How many years before China is No. 1?
POSTED BY: TraineeAlternate
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 17:48
VIEWED: 15091
PAGE 6 of 15
Quote:Only 50% of the middle class has "some sort" of investments? Honestly, I would have thought it would be quite a bit higher than 50% which indicates to me that investment income in the middle class is quite low- prolly accounting for 10% of total income.
As to wage growth, you sort of undermined your own argument by pointing out that wage statistics do NOT count investment income (and about 50% of the middle class in the US owns some sort of equity in investments). Wage stats also do not take into account the appreciation in real property, which historically outpaces inflation (and incidentally, home ownership % in the US is at an ALL-TIME high). And finally, wage stats do not take into account purchasing-power parity.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am not "apreading (sic) false information" regarding US v European unemployment figures.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2003/apr/eurostat_feb
_en.html
The Eurostat definition of unemployed people are those aged 15 to 74 and who, following the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition:
- are without work
- are available to start work within the next two weeks
- and have actively sought employment at some time during the previous four weeks.
The US definition is those people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. It does not take into account those who have dropped off the rolls due to long-term unemployment.
Your comment (below) is in error.
Quote:
Actually, this is quite wrong. The methods for determining unemployment, as reported by magazines such as The Economist and Time, are roughly equal, with a margin of error of about +/- 1.0%. I'm sorry to have to call you out on this, but you are apreading false information.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For a good reason. Corporate income, mergers and corporate investment income do not contribute to personal spendable income. If you want to talk about personal income, for most Americans, it is wages.
wage statistics do NOT count investment income
And I'm sure you are aware of the deceptive nature of arithmetic averages, which is essentially what the GDP is. Median is also somewhat skewed, mode is probably the most reliable indicator of what Americans are earning per year.
Given available statistics, however, what you see is this:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0405yates.htm
Basically they tell us that, with one exception, workers in the United States have been taking a beating for the past thirty years. The single exception is roughly the period from 1995 to 2000. From 1995 to 2000, wages (unless otherwise indicated, wages will refer to “real” wages, a measure of the purchasing power of our wages) began to grow significantly after two decades of stagnation ...
Most of the increases in total income have gone to the owners of capital
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finally, I did not make this statement, but I will address your comment.
"Unless they can solve those significant factors they will be numerically bigger than the USA in just five years or so"
The CIA factbook reports the Chinese GDP for 2004 was ~ 7.3 trillion, for 2003 it was ~ 5.7 trillion (+ 28%). The same source says the US GDP was ~ 11.7 trillion for 2004, and ~ 10.4 trillion for 2003 (+ 12.5%). Following these projections, the US GDP will be 13.1 trillion for 2005 and 14.8 trillion for 2006. The Chinese GDP will be 9.1 trillion for 2005 and 12.5 trillion for 2006. In sum, by 2006 they will be roughly equivalent, and China will definitively surpass the US in 2007.
What the Chinese report is something else.
And again, I mentioned that it was a topic we were kicking around about a year ago where I work, and I'm not going to re-research it. At the time, according to available economic consensus, the Chinese total economy was about on par with the US.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hayward:
1. Any financial analysis which doesn't take currency into account is pure fantasy.
2. Consider Japan's growth from 1966 to 1989:
* Nikkei went from 1000 to 38900 at the high.
* The yen went from $.001 to $0.01
If you looked at the growth and said it was @39X you'd be way off, it was quite clearly 389X.
3. This is not the case in China because of hte fixed currecy, but it will be the case in the near future.
4. This currency change will be a result of investment and growth, and so the CIA's parity figure of $7T+ for China currently is entirely Justified.
5. The CIA gives China and US growth and GDP stats and the math was real simple. The 11 years in easily solid. If I were to guess I'd say 7 years is quite possible.
Nellie,
Even if you, like I assume Hayward does, agree with the idea of Communism, there is still great reason for concern.
When people attack China, or the Chinese, on this board, they mean the Chinese govt. I'm friends with a fair number of Chinese, and non-blood related to some, and I assure you, I have nothing against the Chinese people. The communist govt. of China is the only one under attack here.
China is a real threat. It's not a big country, it's an imperial power that invades and conquers other nations on a regular basis and then systematically dismantles their govts., outlaws their languages and destroys their cultures.
The Communist Party hierarchy is a Borg/Alliance, it's a systematic destroyer and assimilater of all things not it. Since coming to power, they have annexed: Manchuria, Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, N. Korean, Vietname, Cambodia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao.
Chinese influence in Malaysia has gotten quite prevelant. I can't help but notice a pattern here. You don't have to be a right wing capitalist to be threatened by this. If you care at all about the people of the earth and their myriad cultures, their personal freedoms and the individual nations that are likely to be overrun, then you should be at least a little wigged by what's going on.
I'm aware that George W. Bush is doing the same thing in Iraq that China does every couple of years, but the fact that Bush is evil doesn't make China right, it makes them equally wrong.
We're talking about a country that randomly executes its citizens every time there is an uprising or people disagree with the govt. Even under Bush, whom I utterly despise, The US govt. is still far better than the Chinese govt.
I don't think we should stop China's economic growth, but there's another side to this. We have to do something to keep ourselves competitive. Once the madness called Bush/PNAC is gone, the US will still need to be there to protect nations around the world. China has plans on the middle east just as Bush does, and are making inroads into South America via Chavez, and plan to sponsor terrorist campaigns to overthrow other central and south american govts. and put in more robo-states. This is not good. It's an issue of some concern to many people here.
Quote:Quote:
Nellie:
If western civilization collapses, it won't be because the Chinese got rich---it will be because of climate change. And who did that, I wonder?
Chrisisall:
Certain people so bent on controlling the world and it's oil that the understanding of what's good for America in the long term has gotten lost in the shuffle.
People bent on controling the world and its oil includes not only PNAC, but also the Chinese govt.
And for the co2 emissions, just for the record, though US is still 1st place, it only just nudges out china for 2005 eastimates (china around 1.2mmt, and the US around 1.4mmt) But US usage is likely to fall and china is rising. Under Kyoto, the US would have to cut to 1.2mmt, but no restriction would be placed on China. If China continues its trend of emulating us, with four times the population, it's easy to see China's co2 base as hitting 5mmt in the absence of serious intervention which Kyoto would bans in the instance of China.
Just shootin' some clay pigeons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Oil
I hope everyone knows that China has said it will aid Iran militarily in an effort to control mideast oil.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, they printed it in an official statement in the people's daily. That's the great thing about being the dictator of a totalitarian empire, you can say exactly what you mean.
They also appear to own Chavez.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And so here we are, playing the lifeboat game: only so much oil, only so much food, only so much capacity in the carbon cycle to go around. Some of this is inevitably as a result of our increasing (world) population- there does seem to be a limit on what can be farmed, raised, fished and cut. But in terms of energy sources for the mechanization that that has made us so productive (and our lives so much easier) there are alternatives to oil: conservation, solar power, and hydrogen for example. Take conservation: we could raise CAFE (vehicle fuel efficiency) standards by 10% (easily done), convert power transmission from AC to DC which saves at least 10%, subsidize home insulation, invest in mass transportation (how about land-ferries that use rail lines?), convert our power generating plants to turbines with waste-heat recovery, and take conservation into account with land-use plans. Hydrogen, as ity turns out, can be easily produced from "wet" ethanol using a cerium catalyst, and also from water using solar power. There should be be no reason why an oil shortage has us over a barrel, so to speak.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Eloquently and succinctly said.
only so much oil, only so much food, only so much capacity in the carbon cycle to go around
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Another Neo-Lib meme! Where's you proof? Or the link?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hydrogen, as it turns out, can be easily produced from "wet" ethanol using a cerium catalyst, and also from water using solar power.
This kind of unsubstanciated hyperbole is what you think passes for facts?
This is just another attempt to make Bush look bad.
Pathetic.
AURaptorisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:Eloquently and succinctly said.
only so much oil, only so much food, only so much capacity in the carbon cycle to go around
It's hard indeed to imagine that you ever passed 1st grade history.
The above is almost unworthy of my much-sought-for attention. I'll bend way down there to reply, though.
(You don't know as much as me
)I'm done with this childishness.
Hayward79isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME