China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Ray]

“The new American ‘pivot towards Asia’ is a brilliant illustration of the place of this region which is now key to the balance of today’s world and in defining our security interests. This area is indeed a strategic stake for France which is and will remain a power in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. I came here to affirm that France firmly intends to remain committed to fostering security in the Asia Pacific area.”--------- French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, Address at Shangri-La Dialogue Singapore June 03 2012.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/pap...paper5081.html

[Bob's World]

France appears to be working aggressively to reestablish influence in many of their old haunts.

When nations wearied of French control and colonialism, many turned to the US for hope. Now it appears it is France that is offering itself as a less controlling option. Ironic.

[davidbfpo]

Bob,

What evidence supports your argument? Leaving aside Libya.

France appears to be working aggressively to reestablish influence in many of their old haunts.

In the Pacific France has retained most of colonies; in Asia I think France is glad to be gone (Cambodia did see some activity when peace was achieved); in Africa she has retreated, in the Ivory Coast she had to "share" peacekeeping with the UN (which failed) and in the Middle East selling weapons in the Gulf and being noisy on Syria hardly fits.

The UK of course has a new, stronger relationship with France and President Hollande has taken a little step to show this:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-18548327

[Ray]

Has France any military assets to spare for the Pacific?

If so, how?

[Dayuhan]

Influence is not achieved only by the deployment of military assets... still, I haven't seen much evidence that the French are trying to build influence in the neighborhood, would be interested in the sources behind the claim.

[Bob's World]

Ray's source is the first I have seen in regard to the Pacific. I had just been noticing in recent months a variety of sources in regard to the recent rise of how residents of the Middle East perceived France as compared to other Western powers.

Here is one source, a youth survey in the Middle East in 2012
http://www.arabyouthsurvey.com/engli...12_English.pdf


"ARAB YOUTH SEE FRANCE
MOST FAVOURABLY
AMONG ALL FOREIGN
COUNTRIES; VIEWS OF
CHINA AND INDIA ARE
ALSO INCREASINGLY
POSITIVE
One year after the start of the
Arab Spring, young people in the
Middle East have changed some
of their views of major foreign
powers, and now look more
favourably upon France, China
and India"

[Dayuhan]

Of course a French Defence Minister on a tour of Asia will make brave noises about commitment to the region, but I have to wonder if those noises are being backed up by any sort of action.

[ganulv]

LINK

[Ray]

French military Strategy

http://www.cfr.org/france/french-mil...gration/p16619

French Foreign, Defense, And National Security Policy: New Initiatives?

http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/fre...w-initiatives/

[Fuchs]

Quick plausibility check:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

"2012 : U.S. trade in goods with China"
"TOTAL 2012 (...) 127,032.0" (imports, million USD)
in 4 months, so roughly 380 billion in a year.

U.S. production of goods (this goes beyond consumption just as the trade statistic):
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=5
"Gross Output by Industry Billions of dollars"
"All industries" "2010"(last available, dunno why) "25811.4"
(Note: U.S. definition of "industries" isn't actually about resource production and manufacturing only!)

Quick check using the gross figures instead of value added:
380/25811.4*100% = approx. 1.5%
So this is probably approx. where they got the pie chart's 1.2+0.7% from.

It looks to be at about the same order of magnitude as the 1.2+0.7% of the pie chart.
This was about gross output. Total GDP of the U.S. is only about 15.1 trillion, though -and only about 20% of it is primary+secondary sector. Obviously, gross output is a poor base for such calculations as it's bigger than the GDP!


Now let's look at value added:
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=5 (direct links don't seem to work well there)

"Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting"
"Mining
"Utilities"
"Construction"
"Manufacturing"
(these are as far as I can tell the true goods-producing sectors)
"Value Added by Industry Billions of dollars"
year: "2011"
"177.8"
"287.6"
"250.8"
"520.3"
"1837.0"
sum: 3037


Now let's have fun and compare the 380 billion with the 3037 billion:
380/3037*100% = approx. 12.5%

I call the pie chart B.S.

(I love it when I make a 15 minute plausibility check and it's not in vain!)

Whoever compiled that chart was either incompetent, did at least one mistake less than me and/or meant to produce wrong propaganda.

After all, the share of Chinese goods in consumables is likely larger than smaller in comparison to its share in regard to investment goods.

[ganulv]

Whoever compiled that chart was either incompetent, did at least one mistake less than me and/or meant to produce wrong propaganda.

It’s a graphic in an article published via the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. As to whether the authors [1, 2] are culpable on any of those three counts, I suspect…

Quick check using the gross figures instead of value added:
380/25811.4*100% = approx. 1.5%
So this is probably approx. where they got the pie chart's 1.2+0.7% from.

that the issue might be one of operational definitions. Perhaps that you are not reading <content> as per the authors’ usage? From the article:

Of the 2.7% of U.S. consumer purchases going to goods labeled “Made in China,” only 1.2% actually represents China-produced content. If we take into account imported intermediate goods, about 13.9% of U.S. consumer spending is attributable to imports, including 1.9% imported from China.

[Fuchs]

Their credentials aren't better than mine, academically.

The Chinese are not known for exporting investment goods. Thus most of their exports to the U.S. are about consumption goods.

They produce most of the intermediate goods for their production (metals, plastics) by themselves, so the overwhelming share of their goods exports is really Chinese value added.

Their goods exports to the U.S. are large in comparison to the U.S. OVERALL production of goods.


Sorry, their pie chart flunks the plausibility test badly, almost by an order of magnitude.

Feel free to ask for a 4th opinion.



Besides; it's probably pointless to mention in an anglophone forum, but U.S. econ statistics have become questionable years ago.
Example: FTD "Quadratur des US-Wirtschaftskreislaufes", 6.5.2007
(A complete copy is here, but google translate won't help with so many econ terminology in it.)
Excerpt (one of many inconsistencies mentioned there): The U.S. statistics claimed an increase in capital investment by 4.4% at the same time when the U.S. investment goods industry was supposed to have experienced a 10.2% turnover slump.

[ganulv]

Their credentials aren't better than mine, academically.

One literally cannot achieve a higher level of credentialization in the U.S. than those two have! Our university system does not offer students the option to habilitate and does not require it of faculty. But that’s neither here nor there…

The Chinese are not known for exporting investment goods. Thus most of their exports to the U.S. are about consumption goods.

They produce most of the intermediate goods for their production (metals, plastics) by themselves, so the overwhelming share of their goods exports is really Chinese value added.

Their goods exports to the U.S. are large in comparison to the U.S. OVERALL production of goods.


Sorry, their pie chart flunks the plausibility test badly, almost by an order of magnitude.

Feel free to ask for a 4th opinion.

You appear to fail to apprehend that the pie chart is meant to illustrate U.S. consumer spending on all goods and services. The vast majority of American consumer spending is on housing, sustenance, insurance, pensions, health care, and education. Contrary to your assertion, any version of that pie chart which is not mostly grey does not pass the plausibility test. That fact stands even if the authors’ methodology is shoddy and even if the statistics are bad.

[Dayuhan]

Probably exaggerated, still of interest... the list could be a whole lot longer:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...mic_apocalypse

5 Signs of the Chinese Economic Apocalypse

[carl]

"ARAB YOUTH SEE FRANCE MOST FAVOURABLY
AMONG ALL FOREIGN COUNTRIES;"

Winning friends and influencing people via the Armee de l'Air.

[flagg]

Probably exaggerated, still of interest... the list could be a whole lot longer:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...mic_apocalypse

Keep an eye on iTulip.com forum for analysis of the China slowdown.

It's well worth putting on the reading list for analysis on China as well as the entire GFC.

[davidbfpo]

What a great example of inter-dependence from the FP article, my emphasis:

Electricity consumption usually spikes over the summer, as people turn on their air-conditioners to cope with the seasonal heat. But this year, many Chinese appear to be braving the high temperatures to economize. China's ports are piled high with coal that should be roaring in the country's power plants.... Now it looks as if China has imported more fuel than it needs, as hard-pressed citizens, businesses, and factories cut their electricity consumption in order to reduce their bills.

The national price of coal has already dropped 10 percent since late last year. This drop could further dent the global economy, which would in turn cool demand for Chinese exports even more. That's globalization for you: A Chinese person turns off the air-conditioning, and the world economy catches a cold.

[Ray]

China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries

Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire.

Any territorial dispute, but rather, its resolution, is a serious precedent. If China’s claim in respect of at least one territory from the list of the "lost" is satisfied, the Chinese machine would be unstoppable. Despite the fact that the Chinese are very pleased to partner with Russia and have always supported Russia in the UN Security Council, in person, on the sidelines, its diplomats supposedly jokingly hint to their Russian colleagues: you must understand that soon you will have to share the Far East?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/...rial_claims-0/

[carl]

one of those things that make for good neighbors...or is that fences?

[Dayuhan]

On information flow in China:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....edibility-gap/

On China and Russia:

http://thediplomat.com/2011/06/22/ch...ssia-far-east/

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/a...ance-continues