Firmer currency and solid growth means China could pass $10,000 per capita GDP in 2019

[nang2]

For many of those companies, it is not private assets.

Many large companies in China are SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises). Other companies have funding from SOEs, the central/regional government, or state banks.

Those are not private assets.

You cannot own land in China. You can only lease land from the government.

Every company office and manufacturing plant are earning money based on leased government land, which is a national asset.
----------

Let's look at the success of Baidu. The Chinese government blocks Google. Isn't part of Baidu's success attributed to the Chinese government? Thus, isn't Baidu's profits not entirely private?

How about Alibaba? The Chinese government makes life difficult for Amazon in China. Alibaba has no foreign competition in China. Isn't part of Alibaba's success attributed to the Chinese government?

How about Chinese carmakers? China has high tariffs on foreign car imports. Aren't the profits from "private" Chinese car manufacturers attributable to the Chinese government's policies?

The Chinese government provides low interest loans for large oversea projects. Aren't those "private" Chinese construction companies benefiting from low-interest Chinese government financing and export credit guarantees?

Aren't most of China's corporate profits attributable to the Chinese government in one way or another? If that is the case, what "private assets" are you talking about?

I guess then there is no private asset in China. not because people don't want private asset, but because Chinese government sticks its nose into every Chinese private business and then claim their assets cannot be private because of the government's involvement or influence. ain't that convenient?

 

[Martian2]

I guess then there is no private asset in China. not because people don't want private asset, but because Chinese government sticks its nose into every Chinese private business and then claim their assets cannot be private because of the government's involvement or influence. ain't that convenient?

The Chinese government is responsible for the success of the majority of Chinese companies.

Without the Chinese government's policies and interventions, most of the Chinese companies would have been flattened by US multinationals a long time ago.

Thus, it is irresponsible for Chinese companies to waste large amounts of money to purchase "frivolous" overseas assets. Foreign sports teams or music companies (like Dick Clark Productions) do not warrant wasting precious hard-earned foreign currency.

It is logical for Chinese companies to obtain government approval before they move money offshore in so-called "investments" that are really just wealth transfers to put the money beyond the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. This kind of disguised bite-the-hand that feeds you behavior should not be tolerated.

 

[nang2]

The Chinese government is responsible for the success of the majority of Chinese companies.

Without the Chinese government's policies and interventions, most of the Chinese companies would have been flattened by US multinationals a long time ago.

Thus, it is irresponsible for Chinese companies to waste large amounts of money to purchase "frivolous" overseas assets. Foreign sports teams or music companies (like Dick Clark Productions) do not warrant wasting precious hard-earned foreign currency.

It is logical for Chinese companies to obtain government approval before they move money offshore in so-called "investments" that are really just wealth transfers to put the money beyond the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. This kind of disguised bite-the-hand that feeds you behavior should not be tolerated.

It is illogical. If Chinese government is responsible for a Chinese company's success, then it should have owned a big chunk of the asset. I doubt Chinese government is doing charity work to commercial companies. The part of the asset that is due to Chinese government because of its role in the success cannot be moved out without the owner's (Chinese government) approval. But what Chinese government is doing is to control everything, including the asset it played no role in its acquisition and contributed nothing.

 

[Martian2]

It is illogical. If Chinese government is responsible for a Chinese company's success, then it should have owned a big chunk of the asset. I doubt Chinese government is doing charity work to commercial companies. The part of the asset that is due to Chinese government because of its role in the success cannot be moved out without the owner's (Chinese government) approval. But what Chinese government is doing is to control everything, including the asset it played no role in its acquisition and contributed nothing.

Your claim is absurd.

The Chinese government's objective is to provide employment for Chinese citizens.

The Chinese government cannot own part of every company, because the US has prohibitions against state-owned enterprises that try to export to the United States.

Where Chinese companies are focused mainly on the domestic market (such as State Grid), the Chinese government owns the company outright.

For companies like Huawei, Lenovo, Sany, etc., the Chinese government can only provide favorable internal market conditions. The Chinese government cannot own part of Huawei, Lenovo, Sany, etc., because these companies sell to many overseas customers.

Thus, China has a hybrid system. Large companies that do not export are owned by the government. Companies that do rely on exports have to be in "private" hands, but the government will do everything it can to ensure their success.

The Chinese government's goal is not to "control everything." The Chinese government enacted the new currency controls to address the problem of financial abuse by some "private" companies.

 

[nang2]

Your claim is absurd.

The Chinese government's objective is to provide employment for Chinese citizens.

The Chinese government cannot own part of every company, because the US has prohibitions against state-owned enterprises that try to export to the United States.

Where Chinese companies are focused mainly on the domestic market (such as State Grid), the Chinese government owns the company outright.

For companies like Huawei, Lenovo, Sany, etc., the Chinese government can only provide favorable internal market conditions. The Chinese government cannot own part of Huawei, Lenovo, Sany, etc., because these companies sell to many overseas customers.

Thus, China has a hybrid system. Large companies that do not export are owned by the government. Companies that do rely on exports have to be in "private" hands, but the government will do everything it can to ensure their success.

The Chinese government's goal is not to "control everything." The Chinese government enacted the new currency controls to address the problem of financial abuse by some "private" companies.

whatever responsibility Chinese government has, it is paid by tax money produced by Chinese private people. That is the fundamental reason why it cannot own asset while it also ensure private company's success. Just like a doctor can help ensure you are health enough to work, but has no claim on your earnings other than what you paid him.

The true reason for Chinese government to control capital outflow is because of the massive M2 more money expansion over years. It can be largely absorbed in the past by fast economic growth. But slower growth exposed its negative impact. businessmen know it well and often act quickly. Chinese government knows it well, too, but want to bear it out, instead of allowing market to correct it.

 

[Martian2]

whatever responsibility Chinese government has, it is paid by tax money produced by Chinese private people. That is the fundamental reason why it cannot own asset while it also ensure private company's success. Just like a doctor can help ensure you are health enough to work, but has no claim on your earnings other than what you paid him.

The true reason for Chinese government to control capital outflow is because of the massive M2 more money expansion over years. It can be largely absorbed in the past by fast economic growth. But slower growth exposed its negative impact. businessmen know it well and often act quickly. Chinese government knows it well, too, but want to bear it out, instead of allowing market to correct it.

You're a free marketeer and you want the Chinese government to allow as much capital outflow as the market desires.

You're dreaming.

Some Chinese companies were abusing the financial system and engaged in money laundering. They're basically moving billions of dollars out of China to shield it from the reach of the Chinese government.

The Chinese government put a stop to it.

The story is that simple. It has nothing to do with money supply or the free market.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

You're a free marketeer and you want the Chinese government to allow as much capital outflow as the market desires.

You're dreaming.

Some Chinese companies were abusing the financial system and engaged in money laundering. They're basically moving billions of dollars out of China to shield it from the reach of the Chinese government.

The Chinese government put a stop to it.

The story is that simple. It has nothing to do with money supply or the free market.

I wouldn't waste my time. He bought the US "muh free market" thing hook, line, and sinker. What these types never seem to get is that the US was every bit as mercantile and interventionist when it was developing -- it built its wealth in exactly the same way China's building its wealth now.

The US began to decay and rot when the government weakened and prostituted itself to corporations.

 

[Martian2]

I wouldn't waste my time. He bought the US "muh free market" thing hook, line, and sinker. What these types never seem to get is that the US was every bit as mercantile and interventionist when it was developing -- it built its wealth in exactly the same way China's building its wealth now.

The US began to decay and rot when the government weakened and prostituted itself to corporations.

The United States government intervenes just as much as the Chinese government.

The US government pumped hundred of billions of dollars into the economy through multiple rounds of Quantitative Easing.

The US government provided rescue funds to General Motors, Ford, AIG, and many others to prevent their bankruptcy during the financial crisis of 2007.

To claim that the Chinese government should have an unfettered free market is totally ridiculous. The US does not practice a totally unregulated free market.

New financial regulations (such as China's restricted capital outflow rules) and interventions (such as near-zero US interest rates) are commonplace in both the Chinese and US economies.

 

[TaiShang]

I wouldn't waste my time. He bought the US "muh free market" thing hook, line, and sinker. What these types never seem to get is that the US was every bit as mercantile and interventionist when it was developing -- it built its wealth in exactly the same way China's building its wealth now.

The US began to decay and rot when the government weakened and prostituted itself to corporations.

US has been the world's one of the worst mercantilists, in fact, and this from the very early, and includes heavy protection of their energy companies from the 1930s against European competition.

They became free-marketers only when they knew they had the ultimate monopoly and advantage to crush competition even in their own markets.

Hence, they had almost complete monopoly over the internet industry in many countries.

No matter what market fundamentalists and radicals say or wish, China government will very unlikely loosen the regulatory control over business/economy because, in the end, it is the government's policies and vision that enabled those companies to achieve almost parity with the most developed ones in many sectors.

And it is not only in Mainland China. This developmentalist state has been in effect in most NEAsia and China is a good student of it. If Taiwan region has TSMC, that's entirely thanks to the administration here in the same way we held the "computer kingdom" title before.

 

[nang2]

You're a free marketeer and you want the Chinese government to allow as much capital outflow as the market desires.

You're dreaming.

Some Chinese companies were abusing the financial system and engaged in money laundering. They're basically moving billions of dollars out of China to shield it from the reach of the Chinese government.

The Chinese government put a stop to it.

The story is that simple. It has nothing to do with money supply or the free market.

It can only be money laundering if the money is acquired illegally. The question is: is that money acquired illegally? No, Chinese government never asserts that.

Everyone, including you and I, wants to protect his own asset or whatever he claims to be his own. If you feel that what you think is yours is risking devaluation or confiscation by Chinese government, I bet your first reaction is to move it out of China's control. You would do exactly the same as those you blame on. You would only not do it when you think what you have is NOT yours.

I am a free marketeer because I believe there are fundamental laws in economy no matter what political ideology people have. If a country releases more money than its demand, it will drive up inflation. Capital outflow is only to reflect that reality. Blocking that simply shifts the inflation elsewhere, such as housing, or encourages capital consumption. I don't think Chinese government wants any of those. But the right approach is to curtail the money printing, not window dressing like capital flow control.

Chinese government doesn't want capital outflow because they want to promote Yuan as world currency. The whole one-belt-one-road strategy depends on it. The problem is that their will is running against the economical fundamentals. So they choose to stick to their will and let Chinese people pay for it (higher housing cost, lower export strength). The only ones that are benefiting now are well-to-do Chinese because now their consumption of imports is cheaper comparing to their income growth. Personally, I am not complaining because my families are among them.

The United States government intervenes just as much as the Chinese government.

The US government pumped hundred of billions of dollars into the economy through multiple rounds of Quantitative Easing.

The US government provided rescue funds to General Motors, Ford, AIG, and many others to prevent their bankruptcy during the financial crisis of 2007.

To claim that the Chinese government should have an unfettered free market is totally ridiculous. The US does not practice a totally unregulated free market.

New financial regulations (such as China's restricted capital outflow rules) and interventions (such as near-zero US interest rates) are commonplace in both the Chinese and US economies.

US has long stopped to be a free market. That progress started nearly one hundred years ago. But their ascent was the result of unfettered free market before that. They just reap and consume the benefits they have accumulated. That is how a great nation rises and falls. Now, it is not a model free market no matter that they claim. They are only freer than China in some aspects and even less free than China in others.

 

[Martian2]

It can only be money laundering if the money is acquired illegally. The question is: is that money acquired illegally? No, Chinese government never asserts that.

Everyone, including you and I, wants to protect his own asset or whatever he claims to be his own. If you feel that what you think is yours is risking devaluation or confiscation by Chinese government, I bet your first reaction is to move it out of China's control. You would do exactly the same as those you blame on. You would only not do it when you think what you have is NOT yours.

I am a free marketeer because I believe there are fundamental laws in economy no matter what political ideology people have. If a country releases more money than its demand, it will drive up inflation. Capital outflow is only to reflect that reality. Blocking that simply shifts the inflation elsewhere, such as housing, or encourages capital consumption. I don't think Chinese government wants any of those. But the right approach is to curtail the money printing, not window dressing like capital flow control.

Chinese government doesn't want capital outflow because they want to promote Yuan as world currency. The whole one-belt-one-road strategy depends on it. The problem is that their will is running against the economical fundamentals. So they choose to stick to their will and let Chinese people pay for it (higher housing cost, lower export strength). The only ones that are benefiting now are well-to-do Chinese because now their consumption of imports is cheaper comparing to their income growth. Personally, I am not complaining because my families are among them.


US has long stopped to be a free market. That progress started nearly one hundred years ago. But their ascent was the result of unfettered free market before that. They just reap and consume the benefits they have accumulated. That is how a great nation rises and falls. Now, it is not a model free market no matter that they claim. They are only freer than China in some aspects and even less free than China in others.

That's baloney.

Money laundering can also be applied to legally-obtained money that is used for an illegal purpose.

For example, the US has enacted laws to make it illegal for US citizens and companies to invest in Iranian oil fields. Similarly, it is illegal to invest in Russian land-based (as opposed to offshore) oil fields.

If you invest money in an attempt to hide its source in Iranian or Russian oil fields, that is money laundering of legally-obtained money.

Thus, money laundering is a label that applies when money is used in a way that breaks a nation's laws.

 

[nang2]

That's baloney.

Money laundering can also be applied to legally-obtained money that is used for an illegal purpose.

For example, the US has enacted laws to make it illegal for US citizens and companies to invest in Iranian oil fields. Similarly, it is illegal to invest in Russian land-based (as opposed to offshore) oil fields.

If you invest money in an attempt to hide its source in Iranian or Russian oil fields, that is money laundering of legally-obtained money.

Thus, money laundering is a label that applies when money is used in a way that breaks a nation's laws.

That is not money laundering. Laundering means to make something clean. If you don't believe that, check it in dictionary. That something needs to be dirty before it needs to be cleaned. If it is clean already, what is the point of laundering it? Using clean money to do dirty things is just a crime and the nature of that crime defines its name.

US citizens investing in Iranian oil fields is not called money laundering. They simply break specific US laws, but not the one for money laundering.

I suspect that you might think any crime involving money is called money laundering. That is certainly not true.

 

[Martian2]

That is not money laundering. Laundering means to make something clean. If you don't believe that, check it in dictionary. That something needs to be dirty before it needs to be cleaned. If it is clean already, what is the point of laundering it? Using clean money to do dirty things is just a crime and the nature of that crime defines its name.

US citizens investing in Iranian oil fields is not called money laundering. They simply break specific US laws, but not the one for money laundering.

Are you an idiot? You're really going to try to argue semantics?

In the US, hiding the source of your money to invest in Iran or Russia (or another illegal purpose) is MONEY LAUNDERING.

You're looking at a dictionary. I'm looking at the US government's definition of "money laundering." Is the dictionary going to arrest you or is the US government going to arrest you for money laundering?
----------

Money Laundering | U.S. Department of the Treasury

"Money laundering generally refers to financial transactions in which criminals, including terrorist organizations, attempt to disguise the proceeds, sources or nature of their illicit activities. Money laundering facilitates a broad range of serious underlying criminal offenses and ultimately threatens the integrity of the financial system.

The United States Department of the Treasury is fully dedicated to combating all aspects of money laundering at home and abroad, through the mission of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). TFI utilizes the Department's many assets - including a diverse range of legal authorities, core financial expertise, operational resources, and expansive relationships with the private sector, interagency and international communities - to identify and attack money laundering vulnerabilities and networks across the domestic and international financial systems."

 

[nang2]

Are you an idiot? You're really going to try to argue semantics?

In the US, hiding the source of your money to invest in Iran or Russia (or another illegal purpose) is MONEY LAUNDERING.

You're looking at a dictionary. I'm looking at the US government's definition of "money laundering." Is the dictionary going to arrest you or is the US government going to arrest you for money laundering?
----------

Money Laundering | U.S. Department of the Treasury

"Money laundering generally refers to financial transactions in which criminals, including terrorist organizations, attempt to disguise the proceeds, sources or nature of their illicit activities. Money laundering facilitates a broad range of serious underlying criminal offenses and ultimately threatens the integrity of the financial system.

The United States Department of the Treasury is fully dedicated to combating all aspects of money laundering at home and abroad, through the mission of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). TFI utilizes the Department's many assets - including a diverse range of legal authorities, core financial expertise, operational resources, and expansive relationships with the private sector, interagency and international communities - to identify and attack money laundering vulnerabilities and networks across the domestic and international financial systems."

Read your own words. Is it "invest in Iran or Russia" money laundering or is it "hiding the source of your money"?

 

[Martian2]

Read your own words. Is it "invest in Iran or Russia" money laundering or is it "hiding the source of your money"?

It's either.

You need to stop reading the dictionary. You need to start following US government regulations and court decisions.

"Money laundering" is a technical legal term. The dictionary definition does not apply in the real world.

It's frustrating trying to hold a discussion with you, because you're like a newly-born baby in the woods. You have all of these theoretical beliefs that have no relationship to the real world.