You’re are spot-on on the flaws in my calculations! Thank you for pointing it out. Having read your post, I go out and re-checked the figures:

“June exports dropped 21.4 percent year on year to 95.41 billion U.S. dollars, but the figure was up 7.5 percent from May.
June imports was down 13.2 percent year on year, totalling 87.16 billion U.S. dollars, but were up 15.6 percent from May.”

2009 June NET EXPORT = 95.41 – 87. 16 = $7.98 b
2008 June NET EXPORT = 95.41 / (1-0.214) – 87.16 / (1-0.132) = $20.63 b

Therefore the decrease in NET EXPORT should be (7.98 – 20.63)/20.63 = – 60%!

NET EXPORT as a proportion of EXPORT 2009 = 7.98 / 95.41 = 8.36%

Assuming the 35% quoted is correct, NET EXPORT as proportion of GDP = 35%*8.36% = 2.93%, say 3%
Therefore (C+I+G) is growing at (8% + 3%*60%) / 97% = 10%

I guess the point I’m trying to say is a lot of people are using the GDP figures without knowing the underlying meaning – and in this case – making sensational headlines out of it. However in doing so, I have committed a schoolboy error of my own. It certainly reminds me of my 5th grade maths teacher who hammered the best practice of doing maths into our minds:
1) Read the question carefully,
2) Do not ‘jump steps’, and
3) Check your answer before submitting!

is there a balance number* in relation to foreign employment and trade deficits and main street labor relations

paper pushing jobs:
politicians, lobbyist, marketeers, lawyers, accountants, bankers, realtors, secretaries, statisticians, media

opposite of paper pushing jobs:
making a widget from raw materials that has a value greater than the individual components**
(I realize the business of real products needs the paper pushers)

ie: that balance in GDP labor .. rewarding real effort in human comforts vs. comforts for phony paper pushing efforts

link to a reference not heard before by host Jim Lehrer:
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

** and why housing is so important .. because J6P can do IT and pumps the SuperCorps who make the base materials

NOW the Balance of population to IT all

Looking at the NET EXPORT math (in $US billions):

FOR JUNE: if exp=121 AND imp=100; then NET EXPORT = 21

if june exp∆=-21.2% AND imp∆=-13.2%; then FOR PRIOR PERIOD: exp=153.6; imp=115.2; NET EXPORT=38.3

THEREFORE: 21/38.3-1= 45.2% decrease in NET EXPORT in June

I don’t see the 5.6% reasoning.

GDP = C + I + G + NET EXPORT

And NET EXPORT = Export minus Import

While the June export went down by 21.2%, the import also dropped by 13.2%. The net effect is a 5.6% decrease in NET Export.
Using your figure that Export is 35% of GDP, Net Export is about 6% of the GDP base on the June numbers (USD 121b export; USD 100b import). The non-export bit of the Chinese economy (C+I+G) is therefore only growing at (8% + 6%*5.6%) / 94% = 8.9%. Sounds reasonable?

I don’t trust the Chinese statisticians as well – but at least they are better than a 5th grader.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/16/content_8435646.htm

I’m not buying the de-coupling argument… China will depend on exports for a long time. You don’t wake up one day and decide to make your economy’s growth domestically generated. All that stimulus money is also likely getting thrown at those same areas in China that were already overextended…

If China has “de-coupled” and is the savior of the world, then I have a AAA rated CDO that I would like to sell you – that contains some middle tranches of other CDOs bundled together based on some optimistic assumptions about default rates and correlations. Or I could just sell you a bridge if you prefer.