Talk:Economy of China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article candidateEconomy of China is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 17, 2010, and January 15, 2009.

This article IS THREE TIMES LONGER than the US economy article[edit]

China's economy is considerably more complex to understand than the US economy, the size of the country, the diversity in development, the population, the workforce, the complex relations between state and private all argue for an article longer than that for the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinareporter (talkcontribs) 09:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not China's economy is more complex than the US Economy is beside the question. This is a very poorly edited article. Whereas the review of the US or most other economies chooses to deal with Agriculture, the Steel Industry, Tourism, or the Automotive industry by directing the reader to a sub-article link, this main article includes a full description of the subject with a novella. This makes the main article bulky. This is silly. There is no justification for this article being this long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.150.52 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You people should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.234 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 'Bold text[reply]

Maybe they just don't have time to edit. Rainn1993 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think of the saying "Designed by a committee".
The number of this committee is the total number of people that have edited this article to toss in their 2 bits, or to prevent someone from tossing in their 2 bits. 108.26.243.70 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bettyhwt (article contribs).

Classification of China's economy as 'High-Income'[edit]

The GDP per capita figure suggests that China's economy could be classified as high income next year, but is it not too early to call it high income now? Any thoughts on this? OrientalTraveller (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too early. WP:crystalball. But good to keep a note of IMO. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some Chinese top tier cities may be classed as high income but not the lower tier cities or the countryside. Former Chinese Premier Li Keqiang stated that there are 600 million Chinese living on 1,000 yuan or less a month. That converts to under $150 a month and is solidly at a Third World level. My rule of thumb is any country with an average income under $5,000 per person per year is Third World (low income). $5-20,000 is Second World (middle income) and over $20,000 is First World (high income). For comparison the US is around $80,000 per person, so $20,000 is probably on the low side. Anyway, $20,000 per person time 1.4 billion people gives a GDP of $28 trillion. China would have to double it's current GDP to be classed as a First World (high income) nation. With China's real estate crash putting a crimp on Chinese growth, don't hold your breath! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.243.70 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HyrumGriff (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HyrumGriff (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda/unreliable statistics and real estate crash/banking crisis[edit]

There needs to be a section reporting that Chinese statistics are propaganda/or just plain old unreliable and another on the impact of the Chinese real estate crash on the economy and banking system. The section on demographics needs to be expanded to include recent birth data.

Independent analysts who have tried to determine the size of China's economy say that it is somewhere around 1/2 to 2/3rds the size that China claims it to be. These studies are bases on travel statistics, electricity usage, city luminosity and other factors. Many of them also say that China is currently in either a deep recession or a depression (an economic contraction of over 20%) because of the real estate crash.

Peter Zeihan for instance states, in an over the top fashion, that "This is China's last generation" based on demographics. China currently reports around 9 million births a year. Assuming a life expectancy of 75 years that implies a population of 675 billion, which is less than half the claimed current population of China. That birth rate has been dropping for years and is now roughly half the replacement level. With the current tough economic times, it will most likely keep dropping as marriage rates continue to drop drop due to a lack of earning power to raise a family. China also has the issue of the selective abortion of females, and a resulting preponderance of males in the population, who can't give birth. Unlike other nations which need 2.1 births per female to have a stable population, Chinese women need to give births at a higher rate for a stable population. Probably around 2.5. A further drop in the birth rate implies that the population of China will drop quite a bit below 675 million over the next century and based on these trends, that the US population will overtake that of China's sometime in the next century.

In this Zeihan presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-jOLF2T4c starting around the 53:30 minute mark, Zeihan claims that the Chinese population is already over counted by 100 million and that by 2050 the Chinese may lose another 600 million people, dropping to around 700 million.

Is China in a Depression or just a recession?? Nobody really knows as China fudges so many of its economic statistics. The condition of the real estate sector strongly implies that it is in either in a deep recession (over 10% drop) or a depression (over a 20% drop). Most sources states that prior to the real estate crash, this sector was around 30% of the Chinese economy. With most of the sector in a standstill it is likely that this sector is now around 10% of the total economy, dropping from 30% to a around 10%. In other words 20% of the Chinese economy has vanished and the Chinese economy has therefore contracted. This sector is unlikely to recover because of its huge debt levels and overbuilding. Evegrande, the real estate developer which is the worst off financially, owes around $340 billion to banks, bondholders, former workers and subcontractors. It has also failed to complete something like 1 million housing units, which have already been paid for. These units will cost further $100's of billions to complete, meaning that the company is more like $5-600 billion in the hole. For comparison, it's sale volume peaked at just over $100 billion a year

Of "what used to be" the 3 largest Chinese real estate developers, 2 of them, County Garden and Evergrande, are bankrupt, and the third, Vanke, is in serious trouble. This is "slap your face" evidence that Chinese real estate is in a massive contraction. Vanke used to be the smallest of the top 3.

A section on China's banking problems would also be desirable. China's real estate firms have taken out a lot of debt which they now can't repay. Much of this was to Chinese banks and money management firms. These firms now have a hole in their balance sheet that is in the trillions of dollars, and this hole is becoming increasingly visible as banking/investment groups either fold or refuse to give depositors their money.

Zhongrong Trust, a money manager with around $500 billion under management recently declared that it is "severely insolvent", is $37 billion in the hole and cannot make payments. Wanxiang Trust is reportedly in trouble as well, having missed payments. 108.26.243.70 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the Economy of China, not about Speculation on the Future of China’s Economy. And, YouTube is entertainment, and not a reliable source. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if the president of the US makes a speech and it is shown on YouTube by CNN on the CNN channel you can't quote from it??? but you can when the speech is shown on the CNN website???
Sounds fishy!
The source is who produced the content, not the place where it is shown.
And I disagree on the other part as well, a section on speculation on the future of China's economy would not be out of place in the article. 108.26.243.70 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Speculation about the future, the article already contains material that can be considered that. It only took me a few minutes to find this "speculation". "In 2023, IMF predicted China to continue being one of the fastest growing major economies.[88]". If a favorable IMF prediction can be included, I don't see a reason why an unfavorable one from another authoritative/reputable source saying the opposite can't be. Considering the collapse of China's real estate sector, which per most sources used to make up around 30% of China's economy, it is highly likely that China's is facing a dim economic future, same as when Japan's real estate market collapsed decades ago. Japan has yet to recover from that collapse. By all sources, Chinese overbuilding is much worse that Japanese overbuilding and the collapse will likely be much worse. Stories are now coming out that China has built, or is in the process of building, enough apartments to house 3 billion people, or twice the population of China. One source claimed that the Chinese did a survey on the number of residential buildings and found 600 million of them. That means an average number of inhabitants per building of 2.3 people. That include a hovel in the countryside, a mansion, or a 20 floor apartment building in a major city. There is no way this will end well. That is as certain as predicting that a piano falling off of the roof of a 20 story building will soon be only useful as firewood.108.26.243.70 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn about the difference between an official forecast by the global leader in multinational economic analysis, and speculation. Oh, and perhaps maybe -- just maybe -- something that is reproduced on YouTube should be sourced from the original? Just a thought. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chart on discontinued data sets - add or not??[edit]

The following FT article contains a chart of the number of date sets issued by China. Assuming it is not a copyright infringement, it would be a nice addition to the article.

https://www.ft.com/content/43bea201-ff6c-4d94-8506-e58ff787802c

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A05b134e8-0a85-42d5-9deb-f15de2c266a1?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=2 108.26.243.70 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GDP table needs to be updated[edit]

It is outdated as China's official GDP for 2022 was 17,963 billion.

The table has 18,100.0

I am sure many of the other numbers from 2022 onwards are also outdated.108.26.243.70 (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GDP listed for China as $25.4 Trillion nominal doesn't match the reference. Something very fishy is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Channard (talkcontribs) 05:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey China's gdp is 18.560 trillion...so gdp of 25.4 tr in out of context...this is actually vandalism Sbot675 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one authoritative source for Chinese data, and that's the National Bureau of Statistics (<https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/>). The IMF and the New York Times get data from there, so IMF's (and NYT) a secondary source. The official figure is 1,260,582.1 hundred million yuan, or Rmb126,058.21 billion. Last year, the exchange rate averaged Rmb7.0809:US$1. Therefore, the economy was US$17,802.57 billion. If you want to play around with someone’s definition of purchasing power parity, please be very specific as to both source and the reason that source should be considered definitive. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NHK Documentary[edit]

Suggest the authors take a look at a recent NHK documentary on the subject of China's GDP, which is grossly inflated. There may be as much as 15 Trillion (USD) in provincial debt as China pursues a failed business model. Public unrest is widespread with economic collapse a question of when, and not if. 109.154.51.224 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that debt -- domestic or foreign, private or official -- is not a factor in determining the size of GDP. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024[edit]

The article states that "China's manufacturing sector benefits from the world's largest domestic market" but this is no longer true as India has a larger population, and according to Wikipedia itself the US and EU have much larger consumer markets. 129.32.45.245 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say India has a larger population, or a larger market? The two are not the same. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data number correction on manufacturers share of export goods needed (!)[edit]

I've noticed that the percentage share of 'manufacturers' within the export goods line inside there 'external' section in the beginning introductory "Quick facts" tab/panel is incorrect. Inside the very source it is linking to, the percentage is 94.3% and NOT 74.3%. There seems to be an error in the first number. Tmbehar (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]