本文通过一路BBS站telnet客户端发布
(1) Shiyin Chen and Haslinda Amin, China May ‘Crash’ in Next 9 to 12
Months, Faber Says. Bloomberg, May 3, 2010.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601010&sid=aMbfBKW.uKn4
My comment:
(a) Marc Faber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Faber
(born in 1946 in Zurich; best known for the Gloom Boom & Doom Report
newsletter)
(b) If you read news accounts about Mr. Faber for the past several months,
he sounds more and more pessimistic about China. However,in this Bloomberg
report, his forecast of "crash" basically cites Chanos.
(2) Robert Fogel, $123,000,000,000,000*
*China’s estimated economy by the year 2040. Be warned.
Foreign Policy, January/February, 2010.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/123000000000000
(a) In the cover of that issue, this teaser:
The $123 Trillion Economy
Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel on China's Future
(b) Excerpt in the window of article in the print:
Most accounts of China's economic ascent actually underestimate the extent
of the rise--by a lot.
(c) My comment: I will laugh out loud but for Nobel prize of the author. In
2009, China's nominal GDP (according to exchange rate) was $4.8 trillion,
and its GDP (PPP), $8.8 trillion. CIA World Factbook. How can China's
economy shoot up 40 times in 30 years? Even factoring inflation in, it can
not be $123 trillion. I read the article, and the author did not explain how
he came up with the number.
(d) The Foreign Policy magazine had a rebuttal online--but not in the print,
as it does not show up in March/April issue.
Nicholas Consonery, A $123 Trillion China? Not Likely. The many, many
reasons -- from the financial crisis to the country's aging population to
environmental limitations -- why Robert Fogel's forecast for China is
completely inconceivable. Foreign Policy, Jan. 7, 2010 (online only).
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/07/a_123_trillion_china_not_likely
Please read only the LAST FOUR paragraph, starting with "But the most
important reason why we won't see 1.4 billion Chinese earning an average of
$85,000 per year is simply that the Earth can't sustain such rapid growth."
Multiply 1.4 billion by $85,000 and we get $119 Trillion--almost $123
Trillion.
--
|