I never claimed that China is attempting to solely rely on their own internal economy. I also don’t think they are making the same mistake as Trump. See, Trump went into a trade war with the entire fucking world. China did not. This is an important distinction because China has the entire fucking world to do trade with. This isn’t “possibly” why China is doing OBOR, it is it’s explicitly stated reason as well as the obvious reason.
Why you would come in here and present these ideas as if perhaps I may have pushed them is strange to me because I did not. In fact, nobody would because they are foolish, ignorant ideas. Much like your insistence that we must isolate the trade portion of a country’s economy when we consider how a trade war might affect that economy.
I made this statement “GDP is a misleading thing to look at.” Then the first reply to your comment where you mention first the 2% GDP number, the OP of the post has replied to you “barely noticeable drop in exports for China.” Then you replied to that user, correcting them that the 2% number is more significant than it appears. You are seeing in real time that the information you provided has the capability of misleading people.
The 2% number that you are citing also doesn’t account for the imports that China receives from the US, which makes up 7% of all imports. Internal trade and external trade are misleading to compare because external trades are for the purpose of acquiring things that can not be gotten internally. These are among reasons why I say 2% is a misleading number to look at when you consider the total impact of loss of trade.
China knows that it is being hurt a decent amount by losing trade with the US. This is why China has said to drop the tariffs. China has not denied that the tariffs are hurting them. China likes doing trade with the US. What the Chinese government has said is that the US is a bully and that bullies take a mile when you give them an inch. China is hoping that the US concedes to their self-inflicted wounds and then continues to do trades with China.
The 2% GDP number includes all trade with the USA. Is around 2.8%. So you are wrong. I am including that.
Trade with the USA, imports and exports, is around 10% of China’s trade. That percentage has been trending downwards in recent years.
The articles that discuss this issue are all presenting it as how it affects each economy. If we want to understand that we MUST consider the percentage of the GDP that this trade is for us to have any inkling on the bigger national picture. Looking at trade alone tells us nothing. It’s missing key information we need to evaluate this impact. Without presenting this number, you are misleading people as seen in any other thread around the internet that discusses this topic. We can literally see it on a mass scale (not just one person making an off the cuff comment) in real time.
Of course China doesn’t want that 2% deduction in their GDP. I never claimed otherwise. You are once again presenting a talking as if it came out my mouth. Just shove your hand up my ass and puppet my mouth already.
The 2% GDP number includes all trade with the USA. Is around 2.8%. So you are wrong. I am including that.
What does GDP stand for? Gross Domestic Product. Domestic Product. Domestic. Product. Domestic. Imports are not “Domestic Product”. GDP is a measure of the monetary value of goods and services produced domestically by the country. The 2.8% number that you have cited is a percentage of total goods that China has produced which were EXPORTED to the US. It does not include the imported products that it receives from the US. 7% of all imports that China receives are from the US.
Good. 7% of imports. A meaningless number without any context whatsoever. How does that 7% relate to their economy? What is that 7% in raw numbers compared to their total economic activity, ie their GDP? 7% on it’s own is absolutely meaningless as a number to tell people. It has no context by which we can evaluate anything of use other than the self referential value it directly represents. It could be super meaningful to their economic situation or absolutely meaningless and inconsequential. With only a 7% number we literally can’t know anything in regards to this. It becomes a form of abstraction to the point of misinformation which is why the west pushes numbers like this.
I never claimed that China is attempting to solely rely on their own internal economy. I also don’t think they are making the same mistake as Trump. See, Trump went into a trade war with the entire fucking world. China did not. This is an important distinction because China has the entire fucking world to do trade with. This isn’t “possibly” why China is doing OBOR, it is it’s explicitly stated reason as well as the obvious reason.
Why you would come in here and present these ideas as if perhaps I may have pushed them is strange to me because I did not. In fact, nobody would because they are foolish, ignorant ideas. Much like your insistence that we must isolate the trade portion of a country’s economy when we consider how a trade war might affect that economy.
I made this statement “GDP is a misleading thing to look at.” Then the first reply to your comment where you mention first the 2% GDP number, the OP of the post has replied to you “barely noticeable drop in exports for China.” Then you replied to that user, correcting them that the 2% number is more significant than it appears. You are seeing in real time that the information you provided has the capability of misleading people.
The 2% number that you are citing also doesn’t account for the imports that China receives from the US, which makes up 7% of all imports. Internal trade and external trade are misleading to compare because external trades are for the purpose of acquiring things that can not be gotten internally. These are among reasons why I say 2% is a misleading number to look at when you consider the total impact of loss of trade.
China knows that it is being hurt a decent amount by losing trade with the US. This is why China has said to drop the tariffs. China has not denied that the tariffs are hurting them. China likes doing trade with the US. What the Chinese government has said is that the US is a bully and that bullies take a mile when you give them an inch. China is hoping that the US concedes to their self-inflicted wounds and then continues to do trades with China.
Look, you can be wrong. It’s okay.
The 2% GDP number includes all trade with the USA. Is around 2.8%. So you are wrong. I am including that.
Trade with the USA, imports and exports, is around 10% of China’s trade. That percentage has been trending downwards in recent years.
The articles that discuss this issue are all presenting it as how it affects each economy. If we want to understand that we MUST consider the percentage of the GDP that this trade is for us to have any inkling on the bigger national picture. Looking at trade alone tells us nothing. It’s missing key information we need to evaluate this impact. Without presenting this number, you are misleading people as seen in any other thread around the internet that discusses this topic. We can literally see it on a mass scale (not just one person making an off the cuff comment) in real time.
Of course China doesn’t want that 2% deduction in their GDP. I never claimed otherwise. You are once again presenting a talking as if it came out my mouth. Just shove your hand up my ass and puppet my mouth already.
What does GDP stand for? Gross Domestic Product. Domestic Product. Domestic. Product. Domestic. Imports are not “Domestic Product”. GDP is a measure of the monetary value of goods and services produced domestically by the country. The 2.8% number that you have cited is a percentage of total goods that China has produced which were EXPORTED to the US. It does not include the imported products that it receives from the US. 7% of all imports that China receives are from the US.
Good. 7% of imports. A meaningless number without any context whatsoever. How does that 7% relate to their economy? What is that 7% in raw numbers compared to their total economic activity, ie their GDP? 7% on it’s own is absolutely meaningless as a number to tell people. It has no context by which we can evaluate anything of use other than the self referential value it directly represents. It could be super meaningful to their economic situation or absolutely meaningless and inconsequential. With only a 7% number we literally can’t know anything in regards to this. It becomes a form of abstraction to the point of misinformation which is why the west pushes numbers like this.
Decolonize your mind, jfc.