Comments on David Lang "The not-quite-quadrilateral: Australia, Japan and India", 21/07/2015
If the so called "not quite quadrilateral" are as that as the author described, it is unlikely to end up nicely.
For one thing, Australia may even have difficulties to decide in terms its relationships with China and the USA with the latter as its closest military ally and the former as by far its largest export market.
I would suggest the author compare who are more important to Australia, is that Japan and India, or the US?
Then it is not too difficult to see the futility of the attempt of so called "not quite quadrilateral" in containing China. It simply does not work.
Showing posts with label Australia China relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia China relations. Show all posts
2015-07-11
Experts can also cause confusion: see this as an example
Comments on John Quiggin, John Rolfe, Martine Maron and Samantha Hepburn "Controversial Watermark coal mine approved for New South Wales: experts respond", 11/07/2015
There seems some potential errors, inconsistencies, confusion or something that may need clarification in the article and the introduction, otherwise they may be misleading. For example, in the introduction, there is the following paragraph:
"In an economic analysis the mine, proposed by Chinese mining company Shenhua, was valued at A$1.3-1.6 billion. The mine is expected to produce up to 10 million tonnes of coal each year over the its 30-year lifetime."
What does the value of A$1.3-1.6 billion mean, given John Quiggin states that the company's analysis was based on a coal price of A$140 a tonne? It is inconsistent with the sentence following it, that is, up to 10 million tonnes of coal each year over the next 30-year lifetime. What does 10 million tonnes coal value and how much the total would be for 30 years of production at that level?
Secondly, in the section of John Rolfe, the very first sentence reads "The potential development of the Shenhua coal mine for coal-fired power plants in China expose the differences between aspirational goals and what is happening in reality." That sentence is also misleading in connection with what was followed and also in terms of China's commitment to emissions targets and its energy use/growth.
China has committed to reduction in its fossil fuel intensity of GDP very significantly by 2020 and by 2030. It also commit to the target of peak fossil fuel use or emissions by 2030. They are very ambitious targets. Those target can be seen by the presentation of an energy expert and adviser to the Chinese government at the recent China Update (10/07/2015) at the ANU. It may also be in the book that the China Update released/published as the main outputs of this year's update. Those commitment, however, do not conflict or contradict to some absolute increase in its fossil fuel use by 2030.
In the third paragraph in that section, the following sentence is also misleading and does not reflect accurately what China has committed to as I have outlined above :"The World Energy Outlook 2014, summarised by Ian Cronshaw, predicted that total global energy use will increase by almost 40% to 2040." I assume it is about to say China's energy use and particularly emissions to increase too. In contrary, China has committed to the target of peaking of its fossil fuel use by 2030, meaning its fossil fuel use will not increase after 2030. The mention of 2040 confuses the readers.
The fourth paragraph is itself contraction with each other in logic: "While the share of renewable energies grows, and the share of fossil fuels falls over that time period, the absolute share of fossil fuels is predicted to increase." What does it mean when the share of fossil fuels falls and the 'absolute share' of fossil fuels is predicted to increase? It is illogical.
The following paragraph is also confusing in the context of the mining will have a lifetime of 30 years (as opposed to China's commitment to reduce emissions absolutely from 2030) and the commission of the mining is at least a few years away:
"Would the development of the Shenhua coal mine lead to an increase in global greenhouse emissions? The answer depends on whether the coal contributes to a growth in coal consumption, or whether it is part of the substitution story. Both scenarios are plausible but uncertain."
While John Quiggin's broad analysis is appealing, there is also some confusion in his section. For example, the second paragraph reads: "This is based on the high price for metallurgical coal that prevailed when the project was proposed. The boom in such coal derived from a massive multi-year construction boom experienced in China. In the last two years of construction the boom, has slowed and there is now a substantial risk of a disorderly collapse."
What does the last sentence mean? Isn't it confusing, at say the least? This mine has not started yet, has it? The author and/or the editor have left the readers with confusion.
In the section with Martine Maron, we can see the high arts of an environmentalist for doing nothing and allowing nothing to change, as reflected in the following paragraph:
"The Shenhua offset proposal does a bit of both: it plans to restore woodland and protect some existing habitat. The bottom line is that clearing 771 hectares of woodland means there will be even less of this threatened ecosystem than there was before. Offsets can help, but the only sure-fire way to recover threatened ecosystems is to avoid losing them the first place."
The reading of the last section with Samantha Hepburn also further reinforce the ambiguity the authors use to cause confusion.
After argument back and forth including "The approval includes strong water usage conditions – Shenhua is only entitled to use 0.09% of available groundwater; it must complete water, biodiversity and rehabilitation management plans prior to mining and any impact on groundwater allocated for agricultural purposes; it must complete annual compliance updates and; should an impact on agricultural interests be proven, would be required to provide compensation."
Then it ends with the following paragraph:
"The jobs, economic growth and community funding generated by Shenhua, including for example, an upgrade of the maternity ward of the Gunnedah hospital, donations to aged care and renovations to the Gunnedah town hall are important but cannot act as a substitute for rigorous protection of a groundwater system that supports such a strong and established agricultural industry."
Readers are left with impressions that the mine should probably not go ahead.
PS: I think the feasibility of the mine is highly questionable, given that the analysis of the mine by the applicant was based on very high coal prices that have been a past thing and now the coal prices are much lower than those. Although it is likely that coal prices will bounce back higher, it is unlikely to see its high days in the past. China's economy has been in transition and its future demand for coal is also unlikely to be as predicted in the past when the Chinese economy was red hot with annual growth was double digits. Further, as some of the experts stated, there are also hurdles for the applicant to get over before it can plan when to start the mining, should coal prices can be high enough for the mine to open. It can be years away assuming the applicant is still interested in moving forward with the mining project.
There seems some potential errors, inconsistencies, confusion or something that may need clarification in the article and the introduction, otherwise they may be misleading. For example, in the introduction, there is the following paragraph:
"In an economic analysis the mine, proposed by Chinese mining company Shenhua, was valued at A$1.3-1.6 billion. The mine is expected to produce up to 10 million tonnes of coal each year over the its 30-year lifetime."
What does the value of A$1.3-1.6 billion mean, given John Quiggin states that the company's analysis was based on a coal price of A$140 a tonne? It is inconsistent with the sentence following it, that is, up to 10 million tonnes of coal each year over the next 30-year lifetime. What does 10 million tonnes coal value and how much the total would be for 30 years of production at that level?
Secondly, in the section of John Rolfe, the very first sentence reads "The potential development of the Shenhua coal mine for coal-fired power plants in China expose the differences between aspirational goals and what is happening in reality." That sentence is also misleading in connection with what was followed and also in terms of China's commitment to emissions targets and its energy use/growth.
China has committed to reduction in its fossil fuel intensity of GDP very significantly by 2020 and by 2030. It also commit to the target of peak fossil fuel use or emissions by 2030. They are very ambitious targets. Those target can be seen by the presentation of an energy expert and adviser to the Chinese government at the recent China Update (10/07/2015) at the ANU. It may also be in the book that the China Update released/published as the main outputs of this year's update. Those commitment, however, do not conflict or contradict to some absolute increase in its fossil fuel use by 2030.
In the third paragraph in that section, the following sentence is also misleading and does not reflect accurately what China has committed to as I have outlined above :"The World Energy Outlook 2014, summarised by Ian Cronshaw, predicted that total global energy use will increase by almost 40% to 2040." I assume it is about to say China's energy use and particularly emissions to increase too. In contrary, China has committed to the target of peaking of its fossil fuel use by 2030, meaning its fossil fuel use will not increase after 2030. The mention of 2040 confuses the readers.
The fourth paragraph is itself contraction with each other in logic: "While the share of renewable energies grows, and the share of fossil fuels falls over that time period, the absolute share of fossil fuels is predicted to increase." What does it mean when the share of fossil fuels falls and the 'absolute share' of fossil fuels is predicted to increase? It is illogical.
The following paragraph is also confusing in the context of the mining will have a lifetime of 30 years (as opposed to China's commitment to reduce emissions absolutely from 2030) and the commission of the mining is at least a few years away:
"Would the development of the Shenhua coal mine lead to an increase in global greenhouse emissions? The answer depends on whether the coal contributes to a growth in coal consumption, or whether it is part of the substitution story. Both scenarios are plausible but uncertain."
While John Quiggin's broad analysis is appealing, there is also some confusion in his section. For example, the second paragraph reads: "This is based on the high price for metallurgical coal that prevailed when the project was proposed. The boom in such coal derived from a massive multi-year construction boom experienced in China. In the last two years of construction the boom, has slowed and there is now a substantial risk of a disorderly collapse."
What does the last sentence mean? Isn't it confusing, at say the least? This mine has not started yet, has it? The author and/or the editor have left the readers with confusion.
In the section with Martine Maron, we can see the high arts of an environmentalist for doing nothing and allowing nothing to change, as reflected in the following paragraph:
"The Shenhua offset proposal does a bit of both: it plans to restore woodland and protect some existing habitat. The bottom line is that clearing 771 hectares of woodland means there will be even less of this threatened ecosystem than there was before. Offsets can help, but the only sure-fire way to recover threatened ecosystems is to avoid losing them the first place."
The reading of the last section with Samantha Hepburn also further reinforce the ambiguity the authors use to cause confusion.
After argument back and forth including "The approval includes strong water usage conditions – Shenhua is only entitled to use 0.09% of available groundwater; it must complete water, biodiversity and rehabilitation management plans prior to mining and any impact on groundwater allocated for agricultural purposes; it must complete annual compliance updates and; should an impact on agricultural interests be proven, would be required to provide compensation."
Then it ends with the following paragraph:
"The jobs, economic growth and community funding generated by Shenhua, including for example, an upgrade of the maternity ward of the Gunnedah hospital, donations to aged care and renovations to the Gunnedah town hall are important but cannot act as a substitute for rigorous protection of a groundwater system that supports such a strong and established agricultural industry."
Readers are left with impressions that the mine should probably not go ahead.
PS: I think the feasibility of the mine is highly questionable, given that the analysis of the mine by the applicant was based on very high coal prices that have been a past thing and now the coal prices are much lower than those. Although it is likely that coal prices will bounce back higher, it is unlikely to see its high days in the past. China's economy has been in transition and its future demand for coal is also unlikely to be as predicted in the past when the Chinese economy was red hot with annual growth was double digits. Further, as some of the experts stated, there are also hurdles for the applicant to get over before it can plan when to start the mining, should coal prices can be high enough for the mine to open. It can be years away assuming the applicant is still interested in moving forward with the mining project.
2015-07-05
Australia's twin track diplomacy may work to its favour
Comments on Mark Beeson "Australia’s twin track diplomacy", 5/07/2015
It is not necessarily problematic for Australia to have had twin track diplomacy being friends of both the US and China, at least for the foreseeable time being.
Such a twin track will work well when the relationship between the US and China is manageable and they do not become conflict with each other. This also spells what Australia should aim for for its twin track policy, that is, to work to avoid potential deterioration of the relationship between the two world heavy weights.
Australia as a friend of both and a middle power, can punch above its weights and exert significant influence over both countries. It requires Australia to maintain very close relationships with both of them and be seen as working for the common interests or common goods for all of them. It is not unachievable by Australia but must be a fine balance on the Australia part.
It is not necessarily problematic for Australia to have had twin track diplomacy being friends of both the US and China, at least for the foreseeable time being.
Such a twin track will work well when the relationship between the US and China is manageable and they do not become conflict with each other. This also spells what Australia should aim for for its twin track policy, that is, to work to avoid potential deterioration of the relationship between the two world heavy weights.
Australia as a friend of both and a middle power, can punch above its weights and exert significant influence over both countries. It requires Australia to maintain very close relationships with both of them and be seen as working for the common interests or common goods for all of them. It is not unachievable by Australia but must be a fine balance on the Australia part.
2015-07-01
A better alternative to trying corrupt those Chinese sinners in Australia
Comments on Neil Thomas "Australia: a haven for Chinese sinners?" 1/07/2015
The idea to try those suspects in Australia may be a good one, although a better alternative is to use the processes of cooperation with China to press China to be more transparent in its legal system at least for the cases of trying those suspects. The Australian government should make good use of opportunities offered by China's pursuit of corrupt people who have escaped overseas.
If Australia in conjunction with other countries such as the United States, Canada and some European countries can make China to make progress in being transparent and upholding fairness in its legal processes, it would be good not only for China, but also for the world. It will be really "hitting two birds with one stone".
The idea to try those suspects in Australia may be a good one, although a better alternative is to use the processes of cooperation with China to press China to be more transparent in its legal system at least for the cases of trying those suspects. The Australian government should make good use of opportunities offered by China's pursuit of corrupt people who have escaped overseas.
If Australia in conjunction with other countries such as the United States, Canada and some European countries can make China to make progress in being transparent and upholding fairness in its legal processes, it would be good not only for China, but also for the world. It will be really "hitting two birds with one stone".
2013-04-29
China dialogue - a further step in strengthening Sina Australia relations
Comments on Stephen Loosley "Time is right for China dialogue", 29/04/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/time-is-right-for-china-dialogue/story-e6frgd0x-1226631142134
Stephen, it is an excellent idea.
The recent development in Australia-China relations and the wonderful achievements by the government and the prime minister in strengthening and upgrading the relations indicates Australia can play a much greater role in the Asia Pacific region in general and in potential bridging between the largest players in the region in particular.
How China conducts its international affairs is likely to affect not only the Asia Pacific region but also the world in this century. It is in everyone's interest that China is most productively integrated into the international system and plays a cooperative role.
Australia is uniquely and well positioned to play a role much bigger than its weight, so it is punching above its weight, due to its strong relations with both China and the US, as well as Japan.
Close relationships and frequent exchange and dialogues will be most conducive to mutual understanding not only between the two countries but also among the main players in the region.
As Chinese Australian who has studied, worked and lived in both China and Australia, I strongly and completely support your proposal and look forward to it being warmly embraced soon.
2012-07-27
Abbott's foreign adventure
Comments on Craig Mark "Abbott’s stance on China needs to evolve with the times" 27/07/2012
https://theconversation.edu.au/abbotts-stance-on-china-needs-to-evolve-with-the-times-7975#comments
China is no Gillard nor Rudd.
Abbott is unlikely to be as successful in dealing with China as he has so effectively opposed to the ALP government since he became the opposition leader.
China is no Gillard nor Rudd.
If Abbott hopes his hardlining tactics may work, the US would have China measured long ago, given that the US has been and is still much much more powerful than Australia and there have been many harks there who are at least as good as Abbott in global leadership and skills.
So yes, his stance on China has to evolve with time.
Just see how American presidents changed their attitudes towards China from their campaigns once they came to the White House and began to deal with China.
Rhetoric is one thing and reality is another totally different one all together.
2011-08-18
Another disappointing piece from Sheridan
Comments on Greg Sheridan "Kowtowing to the Chinese on human rights won't earn their respect", 18/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/kowtowing-to-the-chinese-on-human-rights-wont-earn-their-respect/story-e6frg6zo-1226116945864
This piece from Greg Sheridan is disappointing, as usually the case when he wrote about China or the US.
He does not appear to have moved a bit from his cold war era mentality and thinking. Nor does he appear to have recognised the rapidly changing strategic equation between the US and China.
More disappointingly is his black and white reasoning and comments on people in Australia in particular and in the west in general regarding to their analysis on China.
In his mind, any people who are a bit hawks to speak about China are the best mind in diplomatic field, and those who are more realistic are problematic.
It is disappointing of the Australian Newspaper to have not employ a better mind in its foreign affairs editor, although in the paper is generally very good in many fields it covers.
This piece from Greg Sheridan is disappointing, as usually the case when he wrote about China or the US.
He does not appear to have moved a bit from his cold war era mentality and thinking. Nor does he appear to have recognised the rapidly changing strategic equation between the US and China.
More disappointingly is his black and white reasoning and comments on people in Australia in particular and in the west in general regarding to their analysis on China.
In his mind, any people who are a bit hawks to speak about China are the best mind in diplomatic field, and those who are more realistic are problematic.
It is disappointing of the Australian Newspaper to have not employ a better mind in its foreign affairs editor, although in the paper is generally very good in many fields it covers.
2011-06-08
Americans need to recognise the inevitable
Comments on Paul Kelly “US bull wants help in the China shop”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/us-bull-wants-help-in-the-china-shop/comments-e6frgd0x-1226071257169
Are the Americans unrealistically defying historical trends in hoping that it will be able to continue to dominant in the world economically and militarily?
Simple math suggests that Asia's giants, like China and India with more than a billion population each and faster economic growth, will take over the US as world top economic powers and with it military powers too.
The speed of China's economic growth in the past three decades suggests it is likely to take over the US in between 1 and 2 decades.
With such a background, the pure dominance mentality or intention of the US, if maintained and continued, will not be conducive to world peace. To the contrary, it would be more likely to lead to instability and conflicts.
It is time for the US to be more sober and recognise the inevitable historical changes. Its power is not declining, but the powers of others are growing faster.
Australia should influence the Americans to make the right decisions. It is in the interests of both, as well as world peace.
Are the Americans unrealistically defying historical trends in hoping that it will be able to continue to dominant in the world economically and militarily?
Simple math suggests that Asia's giants, like China and India with more than a billion population each and faster economic growth, will take over the US as world top economic powers and with it military powers too.
The speed of China's economic growth in the past three decades suggests it is likely to take over the US in between 1 and 2 decades.
With such a background, the pure dominance mentality or intention of the US, if maintained and continued, will not be conducive to world peace. To the contrary, it would be more likely to lead to instability and conflicts.
It is time for the US to be more sober and recognise the inevitable historical changes. Its power is not declining, but the powers of others are growing faster.
Australia should influence the Americans to make the right decisions. It is in the interests of both, as well as world peace.
2011-03-29
John Lee's confusion of short versus long terms
Comments on John Lee “Haunted by China's ghost cities”, 29/03/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-property-Australian-economy-pd20110325-FA9SR?OpenDocument&src=rot
It seems that John Lee may have either inadvertently and unknowingly, or intentionally and wilfully confused two important issues that have quite different implications, that is, the shorter term and longer or long term of Chinese housing market and urbanisation.
He mentioned that “a small but increasing number of notable investors such as Jim Chanos and Garry Shilling are shorting China”. To me those investors are more likely to look at the short term but very unlikely to look at the longer term, especially when the purpose of those investors is “shorting”. The fact is that some financial investors can change their position from long to short or vice versa very quickly.
It remains a fact that there is still a very large proportion of Chinese, far exceeding that in any of the industrialised countries now, living in rural areas and as Chinese industrialisation proceeds further they will become part of the urban resident cohort – that is, part of further urbanisation. That longer term urbanisation trend in China is unlikely to be disrupted by shorter term housing market corrections.
And dare I say that the big miners are looking at the longer term trends as opposed to shorter term fluctuation in the markets for their investments in mines and mining production.
By confusing those two very different issues unfortunately, John Lee is confused himself and is confusing others at the same time.
I would predict that it is extremely unlikely that any big miners will employ him to assist in their decision making.
However, there is a limit to industrialisation and urbanisation in any country including China. Besides, once industrialisation and urbanisation is complete or near complete, the demand for commodities may well fall, sometimes significantly. That obviously needs to take into account in any long term mining investments and metal production and supply.
PS: it appears that John Lee likes to paint China negatively in almost everything, that is probably a form of serious bias. And that is likely to result in mistakes in his analysis and conclusions in most of the times.
It seems that John Lee may have either inadvertently and unknowingly, or intentionally and wilfully confused two important issues that have quite different implications, that is, the shorter term and longer or long term of Chinese housing market and urbanisation.
He mentioned that “a small but increasing number of notable investors such as Jim Chanos and Garry Shilling are shorting China”. To me those investors are more likely to look at the short term but very unlikely to look at the longer term, especially when the purpose of those investors is “shorting”. The fact is that some financial investors can change their position from long to short or vice versa very quickly.
It remains a fact that there is still a very large proportion of Chinese, far exceeding that in any of the industrialised countries now, living in rural areas and as Chinese industrialisation proceeds further they will become part of the urban resident cohort – that is, part of further urbanisation. That longer term urbanisation trend in China is unlikely to be disrupted by shorter term housing market corrections.
And dare I say that the big miners are looking at the longer term trends as opposed to shorter term fluctuation in the markets for their investments in mines and mining production.
By confusing those two very different issues unfortunately, John Lee is confused himself and is confusing others at the same time.
I would predict that it is extremely unlikely that any big miners will employ him to assist in their decision making.
However, there is a limit to industrialisation and urbanisation in any country including China. Besides, once industrialisation and urbanisation is complete or near complete, the demand for commodities may well fall, sometimes significantly. That obviously needs to take into account in any long term mining investments and metal production and supply.
PS: it appears that John Lee likes to paint China negatively in almost everything, that is probably a form of serious bias. And that is likely to result in mistakes in his analysis and conclusions in most of the times.
2010-12-28
It is not China but possibly the US
Comments on John W.H. Denton “China need not be an emerging problem”, 28/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/china-need-not-be-an-emerging-problem/story-e6frg6ux-1225976793355
While post is made from the businesses perspective, it has a strong strategic flavour.
Globalisation and economic integration and deep exchange of trade mean that historical examples of great power shifts may be just that, a history.
It is most likely that China's rise will be peaceful, even though there will be challenges in the processes.
The most serious challenge is how the existing power reacts to the power shift in the process and see its relative decline and the rise of another country that can become stronger and replace it as the most powerful.
The attempt of or the tendency of maintaining own power and creating difficulties for the new comer could be very dangerous and would be detrimental to everyone.
Australia is in a unique position in this power shift and its vital that it engages both constructively. It is in Australia's utmost interest to see a peaceful process.
On that note, the revelation of Rudd's ill considered discussion with US concerning China by Wikileak indicates the weakness side of Rudd's personality, and strategic and leadership skills that saw him lost of his prime ministership in the first term.
Australia needs to guard against that kind of amateurish.
While post is made from the businesses perspective, it has a strong strategic flavour.
Globalisation and economic integration and deep exchange of trade mean that historical examples of great power shifts may be just that, a history.
It is most likely that China's rise will be peaceful, even though there will be challenges in the processes.
The most serious challenge is how the existing power reacts to the power shift in the process and see its relative decline and the rise of another country that can become stronger and replace it as the most powerful.
The attempt of or the tendency of maintaining own power and creating difficulties for the new comer could be very dangerous and would be detrimental to everyone.
Australia is in a unique position in this power shift and its vital that it engages both constructively. It is in Australia's utmost interest to see a peaceful process.
On that note, the revelation of Rudd's ill considered discussion with US concerning China by Wikileak indicates the weakness side of Rudd's personality, and strategic and leadership skills that saw him lost of his prime ministership in the first term.
Australia needs to guard against that kind of amateurish.
2010-09-21
What does Josh Frydenberg really subscribe to?
Comments on Josh Frydenberg “Washington is integral to our region”, 21/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/washington-is-integral-to-our-region/story-e6frg6ux-1225926937881
Similar to the concepts of positive versus normative economics, perhaps there could be similar concept in politics and international relations.
If borrowing those concepts, it appears that Josh Frydenberg has some considerable inconsistency in his argument.
On the one hand, he is saying values and similarities and differences, as well as the superior power of the US.
On the other he is arguing that potential problems for China with its projected rise, such as property bubbles, and so on.
One is left bewildered: does Frydenberg believe power politics and its implications for international relations, or does he believe value system?
Hypothetically, what will Frydenberg do should China one day become more powerful than the US?
It is likely to be an interesting test for Frydenberg!
Similar to the concepts of positive versus normative economics, perhaps there could be similar concept in politics and international relations.
If borrowing those concepts, it appears that Josh Frydenberg has some considerable inconsistency in his argument.
On the one hand, he is saying values and similarities and differences, as well as the superior power of the US.
On the other he is arguing that potential problems for China with its projected rise, such as property bubbles, and so on.
One is left bewildered: does Frydenberg believe power politics and its implications for international relations, or does he believe value system?
Hypothetically, what will Frydenberg do should China one day become more powerful than the US?
It is likely to be an interesting test for Frydenberg!
2010-09-11
Critique of Sheridan's criticism of White's paper
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Distorted vision of future US-China relations”, 11/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/distorted-vision-of-future-us-china-relations/story-e6frg6zo-1225917582189
Sheridan's article is full of criticism of White's article: nearly possible to find any recognition of any positive side of White's from Sheridan's critique.
I haven’t read White's paper and am not in a position to comment it.
Having said, I find some of Sheridan's points stretched.
For example, he criticises White's argument on economic size and possible relative change in the 4th last paragraph. He says White is inconsistent in terms of real dollar and purchasing power parity because White says China’s economy could take over the US by 2020 and that Australia is the 14th largest economy. He argues that the latter is in dollar term and that the former “is complete nonsense but is only even conceivable as a dream if you use the essentially meaningless parity purchasing-power measure”.
It seems that Sheridan may have got the fact wrong and would be better of to do some serious checking and study.
Although China’s economy is a little over a third of that the US’ in dollar terms now, it is not inconceivable for China to catch up with that of the US in 2020. This is because it only requires the following to occur: the differential growth rate is 7.2% a year and a less than 50% appreciation of the Chinese currency.
The experience in the past decade shows both are possible and can be reasonably expected to occur.
If Sheridan can get this wrong, what else couldn’t his argument and judgment if based on relative economic strengths be wrong?
Sheridan's article is full of criticism of White's article: nearly possible to find any recognition of any positive side of White's from Sheridan's critique.
I haven’t read White's paper and am not in a position to comment it.
Having said, I find some of Sheridan's points stretched.
For example, he criticises White's argument on economic size and possible relative change in the 4th last paragraph. He says White is inconsistent in terms of real dollar and purchasing power parity because White says China’s economy could take over the US by 2020 and that Australia is the 14th largest economy. He argues that the latter is in dollar term and that the former “is complete nonsense but is only even conceivable as a dream if you use the essentially meaningless parity purchasing-power measure”.
It seems that Sheridan may have got the fact wrong and would be better of to do some serious checking and study.
Although China’s economy is a little over a third of that the US’ in dollar terms now, it is not inconceivable for China to catch up with that of the US in 2020. This is because it only requires the following to occur: the differential growth rate is 7.2% a year and a less than 50% appreciation of the Chinese currency.
The experience in the past decade shows both are possible and can be reasonably expected to occur.
If Sheridan can get this wrong, what else couldn’t his argument and judgment if based on relative economic strengths be wrong?
2010-06-24
China values good relations with Australia
Comments on Rowan Callick “Chinese serious about visiting rights”, 24/06/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/chinese-serious-about-visiting-rights/story-e6frg6zo-1225883386123
China generally values its relationship with Australia greatly, partly as trade, economic and geography. More importantly, China views Australia as an important and possibly strategic partner in the west world. Certainly Australia is viewed as the one that can play an intermediate role between China and the US due to its alliance with the US and pro China stance in many international issues.
For better or worse, China does value good relations with its international friends, perhaps sometimes more than it should, but that is the way it has been in the past 60 years. If others treat it as friends, it has treated others the same and returned enormous goodwill.
There is no doubt that the relationship between the two countries will be further enhanced as the weight of the world economy further moves to Asia as the 21st century unfolds.
China generally values its relationship with Australia greatly, partly as trade, economic and geography. More importantly, China views Australia as an important and possibly strategic partner in the west world. Certainly Australia is viewed as the one that can play an intermediate role between China and the US due to its alliance with the US and pro China stance in many international issues.
For better or worse, China does value good relations with its international friends, perhaps sometimes more than it should, but that is the way it has been in the past 60 years. If others treat it as friends, it has treated others the same and returned enormous goodwill.
There is no doubt that the relationship between the two countries will be further enhanced as the weight of the world economy further moves to Asia as the 21st century unfolds.
2010-03-29
Hard rock mind and habits of free thought
Comments on David Burchell “A blind eye keeps the wheels of commerce turning”, 29/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-blind-eye-keeps-the-wheels-of-commerce-turning/story-e6frg6zo-1225846613004
It is interesting that Burchell has resorted to so much history and so many big historical names.
Does Burchell, in his own habits of free thought, believe anything that might be morally right and correct in China and the Chinese justice?
Or in his own habits of free thought and his respected moral, Stern Hu, as an Australian, could never be doing anything wrong or unlawful?
Further, how could Burchell's habits of free thought guarantee that in every second of Stern Hu's life he is doing everything morally right and lawfully correct?
One has to wonder how Burchell, in his own habits of free thought, has got such over-confidence and self indulgence!
To me, Burchell's habits of free thought is nothing more than a mind full of hard rocks that can never change even when evidence proves it is completely wrong and utterly immoral.
It is interesting that Burchell has resorted to so much history and so many big historical names.
Does Burchell, in his own habits of free thought, believe anything that might be morally right and correct in China and the Chinese justice?
Or in his own habits of free thought and his respected moral, Stern Hu, as an Australian, could never be doing anything wrong or unlawful?
Further, how could Burchell's habits of free thought guarantee that in every second of Stern Hu's life he is doing everything morally right and lawfully correct?
One has to wonder how Burchell, in his own habits of free thought, has got such over-confidence and self indulgence!
To me, Burchell's habits of free thought is nothing more than a mind full of hard rocks that can never change even when evidence proves it is completely wrong and utterly immoral.
2010-03-27
Wake up to modern and real world please
Comment on Terry McCrann “Rio Tinto gets to grips with a new reality in China over Stern Hu & co”, 27/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/rio-tinto-gets-to-grips-with-a-new-reality-in-china-over-stern-hu-co/story-e6frg9if-1225846167483
With all respect, it appears that the author relies too much on "guess" work and has used too little rational analysis and intuition based on facts.
Closer economic ties with China do not necessarily mean any loss of sovereignty or dignity for Australia, in a modern, globalised and progressive world.
The past and outdated mentality of power international politics emanating from Australia's reliance on the US as a protector has had too much bearing on some Australians, so they cannot escape from it and continue to use that in their analysis of the future.
Closer economic ties in the context of different political systems and values to some extent means both ways: we need China and China needs us, it should be a win-win to both, not the situation where one wins and other loses.
The world is moving to a multi polar system and becoming more equal as opposed to hegemony, or two camp rivalries. Politically speaking, differences in size like population are becoming less and less important.
Our analysts and commentators cannot live in the past forever but to catch up with the new international reality.
Otherwise they will become irrelevant.
PS: the fact that it has been so difficult (maybe for some even impossible) to come to terms that Stern Hu and his other three colleagues have accepted bribes, just manifests so clearly how close-minded some people in Australia are. Don't any Australians commit crimes or behave inappropriately ever?
Rio was adamant that Stern Hu did not do anything wrong earlier on, how did it know for that sure? Did it monitor their movements in China all the time? Was that possible? That simply blind faith just defies logic and begs belief.
With all respect, it appears that the author relies too much on "guess" work and has used too little rational analysis and intuition based on facts.
Closer economic ties with China do not necessarily mean any loss of sovereignty or dignity for Australia, in a modern, globalised and progressive world.
The past and outdated mentality of power international politics emanating from Australia's reliance on the US as a protector has had too much bearing on some Australians, so they cannot escape from it and continue to use that in their analysis of the future.
Closer economic ties in the context of different political systems and values to some extent means both ways: we need China and China needs us, it should be a win-win to both, not the situation where one wins and other loses.
The world is moving to a multi polar system and becoming more equal as opposed to hegemony, or two camp rivalries. Politically speaking, differences in size like population are becoming less and less important.
Our analysts and commentators cannot live in the past forever but to catch up with the new international reality.
Otherwise they will become irrelevant.
PS: the fact that it has been so difficult (maybe for some even impossible) to come to terms that Stern Hu and his other three colleagues have accepted bribes, just manifests so clearly how close-minded some people in Australia are. Don't any Australians commit crimes or behave inappropriately ever?
Rio was adamant that Stern Hu did not do anything wrong earlier on, how did it know for that sure? Did it monitor their movements in China all the time? Was that possible? That simply blind faith just defies logic and begs belief.
2010-03-26
Misleading and low academics
Comments on Joh Lee “In dealing with Beijing, overambition tends to backfire”, 26/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/in-dealing-with-beijing-overambition-tends-to-backfire/story-e6frg6zo-1225845497854
This appears to be a very distorting view of the events and their underlying causes.
A person starting with a very biased and fixed views and mind is unlikely to get the basic facts right, let alone analysis.
It is nothing more than being misleading and attempting political mind cleansing.
It is poor and appalling.
It is low politics and equally low if not lower academics.
This appears to be a very distorting view of the events and their underlying causes.
A person starting with a very biased and fixed views and mind is unlikely to get the basic facts right, let alone analysis.
It is nothing more than being misleading and attempting political mind cleansing.
It is poor and appalling.
It is low politics and equally low if not lower academics.
2009-10-15
Two Smiths, one tact
Comments on Warwick Smith “Mr Smith goes to China”, 14/10/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/14/mr-smith-goes-to-china/
Smith says the following:
"The six principles announced by Treasurer Wayne Swan were widely viewed by the Chinese investors as directed against them. The principle that requires approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) of incoming investment by state entities seems to be targeted against inbound Chinese investment, although it is not the case at all."
It is hard to see how that principle is not targeted against inbound Chinese investment. Does Mr Smith have any facts to indicate it is not?
Was that really just a coincidence that those principles were introduced in the process of the Chinalco bid or shortly after its bid announcement? Are there many so called state entities that also invest internationally?
It seems Smith is defying not only the logic, but also the fact.
We should acknowledge the fact as it is. If it is right we stick with it. If it is wrong we correct it.
The argument is incomprehensible.
But I stand ready to be corrected by Smith.
Smith says the following:
"The six principles announced by Treasurer Wayne Swan were widely viewed by the Chinese investors as directed against them. The principle that requires approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) of incoming investment by state entities seems to be targeted against inbound Chinese investment, although it is not the case at all."
It is hard to see how that principle is not targeted against inbound Chinese investment. Does Mr Smith have any facts to indicate it is not?
Was that really just a coincidence that those principles were introduced in the process of the Chinalco bid or shortly after its bid announcement? Are there many so called state entities that also invest internationally?
It seems Smith is defying not only the logic, but also the fact.
We should acknowledge the fact as it is. If it is right we stick with it. If it is wrong we correct it.
The argument is incomprehensible.
But I stand ready to be corrected by Smith.
2009-10-02
China's historical progress
Comments on Alan Kohler “China's historical whitewash”, 2/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Overcoming-Chinas-past-pd20091002-WESM4?OpenDocument&src=sph
Alan, maybe the first half of the past 60 years was a learning period for the Chinese communists and paid a heavy fee for that learning.
In retrospect, it was also a learning period for the world's all communists, with the Chinese communists having survived while the USSR collapsed.
The result is that the Chinese communists now are a different school of communism altogether. In light of that, they may have become Adenauer in the East! That is likely to have profound implications for not China but also the world.
While it is regrettable that the first half was disastrous for China, the Chinese have moved on and are now looking into the future, as opposed to dwelling in the past.
There is no point for us outsiders to revisit their pains if they don’t want to. So we probably need to move on as well.
Alan, maybe the first half of the past 60 years was a learning period for the Chinese communists and paid a heavy fee for that learning.
In retrospect, it was also a learning period for the world's all communists, with the Chinese communists having survived while the USSR collapsed.
The result is that the Chinese communists now are a different school of communism altogether. In light of that, they may have become Adenauer in the East! That is likely to have profound implications for not China but also the world.
While it is regrettable that the first half was disastrous for China, the Chinese have moved on and are now looking into the future, as opposed to dwelling in the past.
There is no point for us outsiders to revisit their pains if they don’t want to. So we probably need to move on as well.
2009-09-28
Salute Bob Hawke
Comments on Bob Hawke “Looking back on China’s relations with Australia”, 27/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/27/looking-back-on-chinas-relations-with-australia/
Prime Minister Hawke is a great Australian statesman and is loved in both Australians and the Chinese.
Yes, to lift poor people from poverty is one of the greatest of human rights issues and the world should recognise it.
Although there are natural bonds in the relationship between Australia and China, it is the successive outstanding leaderships of the two countries, including Hawke, who have greatly strengthened those bonds.
There is a saying in Chinese that never forget those who dug the well when one drinks the water from it. Those who have contributed to Sino-Australia relations will always be remembered.
Look forward, stronger Sino-Australia relations will benefit the two nations and the region as well as the world even more.
Let’s all try to make a contribution to it.
Prime Minister Hawke is a great Australian statesman and is loved in both Australians and the Chinese.
Yes, to lift poor people from poverty is one of the greatest of human rights issues and the world should recognise it.
Although there are natural bonds in the relationship between Australia and China, it is the successive outstanding leaderships of the two countries, including Hawke, who have greatly strengthened those bonds.
There is a saying in Chinese that never forget those who dug the well when one drinks the water from it. Those who have contributed to Sino-Australia relations will always be remembered.
Look forward, stronger Sino-Australia relations will benefit the two nations and the region as well as the world even more.
Let’s all try to make a contribution to it.
2009-09-22
Electrical Trades Union hypocritical to oppose free trade agreement with China
Comments on Malcolm Colless “Hansonite protest out of left field”, 22/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26105680-7583,00.html
The secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is hypocritical and seeks to scare people.
The campaign against Australia signing a free trade agreement with China by the ETU is an attempt to lower the living standard of all Australians and slow the progress of Australia economy to move to an internationally more competitive one.
It is an attempt by a handful special interest group for their own short term interest at the expense of all other Australians. They want to protect the so called employment of theirs in the current form without realising that the world is changing very rapidly and the structure of employment in the economy has to keep pace with it.
This is old trade protectionism in a different disguise.
The report says that the ETU campaign argues against concluding the FTA and savagely attacks China's employment standards and its record on human rights.
China is different from Australia in many aspects including employment standards. But it reflects mainly the different living standards between the two countries other than otherthing else. Many Chinese still live in very poor conditions and the very survival of prople is a question.
Why doesn’t the secretary of the ETU care about the living standards of those people when talking about their employment standards?
This shows how shallow, hypocritical and double standards the secretary is!
The secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is hypocritical and seeks to scare people.
The campaign against Australia signing a free trade agreement with China by the ETU is an attempt to lower the living standard of all Australians and slow the progress of Australia economy to move to an internationally more competitive one.
It is an attempt by a handful special interest group for their own short term interest at the expense of all other Australians. They want to protect the so called employment of theirs in the current form without realising that the world is changing very rapidly and the structure of employment in the economy has to keep pace with it.
This is old trade protectionism in a different disguise.
The report says that the ETU campaign argues against concluding the FTA and savagely attacks China's employment standards and its record on human rights.
China is different from Australia in many aspects including employment standards. But it reflects mainly the different living standards between the two countries other than otherthing else. Many Chinese still live in very poor conditions and the very survival of prople is a question.
Why doesn’t the secretary of the ETU care about the living standards of those people when talking about their employment standards?
This shows how shallow, hypocritical and double standards the secretary is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
