Good and bad economies

Singapore's economy is doing well. I think the official stats is that Singapore will grow by 2.5%. Well after all we are a mature economy and 2.5% is good, really good.

The American economy is doing better at 1.5% growth. It is a more mature economy than Singapore, so 1.5% is as good as excellent. Some of the Asean economies are having 5% to 7% growth and are considered so so as they are developing economies.

The more horrifying economy in Asia is China. It is fumbling with only 6.8% growth. At the rate it is going China's economy will crash or go into recession in the view of all the western analysts and anti China reporters. That is how bad the Chinese economy is growing, only 6.8%. If only China is growing at 1.5% or 2.5% maybe the western analsyts would then conclude that the Chinese economy is sound and as good as the American’s and better than no growth Europe, and sustainable.

China is a third world country so it is natural to have high growth rate. But falling from two digit growth to 6.8% is really bad. Never mind if it is the second largest economy in the world. Never mind if the IMF or World Bank has elevated the Chinese economy to the top spot in terms of purchasing power. China is a developing economy, a third world country. Nevermind that this third world country is sending out more than 100 million tourists travelling around the world and reputed to be big spenders picking up expensive branded goods like toys. How could a third world country send out 100m rich tourists annually to travel around the world is really puzzling.

What does a 6.8% growth mean to a US$13 trillion economy? A 10% growth would mean a growth of US$1.3 trillion annually. A 6.8% growth would mean the economy grows by US$900 billion annually. Just to compare for size, Singapore's economy is around $400 billion. This means the Chinese economy is growing two Singapore's economy every year. And that is bad, terribly bad. Got it?

There are countries that are in the third world but kept bragging about being in the first world or coming soon. There are countries that are already in the first world but refused to be so labelled and insisted to be developing countries. Is China a fumbling third world developing country and heading towards destruction and oblivion with a 6.8% growth? Even at 6% growth, China will be growing like US$700 billion annually. Is that bad, really bad, really in trouble? Don’t try to think if you can’t.

In the world of delusion, you can believe in whatever made beliefs you choose to believe in. China is predicted to overtake the American economy by year 2025. Those who want to believe in a China heading towards destruction need not have to believe in this prediction by the World Bank or was it the IMF? Just take it as a fallacy.

6.8% bad, 2.5% good, 1.5% excellent!

Stupidity has no cure. Ignorance is no blessing.

The Chinese economy is crashing, crashing, is crashing….The world is coming to an end, the end is near, believe me.


virgo49 said...

That's why let them said what they want.

When you are well off, behaved you are still struggling.

That's save you lots of unnecessary headaches.

Only fools pretended to be well off and had arrived just like the Ah Neys and Chow Ang Mos.

People can see that they are a load of rubbish.

Now you see the Chow Ang Mos exercising in SSC gyms paying 1.50 per entry. No more California Or First Fitness.

Swimming in public pools paying 1.00 per entry.

And many still thinks they are high class.

Even takes taxis pretend to be drunk to evade fares.

So behave like princes but living a pauper life.

A man with no personality even donned Emperor"s robes will still looked like a beggar.

So those women bananas who think grand walking hand in Hand with the whites better know better

When.they really goes broke, they will sell you as prostitutes for the monies.

The mamak even in Penang scorned the bloody hippies whites who cannot even afford a teh tarik

Anonymous said...

China's economy crashing? Got to be kidding la..China economic might pose a threat to Uncle Sam. The US wants to create havoc to China economy by befriending Taiwan & claim no 1 China policy. Many analyst said China will overtake the US in a not so distant future, this makes the US scared & the world unstable ( it's all bs). Coming yo local news, now a Don in a local uni even agree that the Garmen can sue it's citizens when it was found to be spreading falsehood..waa...all bloggers & comments on this blogs or all others r in dangers of being sued & shut down ( first of its kind in the world)...it will be back to stone age in a nation of 'smuck' ..remind me of Garglebell capturing the blue colored Smurfs ..

Anonymous said...

In a democracy and the people living like in dictatorship, allowing the rulers to rule them like slaves. Unbelieveable.

One party dictatorship is good for us. What a sicko.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

China is the top trading partners with more than 30 countries and the top 2nd or 3rd trading partners of more than a hundred countries. Even if there is a trade war and US closed its door to China, other than a few factories closing shop or lower sales, the rest of the Chinese factories will go on business as usual. The USA is not the only market for China. The Americans cannot afford not to trade with China.

With a US$1 trillion T Bills debt, the Americans are paying China US$30 billion annually on interest alone, at 3%. Could be more.

Anonymous said...

The Americans cannot afford not to trade with China.
RB 10:37 am

Tiok. That's why America will not have a trade war with China, let alone a military war. A verbal war of words, sure.

Trump, just like PAP and smart Sinkies, is not stupid, u know. Or else how can he become billionaire, tio bo?

Anonymous said...

You said...."The world is coming to an end,
the end is near, believe me"........

Yes! Yes! Yes! I believed you!

...."The world is coming to an end,
the end is near, believe me"........

...."The world is coming to an end,
the end is near, believe me"........

So........Be Happy N Worry Less!......

Unknown said...

Actually all the statistics given by researchers on economics are bullshit to a certain degree. There are so many economists in each country, all (yes, I say all) have been and are still crystal-ball gazing to come out with a magic figure and call it their forecast, and thereafter keep adjusting every month, every week and even everyday.

Most of the time they never get it correct. So, the tendency is to either overestimate or underestimate. And then, they give you a figure, say 2.5% but in their explanation they will say "I must caution you, it can be up 1% or it can be down by 1%; basically playing with words to ensure that when the actual result comes out either way, they are the winner of the prediction.

When their figures go way off the mark, they will come out with lots of excuses disguised as "unpredictable international factors", "external factors", "uncertainties due to war", "unable to foresee the impact of certain policies by newly elected US President", "BREXIT has caused a shift in this and that" ... blah, blah, blah.

When, once in a blue moon, the result coincides with their predicted figures, they say "You see, I told you so!"

Another more important point to think about is the so-called "ACTUAL RESULT" Figures. These figures can be easily manipulated or massaged by those in authorities, simply because whatever figures that came in are in their hands; they control what to dish out and what not to dish out, or worst still, they play with the figures by adjusting the base or the fundamental contributing factors. They have the skills and knowledge, as statisticians, to twist whatever survey results in the way they want it to be.

Conclusion: Never be easily influenced by economic figures, or any statistical figures! Heard of this phrase?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

This phrase was originated by the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." It is often erroneously attributed to Mark Twain of USA.

It is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

virgo49 said...

Bro DRAGON fly.

Recently, there is one Article about this pian Chiak economists with their wrong forecasts and the journalist as what you said wrote to defend their errors citing what you write above

Aiyo, you see them speak more ahhs, oohs like having orgasms both men and women and I think, I think talks, straight away you know they are unsure and frauds.

These professionals own kind will protect their own backsides.

Today's news of a furniture store sudden closure cheating Sinkies thousands of dollars.

Anonymous said...

Rb //Well after all we are a mature economy and 2.5% is good, really good.//

Based on the stylised facts of exonomic growth in OECD countries in the 50 years after WW2, long term economic growth rate is correlated to technological progress?

Inputs addition originated growth is unsustainable over time?

Returns on capital growth per worker diminishes over time?

Anonymous said...

To achieve higher growth, an exonomy needs capital accumulation?

But over time, increase in output per worker arising from rise in capital per worker diminishes over time?

So to get a jump (in growth of output per worker), technological progress needs to kick in?

Anonymous said...

But scholars are book smart?

So that (tend to) lead to "autistic mindsets"?

Same things are being done (over and over again)?

Anonymous said...

Output per worker stagnates?

Or even worst decline?

Where in the past, 1 worker did the same job, now they need 2 scholars (to do the same job)?

Anonymous said...

So if peesai wants to have decent economic growth, output per worker (or rather per scholar) needs to increase (over time)?

If at the pinnacle, a job that was previously done by 1 scholar now needs 2 scholars (to do it), it is a step backward?

When scholars (at the apex) are leading by (bad) examples, how then they expect peesai to have sustainable decent exonomic growth overtime by pushing Skillsfuture to the masses (as if it is a panacea) to achieve long term decent sustainable growth?

Productivity starts in the cabinet ...... oops ..... in the people?

When output per scholar ...... oops ..... per worker increases (and NOT decreases) over time, then peesai would have (hope of) sustainable decent exonomic growth?


Make sense?

Those areas where 2 scholars are needed to perform the job previously done by 1 scholar should be "ransacked" and carefully scrutinised to determine whether such (backward) practices run counter to the mantra of achieving higher economic output per worker through capital accumulation, technological progress (heard before cheaper, better, faster (CBF)) and not HIGHER COST, LESS OUTPUT, SLOWER PERFORMANCE?

Peesai cannot afford to have pple at the apex where scholars preach but CANNOT DO?