|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
 Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This is big:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/05/25/china-cuts-off-mckinsey-other-u-s-consultants-to-retaliate-against-cyber-indictments/
| Quote: |
Today, the Financial Times, citing “people close to senior Chinese leaders,” reported that Beijing has ordered state enterprises to cut dealings with U.S. consulting firms, accusing them of spying for Washington. The “instruction,” as the paper called it, was handed down after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced indictments against five Chinese military officers for “serious cybersecurity breaches.”
xx
Many say that none of these initiatives is a real threat. The anti-consulting services measure, which Beijing will implement despite its trade obligations, means that state enterprises will be cut off from McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain, and other first-rank consulting firms. It could take decades for the Chinese government to build a domestic consulting industry, and in the interim state enterprises will probably fall even further behind. In the meantime, American consulting firms can concentrate on other clients, private Chinese firms and multinationals. |
The power of these consulting firms is not usually known by the general population. They firms have been a major source of American power in foreign nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh! simmer down, a tempest in a teacup. The heads of the consulting firms will still be playing golf with senior PC leaders. So much money involved. Lovers spat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7407f83c-0cd0-11e4-bf1e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz389egpWuv
| Quote: |
Britain must stand up for Hong Kong
The UK cannot ignore China’s threat to democratic rights
xxxxx
Britain should remind China of the commitment in Hong Kong’s Basic Law that the territory’s judges remain independent. The UK should spell out to China that it is in Beijing’s own economic interest for Hong Kong to remain a thriving global financial centre, something that can only be sustained by political stability and the rule of law.
Mr Cameron should recall that, in its dealings with world leaders, Beijing respects strength not weakness. Intervention on this issue might temporarily threaten some British commercial interests in China. However, the freedom of the people of Hong Kong is a matter on which the British government under Margaret Thatcher has made a firm treaty commitment. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/who-will-stand-up-for-hong-kong.html
| Quote: |
Who Will Stand Up for Hong Kong?
xxxxxx
A special onus falls on Britain, whose flag some Hong Kongers waved during the July 1 demonstrations. One can only wonder if Prime Minister David Cameron, who recently signed a group of major trade deals with China during Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s visit to London, will ever weigh in to uphold his country’s commitment to Hong Kong’s people. He should consider the words of his predecessor, John Major, who sought to assure a wary world before Hong Kong was handed over to the Chinese. |
People in Hong Kong ought to be weary. Whenever the London/NYT media starts demanding that some group is 'stood up for' a world of hell usually follows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its been about 18 months but China may not actually be the largest economy,
The distortion of purchase power parity adjustments on disparate GDP models
| Quote: |
If GDP is indeed “overstated” by the failure to recognize bad debt, remember that this overstatement is not permanent. The difference will necessarily be amortized over the future, and the result will be that today’s overstatement will be matched by tomorrow’s understatement, and for those who receive my newsletter, I explained in the latest issue that the overstatement is only equal to the understatement if there are no financial distress costs associated with the excessive debt burden. If there are, and there almost certainly will be, tomorrow’s understatement will exceed today’s overstatement.
This means that if you look only at PPP adjustments, China runs the risk of becoming the world’s largest economy earlier than expected, only to slip back to second place over the next few years. This, I suspect, would be a political embarrassment, and it is very understandable why the current administration would not want it to happen. |
Without getting into whether China's GDP numbers are generally accurate, they are calculated differently. This makes comparing China's GDP to America's GDP, and then filtering in purchase power parity, very distorted. A probable area of distortion is the treatment of bad debt.
So, know that the Chinese government does not want you to understand that China is the biggest economy in the world; and its not, at least not by raw GDP nominal dollars. Nonetheless, that kind of thinking does not drive headlines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GENO123
Joined: 28 Jan 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GENO123
Joined: 28 Jan 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
