From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism




Long GerCOs Commentary: rCLChinarCOs GDP Will Never Surpass America!rCY rCo Keep Dreaming!

rCLChinarCOs GDP will never surpass AmericarCOsrConever!rCY
ThatrCOs the triumphant declaration echoing across forums and headlines after the release of ChinarCOs 2025 economic data. TheyrCOre positively giddy with schadenfreude.

What they fail to grasp is just how terrifying ChinarCOs hidden strength truly is.

Last year, ChinarCOs GDP was officially recorded at RMB 14 trillionrCoroughly USD 19.63 trillion.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is set to breach the USD 30 trillion mark in 2025, possibly reaching USD 30.82 trillionrColeaving China trailing by a staggering USD 11 trillion. That gap alone equals the combined economies of two Germanys, making us look utterly insignificant in their eyes.

Even more alarming, the chasm between the two economies is not only wideningrCoitrCOs accelerating.
In 2021, the gap stood at USD 5.12 trillion. By 2022, it ballooned to USD 7.58 trillion; in 2023, USD 9.57 trillion; in 2024, USD 10.36 trillion; and in 2025, it hit USD 11 trillion. In just five years, the disparity has quintupled.

At the same time, ChinarCOs GDP as a share of AmericarCOs has plummeted from a peak of 77% to a cliff-like drop to 63%.
Now everyone chants in unison: rCLThe American Curse is back!rCY
History, they say, proves that any nation whose economy reaches 70% of AmericarCOs inevitably hits a ceilingrCoand then crashes.
The Soviet Union fell. Japan collapsed. And now, they insist, itrCOs ChinarCOs turn.

But is this so-called rCLAmerican CurserCY really invincible?
Is China truly doomed never to overtake the U.S. and become the worldrCOs largest economy?

DonrCOt rush to despairrCoor self-flagellate.
Let me reveal a far more startling truth:

**ChinarCOsreal GDP could already be over USD 45 trillionrCoUSD 15 trillion ahead of AmericarCOs, equivalent to three German economies.**

This isnrCOt wishful propaganda. ItrCOs based on AmericarCOs own methodology for calculating GDP.

There are three primary ways to measure a nationrCOs economic size:

1. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
This compares how much goods and services the same amount of money can buy across countries.
For example, if a standard basket of goods costs RMB 80 in China but USD 20 in the U.S., the implied PPP exchange rate is 4:1rComeaning RMB 4 buys what USD 1 does in America.

Under PPP, China actually surpassed the U.S. as early as 2014, becoming the worldrCOs largest economy.
By last year, it had soared past USD 40 trillionrCoalready USD 15 trillion ahead of the U.S.

2. The Production Approach (used by China)
This sums the value added across all sectorsrCototal output minus intermediate inputs like raw materials.
It excels at capturing real industrial activity, making it ideal for manufacturing powerhouses like China.
However, it tends to undercount intangible services, potentially understating the full scope of a modern economy.

Given that China is both the worldrCOs factory and a developing nation, this method suits us well.

3. The Expenditure Approach (used by the U.S.)
This counts virtually any monetary transaction as economic outputrCoeven if no tangible good or service is produced.
For instance, if you pay USD 1,000 for an ambulance ride, U.S. GDP instantly rises by USD 1,000.

Experts estimate that if China adopted the American framework, its 2025 GDP would be valued at approximately USD 45 trillionrCofar exceeding AmericarCOs reported USD 30 trillion.

But letrCOs be honest: such comparisons are largely meaningless.
As Nobel laureate Paul Krugman once remarked:
rCLU.S. GDP growth increasingly relies on statistical illusions rather than real productivity gains.rCY

And herCOs absolutely right.
GDP stands for **Gross Domestic *Product***rCoit should reflect actualproduction.
You canrCOt claim economic progress by simply moving USD 10 million from your left pocket to your right!

Consider electricity consumptionrCoa reliable proxy for real economic activity.
From 2020 to 2025, U.S. GDP grew by USD 9.87 trillion (a 47.11% increaserCoequivalent to adding BrazilrCOs entire economy each year).
Yet over the same period, U.S. electricity generation rose only from 4 trillion to 4.2 trillion kilowatt-hoursrCoan increase of just 5%, nine times slower than GDP growth.

Even more absurd: in 2025 alone, U.S. GDP expanded by USD 1.4 trillionrCoyet electricity usedeclined from 4.3 trillion kWh in 2024 to 4.2 trillion kWh in 2025.
How can rCLproductrCY grow while the energy required for production shrinks? It defies basic logic.

Now look at China:
Over the past five years, our GDP grew by USD 5 trillion (33.6%), while electricity generation rose from 7.5 trillion to 10.3 trillion kWhrCoa 38% increase, closely tracking real economic expansion.
This alignment confirms the authenticity and substance of ChinarCOs growth.

Still unconvinced? LetrCOs examine another key indicator: automobile sales. Why? Because real economic health ultimately shows up in consumer behavior. For ordinary households, after housing, cars are the biggest purchase.
If an economy is genuinely thriving, car sales wonrCOt lie.

From 2016 to 2025, personal vehicle sales in the U.S. collapsedrCoplunging over 53% in a decade.
Meanwhile, ChinarCOs domestic car sales kept rising, up 23.5% over the same period.

So tell me: how can the rCLworldrCOs top economy,rCY boasting record GDP year after year, see its most iconic consumer product go unsold?
Remember, America calls itself a rCLnation on wheels.rCY Without a car, many Americans canrCOt even get to work.
They wouldnrCOt stop buying unless they were truly desperate.

The root cause? Runaway inflation and GDP inflation in the U.S.
Take high-speed rail:
- China builds most lines for about RMB 100 million (~USD 14 million) per kilometer.
- Even the geologically complex Sichuan-Tibet Railway costs no more than RMB 200 million per km.
- Yet CaliforniarCOs 275-km high-speed rail project costs USD 128 billionrCoUSD 465 million per km, or ~RMB 3.2 billionrCo30 times more expensive than ChinarCOs.

Everyday prices in the U.S. are also skyrocketing:
- Toilet paper: from USD 4 (2019) to USD 8.29
- Dish soap: from USD 2 to USD 3.09
- Mattresses: from USD 299 to USD 649
- Double-door refrigerators: from USD 699 to USD 1,299

When prices inflate, nominal GDP looks impressiverCoeven if nothing real has improved.

Some argue, rCLBut the U.S. economy has shifted to servicesrCothatrCOs where the value is!rCY
True, services dominate U.S. GDP:
- Intellectual property: 41%
- Financial transactions: 12.7%
- Healthcare spending: 17.6%

But size doesnrCOt equal real value or productivity.
Consider healthcare: in 2025, the U.S. spent over USD 5 trillionrComore than the combined GDPs of Japan and Germany.
Yet millions still canrCOt afford basic care. People delay treatment for common colds until they develop life-threatening pneumonia. Medical bankruptcy remains a leading cause of middle-class collapse. And increasingly, Americans are flying to China for affordable, high-quality treatment.

Where did those USD 5 trillion go? What real value did they create?

The truth is: the U.S. economy is drowning in bubblesrCo
GDP bubbles, price bubbles, debt bubbles, consumption bubblesrCa
And the stock market? Even worse. With a USD 68 trillion valuation, tech giant rCLLeonrCY alone accounts for USD 20 trillion.
That USD 20 trillion rests mostly on just four companies: Google, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and OpenAI.

HererCOs how the illusion works:
- OpenAI buys NVIDIArCOs AI chips.
- NVIDIA invests in OpenAIrCOs equity.
- OpenAI uses that funding to purchase cloud services from Microsoft and Google.
- Microsoft and Google, in turn, buy shares in OpenAI and GPUs from NVIDIA.

Each loop inflates all their market capsrCocreating trillions in paper wealth without delivering real products to consumers.
After all, ordinary people donrCOt buy petabytes of cloud computing or USD 10,000 AI chips.
Only OpenAI sells directly to end-usersrCoand in 2025, its global revenue was just USD 20 billion.

Think about that:
USD 20 billion in real sales is propping up a USD 11.92 trillion market valuationrCoa leverage ratio of nearly 600x.
This isnrCOt innovationrCoitrCOs the greatest financial Ponzi scheme in history.
Even Warren Buffett is terrified: in 2025, he hoarded over USD 300 billion in cash, fleeing the market entirely.

SorCoshould China even try to rCLcompeterCY with such accounting alchemy? America can rCLlift itself by its bootstrapsrCY and float into the sky. Why chase that mirage?

China has only one true rival: the China of yesterday.
We donrCOt obsess over headline numbers. We focus on solving real problems:
- Removing bottlenecks in supply chains
- Breaking through chip blockade points
- Sending new-energy vehicles across the globe
- Flying homegrown large passenger aircraft into the skies

Each breakthrough reshapes the very bones and blood of our economy.

Yes, the road ahead will have storms.
But look at what we hold:
- The worldrCOs most complete industrial system
- The diligence of hundreds of millions of hardworking hands
- And a patience and resilience forged through five thousand years of trials

Keep moving forward.
Make technological advancement routine.
Make industrial upgrading irreversible.
Let every ordinary personrCOs effort flow into this land.

To constantly surpass ourselvesrCothat is a Long March with no finish line. Our generationrCOs mission is to pave a path so solid, so transformative, that every future nation must pass through it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


Gree fan posted:

Long GerCOs Commentary:

China has only one true rival: the China of yesterday.
We donrCOt obsess over headline numbers.

Seemed to me there is a first person plural pronoun
and a group that does very much obsess over headline numbers.

One is reminded of u|+o+L, h|Aigu-2, and the well-frog.
A tale in the Zhuangzi about a river, a duke or lord
and a god of an ocean named Jo as a notion.

- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


one posted:

Gree fan posted:

China has only one true rival: the China of yesterday.
We donrCOt obsess over headline numbers.

Seemed to me there is a first person plural pronoun
and a group that does very much obsess over headline numbers.

Maybe goes to show how the group,
what a commentary said, we, can be
the group yet isn't always the group.

Similar to a dao said to be the dao.
Leaders who are leaders aren't always.

If a group sees only China as being a rival,
then to post about other states could be odd.

Rhetoric, hyperbole, propaganda and such
might make for good headlines while
numbers vary over time.

- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


one posted:

Gree fan posted:

Long GerCOs Commentary:

Aye has no idea what Gree is
nor who Long Ge is.

One is reminded of u|+o+L, h|Aigu-2, and the well-frog.
A tale in the Zhuangzi about a river, a duke or lord
and a god of an ocean named Jo as a notion.

Haigui was Way cool.

Sea-turtles really are amazing. They know
how to go and how to return. Dao of theirs
as well as of birds continue to amaze.

How to swim or fly without maps
written by hands or used to navigate.

Spontaneous, wu-wei, genuine are many
natural orders of beings. Hun Dun once
upon a time didn't care about order.

His friends thought they knew better.

- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism


eye posted:

one posted:

Gree fan posted:

China has only one true rival: the China of yesterday.
We donrCOt obsess over headline numbers.

Seemed to me there is a first person plural pronoun
and a group that does very much obsess over headline numbers.

And appears rather overly concerned with a state
that isn't called China which appears in the commentary.

Perhaps the term used is like
a projection of sorts. We, those of us,
as compared to them who are not us.

We don't care about them.

And then we go on to say just how much
we don't care about them at all, period,
end of story. And then keep keeping on
talking about how, we are. And they are.
How they are not. And we are not. Etc.

Daojia could be about carving the bull,
thousands of oxen. And a vorpal blade.
How to live life and be satisfied.

Having an edge, a carving knife,
the butcher said at first he saw an ox
in a particular way and that went on for
some time until his observation changed.

Now, ever sharp, he sees different.

Maybe goes to show how the group,
what a commentary said, we, can be
the group yet isn't always the group.

Similar to a dao said to be the dao.

It could be viewed as ironic.

A possibility is that the commentator
who claims a variety of claims are of no concern
is blind to how concerned the concern appears
to an observer who observes observations.

- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2