All those are not important though. The most important thing is the shape of the spectrum of wealth distribution for any country. u definitely don't want a shape like a Pyramid, u definitely want a shape like a Pyramid Upside Down.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

I don't think I mistake anything. Every country has students, China has, India also has, I don't think the students are rich group in any country no matter what. That is not an effect excuse. Move over, pls notice that the left bottom approximately accounts for around 1/4 of US population, if the assumption that the world has much more poor population on the left of the figure than the rich people on the right, is correct, then 1/4 US people on the bottom left is the low limit number. U don't have that many students in ur country on loan, right? However, the truth is, the income data on the figure is normalized to PPP. In china's case, 1USD=3.66 RMB yuan in PPP normalization, and india has much more PPP advantage than China. This means in real world when calculated in real nominal rate, if you keep China's position unchanged in that figure, USA's spectrum should be moved on right direction, while Indian's should be moved toward left.

All those are not important though. The most important thing is the shape of the spectrum of wealth distribution for any country. u definitely don't want a shape like a Pyramid, u definitely want a shape like a Pyramid Upside Down.

The left hand side is composed of people who have either nothing in wealth, or negative wealth.

In US many people, apart from students can have negative wealth.

I don't think I mistake anything. Every country has students, China has, India also has, I don't think the students are rich group in any country no matter what. That is not an effect excuse. Move over, pls notice that the left bottom approximately accounts for around 1/4 of US population, if the assumption that the world has much more poor population on the left of the figure than the rich people on the right, is correct, then 1/4 US people on the bottom left is the low limit number. U don't have that many students in ur country on loan, right? However, the truth is, the income data on the figure is normalized to PPP. In china's case, 1USD=3.66 RMB yuan in PPP normalization, and india has much more PPP advantage than China. This means in real world when calculated in real nominal rate, if you keep China's position unchanged in that figure, USA's spectrum should be moved on right direction, while Indian's should be moved toward left.

All those are not important though. The most important thing is the shape of the spectrum of wealth distribution for any country. u definitely don't want a shape like a Pyramid, u definitely want a shape like a Pyramid Upside Down.

The best way to measure income inequality is Gini Coefficient.

 

[zeronet]

The left hand side is composed of people who have either nothing in wealth, or negative wealth.

In US many people, apart from students can have negative wealth.



The best way to measure income inequality is Gini Coefficient.

In ur country maybe it is, but in China it is definitely not. Why? because Gini Coefficient only considers the income data while ignore the properties that already owned by people. there is an income discrepancy between urban and country population in China, but don't forget that China's country dwellers usually have huge properties not included in GINI calculation: Land/House. Those country dwellers, accounting for 45%~50% of China total population, occupy most of China land, which is now the most precious properties in the nation. If u are one of those country dwellers, u have the right to get a piece of land for FREE to build ur house, meaning the cost to own a single family house like the firgure shown below in China's country area may be only 10~20 thousand USD.

And it is so normal to hear that a peasant got millions of compensation in cash because his land/house was purchased by the nation for building some infra like roads or rails or any other things. for China's urban guys, when u earn 1500 USD a month but pay half of it to ur house mortgage for tens of yrs, while a country guy earning 800USD/month but owning a mortgage-free single family house, do u think the GINI coefficient in this case make much sense at all?

That's why once you calculate the NET wealth, when all properties and debt are included, like Credit Suisse did this time, China will have a totally different spectrum of wealth distribution, opposite to what media kept telling us before. You can judge by yourself which one reflects more reality on how Chinese people live.