Northern development should be welcomed and embraced

Comments on Warwick H. Anderson "Northern development plan shows Australia’s fraught vision of our tropics", 3/07/2015

While not a historian, it seems both major political parties wish to develop the north and that should be a good thing for Australia. Why is the plan a fraught version?We should perhaps be prepared to embrace new opportunities that would bring, as opposed to be cynical on any proposals.Developing recklessly is not acceptable, but anti any development is equally unacceptable.

In response to comments by John Cassidy:

Thanks for your comments which is quite informational to me.

While I have not examined China's agricultural exports, I would assume that it is a net importer in many agricultural products, given its huge population and relatively scarce arable land as well as its rapid urbanisation. I certainly heard that China now imports a very large quantity of grains.

Proposal for UN to expand Gini measurement

Comments on UN “2014 AMR Part II (17 February - 2 March): Sustaining development gains through inclusive development”, 22/02/2014, https://www.unteamworks.org/node/423746#comment-63704

I address the last question listed above first. I think that a set of necessary and widely applicable conditions or strategies for fostering social inclusion and citizen engagement can be identified. 

If I can talk about social inclusion and citizen engagement in terms of economic ones because it is an important area and without this any benefits will not be sustainable in the long term.

Let's define economic growth as average growth of the economy of a country or a region. Then one can also calculate the economic growth by a set of classification of population based on their income levels, say percentiles. Inclusion can mean a number of concepts, say the lowest 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent have also achieved growth that is not appreciably below the average growth.

Many people are used to using Gini index for equality purposes. Gini index is very useful in measuring income or wealth distribution for a country or region and indeed the whole world if one wishes to do so.

I do mind using that but have some concerns on indiscriminately using it to every occasion particularly to situations where changes are rapid and large in some of the underlying indicators like GDP growth. This is because Gini is a static indicator of relativity of income distribution for a particular point of time and can indicate very little about the level. As such, it may mask significant improvement in, say, poverty reduction when economic growth is rapid with the poor benefiting from it but at the same time Gini may show inequality has increased.

China is a case for this where poverty has been reduced significantly but its Gini measure may have worsened.

I think the UN should undertake some studies to develop some measures which can improve the shortcomings of Gini in that regard. This work may have important applications in managing expectations and contributing to a better and happier society by showing a true picture.

Realistic and optimistic on Asia

Comments on Koh "

Three challenges to Asia’s global ascent", 9/03/2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/03/08/three-challenges-to-asia-s-global-ascent/

The three areas Koh listed are all very important issues that many Asian countries face, and should and must be dealt with sooner or later.

I somehow am confident and optimistic that those issues will be able to be dealt with and resolved in the due course.

Although I have been aware that Gini is high and has been on the rise in China and many people have used that as a big problem in the rapid growing Chinese economy, I didn't realise that Gini is 0.48 in Singapore. I think that China will pay more attention to inclusive growth and achieve better equity in terms of income distribution as its income level rises and as its labour force turns from surplus to relatively scarce especially in the context of rapid growth of the economy and of physical capital investment.

In terms of environment sustainability, it is likely that we will see gradual and significant improvement in some fast growing economies, especially China, as it's economy enters into a stage of extensive physical quantity growth to intensive quality and value growth phase. I think China, leaving aside urbanisation that will still be dominated by extensive physical growth, is very close to this critical transition. Besides, as income level rises, the relative value people place on environmental goods will rise so naturally from now on we are likely to see more "demand" for environmental goods relative to other goods.

Corruptions in many Asian countries are reported to be serious. However, I do believe that it is likely to decline and possibly significantly so in major large fast growing Asian countries, especially in China.

If China is one of the best representatives of Asian fast growing countries, especially when its size and share in those fast growing economies are concerned, my confidence and optimism in them to resolve those three issues seems to be justifiable.

Euro solution, sustainability concept, long term and logic

Comments on James Kirby “The Nouriel Roubini CHOGM show”, 26/10/2011,
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Nouriel-CHOGM-sovereign-debt-OWS-recession-pd20111026-MYQHA?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot

I think a better solution for Europe is that certain countries leave the euro but still remain in EU and receive some help from EU with the flexibility of own currency and monetary policy.

The claim of EU disintegration is overdone, although it is better for some euro members to leave to make their adjustments less painful and more effective and efficient.

In terms of the sustainability of the Chinese economy, one needs to understand stages of economic development and changes in economic structure along the path of development, especially rapid catching up.

It is just like a person grows in weight and height before maturity.
In that analogue, it is correct to say that growth in weight and height is not sustainable in the long term, but very few people would say it and would feel it laughable if someone says
that.

If one understands that analogue, one would not be too fixated on using the sustainability argument, especially when it is combined with in the long term!

Water consumption and sustainable development in China

This is a short comment (in Chinese) on zhongwei1983062 "王则柯：应向供水地区发放干旱补贴", 24/07/2009, http://www.pinggu.name/space-578405-do-blog-id-16583.html


水资源消耗大，原因很多。既有这里提到的，也有其他原因。不可以偏盖全
比如说，产业结构不同，水的消费就不同。
几十年发展，有问题，也有成绩。有些是学费。可全面看。
发扬成绩，解决问题，不断改善。
可持续，和不可持续，都是相对的，没有一成不变的。某段时间内不可持续，之后改了就可以变为持续的。
过去不合理的甚多，现在还有。逐步解决。
原罪感应有，自豪感也应有，才好向前。

Savings and consumption choices for long term growth for China

Comments on Louis Kuijs “China: what long-term policies and reforms are needed to sustain growth?” 3/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/03/china-what-long-term-policies-and-reforms-are-needed-to-sustain-growth/

This is my first comment on this article. It is likely that I will make another comment on the point of deregulation later on.

Louis Kuijs has made a number of interesting points in his article on what policies China should pursue. Most of them may be correct. However, I would like to argue two points of policy of development, in the Chinese current context.

The first is about savings and consumption and their role in long term growth. It is mostly natural to assume a country like China should increase consumption in the face of the current great global recession and the much talked point of international imbalance in savings and consumption between the US on the one hand and some other countries including China the other.

China has had until recently current account surplus and has high savings. Exports have fallen due to the global recession. Saving rate is going up in the US, mainly because of the burst of housing and equity markets bubbles, rising unemployment and the difficulties in credit and financing. So if international consumption is falling, an increase in consumption in China may be able to offset that. But is that the correct and most optimal action to take for China? That is the most important question for China’s policy makers.

I am not sure to change savings and consumption is the best course of action for China to take. The main reason for my doubts is that China is still a low income country with low physical capital per capita and it has huge potential for rapid growth. Unlike most industrialised countries where the marginal return for investment may be naturally lower due to the fact that they are mostly in the world production possibility frontier, the return to investment in China may be much higher due to the potential of rapid growth in the catching up phase. So, there is an alternative to increase in consumption, China can increase investment in infrastructure and physical capital for even faster or at least sustained rapid growth.

So most people / economists with the view for China to increase its consumption as a long term policy to sustain growth may be misguided. China has more options than most industrialised countries in terms of savings and consumption trade off. It also has a much greater feasibility set in terms of investment than most countries. So it is not good enough to simply argue for an increase in consumption and a reduction in savings. It is a much short-sighted view. It reflects a poor understanding of development processes and the important role of domestic savings in those processes.

Middle ground on the environment is needed

Comments on Brendan O'Neill “Beware the greenies who think people are parasites”, 22/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25667725-7583,00.html

Human beings are not parasites on the earth. People who have the views to the contrary have their own big logic and mental problems.

Humans can, however, change the earth and have done so in a very significant scale following the industrial revolution, especially since the middle of the last century as world production was ever conituously increasing to an unprecedented and unrestrained scale.

As a result, human beings collectively have a responsibility to make sure that human beings can live on earth and with the nature harmoniously and sustainably, not just for the current generations, but also for future generations to come, and forever.

There are extremes among people in terms of the environment. Some are environmental alarmists who put the environment above human beings. There are also people who don’t care about the sustainability of human activities on earth and its impact on the environment. Both are wrong and should be recognised as such.

There are huge uncertainties about the impact of human activities on the environment. Normal logic, however, suggests that human production, in the form of its past century and its current state, is unlikely to be sustainable. Natural resources are limited. There are not too many unexploited regions on earth. And human activities are affecting the environment, not so much in terms of the environment itself, but in terms of sustaining human beings, their activities and the current species on the earth as we know.

So we don’t need to be environmental alarmists. We don’t need to sacrifice human beings quest for better lives and comfort. But we do need to take actions to make sure human activities don’t jeopardise its own future, broadly defined to including the pleasures human beings derive from the environment and its diversity.

We need a middle ground.