超级军网米国网友关于TG鸡屁股真假的嘴炮
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/27 23:44:36
想知道中国在做什么？不要看GDP数据
Want to Understand How China is Doing? Don't Look at GDP
作者:osmond 发布日期:2013-10-09 浏览:25668
译文简介:
大西洋月刊称中国GDP可能作假，掀起美网友大战。
译文来源:
http://www.theatlantic.com/china ... look-at-gdp/280202/
翻译：龙腾
为什麽典型的基础统计数据没办法全面描述这个世界第二大经济体？
Matt schiavenza Oct 4 2013, 4:30 PM ET
2013年10月4日16:30 撰稿人：Matt Schiavenza
For over a quarter century, the one figure that dominated discussion of China's economy was this: eight percent. Beginning in 1982, when leader Deng Xiaoping established the percentage as necessary to quadruple the size of the country's GDP by 2000, China has seldom failed to achieve it—even in 2009, when the world was enduring the worst downturn since the Great Depression. The eight-percent figure became so entrenched that it acquired an almost Talmudic significance, causing speculation that if the economy didn't grow by that amount, social instability would surely follow. (The fact that the number eight is considered lucky in Chinese culture only added to the mystique.)
在过去的25年中，关于主导中国经济状况的讨论是围绕著这样一个数字展开的：8％ . 1982年，时任中国领导人邓小平在经过深入调研后，定下了从当年起到2000年为止，国内生产总值翻4番的目标。而在2009年，全球经济经历了上世纪三十年代的大萧条以来最严重的衰退（译注：这里说的大萧条主要针对的是1931年前后的美国，感兴趣的友友自行搜索“美国大萧条”）。中国却几乎不受影响的实现了当初定下的增长目标。8%这个数字在中国的经济增长中变得如同神灵启示一般的根深蒂固，具有一个特殊的意义。而且这个增长势头能够保证中国社会的稳定，抑制投机倒把商人对中国经济的买空卖空。事实上，在中国文化中8这个数字被认为是幸运的。这也为这个数字增加了神秘感。
These days are now over. China's GDP has failed to reach the benchmark for six successive quarters, checking in at 7.5 percent for the second quarter of 2013. Though this growth is still robust by global standards, the sub-eight percent figure has raised concerns that a Chinese “slowdown” is now permanent—and will have serious consequences for the rest of the world.
一段时间以来，具体点说中国的GDP已经连续6个季度未能达到8%的基准增长了。2013年第二季度录得的最新增长是7.5％ .虽然这个增长数字相较于全球经济增长情况依然显得很强劲。但是因为低于多年来保持的8％的增长数字，所以已经引起了关注。现在看来中国经济的“减速”将是永久性的，同时，这也将给世界各国带来严重的后果。
The death of the eight-percent benchmark does however give us an opportunity to re-examine GDP and the assumption that, if China achieved a certain percentage, the Communist Party was succeeding. Whether or not China achieves seven, six, or five percent growth in the coming years—as economists like Michael Pettis have asked—do measurements of the country's GDP even matter? Here are a few of the issues involved in assessing the health of China's economy.
然而，8%基准线的“死亡”却给我们一个重新审视GDP的机会和假设，我们假设在中国共产党的领导下成功地让中国的经济增长保持在一定比例。那麽在未来的几年这个比例是多少，是7%吗？或者6%？还是5%？或者这些比例数字根本不重要？经济学家Michael Pettis提出了以上这些疑问。这里我们罗列了几个关于中国经济状况的评价问题。
China's official GDP numbers may not be very accurate
中国官方公佈的GDP数据可能不是很准确
Interpreting what China's GDP numbers mean is difficult enough in the best of times—but what if the numbers themselves aren't reliable? Although the veracity of Chinese economic data is a subject of debate, critics of the data have two basic concerns:
理解中国的GDP数字具体意味著什麽是一件很困难的事情。但是，如果数字本身并不可靠呢？虽然中国经济数据的真实性是一个有争议的问题，但评论数据的真假可以从以下两方面入手：
The first is transparency—the Chinese Communist Party has historically been cagey with its methodology, and the speed with which it releases quarterly GDP percentages puts the numbers' accuracy into question. According to Leland Miller, CEO of China Beige Book, a company which compiles reports on China's economy based on surveys of businesses within the country, quarterly GDP figures are released just 12 days after the quarter ends—and leaked after nine. By contrast, the United States requires four weeks to release data, and Hong Kong—a comparatively tiny economy—needs six. The fact that an economy the size of China's can compile this information so quickly has led observers to question the accuracy of the data.
首先是透明度。中国共产党历来对他们的统计方法守口如瓶，而且他们所发佈的季度GDP增长的准确性值得怀疑。依据Leland Miller创办的China Beige Book编写的基于企业调查的该国经济报告称，中国的季度GDP数据仅仅在季度结束12天之后就公佈了——数据洩露9天之后。相比之下，美国需要四周的时间来发佈数据，而显得比较小规模的香港则需要六天。事实上，能够如此迅速的编辑汇总这麽大规模经济体的数据导致了经济观察家们开始质疑这些数据的准确性（译注：China Beige Book是一份类似于the Tan Book的经济调查报告，the Tan Book可译做褐皮书，是美联储每年发佈的美国经济展望调查报告。China Beige Book可直译成中国褐皮书）。
Secondly, national-level data in China doesn't always match information provided by provincial and municipal-level governments, occasionally producing a difference of 10 percent. One reason is politics. During China's reform and opening era, lower-level officials have been judged by their ability to produce economic growth, providing an incentive for leaders to overreport GDP. An additional problem, according to Beibei Bao, who analyzes China's economy for the Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, provincial-level economic statistical bureaus were often understaffed.
其次，中国中央政府一级的数据并不总是一致的，由省市级的政府提供给中央的的数据偶尔会产生10％的偏差。产生偏差的主要原因之一是基于政治的考量，在中国的改革开放时代，级别较低的官员把经济增长作为主要政绩，在这一原因下激励了地方领导多报GDP . 另一原因在于，根据总部位于纽约的谘询公司Rhodium Group的Beibei Bao分析称，中国的省级经济统计局往往人员不足。
Not everyone, however, agrees that these statistics are so inaccurate. In a newsletter from earlier this year, the San Francisco Fed argued that China's GDP data is basically reliable, a claim backed up by Nicholas Lardy, a China specialist at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. Lardy told me that in recent years, Beijing has taken steps to centralize data collection, relying less on under-staffed (and possibly corruptible) local and provincial bureaus. As a result, Chinese numbers have become increasingly reliable.
然而并不是每个人都认为这些统计数字是不准确的。在今年早些时候的一份时事通讯中，三藩市联邦储备银行认为中国的GDP数据是基本可靠的。Peterson Institute of International Economics的中国问题专家Nicholas Lardy说：近年来，中国已经採取措施。集中的数据收集，较少依赖地方人员和省级局上报的经济数据，虽然这可能不是好事情。但是由此一来，中国的经济发展数据正变得越来越可靠。
GDP isn't the most useful measurement for an economy's health, anyway
无论如何，GDP不是衡量一个经济体是否健康的最有用数据
Six years ago, then-Prime Minister Wen Jiabao famously called the Chinese economy “unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable,” revealing Beijing's unease with its then-breakneck pace of growth. Wen's concern reflected a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption. For example, if a local government authorizes the construction of a factory, GDP will go up—even if nobody ultimately uses it to make things. As a result, Leland Miller says that the GDP statistic indicates the economy's growth rather than productivity, making it functionally “useless” as measurement in and of itself.
六年前，当时的中国国务院总理温曾称中国经济是“不平衡、不协调和不可持续的”，这也揭示了中国当局对经济极快的增长速度的忧虑。温总理的关注折射出越来越多的共识：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。例如，如果一个地方政府授权建设了工业区，那麽GDP会随著工业区的建设应声上扬，但是这个工业区可能却成了无人使用的摆设。一如Leland Miller所说：GDP统计只能表明经济增长而不是生产力。单就GDP的计算而言，上例中的工业区就是“无用的”GDP增长。
Beijing wants to change this equation, rebalancing China's economy toward one based more around consumption than investment (as well as one based more on services than manufacturing). But this isn't a change that will occur overnight, and China remains a place where its robust GDP masks major structural weaknesses in the economy, rendering the figure meaningless—at best.
中国当局想要改变这个经济发展的方程式，重新平衡中国经济走向一个围绕著国内消费大于投资，以及服务业大于製造业的经济发展环境。但这不是一朝一夕就能改变的，目前中国强劲增长的GDP仍然有结构性弱点，顶多就是金玉其外，败絮其中的数字增长而已。
If GDP isn't useful, how about unemployment?
如果GDP没有用的话，我们看看失业率如何？
In the United States, unemployment figures are considered such an important measure that, until recently, conventional wisdom dictated that a president could not be re-elected if unemployment remained above a certain percentage.
在美国，失业率被认为是一个异常重要的，反应经济发展好坏的指标。迄今为止，传统的说法是：如果失业率高于一定比例，那麽连总统都将是不能连任的。
But in China, official unemployment numbers are, as Beibei Bao said, “garbage.” That's because they fail to account for the more than hundred million strong army of migrant workers, men and women who leave their hometowns to work, illegally, in the cities. Because they lack official permission to live outside of their place of registration, migrant workers do not count in official employment statistics—even though urban unemployment is viewed as a potential source of political instability.
但是在中国，如同Beibei Bao所说，中国官方的失业数字就俩字：垃圾。这是因为他们计算失业率的时候没有考虑到上亿的农民工大军。不管是男人还是女人谁离开自己的家乡到城市工作都是非法的。因为他们缺乏自己出生的注册地以外的正式许可，因此即便农民工在城市失了业也不被计入官方就业数据，虽然失业者也同样被看作是社会不稳定的潜在来源。
So- what measurements can we use?
那麽，我们还有什麽东西可以用来衡量中国经济发展的好坏呢？
In 2007 Li Keqiang, currently China's prime minister, remarked at a private dinner that China's GDP was “man-made” and that, instead, he relied on three other measurements: electricity consumption, rail freight, and bank loans. Before long, Li's comments—published in a WikiLeaks cable in 2010— emerged as an alternative measurement to Chinese economic data. Though imperfect—Lardy says that electricity consumption doesn't always reliably track growth—Li Keqiang's “index” at least relies on data free from political manipulation.
2007年，现在的中国总理李克强在一个私人晚宴上说，中国的GDP是“人为製造的”。他说他所相信的是其他三个数据：电力消耗、铁路货运和银行贷款。在那之后不久，李总理的评论在 维基解密2010 曝光后被冠以“李克强指数”的经济学名词，成为了外界观测中国经济数据的替代测量指标。Nicholas Lardy说这虽然不算完美，电力消耗的增长也并不总是可靠，但是跟踪“李克强指数”至少可以摆脱政治操纵的GDP数据。
But while economists and investors now have more accurate and useful data at their fingertips, it's worth considering just how useful national-level data is as a whole. As Leland Miller says, “China isn't just China. It's a bunch of little China's.” A large, fragmented country with enormous economic diversity, it is difficult to draw conclusions about China's economy as a whole without considering the impact on its component parts. In recognition of this, Miller's China Beige Book targets relevant sectors, regions, and industries in order to develop a more accurate impression of what really drives China's growth.
不过，在经济学家和投资者们的手头现在有更准确和更有用的数据。整体来看，中央政府发佈的官方数据作为一个整体数据还是值得相信的。Leland Miller说：“从经济结构这一层面来看，中国不仅仅是一个国家，而是由一群小中国组成的一个巨大的、经济多样性的、经济结构差异巨大的的国家。而中国经济作为一个整体，如果不考虑它的各个组成部分的影响就很难得出结论。正是由于认识到这一点，Leland Miller写China Beige Book这一报告的目标，就是综合各个相关部门、地区和产业，以制定和开发出一个更准确的关于中国经济增长的印象。
At some point in the next five years, China's GDP will eclipse the United States' and become the world's largest, an event that will attract a lot of attention—and hand-wringing— from journalists and politicians. But for anyone who wants to understand China's future, the figure will be completely useless.
在接下来五年的某一时刻，中国的GDP将超过美国，成为世界上最大的经济体。这一事件注定会吸引全世界包括记者和政客们的目光，当然，也包括绝望。但是，谁现在想要想凭著这些GDP的统计数字去瞭解中国的未来，这些数字将令他万分失望。
评论翻译:
a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption.
This also exposes the lie about having to "compete" in a "global" economy. The truth is China is not our competitor. It is simply our supplier. They're not making stuff for us and for themselves. They are only making stuff for us.
关於中国经济越来越多的共识就是：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。
这也暴露了一个所谓全球性经济竞争的谎言。事实上中国不是我们的竞争对手，中国只是我们的供应商。他们的Made in China不是為我们和他们而製造. Made in China只是為我们服务。
2）mimififi @RobertSF• 3 days ago
Yeah 1.3 billion Chinese all naked and using nothing of the stuff they make.
Riiight.
Riiight.
@RobertSF， 是，你说的太对了。13亿中国人都不消费，他们赤裸著身子不吃不喝的生產消费品。
对！
太对了！！
3）Kirk Holden @mimififi• 2 days ago
You are arguing with an international expert on the economies of world nations sir, please make up at least one or two facts to support your opinions.
@mimififi， 知道您老是“世界级的国际经济专家”这没有错，但是能不能麻烦您至少用一两个事实来佐证您的观点？
4）Uppal76 @kirk Holden• a day ago −
How about this: traveling about various regions of China this summer, I saw the same consumer culture in each city I went to. Some were full of mom and pop shops, others international outlet stores. Yes, Chinese people are buying things, often at prices higher than in other countries!
@Kirk Holden，你觉得这个事实怎麼样：今年夏天我去中国各个城市周游了一圈，我看到了每个城市不同的消费文化，一些是挤满了年轻妈妈的普通商店，另一些是国际性的品牌直营店。是的，中国人正在消费，他们用比其他国家更高的价格在消费！
5）JohnJMac• 3 days ago
US GDP is $15T versus China's GDP of $7.2T. Their GDP will not surpass ours in 5 years.
目前美国的国内生產总值是15万亿美元，而中国是7.2万亿美元。他们的国内生產总值5年内不会超过我们。（译注：John的评论附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话）
6）NicolasBourbaki @JohnJMac• 3 days ago
In GDP as measured by PPP they will.
@JohnJMac， 他们的GDP是要用PPP来测算的。
（译注：Nicolebas的评论也附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话。PS：GDP:国内生產总值；PPP：购买力平价 ）
7）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Median PPP is a useful metric for assessing quality of life for average people, but when PPP gets averaged and summed it stops really corresponding to any real life concept. No one would classify an American billionaire as richer than a British one because a hamburger is cheaper in America. If a Chinese airline wants to buy a passenger jet, it does not get a discounted price on the grounds that haircuts are cheaper in China. For comparing international economic power, nominal GDP is probably a better metric than PPP GFP.
@NicolasBourbaki，PPP评估的中间值对一个普通人的生活品质好坏具有很好的指标意义，但是当PPP被人均或者被总计的时候，对现实中个人生活的好坏就没有了指标意义。举例：我们不能因為一个汉堡在美国卖的价钱比在英国卖的更便宜就觉得美国比英国更穷；也不能说一家中国航空公司购买了一架没有折扣的喷气式客机是因為在中国理髮很便宜。对於国家与国家之间的经济力量对比，名义GDP相较於PPP总和而言，可能是一个更好的指标。
8）NicolasBourbaki @William Pastor• 2 days ago
What you've said really doesn't follow and neither is it true.
@William Pastor，你说的什麼我不感兴趣，也不是真的。
9）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• a day ago
If you have an argument as to why PPP GDP is a better measure of economic power than nominal GDP, I'd be happy to read it, but "neither is it true" is not an argument.
@NicolasBourbaki， 请拿出你的论据支持你的论点：為什麼用PPP衡量经济会比名义GDP更好？放马过来吧小子，“不是真的也不感兴趣”可不是什麼好的论据。
10）Enis Fesci @William Pastor• a day ago
let me tell you why PPP is a better measure. We are measuring the SIZE of the economy. So PPP adjusts for the difference in prices to objectively measure quantity produced. If an apple is 5 dollars in america, and the gdp is 50 dollars, it means 10 apples were produced. if an apple is 2 dollars in china and the gdp is 30 dollars (nominal) that means 15 apples were produced in china. In this example, america has a higher gdp (nominal) but the chinese economy is larger and more active because they produce more apples than america. so chinas gdp ppp would be to imagine if apples were the same price as in america, how much would there gdp be? that is 5 dollars times 15 apples = 75 dollars gdp ppp. as an economics student i can tell you that gdp ppp is a much better measurement for the SIZE of the economy. in your logic, you can make the economy larger with a raise in everything's price and producing the same amount! But with PPP, they all get adjusted and the economies can be objectively compared.
@William Pastor, 让我告诉你為什麼PPP是一种更好的措施。我们所说的衡量经济规模就是衡量平价购买力。因此，购买力平价调整的价格的差异可以客观地衡量生產力。如果一个苹果在美国售价是5块钱， 50块钱的名义GDP（标称值）可以生產10个苹果。而如果一个苹果在中国卖2块钱，中国名义GDP的30块钱（标称值）意味著可以生產15个苹果。在这个例子中，美国具有更高的国内生產总值（标称值） ，但中国生產的苹果比美国的更多，经济量就更大。所以请想像一下中国的名义GDP是多少？如果中国生產的这15个苹果在美国生產，会出现多少的名义GDP？是5块钱乘以15个苹果= 75块钱。这75块钱就是美国GDP的购买力平价。作為经济学的学生，我可以告诉你，PPP计量的经济规模比名义GDP更好更準确。在你的逻辑中，你可以提高一切產品的价格使经济规模无限放大。但用PPP ，他们的调整会使所有相关经济数据產生同步变化，因而可以客观地比较经济规模。
11）William Pastor @Enis Fesci• a day ago
Enis, two points:
1. The problem with summing PPP across an economy is that the sum is heavily affected by the higher earners, who are less affected by local pricing. Nobody would adjust the Forbes billionaires list for PPP. I agree that "size" is probably better recapitulated by PPP, but it is not a perfect fit. Although I've never seen this analysis, I suspect for example that America's advantage over northern Europe in PPP numbers is largely because our rich people look artificially rich when you adjust their incomes to account for the cheap price of pizza in America.
2. When considering economic power on the other hand, nominal GDP makes more sense because trade is transacted in actual money, not PPP money. Although GDP is an imperfect measure of global economic significance, I think you'll agree that nominal prices are more relevant to any trader who wants to sell apples to China or America.
@Enis Fesci，
Enis，我说两点：
1。PPP总量受高收入人群的严重影响，他们本身却基本不受当地PPP的影响。没有人会调整福布斯富豪榜上那些富豪们的PPP. 我同意“总量大小”可能可以更好的概括PPP规模，但它不是一个完美的总量。虽然我从来没有见过这样的分析，但是我怀疑，例如北欧和美国PPP总量很大是因為在很大程度上我们的有钱的人数量看起来很多，当你调整这俩个地方的PPP的时候，大部分人的收入只能吃得起最便宜的披萨饼。
2。另一方面，考虑经济实力的时候名义GDP更有意义。因為贸易交易的是实际的钱，而不是购买力的平价。虽然在全球范围内GDP的核算措施还不完善，但是我想你会同意，名义价格更能影响经济贸易，中国和美国谁更愿意消费更多的苹果？
12）Taishanese @William Pastor• a day ago
Overall, I agree with you and have a different take on what the others are saying.
In a nutshell, the nominal GDP is more important, because, as you said, we use hard currency when doing trade and not PPP.
However, in the case of China, using PPP does have some validity. Not enough, in my opinion, to suggest China will become the largest economy in 5 years, but enough to suggest China could be the largest not too long after in say ..... 8 or 9 years.
And here is why: The currency will rise in value. Currently, for the year 2013, China's nominal GDP is projected to be about $9.2 Trillion (somewhere around there) and the US will be over $16 trillion, thereabouts. But when using PPP China's economy will be well over $13 trillion for 2013. Using PPP is relevant to China but not so with countries like India or Brazil where the value of their respective currency, not surprisingly, went down in value. It's relevant to China because her currency is expected to rise in value. The others, such as India and Brazil, their respective currencies were not expected to rise.
China's currency is expected to strengthen for the next couple of decades including the next 5 years. Because of this expected increase in currency value, the gap between the No. 1 economy in the 2018, i.e., the US and the No. 2 economy in 2018, i.e., China will be closer than what people would expect using strictly anticipated growth numbers.
As China's currency rise over the next couple of decades, her nominal GDP will better reflect the PPP GDP and may even surpass it as many developed countries today have higher nominal GDP's than PPP GDP's.
@William Pastor，总的来说，我同意你的看法，但不同的人应该有不同的看法。
整体看来，名义GDP更為重要，因為正如你所说的，我们是使用货币进行贸易的，不是购买力。
然而，中国的情况却有所不同，所以使用PPP计算确实有一定的正确性。在我看来，未来在5年内，或者8至9年内，中国将成為最大的经济体。
我这麼说原因是：人民币的货币价值正在上升。2013年，中国的名义GDP预计将达到约9.2万亿美元，美国是16万亿美元左右。但是，当使用PPP计算时中国的经济总量2013年应该超过13万亿美元。使用PPP计算是因為预期人民币升值，但不是所有的国家都适合这个PPP计算，如印度，巴西各自的货币的价值并不会升值，甚至有贬值的风险。
未来的数十年内，包括在未来5年内，人民币的升值预期正在加强。正是基於这种预期，估计在2018年左右中国将变成世界第1大经济体，而美国将降至世界第2大经济体。也正在基於这种预期，中国正严格控制著经济增长的幅度。
由於中国的货币升值，在未来的几十年里，她的名义国民生產总值将更好地反映购买力平价，甚至可能超过当今许多发达国家俱有的表现，那就是更高的名义国内生產总值能反映出来更高的购买力平价。
13）KatherineMW @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Purchasing Power Parity is much better than using the USD as a measure of GDP when you're comparing living standards between two countries (in which case you'd use GDP per capita). But using the USD (or Euro, or another major currency if you like) and exchange rates as the metric is far more useful when you want to compare countries' economic power in the world economy.
@NicolasBourbaki，在使用人均GDP的情况下。购买力平价比使用美元作為衡量国内生產总值要更為準确。但是若你想比较各国的经济实力的话，使用任一货币和汇率作為经济衡量则更為有用。
14）SDtriton @JohnJMac• 2 days ago
Who the hell cares? Even if China's GDP surpass ours, our income per capita, a key indicator of standard of living, is about 3 ~ 4 times higher.
I don't know why do people get so worked up about aggregate GDP.
发问@JohnJMac谁在乎呢？即使中国的GDP超过我们，我们的人均收入，人民生活水準也是中国人的约3——4倍。
我不知道人们為什麼对GDP总和这麼激动。
15）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
it would appear there's about 4 times as many billionaires in the USA as china, which depending on how jaded your view of the world is, might have greater weight.
@SDtriton， 看来美国的亿万富豪数量是中国的4倍多，甚至更多。这取决於你对自己生活的世界的有多厌倦。
16）SDtriton @BanjoBuxby• 2 days ago
That's great. Unfortunately you are not one of them.
@BanjoBuxby好的很！不幸的是你不是他们中的一个。
17）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
meh
@SDtriton不好说哦。
18）VTrader @JohnJMac• 18 hours ago −
Economists us Purchasing Power Prices and not US dollar prices. IMF, World Bank and America's own CIA uses PPP and have China overtaking the US economy in the 2016-17 time frame. Haven't you heard about China keeping their currency artificially low? if adjusted, the Chinese economy would be 50% larger in US dollars overnight,
@JohnJMac，我们的经济学家算的是中国的购买力价格而不是美元价格，国际货币基金组织、世界银行和美国的中央情报局均声称：使用PPP计算，中国经济将在2016-2017年间超越美国。你没听说过中国人為的保持低汇率？如果调整后，中国经济将规模将在一夜之间增加50%
19）Mike• 3 days ago
Excellent report, really, and one of the few mainstream news articles I've read lately on the Chinese economy that doesn't read like a cheerleading chant.
What's not too often reported - but by now widely known - is that our own CIA compiles its own estimate of Chinese GDP (and no, it's not the one you see in the World Factbook). Their own analysts have known what Matt Schiavenza just described for at least 20 years, and around that time began producing their own in-house estimate of Chinese GDP using the two most-obvious (and lest falsifiable) footprints: the amount of light emitted from China at night and its CO2 emissions, both measurable by satellite.
They were able to ascertain, for instance, that, far from the official rah-rahing, China's GDP actually CONTRACTED slightly during the Asian Crisis in 1998. Likewise, they found that China's economy grows much more erratically than Beijing has been willing to admit - fluctuating between 5 and 10% in most years, even as the official figure seemed perennially stuck at a "lucky" 8%.
I don't know if the good people at the CIA have a formal name for this satellite data collection and analysis process; but I'd call it the GDPS.
这真是我最近读过的关於中国经济的一篇精彩的报导，这不是一篇為中国经济歌功颂德的文章。
现在虽然不经常报导但却眾所周知的是，中央情报局通过卫星监控，分析了中国的二氧化碳排放量、夜间地面的光源等，中情局的分析师Matt Schiavenza称中国的GDP数字与看到的现象之间至少相差20年。（译注：文中括弧内句子意思是——这些数据当然不是你在某人的Factbook帐号能查询到的，言下之意是这是保密的东西知道吗，只有该网友了解内幕）
他们可以确定一点，从1998年亚洲金融危机以后，中国官方一直不愿意承认他们的GDP在5%和10%之间波动，而是永远停留在一个幸运的8%上。别听中国官方“经济形势一片大好”的咬喝声，实际上在亚洲金融危机期间中国的GDP是收缩了的。
我不知道中情局的好人们对通过监控卫星收集到的数据是怎麼命名的。但我管它叫GDPS。
20）NicolasBourbaki @Mike• 3 days ago
Right, the CIA as an excellent source of economic data. You must have attended some classes in the matt schiavenza school of journalism.
@Mike，这下好嘛，中情局都被你当成最可靠的经济调查数据来源提供者了。你需要去matt schiavenza新闻学校学习下。
21）SDtriton @Mike• 2 days ago
This sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, in his later years.
@Mike这听起来很有Tom Clancy晚年所写的小说的味道嘛。
22）KatherineMW @Mike• 2 days ago
Right, because when we want reliable data on a US competitor, we should absolutely trust the estimates of the CIA. Bias aside, they've only been wrong about roughly every international development in the past 50 years.
@Mike对!因為每当我们需要有关美国的竞争对手的可靠数据时，我们都应该绝对信任中情局的估计。抛开偏见不谈，他们只是错过了过去50年里的每一次国际发展机会！
23）David_LloydJones• 3 days ago −
The thing that strikes me about Li Keqiang's way of looking at the economy is how similar it is to Alan Greenspan's. Now Greenspan was very badly wrong about government regulation, because he believes in a fruitcake ideology, but his economics was not at all bad.
It's a technocratic way of looking at things, and like Technocracy, the political dogma at present in the saddle in China, it is only half right.
On the other hand it is half right.
我觉得李克强看经济问题的方式和Alan Greenspan非常的相似。Greenspan对政府的监管是非常严重的错误，因為他信奉的是一个操蛋的的意识形态主义，但他的经济学并不是那麼坏。
这（指的是李克强）是在用技术专家的方式来看经济问题，并且用技术专家的手段来治国。如果把目前的中国看成一匹马，那麼马鞍的两侧分别是意识形态的政治教条和经济发展的精湛技术。
这个问题你在马鞍两边看到的都是对的，但是也不全对。如果你只看到一边，那就只有一边是对的。
24）mathhero• 3 days ago −
There has been some time people in China talk about uselessness of GDP, as when China is about to surpass the US in this respect, the standard of economic strength is gonna change.
中国GDP无用论的说法已经流行一段时间了，但是当中国真的超过美国的时候。GDP的统计方式是会随著经济实力的改变而改变的。
25）dakelei @mathhero• 3 days ago
What does that MEAN exactly?
@mathhero不明觉厉，到底是什麼意思呢？
想知道中国在做什么？不要看GDP数据
Want to Understand How China is Doing? Don't Look at GDP
作者:osmond 发布日期:2013-10-09 浏览:25668
译文简介:
大西洋月刊称中国GDP可能作假，掀起美网友大战。
译文来源:
http://www.theatlantic.com/china ... look-at-gdp/280202/
翻译：龙腾
为什麽典型的基础统计数据没办法全面描述这个世界第二大经济体？
Matt schiavenza Oct 4 2013, 4:30 PM ET
2013年10月4日16:30 撰稿人：Matt Schiavenza
For over a quarter century, the one figure that dominated discussion of China's economy was this: eight percent. Beginning in 1982, when leader Deng Xiaoping established the percentage as necessary to quadruple the size of the country's GDP by 2000, China has seldom failed to achieve it—even in 2009, when the world was enduring the worst downturn since the Great Depression. The eight-percent figure became so entrenched that it acquired an almost Talmudic significance, causing speculation that if the economy didn't grow by that amount, social instability would surely follow. (The fact that the number eight is considered lucky in Chinese culture only added to the mystique.)
在过去的25年中，关于主导中国经济状况的讨论是围绕著这样一个数字展开的：8％ . 1982年，时任中国领导人邓小平在经过深入调研后，定下了从当年起到2000年为止，国内生产总值翻4番的目标。而在2009年，全球经济经历了上世纪三十年代的大萧条以来最严重的衰退（译注：这里说的大萧条主要针对的是1931年前后的美国，感兴趣的友友自行搜索“美国大萧条”）。中国却几乎不受影响的实现了当初定下的增长目标。8%这个数字在中国的经济增长中变得如同神灵启示一般的根深蒂固，具有一个特殊的意义。而且这个增长势头能够保证中国社会的稳定，抑制投机倒把商人对中国经济的买空卖空。事实上，在中国文化中8这个数字被认为是幸运的。这也为这个数字增加了神秘感。
These days are now over. China's GDP has failed to reach the benchmark for six successive quarters, checking in at 7.5 percent for the second quarter of 2013. Though this growth is still robust by global standards, the sub-eight percent figure has raised concerns that a Chinese “slowdown” is now permanent—and will have serious consequences for the rest of the world.
一段时间以来，具体点说中国的GDP已经连续6个季度未能达到8%的基准增长了。2013年第二季度录得的最新增长是7.5％ .虽然这个增长数字相较于全球经济增长情况依然显得很强劲。但是因为低于多年来保持的8％的增长数字，所以已经引起了关注。现在看来中国经济的“减速”将是永久性的，同时，这也将给世界各国带来严重的后果。
The death of the eight-percent benchmark does however give us an opportunity to re-examine GDP and the assumption that, if China achieved a certain percentage, the Communist Party was succeeding. Whether or not China achieves seven, six, or five percent growth in the coming years—as economists like Michael Pettis have asked—do measurements of the country's GDP even matter? Here are a few of the issues involved in assessing the health of China's economy.
然而，8%基准线的“死亡”却给我们一个重新审视GDP的机会和假设，我们假设在中国共产党的领导下成功地让中国的经济增长保持在一定比例。那麽在未来的几年这个比例是多少，是7%吗？或者6%？还是5%？或者这些比例数字根本不重要？经济学家Michael Pettis提出了以上这些疑问。这里我们罗列了几个关于中国经济状况的评价问题。
China's official GDP numbers may not be very accurate
中国官方公佈的GDP数据可能不是很准确
Interpreting what China's GDP numbers mean is difficult enough in the best of times—but what if the numbers themselves aren't reliable? Although the veracity of Chinese economic data is a subject of debate, critics of the data have two basic concerns:
理解中国的GDP数字具体意味著什麽是一件很困难的事情。但是，如果数字本身并不可靠呢？虽然中国经济数据的真实性是一个有争议的问题，但评论数据的真假可以从以下两方面入手：
The first is transparency—the Chinese Communist Party has historically been cagey with its methodology, and the speed with which it releases quarterly GDP percentages puts the numbers' accuracy into question. According to Leland Miller, CEO of China Beige Book, a company which compiles reports on China's economy based on surveys of businesses within the country, quarterly GDP figures are released just 12 days after the quarter ends—and leaked after nine. By contrast, the United States requires four weeks to release data, and Hong Kong—a comparatively tiny economy—needs six. The fact that an economy the size of China's can compile this information so quickly has led observers to question the accuracy of the data.
首先是透明度。中国共产党历来对他们的统计方法守口如瓶，而且他们所发佈的季度GDP增长的准确性值得怀疑。依据Leland Miller创办的China Beige Book编写的基于企业调查的该国经济报告称，中国的季度GDP数据仅仅在季度结束12天之后就公佈了——数据洩露9天之后。相比之下，美国需要四周的时间来发佈数据，而显得比较小规模的香港则需要六天。事实上，能够如此迅速的编辑汇总这麽大规模经济体的数据导致了经济观察家们开始质疑这些数据的准确性（译注：China Beige Book是一份类似于the Tan Book的经济调查报告，the Tan Book可译做褐皮书，是美联储每年发佈的美国经济展望调查报告。China Beige Book可直译成中国褐皮书）。
Secondly, national-level data in China doesn't always match information provided by provincial and municipal-level governments, occasionally producing a difference of 10 percent. One reason is politics. During China's reform and opening era, lower-level officials have been judged by their ability to produce economic growth, providing an incentive for leaders to overreport GDP. An additional problem, according to Beibei Bao, who analyzes China's economy for the Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, provincial-level economic statistical bureaus were often understaffed.
其次，中国中央政府一级的数据并不总是一致的，由省市级的政府提供给中央的的数据偶尔会产生10％的偏差。产生偏差的主要原因之一是基于政治的考量，在中国的改革开放时代，级别较低的官员把经济增长作为主要政绩，在这一原因下激励了地方领导多报GDP . 另一原因在于，根据总部位于纽约的谘询公司Rhodium Group的Beibei Bao分析称，中国的省级经济统计局往往人员不足。
Not everyone, however, agrees that these statistics are so inaccurate. In a newsletter from earlier this year, the San Francisco Fed argued that China's GDP data is basically reliable, a claim backed up by Nicholas Lardy, a China specialist at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. Lardy told me that in recent years, Beijing has taken steps to centralize data collection, relying less on under-staffed (and possibly corruptible) local and provincial bureaus. As a result, Chinese numbers have become increasingly reliable.
然而并不是每个人都认为这些统计数字是不准确的。在今年早些时候的一份时事通讯中，三藩市联邦储备银行认为中国的GDP数据是基本可靠的。Peterson Institute of International Economics的中国问题专家Nicholas Lardy说：近年来，中国已经採取措施。集中的数据收集，较少依赖地方人员和省级局上报的经济数据，虽然这可能不是好事情。但是由此一来，中国的经济发展数据正变得越来越可靠。
GDP isn't the most useful measurement for an economy's health, anyway
无论如何，GDP不是衡量一个经济体是否健康的最有用数据
Six years ago, then-Prime Minister Wen Jiabao famously called the Chinese economy “unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable,” revealing Beijing's unease with its then-breakneck pace of growth. Wen's concern reflected a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption. For example, if a local government authorizes the construction of a factory, GDP will go up—even if nobody ultimately uses it to make things. As a result, Leland Miller says that the GDP statistic indicates the economy's growth rather than productivity, making it functionally “useless” as measurement in and of itself.
六年前，当时的中国国务院总理温曾称中国经济是“不平衡、不协调和不可持续的”，这也揭示了中国当局对经济极快的增长速度的忧虑。温总理的关注折射出越来越多的共识：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。例如，如果一个地方政府授权建设了工业区，那麽GDP会随著工业区的建设应声上扬，但是这个工业区可能却成了无人使用的摆设。一如Leland Miller所说：GDP统计只能表明经济增长而不是生产力。单就GDP的计算而言，上例中的工业区就是“无用的”GDP增长。
Beijing wants to change this equation, rebalancing China's economy toward one based more around consumption than investment (as well as one based more on services than manufacturing). But this isn't a change that will occur overnight, and China remains a place where its robust GDP masks major structural weaknesses in the economy, rendering the figure meaningless—at best.
中国当局想要改变这个经济发展的方程式，重新平衡中国经济走向一个围绕著国内消费大于投资，以及服务业大于製造业的经济发展环境。但这不是一朝一夕就能改变的，目前中国强劲增长的GDP仍然有结构性弱点，顶多就是金玉其外，败絮其中的数字增长而已。
If GDP isn't useful, how about unemployment?
如果GDP没有用的话，我们看看失业率如何？
In the United States, unemployment figures are considered such an important measure that, until recently, conventional wisdom dictated that a president could not be re-elected if unemployment remained above a certain percentage.
在美国，失业率被认为是一个异常重要的，反应经济发展好坏的指标。迄今为止，传统的说法是：如果失业率高于一定比例，那麽连总统都将是不能连任的。
But in China, official unemployment numbers are, as Beibei Bao said, “garbage.” That's because they fail to account for the more than hundred million strong army of migrant workers, men and women who leave their hometowns to work, illegally, in the cities. Because they lack official permission to live outside of their place of registration, migrant workers do not count in official employment statistics—even though urban unemployment is viewed as a potential source of political instability.
但是在中国，如同Beibei Bao所说，中国官方的失业数字就俩字：垃圾。这是因为他们计算失业率的时候没有考虑到上亿的农民工大军。不管是男人还是女人谁离开自己的家乡到城市工作都是非法的。因为他们缺乏自己出生的注册地以外的正式许可，因此即便农民工在城市失了业也不被计入官方就业数据，虽然失业者也同样被看作是社会不稳定的潜在来源。
So- what measurements can we use?
那麽，我们还有什麽东西可以用来衡量中国经济发展的好坏呢？
In 2007 Li Keqiang, currently China's prime minister, remarked at a private dinner that China's GDP was “man-made” and that, instead, he relied on three other measurements: electricity consumption, rail freight, and bank loans. Before long, Li's comments—published in a WikiLeaks cable in 2010— emerged as an alternative measurement to Chinese economic data. Though imperfect—Lardy says that electricity consumption doesn't always reliably track growth—Li Keqiang's “index” at least relies on data free from political manipulation.
2007年，现在的中国总理李克强在一个私人晚宴上说，中国的GDP是“人为製造的”。他说他所相信的是其他三个数据：电力消耗、铁路货运和银行贷款。在那之后不久，李总理的评论在 维基解密2010 曝光后被冠以“李克强指数”的经济学名词，成为了外界观测中国经济数据的替代测量指标。Nicholas Lardy说这虽然不算完美，电力消耗的增长也并不总是可靠，但是跟踪“李克强指数”至少可以摆脱政治操纵的GDP数据。
But while economists and investors now have more accurate and useful data at their fingertips, it's worth considering just how useful national-level data is as a whole. As Leland Miller says, “China isn't just China. It's a bunch of little China's.” A large, fragmented country with enormous economic diversity, it is difficult to draw conclusions about China's economy as a whole without considering the impact on its component parts. In recognition of this, Miller's China Beige Book targets relevant sectors, regions, and industries in order to develop a more accurate impression of what really drives China's growth.
不过，在经济学家和投资者们的手头现在有更准确和更有用的数据。整体来看，中央政府发佈的官方数据作为一个整体数据还是值得相信的。Leland Miller说：“从经济结构这一层面来看，中国不仅仅是一个国家，而是由一群小中国组成的一个巨大的、经济多样性的、经济结构差异巨大的的国家。而中国经济作为一个整体，如果不考虑它的各个组成部分的影响就很难得出结论。正是由于认识到这一点，Leland Miller写China Beige Book这一报告的目标，就是综合各个相关部门、地区和产业，以制定和开发出一个更准确的关于中国经济增长的印象。
At some point in the next five years, China's GDP will eclipse the United States' and become the world's largest, an event that will attract a lot of attention—and hand-wringing— from journalists and politicians. But for anyone who wants to understand China's future, the figure will be completely useless.
在接下来五年的某一时刻，中国的GDP将超过美国，成为世界上最大的经济体。这一事件注定会吸引全世界包括记者和政客们的目光，当然，也包括绝望。但是，谁现在想要想凭著这些GDP的统计数字去瞭解中国的未来，这些数字将令他万分失望。
评论翻译:
a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption.
This also exposes the lie about having to "compete" in a "global" economy. The truth is China is not our competitor. It is simply our supplier. They're not making stuff for us and for themselves. They are only making stuff for us.
关於中国经济越来越多的共识就是：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。
这也暴露了一个所谓全球性经济竞争的谎言。事实上中国不是我们的竞争对手，中国只是我们的供应商。他们的Made in China不是為我们和他们而製造. Made in China只是為我们服务。
2）mimififi @RobertSF• 3 days ago
Yeah 1.3 billion Chinese all naked and using nothing of the stuff they make.
Riiight.
Riiight.
@RobertSF， 是，你说的太对了。13亿中国人都不消费，他们赤裸著身子不吃不喝的生產消费品。
对！
太对了！！
3）Kirk Holden @mimififi• 2 days ago
You are arguing with an international expert on the economies of world nations sir, please make up at least one or two facts to support your opinions.
@mimififi， 知道您老是“世界级的国际经济专家”这没有错，但是能不能麻烦您至少用一两个事实来佐证您的观点？
4）Uppal76 @kirk Holden• a day ago −
How about this: traveling about various regions of China this summer, I saw the same consumer culture in each city I went to. Some were full of mom and pop shops, others international outlet stores. Yes, Chinese people are buying things, often at prices higher than in other countries!
@Kirk Holden，你觉得这个事实怎麼样：今年夏天我去中国各个城市周游了一圈，我看到了每个城市不同的消费文化，一些是挤满了年轻妈妈的普通商店，另一些是国际性的品牌直营店。是的，中国人正在消费，他们用比其他国家更高的价格在消费！
5）JohnJMac• 3 days ago
US GDP is $15T versus China's GDP of $7.2T. Their GDP will not surpass ours in 5 years.
目前美国的国内生產总值是15万亿美元，而中国是7.2万亿美元。他们的国内生產总值5年内不会超过我们。（译注：John的评论附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话）
6）NicolasBourbaki @JohnJMac• 3 days ago
In GDP as measured by PPP they will.
@JohnJMac， 他们的GDP是要用PPP来测算的。
（译注：Nicolebas的评论也附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话。PS：GDP:国内生產总值；PPP：购买力平价 ）
7）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Median PPP is a useful metric for assessing quality of life for average people, but when PPP gets averaged and summed it stops really corresponding to any real life concept. No one would classify an American billionaire as richer than a British one because a hamburger is cheaper in America. If a Chinese airline wants to buy a passenger jet, it does not get a discounted price on the grounds that haircuts are cheaper in China. For comparing international economic power, nominal GDP is probably a better metric than PPP GFP.
@NicolasBourbaki，PPP评估的中间值对一个普通人的生活品质好坏具有很好的指标意义，但是当PPP被人均或者被总计的时候，对现实中个人生活的好坏就没有了指标意义。举例：我们不能因為一个汉堡在美国卖的价钱比在英国卖的更便宜就觉得美国比英国更穷；也不能说一家中国航空公司购买了一架没有折扣的喷气式客机是因為在中国理髮很便宜。对於国家与国家之间的经济力量对比，名义GDP相较於PPP总和而言，可能是一个更好的指标。
8）NicolasBourbaki @William Pastor• 2 days ago
What you've said really doesn't follow and neither is it true.
@William Pastor，你说的什麼我不感兴趣，也不是真的。
9）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• a day ago
If you have an argument as to why PPP GDP is a better measure of economic power than nominal GDP, I'd be happy to read it, but "neither is it true" is not an argument.
@NicolasBourbaki， 请拿出你的论据支持你的论点：為什麼用PPP衡量经济会比名义GDP更好？放马过来吧小子，“不是真的也不感兴趣”可不是什麼好的论据。
10）Enis Fesci @William Pastor• a day ago
let me tell you why PPP is a better measure. We are measuring the SIZE of the economy. So PPP adjusts for the difference in prices to objectively measure quantity produced. If an apple is 5 dollars in america, and the gdp is 50 dollars, it means 10 apples were produced. if an apple is 2 dollars in china and the gdp is 30 dollars (nominal) that means 15 apples were produced in china. In this example, america has a higher gdp (nominal) but the chinese economy is larger and more active because they produce more apples than america. so chinas gdp ppp would be to imagine if apples were the same price as in america, how much would there gdp be? that is 5 dollars times 15 apples = 75 dollars gdp ppp. as an economics student i can tell you that gdp ppp is a much better measurement for the SIZE of the economy. in your logic, you can make the economy larger with a raise in everything's price and producing the same amount! But with PPP, they all get adjusted and the economies can be objectively compared.
@William Pastor, 让我告诉你為什麼PPP是一种更好的措施。我们所说的衡量经济规模就是衡量平价购买力。因此，购买力平价调整的价格的差异可以客观地衡量生產力。如果一个苹果在美国售价是5块钱， 50块钱的名义GDP（标称值）可以生產10个苹果。而如果一个苹果在中国卖2块钱，中国名义GDP的30块钱（标称值）意味著可以生產15个苹果。在这个例子中，美国具有更高的国内生產总值（标称值） ，但中国生產的苹果比美国的更多，经济量就更大。所以请想像一下中国的名义GDP是多少？如果中国生產的这15个苹果在美国生產，会出现多少的名义GDP？是5块钱乘以15个苹果= 75块钱。这75块钱就是美国GDP的购买力平价。作為经济学的学生，我可以告诉你，PPP计量的经济规模比名义GDP更好更準确。在你的逻辑中，你可以提高一切產品的价格使经济规模无限放大。但用PPP ，他们的调整会使所有相关经济数据產生同步变化，因而可以客观地比较经济规模。
11）William Pastor @Enis Fesci• a day ago
Enis, two points:
1. The problem with summing PPP across an economy is that the sum is heavily affected by the higher earners, who are less affected by local pricing. Nobody would adjust the Forbes billionaires list for PPP. I agree that "size" is probably better recapitulated by PPP, but it is not a perfect fit. Although I've never seen this analysis, I suspect for example that America's advantage over northern Europe in PPP numbers is largely because our rich people look artificially rich when you adjust their incomes to account for the cheap price of pizza in America.
2. When considering economic power on the other hand, nominal GDP makes more sense because trade is transacted in actual money, not PPP money. Although GDP is an imperfect measure of global economic significance, I think you'll agree that nominal prices are more relevant to any trader who wants to sell apples to China or America.
@Enis Fesci，
Enis，我说两点：
1。PPP总量受高收入人群的严重影响，他们本身却基本不受当地PPP的影响。没有人会调整福布斯富豪榜上那些富豪们的PPP. 我同意“总量大小”可能可以更好的概括PPP规模，但它不是一个完美的总量。虽然我从来没有见过这样的分析，但是我怀疑，例如北欧和美国PPP总量很大是因為在很大程度上我们的有钱的人数量看起来很多，当你调整这俩个地方的PPP的时候，大部分人的收入只能吃得起最便宜的披萨饼。
2。另一方面，考虑经济实力的时候名义GDP更有意义。因為贸易交易的是实际的钱，而不是购买力的平价。虽然在全球范围内GDP的核算措施还不完善，但是我想你会同意，名义价格更能影响经济贸易，中国和美国谁更愿意消费更多的苹果？
12）Taishanese @William Pastor• a day ago
Overall, I agree with you and have a different take on what the others are saying.
In a nutshell, the nominal GDP is more important, because, as you said, we use hard currency when doing trade and not PPP.
However, in the case of China, using PPP does have some validity. Not enough, in my opinion, to suggest China will become the largest economy in 5 years, but enough to suggest China could be the largest not too long after in say ..... 8 or 9 years.
And here is why: The currency will rise in value. Currently, for the year 2013, China's nominal GDP is projected to be about $9.2 Trillion (somewhere around there) and the US will be over $16 trillion, thereabouts. But when using PPP China's economy will be well over $13 trillion for 2013. Using PPP is relevant to China but not so with countries like India or Brazil where the value of their respective currency, not surprisingly, went down in value. It's relevant to China because her currency is expected to rise in value. The others, such as India and Brazil, their respective currencies were not expected to rise.
China's currency is expected to strengthen for the next couple of decades including the next 5 years. Because of this expected increase in currency value, the gap between the No. 1 economy in the 2018, i.e., the US and the No. 2 economy in 2018, i.e., China will be closer than what people would expect using strictly anticipated growth numbers.
As China's currency rise over the next couple of decades, her nominal GDP will better reflect the PPP GDP and may even surpass it as many developed countries today have higher nominal GDP's than PPP GDP's.
@William Pastor，总的来说，我同意你的看法，但不同的人应该有不同的看法。
整体看来，名义GDP更為重要，因為正如你所说的，我们是使用货币进行贸易的，不是购买力。
然而，中国的情况却有所不同，所以使用PPP计算确实有一定的正确性。在我看来，未来在5年内，或者8至9年内，中国将成為最大的经济体。
我这麼说原因是：人民币的货币价值正在上升。2013年，中国的名义GDP预计将达到约9.2万亿美元，美国是16万亿美元左右。但是，当使用PPP计算时中国的经济总量2013年应该超过13万亿美元。使用PPP计算是因為预期人民币升值，但不是所有的国家都适合这个PPP计算，如印度，巴西各自的货币的价值并不会升值，甚至有贬值的风险。
未来的数十年内，包括在未来5年内，人民币的升值预期正在加强。正是基於这种预期，估计在2018年左右中国将变成世界第1大经济体，而美国将降至世界第2大经济体。也正在基於这种预期，中国正严格控制著经济增长的幅度。
由於中国的货币升值，在未来的几十年里，她的名义国民生產总值将更好地反映购买力平价，甚至可能超过当今许多发达国家俱有的表现，那就是更高的名义国内生產总值能反映出来更高的购买力平价。
13）KatherineMW @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Purchasing Power Parity is much better than using the USD as a measure of GDP when you're comparing living standards between two countries (in which case you'd use GDP per capita). But using the USD (or Euro, or another major currency if you like) and exchange rates as the metric is far more useful when you want to compare countries' economic power in the world economy.
@NicolasBourbaki，在使用人均GDP的情况下。购买力平价比使用美元作為衡量国内生產总值要更為準确。但是若你想比较各国的经济实力的话，使用任一货币和汇率作為经济衡量则更為有用。
14）SDtriton @JohnJMac• 2 days ago
Who the hell cares? Even if China's GDP surpass ours, our income per capita, a key indicator of standard of living, is about 3 ~ 4 times higher.
I don't know why do people get so worked up about aggregate GDP.
发问@JohnJMac谁在乎呢？即使中国的GDP超过我们，我们的人均收入，人民生活水準也是中国人的约3——4倍。
我不知道人们為什麼对GDP总和这麼激动。
15）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
it would appear there's about 4 times as many billionaires in the USA as china, which depending on how jaded your view of the world is, might have greater weight.
@SDtriton， 看来美国的亿万富豪数量是中国的4倍多，甚至更多。这取决於你对自己生活的世界的有多厌倦。
16）SDtriton @BanjoBuxby• 2 days ago
That's great. Unfortunately you are not one of them.
@BanjoBuxby好的很！不幸的是你不是他们中的一个。
17）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
meh
@SDtriton不好说哦。
18）VTrader @JohnJMac• 18 hours ago −
Economists us Purchasing Power Prices and not US dollar prices. IMF, World Bank and America's own CIA uses PPP and have China overtaking the US economy in the 2016-17 time frame. Haven't you heard about China keeping their currency artificially low? if adjusted, the Chinese economy would be 50% larger in US dollars overnight,
@JohnJMac，我们的经济学家算的是中国的购买力价格而不是美元价格，国际货币基金组织、世界银行和美国的中央情报局均声称：使用PPP计算，中国经济将在2016-2017年间超越美国。你没听说过中国人為的保持低汇率？如果调整后，中国经济将规模将在一夜之间增加50%
19）Mike• 3 days ago
Excellent report, really, and one of the few mainstream news articles I've read lately on the Chinese economy that doesn't read like a cheerleading chant.
What's not too often reported - but by now widely known - is that our own CIA compiles its own estimate of Chinese GDP (and no, it's not the one you see in the World Factbook). Their own analysts have known what Matt Schiavenza just described for at least 20 years, and around that time began producing their own in-house estimate of Chinese GDP using the two most-obvious (and lest falsifiable) footprints: the amount of light emitted from China at night and its CO2 emissions, both measurable by satellite.
They were able to ascertain, for instance, that, far from the official rah-rahing, China's GDP actually CONTRACTED slightly during the Asian Crisis in 1998. Likewise, they found that China's economy grows much more erratically than Beijing has been willing to admit - fluctuating between 5 and 10% in most years, even as the official figure seemed perennially stuck at a "lucky" 8%.
I don't know if the good people at the CIA have a formal name for this satellite data collection and analysis process; but I'd call it the GDPS.
这真是我最近读过的关於中国经济的一篇精彩的报导，这不是一篇為中国经济歌功颂德的文章。
现在虽然不经常报导但却眾所周知的是，中央情报局通过卫星监控，分析了中国的二氧化碳排放量、夜间地面的光源等，中情局的分析师Matt Schiavenza称中国的GDP数字与看到的现象之间至少相差20年。（译注：文中括弧内句子意思是——这些数据当然不是你在某人的Factbook帐号能查询到的，言下之意是这是保密的东西知道吗，只有该网友了解内幕）
他们可以确定一点，从1998年亚洲金融危机以后，中国官方一直不愿意承认他们的GDP在5%和10%之间波动，而是永远停留在一个幸运的8%上。别听中国官方“经济形势一片大好”的咬喝声，实际上在亚洲金融危机期间中国的GDP是收缩了的。
我不知道中情局的好人们对通过监控卫星收集到的数据是怎麼命名的。但我管它叫GDPS。
20）NicolasBourbaki @Mike• 3 days ago
Right, the CIA as an excellent source of economic data. You must have attended some classes in the matt schiavenza school of journalism.
@Mike，这下好嘛，中情局都被你当成最可靠的经济调查数据来源提供者了。你需要去matt schiavenza新闻学校学习下。
21）SDtriton @Mike• 2 days ago
This sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, in his later years.
@Mike这听起来很有Tom Clancy晚年所写的小说的味道嘛。
22）KatherineMW @Mike• 2 days ago
Right, because when we want reliable data on a US competitor, we should absolutely trust the estimates of the CIA. Bias aside, they've only been wrong about roughly every international development in the past 50 years.
@Mike对!因為每当我们需要有关美国的竞争对手的可靠数据时，我们都应该绝对信任中情局的估计。抛开偏见不谈，他们只是错过了过去50年里的每一次国际发展机会！
23）David_LloydJones• 3 days ago −
The thing that strikes me about Li Keqiang's way of looking at the economy is how similar it is to Alan Greenspan's. Now Greenspan was very badly wrong about government regulation, because he believes in a fruitcake ideology, but his economics was not at all bad.
It's a technocratic way of looking at things, and like Technocracy, the political dogma at present in the saddle in China, it is only half right.
On the other hand it is half right.
我觉得李克强看经济问题的方式和Alan Greenspan非常的相似。Greenspan对政府的监管是非常严重的错误，因為他信奉的是一个操蛋的的意识形态主义，但他的经济学并不是那麼坏。
这（指的是李克强）是在用技术专家的方式来看经济问题，并且用技术专家的手段来治国。如果把目前的中国看成一匹马，那麼马鞍的两侧分别是意识形态的政治教条和经济发展的精湛技术。
这个问题你在马鞍两边看到的都是对的，但是也不全对。如果你只看到一边，那就只有一边是对的。
24）mathhero• 3 days ago −
There has been some time people in China talk about uselessness of GDP, as when China is about to surpass the US in this respect, the standard of economic strength is gonna change.
中国GDP无用论的说法已经流行一段时间了，但是当中国真的超过美国的时候。GDP的统计方式是会随著经济实力的改变而改变的。
25）dakelei @mathhero• 3 days ago
What does that MEAN exactly?
@mathhero不明觉厉，到底是什麼意思呢？
Want to Understand How China is Doing? Don't Look at GDP
作者:osmond 发布日期:2013-10-09 浏览:25668
译文简介:
大西洋月刊称中国GDP可能作假，掀起美网友大战。
译文来源:
http://www.theatlantic.com/china ... look-at-gdp/280202/
翻译：龙腾
为什麽典型的基础统计数据没办法全面描述这个世界第二大经济体？
Matt schiavenza Oct 4 2013, 4:30 PM ET
2013年10月4日16:30 撰稿人：Matt Schiavenza
For over a quarter century, the one figure that dominated discussion of China's economy was this: eight percent. Beginning in 1982, when leader Deng Xiaoping established the percentage as necessary to quadruple the size of the country's GDP by 2000, China has seldom failed to achieve it—even in 2009, when the world was enduring the worst downturn since the Great Depression. The eight-percent figure became so entrenched that it acquired an almost Talmudic significance, causing speculation that if the economy didn't grow by that amount, social instability would surely follow. (The fact that the number eight is considered lucky in Chinese culture only added to the mystique.)
在过去的25年中，关于主导中国经济状况的讨论是围绕著这样一个数字展开的：8％ . 1982年，时任中国领导人邓小平在经过深入调研后，定下了从当年起到2000年为止，国内生产总值翻4番的目标。而在2009年，全球经济经历了上世纪三十年代的大萧条以来最严重的衰退（译注：这里说的大萧条主要针对的是1931年前后的美国，感兴趣的友友自行搜索“美国大萧条”）。中国却几乎不受影响的实现了当初定下的增长目标。8%这个数字在中国的经济增长中变得如同神灵启示一般的根深蒂固，具有一个特殊的意义。而且这个增长势头能够保证中国社会的稳定，抑制投机倒把商人对中国经济的买空卖空。事实上，在中国文化中8这个数字被认为是幸运的。这也为这个数字增加了神秘感。
These days are now over. China's GDP has failed to reach the benchmark for six successive quarters, checking in at 7.5 percent for the second quarter of 2013. Though this growth is still robust by global standards, the sub-eight percent figure has raised concerns that a Chinese “slowdown” is now permanent—and will have serious consequences for the rest of the world.
一段时间以来，具体点说中国的GDP已经连续6个季度未能达到8%的基准增长了。2013年第二季度录得的最新增长是7.5％ .虽然这个增长数字相较于全球经济增长情况依然显得很强劲。但是因为低于多年来保持的8％的增长数字，所以已经引起了关注。现在看来中国经济的“减速”将是永久性的，同时，这也将给世界各国带来严重的后果。
The death of the eight-percent benchmark does however give us an opportunity to re-examine GDP and the assumption that, if China achieved a certain percentage, the Communist Party was succeeding. Whether or not China achieves seven, six, or five percent growth in the coming years—as economists like Michael Pettis have asked—do measurements of the country's GDP even matter? Here are a few of the issues involved in assessing the health of China's economy.
然而，8%基准线的“死亡”却给我们一个重新审视GDP的机会和假设，我们假设在中国共产党的领导下成功地让中国的经济增长保持在一定比例。那麽在未来的几年这个比例是多少，是7%吗？或者6%？还是5%？或者这些比例数字根本不重要？经济学家Michael Pettis提出了以上这些疑问。这里我们罗列了几个关于中国经济状况的评价问题。
China's official GDP numbers may not be very accurate
中国官方公佈的GDP数据可能不是很准确
Interpreting what China's GDP numbers mean is difficult enough in the best of times—but what if the numbers themselves aren't reliable? Although the veracity of Chinese economic data is a subject of debate, critics of the data have two basic concerns:
理解中国的GDP数字具体意味著什麽是一件很困难的事情。但是，如果数字本身并不可靠呢？虽然中国经济数据的真实性是一个有争议的问题，但评论数据的真假可以从以下两方面入手：
The first is transparency—the Chinese Communist Party has historically been cagey with its methodology, and the speed with which it releases quarterly GDP percentages puts the numbers' accuracy into question. According to Leland Miller, CEO of China Beige Book, a company which compiles reports on China's economy based on surveys of businesses within the country, quarterly GDP figures are released just 12 days after the quarter ends—and leaked after nine. By contrast, the United States requires four weeks to release data, and Hong Kong—a comparatively tiny economy—needs six. The fact that an economy the size of China's can compile this information so quickly has led observers to question the accuracy of the data.
首先是透明度。中国共产党历来对他们的统计方法守口如瓶，而且他们所发佈的季度GDP增长的准确性值得怀疑。依据Leland Miller创办的China Beige Book编写的基于企业调查的该国经济报告称，中国的季度GDP数据仅仅在季度结束12天之后就公佈了——数据洩露9天之后。相比之下，美国需要四周的时间来发佈数据，而显得比较小规模的香港则需要六天。事实上，能够如此迅速的编辑汇总这麽大规模经济体的数据导致了经济观察家们开始质疑这些数据的准确性（译注：China Beige Book是一份类似于the Tan Book的经济调查报告，the Tan Book可译做褐皮书，是美联储每年发佈的美国经济展望调查报告。China Beige Book可直译成中国褐皮书）。
Secondly, national-level data in China doesn't always match information provided by provincial and municipal-level governments, occasionally producing a difference of 10 percent. One reason is politics. During China's reform and opening era, lower-level officials have been judged by their ability to produce economic growth, providing an incentive for leaders to overreport GDP. An additional problem, according to Beibei Bao, who analyzes China's economy for the Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, provincial-level economic statistical bureaus were often understaffed.
其次，中国中央政府一级的数据并不总是一致的，由省市级的政府提供给中央的的数据偶尔会产生10％的偏差。产生偏差的主要原因之一是基于政治的考量，在中国的改革开放时代，级别较低的官员把经济增长作为主要政绩，在这一原因下激励了地方领导多报GDP . 另一原因在于，根据总部位于纽约的谘询公司Rhodium Group的Beibei Bao分析称，中国的省级经济统计局往往人员不足。
Not everyone, however, agrees that these statistics are so inaccurate. In a newsletter from earlier this year, the San Francisco Fed argued that China's GDP data is basically reliable, a claim backed up by Nicholas Lardy, a China specialist at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. Lardy told me that in recent years, Beijing has taken steps to centralize data collection, relying less on under-staffed (and possibly corruptible) local and provincial bureaus. As a result, Chinese numbers have become increasingly reliable.
然而并不是每个人都认为这些统计数字是不准确的。在今年早些时候的一份时事通讯中，三藩市联邦储备银行认为中国的GDP数据是基本可靠的。Peterson Institute of International Economics的中国问题专家Nicholas Lardy说：近年来，中国已经採取措施。集中的数据收集，较少依赖地方人员和省级局上报的经济数据，虽然这可能不是好事情。但是由此一来，中国的经济发展数据正变得越来越可靠。
GDP isn't the most useful measurement for an economy's health, anyway
无论如何，GDP不是衡量一个经济体是否健康的最有用数据
Six years ago, then-Prime Minister Wen Jiabao famously called the Chinese economy “unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable,” revealing Beijing's unease with its then-breakneck pace of growth. Wen's concern reflected a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption. For example, if a local government authorizes the construction of a factory, GDP will go up—even if nobody ultimately uses it to make things. As a result, Leland Miller says that the GDP statistic indicates the economy's growth rather than productivity, making it functionally “useless” as measurement in and of itself.
六年前，当时的中国国务院总理温曾称中国经济是“不平衡、不协调和不可持续的”，这也揭示了中国当局对经济极快的增长速度的忧虑。温总理的关注折射出越来越多的共识：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。例如，如果一个地方政府授权建设了工业区，那麽GDP会随著工业区的建设应声上扬，但是这个工业区可能却成了无人使用的摆设。一如Leland Miller所说：GDP统计只能表明经济增长而不是生产力。单就GDP的计算而言，上例中的工业区就是“无用的”GDP增长。
Beijing wants to change this equation, rebalancing China's economy toward one based more around consumption than investment (as well as one based more on services than manufacturing). But this isn't a change that will occur overnight, and China remains a place where its robust GDP masks major structural weaknesses in the economy, rendering the figure meaningless—at best.
中国当局想要改变这个经济发展的方程式，重新平衡中国经济走向一个围绕著国内消费大于投资，以及服务业大于製造业的经济发展环境。但这不是一朝一夕就能改变的，目前中国强劲增长的GDP仍然有结构性弱点，顶多就是金玉其外，败絮其中的数字增长而已。
If GDP isn't useful, how about unemployment?
如果GDP没有用的话，我们看看失业率如何？
In the United States, unemployment figures are considered such an important measure that, until recently, conventional wisdom dictated that a president could not be re-elected if unemployment remained above a certain percentage.
在美国，失业率被认为是一个异常重要的，反应经济发展好坏的指标。迄今为止，传统的说法是：如果失业率高于一定比例，那麽连总统都将是不能连任的。
But in China, official unemployment numbers are, as Beibei Bao said, “garbage.” That's because they fail to account for the more than hundred million strong army of migrant workers, men and women who leave their hometowns to work, illegally, in the cities. Because they lack official permission to live outside of their place of registration, migrant workers do not count in official employment statistics—even though urban unemployment is viewed as a potential source of political instability.
但是在中国，如同Beibei Bao所说，中国官方的失业数字就俩字：垃圾。这是因为他们计算失业率的时候没有考虑到上亿的农民工大军。不管是男人还是女人谁离开自己的家乡到城市工作都是非法的。因为他们缺乏自己出生的注册地以外的正式许可，因此即便农民工在城市失了业也不被计入官方就业数据，虽然失业者也同样被看作是社会不稳定的潜在来源。
So- what measurements can we use?
那麽，我们还有什麽东西可以用来衡量中国经济发展的好坏呢？
In 2007 Li Keqiang, currently China's prime minister, remarked at a private dinner that China's GDP was “man-made” and that, instead, he relied on three other measurements: electricity consumption, rail freight, and bank loans. Before long, Li's comments—published in a WikiLeaks cable in 2010— emerged as an alternative measurement to Chinese economic data. Though imperfect—Lardy says that electricity consumption doesn't always reliably track growth—Li Keqiang's “index” at least relies on data free from political manipulation.
2007年，现在的中国总理李克强在一个私人晚宴上说，中国的GDP是“人为製造的”。他说他所相信的是其他三个数据：电力消耗、铁路货运和银行贷款。在那之后不久，李总理的评论在 维基解密2010 曝光后被冠以“李克强指数”的经济学名词，成为了外界观测中国经济数据的替代测量指标。Nicholas Lardy说这虽然不算完美，电力消耗的增长也并不总是可靠，但是跟踪“李克强指数”至少可以摆脱政治操纵的GDP数据。
But while economists and investors now have more accurate and useful data at their fingertips, it's worth considering just how useful national-level data is as a whole. As Leland Miller says, “China isn't just China. It's a bunch of little China's.” A large, fragmented country with enormous economic diversity, it is difficult to draw conclusions about China's economy as a whole without considering the impact on its component parts. In recognition of this, Miller's China Beige Book targets relevant sectors, regions, and industries in order to develop a more accurate impression of what really drives China's growth.
不过，在经济学家和投资者们的手头现在有更准确和更有用的数据。整体来看，中央政府发佈的官方数据作为一个整体数据还是值得相信的。Leland Miller说：“从经济结构这一层面来看，中国不仅仅是一个国家，而是由一群小中国组成的一个巨大的、经济多样性的、经济结构差异巨大的的国家。而中国经济作为一个整体，如果不考虑它的各个组成部分的影响就很难得出结论。正是由于认识到这一点，Leland Miller写China Beige Book这一报告的目标，就是综合各个相关部门、地区和产业，以制定和开发出一个更准确的关于中国经济增长的印象。
At some point in the next five years, China's GDP will eclipse the United States' and become the world's largest, an event that will attract a lot of attention—and hand-wringing— from journalists and politicians. But for anyone who wants to understand China's future, the figure will be completely useless.
在接下来五年的某一时刻，中国的GDP将超过美国，成为世界上最大的经济体。这一事件注定会吸引全世界包括记者和政客们的目光，当然，也包括绝望。但是，谁现在想要想凭著这些GDP的统计数字去瞭解中国的未来，这些数字将令他万分失望。
评论翻译:
a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption.
This also exposes the lie about having to "compete" in a "global" economy. The truth is China is not our competitor. It is simply our supplier. They're not making stuff for us and for themselves. They are only making stuff for us.
关於中国经济越来越多的共识就是：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。
这也暴露了一个所谓全球性经济竞争的谎言。事实上中国不是我们的竞争对手，中国只是我们的供应商。他们的Made in China不是為我们和他们而製造. Made in China只是為我们服务。
2）mimififi @RobertSF• 3 days ago
Yeah 1.3 billion Chinese all naked and using nothing of the stuff they make.
Riiight.
Riiight.
@RobertSF， 是，你说的太对了。13亿中国人都不消费，他们赤裸著身子不吃不喝的生產消费品。
对！
太对了！！
3）Kirk Holden @mimififi• 2 days ago
You are arguing with an international expert on the economies of world nations sir, please make up at least one or two facts to support your opinions.
@mimififi， 知道您老是“世界级的国际经济专家”这没有错，但是能不能麻烦您至少用一两个事实来佐证您的观点？
4）Uppal76 @kirk Holden• a day ago −
How about this: traveling about various regions of China this summer, I saw the same consumer culture in each city I went to. Some were full of mom and pop shops, others international outlet stores. Yes, Chinese people are buying things, often at prices higher than in other countries!
@Kirk Holden，你觉得这个事实怎麼样：今年夏天我去中国各个城市周游了一圈，我看到了每个城市不同的消费文化，一些是挤满了年轻妈妈的普通商店，另一些是国际性的品牌直营店。是的，中国人正在消费，他们用比其他国家更高的价格在消费！
5）JohnJMac• 3 days ago
US GDP is $15T versus China's GDP of $7.2T. Their GDP will not surpass ours in 5 years.
目前美国的国内生產总值是15万亿美元，而中国是7.2万亿美元。他们的国内生產总值5年内不会超过我们。（译注：John的评论附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话）
6）NicolasBourbaki @JohnJMac• 3 days ago
In GDP as measured by PPP they will.
@JohnJMac， 他们的GDP是要用PPP来测算的。
（译注：Nicolebas的评论也附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话。PS：GDP:国内生產总值；PPP：购买力平价 ）
7）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Median PPP is a useful metric for assessing quality of life for average people, but when PPP gets averaged and summed it stops really corresponding to any real life concept. No one would classify an American billionaire as richer than a British one because a hamburger is cheaper in America. If a Chinese airline wants to buy a passenger jet, it does not get a discounted price on the grounds that haircuts are cheaper in China. For comparing international economic power, nominal GDP is probably a better metric than PPP GFP.
@NicolasBourbaki，PPP评估的中间值对一个普通人的生活品质好坏具有很好的指标意义，但是当PPP被人均或者被总计的时候，对现实中个人生活的好坏就没有了指标意义。举例：我们不能因為一个汉堡在美国卖的价钱比在英国卖的更便宜就觉得美国比英国更穷；也不能说一家中国航空公司购买了一架没有折扣的喷气式客机是因為在中国理髮很便宜。对於国家与国家之间的经济力量对比，名义GDP相较於PPP总和而言，可能是一个更好的指标。
8）NicolasBourbaki @William Pastor• 2 days ago
What you've said really doesn't follow and neither is it true.
@William Pastor，你说的什麼我不感兴趣，也不是真的。
9）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• a day ago
If you have an argument as to why PPP GDP is a better measure of economic power than nominal GDP, I'd be happy to read it, but "neither is it true" is not an argument.
@NicolasBourbaki， 请拿出你的论据支持你的论点：為什麼用PPP衡量经济会比名义GDP更好？放马过来吧小子，“不是真的也不感兴趣”可不是什麼好的论据。
10）Enis Fesci @William Pastor• a day ago
let me tell you why PPP is a better measure. We are measuring the SIZE of the economy. So PPP adjusts for the difference in prices to objectively measure quantity produced. If an apple is 5 dollars in america, and the gdp is 50 dollars, it means 10 apples were produced. if an apple is 2 dollars in china and the gdp is 30 dollars (nominal) that means 15 apples were produced in china. In this example, america has a higher gdp (nominal) but the chinese economy is larger and more active because they produce more apples than america. so chinas gdp ppp would be to imagine if apples were the same price as in america, how much would there gdp be? that is 5 dollars times 15 apples = 75 dollars gdp ppp. as an economics student i can tell you that gdp ppp is a much better measurement for the SIZE of the economy. in your logic, you can make the economy larger with a raise in everything's price and producing the same amount! But with PPP, they all get adjusted and the economies can be objectively compared.
@William Pastor, 让我告诉你為什麼PPP是一种更好的措施。我们所说的衡量经济规模就是衡量平价购买力。因此，购买力平价调整的价格的差异可以客观地衡量生產力。如果一个苹果在美国售价是5块钱， 50块钱的名义GDP（标称值）可以生產10个苹果。而如果一个苹果在中国卖2块钱，中国名义GDP的30块钱（标称值）意味著可以生產15个苹果。在这个例子中，美国具有更高的国内生產总值（标称值） ，但中国生產的苹果比美国的更多，经济量就更大。所以请想像一下中国的名义GDP是多少？如果中国生產的这15个苹果在美国生產，会出现多少的名义GDP？是5块钱乘以15个苹果= 75块钱。这75块钱就是美国GDP的购买力平价。作為经济学的学生，我可以告诉你，PPP计量的经济规模比名义GDP更好更準确。在你的逻辑中，你可以提高一切產品的价格使经济规模无限放大。但用PPP ，他们的调整会使所有相关经济数据產生同步变化，因而可以客观地比较经济规模。
11）William Pastor @Enis Fesci• a day ago
Enis, two points:
1. The problem with summing PPP across an economy is that the sum is heavily affected by the higher earners, who are less affected by local pricing. Nobody would adjust the Forbes billionaires list for PPP. I agree that "size" is probably better recapitulated by PPP, but it is not a perfect fit. Although I've never seen this analysis, I suspect for example that America's advantage over northern Europe in PPP numbers is largely because our rich people look artificially rich when you adjust their incomes to account for the cheap price of pizza in America.
2. When considering economic power on the other hand, nominal GDP makes more sense because trade is transacted in actual money, not PPP money. Although GDP is an imperfect measure of global economic significance, I think you'll agree that nominal prices are more relevant to any trader who wants to sell apples to China or America.
@Enis Fesci，
Enis，我说两点：
1。PPP总量受高收入人群的严重影响，他们本身却基本不受当地PPP的影响。没有人会调整福布斯富豪榜上那些富豪们的PPP. 我同意“总量大小”可能可以更好的概括PPP规模，但它不是一个完美的总量。虽然我从来没有见过这样的分析，但是我怀疑，例如北欧和美国PPP总量很大是因為在很大程度上我们的有钱的人数量看起来很多，当你调整这俩个地方的PPP的时候，大部分人的收入只能吃得起最便宜的披萨饼。
2。另一方面，考虑经济实力的时候名义GDP更有意义。因為贸易交易的是实际的钱，而不是购买力的平价。虽然在全球范围内GDP的核算措施还不完善，但是我想你会同意，名义价格更能影响经济贸易，中国和美国谁更愿意消费更多的苹果？
12）Taishanese @William Pastor• a day ago
Overall, I agree with you and have a different take on what the others are saying.
In a nutshell, the nominal GDP is more important, because, as you said, we use hard currency when doing trade and not PPP.
However, in the case of China, using PPP does have some validity. Not enough, in my opinion, to suggest China will become the largest economy in 5 years, but enough to suggest China could be the largest not too long after in say ..... 8 or 9 years.
And here is why: The currency will rise in value. Currently, for the year 2013, China's nominal GDP is projected to be about $9.2 Trillion (somewhere around there) and the US will be over $16 trillion, thereabouts. But when using PPP China's economy will be well over $13 trillion for 2013. Using PPP is relevant to China but not so with countries like India or Brazil where the value of their respective currency, not surprisingly, went down in value. It's relevant to China because her currency is expected to rise in value. The others, such as India and Brazil, their respective currencies were not expected to rise.
China's currency is expected to strengthen for the next couple of decades including the next 5 years. Because of this expected increase in currency value, the gap between the No. 1 economy in the 2018, i.e., the US and the No. 2 economy in 2018, i.e., China will be closer than what people would expect using strictly anticipated growth numbers.
As China's currency rise over the next couple of decades, her nominal GDP will better reflect the PPP GDP and may even surpass it as many developed countries today have higher nominal GDP's than PPP GDP's.
@William Pastor，总的来说，我同意你的看法，但不同的人应该有不同的看法。
整体看来，名义GDP更為重要，因為正如你所说的，我们是使用货币进行贸易的，不是购买力。
然而，中国的情况却有所不同，所以使用PPP计算确实有一定的正确性。在我看来，未来在5年内，或者8至9年内，中国将成為最大的经济体。
我这麼说原因是：人民币的货币价值正在上升。2013年，中国的名义GDP预计将达到约9.2万亿美元，美国是16万亿美元左右。但是，当使用PPP计算时中国的经济总量2013年应该超过13万亿美元。使用PPP计算是因為预期人民币升值，但不是所有的国家都适合这个PPP计算，如印度，巴西各自的货币的价值并不会升值，甚至有贬值的风险。
未来的数十年内，包括在未来5年内，人民币的升值预期正在加强。正是基於这种预期，估计在2018年左右中国将变成世界第1大经济体，而美国将降至世界第2大经济体。也正在基於这种预期，中国正严格控制著经济增长的幅度。
由於中国的货币升值，在未来的几十年里，她的名义国民生產总值将更好地反映购买力平价，甚至可能超过当今许多发达国家俱有的表现，那就是更高的名义国内生產总值能反映出来更高的购买力平价。
13）KatherineMW @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Purchasing Power Parity is much better than using the USD as a measure of GDP when you're comparing living standards between two countries (in which case you'd use GDP per capita). But using the USD (or Euro, or another major currency if you like) and exchange rates as the metric is far more useful when you want to compare countries' economic power in the world economy.
@NicolasBourbaki，在使用人均GDP的情况下。购买力平价比使用美元作為衡量国内生產总值要更為準确。但是若你想比较各国的经济实力的话，使用任一货币和汇率作為经济衡量则更為有用。
14）SDtriton @JohnJMac• 2 days ago
Who the hell cares? Even if China's GDP surpass ours, our income per capita, a key indicator of standard of living, is about 3 ~ 4 times higher.
I don't know why do people get so worked up about aggregate GDP.
发问@JohnJMac谁在乎呢？即使中国的GDP超过我们，我们的人均收入，人民生活水準也是中国人的约3——4倍。
我不知道人们為什麼对GDP总和这麼激动。
15）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
it would appear there's about 4 times as many billionaires in the USA as china, which depending on how jaded your view of the world is, might have greater weight.
@SDtriton， 看来美国的亿万富豪数量是中国的4倍多，甚至更多。这取决於你对自己生活的世界的有多厌倦。
16）SDtriton @BanjoBuxby• 2 days ago
That's great. Unfortunately you are not one of them.
@BanjoBuxby好的很！不幸的是你不是他们中的一个。
17）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
meh
@SDtriton不好说哦。
18）VTrader @JohnJMac• 18 hours ago −
Economists us Purchasing Power Prices and not US dollar prices. IMF, World Bank and America's own CIA uses PPP and have China overtaking the US economy in the 2016-17 time frame. Haven't you heard about China keeping their currency artificially low? if adjusted, the Chinese economy would be 50% larger in US dollars overnight,
@JohnJMac，我们的经济学家算的是中国的购买力价格而不是美元价格，国际货币基金组织、世界银行和美国的中央情报局均声称：使用PPP计算，中国经济将在2016-2017年间超越美国。你没听说过中国人為的保持低汇率？如果调整后，中国经济将规模将在一夜之间增加50%
19）Mike• 3 days ago
Excellent report, really, and one of the few mainstream news articles I've read lately on the Chinese economy that doesn't read like a cheerleading chant.
What's not too often reported - but by now widely known - is that our own CIA compiles its own estimate of Chinese GDP (and no, it's not the one you see in the World Factbook). Their own analysts have known what Matt Schiavenza just described for at least 20 years, and around that time began producing their own in-house estimate of Chinese GDP using the two most-obvious (and lest falsifiable) footprints: the amount of light emitted from China at night and its CO2 emissions, both measurable by satellite.
They were able to ascertain, for instance, that, far from the official rah-rahing, China's GDP actually CONTRACTED slightly during the Asian Crisis in 1998. Likewise, they found that China's economy grows much more erratically than Beijing has been willing to admit - fluctuating between 5 and 10% in most years, even as the official figure seemed perennially stuck at a "lucky" 8%.
I don't know if the good people at the CIA have a formal name for this satellite data collection and analysis process; but I'd call it the GDPS.
这真是我最近读过的关於中国经济的一篇精彩的报导，这不是一篇為中国经济歌功颂德的文章。
现在虽然不经常报导但却眾所周知的是，中央情报局通过卫星监控，分析了中国的二氧化碳排放量、夜间地面的光源等，中情局的分析师Matt Schiavenza称中国的GDP数字与看到的现象之间至少相差20年。（译注：文中括弧内句子意思是——这些数据当然不是你在某人的Factbook帐号能查询到的，言下之意是这是保密的东西知道吗，只有该网友了解内幕）
他们可以确定一点，从1998年亚洲金融危机以后，中国官方一直不愿意承认他们的GDP在5%和10%之间波动，而是永远停留在一个幸运的8%上。别听中国官方“经济形势一片大好”的咬喝声，实际上在亚洲金融危机期间中国的GDP是收缩了的。
我不知道中情局的好人们对通过监控卫星收集到的数据是怎麼命名的。但我管它叫GDPS。
20）NicolasBourbaki @Mike• 3 days ago
Right, the CIA as an excellent source of economic data. You must have attended some classes in the matt schiavenza school of journalism.
@Mike，这下好嘛，中情局都被你当成最可靠的经济调查数据来源提供者了。你需要去matt schiavenza新闻学校学习下。
21）SDtriton @Mike• 2 days ago
This sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, in his later years.
@Mike这听起来很有Tom Clancy晚年所写的小说的味道嘛。
22）KatherineMW @Mike• 2 days ago
Right, because when we want reliable data on a US competitor, we should absolutely trust the estimates of the CIA. Bias aside, they've only been wrong about roughly every international development in the past 50 years.
@Mike对!因為每当我们需要有关美国的竞争对手的可靠数据时，我们都应该绝对信任中情局的估计。抛开偏见不谈，他们只是错过了过去50年里的每一次国际发展机会！
23）David_LloydJones• 3 days ago −
The thing that strikes me about Li Keqiang's way of looking at the economy is how similar it is to Alan Greenspan's. Now Greenspan was very badly wrong about government regulation, because he believes in a fruitcake ideology, but his economics was not at all bad.
It's a technocratic way of looking at things, and like Technocracy, the political dogma at present in the saddle in China, it is only half right.
On the other hand it is half right.
我觉得李克强看经济问题的方式和Alan Greenspan非常的相似。Greenspan对政府的监管是非常严重的错误，因為他信奉的是一个操蛋的的意识形态主义，但他的经济学并不是那麼坏。
这（指的是李克强）是在用技术专家的方式来看经济问题，并且用技术专家的手段来治国。如果把目前的中国看成一匹马，那麼马鞍的两侧分别是意识形态的政治教条和经济发展的精湛技术。
这个问题你在马鞍两边看到的都是对的，但是也不全对。如果你只看到一边，那就只有一边是对的。
24）mathhero• 3 days ago −
There has been some time people in China talk about uselessness of GDP, as when China is about to surpass the US in this respect, the standard of economic strength is gonna change.
中国GDP无用论的说法已经流行一段时间了，但是当中国真的超过美国的时候。GDP的统计方式是会随著经济实力的改变而改变的。
25）dakelei @mathhero• 3 days ago
What does that MEAN exactly?
@mathhero不明觉厉，到底是什麼意思呢？
想知道中国在做什么？不要看GDP数据
Want to Understand How China is Doing? Don't Look at GDP
作者:osmond 发布日期:2013-10-09 浏览:25668
译文简介:
大西洋月刊称中国GDP可能作假，掀起美网友大战。
译文来源:
http://www.theatlantic.com/china ... look-at-gdp/280202/
翻译：龙腾
为什麽典型的基础统计数据没办法全面描述这个世界第二大经济体？
Matt schiavenza Oct 4 2013, 4:30 PM ET
2013年10月4日16:30 撰稿人：Matt Schiavenza
For over a quarter century, the one figure that dominated discussion of China's economy was this: eight percent. Beginning in 1982, when leader Deng Xiaoping established the percentage as necessary to quadruple the size of the country's GDP by 2000, China has seldom failed to achieve it—even in 2009, when the world was enduring the worst downturn since the Great Depression. The eight-percent figure became so entrenched that it acquired an almost Talmudic significance, causing speculation that if the economy didn't grow by that amount, social instability would surely follow. (The fact that the number eight is considered lucky in Chinese culture only added to the mystique.)
在过去的25年中，关于主导中国经济状况的讨论是围绕著这样一个数字展开的：8％ . 1982年，时任中国领导人邓小平在经过深入调研后，定下了从当年起到2000年为止，国内生产总值翻4番的目标。而在2009年，全球经济经历了上世纪三十年代的大萧条以来最严重的衰退（译注：这里说的大萧条主要针对的是1931年前后的美国，感兴趣的友友自行搜索“美国大萧条”）。中国却几乎不受影响的实现了当初定下的增长目标。8%这个数字在中国的经济增长中变得如同神灵启示一般的根深蒂固，具有一个特殊的意义。而且这个增长势头能够保证中国社会的稳定，抑制投机倒把商人对中国经济的买空卖空。事实上，在中国文化中8这个数字被认为是幸运的。这也为这个数字增加了神秘感。
These days are now over. China's GDP has failed to reach the benchmark for six successive quarters, checking in at 7.5 percent for the second quarter of 2013. Though this growth is still robust by global standards, the sub-eight percent figure has raised concerns that a Chinese “slowdown” is now permanent—and will have serious consequences for the rest of the world.
一段时间以来，具体点说中国的GDP已经连续6个季度未能达到8%的基准增长了。2013年第二季度录得的最新增长是7.5％ .虽然这个增长数字相较于全球经济增长情况依然显得很强劲。但是因为低于多年来保持的8％的增长数字，所以已经引起了关注。现在看来中国经济的“减速”将是永久性的，同时，这也将给世界各国带来严重的后果。
The death of the eight-percent benchmark does however give us an opportunity to re-examine GDP and the assumption that, if China achieved a certain percentage, the Communist Party was succeeding. Whether or not China achieves seven, six, or five percent growth in the coming years—as economists like Michael Pettis have asked—do measurements of the country's GDP even matter? Here are a few of the issues involved in assessing the health of China's economy.
然而，8%基准线的“死亡”却给我们一个重新审视GDP的机会和假设，我们假设在中国共产党的领导下成功地让中国的经济增长保持在一定比例。那麽在未来的几年这个比例是多少，是7%吗？或者6%？还是5%？或者这些比例数字根本不重要？经济学家Michael Pettis提出了以上这些疑问。这里我们罗列了几个关于中国经济状况的评价问题。
China's official GDP numbers may not be very accurate
中国官方公佈的GDP数据可能不是很准确
Interpreting what China's GDP numbers mean is difficult enough in the best of times—but what if the numbers themselves aren't reliable? Although the veracity of Chinese economic data is a subject of debate, critics of the data have two basic concerns:
理解中国的GDP数字具体意味著什麽是一件很困难的事情。但是，如果数字本身并不可靠呢？虽然中国经济数据的真实性是一个有争议的问题，但评论数据的真假可以从以下两方面入手：
The first is transparency—the Chinese Communist Party has historically been cagey with its methodology, and the speed with which it releases quarterly GDP percentages puts the numbers' accuracy into question. According to Leland Miller, CEO of China Beige Book, a company which compiles reports on China's economy based on surveys of businesses within the country, quarterly GDP figures are released just 12 days after the quarter ends—and leaked after nine. By contrast, the United States requires four weeks to release data, and Hong Kong—a comparatively tiny economy—needs six. The fact that an economy the size of China's can compile this information so quickly has led observers to question the accuracy of the data.
首先是透明度。中国共产党历来对他们的统计方法守口如瓶，而且他们所发佈的季度GDP增长的准确性值得怀疑。依据Leland Miller创办的China Beige Book编写的基于企业调查的该国经济报告称，中国的季度GDP数据仅仅在季度结束12天之后就公佈了——数据洩露9天之后。相比之下，美国需要四周的时间来发佈数据，而显得比较小规模的香港则需要六天。事实上，能够如此迅速的编辑汇总这麽大规模经济体的数据导致了经济观察家们开始质疑这些数据的准确性（译注：China Beige Book是一份类似于the Tan Book的经济调查报告，the Tan Book可译做褐皮书，是美联储每年发佈的美国经济展望调查报告。China Beige Book可直译成中国褐皮书）。
Secondly, national-level data in China doesn't always match information provided by provincial and municipal-level governments, occasionally producing a difference of 10 percent. One reason is politics. During China's reform and opening era, lower-level officials have been judged by their ability to produce economic growth, providing an incentive for leaders to overreport GDP. An additional problem, according to Beibei Bao, who analyzes China's economy for the Rhodium Group, a New York-based consultancy, provincial-level economic statistical bureaus were often understaffed.
其次，中国中央政府一级的数据并不总是一致的，由省市级的政府提供给中央的的数据偶尔会产生10％的偏差。产生偏差的主要原因之一是基于政治的考量，在中国的改革开放时代，级别较低的官员把经济增长作为主要政绩，在这一原因下激励了地方领导多报GDP . 另一原因在于，根据总部位于纽约的谘询公司Rhodium Group的Beibei Bao分析称，中国的省级经济统计局往往人员不足。
Not everyone, however, agrees that these statistics are so inaccurate. In a newsletter from earlier this year, the San Francisco Fed argued that China's GDP data is basically reliable, a claim backed up by Nicholas Lardy, a China specialist at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. Lardy told me that in recent years, Beijing has taken steps to centralize data collection, relying less on under-staffed (and possibly corruptible) local and provincial bureaus. As a result, Chinese numbers have become increasingly reliable.
然而并不是每个人都认为这些统计数字是不准确的。在今年早些时候的一份时事通讯中，三藩市联邦储备银行认为中国的GDP数据是基本可靠的。Peterson Institute of International Economics的中国问题专家Nicholas Lardy说：近年来，中国已经採取措施。集中的数据收集，较少依赖地方人员和省级局上报的经济数据，虽然这可能不是好事情。但是由此一来，中国的经济发展数据正变得越来越可靠。
GDP isn't the most useful measurement for an economy's health, anyway
无论如何，GDP不是衡量一个经济体是否健康的最有用数据
Six years ago, then-Prime Minister Wen Jiabao famously called the Chinese economy “unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable,” revealing Beijing's unease with its then-breakneck pace of growth. Wen's concern reflected a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption. For example, if a local government authorizes the construction of a factory, GDP will go up—even if nobody ultimately uses it to make things. As a result, Leland Miller says that the GDP statistic indicates the economy's growth rather than productivity, making it functionally “useless” as measurement in and of itself.
六年前，当时的中国国务院总理温曾称中国经济是“不平衡、不协调和不可持续的”，这也揭示了中国当局对经济极快的增长速度的忧虑。温总理的关注折射出越来越多的共识：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。例如，如果一个地方政府授权建设了工业区，那麽GDP会随著工业区的建设应声上扬，但是这个工业区可能却成了无人使用的摆设。一如Leland Miller所说：GDP统计只能表明经济增长而不是生产力。单就GDP的计算而言，上例中的工业区就是“无用的”GDP增长。
Beijing wants to change this equation, rebalancing China's economy toward one based more around consumption than investment (as well as one based more on services than manufacturing). But this isn't a change that will occur overnight, and China remains a place where its robust GDP masks major structural weaknesses in the economy, rendering the figure meaningless—at best.
中国当局想要改变这个经济发展的方程式，重新平衡中国经济走向一个围绕著国内消费大于投资，以及服务业大于製造业的经济发展环境。但这不是一朝一夕就能改变的，目前中国强劲增长的GDP仍然有结构性弱点，顶多就是金玉其外，败絮其中的数字增长而已。
If GDP isn't useful, how about unemployment?
如果GDP没有用的话，我们看看失业率如何？
In the United States, unemployment figures are considered such an important measure that, until recently, conventional wisdom dictated that a president could not be re-elected if unemployment remained above a certain percentage.
在美国，失业率被认为是一个异常重要的，反应经济发展好坏的指标。迄今为止，传统的说法是：如果失业率高于一定比例，那麽连总统都将是不能连任的。
But in China, official unemployment numbers are, as Beibei Bao said, “garbage.” That's because they fail to account for the more than hundred million strong army of migrant workers, men and women who leave their hometowns to work, illegally, in the cities. Because they lack official permission to live outside of their place of registration, migrant workers do not count in official employment statistics—even though urban unemployment is viewed as a potential source of political instability.
但是在中国，如同Beibei Bao所说，中国官方的失业数字就俩字：垃圾。这是因为他们计算失业率的时候没有考虑到上亿的农民工大军。不管是男人还是女人谁离开自己的家乡到城市工作都是非法的。因为他们缺乏自己出生的注册地以外的正式许可，因此即便农民工在城市失了业也不被计入官方就业数据，虽然失业者也同样被看作是社会不稳定的潜在来源。
So- what measurements can we use?
那麽，我们还有什麽东西可以用来衡量中国经济发展的好坏呢？
In 2007 Li Keqiang, currently China's prime minister, remarked at a private dinner that China's GDP was “man-made” and that, instead, he relied on three other measurements: electricity consumption, rail freight, and bank loans. Before long, Li's comments—published in a WikiLeaks cable in 2010— emerged as an alternative measurement to Chinese economic data. Though imperfect—Lardy says that electricity consumption doesn't always reliably track growth—Li Keqiang's “index” at least relies on data free from political manipulation.
2007年，现在的中国总理李克强在一个私人晚宴上说，中国的GDP是“人为製造的”。他说他所相信的是其他三个数据：电力消耗、铁路货运和银行贷款。在那之后不久，李总理的评论在 维基解密2010 曝光后被冠以“李克强指数”的经济学名词，成为了外界观测中国经济数据的替代测量指标。Nicholas Lardy说这虽然不算完美，电力消耗的增长也并不总是可靠，但是跟踪“李克强指数”至少可以摆脱政治操纵的GDP数据。
But while economists and investors now have more accurate and useful data at their fingertips, it's worth considering just how useful national-level data is as a whole. As Leland Miller says, “China isn't just China. It's a bunch of little China's.” A large, fragmented country with enormous economic diversity, it is difficult to draw conclusions about China's economy as a whole without considering the impact on its component parts. In recognition of this, Miller's China Beige Book targets relevant sectors, regions, and industries in order to develop a more accurate impression of what really drives China's growth.
不过，在经济学家和投资者们的手头现在有更准确和更有用的数据。整体来看，中央政府发佈的官方数据作为一个整体数据还是值得相信的。Leland Miller说：“从经济结构这一层面来看，中国不仅仅是一个国家，而是由一群小中国组成的一个巨大的、经济多样性的、经济结构差异巨大的的国家。而中国经济作为一个整体，如果不考虑它的各个组成部分的影响就很难得出结论。正是由于认识到这一点，Leland Miller写China Beige Book这一报告的目标，就是综合各个相关部门、地区和产业，以制定和开发出一个更准确的关于中国经济增长的印象。
At some point in the next five years, China's GDP will eclipse the United States' and become the world's largest, an event that will attract a lot of attention—and hand-wringing— from journalists and politicians. But for anyone who wants to understand China's future, the figure will be completely useless.
在接下来五年的某一时刻，中国的GDP将超过美国，成为世界上最大的经济体。这一事件注定会吸引全世界包括记者和政客们的目光，当然，也包括绝望。但是，谁现在想要想凭著这些GDP的统计数字去瞭解中国的未来，这些数字将令他万分失望。
评论翻译:
a growing consensus that China's economy relied too heavily on investment (for which returns tend to decline over time), and exports (which depend too much on the health of the global economy), and not enough on consumption.
This also exposes the lie about having to "compete" in a "global" economy. The truth is China is not our competitor. It is simply our supplier. They're not making stuff for us and for themselves. They are only making stuff for us.
关於中国经济越来越多的共识就是：中国经济过份的依赖投资，而投资回报往往随著时间的推移逐步下降的；此外，中国经济也严重的依赖出口，换言之，这就是依赖全球经济的健康与否；与之相对的，中国国内并没有足够的消费群体。
这也暴露了一个所谓全球性经济竞争的谎言。事实上中国不是我们的竞争对手，中国只是我们的供应商。他们的Made in China不是為我们和他们而製造. Made in China只是為我们服务。
2）mimififi @RobertSF• 3 days ago
Yeah 1.3 billion Chinese all naked and using nothing of the stuff they make.
Riiight.
Riiight.
@RobertSF， 是，你说的太对了。13亿中国人都不消费，他们赤裸著身子不吃不喝的生產消费品。
对！
太对了！！
3）Kirk Holden @mimififi• 2 days ago
You are arguing with an international expert on the economies of world nations sir, please make up at least one or two facts to support your opinions.
@mimififi， 知道您老是“世界级的国际经济专家”这没有错，但是能不能麻烦您至少用一两个事实来佐证您的观点？
4）Uppal76 @kirk Holden• a day ago −
How about this: traveling about various regions of China this summer, I saw the same consumer culture in each city I went to. Some were full of mom and pop shops, others international outlet stores. Yes, Chinese people are buying things, often at prices higher than in other countries!
@Kirk Holden，你觉得这个事实怎麼样：今年夏天我去中国各个城市周游了一圈，我看到了每个城市不同的消费文化，一些是挤满了年轻妈妈的普通商店，另一些是国际性的品牌直营店。是的，中国人正在消费，他们用比其他国家更高的价格在消费！
5）JohnJMac• 3 days ago
US GDP is $15T versus China's GDP of $7.2T. Their GDP will not surpass ours in 5 years.
目前美国的国内生產总值是15万亿美元，而中国是7.2万亿美元。他们的国内生產总值5年内不会超过我们。（译注：John的评论附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话）
6）NicolasBourbaki @JohnJMac• 3 days ago
In GDP as measured by PPP they will.
@JohnJMac， 他们的GDP是要用PPP来测算的。
（译注：Nicolebas的评论也附有web连接，证明人家没有乱说话。PS：GDP:国内生產总值；PPP：购买力平价 ）
7）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Median PPP is a useful metric for assessing quality of life for average people, but when PPP gets averaged and summed it stops really corresponding to any real life concept. No one would classify an American billionaire as richer than a British one because a hamburger is cheaper in America. If a Chinese airline wants to buy a passenger jet, it does not get a discounted price on the grounds that haircuts are cheaper in China. For comparing international economic power, nominal GDP is probably a better metric than PPP GFP.
@NicolasBourbaki，PPP评估的中间值对一个普通人的生活品质好坏具有很好的指标意义，但是当PPP被人均或者被总计的时候，对现实中个人生活的好坏就没有了指标意义。举例：我们不能因為一个汉堡在美国卖的价钱比在英国卖的更便宜就觉得美国比英国更穷；也不能说一家中国航空公司购买了一架没有折扣的喷气式客机是因為在中国理髮很便宜。对於国家与国家之间的经济力量对比，名义GDP相较於PPP总和而言，可能是一个更好的指标。
8）NicolasBourbaki @William Pastor• 2 days ago
What you've said really doesn't follow and neither is it true.
@William Pastor，你说的什麼我不感兴趣，也不是真的。
9）William Pastor @NicolasBourbaki• a day ago
If you have an argument as to why PPP GDP is a better measure of economic power than nominal GDP, I'd be happy to read it, but "neither is it true" is not an argument.
@NicolasBourbaki， 请拿出你的论据支持你的论点：為什麼用PPP衡量经济会比名义GDP更好？放马过来吧小子，“不是真的也不感兴趣”可不是什麼好的论据。
10）Enis Fesci @William Pastor• a day ago
let me tell you why PPP is a better measure. We are measuring the SIZE of the economy. So PPP adjusts for the difference in prices to objectively measure quantity produced. If an apple is 5 dollars in america, and the gdp is 50 dollars, it means 10 apples were produced. if an apple is 2 dollars in china and the gdp is 30 dollars (nominal) that means 15 apples were produced in china. In this example, america has a higher gdp (nominal) but the chinese economy is larger and more active because they produce more apples than america. so chinas gdp ppp would be to imagine if apples were the same price as in america, how much would there gdp be? that is 5 dollars times 15 apples = 75 dollars gdp ppp. as an economics student i can tell you that gdp ppp is a much better measurement for the SIZE of the economy. in your logic, you can make the economy larger with a raise in everything's price and producing the same amount! But with PPP, they all get adjusted and the economies can be objectively compared.
@William Pastor, 让我告诉你為什麼PPP是一种更好的措施。我们所说的衡量经济规模就是衡量平价购买力。因此，购买力平价调整的价格的差异可以客观地衡量生產力。如果一个苹果在美国售价是5块钱， 50块钱的名义GDP（标称值）可以生產10个苹果。而如果一个苹果在中国卖2块钱，中国名义GDP的30块钱（标称值）意味著可以生產15个苹果。在这个例子中，美国具有更高的国内生產总值（标称值） ，但中国生產的苹果比美国的更多，经济量就更大。所以请想像一下中国的名义GDP是多少？如果中国生產的这15个苹果在美国生產，会出现多少的名义GDP？是5块钱乘以15个苹果= 75块钱。这75块钱就是美国GDP的购买力平价。作為经济学的学生，我可以告诉你，PPP计量的经济规模比名义GDP更好更準确。在你的逻辑中，你可以提高一切產品的价格使经济规模无限放大。但用PPP ，他们的调整会使所有相关经济数据產生同步变化，因而可以客观地比较经济规模。
11）William Pastor @Enis Fesci• a day ago
Enis, two points:
1. The problem with summing PPP across an economy is that the sum is heavily affected by the higher earners, who are less affected by local pricing. Nobody would adjust the Forbes billionaires list for PPP. I agree that "size" is probably better recapitulated by PPP, but it is not a perfect fit. Although I've never seen this analysis, I suspect for example that America's advantage over northern Europe in PPP numbers is largely because our rich people look artificially rich when you adjust their incomes to account for the cheap price of pizza in America.
2. When considering economic power on the other hand, nominal GDP makes more sense because trade is transacted in actual money, not PPP money. Although GDP is an imperfect measure of global economic significance, I think you'll agree that nominal prices are more relevant to any trader who wants to sell apples to China or America.
@Enis Fesci，
Enis，我说两点：
1。PPP总量受高收入人群的严重影响，他们本身却基本不受当地PPP的影响。没有人会调整福布斯富豪榜上那些富豪们的PPP. 我同意“总量大小”可能可以更好的概括PPP规模，但它不是一个完美的总量。虽然我从来没有见过这样的分析，但是我怀疑，例如北欧和美国PPP总量很大是因為在很大程度上我们的有钱的人数量看起来很多，当你调整这俩个地方的PPP的时候，大部分人的收入只能吃得起最便宜的披萨饼。
2。另一方面，考虑经济实力的时候名义GDP更有意义。因為贸易交易的是实际的钱，而不是购买力的平价。虽然在全球范围内GDP的核算措施还不完善，但是我想你会同意，名义价格更能影响经济贸易，中国和美国谁更愿意消费更多的苹果？
12）Taishanese @William Pastor• a day ago
Overall, I agree with you and have a different take on what the others are saying.
In a nutshell, the nominal GDP is more important, because, as you said, we use hard currency when doing trade and not PPP.
However, in the case of China, using PPP does have some validity. Not enough, in my opinion, to suggest China will become the largest economy in 5 years, but enough to suggest China could be the largest not too long after in say ..... 8 or 9 years.
And here is why: The currency will rise in value. Currently, for the year 2013, China's nominal GDP is projected to be about $9.2 Trillion (somewhere around there) and the US will be over $16 trillion, thereabouts. But when using PPP China's economy will be well over $13 trillion for 2013. Using PPP is relevant to China but not so with countries like India or Brazil where the value of their respective currency, not surprisingly, went down in value. It's relevant to China because her currency is expected to rise in value. The others, such as India and Brazil, their respective currencies were not expected to rise.
China's currency is expected to strengthen for the next couple of decades including the next 5 years. Because of this expected increase in currency value, the gap between the No. 1 economy in the 2018, i.e., the US and the No. 2 economy in 2018, i.e., China will be closer than what people would expect using strictly anticipated growth numbers.
As China's currency rise over the next couple of decades, her nominal GDP will better reflect the PPP GDP and may even surpass it as many developed countries today have higher nominal GDP's than PPP GDP's.
@William Pastor，总的来说，我同意你的看法，但不同的人应该有不同的看法。
整体看来，名义GDP更為重要，因為正如你所说的，我们是使用货币进行贸易的，不是购买力。
然而，中国的情况却有所不同，所以使用PPP计算确实有一定的正确性。在我看来，未来在5年内，或者8至9年内，中国将成為最大的经济体。
我这麼说原因是：人民币的货币价值正在上升。2013年，中国的名义GDP预计将达到约9.2万亿美元，美国是16万亿美元左右。但是，当使用PPP计算时中国的经济总量2013年应该超过13万亿美元。使用PPP计算是因為预期人民币升值，但不是所有的国家都适合这个PPP计算，如印度，巴西各自的货币的价值并不会升值，甚至有贬值的风险。
未来的数十年内，包括在未来5年内，人民币的升值预期正在加强。正是基於这种预期，估计在2018年左右中国将变成世界第1大经济体，而美国将降至世界第2大经济体。也正在基於这种预期，中国正严格控制著经济增长的幅度。
由於中国的货币升值，在未来的几十年里，她的名义国民生產总值将更好地反映购买力平价，甚至可能超过当今许多发达国家俱有的表现，那就是更高的名义国内生產总值能反映出来更高的购买力平价。
13）KatherineMW @NicolasBourbaki• 2 days ago
Purchasing Power Parity is much better than using the USD as a measure of GDP when you're comparing living standards between two countries (in which case you'd use GDP per capita). But using the USD (or Euro, or another major currency if you like) and exchange rates as the metric is far more useful when you want to compare countries' economic power in the world economy.
@NicolasBourbaki，在使用人均GDP的情况下。购买力平价比使用美元作為衡量国内生產总值要更為準确。但是若你想比较各国的经济实力的话，使用任一货币和汇率作為经济衡量则更為有用。
14）SDtriton @JohnJMac• 2 days ago
Who the hell cares? Even if China's GDP surpass ours, our income per capita, a key indicator of standard of living, is about 3 ~ 4 times higher.
I don't know why do people get so worked up about aggregate GDP.
发问@JohnJMac谁在乎呢？即使中国的GDP超过我们，我们的人均收入，人民生活水準也是中国人的约3——4倍。
我不知道人们為什麼对GDP总和这麼激动。
15）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
it would appear there's about 4 times as many billionaires in the USA as china, which depending on how jaded your view of the world is, might have greater weight.
@SDtriton， 看来美国的亿万富豪数量是中国的4倍多，甚至更多。这取决於你对自己生活的世界的有多厌倦。
16）SDtriton @BanjoBuxby• 2 days ago
That's great. Unfortunately you are not one of them.
@BanjoBuxby好的很！不幸的是你不是他们中的一个。
17）BanjoBuxby @SDtriton• 2 days ago
meh
@SDtriton不好说哦。
18）VTrader @JohnJMac• 18 hours ago −
Economists us Purchasing Power Prices and not US dollar prices. IMF, World Bank and America's own CIA uses PPP and have China overtaking the US economy in the 2016-17 time frame. Haven't you heard about China keeping their currency artificially low? if adjusted, the Chinese economy would be 50% larger in US dollars overnight,
@JohnJMac，我们的经济学家算的是中国的购买力价格而不是美元价格，国际货币基金组织、世界银行和美国的中央情报局均声称：使用PPP计算，中国经济将在2016-2017年间超越美国。你没听说过中国人為的保持低汇率？如果调整后，中国经济将规模将在一夜之间增加50%
19）Mike• 3 days ago
Excellent report, really, and one of the few mainstream news articles I've read lately on the Chinese economy that doesn't read like a cheerleading chant.
What's not too often reported - but by now widely known - is that our own CIA compiles its own estimate of Chinese GDP (and no, it's not the one you see in the World Factbook). Their own analysts have known what Matt Schiavenza just described for at least 20 years, and around that time began producing their own in-house estimate of Chinese GDP using the two most-obvious (and lest falsifiable) footprints: the amount of light emitted from China at night and its CO2 emissions, both measurable by satellite.
They were able to ascertain, for instance, that, far from the official rah-rahing, China's GDP actually CONTRACTED slightly during the Asian Crisis in 1998. Likewise, they found that China's economy grows much more erratically than Beijing has been willing to admit - fluctuating between 5 and 10% in most years, even as the official figure seemed perennially stuck at a "lucky" 8%.
I don't know if the good people at the CIA have a formal name for this satellite data collection and analysis process; but I'd call it the GDPS.
这真是我最近读过的关於中国经济的一篇精彩的报导，这不是一篇為中国经济歌功颂德的文章。
现在虽然不经常报导但却眾所周知的是，中央情报局通过卫星监控，分析了中国的二氧化碳排放量、夜间地面的光源等，中情局的分析师Matt Schiavenza称中国的GDP数字与看到的现象之间至少相差20年。（译注：文中括弧内句子意思是——这些数据当然不是你在某人的Factbook帐号能查询到的，言下之意是这是保密的东西知道吗，只有该网友了解内幕）
他们可以确定一点，从1998年亚洲金融危机以后，中国官方一直不愿意承认他们的GDP在5%和10%之间波动，而是永远停留在一个幸运的8%上。别听中国官方“经济形势一片大好”的咬喝声，实际上在亚洲金融危机期间中国的GDP是收缩了的。
我不知道中情局的好人们对通过监控卫星收集到的数据是怎麼命名的。但我管它叫GDPS。
20）NicolasBourbaki @Mike• 3 days ago
Right, the CIA as an excellent source of economic data. You must have attended some classes in the matt schiavenza school of journalism.
@Mike，这下好嘛，中情局都被你当成最可靠的经济调查数据来源提供者了。你需要去matt schiavenza新闻学校学习下。
21）SDtriton @Mike• 2 days ago
This sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, in his later years.
@Mike这听起来很有Tom Clancy晚年所写的小说的味道嘛。
22）KatherineMW @Mike• 2 days ago
Right, because when we want reliable data on a US competitor, we should absolutely trust the estimates of the CIA. Bias aside, they've only been wrong about roughly every international development in the past 50 years.
@Mike对!因為每当我们需要有关美国的竞争对手的可靠数据时，我们都应该绝对信任中情局的估计。抛开偏见不谈，他们只是错过了过去50年里的每一次国际发展机会！
23）David_LloydJones• 3 days ago −
The thing that strikes me about Li Keqiang's way of looking at the economy is how similar it is to Alan Greenspan's. Now Greenspan was very badly wrong about government regulation, because he believes in a fruitcake ideology, but his economics was not at all bad.
It's a technocratic way of looking at things, and like Technocracy, the political dogma at present in the saddle in China, it is only half right.
On the other hand it is half right.
我觉得李克强看经济问题的方式和Alan Greenspan非常的相似。Greenspan对政府的监管是非常严重的错误，因為他信奉的是一个操蛋的的意识形态主义，但他的经济学并不是那麼坏。
这（指的是李克强）是在用技术专家的方式来看经济问题，并且用技术专家的手段来治国。如果把目前的中国看成一匹马，那麼马鞍的两侧分别是意识形态的政治教条和经济发展的精湛技术。
这个问题你在马鞍两边看到的都是对的，但是也不全对。如果你只看到一边，那就只有一边是对的。
24）mathhero• 3 days ago −
There has been some time people in China talk about uselessness of GDP, as when China is about to surpass the US in this respect, the standard of economic strength is gonna change.
中国GDP无用论的说法已经流行一段时间了，但是当中国真的超过美国的时候。GDP的统计方式是会随著经济实力的改变而改变的。
25）dakelei @mathhero• 3 days ago
What does that MEAN exactly?
@mathhero不明觉厉，到底是什麼意思呢？
26）JimConfused• 2 days ago
Is the consumption in China really so weak or is it partly due to price distortion? Recently my mother-in-law in China was hospitalized for two weeks due to a heart attack. The treatment she received appears inline with the recommendations that Mayo clinic put on their website. Her total expense is only $1300. How much would that cost in the US?
The US health sector contributes around $3 trillion to the GDP with a population 0.3 billion (life expectancy 78). China has a population 1.3 billion (life expectancy 74). What is a fair estimate of the contribution of the Chinese health sector to the GDP?
中国到底是真的消费能力那麼弱吗，还是因為部分价格扭曲的原因？不久前我婆婆因為心臟病发作的原因，在中国的Mayo诊所住院治疗了两个星期，她的总开支仅仅是1300美元。如果我们在美国需要同样的医疗服务要花多少钱？
美国卫生部门对GDP的贡献约3万亿美元，人口3亿，平均寿命78岁，中国有13亿人口，平均寿命74岁。公平地估算一下，中国卫生部门对GDP的贡献是多少？
27）UncleStu @JimConfused• 2 days ago
In the USA, the best contributor to the GDP is a person who
- is on life support for years, and
- requires expensive medical procedures, medicines and devices, and
- and is going through a long nasty divorce
@JimConfused，你想知道在美国谁是為GDP贡献最多的人吗？让哥来告诉你：
多年来疲於奔命维持生计的人
需要昂贵的医疗设备、药品和环境的人
正经历一次漫长无比的、要死不活的婚姻的人
28）KatherineMW @UncleStu• 2 days ago −
You've identified the primary problem with GDP as a measure of growth. "Money spent" does not equate to "economic improvement". (Another example of this is when a country is hit by a major natural disaster and has to spend tons on reconstruction - this counts as high "growth" even though the country's worse off than it was before the disaster.) That's added to the problem of looking at the average GDP (i.e., GDP per capita), which is distorted by having a few very rich people: if you have 10 people, and 9 make $20,000/yr and one makes $5 million a year, the "average" income is $518,00 despite that being utterly unrepresentative of the situation of the 9 people. (If we MUST use GDP, we should report the median GDP - the amount where 50% of the population is making more than it, and 50% is making less).
That's why I value life expectancy as a metric of progress for developing countries. It doesn't change very fast, so under-5 mortality is a better measure for short-term shifts. Average educational attainment is also useful. The data on the poverty rate (i.e. % of people making less than $2/d) is also a useful one.
The unemployment rate is a fairly good metric for developed countries - though the latter has the problem of not counting people who have been unable to find work and have given up. It's useless for developing countries (like China) because, as the article points out, the informal sector is such a major economic influence in those countries.
Incidentally, China's under-5 mortality rate (14 per 1000) is twice the United States' (7 per 1000). Given that China's rate was 29 per 1000 just ten years ago, that's an excellent illustration of the amount of genuine progress it's making. Doesn't speak to global economic power, but does show that life is getting substantially better for the Chinese people.
@UncleStu：
你需要知道的重点是：GDP是作為衡量经济增长的指标性数据。意思就是你花了很多钱出去并不能代表你的经济状况会得到改善 。
举另一个例子给你看：当一个国家发生了一场重大的自然灾害，灾害后进行重建花了大量的金钱，这个“大量的金钱”就是GDP上升的数据。再多告诉你一个经常被扭曲误读的概念叫做：人均GDP .举例说明：如果你们公司有10个人，其中9个人每人每年能赚20000美元。另外一个人每年可以赚500万美元，现在如果要计算你们公司的平均收入的话，你们10个人当中应该最具有代表性的9个人每人每年的平均收入却是最不应该具有代表性的、被平均掉以后的518000美元。当然了，同样的道理，如果我们必须使用GDP来说明这个问题的话，我们应该取得GDP报告的中位数来计算人均GDP。
这就是為什麼我比较看重用人均寿命作為衡量标準对发展中国家取得的进展进行统计。人均寿命不会改变的非常快，所以5岁以下儿童死亡率是一个更好的衡量短期变化的指标。平均受教育程度也可以列為统计范围。贫困率（也就是还有百分之几的人每天生活成本达不到2美元）的数据也是非常有用的。
对发达国家来说，失业率也是衡量GDP的一个相当不错的指标。 而在像中国一样的发展中国家，失业率是没法统计的，所以它也是无用的。非正规部门在这样的国家俱有重大的经济影响力。
顺便说一句，目前中国5岁以下的儿童死亡率是14‰ ，而美国是7‰ ，中国的儿童死亡率是美国的两倍。鉴於10年前中国5岁以下的儿童死亡率还高达29‰ .这是中国取得真正进展的一个很好的例证。中国的经济力量如何我们暂且不说，中国人的生活水平越来越有显著的改善这却是事实。
29）SDtriton @JimConfused• 2 days ago
Jim...I think you stumbled onto a question that is worthy of a doctoral thesis.
@JimConfused， Jim...你碰巧（帮助我）发现了一个问题，我想这是一篇值得一写的博士论文。
30）matimal• 2 days ago
u.s. GDP is almost twice that of china. what on earth are people talking about?
美国GDP几乎是中国的两倍。大家有这麼无聊吗？在这里谈论什麼？
31）VTrader @matimal• 18 hours ago
Not.. if you know about economics, you use a Purchasing Power Prices and not US dollar prices. IMF, World Bank and America's own CIA uses PPP and have China overtaking the US economy in the 2016-17 time frame.
@matimal，不，如果你瞭解经济学，你就会用PPP而不是美元衡量中国的经济。国际货币基金组织、世界银行和美国的中央情报局均声称：使用PPP计算，中国经济将在2016-2017年间超越美国。
32）Taishanese @matimal• 16 hours ago −
Typically, when it is so soon, i.e., within 5 years, they are referring to GDP as measured by PPP and not nominal GDP. So, "nominal" vs "PPP".
In nominal terms, China's GDP and the US GDP is expected to be the following for 2013 according to The Economists prediction:
China - $9.2 Trillion
US - $16.3 Trillion
Using PPP the following for 2013:
China - $13.9 Trillion
US - $16.3 Trillion (since everything is based on the American dollar, the US is the only country where nominal and PPP GDP's are the same).
So, using PPP growth rates of about 7% for China and 2% for the US, we get the following:
China - 13.9*[(1.07)**5] = $19.5 Trillion
US - 16.3*[(1.02)**5] = $18 Trillion
But if the nominal figures were used, yes, you would be right, it wouldn't happen in 5 years:
China - 9.2*[(1.07)**5] = $12.9 Trillion
US - 16.3*[(1.02)**5] = $18 Trillion
However, China could become the largest in nominal terms in 8 years (year ending in 2021) if we assume a yuan currency appreciation of about 3% a year:
China - 9.2*[(1.07)**8]*[(1.03)**8)] = $20 Trillion
US - 16.3*[(1.02)**8] = $19.1 Trillion.
@matimal，通常情况下，它就是这麼快，也就是说5年之内确实会发生这样的事情。他们的GDP按PPP衡量，不是名义GDP .所以，下麵我就“名义GDP”与“PPP”一一列举：
按名义GDP计算，根据2013年经济学家的预测，中国的GDP和美国的GDP如下：
中国：9.2万亿美元
美国：16.3万亿美元
如果使用PPP计算的话2013年如下：
中国：13.9万亿美元
美国：16.3万亿美元（美国无变化是因為一切计价都基於美元，美国是唯一一个名义GDP和PPP是相同的国家）。
因此，假如我们以中国的经济年增长率约為7％而美国的约為2％来计算，我们会得到如下结果：
中国：13.9 * [ （1.07） * 5 ] = 19.5万亿美元
美国：16.3 * [ （1.02） * 5 ] = 18万亿美元
但是如果仅仅是以名义GDP计算的话。是的，你说对了，它不会在5年内发生：
中国：9.2 * [ （1.07） * 5 ] = 12.9万亿美元
美国：16.3 * [（1.02） * 5 ] = 18万亿美元
然而，即使只按照名义GDP计算。如果中国在2021年之前的8年内名义GDP稳步增长，我们假设人民币汇率按照每年约3％的速度升值，那麼结果如下：
中国：9.2*[（1.07）*8] * [（1.03 ）* 8 ）] = 20万亿美元
美国： 16.3 * [ （ 1.02 ） * 8 ] = 19.1万亿美元
33）Rocholo• 18 hours ago −
What's not well understood about GDP in China is the amount of economic collapse that is happening at the same time as economic growth. For example, growth in high speed trains is occurring at the same time that low speed train travel is rapidly declining; old factories close as new ones open; Zhejiang is in decline as Anhui expands etc. The rate of growth of new things is massive, compared to the West, as is the rate of decline. Many things only have useful lives of around 10 years, hence the need to continually rebuild and replace, although the replacements are also improvements. But what China is missing out on is the economic benefits on fully depreciated investments.
关於中国的GDP增长可以这样理解：在经济增长的同时经济崩溃也同样在发生。比如：高铁事故发生后降低的火车运行速度；随著新的工厂开张老的工厂关门；浙江经济情况在下降而安徽在积极扩大经济规模；新事物的增加是巨速的而相对於西方却在下降；很多东西只有约10年的使用年限，因此需要不断更新换代，虽然也有改进的替代品。但中国错过了折旧投资的经济效益。
Is the consumption in China really so weak or is it partly due to price distortion? Recently my mother-in-law in China was hospitalized for two weeks due to a heart attack. The treatment she received appears inline with the recommendations that Mayo clinic put on their website. Her total expense is only $1300. How much would that cost in the US?
The US health sector contributes around $3 trillion to the GDP with a population 0.3 billion (life expectancy 78). China has a population 1.3 billion (life expectancy 74). What is a fair estimate of the contribution of the Chinese health sector to the GDP?
中国到底是真的消费能力那麼弱吗，还是因為部分价格扭曲的原因？不久前我婆婆因為心臟病发作的原因，在中国的Mayo诊所住院治疗了两个星期，她的总开支仅仅是1300美元。如果我们在美国需要同样的医疗服务要花多少钱？
美国卫生部门对GDP的贡献约3万亿美元，人口3亿，平均寿命78岁，中国有13亿人口，平均寿命74岁。公平地估算一下，中国卫生部门对GDP的贡献是多少？
27）UncleStu @JimConfused• 2 days ago
In the USA, the best contributor to the GDP is a person who
- is on life support for years, and
- requires expensive medical procedures, medicines and devices, and
- and is going through a long nasty divorce
@JimConfused，你想知道在美国谁是為GDP贡献最多的人吗？让哥来告诉你：
多年来疲於奔命维持生计的人
需要昂贵的医疗设备、药品和环境的人
正经历一次漫长无比的、要死不活的婚姻的人
28）KatherineMW @UncleStu• 2 days ago −
You've identified the primary problem with GDP as a measure of growth. "Money spent" does not equate to "economic improvement". (Another example of this is when a country is hit by a major natural disaster and has to spend tons on reconstruction - this counts as high "growth" even though the country's worse off than it was before the disaster.) That's added to the problem of looking at the average GDP (i.e., GDP per capita), which is distorted by having a few very rich people: if you have 10 people, and 9 make $20,000/yr and one makes $5 million a year, the "average" income is $518,00 despite that being utterly unrepresentative of the situation of the 9 people. (If we MUST use GDP, we should report the median GDP - the amount where 50% of the population is making more than it, and 50% is making less).
That's why I value life expectancy as a metric of progress for developing countries. It doesn't change very fast, so under-5 mortality is a better measure for short-term shifts. Average educational attainment is also useful. The data on the poverty rate (i.e. % of people making less than $2/d) is also a useful one.
The unemployment rate is a fairly good metric for developed countries - though the latter has the problem of not counting people who have been unable to find work and have given up. It's useless for developing countries (like China) because, as the article points out, the informal sector is such a major economic influence in those countries.
Incidentally, China's under-5 mortality rate (14 per 1000) is twice the United States' (7 per 1000). Given that China's rate was 29 per 1000 just ten years ago, that's an excellent illustration of the amount of genuine progress it's making. Doesn't speak to global economic power, but does show that life is getting substantially better for the Chinese people.
@UncleStu：
你需要知道的重点是：GDP是作為衡量经济增长的指标性数据。意思就是你花了很多钱出去并不能代表你的经济状况会得到改善 。
举另一个例子给你看：当一个国家发生了一场重大的自然灾害，灾害后进行重建花了大量的金钱，这个“大量的金钱”就是GDP上升的数据。再多告诉你一个经常被扭曲误读的概念叫做：人均GDP .举例说明：如果你们公司有10个人，其中9个人每人每年能赚20000美元。另外一个人每年可以赚500万美元，现在如果要计算你们公司的平均收入的话，你们10个人当中应该最具有代表性的9个人每人每年的平均收入却是最不应该具有代表性的、被平均掉以后的518000美元。当然了，同样的道理，如果我们必须使用GDP来说明这个问题的话，我们应该取得GDP报告的中位数来计算人均GDP。
这就是為什麼我比较看重用人均寿命作為衡量标準对发展中国家取得的进展进行统计。人均寿命不会改变的非常快，所以5岁以下儿童死亡率是一个更好的衡量短期变化的指标。平均受教育程度也可以列為统计范围。贫困率（也就是还有百分之几的人每天生活成本达不到2美元）的数据也是非常有用的。
对发达国家来说，失业率也是衡量GDP的一个相当不错的指标。 而在像中国一样的发展中国家，失业率是没法统计的，所以它也是无用的。非正规部门在这样的国家俱有重大的经济影响力。
顺便说一句，目前中国5岁以下的儿童死亡率是14‰ ，而美国是7‰ ，中国的儿童死亡率是美国的两倍。鉴於10年前中国5岁以下的儿童死亡率还高达29‰ .这是中国取得真正进展的一个很好的例证。中国的经济力量如何我们暂且不说，中国人的生活水平越来越有显著的改善这却是事实。
29）SDtriton @JimConfused• 2 days ago
Jim...I think you stumbled onto a question that is worthy of a doctoral thesis.
@JimConfused， Jim...你碰巧（帮助我）发现了一个问题，我想这是一篇值得一写的博士论文。
30）matimal• 2 days ago
u.s. GDP is almost twice that of china. what on earth are people talking about?
美国GDP几乎是中国的两倍。大家有这麼无聊吗？在这里谈论什麼？
31）VTrader @matimal• 18 hours ago
Not.. if you know about economics, you use a Purchasing Power Prices and not US dollar prices. IMF, World Bank and America's own CIA uses PPP and have China overtaking the US economy in the 2016-17 time frame.
@matimal，不，如果你瞭解经济学，你就会用PPP而不是美元衡量中国的经济。国际货币基金组织、世界银行和美国的中央情报局均声称：使用PPP计算，中国经济将在2016-2017年间超越美国。
32）Taishanese @matimal• 16 hours ago −
Typically, when it is so soon, i.e., within 5 years, they are referring to GDP as measured by PPP and not nominal GDP. So, "nominal" vs "PPP".
In nominal terms, China's GDP and the US GDP is expected to be the following for 2013 according to The Economists prediction:
China - $9.2 Trillion
US - $16.3 Trillion
Using PPP the following for 2013:
China - $13.9 Trillion
US - $16.3 Trillion (since everything is based on the American dollar, the US is the only country where nominal and PPP GDP's are the same).
So, using PPP growth rates of about 7% for China and 2% for the US, we get the following:
China - 13.9*[(1.07)**5] = $19.5 Trillion
US - 16.3*[(1.02)**5] = $18 Trillion
But if the nominal figures were used, yes, you would be right, it wouldn't happen in 5 years:
China - 9.2*[(1.07)**5] = $12.9 Trillion
US - 16.3*[(1.02)**5] = $18 Trillion
However, China could become the largest in nominal terms in 8 years (year ending in 2021) if we assume a yuan currency appreciation of about 3% a year:
China - 9.2*[(1.07)**8]*[(1.03)**8)] = $20 Trillion
US - 16.3*[(1.02)**8] = $19.1 Trillion.
@matimal，通常情况下，它就是这麼快，也就是说5年之内确实会发生这样的事情。他们的GDP按PPP衡量，不是名义GDP .所以，下麵我就“名义GDP”与“PPP”一一列举：
按名义GDP计算，根据2013年经济学家的预测，中国的GDP和美国的GDP如下：
中国：9.2万亿美元
美国：16.3万亿美元
如果使用PPP计算的话2013年如下：
中国：13.9万亿美元
美国：16.3万亿美元（美国无变化是因為一切计价都基於美元，美国是唯一一个名义GDP和PPP是相同的国家）。
因此，假如我们以中国的经济年增长率约為7％而美国的约為2％来计算，我们会得到如下结果：
中国：13.9 * [ （1.07） * 5 ] = 19.5万亿美元
美国：16.3 * [ （1.02） * 5 ] = 18万亿美元
但是如果仅仅是以名义GDP计算的话。是的，你说对了，它不会在5年内发生：
中国：9.2 * [ （1.07） * 5 ] = 12.9万亿美元
美国：16.3 * [（1.02） * 5 ] = 18万亿美元
然而，即使只按照名义GDP计算。如果中国在2021年之前的8年内名义GDP稳步增长，我们假设人民币汇率按照每年约3％的速度升值，那麼结果如下：
中国：9.2*[（1.07）*8] * [（1.03 ）* 8 ）] = 20万亿美元
美国： 16.3 * [ （ 1.02 ） * 8 ] = 19.1万亿美元
33）Rocholo• 18 hours ago −
What's not well understood about GDP in China is the amount of economic collapse that is happening at the same time as economic growth. For example, growth in high speed trains is occurring at the same time that low speed train travel is rapidly declining; old factories close as new ones open; Zhejiang is in decline as Anhui expands etc. The rate of growth of new things is massive, compared to the West, as is the rate of decline. Many things only have useful lives of around 10 years, hence the need to continually rebuild and replace, although the replacements are also improvements. But what China is missing out on is the economic benefits on fully depreciated investments.
关於中国的GDP增长可以这样理解：在经济增长的同时经济崩溃也同样在发生。比如：高铁事故发生后降低的火车运行速度；随著新的工厂开张老的工厂关门；浙江经济情况在下降而安徽在积极扩大经济规模；新事物的增加是巨速的而相对於西方却在下降；很多东西只有约10年的使用年限，因此需要不断更新换代，虽然也有改进的替代品。但中国错过了折旧投资的经济效益。
局座，大事不好了，美国人清醒的太多了。
局座，大事不好了，美国人清醒的太多了。
战忽局今年的年终奖又没了
战忽局今年的年终奖又没了
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯
？
？大西洋月刊应该是经济方面的学者或者是层次较高的人看得多吧，米国人越迷糊越好啊。
美国是正规战打的太久了！
哎，指望美帝都跟脚盆一样傻逼是做梦了。
yzsz266 发表于 2013-10-12 18:26
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
讲人均啊。人均我们还是发展中滴国家，人均航母占有量远远落后于发达国家。
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
讲人均啊。人均我们还是发展中滴国家，人均航母占有量远远落后于发达国家。
数字游戏
帐还是那盘帐，不同算法结果完全还一样
帐还是那盘帐，不同算法结果完全还一样
yzsz266 发表于 2013-10-12 18:26
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
我们人均还很低，很多人吃不饱穿不暖，还都买不起车，住不起房
SO，未来我们要为人均世界第一努力。
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
我们人均还很低，很多人吃不饱穿不暖，还都买不起车，住不起房
SO，未来我们要为人均世界第一努力。
GDP统计方式两者有很大的不同，但是美国的媒体又怎么会说出实话了。
yzsz266 发表于 2013-10-12 18:26
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
人均啊魂淡
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
人均啊魂淡
以后经济学界衡量关键指标应该是人均航母拥有量,这样大概中国永远就超不过美国了.
人均鸡屁股板载!
我们人均还很低，很多人吃不饱穿不暖，还都买不起车，住不起房 SO，未来我们要为人均世界第一努力。
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪肉5元，米1斤2元。其余3元，蔬菜，油，能源。 注意是1人份。一个月，外带100元食用油，烟钱100，7元一包黄山，1天10支。合计500元，再算300计划外开支共计800元，这年头最低没1000元工资干? 吃饱。 穿暖:淘宝一大堆打折货，穿好点滴吧，一年2件棉衣外套，算 500吧? 穿暖。 假设最低标准达不到以上条件的基本自己乱搞，无可救药，不值得同情。
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪肉5元，米1斤2元。其余3元，蔬菜，油，能源。 注意是1人份。一个月，外带100元食用油，烟钱100，7元一包黄山，1天10支。合计500元，再算300计划外开支共计800元，这年头最低没1000元工资干? 吃饱。 穿暖:淘宝一大堆打折货，穿好点滴吧，一年2件棉衣外套，算 500吧? 穿暖。 假设最低标准达不到以上条件的基本自己乱搞，无可救药，不值得同情。
cjwsr 发表于 2013-10-12 20:04
以后经济学界衡量关键指标应该是人均航母拥有量,这样大概中国永远就超不过美国了.
难说啊
此消彼长，中国这20年的发展太颠覆三观了。
以后经济学界衡量关键指标应该是人均航母拥有量,这样大概中国永远就超不过美国了.
难说啊
此消彼长，中国这20年的发展太颠覆三观了。
超级小本营o 发表于 2013-10-12 21:14
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
低调低调，这年月要和第三世界国家打成一片
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
低调低调，这年月要和第三世界国家打成一片
yzsz266 发表于 2013-10-12 18:26
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
兔子依然会说：我们仍旧是发展中国家，我们至少还要发展100年，因为我们人均仍然很低
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
兔子依然会说：我们仍旧是发展中国家，我们至少还要发展100年，因为我们人均仍然很低
GDP成长一定会有迹象，不看GDP数据，注意一下中国10-20年的变化就知进歩很大。看美国、欧洲10-20年的变化，就知进歩很小。
中国这种规模庞大人口众多，同时又高速发展结构复杂的经济体，各种常用经济衡量指标都有其局限性；有些美国人目光真的敏锐，看到了到中国经济中的“非正规”部门的力量，也对失业率的中美差异有认识……
中国这种规模庞大人口众多，同时又高速发展结构复杂的经济体，各种常用经济衡量指标都有其局限性；有些美国 ...
要不回到前苏联的工农业总产值
要不回到前苏联的工农业总产值
屠狗英雄 发表于 2013-10-12 19:03
讲人均啊。人均我们还是发展中滴国家，人均航母占有量远远落后于发达国家。
是的。人均数据是很客观的数据呀。
讲人均啊。人均我们还是发展中滴国家，人均航母占有量远远落后于发达国家。
是的。人均数据是很客观的数据呀。
超级小本营o 发表于 2013-10-12 21:14
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
半斤猪肉5块?10元一斤,那是全肥肉.
现在生猪出栏都快10块了?或者不止?算上运输,屠宰啥的.
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
半斤猪肉5块?10元一斤,那是全肥肉.
现在生猪出栏都快10块了?或者不止?算上运输,屠宰啥的.
youngeramanda 发表于 2013-10-13 15:28
半斤猪肉5块?10元一斤,那是全肥肉.
现在生猪出栏都快10块了?或者不止?算上运输,屠宰啥的.
这是取一个价格，前面有说到最节俭的家庭生活做为比较。都最节俭了，当然也就不能选择吃最好的里脊肉。
半斤猪肉5块?10元一斤,那是全肥肉.
现在生猪出栏都快10块了?或者不止?算上运输,屠宰啥的.
这是取一个价格，前面有说到最节俭的家庭生活做为比较。都最节俭了，当然也就不能选择吃最好的里脊肉。
yzsz266 发表于 2013-10-12 18:26
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
人均这个大杀器目前也阿三能克制而已。
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
人均这个大杀器目前也阿三能克制而已。
超级小本营o 发表于 2013-10-12 21:14
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
最低工资水平还是大部分人的收入标准吧
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
最低工资水平还是大部分人的收入标准吧
yzsz266 发表于 2013-10-12 18:26
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
没关系，我们还有“人均”这一法宝呢
话说如果真到了中国GDP总量超过美国的那一天，官方会怎么表态啊，像北京奥运会后一样继续装清纯？
没关系，我们还有“人均”这一法宝呢
lightsun7 发表于 2013-10-12 12:43
GDP成长一定会有迹象，不看GDP数据，注意一下中国10-20年的变化就知进歩很大。看美国、欧洲10-20年的变化， ...
之前偶尔回顾《北京人在纽约》，这纽约市曼哈顿街景20年来就没有变化啊？！
GDP成长一定会有迹象，不看GDP数据，注意一下中国10-20年的变化就知进歩很大。看美国、欧洲10-20年的变化， ...
之前偶尔回顾《北京人在纽约》，这纽约市曼哈顿街景20年来就没有变化啊？！
我们是发展中国家
我也觉得TG的鸡的屁有虚假成分，因为很多规模以下的企业、工商业、服务业都没有统计，研发投入也没有计入。
以后经济学界衡量关键指标应该是人均航母拥有量,这样大概中国永远就超不过美国了.
那么世界上大部分国家经济为零，牛牛会排第一，阿三将名列前茅
那么世界上大部分国家经济为零，牛牛会排第一，阿三将名列前茅
战忽局今年的年终奖又没了
这活应该是平副局的事情
这活应该是平副局的事情
这帮子人的素质太高了，希望普通美国人没这水平，不然真的要悲剧。
中国不受统计的地下经济太庞大了~~stop 发表于 2013-10-13 21:19
那么世界上大部分国家经济为零，牛牛会排第一，阿三将名列前茅
你这个排名我觉得不错.
第一, 牛牛终于又是日不落帝国了....
第二, 三哥终于欢呼我们终于可以超过中国了...
第三, 美国国会宣布增造十艘航空母舰,以实现人均航母第一优势地位.犹太人开怀的笑了..
第四, 中国人会找犹太人说,要不我给你代工吧,只要三分之一价.........
那么世界上大部分国家经济为零，牛牛会排第一，阿三将名列前茅
你这个排名我觉得不错.
第一, 牛牛终于又是日不落帝国了....
第二, 三哥终于欢呼我们终于可以超过中国了...
第三, 美国国会宣布增造十艘航空母舰,以实现人均航母第一优势地位.犹太人开怀的笑了..
第四, 中国人会找犹太人说,要不我给你代工吧,只要三分之一价.........
超级小本营o 发表于 2013-10-12 21:14
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
贫困山区，物资匮乏。
首先说吃饱。油，盐，肉都是很难得到的。山区贫瘠，粮食产量也很低。守着山区，也没有工作可做。人们吃土豆，玉米，红薯之类能吃饱，但营养状况堪忧。
穿暖，基本上还是能够满足的，但不是通过所谓的淘宝。很多贫困地区，都有接受捐赠，或者大人的衣服孩子接着穿。衣服冷不死人。但是住房条件就非常差了。。。四面透风，漏雨的房子，在我看过的扶贫助学资料，和一些新闻报道里，这样的住房条件几乎占了20%。
这样的贫困山区人口，现在还是千万级别的。所以经济发展仍需努力。
吃不饱，穿不暖是扯大蛋了，除非他们是神经病。单位1人份:吃，真正家庭式节俭生活，每天消费10元，半斤猪 ...
贫困山区，物资匮乏。
首先说吃饱。油，盐，肉都是很难得到的。山区贫瘠，粮食产量也很低。守着山区，也没有工作可做。人们吃土豆，玉米，红薯之类能吃饱，但营养状况堪忧。
穿暖，基本上还是能够满足的，但不是通过所谓的淘宝。很多贫困地区，都有接受捐赠，或者大人的衣服孩子接着穿。衣服冷不死人。但是住房条件就非常差了。。。四面透风，漏雨的房子，在我看过的扶贫助学资料，和一些新闻报道里，这样的住房条件几乎占了20%。
这样的贫困山区人口，现在还是千万级别的。所以经济发展仍需努力。
youngeramanda 发表于 2013-10-13 15:28
半斤猪肉5块?10元一斤,那是全肥肉.
现在生猪出栏都快10块了?或者不止?算上运输,屠宰啥的.
上个月在青岛旅游看到过家乐福里面有10块一斤的猪肉，瘦多肥少。
我自己家由于老婆不吃肥的，炒菜从来都是买17块一斤的里脊肉，所以反而没关注过。
半斤猪肉5块?10元一斤,那是全肥肉.
现在生猪出栏都快10块了?或者不止?算上运输,屠宰啥的.
上个月在青岛旅游看到过家乐福里面有10块一斤的猪肉，瘦多肥少。
我自己家由于老婆不吃肥的，炒菜从来都是买17块一斤的里脊肉，所以反而没关注过。
men and women who leave their hometowns to work, illegally, in the cities.
很好。呵呵
很好。呵呵
firevitt 发表于 2013-10-14 11:08
贫困山区，物资匮乏。
首先说吃饱。油，盐，肉都是很难得到的。山区贫瘠，粮食产量也很低。守着山区，也 ...
所以需要把这些人从山里迁移出来，那种地方除了少数别墅尝鲜，根本就不应该住人，非要去住，只能忍受了
贫困山区，物资匮乏。
首先说吃饱。油，盐，肉都是很难得到的。山区贫瘠，粮食产量也很低。守着山区，也 ...
所以需要把这些人从山里迁移出来，那种地方除了少数别墅尝鲜，根本就不应该住人，非要去住，只能忍受了