Talk:Economy of China

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bettyhwt (article contribs).

GDP table needs to be updated

It is outdated as China's official GDP for 2022 was 17,963 billion.

The table has 18,100.0

I am sure many of the other numbers from 2022 onwards are also outdated.108.26.243.70 (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The GDP listed for China as $25.4 Trillion nominal doesn't match the reference. Something very fishy is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Channard (talk • contribs) 05:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

hey China's gdp is 18.560 trillion...so gdp of 25.4 tr in out of context...this is actually vandalism Sbot675 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There is one authoritative source for Chinese data, and that's the National Bureau of Statistics (<https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/>). The IMF and the New York Times get data from there, so IMF's (and NYT) a secondary source. The official figure is 1,260,582.1 hundred million yuan, or Rmb126,058.21 billion. Last year, the exchange rate averaged Rmb7.0809:US$1. Therefore, the economy was US$17,802.57 billion. If you want to play around with someone’s definition of purchasing power parity, please be very specific as to both source and the reason that source should be considered definitive. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

NHK Documentary

Suggest the authors take a look at a recent NHK documentary on the subject of China's GDP, which is grossly inflated. There may be as much as 15 Trillion (USD) in provincial debt as China pursues a failed business model. Public unrest is widespread with economic collapse a question of when, and not if. 109.154.51.224 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that debt -- domestic or foreign, private or official -- is not a factor in determining the size of GDP. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

The article states that "China's manufacturing sector benefits from the world's largest domestic market" but this is no longer true as India has a larger population, and according to Wikipedia itself the US and EU have much larger consumer markets. 129.32.45.245 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean to say India has a larger population, or a larger market? The two are not the same. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

china has the largest consumer market, India has the largest population 48JCL (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Data number correction on manufacturers share of export goods needed (!)

I've noticed that the percentage share of 'manufacturers' within the export goods line inside there 'external' section in the beginning introductory "Quick facts" tab/panel is incorrect. Inside the very source it is linking to, the percentage is 94.3% and NOT 74.3%. There seems to be an error in the first number. Tmbehar (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The Diplomat

A single news source is not WP:DUE claiming that we should disregard Chinese economic data. This would be to the detriment of WP:NPOV. And frankly it's a pretty minor pub to boot. I did some scrutiny of it and it's a web-only magazine which is principally known for shady advertising practices. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It is still a worthwhile point to make somewhere in the article, as there has been plenty of academic discussion over the years about the reliability of Chinese government stats. In the past, even the government has made a point about the unreliability of its stats, for example here. - Amigao (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If better, more neutral, sources can be found this won't be an issue. My concern is to cite that statement to that source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Being clear: I would prefer the academic sources you alluded to rather than an American (or Amero-Australian) news publication. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are some examples from The Nikkei, Financial Times, and Reuters for starters. Amigao (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Japanese newspaper, British newspaper, Canadian news service. Where are the academic sources? Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also the FT article, from 2016, was about the federal level statistician discussing plans to stamp out inaccurate financial data. The Nikkei article is quick to point out that the concerns regarding the accuracy of Chinese data are not universal and many economists dissent from that view. The Reuters article, again, is about Chinese efforts to improve accuracy of statistics. This creates a typical catch 22 applied to socialist countries. If they're transparent then it's used to say "you can't trust them." If they're not transparent then it's used to say "you can't trust them." Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Its not really a catch-22... Because socialist countries do publish unreliable economic data. Same goes for single party states regardless of economic/political orientation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly the POV that en.wiki editors mostly try to insert regarding socialist countries. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That is the NPOV, you can argue that its a symptom of orthodox economic's dominance in modern academia but it is the academic consensus even if you disagree or think that academia is corrupt/broken. You also seem to be missing that its also true of non-socialist single party states, socialism has little to do with it... Fascist single party states are just as unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So, we agree that The Diplomat correctly reflected views endorsed by numerous academic sources? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"which is principally known for shady advertising practices" it is? What would those be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Using the logos of Time and The Economist in banner ads without permission. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And what is the source for that being a shady advertising practice? That is pretty much the opposite of what the source in the article says, so where are you getting that from? (the linked article says that Time was the one being shady, not The Diplomat) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)