Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

[aaron]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

My immediate reaction is; what a wonderful opportunity for a conventional business to sell good quality at fair prices reflecting a true competitive market price.

In the U.S., most cities require a restaurant to buy and display a health certificate of inspection. You can see them on the wall, usually taped up somewhere behind the register. It means, yes, they paid their taxes. We do not really pay attention to them.

In Beijing and Shanghai, some restaurants take these certificates and frame them and advertise them. It is a competitive advantage to pass inspection.

<<<<<<< WE PASS INSPECTION >>>>>>>>>

It did not really make me want to eat there, but I could understand the thought behind it.

I tended to doubt some of the extreme examples that touchring brings up, but now I understand. It really is unlivable in China.

This is probably why so many Chinese buy real estate in Canada and the United States. You cannot live the "good life" there. I am sad because they are keeping the property prices high and I want to buy a house. But, I now fully understand the reasons for the influx. It is a trend that we should keep an eye on.

I think everybody in those cities I visited are trying to make fast money and get the hell out. It might explain the general unhappiness (beijing) I observed.

[c1ue]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

The problem in China is pollution severely impacting on standards of living and gross misallocation of resources for the profit of the officialdom and elites, otherwise the standard of living in China is the range of a middle income country, at least for the China less Xinjiang and Tibet and maybe Yunnan.

Anyone game for a $250,000 bed? This company sells thousands of pieces of such grossly overpriced furniture a month in China. China is poor?

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90...4/7447599.html

Again, you conflate anecdote with reality.

There could be 1,000 billionaires in China - that would only increase the overall per capita wealth of China $770.

There are buyers of parvenu crap anywhere and everywhere in the world. Mugabe probably has one.

BFD.

[aaron]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

c1ue, have you been to China recently? If not, you must. It is a real eye-opener. touchring speaks much truth, in my opinion.

Again, you conflate anecdote with reality.

Be nice. He provided an anecdote with a funny dancing symbol.

Wikipedia lists PPP GDP numbers. China is pretty close to the United States at this point. They have 4 times the population, approximately.

So, you can say that per capita they have 1/4th the United States money.

However,

They do not pay mortgages and credit interest. (yeah, that is changing)
They do not pay for huge amounts for healthcare.
They do not pay huge amounts to the world policing operations.
They do not pay for environmental regulations.

So, how poor are the people, really?

They get to keep more of their labor than Western countries do. Instead of a wasteful American lifestyle, they would have: A small car instead of an SUV. Instead of the big 3000 square foot McMansion, they get a 1500 square foot one. Instead of throwing away part of their dinner, they never waste anything. They turn the lights off religiously.

You see, their lifestyle, on average, should be pretty darn good even if they make 25% of an American. They keep twice as much of their labor and waste 90% less resources. They live in half the space and drive a smaller car. With fewer kids, it is still not bad.

As a nation, they have the second largest economy on the planet. China is not poor. If distributed equitably, the Chinese people would not be poor either. They almost already have the money for a semi-American lifestyle -> I am not saying it is possible, but the "money" is there.

[c1ue]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

c1ue, have you been to China recently? If not, you must. It is a real eye-opener. touchring speaks much truth, in my opinion.

Conflating what you see in Shanghai or Beijing with what life is like in the rest of China is like comparing New York and San Francisco with the rest of the US, only in the US the difference between Wichita Falls and New York is about 3x while the difference between Shanghai and say Wuhai is more like 10x.

Have you been somewhere besides the big city?

Besides having been in China literally dozens of times starting in 1984, my most recent experiences were through a very close friend of mine who was teaching English in Heiyuan - some 50 miles from Shenzhen, epicenter of the China economic miracle.

The anecdotes I speak of come from his personal experiences, and are consistent with what I hear from those whom I know who still live there.

Wikipedia lists PPP GDP numbers. China is pretty close to the United States at this point. They have 4 times the population, approximately.

So, you can say that per capita they have 1/4th the United States money.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. In the wiki nominal GDP per capita list, there are 183 countries.

China is #93, flanked by Angola, Tunisia, Macedonia, and Ecuador.

Are you seriously trying to say that China is not poor? If so, then none of these nations are poor.

The 20th nation on that list, Iceland, has more than 9x the GDP per capita. The US has 11x.

You're going to have to do a lot better to illustrate your point.

However,

They do not pay mortgages and credit interest. (yeah, that is changing)
They do not pay for huge amounts for healthcare.
They do not pay huge amounts to the world policing operations.
They do not pay for environmental regulations.

So, how poor are the people, really?

Almost everything you say above applies to every other 1st and 2nd world nation with the possible exception of the UK and the PIIGS. Irrelevant.

They get to keep more of their labor than Western countries do. Instead of a wasteful American lifestyle, they would have: A small car instead of an SUV. Instead of the big 3000 square foot McMansion, they get a 1500 square foot one. Instead of throwing away part of their dinner, they never waste anything. They turn the lights off religiously.

Goodness, your idea of China is clearly prejudiced by the view of the upper middle class you saw.

The average Chinese doesn't have a car.

Again from wiki - as of 2008 there were only 128 cars per 1000 Chinese. Sure, this number has increased but it hasn't increased anywhere even close to the 450+ per 1000 which exists in the top 20 nations.

The average Chinese doesn't live in a 1500 square foot home.

The average rural farm size is 0.32 acres = 1690 square feet: http://areweb.berkeley.edu/~dwrh/Docs/DRH_Update_0504.pdf

I very much doubt the average living domicile on the 1690 square foot farm plot is all that large.

Given that the rural/urban ratio in China over 2 to 1 in 1997, and is probably at least 1.5 to 1 now, I greatly doubt the average house size in China is anywhere close to 1500 square feet.

You see, their lifestyle, on average, should be pretty darn good even if they make 25% of an American. They keep twice as much of their labor and waste 90% less resources. They live in half the space and drive a smaller car. With fewer kids, it is still not bad.

As a nation, they have the second largest economy on the planet. China is not poor. If distributed equitably, the Chinese people would not be poor either. They almost already have the money for a semi-American lifestyle -> I am not saying it is possible, but the "money" is there.

You've put forward a bunch of numbers which I've already shown cannot be representative of the nation as a whole for house size or car ownership.

Provide some proof of the "twice labor" comment.

As for size of economy - you still haven't answered my point: while China's GDP may be similar to the US', each person still has to eat.

Chinese spend over 40% of their incomes on food:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err32/err32b.pdf

In contrast, the US spends 13% of spending on food and 10% overall.

If the ratios hold true throughout - China thus spends $6.3T of its GDP on food while the US spends $1.47T

Size does matter in both positive and negative ways, but to say China isn't poor and Chinese have a similar lifestyle to Americans is purely ridiculous.

[aaron]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

I absolutely did not say that they have a similar lifestyle. I am saying, by the numbers, they COULD have a good lifestyle. They obviously do not, as you say.

This is what I believe touchring is talking about.

Well, why don't they?

I agree to an extent it is is because the wealth is tied up in bad places and wasted. (the details do not matter right now).

But, I get it. I understand. There are MANY poor Chinese people. I am saying by the NUMBERS, they theoretically could be living a similar lifestyle --> half the house size, maybe only one, tiny car.

Since they are not, where the hell is all the money?

[touchring]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

I am sad because they are keeping the property prices high and I want to buy a house. But, I now fully understand the reasons for the influx. It is a trend that we should keep an eye on.

I think everybody in those cities I visited are trying to make fast money and get the hell out. It might explain the general unhappiness (beijing) I observed.

I call this the 'ponzi city' model, not unlike the Dubai model, but x1000 since China is bigger.

Build the tallest building, the biggest mall. Sell the glory of cities, more people rush into them, property prices soar. The higher the price, the more people will rush into them. A big portion of economic growth in China is powered by that instead of exports.

The general unhappiness will turn to hate once the ponzi blows.

As a nation, they have the second largest economy on the planet. China is not poor. If distributed equitably, the Chinese people would not be poor either. They almost already have the money for a semi-American lifestyle -> I am not saying it is possible, but the "money" is there.

The American lifestyle is the exception rather than the norm due to huge resources and expanse of land. I believe the Brits or the Germans don't live an American lifestyle either. China will have to take over Siberia and probably India (and chase out the natives) in order to achieve the American standard of living.

[touchring]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

Since they are not, where the hell is all the money?

A lot of money is held by the communist party. The Chinese communist party is the most powerful commercial organization in the world.

[touchring]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

Again, you conflate anecdote with reality.

There could be 1,000 billionaires in China - that would only increase the overall per capita wealth of China $770.

There are buyers of parvenu crap anywhere and everywhere in the world. Mugabe probably has one.

BFD.

As far as I'm concerned, China makes high tech goods, is industrialized, has trillions in foreign reserves, and is therefore a wealthy nation. If China cannot distribute wealth more equally, that is China's own problem.

The world deals with China and not the Chinese people.

There's a Chinese saying, 办猪吃老虎, which translates "play the pig to eat the tiger".

http://hktv.cc/cd/hanyupinyin/?q=%E6...80%81%E8%99%8E

[c1ue]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

I absolutely did not say that they have a similar lifestyle. I am saying, by the numbers, they COULD have a good lifestyle. They obviously do not, as you say.

This is what I believe touchring is talking about.

Well, why don't they?

I agree to an extent it is is because the wealth is tied up in bad places and wasted. (the details do not matter right now).

Certainly there is a lot of money 'wasted' in the sense of oligarchs, political and otherwise.

However, it is far from clear to me that most of the income is 'wasted' in this sense. The oligarchs and what not primarily derive their income from land/housing/exports. Only the latter has that much to do with the J6P Chinese, and that is in the form of jobs and urbanization.

The annual GDP income per capita is being used to buy food, clothes, education, cell phone/internet, etc etc. What is left over is largely saved.

That's the downside to having a gigantic population.

Other vast sums are being spent to build power plants, roads, railroads, water treatment, electrical/natural gas/water/waste/sewage infrastructure, schools/universities, hospitals, the list goes on and on.

Whatever the nominal annual income differences, the first world countries also have literally 5 decades of infrastructure spending already invested.

As far as I'm concerned, China makes high tech goods, is industrialized and is therefore a wealthy nation. That China cannot distribute wealth more equally is China's own problem. The world DOES NOT owe them.

Clearly you cannot understand the differences between disposable income and income.

You clearly also are not comprehending the scale of 1.3 billion people rising from a high 3rd world status to a mid 2nd world status, and the vast gap that still exists from the present to 1st world.

[touchring]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

You clearly also are not comprehending the scale of 1.3 billion people rising from a high 3rd world status to a mid 2nd world status, and the vast gap that still exists from the present to 1st world.

So what?

The world doesn't owe the 1.3 billion people a living.

China is already an economic superpower and has great political and economic influence, and in the world of commerce, this is all that matters. The world deals with the Chinese government.

There's a Chinese saying, 办猪吃老虎, which translates "play the pig to eat the tiger". This strategy won't work for much longer.

http://hktv.cc/cd/hanyupinyin/?q=%E6...80%81%E8%99%8E

[Southernguy]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

I havenīt read in this thread a single mention about history. The Chinese invented gunpowder, paper, and paper money.
They have a milenary history. Their development was thwarted by occidental imperialism. In 1959 they became independant again.
Now they are developing.
You can never compare China with Dubai. China makes THINGS. They surely have a lot of rapid development problems.
And of course, they have their own robber barons. But they are on a steady course.
They are frugal, thrifty and are creating an infrastructure which is necessary for full development.
They are a creditor nation.
You shall see their goods increase in quality to reach first grade status. Just wait a bit.
They have many engineers (didnīt have time to check numbers), and a good educational system. They are, therefore, creating the most important type of capital, that is human capital.
Some other poster made a mistake: average farm is 0,47 hectares (as per quote) which is 4700 sqare meters, thatīs about 47 000 sq. feet.
Maybe they have one severe capitalistic crisis soon. But that wonīt stop then. Hystoricaly they are on the way of development and becoming a fist class power.

[c1ue]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

So what?

The world doesn't owe the 1.3 billion people a living.

China is already an economic superpower and has great political and economic influence, and in the world of commerce, this is all that matters. The world deals with the Chinese government.

There's a Chinese saying, 办猪吃老虎, which translates "play the pig to eat the tiger". This strategy won't work for much longer.

http://hktv.cc/cd/hanyupinyin/?q=%E6...80%81%E8%99%8E

You certainly want to think so.

But as Libya has demonstrated, China's ability to project influence is still quite poor.

It is also a mistake to think that all of the nations surrounding China: Russia, Japan, India, Vietnam, Thailand, etc etc are all so happy about a resurgent China, especially in this era where transport has made the various deserts and mountain ranges a much lesser obstacle.

Some other poster made a mistake: average farm is 0,47 hectares (as per quote) which is 4700 sqare meters, thatīs about 47 000 sq. feet.

Please post your reference, because the link I posted specifically says:

Many of China’s rural policy challenges stem from existing land and demographic conditions. Sixty percent of China’s population currently resides in rural areas, 312.6 million of whom were officially registered as “farm laborers” in 2003. Average farm size in China is roughly 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres) per household, dipping to 0.04 hectares in Guangdong Province.

[jpatter666]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

I havenīt read in this thread a single mention about history. The Chinese invented gunpowder, paper, and paper money.
They have a milenary history. Their development was thwarted by occidental imperialism. In 1959 they became independant again.
Now they are developing.
You can never compare China with Dubai. China makes THINGS. They surely have a lot of rapid development problems.
And of course, they have their own robber barons. But they are on a steady course.
They are frugal, thrifty and are creating an infrastructure which is necessary for full development.
They are a creditor nation.
You shall see their goods increase in quality to reach first grade status. Just wait a bit.
They have many engineers (didnīt have time to check numbers), and a good educational system. They are, therefore, creating the most important type of capital, that is human capital.
Some other poster made a mistake: average farm is 0,47 hectares (as per quote) which is 4700 sqare meters, thatīs about 47 000 sq. feet.
Maybe they have one severe capitalistic crisis soon. But that wonīt stop then. Hystoricaly they are on the way of development and becoming a fist class power.

Because history back that far is often (but admittedly not always) irrelevant -- otherwise Greece and Italy and Egypt would be superpowers, yes? ;-)

It's interesting from a *recent* comparison (last 100 years or so) to look at China. I'd say the disparity between rich and poor now is greater than it was before the revolution.

I wonder how the Party explained *that* during the 90-year anniversary.....

Personally, I don't think China was ever truly Communist. Mao IMHO had more in comparison to the first Qin emperor than any communist. Anyone hear ever read Mao: The Untold Story? That author IMO definitely had an axe to grind but if even a quarter of the allegations were true....geez.....

[touchring]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

Because history back that far is often (but admittedly not always) irrelevant -- otherwise Greece and Italy and Egypt would be superpowers, yes? ;-)

There is a difference, the Greece, Italy and Egypt or Persian empires are no more, but China is still intact and has in fact gained Tibet and Xinjiang over the last 300 years. Yes the expansion in the recent 150 years has been checked by European imperialism but other than one small island Hong Kong and a tiny island Macau a little bit earlier, the empire is still intact.

This was China before the Manchus subjugated Tibet and Uighur Xinjiang. As you can see, China was very much smaller before the Manchurian dynasty.

China has almost an impeccable record as an empire, the only blight spot is Vietnam, Vietnam was absorbed into China 2000 years ago but managed to break free before being completely sinolized. You can still see traces of Chinese rule in Vietnam, a Confucian based culture, a language based on Chinese characters, Chinese surnames, Chinese architecture in traditional buildings, they celebrate Chinese New Year and also use the Chinese horoscope.



http://www.artsmia.org/art-of-asia/h...ynasty-map.cfm

[FondoFinder]

Re: Train wreck is no surprise to me, trains wreck all the time, but what happens next is really nuts.

Five Days Later, Chinese Concede Design Flaw Had Role in Wreck.