Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: StarSlayer on January 21, 2014, 08:19:31 am
-
Interesting documentary on China's Ghost Cities. (http://www.wimp.com/ghostcities/) I remember figuring out how to make a Big Mac in a command economy was an easy way to highlight the inefficiencies but the fact that China is pretty much mass producing Detroits is a pretty stark macro example.
-
That's... unsettling.
-
Interesting documentary on China's Ghost Cities. (http://www.wimp.com/ghostcities/) I remember figuring out how to make a Big Mac in a command economy was an easy way to highlight the inefficiencies but the fact that China is pretty much mass producing Detroits is a pretty stark macro example.
Just wait until that army of Detroits produces an army of everything that comes from Detroit! Arsons! Sarif Industries! Kurtwood Smith gangsters!
-
(http://infinitestatemachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/buythatforadollar.jpg)
I'd Buy That For A Dollar!
-
I don't get this, they have people living in old crumbling apartment buildings and nice new modern housing units go unused. they are communist so what are they not giving those things over to their people? I see no benefit for them to leaving them unused.
-
A couple of reasons. First, it's because despite what they tell you, China is only vaguely communist. They're a command economy, yes, but in a day to day sense for the people, it's nearly indistinguishable from capitalism in a normal country, except in the degree of control that the government has.
Secondly, it's because China is economically much more tied in with the rest of the world than, for example, the USSR was back in the cold war. The Chinese built all these ghost towns as a way of keeping GDP growth going in the buildup to and the aftermath of the GFC. In doing so, they ran up huge debts (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/1/7/china/paper-tiger-chinas-potential-debt-disaster), and their debt levels are growing considerably faster than their GDP or tax revenues. As such, they really can't afford to just give them away - if they're not paid for, then the debt will have to be shouldered by the governments with no asset to back it. Equally, they can't afford to just put people in them and let them pay it off slowly as, short of charging realistic interest on them (which would probably mean that the repayments would still be beyond most Chinese), inflation and debt interest would eat up the repayments and leave the government only marginally better off than if they gave them away.
The Chinese have a lot of economic issues to work through in the next few years - debt, a housing construction bubble and the revaluation of the renminbi, which the rest of the world will eventually have to force on them (or keep suffering through a seriously non-level playing field in international trade), one way or another. It's not going to be easy for them, and I just hope to hell they know what they're doing when it comes to navigate them, or it's going to be bad for the entire planet.
-
Couldn't have said it better myself. When China finally gives up its currency controls we're all going to be in for interesting times, in the Chinese sense.
-
they are communist
Black Wolf alluded to this, but China is communist in name only. Their political system bears as much resemblance to Communism (as described by Marx/Engels and later Marxists) as the British system does to a monarchy - extremely little. There are still a few trappings of the name laying around (e.g. Communist Party), but China is far from a truly socialist country. The Scandinavian countries have far more hallmarks of socialism/collectivism than does China.
China's system is basically capitalism without the associated democracy; it's a collection of business ventures overseen by a central governance structure that is primarily concerned with economics. Frankly, China should be a true capitalists's wet dream... except, of course, it highlights how unbridled capitalism without proper regulatory structure breeds corruption and nightmarish social conditions based on class.
-
Yeah. In fact, China has a lot more in common with a megacorporation than a country. Indeed, a "collection of business ventures overseen by a central management structure" is pretty much how a concern is defined in business language. They call themselves communist, but are far from it, being a rather extreme example of capitalism. They are a dictatorship, which is perhaps the biggest thing they have in common with most actual communist countries. You can have a communist democracy or a capitalist dictatorship, though, they're just not very common.
-
I mostly meant the communist thing in that they cannot openly fallback on the arguments a capitalist government might make.
but I still don't see how leaving them vacant puts them in a better position than giving them away or charging installments, maybe they would not be in a much better position, but I don't see how it would be worse, other than the capitalist argument that it would lower demand and thus value of the properties.
-
Really, they don't even pretend they're communists. They're just calling themselves that for some reason, but I don't think they really care about that label anymore. The Chinese government acts a lot like corporate management now. Even if there's any ideology besides "More profits!!!", it's probably confined to their department of propaganda.
And it wouldn't really lower the value of those properties. If there are no people who actually can live in those apartments, then their real value is zero. Still, that's not what matters in this game. BW posted about that in detail.
In general, the world is in a rather sticky situation now. I'm not exactly fond of Chinese, but if their economy takes a hit, the entire world will feel it. With aftereffects of GEC still present, an economic crisis in China could be incredibly devastating.
-
]Frankly, China should be a true capitalists's wet dream... except, of course, it highlights how unbridled capitalism without proper regulatory structure breeds corruption and nightmarish social conditions based on class.
Yet as far as economy is concerned China is still one of the fastest consistently growing major economies and certainly among the better managed developing countries. Even poverty rate decreased a lot in last decade or so. So if China is a true capitalists wet dream (debatable), then it is also a proof that such capitalism works well.
-
I live in China. Trust me it's really not.
-
]Frankly, China should be a true capitalists's wet dream... except, of course, it highlights how unbridled capitalism without proper regulatory structure breeds corruption and nightmarish social conditions based on class.
Yet as far as economy is concerned China is still one of the fastest consistently growing major economies and certainly among the better managed developing countries. Even poverty rate decreased a lot in last decade or so. So if China is a true capitalists wet dream (debatable), then it is also a proof that such capitalism works well.
Um, I dunno if you neglected to watch the video but one of the major points was that China was mass producing uninhabited cities to artificially inflate their GDP. That doesn't really speak to responsible economic growth.
-
I live in China. Trust me it's really not.
Put much more succinctly than I would have, but yeah, that's pretty much it.
China has made large economic strides, but they haven't benefited the country as a whole. In true capitalist fashion, trickle-down economics don't actually work, and China has created a large underclass with a small percentage of very wealthy, politically-connected among the upper class running the show. The country is rife with corruption, pollution, and human rights abuses - in other words, it's a technologically-advanced late-19th century Britain without even the slightest trappings of democratic rule.
-
China has made large economic strides, but they haven't benefited the country as a whole. In true capitalist fashion, trickle-down economics don't actually work, and China has created a large underclass with a small percentage of very wealthy, politically-connected among the upper class running the show.
What about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China#Poverty_reduction
China’s sustained growth fueled historically unprecedented poverty reduction. The World Bank uses a poverty line based on household real consumption (including consumption of own-produced crops and other goods), set at $1 per day measured at Purchasing Power Parity. In most low-income countries this amount is sufficient to guarantee each person about 1000 calories of nutrition per day, plus other basic necessities. In 2007, this line corresponds to about 2,836 RMB per year. Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 63% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty during this period.
Based on the wiki article it did in fact benefit the common Chinese a lot.
Um, I dunno if you neglected to watch the video but one of the major points was that China was mass producing uninhabited cities to artificially inflate their GDP. That doesn't really speak to responsible economic growth.
I dont dispute that GDP manipulation is a factor, but really, how important can it be? 1-2% of GDP growth? Even counting the ghost cities out, China will be at the top.
I live in China. Trust me it's really not.
Id be interested to hear more. But before you write, dont forget to compare China not to developed nations, but to other developing ones with similar starting conditions. I think in that comparison economically China will end up in a positive light.
-
China has made large economic strides, but they haven't benefited the country as a whole. In true capitalist fashion, trickle-down economics don't actually work, and China has created a large underclass with a small percentage of very wealthy, politically-connected among the upper class running the show.
What about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China#Poverty_reduction
China’s sustained growth fueled historically unprecedented poverty reduction. The World Bank uses a poverty line based on household real consumption (including consumption of own-produced crops and other goods), set at $1 per day measured at Purchasing Power Parity. In most low-income countries this amount is sufficient to guarantee each person about 1000 calories of nutrition per day, plus other basic necessities. In 2007, this line corresponds to about 2,836 RMB per year. Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 63% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty during this period.
You're arguing against people with personal experience either actually living in China or who study this kind of economics for a living with Wikipedia.
Particular Wikipedia which defines "Poverty" as less than $365 dollars a year. I make that in two weeks, and it's still difficult for me to pay for basic necessities here in the US. In real terms, the poverty line in any developed country (even China) is significantly higher than that.
-
Id be interested to hear more. But before you write, dont forget to compare China not to developed nations, but to other developing ones with similar starting conditions. I think in that comparison economically China will end up in a positive light.
Invalid base for comparison. China wants to be treated as a first-world nation. So let's evaluate them against other first world nations.
-
What about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China#Poverty_reduction
China’s sustained growth fueled historically unprecedented poverty reduction. The World Bank uses a poverty line based on household real consumption (including consumption of own-produced crops and other goods), set at $1 per day measured at Purchasing Power Parity. In most low-income countries this amount is sufficient to guarantee each person about 1000 calories of nutrition per day, plus other basic necessities. In 2007, this line corresponds to about 2,836 RMB per year. Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 63% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty during this period.
Based on the wiki article it did in fact benefit the common Chinese a lot.
Based on the definitions used, it really did not. I question the 500 million figure since it doesn't appear adjusted for population growth, but even using percentages, it means that ~50% has gone from income levels below minimum subsistence to income levels above minimum subsistence. Nowhere does it measures how much.
Moreover, it also doesn't comment on the substantial changes that has brought with it. Since 1981, China has expanded industrial activity, power generation, and manufacturing on a massive scale but without massive emissions improvement. China has a massive pollution problem that affects overall health, and much of the profit associated with those developments in consolidated in the hands of a small few, primarily in large centers.
By and large, the social and economic conditions in China today are very similar to turn-of-the-century Britain (or slightly earlier). They're a bit of a grand experiment demonstrating how brutal unregulated capitalism truly is. Hopefully they deal with it before they irreparably damage their landscape and water, not to mention citizenry.
-
You're arguing against people with personal experience either actually living in China or who study this kind of economics for a living with Wikipedia.
First of all, I am arguing in support of a widely held view, even among all the relevant economists who study this stuff, that Chinese economy is growing rapidly and can be considered a successfull one, compared to similar developing nations, and that the living standards of even the common Chinese did increase quite a bit. So they must be doing something right. Now if someone disagrees with that, then I expect some good arguments to convince me otherwise, and I am afraid "I live there" wont cut it.
Particular Wikipedia which defines "Poverty" as less than $365 dollars a year. I make that in two weeks, and it's still difficult for me to pay for basic necessities here in the US. In real terms, the poverty line in any developed country (even China) is significantly higher than that.
Poverty measured as $1.25 dollar at purchasing power parity per day is a standard measure used all the time. Id be careful to draw any comparisons with the US since they are very different countries and prices are different too. Also, this probably measures real poverty, not the first world "I have a house and a car and a playstation and internet but I am poor" poverty, so yeah it is low by our standards, barely enough to survive.
Anyway, if you want a little more holistic measure, here is Chinese HDI:
http://countryeconomy.com/hdi/china
Moreover, it also doesn't comment on the substantial changes that has brought with it. Since 1981, China has expanded industrial activity, power generation, and manufacturing on a massive scale but without massive emissions improvement. China has a massive pollution problem that affects overall health, and much of the profit associated with those developments in consolidated in the hands of a small few, primarily in large centers.
By and large, the social and economic conditions in China today are very similar to turn-of-the-century Britain (or slightly earlier). They're a bit of a grand experiment demonstrating how brutal unregulated capitalism truly is. Hopefully they deal with it before they irreparably damage their landscape and water, not to mention citizenry.
Yeah, I am not saying China is without issues. What I am saying is that it is economically quite successfull compared to other developing nations and therefore one should be very careful with any criticism or hasty dismissal of their system (whatever that is). Because it works.
-
Saying China's system works now and is successful is quite comparable to building a house on cheap land overtop of a recently-dropped unexploded bomb and saying it's a great idea and financial success because the bomb hasn't gone off yet. It says nothing about the long-term prospects of the strategy.
China is smack in the middle of a transition that's going to take over a century, and current prospects on economic outlook, energy consumption, and environmental damage, (not to mention civil unrest) are not particularly good if they don't alter course soon.
If their artificial undervaluation of their currency doesn't bite them square on the ass, their energy infrastructure will. If energy doesn't, the pollution will. If the pollution doesn't, the corruption will. And if the corruption doesn't, their contunous suppression of human rights and their citizenry will. China has a simmering pot of major issues underlying their economic "success" that aren't going away. The drive for economic success has come at the cost of many other aspects of daily life, and sooner or later they're going to have to pay that bill.
-
I always figured the west went through the industrial revolution growing pains when all we had was steam and coal, China (and likely India) are going through theirs in the age of chemicals and nuclear power. They've got a much higher chance of screwing themselves over in a big way before they make it out the other side.
-
Saying China's system works now and is successful is quite comparable to building a house on cheap land overtop of a recently-dropped unexploded bomb and saying it's a great idea and financial success because the bomb hasn't gone off yet. It says nothing about the long-term prospects of the strategy.
China is smack in the middle of a transition that's going to take over a century, and current prospects on economic outlook, energy consumption, and environmental damage, (not to mention civil unrest) are not particularly good if they don't alter course soon.
If their artificial undervaluation of their currency doesn't bite them square on the ass, their energy infrastructure will. If energy doesn't, the pollution will. If the pollution doesn't, the corruption will. And if the corruption doesn't, their contunous suppression of human rights and their citizenry will. China has a simmering pot of major issues underlying their economic "success" that aren't going away. The drive for economic success has come at the cost of many other aspects of daily life, and sooner or later they're going to have to pay that bill.
I think Chinese growth is based on solid foundations, they have a diversified economy, lots of industries, are rapidly educating their population and invest heavily in infrastructure. When it comes to energy they are building a lot of renewable and nuclear capacity, so that is also fine for the future, and barring peak oil they wont run out of stuff to burn anytime soon. The pollution is a concern but it is one that will cost them some lost lives and $billions, not one that could bring down the economy. Besides, fast industrialisation + pollution is preferable to anemic industrial growth with clean environment. Corruption is a concern, but again it wont bring down the economy nor is it much worse than in other comparable developing nations. The same applies to human rights, altough that is an area where I dont agree with their policies at all.
-
I always figured the west went through the industrial revolution growing pains when all we had was steam and coal, China (and likely India) are going through theirs in the age of chemicals and nuclear power. They've got a much higher chance of screwing themselves over in a big way before they make it out the other side.
Really? Id say it is the other way around and due to modern technologies and know-how they have a lower chance to screw themselves over, if anything.
-
I always figured the west went through the industrial revolution growing pains when all we had was steam and coal, China (and likely India) are going through theirs in the age of chemicals and nuclear power. They've got a much higher chance of screwing themselves over in a big way before they make it out the other side.
I would be more tempted to say that western economics has evolved over centuries by something akin to natural evolution/selection, China on the other hand is trying to engineer the same changes and in the space of decades without the flexibility of an open economy. In Chinas command economy they are expecting everything to work out in the end regardless of outside factors.
-
The pollution is a concern but it is one that will cost them some lost lives and $billions, not one that could bring down the economy. Besides, fast industrialisation + pollution is preferable to anemic industrial growth with clean environment.
Goddamn, I know right? Why the hell would you want to have fewer unnecessary deaths or a clean environment if it ends up COSTING MORE??? People don't think this stuff through, smh.
-
Note, it's typical corporate thinking. Chinese do a lot of that. No company would implement an expensive policy solely "because it's good for environment". Usually, either governments need to force them to keep pollution down with sanctions, or the "green" policy also happens to save them money. Now, China essentially acts like one big corporation, and there's noone to tell them to stop polluting. Oh, and workforce in China is cheap, so they don't mind a few deaths.
-
Let me supply a few anecdotes to argue this from a different angle from the economic one MP-Ryan is using.
1) A recent case which hit the news was where a baby died because the ambulance the family called refused to go to the hospital until they were certain they would be paid by the family.
That's an extreme version of the sort of thing I hear every day. Pretty much every foreigner is told to ignore ambulances unless absolutely vital and just simply take a taxi instead.
2) More relevant to the article in question. Do you know what is probably the largest factor that stopped the housing bubble from bursting already? It was the decidedly uncapitalistic intervention of the Chinese government who brought out laws forbidding people taking out mortgages on properties for rent.
Now I'm not going to claim that China's approach hasn't helped improve the lives of people in the country, but you have to remember where they were before Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms.
You're quoting Wikipedia articles, which is great, but I'm talking to people who actually lived through the Cultural Revolution.
And from here it's quite clear that China have taken a massive economic gamble which might not pay off. I certainly wouldn't assume that China's current economic success is in any way sustainable, impressive as it has been so far.
-
Goddamn, I know right? Why the hell would you want to have fewer unnecessary deaths or a clean environment if it ends up COSTING MORE??? People don't think this stuff through, smh.
Poverty is a human rights violation of the highest order. More so than dirty environment. Maintaining economic growth is paramount for any developing nation. After all, they can always go green later, when they are wealthy and can afford it.
Now I am not sure there is a dichotomy between fast industrialisation and clean environment, but if there is, then the first one is certainly preferable.
-
Poverty is a human rights violation of the highest order. More so than dirty environment. Maintaining economic growth is paramount for any developing nation. After all, they can always go green later, when they are wealthy and can afford it.
Now I am not sure there is a dichotomy between fast industrialisation and clean environment, but if there is, then the first one is certainly preferable.
Quick economic growth doesn't necessarily do anything at all to poverty in terms of percentage.
-
Poverty is a human rights violation of the highest order. More so than dirty environment. Maintaining economic growth is paramount for any developing nation. After all, they can always go green later, when they are wealthy and can afford it.
Yeah, right!
I don't think you get it ... "going green" is kinda like acting "ethical" ... as long as everyone works together, it works, as soon as only one guy starts throwing the rules over board - without consequences - , that one guy gains enough advantage to screw everyone else over with impunity.
If that is allowed to go on long enough there is a point where everyone else suddenly questions why they should remain ethical / green as well.
On the other hand you can of course definitely understand China, the "new guy" as well ... if you have to catch up you use every advantage you can get, that's just human nature as well.
So there's either a huge confrontation with China looming or alternatively we'll just stop pretending that we are in any kind of form still interested in the long term future of our planet species.
Also a large reason of why US culture is as it is in regards to ethics and why people who can will keep screwing others over to the point and if the economy collapses in the process who cares as long as they themselves get out richer than before. (and worse ... the fact that there are still people who classify any behavior that ends up enriching the individual as "smart", no matter the circumstances.)
-
Poverty is a human rights violation of the highest order. More so than dirty environment. Maintaining economic growth is paramount for any developing nation. After all, they can always go green later, when they are wealthy and can afford it.
Now I am not sure there is a dichotomy between fast industrialisation and clean environment, but if there is, then the first one is certainly preferable.
Quick economic growth doesn't necessarily do anything at all to poverty in terms of percentage.
which is related to the whole quality of GDP which the video talked about. High GDP growth is great but you need something to show for it in the end in terms of goods the market wants and the value of those goods.
Though from the video the demand is there for additional housing, the truth is that what is available is not only bad value for the market but is also priced outside of that market's affordability, as such while money is being spent, nothing is replacing that money because no one can afford to spend what is being asked. If they could afford it, not only would the money be replaced thus sustaining GDP the people in that market would also benefit from the improved living standards as a side effect.
-
Last two decades we saw the fastest decline in poverty in the world that has ever happened, and the bulk of that was in China.
There's a lot of talk about inequality lately and with good reason, but look at this graph now:
(http://static.businessinsider.com/image/52df8e7369bedd160a099347/image.jpg)
and tell me that there hasn't been any development regarding poverty, etc.
About the environment, well. They are building coal power plants like crazy despite the smog burning their citizen's lungs. I'm sure it will be alright.
-
Unlike the smog of old London, the citizenry in China are very much aware of exactly how bad for them the high pollution present in bad days in Beijing and most of Jiangsu is.
How do you expect to have economic growth when there are 100 million people who don't want to leave the house for anything that isn't essential?
-
It's interesting to see China's economic growth talked about in a different way to the way I normally see whenever it comes up, that China is this unstoppable juggernaut that is ever picking up momentum and destined to rule the World economically.
I wonder if the Chinese themselves would have a bit of a chuckle and shake of the head at such ideas?
-
Well according to "Future 80s" (which is best future) Japan should be the world economic juggernaut and look how that turned out.
-
Well according to "Future 80s" (which is best future) Japan should be the world economic juggernaut and look how that turned out.
I can recommend several documentaries by parallel Earth historians 'Tom Clancy' and 'Michael Crichton' exploring our struggles against the rise of glorious Nippon.
-
Unlike the smog of old London, the citizenry in China are very much aware of exactly how bad for them the high pollution present in bad days in Beijing and most of Jiangsu is.
How do you expect to have economic growth when there are 100 million people who don't want to leave the house for anything that isn't essential?
My brother is a student at Wageningen, which happens to be a world renowned university when it comes to Biology. As a result a lot of Chinese students go there, and some get to live in the same dorm (is that the proper word?) as he does.
Every single one of those students has remarked on how clean the air is here.
-
How do you expect to have economic growth when there are 100 million people who don't want to leave the house for anything that isn't essential?
No mr. Bond, I expect you to di...
ahh..
I mean, it matters zero percent what I expect. What is true is that china has been growing at 7%+ every year now with all naysayers been forecasting their doom for more than 15 years now. To say "how do you expect to have economic growth" when we *do* see economic growth with our own very eyes is an exercise in wankidom IMHO. They are growing, and that's that.
Well according to "Future 80s" (which is best future) Japan should be the world economic juggernaut and look how that turned out.
There's a lot of truth in this and I've discussed this point elsewhere. Take notice that although it would be really far fetched for Japan to outpass the USA in raw total GDP due to their pop numbers, it is fairly easy for China to surpass the US's total GDP, given they are 10x the population size of Japan. They don't need much innovation even. They just need to do what they are doing right now, build infrastructure and use foreign proven technologies to optimize and speed up their economy. Once their GDP per person is somewhere in the vicinity of 20/30% that of the US, they will have surpassed them in total GDP.
That is scheduled to happen somewhere after 2017 and before 2024.
-
Japan did not make it mainly due to ... an economic crash in Asia, right?
-
Aging population with children expected to take care of them to an unrealistic extent doesn't help Japan either.
-
I mean, it matters zero percent what I expect. What is true is that china has been growing at 7%+ every year now with all naysayers been forecasting their doom for more than 15 years now. To say "how do you expect to have economic growth" when we *do* see economic growth with our own very eyes is an exercise in wankidom IMHO. They are growing, and that's that.
Oh I'm certainly not a naysayer. I'm just saying that China's rise is not as cut and dried as some people like to claim. They face massive problems in the future due to some of their past policies. Japan for instance had an issue with their aging population which China is now starting to also face. An issue compounded by the effect of the One Child Policy leaving a single child with the burdon of supporting 4 grandparents.
My issue is with anyone claiming that China is an example that "Raw Capitalism Works!" because it really isn't a good example of that at all for the reasons I mentioned above.
Obviously though, I've chosen to live out here and I wouldn't be doing that if I expected the whole thing to come crashing down any minute. But that doesn't mean I don't expect rough times ahead.
-
My issue is with anyone claiming that China is an example that "Raw Capitalism Works!" because it really isn't a good example of that at all for the reasons I mentioned above.
Indeed. China is a remarkable country, and it's rapid development since the 60s is unique; it is also only halfway done. For the moment, China is a demonstration in how unbridled capitalism doesn't work - because they have traded short term [large] economic gains for long term consequences which will necessarily slow and possibly reverse that growth. Meanwhile, while China's poverty score (and I use score instead of level very intentionally) is declining, they are creating the income inequality distribution that the West currently has in various degrees - except they don't have an advanced service/tech economy or a high natural resource load to absorb it. China is all about industrialization and manufacturing; and when (not if) their currency gets a proper valuation, they will suddenly be paying considerably more for the raw resources required, and getting considerably less in payment - which in turn is going to hit their GDP growth *hard*. Which is going to be felt that much worse because the poverty reduction is all on paper; when your poverty reduction is dependent on manufacturing industries maintaining production levels and is skewed heavily by income distribution, it will be the first hit when those industries downsize.
Estimates on the currency undervaluation China is artificially maintaining range from 5-30%, with general consensus around 20%. An adjustment there will **** up their GDP growth really quickly, and despite their attempts to stave it off, an adjustment is coming - it's a matter of time, not possibility. Also worth mentioning is that the currency undervaluation is having major inflationary issues. China's official (so rose-tinted view) number is 5%. Western economics are currently struggling to avoid deflation, and their target is 2% inflation.
China's economic credentials are vastly overstated. They are digging themselves a deep, coffin-shaped hole that sooner or later they're going to have to buy a ladder to get out of.