iOutstanding book that really does not tell much truly novel, but aggregates into a story of China that makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of behavioral economics; after living a while in Beijing, it is this book that really opened my eyes to the brilliance of the Chinese government's long term strategic plan that they are really in a singular position to execute as "china inc." in the global marketplace. Some of china's individual actions may seem sinister or illogical when taken out of context, but in the grander scheme of how to best benefit their people they really do have a well thought-out holistic strategy that other countries with a greater degree of privatization cannot touch. From my experiences living and understanding the culture on the ground, I do believe that George Friedman is wrong about china long-term: china will win. They may piss off some people to do so, while also enlightening others along the way (much as was the US or UK's pathway to dominance). I have a lot more respect now for the communist party at solidifying a coherent strategy that can be embraced from multiple vectors/industries, essentially beating those private companies who created capitalism at their own game. A few notes:
- est. 810MM cell phones in use, retired, or obsolete in the US: 13MM MT of precious metals worth $500MM
- 29% of earth's surface is dry land, only 11% of that land is arable
- Asia has 200 people/sq mi of arable land
- Europe 130, Africa 60, NA 30, LA 70, Oceania 10 - populations are not distributed where arable land is.
- water is 71% of earth's surface, but 97% of that is saline. Only 2.5% is fresh of which 70% are in polar ice caps = 0.007% of earth's water is usable.
- US is just above global average in average water/person/yr; Brasil had a gigantic pool far higher; India and china are near the bottom.
- oil rapidly running out as demand far outpaces supply and new investments are typically cost prohibitive meaning that existing assets are not well maintained. World's largest reserve pool is 100MMM barrel Khuzestan field in Iran, that has enough to supply world consumption by itself for only 3yrs. This is more than 2x larger than the next biggest reserves in Alaska and Saudi Arabia.
- possible to make 10% profit on oil close to the earth's surface at $20/bb. Deep water oil at $40/bb; ultra deep water oil at $60/bb; extra heavy/arctic oil at $80/bb; shale gas at $120/bb; global avg requires $50/bb
- 80% of world's oil are in unstable countries since most of the world's leading consumers are liberal democracies who care little about human rights or democracy in the countries that they buy oil from - as long as it keeps flowing. "The fact that the oil exporter has a 'guaranteed' cash inflow means the oil windfalls replace a government's dependence (broadly speaking) on taxpayers' receipts. Thus, the government cares less about what it's domestic constituents want. In essence, the vast oil receipts sever the connection between the individual and government, thereby undermining the veracity and sanctity of the (implicit) democratic contract between them."
- global energy supply: 33% oil, 27% coal, 21% natural gas, 10% bio/renewable, 6% nuclear, 2% hydro
- in china, 71% is coal and 19% oil
- of course china has a huge demand for other minerals especially copper and are securing land rights from other countries to mine for domestic consumption themselves (instead of paying for importation), but what I did not realize was their play in the global shipping market to secure infrastructure for logistics by which to ship their own materials and products instead of paying shipping companies to do it for them.
- the centralized nature of "china inc." allows them to take a holistic approach to securing resources - e.g. $25MMM loan to Russian oil companies in return do securing 20yr rights to purchase oil; $10MMM loan to Petrobras in addition to a deal to increase brasilian exports of chicken/beef to china in return for providing 200,000bb/day of oil to sinopec - a huge advantage that privatized countries could never hope to match. The scale of a company like P&G who buys more hygiene-grade PP than any other company in the world has nothing compared to china inc who pools the resources of many companies across many industries.
- Internal politics are not as divisive as in the US: During the economic crisis of 2008, china approved $586MMM of stimulus money (15% of GDP) in 15 days meted out across industries and escaped essentially unfazed vs us who fought for months and continue to fight years later internally over getting 5% of a stimulus approved. All the aid they have going to Africa is well received as opposed to American aid that is blatantly hypocratic and paternalistic - example of George W capitulating to far right republicans in cutting funding for a program to give condoms in Africa in favor of promoting abstinence - very negative perception among the people.
- the fact that china often overpays for land, resources, and investments vs the market rate is a testament to their broader long term objectives as a state - employment of their people and sustained resources to continue improving the lives of their people to avoid another tiananmen, not necessarily the largest profits (as a private industry seeks).
- food is just as critical as a resource as minerals and energy to china given their land and water situation - there exists a national frozen pork reserve
- interesting defense of commodity traders - although they can aggravate spikes and drops in prices through their activities, they are essentially doing nothing more than making it more efficient to trade large scale - they are not the ones responsible for the spikes and peaks as this is natural supply/demand but do serve to worsen them - "to criticize speculators for identifying supply-demand imbalances is tantamount to criticizing a thermometer for indicating that a liquid is hot."
- repeats her assertion from "dead aid" that Chinese investment in Africa is overwhelmingly positive as it is rooted purely in commerce instead of colonialism. The public perception of china in African countries is very positive and much higher than that of the US. China is apathetic to dictatorships and government abuses, making them no worse than western countries that behave the same way - but they provide a benefit in return for natural resources: money and building infrastructure (instead of the arrogant donations model). This far china has maintained a "peaceful rise" policy and not needed to militarily intervene into any country it has interests in; will that remain if the shit hits the fan in the future?
- food policy of western nations has gone further to drive Africa into china's arms. More food is thrown away in the US and EU than would be needed to feed all of the world's 1B hungry. There exist 1B obese which shows that food supply can meet demand but is an issue of location. With farm subsidies and other protections for domestic industries that serve to harm exports for many poor/staring countries, the end result is that they look to china as a market for their food sales - this providing china with the trade-off to strike a mutual benefit in securing their mineral and natural resource needs.
- good analysis of china's environmental current disaster: no different than the industrial revolution's impact in US or EU but on a larger scale. In those cases the messes were later cleaned up and right now china is making the same choice - focus on the important instead of the urgent. More important is to grow the economy and get people out of poverty first.
- About my only disagreement with Moyo is her unilateral support of GMO for increasing food production. this is absolutely fair if not for her dismissal of all concerns against it. There's no question that the trends of "organic/local/etc" are not sustainable for bringing 1B people out of hunger, but she does not even acknowledge potential trade off of global famine vs health/biological impacts.
- final chapter deals with potential future outcomes of how to better manage resource wars in the future - non that are realistic. She recommends a global committee that can manage resources (food, water, minerals, energy) and help to avert conflicts in the future though this is clearly not realistic given that the UN cannot even effectively avoid armed conflict and the WTO does not have enough teeth to resolve trade disputes. She also sees the US as able to play a unique role in bringing innovations in reducing energy use, food/water equilibria, and redirecting funding away from military to better balance resource constraints of the world: "Should America be a force for good - one that seeks to solve problems like resource scarcity afflicting the globe and enhance the well-being of people's lives and human existence around the world? Or does the United States wish to push for short-term solutions with nationalistic leanings that are increasingly untenable and will continue to lead a world marred in conflicts that wreak death and destruction?" - which unfortunately I think we also know how that will turn off. I suppose the bright side is her accurate assertion that china truly does look at military intervention as a means of last resort.