China-UK (Britain) Geopolitics and Economics: News & Discussions

[VCheng]

Since Chinese and US technological levels are approximately the same (e.g. both build nuclear reactors, billion-dollar offshore oil platforms, satellites with 54 transponders and 15-year lifespan, stealth fighters, supercomputers, 28nm and below semiconductors, etc.), the level of energy consumption should tell us which is the bigger economy.

Assuming equal efficiency. You should look at the TOE figure for both economies to produce a million dollars of GDP.

 

[cnleio]

Good Luck to China in achieving that goal. Is there a source to this particular projection?

Hummm ... i even don't know it, the data just from foreign economists i didn't read any Chinese news said when China economy can overtake or twice U.S economy, it seems Chinese not care the time inside China we only wish a good future for our family.

So China needs to add 22 trillion dollars to its economy to be twice the US economy in 15 years, assuming that the US economy does not grow at all during this period. Right.

Well ... even China economy or GDP can reach the twice of U.S economy, i think 1.3bil Chinese still have the less per capita GDP compared with American, there's a long way to go & lots of things to do ... not the end !

 

[Martian2]

Assuming equal efficiency. You should look at the TOE figure for both economies to produce a dollar of GDP.

China installs more industrial robots than the US each year.

China also consumes many times more machine tools than the US each year.

I would argue that China is more efficient.

2015 World Machine-Tool Output & Consumption Survey | Gardner Research

 

[VCheng]

Hummm ... i even don't know it, the data just from foreign economists i didn't read any Chinese news said when China economy can overtake or twice U.S economy, it seems Chinese not care the time inside China we only wish a good future for our family.



Well ... even China economy or GDP can reach the twice of U.S economy, i think 1.3bil Chinese still have the less per capita GDP compared with American, there's a long way to go & lots of things to do ... not a end !

I have no doubt that the Chinese will continue to work hard to improve their lives and the economy, but it will take a long time yet for that projection to come true, given the numbers as they stand now. I wish China all the best, of course.

China installs more industrial robots than the US each year.

China also consumes many times more machine tools than the US each year.

I would argue that China is more efficient.

Your argument goes against the data:

GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2011 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) | Data | Table

 

[Martian2]

I have no doubt that the Chinese will continue to work hard to improve their lives and the economy, but it will take a long time yet for that projection to come true, given the numbers as they stand now. I wish China all the best, of course.



Your argument goes against the data:

List of countries by energy intensity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your data is outdated. Your citation is for year 2003.

Check your calendar. Today is year 2015.

 

[VCheng]

Your data is outdated. Your citation is for year 2003.

Check your calendar. Today is year 2015.

I linked more recent data too. Please see my post.

 

[cnleio]

I have no doubt that the Chinese will continue to work hard to improve their lives and the economy, but it will take a long time yet for that projection to come true, given the numbers as they stand now. I wish China all the best, of course.

Sure, future is the tomorrow, we focus on today China.

 

[Martian2]

I linked more recent data too. Please see my post.

I don't know the methodology of your data.

It's just common sense that machine tools and industrial robots are the most efficient force-multipliers for production.

China is the most efficient manufacturer in the world.

The GDP per energy consumption is based on dodgy assumptions about the service sector.

American teachers and truckers are paid 7 times more than a Chinese counterpart.

Does an American teacher teach 7 times more students? No.

Does an American trucker move 7 times more cargo? No.

Does an American train engineer move 7 times more cargo? No.

There is a flaw in measuring service GDP data in comparing the US and China.

Hence, the GDP intensity data per unit of energy is wrong too.

 

[VCheng]

I don't know the methodology of your data.

It's just common sense that machine tools and industrial robots are the most efficient force-multipliers for production.

China is the most efficient manufacturer in the world.

The GDP per energy consumption is based on dodgy assumptions about the service sector.

American teachers and truckers are paid 7 times more than a Chinese counterpart.

Does an American teacher teach 7 times more students? No.

Does an American trucker move 7 times more cargo? No.

Does an American train engineer move 7 times more cargo? No.

There is a flaw in measuring service GDP data in comparing the US and China.

Hence, the GDP intensity data per unit of energy is wrong too.

The figures are from the World Bank, and considered reliable. You can ignore them if you like, but my point stands.

 

[Martian2]

The figures are from the World Bank, and considered reliable. You can ignore them if you like, but my point stands.

No. You just ignored my point about the service sector.

The difference arises purely from the service sector. Your argument is wrong. It doesn't matter if the data is from the World Bank. Garbage data in means garbage data out.

If you accept that an American teacher, trucker, train engineer, babysitter, warehouse worker, etc. is only as efficient as a Chinese counterpart then the energy intensity per unit of GDP between China and the US would be about the same.

Right now, you are only seeing a distortion in the GDP intensity data.

Over the long term, the GDP intensity data will normalize property after the Chinese government stops pegging its currency to the US dollar.

It is the Chinese government's control of the peg that creates the illusion of 7 times higher productivity in the service sector for an American worker.

 

[VCheng]

No. You just ignored my point about the service sector.

The difference arises purely from the service sector. Your argument is wrong. It doesn't matter if the data is from the World Bank. Garbage data in means garbage data out.

Does the service sector count towards GDP or not?

 

[Martian2]

Does the service sector count towards GDP or not?

Yes, but not when it's distorted.

What is the average pay of an American warehouse worker? It's seven times higher than a Chinese counterpart. This is clearly WRONG.

Their productivity is the same. Both use forklifts.

 

[Donatello]

Good Luck to China in achieving that goal. Is there a source to this particular projection?



So China needs to add 22 trillion dollars to its economy to be twice the US economy in 15 years, assuming that the US economy does not grow at all during this period. Right.

Please change your display pic/avatar.....i have a disgusting experience with trypophobia.
Thanks.

 

[VCheng]

Yes, but not when it's distorted.

What is the average pay of an American warehouse worker? It's seven times higher than a Chinese counterpart. This is clearly WRONG.

Wrong? How? Even on a PPP basis, the figures are correct.

Please change your display pic/avatar.....i have a disgusting experience with trypophobia.
Thanks.

Eh? Those are eyes, not holes:

 

[Martian2]

Wrong? How? Even on a PPP basis, the figures are correct.

An American hotel doorsman earns 7 times higher pay than his/her Chinese counterpart.

Both stand in front of the hotel. Their job is the same.

The productivity is the same. You are seeing an illusion in the service sector GDP numbers.
----------

An American taxi cab driver earns 7 times in nominal GDP than his/her Chinese counterpart.

Both drive the same number of passengers per day. They have the same job.

Service sector GDP measurement is CLEARLY FLAWED.