According to the news released by the World Bank, the per capita GDP of the United States in 20 13 years is 5 1248 dollars, and that of China is 6,629 dollars. 20 14 The per capita income of the United States is 430 17 dollars, and that of China is 7476 dollars.
As can be seen from the above two sets of figures, the current economic level gap between China and the United States is undoubtedly huge.
However, the gap between China and the United States is not only reflected in the statistics of the World Bank, but also in the gold content of GDP. Since the rapid economic growth in China in the early 1980s, due to the fact that the real market economy system is far from being formed, the main feature of the national economic structure is "three more and one less". First, there are too many large state-owned enterprises that monopolize national resources and energy and rely on government policy protection and financial subsidies. Second, there are too many technology "clone" enterprises, low-level repeated construction, weak competitiveness in the international market and low added value of products; Third, there are too many joint ventures, relying entirely on foreign core technologies and basically staying at the level of processing materials. What is "one less"? That is, there are too few large companies with high-tech content, upstream of the global industrial chain, strong competitiveness and strong risk resistance.
This "three more and one less" has led to extensive development and extensive growth of the national economy. Although GDP has soared for more than 30 years, the gold content has been very low.
Looking at the present situation of China's national economy and the gold content of GDP from the present situation of China's manufacturing industry: manufacturing industry has always been the pillar industry of big country's economy. However, the long-term low-level repeated construction has made the added value of our products very low, and too many enterprises can only survive by "cloning" other people's products, selling them cheaply and vicious competition; There are too many joint ventures that completely rely on foreign core technologies and basically stay at the level of processing materials. Because of this, China's manufacturing industry has been in a state of low profit or even loss for a long time. For example, in 20 14, 260 manufacturing enterprises ranked among the top 500 Chinese enterprises, with a total operating income of 23 trillion yuan, but a total net profit of only 462.3 billion yuan.
What is the concept of the annual net profit of 260 large manufacturing enterprises totaling 462.3 billion yuan? Answer: It is only better than the annual profit of13 of seven state-owned banks in China. In the same year, the total operating income of 17 state-owned banks nationwide was 552 billion yuan, but the net profit was as high as123 billion yuan!
The manufacturing technology level is seriously backward (not to mention the management level), which leads China to lag far behind not only the United States, Japan and many western countries, but also South Korea in high-tech digital electronic products and internationally renowned brands with extremely high profits. As a result, a situation that has been painful for countless people for a long time can't be changed: China's high-end electronics, computers and digital products market is almost completely monopolized by the United States, Japan, Europe and South Korea. White money is rolling into the pockets of the world's technological powers.
A CPPCC member used the word "bloody" to describe the manufacturing phenomenon in China: "Most domestic brands of home appliances in China are foreign. Automobile, computer and other industries are generally regarded as high profits, and almost all of them face bloody technological exploitation abroad. China enterprises consume a lot of energy with the cheapest labor in the world, and suffer huge pollution. Foreigners who master the core technology can take away more than half of the hard-earned money of China enterprises by signing a paper technology contract! "
"Bloody foreign technological exploitation" is no exaggeration. As early as a decade or two ago, many economists were saddened by these phenomena: China exported a domestic MP3 of $79, while foreign countries took away the patent fee of $45, the manufacturing cost was $32.5, and the net profit of China enterprises was only $ 1.5; The price of a DVD exported from China is $32, while the patent fee paid to foreigners is 18, and the cost is 13. Enterprises in China can only earn a profit of 1 USD. ...
Take the automobile manufacturing industry as an example. Although China is the largest automobile manufacturer in the world at present, it is still in the assembly stage ―― the goods are made in China, while the "cores" are Japanese cores, German cores and American cores, so it is natural that the big profits will be taken away!
To say that the gold content of China's GDP has been at a very low level does not mean that there are no profitable enterprises and companies in China. As we all know: China real estate is the most profitable in the world; The major state-owned banks in China are also the most profitable in the same industry in the world ―― in 2065438+04, seven enterprises in China ranked among the Fortune 500, among which six were China Industrial and Commercial Bank (6.360, -0. 10,? -1.55%), China Construction Bank (7.9 10,? -0. 15,? -1.86%), Bank of China (4. 130, -0.04, -0.96%), Agricultural Bank of China (4.070, -0.06,? -1.45%), China Development Bank, Bank of Communications (6.380, -0.06,? -0.93%) (the other is PetroChina). In addition, large state-owned enterprises such as China State Grid, China Mobile and China Telecom are also very profitable.
This is precisely the crux of the problem: with the increasing degree of global economic integration and the economic and trade war becoming a world war without time limit, the competition between countries has largely become a dispute between multinational companies. Therefore, whether a country can win in the fierce international market competition and how many multinational companies have strong comprehensive strength, live in the upstream of the global industrial chain and have strong anti-risk ability are crucial factors. However, among the 9 1 Chinese mainland enterprises that have been ranked in the Fortune Global 500 this year, the vast majority rely on monopoly resources, energy and prices. State-owned enterprises (including 47 state-owned enterprises supervised by SASAC and 37 local state-owned enterprises) have little international competitiveness, and only seven truly represent the vitality of a country's national economy. There are very few truly world-famous multinational companies and brands! If you insist, Huawei and Lenovo can barely make up the number.
On the other hand, the United States: Although its economic growth has been very low, due to a highly mature and sound market economic system and legal environment, the industrial structure of the national economy is reasonable and intensive. And there are too many private multinational companies such as Boeing, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle Bone Inscriptions, Intel, Pfizer, JPMorgan Chase, International Business Machines Corporation, Chevron, Nike, Hollywood, NBA, Disneyland, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's and KFC. , located in the upstream of the global industrial chain, has strong international competitiveness and anti-risk ability. They can not only make huge profits in their own market, but also earn a lot of money all over the world. For example, in 20 14, the United States ranked among the top 500 companies in the world with 128 companies, almost all of which were such companies.
The huge gap in the gold content of GDP between China and the United States is even more obvious from the sharp contrast between the profits of China and the United States among the world's top 500 enterprises: of the 28 enterprises in the United States14, 24 were ranked among the world's top 500 enterprises in 20 14. Its total profit reached $798.7 billion, accounting for 40% of the total profit of the world's top 500 enterprises. Of the 9 1 enterprises in China, 16 suffered serious losses. The profit rate of the top 500 Chinese enterprises is less than half that of the top 500 American enterprises. The more serious reality is that compared with previous years, corporate profits in China have been declining, while corporate profits in the United States have been rising.
Give a few thrilling examples:
In 20 14, Apple's turnover ranked 15 among the top 500 companies in the world, but its profit was as high as $3.703 billion, which was still $65,438+0.6/kloc-0.90 billion higher than the combined profits of Sinopec, PetroChina and State Grid China.
What does just one apple mean to America? According to JPMorgan Chase, last year, the iPhone5 shipped 8 million units in the fourth quarter. Assuming that the retail price is the same as the iPhone4S's $6 00, if the total amount of imported parts is reduced by $200, each mobile phone will contribute $400 to the GDP of the United States. In the fourth quarter, the new iPhone will increase US GDP by US$ 3.2 billion, equivalent to US$ 654.38+US$ 02.8 billion, equivalent to an annualized GDP growth of 0.33 percentage points. The GDP growth rate of the United States this year is expected to be 2%. This means that an Apple mobile phone contributed 1/6 of the added value of American GDP.
Take ExxonMobil, an American oil company, as an example. It ranks fifth in the 20 14 Fortune Global 500, second only to PetroChina, with a turnover of about 40.7 billion US dollars and a profit of about 3.2 billion US dollars.
What about PetroChina, which ranks fourth? In that year, the turnover was about $43.2 billion, which was $2.5 billion more than ExxonMobil, but the profit was only $/kloc-0.8 billion, which was less than ExxonMobil's $/kloc-0.4 billion!
They are all oil companies, but the profit contrast is so great.
To make matters worse, many China companies rank among the top 500 companies in the world and the top 500 companies in China, and many large medium-and long-term loss-making households or "horse manure superficial" enterprises living on government subsidies for a long time-this is fully reflected in the "subsidy king list": September 1 day, People's Daily Online (1.460,? 0.07,? 0.6 1%) published an article entitled "2030 listed companies received government subsidies in the first half of the year, and PetroChina won the subsidy king again". According to the article, as of April 3 this year, 20 13 annual reports have been published by * * * existing 1934 listed companies in China, among which 1350 companies have received government subsidies, accounting for 70%, with a total subsidy of 701600 million yuan. Among them, PetroChina once again ranked in the top ten with a daily subsidy of 565,438+74 million yuan, and Sinopec received a subsidy of 790 million yuan, ranking fourth. In the past ten years, "two barrels of oil" * * * received government financial subsidies of 654.38+025.883 billion yuan.
The more serious reality is that the amount of government subsidies to listed companies is increasing by about 20% every year: 40 billion yuan in 20 10, 47 billion yuan in 2010, 56.4 billion yuan in 20 12, and 20 13.
A phenomenon worthy of the government's great attention is that in today's "loss list" of China, the world's top 500 and China's top 500, the vast majority of China enterprises are state-owned enterprises; Most of the "subsidy kings" who live on government subsidies for a long time are also state-owned enterprises. For example, among the 65,438+00 enterprises with the largest amount of government subsidies in 2065,438+03, 7 were state-owned holding enterprises. For another example, among the top ten subsidies for 2065 438+02a shares, 8 are state-owned enterprises.
In fact, the "World Top 500 Loss List", "China Top 500 Loss List" and "Subsidy King List" have become a microcosm of China's GDP and China's economic development.
How many years will it take for China to catch up with the United States?
To sum up, we can find that the economic gap between China and China is far greater than many Americans think.
However, the huge gap between China and the United States lies not only in visible economic statistics, but also in the comprehensive national strength that can be seen everywhere, and more importantly, in the institutional culture that is more important than economic data and comprehensive national strength! The whole world recognizes that the United States is powerful, but its greatest advantage does not lie in its vast and unique geographical environment and land resources; There are not many nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, intercontinental missiles and the most powerful army in the world; Not that it has many world-famous brands such as Boeing, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle Bone Inscriptions, Intel, Pfizer, JPMorgan Chase, International Business Machines Corporation, Chevron, Nike, Hollywood, NBA, Disneyland, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's, KFC, etc ... but that it has a powerful self-correction mechanism designed by its founders. It is precisely because of its talent that Edison, Bill Gates, Jobs and many other great geniuses and Nobel Prize winners can be brought into full play, and all kinds of elite talents and students in the world flock to it, resulting in Boeing, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle Bone Inscriptions, Intel, Pfizer, JPMorgan Chase, International Business Machines Corporation, Chevron, Nike, Hollywood and other great brands that can make 5% of the world. More importantly, it has a social environment, no matter rich or poor, people can live well!
..... These are the products of the United States for more than 200 years, and they have been meticulously crafted and paid too much effort. From this, it is not difficult to imagine: How big is the real gap between China and the United States?