Australia predicts China passes US by 2015

[The Smoking Man]

Source: China boom sets our course

AUSTRALIA'S economy is set to ride a wave of prosperity enjoyed by China, which is about to overtake the US as the driving force of the world's economic growth.

China's massive economy is expected to expand by more than 10 per cent over the next decade, the biggest economic expansion the world has seen.

Its already phenomenal growth will increase to even higher levels as market reforms, high savings and a vast pool of surplus labour combine.

The China-led boom in demand and prices for a broad sweep of commodities underpinned a 90 per cent profit increase reported yesterday by BHP Billiton for the year to June.

The company's profit of $8.51 billion smashed the previous record in Australia, also held by the resources giant.

BHP chief executive Chip Goodyear said China was now the company's biggest customer, overtaking Japan.

He believed China would "remain a large and sustainable consumer of raw materials and resources over the coming decades".

...

For 25 years, China has averaged growth of 9.5 per cent a year, easily the highest in the world, and increased its share of global output from 3.2 to 13.6 per cent. If the forecasts are right, it will overtake the US within a decade to become the world's biggest economy.

Mr Huang said China still has up to 250 million surplus workers in agriculture, and is already investing 45 per cent of its GDP (compared to 25 per cent in Australia). But he said that could rise even higher, as it gradually shifts from investing in low-yield US Treasury bonds to more rewarding investments at home.

CHINA GROWTH ENGINE OF THE WORLD

China's output
1980: $US420bn ($A556 bn)
2005: $US8092bn.
China is now the world's second-largest economy, twice the size of Japan.

China as per cent of world output
1980: 3.2%
2005: 13.6%
Last year China generated a quarter of the world's economic growth, more than the US.

China's average growth rate
1980-2005: 9.5%.
2005-15: (forecast) 10%-plus.
On current trends, China will over take the US by 2015 to become the world's largest economy.

Australian exports to China/Hong Kong
1982-83: $983 million.
2004-05: $15,672 million.
One in every eight export dollars we earn comes from China and revenue is growing at 24 per cent a year.

 

[Townsend]

Good...I wish China was already the worlds biggest economy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Good...I wish China was already the worlds biggest economy.

Keep voting republican then.

Four more wars! ... Four more Wars! ... Should just about bankrupt you.

 

[Townsend]

Keep voting republican then.

Four more wars! ... Four more Wars! ... Should just about bankrupt you.

Good...then all that wealth in China will disappear and it will send the world in a massive economic recession. Of course since China will have the worlds biggest GDP it will be up them to pay for the recovery and growth of the US economy. It would be nice to have someone else work to pay taxes and help me out for once. I could buy a new car and put a down payment on a house for all the money I have paid in taxes so far...of course now that I am a full time student I could use some free money too. Too bad I managed to keep a savings account for my college years...

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

How does strengthening corporate rights protect your liberties?

If more liberty and less taxes is what you want you should vote libertarian.

 

[Skyhunter]

All the indicators point to China becoming the next world power.

Now I understand the strategy of using all the oil up as fast as we can to limit their access to cheap energy.

They don't waste their wealth on expensive military programs either. Instead they have cost effective counter measures to all our advanced weapon systems.

What will happen when they stop buying T-bills?

 

[DM]

Let's hope no further encumbrances emerge. Textile exports proved to be a massive blow for the Chinese.

 

[loseyourname]

With over a billion people, all that land mass, and one of the world's highest national IQs, it's about damn time.

 

[Lisa!]

With over a billion people, all that land mass, and one of the world's highest national IQs, it's about damn time.

Highest national IQ?

 

[loseyourname]

Highest national IQ?

. . . one of the . . . highest . . .

1234567890

 

[Lisa!]

That's great. So The Smoking Man should hold a party by now.

1234567890

Sorry I misread your post, but could you please tell me about the other countries with high IQs?

 

[Astronuc]

What will happen when they stop buying T-bills?

Interest rates will increase to attract capital.

Mortgage rates will increase - including adjustable rate mortgages, which will lead to 1) fewer people able to afford houses, which will cause 2) over-valued real estate prices to drop, and 3) more homes will go into foreclosure.

(The long term concern for #2 is that aggregate debt in the US could exceed the ability to pay the debt.)

Business profits will decrease as debt burden increases.

Unemployment will increase.

Perhaps a deflationary recession?

There is also a concern about further revaluation of the Yuan, which would have the same effect. If OPEC countries start sell oil in Euros instead of dollars, watch out!

Good reason to pull capital out of the US, which some folk have been doing quietly for a while.

 

[HiPPiE]

Very interesting! Does anyone have the corresponding US statistics to those for China?

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

Not your liberties... maybe more of your money though. Believe it or not, however, opposing systems actually wouldn't take your money and burn it, or run off to Patagonia with it. They'd redistribute it, use it for the general public, social works, etc. They'd have more control of economic dealings in the country, but I don't know why that would bother anyone, given we can vote and make sure the money is used in good ways, but oh well, that's the basic ideology conflict.

By the way, China is still officially communist, although I admit they've pulled back an enormous amount. I think they do make the point that individualist economy with a lot of freedom to exploit, speculate, etc. is not good on the long term, while a more general, national outlook is ultimately profitable.

 

[Astronuc]

China is still officially communist

Officially yes, but I am not sure what that means.

It would seem China is more like a large corporation, and the Communist Party is the management team, and the highest level officials are like the Board of Directors.

Well, that also seems like the old Imperial order, but the Emperor is replaced by the Chairman of the Communist Party. That doesn't seem like anything like 'communism' as Marx or others envisioned it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Let's hope no further encumbrances emerge. Textile exports proved to be a massive blow for the Chinese.

I'm not sure if people are understanding what is going on here.

Maybe this article will http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050825/wl_asia_afp/chinaeutradetextilesclothing :

BEIJING (AFP) - Negotiations between the European Union and China over Beijing's booming textile exports are got under way, delegates to the talks said.

"They (the negotiators) are basically trying to discuss strategies on dealing with the situation of blocked goods in Europe," an EU delegation spokesman told AFP.

"They are exchanging ideas and information on possible strategies of dealing with the situation of blocked goods in Europe."

No time limits on the talks had been set and discussions could carry over into Friday, if necessary, he said.

The EU is under fierce pressure from fashion importers and European retailers to review quotas agreed with China in June after seven out of 10 textile categories covered by the import restrictions were filled.

Millions of dollars in clothing items shipped to Europe in excess of their quotas have been blocked by customs officials -- to the anger of European retailers anxious to fill their shelves ahead of the winter season.

This includes some 48 million sweaters, 17 million pairs of trousers and nearly 500,000 blouses, according to the latest figures cited by the French trade ministry.

In addition to this, 1.6 million T-shirts, 3.4 million bras and 1,470 tonnes of flax yarn are also being kept back because they exceed the quotas.

"We now need a pragmatic solution that deals with the immediate overshoot and with goodwill on all sides, we can do this," EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson said in a statement issued in Brussels.

It is not the Chinese who are suffering. It is the people who have IMPORTED the goods. It is up to an importer to ensure the goods they order are 'cleared'.

(And yes that is the same Peter Mendelson responsible for the 'Dodgy Dossier' in the UK)

 

[Townsend]

How does strengthening corporate rights protect your liberties?

If more liberty and less taxes is what you want you should vote libertarian.

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

 

[Skyhunter]

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

Since you are the only constant in the equation, perhaps it is what you say not how we interpret it.

I was simply inferring that voting Republican was voting to strengthen corporate rights. Not suggesting that is what you meant.

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

And from this statement you seem to be most concerned with personal liberty and less taxes, which are the major themes of the Libertarian party.

I don't know if you vote Republican or not, I was just responding to what you wrote.

 

[Smurf]

Mortgage rates will increase - including adjustable rate mortgages, which will lead to 1) fewer people able to afford houses, which will cause 2) over-valued real estate prices to drop, and 3) more homes will go into foreclosure.

Short-Term wise this might seem like a good thing due to the spike of real estate prices because of the Home-Improvement fab recently (at least in Canada it is)

 

[Townsend]

I was simply inferring that voting Republican was voting to strengthen corporate rights. Not suggesting that is what you meant.

Don't try and backpedal dude...You were not merely responding to what I said you were in fact suggesting that I was going to vote republican. If you did not make any assumptions then what the hell are you doing telling me to vote libertarian when based on what I said I think it is pretty clear that I plan on doing just that. It is like If I told you, you should vote democratic...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't try and backpedal dude...You were not merely responding to what I said you were in fact suggesting that I was going to vote republican. If you did not make any assumptions then what the hell are you doing telling me to vote libertarian when based on what I said I think it is pretty clear that I plan on doing just that. It is like If I told you, you should vote democratic...

Did I just walk into a Monty Python Sketch?

Reduced to it's bare essentials this debate just got reduced to ...

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.

Townsend, do you truly understand, ad hominem?

 

[Townsend]

Did I just walk into a Monty Python Sketch?

Reduced to it's bare essentials this debate just got reduced to ...

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.

Townsend, do you truly understand, ad hominem?

What is clear here is that you do not...

 

[The Smoking Man]

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

Chances are, when that many flies observe the steaming pile ... their assessment is usually correct.

 

[Townsend]

Chances are, when that many flies observe the steaming pile ... their assessment is usually correct.

So since Bush won the election he must have been the best choice? I mean, that is the logic you are employing here...or are you capable of understanding the concept of analogous relationships?

If anyone here is making a logical fallacy it is you can it is called argumentum ad populum. And after what you just said there really is no way out of it...

 

[Skyhunter]

Keep voting republican then.

Four more wars! ... Four more Wars! ... Should just about bankrupt you.

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

Ok from this exchange I assumed you were going to vote republican. I admit I made an erroneous assumption.

Since you didn't state otherwise though can you see where one might assume that?

And from your argument I thought you should vote Libertarian, not knowing any better I wanted to suggest it to you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So since Bush won the election he must have been the best choice? I mean, that is the logic you are employing here...or are you capable of understanding the concept of analogous relationships?

If anyone here is making a logical fallacy it is you can it is called argumentum ad populum. And after what you just said there really is no way out of it...

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Freud

If you believe you are capable of expressing your thoughts clearly and concisely, how is it that every few posts you condemn all the other posters in general for their inability to understand what you meant?

So ... I guess it is you who keeps expressing the argumentum ad populum and I was just expressing an alternate perception.

eg.

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

 

[Townsend]

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Freud

If you believe you are capable of expressing your thoughts clearly and concisely, how is it that every few posts you condemn all the other posters in general for their inability to understand what you meant?

So ... I guess it is you who keeps expressing the argumentum ad populum and I was just expressing an alternate perception.

eg.

you make as much sense as a soup sandwich...there is no way I made an any kind of appeal to such a logical fallacy and you CLEARLY and undeniably did just that. Face it dude...you were schooled!

 

[The Smoking Man]

you make as much sense as a soup sandwich...there is no way I made an any kind of appeal to such a logical fallacy and you CLEARLY and undeniably did just that. Face it dude...you were schooled!

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Townsend]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

I don't say so, the defintion of the fallacy argumentum ad populum says so.

In logic, an appeal to belief (also called the appeal to the majority or the argumentum ad populum) is a logical fallacy that is committed when someone asserts that a proposition should be held to be true, or more plausible, merely because it is widely believed.

Which is precisely what the following is:

Chances are, when that many flies observe the steaming pile ... their assessment is usually correct.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't say so, the defintion of the fallacy argumentum ad populum says so.



Which is precisely what the following is:

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

 

[Townsend]

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

I am explaining something to you that you seem to be either unable to understand or unwilling to accept ...that is not what I would call an argument, TSM, would you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am explaining something to you that you seem to be either unable to understand or unwilling to accept ...that is not what I would call an argument, TSM, would you?

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Townsend]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

I don't say so and it is not my logic, it is the definition and I am only showing you how it applies to what you said...why don't quit acting like a kid and stop saying "I bow to your logic." When you know full well that that statement is in it self a ridiculous statement and makes no sense. Or perhaps you don't realize that and I have been giving to far too much credit...

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't say so and it is not my logic, it is the definition and I am only showing you how it applies to what you said...why don't quit acting like a kid and stop saying "I bow to your logic." When you know full well that that statement is in it self a ridiculous statement and makes no sense. Or perhaps you don't realize that and I have been giving to far too much credit...

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

 

[Townsend]

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

No one...I am have just made the mistake of wasting my time trying to explain a simple concept to a broken record.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No one...I am have just made the mistake of wasting my time trying to explain a simple concept to a broken record.

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.