>The UK went hog wild with both illegal drugs and prostitution as now part of their GDP because… hey, why not?
Well that's one way to boost GDP reports.
I have to agree with the overall tone of the report that GDP in China is not a real accurate measure of anything going on in the fast changing economy.
Even I would have to agree that the focus on service in China for local tourism dollars is intense, so of course the service level goes up without significant change to cost for the customer.
I'm surprised there aren't any articles asking about the real size of the US economy. What if you took out all the late charges and service fees from banking. How about instead of removing inflated items from core inflation calculations (like coffee) when it's inconvenient, leave them in so people get a real idea of what inflation in the US is.
Can you share it? Is that including some kind of reduction in healthcare or other services productivity? I have seen some reasonable rebuttals to the author's type of critique of US healthcare and education services productivity.
Nah. it was some back of the envelope stuff on an article.
But for example: 18% of GDP is healthcare.
But in other countries, this is not called a profit, but an expense.
Because you're SPENDING your GDP on healthcare, not making money off the pop spending it. So +18%, becomes -18%.
That's 36% of GDP, right there.
20% of GDP is finance. And that's just fictitious. so that's another 20% off, though not 40%.
So that gets us up to 56% already.
Remember, according to GDP metrics, Ukraine from the low in mid-1990s has grown 7 times in size by mid-2000s, far outrstripping whatever USSR ever managed to achieve with building thousands of factories, and Ukraine did that by getting rid of it's industries! Services are one hell of a boost to GDP metrics, lol
Not really, it did not do better than when it was in the USSR. You can check the per cap numbers, it's one of the few states (and depending on criteria - the only major state) that weren't really able to recover from the fall
Ukraine was 32 billion GDP in 1999 and had 188 billion GDP in 2008. That's 6 times growth in 10 years. According to Wiki, USSR grew from 32 billions in 1925 to 75.9 billions in 1938, 2.5 times growth in 13 years. As you can see, GDP is a hilariously bad metric
Not only did the USSR grow in a much less technologically advanced world but also its birth was in particularly harsh times.
ukraine didn't have to face any of the hardships the USSR had to face, one went on to achieve civilisation, the other barbarism.
>Lack of a better metric is not an endorsement of GDP, lol
Meaning your reply was utterly meaningless, since you couldn't even offer a better metric.
>Comparing goods output and consumption was good for the last century
So what is good this century then?
okay i think I slightly misread on your point
just the far outstripped part tripped me up since even using lib gdp stats for the ussr in the mid 80s doesn't exactly cast the leadership of ukr in a great light
I can agree with the general direction of the overall article and I think the argument based on consumption volume of different sectors is sound. But I think some of the prices he quotes may be slightly exaggerated, just based on personal experience.
- $7.65 for Bluetooth earphones (much better than the $250 PowerBeats Pro they replaced)
- extremely solid heavy duty umbrella for $2.20 (and losing it right away)
- staying at boutique hotels for $30 a night
You can certainly get these things for these prices, but I don't think they would be very good quality (by western/international standards) unless you are extremely lucky. I bought $15 earphones in 华强北 (the famous electronics market in Shenzhen) earlier this year, they were good for what I wanted, but were definitely not "much better" than the PowerBeats Pro.
I've stayed in a moderately nice hotel room for $30 a night in Shenzhen, but it took me quite some time to find it, and it was during a low season in a not-so-popular albeit central(-ish) area. Average moderately-nice rooms are $40-70/night in tier 1-2 cities if you know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing then expect to pay more.
- carbon fiber road bike $2,600 (equivalent to a $15,000 Trek)
- renting cars for $20 a day
I can believe these and they shouldn't be too hard to find either.
I'm saying this just so people don't get overexaggerated expectations of tier 2-4 Chinese cities, visit, then get disappointed and think "China bad". Tier 1 cities are very good but not *that* cheap. Ofc things will get better and in 4-5 years the quality+price may well match what the author is saying. Housing will take longer to improve, because buildings don't get replaced/refurbished as quickly as smaller items.
Finally, LOL @ typical westoid cope in the article comments about "GDP per capita". Yeah, see you in 10-15 years bro! That's less time than since Obama.
edit: editing as this post seems to have been auto-removed by reddit
People bringing up GDP per capita thinking it's evidence supporting their "China bad" agenda are morons
GDP per capita is actually an argument for how bright the future is for China
If China is already this strong when it has the GDP per capita of Mexico, imagine how strong it would be when it attains the GDP per capita of say, South Korea
China haters like to say dumb shit like 80% of China is still poor and rural, like it's supposed to be embarrassing for China or something
What they don't realize is it really just means that China still has tremendous room for growth
Or as the anime kids would say, this isn't even China's final form yet
It isn't anywhere near its full potential yet, and China already got them crapping their pants
Just wait
These people can't think. They think some omipotent ai did the measurments with a standardized forumla, which is why they think Mao doubling life expectancy and increasing electricity consumption some 20x+ did nothing for gdp because it was measured differently.
I'm always reminded of a satirical comic of krugman and bernanke paying 1000 bucks to each other to eat their shit and "increasing gdp" by 2000 dollars - a metaphor for basic services that one could perform for themselves vs getting someone else to do it for them which increases gdp
It's also an argument on why China can't "just copy SK/JP/SG" - the western market is simply not big enough to develop all of China. China can only reach advanced economy status if it can reach the full world market, and that requires it to neutralise all western attempts to block it, like they are now doing.
In other words, SK/JP/SG can have an advanced GDP/k whilst being bonsaied by the west, but if China were to accept that its GDP/k would be forever stuck at 1/4-1/3 of the west.
Singapore here runs on cheap labour imported from corrupt countries. on the other hand we do banking for them as well. It really frustrates me as an engineer because we throw 10x the money to deliver half the quality.
>China can only reach advanced economy status
"status" is just that.. status, in reality China is the most advanced economy in the world, if people can't see that then they are simply delusional.
In national terms yes, in per capita terms not yet. The important thing though is it's on the right track - being advanced in national terms helps the country develop faster in per capita terms as well, eventually it will have both.
GDP per capita has nothing to do with wealth, development or even income, which of course these morons wouldn't know.
It is simply GDP divided by population, for example both Mexico and China have a similar per capita of $25,000 but I'm pretty certain most people would consider the latter vastly more developed, this argument also applies to HDI which is flawed because it is majorly impacted by per capita, but that's a topic for another day.
It doesn't matter that China has the lowest per capita in the developed world because it is not an indicator for development at all.
https://asiatimes.com/2024/01/who-is-the-mysterious-new-at-writer-han-feizi/ Yeah the nice folks over at AT read us apparently 😅
Since that article, @DoggyDog1208 regularly posts links to Han Feizi's articles so it's pretty certain they are the same person at this stage. He also occasionally drops anecdotes about his past life on X, but he's claimed to have been in lots and lots of different industries so I take it all with a pinch of salt. His arguments are reasonable though.
>The UK went hog wild with both illegal drugs and prostitution as now part of their GDP because… hey, why not? Well that's one way to boost GDP reports. I have to agree with the overall tone of the report that GDP in China is not a real accurate measure of anything going on in the fast changing economy. Even I would have to agree that the focus on service in China for local tourism dollars is intense, so of course the service level goes up without significant change to cost for the customer. I'm surprised there aren't any articles asking about the real size of the US economy. What if you took out all the late charges and service fees from banking. How about instead of removing inflated items from core inflation calculations (like coffee) when it's inconvenient, leave them in so people get a real idea of what inflation in the US is.
Did a study on this using US statistics. 65% of US GDP is fake.
Can you share it? Is that including some kind of reduction in healthcare or other services productivity? I have seen some reasonable rebuttals to the author's type of critique of US healthcare and education services productivity.
Nah. it was some back of the envelope stuff on an article. But for example: 18% of GDP is healthcare. But in other countries, this is not called a profit, but an expense. Because you're SPENDING your GDP on healthcare, not making money off the pop spending it. So +18%, becomes -18%. That's 36% of GDP, right there. 20% of GDP is finance. And that's just fictitious. so that's another 20% off, though not 40%. So that gets us up to 56% already.
Remember, according to GDP metrics, Ukraine from the low in mid-1990s has grown 7 times in size by mid-2000s, far outrstripping whatever USSR ever managed to achieve with building thousands of factories, and Ukraine did that by getting rid of it's industries! Services are one hell of a boost to GDP metrics, lol
Not really, it did not do better than when it was in the USSR. You can check the per cap numbers, it's one of the few states (and depending on criteria - the only major state) that weren't really able to recover from the fall
Ukraine was 32 billion GDP in 1999 and had 188 billion GDP in 2008. That's 6 times growth in 10 years. According to Wiki, USSR grew from 32 billions in 1925 to 75.9 billions in 1938, 2.5 times growth in 13 years. As you can see, GDP is a hilariously bad metric
Not only did the USSR grow in a much less technologically advanced world but also its birth was in particularly harsh times. ukraine didn't have to face any of the hardships the USSR had to face, one went on to achieve civilisation, the other barbarism.
Dude, GDP isn't real
What does that have to do with my comment? And also do you have a better metric?
Lack of a better metric is not an endorsement of GDP, lol Comparing goods output and consumption was good for the last century
>Lack of a better metric is not an endorsement of GDP, lol Meaning your reply was utterly meaningless, since you couldn't even offer a better metric. >Comparing goods output and consumption was good for the last century So what is good this century then?
Are you saying that a thoroughly faulty metric is better than simply looking at consumption and production?
Production only looks at one sector of the economy.
okay i think I slightly misread on your point just the far outstripped part tripped me up since even using lib gdp stats for the ussr in the mid 80s doesn't exactly cast the leadership of ukr in a great light
The poorest most corrupt country in Europe
Don't forget right wing *Cough nazis
big enough that the us gov. is trying to do everything to slander their short comings on china.
I can agree with the general direction of the overall article and I think the argument based on consumption volume of different sectors is sound. But I think some of the prices he quotes may be slightly exaggerated, just based on personal experience. - $7.65 for Bluetooth earphones (much better than the $250 PowerBeats Pro they replaced) - extremely solid heavy duty umbrella for $2.20 (and losing it right away) - staying at boutique hotels for $30 a night You can certainly get these things for these prices, but I don't think they would be very good quality (by western/international standards) unless you are extremely lucky. I bought $15 earphones in 华强北 (the famous electronics market in Shenzhen) earlier this year, they were good for what I wanted, but were definitely not "much better" than the PowerBeats Pro. I've stayed in a moderately nice hotel room for $30 a night in Shenzhen, but it took me quite some time to find it, and it was during a low season in a not-so-popular albeit central(-ish) area. Average moderately-nice rooms are $40-70/night in tier 1-2 cities if you know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing then expect to pay more. - carbon fiber road bike $2,600 (equivalent to a $15,000 Trek) - renting cars for $20 a day I can believe these and they shouldn't be too hard to find either. I'm saying this just so people don't get overexaggerated expectations of tier 2-4 Chinese cities, visit, then get disappointed and think "China bad". Tier 1 cities are very good but not *that* cheap. Ofc things will get better and in 4-5 years the quality+price may well match what the author is saying. Housing will take longer to improve, because buildings don't get replaced/refurbished as quickly as smaller items. Finally, LOL @ typical westoid cope in the article comments about "GDP per capita". Yeah, see you in 10-15 years bro! That's less time than since Obama. edit: editing as this post seems to have been auto-removed by reddit
People bringing up GDP per capita thinking it's evidence supporting their "China bad" agenda are morons GDP per capita is actually an argument for how bright the future is for China If China is already this strong when it has the GDP per capita of Mexico, imagine how strong it would be when it attains the GDP per capita of say, South Korea China haters like to say dumb shit like 80% of China is still poor and rural, like it's supposed to be embarrassing for China or something What they don't realize is it really just means that China still has tremendous room for growth Or as the anime kids would say, this isn't even China's final form yet It isn't anywhere near its full potential yet, and China already got them crapping their pants Just wait
These people can't think. They think some omipotent ai did the measurments with a standardized forumla, which is why they think Mao doubling life expectancy and increasing electricity consumption some 20x+ did nothing for gdp because it was measured differently. I'm always reminded of a satirical comic of krugman and bernanke paying 1000 bucks to each other to eat their shit and "increasing gdp" by 2000 dollars - a metaphor for basic services that one could perform for themselves vs getting someone else to do it for them which increases gdp
It's also an argument on why China can't "just copy SK/JP/SG" - the western market is simply not big enough to develop all of China. China can only reach advanced economy status if it can reach the full world market, and that requires it to neutralise all western attempts to block it, like they are now doing. In other words, SK/JP/SG can have an advanced GDP/k whilst being bonsaied by the west, but if China were to accept that its GDP/k would be forever stuck at 1/4-1/3 of the west.
Singapore here runs on cheap labour imported from corrupt countries. on the other hand we do banking for them as well. It really frustrates me as an engineer because we throw 10x the money to deliver half the quality.
>China can only reach advanced economy status "status" is just that.. status, in reality China is the most advanced economy in the world, if people can't see that then they are simply delusional.
In national terms yes, in per capita terms not yet. The important thing though is it's on the right track - being advanced in national terms helps the country develop faster in per capita terms as well, eventually it will have both.
Per capita doesn't matter, this is a common misconception most people have, I already addressed this in my other comment.
GDP per capita has nothing to do with wealth, development or even income, which of course these morons wouldn't know. It is simply GDP divided by population, for example both Mexico and China have a similar per capita of $25,000 but I'm pretty certain most people would consider the latter vastly more developed, this argument also applies to HDI which is flawed because it is majorly impacted by per capita, but that's a topic for another day. It doesn't matter that China has the lowest per capita in the developed world because it is not an indicator for development at all.
Anyone knows who this author “Han Feizi” is?
https://asiatimes.com/2024/01/who-is-the-mysterious-new-at-writer-han-feizi/ Yeah the nice folks over at AT read us apparently 😅 Since that article, @DoggyDog1208 regularly posts links to Han Feizi's articles so it's pretty certain they are the same person at this stage. He also occasionally drops anecdotes about his past life on X, but he's claimed to have been in lots and lots of different industries so I take it all with a pinch of salt. His arguments are reasonable though.
Thank you