By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MDMAlliance on 10 October 2014
Edit Thread
nanarchy said:
MDMAlliance said:

I don't think you understand this very well if you think that it's "massive" of a difference.  You do realize that the variance in the annual GDP growth rate is common to be around 1%, which is the amount you're calling "massive."  Are you saying that all economies fluctuate greatly all the time?  Since it's relative, and most countries actually fluctuate MORE than just 1% year on year, it's not all that massive at all.  

edit: Also, it's not all that unbelievable to think that China would experience a significant slowdown (moreso than US "amazing turnaround" given that the US GDP growth rate would take a lot to move up or down that much meaning it would likely remain at 2% with occasional fluctuations in either direction).

sigh you need to learn some statistics. The difference IS SIGNIFICANT, The variance fluxuates but currently averages well below 3% just as for china it current averages above 8%. If china experiences a further significant slowdown then the US will suffer also, as the GFC taught us the worlds major economies impact each other significantly. The scenario that sees the US surge ahead while China slows significantly just isn't realistic. basically for 2033 to be the year requires worst case for China and best case for the US.


Not really, since this isn't about understanding statistics when averages are going to constantly be changing.  USA averages at roughly 2% with the GDP because USA is relatively stable.  However, China isn't nearly as stable, and applying straight up statistics to it is just faulty logic when trying to analyze economics for the future of something on this scale.  

If China experiences a significant slowdown, it does NOT have to mean the US will suffer proportionally.  The US is not nearly as reliant on China as you are taught to believe.  While the world economies are heavily tied to each other, it doesn't necessitate that the suffering of a rising power will be a huge detriment to an already great power.  This isn't the only thing, but just because China doesn't rise up to astonishing levels doesn't mean that the USA will suddenly drop from 2% to 0 or even decrease in its annual GDP.  China's role for the USA wont just disappear if China's economy stops growing as fast.  Not only that, but while an average changing a single percentage can be seen as a big deal, it happens quite a lot ESPECIALLY for rising powers.  Just look at the other powers that had rapidly growing economies similar to China in the past.  Their rates dropped dramatically (over 5% YoY) and stabilized at much lower percentages.  No one can actually say for sure what's going to happen, but it would be foolish to assume China can keep up what it's doing indefinitely.  At least if it doesn't change dramatically.

2033 doesn't have to mean the "worst case" for China and "best case" for USA.  All it really requires is a less than ideal situation for China alone.  The likelihood of China not living up to expectations is higher than you think.  There are plenty of obstacles, and whether or not China will be able to overcome the hurdle is something yet to be seen.  Also, you criticize my points without actually providing any real arguments except saying I'm wrong and making arguments with yourself as your own authority.  I at least provided you numbers to show you that things aren't as clear cut (you analyze yourself, you can see China's GDP in 2009-2011 being over 9%, and in 2012 drops to 7.7%).  

Also, the site I linked you, you can check yourself with countries like Japan (going to the corresponding year for its growth), India, Russia, Brazil, and several other countries and see how their GDP's looked promising, but dropped off a lot all of a sudden.  Even if it doesn't happen for China, it doesn't require the exact same thing to stall them several years off course.

edit: Let me also point out that I never was arguing for a specific year.  I was simply pointing out your misleading statements regarding the situation.  You make it seem like I don't really know what I'm talking about when, in reality, you're oversimplifying the data present.