Talk:Economy of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NewFavicon icon.svg           Other talk page banners
Former featured article candidateEconomy of China is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Economy of China: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2013-03-29


There are no active tasks for this page

Checklist / to do (see archives)[edit]

  • Bot spamming edits to nominal GDP with no citation (2600:8804:8440:2E7:1552:D661:BD80:8AAF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCS3 (talkcontribs) 06:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[]
  • Article needs updating
  • List the trading agreements/blocs that China is party to or a member of
  • Include the exchange rate of Yuan to the US Dollar during 1950-80
  • Inflation over 10 years
  • A logarithmic graph to replace [complement] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prc1952-2005gdp.gif
  • Some tables, graphs etc showing trends
  • Recent economic history
  • Components of Manufacturing
  • Banking and Financial Services
  • Other Services eg telecommunications, sales, retail etc
  • Manufacturing Industries eg food and drink, capital equipment, electonics, etc
  • Knowledge based industry eg biotechnology, medical research and development
  • I think this article contains significant information which ought to be integrated into the article. It seems some trends are being set which will result in major changes. Fred Talk 13:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]
  • The treemap links to an image of the US's economy, not China's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.160.35 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Strangely, many of these Checklist items seem to imply that the data is somehow reliable. Given the broad view that it is not nearly as reliable as OECD data, items such as logrithmic graphs would likely give an erroneous impression that the underlying data are worth citing. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Climate Change[edit]

I think it would be a great idea to include a section on the impact China's economic expansion is having on the environment. This is especially germane given President Xi Jinping's recent agreement to combat climate change with the United States. 1993ke (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Luxury Goods[edit]

I don't know very much about editing wikipedia so please excuse any breach of etiquette that I may have committed. I just wanted to say that the luxury goods section stands out as being particularly poorly written and unencyclopedic. For example, the section stated "Also, the LVMH group, who own major luxury brands including Louis Vuitton apparel, Moet-Chandon wines and champagne and Hennessey cognacs, reported earnings growth of over 25% in 2007 in China alone, the region now accounting for around 16% of their global business." This is very poorly written and 90% irrelevant to the Economy of China. I have already edited "reported earnings growth of over 25% in 2007 in China alone" to remove the "alone" because it implies that LVMH had earnings growth elsewhere, which may or may not be true but is certainly irrelevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.127.160 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[]

It's not my text, but I'm not sure I understand your objection...the growth of the chinese economy, and its transition since the 90's has been marked by the rapid growth of the upper and middle classes and a much expanded market for luxury goods. I think the bit you referenced is a good example of that phenomenon. The "alone" does not automatically mean there are growing earnings elsewhere. It's not necessary, but it's not incorrect. There doesn't seem to be anything in what you gave as examples that backs up your claim that it's poorly written.Jbower47 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[]

Macroeconomic Trends[edit]

I've updated the data, and added some historical data for inflation and the renminbi. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 27, 2008[]

Does anyone know what year this refers to? For purchasing power parity comparisons, the US dollar is exchanged at 2.05 CNY only. I ask because a single year reference without a date is worthless. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) Jan 31, 2008.[]

If I understand purchasing power parity right, it refers to the lower prices in China which makes Chinese money go further if purchases are made there. For example, pork, now considered "high" in China still sells for less than a dollar a pound while pork in the US sells for about $2.50 a pound. The quoted figure illustrates the value, expressed in dollars, of how much a yuan will buy in the domestic Chinese market which has generally low prices due to generally low wages. It is a kind of comparison between the market basket a dollar or euro will buy in the US or Europe and the market basket a yuan will buy in China. Fred Talk 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Your understanding is correct, but an dated PPP rate is worthless. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

I've removed a column added to the macro table that gave unreferenced numbers purported to be a comparison between Chinese and US incomes. Aside from the lack of reference, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for comparing apples and pine cones (a comparison with India might be warranted, but the article is about China’s economy). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[]

PPP, Nominal[edit]

One statistic has China breathing down on the US. ready to over take it. The other statistic shows that China shouldn't even be considered as any economic threat to the US. A difference of 10 trillion dollars is fairly large, no? What should be the standard economic measurement?

-G

The standard (generally more reliable) economic measurement would be PPP; in other words, the statistic where 'China is breathing down on the US'. Nominal terms refers to the Chinese statistic when converted to US dollars. However, given that the Chinese currency is almost certainly badly undervalued, measuring in nominal terms will definitely undervalue the economy as a whole. PPP, on the other hand, measures in 'real terms'.

Both forms of measurement have their flaws, so I would suggest keeping both. 118.167.233.204 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Good idea, we should probably keep both, although there is an error - the table says for nominal GDP (2007) China is "ranked 3rd", which links to the list of countries by nominal GDP. However, this very list places Germany ahead of China (consistently - IMF, WMO, and CIA all have China at 4th). I couldn't find this when i tried to edit the page. Can someone fix it? --Aoe3rules (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[]

There is no sound reason why the "standard economic measurement" should be PPP rather than bricks, bales or bucks. Indeed, as PPP is an artifical exchange rate created to provide an artificial international comparison, it is quite arguably less useful than market exchange rates. Anyone wishing to give me a single market exchange rates dollars for any number of PPP dollars will have a willing partner with whom to transact. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

You're joking; PPP is one of the worst ways to measure it. The entire method is only good for a few items and comparison by projections is not amongst them. Fact of the matter is it is pointless to attempt any long term economic comparison by any method, do you understand how absurdly complicated the issue is, especially for a near middle income leveled country like the PRC? For example, the last country that was projected to overtake the US in economic size was Japan by 2010 back in the 70s and 80s, yet now they are 200-250% of GDP in debt, running a 5% budget deficit, is once again flirting with deflation, and whose GDP has been stagnant for the last 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[]

Too long[edit]

This article is way too long and could use come copyediting to be simplified. Most of the sections have their own subarticles anyways.--Kozuch (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[]

there could be an article entitled "Sectors of the Chinese economy", to which about a third of the content could be transferred. this would leave the broad overview subtopics in place, much easier to navigate. Jvol (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Aug 16, 2010[]

Bias[edit]

This article seems to be written from a rather anti-Communist, pro-Capitalist point of view at many times. What's more, many of the statments need more references, as the listed ones are not nearly neutral enough to stand on their own in many cases...

Works of Sweat (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[]

At the time of writing I actually think the reverse is true. This article seems to me to be biased towards communism and against Capitalism. Ryan Albrey (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[]

I agree. Why is a picture of a Florida turtle used to represent Chinese imports? Does anyone know what percent of imports these turtles represent? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[]

It is clear that there is an unresolved issue as to whether the article is anti-or pro communist in bias. However this probably reflects the objective conflict both within the academic community and within wider China watchers and indeed within China and the Communist Party itself. For an article on China to be anti-Communist would clearly be biased as the government is a Communist Party government. The issue of a Florida turtle can hardly be construed to be a relevant issue. Ryan Alberly 2 Jan 2009 mades no specific reference to what is supposed to be biased, he simply "thinks" it is.

If someone has some specific proof of bias we can leave the disputed neutrality sign posted but until there is such evidence it seems out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinareporter (talkcontribs) 09:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[]

I don't think there's any bias at all, the article merely notes that there has been greater growth and development since the economic reforms. How does recognizing a fact, make it biased? I would say that it is a bit too long though. COGITO ERGO SUM 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcheema (talkcontribs)

You're incorrect, firstly, PRC is not communists, it is socialist, and so anti-communist anything will not be applicable to PRC. Secondly, there are no instances of negative assumptions (quite the contrary, positive assumptions such as absurd projections 20, 30, and even 50 years into the future) are to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[]

Inconsitancies[edit]

This article mentions labor shortages and unemployment, high effectiveness of the population control programs and failing effectiveness of the population control programs in almost the same breath. There are some clear inconsistancies in this article, and almost all of them take a negative view of China's prospects...

There are also some highly inconsistant parts about the use of commodities normally used to produce animal feed being used to produce fuel driving UP the cost of fuel (this would actually drive DOWN the cost of fuel) *possibly* showing more of the same attempts of anti-biofuel trolls attempting to paint the worst possible picture of biofuels, even if this means making illogical and inconsistent statements about the effects of biofuel production (or possibly just showing a lack of understanding on the part of the writers of these inconsistent statements).

Works of Sweat (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[]

What are the inconsistencies in the article you mention?

The information in this article is anything but negative against the PRC, quite the contrary. The article displays the PRC in a unique light by stating (several times) economic projections in a generation from now, a projection anyone familiar with economics knows is so full of variables that it just screams "fanboyism". This entire article just says “populist nonsense” to me, it needs to be locked and rewritten from the ground up by someone who is at least 5% familiar with how the PRC conducts itself. A small example being the measure in which debts are assessed. The article bases its model from a free market system which the PRC is not; they use income from state assets such as banks to give the PRC a reading of their foreign assets, whilst declining to include the liability and debt of those very same assets. This serves to give the PRC remarkably low debts, whilst owning remarkably high reserves. It’s just armature nonsense written by those who are unfamiliar with state controlled economies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[]

GDP?[edit]

I don't think it's over 7 trillion. i just checked CIA factbook, and it says 6.991 trillion for GDP. I also checked the GDP page of wiki, and it says 7 trillion under CIA estimate, so which one to take? I say underestimating is usually better. CIA China page in the Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.11.67 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Yes, there was a mistake made up until last year that estimated the Chinese economy as 40% larger than it is in actuality. I changed the table to reflect modern GDP PPP estimates. --Ben 14:38, 6 September 2008 (PST)

During the past 5-6 years, Chinese currency rise 40% against US dollars, assume yearly growth 9%, so the China economy growth during the last several years is virtually ZERO... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.85.246.98 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[]


Well i'd like to know why the highest estimate is used, World bank and IMF place china's GDP in 2011 at just over 6 trillion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[]

Repeated Text[edit]

The line "emphasized raising personal income and consumption and introducing new management systems to help increase productivity" is repeated in both the second paragraph of the Introduction and the First paragraph of the 1980-1990 section, is there any real need for this? 81.105.162.252 (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]

Updates[edit]

I've updated some numbers (and added a table) on trade, and will add some more as 2008 data become available. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Lead[edit]

The lead section for this article is extremely long, even given the size of the rest of the article. Is there any way someone who's been involved with this article for a while can work on trimming it? (It's too big a job for me to just jump into.) Politizer talk/contribs 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Reviewing the overview, it contains many historical details and miscellaneous facts, but it doesn't have much in the way of summary or organizing, i.e. the overview isn't much of an overview. I suggest a complete overhaul of this section. Mention the salient points of the current economy: rapid growth largely attributable to exports, investment in infrastructure and urbanization. Whitecheddar22 February 12, 2012

Germany or Japan overtaken?[edit]

The article says "China [is now] the world's third-largest trading nation after the U.S. and Germany." I suspect that should be Japan, not Germany. Comments? Maproom (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[]

According to the WTO's 2007 data, the ranking is US, Germany, China, Japan regardless of whether one is measuring merchandise only or goods and services together. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
Elsewhere in this article "According to Paula Buckley, China economist Ting Lu, China is projected to overtake Japan in 'three to four years'.[56]" The various economic measures are not familiar to me, so I am going to say no more about it. Maproom (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[]
The Ting Lu quote refers to GDP, not two-way trade. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Very very long lead and article[edit]

The lead, especially, is horribly long. See Wikipedia:Lead section. About 4 paragraphs tops? -Heilme (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[]

Trade prices[edit]

I'm going to dump these here, for use another time. Feel free to incorporate into the article if you get to it before I do. Source: China Economic News (No. 9), 9th March, 2009, pp.12-14. Yes, the percent is the movement in the deflator, not in the value / volume of trade.

Some 2008 China trade deflators

Exports--

Auto-data processing equipment and components (value: US$135 bn): +10.4%

Rolled steel ($63.4 bn): +51.7%

Telephones ($41.5 bn): +3.5%

ICs ($24.3 bn): -13.3%

LCD panels ($22.4 bn): +5.7%

"Imports--

Crude oil ($129.3 bn): +47.8%

ICs ($129.3 bn): -7.8%

Iron ore ($60.5 bn): +54.5%

LCD panels ($44.1 bn): +9.1%

Primary plastics ($34.1 bn): +12.4%

Oil products ($30 bn): +58.9%

Auto-data processing equipment and components ($25.4 bn): +0.7%

Rolled Steel ($23.4 bn): +23.8%

Grain ($23.1 bn): +63.3%

Copper ($19.''2 bn): +2.7% DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[]

This article IS THREE TIMES LONGER than the US economy article[edit]

China's economy is considerably more complex to understand than the US economy, the size of the country, the diversity in development, the population, the workforce, the complex relations between state and private all argue for an article longer than that for the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinareporter (talkcontribs) 09:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Whether or not China's economy is more complex than the US Economy is beside the question. This is a very poorly edited article. Whereas the review of the US or most other economies chooses to deal with Agriculture, the Steel Industry, Tourism, or the Automotive industry by directing the reader to a sub-article link, this main article includes a full description of the subject with a novella. This makes the main article bulky. This is silly. There is no justification for this article being this long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.150.52 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) []

You people should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.234 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 'Bold text[]

Maybe they just don't have time to edit. Rainn1993 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[]

repetitiveness[edit]

I saw the "systemic problem" section exactly similar, word to word, as the introduction section, therefore I decide to remove a small part of the introduction section. Yifanwang99 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[]

I'll piggyback on your title. I removed the second phrase from "[China] is a rapidly developing and influential market economy in the world." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[]

Old infobox[edit]

I am pasting the specialized infobox here in case there is any additional information which can be used. I switched the infobox being used in the article to the more generic, {{infobox economy}} per the templates for deletion discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[]

While I don't want to discourage anyone from improving Wikipedia, this table is repetitive, not completely sourced and in some cases contains unclear or mistaken information [e.g., what is "note: industry includes construction (5.5%)" ?]. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Economy of the PRC table
Economy of
the People's Republic of China
Currency yuan (CNY); also referred to as the Renminbi (RMB)
Exchange rate (Fixed exchange rate) (2007) Rmb:$ USD=6.87
Rmb:¥ JPY100=6.47
Rmb:€ EUR=10.55
Rmb:£ GBP=15.23
Fiscal year Calendar year (01 Jan to 31 Dec)
Trade organizations WTO, APEC and others
Statistics
GDP (Nominal) (2008) $4.4 trillion (ranked 3rd)
GDP (PPP) (2008) $7.8 trillion (ranked 2nd)
GDP per capita (Nominal) (2008) $3,180 (ranked 104th)
GDP per capita (PPP) (2008) $6,100 (ranked 105th)
GDP growth rate (2008) 9.0% (official data)
GDP by sector (2008) agriculture (primary) (11.3%)
industry (secondary) (48.6%)
services (tertiary) (40.1%)
note: industry includes construction (5.5%)
GDP by components, % (2006) Private consumption (36.4)
Government consumption (13.7)
Gross fixed investment (40.9)
Exports of goods/services (39.7)
Imports of goods/services (-31.9)
Domestic demand growth (2002-06 av) 9.3%
Interest rates (2007-12-20) One-year benchmark deposit rate: 4.14%
One-year lending rate: 7.47%
Inflation rate (CPI) 4.9%[1] (CPI: 8.7%,[2] Feb 07 - Feb 08)
4.5% (2007 av)
1.7% (2006 av)
Household income or consumption by percentage share (2004) lowest 10%: 1.6%, highest 10%: 34.9%
Population below poverty line (2004) 10%
Gini index (2004) 46.9 (List of countries)
Labor force (2008) 807.7 million
Labor force by occupation (2006) agriculture (43%), industry (25%), services (32%)
Unemployment rate (2006) 4.3% (official);[3]
Industrial production growth rate (2006) 22.9%
Main industries mining and ore processing, iron, steel, aluminum, and other metals, coal; machine building; armaments; textiles and apparel; petroleum; cement; chemicals; fertilizers; consumer products, including footwear, toys, and electronics; food processing; transportation equipment, including automobiles, rail cars and locomotives, ships, and aircraft; telecommunications equipment, commercial space launch vehicles, satellites
Agricultural products rice, wheat, potatoes, corn (maize), tobacco, soybeans, peanuts (groundnuts), tea, millet, barley, apples, cotton, oilseed; pork; fish
Natural resources Coal, iron ore, crude oil, mercury, tin, tungsten, antimony, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, magnetite, aluminum, lead, zinc, uranium, hydropower potential (world's largest)
Investment (gross fixed) (2008) 40.2% of GDP
Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows (2006) 3.1% of GDP
Stock of direct foreign investment - at home (2006) $699.5 billion
Stock of direct foreign investment - abroad (2006) $67.4 billion
Market value of publicly traded shares (2006) $2.426 trillion
Commercial bank prime rate (%; year-end) (2007) 6.7%
Debt service ratio, paid (2007) 2.7%
Trade
Current account balance (2007) $262.2 billion (9% of GDP)
(ranked 1st)
Exports (2008) $1.40 trillion f.o.b.
Principal exports (US $ bn) (2006) Office machines & data processing equipment (134.5), Telecommunications equipment (123.6), Electrical machinery (101.7), Apparel & clothing (95.4), Miscellaneous manufactures (55.5)
Main destinations of exports (2007) US 19.1%, Hong Kong 15.1%, Japan 8.4%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4%
Imports (2008) $1.13 trillion f.o.b.
Principal imports (US $ bn) (2006) Electrical machinery (174.8), Petroleum & related products (84.1), Professional & scientific instruments (48.6), Metalliferous ores and scrap (44.0), Office machines & data processing equipment (40.7)
Main origins of imports (2007) Japan 14%, South Korea 10.9%, Taiwan 10.5%, US 7.3%, Germany 4.7%
Public finances
Public debt (2006) 22.1% of GDP
External debt (2006) $315 billion
Foreign exchange reserves (2008) $1.95 trillion
Foreign exchange reserves excl gold (2007) ?
Revenues (2008) $868.6 billion
Expenditures (2008) $850.5 billion; including capital expenditures of $NA
Budget balance (2006) -7.0% of GDP (deficit)
Corporate income tax rate (2006) 33% (official)
Economic aid recipient (ODA) N/A[4]
Economic aid donor ?
Main source
All values, unless otherwise stated, are in U.S. dollars
View

China to Surpass Japan to Become 2nd Largest Economy[edit]

China to Surpass Japan to Become 2nd Largest Economy in the world. [1] [2] [3] --Lanolamua (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[]

Help table[edit]

Help me editing this table please :

GDP growth from 1980 to 2009[5]

The table must be on the right and with the title inside. Thanks. Polylepsis (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[]

Too long[edit]

This article is very long. I will try to clean up a bit ! Polylepsis (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[]

add this to "see also"[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_by_GDP_per_capita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talkcontribs) 07:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Recent statistical updates[edit]

I have no problem with anyone undertaking to update the figures presented here, but it is generally an excellent idea to discuss proposed changes to the text prior to actually making those changes. I've tried to restore some of the edits of April 22-23, 2010, that (inadvertently or otherwise) changing the meaning of the text. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[]

Unnecessary opinion[edit]

No, not editors' opinions; rather, footnoted opinions. Basically, this article is too long, so in my view -- I seek your support or opposition, please -- this is unhelpful: . On June 18, 2010 a US government advisor stated that China could become the worlds largest economy by 2020.< ref>http://www.cnbc.com/id/37769361</ ref> DOR (HK) (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[]

Thats incorect, the entire belive around the 2020s is that China's economy will be as large as the US economy is right now. China won't acually catch the US until the early 2040s, assuming current growth rates hold, which is a romote chance at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[]

This article is too long[edit]

Really, it should be more of summarization than an in-depth paper on the subject. 142.176.144.158 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[]

at 160k it should be split off at least.Lihaas (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[]

2nd largest economy claims[edit]

This claim is not true, its not affirmed by anyone other than China. Sure it may have been picked up by other media but solely on chinese cliams. Need to wait for affirmation from int'l bodies on that. (ie- IMF, etc)Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Yeah, because the IMF is an "international" body (based in USA? your idea of international is pretty narrow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.54.57 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[]
Lihaas, you do know, I hope, that the IMF gets its data from . . . National Bureau of Statistics, the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Commerce. Please, tell me you already knew that ! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[]

Macroeconomic Trends[edit]

This section is poorly written and footnoted, badly out of date (the National Accounts revisions of 2004 are not even mentioned) and the table makes no sense. There are no units identified (is the 1955 figure Rmb91,000, or Rmb91 billion?) and there is no reason to think the exchange rate to the US dollar last year was 9.67 (what?).

I will delete this entire section, unless there are significant improvements or objections. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[]

recent economic changes[edit]

descride two ways in which recent economic changes that have led to higher living standards for some chinese people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.4.178 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Incorrect figures?[edit]

The following figures in the summary table seems to suggest that exports are in the 1-2 billion range. Shouldn't it read 1.506 trillion?

Exports US$1.506 billion (2010) Imports US$1.307 billion (2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.43.1.25 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Manufacturer No. 1[edit]

China has broken the 110 year's record of the United States as the world's largest manufacturer.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42065544 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[]

yearly figures[edit]

Can someone add yearly figures on china's economic growth? I think that would be interesting. (LAz17 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)).[]

I'm going to dump this here, because my ability to format sucks. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Macro-economic trend

Real GDP and inflation, 1953-77 Real GDP and inflation, 1978-2010

These charts illustrate the trends in real economic growth and inflation prior to and during the reform era.

Year GDP Growth Consumer Inflation
1953-57 9.2% p.a. 1.9% p.a.
1958-66 4.3% p.a. 1.3% p.a.
1967-77 6.0% p.a. 0.1% p.a.
1978-87 10.1% p.a. 4.0% p.a.
1988-97 9.9% p.a. 11.7% p.a.
1998-2010 9.6% p.a. 1.5% p.a.

Except those numbers are incorrect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[]

ITC external link on trade data[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC). I would like to propose the addition of an external link that could lead directly to the specific country’s trade data held by ITC. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations 2) No registration is required 3) Trade data (imports/exports) are regularly updated 4) The link gives direct access to the trade database of the specific country 5) The addition of reliable trade data to the Economy section of the country could provide an appropriate contribution to the information therein contained. Thank you for your attention.Divoc (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[]

I prefer primary, rather than secondary (or, in this case, tertiary) sources, as there is less chance of errors being introduced. Hence, each national statistical agency (primary sources) would be preferred over international organizations (secondary sources) such as the World Trade Organization, or sub-sets of the UN/WTO (tertiary sources) like ITC. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Quality of life?[edit]

I wonder my quality of life is higher or lower than US if I make a money $1000 per month in China or $12,000 per year118.123.200.135 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[]

It would depend on which city or rural area you live in. There is no simple answer. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Unemployment[edit]

I don't have access to the link that supposed to be citation for the 4% unemployment figure given in the article. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a developing nation with 1 billion plus people have only 4% jobless rate. Can someone please verify that figure. Same for the inflation figure given in the fact box, it contract much higher figures given in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.86.41 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Chinese data are not comprable to that of the OECD nations. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[]

MAJOR ISSUE[edit]

What i have gotten from this page is that no one looks at china's unstable nature for example chinese inflation has hardly even slowed down despite rapid and often rash changes to the interest thus china is essentially dead in the water and merely doomed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]

China is not a credit-oriented economy. Raising interst rates only has an impact on those who are able to borrow, and repay, debts. Oh, and depositors. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[]

resource[edit]

From Talk:China ... The rise of an economic superpower: What does China want? "As an economic superpower, what does China want on the global stage?" by Peter Ford, csmonitor.com November 5, 2011

See Chinese Century.

99.181.147.59 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[]

No propaganda please, lets' keep it factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[]

potential resource[edit]

China's Innovation Wall; Beijing's Push for Homegrown Technology by Adam Segal Foreign Affairs September 28, 2010 99.19.44.155 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[]

Misleading graph[edit]

The graph showing GDP growth over time is misleading. GDP growth is a type of exponential growth, and it being linear means you can make the time it 'takes off' look like any time you want by changing the vertical scale. Consider what the graph looks like in logs:

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CHN&ifdim=country&tstart=-314236800000&tend=1263686400000&hl=en&dl=en&q=china+gdp

There is hardly a change in gradient at all at the supposed take-off point (in a log GDP graph, the gradient is the growth rate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrampaScience (talkcontribs) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[]

GDP (PPP) Estimates[edit]

Currently the article's Statistics table shows GDP (PPP) data for 2011, which is estimate by IMF. A rather poor estimate because it was made back in September 2011. Is it normal? I've tried to revert it back to final 2010 data, but my changes get reverted back to that 2010 estimate values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enivid (talkcontribs) 09:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[]

Better would be to do away with the silly PPP exchange rate as a means of defining the size of the total economy. Considering that no one will sell anything for a billion units of PPP, that means that the only reasonable thing to do is to take foreign trade out of the economy . . . which means it wouldn't be GDP. And, since PPP is a consumer buying power measure, it would also be useful to take out capital investment . . . which makes the entire point of looking at the size of the economy moot. But, Wikipedians are addicted to easy sources such as the CIA Fact Book, and can't be bothered with hard data. Sad. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[]

I notice a recent (Oct 29, 2014) edit replacing 2013 data with that of 2014. As 2014 is still a work in progress, this data can only be an estimate. It would be more appropriate to use only historic, official data . . . and not IMF estimates. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Here we go again. Less than 9 weeks into the year and we already have a dispute over the estimated GDP for 2016! What's the point of having anything that isn't historically accurate in an encyclopedia? The best estimates from 2015 are fine; leave the forecasting to speculators. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Should we get rid of the overview section?[edit]

I think the entire section should be deleted because the overview section should be limited to the one paragraph on top. Helps reduce the length.

Notthepersoninthearticle (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[]

The section "‎Noopolitik and the Knowledge Economy"[edit]

See [4]. This section is almost exclusively a poorly written summary of this poorly written article in an student journal: [5]. It has many dubious statements (like that the Chengdu J-20 is considered superior to the F-22), OR, and unclear statements. As such I have removed it. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I have moved the disambiguation to Economy of China (disambiguation) for now. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[]


Economy of the People's Republic of ChinaEconomy of ChinaPeople's Republic of China has been moved to China. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]

The dab's function can be assumed by a hatnote for Economy of Taiwan, but I don't see the point of either a dab or a hatnote. Taiwan is (arguably) part of China, and Britain is part of Europe, but no one would use the praise "Economy of China" or "Economy of Europe" to mean "Economy of Taiwan" or "Economy of Britain". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
No, you are clearly forgetting that the formal name for Taiwan is "Republic of China", so clearly "Economy of China" can be used to refer to it. And per One China, both the PRC and ROC economies together can be considered the "Economy of China". Britain is not part of Europe as Taiwan is part of China, because China has two national governments, one based in Beijing, which controls the mainland, and one based in Taipei which controls Taiwan. Further, the economy of the PRC is not the only topic that the economy of China can refer to, it can refer to the economy of China for any period of Chinese history, so can also be disambiguated by period of history. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
I think you've made my point for me. From the One China POV, there is not one China and and one Taiwan. There is Taiwan, it is a part of China, and Britain is a part of Europe. Your confusing the Republic of China with Taiwan. Agan from the One China POV, both the PRC and the ROC claim to be the government of China, but Taiwan is not China, it is a vary small part of China. No one, form any POV, would use "Economy of China" to refer to the Economy of Taiwan, it'd be like saying "Economy of the United States" to refer to the Economy of Rhode Island. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
The article "Economy of the People's Republic of China" does not cover the whole of the territory of One China, only part of it, which makes my point, your move makes it cover one region of the entity called China, but you would remove the hatnote and disambiguation page pointing to the other Two Chinas part. There should be a disambiguation page, where I said it would be located, Economy of China (disambiguation). -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[]
Also neater Economy of India, nor (probably) any other country/territory article is disambiguated by period of history. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
Which is why a disambiguation page should exist for China, since it has multiple articles on economies of various regions called "China" in the modern day, and multiple articles on the economies of historic Chinas. And why I suggested the disambiguation page be called "(disambiguation)" -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[]
Emmette is right; this is a poor rationale. Economy of the United States and Economy of Canada don't discuss the economic practices of those nations' indigenous peoples (likewise with Australia and NZ). There are many similar examples. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
I'm not opposing the move, I'm opposing the removal of the disambiguation notes (either as a disambigation page or as a hatnote) Emmette is proposing to delete disambiguation completely. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[]
It's debatable and disputed weather Taiwan is part of China. It's also debatable and disputed weather Turkey, Georgia, etc. are pare of Europe, but Economy of Europe does not have a hatnotes for Economy of Turkey, Economy of Georgia (country), etc. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[]
It's not disputed that "Republic of China" is the formal name of Taiwan, so your analogy fails. Turkey is not called "Republic of Europe", Georgia is not called "People's Republic of Europe". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Support The China naming issue is settled (on Wikipedia), so this should match the parent article China. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose this article is about the People's Republic of China and makes no mention of the economy during the Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, etc.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Support 1. WP:COMMONNAME, and the country article is also China. 2. wikipedia editors tend to use China/Taiwan for none political issues. Fizikanauk (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Rename per the main article China. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Same as the rest. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Per common name, no chance of confusion with Taiwan.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[]

Wikiecon[edit]

I would love to see a Wiki project map out the global economy. In an organized format all local/country economic data would be collected. All authors would be required to write articles according to a standardized and cited format. The model revolves around publicly released economic data: GDP, employment, industries, corporations, fiscal policy, etc. Economists and volunteers can help determine which economic data accounts are most appropriate to be required under the standardized format. There is nothing in the world that resembles this model. There is no Wiki that allows economists to add economic data under a standardized format. I have already written the article for 'Economy of the United States'. It is 7 pages long. This article contains what I believe is the most important economic data available to the public. The data is almost entirely in table format. Citations include the U.S. Census Bureau, the World Bank, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Yahoo Finance, CNN'S Money's Fortune 500 list, U.S. treasury releases, Federal Reserve websites, company SEC filings and the IMF. The article can be seen in PDF format at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Economy.pdf The Contents are: 1. States, 2. Industries, 3. Corporations, 4. Employment, 5. Fiscal Budget, 6. Monetary Policy, 7. Creditors, 8. Cities, 9. International Accounts 9. History All articles would be standardized and connected in an organized network. This model would go down to the most local level. All 196 countries would have a standardized country article to have the same exact format used in the attached file. This project would evolve as economists determine better ways to present the data.

The 'Economy of ______' pages would be a very educational collection of economic data. I think that these articles would be greatly improved if they were modified to become uniform. This would allow for greater comparability. I believe that these pages would be improved with a standardized and simplified format. This would allow for greater comparability and public understanding of the economy and fiscal budgets. Below are the Wikipedia Contents of the four biggest economy articles. As you can see, the Contents are inconsistent between them. I believe this can be fixed with my Wiki project proposal. 1. Economy of the United States 1 History 2 Overview 3 Employment 4 Research, development, and entrepreneurship 5 Income and wealth 6 Financial position 7 Industry Sectors 8 Notable companies and markets 9 Energy, transportation, and telecommunications 10 Finance 11 Health care 12 International trade 13 Currency and central bank 14 Law and government 15 See also 16 References 17 External links 2. Economy of China 1 History 2 Government role 3 Regional economies 4 Development 5 Macroeconomic trends 6 Financial and banking system 7 Industry Sectors 8 Labor and welfare 9 External trade 10 Foreign investment 11 Demographics 12 Transportation and infrastructure 13 Science and technology 14 See also 15 References 16 External links 3. Economy of Japan 1 Economic history 2 Infrastructure 3 Macro-economic trend 4 Services 5 Industry 6 Mining and petroleum exploration 7 Agriculture 8 Labor force 9 Law and government 10 Culture 11 Other economic indicators 12 See also 13 Notes 14 External links 4. Economy of Germany 1 History 2 Macroeconomic data 3 Economic region 4 Natural resources 5 Sectors 6 Infrastructure 7 Technology 8 See also 9 References 10 External links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talkcontribs) 19:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[]

China Economic Report[edit]

Is anybody interested to help me finish this report? I still need to find the governement budget, central bank balance sheet and employment statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Here is a finished economic report on the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States Mcnabber091 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[]

GDP per capita by industries[edit]

What is the point of this set of data? Even at market exchange rates -- PPP is for consumer goods -- it makes little sense except to point to the obvious large population. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[]

China's liquidity crisis[edit]

The run of extraordinary growth since the 1980s seemed to have hit what Paul Krugman called a "great wall" in 2013, as indicators slipped across the board and predictions were only barely being met with what seemed to be cooked books.[6] Chinese banks reversed from purchases of foreign currencies to sales to cover the country's liquidity crisis.[7]

Why is this not notable? Hcobb (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[]

The question is not over notability. It is over the source, Paul Krugman. GotR Talk 00:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[]
Note that my sources include www.forbes.com Is that a notably non-reliable source? Hcobb (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[]
As long as there is no mention of Krugman, I have no qualms. Though, preferably, in addition to a quote voicing concern over slowdown, there be a quote of an analyst (and there are many) that views the "slowdown" as a transition to more sustainable growth and greater self-sufficiency. GotR Talk 02:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[]
Could you give us a list of Nobel laureates of whom you approve, so that we won’t make the mistake of including views of just any globally renowned economist?DOR (HK) (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[]
Please do not transform this into an issue in which I have veto powers. We know the Peace Prize is from time to time plagued by politics, and Krugman has been labelled as "economically illiterate". And read my post at 02:29 6 Aug. GotR Talk 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[]
The Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean what you are implying, nor does it have anything to do with the Economics Prize. Why should we take the word of one broadcaster/film-maker for Russia Today as the end all denouncer of a man's entire career? A man well recognized globally as an economics expert? Unless you can defend this denunciation with something a lot stronger, I am returning the reference. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[]
Its about the what world must not be depending on.

Internationalization of the renminbi[edit]

With China's new currency swap with the European Union taking effect soon, I thought its time to create an article on the internationalization of the renminbi. My question is whether this is important enough to deserve a mention in the article's introductory section, or should we leave it to the main text instead? -A1candidate (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[]

Mention about possible bubble / wrong investments[edit]

Various people express the view that Chinese economy to some extent is a bubble, and that there is overinvestment or as some say malinvestment. Especially mentioned are examples of a real estate market, for example whole newly built cities that stay empty, also empty skyscrapers etc. I heard in one documentary that there are estimates that some dozen or so percent of newly build real estate expanse remains unused. I think there should be some mention in the article about opinions that Chinese growth has been a bubble to some extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.211.220 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[]

External links[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC156%7CChina&source=1%7CITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by China. Visitors can easily look up market access information for China by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[]

This link still works. I'm not sure it belongs in this article, but I'll add it where appropriate, perhaps international trade or tariff? User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[]

China PPP estimate[edit]

The top of this article now says that "the method used to estimate [China's PPP] has been deemed unreliable" and links to a business article citing one person, Michael Pettis. IMO, this is the personal opinion of one person, and should be treated as such. I don't see how it automatically overrides the entire World Bank, which spent nearly a decade working on its PPP estimates. I am changing the wording slightly to better reflect the existence of disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.27.37 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[]

I believe this statement should be removed or moved to following sections. The possible controversy is mainly about the calculation method of purchasing power parity. It is frequently mentioned when discussing the accuracy and reliability of PPP, but not relevant enough to be included in the lead section of this article. --E8xE8 (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[]
Agreed, also the IMF itself has said that these are not official statistics. And until an argument as to why they should be printed on the page has official statistics, it should not be on the page as it is misleading and presents a false conclusion. Until the IMF releases its annual official report, it will stay according to the official reports that other economic pages report to. It seems that the general consensus agrees that it does not belong on the main page. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]
The estimate report by IMF is still an official IMF estimate report. I don't see any authoritative source saying that there are problems with the data of the report. The majority of economists do agree with the conclusions of the IMF estimate report. Unless you can quote me multiple authoritative reports that rejects the data and conclusions of the Oct IMF estimate report, I consider that the data in that official report can be used on this page. I am reverting the edit as there is no consensus on this issue. The idea that the Oct IMF estimate report is unreliable and cannot be used or sourced is a fringe view, it is by no means a majority view.101.127.17.153 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[]

See IMF's Wikipedia page and you will find criticism of the organization's interference in foreign markets. They were also criticized this past year for exaggerating Brazil debt crisis.184.97.162.162 (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC) [6][]


Here’s the IMF’s 2006 economic forecast [7]. Note the second sentence, which says “Looking forward, the baseline forecast is for continued strong growth, …”

In 2007, the same report [8] says “Notwithstanding recent financial market nervousness, the global economy remains on track for continued robust growth in 2007 and 2008, although at a somewhat more moderate pace than in 2006.” World trade was expected to grow 7.4% in real terms in 2008. The actual outcome was -10.7%.

A year later, after the North Atlantic Financial Crisis had already started, the IMF said in 2008 [9] “The global expansion is losing speed in the face of a major financial crisis.” Not “going to hell in a hand basket,” but merely “losing speed.”

So, while the IMF has some good datasets and produces closely watched economic analysis, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that “The majority of economists do agree with the conclusions of the IMF estimate report.” We don’t.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Stock market crash[edit]

See Economy of China#Stock market. This may be a major event, or not. However, its basic structure is quite similar to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[]

References[edit]

EU and US are not in Asia[edit]

The intro states "At the start of the 2010s, China became the sole Asian nation to have a GDP (PPP) above the $10-trillion mark (along with the United States and the European Union)"

I understand that this was probably written to mean that China, the EU and USA all have a GDP above $10 trillion. But I think it might actually imply that the US and EU are in Asia (which they obviously aren't).

Is my interpretation of this grammar correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.232.55 (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[]

There is some ambiguity, even to a native English speaker; however, everyone knows that the US and the EU are not in Asia, so no harm done. Placement at the end of the sentence and in parentheses lessens any ambiguity. You may try to craft a better, but, please, short and simple, alternative. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)a[]

Slowing of the economy[edit]

According to the media the Chinese economy is slowing, but it is not clear what is meant. Slowing rate of growth is not a slowing economy. A source that explains what is happening in plain language would be helpful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[]

Nation[edit]

This might have some value. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[]

Provincial PPP stats[edit]

Is this original research? I was not aware that international organizations made such calculations for sub-national economies.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Info box green/red arrows[edit]

What are these indicating? In particular, the green down arrow ("positive decrease") seems to be a value judgement. Who made that judgement? DOR (HK) (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Once again, what is the purpose of these green and red triangles? Who decides that lower inflation is "green," but lower economic growth is "red"? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[]

Dr. Jambor's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Jambor has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is an extremely well written article, covering all of the most important fields of the Chinese economy with up to date data.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Jambor has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Jambor, Attila & Sirone Varadi, Julia, 2014. "10 years of EU membership: winners and losers in the agri-food sector of the new member states," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182736, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Dr. Giulietti's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Giulietti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Distribution of GDP in mainland China in 2007

  • I am afraid I do not understand the map. There is no legend. The table would be enough

Official statistics are suspect. As of 2015 the actual growth rate may be as low as 3%

  • This might well be true, but a source of a study proving that is needed. Also I guess what is meant is "suspicious".

From 100 million to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs.

  • The current number of rural migrant workers is higher. see reference below

http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/201510/t20151019_1257742.html

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Giulietti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Giulietti, Corrado & Wahba, Jackline & Zenou, Yves, 2014. "Strong versus Weak Ties in Migration," IZA Discussion Papers 8089, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[]

Unless there is clear consensus otherwise, I suggest deleting the “Distribution of GDP in Mainland China in 2007” map as both unclear and outdated. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Dr. Urban's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Urban has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article looks to me like a flee market: new things, old thing; valuable things, useless things... all together: pick out, what you like! It lacks a proper structure, has many outdated figures ( often 2006, 2007, speaks of a future which is already past e.g.in the section on the Three Gorges Dam), misses many important issues, especially the more recent development and is full of mistakes - minor ones and serious ones....In my opinion, there are too many inaccuracies, wrong interpretations and omissions in the article to be corrected, the whole article has to be rewritten.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Urban has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Vasily Astrov & Vladimir Gligorov & Peter Havlik & Mario Holzner & Gabor Hunya & Michael Landesmann & Sebastian Leitner & Zdenek Lukas & Anton Mihailov & Olga Pindyuk & Leon Podkaminer & Josef Poschl , 2010. "Crisis Is Over, but Problems Loom Ahead," wiiw Forecast Reports 5, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[]

I suggest deleting the PPP by province, as this is merely using the alternative national exchange rate and therefore only applicable at the national level. Similarly, using a single year PPP – and one that is wildly out of date – for the the “China’s Historical GDP for 1952-present” table is inappropriate.

The section on inflation cites monthly events in 2007 and 2008, and has nothing new after 2010. The opening sentence in Stock Markets makes little sense and certainly is not the most important issue on the matter.DOR (HK) (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Edit wars[edit]

How long are we going to have this childish back-and-forth over GDP and GDP per capita figures? I thought it was absurd to be citing 2016 data when the year is barely half over (official data won't be out until about March 2017). But, to be arguing over the levels of a year that hasn't even ended is just plain silly.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[]

I see the edit war is still going on. Frankly, I can't be too concerned about the accuracy of an estimate for something that hasn't happened (2016 GDP), but it does puzzle me that unconfirmable information is considered useful in a Wikipedia article. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[]

Agreed 100%. 47.17.27.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[]

Two links to China portal[edit]

There is two links to China portal. 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[]

The economy of china is not a government owned company. best to remove that category. 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Why not split the ext links section into ext links and further reading and then get rid of the warning tag. FFS, THe second biggest economy in the world and Wikipedia can;t get it right! 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[]

PLenty of stuff here Category:Economic history of the People's Republic of China for a whole section that is missing. lol. Wikipedia is a joke. 203.173.179.241 (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[]

GNI per capita Map Updates[edit]

I'm updating the map on the front page concerning China's GNI per capita's comparison with rest of the world to 2015 data, as significant changes of landscape occurred. WeifengYang (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[]

THere is no notes so it does not need a section heading.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane talk 07:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[]
FFS HAve u even looked at the article? It you did you will see that there is a section heading called "Notes" THere is nothing in it. But why do I bother it is a crap artice;.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.167.166 (talkcontribs)
Note: The use of Footnotes is one of several options for providing source information in the article. Once any number of footnotes have been inserted into the content, the reference list must be generated. see Help:Footnotes for further information. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER 12:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC).[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[]

2017 GDP growth rate[edit]

Is there some reason why a growth rate that has not been released is listed in the info box? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[]

Further on 2017 date: The economy is estimated to have been Rmb82,712.2 billion in 2017, as per the official announcement here (http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/201801/t20180118_1574943.html). Please don’t change this number until a revised figure is available. As per the IMF exchange rate tool (here: http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/ert/GUI/Pages/CountryDataBase.aspx), the average exchange rate during the year was Rmb6.757266:US$1. That makes GDP in nominal dollar terms US$12, 2404.8. Please do not change this number until a revised figure is available. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[]

Ian D 123 (et al), Please do not replace primary sourced data with data from out-of-date secondary sources. The official Chinese government press release is a primary source (not to mention far more current than any secondary source). The IMF eventually, when they get around to it, uses that press release to generate its own data, so the IMF is a secondary source. Please do not change the data until or unless there is a change in the primary source. Thank you. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[]

BrE template.[edit]

My edit was not 'arbitrary'. If template states that the article is written in BrE then why, in fact, it isn't? I know that this is minor but it's just weird. Please, either remove this template or make the article follow one spelling style. --178.69.223.30 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[]

“Overclaiming”[edit]

First, this is a terrible section title as it doesn’t recognize the serious issue of “under” claiming results in inflation and unemployment. It would be better titled “Data quality issues.”

Second, when did Wilber Ross become a China economic analyst? The man is Secretary of Commerce, and a businessman with minimal (if any) experience analyzing the Chinese economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Zvtok, your reverting my edit is an act of vandalism. Please stop. The section was unbalanced and poorly referenced before my edit, and it does not improve the article to reinsert citations that don't support what is being said in the sentence. Did you even bother to read the BBC reference before restoring it? DOR (HK) (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Zvtok, your reverting my edit AGAIN is an act of vandalism. Please stop. The section was unbalanced and poorly referenced before my edit, and it does not improve the article to reinsert citations that don't support what is being said in the sentence. Did you even bother to read the BBC reference before restoring it? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[]


Zvtok, your reverting my edit for a third time is both childish and vandalism. Please stop. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Dispute resolution - Dor HK (Hong Kong?)[edit]

As it stands my point of view is that your constant removal of these sources is uncalled for and unhelpful to the reader. Please explain your reasoning and hopefully we can reach an agreement.

Analysts are listed below which expressly mention figures that make up the GDP (retail, manufacturing etc) are off by 50% or more either by directly referencing to the specific figure or pointing to the total GDP which comprises of the figures.

"My conclusion was that the real retail market at that time was half the value of the official government figure," he says. (BBC Matthew Crabbe)

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the growth in old China for the past year or so has been somewhere around zero — it's nothing like 6.8 percent," Straszheim said.

The business leaders I speak to invariably say 'I don't know whether China is growing at 4 percent, or 5 percent, or 6 percent. I really don't know despite having extensive business there,'" he told CNBC (Straszheim CNBC)

Scissors puts the GDP figure at less than 4 percent: Much lower than China says, but higher than the no-growth implications from external indicators like import demand or money flight. (CNBC)

Billionaire distressed asset investor Wilbur Ross, meanwhile, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" that he sees China's actual growth at about 4 percent on a similar basket of metrics. (CNBC)

Our estimate is growth probably about 3.5 percent versus roughly 7," said Gary Shilling, president of economic research firm A. Gary Shilling and Co. (CNBC)

Zvtok (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Zvtok, You ask me to explain my reasoning, which suggests you have not read (or did not understand) this: “The section was unbalanced and poorly referenced before my edit, and it does not improve the article to reinsert citations that don't support what is being said in the sentence.”

The lack of balance and old (2014 and earlier) references were addressed very directly and very specifically by my insertion of a 2017 scholarly analysis indicating that some indicators may be understated, rather than “over claimed.”

Why anyone would ask Gary Shilling, a US real estate market guru, or Wilber Ross about the Chinese economy is a matter for the person on CNBC interviewing those men. It does not make their comments worthy of note.

Please stop reverting my edits without any justification or explanation.DOR (HK) (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Unfortunately saying something does not make it so. My edit was the initial edit so claiming it as "your" edit is incorrect.

I note that you fail to address what each of the five analysts said and consider yourself better able to judge qualifications than BBC or CNBC.

It appears that I will be forced to escalate the matter quite soon. Zvtok (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Zvtok, As I have said on several occasion, read the references. They don’t say what you think they say. Matthew Crabbe, BBC: “But with a population of 1.36 billion people, China really should be the world's largest economy, argues Matthew Crabbe, author of Myth-Busting China's Numbers. He's spent more than 20 years looking at the country's figures and the facts behind them.

His reaction to China's new title: "So what?"

He points out that if you look at per capita spending power - the value of all goods and services produced within a nation in a given year divided by the average population for the same year - then, even adjusted for PPP, China ($11,868) is still lagging a long way behind not only the United States ($53,001) but also the likes of Turkmenistan ($12,863) and Suriname ($16,080).”


Notice Crabbe is talking about PPP . . . which is not the subject of this paragraph. PPP has nothing whatsoever to do with accuracy, understating, 'over claiming' or revising data. Each time you reinsert it into the article, the article becomes misleading. That’s vandalism. Stop it. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]

So you argue that your version is correct under the mistaken premise somebody within my sources suggested their economy was growing at 14%?

"financial commentator suggested China's official figures for GDP growth might be double the actual rate"

The actual rate China claims is around 7%. Doubling that results in a figure of 14%. Nobody in my sources suggested that and yet you repeatedly remove the BBC one and leave the CNBC one. As if five analysts had not just repeatedly stated that the figures which make up China's GDP are *off* BY 50% or more.

Then you suggest that the BBC article is not about the Chinese economy despite the specific wording of "even adjusted for PPP" within that paragraph.


Let's see what it says a sentence further:

"Without the PPP adjustment, the IMF estimates that China's economy is worth far less - $10.3tn."


And further down? "So how easy is it to accurately measure the size of the Chinese economy or even just parts of it?

Not very, says Crabbe. "One of the key things that has to be understood is that distortions that happen at the village and provincial levels become amplified as they go out the statistical gathering chain.

"Year on year the GDP figures for each province grew faster than the national total, which logically and mathematically could not be."

He attributes part of this discrepancy to corruption but also says that inaccuracies became exacerbated by the sheer size of the country and the rate at which it was growing.

Inaccurate GDP figures can have serious consequences for companies that base investment decisions on them. Crabbe has a cautionary tale."


Here we reach the part that is very important and where I actually sourced it for " "My conclusion was that the real retail market at that time was half the value of the official government figure," he says.

Crabbe discovered there were problems with definitions of what retail goods actually were. The government figures included wholesale sales of consumer goods, some government procurement, and some business to business sales - so not everything that had been included was strictly retail."


I genuinely understand the mistake in reading comprehension if you speak another language than English as you are from Hong Kong. However, if your English is strong you should note your version is being very misleading and attempting to label my version as such is dissimulation at best. Zvtok (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Zvtok,

I’m struggling to understand why you insist on making invalid assumptions based on a faulty reading of limited information. For someone with so few edits to your credit, perhaps you might want to consider being a bit more thorough in your research and analysis before jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Case in point: if you’d bothered to look at my profile, you wouldn’t make silly assumptions about who I am and my level of language competency. Second case: if you’d bother to read what I have written here on the talk page, you’d see that it makes very little sense to base the gist of a paragraph that is badly slanted toward one side on old comments by questionable sources. No, CNBC and BBC are not questionable sources.

Yes, Shilling is a highly questionable source on the matter of the size of China’s economy. The man has wonderful experience in the area of US real estate, which gives him exactly zero credibility on this particular subject. No, “financial commentator” is not the same as “macro-economist.” No, I never used the figure 14%. Go ahead and read back over what I’ve written here, and you’ll see that the figure simply isn’t there.

The scholarly paper I cited, on the other hand, not only provides badly needed balance but it also is three years more current – did you think an error in data could not possibly be addressed between 2014 and 2017? – and was produced by people who actually know what they’re talking about.

It appears you have become wedded to your edit, and cannot let it go. That’s not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, and so I urge you to take a break and chill out.

And, if you really want to play the “oh, I understand you’re not as capable as I am,” well I spent 35 years as a macro-economist focused on China and east Asia. The ball is in your court, sir. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[]

You fail to address what the six analysts said aside from agreeing CNBC and BBC are credible sources.

Therefore I will assume that a) you agree with restoration of the properly sourced version or b) I have to escalate this Zvtok (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[]

Zvtok, now you're just being childishly stubborn. You accept that I said CNBC and BBC are credible, but didn't seem to have read the part about the actual person making the comment. Please find some shred of evidence that Professor Shilling has any degree of experience as a China-focused macro economist, and then prove that his 2014 perspective somehow is more valid than my 2017 source . . . by seasoned China-focused scholars.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[]

There are 6 analysts agreeing in concert about the fact that China's GDP figures are off by 50%. You should stop avoiding that fact, despite your obsession with Gary Shilling. :-) Zvtok (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Copying of information from "Issues with overclaiming" into the intro[edit]

The final intro para is superfluous and very non-NPOV, and therefore I think the article is better and more concise without this paragraph.

All the information, and many of the sentences in this paragraph were copied directly from the "Issues with overclaiming" subsection. While the information is indeed sourced, the fact that this paragraph hardly includes any information from the recently-expanded "Issues with underestimating" makes it very non-NPOV. If you look at the "Issues with underestimating" section, it too contains sourced information, from primarily US government sources and US-based non-profit institutions like the National Bureau of Economic Research.

To make the intro paragraph NPOV, we could copy even more information from the "Issues with underestimating" section, but this would make the para even longer and even more superfluous. Since we have two whole (and recently expanded) subsections dedicated solely to the topic of data accuracy, I feel that the introduction is more concise and less superfluous without this intro paragraph. Removing this paragraph does not, in fact, remove any sourced information from this article. All the information is present in two dedicated subsections. Akshaysmit (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Lead reads like a CCP leaflet[edit]

Even with copy pasting the issues of goverment data on GDP, the whole lead reads like a CCP add. Belevalo (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]


The intro does contain a long list of economic achievements and milestones, although in that regard this particular page is quite similar to Economy of India or Economy of the United States. As with the Economy of India page, since a lot of milestones were reached relatively recently (since 2000), people have been continuously adding more information to the introduction. I would be in favor of moving some of the information in the introduction to relevant subsections. Akshaysmit (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]

it reads nothing like either. And funny that you came to defend the lead, since you made it into the leafletBelevalo (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]


The last two paragraphs in Economy of India are basically long lists of achievements: "sixth-largest manufacturer", "world's fifth-largest foreign-exchange reserves", "second globally in food and agricultural production", "telecommunication industry is the world's second largest", etc. etc. That is similar to the intro of this page. I'm not sure what you mean by "you made it into the leaflet". If you're implying I wrote the introduction, that is incorrect. I have not added more than a sentence to the introduction, which is already long. Akshaysmit (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Surely with the way Belevalo is constantly casting aspersions and engaging with ad hominem attacks against other users, that warrants some sort of ban? 45.130.137.4 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[]

obvious sockpuppet IP. Belevalo (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Disputed numbers[edit]

@Akshaysmit, what is your rationale for this revert? Thanks, intforce (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]

- @Intforce Hi. This paragraph was there when this page had a subsection called "Issues with overclaiming", which details several sources that claim China's GDP numbers are overstated. Later on, another section was added called "Issues with underestimating" which details several sources (mostly Western economic institutions) which claim that China's GDP numbers are possibly underestimated. As a result, the para became one-sided since it only had information from one subsection. To include both sides, we can of course change the intro para, but I thought it was unnecessary since all the info is contained in the two subsections. This particular revert doesn't remove any info from the page. Thanks, Akshaysmit (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Its common knowledge that Chinese government economic figures are to be taken with a grain of salt, if you have a source which says otherwise this would be the time to provide it. Seem like it would be ok to mention it multiple places, although I agree we could trim the part you removed a bit I’m not sure I can support removing it entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Certainly we have sources that claim China's GDP numbers are overstated, as is well-documented in the "Issues with overclaiming" subsection. I'll provide some sources that claim the other way. One source from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/reliability-chinese-output-figures/) claimed that "Importantly, these models suggest that Chinese growth has been in the ballpark of what official data have reported. We find no evidence that recently reported Chinese GDP figures are less reliable than usual.". This source also examined China's GDP numbers with trade data from China's trading partners over a 12-year period and claimed that the official growth figures were consistent with import-export data from China's top trading partners. Another source by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Nobel prize-winning US nonprofit, wrote a paper in 2017 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23323/w23323.pdf) claiming that "Our computations of Chinese growth based on optimal weightings of various combinations of economic indicators provide evidence against the hypothesis that the Chinese economy contracted precipitously in late 2015, and are consistent with the rate of Chinese growth being higher than is reported in the official statistics." So there are reliable sources that make claims in both directions. Thanks, Akshaysmit (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]
I will add one more since this 2015 book by the Center for Strategic and International Studies was quite extensive (https://www.csis.org/analysis/broken-abacus). In their Key Quantitative Findings, the authors state that "China is bigger, not smaller: Our reassessment suggests that China's 2008 GDP was most likely 13.1 to 16.3 percent larger than official figures indicated at the time". They also state that "China's 2013 GDP is more accurately stated at $10.5 trillion, rather than the official $9.5 trillion". Akshaysmit (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[]

China's 2020 GDP is $15.42 trillion, according to current exchange rates. 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[]

SOE Market Capitalization Source is Misrepresented[edit]

The underlying source for "State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China's market capitalization in 2019[29]" does not claim that SOEs account for 60%+ of China's market capitalization. Rather, it states that 60%+ of the China large-cap index by weight are SOEs. Huge difference here. The included source is here: https://insight.factset.com/investing-in-chinese-state-owned-enterprises. Maybe also worth mentioning that other sources, incl. from the World Bank, estimate SOEs account for ~25% of China GDP (source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32306). Worth discussing.

TyleriusMaximus (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[]