Basically, trade is not a concept of buying and selling goods.
The goods, like Hong Kong and Singapore, are not actually produced and consumed, they just go through it, or they are reborn as other goods and sent to other countries. In other words, it means that you can not simply look at the trade balance, and it is not just a statistics of things.
For example.
When I sold 10 iPhone units costing $ 187.5, the trade balance for the US iPhone would be $ 1,646. Clear trade deficit is obvious. If you look at the balance of payments statistics, the US has lost $ 1,646 to China, and China has to earn 1,646 months, but in reality China holds 10 handsets for $ 65. So who has the rest of the money?
As you know, Apple sells almost all of its real margins. I can mistake it as a trade dime that China is making. And the biggest beneficiary of iPhone sales is not China, but surprisingly third parties. Here, the contradiction is revealed.
South Korea, which has exported $ 800 worth of parts to the iPhone, is reportedly exported to China for trade balance statistics. Of course, the statistically obsessed people say, "Hey, you're exporting to China, do you live and eat?" But did the Chinese buy $ 800 worth of parts that went into the iPhone? Was it bought by American Apple?
Korean companies that exported iPhone parts to China exported them to China, but in fact they sold parts to Apple and received the money from Apple, an American company. In other words, trade is a record of what goods have come and gone, and only records the value of those goods. It is not a record of buying, selling, or paying for actual goods. It is simply the sound of mistaken statistics because China does not buy Korean goods for trade imports and exports.
Thus, the trade balance does not reflect the value of the final good that is actually sold to the market. China is making a huge trade surplus with the United States, but in fact, if you take away the illusion of that statistic, it means that China is not getting big gains. In fact, the disparity between the one-way trade balance and the value-added trade balance is more serious than you might think.
Unlike the misunderstanding that China makes trade surplus every year and that it buys Korean goods, the added value actually obtained through trade with China has once turned to a deficit. Compared to the size of trade, there is no added value. The reason is, as you know, China's role in the division of labor in the international economy is the final assembly.
In other words, leaving the greatest added value to the country while doing trade. In other words, the biggest thing to leave a business is to leave a business. It is to export end consumer goods manufactured in your country. The export of automobiles, mobile phones, TVs, etc., made in Korea, is an example. This means that the proportion of end-consumer goods exports, not intermediate goods or capital goods, can be a key criterion for determining the severity of the trade partners. This is why when you think about the iPhone, the United States has a huge profit, unlike some people mistaken. Nevertheless, the United States is trying to keep Apple in line with its production line. Did you explain it in front of you?
Even if you think about the case of the iPhone, you can see that the actual value added eventually derives from the advanced market. In other words, China is a market that goes by. Although China procures vast parts from Korea for iPhone assembly, the payment is actually given by a US company, not by China. The actual margin is also the same.
In fact, the share of consumer goods exports to China is not really as good as it is in public statistics. Less than 4%. The proportion of intermediate goods and capital goods is almost the same. In addition, 50% of the intermediate goods and capital goods are taken by a Korean corporation that has entered China, and more than 50% of the intermediary products produced by a Korean corporation in China is again used by Korean corporations in China. In other words, we can see that our reliance on China is much lower than we think, except for such and such imaginary.
Here is a graph related to China's trade exports.
Red is China's total exports, blue is foreign-capital exported enterprises. Green is the portion of foreign exports in China's total exports. Looking at 2010, we can see that foreign investors accounted for 67.9% of China's total exports. Considering that the economic role of China is the final assembly, if you export to China, you have a probability of about 60%, which means you are going to a foreign-invested company in China rather than China. So, do we have a high dependency on China? Is there a high dependency on foreign-invested companies in China?
Can we see it practically?
Korea's trade volume and growth rate. As you can see, it was big in 2009, and I can see that I'm taking my foot in the future.
35baae90455c8020ee70419e2778bd62_jgliPbgx7ngy34aHZ.jpg
China's GDP growth rate.
Now, let's look at these two statistics. China has grown at least 7% per year.
It was 8.7% in 2009 and 10% in 10 years. The total amount of trade in 2010 was only slightly higher than in 2008. That is to say, China's economic growth rate and its trade with China have not proven to be correlated.
In other words, the trade with China means that it is almost free from the downturn of Chinese domestic economy or Chinese economy.
In particular, the more China 's economy is dependent on trade, the worse Korea' s trade balance with China. In other words, the trade in China means there is no correlation with China's consumer market.
However, one can see that the one-to-one trade trend graph is in sync with the US-medium trade graph.
When China was hit by US exports, South Korea was also hit, and its movements are moving in line with China's export graph to the US. In other words, according to the logic of those who associate trade with "buying and selling goods", it means "if Korea sells a lot of goods to China, China has to sell a lot of goods to the United States".
So does South Korea depend on China? Do you rely on the United States?
Indeed, it is linked to that of the United States, is not it?
Today's economic news is that the Chinese market is not dead. In doing so, we are creating a sense of crisis. But all this seems like a wind. The fact that economic news was introduced a couple of years ago is a result of statistical and theoretical grounds for eating an ant waist and forcing the back of the common people.
Korea 's trade with China is not related to China' s GDP growth rate, but it 's a disgrace to see the economic news of the country where the GDP growth rate of China declines and the growth rate of Korea' s GDP is hit hard.
Trade balance statistics are merely mirrors that illuminate a section.
This statistic is by no means a projection of all the economic relations between one and the other. Rather, it is an imaginary statistic close to the shroud that covers the truth.
0 개의 댓글: