Buy From China

[numinus]

Nothing, never said it did. But since the producer of those goods and services can be determined, how does this change the fact that 70% of the GDP is created by private industry?

Opps, maybe your ten year old can answer that one since you have failed thus far. Even Forest Gump's kid was smarter than himself.

Because gdp measures ULTIMATE CONSUMPTION. Unless you can show that consumption has anything to do with the way goods and services are produced, you are simply mumbling incoherent nonsense.

 

[Andy]

Because gdp measures ULTIMATE CONSUMPTION. Unless you can show that consumption has anything to do with the way goods and services are produced, you are simply mumbling incoherent nonsense.

You can determine where consumed goods came from. For example, $1 Million in produce sales from a state owned farm would be considered a percentage of GDP that was publicly owned. Alternatively, $1 million in produced sales from a privately owned farm, would be considered a percentage of GDP that was privately produced.

I learned this in College. Where did you learn your theory from? Perhaps your ten year old came up with it? Seems about that level.

 

[numinus]

You can determine where consumed goods came from. For example, $1 Million in produce sales from a state owned farm would be considered a percentage of GDP that was publicly owned. Alternatively, $1 million in produced sales from a privately owned farm, would be considered a percentage of GDP that was privately produced.

I learned this in College. Where did you learn your theory from? Perhaps your ten year old came up with it? Seems about that level.

Read my lips -- ACTUAL CONSUMPTION.

John Maynard Keynes developed a mathematical function to express consumer spending as one term called the "consumption function". In economics, the consumption function calculates the amount of total consumption in an economy. It is made up of autonomous consumption that is not influenced by current income and induced consumption that is influenced by the economy's income level.

The simple consumption function is shown as the linear function:

C = c0 + c1Yd

where C = total consumption, c0 = autonomous consumption (c0 > 0), c1 = the marginal propensity to consume (0 < c1 < 1), and Yd = disposable income (income after taxes and transfer payments, or W – T). The second term (c1Yd) is induced consumption.

You know nothing of economics.

 

[Andy]

lol

Read my lips -- ACTUAL CONSUMPTION.

John Maynard Keynes developed a mathematical function to express consumer spending as one term called the "consumption function". In economics, the consumption function calculates the amount of total consumption in an economy. It is made up of autonomous consumption that is not influenced by current income and induced consumption that is influenced by the economy's income level.

The simple consumption function is shown as the linear function:

C = c0 + c1Yd

where C = total consumption, c0 = autonomous consumption (c0 > 0), c1 = the marginal propensity to consume (0 < c1 < 1), and Yd = disposable income (income after taxes and transfer payments, or W – T). The second term (c1Yd) is induced consumption.

You know nothing of economics.

None of which answered the points made, or were even relevant to the discussion. Clearly the lack of basic cognitive thinking renders you irrelevant. Perhaps you should put your 10-year-old on here to answer my points since you can't. Given your high esteem of your child, maybe he will fair better at basic logic than yourself... which isn't saying much.

"Consumption" is the total personal consumption expenditure, or the purchase of currently produced goods and services out of income, out of savings (net worth), or from borrowed funds.

Given that, can the purchase of currently produced goods and services, have their source of production be determined?

Why yes of course. If I purchase from Wal-mart or Wendy's, in either case that sale is recorded and the company must submit financial statements regarding their gross sales of their goods to the government.

So since the source of the consumed goods can be determined, is it possible to define how much is being produced by a state-run publicly controlled Socialistic farm, verses a privately run private sector farm? Why yes, yes it can.

Therefore, is it possible to then determine the percentage of consumption that is under private sector verses public sector? Why yes! Yes it is.

So is Nummy the laughingstock of this forum once again completely full of meaningless hot air? Why yes.... ... yes you are.

 

[numinus]

None of which answered the points made, or were even relevant to the discussion. Clearly the lack of basic cognitive thinking renders you irrelevant. Perhaps you should put your 10-year-old on here to answer my points since you can't. Given your high esteem of your child, maybe he will fair better at basic logic than yourself... which isn't saying much.

"Consumption" is the total personal consumption expenditure, or the purchase of currently produced goods and services out of income, out of savings (net worth), or from borrowed funds.

Given that, can the purchase of currently produced goods and services, have their source of production be determined?

Why yes of course. If I purchase from Wal-mart or Wendy's, in either case that sale is recorded and the company must submit financial statements regarding their gross sales of their goods to the government.

What an idiot!

The total goods and services produced by the economy is being measured using such parameters that including consumption.

If one can measure the amount of goods and services produced DIRECTLY, what the hell do you need consumption for, eh?

So since the source of the consumed goods can be determined, is it possible to define how much is being produced by a state-run publicly controlled Socialistic farm, verses a privately run private sector farm? Why yes, yes it can.

What nonsense.

Even if you count every bushel of agricultural produce, every unit of manufactured goods, you still cannot determine in any accurate manner the contribution of electricity, infrastructure, fuel, etc that went into them -- all of which are state-owned.

So, you do the next best thing -- measure consumption from income of people -- which, sadly, does not indulge your prejudice of 'private and public'.

What you have presented is a sweeping statement that 70% of gdp is private -- which, like everything you say, has no academic basis, whatsoever.

What is apparent are the industries that allow private investments -- the bulk of which, are non-essential in chinese everyday life. Unless of course, you are suggesting that the chinese are spending more than half of their income buying cars and airconditioners.

Therefore, is it possible to then determine the percentage of consumption that is under private sector verses public sector? Why yes! Yes it is.

So is Nummy the laughingstock of this forum once again completely full of meaningless hot air? Why yes.... ... yes you are.

It is ironic that in a discussion of specifics of gdp, your sources are painfully quite -- leaving you with nothing but absurd improvisation.

College economics indeed!

 

[Andy]

What an idiot!

The total goods and services produced by the economy is being measured using such parameters that including consumption.

If one can measure the amount of goods and services produced DIRECTLY, what the hell do you need consumption for, eh?

Tell me, how do you propose they measure consumption? Go to each persons house and ask "Hi! How much have you consumed today?" Whatever the method for measuring consumption, would include where that consumed goods were produced.

Even if you count every bushel of agricultural produce, every unit of manufactured goods, you still cannot determine in any accurate manner the contribution of electricity, infrastructure, fuel, etc that went into them -- all of which are state-owned.

So, you do the next best thing -- measure consumption from income of people -- which, sadly, does not indulge your prejudice of 'private and public'.

What you have presented is a sweeping statement that 70% of gdp is private -- which, like everything you say, has no academic basis, whatsoever.

What is apparent are the industries that allow private investments -- the bulk of which, are non-essential in chinese everyday life. Unless of course, you are suggesting that the chinese are spending more than half of their income buying cars and airconditioners.

It is ironic that in a discussion of specifics of gdp, your sources are painfully quite -- leaving you with nothing but absurd improvisation.

College economics indeed!

I love it when you open your gas-bag and let out BS I can directly prove wrong.

"State Shares Sold in CHina's Shenzhen"
Oddly, the direct link doesn't work, so this is the cached link from Google.

Shenzhen, China's pioneer of market economy reforms, Tuesday sold some of the State-owned shares in a gas distribution company to a private Chinese mainland firm and Hong Kong & China Gas -- a dominant gas supplier in Hong Kong.

The US$60 million deal is part of the local government's massive reform to reduce its influence over State-owned utilities companies.

The Shenzhen Investment Management Co, which represents the government to manage the State-owned assets, holds the controlling 60 per cent.

So... clearly they are privatizing utilities too. Granted they still have 60%... but the plan is to reduce that further. Perhaps you would care to revise your prior post of ignorance?

No it's not my statement... it's everyone on the planets statement. I'm just repeating what is written and documented everywhere except in your private insane world.

I'll tell you what: Since Wikipedia says that "As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP was in the private sector.", I'll make you a deal. If you truly believe that this has no factual evidence, if you really believe that it has no academic basis, then go to Wiki and challenge the evidence Wiki has, and have the quote removed. If you do this, and I can go look it up and see that wiki removed the statement based on your challenge, then I will admit defeat. If you can not do this... then your just another gas bag waiting to fart out more hot air.

 

[numinus]

Tell me, how do you propose they measure consumption? Go to each persons house and ask "Hi! How much have you consumed today?" Whatever the method for measuring consumption, would include where that consumed goods were produced.

I just posted how consumption is computed, *****.

I love it when you open your gas-bag and let out BS I can directly prove wrong.

"State Shares Sold in CHina's Shenzhen"
Oddly, the direct link doesn't work, so this is the cached link from Google.

​

So... clearly they are privatizing utilities too. Granted they still have 60%... but the plan is to reduce that further. Perhaps you would care to revise your prior post of ignorance?

No it's not my statement... it's everyone on the planets statement. I'm just repeating what is written and documented everywhere except in your private insane world.

And what do you suppose is the primary consideration for privatization, hmmm?

Is it not the socialist strategy to obtain expertise (in the form of technology and capital) while still retaining control?

Get a clue.

I'll tell you what: Since Wikipedia says that "As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP was in the private sector.", I'll make you a deal. If you truly believe that this has no factual evidence, if you really believe that it has no academic basis, then go to Wiki and challenge the evidence Wiki has, and have the quote removed. If you do this, and I can go look it up and see that wiki removed the statement based on your challenge, then I will admit defeat. If you can not do this... then your just another gas bag waiting to fart out more hot air.

And did wiki say that that is proof of a capitalist mode of production?

Tell you what -- go challenge wiki's mixed-economy and have it changed to capitalism.

Tell them how your assinine theory on how the consumption term of gdp equation is computed.

You have no problems making a fool of yourself here -- why not there?

 

[Andy]

I just posted how consumption is computed, *****.

Yes yes, C = c0 + c1Yd and all that. How do you find c0 or c1? Because I wager, regardless of the method, you can determine whether it is private or or public. If you can prove me wrong on this one, then feel free to sue everyone in the media for false claims. And challenge every article from Wiki too. I await your next gaseous omission.

And what do you suppose is the primary consideration for privatization, hmmm?

Is it not the socialist strategy to obtain expertise (in the form of technology and capital) while still retaining control?

Get a clue.

Ah, so Capitalism is a Socialist strategy. Now you really convinced me.

But in the rest of the economy they don't have control... hence... private. Not public. Privately owned and operated. Not publicly owned and operated. Do you need help in basic english? Maybe you should call your ten-year-old over to help you with the long words.

They have only retained control thus far in the few... very few... publicly owned utilities. Yet they plan to sell off more control still. So even that may change.

And did wiki say that that is proof of a capitalist mode of production?

Tell you what -- go challenge wiki's mixed-economy and have it changed to capitalism.

Tell them how your assinine theory on how the consumption term of gdp equation is computed.

You have no problems making a fool of yourself here -- why not there?

LOL I am so amused by you. Every post of yours screams "I AM A FOOL!" and you think to tell me about foolishness lol! Oh I love it. Although I suppose if there was an expert on "fool", you would be it.

Ok... Yes, Wiki did say that. Here I'll get the quote, which you must have missed. "As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP was in the private sector." Hint: Private sector equals Capitalism.

I don't need to challenge their statement of "mixed-economy". 30% of the GDP is still socialized. Something I never disputed. But the majority, as I have been conclusively proving since the start of this discussion, is Privately owned Capitalism. You are the one claiming it isn't Capitalism... so you dispute their statements. Not me, I'm in complete agreement with them.

But... you can't. You lose. Gas-bag lol. Challenge their statement Nummyboy! Put up or shut up as they say.

 

[numinus]

Yes yes, C = c0 + c1Yd and all that. How do you find c0 or c1? Because I wager, regardless of the method, you can determine whether it is private or or public. If you can prove me wrong on this one, then feel free to sue everyone in the media for false claims. And challenge every article from Wiki too. I await your next gaseous omission.



Ah, so Capitalism is a Socialist strategy. Now you really convinced me.

But in the rest of the economy they don't have control... hence... private. Not public. Privately owned and operated. Not publicly owned and operated. Do you need help in basic english? Maybe you should call your ten-year-old over to help you with the long words.

They have only retained control thus far in the few... very few... publicly owned utilities. Yet they plan to sell off more control still. So even that may change.



LOL I am so amused by you. Every post of yours screams "I AM A FOOL!" and you think to tell me about foolishness lol! Oh I love it. Although I suppose if there was an expert on "fool", you would be it.

Ok... Yes, Wiki did say that. Here I'll get the quote, which you must have missed. "As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP was in the private sector." Hint: Private sector equals Capitalism.

I don't need to challenge their statement of "mixed-economy". 30% of the GDP is still socialized. Something I never disputed. But the majority, as I have been conclusively proving since the start of this discussion, is Privately owned Capitalism. You are the one claiming it isn't Capitalism... so you dispute their statements. Not me, I'm in complete agreement with them.

But... you can't. You lose. Gas-bag lol. Challenge their statement Nummyboy! Put up or shut up as they say.

Nothing remotely similar to any legitimate economic theory. That's why your a baker by profession, I suppose.

 

[Andy]

Nothing remotely similar to any legitimate economic theory. That's why your a baker by profession, I suppose.

Nothing remotely resembling a response... that's why you are a Liberal I suppose.

 

[numinus]

Nothing remotely resembling a response... that's why you are a Liberal I suppose.

No need for labels from the political spectrum. ONLY FACTS AND LOGIC -- something your argument is painfully bereft of.

No need to chastise yourself unnecessarily. Economics isn't a pre-requisite for your trade as a baker after all.

 

[Andy]

No need for labels from the political spectrum. ONLY FACTS AND LOGIC -- something your argument is painfully bereft of.

No need to chastise yourself unnecessarily. Economics isn't a pre-requisite for your trade as a baker after all.

Still nothing remotely close to a response, nor having the facts and logic you claim to support but never show.