China re-estimate of the day — whoops!

by on November 15, 2007 at 9:49 am in Data Source | Permalink

The Asian
Development Bank presented official survey results indicating China’s
economy is smaller and poorer than established estimates say. The
announcement cited the first authoritative measure of China’s size
using purchasing power parity methods. The results tell us that when
the World Bank announces its expected PPP data revisions later this
year, China’s economy will turn out to be 40 per cent smaller than
previously stated……The number of people in China living below the
World Bank’s dollar-a-day poverty line is 300m – three times larger
than currently estimated.

Here is more.

Person November 15, 2007 at 9:55 am

This is, of course, in contrast to the accurate population figures, right?

David Zetland November 15, 2007 at 11:03 am

Holy cow — some people at Proctor and Gamble (or, more likely, GM) are going to be rescaling some ad budgets! That’s the problem with statistics — people can’t *see* the difference between 100 and 300 million!

OTOH, 40% smaller means (among many other things) that their foreign exchange reserves are that much larger, in proportion. Even worse, they have to grow even further before engaging in “my economy is bigger than yours” dick-pulling with other nationalists. Too bad.

Barkley Rosser November 15, 2007 at 11:58 am

Regarding “mach posturing,” the one place that they are given to it is in regard
to Taiwan. They do want to show off their military prowess to Taiwan and the US,
which they have done pretty well by buying lots of subs and knocking out a space
satellite. Otherwise, they tend to try to play with a low profile in most places
and situations. Hu Jintao is very sophisticated in his diplomacy, a major reason
that around the world in most countries, China is viewed far more favorably than is
the US.

Steve Sailer November 15, 2007 at 12:55 pm

So, that means my estimate of the number of people living in countries poorer than Mexico (per capita GDP, PPP) of 5,000,000,000 will be roughly accurate for a lot longer.

Maybe all the open borders fans should think about that number for a while.

Mark November 15, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Steve Sailer FTL

Joshua Holmes November 15, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Maybe all the open borders fans should think about that number for a while.

If they’re that poor, they’re going to have a hell of a time getting here.

ZBicyclist November 15, 2007 at 5:55 pm

“Hu Jintao is very sophisticated in his diplomacy, a major reason
that around the world in most countries, China is viewed far more favorably than is
the US.”

Barkley, if only the US was giving him more competition in the “sophisticated diplomacy” area.

jim November 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Well, diplomacy has a very marginal effect. The world’s best diplomacy won’t have much effect if two countries national interests are in serious conflict.

America has been the Great Satan in the Middle East for many, many decades, under both liberal and conservative, Republican and Democratic regimes.

Anti-Yanqui sentiment has been rife throughout Latin American ever since the Monroe Doctrine. But that doesn’t stop millions from immigrating here.

If China ever replaces the US as the global superpower, then anti-Chinese sentiment will rise — no matter how sophisticated their diplomacy is. The periodic anti-Chinese riots in countries like Indonesia show that China is already becoming the Big Bad in Southeast Asia.

Chewxy November 15, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Jim, the anti-chinese riots in Indonesia were racially motivated, not politically. Heh. Just like America, Indonesia has chinese immigrants too, you know. The only problem was that after the Dutch colonization, the Chinese people (i.e. immigrants) controlled most of the economy (and they say us chinese are jews of the orient for a good reason). The local ‘indeginious’ people, the Malays weren’t happy, so they went on a riot. A bloody one at that.

It had nothing to do with China. In fact, when the anti-chinese riots in Indonesia happened (circa 1997-2000), China was still quite poor. And no, it had nothing to do with China’s claim on the South China Sea either.

jim November 16, 2007 at 12:45 am

My point remains: diplomacy is simply not that powerful of a force. Individuals and nations ultimately follow their self-interest.

Public opinion goes up and down — it’s a fairly worthless metric for guiding policy. There have been anti-American riots all over the world periodically long before 9-11 — and there will be plenty in the future, regardless of our policy.

The rise of anti-Americanism is a predictable, if irrational, response to the post Cold War situation. It’s something to take into consideration, like any other superstition or religion … but America should, and will, act in it’s national interest regardless.

Tom November 16, 2007 at 9:30 am

“As for the US as permanent Great Satan, I would note that right after 9/11 more people had a favorable opinion of the US than did not in most Arab countries and most Latin American countries. Not so anymore.”

Just shows that the highs and lows are fleeting. How’d they fell on 9/10? Not as charitable. Polls are garbage anyway. You really have to judge by actions. How many pro-American gov’ts have been elected since we invaded Iraq? Germany & France went much more our way. England and Australia stayed with us. Denmark is the most recent switch to pro-American. We lost Spain, though.

Barkley Rosser November 16, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Tom,
Denmark most recent? You are off base. Denmark has
been part of the “coalition of the willing” since we went into
Iraq. France is most recent, with Sarkozy, and we have “lost”
quite a few others besides Spain. Also, although some surge of
sympathy after 9/11, it was not that great an increase. Governments have to deal with us, but popular opinion around the
world towards the US has never been lower, never in our entire
history. This is not just some “things go up, things go down”
matter.

Asie,

Sure, there is plenty of money in all the big cities, not just the ones on the coast. The poverty remains in the rural areas, and that is where these adjusted figures appear to be mostly relevant. Given that it is about the basically poor, it has little to do with things like oil demand or military buildups.

JSK November 16, 2007 at 6:57 pm

‘You’ have lost the Netherlands, for two (besides Spain). Strangely enough, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (we participate, for a small part) are big issues here.

翻译公司 February 25, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: