Crunching the numbers

[Joseph Chikva]

Well Joe, I guess I can say that I have a good basis in M, but have done some D and I as well. Some of theM, I and D work was related to E as well.
I also have taken (and applied via work) courses on Micro and Macro Economics at the Undergrad and Graduate levels. If you learn one thing from this conversation, it should be that D, I, M & E are all intricately linked and dependant on each other, especially when you are talking at the strategic level.

I don't think you have ever taken a Macro Economics course, let alone applied it professionally. I do not think it is my role to educate you on economic theory. It is apparent from my above posts regarding analysis of China and your replies that you do not even have the fundamentals to understand what I am talking about.

I also think that your perspective on the break up of the Soviet Union is very biased and limited in scope due your being Georgian. It is not your fault, just circumstance. You seem never really willing to accept that there can be other points of view on a topic.

For example, you claim three years on the world economic stage is nothing. I would offer that three years can bring dramatic change.
Any Economic System is a Chaotic System with unstable boundaries. Some boundaries are more stable, some are less.

Yes, I have never taken Macro Economics course but can say that 7 and 14 are comparable numbers.
Thanks.

You said that Soviet Union fell down owing to economic problems caused by arms race with USA. But in reality Michail Gorbachov with his “glasnost & perestroika” was the main cause of falling.
Because unusual “glasnost” (publicity) woke the sleeping internal contradictions which have broken off the country from inside. That is an objective fact. But being American it is probably pleasant to you to call yourself a winner in a mortal combat when actually your opponent died of an infection.

[ladajo]

Yes Joseph, you can compare 7 to 14. It is half.

As for the infection that killed the Soviet Union, hmmm. I wonder who helped them catch it, and also helped make it worse, and eventually fatal.
I wonder indeed.

They were in an economic war they could never win. Shame.

[paperburn1]

Yes Joseph, you can compare 7 to 14. It is half.

As for the infection that killed the Soviet Union, hmmm. I wonder who helped them catch it, and also helped make it worse, and eventually fatal.
I wonder indeed.

They were in an economic war they could never win. Shame.

There is a theory that Chernobyl was the final straw that broke the beast back. In trying to deal with debt, food contamination and the growing mistrust of Pravda by the public.

[ladajo]

It certainly did not help.

[TallDave]

I think Acemoglu has it right -- for a few decades the Soviets grew despite their extractive political institutions (a lot of people thought they would surpass the United States by the 1990s) but ultimately extractive institutions create the wrong incentives while the inclusive political institutions of the West created the right incentives.

Some Soviet leaders eventually recognized this, hence glasnost and perestroika. But they couldn't maintain power. This is actually very, very typical throughout history -- the Chinese, the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans, they all had the knowledge necessary for the Industrial Revolution but only England had the weird combination of an efficient centralized state and weak elites who could not suppress creative destruction the way everyone else did. Political elites almost always suppress economic progress because the instability it creates threatens them, either directly or by disrupting their economic extraction. Notice the North Koreans are still hanging in there.

[Joseph Chikva]

Yes Joseph, you can compare 7 to 14. It is half.

As for the infection that killed the Soviet Union, hmmm. I wonder who helped them catch it, and also helped make it worse, and eventually fatal.
I wonder indeed.

They were in an economic war they could never win. Shame.

Yes 7 is a half of 14. But comparing growth rates 9 vs. 1.3 - almost 7 times higher.
That's not economics, that is not even math, but only arithmetic.

Economic war with USSR? “Recourses constrained” China?
Whom do you want to mislead?
In another thread you told about ability of USA win in real nuclear war. Are you still believe in such ability? And if yes, was that "war" with Russia economic or that could become real? You mentioned "Hollywood scenario" when I said that Russia even today able to destroy USA as effectively as USA can destroy Russia. You leaned said by you in your academies?
And if USA won in economic war with SU, is USA today not losing to China?
What did you mean saying "now they are gaining"? Who the third biggest (8%) holder of National Public Debt of USA? Not China?
Are they resources constrained?

All these questions are rhetoric.
Because it is obvius that at comparable size economics China today has much less responsibilities (e.g. social) and so can mobilize much more resources for significant programs. And all said by you here is wrong or more likely is primitive and naive disinformation.
Sorry.

[ladajo]

Yes 7 is a half of 14. But comparing growth rates 9 vs. 1.3 - almost 7 times higher.
That's not economics, that is not even math, but only arithmetic.

Well, Joseph, as I already pointed out to you, the simple arithmatic says it will take ten years for parity. Not three.
And if you are going to compare the rates, be sure to make a disclaimer, you know, like best case China, against worst case USA.

Economic war with USSR? “Recourses constrained” China?
Whom do you want to mislead?

Yes Joseph, both are true. USSR lost economic war, and China has resource issues. Where do they get oil? How much steel and iron can they produce? What are their needs verses sourcing? Why won't you accept you have no idea what you are talking about. You admit you don't, but then keep going on about it.
Maybe you should read up on Daron Acemoglu's ideas as Talldave suggests. Although you may not like him since he is Turkish. But he does work at MIT...If you really want to peel the onion, take a look at Jeff Sachs' work as well. Sachs does not agree with Acemoglu's Linear Model and findings. Both have much to offer.

In another thread you told about ability of USA win in real nuclear war.

Yes. Who is the fight with and when? What is it over? Is pre-emptive an option? Most importantly, what is the Objective? In most cases for a feasible objective, the US will win. If the other guy's objective is to nuke a US City and not care about getting nuked back, then that is not so realistic for a state actor.

As for a full exhange with RU, (they are really the only ones who could come close to matching throw weight), I have serious doubts about quality and performance. RU may well come off much worse, as I can say the I have no similar concerns about US quality and performance. But again, what is the objective? If you are talking China, be assured that if the US went all in, China would be challenged to even get a shot off.

And if USA won in economic war with SU, is USA today not losing to China?

Yes, USSR collapsed and lost. Or are they still around and I missed it? I have been to Russia, recently even, and I did not notice the USSR while I was there. I did notice a country with significant economic challenges, courtesy of the USSR. Kind of like East Germany. Maybe you should ask West Germany what they think it will take to get East Germany up to speed post USSR.
China is not ten feet tall. They have lots of drama that you continue to demonstrate ignorance of. They may well not survive the drama.

What did you mean saying "now they are gaining"?

I meant that the tracked GDP Growth rate is higher. However, I also offer that it is artificial and unstable due to the makeup of China itself. It offers only a limited metric, as the economy in China is far from fully integrated, unlike the USA.

Are they resources constrained?

Why, yes. Yes they are. They do not have the ability to grow economic integration nor economic and national infrastruture to do resource limitations. This is the biggest clue that the cited growth rate in GDP is a big problem for them. If you are unsure, ask them what they think, and I am sure they will tell you something very similar, in between hiring more interanl security types to keep control.

All these questions are rhetoric.

You are so sure about your kack of understanding and knowledge. Unusual for you.

Because it is obvius that at comparable size economics China today has much less responsibilities (e.g. social) and so can mobilize much more resources for significant programs. And all said by you here is wrong or more likely is primitive and naive disinformation.
Sorry.

If you are tyring to argue that by sacrificing attention to everything else, the Chinese could make a Great Leap Forward, why yes, they could make a leap. Probably off a cliff. That is more or less what happened last time they took a Great Leap.

Grow up Joseph. Realize when you are talking out your ass and stop.
You actually sound like you believe the brainwashing stupidity of the Communist Propagandists that they always were the best at everything. Maybe you should go live in North Korea, or China. I am sure the quality of life is better than what you have now. Let me know how it goes.

[Joseph Chikva]

You actually sound like you believe the brainwashing stupidity of the Communist Propagandists that they always were the best at everything.

I see very similar in your words despite well known and very simple numbers. Similar speculations like "it's so but .... it's not so". I did not believe communist propagandists and now I do not believe your words.
Regarding China, they take crude oil from the same places as USA, and they produce steel and other base resources at quantities needed for their economics.
As far as I know at such a big export potential (they have positive saldo with most of countries) they are not importing steel, aluminum, titanium, tungsten, etc.
Thanks.

[ladajo]

Regarding China, they take crude oil from the same places as USA, and they produce steel and other base resources at quantities needed for their economics.

No, they do not. Especially oil. Why do you think they are so upset about Sudan, and the split?

Stop being an idiot.

[Joseph Chikva]

Regarding China, they take crude oil from the same places as USA, and they produce steel and other base resources at quantities needed for their economics.

No, they do not. Especially oil. Why do you think they are so upset about Sudan, and the split?

Stop being an idiot.

From time to time such difficulties has USA too with various countries. From one side such a big consumer (about 10 millions barrels per day) tries to diverse supply sources and they are getting oil from: Nigeria, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Iran, Saudi Arabia

In 1999, China established a “strategic oil partnership” with Saudi Aramco, under which Sinopec would cooperate with the Saudi company in developing oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia while Saudi Aramco would invest in refineries and petrochemical plants in China. In 2003, Saudi Aramco agreed to become part owner of a US$3.6B refinery and petrochemical complex Sinopec is building in the PRC’s Fujian province. Sinopec was also awarded the right to develop natural gas in Block B of the Royal Kingdom’s Empty Quarter. A few years later, in 2006, during the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Riyadh, Prince Walid bin Talal, a member of the royal family, stated that “as China is a big consumer of oil, the Royal Kingdom needs to open new channels beyond the West to provide a mutual beneficial arrangement”.

Can you say that USA does not purchase oil at least from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela?

From another side I wait that China absolutely similar to how USA is doing at this moment will expand her political influence on oil production regions.
Such regions always are risky for any investment.
I am even sure that by growth of China’s economic strength and also increase of economic problems in USA more and more world gendarme functions carried now by USA will pass to China.

[ladajo]

What does this article tell you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21347819

And what does this chinese study tell you?

www.esi.nus.edu.sg/docs/event/zhou-peng.pdf

Did you notice two key points in the data presented?
1. China is energy resource challenged, and only getting worse.
2. China is extremely wasteful of the energy it uses. Efficiencies are bad, and this only compunds their problem.

And for your further education, here is a decent energy analysis package for China:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-da ... =CH&trk=p1

In response to your post above:

I am even sure that by growth of China’s economic strength and also increase of economic problems in USA more and more world gendarme functions carried now by USA will pass to China.

They are a long way from this. A very long way indeed. China is a regional power. They have some significant challengers on that front as well. China is not yet an actual Global power, they still don't even know what they are doing yet. Think of them as a teenager in the last two years of high school. They have not been to college yet. Nor gotten a real job.

As for where China gets it's oil, it is not just about a 'name' on a list, it is about how much the 'name' provides. See the charts in the links I provided you.
Then compare those against one for the US. Not much overlap, on purpose. An interesting exercise is to compare how US and Chinese oil sourcing has changed over the last 40 years. This exercise would be instructive for you.

[Joseph Chikva]

And for your further education, here is a decent energy analysis package for China:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-da ... =CH&trk=p1

Read yourself this article for you own education. May be you a little bit lose your imperious look on them

China is the world's most populous country and the largest energy consumer in the world. Rapidly increasing energy demand has made China extremely influential in world energy markets.

Now please explain me what does mean "influential in world energy markets"? Regional or global power?
Thanks in advance.

[choff]

Thing about how the Soviet Union got started up in the first place, around 1917 a ship was detained in Halifax Harbour, Canada en route to what became Leningrad. The passenger in question was Leon Trotsky and a few banking associates from New York. After telegraph cables from London, Washington and New York he was on his way again.

Leinin and Stalin were part of a conference of Russian revolutionaries at Tavistok Place in London some years before, in fact Marx lived not far from what was to become Tavistok Institue for Behavioral Research when he was in London.

Bunch of mind controlled sock puppets.

[ladajo]

Oh poop.

I wrote up another Educational post for you Joseph, but it got lost with a login-cycle.

Here is my best at a reconstruct:

Stop Cherry Picking quotes. You do it in every discussion and it makes you look silly. Look at context.

China has problems with infrastructure. This in turn limits the ability to access and/or distribute resources. Some they just don't have enough of themselves (like energy).

Take a look at:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE

Pick out China 2010: 1807
Very low per capita for a large country. Indicates lack of distribution.
Look at Western Developed Countries:
USA: 7164
Canada: 7380
Germany: 4003
France: 4031
UK: 3254

Also note that these countries are improving efficiency, and overall use and per capita rates are declining as a result. China on the other hand is getting less efficient, and struggling with infrastructure. Usage rates in China are static more or less outside the cities, but rising in the cities. Enough to drive up national numbers significantly. There is also a widening wealth gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. (Note: not much Middle Class by comparison in China).
Non-urban China is very much neglected.

I have been to China, I have worked with senior Chinese officials. I have a group down the hall that makes a living focusing only on China. Ironically, I was just in with them the other day with two Russians talking about China.
What do you have? An internet connection?

I am curious, as a Georgian, maybe you can tell me. Why did you not blow the Roki Tunnel before the Russians used it to invade? With only three roads to cut between Russia and Georgia, this seems to have been simple to concieve and act on. Even if only to prepare for action, and hit the buttons when the Russians rolled. Why not? If it was an economic decision, I think you missed the bus as the Russians had no qualms on dropping your main East-West rail bridge as well as repeatedly hitting other economic targets with Kinetic and Non-Kinetic attacks.

My less obvious point here is that war requires an objective to have any meaning, and pursuit of that war objective is across all four main domains, Diplomatic, Informational, Military & Economic.

China has a very hard time connecting anything across the Domains. You see it every day in the actions they take. For instance, the have used Fire-Control Radar to illuminate Japanese Military units over the Senkakus. This is clearly understood as an act of aggression, even for the Chinese. They have denounced the Diplomatic Intiative to bring forth the issue before the UN to be mediated. The only audience they are feeding Information to is the internal one (and it is purely Nationalistic Rhetoric), lastly, Economically it makes no sense given who they are picking the fight with and the posisble outcomes. They are a high schooler. No college yet, no real job yet. Still figuring things out.

[ScottL]

This should be pointed out as it nullifies any argument against the U.S. with regard to oil. Simply put, we will be the largest producer and exporter of oil before 2020. We'll also be energy independent, so a lot of those previous oil producing countries will have to rely on other means of revenue. Furthermore, I believe this will signal a rather large reversale trend in U.S. and Chinese relations as now we'll have what they want so desperately.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/12/news/ec ... index.html