China, not dependent on the US
China is following the trajectory of by W Germany, Japan and the SE Asian Tigers. Overlaying the growth charts shows that China is at an early stage in the process. It's easy to forget how long China's predecessors sustained their rapid growth rates. And China is much larger.
Ian Flemming wrote Dr No in 1955. In the opening Bond was musing about a fellow 00 agent sent to Singapore, feeling happy it was not him. In 1955 James Bond was afraid to visit Singapore. Look at it now.
China is still in the export-driven growth stage. Despite its rapid export growth, its share of global exports is slightly less than Japan (both roughly 9%). Of course, China is potentially a much larger economy than Japan. The next stage is rapid growth driven by domestic demand; given China's incredible high savings rate, that phase could also be long and powerful.
As for dependence on the US, only 20% of Chine's merchandise exports go to US. Our share of their total exports is even lower (they export other things, like coal). To whom are their exports growing fastest? The EU.
China will participate in any global downturn, but its fate is not linked to the US. But is the reverse true? They hold almost $2 trillion in US IOU's (including Hong Kong and Macao), and we borrow tens of billions more every month.
America seems to have forgotten that creditors make the rules, not debtors. Creditors are masters of their fate, not debtors.
China's US dollar holdings are assets in the same sense as bullets, valuable only in what they can do. They can use them to exert pressure on the US or to buy our tangible assets. And they will use them at some point.
The fall of the US dollar, as your read this breaking through long-term lows, is potentially a historical event -- the end of the post-WWII global financial order. None can say how it will play out, or what lies on the other side.
Much of the 21st century may be events foreshadowed in the 1970's
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
At to Tom Clancy and his discussion of an attack on the dollar isnt' that based on stuff that happened in the 70's repackaged?
Great point! The 1970's saw the forequakes of global peak oil production; the real thing will likely occur sometime in the next 20 years (today, perhaps). The 1970's saw the first great US dollar crisis, foreshadowing the real thing which lies in our future (today, perhaps).
The 1970's were a difficult decade for America. And the next few years...
The geopolitical implications of this could be immense. The great emerging powers will certainly take advantage of any weaknesses in America's power.
Who brought down the USSR?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfolk
That said, the U.S. waged a very effective economic campaign against the U.S.S.R. in the 1980's...
Alternative view: the Saudi Princes waged one of the great economic wars of the post-WWII era against the USSR for control of the oil industry. They opened their spigots, crashed the price of oil, and bankrupted the USSR.
We take credit for defeating the USSR just as we often take credit for defeating NAZI Germany. Perhaps neither is fully deserved.
Necessity is the Mother...
Necessity is the Mother of invention...
I believe it was 2006 when the Saudi representative to OPEC said that contrary to popular belief, Saudi Arabia had no interest in unstable and steeply rising oil prices. At that time, he Saudi's had promised to increase production by 900k. His reasoning was very simple. If oil prices continued to rise uncontrollably, eventually, it would effect the world economy and crash the supply demand in world wide recession or depression. Thus, destabilizing their own economy, causing unrest and potentially to internal unpleasantness.
However, this year the Saudi OPEC rep said that they could do no more to increase supply and stabilize the price. Thus, I believe the Saudi's are doing what we are doing and that is waiting to see what the market will do.
Their other fear is that, if the price hits the "pain threshold" for the US and Europe, we will do what we did in the late 70's and 80's like revamp our automobile manufacturing for improved fuel economy or possibly drive towards the invention of alternative energy. I don't think biofuels is a sustainable or long term answer. I believe the answer will return as solar or other energy sources with the advancement of nano-technology and anti-matter. But, that's for another discussion.
Suffice it to say, even with emerging economies and China's growth, if the US was able to develop other energy resources or, if oil finds in other nations (like the recent find in Brazil) can come onto the market quickly, the oil surplus that would be created would cause the oil market to crash. Not only is that bad for Saudi Arabia, its bad for Russia whose economy is also 50% reliant on energy exports. It's why they are in a rush to complete a transnational pipeline for gas and oil to China. They want to take advantage of a long term market growth when there is a possibility of stagnation or loss of market in other regions. Also the reason Iran was interested in pipelines with China. Problems with that to follow.
Economic Warfare with Iran
In regards to economic warfare and Iran, I noted here (scroll down and to bottom for additional links on Economic Warfare and Iran), whether Iran survives economically or not is not just linked to their oil and natural gas income, though it plays a major part, both good and bad.
For instance, Iran is now talking about building eight additional refineries for oil. Right now, they only have one. They are still rationing gasoline, though at a subsidized rate. The problem here is that, however much they are raking in on a bbl of oil, as a net importer of refined oil and gasoline, they are putting out a very large chunk of their income to buy it. It might sound good on paper, but it causes other issues.
Second, Iran is suffering from record inflation to go along with its "growth" period. Inflation is, in fact outstripping economic growth about 4 to 1. Housing prices have tripled. Food prices have quadrupled. This is in relation to both the incredible inflation of oil and the sanctions which have denied credit to even the basic importers. Some have sought an end run by working through third party nations like Dubai and Germany where they set up what appears to be other national companies. Yet, the price to import these food stuffs has increased along with the necessity to use huge, upfront cash deposits.
At the same time, Iran has been busy trying to repress their labor movements that are demanding a pay raise after over a decade of the same pay (most are making about $2/day). These people are having to work two or three jobs just to feed their families, buy gasoline and pay for heating, much less housing now that the rates are increasing so drastically. For the last two years, parts of Iran have had to institute heating rations because the nation is so dependent on exporting their energy resources to sustain their economy. Besides oil and natural gas, the third largest export from Iran is Hydro-electricity to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I posited a theory once that the unrest in Iraq and Afghanistan benefited Iran, not just politically, but economically since it keeps infrastructure from being developed in these nations to offset that export as well as the somewhat limited income from export of manufactured goods.
This need is created by their Soviet style economic system. More than 70% of all working Iranians are employed in a state run business. appx 50% are in the oil and natural gas industry which is just about the only money making industry out of Iran. Another 30% work in the service industry that is largely controlled by the IRGC, but have limited "money making" capabilities since it simply funnels internal funds from one hand to another. They do control certain textile and other manufacturing plants as well as mineral extraction.
At this time, neither their manufacturing nor mineral extraction nor even export of some food stuffs (another reason that food prices are high in Iran) is anywhere near being able to produce the amount of revenue necessary to create a diverse economy. Neither are the only 10% of private entrepreneurs in Iran capable of producing much in the way of export. While the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary dream is to create a self sustaining economy (as was once the Soviet model), it is impossible with the existing business and economic structure.
Their manufacturing and mineral extraction is in bad shape. Earlier this year, one of the showdowns that was happening in the Iranian cabinet was an argument between these two industries and the oil and natural gas industries over revenues produced as well as the amount of money being invested. They were accusing each other of being the cause of the economic problems in Iran. Even with all that energy export revenue, inflation is seriously damaging their capabilities to continue running the nation.
The mineral and manufacturing industries fought back stating that, if they had the infusion of cash that the oil and gas industry had to improve their infrastructure (including machines, transportation and even roads), they could be in a better place to produce revenue. Ahmadenijad settled that by replacing the mining and manufacturing industry ministers.
If you are truly familiar with the economic woes experienced by the USSR pre-collapse, you'd know that they suffered similar problems. Like the USSR, Iran has many price controls in place which means that these industries cannot even make money internally to help improve the situation.
Agriculture is equally damaged from lack of investment and expansion along with orders to export most of the food stuffs that created the net import of grains and other food staples like vegetables and fruit.
All of Iran's economic growth is in oil and natural gas. It is unsustainable. Unless, of course, they can get nuclear weapons and improve their regional hegemony, holding other regional suppliers "hostage" and forging alliances with countries like Venezuela, keeping oil supplies down and the price high by artificial reductions or limits. (Something that would be of some benefit to Russia as well since their economy is so heavily invested in the energy sector).
Other problems that Iran has is that the threats of potential strikes by the US have forced them to spend more on defense, though not much, it is still damaging. In fact, besides the probability of nuclear proliferation by Korea to Syria that precipitated a recent strike against Syria, the fact that Israel was able to easily circumvent Syria's Russian bought air defense system has caused Iran to have to invest in upgrades, further stressing their budget, along with other military equipment and preparation.
This juggling of funds and budgets is also apparent in their continuing inability to pay full monthly fees for the building of the Bushehr nuclear facility. Which has caused Russia to state they will continue to build the facility, but there will obviously be a slow down. In the meantime, Iran is putting a lot of money into buying and making centrifuges and other equipment for creating nuclear technology.
the long and short of it is, all of the money is staying at the top end, within major government structures, one major industry and being spent on imports of equipment and basic necessities outside the country. That is what is fueling inflation and keeping government run entities from increasing pay to workers. Money is not filtering down in the economy to allow for improved internal economic growth. Of course, corruption and Ahmadenijad's insistence on putting old IRGC cronies in position of power over these industries is creating a whole new economic class paradigm in Iran.
It's a point that we should be exploiting in our information warfare. Particularly, as the previous high separation of the economic classes was part of the original causes for the Islamic Revolution. The Islamists promised at that time to institute a more equitable "Islamic" system that had its roots in socialist economics learned in the universities of France and other European nations. the reason, of course, that the leftward, labor movements of Iran originally supported the revolution.
Devaluing the US Dollar: Not All Bad
In regards to the devaluing of the US dollar. It is not always a bad thing. We have been running a significant trade deficit for years. At the same time, this administration has signed a significant number of free trade agreements with nations in South America, Eastern Europe and Caucus nations among the many. In order to make that a real, viable interest of our economy, these nations have to be able to afford to buy our goods. That means that their currency has to be somewhat competitive with ours.
We don't just want to put money in their economies buying cheap goods (thus reducing our trade with China and some of our economic risk), we want them to put it back into ours. As this report indicates, exports to Europe, where the Euro is strong against the dollar, has increased significantly and probably lent a 1 point increase in growth. that is actually good in the long term in creating US manufacturing mobs and staving off severe recession.
Our vulnerability though is the risk of a over extended credit lines and the price of oil. continued economic growth could off set the extended credit problems. the price of oil, on the other hand, can be offset by either a serious down turn in economy, thus oil utilization, an increase in availability through additional drilling either within the states or in new deposits or in old deposits with new technology or a new technology all together when we hit the "pain point".
I am hoping we work on the new technology. Not because I believe we will be totally oil independent, but because it would give us again the upper hand on energy development and control and create a new economic paradigm for the west. The potential income from both small and large markets would be a serious economic boon, not to mention the impact on many other industries like transportation and housing.
so, dollar down turn is not totally a bad thing as long as it is in small increments, over a measured time and stabilizes early enough. Improved economies in this hemisphere would provide a fairly protected market for us and diversify away from the East and the control of our markets by China and the ME.
Wow, hope that was coherent enough. You can visit the other links provided for additional information and reporting on the economic war. Just remember, high oil prices aren't necessarily good for even our most virulent enemies. They have to buy gas, support business, transport goods and maintain their military, too. all with not even a one hundredth of our income or budget.
Think of them as an octopus trying to put their tentacles all over the middle east. Everywhere they seek to expand, they expose themselves economically, politically, and even physically. a country with a 300 bil budget is hard pressed to compete on that level even regionally.
Pardon the length of this post. I hope it is coherent though I know there are many more issues that could be included in this analysis.
Oil Production v. Oil Peak
Quote:
I am not aware of any major energy-related institution that says global oil production will not peak. It's like death, the question is when. Due to lack of knowledge about reserves in the Middle East and Former Soviet Union, there is a wide range of estimates -- from now thru 30+ years, clustering in the 15 year range. Since a crash adaptation program will take roughly 20 years, we're already on the clock. The major agencies -- us DOE and the International Energy Agency -- have been clear on this challenge, esp this year. I recommend reading the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2007 (here's the free Executive Summary)
Actually, the immediate problem is not necessarily "oil peak" in regards to reduced oil deposits for extraction, but the eventual "peak" of extraction and production capabilities. On any given oil field there are only so many points of extraction and so much oil producing infrastructure. It's this in the short term that is being outstripped by demand and will continue so.
Silver lining? Maybe force us to move into other energy resources sooner or risk a severe recession caused by inflated oil prices due to increasing demands.
and, yes, I fear a shift in economic power if we do not have a significant change in trading practices.
One reason why I have been torn on the immigration situation in the US. The only way to keep us viable is to be able to compete in the labor market. We need significant immigration of low skilled workers to re-invent our manufacturing capabilities. We also need to watch artificially increasing wages with minimum wage hikes. We also need to reduce federal spending significantly. We have to be able to survive our own economic war devices.
Right now, I sometimes feel like we are calling the bombs down on top of our position so to speak.
4GW, WWI, and Economic Warfare
I don't know the protocol of this, but anyway...I just posted this on my blog, stimulated by this excellent discussion!
1. 4GW war is a conceptual tool. Debates like these show its power, generating new perspectives. Look at the comments posted at SWC {here}. Note how they assume that States are the only significant actors. 4GW suggests that this is not so. {as the discussion has continued, this is less so, note the previous comment!}
Major states, the important ones in global finance, tend to be reactive, incrementalist, slow, and conservative. For example, it is as likely that the head of the People’s Bank of China will push the red button on his desk – instantly selling a trillion+ dollars of US bonds – as President Bush firing off ICBMs at China.
But private actors are major players in global finance.
a. Asian and European institutional bond investors hold hundreds of billions of US bonds. Their losses as the USD loses value, esp. the EU investors, have been horrific.
b. Hedge funds wield over a trillion dollars in assets, far more than when they wrecked Europe’s Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday 1992, or initiated a depression in SE Asia in 1997.
c. US investors in foreign bonds, esp. in Canadian, Australian, and Euro bonds, have had large returns.
Relatively small moves by US or international investors could destabilize the dollar – currency flight. Or a massive move against the dollar by speculators could do so.
2. We would know if we were on the brink of a crisis, wouldn’t we?
WWI was inevitable and obvious, the result of growing tensions in Europe. Or so the standard history reads. William Lind says…
One pebble touched off an avalanche. It did so because it occurred, not as an isolated incident, but as one more in a series of crises that rocked Europe in its last ten years of peace, 1904-1914. Each of those crises had the potential to touch off a general European war, and each further de-stabilized the region, making the next incident all the more dangerous. 1905-06 witnessed the First Moroccan Crisis, when the German Foreign Office (whose motto, after Bismarck, might well be, "Clowns unto ages of ages") compelled a very reluctant Kaiser Wilhelm II to land at Tangier as a challenge to France. 1908 brought the Bosnian Annexation Crisis, where Austria humiliated Russia and left her anxious for revenge. Then came the Second Moroccan Crisis of 1911, the Tripolitan War of 1911-1912 (a war Italy actually won, against the tottering Ottoman Empire) and the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. By 1914, it had become a question more of which crisis would finally set all Europe ablaze than of whether peace would endure. This was true despite the fact that, in the abstract, no major European state wanted war.
But this was not obvious to people at that time! Harvard historian Niall Ferguson looks at the prices of UK government bonds (gilts). These show complacency right up to the brink. City investors read of the mobilization orders, panicked, and the markets imploded.
Of course, we are much smarter than they. We would know if the world was on the brink of a crisis…
(I do not have a link to the Ferguson article. Will post when I find it).
Only fools would disregard new realities
Quote:
With crude oil prices nearing $100 a barrel, there is no end in sight to the redistribution of more than 1 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Earlier oil shocks generated giant shifts in wealth and pools of petrodollars, but they eventually faded and economies adjusted. This new high point in petroleum prices has arrived over four years, and many believe it will represent a new plateau even if prices drop back somewhat in coming months.
"There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices "are not spiking; they're just rising," he added.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21718926/
By way of introduction, this first post may appear to have a liberal slant to some, but only if you view our national security issues from a political party perspective, where the facts are too often confused with agendas. I have always been an independent with a slight lean to the right, but in the end equally despise both parties and pray for a viable third party.
The enclosed article has little to do with economic warfare directly, but everything to do with your facts and assumptions if you’re a strategic planner looking at future threats to our national security, and as we all know there are other than military threats. Any political party in office would attempt to deny that we are experiencing an energy crisis on their watch, so you’ll start seeing so called experts come out of the woodwork saying there is no such thing as peak oil, or increased demand, and that our infrastructure if sufficient, etc., which is another case of facts being confused with agendas. However, the government is taking steps behind the scenes to address these very real problems.
Our national level instruments for waging war, shaping behavior, however we want to phrase it are diplomatic, information, military and economic (DIME). Unfortunately, all of these instruments have been weakened since our invasion of Iraq. We can overcome this setback with a strong economy, because the bottom line is that money is still king and enables all the other instruments, and our adversaries know this, so it only makes sense that they would wage economic warfare against us to weaken our center of gravity, which is our economy.
We’re definitely vulnerable now with our national debt, foreign investment keeping us afloat, an increased demand for energy resources worldwide, and to top it off our excessive credit based economy is starting to bite us in the butt with the real estate correction and its second order effects. Add to that the costs of the long war, Hurricane Katrina, and the other disasters that are normal drains on any nation and you can see the challenge. It isn’t a disaster if we develop appropriate responses and fiscal policies, but if an adversary wants to influence our economy now with a few hostile acts (informational, military, terrorist, economic policy, etc.) it very well could be, and the way to address it isn’t by being in a state of denial.
Are hedge fund managers criminals when they inflict economic harm?
Hedge funds are not criminal under our system of laws, no matter how much harm they cause. When they collapse companies or even nations, they are considered agents of the "invisible hand" (Adam Smith) spurring "creative destruction" (Joseph Schumpeter) in the interest of greater economic efficiency.
As we perhaps approach "regime change" (in the economic sense), the rules might change -- as the folks making the rules change. Creditors make the rules, probably over time becoming Asian (in a broad sense) and Middle Eastern elites. They might have different views of speculators, and enforce them.
On the other hand, history shows many instances of societies at first condemning weapons, then adopting them. Like the crossbow and strategic bombing. Perhaps other nations will adopt our methods of (in their eyes) economic warfare, but now wielded by the State (not investors) for national (not private) ends.
just a thought on housing...
selil correctly reports that the consensus of economists is that the housing crisis will be a normal cyclical event. This is beyond the scope of this thread, but somewhat relevent. There is a minority opinion that this is the end of the post-WWII "debt supercycle" (coined by the people at Bank Credit Analyst)
Each US economic cycle since 1960 has ended with increased household debt. At some point we reach our maximum carrying capacity of debt. That might be now. The housing credit crisis may be the precipitating event. This is known as the Minsky Cycle, and we're at the Minsky moment.
For more on the housing down cycle I strongly recommend this analysis and forecast:
"The Recessionary Macro Effect of the Worst U.S. Housing Bust Ever" by Prof Nouriel Roubini (Economist, NYU). Brief and clear.
Effect of US dollar devaluation
Shek: "Given that, however, it is still not a big fundamental issue."
It's a subject on which I'm not competent to have an opinion, but "a potential regime changing event" is in my opinion the current expert consensus.
Whether it will actually be regime changing is something the big guns in economics and global finance have debated over the last decade, with strong opinions on both sides. Since the result will determined as much by political as economic factors, it is imho unknowable in advance.
As for the post-WWII order, I suspect that few non-experts can explain how the system changed functionally (not conceptually) after the end of BWI. To future generations the shift will be considered trivial imho, perhaps like the differences between the component wars of the Hundred Years War, between Marlborough's various wars, or between WWI and WWII.
On the other hand, I'll bet the end of the US dollar based order (1945 - ????) will be in the history books.
4GW, Economic Warfare, Non-state actors
4GW non-state actors are already committing economic warfare against us and other states. They have been for over a decade. Most of their attacks are formulated on "strategic convergence" that centers around meeting several strategic concerns. Three basic "convergences" include economic, highly public and casualty saturated. Whether that is two attacks on the WTC (1993 and 9/11/2001), the Madrid trains (full of commuters on their way to work), the London Bombings (full of commuters on their way to work), Bali night clubs (tourism), Sharm El Sheikh (tourism), Moroccan Synagogue (tourism), Saudi Arabian oil refinery, Oil pipelines in Iraq, blowing up markets in Iraq, kidnapping people from businesses, taking over the western Anbar smuggling crime rings (one of the reasons the Anbar tribes were getting ticked off; they were interfering with their hereditary business that had sustained them even through Saddam's reign), Piracy of the coast of Somali (interdicting shipping through the suez) and on and on and on.
One of my previous posts from two years ago was about Al Qaida's War for Oil and other things:
Quote:
This is a map of the Ottoman Empire (caliphate)[see link for maps] at the height of its power from the 15th to early 18th century. It's power was not derived simply by military might. As you can see by the map to the left of the legendary "silk road", it controlled major maritime and land routes, vast amounts of raw resources including base metals, precious metals, precious and semi-precious gems, grain, rice, cotton or muslin, ink, silk, precious woods, papyrus (for making paper), tea and even part of the opium trade (just to name a few). The wealth of the empire helped to produce some of the major changes in medicine, engineering, literature, basic science and philosophy. All this long before the discovery of petroleum.[snip]
Today, Islamist organizations are attempting to regain power in many of these states. And, just like centuries past, these states sit on top of some of the world's largest natural resources and straddles the world's busiest maritime routes. The map on the right shows modern maritime routes that follow the same path as the "silk road" routes with the exception that the Suez Canal has greatly reduced the number of days that it takes to bring products and energy resources to Europe, Russia, Australia, Japan, China and the United States to name a few.
The long term goals of this movement is known. They seek to create an Islamic Caliphate or state that would encompass the original area of the caliphate at the height of its power. They seek to accomplish this goal by supporting Islamist movements through out these areas with the intent of creating slow (or quick) erosion and take over of the most vulnerable states. Even if all of the states within the area do not "flip" to Islamism, the creation of Islamic states in key areas would drastically change the control of key materials, production and maritime routes. If these Islamic states make economic and security compacts with one another, it would formulate the seeds of a wider "caliphate" and potentially dominate neighboring states, not to mention create whole new paradigms for inter-state and international conflict. Any and all movements in this direction could and would be used to damage or control world economics, specifically western economics.[snip]
In the short term, reviewing the contested areas, maritime routes, materials and production, the strategy to "vex and exhaust" the United States, its allies and other target states, does not require the actual take over of any one state and does include a wider economic strategy beyond "military" or "political" cost. Generally, these movements only require that the area or country stays in turmoil, thus increasing the cost of production, exporting, importing and transporting goods as well as securing ports. For instance, 18 of 20 highest volume container ports are in South East Asia. Basically, the strategy of "a thousand cuts".
Check the link for much more including a list of over ten basic resources like steel, cotton, rubber, grains, rice and a multitude of technology that is transported through these routes or come from nations within the scope of the hoped for "caliphate". I address the Suez Canal later in the piece. Sharm El Sheikh in the Sinai could have equally been a destabilizing attack to try to provide room for operations or just cause enough insecurity to have nations shipping things through a much longer (additional ten days) around South Africa. In a JIT (just in time inventory) world, 10 days is a life time. The costs of shipping would be increased by higher insurance rates and much higher diesel fuel utilization, thus higher costs. Along with rising oil prices, this could be extremely detrimental to the world economy.
This is 4GW Economic Warfare at its base. Additional thoughts on North Africa and the "levant" here
Attacks on stock markets can occur by non-state actors with ease. A number of huge trades on the stock market just prior to the 9/11 attacks were traced back to front companies with ties to Islamic terrorist organizations. Whether these trades were simply meant to remove money from a possible crashing market post attacks and preserve funds for operations or the trades were meant to destabilize the market is a good question. Either way, it's non-state actors practicing economic war at the individual or micro-level.
It can be devastating if we let it.
kehenry1, that's brilliant!
Also, thanks for the link to your other work. This is one of the clearest explanations of the threat that I've seen.
Question: do you have any references or links about pre-9/11 trading by probably terrorists? I've heard the rumors. There were investigations, but I recall (just from memory) that their official reports denied this theory.
bourbon, thanks for the link to this valuable article!
Speaking as an amateur in all aspects of this (esp forensic security trading analysis), I find Poteshman's article more compelling than the official government verdict. For unknown reason I cannot copy from the pdf of 9-11 Commissions report, but you can see it on page 499, note 130 to Chapter Five: "The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue ... These investigators have found the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous."
You can see their full explanation (one paragraph!) here: Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (you can scroll down to download just the notes section, as the full report is 7.4 meg).