|
|
China's economy just overtook the USA's
 Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-10-09 20:27:15
No they did NOT, yet.
Quote: The numbers are based on ‘purchasing power parity’ (PPP) which makes adjustments for the fact that goods are cheaper in countries such as China relative to the US.
PPP is an adjusted number people.
US: $17.91 trillion
China: $10.35 trillion
It depends on the context and metric. Its mentioned in the OP. No, it does not depend on the metric.
PPP has issues and is an adjusted number.
Gross numbers are $7 trillion difference.
This is also the damn daily mail which is a tabloid
China will overtake US's economy, but not for a few years.
Hold on China, U.S. Still World’s Top Economy by Main Benchmark
Quote: The PPP, used to differentiate how far money goes in each country, hardly reflects where the two nations currently stand vis-à-vis each other. Consider this: in 2013, U.S. GDP was at $16.8 trillion, way ahead of China’s $9.24 trillion before adjusting for inflation, which is the more commonly known measure of an economy’s size, World Bank figures show.
By maldini 2014-10-09 20:31:24
No they did NOT, yet.
Quote: The numbers are based on ‘purchasing power parity’ (PPP) which makes adjustments for the fact that goods are cheaper in countries such as China relative to the US.
PPP is an adjusted number people.
US: $17.91 trillion
China: $10.35 trillion
It depends on the context and metric. Its mentioned in the OP. No, it does not depend on the metric.
PPP has issues and is an adjusted number.
Gross numbers are $7 trillion difference.
This is also the damn daily mail which is a tabloid
China will overtake US's economy, but not for a few years.
More sources?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/move-over-america-china-overtakes-us-as-worlds-biggest-economy-kind-of-9783050.html
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/china_united_states_worlds_largest_economy.html
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/breaking-news-china-overtakes-us-worlds-largest-economy
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/china-overtakes-us-as-the-world-largest-economy/1/394868.html
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/08/china-overtakes-us-worlds-single-largest-economy
 Lakshmi.Flavin
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-10-09 20:34:57
Do you even read your own sources Maldini or do you just google China overtakes US and then post the link?
Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-10-09 20:35:26
Right.
People need to back and take a basic econ course.
PPP effects how far money goes in a country.
GDP is how large the economy is.
GDP > PPP in stating how large an economy is.
PPP is an adjusted number and developing countries inherently have an advantage over developed nations in how much items cost.
By maldini 2014-10-09 20:35:43
"Calculated by looking at gross domestic product (GDP) alongside cost-of-living data, the IMF announced Tuesday that China is now larger economically than the U.S. for the first time in history with an adjusted GDP of $17.6 trillion compared to a U.S. GDP of $17.4 trillion."
As I said in a much earlier post - If you are comparing the two economies in pure currency, the US is still ahead.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2014-10-09 20:35:57
None of those sources are any better. Kara debunked it.
By maldini 2014-10-09 20:40:04
Currency war next. Average American makes more money than average Chinese. But Average Chinese can buy more good with their income than an American can.
So an American in China is very rich, while a chinese in America is very poor.
And since you said an Economics course was needed, here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLSIjW5cDes#t=12
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-10-09 20:48:26
It's 1/16th of annual US GDP.
It's 1.3 trillion dollars that are not floating in the economy.
If such a sizable amount was spent by China tomorrow, buying shares and property in the US, it would cause these effects:
1. OPEC out of fear of losing value on oil, will start selling in another currency.
2. Private investors who hold treasuries, will start selling out of fear.
3.Inflation within the US economy. The only way the FED could fight would be to raise interest rates, which would destroy the consumer segment of the economy and anyone else who finances their consumption. They will do the opposite, quantitative easing #99? I lost track
4.Other nations that have reserve USD will start to dump them as well.
5.Oil prices will sky rocket - 350/barrel at the very least over the long term. In the short term twice that as the global economy re-adjusts and old contracts are revised to establish price/currency.
Its not that the US can't avoid all this, its that it doesn't seem to want to.
The US could easily re-nationalize the FED and establish some kind of standard that gives the USD some intrinsic value. Only problem is that China would also stand to gain in that situation.
When people like Soros, Buffet, Goodman, Trump, Carlos talk about them already hedged against the Dollar, you would think people would take notice.
Just so you know what Sentiment has been like in this part of the world for the past decade- Quote: Shaikh Sultan bin Saud Al Qassimi, Chairman of Capital Industries Investment and Barjeel-Geojit Securities, speaking to Khaleej Times from London, described the Kuwait Central Bank move as wonderful. "It is time the UAE start switching its currency peg away from the dollar to a basket of currencies. We have been undecided about this for the past two years. As the dollar is expected to continue its slide for at least two years, we should move without further delay," he said.
Shaikh Sultan quoted a recent Deutsche Bank report indicating that should the de-pegging become a reality, the GCC currencies will appreciate anywhere between 10 and 30 per cent against the dollar. In 2006, thanks to Gulf currencies' dollar peg, their value fell by 22 per cent vis a vis euro, he pointed out. "When the Kuwait Central Bank allowed its currency just one point of flexibility last year, it appreciated to its highest level against the dollar since 1992." According to the bank, most of the GCC currencies are undervalued against the dollar, based on their current-account balances, inflation and costs of goods and services. YouTube Video Placeholder Annual GDP is the wrong comparison for that number, the dollars you claim China holds aren't generated yearly, they're dollars that were taken from every year that they have possessed them, as a cumulative total, they may look huge, but compared to the cumulative GDP for the 40+ years they have been accrued, they're minute.
By daoming 2014-10-09 22:04:32
[+]
 Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-10-09 23:20:40
Clearly the U.S. needs more quantitative easing.
By Nazrious 2014-10-09 23:40:25
The US mints over a billion a day, should any large number of currency flood the market, theoretically, the US could purchase to offset, short it with Euro or even Yen. After XYZ nation unloaded the currency, and the US secured the currency which was bought at the deflated rate it could:
1) raise rates
2) Destroy "excess or dated / damaged" currency
3) Halt production of new bills
4) pass agency level regulations which hinder foreign actions and leverage against any physical property or assets held under US jurisdiction
5) Pass legislation.
6) Declare War
7) All of the above
Foreign powers have only the protections and rights afforded under US laws/regulations as interpreted through Treaties and Executive agreement.
Thus the US can do anything, crazy or otherwise, and foreign powers can't do diddly other than LOL sanctions and War, don't get it twisted the US is still the bully on the playground. Dole had CIA funded death squads in south America to keep the price of bananas down, what do you think the US would do if backed into a untenable position.
 Leviathan.Protey
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2014-10-10 00:23:59
1. Congress makes laws. You can blame PPACA on Congressional Democrats, but Obama didn't write or pass the legislation, he only signed it.
2. What does PPACA have to do with Obama's direct influence on the economy?
You do realize that premium costs for 2014 are actually about equal to 2013, the first year without a significant rise in cost in the last 20 years? Also, insurance companies legally cannot lose money during the implementation of PPACA, so 2016 I believe, before the actual solvency of the law can be assessed.
Edit: I'd also like to note that last month unemployment claims were at their lowest level in 70 years and the estimated jobless rate has steadily declined for the last 3 years. I wouldn't credit Obama for that, and the metrics are flawed in what they attempt to demonstrate and how they do it, but the economy IS on the rise.
you do realize why unemployment claims are so low? small businesses are hireing more temps in order to not have to pay for all that insurance. more temp workers = more people in lower income brackets = less purchasing power and less taxes paid.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-10-10 00:44:13
1. Congress makes laws. You can blame PPACA on Congressional Democrats, but Obama didn't write or pass the legislation, he only signed it.
2. What does PPACA have to do with Obama's direct influence on the economy?
You do realize that premium costs for 2014 are actually about equal to 2013, the first year without a significant rise in cost in the last 20 years? Also, insurance companies legally cannot lose money during the implementation of PPACA, so 2016 I believe, before the actual solvency of the law can be assessed.
Edit: I'd also like to note that last month unemployment claims were at their lowest level in 70 years and the estimated jobless rate has steadily declined for the last 3 years. I wouldn't credit Obama for that, and the metrics are flawed in what they attempt to demonstrate and how they do it, but the economy IS on the rise.
you do realize why unemployment claims are so low? small businesses are hireing more temps in order to not have to pay for all that insurance. more temp workers = more people in lower income brackets = less purchasing power and less taxes paid.
I'd like to see some evidence that temp employment is responsible for even a portion of that. In fact, temp companies are also required to offer health insurance for anyone who works more than 30(?) hours per week. Just because they don't work for the contracting company doesn't mean they are independent, they still work for a temp agency. Small businesses would get no benefit from that arrangement, as they aren't required to offer insurance and temps generally cost at least as much as a long term employee. Temps, on average, make more than their long-term counterparts, it's only in the unskilled labor market that the tables shift. Even then, the only reason to use a temp over a direct employee is for surges in workload or to replace someone on a short term leave like maternity, STD, or FMLA.
Also, the largest decline in unemployment claims is due to long-term benefits running out or people exiting the workforce.
By Nazrious 2014-10-10 00:44:45
1. Congress makes laws. You can blame PPACA on Congressional Democrats, but Obama didn't write or pass the legislation, he only signed it.
2. What does PPACA have to do with Obama's direct influence on the economy?
You do realize that premium costs for 2014 are actually about equal to 2013, the first year without a significant rise in cost in the last 20 years? Also, insurance companies legally cannot lose money during the implementation of PPACA, so 2016 I believe, before the actual solvency of the law can be assessed.
Edit: I'd also like to note that last month unemployment claims were at their lowest level in 70 years and the estimated jobless rate has steadily declined for the last 3 years. I wouldn't credit Obama for that, and the metrics are flawed in what they attempt to demonstrate and how they do it, but the economy IS on the rise.
you do realize why unemployment claims are so low? small businesses are hireing more temps in order to not have to pay for all that insurance. more temp workers = more people in lower income brackets = less purchasing power and less taxes paid.
Its because unemployment figures are based off those people who were/are collecting unemployment benefits. If the total number of people over 18 and not disabled, to the point of not being able to engage in work of any kind, were to be accounted the figure would be staggering.
Think how many people actually are eligible for unemployment, then figure how many people go off unemployment because it runs out and not due to becoming employed.
The numbers mean nothing if you don't know what they stand for. Thats why the media spreads it around because its an easy to track number that no one has clue one about.
Heck most part time and temp work does not even qualify a person for unemployment.
Leviathan.Protey
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2014-10-10 01:04:42
I'd like to see some evidence that temp employment is responsible for even a portion of that. In fact, temp companies are also required to offer health insurance for anyone who works more than 30(?) hours per week. Just because they don't work for the contracting company doesn't mean they are independent, they still work for a temp agency. Small businesses would get no benefit from that arrangement, as they aren't required to offer insurance and temps generally cost at least as much as a long term employee. Temps, on average, make more than their long-term counterparts, it's only in the unskilled labor market that the tables shift. Even then, the only reason to use a temp over a direct employee is for surges in workload or to replace someone on a short term leave like maternity, STD, or FMLA.
Also, the largest decline in unemployment claims is due to long-term benefits running out or people exiting the workforce.
when i said temps, i mean people who don't work full time. I forget the exact #s, but businesses that have a certain amount of personnel (100 i think?) that work full time have to offer insurance. so what they do is higher people as temps. not so much as they are working there for a short time, but rather they work there with less hours. Quite a few members of my family own small businesses that hover right around the cap of # of full time employees and so they let some of them go and hired people with less hours to get out of having to pay that insurance.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-10-10 01:13:56
I'd like to see some evidence that temp employment is responsible for even a portion of that. In fact, temp companies are also required to offer health insurance for anyone who works more than 30(?) hours per week. Just because they don't work for the contracting company doesn't mean they are independent, they still work for a temp agency. Small businesses would get no benefit from that arrangement, as they aren't required to offer insurance and temps generally cost at least as much as a long term employee. Temps, on average, make more than their long-term counterparts, it's only in the unskilled labor market that the tables shift. Even then, the only reason to use a temp over a direct employee is for surges in workload or to replace someone on a short term leave like maternity, STD, or FMLA.
Also, the largest decline in unemployment claims is due to long-term benefits running out or people exiting the workforce.
when i said temps, i mean people who don't work full time. I forget the exact #s, but businesses that have a certain amount of personnel (100 i think?) that work full time have to offer insurance. so what they do is higher people as temps. not so much as they are working there for a short time, but rather they work there with less hours. Quite a few members of my family own small businesses that hover right around the cap of # of full time employees and so they let some of them go and hired people with less hours to get out of having to pay that insurance.
Just because some members of your family chose to get around a law that isn't even in effect doesn't mean that it makes anyone else is doing it.
By Altimaomega 2014-10-10 03:07:19
I'd like to see some evidence that temp employment is responsible for even a portion of that. In fact, temp companies are also required to offer health insurance for anyone who works more than 30(?) hours per week. Just because they don't work for the contracting company doesn't mean they are independent, they still work for a temp agency. Small businesses would get no benefit from that arrangement, as they aren't required to offer insurance and temps generally cost at least as much as a long term employee. Temps, on average, make more than their long-term counterparts, it's only in the unskilled labor market that the tables shift. Even then, the only reason to use a temp over a direct employee is for surges in workload or to replace someone on a short term leave like maternity, STD, or FMLA.
Also, the largest decline in unemployment claims is due to long-term benefits running out or people exiting the workforce.
when i said temps, i mean people who don't work full time. I forget the exact #s, but businesses that have a certain amount of personnel (100 i think?) that work full time have to offer insurance. so what they do is higher people as temps. not so much as they are working there for a short time, but rather they work there with less hours. Quite a few members of my family own small businesses that hover right around the cap of # of full time employees and so they let some of them go and hired people with less hours to get out of having to pay that insurance.
Just because some members of your family chose to get around a law that isn't even in effect doesn't mean that it makes anyone else is doing it. 
By Fumiku 2014-10-10 03:33:00
I WAAAAAAS about to go to bed...... Now My feet are on the couch!
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-10-10 06:44:51
1. Congress makes laws. You can blame PPACA on Congressional Democrats, but Obama didn't write or pass the legislation, he only signed it.
2. What does PPACA have to do with Obama's direct influence on the economy?
You do realize that premium costs for 2014 are actually about equal to 2013, the first year without a significant rise in cost in the last 20 years? Also, insurance companies legally cannot lose money during the implementation of PPACA, so 2016 I believe, before the actual solvency of the law can be assessed.
Edit: I'd also like to note that last month unemployment claims were at their lowest level in 70 years and the estimated jobless rate has steadily declined for the last 3 years. I wouldn't credit Obama for that, and the metrics are flawed in what they attempt to demonstrate and how they do it, but the economy IS on the rise.
you do realize why unemployment claims are so low? small businesses are hireing more temps in order to not have to pay for all that insurance. more temp workers = more people in lower income brackets = less purchasing power and less taxes paid.
Its because unemployment figures are based off those people who were/are collecting unemployment benefits. If the total number of people over 18 and not disabled, to the point of not being able to engage in work of any kind, were to be accounted the figure would be staggering.
Think how many people actually are eligible for unemployment, then figure how many people go off unemployment because it runs out and not due to becoming employed.
The numbers mean nothing if you don't know what they stand for. Thats why the media spreads it around because its an easy to track number that no one has clue one about.
Heck most part time and temp work does not even qualify a person for unemployment. They actually do keep track of real unemployment numbers. Rather they call it the civilian labor force participation rate. It's been on the decline of course. But given American's inability to think for themselves they believe whatever they're told despite these real numbers being released, especially if it goes against their argument.
Obama's years go from 01/09-01/14 thus far.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
EDIT: This figure also take in to account those who are too young, too old, disabled, etc. that are no longer considered able to work.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-10-10 07:22:50
And for those who keep on believing the dollar is strong:
It's called the Dollar Index ($DXY) look it up sometime.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-10-10 07:27:17
I'd like to see some evidence that temp employment is responsible for even a portion of that. In fact, temp companies are also required to offer health insurance for anyone who works more than 30(?) hours per week. Just because they don't work for the contracting company doesn't mean they are independent, they still work for a temp agency. Small businesses would get no benefit from that arrangement, as they aren't required to offer insurance and temps generally cost at least as much as a long term employee. Temps, on average, make more than their long-term counterparts, it's only in the unskilled labor market that the tables shift. Even then, the only reason to use a temp over a direct employee is for surges in workload or to replace someone on a short term leave like maternity, STD, or FMLA.
Also, the largest decline in unemployment claims is due to long-term benefits running out or people exiting the workforce.
when i said temps, i mean people who don't work full time. I forget the exact #s, but businesses that have a certain amount of personnel (100 i think?) that work full time have to offer insurance. so what they do is higher people as temps. not so much as they are working there for a short time, but rather they work there with less hours. Quite a few members of my family own small businesses that hover right around the cap of # of full time employees and so they let some of them go and hired people with less hours to get out of having to pay that insurance. You are confusing the PPACA law.
Obama declared (by executive order) that any employer with 100+ FTE (full time equivalents) must provide insurance to all of their employees who work 30+ hours a week on average. That's only for 2015. 2016 the law takes full effect for employers with 50+ FTEs
If there are 200 people working there, and 170 of them work less than 30 hours a week, Obamacare has to provide insurance to only the 30 people who do work 30+ hours a week. There are other provisions in regards to cost, and then you have the penalty structure to look at. In my hypothetical situation above, the company can still opt out of buying health insurance or paying a portion of their full time employee insurance and still not get hit with a penalty because the penalties start after the 31st non-compliance. The first 30 employees are exempt from being penalized by the government to the company.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-10-10 07:29:00
As for the CNY (Chinese Yuan):
By maldini 2014-10-10 07:52:38
2:1 Ratio for China in high tech Market. (11x more steel)
YouTube Video Placeholder
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-10-10 07:54:42
As for the CNY (Chinese Yuan):
This graph is not an accurate graph for showing strength of the Yuan. It just shows the exchange rate between the two currencies.
Although, any graph or data provided by for the Yuan would be from China, and they aren't exactly known for their accurate or even truthful data.
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-10-10 07:58:21
As for the CNY (Chinese Yuan):
This graph is not an accurate graph for showing strength of the Yuan. It just shows the exchange rate between the two currencies.
Although, any graph or data provided by for the Yuan would be from China, and they aren't exactly known for their accurate or even truthful data. I have no idea of the exact difference between the two graphs shown (you seem to say there is a difference), but, for some reason, the graph posted about USD is exactly the SAME graph used when converting money, aka exchange rate. It clearly shows the 2012/2014 difference I mentioned earlier, which was my basis.
So unless they use graphs that have nothing to do with exchange rates when you actually want to exchange money, you may be wrong here.
Source: Google.
Isn't the exchange rate dictated by the currencies values?
By maldini 2014-10-10 07:58:49
As for the CNY (Chinese Yuan):
This graph is not an accurate graph for showing strength of the Yuan. It just shows the exchange rate between the two currencies.
Although, any graph or data provided by for the Yuan would be from China, and they aren't exactly known for their accurate or even truthful data.
And a FED that has never been audited is transparency, right?
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-10-10 07:59:13
2:1 Ratio for China in high tech Market. (11x more steel) A) How much of that high tech market in China is from actual inventions and not knockoffs of American technology? How many actual innovations have China and it's high tech sector actually made?
B) Chinese steel is considered to be the shittiest steel made. I have a couple of steel mill clients who not only are publicly traded, but also issue out the required steel manufacturer reports to the government, which is also reported publicly. The US government has a QC reporting department of the various grades of manufactured and recycled steel, so construction crews can understand (and be held fully liable for purchasing subgrade ***) what they are buying.
Chinese steel is known throughout the entire world to be the lowest grade steel you can buy. Even South Africa makes better grades of steel, and that country is not known for any sort of QC.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-10-10 08:02:42
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »As for the CNY (Chinese Yuan):
This graph is not an accurate graph for showing strength of the Yuan. It just shows the exchange rate between the two currencies.
Although, any graph or data provided by for the Yuan would be from China, and they aren't exactly known for their accurate or even truthful data. I have no idea of the exact difference between the two graphs shown (you seem to say there is a difference), but, for some reason, the graph posted about USD is exactly the SAME graph used when converting money, aka exchange rate. It clearly shows the 2012/2014 difference I mentioned earlier, which was my basis.
So unless they use graphs that have nothing to do with exchange rates when you actually want to exchange money, you may be wrong here.
Source: Google.
Isn't the exchange rate dictated by the currencies values? Exchange rates are international markets looking for, well, exchanging currencies based by the purchasing power and strength of the currency.
But the purchasing power and strength is reported differently, using different standards.
In other words, the Yuan graph shows the factors of two different countries, while the US graph shows only the factors associated with the US only (no outside influence other than trade). I didn't say that the two aren't correlated, but the Yuan graph isn't an accurate representation of the strength of the Yuan, because it also takes into consideration the strength of the Dollar.
tl:dr version- you don't use outside influences to determine internal strength of a currency.
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-10-10 08:13:04
Oh, I see. So while it gives an idea, it's not the actual value of the currency.
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-10-10 08:37:52
Yes, that's only the USD vs. RMB (CNY) and it doesn't paint a complete picture for the strength of the currency, but it does illustrate that even a direct comparison of exchange rates shows how it's been gradually rising over the past 10 years.
|
|
