2025-12-27 02:21:32

A recent economic report released by a research institution has attracted attention. They used an extreme adjustment method to downwardly revise China's GDP by 11 percentage points overall. Following this logic, official growth figures from recent years would need significant corrections: 2022 from the official 3% down to negative growth, 2023 from 5% to 1.5-2.0%, 2024 from 5% to 2.4-2.8%, and the 2025 forecast also only at 2.5-3%.

What is the key point of contention in this analysis? The research institution focused on the fact that real estate investment has been weak, and thus questioned the "fixed asset formation" indicator in GDP. Their core logic is: since fixed asset investment(FAI) is declining, why does the corresponding capital formation(GCF) in the GDP account show a smaller decline? For example, in the second half of 2025, FAI year-on-year drops by 11%, but the GCF contribution to growth in GDP still appears as 0.9 percentage points, which they find "completely unreasonable."

However, there is a fundamental conceptual confusion here. A decline in real estate investment does not equal a decline in fixed asset formation—these are entirely different categories within the national economic accounting system. Real estate investment includes a large land value component, and land value is essentially determined by the bidding and auction market, which is closer to asset valuation adjustment rather than GDP production activity. A drop in land valuation and appreciation of fixed assets on land are two different things. To give an analogy: a company's stock price drops by 30%, but its actual productivity and output could still be growing or even accelerating.

Another interesting phenomenon is that the international market's suspicion of China's economic data seems to be the opposite. Many foreign institutions believe China might be hiding its true economic strength rather than overstating it. From exports, military industry, physical consumption, and other dimensions, there are discrepancies between official reports and actual circulation data. Especially power generation data, which has already made many foreign analysts feel "terrified"—China's power generation exceeds the US by double and is still growing rapidly, with per capita electricity consumption surpassing EU levels. These physical indicators are difficult to fake and instead suggest that the economic fundamentals might be conservatively estimated.

Therefore, this report, by selectively citing the decline in real estate investment as a single data point to question the entire GDP accounting framework, actually reflects a more fundamental confusion between two different economic indicator systems.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MoodFollowsPrice

· 12-27 10:50

Real estate prices fall and they say GDP is fake, that logic... really, land value and actual output are two different things. Even with electricity generation doubling, they still have the nerve to say the economy is inflated? Foreign institutions actually think we’re hiding things well. Directly equating a decline in real estate investment with a drop in GDP is a bit of a confusing analogy. Land valuation shrinking ≠ decline in production capacity, how can some people still not understand this? I just want to ask, who does the electricity generation cheat? Who does the export data cheat? These reports love to focus on one point and bash it to death, with headlines like "GDP is fake," enough already. A stock price drops 30% but the company's output is still rising—this analogy is brilliant. The real estate bubble is indeed big, but we can't use it to overturn the entire accounting system. Looking at this report, it feels like they’re piecing together data to create panic. Physical indicators are hard to fake, and that’s the hard truth.

View OriginalReply0

MainnetDelayedAgain

· 12-27 02:51

Oh no, it's that old trick of using real estate investment as a GDP verification tool... How long has it been since the last time such a "downgrade" paper was published? There should be records in the database. Even with electricity generation doubling, they still insist on a recession. That logic is really impeccable. Just want to ask, when will the issues of land prices and actual output be clarified? When will the revised schedule for this report's delay be released?

View OriginalReply0

RamenDeFiSurvivor

· 12-27 02:40

Haha, this report is purely a confusion of concepts. Mixing up real estate investment with fixed assets, and still having the nerve to question the GDP framework. Electricity generation has already doubled that of the US, and you're claiming the economy has shrunk by 11 points? Foreign institutions have already seen through this; our estimate is conservative, okay? Land devaluation ≠ decline in production efficiency. Such basic logic is being deliberately bypassed—how ironic. Just want to be pessimistic, huh? Picking a single data point and daring to overturn the entire accounting system—such a level of competence is... The claim that physical indicators are hard to fake is commendable; electricity consumption really can reflect the economy's underlying strength. A company’s stock price drops 30%, but its production capacity is still growing—that analogy is excellent, it clearly explains everything. This report mainly plays word games, unable to distinguish between market price fluctuations and actual output growth.

View OriginalReply0

UncommonNPC

· 12-27 02:30

Real estate investment decline does not necessarily mean a decline in fixed asset formation. Why do so many people get this logic wrong?

View OriginalReply0

MetadataExplorer

· 12-27 02:30

This logical loophole is too big. A decline in real estate ≠ a decline in fixed assets. How can people still confuse the two? --- The power generation data is all there. Claiming the data is fake—aren't you just fooling yourself? --- Here we go again? Just talking about real estate, what about other industries? Don't they exist? --- Land devaluation and asset appreciation are two different things. If you can't tell the difference, why release a report? --- Foreign institutions actually think the data is conservative. This guy is rushing to cut it down, quite unbelievable. --- Confusing FAI and GCF—that's so unprofessional. --- Why is it always real estate being endlessly amplified... --- Their power generation exceeds twice that of the US, and they still say it's being concealed? This report probably aims to reverse the trend. --- Confusing concepts as analysis—that's just academic gossip-level operation. --- They really build a house based on a single data point, ignoring all other dimensions of data?

View OriginalReply0

StealthDeployer

· 12-27 02:23

Can the real estate downturn alone explain an 11% overstatement of GDP? That's a huge logical flaw. Land value and fixed assets are fundamentally two different things. Electricity generation has doubled, yet they claim the economy is虚. These people are selectively blind. Once again, they focus on a single data point to make an argument,典型的只见树木不见森林.

View OriginalReply0