
China's slowdown deepens; industrial output growth falls to 17.5-year low - paulpauper
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-activity/chinas-slowdown-deepens-industrial-output-growth-falls-to-17-1-2-year-low-idUSKBN1W102H
======
aazaa
> Several analysts said in recent weeks that China’s economic growth was
> already testing the lower end of Beijing’s full-year target of around
> 6-6.5%, which is likely to spur more policy easing. Second-quarter growth
> cooled to 6.2%, the weakest in nearly 30 years.

6% growth would be the envy of many countries. For comparison, the last time
the US did that was 1984, after back-to-back recessions and a flood of
deficit-financed defense spending:

[https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-
year-3305543](https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543)

~~~
Retric
Under the CCP China’s per person growth has been lackluster over the full
period 1950 - today relative to many countries. The numbers have improved, but
context is always important.

Edited: Used poor numbers for GDP ranking. Trying numbers from here:
[https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/...](https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-7954-10-12#Sec12)
but it's not that fast.

PS: Of note the 1950’s GDP was after a long civil war.

~~~
Leary
ROFL. Never have I seen a more skillful distortion of facts. China's GDP per
capita was around $500 per person in 1950, just at subsistence level, whereas
it is currently around $9500. Other than a few countries such as South Korea,
there are no countries that have advanced so much in that period.

If they have fallen in ranking, that is only because a number of countries
became independent after WW2, especially in Europe.

~~~
mytailorisrich
Between 1949 and 1978 they did massively screw up economically while
experiencing a population boom, which obviously led to GDP per capita numbers
to collapse. On the other hand, since 1978 they've experienced probably the
biggest economic boom in human history.

After Mao's death the government was pragmatic enough to realise that if they
did not kick start the economy the regime would collapse (as it did in the
USSR), and they rightly concluded that socialist economic management does not
work.

Beyond that, it's difficult to compare with South Korea (since someone else
mentioned that country) just due to the population difference.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Not really. They grew at an average of 6% over Mao’s reign too. The economic
progress made was very substantial. In 1948 China was an impoverished,
colonised and war-wrecked country with a large proportion of drug addicts. 90%
of people were illiterate. By the 60’s it was a major power making large
machinery, ships, weapons etc.

~~~
mytailorisrich
The economy was on its knees in 1978 and they had rationing. There is a reason
they instigated such drastic changes.

------
echelon
I have so many questions about China.

1) What does this mean for Xi's leadership and the CCP? Will this threaten
their power?

2) Does this cement the US as the leading economy for the next quarter
century?

3) What does this mean for up and coming rivals, such as India and Vietnam?

4) How will this effect China's middle class?

5) Will we see an increase in Chinese expats?

~~~
AFascistWorld
1) What does this mean for Xi's leadership and the CCP? Will this threaten
their power?

No, only had you experienced the level and depth of China's indoctrination,
can you understand how profoundly it affects the people, I still recall now
and then the red songs I was taught and sang. Your whole world view is shaped
by the regime to ensure their best interest, you think in their ways even if
you are a rebel.

BTW they now teach "politics" in primary schools. The Youth are extremely
patriotic and loyal to the party, they are impatient to even let you start
your different opinions.

There will be discontent, but the power and reach of the tools the party has
built is simply unprecedented in human history.

4) How will this effect China's middle class?

If the condo market collapses, most of them probably will go bankrupt and be
in huge debts for a long time, being taught bubble economics the hard way, but
the market probably can bounce back since it's CCP monopoly. Worst case
senario the party can print money nonstop to keep the prices from crashing.

~~~
kiliantics
Much of this description applies pretty well to western countries, especially
the US.

~~~
woodgrainz
China has no freedom of speech, the press, religion, or assembly. There is no
real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to the US to be
made. The systems are completely different as to be unrecognizable from one
another.

In addition, the Chinese court system is simply a tool of the government to
keep themselves in power. Reference the 99.9% conviction rate:
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/121932...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12193202/Chinese-
courts-convict-more-than-99.9-per-cent-of-defendants.html)

~~~
mistermann
> There is no real comparison of the indoctrination of the people of China to
> the US to be made. The systems are completely different as to be
> unrecognizable from one another.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. It's true, the two systems are
significantly different, but I don't think that rules out that Americans are
subject to _a form of_ indoctrination. Look at the stranglehold the two
parties have on the electoral _system_ in the US. Just as one example, what
happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election barely raised an eyebrow. If
you listen to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast for several weeks on either
side of the last election (particularly after), I'd say it's pretty hard to
make a case that the system isn't rigged to a fairly large degree, but how
many people are actually aware of this?

I don't know if indoctrination is the perfect word for it, but constantly
singing the praises of the system of democracy, while realistically the only
alternatives people get have to go through a very thorough pre-screening for
"suitability", and almost no one ever asks what the hell is really going on
here, seems like a relative of some sort to indoctrination.

~~~
jcranberry
A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through the
Republican primary system.

Superdelegates in the Democratic primary are the following:

1\. Elected members of the DNC 2\. Democratic governors 3\. Democratic members
of Congress 4\. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional
leaders, and DNC Chairs.

The majority of them are elected officials currently holding office. The rest
are formerly elected officials, and a minority. It's called an indirect
election. That is not 'rigging'. The closest thing to rigging here would be
category 4.

~~~
mistermann
> A reality tv show political outsider was able to become president through
> the Republican primary system.

That this is even possible is as much a criticism of the process as it is a
compliment.

Honest question: if you were designing a brand new system to elect the leader
of the US, how likely do you expect it would be for someone of his calibre to
be the last person standing?

> 1\. Elected members of the DNC 2. Democratic governors 3. Democratic members
> of Congress 4. Former Democratic Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional
> leaders, and DNC Chairs. The majority of them are elected officials
> currently holding office. The rest are formerly elected officials, and a
> minority.

Was this structure designed by the founding fathers? What percentage of
Americans would you say _really_ understand that a small group of
undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to directly block
undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from making it to the
election? How many people do you think _approve_ of this structure.

> That is not 'rigging'.

For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this
system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people
would agree with you?

~~~
jcranberry
>Was this structure designed by the founding fathers?

No, this is a primary, as in, it is how the democratic party elects its own
representative to run for president.

>What percentage of Americans would you say really understand that a small
group of undemocratically unelected people like this has the ability to
directly block undesirable (to whom we don't really know) candidates from
making it to the election?

In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently
holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently
holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words, democratically
elected.

Superdelegates and how they function is common knowledge for anyone following
or participating in the primary. It's heavily covered and talked about every
presidential election cycle.

>How many people do you think approve of this structure.

According to a poll run by Rasmussen in 2016, likely democratic voters
approved of it at a rate of 30%.

>For certain definitions of rigged, of course. If the actual nature of this
system was clearly explained to the American people, do you think most people
would agree with you?

Americans understand very well how the election system works. 'Rigged' implies
deception or fraudulence.

~~~
mistermann
> In 2016, 20 of 716 were in category 4, i.e., those who aren't currently
> holding office as a result of having been voted in. The rest are currently
> holding an office for which they were voted in. In other words,
> democratically elected.

That's actually a pretty convincing argument, I think I'll have to concede
victory.

------
phil248
Given the trajectory of most developing economies away from industrial growth
and towards service growth, is this really so bad? Wouldn't we expect
industrial output to peak and decline over time?

------
hinkley
Ah statistics.

You couldn't fault a layperson for thinking this means that they have
plateaued, or industry is in decline. But it's not saying either of those.

This is just a very tortured way to say that we are reaching the other end of
an S-curve. An S-curve that any rational person would assume was coming
eventually.

------
erikpukinskis
I don’t think that’s what slowdown means. They are still speeding up just
accelerating less.

~~~
EpicEng
It's a slowdown... of growth. Who reads that headline and doesn't immediately
infer that?

~~~
erikpukinskis
I did piece it together from context but it’s a bad headline. It doesn’t even
say growth slowed. It says China slowed, and growth was low. It’s just
grammatically bad, and probably deliberately misleading.

------
FerretFred
If they'd stop producing so much cheap, ephemeral crap I'd really like that.
Stop wasting the planet's resources guys and just build stuff that works
properly.

As seen on amazon.co.uk: "1-48 of over 70,000 results for "iphone case""

------
xmly
Apparently Trump's tariffs contributed to this. Just hope it would not hurt US
economy that much.

------
jhoechtl
Trumps measures taking effect to some extend?

I expect China will be hit hard by the US terminating UPU.

Edit:Changed to UPU

~~~
drak0n1c
China's economic slowdown has been a long time coming, the relevance of this
slowdown to the trade war is not necessarily as a consequence of it but more
of a fortuitous opportunity for the US to negotiate freer trade in China. The
trade war has an economic impact on China but there is a lot more behind their
problems.

------
RaceWon
Who knows what the Chinese end game really is? I'm not a political analyst,
just like I would have no idea who droned the Saudi oil fields (maybe Trump
did). WTF--we only know what we're told.

However, based on the fact that the Chinese government mistreats the shit out
of millions of their citizens--I'm delighted to pay more for a phone or a TV
or whateve; just based on the possibility that they will become overtly
aggressive in the future (and drawing similarities to the US prision system
does not negate my point).

Of course, this is just my point of view, and it is colored by the litterly
hundreds of thousands of battles I've had in my lifetime in cars. The fact is;
if it looks like someone is out to fuck you... they usually are.

------
m0zg
And all they need to do to return to some semblance of their former trajectory
is agree to stop stealing our IP, stop their currency manipulation, and stop
sending us a bunch of fentanyl. A no brainer really.

