Header graphic for print
China Law Blog China Law for Business

China’s 12th Five Year Plan. Infrastructure, Infrastructure, And More Infrastructure. Did We Say Infrastructure?

Posted in China Business, Events

By: Steve Dickinson

On Monday, March 14, The PRC National People’s Congress approved China’s 12th Five Year Plan and the outline of the plan was released to the public yesterday. The full 105-page document can be found (in Chinese) here. I am now reviewing the plan and over the next several weeks I will provide a series of reports on its contents.

I can make some preliminary remarks at this time.

The striking thing about the plan is its lack of originality. In the policy documents that have been promulgated over the past year, the party and the National People’s Congress (NPC) concluded that China must boldly reform its entire economic structure. The idea was to have China move away from a export and infrastructure driven economy to a balanced, consumer demand driven economy. The Communist Party of China (CPC) issued an outline of a bold plan that would bring about this transformation. The conclusion of many Western economists was that 1) the transformation would be essential for the long-term health of the Chinese economy but that 2) the transformation would be extraordinarily difficult. See the recent writings of Michael Pettis on this issue.

Apparently, the NPC also concluded that the consumer driven economy simply would be too difficult to achieve. As a result, the 12th Five Year Plan basically abandons the concept of creating a consumer driven economy and falls back to the standard Chinese economic model of depending on massive infrastructure projects and export driven growth as the primary models. Though some lip service is paid to increasing household consumption, that concept is basically brushed aside in favor of domestic infrastructure spending.

The list of projects is breathtaking. In just a preliminary review, I noted the following:

  • Highways, conventional rail and high speed rail
  • New airports
  • New ports and port upgrades.
  • Oil and gas pipelines
  • Electric transmission lines, especially high voltage lines
  • Coal transport and storage
  • Environmental upgrades of virtually the entire system of coal fired power plants, together with constructing substantial new coal fired power plant capacity
  • Modernizing the entire heavy industry sector: steel, cement and aluminum, in particular
  • Expanding mineral mining, particularly coal
  • Oil and gas field development in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang
  • Creating an entirely new industrial base, focused on seven strategic industries
  • Urbanizing rural China to allow at least 10,000,000 rural residents per year to move to the cities
  • Investing in massive amounts of new nuclear power and hydropower facilities
  • Major expansion of domestic oil refining capacity and LNG storage and transmission
  • Sewage and waste treatment facilities throughout the entire country
  • New hospitals throughout the country
  • Waterworks focusing on irrigation and water transport from the South to the North
  • Developing coastal marine resources, primarily focusing on maritime infrastructure
  • Developing the Central and Western regions
  • Redeveloping China’s Northeast industrial base
  • New jobs for 45,000,000 workers

Note that this set of projects is not designed to encourage the domestic household economy; all of it is designed to maintain China’s position as an export-oriented manufacturing powerhouse. It seems that the NPC has rejected the idealistic notion of reforming China’s economic structure and instead has adopted the easier plan of simply improving what China has been doing for the past ten years. No major changes here: just upgrades and refinements.

Of course, as is typical, there is no mention of how much this huge list of projects will cost and no mention either of from where the money will come to pay for all of this. If the past is any indication, the projects will feature a mix of direct central government expenditures and bank loans to local governments. The recent huge jump in bank lending supports the notion that the banks will be instrumental in funding this truly massive set of infrastructure projects. There is also no discussion of how this massive spending program will mesh with the China’s current concern with controlling inflation. Nonetheless, the basic plan is clear. Spend, spend, spend on creating manufacturing capacity and then export the surplus in order to pay for it all. 

In other words, we should be expecting more of the same.

What do you think?

 

 

  • pug_ster

    With its existing infrastructure, it is already an export-oriented manufacturing powerhouse. This Infrastructure upgrade is to turn the rest of China from a 3rd world country to a post industrial country.

  • greg

    It is amazing that Michael Pettis has gained some kind of authority status on Chinese economy among expats and many people outside China. What exactly has he done to achieve such fame? This probably should be a separate discussion, but in this post, Steve cited Pettis and his opinion is obviously influenced by Pettis’s view:
    “all of it is designed to maintain China’s position as an export-oriented manufacturing powerhouse.”
    I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of the five year plan. In fact, there are a couple of more themes in China’s new five years plan or longer beyond simply consumption vs. investment/export:
    A. More social spending than previous five years
    B. Addressing environmental concerns and energy efficiency
    C. Narrowing regional development gaps
    D. Upgrading the industries and moving up in the value chain
    E. Continue the national build-out, this is probably the closest to infrastructure
    Going through Steve’s long list of “infrastructure projects,” I’m not sure we can characterize all of them as infrastructure or projects to promote export. Let’s go through the list.
    * Highways, conventional rail and high speed rail
    * New airports
    E. There are infrastructure projects, no doubt.
    * New ports and port upgrades.
    E. But not all for export ports. Internal ports also included
    * Oil and gas pipelines
    E. Very much needed. China’s oil and gas supplies (from Central Asia, Russia and Xinjiang) are located far from the population and consumption centers (South and East Coast).
    * Electric transmission lines, especially high voltage lines
    B & E. Also, clean energy generation is challenged by the inadequate transmission lines now.
    * Coal transport and storage
    E. Perennial bottleneck for Chinese economy, due to the different locations of coal production and major consumption and industry centers.
    * Environmental upgrades of virtually the entire system of coal fired power plants, together with constructing substantial new coal fired power plant capacity
    B. Don’t forget 80% of China’s energy is generated via coal, a dirty form of energy. China has made a big commitment to reduce carbon generation and improve energy efficiency.
    * Modernizing the entire heavy industry sector: steel, cement and aluminum, in particular
    B. These are the big polluting or energy hungry industries.
    * Expanding mineral mining, particularly coal
    * Oil and gas field development in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang
    China is still in the middle of urbanization and industrialization which will continue to drive the energy consumption. There is no way around it. Is there a different way of modernization or should China just stop the process?
    * Creating an entirely new industrial base, focused on seven strategic industries
    D. China wants to move up the food chain.
    * Urbanizing rural China to allow at least 10,000,000 rural residents per year to move to the cities
    A & C. Key words: urbanization and industrialization.
    * Investing in massive amounts of new nuclear power and hydropower facilities
    B. Otherwise, more coals, more pollution and more carbon. Despite the recent suspension of new nuclear power plants approvals, China will inevitably build more nuclear power plants.
    * Major expansion of domestic oil refining capacity and LNG storage and transmission
    Again, energy. The assumption is China will continue to grow rapidly in the next five years, energy consumption will continue to go up and it needs to plan for that. Don’t think there is anything wrong here unless you are Michael Pettis, who recently updated his “pessimistic” view of China’s economic growth from 5-7% at best to 2-3% in the medium term.
    * Sewage and waste treatment facilities throughout the entire country
    A. Plus urbanization
    * New hospitals throughout the country
    A. Badly needed, will help increase consumption.
    * Waterworks focusing on irrigation and water transport from the South to the North
    A. If you don’t do this, you’ll face a much worse situation than worrying about increasing consumption or RMB exchange rate.
    * Developing coastal marine resources, primarily focusing on maritime infrastructure
    E. OK, I’ll give it to E.
    * Developing the Central and Western regions
    C. To drive consumption, you need to develop the underdeveloped regions.
    * Redeveloping China’s Northeast industrial base
    C. How do you address regional gaps and expand domestic market? To revitalize the “rust-bell” economy and improve income. Otherwise where do you get the money to consume?
    * New jobs for 45,000,000 workers
    Nothing to say about this.
    How do we make all of the above as a whole?
    Well, there is nothing original or new about China’s development: it’s still about urbanization and industrialization. You move rural population to the cities, and you need more jobs and infrastructure for them. If China’s coast has benefited tremendously from export and prospered, it’s time to shift more resources to the interior regions to address the large regional gaps and expand the domestic market. A unified national market requires nation-wide infrastructure (China spends just under 20% of its GDP on logistics, while US spends just under 10% of its GDP. In many cases, it is more quickly to ship goods to the US than to interior provinces and costs less). Clearly, Chinese government still expects relatively fast economic growth and energy consumption is a big theme, including energy structure, efficiency, distribution and environmental concerns. Finally, China does not want to stuck in producing low-value added goods. It will strive to move up the value-chain, create more high-paying jobs, increase average incomes and ultimately increase consumptions.
    I don’t see anything terribly wrong with the plan (the big IF is in execution). What does Steve think would be a much better and drastically different plan? How do you increase consumption in general in a large developing country like China?

  • Duncan

    It’s long been my suspicion that the only real way that investment/consumption realignment will come about is when there is an economic crash. Until that point everyone will assume that endless investment is justified by the constant double digit growth – as indeed it has been for many years. Two big challenges loom: 1) a lot of infrastructure is already approaching cutting edge. I cannot imagine that another five years of airports, expressways and high speed rail will leave China with anything but a bizarre two-track world with top class infrastructure and yet the average national income of a modest South American country. More investment is certainly needed, but in the less glamorous areas (rural roads for example) that the system is not well designed to deliver. 2) How do you pay for first world infrastructure with third world taxes? This one still puzzles me. I mean it takes a lot of cash to run say a modern rail network. There’s a reason why the US and UK have such appalling infrastructure and it isn’t because they don’t realise it needs more investment. It’s just too pricey. Low pay and low cost capital can get you so far, but I can’t imagine that higher tech steel factories/trains/ports etc are going to need the sort of mingong you can pay off with a minimum wage.

  • Twofish

    Quote: Though some lip service is paid to increasing household consumption, that concept is basically brushed aside in favor of domestic infrastructure spending.
    And domestic infrastructure spending creates jobs which then increases household consumption. Except for ports, there is nothing in that list that is export based.
    Duncan: It’s long been my suspicion that the only real way that investment/consumption realignment will come about is when there is an economic crash.
    Which may be a long time in coming. China is at the stage where investment -> economic growth -> investment growth. This can stall, but that’s a a much higher level than where China is at.
    Duncan: How do you pay for first world infrastructure with third world taxes?
    Infrastructure isn’t that expensive, and if you do it right the infrastructure will increase tax revenue.
    Duncan: There’s a reason why the US and UK have such appalling infrastructure and it isn’t because they don’t realise it needs more investment. It’s just too pricey.
    No. It’s because they have governments that aren’t willing to tax rich people to pay for public goods. The money is there in the US/UK, it’s just that the governments are ideologically opposed to public infrastructure.

  • Twofish

    And of course, it’s obvious that the Chinese economy is in need of fundamental and basic changes, because it is obvious to everyone that China is an economic mess right now, as opposed to the Western countries which are doing so wonderfully after taking all of the advice
    that Western economists have made that consumption is good and investment is bad………
    The obvious message that the US is doing the right thing with it’s economy over the last ten years, and that China is doing the wrong thing over the last ten years is so fundamental that I’m surprised that anyone doubts the wisdom of making the basic changes needed to have the Chinese economy work like the US economy.
    (note that the above was sarcasm)

  • Alberto Magnelli

    @Twofish – It’s not sarcasm if you have to tell people it is.

  • Twofish

    Steve: The striking thing about the plan is its lack of originality. In the policy documents that have been promulgated over the past year, the party and the National People’s Congress (NPC) concluded that China must boldly reform its entire economic structure.
    Can you point me to those policy documents? I’ve read nothing of the sort. The policy documents I’ve seen call for less dependence on exports and increasing household consumption, but nothing that would suggest that anyone is thinking about “boldly reforming its entire economic structure.”
    Steve: The idea was to have China move away from a export and infrastructure driven economy to a balanced, consumer demand driven economy.
    Can you point me to the document where you got that idea?
    There is a long tradition of Western news reporters making a huge amount of noise about one or two sentences in a document and ignore the fifty other pages that indicate that the those one or two sentences don’t mean what they seem to mean.
    China will have to move away from exports, but that’s because the US economy will not be able to drive Chinese growth, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that China is moving away from an infrastructure driven economy, and I’ve seen very little to suggest that it’s a good idea if it should.

  • Not a usual commentator

    Twofish,
    You are correct that policy documents are not making bold claims towards restructuring the economy (though if it were to do so I am sure it would be in a few sentences buried amongst 50 other pages) However, Steve’s comments are backed up by the Chinese press which has frequently mentioned a more balanced economy as one of the principle goals of this 12th five year plan.
    See for example:
    http://english.cw.com.tw/article.do?action=show&id=12283
    (a taiwan publication but well translated. For mainland just scroll through the caijing or 21st century business daily archives. Pretty much any overview will do).
    I’m frankly surprised this is even being debated.

  • Armando

    China is doomed to mid-market status no matter what it does. It will grow for a few more years as it continues to take advantage of its cheap labor and infrastructure. But once it hits the level of Thailand or so, it will stagnate because it does not have what it takes to become a truly developed and innovative country.

  • James Wu

    The sheer amount of ignorance (no doubt a bunch of ignorant, ill-traveled westerners who haven’t spent more than week in China combined, regurgitating what they read in some BS biased report) on this site is astounding. No wonder why so many western companies come here, fail miserably, and then whine about how corrupt the Chinese government is and how crude all Chinese people are. They’re obviously taking advice from the self-anointed “experts”, much like many of the jackholes infesting sites like this. I’m not sure if I should be offended or amused. Then again, when a bunch of retarded monkeys get together and throw poop at each other, I guess it should be amusing.
    And of course this post will be censored and never be published.

  • http://www.chinalawblog.com Dan

    @James,
    Why would I censor you? I have no problem with everyone seeing something like this and drawing their own conclusions. I just wonder what it is that makes you so mad and I have to believe your anger stems from a lot more than people discussing China’s most recent five year plan.

  • Twofish

    Commentator: However, Steve’s comments are backed up by the Chinese press which has frequently mentioned a more balanced economy as one of the principle goals of this 12th five year plan.
    What does “more balanced” mean? Infrastructure investment is 40%. If it moves to 39.5%, then that’s “more balanced.” To quote Commonwealth….
    “The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that consumption currently accounts for only 36 percent of China’s GDP, but that should exceed 40 percent over the next five years.”
    You can get from 36 to 41% by decreasing net exports. Right now net exports is 10%. If they reduce that to 3%, then you could have more consumption and more infrastructure.
    Commonwealth, Caijing, and 21st Century Business Daily are great news magazines, but anything they write is their own personal opinion and nothing they say is in any way “official.”
    The other thing is that even at that level, you need to read the whole article. There’s nothing in the Commonwealth article that suggests that the plan calls for less infrastructure.
    What is happening is a lot of “tweaking”. Moving numbers by a few percent or so.

  • Twofish

    Not a usual commentator – I’m frankly surprised this is even being debated.
    I’m alarmed that it’s not. What I often see is are people that take a “sound bite” off a Communist Party document and assuming that the Party intends to do something it clearly has no intention of doing.
    The other thing is that the Communist Party is not a monolithic organization, and there are different people and institutions within the Party have basically different ideas on what direction the Chinese economy should go. The reason the Party changes pretty slowly is that you end up with a lot of arguments and political compromises. I’m sure that there were a ton of meetings involved to get people to the point where there was agreement to move GDP targets to 7%.
    Also the reason that you often see vague slogans like “balanced growth” in Party documents is that people within the Party disagree as to what that means or should mean.

  • notausualcommentator

    Twofish,
    Thanks for the reply, I think we may be arguing over two sides of the same coin. I was speaking to the more basic question “is more balanced growth now a party priority”. I think the answer here is undoubtedly yes. The rise in this as a focus of discussion was what I was trying to point out last night in response to your comments of 5:07am.
    You appear to be one step past that issue and, if I’m not mistaken, advocating one of two lines.
    either, “the party is saying it but they don’t actually care, they realize infrastructure is still the most assured growth mechanism”
    This may be true in the short term but I don’t think the party is deluded as to the dangers of this growth model. Here we evidently disagree.
    or, second: “yes it’s not a priority of the party, but that doesn’t mean we’ll see any progress (because of internal party struggle, center/provincial divison, what have you)”
    This I agree is worth a discussion.
    James Wu – I hope you stick around and we can hear more from you in the future

  • Thomas R

    @greg
    Of course Michael Pettis is not infallible, but he has spent a great deal of time and effort researching, studying, and writing about the Chinese economy. I’m curious, if Pettis is not an “authority” on the Chinese economy, then in your opinion who is? Also, it doesn’t seem to me at all obvious that Steve’s post was “influenced by Pettis’s view.” Steve wrote that “The conclusion of many Western economists was…” and then cited Pettis as an example. The point was simply that the 5 year plan is quite different from what these “Western economists” had concluded it would or should be.
    Second, of course there are many more themes in the new 5 year plan than consumption vs. investment/export. However, if you look at at the plan from this perspective, the NPC clearly did not choose to emphasize consumption. Steve’s point is that “the basic plan is clear. Spend, spend, spend on creating manufacturing capacity and then export the surplus.” No matter how you justify the reasoning behind the infrastructure spending, you can’t deny that they are planning to spend a great deal of money on infrastructure.

  • pug_ster

    Sorry, Pettis is NOT an authority on the Chinese economy. For years, he predicted that the Chinese economy will collapse and so far, it has been chugging along.

  • Kara

    Does anyone know if the English translation has been released or when it will be?

  • James Wu

    You are sadly mistaken. I am not angry. What I am is incredibly annoyed with the utter lack of knowledge and wisdom westerners possess when it comes to the Chinese consumer and market. I am also incredibly annoyed at the sheer amount of people who come here with out any sort of respect or love for our culture and then proceed to shun everything about China all the while wanting to get wealthy off the people here. And I see so many so-called “experts” on this site and many others (don’t think I’m picking on chinalawblog because I am not) that simply don’t have a clue and yet pass off their regurgitated, unqualified information to unsuspecting people who proceed to take these ignoramuses’ advice and come here and act like fools.

  • greg

    @James Wu,
    With all due respect, I have to disagree with you on your characterization of CLB. I have been reading CLB for several years and it has been one of the best English blogs on China out there. Dan has a lot of insight in the on-the-ground Chinese business and has been quite moderate and open-minded when its comes to China. The CLB readers and their comments are actually very diverse, at least compared with other blogs on China.
    Needless to say, not everyone agrees with each other all the time. But overall, this blog has been consistently good quality, in my opinion.

  • Chris

    @ Greg,
    I agree that the tone of this Blog is moderate, business focused and quite reasonable. Like any Blog it gets occasional pin-in-the-arse commentators, but overall there is no claim to ‘China expertise’ and a lot of focus on business critical issues such as China taxation, licensing, patents, IP, Contracts, OEM, suppliers etc. It’s relatively rare for ‘big picture’ issues to get a posting.
    Both Dan and Steve keep the general discussion on track, positive, reasonable and fair.
    Don’t buy the ‘you Westerners’ line…

  • Twofish

    notausualcommentator: “is more balanced growth now a party priority”. I think the answer here is undoubtedly yes
    I think the answer also is yes. The real question is what do people mean when they say “more balanced growth” keeping in mind that different people in the government and the party might disagree about what it means.
    notausualcommentator: This may be true in the short term but I don’t think the party is deluded as to the dangers of this growth model. Here we evidently disagree.
    The question that I would like to raise is exactly what are the dangers of high infrastructure spending. Personally, I think that China isn’t overspending in infrastructure while the US is wildly underspending in infrastructure.
    That gets to the meaning of “balanced growth”. If you argue that China should devote more resources to environmental spending, reduce export dependence, and do something about income inequality, I agree. If you think that China should reduce infrastructure by say 20% and increase consumption by 20% or privatize state enterprises, I very strongly disagree.
    If you just use the slogan “balanced growth” and don’t go into the details, these disagreements get missed.

  • Twofish

    Thomas R.: Of course Michael Pettis is not infallible, but he has spent a great deal of time and effort researching, studying, and writing about the Chinese economy
    And so have a lot of other people who have come up with totally different conclusions about what China should do. I’ve found that it’s a really bad idea to rely on one “expert” but rather it’s better to get a wide range of opinions from different people. In particular, it’s important to figure out what the “experts” agree on and what they wildly disagree on.
    Personally, I think the biggest disagreement I have with Pettis is that he thinks that China is wildly misallocating capital by heavy investment in infrastructure, where I think that the US is wildly misallocating capital by lack of heavy investment. Also he complains a lot about the behavior of Chinese banks while not recognizing that they are usually taking the best option.
    Also I have problems with what seems to his lack of self-reflection. Personally, the events of the last few years have made me much more mistrustful of the financial markets, and I’m much more in favor of government intervention than I was in 2005. There are things that I thought about how the world worked that turned out to be wrong. I didn’t think that Lehman or GM would collapse. So I’ve made mistakes and I’ve changed my views because of mistakes. I haven’t gotten the sense that Pettis has done the same thing, since what he is saying now, seems pretty much exactly what he said in 2005, but the world has changed.
    One problem with relying on experts is that experts sometimes have a really difficult time saying “I don’t know” or “I was wrong.”
    Thomas R.: Steve’s point is that “the basic plan is clear. Spend, spend, spend on creating manufacturing capacity and then export the surplus.”
    That’s not what I see in the plan. There’s a lot of spending on infrastructure, but none of it is obviously directed at exports. The export factories in Guangdong are closing down, and I don’t see anyone in the government doing much to stop that. The only thing on the list that has any possible link to exports is upgrading port facilities.
    Something else to mention is that until around 2000, China’s current accounts were balanced. What caused Chinese exports to massively increase was the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq, which caused changed that no one in China in 2000 could have predicted. (In the 1990′s, China moved to a fixed peg against the US dollar. With the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War, the actual value of the US dollar decreased, and since RMB was pegged, this caused massive capital flow to China. China paid for the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts.)

  • Twofish

    One other thing is that we need to identify which “Western economists.” There’s hardly a consensus among Western economists that what China is doing is wrong. Paul Krugman, while he does very strongly disagree with Chinese trade policy, thinks that the US is wildly underinvesting. Joseph Stiglitz and Jeremy Sachs has generally good things to say about the Chinese economy. On the other side, Minxin Pei and Yasheng Huang are not “Western” but they are extremely critical of China’s investment focus.

  • anon

    “Personally, I think the biggest disagreement I have with Pettis is that he thinks that China is wildly misallocating capital by heavy investment in infrastructure, where I think that the US is wildly misallocating capital by lack of heavy investment.”
    You’re missing the point – both are true. US and China are just two sides of the same coin. China’s investment in production has so dramtically left behind domestic consumption that they need to import large amounts of demand – and that has historically been from the US. If the US were to become unwilling or unable to lever up to generate overconsumption then China would face a major problem – either domestic consumption would need to grow extremely rapidly to achieve internal balance by outpacing GDP or GDP would need to slow dramatically to let consumption catch up at it’s current growth trajectory. When the US in the earlier 20th C was in China’s shoes the latter happened. Same for Japan 20 years ago. Everyone would like to see the former, but there’s not much encouragement in the data so far.

  • Dennis

    Well I wish the plan they’re developing was exported to the US.

  • FarmGirl

    Can someone tell me the current levels of taxation in China? Personal and Business. Thanks.

  • HJG

    China has decided to do infrastructure, infrastructure and more infrastructure NOT because it is an easy and assured method to growth (though it is, I think), but because it is quite desperately needed. Beijing may have an annoyingly large airport (I hated it because how large it was, killed my legs it did), but it is just barely enough to house the ridiculous amount of air traffic anyway. In fact, southern China’s airspace is already way overloaded. If you don’t build more highspeed rail, planes are going to collide mid-air. Increasing consumption is not only about demand side management—in fact demand perhaps is already too strong in China when you think about the supply. What the government is trying to do is to increase supply, especially supply of strategic goods like energy and transport facility. It’s ridiculous how some westerners love to think that Chinese are underconsuming. You realize Beijing has pretty much a BAN on new cars, because there aren’t enough roads and parking spots for them. Building more roads, rails and airports is pretty much a necessity. Anyone who traveled in China during the Lunar New Year understands. And there is vast stretches of land in central and western China that don’t even have decent road services. I mean Californians have I5 AND a highway 101 to view the coastline! There is nothing wrong with building more roads. And all those oil and gas pipelines, coal power plants upgrades and high voltage transmissions are not only good for China, but also for the whole world in terms of emission reduction.
    Finally, there is this political cultural tradition that government means builder of roads and canals in China. Why else would we want a powerful central government anyway, if not to build ridiculously large and important things that any smaller organization just can’t handle. Empires are built around waterworks, and this part hasn’t changed that much for China.

  • http://www.rhinks.com/products_info/Canon-CL-811-154426.html Canon-CL-811

    Finally see such a good article and pictures. I totally agree with you. And your point of view. And will always support you. Thank you for sharing, it makes me feel a lot. i love Canon-CL-811 very much

  • http://www.rhinks.com/products_info/H-23-C1823D--154449.html H-23(C1823D)

    Are pleased to re-visit your blog, from which I learned a lot of knowledge, and totally agree with your point of view, I hope you can be the exhibitions, once again thank you for sharing such a wonderful text. I will wait to see what’s! Thank you!i love H-23(C1823D) very much

  • http://www.rhinks.com/products_info/H-342-C9361EE--154457.html H-342(C9361EE)

    Hello, very professional high level of writing it! So many people to comment, let me also to comment on it. Because good writing, and I learned a lot, and I am glad to see such a beautiful thing. Thanks very much ! the same time, i love H-342(C9361EE) very much too !

  • Pingback: Jing Daily: The Business of Luxury and Culture in China

  • Pingback: China’s 12th Five-Year Plan | Kevin goes to China