Extrapolating the data from the first 9 months (aka first 3 quarters) of 2023 to estimate what the last 3 months provided isn’t inflating it? Look at the IMF’s data for the US and UK and what OP’s graph projects.
If it’s about giving China a handjob why would they inflate the US’s GDP as well?
You can’t possibly make that claim without showing your mathematics to disprove it, fam.
If something rises from 0 to 4.2 in 270 days, how would it not hit at least 5.0 on 365 days?
You probably think it’s a bunch of bots you’re arguing with but man, you’ll take anti-China articles at face value without ever looking further than a headline but will disregard anything even pro-China as propaganda, I think you might be extremely biased.
A, Go through this post look at how your comrades act. Don’t act like I’m the problem here. How many replies and like three of you actually have anything of merit to say. So who is actually insane?
B, Housing drag plus deflation pressure plus decreasing demand abroad for Chinese goods.
but the real kicker? Their economy didn’t match the prediction at all from last year which wouldn’t be huge except experts adjusted their estimates almost monthly for China and that suggests a lot. Mostly that the information being publicly pushed isn’t reliable and should be considered unreliable.
China will grow sure. But since the 90s they say every decade they will pass the US and they don’t. Because the numbers aren’t real even the IMF knows it that’s why they have the disclaimer right there underneath the graph y’all are stuck on. They talk about it too.
All of this could just be me. But foreign investment has slowed into China and that’s what I personally look for. Those who know, clearly know.
October, 2022 based on, and bear with me, China being in lockdown for a significant portion of 2022 (remember China was under harsher lockdowns for much longer than the west, 2022 was a slow year and the Bloomberg article was extrapolating on that data)
Third link, pure speculation from a ROC journalist, but even in said link, 8th paragraph:
Housing drag plus deflation pressure plus decreasing demand abroad for Chinese goods.
Look, I’m looking at an increase in exports, as far as data I can find shows, the only yoy decrease was a 1% one in 2019. And this is inclusive of much more recent sanctions against China in the semi conductor market (which was also supposed to collapse but China pivoted and somehow recovered)
China will grow sure. But since the 90s they say every decade they will pass the US and they don’t.
Yeah, look can you honestly look at the last few years of US Statesmanship and see it surviving? The Roman republic didn’t need to surpass Macedon, they just needed for Macedonia to collapse. It then had room to surpass Alexander’s empire. China’s timeline is several thousand years. Liberalism, specifically neoliberalism, is collapsing within less than 100.
If I were a gambling man, I would wager on the elder civilization. The one that gave the world paper, printing, gunpowder and the compass over the one that’s about to elect another dementia ridden Zionist (guess which one I’m talking about, lol)
As for the behaviour of my comrades: if I had a guess you were the 1,000th to come in with these takes and almost smug certainty of western sources 100% accurate Chinese all inflated lies. A lot of people will just link you to a red sails article or something of the sort, most people don’t engage in actual discussions. If “tankies” kept showing up in your spaces, I’ve no doubt your friends would resort to Tiananmen square spam copypasta after a while.
You’ve already got it set in your mind, no amount of evidence from even western sources will change your mind, I get it.
But, hypothetically, it was proven to be 5%. Would you go back and question the sources that told you it wasn’t? Or continue to chug along as you are now, taking those sources at face value?
Chinese journalists who under reported figures 4.8% at the start of Jan found out they were wrong and retracted the articles because it was factually incorrect, western media pounced on it because “Wow China’s censoring journalists that says the economy is bad, therefore the only conclusion is their economy is bad, that’s the conclusion we’re implying here” and then a few days later even Reuters was like “oh yeah it was over 5%” and it’s crickets from the people that implied “China SCRUBS CLEAN ALL EVIDENCE OF BAD ECONOMY” you’ll continue to remember it as the latter for the rest of your life.
Also very cute to pretend to be having a regular conversation just to piss your pants a second later. How about this save this post hit me up in a year let’s see if you have the balls to admit you’re wrong.
I’m not one to argue small values, as far as I know this stuff will be better understood in retrospect, in the same way peer-reviewed scientific understanding is, years later.
I am curious though, do you think there would be evidence or just data that, for the time being (since, like I said, this stuff is better understood after the fact when enough data is gathered, disseminated, reviewed, etc.) would make you reconsider?
If the IMF or the relevant CPC association put out numbers much lower than 5%, I’d consider it plausible and keep it as a provisional value along with the forecasted ones and the current range alleged by different groups. If the Chicago School of Economics or Austrian School (lol, do they do math? jk) published something, I’d have to look at it before dismissing it.
So I’m just curious because clearly you put in effort, and I have a hard time understanding the bounds and methodology you use since 1. it’s different from the folks here, and 2. it’s different from contemporary orthodox/heterodox economists.
That just continues to show this post is inflated and not really a good source of information.
Extrapolating the data from the first 9 months (aka first 3 quarters) of 2023 to estimate what the last 3 months provided isn’t inflating it? Look at the IMF’s data for the US and UK and what OP’s graph projects.
If it’s about giving China a handjob why would they inflate the US’s GDP as well?
It is absolutely inflated do the math yourself. China does not pass 5.
You can’t possibly make that claim without showing your mathematics to disprove it, fam.
If something rises from 0 to 4.2 in 270 days, how would it not hit at least 5.0 on 365 days?
You probably think it’s a bunch of bots you’re arguing with but man, you’ll take anti-China articles at face value without ever looking further than a headline but will disregard anything even pro-China as propaganda, I think you might be extremely biased.
Also while this was happening I found a Reuters article that says also states 5.2% growth in Q4 and it’s a criticism of China that it’s LOWER
Like at this stage a sane person would just concede right?
A, Go through this post look at how your comrades act. Don’t act like I’m the problem here. How many replies and like three of you actually have anything of merit to say. So who is actually insane?
B, Housing drag plus deflation pressure plus decreasing demand abroad for Chinese goods.
but the real kicker? Their economy didn’t match the prediction at all from last year which wouldn’t be huge except experts adjusted their estimates almost monthly for China and that suggests a lot. Mostly that the information being publicly pushed isn’t reliable and should be considered unreliable.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/economy/china-economy-challenges-2024-intl-hnk/index.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-28/china-s-growth-now-seen-below-5-through-2024-on-covid-zero-risk
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/12/22/after-bumpy-recovery-chinas-economy-faces-serious-headwinds-in-2024
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/24/jpmorgan-citi-goldman-cut-china-gdp-forecast-a-few-times-this-year.html
China will grow sure. But since the 90s they say every decade they will pass the US and they don’t. Because the numbers aren’t real even the IMF knows it that’s why they have the disclaimer right there underneath the graph y’all are stuck on. They talk about it too.
All of this could just be me. But foreign investment has slowed into China and that’s what I personally look for. Those who know, clearly know.
I’ll just reply here, let’s go through those links.
First link, second paragraph:
Second link, publish date:
Third link, pure speculation from a ROC journalist, but even in said link, 8th paragraph:
4th link, 3rd paragraph
However, you insist it doesn’t pass 5 and will not retract that statememt. It seems like you’ve already made up your mind.
Regarding:
Look, I’m looking at an increase in exports, as far as data I can find shows, the only yoy decrease was a 1% one in 2019. And this is inclusive of much more recent sanctions against China in the semi conductor market (which was also supposed to collapse but China pivoted and somehow recovered)
Yeah, look can you honestly look at the last few years of US Statesmanship and see it surviving? The Roman republic didn’t need to surpass Macedon, they just needed for Macedonia to collapse. It then had room to surpass Alexander’s empire. China’s timeline is several thousand years. Liberalism, specifically neoliberalism, is collapsing within less than 100.
If I were a gambling man, I would wager on the elder civilization. The one that gave the world paper, printing, gunpowder and the compass over the one that’s about to elect another dementia ridden Zionist (guess which one I’m talking about, lol)
As for the behaviour of my comrades: if I had a guess you were the 1,000th to come in with these takes and almost smug certainty of western sources 100% accurate Chinese all inflated lies. A lot of people will just link you to a red sails article or something of the sort, most people don’t engage in actual discussions. If “tankies” kept showing up in your spaces, I’ve no doubt your friends would resort to Tiananmen square spam copypasta after a while.
4.2 / 3 = 1.4
4.2 + 1.4 = 5.6
If anything, the screenshot is underestimating the fourth quarter.
because that’s not how they do the math lol
there is a lot more than that. which is why the number you got and that number is wrong.
Weird right? You put actual thought in and realize that’s not truthful. Interesting huh?
Ok, let’s ignore Reuters because they’re probably Chinese shills or the IMF estimating 5.4%, 0.2% higher than the official CCP figure released in Jan because the International Monetary Fund are communist shills as well.
You’ve already got it set in your mind, no amount of evidence from even western sources will change your mind, I get it.
But, hypothetically, it was proven to be 5%. Would you go back and question the sources that told you it wasn’t? Or continue to chug along as you are now, taking those sources at face value?
Chinese journalists who under reported figures 4.8% at the start of Jan found out they were wrong and retracted the articles because it was factually incorrect, western media pounced on it because “Wow China’s censoring journalists that says the economy is bad, therefore the only conclusion is their economy is bad, that’s the conclusion we’re implying here” and then a few days later even Reuters was like “oh yeah it was over 5%” and it’s crickets from the people that implied “China SCRUBS CLEAN ALL EVIDENCE OF BAD ECONOMY” you’ll continue to remember it as the latter for the rest of your life.
Sure just read none of the articles I shared lol.
Also very cute to pretend to be having a regular conversation just to piss your pants a second later. How about this save this post hit me up in a year let’s see if you have the balls to admit you’re wrong.
Spoiler, you won’t
I’m not one to argue small values, as far as I know this stuff will be better understood in retrospect, in the same way peer-reviewed scientific understanding is, years later.
I am curious though, do you think there would be evidence or just data that, for the time being (since, like I said, this stuff is better understood after the fact when enough data is gathered, disseminated, reviewed, etc.) would make you reconsider?
If the IMF or the relevant CPC association put out numbers much lower than 5%, I’d consider it plausible and keep it as a provisional value along with the forecasted ones and the current range alleged by different groups. If the Chicago School of Economics or Austrian School (lol, do they do math? jk) published something, I’d have to look at it before dismissing it.
So I’m just curious because clearly you put in effort, and I have a hard time understanding the bounds and methodology you use since 1. it’s different from the folks here, and 2. it’s different from contemporary orthodox/heterodox economists.
You didn’t link anything to me, did you confuse me for someone else?
https://hexbear.net/comment/4566817
literally you dumbass
Drone