Where Stalin left off Mao picked up - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**cymnPrayerm** · 01-13-2011, 03:17 AM

The problem with this troll is that China's not really communist anymore--at least not in the places that are making it rich.

fail troll

**AlistDakisa** · 01-13-2011, 08:47 AM

It was a war-torn shithole...

**rbVmVlQ2** · 01-13-2011, 04:32 PM

I take it you've never been a student in London then

**Encannavalf** · 01-13-2011, 04:40 PM

See this is the stupid thing about China being an economic giant. It is only so because of it's rampant population. In terms of per capita, it is abysmal...

**Kotyara** · 01-13-2011, 04:53 PM

well here we have 1960 GDP for China
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...pita&date=1960

92$ per head - but nominal... at at this point the economy already doubled from 1952, so we are talking about "less than 50$" nominal per head... which would indicate that the vaules are definitely not constant currency as indicated... but nominal... and that makes sense as at the time exhange rate was about 2.something/1, so from 119 RMB you would get about 50$ per head for 1952...

To get to today it's a facor of ~8... so about 400$ per head in current dollars - ie slightly better than Congo today...

so - not constant growth rates, but who cares, right?

This does not detract from the argument, and that is - convert to communism or else!

**Romobencience** · 01-13-2011, 05:05 PM

See this is the stupid thing about China being an economic giant. It is only so because of it's rampant population. In terms of per capita, it is abysmal...

may be bad, but all the $$$ is centralized, so it is a power... and if they let their currency float like US or Europe the abysmal may even double.... this would for sure seriously impede their competitivness, and it is the main argument between the three sides... but hey... commies can play their cards in a more focused way and they are taking over. Communism for teh win

**Sotmoigma** · 01-13-2011, 06:54 PM

Am I reading that correctly? The claim is that per-capita gdp in china was approximately 9$ (2010 dollars) in the 1950s?

You probably misread it. The claim is that in the 1950s, nominal GDP started at around 70 billion renminbi.

**sbrthrds** · 01-13-2011, 08:59 PM

1) No, the word "constant" appears there, and the final number looks a lot like today's prices (divide by 7 to get today's USD). Therefore the 67.9bln is

**pKgGpUlF** · 01-13-2011, 09:09 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita

Zimbabwe, Congo, and Burundi have 300$ or below per capita right now.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...HN:ZWE:BDI:ZAF

Google puts it at about 100$ in 1960.

JM

Apply some critical thought here, Jon. What's more likely? 10$ per capita or the fact that there is no reasonable estimate of per-capita production in an economy like China circa 1955?

**tetMitshisk** · 01-13-2011, 09:14 PM

The website he links to labels the figures as "GDP Rmb billion at current prices". I'm guessing onefootinthegrave made a mistake.

I always wanted to use this smiley

01-13-2011, 03:17 AM	#1
cymnPrayerm Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 385 Senior Member	Where Stalin left off Mao picked up The problem with this troll is that China's not really communist anymore--at least not in the places that are making it rich. fail troll Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 08:47 AM	#2
AlistDakisa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 537 Senior Member	It was a war-torn shithole... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 04:32 PM	#3
rbVmVlQ2 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 463 Senior Member	I take it you've never been a student in London then Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 04:40 PM	#4
Encannavalf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 459 Senior Member	See this is the stupid thing about China being an economic giant. It is only so because of it's rampant population. In terms of per capita, it is abysmal... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 04:53 PM	#5
Kotyara Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	well here we have 1960 GDP for China http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...pita&date=1960 92$ per head - but nominal... at at this point the economy already doubled from 1952, so we are talking about "less than 50$" nominal per head... which would indicate that the vaules are definitely not constant currency as indicated... but nominal... and that makes sense as at the time exhange rate was about 2.something/1, so from 119 RMB you would get about 50$ per head for 1952... To get to today it's a facor of ~8... so about 400$ per head in current dollars - ie slightly better than Congo today... so - not constant growth rates, but who cares, right? This does not detract from the argument, and that is - convert to communism or else! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 05:05 PM	#6
Romobencience Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 500 Senior Member	See this is the stupid thing about China being an economic giant. It is only so because of it's rampant population. In terms of per capita, it is abysmal... may be bad, but all the $$$ is centralized, so it is a power... and if they let their currency float like US or Europe the abysmal may even double.... this would for sure seriously impede their competitivness, and it is the main argument between the three sides... but hey... commies can play their cards in a more focused way and they are taking over. Communism for teh win Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 06:54 PM	#7
Sotmoigma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 403 Senior Member	Am I reading that correctly? The claim is that per-capita gdp in china was approximately 9$ (2010 dollars) in the 1950s? You probably misread it. The claim is that in the 1950s, nominal GDP started at around 70 billion renminbi. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 08:59 PM	#8
sbrthrds Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 360 Senior Member	1) No, the word "constant" appears there, and the final number looks a lot like today's prices (divide by 7 to get today's USD). Therefore the 67.9bln is Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 09:09 PM	#9
pKgGpUlF Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 547 Senior Member	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita Zimbabwe, Congo, and Burundi have 300$ or below per capita right now. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...HN:ZWE:BDI:ZAF Google puts it at about 100$ in 1960. JM Apply some critical thought here, Jon. What's more likely? 10$ per capita or the fact that there is no reasonable estimate of per-capita production in an economy like China circa 1955? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

01-13-2011, 09:14 PM	#10
tetMitshisk Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 493 Senior Member	The website he links to labels the figures as "GDP Rmb billion at current prices". I'm guessing onefootinthegrave made a mistake. I always wanted to use this smiley Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)