wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,273
You'll never know.
You'll never know.LOL, I thought you were a subscriber
Didn't say it was, you're the one who is insisting that it is by using PPP.Originally Posted by Whiskers
GDP isn't about comparing living standards!?
For what it's worth, I have stated on other threads that I believe decoupling will happen. However it is still way too early. Despite the oft repeated platitudes of China rapidly modernising, China's economy is more export dependent on the US and Europe than it has ever been. I have posted the evidence previously in this thread.
2007 GDP estimates in $US
USA 13.5 trillion
China 3.1 trillion
India 1.0 trillion
Argument and debate is the lifeblood of a democracy, the more of it, the more healthy a society.
You don't need an international standard. You can use US dollars, yen or any other currency , you don't need to invent one.
Yes, acknowledged above that the Chinese currency is undervalued, I said 50% undervalued, ithatheekret says 43%. Also take into consideration previous statements that China may have overstated it's economic numbers by up to 40%. Even if we gross China's GDP up by 50% we get $4.5 trillion roughly a third of the US.
As above, you'll still be able to use $US or any other currency, that's the beauty of having exchange rates.
Bottom line, China's economy is currently;
to not be affected by a significant US slowdown.
- too small
- too financially fragile
- too export dependent
A washington post-abc poll shows eight out of ten Americans see the economy as either "not so good" or "poor". Six out of ten see the US economy already in recession, the other four being economists/bankers..
Cheers
.........Kauri
A washington post-abc poll shows eight out of ten Americans see the economy as either "not so good" or "poor". Six out of ten see the US economy already in recession, the other four being economists/bankers..
????? whatever.As I recall you raised the issue of GDP from my comment to Bushman post that decoupling is progressing.
To a point. Arguement and debate are intrinsictly confrontational. When it starts to get 'barbs', it is distructional. Thats why dialogue is more productice.
It's not an issue of currency... it's an issue of more equitable measurement and comparrison. While there are the currency valuation anomonoly's you mention below an existing currency will never work properly to reflect the true wealth and influence in the world.
Two points:
- Agree Chinas numbers may be a bit rubbery... but since we were talking decoupling from the US, other issues come into play such as the rate of growth and future potential.
- Why just gross up Chinese GDP for one year. If you gross it up from when the US first claimed it was 'undervalued' the amplication would give a much greater number GDP.
The point being if you use the $US as the barometer, then you must also take into account that they say the Chinese currency has been undervalued for years otherwise by definition the US actually places more value on the Chinese economy than the exchange rate reflects.
The problem is that exchange rates are not set uniformly or equitably. Even the US is now using monetry policy allegedly sacrificing their exchange rate to recover their economy, which many claim is stuffed and fundamently flawed anyway.
- Too small; not if you measure the way most do.
- Too financially fragile; that sounds more applicable to the US. Argueably in stagflation from short sighted fixes to try to keep it no 1.
- Too export dependent; it seems to me that the US is hurting more in the trade war than China is or is likely too. Also you are assuming that Chinese imports will suffer in proportion to the recession.
What if Americans start penny pinching and actually buy just as much Chinese cheaper products and forego more dearer local products which I think is more likely to happen.
Which brings us back to the 1/3 1/4 numbers that I mentioned I heard somewhere. I haven't done the maths yet but is it possible that some economist or agency has recalculated those GDP's to account for the US subprime crisis. I would think Investment, Consumption and Government spending, not to mention exports and imports will have different values.
Another infected by the insidious political correctness disease. Read some Socrates.
And a fictional one does?
Do I really need to point out why the above in bold doesn't make sense? Have a think about it.
This is another common fallacy. The Chinese make a lot of high end goods as well as cheap ones. What do you call a $200 pair of Nike's?
????
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- One of the last sources of ready cash for homeowners looking to get money from their house appears to be shutting down and the results aren't likely to be pretty for the economy.
Last week, buried deep in the ugly details of Countrywide Financial Corp.'s (CFC, Fortune 500) earnings release, was the news that its $32.4 billion portfolio of prime HELOCs - home equity lines of credit - had begun to rapidly deteriorate. The reeling Calabasas, Ca.-lender was forced to take a $704 million charge related to homeowners' inability to pay back equity they extracted from their homes.
Probably the most important thing about Socrates is his work in establishing the practice of philosophical dialogue.
Think of it like a seasonal adjusted number... like in some economic numbers.
Try me, I'm interested in your perception.
Sure they do, but the operative point is that China makes them cheaper than the US, so the Walmart's etc have much more scope to discount their retail prices to maintain market volume and share when consumer spending becomes tighter.
So say's Jim Rogers...........
"Bernanke is printing huge amounts of money. He's out of control and the Fed is out of control. We are probably going to have one of the worst recessions we've had since the Second World War. It's not a good scene."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/news/international/okeefe_rogers.fortune/index.htm
Back to my research on Kondratieff!
http://www.kwaves.com/kond_overview.htm
This is one area where I think Jim Rogers has it wrong. The US money supply has barely moved in 2 years. Noone is printing huge amounts of money. Temporary repos used for liquiditiy purposes are just that, temporary, they are not permanent injections of new money or increases in the money supply.
Maybe, but when will we know if these 'temporary' repo's become permanent 'grants', or if they get paid back at all? Bernanke is on record that he would deluge with fiat to prime the system - who really knows what's going on behind the scenes, as they aproach the abyss (Gordon Browns supposed comments).
ISM Services Index Fell to 41.9 in January From 54.4
By Shobhana Chandra
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. service industries unexpectedly contracted in January as the housing slump deepened and consumer spending cooled.
The Institute for Supply Management's non-manufacturing index, which reflects almost 90 percent of the economy, fell to 41.9, the lowest since October 2001, from 54.4 the prior month, the Tempe, Arizona-based ISM said. A reading of 50 is the dividing line between growth and contraction. The group also issued a new composite measure.
More blood letting
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. service industries unexpectedly contracted in January as the housing slump deepened and consumer spending cooled.
What cracks me up is reading this word all the time
Seriously, no one expected it to rise did they, or even remain unchanged ?
Why is everything so unexpected in the current climate, didnt our survival as a species depend on expecting the unexpected, seems now people dont even expect the most likely, have we evolved into lesser beings ?
/rant off
Lacker stressed that a recession was not his central forecast. Instead, he projected "sluggish growth for at least half a year before a gradual firming begins."
However, "I can also see the possibility of a mild recession, similar to the last two we have experienced -- in other words, shallow and with a slow recovery," Lacker said.
"What I don't expect is a more severe recession, like those we saw in 1982 or 1974," Lacker said.
-Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?