The Plan to Avert Our Post-Antibiotic Apocalypse

[Valmy]

And anyway I am still wondering why Brazil, China, India, and Russia are being lumped together.

They are all big, populous, have potential high growth rates, held back by sub-optimal governance but aren't hopeless cases like North Korea or Congo.

That describes several other countries as well. Mexico. Indonesia. Iran.

But I don't hear people talking about the rise of MII, because WTF else do those countries have in common? Same thing here.

The US and Japan and Korea and The West get lumped together because not only are they literally military allies but they represent a common ideology. BRIC implies this bloc represents some kind of rival, and I am sure the Russians like to think so, but what sense in this true? India and Brazil are ideologically Western style Democracies and do not seem to have much in common with Russia's view on things. India is generally considered a rival to China not a close ally.

[Monoriu]

And anyway I am still wondering why Brazil, China, India, and Russia are being lumped together.

They are all big, populous, have potential high growth rates, held back by sub-optimal governance but aren't hopeless cases like North Korea or Congo.

That describes several other countries as well. Mexico. Indonesia. Iran.

But I don't hear people talking about the rise of MII, because WTF else do those countries have in common? Same thing here.

The US and Japan and Korea and The West get lumped together because not only are they literally military allies but they represent a common ideology. BRIC implies this bloc represents some kind of rival, and I am sure the Russians like to think so, but what sense in this true? India and Brazil are ideologically Western style Democracies and do not seem to have much in common with Russia's view on things. India is generally considered a rival to China not a close ally.

Iran is a theocracy that is more interested in...non-economic stuff.  Indonesia is too fragmented and lacks an effective central government that is willing to push through reforms.  That applies to Mexico too, and Mexico is already in NAFTA.  Its potential isn't seen as that great. 

[Valmy]

Yes. Those are all big countries that should be successful but sub-optimal governance keeps screwing them up.

Besides what does being in NAFTA have to do with anything? Pretty sure the US had trade agreements with China as well.

[Monoriu]

Yes. Those are all big countries that should be successful but sub-optimal governance keeps screwing them up.

Besides what does being in NAFTA have to do with anything? Pretty sure the US had trade agreements with China as well.

Being in NAFTA means their upsides should have been realised.  Any Sino-US trade agreements must be far less close than NAFTA membership is. 

If China wants to push through further economic reforms, it probably can, and there is a decent chance that may happen.  Is the Iranian leadership interested in and capable of doing the same?  They are probably more interested in winning wars in Syria and beating Saudi Arabia. 

[The Minsky Moment]

China's troubles and the government's failed attempts to deny the laws of economics are well documented.

Failed attempts?  They grew at 10% for two straight decades.  Even now they are still at 6.7% growth despite falling pop growth.  If that's failure, what would success look like?

I don't know much about India's economy,  but the corruption and income inequality there is off the charts.

India's economy is now the fastest growing in the world.  They have been growing well over 5% a year since the early 90s.

Your points on Russia and Brazil are better taken but irrelevant to the main question of the credibility of Jim O'Neill's thesis.  He wrote his BRIC article in 2001 and talked about 10 year projections.  Each of those countries did quite nicely over that period and the BRICs either equaled or exceeded his projections, with the ramifications for trade that he anticipated.  Given that a 10 year forecast is basically a fool's errand, it doesn't look too shabby.

[jimmy olsen]

I have been hearing about China's collapse for decades.  Ever since Tiananmen, people have predicted civil war, Cultural Revolution Mk 2, disintegration, regional war, financial armageddon, population uprisings, revolts, coups, whatever.  Hasn't happened yet. 

Ever since Tianamen? Hell they had not even really rose at that point. And according to you there are population uprisings on an annual basis

Anyway India and China I can get. I am not sure what the enormous optimism is over Russia and Brazil though or why those four countries should be considered some kind of bloc or alliance to be measured against the US and its allies.

Huh?  When did I say there are population uprisings on an annual basis?  There are clashes with police and law enforcement every hour, but those are minor.  Those usually have very limited objectives, like defending one's home from demolition, not paying a fine etc. 

If Tiananmen wasn't an uprising, I don't know what is

Tiananmen was a protest turned riot at worst.

It's not an uprising until the opposition breaks out the guns.

[CountDeMoney]

If Tiananmen wasn't an uprising, I don't know what is

Somebody running a yellow light is an uprising to you, hive boy.

[jimmy olsen]

And anyway I am still wondering why Brazil, China, India, and Russia are being lumped together.

They are all big, populous, have potential high growth rates, held back by sub-optimal governance but aren't hopeless cases like North Korea or Congo.

That describes several other countries as well. Mexico. Indonesia. Iran.

But I don't hear people talking about the rise of MII, because WTF else do those countries have in common? Same thing here.

The US and Japan and Korea and The West get lumped together because not only are they literally military allies but they represent a common ideology. BRIC implies this bloc represents some kind of rival, and I am sure the Russians like to think so, but what sense in this true? India and Brazil are ideologically Western style Democracies and do not seem to have much in common with Russia's view on things. India is generally considered a rival to China not a close ally.

Iran is a theocracy that is more interested in...non-economic stuff.  Indonesia is too fragmented and lacks an effective central government that is willing to push through reforms.  That applies to Mexico too, and Mexico is already in NAFTA.  Its potential isn't seen as that great.

Mexico and Indonesia have the 15th and 16th largest economies in the world (nominal GDP), Mexico has a per capita GDP that's 1/3rd of the US and Indonesia's is less than 1/10th the US. Seems like a lot of potential for further growth to me.

Failed attempts?  They grew at 10% for two straight decades.  Even now they are still at 6.7% growth despite falling pop growth.  If that's failure, what would success look like?

Minsky, you know my opinion that the Chinese economy is a house of cards built on massive housing, financing and stock bubbles and that it's collapse is inevitible.

[Razgovory]

I honestly think China can become a first world country.  Taiwan has done so, I don't see a reason why China can't.  It does however need to get rid of the Reds.

[The Minsky Moment]

Minsky, you know my opinion that the Chinese economy is a house of cards built on massive housing, financing and stock bubbles and that it's collapse is inevitible.

Yes it's been inevitable for about 15 years . . .

I don't buy the housing bubble story BTW.  Sure there are pockets of crazy pricing in the 1st tier cities but we see that in London and NY too.  There is a tremendous pent-up demand for more and better housing and it is more likely supply is still too low than too high.

The stock exchange is crazy but it is a comparative sideshow for the Chinese economy. 

The big picture is that the growth of the Chinese economy since 1978 has been the most extraordinary achievement in economic development in the history of the world, by a large margin.  Hundreds of millions of people lifted out of abject poverty and near starvation within a single generation.   That's not flim-flam; it's based on development of real globally-competitive industrial sectors and vast improvements in physical and intellectual infrastructure.

[Admiral Yi]

Everyone should note that Joan didn't touch the indebtedness point, which by every indication is a real problem.

[The Minsky Moment]

Everyone should note that Joan didn't touch the indebtedness point, which by every indication is a real problem.

Yes it was a real problem back in 03 or so when I predicted collapse.
And was wrong.

I do think the debt overhang is a problem and is constraining the ability to keep growing at historic breakneck speed.  But I don't see an enormous systemic collapse occurring.  Even if Xi decides to retrench and growth slows to 4-5% per year that's still good enough to grow out of the problem.

[Monoriu]

Minsky, you know my opinion that the Chinese economy is a house of cards built on massive housing, financing and stock bubbles and that it's collapse is inevitible.

I don't think having a real economy and having bubbles are mutually exclusive.  Sure, China has lots of bubbles, I agree with that.  But China also has a real economy.  A gigantic array of goods that international buyers are willing to pay for is produced in China.  The buildings, roads, airports, railroads etc are real. 

[Jacob]

Minsky, you know my opinion that the Chinese economy is a house of cards built on massive housing, financing and stock bubbles and that it's collapse is inevitible.

1: crop you quotes

2: really? You don't think the movement of literally hundreds of millions of Chinese from farming to have, medium, and light industry, the rise of Chinese manufacturing and export, massive infrastructure projects, the explosion of online trading, the growth in sophisticated services aimed at the internal market, and a massive movement of population from the countryside to the cities and the attendant construction boom has nothing to do with China's economic growth? It's all based on stock, financing, and housing bubbles?

[jimmy olsen]

Minsky, you know my opinion that the Chinese economy is a house of cards built on massive housing, financing and stock bubbles and that it's collapse is inevitible.

1: crop you quotes

2: really? You don't think the movement of literally hundreds of millions of Chinese from farming to have, medium, and light industry, the rise of Chinese manufacturing and export, massive infrastructure projects, the explosion of online trading, the growth in sophisticated services aimed at the internal market, and a massive movement of population from the countryside to the cities and the attendant construction boom has nothing to do with China's economic growth? It's all based on stock, financing, and housing bubbles?

All the industry and infrastructure America built in the 20s was real as well, that didn't stop mismangement from crashing the economy.