The race for the world's resources
February 23, 2009 7:28 AM Subscribe
China prepares to buy up foreign oil and gas companies with its huge currency reserves.
Wow, it's amazing to think that a single link to Wikipedia or YouTube would actually improve this post.
Anyway, good for the Chinese! Just because they aren't white doesn't mean they can't run an oil and gas business.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:41 AM on February 23, 2009
Anyway, good for the Chinese! Just because they aren't white doesn't mean they can't run an oil and gas business.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:41 AM on February 23, 2009
Yeah, it's not clear what the big deal is in buying oil companies other then that they'd take home the profit when oil prices come back up. It won't help them get more oil then they otherwise would.
China has a huge problem now in that they have a ton of money and nothing to do with it. They mostly buy U.S. treasuries, and they're probably looking for good investments.
posted by delmoi at 7:44 AM on February 23, 2009
China has a huge problem now in that they have a ton of money and nothing to do with it. They mostly buy U.S. treasuries, and they're probably looking for good investments.
posted by delmoi at 7:44 AM on February 23, 2009
Just because they aren't white doesn't mean they can't run an oil and gas business.
That's the whole point. If they bring their ruthless efficiency to exploiting Nigeria's oil reserves for their own interests, that will leave no room for us to exploit Nigeria's oil reserves for ourselves.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:45 AM on February 23, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's the whole point. If they bring their ruthless efficiency to exploiting Nigeria's oil reserves for their own interests, that will leave no room for us to exploit Nigeria's oil reserves for ourselves.
posted by Joe Beese at 7:45 AM on February 23, 2009 [2 favorites]
"That's the whole point. If they bring their ruthless efficiency to exploiting Nigeria's oil reserves for their own interests, that will leave no room for us to exploit Nigeria's oil reserves for ourselves."
And just so everyone's clear, efficiency is not exactly what Chinese management teams are known for. :) There are people in countless industries who can tell you about how their company acquired an international component in China, and how their job has become largely about fixing all the mistakes that their China branch makes.
posted by Televangelist at 7:48 AM on February 23, 2009 [3 favorites]
And just so everyone's clear, efficiency is not exactly what Chinese management teams are known for. :) There are people in countless industries who can tell you about how their company acquired an international component in China, and how their job has become largely about fixing all the mistakes that their China branch makes.
posted by Televangelist at 7:48 AM on February 23, 2009 [3 favorites]
I just hope I'm alive when the oil supplies run out. That'll be a hoot.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:49 AM on February 23, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:49 AM on February 23, 2009 [4 favorites]
I was going to flag this post as alarmist and uninformative, but it's saved by Televangelist's comment above -- his / her first on the site (yay!). I hope some people click through ready to chatter about this and are enlightened despite themselves.
posted by grobstein at 7:50 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by grobstein at 7:50 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
Given the runaway successes that Exxon and BP have had in Venezuela and Russia, of course the Chinese would want to follow. Unfortunately for Hugo and Vlad, however, the Chinese may react more severely to, erm, unanticipated "taxes" and revised PSAs than Western shareholders can.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:52 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by Kwantsar at 7:52 AM on February 23, 2009
There are people in countless industries who can tell you about how their company acquired an international component in China, and how their job has become largely about fixing all the mistakes that their China branch makes.
Interesting. So is it when they try to manage foreign workers - or operate in foreign cultures - that they run into problems? Or do they have similar difficulties at home? And if the latter is the case, have they been making their economic strides on sheer mass rather than savvy?
posted by Joe Beese at 8:03 AM on February 23, 2009
Interesting. So is it when they try to manage foreign workers - or operate in foreign cultures - that they run into problems? Or do they have similar difficulties at home? And if the latter is the case, have they been making their economic strides on sheer mass rather than savvy?
posted by Joe Beese at 8:03 AM on February 23, 2009
In case anyone reading this is wondering what the 'PSAs' are that Kwantsar is referring to above, they're 'production sharing agreements', and Wikipedia has a really nifty, concise outline, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_sharing_agreement
The long and short of what he's saying about 'revised PSAs' is that in developing countries where governments either change their minds, or the government itself is changed (sometimes by force), an oil company might enter into an agreement that seems fine at first -- we take the oil out of the ground, you give us X% of the profits -- but down the road, the men with guns say "Times have changed, we're only going to give you 0.5X% of the profits, and if you don't like it we'll take over your operation and run you out of the country entirely."
This doesn't happen all willy-nilly, because pulling a stunt like that is a really great way to scare investors away from your country forevermore. But it still happens, to varying degrees in various places -- it's not an all-or-nothing thing, so plenty of countries will try pushing their luck to some degree.
From the perspective of an international business, you try to figure out beforehand as best you can whether or not bad things like this will happen to you. Predicting these things is half-art, half-science, and it's a field that's come to be known as "political risk analysis".
posted by Televangelist at 8:07 AM on February 23, 2009 [2 favorites]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_sharing_agreement
The long and short of what he's saying about 'revised PSAs' is that in developing countries where governments either change their minds, or the government itself is changed (sometimes by force), an oil company might enter into an agreement that seems fine at first -- we take the oil out of the ground, you give us X% of the profits -- but down the road, the men with guns say "Times have changed, we're only going to give you 0.5X% of the profits, and if you don't like it we'll take over your operation and run you out of the country entirely."
This doesn't happen all willy-nilly, because pulling a stunt like that is a really great way to scare investors away from your country forevermore. But it still happens, to varying degrees in various places -- it's not an all-or-nothing thing, so plenty of countries will try pushing their luck to some degree.
From the perspective of an international business, you try to figure out beforehand as best you can whether or not bad things like this will happen to you. Predicting these things is half-art, half-science, and it's a field that's come to be known as "political risk analysis".
posted by Televangelist at 8:07 AM on February 23, 2009 [2 favorites]
Salvor Hardin - there are many models and predictions on this, and a couple examples are show on the Oil Depletion wiki page.
KokuRyu - "white people" is a rather large assumption, given where oil is currently found. Of the top six producers, 5 are in the Middle East (the other being Canada), then production gets scattered around the globe. While it's true that the country of origin does not directly relate to the skin color of the people making the most profit, I can't believe the oil barons listed here (in 2003) are really the only players in the global oil game.
Televangelist - thanks for the elaboration, and welcome to MeFi!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:15 AM on February 23, 2009
KokuRyu - "white people" is a rather large assumption, given where oil is currently found. Of the top six producers, 5 are in the Middle East (the other being Canada), then production gets scattered around the globe. While it's true that the country of origin does not directly relate to the skin color of the people making the most profit, I can't believe the oil barons listed here (in 2003) are really the only players in the global oil game.
Televangelist - thanks for the elaboration, and welcome to MeFi!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:15 AM on February 23, 2009
"Interesting. So is it when they try to manage foreign workers - or operate in foreign cultures - that they run into problems? Or do they have similar difficulties at home? And if the latter is the case, have they been making their economic strides on sheer mass rather than savvy?"
I'd say if anything (and keep in mind these are gross generalizations), they're good about adapting to other cultures, in fact it's one of their relative strong suits. And by 'adapt' I mean 'take a non-interfering, it's-just-business sort of posture'. This is why Chinese companies are increasingly welcome and successful in Africa; they know they're the guest in the house, and they're not trying to rearrange the furniture. Chinese investment isn't going to come coupled with pesky demands about human rights or democratic governance.
They've certainly got some technical savvy -- I'm witnessing this firsthand right now, writing to you all from the campus of Tsinghua university, where I've been poking around for the past week, and the science curriculum here is the equal of MIT or CalTech.
Their problems are similar to a lot of other countries in similar socio-economic positions; you've got smarter, better educated people in each successive generation, but getting better-skilled people and getting into higher-value-added phases of the production cycle is difficult and messy and hard. China is "moving up the supply chain", and as they first enter a new rung of that ladder (sorry to mix metaphors so much), they've got new specialized skills to master, and there's a new learning curve.
And once you've mastered one rung, if you want your country's wealth to keep growing, you have to move onto the next rung -- and the learning process starts all over again.
China isn't atypical in this regard -- this is how developing countries eventually grow rich (or at least, comparatively rich). Korea has undergone a similar process, and in fact is still moving farther up the ladder, with its own growing pains. If China's growth is majorly derailed in the near future, it'll be for other reasons (threats *to* China's security are far, far more numerous than threats from China to anyone else's security), not because they lack the required savvy.
Sorry if this is a bit rambling, hope this explains.
posted by Televangelist at 8:16 AM on February 23, 2009 [7 favorites]
I'd say if anything (and keep in mind these are gross generalizations), they're good about adapting to other cultures, in fact it's one of their relative strong suits. And by 'adapt' I mean 'take a non-interfering, it's-just-business sort of posture'. This is why Chinese companies are increasingly welcome and successful in Africa; they know they're the guest in the house, and they're not trying to rearrange the furniture. Chinese investment isn't going to come coupled with pesky demands about human rights or democratic governance.
They've certainly got some technical savvy -- I'm witnessing this firsthand right now, writing to you all from the campus of Tsinghua university, where I've been poking around for the past week, and the science curriculum here is the equal of MIT or CalTech.
Their problems are similar to a lot of other countries in similar socio-economic positions; you've got smarter, better educated people in each successive generation, but getting better-skilled people and getting into higher-value-added phases of the production cycle is difficult and messy and hard. China is "moving up the supply chain", and as they first enter a new rung of that ladder (sorry to mix metaphors so much), they've got new specialized skills to master, and there's a new learning curve.
And once you've mastered one rung, if you want your country's wealth to keep growing, you have to move onto the next rung -- and the learning process starts all over again.
China isn't atypical in this regard -- this is how developing countries eventually grow rich (or at least, comparatively rich). Korea has undergone a similar process, and in fact is still moving farther up the ladder, with its own growing pains. If China's growth is majorly derailed in the near future, it'll be for other reasons (threats *to* China's security are far, far more numerous than threats from China to anyone else's security), not because they lack the required savvy.
Sorry if this is a bit rambling, hope this explains.
posted by Televangelist at 8:16 AM on February 23, 2009 [7 favorites]
He who controls the spice. . .
posted by plexi at 8:19 AM on February 23, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by plexi at 8:19 AM on February 23, 2009 [4 favorites]
And just because oil is primarily used for fuel, it is used in many other products. The end of oil means a shift towards other sources for many common items.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:23 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by filthy light thief at 8:23 AM on February 23, 2009
That is why I'm going heavy into cat-gut. I am stockpiling cats right now, and I really need some way to manage inventory. Something with and Abacus would be purrfect.
posted by Mister_A at 8:29 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister_A at 8:29 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
China has a huge problem now in that they have a ton of money and nothing to do with it. They mostly buy U.S. treasuries, and they're probably looking for good investments.
Well they could use the money to provide basic services like health care and k-12 schooling to their citizens, which they do not do right now, but I doubt that is going to happen. Investing in oil companies will at least have a better return than the wasteful and corrupt infrastructure programs they usually spend their money on.
posted by afu at 8:43 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well they could use the money to provide basic services like health care and k-12 schooling to their citizens, which they do not do right now, but I doubt that is going to happen. Investing in oil companies will at least have a better return than the wasteful and corrupt infrastructure programs they usually spend their money on.
posted by afu at 8:43 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
China has a huge problem now in that they have a ton of money and nothing to do with it.
I heard a piece on my NPR station just this morning about a Chinese lawyer who has come to the US to scout real estate bargains. He's looking for a new home in the US in the $500,000 range. He can go higher if it's a really nice place.
Oh...and he's paying with cash.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:49 AM on February 23, 2009
I heard a piece on my NPR station just this morning about a Chinese lawyer who has come to the US to scout real estate bargains. He's looking for a new home in the US in the $500,000 range. He can go higher if it's a really nice place.
Oh...and he's paying with cash.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:49 AM on February 23, 2009
China isn't doing this primarily because of oil, it's a nice side benefit. They're doing this to get out of US Treasuries. All the deals this week say they're paying for these with long-term U.S. Treasuries. This has two significant implications:
1. China is reducing its holding of treasuries and may signal that they won't ramp up purchases of treasuries, and may decrease it after the recession. This will reduce the strength of the dollar and the ability for the US to finance debt in the future. Higher taxes and less social services for Amiercans.
2. In the immediate-term, by giving treasuries to others, it may create a situation where they are pushing treasuries into the market in a roundabout way. This may exacerbate the recession for the U.S. and create complications towards any effort towards U.S. recovery. They are giving US treasuries to countries that have liquidity problems. By giving money to countries that desperately need cash, those countries will do what anyone that has huge outstanding debts do, they immediately sell it off to raise capital to pay debtors. I would be very surprised if Russia and other countries don't spend the money they are lent. They have recently committed to continue buying treasuries and to not sell them on the open market, so I suspect this is a way to get around it.
Oil isn't the ends, oil is the means of getting out of treasuries. This is big.
posted by amuseDetachment at 8:53 AM on February 23, 2009 [5 favorites]
1. China is reducing its holding of treasuries and may signal that they won't ramp up purchases of treasuries, and may decrease it after the recession. This will reduce the strength of the dollar and the ability for the US to finance debt in the future. Higher taxes and less social services for Amiercans.
2. In the immediate-term, by giving treasuries to others, it may create a situation where they are pushing treasuries into the market in a roundabout way. This may exacerbate the recession for the U.S. and create complications towards any effort towards U.S. recovery. They are giving US treasuries to countries that have liquidity problems. By giving money to countries that desperately need cash, those countries will do what anyone that has huge outstanding debts do, they immediately sell it off to raise capital to pay debtors. I would be very surprised if Russia and other countries don't spend the money they are lent. They have recently committed to continue buying treasuries and to not sell them on the open market, so I suspect this is a way to get around it.
Oil isn't the ends, oil is the means of getting out of treasuries. This is big.
posted by amuseDetachment at 8:53 AM on February 23, 2009 [5 favorites]
If China would threaten to "buy up" US banks I bet there would be a lot less whinging about partial nationalization of banks.
posted by edgeways at 8:55 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by edgeways at 8:55 AM on February 23, 2009
Good for the Chinese. Energy companies can be solid businesses, throwing off lots of cash in the good times. Compare and contrast with the Japanese acquisition of "trophy properties".
Matsushita bought MCA Inc and Universal Studio for $6.1 billion in 1990, which was sold at a loss to Seagrams in 1994. Sony bought Columbia and Tri- Star and then paid some $500 million to buy out Peter Guber and Jon Peters so Japanese management could run then studios. Columbia alone cost roughly $5 Billion and over the next two years Sony put another $1.5 Billion into the venture. But it was real estate where they really lost money.
After two deals Mitsubushi Properties acquired 80% of Rockefeller Center in Manhattan for a $1.4 billion, or little north of $200 a square foot with exquisitely poor timing - the top of the real estate market. They then proceeded to invest another $500 million into the property, as Mitsubushi's business plan counted on renewing long term leases for sharp increases in rent. Unfortunately, rental prices cratered in New York during a real estate recession, and Mitsubushi ended up renting the property for on average about $30 per square foot. As financial troubles deepened in Japan Mitsubushi was forced to walk away from the property in 1995; that's right. They had to write off the investment, incurring a reported $200 million further in taxes and penalties.
Arco Plaza was purchased on August 6, 1986 for a reported $650 million. The property sold in January 2003 for $270 million.
Pebble Beach Golf Links purchased in September 1990 for reported one Billion dollars, was sold on in 1999 to an American investment group for $820 million.
They were overpaying for everything; in 1989 a Ferrari 250 GTO S/N 3909 was sold to a private owner in Japan for $13.3 million; in 1994, the same car was sold to an American for $3.5 million.
So good on The Chinese for purchasing solid enterprises, stuff people need now and will continue to need going forward. You gotta respect them for putting their cash to productive use, and not acquiring showy assets.
posted by Mutant at 8:55 AM on February 23, 2009 [6 favorites]
Matsushita bought MCA Inc and Universal Studio for $6.1 billion in 1990, which was sold at a loss to Seagrams in 1994. Sony bought Columbia and Tri- Star and then paid some $500 million to buy out Peter Guber and Jon Peters so Japanese management could run then studios. Columbia alone cost roughly $5 Billion and over the next two years Sony put another $1.5 Billion into the venture. But it was real estate where they really lost money.
After two deals Mitsubushi Properties acquired 80% of Rockefeller Center in Manhattan for a $1.4 billion, or little north of $200 a square foot with exquisitely poor timing - the top of the real estate market. They then proceeded to invest another $500 million into the property, as Mitsubushi's business plan counted on renewing long term leases for sharp increases in rent. Unfortunately, rental prices cratered in New York during a real estate recession, and Mitsubushi ended up renting the property for on average about $30 per square foot. As financial troubles deepened in Japan Mitsubushi was forced to walk away from the property in 1995; that's right. They had to write off the investment, incurring a reported $200 million further in taxes and penalties.
Arco Plaza was purchased on August 6, 1986 for a reported $650 million. The property sold in January 2003 for $270 million.
Pebble Beach Golf Links purchased in September 1990 for reported one Billion dollars, was sold on in 1999 to an American investment group for $820 million.
They were overpaying for everything; in 1989 a Ferrari 250 GTO S/N 3909 was sold to a private owner in Japan for $13.3 million; in 1994, the same car was sold to an American for $3.5 million.
So good on The Chinese for purchasing solid enterprises, stuff people need now and will continue to need going forward. You gotta respect them for putting their cash to productive use, and not acquiring showy assets.
posted by Mutant at 8:55 AM on February 23, 2009 [6 favorites]
This must be stopped, after they buy up the oil companies then all our manufacturing plants will leave the US and soon every god damn thing you buy will have a MADE IN CHINA sticker on it!
The horror, think of the consequences to American workers if god forbid there would then be an economic downturn and American manufacturing had packed up and left for the richer soils of an ostensibly communist country.
This may leave millions of unemployed citizens with nothing to do but wander the aisles of their local Wal-Mart unable to purchase a thing ultimately leaving them so downhearted that they may even start to not pay their mortgage.
Then what would happen to our banking system auuuuuugh. Just think!
posted by pianomover at 9:11 AM on February 23, 2009
The horror, think of the consequences to American workers if god forbid there would then be an economic downturn and American manufacturing had packed up and left for the richer soils of an ostensibly communist country.
This may leave millions of unemployed citizens with nothing to do but wander the aisles of their local Wal-Mart unable to purchase a thing ultimately leaving them so downhearted that they may even start to not pay their mortgage.
Then what would happen to our banking system auuuuuugh. Just think!
posted by pianomover at 9:11 AM on February 23, 2009
On NPR today, Chinese Foreclosure Tourists Shopping In U.S.
posted by exogenous at 9:32 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by exogenous at 9:32 AM on February 23, 2009
Didn't I read this story back in 1990, but starring Japan, inc instead? It seemed alarmist and unlikely then.
FWIW, China's hit far harder by this global recession than the US is or will be. Estimates are some 20 MM layoffs in the last few months, shipping containers are piling up in Hong Kong, and millions of migrant workers are now without work.
China's suddenly got far more pressing issues than sourcing raw materials and energy. How are you going to keep them down on the farm now that they've seen Beijing?
posted by jenkinsEar at 9:52 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
FWIW, China's hit far harder by this global recession than the US is or will be. Estimates are some 20 MM layoffs in the last few months, shipping containers are piling up in Hong Kong, and millions of migrant workers are now without work.
China's suddenly got far more pressing issues than sourcing raw materials and energy. How are you going to keep them down on the farm now that they've seen Beijing?
posted by jenkinsEar at 9:52 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
filthy light thief
Of the top six producers, 5 are in the Middle East (the other being Canada), then production gets scattered around the globe.
That's false. Russia, China, Mexico and the US are bigger producers than Canada, and are not located in the Middle East.
Contra Televangelist, I do think that this is important. Many of China's moves re: securing oil sources have not been about trying to secure profits or reserves per se, but to guarantee supply. The latest deals with Russia and Brazil exchange cash for guaranteed access, but not necessarily at preferred prices. The simple interpretation may be the correct one: looking forward, China does not worry about lacking cash, but does worry about not securing enough supply.
(Also, Televangelist: since you say you've just finished doing some academic work on this problem, I for one would love to see you put together a FPP on this.)
posted by bumpkin at 10:15 AM on February 23, 2009
Of the top six producers, 5 are in the Middle East (the other being Canada), then production gets scattered around the globe.
That's false. Russia, China, Mexico and the US are bigger producers than Canada, and are not located in the Middle East.
Contra Televangelist, I do think that this is important. Many of China's moves re: securing oil sources have not been about trying to secure profits or reserves per se, but to guarantee supply. The latest deals with Russia and Brazil exchange cash for guaranteed access, but not necessarily at preferred prices. The simple interpretation may be the correct one: looking forward, China does not worry about lacking cash, but does worry about not securing enough supply.
(Also, Televangelist: since you say you've just finished doing some academic work on this problem, I for one would love to see you put together a FPP on this.)
posted by bumpkin at 10:15 AM on February 23, 2009
rachel ziemba filling in for brad setser has more details... oh, aaaaaaaaaaand he's back!
i ref'd it here, but this chart i think tells the (rather stark) story of the US' external financing position -- basically phoreners are buying more short-dated treasuries because they're afraid america won't honour its long term commitments, which also explains:store-of-value instruments commodity resources -- like amuseDetachment sed, this (could be) big...
[also btw if you're interested in china (from more westerners' perspectives on the ground) james fallows and michael pettis (esp for economic policy analysis) are worth following; and if you're really, really interested the DJC (david 'DC' chiang) vs. twofish (joseph 'joe' wang) debate(s) that continue to rampage on bsetser's comment section have been, i think, nothing short of epic, and are also worth checking out (altho 'indian investor' has been running the boards lately :)]
---
*there was a great quote recently putting the internalagonising debate on display:
**whether this is realistic or not is of course debatable, but at least obama's getting rid of accounting gimmicks, cf.
posted by kliuless at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
i ref'd it here, but this chart i think tells the (rather stark) story of the US' external financing position -- basically phoreners are buying more short-dated treasuries because they're afraid america won't honour its long term commitments, which also explains:
Clinton Urges Continued Investment in US - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday urged China to keep investing its substantial foreign-exchange reserves in U.S. Treasury securities, arguing that "we are truly going to rise or fall together."*and why:
Obama Planning to Slash Deficit, Despite Stimulus Spending - President Obama will set a goal this week to cut the annual deficit at least in half by the end of his term, according to officials.**in addition to shifting reserve preference to
[also btw if you're interested in china (from more westerners' perspectives on the ground) james fallows and michael pettis (esp for economic policy analysis) are worth following; and if you're really, really interested the DJC (david 'DC' chiang) vs. twofish (joseph 'joe' wang) debate(s) that continue to rampage on bsetser's comment section have been, i think, nothing short of epic, and are also worth checking out (altho 'indian investor' has been running the boards lately :)]
---
*there was a great quote recently putting the internal
China will continue to buy US Treasury bonds even though it knows the dollar will depreciate because such investments remain its “only option” in a perilous world...this statement was later retracted btw... oh and apparently an EU common bond is on the way!
Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, said… “Except for US Treasuries, what can you hold?” he asked. “Gold? You don’t hold Japanese government bonds or UK bonds. US Treasuries are the safe haven. For everyone, including China, it is the only option.”
Mr Luo, whose English tends toward the colloquial, added: “We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion-$2 trillion... we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do.”
**whether this is realistic or not is of course debatable, but at least obama's getting rid of accounting gimmicks, cf.
It has been widely noted that 2009 will have the first "trillion-dollar deficit" in American history. Actually it's the second. In fiscal 2008, the national debt increased from $9 trillion to slightly over $10 trillion. Yet the budget deficit in the last fiscal year was officially reported as being $455 billion. How could the national debt have increased by considerably more than twice the "deficit"? Simple. Just call the money borrowed from the Social Security trust fund an "intragovernmental transfer" and exclude it from the calculation of the deficit. Corporate managers have gone to jail for less book cooking than that.which should at least help make for credible discussions, as i'm sure the chinese welcome :P
posted by kliuless at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
Televangelist just went onto my short list of favorite MeFites, precisely because he has the knowledge *not* to blindly buy into the "oh noes the chinese are going to own everything" strangeness.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:28 AM on February 23, 2009
Also if you're intersted in China froma more historical perspective, Robyn Williams excellent Science Show recently did a 3 part series on Dr Joseph Needham.
Transcripts and downloadable mp3's here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm
posted by onya at 11:23 AM on February 23, 2009
Transcripts and downloadable mp3's here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm
posted by onya at 11:23 AM on February 23, 2009
Obviously China's record on human and environmental issues leaves some things to be desired, but I'm hoping they grow in a way that's beneficial to the world community, not solely in the name of profit . In other words I hope don't make the same mistakes the we did. If that starts to happen then I'll say 'Good for the Chinese".
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:51 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:51 AM on February 23, 2009
So, I guess the downside is we'll soon have lead back in our gasoline. But at least the price will go down, amirite?
posted by kcds at 11:52 AM on February 23, 2009
posted by kcds at 11:52 AM on February 23, 2009
bumpkin - it seems I confused myself. That linked graphic was referring to projected reserves, as of 2004. Recent data is hard to find, but here's a bit more. Again, the physical source of the crude oil and the nationalities of those who reap the rewards aren't directly correlated, but I still doubt that it's only old white dudes who are making all the money. There are obscenely wealthy, crafty old guys the world over (and possibly a few women, too).
posted by filthy light thief at 12:04 PM on February 23, 2009
posted by filthy light thief at 12:04 PM on February 23, 2009
Televangelist, your comment is excellent, but I must take some small exception here -
I don’t see how their energy vulnerability makes it *less* likely they’d be a threat. Seems to me vulnerability on almost any commodity, but most certainly war commodities, has historically made nations more regionally aggressive, not less.
(Otherwise, in terms of China ‘taking over’ (metaphorically) or some other such, I agree with you).
Historically they’ve always been aggressive defenders.
As it is, if they plan to secure their future (and I suspect they do) they’re not going to do it hat in hand. Of course that’s social/historical and militarily.
I don’t know how to feel about China developing. If they westernize, adapt to use stuff the way we’re currently using stuff, that could be a very real problem in terms of resources. I’d argue that whether China themselves are a threat or not isn’t relevent to whether the west is a threat to China.
Not to mention the human rights abuses, lack of freedom, all that. Can’t say I’m happy to see any totalitarian government do well. Not that I like to see people starve.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:58 PM on February 23, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don’t see how their energy vulnerability makes it *less* likely they’d be a threat. Seems to me vulnerability on almost any commodity, but most certainly war commodities, has historically made nations more regionally aggressive, not less.
(Otherwise, in terms of China ‘taking over’ (metaphorically) or some other such, I agree with you).
Historically they’ve always been aggressive defenders.
As it is, if they plan to secure their future (and I suspect they do) they’re not going to do it hat in hand. Of course that’s social/historical and militarily.
I don’t know how to feel about China developing. If they westernize, adapt to use stuff the way we’re currently using stuff, that could be a very real problem in terms of resources. I’d argue that whether China themselves are a threat or not isn’t relevent to whether the west is a threat to China.
Not to mention the human rights abuses, lack of freedom, all that. Can’t say I’m happy to see any totalitarian government do well. Not that I like to see people starve.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:58 PM on February 23, 2009 [2 favorites]
Didn't I read this story back in 1990, but starring Japan, inc instead? It seemed alarmist and unlikely then.
Indeed you did. I remember all the same scary OH NOES stories in the NY Post and Daily News and other b.s. media outlets.
posted by spicynuts at 6:14 PM on February 23, 2009
Indeed you did. I remember all the same scary OH NOES stories in the NY Post and Daily News and other b.s. media outlets.
posted by spicynuts at 6:14 PM on February 23, 2009
""
Televangelist, your comment is excellent, but I must take some small exception here -
I don’t see how their energy vulnerability makes it *less* likely they’d be a threat. Seems to me vulnerability on almost any commodity, but most certainly war commodities, has historically made nations more regionally aggressive, not less.""
This is generally true in a historical context (Japan in World War 2, for instance), but the specific circumstances here make this an unlikely outcome.
For starters, the international trade system today is very different; America couldn't just blockade Chinese oil imports without an act of *extreme* aggression by China to first justify it, and China knows this. Our economic fortunes really are tied together in a way that Japan and America's (for example) never was, pre-WW2.
Furthermore, China isn't just marginally behind when it comes to naval power -- they're absolutely dominated, and the gap is growing, not decreasing. China doesn't even have a single carrier battle group; it's made noises about getting one, but it's made those noises for over a decade now and nothing has happened. If it actually commits to getting one, it'll take years for it to become operational -- we're talking 2014 or so, at the earliest.
And once it has one?
It'll be 20-year-old adapted Russian technology.
And America, alone, would be able to blow it out of the water with what they've got today.
India, alone, would be able to blow it out of the water with what they've got today.
Japan, alone, would be able to blow it out of the water with what they've got today.
...And we're all on the same 'team'.
...And we're coming up with cool new things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_Airborne_Sensor/Hyperspectral
...Our military R&D budget is bigger than their *entire* military budget, last I checked - or at least in the same ballpark.
See what I'm getting at here? There isn't really much of an 'arms race' to speak of here, unless we're talking Michael Phelps vs whoever swims in the Special Olympics. And none of what I'm saying is news to the Chinese.
Furthermore, China's diplomatic successes in Southeast Asia have been hard-won, are not 'set in stone', and are predicated on the idea that China's not interested in lording over the region.
That's just one more angle that pops to mind. Give me an hour and I could probably come up with a dozen more. :)
Starting an arms race in the Strait of Malacca would be bad for them for a million different reasons.
So, how is China dealing with the energy insecurity problem they face? Well, they're looking at over-land pipelines and things like that. But those pipelines have their own host of difficulties.
So, for the most part, their strategy is... play nice.
""I don’t know how to feel about China developing. If they westernize, adapt to use stuff the way we’re currently using stuff, that could be a very real problem in terms of resources.""
Well... they basically are 'westernized' in most meaningful senses of the term. I think the real distinction here is if they develop economically in a way that consumes more and more resources. Which is the same problem with India. And all sorts of other countries. We need to find a way to make economic development 'greener' and less resource-heavy, and fast. Because nobody in the developing world is interested in sitting out on development once they've got the government and market structures in place to make it happen.
There's a really great article on the issue of Chinese resources, I think it's called "Oil for the Lamps of China". The guy who recommended it to me used to write America's NIEs on China, so at least by word of mouth I can say that the conclusions and data it uses are considered to be pretty sound by China watchers. If you search on any academic search engine, it should turn up -- it's been a couple of years since I've been through it, though.
""Not to mention the human rights abuses, lack of freedom, all that. Can’t say I’m happy to see any totalitarian government do well.""
If there's one thing traveling around the world and living in multiple countries abroad has convinced me of, it's that America is the greatest country in the world, despite its faults.
For what it's worth, China's system of government seems to be working out pretty well right now, all things considered. Heck, even very pro-western countries like Singapore aren't really democratic, and they get the job done for their citizens.
This is not to minimize the value of democracy -- I appreciate it, I love it to death, and I'm pretty libertarian as these things go. But I feel like China's current government is doing a pretty good job when you consider all the alternatives.
posted by Televangelist at 12:12 AM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
Televangelist, your comment is excellent, but I must take some small exception here -
I don’t see how their energy vulnerability makes it *less* likely they’d be a threat. Seems to me vulnerability on almost any commodity, but most certainly war commodities, has historically made nations more regionally aggressive, not less.""
This is generally true in a historical context (Japan in World War 2, for instance), but the specific circumstances here make this an unlikely outcome.
For starters, the international trade system today is very different; America couldn't just blockade Chinese oil imports without an act of *extreme* aggression by China to first justify it, and China knows this. Our economic fortunes really are tied together in a way that Japan and America's (for example) never was, pre-WW2.
Furthermore, China isn't just marginally behind when it comes to naval power -- they're absolutely dominated, and the gap is growing, not decreasing. China doesn't even have a single carrier battle group; it's made noises about getting one, but it's made those noises for over a decade now and nothing has happened. If it actually commits to getting one, it'll take years for it to become operational -- we're talking 2014 or so, at the earliest.
And once it has one?
It'll be 20-year-old adapted Russian technology.
And America, alone, would be able to blow it out of the water with what they've got today.
India, alone, would be able to blow it out of the water with what they've got today.
Japan, alone, would be able to blow it out of the water with what they've got today.
...And we're all on the same 'team'.
...And we're coming up with cool new things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_Airborne_Sensor/Hyperspectral
...Our military R&D budget is bigger than their *entire* military budget, last I checked - or at least in the same ballpark.
See what I'm getting at here? There isn't really much of an 'arms race' to speak of here, unless we're talking Michael Phelps vs whoever swims in the Special Olympics. And none of what I'm saying is news to the Chinese.
Furthermore, China's diplomatic successes in Southeast Asia have been hard-won, are not 'set in stone', and are predicated on the idea that China's not interested in lording over the region.
That's just one more angle that pops to mind. Give me an hour and I could probably come up with a dozen more. :)
Starting an arms race in the Strait of Malacca would be bad for them for a million different reasons.
So, how is China dealing with the energy insecurity problem they face? Well, they're looking at over-land pipelines and things like that. But those pipelines have their own host of difficulties.
So, for the most part, their strategy is... play nice.
""I don’t know how to feel about China developing. If they westernize, adapt to use stuff the way we’re currently using stuff, that could be a very real problem in terms of resources.""
Well... they basically are 'westernized' in most meaningful senses of the term. I think the real distinction here is if they develop economically in a way that consumes more and more resources. Which is the same problem with India. And all sorts of other countries. We need to find a way to make economic development 'greener' and less resource-heavy, and fast. Because nobody in the developing world is interested in sitting out on development once they've got the government and market structures in place to make it happen.
There's a really great article on the issue of Chinese resources, I think it's called "Oil for the Lamps of China". The guy who recommended it to me used to write America's NIEs on China, so at least by word of mouth I can say that the conclusions and data it uses are considered to be pretty sound by China watchers. If you search on any academic search engine, it should turn up -- it's been a couple of years since I've been through it, though.
""Not to mention the human rights abuses, lack of freedom, all that. Can’t say I’m happy to see any totalitarian government do well.""
If there's one thing traveling around the world and living in multiple countries abroad has convinced me of, it's that America is the greatest country in the world, despite its faults.
For what it's worth, China's system of government seems to be working out pretty well right now, all things considered. Heck, even very pro-western countries like Singapore aren't really democratic, and they get the job done for their citizens.
This is not to minimize the value of democracy -- I appreciate it, I love it to death, and I'm pretty libertarian as these things go. But I feel like China's current government is doing a pretty good job when you consider all the alternatives.
posted by Televangelist at 12:12 AM on February 24, 2009 [1 favorite]
Oil for the Lamps of China (107 page pdf) by Bernard D Cole
posted by adamvasco at 3:15 AM on February 24, 2009
posted by adamvasco at 3:15 AM on February 24, 2009
I can tell you from first hand that China is buying oil properties left and right in Africa. Interesting thing is that they 'employ' convicts from China to do the heavy lifting on the oil rigs. So where Shell and Total have oil refineries which employ the locals (and thus support the local economy), the Chinese just build a camp and do it all on their own without giving back to the country (except for some well placed bribes).
posted by remcobron at 6:18 AM on February 24, 2009
posted by remcobron at 6:18 AM on February 24, 2009
I feel like every moment the US economy is plunging means greater fear for what China is doing. yes, they have different values than us. yes, they dont exactly value... the um... cough... human condition in the same way... but they're not out to hurt the US... just dethrone.
posted by buzzdiggity at 10:08 AM on February 24, 2009
posted by buzzdiggity at 10:08 AM on February 24, 2009
“See what I'm getting at here? There isn't really much of an 'arms race' to speak of here,”
Oh, I’m well aware of our naval power, I’m not looking at China as a significant threat to our shores or questioning our military dominance in that region.
I’m not worried about them coming out, I’m worried about us going in. Pretty sure we could win any state on state war. But China is a different story. Historically, their long term strategy has been to draw an enemy in and ‘defend.’ One could argue they even did this to the Mongols, the Chinese essentially wound up running the government of their erstwhile conquerors.
So, how it’d lay down, is perhaps interruptions in overland pipelines, Pakistan say. Right now they’re a platform of relative stability in a sea of unstability around them.
On the other hand, given our economic fortunes are tied to theirs, it’s possible we could seek to quell that instability ourselves (given the investment China has made in the U.S. - however likely or unlikely - it’s possible).
Just seems to me they’re on a high pedistal right now. A column can support a tremendous amount of weight and is one of the most stable surfaces - vertically. Little push from the side tho’...
So not to mischaracterize, a land war in China would really really suck, and I think everyone and his brother knows that and we’re all making nice, but I’m worried more about engagements in that region on nearly any level. Just seems kinda tense right now and I’d rather see the tension relieved slowly than explosively.
And the democracy thing - yeah. Unfortunately we’ve been kicking over people’s tea wagons and calling it democracy for the past 8 years. I think it’s gotten a bad rap around the world.
I’d be pretty happy with China, or really, anyone else, taking the burden of being the sole world superpower off the U.S. Make a real confederation of nations to share taking care of stability and mitigating problems worldwide.
As it is, whether the U.S. does a wonderful job or whether it does lousy is irrelevent because it’s only one perspective. That kind of situation it’s always going to look heavy handed, like dominance or oppression whether it is or not.
It’d be great if the U.N. security council and the world courts had some teeth.
That whole ‘sovereignty’ thing tho, tough to cut countries loose from it - whether it’s in their best interests or not.
I just don’t like that many things wind up to be adversarial, even unintentionally, given the - real or percieved - threats and/or national interests brought on by a single perspective.
I mean, I love my country, but not because I was born here. I love what it represents and the ideals. Push comes to shove, I value those ideals over my country’s national interest
(fortunately most of those ideals are attached to the constitution).
As it is, I do worry that our concern with our quality of life, what’s in our pockets, all that - our national interests as percieved, not necessarially in reality - may cause us to overplay our hand.
And as I said, the Chinese are characteristically aggressive defenders. The thing with Hong Kong comes to mind. But typically, once you make a deal, once something is agreed, once they’ve made a statement, etc. that’s what they’re going to aim at.
I suppose I just wish we were going slower with all this.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:41 AM on February 24, 2009
Oh, I’m well aware of our naval power, I’m not looking at China as a significant threat to our shores or questioning our military dominance in that region.
I’m not worried about them coming out, I’m worried about us going in. Pretty sure we could win any state on state war. But China is a different story. Historically, their long term strategy has been to draw an enemy in and ‘defend.’ One could argue they even did this to the Mongols, the Chinese essentially wound up running the government of their erstwhile conquerors.
So, how it’d lay down, is perhaps interruptions in overland pipelines, Pakistan say. Right now they’re a platform of relative stability in a sea of unstability around them.
On the other hand, given our economic fortunes are tied to theirs, it’s possible we could seek to quell that instability ourselves (given the investment China has made in the U.S. - however likely or unlikely - it’s possible).
Just seems to me they’re on a high pedistal right now. A column can support a tremendous amount of weight and is one of the most stable surfaces - vertically. Little push from the side tho’...
So not to mischaracterize, a land war in China would really really suck, and I think everyone and his brother knows that and we’re all making nice, but I’m worried more about engagements in that region on nearly any level. Just seems kinda tense right now and I’d rather see the tension relieved slowly than explosively.
And the democracy thing - yeah. Unfortunately we’ve been kicking over people’s tea wagons and calling it democracy for the past 8 years. I think it’s gotten a bad rap around the world.
I’d be pretty happy with China, or really, anyone else, taking the burden of being the sole world superpower off the U.S. Make a real confederation of nations to share taking care of stability and mitigating problems worldwide.
As it is, whether the U.S. does a wonderful job or whether it does lousy is irrelevent because it’s only one perspective. That kind of situation it’s always going to look heavy handed, like dominance or oppression whether it is or not.
It’d be great if the U.N. security council and the world courts had some teeth.
That whole ‘sovereignty’ thing tho, tough to cut countries loose from it - whether it’s in their best interests or not.
I just don’t like that many things wind up to be adversarial, even unintentionally, given the - real or percieved - threats and/or national interests brought on by a single perspective.
I mean, I love my country, but not because I was born here. I love what it represents and the ideals. Push comes to shove, I value those ideals over my country’s national interest
(fortunately most of those ideals are attached to the constitution).
As it is, I do worry that our concern with our quality of life, what’s in our pockets, all that - our national interests as percieved, not necessarially in reality - may cause us to overplay our hand.
And as I said, the Chinese are characteristically aggressive defenders. The thing with Hong Kong comes to mind. But typically, once you make a deal, once something is agreed, once they’ve made a statement, etc. that’s what they’re going to aim at.
I suppose I just wish we were going slower with all this.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:41 AM on February 24, 2009
shipping containers are piling up in Hong Kong
pic - "Unused shipping containers were piled up at a storage depot in Hong Kong Wednesday. The government is looking for places to store hundreds of thousands of unused containers expected to flood Hong Kong in the coming months due to China's slow exports." viz. Asian exports - "That rattling is the sound of half-laden container ships plying the seas as Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan experience severe drops in exports," cf.
posted by kliuless at 6:41 PM on February 25, 2009
pic - "Unused shipping containers were piled up at a storage depot in Hong Kong Wednesday. The government is looking for places to store hundreds of thousands of unused containers expected to flood Hong Kong in the coming months due to China's slow exports." viz. Asian exports - "That rattling is the sound of half-laden container ships plying the seas as Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan experience severe drops in exports," cf.
posted by kliuless at 6:41 PM on February 25, 2009
« Older Facebook ToS Redux | From Hobby To Passion Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And now, it gets to be my first MetaFilter comment ever.
You see these headlines *a lot*. And if you never follow up on them, they look awfully 'scary'.
But the reality is far different -- Most of the headlines you see about Chinese energy acquisitions aren't actual *deals*, they're simply 'Memorandums of Understanding' or things like that. In other words, tentative plans. China's *actual* buy-ups, pipeline deals, etc. usually only amount to about 10%-20% of what gets announced, by my rough calculations.
Why? For starters, they lack serious management experience in the energy industry. This makes the actual running of pipelines, global supply chains, etc. problematic. It's a lot easier to *announce* a deal than to actually follow through on it.
Also, even if China *does* buy up these assets?
You still shouldn't be worried.
Most energy resources are fungible commodities. In other words, the price is the result of a global market (albeit with some significant distortions), and owning the companies in question doesn't necessarily mean you get the end product much cheaper.
It's also worth keeping in mind that, from a strategic perspective, China's energy supply is far more vulnerable than most other major nations. They're a major energy importer, and about 50% of what they import comes through the Strait of Malacca - a narrow waterway in Southeast Asia where the American navy (And its allies - India, Japan, etc..) is dominant and will remain as such.
Sorry if this reply is sort of far-ranging; a lot of people see headlines like this, and then get strange impressions of the 'threat' China might pose to the rest of us, or that China will one day be 'dominant' in world affairs. I like to try and dispel these notions whenever possible.
posted by Televangelist at 7:39 AM on February 23, 2009 [47 favorites]