tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post3310235863643004259..comments2024-01-02T17:38:32.872+00:00Comments on Economics of Imperialism: Index of Power Update, 2018-19: China #2Tony Norfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03896437404164741498noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-82110147127851711082021-08-15T22:11:45.024+01:002021-08-15T22:11:45.024+01:00Reply to Unknown, 15 Aug 2021: No, the bank values...Reply to Unknown, 15 Aug 2021: No, the bank values include only international lending and borrowing of funds. Commonly, high values for these also correlate with high values for the other things you mention. For example, the UK has (maybe 'had' now!) the biggest OTC market in interest rate swaps. But the US market is the biggest market in derivatives more generally, although most of that business is domestic to the US.Tony Norfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896437404164741498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-18329373090770925962021-08-15T21:54:38.254+01:002021-08-15T21:54:38.254+01:00Hi Tony, do the bank values above contain the valu...Hi Tony, do the bank values above contain the value of OTC and exchange traded, stock and derivatives markets, across all asset classes? Thanks. Keval.<br />Revolutionary Reparationshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17342362457485656834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-49442953176688188412020-01-15T12:49:29.818+00:002020-01-15T12:49:29.818+00:00Reply to Comrade Flanker:
I have no problem with a...Reply to Comrade Flanker:<br />I have no problem with any criticism, just as long as it is backed up with some evidence.<br /><br />On the PPP/nominal calculations, in the article I did make a note of how the military money spent by the US might well be less ‘productive’ than that of China, given the exorbitant costs the US arms industry has been able to extract from the state.<br /><br />I would agree that a PPP-type calculation would make Russia and China’s military spending look higher. Nevertheless, as the first of the articles you cited notes, even the PPP number for Russia is only 25% of the US number for 2018 (it was a max of 35% in 2016).<br /><br />That article claims that military spending by Russia + China in PPP terms is ‘roughly equal’ to the US number. But while that may be true, it ignores a number of important things. How an economy-wide PPP calculation is appropriate for the military sector (personnel, missiles, tanks, ships, etc) is one issue. True, the PPP measure will help offset the problem of exchange rates jumping around, but a drastically weaker exchange rate (for Russia) will also hit the (Russian) economy, boosting inflation.<br /><br />More importantly, as far as I know, Russia and China do not have military alliances with other countries, or with each other, that they can depend upon. Secondly, Russia and China have no military bases surrounding the US. When you factor in NATO and the US bases around Russia and China, that surely boosts US military power, even if the US costs of these are in the US number for military spending.<br /><br />I think the SIPRI number in nominal terms is fine to use as an indicator, with the relevant qualifications.<br /><br />Tony Norfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896437404164741498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-62827735768897874202020-01-14T23:15:44.082+00:002020-01-14T23:15:44.082+00:00While SIPRI is a great resource, their military sp...While SIPRI is a great resource, their military spending numbers are very heavily warped because they don't use PPP-adjusted numbers. While this doesn't really matter for the big arms importers like KSA or India, for China and especially Russia post-Crimea, given the relatively autarchic characteristics of their defense-industrial base, using exchange rate dollars massively deflates their military spending. Once you use PPP dollars, Russian and Chinese military spending goes up by a huge factor and begins to rival American military spending. <br /> <br />https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/ this article goes into a lot more depth as does https://www.csis.org/events/russian-defense-expenditure-and-military-modernization<br /><br />I hope this doesn't come off as critical; I really appreciate your work.Comrade Flankernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591186784456519139.post-91065033423768342932019-09-18T11:11:24.477+01:002019-09-18T11:11:24.477+01:00Thanks this interesting. Have recently been to Cam...Thanks this interesting. Have recently been to Cambodia, as a tourist. While in Shinukville having my feet massaged on the beach by a Cambodian, we developed a conversation. They complained about Chinese massive development. And indeed the skyline was full of appartments and hotels under construction, with Chinese slogans. Presumably for a massive influx of middle class Chinese holiday makers. Anyway the complaint was that this development was pushing up prices, unaffordably so. This same sentiment was also substantiated by another independent conversation. The general level of commerce in Shinukville was very low, but one almost Harrods multi store was full of Chinese consumerables, expensive by local standards. The scale of the development was enormous with the skyline full of craned. Obviously I argued that this wasn't working class Chinese but Chinese capitalism. And indeed behind the Chinese capitalist there was also a multitude of other foreign capitalist. And further that the enabler of this development was the Cambodian government, who hadn't taken into consideration the needs of local Cambodians. And further that as the Cambodian authorities were violently against Cambodian workers organising to struggle for better pay and conditions Cambodian workers were natural allies to Chinese workers.Alan Woodcraftnoreply@blogger.com