BRIC+ News & comments

"... State oil firm CNOOC has offered to pay $27.50 cash per share for Nexen, which is 60% higher than Friday's closing share price. The board of Nexen has already approved the deal, but the takeover still needs to be cleared by the Canadian government.

CNOOC, which already operates a number of joint ventures with Nexen, said the deal would boost its oil reserves by 30%. The deal marks CNOOC's third Canadian investment. In 2005, it spent 122m Canadian dollars (US$120m; £77m) on a 16.7% share of oil sand developer MEG Energy. And last November, CNOOC bought Canadian oil sands firm Opti Canada for C$2.1bn. ..." From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18951425

Billy T comment: China continues to use dollars from its reserves to buy real asset it will need decades from now. Is still trying to reduce its holdings of US treasury promissory notes (bonds) despite their trade surpluses with US making a stream of dollars entering for their reserves. Their increased rate of gold buying, plus policy change that now encourages Chinese people to own gold also help convert paper assets into real assets and in the case of people buying gold, instead of consumer goods, fights inflation too.

PS to kmguru: Except for my bugging quad about his continuing refusal to give any support for his claims that Roccor´s post was false or even identify some specific part of it that was false, the Quad/Billy T dispute here has centered on Quad questioning my facts about China either by attacking my sources or me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By all means, then, produce some numbers showing what China spends on ticket sales, beer drunk at games, travel to major sports events, etc. So far, you have nothing but hand-waving and racist supposition.

So the USA should be proud to be outspending China on sports then, and it makes perfect sense that China wants to emulate exactly that type of spending.

You have never actually quantified how much of each of those respective GDPs is of "lasting value." You just throw around hollow, bigoted suppositions that Americans spend all their money on beer and entertainment, and that China spends all its money on power plants and factories.

You have repeatedly, consistently failed to aknowledge in your rhetoric that you are comparing a developed country to a developing one, and that this difference implies a vasty different level of infrastructure spending as optimal in the first place.

You have consistently failed to deal with the problem of over-investment - that it is possible to build too many power plants and factories and apartments at once, as there is insufficient demand to utilize them. And so they do not turn out to be productive at all, just a drain on the banks that financed them.

Instead, you just duck immediately into some hollow blather about Americans liking sports too much. This is not serious analysis. It's talk-radio level jingoism.

"Probably," there, because you haven't even bothered to come up with a definition of "lasting GDP," let alone actually quanitify how it breaks down in each country's case. Doing so would require a bunch of hard work, and coping with the issues raised above, and also access to data that the CCP will make it difficult to get. So instead, you just jump directly to the polemic, throwing fancy-sounding terms around but not really communicating anything except your fixed biases about the two nationalities involved.

Given that you have consistently failed to cope with any of the issues involving comparisons between developed and developing countries that I keep invoking, you're hardly in any position to complain about that.

Regardless, a much bigger problem is that China's GDP figures are highly unreliable. It's not even apples-to-oranges: it's apples-to-whatever-the-CCP-thinks-will-make-it-look-good.

So you agree that China sees Western sports industries as objects of national pride to be emulated, and not drags on the economy to be derided as signs of national laziness and decline. Good.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is correct. BillyT has made a habit for some time now of trying to derail every thread having anything to do with economics into his pet prophesy about China eating the USA's lunch. I find this tiresome and suggest that he just create one thread on that and keep that stuff there, so we can actually discuss other things as well. Being challenged in that way drove him absolutely nuts, and since then he's been trying to turn the tables by hounding me across multiple threads about my dismissiveness towards some CCP propaganda another poster put in another thread (this is at least the third thread he's tried to drag that issue into, despite me repeatedly telling him that I've said all I have to say about the subject).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IMO, I don't mind what BillyT posts at all, despite it being off topic in some threads. If its off topic, then just ignore it. Rather, I much enjoy the info he finds on certain topics. In most of his posts, he will at least leave a link for me to ascertain the validity of the information and if I disagree with his assessment I simply ignore it.

His posts are at least much better then that of some posters here, who seem to talk out of their ass without at least a citation. I mostly find posts about China from certain posters very amusing, because I actually have experience in the region (I'm posting from Beijing at the moment). One poster actually stated the Chinese seem to lack normal morality due to living in giant hive cities. LMAO.

All in all, BillyT's perspective regarding China, IMO, is not all THAT far fetched, if only a bit optimistic. Again, this is my opinion only and if I disagree with some of his assessment, there is no need to waste time making 1000 word disection-quotation posts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW:A bit of advice to those interested in Asia. Reading dubious news reports can only get you so far. I advise anyone interested to find a job and spend extended time here working. I know not everyone gets the oppurtunity to do so but if you do it is a very valuable experience IMO.

 

Excerpts from “Why the Golden Dragon Will Rise Again” by Tony Sagami 24/7/12 Full text at: http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/why-the-golden-dragon-will-rise-again-14628?FIELD9=3

“…I have visited probably 80 or 90 college campuses over the years. A few stick out as some of the most-beautiful places on Earth. … Peking University in Beijing is one of the most-beautiful I have ever seen in my life. The architecture of the campus buildings was stunning and the landscaping was inspiringly beautiful. It was a gorgeous summer day. The lakeside benches were inviting … the soccer fields, perfectly manicured … the parks, beautifully maintained.

But the grounds were deserted. No students. No professors. No Frisbees. Nobody sleeping off the previous night’s party. It was almost as if the college were closed. Nobody was enjoying any fun in the sun. Despite the idyllic setting and perfect weather, it felt like a ghost town.

Then the main campus clock chimed in a new hour and suddenly, THOUSANDS of students filled the walkways. These cream-of-the-crop college students were solely focused on academics and weren’t about to waste away their study time on things as unproductive as having fun.
It’s all about the concept of chiku nailao. Essentially, it means endurance or relentlessness. The students I talked to told me they would never waste precious educational time on recreational pursuits.

Maybe that is one of the reasons that China produces more engineers than any other country in the world. China produced 600,000 graduates with engineering degrees last year. The U.S.? Only 70,000. It is that emphasis on academic achievement — as well as the relentless Asian work ethic — that is the unappreciated backbone of China’s economic rise. The Economist magazine and the International Monetary Fund have forecast that China will overtake the U.S. as the largest economy in the world within the next decade.

Peking University was founded as Imperial University of Peking in 1898, was the first national university in China, and has been a leading institution of higher education in China since its establishment {and} is widely regarded as the most-difficult college in the world to gain admission. Harder than Stanford. Harder than Harvard. Harder than Oxford. Or any of other prestigious universities that you can think of. U.S. colleges like Stanford and Harvard are the backup plan (third or fourth or even fifth choice) for China’s top high school graduates. ..."

workaholic As you are now in Peking, do you find the above accurate or have anything to add? Also, I`m curious: Can you, a foreigner, go into a bank and open one of the new (less than year old) "gold saving accounts" as any Chinese can? I.e. you give then X Yuan and get credited with Y grams of gold. You can´t take the gold out, but if gold value increases 100% you can take out 2X of Yuan. As I expect both the Yuan and gold to greatly appreciate in a few years (while the dollar declines significantly) these accounts seem to be one of the best safe investment now possible to me.

On my controversy with Quad: I don´t really mind him calling me many names, but did once ask him how he knew I was "senile". When he attacked RoccoR´s post, which resembled mine about China´s progress, as "propaganda and false," I did come to Roccor´s defense as what Roccor posted was 100% factual. I have more than three times asked Quad to specifically tell one thing in Roccor´s post that was false, but Quad refuses to support his false statements.

 

No I defined it as of value more than two years later here:

Yes it is hard to accurately compare the GDPs or the "lasting GDPs" when the mix of items in the GDPs are so different and one uses Dollars instead of Yuan.
That is why I said "probably" China´s lasting GDP is already greater than the US´s

Some exactly identical items do exist in both countries and are easier to compare. For example a kilometer long taxi ride in Peking cost only about 10% of what it costs in NYC. - I have mentioned that before to illustrate that the much lower wages in China do not always imply they can not buy what Americans can.

 

But you have not defined "lasting value." In particular, you appear to assume that all infrastructure spending has "lasting value." But that is silly - in an overinvestment situation (which China indulged recently as a stimulus measure), the infrastructure that gets built ends up effectively worthless.

Likewise, if I go on a vacation or something, that experience has "lasting value" to me for a long time. I am less stressed afterwards and so do better at work and in my personal life, and it improves my general outlook and perspective in a permanent manner. I can look back upon those experiences years later and continue to derive happiness from them.

It seems like you're just trying to talk about infrastructure spending, but for some reason you don't want to say as much and so invent this nebulous "lasting value" term instead.

And, especially, when there is no real definition of "lasting GDP" in the first place.

Purchasing power calculations are very difficult, though, due to the manipulation of inflation statistics by the CCP.

Upshot is that you admit that this quantity you are going on about is basically undefined and unknowable. It's just a flight of fancy on your part.

Nobody has ever suggested that Chinese people can't buy taxi rides from other Chinese people. The differences in purchasing power would be in areas that don't scale directly with local wages and costs, obviously. The implication that anybody else would be as ignorant of the basics of purchasing power as you imply there is kind of offensive.

However, if you knew the first thing about Chinese economic issues, you'd know that the price of taxi rides in Beijing is artificially suppressed by the government in order to cook the inflation numbers, and that taxi rides in NYC are artificially inflated by their hairbraned licensing system. Your apparent credulity towards both of those numbers - and willingness to advertize them as a meaningful comparison - again highlights the dishonesty and superficiality in your rhetoric.

 

That is your opinion, but lets look at some facts:

China is making the most rapid and largest urbanization of a population in human history. So they are building urban infrastructure and transportation systems at an unprecedented rate. A couple of years ago the CCP gave the peasant farmers on small plot the right to lease their farms to large agro-corporations - (despite their communistic doctrine) as they need more efficient food production, like the US has.

About 150 million former pig farmers are moving into cities (~half the US population) so the CCP plans 100 new cities, to be built in this and the next 5-year plan. Each new city will have a population of 1 million to accommodate 2/3 of this migration. Some cites are not yet occupied others are over crowded. They need new power plants, new rail lines, new roads etc. and 100 new subway systems, 100 new sewerage treatment plants, 100 new clean water systems, etc. In one decade China must build the equivalent of half the US´s infrastructure. Scheduling that perfectly is impossible, so yes there will be large sections of some new cities with little population as the greatest, fastest, urbanization in history takes place.
There is no reason to think, as you do, that this infrastructure construction is waste done only for economic stimulation.

If you want examples of that, look at the US military - new F-22 fighter* and supper expensive "stealth" destroyers that any fishing boat can see, etc.
Ike was right: The greatest danger to the US is its "military / industrial complex" as that really knows how to waste money, which is in short supply now.

* "... The F-22 Raptor, which has never flown in combat, has been called “the most expensive, corroding hangar queen ever” by Arizona Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..." "... The United States Air Force temporarily halted operations for its $77.4 billion fleet of F-22 Raptors this week after several of the plane’s pilots reported bizarre symptoms linked with oxygen deprivation. ..."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

3.1 billion per ship!!!! And any of the >5000 Chinese fishing ships in the S. China Sea can see it and report where it is.

"... A new stealth destroyer being built for the U.S. Navy is slated to cost the service branch $3.1 billion a ship. The new DDG-1000 destroyer, which is expected to be delivered by 2014, contains state-of-the-art technology that makes it virtually undetectable as it sneaks up on coastlines and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns." ..." Obvious pro spending BS from: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/348450/20120604/stealth-destroyer-cost-ship-ddg-navy-warship.htm

"... Right now the ship is costing taxpayers around $3.1 billion but the price of research and development is likely to bring the tally to more than double. The ship is several years in the making and the first of its kind is expected to be ready by 2014, but critics in China — the very place Uncle Sam plans to send his up and coming fleet — are laughing at America’s latest endeavor. "It would be a goner," Rear Adm. Zhang Zhaozhong of China's National Defense University tells the nation’s CCTV military channel. ..." From: http://rt.com/usa/news/china-billion-navy-ship-972/

SUMMARY: Even if they were not meeting its critical needs, China´s stimulus programs are at least not useless and stupid as US military spending is!

 

It's an opinion shared by a lot of people with a lot of knowledge about investment, development and China.

No reason that you want to aknowledge, you mean.

Meanwhile, there are the famous ghost cities, the mountains of bad debts piling up in the financial system, the corrupt state-run banking system that pretty much insures that capital is misallocated, etc.:

From http://thoughtfulindia.com/2011/04/chinas-bad-growth-bet/ :

The problem, of course, is that no country can be productive enough to reinvest 50 per cent of GDP in new capital stock without eventually facing immense overcapacity and a staggering non-performing loan problem. China is rife with overinvestment in physical capital, infrastructure, and property. To a visitor, this is evident in sleek but empty airports and bullet trains (which will reduce the need for the 45 planned airports), highways to nowhere, thousands of colossal new central and provincial government buildings, ghost towns, and brand-new aluminum smelters kept closed to prevent global prices from plunging.

Commercial and high-end residential investment has been excessive, automobile capacity has outstripped even the recent surge in sales, and overcapacity in steel, cement, and other manufacturing sectors is increasing further. In the short run, the investment boom will fuel inflation, owing to the highly resource-intensive character of growth. But overcapacity will lead inevitably to serious deflationary pressures, starting with the manufacturing and real-estate sectors.​

from http://www.economist.com/node/21555761 :

SOEs are responsible for about 35% of the fixed-asset investments made by Chinese firms. They can invest so much because they have become immensely profitable. The 120 or so big enterprises owned by the central government last year earned net profits of 917 billion yuan ($142 billion), according to their supervisor, the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC). It cites their profitability as evidence of their efficiency. But even now, returns on equity among SOEs are substantially lower than among private firms. Nor do SOEs really “earn” their returns. The markets they occupy tend to be uncompetitive, as the OECD has shown, and their inputs of land, energy and credit are artificially cheap. Researchers at Unirule, a Beijing think-tank, have shown that the SOEs' profits from 2001 to 2008 would have turned into big losses had they paid the market rate for their loans and land.

Even if the SOEs deserved their large profits, they would not be able to reinvest them if they paid proper dividends to their shareholders, principally the state. Since a 2007 reform, dividends have increased to 5-15% of profits, depending on the industry. But in other countries state enterprises typically pay out half, according to the World Bank. Moreover, SOE dividends are not handed over to the finance ministry to spend as it sees fit but paid into a special budget reserved for financing state enterprises. SOE dividends, in other words, are divided among SOEs.

The rot may not become apparent at once. Goods for which there is no demand at home can be sold abroad. And surplus plant and machinery can be kept busy making capital goods for another round of investment that will only add to the problem. But when the building dust settles, a number of consequences become clear. First, consumption is lower than it could be, because of the extra saving. GDP, properly measured, is also lower than it appears, because so much of it is investment, and some of that investment is ultimately valueless. It follows that the capital stock, properly measured, is also smaller than it seems, because a lot of it is rotten. ​

From http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/on-chinas-overinvestment.html :

Although it is difficult to judge any single project as unviable, given that so many massive projects are being rolled out, the probability of waste increases, Chovanec said.

“All over the country, every province has at least one mega project. It’s one thing to build one mega project over a 10-year plan. It’s another thing to build this 10-year project in two years and do many of them all over the country. How much capacity expansion can the economy digest at one time?”….

“I can’t think of any economy where that rate of growth is sustainable,” Bruce Richardson, an American businessman living in Yingchuan, said….

Some local officials have realised the massive build-up is generating undesirable effects and are switching towards sustainable growth, including Yun Guangzhong, the mayor of Ordos, a city in Inner Mongolia.

Ordos, with a population of 1.55 million, has been described as a “ghost city” in blogs and Al-Jazeera television, because it contains a newly built city centre with ultra-modern buildings that is nearly empty. Ordos’ population density is 17.8 people per square kilometre, compared with an urban density of 10,606 people for New York City​

From http://chovanec.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/wsj-chinese-banks-are-worse-off-than-you-think/ :

Investors are worried about the health of China’s banks. They’re afraid—with good reason—that the massive, state-directed lending binge that was instrumental in pumping up China’s GDP figures the past two and a half years will end up producing an equally massive pile of bad debt. Barely a week goes by without new word of a troubled project or impending default.

A bank’s solvency in the face of losses depends on the loan-loss provisions it has set aside and the capital it has built up on the right (equity) side of its balance sheet. Chinese banks like to boast that they have an average “loan-loss coverage ratio”—the amount of equity set aside, divided by the amount of nonperforming loans—of 220%, up from 80% at the end of 2008. Optimists argue this shows banks have set aside more than twice the amount of equity they would need to make up for all their bad loans.

But that ratio considers only those loans a bank has formally designated as nonperforming, and banks have hardly recognized any bad loans stemming from their recent bout of lending. China’s banks are required to set aside loan-loss reserves equivalent to 2.5% of their total loan portfolios. Yet based on the lessons of previous rounds of credit expansion, it’s more likely that up to 20% or even 30% of their loan portfolios will turn bad at some point in the wake of the latest expansion.

Indeed, estimates leaked by Chinese bank regulators suggest that 23% of loans to local government-sponsored infrastructure projects are an outright loss, with another 50% at risk of cash default. If Chinese banks made appropriate provision for these losses alone, it would reverse the record earnings they have been reporting and eat into their capital base. Apply these estimates across other risky loan categories, such as real-estate development and business lending diverted to speculation in stocks or property, and their capital is in real danger of being wiped out. The loan-to-deposit ratio doesn’t matter; they can have captive deposits and lots of cash, and still be bankrupt if they threw it all away on bad loans.​

Please keep this post in mind the next time you feel like asserting that there is no reason to think that China has a malinvestment problem.

 

Hi BillyT,

Yes, I find most of that article to be correct. As I am involved in the recruitment of engineers in the Asian region. I find the top Chinese engineers to be more than adequate for RD work. What they mostly lack is the years of experience seen in Silicon Valley, etc. In my experience the quantity of potential recruits also tops that of the US. Also, the Chinese engineers in general are more willing to put in long overtime hours to get the job done. Of course this is all from my own narrow personal experience.

Can China's RD match the US in quality? I think so, given time. They have the number of people and the drive and potential to do so. The question is how much time, which I cannot answer.

As far as the gold accounts are concerned, I have no experience with that. I only have normal bank accounts. Although I will say the red tape in the banks is very high here. Much higher then that of the US and I suspect they are mostly used to discourage too much outward flow of money. Also the bank CDs here give MUCH higher interest rates than elsewhere, so I agree that anyone who has RMB should keep it as RMB for now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

when I first moved to Brazil nearly two decades ago, I was enjoying more than 1% per month real gain on 100% safe bank "applications" - like US CDs. Now it is "only" about 0.5% after inflation gain per month and falling. Brazil (and China too, I think,) try to keep consumer demand from exceeding local production. - China by depressing the value of the Yuan (that makes imports expensive as it helps exports) and Brazil more by making loans very expensive to reduce buying by the increasing rich Brazilians (but then Banks can pay more interest too as they earn more)

Yes the CCP is very concerned about the possible sudden out flow of capital* and makes that difficult but it is slowly easing. I think they be surprised and find many like me would love to send funds to China - that there will be net inflow when it is easier, not the out flow they worry about.

* They recall the capital out flow of the "Asian crisis" but that was when the dollar was a sound alternative and US budget was approximately in balance, not going 1.5 trillion dollars per year deeper in debt.

 

Three graphs that were here are now gone. I am reposting only with this comment to see if that brings them back.

Part of why China is spending from reserves to by oil in paid-up-front, long-term delivery contracts (some of 30 year duration, but most only two decades):
(Graphs were here showing China´s rapid increase in oil consumption and falling fraction that it could produce domestically with data thru 2011.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Billy T notes:Another large part / reason is they, like most governments, are reducing the fraction of their reserves held in dollars (even if that mean selling interest paying bonds to buy gold) as they are beginning to doubt they will be repaid at maturity with anything like the purchasing power that bought them. I.e. that US bonds are a net losing investment from a purchasing power POV, if held to maturity. (Of course, with luck, and only holding for a year or two, it is possible to trade US bonds with profit.

IMHO, now is a good time to sell any that are held, as problems in Europe have made demand for US bonds - the least ugly whore in the whore house of international bonds, at present.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Over the past five years, China's national oil companies and their publicly traded arms have completed 45 international acquisitions and announced seven pending deals. These 52 transactions amount to USD78.74 billion, almost 78 percent of which targeted upstream assets (exploration and production). China's state-owned oil companies have spent USD40.25 billion over the past five years on mergers and acquisitions targeting Canadian assets {Billy T insert: as with Canada will be no need to enforce delivery with the 6 new aircraft carriers they plan to build.}

Billy T notes: Because of the time value discount of future deliveries and fact oil in the ground is much less valuable than oil in a tanker bound for the buyer, China is paying less than $30 / barrel for future needs of oil. Thus 78.74 billion dollars is buying more than 2.64 billion barrels of oil or more than 25% of their 2011 oil consumption. (Note highest bar in second graph is less than 10 billion barrels.) But in 2011, domestic production supplied very slightly more than 40% of China´s oil needs so imports were about 5 billion barrels. I.e. China has locked up and paid for about 1/2 of the oil it now imports annually.

Guess what what fraction of its current oil needs US has an assured supply of and already paid for?

 

I´m trying to find lasting graphs like those that were in my post 652, but are not now (Hey go look at them in post 652 quick - there back!):
Here is one but it is less informative than the lost one, which showed with a black line graph that during this period the fraction from domestic production also and its data extended thru 2011. (Domestic production dropped from nearly 70% in 2000 to slightly more than 40% of the consumption in 2011.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Source: that´s a 3328% increase. (From graph´s curve it is accelerating)

 

“… China eclipsed the US as Africa's biggest trading partner three years ago, reported the Guardian, a London-based newspaper. … By the end of 2011, Chinese investment in Africa reached $14.7 billion*, up 60 percent compared with 2009. "As China strengthens its ties with Africa and trade keeps expanding, Chinese enterprises will increase their investment in Africa in the near future," …

Africa needs infrastructure that connects the countries on its own continent, as well as with the world, in order to boost trade within the continent and with other emerging markets, according to Gigaba , South Africa's minister of public enterprises…

"Africa has a lot of potential for investment in energy, rail, road and infrastructure. We need about $93 billion dollars to address our infrastructure needs on the African continent," Gigaba told China Daily in a recent interview in London. Gigaba's views came a few days after President Hu Jintao announced in Beijing that China will provide $20 billion in loans to help African countries develop infrastructure, agriculture, manufacturing, and small and medium-sized enterprises. …”

From: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-08/04/content_15644501.htm {With text slightly re-arranged by Billy T}

Billy T notes: China´s exports to US in 2011 totaled 104billion. Most of the above 14.7 billion was investment, not sale of products to Africa as the US is much richer than Africa and can buy goods. It is however, interesting to see how the ~30% annual growth of Chinese investment in Africa will increase and note that this rapid flood of funds to Africa is making many jobs there, so with growing earnings African buying from China will increase.

Assuming there is no acceleration in Chinese investment (i.e. 60% increase every two years continues):
2013 has 1.47x1.6 = 23.52 Billion
2015 has 23.52x1.6 = 37.63B
2017 has 37.63x1.6 = 59.78B
2019 has 59.78x1.6 = 95.65B or Africa could be not only a customer buying from China like the US was in 2011, but mainly Africa will be a great source of the materials China needs. For example, Zambia now is world´s largest producer of copper, almost all of it from Chinese owned mines and sent to China. So China is building both a source of the raw materials it needs and set of new customers* with its rapidly growing investments in Africa.

* For reasons I have often posted, I expect China will not be selling hardly anything to broke US long before 2019 - Thus, China is wisely building new customer in Africa, South America, and Asia.

 

See text below photo for somethings less interesting but more important.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"... China's Wanxiang Group, a leading auto parts supplier, will take an 80 percent stake in US battery maker A123 Systems, Reuters reported on Thursday. A123, which makes high-tech auto batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, said Wanxiang Group plans to invest up to $450 million in the company. ...

Wanxiang Group has been expanding in the US for almost 20 years. As of February, its US subsidiary owned 28 manufacturing plants in 14 states and employs more than 5,680 people. ... " From: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2012-08/09/content_15656673.htm

----------
" ... China exported 487,900 vehicles in the first half, a 28-percent year-on-year increase. Monthly exports in May and June both exceeded 100,000 units. The automakers' continued overseas expansion led the association to predict that their total exports could surpass 1 million units in a year for the first time in 2012, showing an year-on-year increase of 27.48 percent. ..."

From: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-08/09/content_15654230.htm Where company by company exports are given (Chery is leading. I see some in Sao Paulo now.)

-----------
"... Chief negotiators from the Chinese mainland and Taiwan on Thursday held their eighth round of talks since 2008, centering on cross-Straits agreements regarding investment protection and customs cooperation {and} signed two agreements on investment protection and promotion, and on customs cooperation, aiming to better protect investors' rights and interests, and facilitate customs clearance. ..." From: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-08/09/content_15655760.htm

 

"... the government says the violence, in which 75 people have been killed and more than 400,000 displaced, is over and has set a deadline for fleeing villagers to return to their homes ... "How can we go back? There is nothing left. We saw them burning down the entire village as we escaped. The fire and smoke were visible from a long distance," Rohima says, cradling her three-day-old boy, who was born in the primary school which now houses 800 people in lower Assam's Dhubri district. ... Fleeing survivors speak of large groups of men armed with automatic weapons surrounding entire villages, going on the rampage, gunning down people or hacking them to death with machetes. Hundreds of villages have been looted and razed. ..." From: http://news.yahoo.com/deadline-looms-survivors-assam-bloodshed-too-scared-home-082326920.html

Syria? No, this was ethnic violence in India.

 

Gold production (metric tons) by first and second place countries:
China 380 & 341 (in 2011 & 2010)
Australia 272 & 260 (in 2011 & 2010)
China beat Australia by 39.7% in 2011 and by 31.1% in 2010.

SUMMARY: Not only is China the world´s largest gold producer for last five years, but it is increasing its lead on the number 2 producer.

Furthermore, China probably is hiding part of its production. Only a few years ago they did not tell anything about their gold production.

Despite all this, China has bumped India down to world´s second largest gold importer - makes you wonder why all this effort by China to gain gold.

I have offered one reason in several posts. Here form post 639 is one: