substantial shareholding, page-18

Ent,
why did you change the subject? I provided peer review articles (I presume you know that that means) to substantiate my assertions.

you take the stance that anything that doesn't conform to your notion of reality is fallacious. Have you noticed that China's economic boom was fueled by subsidised exports to America which now appears to have ended. Subsequently, the Chinese have gone on their own debt fueled property boom which is now becoming undone with mounting debt and inflation issues which can only have a negative impact on China's economic future.

GDP is actually the CRITICAL aspect to the Chinese story. GDP means income which determines what people can afford. You're trying to argue that China's income (at a national and individual level) is irrelevant, if they don't have any income how can they afford to PAY for things apart from BORROWING? So you attack America's but China has then followed the same economic policy with arguably far worse consequences which you conveniently ignore.

You seem to like big words but you have little grasp of the underlying facts and theories, what are your credentials?