[spanalot]

“China’s rapid growth isn’t hugely dependent on exports”

Propaganda alert!

China is the second largest exporter in the world having just surpassed the US (Germany is number 1)

[charles m]

I didn’t know the conservative Economist was propaganda. The Economist has always sided with caution and away from exaggeration.

[1rudeboy]

Rather comprehensive “propaganda,” that includes a discussion of all the assumptions being made. Or is everything with which you disagree “propaganda?”

[Red6]

LOL- BS.

[mbraynard]

Why yes, your compelling and expert pajama analysis completely blows away the analysis of an international bank (UBS's) highly trained Harvard PhD economist. Please put me on your ping list so that I may be alerted to all of your future brilliant insights.

That was sarcasm.

Anderson's analysis makes complete sense. Given a massive and poor population, China could arguably double it's economic growth by giving ever peasant a bicycle and an umbrella.

[Thud]

This looks mighty like a "Pay attention to me!" accounting gimmick by Mr. Anderson.

Note that China's GDP was recently adjusted way, way down for purchasing power parity (ours was too, but not anyway near so much proportionately).

I.e., we just had the baseline of China's GDP for comparison to exports go way, way down. If exports are not adjusted (for purposes of example), the proportion of China's GDP due to exports would be significantly higher.

I have no problem with a re-examination of export volume to go with the PPP adjustment to GDP, but this one smells.