Developing countries beware: cheaper in price but less advanced

Comment on Andrew Kennedy, ANU: "Is the United States offshoring high-tech leadership to China?", 17/05/2017

Could the author clarify the situation in the following paragraph please on whether it is more economical from the users’ point of view, that is, value for money given cheaper prices but shorter durability?
Quote from the post: “And fourth, overseas R&D often complements the work done at home, rather than substituting for it. Firms doing R&D abroad may be trying to tap into expertise not readily available in their home country, or they may be adapting products for foreign markets in an effort to promote local sales — a task more easily done in that market. Such adaptation may actually make a product less advanced. One global wind power firm, for example, re-designed its gearbox in China to make it less expensive — but in doing so it cut the durability of the product in half.”
The durability was cut by half, what about the price, was it cut by half or almost by half, taking into account compounding interest rate or discounted present value?
It seems that there are both advantages and disadvantages for big tech firms to have some of their R&D activities in developing countries including China where the business environment including the effects of politics may not be as ideal as in their home countries or in developed countries. Certainly the challenges faced by multinationals in China raised in this post should give food for thought to China as it aims to develop into a developed country sooner or later.

Both optimism and caution are needed for the One Belt And One Road project

Comments on Sourabh Gupta, ICAS: “The Belt and Road Initiative should learn from paths already travelled”, 17/05/2017

I highly appreciate the positive views of the author in terms of the BRI as well as the argument for caution and learning from the paths already travelled, because both are important for the success of BRI.
Given the scale of the BRI, it is essential to plan and coordinate the whole projects and to take into account the broader world economic conditions and developments.
Perhaps there is a strong need to establish a modelling framework to undertake the planning, implementation and monitoring of the whole BRI (incorporating all the economies involved as well as the rest of the world which may be further divided into a few major economic blocks), in addition to the planning and cost and benefit study of each individual project.

The purpose of China’s Belt and Road Initiative is not to challenge US-led order

Comments on Hugh White, ANU: “China’s Belt and Road Initiative to challenge US-led order”, 9/05/2017

While there will be strategic implications as White alluded, it would still be a better world if the world cooperates rather than purely and adversely competes.
China has not deliberately excluded any countries from joining that initiative, even though some countries deliberately choose to boycott that initiative and want some others to follow them in doing that.
It is important to have an open mind as opposed to the kind of zero-sum games or even rivalries.

I would interpret China's one-belt and one road initiative as a positive contribution to the world economy inclusive of many countries, as opposed to challenging the existing US-led world order.

Trump unlikely to make any country great

Comments on Abdul Basit, RSIS: “Will Trump make South Asia great again?” 5/05/2017

While it may sound as emotional, it is highly likely that Trump will not make either the America or any other countries great!

For America, it is because he is working against the comparative advantages, both short and long terms, of the USA, period. As a result, he will damage the long-term interests of the USA. It just like to use ice/heroin to improve one’s health, particularly long term effects.

For others, does he have any desire or intention to them great when he campaigned with the slogan ‘make America great again’? Any benefits which any other countries may actually get as a result will be accidental. Alternatively, his attempts to make America great again by working against its comparative advantages may unintentionally benefit its competitors. And many may be considered as such competitors.

Don't correct errors by making errors deliberately

Comments on John Daley, Chief Executive Officer, Grattan Institute and Danielle Wood,

Fellow, Australian Perspectives, Grattan Institute: “Why biased budget forecasts make poor politics”, 5/05/2017

While budget forecast biases are concerning, the authors made like it has been the making of politicians or the Treasurer, as opposed to be a product of the Treasury which are bureaucrats. Unless the authors implied that there has been a conspiracy between the Treasurers and the Treasury staff, the kind of confusing generated by the authors are quite unhelpful in addressing the problems they say wanting to be addressed. Maybe the authors think that the Treasurers should force the Treasuries to make unbiased forecasts, or take some punishing measures if biases are consistent!

Besides, proposing another approach, that is implied by the mentioned conservative approach, is hardly helpful, because that is purposefully making wrong forecasts, as opposed to unbiased forecasts that should be aimed and achieved. Why do you need to do that, purely to cheat yourselves?

Perhaps, the authors of the post should consider having a more independent assessment of Treasury forecasts to see if there have been systematic biases existing, even though there was one assessment done that I suspect may not necessarily completely independent of Treasury if it was commissioned by the latter, or at least some may argue that its independence may have been compromised to some degree given its funding/commission source.

On a personal note, I do have some suspect that it seems there were some systematic biases as the authors pointed out that it was under-estimation and over-estimation of revenues year after year during the Costello and the period followed that respectively. But it needs to be further tested using a robust methodology.