What's new

China’s Economic Empire

Defending even when the best you have is practices abandoned years ago.

Your reading comprehension matches your intellectual bankruptcy.

The Forbes article is dated July 16, 2012.

The Europeans have been lying for decades, and Washington ain't buying it.

most trade experts probably think that if Washington is going to get into a trade war anytime soon, it will be with Beijing. Well guess again. The Obama Administration has been systematically building the case for major trade sanctions against Europe

P.S. The discussion is not about national debt -- perhaps you don't understand the topic -- but about economic imperialism around the world.
 
.
Not quite, more like article states the opposite. I guess you haven't read the full piece.

On the contrary, the whole premise of the article is Chinese economic imperialism [sic] globally. The first two paragraphs repeatedly talk about global domination and Chinese encroachment on traditionally Western enclaves. Thw words global and world are mentioned over and over.

The article is not about what China is doing in Western countries, but around the world.

It states as fact that this is what the west claims.

It also states that China is moving in because these countries can't get loans from Western backed sources.
 
.
Your reading comprehension matches your intellectual bankruptcy.

The Forbes article is dated July 16, 2012.

The Europeans have been lying for decades, and Washington ain't buying it.

Your intellectual bankrupcy is here for all to see when you quote one line from a wall of text with sources, links, graphs. Laughable. But hey, just like the your new masters with the red flag you can't really debate once the evidence mounts up. If you would be intellectually honest (fool's hope on my part i know) you would go through the links i provided and be able to see subsidizing is made on a much grander scale in China. But anyway...you see what you want to see, as evident from your quote.

But let me help you (again):

On their conservative calculations, China spent over $300 billion, in nominal terms, on the biggest SOEs between 1985 and 2005

key words squirt: up to 2005. In 2009 there came a trillion $ stimulus. :omghaha:

China’s economy
Perverse advantage


By contrast, the WTO said in December that Airbus received $18 billion in subsidies from European governments.

Boeing, Airbus subsidy battle settled by WTO ruling - Mar. 12, 2012

So, yea squirt. In case math isn't your strong attribute, 300 billion is more then 18 billion.
 
.
In case math isn't your strong attribute, 300 billion is more then 18 billion.

18 billion is for just one European company.
300 billion is total for Chinese industry.

Once we start adding all the other European subsidies, the figures will add up. If you are going to add "stimulus" packages, the figures will go through the roof for all countries.

That's why Washington is focusing on Europe's unfair business practices just as much as, if not more than, on China's.

Boeing, Airbus subsidy battle settled by WTO ruling - Mar. 12, 2012

I don't know about you, but in the real world July comes after March -- even in 2012. YOU claimed that the Airbus subsidies had ceased "years ago", which shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
 
.
@Developereo

On the contrary, the whole premise of the article is Chinese economic imperialism [sic] globally. The first two paragraphs repeatedly talk about global domination and Chinese encroachment on traditionally Western enclaves. Thw words global and world are mentioned over and over.

Yes, the article's main point is as you said. But since we (me and you) were not debating the main point of the article (or China at all)...
You said the article claimed something which it didn't, that the west favors human rights above foreign policy, which is untrue.
When citing words without context it's obvious how one may reach the wrong conclusions...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
18 billion is for just one European company.
300 billion is total for Chinese industry.

Once we start adding all the other European subsidies, the figures will add up. If you are going to add "stimulus" packages, the figures will go through the roof for all countries.

I don't know about you, but in the real world July comes after March -- even in 2012. YOU claimed that the Airbus subsidies had ceased "years ago", which shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Start adding it up then. Go ahead. We'll see how high you get. Btw, in the real world "up to 2005" also means that anything after that is excluded. Also, in Europe stimulus was not used to subsidize companies, but it was to prevent banks from crashing from all the bad loans.
Remember this phrase-bad loans, we will debate it quite a bit more in future China related threads.

That's why Washington is focusing on Europe's unfair business practices just as much as, if not more than, on China's.

Yep, that's why they slapped import duties on Chinese solar panels manufacturers and now the EU is mulling the same. How many European companies you heard of with that being imposed on them? Airbus even has a factory in the USA and iirc a 20% market stake.

I don't know about you, but in the real world July comes after March -- even in 2012. YOU claimed that the Airbus subsidies had ceased "years ago", which shows you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I went with info from the Financial Times article. I was wrong, no problem. Even if i was wrong the scales are not comparable. Now you're just grasping at straws so you can keep some sort of upper hand (lol)....
 
.
But since we (me and you) were not debating the main point of the article (or China at all)...

I believe the main point IS that there is a battle for global economic influence and that the West is shackled by concerns of human rights and fairness. The final paragraph sums up the thesis of the article. That claim is ridiculous, given the West's history and current practices.

Western governments are very mindful of human rights and fairness domestically, but that is not so when dealing with other countries, especially poor countries.
 
.
No one argued to the contrary (though I don't necessarily agree). You statement is simply irrelevant to the subject, which is the economy of China at this time, and how it compares to current Western economies.

Why aren't you instead debunking the claims? or explaining that such measures are necessary (if they are in your eyes).

Anyone who suggests that China is actually practicing slavery is either trolling or a propagandist.

I suggest he should be banned.
 
.
I'm just going to put it here for your pleasure ;)

How Chinese Subsidies Changed the World

Last week, LDK Solar, a struggling Chinese manufacturer of solar wafers and panels, announced that it had missed $24 million in bond payments. This news followed the bankruptcy in March of Wuxi Suntech, the main operating subsidiary of the world's largest maker of solar panels, after it defaulted on a $541 million bond payment.

It is no coincidence that this upheaval in the Chinese solar industry is occurring at a time when the central government's subsidies that had financed the industry's explosive expansion have declined even as problems in the global solar-panel market have soared.

Since 2008, through government subsidies, the manufacturing capacity of China's solar-panel industry grew tenfold, leading to a vast global oversupply. A surge in exports of Chinese panels depressed world prices by 75%. In 2012, China's top six solar companies had debt ratios of over 80%. Our research showed that without subsidies, these companies would be bankrupt. If the Chinese government sticks to its decision to stop funding unprofitable solar-panel manufacturers and support a revamping of the industry, more bankruptcies and restructurings are sure to follow.

While it is encouraging to see the Chinese government rethinking its support of the solar-panel industry, it would be foolish to interpret this move as a reversal of its overarching policy of aggressively subsidizing targeted industries in order to dominate global markets.

A Rise Fueled by Subsidies

For the past five years, we have examined how China swiftly moved from being a global bit player and net importer to the world's largest manufacturer and exporter in capital-intensive industries where it had no labor-cost advantage. We witnessed industrialized countries become exporters of commodities and scrap to China. In 2000, labor-intensive products constituted 37% of all Chinese exports; by 2010, this fell to 14%.

In parallel, from 2004 to 2011, U.S. imports of technologically-advanced products from China grew by 16.5% percent annually, while similar U.S. exports increased by only 11%. In 2011, the U.S. imported 560% more technologically-advanced products from China than it exported to that country. Meanwhile, the annual U.S. trade surplus with China in scrap and waste grew from $715 million in 2000 to $8.4 billion in 2010.

Government subsidies to produce technologically advanced products and undercut foreign manufacturers have buttressed China's trade prowess. Since 2000, the value of Chinese exports more than quadrupled. In 2009, China surpassed Germany to become the world's largest exporter. In 2010, it overtook Japan to become the second-largest manufacturer, and its foreign-exchange reserves became the largest in the world. Last year, China overtook the U.S. to become the biggest trading nation (as measured by the sum of goods exported and imported).

In the Chinese industries we studied — solar, steel, glass, paper, and auto parts — labor was between 2% and 7% of production costs, and imported raw materials and energy accounted for most costs. Production mostly came from small companies that possessed no scale economies. Yet, Chinese products routinely sold for 25% to 30% less than those from the U.S. or European Union.

We found that Chinese companies could do this only because of subsidies they received from China's central and provincial governments. The subsidies took the form of free or low-cost loans; artificially cheap raw materials, components, energy, and land; and support for R&D and technology acquisitions.

Since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization, subsidies have annually financed over 20% of the expansion of the country's manufacturing capacity. The state has willingly paid the price of economic inefficiency to accomplish political, social, economic, and diplomatic goals. Huge Chinese subsidies have led to massive excess global capacity, increased exports, and depressed worldwide prices, and have hollowed out other countries' industrial bases.

Case Examples: Steel and Paper

Take steel. In 2000, China was a net importer of steel with 13% of world imports and 16% of global output. By 2007, it had become the world's largest producer, consumer, and exporter of steel. Tellingly, energy subsidies to Chinese steel totaled $27 billion from 2000 to 2007. Today, China produces half the world's steel. Even though its highly fragmented industry has no scale economies or technological edge, Chinese steel sells for 25% less than U.S. and European steel.

Similarly, $33 billion in subsidies from 2002 to 2009 helped China triple paper production and overtake the U.S. to become the world's largest paper producer. This is despite the fact that its industry has no scale economies, is geographically fragmented, and the country has one of the smallest amounts of forest in the world per capita. Even though its industry has to import vast amounts of pulp and recycled paper (mostly from the U.S.), Chinese paper sells at a substantial discount to U.S. and European paper.

Other Nations Must Fight Back

Some have argued that Chinese subsidies help consumers by keeping prices low. Our research leads us to conclude that like other monopolies, Chinese companies will raise prices as international competition retreats.

Because of massive Chinese subsidies to several industries, no free trade exists and markets have failed. To survive, U.S. and European companies must seek government support to open Chinese markets and to protect themselves from subsidized products domestically. And national governments and trade blocs must heed these calls. If they don't significantly increase pressure on Chinese governments and businesses, the devastation that Chinese subsidies have wreaked on other countries' economies will continue.

blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/how_chinese_subsidies_changed.html

I would like the discussion regarding Chinese subsidies vs EU/USA subsidies to continue, I want to learn more on the subject. To be honest I have read many many articles regarding the Chinese high subsidies all across the Chinese economy, while I know of significantly fewer examples of significant EU/USA subsidies. All the while I am reading more western media.
Since it seems like high subsidies is an official Chinese economical strategy(?). It wouldn't be surprising if they were higher (relatively, EU and USA are still economically larger, or even in absolute values?).
There is nothing automatically wrong with that, most countries have some or other kind of subsidiary. Being the best at this doesn't make China wrong or evil.
 
.
Start adding it up then. Go ahead. We'll see how high you get.

Your numbers don't differentiate between local and export oriented subsidies.

I don't have a handy table because subsidies are divided across the eurozone, but the numbers for German car subsidy ($5 billion/yr), biofeul subsidies ($10 billion/y), etc. add up.

Just the transportation sector alone enjoyed subsidies $240 billion/year in Europe and $695 billion/yr in the US.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...#v=onepage&q=europe subsidies billion&f=false

btw, in the real world "up to 2005" also means that anything after that is excluded.

YOU came up with the 2005 limit. The article doesn't impose any such restriction.

How many European companies you heard of with that being imposed on them?

I guess you must not be into wine and cheese, or you would have heard about the trade wars between the EU and US over subsidies.

Even if i was wrong the scales are not comparable. Now you're just grasping at straws so you can keep some sort of upper hand (lol)....

It's not about upper hand, but the intellectual dishonesty to claim that, when European countries do something, it is a "stimulus package", but when China does it, it amounts to a subsidy.
 
.
@Developereo

I believe the main point IS that there is a battle for global economic influence and that the West is shackled by concerns of human rights and fairness. The final paragraph sums up the thesis of the article. That claim is ridiculous, given the West's history and current practices.

Western governments are very mindful of human rights and fairness domestically, but that is not so when dealing with other countries, especially poor countries.

Are you suffering from an inability to read what doesn't work for you? I have addressed all this already in post #14, I suggest you reread it.

I believe the main point IS that there is a battle for global economic influence and that the West is shackled by concerns of human rights and fairness. The final paragraph sums up the thesis of the article.

On the contrary, the final paragraph states that the west adherence to Human rights and fairness is it's strength (economically against China via a union, go back to #14 for the whole deal).

They must not think shortsightedly. Giving up on our commitment to human rights [...] will hurt Western countries in the long term.

How does that mean that (according to the article) Human rights work against the West? are you trolling?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
We found that Chinese companies could do this only because of subsidies they received from China's central and provincial governments. The subsidies took the form of free or low-cost loans; artificially cheap raw materials, components, energy, and land; and support for R&D and technology acquisitions.

ALL of these subsidies exist in the West for specific industries.
 
.
Anyone who suggests that China is actually practicing slavery is either trolling or a propagandist.

You have quoted a text that does not have the word slavery in it, nor any hint at that. Can you please provide a link where I said China runs slavery?

Even if someone said something like that, and even if it's wrong (I don't know), if we ban every person who has said something wrong in the forum it will soon be empty.
 
.
I have addressed all this already in post #14, I suggest you reread it.

You have addressed zilch.

You ignored 90% of the article, which is about the non-Western world, and are basing you claims on a couple of examples in Western countries. Unions complain all the time about labor conditions, including against Western bosses; that's what they literally get paid to do.

Once again, the article is not about what China is doing in the West; it is about the battle for economic influence around the world, and the article claims that the West is "hampered" by concerns of human rights and fairness.
 
.
@Developereo

ALL of these subsidies exist in the West for specific industries.

I don't have full information, but for the sake of the argument I'll assume you do. 5% subsidiary is not the same as 20% wouldn't you agree? I have not argued that the west does not practice subsidiaries, I am just curious to compare the extent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom