Then and Now - China

[a2784]

An interesting set of stats comparing China in 1978 to today.

 

I found this one most interesting:

 

Average Chinese savings account balance: 210 RMB. Phenomenal, considering a good job paid 50 RMB per month.

 

In 2007: 172,534 RMB. Phenomenal, considering average American household debt in 2008 was $118,000.

 

 

 

http://www.chinaexpat.com/blog/ernie/2009/...-and-today.html

[ShaQuaNew]

An interesting set of stats comparing China in 1978 to today.

 

I found this one most interesting:

 

Average Chinese savings account balance: 210 RMB. Phenomenal, considering a good job paid 50 RMB per month.

 

In 2007: 172,534 RMB. Phenomenal, considering average American household debt in 2008 was $118,000.

 

 

 

http://www.chinaexpat.com/blog/ernie/2009/...-and-today.html

 

 

Excellent link and post Alan!

 

This provides a very quick look at the rapidly changing face of China and its citizens. It can also serve as a cross-reference to the very different ways that finances and saving is viewed between China and the US.

[david_dawei]

We don't get the demographic sample set asked, and from where. So no comment.

[ShaQuaNew]

We don't get the demographic sample set asked, and from where. So no comment.

 

 

Look at the last line under the stats. There you'll find the reference:

 

Most statistics taken from China in Diagrams, by Jin Quan

 

China in Diagrams, by Jin Quan

 

Link to the book:

 

http://www.cbi.gov.cn/wisework/content/2731.html

Edited February 22, 2010 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

We don't get the demographic sample set asked, and from where. So no comment.

 

 

Look at the last line under the stats. There you'll find the reference:

I mean: what population polled in what cities.

 

I think we agree that much of china is rural. So is the stat based on urban or city life? I just want to see deeper numbers before I comment.

[ShaQuaNew]

We don't get the demographic sample set asked, and from where. So no comment.

 

 

Look at the last line under the stats. There you'll find the reference:

I mean: what population polled in what cities.

 

I think we agree that much of china is rural. So is the stat based on urban or city life? I just want to see deeper numbers before I comment.

 

Well, it depends on how deep you want to dig. The author of the book: "China in Diagrams," by Jin Quan, is a sociologist, so knowing that, one would "think" that the statistics aren't just pulled out of the air or ass.

 

But, apart from bean counters, one all need do is take a good look around at the people of China. For example, my wife was born when the cultural revolution was thriving. There was no running water in her home, they didn't have a refrigerator or TV, and furthermore, neither did the vast majority of Chinese people. Today, all of those things are very common. Now, the move is on to even finer things, like an automobile, surround sound, big screen TVs, computers, and a full house of food and furnishings.

 

Still, when you go to rural China, you'll find that many things haven't changed much since those times. However, they are beginning to now.

[david_dawei]

I'm not questioning change.... only the info from a linked article without much reference to numbers. If one wants to quote numbers, then one needs to be more than a bean counter.

 

If we only want to talk "change" without reference to numerical context, I've read "Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China". Nobody can argue "change".

[ShaQuaNew]

I'm not questioning change.... only the info from a linked article without much reference to numbers. If one wants to quote numbers, then one needs to be more than a bean counter.

 

If we only want to talk "change" without reference to numerical context, I've read "Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China". Nobody can argue "change".

 

It's hard to know where you're coming from David. If you question the validity or accuracy of the quoted numbers, then why not just buy the book and read it.

 

You chided sir terrific a lot to get to the point and make a comment, so why not make one instead of playing chicken little on the fence. Personally, whether the numbers are high or low is immaterial, but rather should provoke thought, conjecture, and observation.

[david_dawei]

ok. So I should buy a book which a post has stats based on... so the Original poster should not buy the book despite a thread based on a writing based on a book which they have never read.... but all others should buy the book and read it before they post in reply?

 

I found it for $2.00 online... I'll buy the book. Will the OP and you do the same? Maybe then we can talk about it.

[david_dawei]

I'm not questioning change.... only the info from a linked article without much reference to numbers. If one wants to quote numbers, then one needs to be more than a bean counter.

 

If we only want to talk "change" without reference to numerical context, I've read "Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China". Nobody can argue "change".

 

It's hard to know where you're coming from David. If you question the validity or accuracy of the quoted numbers, then why not just buy the book and read it.

 

You chided sir terrific a lot to get to the point and make a comment, so why not make one instead of playing chicken little on the fence. Personally, whether the numbers are high or low is immaterial, but rather should provoke thought, conjecture, and observation.

who is sir terrific in this thread???

[david_dawei]

ok. So I should buy a book which a post has stats based on... so the Original poster should not buy the book despite a thread based on a writing based on a book which they have never read.... but all others should buy the book and read it before they post in reply?

 

I found it for $2.00 online... I'll buy the book. Will the OP and you do the same? Maybe then we can talk about it.

Just to give an update. I ordered the book. I'll wait to hear if others are as willing to read what they want to post about.

 

I was not willing to comment but am willing to read it first.

[a2784]

ok. So I should buy a book which a post has stats based on... so the Original poster should not buy the book despite a thread based on a writing based on a book which they have never read.... but all others should buy the book and read it before they post in reply?

 

I found it for $2.00 online... I'll buy the book. Will the OP and you do the same? Maybe then we can talk about it.

Just to give an update. I ordered the book. I'll wait to hear if others are as willing to read what they want to post about.

 

I was not willing to comment but am willing to read it first.

I found it for 20 USD online. Where did you find it for 2 USD?

 

Actually I posted the link because I found it interesting and thought it might, as Jesse state, provoke thought, conjecture, and observations.

 

The stats from the link and the book would come from the State Council Information Office since the book is published by:

 

China Intercontinental Press, under the authority of the State Council Information Office, is a multimedia, comprehensive foreign communication institution, whose main function is to make propaganda products. With its principle of "let the world know China, and let China know the world".

 

The basis for the stats, I thought, were pretty straightforward. The disposal income is urban only (stated in article), the absolute proverty is rural (stated in the article, and the others with one exception should be self-explainatory.

 

The average chinese savings account balance I would think is based on total population same as GDP. Granted comparing that to the average household debt in USA is not really fair since household debt/savings is impacted by most people have a house loan. That is another topic however --

 

Here is a link with the exact same urban dispoal income numbers and other intersting comparisons including the increase in rural disposal income also:

 

http://www.mysinchew.com/node/19358?tid=14

 

If you want a doctorial discussion regarding the Chinese economy and growth over the years including the past 30 years then I would highly recommend "The Chinese Economy-Transitions and Growth by Barry Naughton. This is a fantastic book. One of the things he says is:

 

During most of the 1990s, it was perhaps more common to underestimate China. The shock of the 1989 Tiananmen student demonstrations and their brutal suppression caused many observers to downgrade their forecasts for China¡¯s future. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, though, it has perhaps been more common to overestimate China. Overestimation often involves seeing China as an economic competitor, and perhaps as a potential strategic rival, to the United States. China¡¯s economic success has paradoxically

convinced many that China is some kind of economic superpower,

instead of a struggling developing country. This view reflects a major misunderstanding both of the nature of the economic links between China and the United States and of the magnitude of the challenges facing China. Placing China in a developmental context should make it clear not only that China faces formidable challenges, but also that Chinese policy-makers generally recognize the same problems and challenges that outside observers see.

[a2784]

And here is a nugget from the CIA Factbook:

 

The USA has a bigger disparity in wealth than in China. Now maybe this does not surprise anybody but it sure shocked the heck out of me.

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...&rank=43#us

Edited February 22, 2010 by a2784 (see edit history)

[tsap seui]

With just a surface observation, the article just confirms how the Chinese save money.

 

The figures are just figures. It is incredible to me the lengths they go to save. When we bought our home I made the mistake of saying we could put down 80% or so and finance the rest...so we could do teh American thing and get ourselves into hock

 

Oh my Gawd!!! You would have thought I had offered the lil' rabbit a turd sammich for lunch....when the swelling from the knots on my head went down enough that I could think clearly enough to understand one simple fact..."if we don't have the money to buy the house outright we don't buy the house...NO losea money to bank. Bank is for put money in to save."

 

What a novel idea thinks me We bought the house outright and we put money into savings in the bank.

 

Being the good American redneck that I am, it would never have occured to me to operate like that.

 

tsap seui

[Randy W]

And here is a nugget from the CIA Factbook:

 

The USA has a bigger disparity in wealth than in China. Now maybe this does not surprise anybody but it sure shocked the heck out of me.

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...&rank=43#us

 

 

Without doing any of the arithmetic myself, I would guess that China's low number is due more to the vast numbers of people living somewhat equivalently at poverty levels, rather than any kind of a universal upsurgence of wealth.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Randy W (see edit history)