China's (US$8,480) nominal per-capita GDP surpasses Mexico (US$7,993)

[Figaro]

You need to decide once and for all, which economic metrics you are going to use.

Here you use nominal dollars per capita. Fine.

Mexico's currency depreciated in between 2014 and 2016. But the depreciation has stopped! Now nominal dollar GDP is unlikely to decline, since the GDP growth rate is still there.

Apart from that, these are estimate figures. Estimating nominal dollars is very very hard, since it is very hard to predict currency movement. I assume they estimated based on past track record. But that past track record has reversed, since the currency has been appreciating since 2017.

Apart from that, look at actual nominal figures for China in 2015, and 2016.

It declined!

Now will you ask your countryman to stop their constant posting about China adding a trillion or so dollars to its GDP every year?

Start with @AndrewJin

When I brought this to the notice of your fellow compatriots, they started saying that currency movements don't matter.

So finally tell me which metrics you wanna use?



I am honestly asking, would you than accept that China's GDP and economy declined in 2016?

Agreed. The Russian economy nosedived 60 percent in just 2 years because of its currency declines while the actual economic recession was less than 10%. GDP nominal is highly skewed by currency fluctuation, in this case the depreciation of the Chinese Yuan.

You are yet to explain to me how China is adding an India in 3 years?

At GDP at MER, China's economy stagnated or declined in 2016.

At GDP at PPP, China's economy is only around 2.5 times that of India, and both are growing at roughly the same rates.



Look at Martian's own screenshot.

Look at China's GDP per capita in nominal dollars.

It Declined!

While China's population increased.

View attachment 421816


Here it is straight from IMF.

China's GDP declined from 2015 to 2016.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=61&pr.y=4&sy=2014&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924,534&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=



Those speeds of growth that you mentioned are for GDP in domestic currency at constant prices.

However, the metric that people use most often, (specially here to show how China is 5 times that of India's size), is GDP in USD at current prices. (Also called nominal dollars)

In nominal dollar terms, China's GDP actually declined in absolute value in 2016.

I'm still waiting @AndrewJin
Please tell me how China is adding one India every 3 years?

By India, I believe he is referring to nominal terms, because India's economy is around 5-6x smaller than China's. Thus with similar growth rates, it is feasible that China is adding an India every few years ...

 

[karl wang]

You are yet to explain to me how China is adding an India in 3 years?

At GDP at MER, China's economy stagnated or declined in 2016.

At GDP at PPP, China's economy is only around 2.5 times that of India, and both are growing at roughly the same rates.



Look at Martian's own screenshot.

Look at China's GDP per capita in nominal dollars.

It Declined!

While China's population increased.

View attachment 421816


Here it is straight from IMF.

China's GDP declined from 2015 to 2016.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=61&pr.y=4&sy=2014&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=924,534&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=

I guess you think the increasing should be counting by dollors. In 1993, the exchage rate:US:YUAN=4.x:1, then China declared it to 8.x:1. Should we say, China's GDP decreased for 50% in that year?
I think countries may have some statistics method to handle this kind issues. China says the increasing rate is:6.7% in 2015-2016, and the world accepts it. So I think there should be something we don't understand well.
BTW, in 2017, China will follow the statistics agorith as US/India (SNA2016). So you may see China will suddenly increases 7~11% by the method. Sometimes, maybe the GDP is just a game.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Agreed. The Russian economy nosedived 60 percent in just 2 years because of its currency declines while the actual economic recession was less than 10%. GDP nominal is highly skewed by currency fluctuation, in this case the depreciation of the Chinese Yuan.

But they still use GDP at MER for when it fits their purpose. They keep going on and on about how their economy is 5 times in size (which is true in nominal dollar terms), but then use GDP calculations done in domestic currency at constant prices for nominal dollars.

If they want to say that their economy is 5 times that of India's, then they must also say that their economy declined in 2016.

I am not at all the fan of PPP GDP, but it does remove the effects of currency fluctuations.

 

[Martian2]

China's nominal GDP was $6 trillion in 2010. China's GDP was $11.2 trillion in 2016. The growth was $5.2 trillion over 6 years.

That's an average of $2.6 trillion Chinese economic growth over 3 years.

India's nominal GDP was $1.6 trillion in 2010. It was $2.2 trillion in 2016. The average Indian nominal GDP was $1.9 trillion.

China's average economic growth over 3 years ($2.6 trillion) was larger than India's average nominal GDP during the same time period ($1.9 trillion).

To smooth out currency fluctuations for market exchange rates, we simply take the average over a six-year period.

 

[Figaro]

Please explain me how.

China's GDP at MER declined from 2015, to 2016.

You have to look at PPP.

But they still use GDP at MER for when it fits their purpose. They keep going on and on about how their economy is 5 times in size (which is true in nominal dollar terms), but then use GDP calculations done in domestic currency at constant prices for nominal dollars.

If they want to say that their economy is 5 times that of India's, then they must also say that their economy declined in 2016.

I am not at all the fan of PPP GDP, but it does remove the effects of currency fluctuations.

That's why I'm making the argument of GDP nominal. It correctly represents a country's purchasing power and the cost of living, rather than pegging them to the same standards of the United States which is unfair. The only reason why people are so obsessed with nominal is that the US uses it as its indicator because it is the dominant player in the financial markets.

China's nominal GDP was $6 trillion in 2010. In 2016, China's GDP was $11.2 trillion. The growth was $5.2 trillion over 6 years.

That's $2.6 trillion Chinese economic growth over 3 years.

India's nominal GDP was $1.6 trillion in 2010. It was $2.2 trillion in 2016. The average Indian nominal GDP was $1.9 trillion.

China's average economic growth over 3 years ($2.6 trillion) was larger than India's average nominal GDP during the same time period ($1.9 trillion).

And by PPP terms, China's economy doubled from 11 trillion to 24 trillion in just 7 years

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

I guess you think the increasing should be counting by dollors. In 1993, the exchage rate:US:YUAN=4.x:1, then China declared it to 8.x:1. Should we say, China's GDP decreased for 50% in that year?
I think countries may have some statistics method to handle this kind issues. China says the increasing rate is:6.7 in 2015-2016, and the world accepts it. So I think there should be something we don't understand well.

No we understand it VERY well.

The 6.7% increase is in Chinese GDP, when measured in domestic currency at constant prices.

So if you follow that standard and use GDP PPP or GDP domestic currency at constant prices, you can very well say that China's GDP grew 6.7%.

HOWEVER!

Most people here use nominal dollars for everything. They mock India saying that it is a fifth the size of China.

But then if you are saying such things, than you must be consistent.

And that means that China's GDP declined in 2016 using nominal dollar measurements.

 

[karl wang]

No we understand it VERY well.

The 6.7% increase is in Chinese GDP, when measured in domestic currency at constant prices.

So if you follow that standard and use GDP PPP or GDP domestic currency at constant prices, you can very well say that China's GDP grew 6.7%.

HOWEVER!

Most people here use nominal dollars for everything. They mock India saying that it is a fifth the size of China.

But then if you are saying such things, than you must be consistent.

And that means that China's GDP declined in 2016 using nominal dollar measurements.

In 2017, China will follow the statistics algorithm as US/India (SNA2016). So you may see China will suddenly increases 7~11% by the method. Sometimes, the GDP is just a number game. Guess what, In 2017, China's captia GDP will be 1xxxx.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

China's nominal GDP was $6 trillion in 2010. China's GDP was $11.2 trillion in 2016. The growth was $5.2 trillion over 6 years.

That's an average of $2.6 trillion Chinese economic growth over 3 years.

India's nominal GDP was $1.6 trillion in 2010. It was $2.2 trillion in 2016. The average Indian nominal GDP was $1.9 trillion.

China's average economic growth over 3 years ($2.6 trillion) was larger than India's average nominal GDP during the same time period ($1.9 trillion).

To smooth out currency fluctuations for market exchange rates, we simply take the average over a six-year period.

Well that is in the past.

@AndrewJin Specifically says that China IS adding one India every 3 years.

Also, these growth rates, include inflation and currency fluctuations.

 

[karl wang]

Well that is in the past.

@AndrewJin Specifically says that China IS adding one India every 3 years.

Also, these growth rates, include inflation and currency fluctuations.

Theoretically, the GDP is invented for Westnern world, like US. Some virtual economic, like trades in stock market, will create lots GDP. That why U.S.S.R looks extemely weak than US. But it's not the facts.
For example, if the peasants product and consume all by themself, not a single penny will be counted into the GDP.
So USA is not as strong as he looks, and India is not as weak as the GDP number too.

Well that is in the past.

@AndrewJin Specifically says that China IS adding one India every 3 years.

Also, these growth rates, include inflation and currency fluctuations.

It makes sense. In 2016, the exchange rate, US:YUAN changes from 6.2 to 6.6. And our exchange rate seems not full controled by the market.

 

[Figaro]

Theoretically, the GDP is invented for Westnern world, like US. Some virtual economic, like trades in stock market, will create lots GDP. That why U.S.S.R looks extemely weak than US. But it's not the facts.
For example, if the peasants product and consume all by themself, not a single penny will be counted into the GDP.
So USA is not as strong as he looks, and India is not as weak as the GDP number too.


It makes sense. In 2016, the exchange rate, US:YUAN changes from 6.2 to 6.6. And our exchange rate seems not full controled by the market.

No. The GDP nominal standard was invented for the West to use but the PPP is a much fairer comparison across the board.

Well that is in the past.

@AndrewJin Specifically says that China IS adding one India every 3 years.

Also, these growth rates, include inflation and currency fluctuations.

He is not making fun of the Indian economy. What he's trying to say that China's economy was expanding much faster than the Indian economy for the past decade. Even now, while the Indian and Chinese rates are roughly equivalent, the gap is actually widening because of the latter's much larger base. A lack of FDI and little presence in the manufacturing sector has really hurt Indian economic growth ... and Modi's demonetization won't necessarily help its economy in the short to intermediate term.

In 2017, China will follow the statistics algorithm as US/India (SNA2016). So you may see China will suddenly increases 7~11% by the method. Sometimes, the GDP is just a number game. Guess what, In 2017, China's captia GDP will be 1xxxx.

There's no need to argue about whether if China can add India's economy in a given time-span. Both countries know that China's economy is much larger than India's and this will remain the norm for quite a long time (at least in the foreseeable future).

 

[Nike]

In decade much Asian countries will progressed fast enough to leave Latin countries behind. Just look at what Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore doing in past decade and compared with Latin America, they seem got trapped in middle income traps definitely

 

[karl wang]

No. The GDP nominal standard was invented for the West to use but the PPP is a much fairer comparison across the board.


He is not making fun of the Indian economy. What he's trying to say that China's economy was expanding much faster than the Indian economy for the past decade. Even now, while the Indian and Chinese rates are roughly equivalent, the gap is actually widening because of the latter's much larger base. A lack of FDI and little presence in the manufacturing sector has really hurt Indian economic growth ... and Modi's demonetization won't necessarily help its economy in the short to intermediate term.


There's no need to argue about whether if China can add India's economy in a given time-span. Both countries know that China's economy is much larger than India's and this will remain the norm for quite a long time (at least in the foreseeable future).

I agree with you. The PPP is a better criterion to index the living standard.

 

[AndrewJin]

China's nominal GDP was $6 trillion in 2010. China's GDP was $11.2 trillion in 2016. The growth was $5.2 trillion over 6 years.

That's an average of $2.6 trillion Chinese economic growth over 3 years.

India's nominal GDP was $1.6 trillion in 2010. It was $2.2 trillion in 2016. The average Indian nominal GDP was $1.9 trillion.

China's average economic growth over 3 years ($2.6 trillion) was larger than India's average nominal GDP during the same time period ($1.9 trillion).

To smooth out currency fluctuations for market exchange rates, we simply take the average over a six-year period.

According to the recent estimation, to say China is adding an entire Indian GDP every 3 years might be a little bit underestimation.

 

[cirr]

I have it said before and I will say it again: the nominal GDP will reach a princely sum of 16 trillion USD in 2018 if China adopts SNA2008 as planned.

 

[ashok321]

In decade much Asian countries will progressed fast enough to leave Latin countries behind. Just look at what Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore doing in past decade and compared with Latin America, they seem got trapped in middle income traps definitely

Asia has a engine, her name is China. While the South American continent is a train without engine.