FrankishKnight
No bio...
User ID: 645
Household consumption being 40% of GDP means households receive 40% of national income to spend. The rest goes to the state and corporate sectors, funding the investment-heavy model. Even if every yuan buys more calories than we thought, that doesn't change the share going to households versus the share going to industrial buildout.
Not so fast, different systems of national accounting and different relative prices complicate matters.
Chinese housing area/person roughly equals Germany's and energy consumption is nearly there, yet constitutes 25% of Geman PPP GDP per capita, with about 12.5k rent/utilities. Would both use similar systems, China's would be about 10k PPP, while lised PPP GDP/capita is... about 25k. Yet Chinese don't spend 40% on housing and energy, indeed housing's only a few percent of Chinese GDP (this is the imputed rent issue I harp on about). Remember, this is all PPP - supposedly adjusted...
Where US retail sales are 7.3T and Chinese 6.6T, US HFCE is 20T or 2.8x retail sales, while Chinese's is about 6.8T or 1x retail sales? (Then consider changing exchange rates when making the dollar numbers.) How can you compare US and Chinese numbers when the US' includes education, healthcare, travel, imputed rent and China's is just retail sales? @sarker
How is China getting the 70+% of its oil imports in this future?
Oil demand is decreasing if still slowly. Gasoline use is down. Last year, heavy vehicle use made up half of Chinese LNG consumption, which would look like substitution - but LNG demand is decreasing faster and faster. Huge solar and nuclear build outs are taking over (coal consumption is also dropping due to rapid construction of more efficient plants) and today, 22% of new heavy trucks there are electric. China is also building out synthetic natural gas plants enabled by cheap solar creating an effective price ceiling at $80 BOE.
FrankishKnight
6hr ago
in purely thermodynamic terms, if literally everything is cheaper in China, you can ignore standard macroecon, largely eschew exports, subsidize domestic demand and make Qianlong's boast a reality.
Capital begets capital. Increased capital concentration decreases costs of production and labor requirements. Left to expand forever, no one should ever catch up - but everywhere but China (so far) the greatest capital accumulations eventually succumbed to suicidal regulation and extracting value to subsidize non-productive sectors.
FrankishKnight
6hr ago
Won't the US enjoy a quantitative and qualitative superiority in AI though, based on the compute advantage, through to at least the 2030s?
What does that gain you when China can move matter?
Our homeland, Europe has been invaded.
More options
Context Copy link