China Australia fact of the day

In 2015 our iron ore exports alone were four times the value of all of our combined services exports to China. And in services the only things that really count are tourism and education. That’s not going to change for a long, long time.

The alas now gated article, by Greg Sheridan, is of interest more generally and concerns some myths about China and Australia.

Addendum: To read the piece, try here.

Comments

For all the talk about diversity in Australia, I saw mainly white people and a few Indians, Middle Easterners and a smattering of Chinese in Sydney's Chinatown. In Melbourne I saw even fewer non-whites. I might be the first to say this...

you may indeed be the first to say that Ray, because your comment does not reflect the Melbourne I have happily lived and worked in for decades.
As an example, I have managed factories where there were more than 40 nationalities represented in a small workforce of 250. It worked very harmoniously. Some larger workplaces would have quite a few more.
Like any large city, Melbourne has its share of problems, but lack of diversity isn't one of them.
It has just been voted the most liveable city in the world for the sixth year in a row. Part of the reason it is so successful, is its multicultural mix of positive influences that have been drawn from almost every place on earth over many years.
Actual diversity facts here:
http://www.originsinfo.com.au/aust-cultural-diversity/

Come back down under. To find out more. You will be welcome.

OK Kel thanks, I did like the Melbourne "Four Seasons in a Day" weather. I did visit some Greek things and actually found something from my hometown on display, which I found amusing. The Grand Prix auto tour was there that week, lots of youth partying, and the park on a hill was nice, the sculptures in the river were interesting, and all in all it was a livable city. But if I want "livable" I prefer the Third World Philippines, where you can live like a king for 10k/yr USD. And my woman is there.

Also you'll note that your 'diversified workplace' was essentially a factory sweatshop, where people desperate to not be deported from AU are forced to work. Their white overlords like you then make a point about how happy they are, akin to US slave owners who gave their slaves a slice of watermelon and noted how smiley they are. If I want to make poor people happy, I prefer not to import them into Australia and then pay them minimum wage but go to their home country, such as the ones found in Southeast Asia, and spend money in their home country (btw some of my neighbors in the small village in PH where I live are from AU).

I think you might find Ray, that working conditions in Australia are just ever so slightly better than the sweatshop-type situation you depict.

In fairness Ray, minimum wage in Australia is AUD $17.70/hour.

Take a train from the suburbs into the Sydney city. A lot of Asians. Chinatown is mostly for the tourists.

Australia tightly controls immigration, being an island and all it's not that hard. There are very, very few illegal immigrants facing deportation.

The only hard data is source of immigration. This is a 2012 WSJ article:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304898704577479932176934836

"Australia Grows More Asian"

"Asians accounted for the biggest jump in immigration to Australia in terms of ethnicity, with Indian and Chinese the fastest-growing groups. The census showed that around one in four of the 21.5 million people surveyed in the census last year was born outside Australia, compared with 22% a decade ago. Of those, a third was born in Asia, a sharp increase from 24% in 2006.

Meanwhile, the proportion of European migrants has fallen from more than half of arrivals a decade ago to 40% last year. The U.K. remains the leading country of origin for Australia's overseas-born population at 21%, including more than a quarter of long-standing migrants."

There you are Ray, a passive aggressive invitation to Melbourne from Kel. But you might be right, Ray: top ethnic groups in Australia (from the census description of "ancestory")

English (36.1%)
Australian (35.4%)
Irish (10.4%)
Scottish (8.9%)
Italian (4.6%)
German (4.5%)
Chinese (4.3%)
Indigenous Australians (3.0%)
Indian (2.1%)
Greek (1.9%)
Dutch (1.4%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia

Kel played the stereotypical white card of "I have a minority friend". 100% involuntary humor.

"English (36.1%) Australian (35.4%) Irish (10.4%) Scottish (8.9%)": what is this 'Australian' category that is distinct from descendants of people from the British Isles?

And the percentages add up amusingly too.

I suppose it's a case of "Ask a silly question .....".

Its more helpful to think in terms of languages spoken. Here's Sydney's: http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/sydney-languages

The Australian census does not ask for "race" or "ethnicity".

It asks which "cultural" group a person identifies with. So a second generation Australian of Asian descent is very likely to answer "Australian" . Even more so if they are multi-ethnic.

Also, the census allows individuals to report one or two cultural identities. That muddies the water further.

Ray is absolutely correct. Australia is 92% white. This makes it as racially diverse as Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Poland, and Switzerland.

I guess Italians are not filthy mongrel immigrants any more?

Anyways, it seems odd to consider diversity in terms of skin colour much of the time. In Switzerland, you range from Geneva and Zurich to traditional mountain towns across 4 official cultural and language groups, who get along fine, yes, but don't seem to actually interact much. That seems pretty diverse to me.

For a different sort of example, I tend to group together computers by what's inside them, not what's on the outside of the package. Imagine to go to a computer store and have all your options arranged by colour? What an overly simplistic way to arrange important things, unless you're a designer or artist or something.

We don't know. The census does not ask that question. But the percent is high for sure.

Are paywalls contributing to the decline in blogs by discouraging discussion of the subject under the line, and encouraging irrelevant musings on the topic?

Sorry, it had worked for me in Denmark!

I used to subscribe to various Aussie newspapers but the opinion content wasn't good enough to justify paying.

It is possible, when there is a good article to (usually) get around paywalls, though as Tyler being a columnist himself probably won't appreciate me detailing exactly how.

@Millian: it works if you access the article from google.

Merci beaucoup

Agricultural products dominate U.S. exports to China (soy beans rank first). China is the third largest goods export market for the U.S. (behind Canada and Mexico), and fourth largest services export market (and first in services export growth (averaging 17% for the past 10 years)). Combined goods and services exports to China (about $155 billion in 2014) grew faster over the past 10 years than with any other trading partner (goods exports increased 115% over the 10 year period). What are the services exports to China? Travel and education, royalties, transportation, business and professional services, and financial services. On the other hand, the U.S. share of China imports has been falling, down from 10% in 2000 to 6.5% in 2015. Does this reflect discrimination against U.S. firms (via tariffs, licensing, etc.)? Or does this reflect the shift in production by U.S. firms to China from the U.S.? Over the past 10 years (2006 to 2015), China's annual GDP grew by $9 trillion (i.e., its GDP in 2015 is $9 trillion more than in 2006). $9 trillion more per year! If the U.S. share of imports had remained the same as in 2000 (at 10% of the total), and assuming imports were the same percentage of GDP, U.S. annual exports to China would be twice as much as they actually are today. I suspect that exports to China as measured today understate the total income derived by U.S. firms from China, that much of the export income "lost" has been shifted to non-U.S. source income from U.S. source income (deflected via royalties, etc. paid to controlled foreign corporations). The net result of the lack of transparency is that it hinders our ability to engage with China in negotiating fair trade agreements.

Fallacy #5 "don’t think for a moment that being an ally of the US diminishes us in Beijing’s eyes" applies to many countries. A relationship with the USA is only detrimental to intellectuals with fixed income.

'A relationship with the USA is only detrimental to intellectuals with fixed income'

Whatever that sentence is meant to convey, the bi lateral 'free trade agreement' AUS signed with the USA in 2005 costs us an extra A$5-6B pa in Pharma costs.

That's real money.

And you can look forward to more extracted blood if the TPP passes. Pharma IP rights duration will be extended in Canada if it passes, and pharma prices will surely be jacked up on average as a result. And then there's competing with NZ dairy farmers. And the whole bit about governments having to pay corporations if any change in law affects their profits, whereas no such similar benefit has ever been proposed for the lowly worker. But what really takes the cake is that this "free trade" deal includes elements which would require ISPs to share user information with foreign governments (if I understand correctly, this is effectively what the text would mean).

On that last criteria alone, I'd say go back to the drawing board and invite consumer and privacy advocates to the table this time. I can understand that aspects of trade negotiations will often happen behind closed doors, but it is not acceptable that consumers were entirely unrepresented in the picture. So, an economist can roll out standard free trade arguments, but have they even looked at the details of the deal?

1) TPP: I know

2) Can anyone in the USA stop this deranged idiot from getting his signature achievement over the line? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/business/international/trans-pacific-partnership-obama.html?_r=0

3) "So, an economist can roll out standard free trade arguments, but have they even looked at the details of the deal?" Cowen was for it even though he hadn't seen it, much less read any of the 27,000 pages drafted by corporate lobbyists, lawyers. Pure mood affiliation, to the detriment of US citizens and those of other signatory countries.

A lot of the article can just be summarized as "Reduce the status of China, increase the status of Australia and the US."

These factors are important to notice because they make obvious difference and if we wish to be successful then we got to keep our eyes on the mark to gain. I get a lot of support with help of OctaFX broker which is through their amazingly accurate analysis service, it’s provided by experts and is free too, so I always find it easier to follow and helps me achieve good results while also keeps me entirely comfortable with things and let me work nicely.

very informative article indeed i have read this again

Comments for this post are closed