Like Tree46Likes

Trump Vs. China - Live Presser

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    166

    Impact of the policy if US go full nuclear is that CHina relies on Hong Kong for -

    Foreign Direct Investment - It's a gateway for foreigners and foreign companies to expand into China... Impact will be less foreign investment, but also American companies will also suffer from being unable to tap the China marekt, for example Apple 15% of Apple's revenue is from sales in China accounting for almost $14B USD.

    Stock trading - Chinese companies list on the Hong Kong stock exchange to access financing from abroad - Impact is foreiengers won;t be able to invest in those companies (Some Chinese companies have listed in US stock exchamges though, but Trump is looking to get some of them delisted). The chinses copanies won;t be able to get the investment.

    Chinese banks store a lot of their money in Hong Kong to be able to move it around globally a lot easier - Impact, operations of Chinese banks will be limited.

    Devt markets - Chinese companies tap into Hong Kongs debt marklet for offshore US Dollar funding. Impact - absence f debt marekt means, those companies won;t be able to access another route of financing.

    What does that mean for Hong Kongers - less jobs, less opportunities, less incentive for China to at least have some modicum of 1C2S, since Hong Kong's value will be depreciated.

    What does that mean for China businesses, they will reloacate their cross border financing activities elsewhere, likely SIngapore, ergo the short term impact maybe high, but the medium term is likely low, since there will be many cities that will want the opportunity to be able to make money from tarde financing and investment flows.

    The US would have to sanction many companies and individuals to prevent this, as since CHina is the worlds 2nd largest economy, that would mean a severe global recession if they were to extend sanctions.

    The impact is not just China.. there is poterntial global fallouot depending ont he steps the US takes.

    Aramis and shri like this.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    West of the sun
    Posts
    2,548

    Blusterfest of the year. Trump did nothing and won't because he wants China to keep up its end of last negotiation phase whereby China keeps ordering produce from US farmers / Trump voters in key states. It's all about November elections. Trump doesn't care about Hong Kong people, Americans, American institutions, or Democracy. He's into golf, prostitutes, racism, and preening before mirrors in darkly lit rooms.

    civil_servant, pin, shri and 3 others like this.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoista:
    Impact of the policy if US go full nuclear is that CHina relies on Hong Kong for -

    Foreign Direct Investment - It's a gateway for foreigners and foreign companies to expand into China... Impact will be less foreign investment, but also American companies will also suffer from being unable to tap the China marekt, for example Apple 15% of Apple's revenue is from sales in China accounting for almost $14B USD.

    Stock trading - Chinese companies list on the Hong Kong stock exchange to access financing from abroad - Impact is foreiengers won;t be able to invest in those companies (Some Chinese companies have listed in US stock exchamges though, but Trump is looking to get some of them delisted). The chinses copanies won;t be able to get the investment.

    Chinese banks store a lot of their money in Hong Kong to be able to move it around globally a lot easier - Impact, operations of Chinese banks will be limited.

    Devt markets - Chinese companies tap into Hong Kongs debt marklet for offshore US Dollar funding. Impact - absence f debt marekt means, those companies won;t be able to access another route of financing.

    What does that mean for Hong Kongers - less jobs, less opportunities, less incentive for China to at least have some modicum of 1C2S, since Hong Kong's value will be depreciated.

    What does that mean for China businesses, they will reloacate their cross border financing activities elsewhere, likely SIngapore, ergo the short term impact maybe high, but the medium term is likely low, since there will be many cities that will want the opportunity to be able to make money from tarde financing and investment flows.

    The US would have to sanction many companies and individuals to prevent this, as since CHina is the worlds 2nd largest economy, that would mean a severe global recession if they were to extend sanctions.

    The impact is not just China.. there is poterntial global fallouot depending ont he steps the US takes.
    You're right the loss of autonomy has impacts. The CCP have been referring to Hong Kong as semi rather highly autonomous and degraded the role of the Chief Executive to an administrative one since around 2003. Press releases issued by HK Gov have been written by Mainland departments, the Police go to SHenzhen for advice and legislation has been tabled that has been formulated in Beijing. If Beijing had respected the rule of law, the Hong Kong people and international law as well as the Hong Kong people we wouldn't be in this mess.
    Coolboy and Paxbritannia like this.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramis:
    . Which country led the world in exports? Plenty of negative things that can be said about China but trying to claim they are not a big player on the world stage is simply ridiculous.
    May I direct your attention to household spending. China is on the same level as Ecuador or Moldova with around $3000 USD per year. How are they gonna become a consumption led society with that? How will they ever be able to replace the US as their customer base when they can't even spend 10% of the money? The US has a household spending of $37,000 with Australia, Canada or UK all being around $30,000.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...lue_desc=false

    China's per capita GDP is embarrassingly low considering they had 40 years of development. It's only a third of what Taiwan achieved in the same time frame.

    Name:  w7u1gkev3py41.png
Views: 181
Size:  37.0 KB

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgoodkat:
    May I direct your attention to household spending. China is on the same level as Ecuador or Moldova with around $3000 USD per year. How are they gonna become a consumption led society with that? How will they ever be able to replace the US as their customer base when they can't even spend 10% of the money? The US has a household spending of $37,000 with Australia, Canada or UK all being around $30,000.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...lue_desc=false

    China's per capita GDP is embarrassingly low considering they had 40 years of development. It's only a third of what Taiwan achieved in the same time frame.

    Name:  w7u1gkev3py41.png
Views: 181
Size:  37.0 KB
    Yes and no.. It's the distribution of wealth and PPP, not every $1 = $1.

    Taking PPP into account China averages around $8,000 USD, if you split this into regions/ cities , then areas like Shenzhen have even higher spending, obviouly you'll get some of the poorer regions in the East that will drag down the national average.

    Also the sheer number of people lifted int he middle class is huge... Anecdotally, you only have to travel to expensive holiday locationss and resorts to see the numbner of mainland chinese who can afford these luxuries.

    Sure, there are still millions in poverty. but the signs are clear when you segment the data. The data as an average is not that useful.
    Aramis likes this.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,128

    End of the day China is more than one or two indicators, it's a whole. It's a market that countries want to have access to, it's the 2nd largest economy in the world, it's the biggest exporter, it's a country with a large military force, it's one of only five countries to have a permanent seat on the UN security council. Is China the country of the future? The next US? Probably not,but it's in my opinion ridiculous to think they'll go away even though some of you engage in wishful thinking. Russia remained a big player even when the Soviet Union collapsed. Here's the reality, China has already done some pretty nasty stuff in Tibet and in Xinjiang, they brought us SARS before Covid, flouted WHO regulations, and it's basically economically invaded half of Africa and what have countries done so far to stop or punish them? China even managed to get other countries to receive special status on the Paris climate accord even though they're the biggest polluter in the world. It's utopic to think that all of a sudden the West will unite particularly in a time where all economies are in the toilet. I doubt that there's much of an appetite for a big fight and I expect far more bluster than actions on all sides.

    Cheeky Kiwi and biffski like this.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoista:
    Yes and no.. It's the distribution of wealth and PPP, not every $1 = $1.

    Taking PPP into account China averages around $8,000 USD, if you split this into regions/ cities , then areas like Shenzhen have even higher spending, obviouly you'll get some of the poorer regions in the East that will drag down the national average.

    Also the sheer number of people lifted int he middle class is huge... Anecdotally, you only have to travel to expensive holiday locationss and resorts to see the numbner of mainland chinese who can afford these luxuries.

    Sure, there are still millions in poverty. but the signs are clear when you segment the data. The data as an average is not that useful.
    The number lifted out of poverty is impressive no doubt but it was an artificially low starting base after the disastrous later Mao years which focussed on nationalism, class struggle and cult of his leadership.

    Far too much recent growth is fueled by debt.

    https://www.capitaleconomics.com/wp-...art001-396.png

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The number lifted out of poverty is impressive no doubt but it was an artificially low starting base after the disastrous later Mao years which focussed on nationalism, class struggle and cult of his leadership.

    Far too much recent growth is fueled by debt.

    https://www.capitaleconomics.com/wp-...art001-396.png
    Sure, but is that radically different to developed nations? More important is whether the debt is servicable and to whom the debt is owned by. Take Japan, the country most in debt in terms of ratio, yet the Yen and the over economics are still seen as a safe haven, generally because Japan is servicing the debt and most of the debt is owned by it's citizens.

    In terms of oforeign owned debt, The US, UK and Germany lead those charts, China is 9th.. In other words, if a debt bubble bursts, it won;t be just China that is impacted... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._external_debt

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoista:
    Sure, but is that radically different to developed nations? More important is whether the debt is servicable and to whom the debt is owned by. Take Japan, the country most in debt in terms of ratio, yet the Yen and the over economics are still seen as a safe haven, generally because Japan is servicing the debt and most of the debt is owned by it's citizens.

    In terms of oforeign owned debt, The US, UK and Germany lead those charts, China is 9th.. In other words, if a debt bubble bursts, it won;t be just China that is impacted... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._external_debt
    Perhaps but China needs good growth to service its debt and at some point it will have a recession and the first recession in 30 years will be very painful.

    Again the management of the situation in HK looks clumsy. The Pan Dems offered a legitimate and legal way to start the laws needed for Article 23 back in 2005. The current heavy handed approach is not good for China or Hong Kong.
    Coolboy likes this.

  10. #30

    Hua Chunying - Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, PRC

    https://twitter.com/SpokespersonCHN/...41986096107520