Chinese business assets grow to $3.9 trillion

[china]

Comments(0)

Print

Mail

Large Medium Small
Global Chinese business assets grew to $3.9 trillion in 2009, a 56 percent growth from 2008, and a slight 5 percent rise compared with $3.7 trillion in 2007, according to the 2009 World Chinese Entrepreneurs Development Plan released by the China News Agency special seminar group Thursday, the Xinhua news agency reported.
Of the $3.9 trillion assets, $3 trillion is from 335 large listed Chinese companies whose headquarters are away from the Chinese mainland, $750 billion is from Asia-based big private companies and small and medium-sized ones, and the other $160 billion assets are from non-Asia areas.
Assets bubble, depreciation of the US dollar and China's economic recovery are the three key reasons behind the global Chinese business development in 2009, the report said.
Chinese enterprises, especially the big state-run listed corporations, will exert more influence on global Chinese entrepreneurs' development, according to the report.
However, despite the growth of total assets volume among global Chinese entrepreneurs, the profits shrank dramatically compared with before the world financial crisis, the report said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Ill stay here a bit longer.

 

[darkbeaver]

Hello China, if I were you I would get out today. You are not too old to be conscripted into the Chinese army. China has to create a market to consume it's industrial capacity. The initial standard imperial methods to accomplish this are expansion and war. There's nothing like destruction and death to spur economic growth and development. The west will construct a fire break of sorts as soon as the seed assets are secured. It looks to me like the bickering and back stabbing by the gentility has begun, they'll do anything to anyone to get a seat on a flight out of Stalingrad.

 

[Bar Sinister]

There's nothing like destruction and death to spur economic growth and development.

Really DB? I assume your post was in jest. World War II resulted in economic stagnation for both the "winners" and the losers, with the exception of the US and Canada. It took Japan and Germany a decade to recover, and it took longer than that for Britain, France, and Italy. Both China and the USSR suffered devastating losses as well. It is no accident that the greatest period of growth in European history took place in the last fifty years in which no wars were fought. The numbers are similar for Japan and China. War only results in benefits if it is a war of conquest and the conquerer plunders the loser. Unfortunately, the loser gains nothing.

 

[china]

To all the above .........................
I,m here to make money and love -not war so no army for this ex-pat ........

 

[darkbeaver]

Really DB? I assume your post was in jest. World War II resulted in economic stagnation for both the "winners" and the losers, with the exception of the US and Canada. It took Japan and Germany a decade to recover, and it took longer than that for Britain, France, and Italy. Both China and the USSR suffered devastating losses as well. It is no accident that the greatest period of growth in European history took place in the last fifty years in which no wars were fought. The numbers are similar for Japan and China. War only results in benefits if it is a war of conquest and the conquerer plunders the loser. Unfortunately, the loser gains nothing.

War is the economy of the planet. The last fifty years of growth you mention was a direct result of the second world war. In those same fifty years there was no cessation of war and if we think about it a bit we can with ease remember the millions killed in those wars, Korea and Vietnam would be two that come to mind, non stop carnage in Africa the slaughters of south and central America and on and on no cessation of war not even for one second. That may be hard to understand without you realize what the hidden hand of the markets really is. The bankers have not lost a war for five thousand years, conflict destruction and murder are the economic levers most favoured by the planets ruling elite. War has never been the simple affairs taught to the general public, ever.
David Astle (1916 - 2008) The Babylonian Woe Babiloni tok

The Babylonian Woe by David Astle e-book and it's free. A good primer to the history of war.

 

[Bar Sinister]

War is the economy of the planet. The last fifty years of growth you mention was a direct result of the second world war. In those same fifty years there was no cessation of war and if we think about it a bit we can with ease remember the millions killed in those wars, Korea and Vietnam would be two that come to mind, non stop carnage in Africa the slaughters of south and central America and on and on no cessation of war not even for one second. That may be hard to understand without you realize what the hidden hand of the markets really is. The bankers have not lost a war for five thousand years, conflict destruction and murder are the economic levers most favoured by the planets ruling elite. War has never been the simple affairs taught to the general public, ever.
David Astle (1916 - 2008) The Babylonian Woe Babiloni tok

The Babylonian Woe by David Astle e-book and it's free. A good primer to the history of war.

The fact that wars exist and have existed does not mean that they contribute to economic growth. As I mentioned before war only helps the economy if a nation conquers and plunders another nation. Unfortunately, it is a one way street as the economy of the conquered state is devastated. There are hundreds of examples of how wars have crippled economic growth, but I will list just a few.

World War I so weakened the economies of Western Europe that one of the results was the Great Depression.

It is no accident that one of the greatest periods of economic growth in European history was the 19th century, a time period that was relatively free of war.

The rise of Britain during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries occurred largely because Britain was not subjected to foreign invasion.

The US Civil war so devastated the Confederate states that it took some of them a hundred years to recover.

The Pax Romana of the Roman Empire was the greatest period of the empire's economic growth.

I could list many more, but this small sample will suffice for now. Perhaps you could give me an example of economic growth stimulated by war. I can't think of any except wars of conquest or those instances where one nation got rich supplying the materials of war to another.

Economic growth that occurs during times of strife is severely limited and what growth occurs happens in spite of the war rather than from it.

BTW the Babylonian Woe has very little to do with the history of war. It is a history of money, the use of which became more widespread during times of peace.
If you really want to good basic history of warfare try reading Archer Jones' The Art of War in the Western World.It is one of the best primers on military strategy and tactics I have ever read. It has little to say about the economic value of war, however, probably because there aren't any.

 

[VanIsle]

Comments(0)

Print

Mail

Large Medium Small
Global Chinese business assets grew to $3.9 trillion in 2009, a 56 percent growth from 2008, and a slight 5 percent rise compared with $3.7 trillion in 2007, according to the 2009 World Chinese Entrepreneurs Development Plan released by the China News Agency special seminar group Thursday, the Xinhua news agency reported.
Of the $3.9 trillion assets, $3 trillion is from 335 large listed Chinese companies whose headquarters are away from the Chinese mainland, $750 billion is from Asia-based big private companies and small and medium-sized ones, and the other $160 billion assets are from non-Asia areas.
Assets bubble, depreciation of the US dollar and China's economic recovery are the three key reasons behind the global Chinese business development in 2009, the report said.
Chinese enterprises, especially the big state-run listed corporations, will exert more influence on global Chinese entrepreneurs' development, according to the report.
However, despite the growth of total assets volume among global Chinese entrepreneurs, the profits shrank dramatically compared with before the world financial crisis, the report said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Ill stay here a bit longer.

Stay where? You were living in China, moved to Australia, said you were coming home to Canada but indicate you are back in China!!!!

 

[china]

In China.

 

[darkbeaver]

the fact that wars exist and have existed does not mean that they contribute to economic growth. As i mentioned before war only helps the economy if a nation conquers and plunders another nation. Unfortunately, it is a one way street as the economy of the conquered state is devastated. There are hundreds of examples of how wars have crippled economic growth, but i will list just a few.

it is a well known fact that war is the governing economy of earth, surely you must realize that carrier strike forces and fleets of military aircraft actually are political and economic insturments. Certainly at the ordinary citizens level war would seem to be a waste of men and material but that is not by any means the complete picture all of that waste(supply constriction) promotes further production and its ensuing wealth flow. There is the economy of the little man and that of the international bankers, don't confuse the interests, they are definitely not playing the same game.

world war i so weakened the economies of western europe that one of the results was the great depression.

no it wasn't a result of war. The most profitable result of the first world war was the second world war.

it is no accident that one of the greatest periods of economic growth in european history was the 19th century, a time period that was relatively free of war.

you'll have to stop thinking in european terms, arms manufacture and sales during the 19th century expanded exponentialy. This was the age of rabid colonialism during which millions died as a result of war.

the rise of britain during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries occurred largely because britain was not subjected to foreign invasion.

its rise is directly proportionate to its fleets and its cannons.

the us civil war so devastated the confederate states that it took some of them a hundred years to recover.

the bankers who fomented it did very well, economically.

the pax romana of the roman empire was the greatest period of the empire's economic growth.

not a period remarkable for its lack of war, by all available means, including political and economic.

i could list many more, but this small sample will suffice for now. Perhaps you could give me an example of economic growth stimulated by war. I can't think of any except wars of conquest or those instances where one nation got rich supplying the materials of war to another.

the british empire, the american empire, the examples number in the thousands. Nations have been pawns of the gold trade for thousands of years. The second world war spurred vast reconstruction projects as well as thousands of technological breakthroughs which spurred further economic developements


btw the babylonian woe has very little to do with the history of war. It is a history of money, the use of which became more widespread during times of peace.
If you really want to good basic history of warfare try reading archer jones' the art of war in the western world.it is one of the best primers on military strategy and tactics i have ever read. It has little to say about the economic value of war, however, probably because there aren't any.

the babylonian woe specifically deals with warfare and money so i don't know how you could possibly make that statement with a straight face. I think you have too narrow criteria regarding what war actually is, there are many ways to starve and impoverish and conquer besides uniformed combat troops invading some land.

"clausewitz had many aphorisms, of which the most famous is, "war is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means," a working definition of war which has won wide acceptance. War has never been confined to military tactics. I will check out the title, thankyou. The economic value of war is not taught for a very good reason, the game would be over if it was."

12345

 

[Bar Sinister]

Quote:

Quoting bar sinister

Quote:the fact that wars exist and have existed does not mean that they contribute to economic growth. As i mentioned before war only helps the economy if a nation conquers and plunders another nation. Unfortunately, it is a one way street as the economy of the conquered state is devastated. There are hundreds of examples of how wars have crippled economic growth, but i will list just a few.
​

it is a well known fact that war is the governing economy of earth, surely you must realize that carrier strike forces and fleets of military aircraft actually are political and economic insturments. Certainly at the ordinary citizens level war would seem to be a waste of men and material but that is not by any means the complete picture all of that waste(supply constriction) promotes further production and its ensuing wealth flow. There is the economy of the little man and that of the international bankers, don't confuse the interests, they are definitely not playing the same game.

Quote:world war i so weakened the economies of western europe that one of the results was the great depression.
​

no it wasn't a result of war. The most profitable result of the first world war was the second world war.
Quote:it is no accident that one of the greatest periods of economic growth in european history was the 19th century, a time period that was relatively free of war.
you'll have to stop thinking in european terms, arms manufacture and sales during the 19th century expanded exponentialy. This was the age of rabid colonialism during which millions died as a result of war.

Quote:the rise of britain during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries occurred largely because britain was not subjected to foreign invasion.
​

its rise is directly proportionate to its fleets and its cannons.

Quote:the us civil war so devastated the confederate states that it took some of them a hundred years to recover.
​

the bankers who fomented it did very well, economically.

Quote:the pax romana of the roman empire was the greatest period of the empire's economic growth.
​

not a period remarkable for its lack of war, by all available means, including political and economic.

Quote:i could list many more, but this small sample will suffice for now. Perhaps you could give me an example of economic growth stimulated by war. I can't think of any except wars of conquest or those instances where one nation got rich supplying the materials of war to another.
​

the british empire, the american empire, the examples number in the thousands. Nations have been pawns of the gold trade for thousands of years. The second world war spurred vast reconstruction projects as well as thousands of technological breakthroughs which spurred further economic developements


btw the babylonian woe has very little to do with the history of war. It is a history of money, the use of which became more widespread during times of peace.
If you really want to good basic history of warfare try reading archer jones' the art of war in the western world.it is one of the best primers on military strategy and tactics i have ever read. It has little to say about the economic value of war, however, probably because there aren't any.
​

the babylonian woe specifically deals with warfare and money so i don't know how you could possibly make that statement with a straight face. I think you have too narrow criteria regarding what war actually is, there are many ways to starve and impoverish and conquer besides uniformed combat troops invading some land.

"clausewitz had many aphorisms, of which the most famous is, "war is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means," a working definition of war which has won wide acceptance. War has never been confined to military tactics. I will check out the title, thankyou. The economic value of war is not taught for a very good reason, the game would be over if it was."

​

12345QUOTE]

12345[/
it is a well known fact that war is the governing economy of earth, surely you must realize that carrier strike forces and fleets of military aircraft actually are political and economic insturments. Certainly at the ordinary citizens level war would seem to be a waste of men and material but that is not by any means the complete picture all of that waste(supply constriction) promotes further production and its ensuing wealth flow. There is the economy of the little man and that of the international bankers, don't confuse the interests, they are definitely not playing the same game.

Sorry. This part of your post is so confusing I just don't understand it. Are you trying to tell me that spending money on armaments is a way of making money? If so it only works for those supplying armaments and no one else.

no it wasn't a result of war. The most profitable result of the first world war was the second world war.

You are wrong. Germany's economy was devastated by World War I and Britain, France, and Italy were left deeply in debt. When the Great Depression began these nations did not have the financial resiliency to fight off the effects of the depression and were pulled in as well.

you'll have to stop thinking in european terms, arms manufacture and sales during the 19th century expanded exponentialy. This was the age of rabid colonialism during which millions died as a result of war.

Alright. How about if I speak in Chinese terms and point out that the greatest periods of prosperity in China were periods where the country was free from war? I can also use the USA as an example - the US Civil War crushed the economy of the South and left it so mangled that many southern states did not recover until the 1960s. The Northern states, which were relatively untouched by the war recovered much more quickly and the 60 years of peace following the war resulted in tremendous economic growth.

I can use examples from almost any historical period showing a direct connection between peace and prosperity, as well as a direct decline in prosperity during times of war. I asked you if you could supply me with any examples showing that a time of continual warfare led to increased prosperity for the combatants. You have not done that.

its rise is directly proportionate to its fleets and its cannons

Britain's rise during that time period was due to a number of factors. First of all it was not subject to foreign invasion during that time leaving it able to develop in an atmosphere of peace. Second, it used the many wars in Europe to supply the combatants with the materials of war. As a result it was able to prosper from the stupidly of its more warlike neighbours. You might note that during the same time period nations that were continually at war such as the Netherlands and France were severely damaged by war. The Dutch, forced to spend hugely to stave off foreign invasion were forced to spend huge amounts of their wealth to survive. As a result the Netherlands experienced both economic and political decline. France was pushed to the edge of bankruptcy due to its warlike policies, something that eventually culminated in the French Revolution.

the bankers who fomented it did very well, economically.

Bankers? Please stick to historical truths, not some nonsensical conspiracy theory.

not a period remarkable for its lack of war, by all available means, including political and economic.

As I pointed out in an earlier post - it is possible to profit from war if the invader plunders the conquered nation. Rome was very good at that. But what you have chosen to ignore is that for about 400 years much of the empire was able to develop in peace, protected by the empire's armies. So far as these areas of the empire were concerned it was a time of peace not war.

the british empire, the american empire, the examples number in the thousands. Nations have been pawns of the gold trade for thousands of years. The second world war spurred vast reconstruction projects as well as thousands of technological breakthroughs which spurred further economic developements

There is no reason to believe that technological breakthroughs cannot be made during times of peace. As a matter of fact there is little difficulty in showing thousands of inventions that have had no connection to war such as the steam engine, internal combustion engine, radio, and film, just to mention a few.

the babylonian woe specifically deals with warfare and money so i don't know how you could possibly make that statement with a straight face. I think you have too narrow criteria regarding what war actually is, there are many ways to starve and impoverish and conquer besides uniformed combat troops invading some land.

"clausewitz had many aphorisms, of which the most famous is, "war is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means," a working definition of war which has won wide acceptance. War has never been confined to military tactics. I will check out the title, thankyou. The economic value of war is not taught for a very good reason, the game would be over if it was."

Sorry about that. I was using your definition of war - namely military conquest to answer your post. I note that you attempted to use that definition of war in your answer to my post. If you are speaking of economic war that is a different matter. My question is why did you not clarify the point immediately instead of trying to prove that wars of military aggression result in economic growth?

Just to refresh your memory here is your original post.

Hello China, if I were you I would get out today. You are not too old to be conscripted into the Chinese army. China has to create a market to consume it's industrial capacity. The initial standard imperial methods to accomplish this are expansion and war. There's nothing like destruction and death to spur economic growth and development. The west will construct a fire break of sorts as soon as the seed assets are secured. It looks to me like the bickering and back stabbing by the gentility has begun, they'll do anything to anyone to get a seat on a flight out of Stalingrad.

Let me see. I guess the words "expansion and war," and "destruction and death" threw me off.

It appears to me that you are really clutching at straws to defend your original statement. Oh yes, I am still waiting for some historical proof other than a history of banking and commerce to defend your point of view.

Just for the heck of it I have included the title page of the Babylonian Woe. It seems to me that the author thought he was writing an economic treatise. Perhaps you should try reading it again.

The Babylonian Woe
by David Astle
A Study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices,and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the present Day.

 

[petros]

There are Chinese buffets on every second corner not to feed the gwai lo, oh no. You wait, riding the bus will never be the same.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Really DB? I assume your post was in jest. World War II resulted in economic stagnation for both the "winners" and the losers, with the exception of the US and Canada. It took Japan and Germany a decade to recover, and it took longer than that for Britain, France, and Italy. Both China and the USSR suffered devastating losses as well. It is no accident that the greatest period of growth in European history took place in the last fifty years in which no wars were fought. The numbers are similar for Japan and China. War only results in benefits if it is a war of conquest and the conquerer plunders the loser. Unfortunately, the loser gains nothing.

Despite its problems, peace is now much more profitable than war. Plus thousands and millions don't die in the process.

People who say war is good for the economy are Dick Cheney type cowards who did not go to Vietnam when they had the chance. Bush, Gore, Clinton, Cheney and most of the US Senate know it is better to send some other dumb bastard to die for your country than to die yourself. To poorly quote from the movie Patten.

I would pick up a rigle to defend Canada in Canada. But not in an Asiatic country that cares nothing for us.