The IMF has increased the projected GDP growth for China to 6.7 percent in 2017 and average annual growth of 6.4 percent between 2018-20. Previous predictions from the IMF had China at 6.2% or less GDP growth from 2018 to 2020. Based on the lower projections the IMF had China with purchasing power parity GDP increasing for $16600 now to $23960 in 2022. If China matched the improved GDP growth then per capita GDP would be about $24800 in 2022.
IMF把对2017年中国GDP增长率的预估上调到6.7%，把2018-2020年平均增长率上调至6.4%。IMF此前对中国2017年GDP增长的预估为6.2%，2018-2020则更低。此前IMF基于较低增长率对中国2022年购买力平价GDP的预估将从16600美元上涨到23960美元
It would still another 10 to 15 years beyond 2022 (2032 to 2037) for China to move up from slightly above the level of Mexico per capita PPP GDP to reach the level of Russia or Portugal per capita PPP GDP.
在人均购买力平价GDP方面，即使到了2022年，中国也仍然需要10到15年（2032到2037年）才能略微超过墨西哥达到俄罗斯和葡萄牙的水平。

Overall China national PPP GDP is projected to be nearly 50% more than the USA in 2022. The expected better performance would put Chinas overall PPP GDP at over $35 trillion.
中国国家总体购买力平价GDP预估会在2022年达到美国的50%。乐观估计中国的总体购买力平价GDP将超过35万亿美元。

If China were to catch up to Russia or Portugal on per capita PPP GDP in the mid-2030s then China’s overall PPP GDP economy would be more than double the US PPP GDP. China’s economy would also be larger on a PPP GDP basis than the USA, Europe and Japan combined.
如果中国人均购买力平价GDP在本世纪30年代中期达到俄罗斯和士耳其水平，那么中国的总体购买力平价GDP将会是美国的1倍多，中国经济体将大于美国欧盟日本的总合。
China, Macau and Hong Kong PPP GDP are currently at the level of the USA and Germany’s combined PPP GDP.
By 2022, China, Macau, and Hong Kong PPP GDP will pass USA, Germany, Japan and Sweden combined.
中国大陆，澳门和香港购买力平价GDP目前已经达到美国和德国的总合，到2022年将超过美国+德国+日本+瑞典的总合

=================
美国网民评论：
=================

Igor ZaytsevThinker3 hours ago
Who cares about PPP GDP? Not appropriate index to compare between countries. PPP per capita makes some sense but if you want to know which country is financially and economically more powerful and compare apples to apples got to use nominal GDP.
谁在乎购买力平价GDP？ 拿这指数用来对比国家之间的实力不合适。在某些方面人均购买力是有意义，但是如果你想知道哪个国家在财务上经济上更强大，你得用名义GDP在国家跟国家之间对比。

José Raymond Herrera 2 hours ago
Impressive achievement. It means that China will grow still more and faster when becoming the first market world wide which will allow its own production to feed their own population.
了不起的成就。这就是说中国在成为世界第一大市场后还会继续加快增长，这样他们自已的产品就可以卖给他们自已人了。

Fast Eddie 3 hours ago
China is now GM's largest market...Starbucks projects that China will soon become its largest market outside of the U.S....
中国现在是通用最大的市场。。。星巴克估计中国会成为它在美国之外最大的市场。。

Dan 3 hours ago
It s Paul Erlick who sold America to China. He told white America not to have babies.
是Paul Erlick把美国卖给中国了。他告诉美国白人不要生孩子。

CZM 4 hours ago
Shockingly, China almost has as much debt as we do. Yank production and send it to Mexico & Central/South America. Stop the illegals and let China crash. Won't happen, though. Vested financial interests in chasing illegals (but not stopping them), and of course the military lobbyists. When in Rome... let the barbarians smash the gates.
震惊，中国的债务跟我们差不多。把美国产品卖给墨西哥，中南美州，阻止非法移民，让中国崩溃。哎，我知道这是不可能的。追捕（而不是阻止）非法移民可以获得利益，当然还有军事说客也可以。在罗马时代这就是让野蛮人入城。

Argos 4 hours ago
PPP is great for comparing cost of living, like planning your vacation budget. It is not useful for comparing GDPs. Imagine we want to compare the total weight of Koreans versus Scandinavians, but tweaked it because Koreans are smaller. Would that make sense? No, we only want the total weight.
对比生活成本时比如做旅行预算，购买力平价是个好东西。对比GDP就没什么用了。想想看，我们要比较同样数量的韩国人和斯堪的纳维亚人的总重量，但是因为韩国人个子小，就他们身上带东西增加重量，这样还有意义吗？没有，我们只要对比总重量。

Cavedweller 4 hours ago
Do you think they'll "buy American" when they get rich enough? Nope, they'll make it in their own country. China has its series of 5-year plans, but it also has a thousand-year plan. Our plan, on the other hand, is 140 characters long. If you can't tell who wins based upon this comparison, you're probably an American.
你认为他们有钱后会“卖美国货吗”？不会的，他们自已生产。中国有很多套5年计划，他们还有千年计划。相比之下，我们的计划只有区区140个字母。如果你说不出这样比较谁会赢的话，你应该是美国人。

Gold 3 hours ago
The real problem in the US is: we are producing MBA graduates who cannot do business with other countries. Most other countries are smaller with lower standard of living, and with a lot of growing small businesses. The American graduated MBA's are not taught how to do business with these smaller business companies. These top MBA school programs teach them how to manage business in an American company which has everything already setup with their own corporate cultures. They get lost in a different corporate culture and/or human culture. They are bound to fail with their ambitions in doing business in other countries, regardless of which top MBA school they graduated. The American business theory simply doesn't work outside America, and sometimes, within the US, too.
美国真正的问题是：我们培养的MBA毕业生无法跟其他国家做生意，大部分小国生活标准都比较低，它们都有很多正在成长的小企业。美国培养的MBA毕业生不是针对这些小公司的。这些顶级MBA学校的课程是教他们如何经营美国公司的，这些美国公司已经发展的很成熟了，他们有自已的企业文化。他们到别的公司文化或社会文化里就会迷茫。不管他们从哪所MBA院校毕业，他们在别国生意的抱负注定要失败的。简单来说，美国商业理论就是在别的国家行不通，有时候在连美国也不行。

Gold 3 hours ago
Top American business schools must overhaul their business programs. Using the 1980's program in the 21st century no longer works.
美国顶级商业学校必须检查一下他们的商业课程了。在21世纪用80年代的课程不再管用了。