Additional Technical Support: Fill & Download for Free

How does China's GDP calculation method differ from that of the US and other countries?A2A. Well, the basic framework for GDP calculation is the same for everybody, but the details are different in each country, so usually it makes more sense for a country to compare with its own past GDP then comparing GDP numbers across different countries. The UN and the WorldBank have been making valiant effort in the past 50 years to standardize GDP calculation method across the board. The U.S., technically, has her own NIPA system but it’s harmonized with the UN standards mostly. The U.S. just likes to have her own definition of everything. There is a nice primer for it here. https://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/nipa_primer.pdfAll OECD countries have adopted System of National Accounts SNA 2008. This is an update from the previous SNA 1993. There are a bunch of different classifications and account capture, but the most significant difference is that R&D and weapons research are now classified as Fixed Asset. The result is that in 2014, when all OECD countries adopted this new standard, almost everybody got a boost in its GDP calculation.2014 saw most countries revising GDP estimates upwardsChina usually doesn’t officially adopt new accounting standard until like a decade after it’s out. They have their own domestic priorities and international standardization tends to be a back-burner issue for them. For example, the previous SNA 1993 came out in 1993, and China didn’t adopt it until 2002. Similarly, when SNA 2008 came out, China said ‘we’ll wait until after our 2014 census to do the update, and it’ll likely take us 4 to 5 years before we can finish it’. So basically, between 2015 to 2020, China is going to be phasing in SNA 2008 piece-by-piece.Actually, if you look back at history, every time China does a census, it had to revise its GDP significantly. After 2004 census, China revised its GDP upward by 16.8%. After 2008 census, China revised its GDP upward by 4.4%. After 2014 census, China revised its GDP upward by 3.4%. Subscribe to read Well at least it’s trending towards more accuracy! You see, the biggest contributor to the inaccuracy is that China is a fast-changing developing country. Things that didn’t exist before, now exist, and nobody had set up a collection bin to collect that data. The pennies you used to sweep under the bed, now is a $20 dollar bill and worth the effort to stuff it into your wallet.There are a lot of activities in China, like farmers building a new house for his own family on his own land, self-employed hair-dressers or maids, small traders with a stall by the street, teachers providing private tutoring, etc., none of these are tracked or taxed, and none of these economic activities are counted in the GDP. There aren’t a system to track these things yet! It’s too much work and who has the time for it! That’s why China consumes as much concrete in 3 years as the US consumed in its entire history, and yet construction contributes about the same amount to China’s GDP as the US. But that’s what being a developing country means - a large portion of its economy is ‘gray economy’ with no regulation, no oversight, and no tracking.ALL countries calculate their GDP slightly differently. For example, UK and Italy includes prostitution and drug use in its GDP calculation. These could account for 5% of additional GDP. The UK needed the GDP number in order to support its debt ceiling. Subscribe to read China, on the other hand, ignores a lot of economic activities because it really doesn’t need the number. In fact, Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Laureate, mentioned that back in 2014, the Chinese threatened to walk out of the World Bank technical meeting if they were going to show that the Chinese GDP (PPP) has surpassed the US.The source of contention would surprise many Americans, and it says a lot about the differences between China and the U.S.—and about the dangers of projecting onto the Chinese some of our own attitudes. Americans want very much to be No. 1—we enjoy having that status. In contrast, China is not so eager. According to some reports, the Chinese participants even threatened to walk out of the technical discussions. For one thing, China did not want to stick its head above the parapet—being No. 1 comes with a cost.Source: China Has Overtaken the U.S. as the World’s Largest Economy

In 2012, a majority of Puerto Ricans voted, in an island-wide referendum, to request admission to the United States as a state (although the fact that 24% of ballots were blank on the question has been used by opponents to statehood as grounds to discount the result). However, this vote is not, in itself, sufficient; Puerto Rico must apply to Congress for admission, and Congress must approve that application before it can become a state. Legislation admitting Puerto Rico as a state has been introduced in both the House and the Senate; both bills are currently languishing in committee, where they will no doubt die when Congress adjourns on January 2. In addition, Congress has authorized yet another island-wide referendum, on the premise that the 2012 referendum was "unclear" in its results. The current leadership of the territorial government opposes statehood, and has done everything in its power to obfuscate matters (e.g. by drafting confusing referendum questions).It's generally accepted that the Republicans oppose the admission of Puerto Rico because Puerto Rico is expected to vote strongly Democratic in its elections. Puerto Rico would (based on 2010 Census data) be awarded five seats in Congress (with Florida, Washington, Texas, California, and Minnesota each losing one, as the number of seats in the House is fixed by law at 435). The net loss to the Republicans would probably be three seats. There would also be two new Democratic Senators, and seven additional solidly Democratic electors in the Presidential election (although three of those replace usually-Democratic electors in California, Washington, and Minnesota). None of this is appealing to Republicans, and so they're not inclined to allow it to happen.In the event that the Democrats regain control of both Congress and the White House, a bill admitting Puerto Rico (which can be introduced at any time by their Resident Commissioner) would have a good chance of passing. Until then, don't expect much to happen on this front.Edit to add: Many people seem to be of the belief that the November 2012 referendum resulted in rejecting statehood. This is not consistent with a strict technical interpretation of the results of the referendum. However, if one takes the position that all of the blank ballots that were cast on the form-of-government question represented votes for remaining a commonwealth (an interpretation which is inconsistent with basic principles of election law), then supporters of statehood only have a plurality. It would seem that such an interpretation is being advanced fairly regularly by those opposed to statehood.Also, lest anyone be confused, I have no particular interest in Puerto Rican statehood, and have no connections with Puerto Rico at all. For me, this is strictly an academic interest.

I had always known I didn’t want to be an academic after my Ph.D. I took the risk of making this clear in my statement to all the universities I applied to. Most people advised me to say I wanted to be a faculty, I didn’t think that was intellectually honest. More importantly, I have always believed PhDs can add value outside of academia. So I told the universities how I would use the PhD knowledge to improve commercial technical innovation and market introduction.I was fortunate to be accepted everywhere I applied (MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, Santa Barbara, Caltech, Stanford, GeorgiaTech, Oxford, and Imperial). So the statement didn’t hurt me at least. I would advise to anyone to be really intellectually honest about why you want to do a PhD. It will clarify your own reasons at a minimum and ideally make you stand out in the best case.Here’s the MIT prompt and my reply:Please give your reasons for wishing to do graduate work in the field you have chosen. Prepare your statement of objectives and goals in whatever form clearly presents your views. Include as far as you can, your particular interests, be they experimental, theoretical, or issue-oriented, and show how your background and MIT's programs support these interests. The statement could be much like a proposal for graduate studies, in the more specific context of your professional objectives. You should set forth the issues and problems you wish to address. Explain your longer-term professional goals. The Admissions Committee will welcome any factors you wish to bring to its attention concerning your academic and work experience to date. (500 word limit)Statement of PurposeHaving lived in India since I was nine years old, I have noticed that new technologies take time to be introduced to the Indian market. There is a dire need to enable these technologies to come to market faster than they currently do, especially in places like rural India. For example, solar cells have the potential to provide cheap, renewable energy to those parts of a country which have limited or no access to electricity. In fact, according to a recent census in India, only 44% of rural households use electricity for their primary source of lighting. I plan to not only contribute directly to research in semiconductor devices, but also be involved in introducing these technologies to the market. The Ph.D. program in Materials Science at MIT would provide me with the research experience required to contribute effectively to this effort.My education and research experience to date have given me a strong basis with which to pursue further studies. I have focused my academic career on taking classes in materials science and physics, with an emphasis on electrical and optical properties of materials. Given my sound understanding of the subject matter, I was a teaching assistant for the class on functional materials. Additionally, I have spent a large part of my undergraduate career conducting research on carbon nanotubes. Upon completion of an REU program where I developed nanotube thin films, I began working for Professor Kikkawa at the University of Pennsylvania. Under Prof. Kikkawa, I am pursuing collaborative work to create suspensions of carbon nanotubes using novel peptide surfactants. The project aims to rationally design peptides from first principles that will selectively suspend certain chiralities of nanotubes. Given my educational and research background, I hope to contribute to the development of semiconductor devices.MIT will provide the best fit for me to pursue research in this field. The university provides excellent facilities and resources that are essential for creative research. The Ph.D. in Electronic, Photonic and Magnetic Materials will provide me the ideal academic and research foundation for my career. In particular, Professor Kimerling and Professor Gradecak have very fascinating research projects in semiconductor and optoelectronic materials and devices. Additionally, the department’s connection with many corporations and numerous research facilities at MIT provide very attractive opportunities.I have always attempted to make full use of the resources available to me in furthering my objectives. While at Penn, I am pursuing a degree in Economics from the Wharton School in addition to my engineering degree. This education will supplement my research, and provide me with the knowledge of economics necessary to effectively bring new technologies to market. I believe that I have had a holistic education during my undergraduate career and hope that upon completion of my Ph.D. degree I will be in a position to effect influential change. MIT’s program in Materials Science will provide the strong foundation I hope to gain from my Ph.D. work to become a leader in bringing new semiconductor technologies to our society.