Getting people to use antibiotics responsibly is too unrealistic I think, at least in the short term. The ability or priority to produce new drugs is what's going to save us or doom us.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-ten-part-plan-to-avert-our-post-antibiotic-apocalypse/483360/
Quote
The Plan to Avert Our Post-Antibiotic Apocalypse
A new report estimates that by 2050, drug-resistant infections will kill one person every three seconds, unless the world's governments take drastic steps now.
Fabrizio Bensch / Reuters
Ed Yong
| May 19, 2016
| Science
Under instructions from U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, economist Jim O'Neill has spent the last two years looking into the problem of drug-resistant infections—bacteria and other microbes that have become impervious to antibiotics. In that time, he estimates that a million people have died from such infections. By 2050, he thinks that ten million will die every year.
O'Neill is most famous for another prediction—that by 2050, the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC), would eclipse those of the world's current richest countries. A former chairman of Goldman Sachs with no scientific training, he was an unorthodox choice to lead an international commission on drug-resistant infections. He was also an inspired one. The problem of drug-resistant microbes isn't just about biology and chemistry; it's an economic problem at heart, a catastrophic and long-bubbling mismatch between supply and demand. It's the result of the many incentives for misusing our drugs, and the dearth of incentives for developing new ones.
The scope of that problem is clear in O'Neill's final report, which launches today on the back of eight earlier interim publications. It is as thorough a review of the problem of drug-resistant infections as currently exists. "They've been extremely open-minded, and have sought opinion extensively across the world," says Laura Piddock, a microbiologist at the University of Birmingham and director of Antibiotic Action. "They've clearly recognized that this is a global issue and needs global solutions."
The report's language is sober but its numbers are apocalyptic. If antibiotics continue to lose their sting, resistant infections will sap $100 trillion from the world economy between now and 2050, equivalent to $10,000 for every person alive today. Ten million people will die every year, roughly one every three seconds, and more than currently die from cancer. These are conservative estimates: They don't account for procedures that are only safe or possible because of antibiotics, like hip and joint replacements, gut surgeries, C-sections, cancer chemotherapy, and organ transplants.
And yet, resistance is not futile. O'Neill's report includes ten steps to avert the crisis. Notably, only two address the problem of supply—the lack of new antibiotics. "When I first agreed to do this, the advisors presented it to me as a challenge of getting new drugs," says O'Neill. "But it dawned on me very quickly that there were just as many, if not more, important issues on the demand side." Indeed, seven of his recommendations focus on reducing the wanton and wasteful use of our existing arsenal. It's inevitable that microbes will evolve resistance, but we can delay that process by using drugs more sparingly.
The first step is to improve sanitation. Fewer infections means less need for antibiotics. For richer nations, the focus lies in reducing infections in hospital settings. For poorer countries, ensuring clean water and better sanitation is paramount; as O'Neill writes, resistance "is intrinsically an issue of economic development." In India, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Brazil alone, sanitation could save 300 million courses of antibiotics, currently used (often ineffectively) to treat diarrhea.
Advertisement
We also need a global surveillance network to understand the extent to which antibiotics are being used, the spread of resistant microbes and the genes behind their powers, and the effectiveness of different drug/bug combos. The World Health Organization has already planted the seeds of such a network, and following an earlier O'Neill report, the UK government launched the £195 million Fleming Fund to build surveillance in poorer countries.
Even without such data, some remedial steps are already obvious. In the U.S. alone, 70 percent of antibiotics that are medically useful to humans are given to animals instead, and not just for treating disease but for promoting growth or compensating for poor farming practices. So O'Neill's report recommends that from 2018, countries should set ten-year reduction targets to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics in agriculture. It also argues for restrictions or bans on the agricultural use of any drug that's a last-line defense for humans. And it suggests that meat should be transparently labeled so consumers can make informed choices.
A lot of human antibiotic use is wasteful too. Of the 40 million people who get antibiotics in the U.S. every year, only 13 million actually need them; the rest have viral infections that can't be treated with these drugs. One solution is to develop better, faster, cheaper diagnostic tools, so doctors don't have to assess vague symptoms, or rely on slow, expensive tests based on centuries-old technology. "I sometimes think that if there was a single most important thing here it might be diagnostics," says O'Neill.
He thinks that rich countries should mandate that, by 2020, all prescriptions will be informed by "data and testing technology wherever available." That will create a market for developing better tests, and so boost innovation in this stagnant area. Meanwhile, a "diagnostic market stimulus" would provide top-up payments to poorer countries that buy diagnostic tests, in the same way that organizations like Gavi fund vaccine use in the developing world.
A large public-awareness campaign, with a yearly budget of $40 to 100 million, would also help. As I reported last year, people largely don't know how antibiotics work, don't distinguish between bacterial and viral infections, and assume that they, not microbes, are becoming resistant to antibiotics. These misconceptions lead people to pressure doctors for inappropriate prescriptions. Failing that, they can simply buy antibiotics online; the O'Neill report also recommends that countries should crack down on over-the-counter sales of antibiotics without prescriptions, and outrightly ban such sales online.
We can also lift some of the pressure on our antibiotic supply by promoting effective alternatives like vaccines, for both humans and animals. This means encouraging the use of existing vaccines (say, against pneumonococcal infections) and developing new ones against increasingly resistant threats like Clostridium difficile and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It also means looking into other lines of treatment like probiotics (beneficial bacteria), phages (bacteria-killing viruses), and immunotherapies (substances that stimulate the immune system). It's noteworthy that these alternatives, often lauded by the media as incipient solutions to the antibiotic crisis, are just small and underplayed parts of O'Neill's strategy.
These measures depend on scientists and doctors who specialize in infectious disease. Unfortunately, of the 25 main medical specialities in the US, infectious disease is the lowest paid and among the most unpopular. Its publications receive markedly fewer citations than most other biomedical fields. "I was unaware of that myself and I'm a microbiologist," says Piddock. "Clearly you need scientists to do the basic science that will underpin new treatments, and you need physicians for leadership in using antimicrobials. If you don't have that, the drugs get used by everyone." To fix the "exodus of expertise", the O'Neill report calls for funding and training schemes to improve the numbers, pay and recognition of people working in infectious disease.
That covers the demand. Now for the supply.
No new classes of antibiotics have emerged for decades and barely 40 new drugs are in development. Just three are potentially effective against carbapenem-resistant bacteria, which have already reached worryingly high levels in some countries. Simply put, we are not developing enough new medicines to make up for those that are being defanged by resistant microbes.
We were too successful too early. The golden age of antibiotic discovery between the 1940s and 1970s allowed us to wage a very successful war against infectious disease. But just as new drugs became harder to find, we grew overconfident, shifting our attention and investment to other bogeymen like cancer. Of the $38 billion that went into pharmaceutical research and development between 2003 and 2013, just $1.8 billion was spent on antibiotics.
From a business standpoint, this disinvestment makes perfect sense. Pharmaceutical companies want a breakthrough drug to arrive with a splash, capture a large market share, and sell as well as possible while it's still on patent. But we actually want to restrict the use of new antibiotics to prolong their usefulness. That creates a terrible market, which will only get worse if the first seven of O'Neill's measures come to pass.
His solution is to set up market-entry rewards—billion-dollar payments for any company that takes new antibiotics to market (and sells and promotes them responsibly). Such payments ensure that companies are rewarded for developing drugs rather than just selling them—or even instead of selling them. "We need a couple of drugs against the most serious pathogens ready, but we hope not to buy them or use them," says Kevin Outterson, who co-directs Boston University's Health Law Program. "That's what we're doing here. "You need to build the fire station and sprinklers years before you need them, but you don't only pay the contractor when a fire breaks out."
To complement this, the report recommends creating a global innovation fund for early-stage research. A lot of the basic science that underpins the discovery of new drugs is not sexy and has poor commercial returns. Consequently, with a few exceptions, it's underfunded. It will take a pooled fund of $2 billion over five years to support such work, and the U.K. and China have already pledged $145 million each.
How much will all this cost? Roughly $40 billion over a decade, O'Neill estimates. That includes roughly $18 for the two measures designed to stimulate drug development, $10 to 20 billion for developing and rolling out diagnostics and vaccines, and up to $1 billion for improving public awareness. The G20 countries could raise this sum on their own by repurposing just 0.05 percent of their healthcare budget. It may be possible to supplement this by taxing antibiotic use (especially in animals), or levying an investment charge on companies that sell health-care products, many of which rely on antibiotics.
"It's not a major financial challenge," says O'Neill. "It's the attitude. Everybody has got to get out of their comfort zone in order to get a solution to this multi-faceted challenge." That's why his final recommendation is to build a global coalition—an international entity that can turn plans into actions, protect funds from the vagaries of political cycles, and ensure that new drugs and diagnostics are accessible and affordable to poorer countries.
The coming months will be crucial. The WHO's World Health Assembly in taking place in Geneva next week, as is a G7 meeting in Japan. In September, the G20 is convening in China and the UN General Assembly is meeting in New York; antibiotic resistance will be discussed at both. "I am cautiously optimistic," says O'Neill. "We have a lot of intellectual buy-in for the spirit of what we're recommending."
"The time for arguing over the broad strokes is over," adds Outterson. "This is a good report. We need to move forward."
QuoteO'Neill is most famous for another prediction—that by 2050, the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC), would eclipse those of the world's current richest countries.
Lulz
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2016, 07:07:08 PM
QuoteO'Neill is most famous for another prediction—that by 2050, the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC), would eclipse those of the world's current richest countries.
Lulz
Yay, that did make me wince a bit. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2016, 07:07:08 PM
QuoteO'Neill is most famous for another prediction—that by 2050, the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC), would eclipse those of the world's current richest countries.
Lulz
Not sure why you are laughing. That isn't crazy--China has basically caught the US on its own, and its growth rates tend to be a lot higher.
Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I guess South Korea (if we are using a big tent) have way less people than India, Brazil, and Russia.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 07:56:01 PM
Not sure why you are laughing. That isn't crazy--China has basically caught the US on its own, and its growth rates tend to be a lot higher.
Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I guess South Korea (if we are using a big tent) have way less people than India, Brazil, and Russia.
Brazil, Russia, India and China are dysfunctional states with economies built on graft, corruption, mismanagement, centralized failure and overall basic bullshit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 07:56:01 PM
Not sure why you are laughing. That isn't crazy--China has basically caught the US on its own, and its growth rates tend to be a lot higher.
Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I guess South Korea (if we are using a big tent) have way less people than India, Brazil, and Russia.
Brazil, Russia, India and China are dysfunctional states with economies built on graft, corruption, mismanagement, centralized failure and overall basic bullshit.
Agree.
But they also have a shitton of people, have been posting better growth than the west, and have higher growth potential.
I'd also laugh at a projection they will have better standards of living or per capita income, but a raw GDP total? That isn't crazy.
China alone has more people than the US, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea combined. India has a population that is almost as big as China's. Add Brazil and Russia, and it means that the "new economies" only need to be half as good as the "western world" to overtake them. On a per capita basis, they still have a long way to go, and they probably will never catch up without fundamental reforms. But on a total GDP basis, they can easily catch up.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 07:56:01 PM
Not sure why you are laughing. That isn't crazy--China has basically caught the US on its own, and its growth rates tend to be a lot higher.
Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I guess South Korea (if we are using a big tent) have way less people than India, Brazil, and Russia.
China has caught the US? It will by 2050, but none of the other BRIC countries are on a path to overtake the US, or even Japan or Germany.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2016, 08:16:17 PM
China alone has more people than the US, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea combined. India has a population that is almost as big as China's. Add Brazil and Russia, and it means that the "new economies" only need to be half as good as the "western world" to overtake them. On a per capita basis, they still have a long way to go, and they probably will never catch up without fundamental reforms. But on a total GDP basis, they can easily catch up.
There is nothing "new" about the economies of Russia or India. Probably nothing particularly new about Brazil's economy, either. China will slow down but still grow faster than the more fully developed countries because it will continue to benefit from the growth in consumer demand that comes with the Second Industrial Revolution.
Brazil has been the girl with the curl since the 1960s. People have been betting on Brazil for ages, and like their World Cup teams, it's an overrated bust. Will always be a bust. Shitty 3rd world country is: shitty.
Russia has become a Gangsta's Paradise: 35% of the nation's domestic wealth belongs to just 110 people, and the average Russian is poorer than the average Indian.
There's a reason Indians do better than India, as The Economist once noted: because they fucking leave that overpopulated cesspool and environmental nightmare.
China's economy is a house of cards built upon currency manipulation, shitty centralized planning, obscene corruption and a complete lack of the very institutions that save Western economies when they shit themselves. They will eventually collapse, in the fashion that only China can: spectacularly. Unfortunately, that often comes with a tremendous loss of life.
Quote from: grumbler on May 30, 2016, 08:24:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 07:56:01 PM
Not sure why you are laughing. That isn't crazy--China has basically caught the US on its own, and its growth rates tend to be a lot higher.
Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I guess South Korea (if we are using a big tent) have way less people than India, Brazil, and Russia.
China has caught the US? It will by 2050, but none of the other BRIC countries are on a path to overtake the US, or even Japan or Germany.
China has actually already passed the US in terms of purhase price parity, though not in nominal terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
I think you are really overconfident about the ability of Japan and Germany to hold off India. In PPP terms India is already ahead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2016, 08:48:55 PM
Brazil has been the girl with the curl since the 1960s. People have been betting on Brazil for ages, and like their World Cup teams, it's an overrated bust. Will always be a bust. Shitty 3rd world country is: shitty.
Russia has become a Gangsta's Paradise: 35% of the nation's domestic wealth belongs to just 110 people, and the average Russian is poorer than the average Indian.
There's a reason Indians do better than India, as The Economist once noted: because they fucking leave that overpopulated cesspool and environmental nightmare.
China's economy is a house of cards built upon currency manipulation, shitty centralized planning, obscene corruption and a complete lack of the very institutions that save Western economies when they shit themselves. They will eventually collapse, in the fashion that only China can: spectacularly. Unfortunately, that often comes with a tremendous loss of life.
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.
Mono's great great grandfather was saying the same thing circa 1899.
China could one day become a first world state, but it pretty much has to collapse first.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2016, 09:06:51 PM
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 Tiananmen"? That's what, 25 years ago? Bit of a short launch window there, Mono.
Oh, there'll be no collapse. There never is. There will always be a China, in one fashion or another. The Chinese will just continue to do stupid short-sighted Chinese shit, like 45 million deaths in 4 years, or being the globe's largest existential ecocide, or becoming the world's biggest ticking time bomb in a gender imbalance that will imperil the nation's stability. You can set your dynastic clock to it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2016, 09:41:33 PM
Mono's great great grandfather was saying the same thing circa 1899.
A big part of China's problems back then was external. China kept losing wars to foreign powers, and was in the process of being colonised and divided up. So a significant part of the intellectuals and ruling elite saw the need for change. That is absent today as China is now nuclear armed. The threat of foreign invasion and colonisation is nil.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2016, 09:43:09 PM
China could one day become a first world state, but it pretty much has to collapse first.
Raz, you are missing the point. The BRIC countries can avoid ever reaching first world and still have economies larger than the "wealthy countries". They have more people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2016, 09:51:33 PM
"Ever since Tiananmen"? That's what, 25 years ago? Bit of a short launch window there, Mono.
Oh, there'll be no collapse. There never is. There will always be a China, in one fashion or another. The Chinese will just continue to do stupid short-sighted Chinese shit, like 45 million deaths in 4 years, or being the globe's largest existential ecocide, or becoming the world's biggest ticking time bomb in a gender imbalance that will imperil the nation's stability. You can set your dynastic clock to it.
2017 is going to be quite important. One of the reasons of the Communist Party's staying power is succession planning. After Tiananmen, Deng did two things. He appointed his successor (Jiang Zemin), and appointed the successor to his successor (Hu Jintao). Over the years, they also established many succession rules. "7 up, 8 down" means a politburo member may continue to be reappointed if he is 67 or younger. If he is 68 or older, he needs to step down when his time is up (he can finish his 5-year term, but his term can't be extended). Each party secretary-general may serve for 2 terms only (10 years).
By 2017, the current secretary-general would have served one full term. His term will be extended for another 5 years, but tradition is that he needs to pick a successor and appoint him into the politburo standing committee as sort of party secretary-general in-training. Whether he does so or not will be telling.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2016, 09:43:09 PM
China could one day become a first world state, but it pretty much has to collapse first.
Raz, you are missing the point. The BRIC countries can avoid ever reaching first world and still have economies larger than the "wealthy countries". They have more people.
Enough with the more people bullshit. A fuckton of broke ass third world poors living in abject Sally Struthers squalor doth not a western-eclipsing GDP make.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 07:56:01 PM
Not sure why you are laughing. That isn't crazy--China has basically caught the US on its own, and its growth rates tend to be a lot higher.
Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I guess South Korea (if we are using a big tent) have way less people than India, Brazil, and Russia.
Brazil, Russia, India and China are dysfunctional states with economies built on graft, corruption, mismanagement, centralized failure and overall basic bullshit.
just like the actual US, according to Trump and Sanders... ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2016, 09:43:09 PM
China could one day become a first world state, but it pretty much has to collapse first.
Raz, you are missing the point. The BRIC countries can avoid ever reaching first world and still have economies larger than the "wealthy countries". They have more people.
Yes the BRIC thesis was never really about these countries reaching full developed status. The point was that they had high growth rates and large population such that even moderate developmental improvements could have enormous implications for markets and trade. O'Neill was spot on: over the 10 year period he was projecting from back in 2001, the BRICs did in fact increase their share of world GDP.
Russia's a failed petrostate whose failure to diversify while times were good, in favor of lining the pockets of Putin's cronies, will doom them to decades more of economic irrelevance.
The current corruption fueled struggle over the Presidency in Brazil doesn't bode well for their prospects.
China's troubles and the government's failed attempts to deny the laws of economics are well documented.
I don't know much about India's economy, but the corruption and income inequality there is off the charts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
According to wiki, the combined BRIC GDP was $34.174 trillion (2015, by purchasing power parity). The combined GDP of the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand was $46.94 trillion. BRIC aren't that far behind.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 30, 2016, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2016, 09:43:09 PM
China could one day become a first world state, but it pretty much has to collapse first.
Raz, you are missing the point. The BRIC countries can avoid ever reaching first world and still have economies larger than the "wealthy countries". They have more people.
Russia has the populace only slightly higher than Japan and it is declining. Its economy is expected to contract by 1.2% in 2016 after a decline of 3.7% in 2015.
I havent bothered to check stats for Brazil, India and China but what you are saying clearly isnt true for all BRIC countries.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 31, 2016, 11:21:23 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
According to wiki, the combined BRIC GDP was $34.174 trillion (2015, by purchasing power parity). The combined GDP of the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand was $46.94 trillion. BRIC aren't that far behind.
The difference is bigger if we use nominal GDP rather than the PPP figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
I think that for discussions on international trade the nominal GDP is probably preferable.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 01, 2016, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 31, 2016, 11:21:23 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
According to wiki, the combined BRIC GDP was $34.174 trillion (2015, by purchasing power parity). The combined GDP of the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand was $46.94 trillion. BRIC aren't that far behind.
The difference is bigger if we use nominal GDP rather than the PPP figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
I think that for discussions on international trade the nominal GDP is probably preferable.
I'll leave it to people more knowledgeable than me to explain which one is more suitable. But the prediction is for 2050. There is still plenty of time :)
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2016, 09:06:51 PM
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 :P
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 07:43:07 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2016, 09:06:51 PM
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 :P
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 :P
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 07:43:07 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2016, 09:06:51 PM
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 :P
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 :P
In the US those would be major issues. In China they are routine. That is what I was saying :P
And anyway I am still wondering why Brazil, China, India, and Russia are being lumped together.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
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. With a suitable dose of reform, they can become new economic powerhouses due to the sheer sizes of their population and geographic reach.
Or somebody needs a nice acronym to sell their (overpriced) stock funds, and BRIC is catchy :P
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:41:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:48:26 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:41:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:59:38 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 31, 2016, 10:37:05 PM
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?
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 07:43:07 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2016, 09:06:51 PM
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 :P
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 :P
Tiananmen was a protest turned riot at worst.
It's not an uprising until the opposition breaks out the guns.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:28:19 AM
If Tiananmen wasn't an uprising, I don't know what is :P
Somebody running a yellow light is an uprising to you, hive boy.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:56:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:48:26 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 01, 2016, 08:41:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2016, 09:23:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 01, 2016, 06:52:51 PM
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.
Everyone should note that Joan didn't touch the indebtedness point, which by every indication is a real problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2016, 07:19:53 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 01, 2016, 06:52:51 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 01, 2016, 06:52:51 PM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2016, 08:41:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 01, 2016, 06:52:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 01, 2016, 08:41:14 PMYou 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?
You're forgetting how the concerted and targeted national effort since 1991 of the wholesale theft of trade secrets, intellectual property data, confidential business and military intelligence resulting in the largest transfer of wealth in human history didn't hurt, either.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 01, 2016, 09:09:33 PMAll the industry and infrastructure America built in the 20s was real as well, that didn't stop mismangement from crashing the economy.
Sure. But that's a different argument than saying the sustained growth over the last decade plus is based on one or more bubbles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2016, 09:15:47 PM
You're forgetting how the concerted and targeted national effort since 1991 of the wholesale theft of trade secrets, intellectual property data, confidential business and military intelligence resulting in the largest transfer of wealth in human history didn't hurt, either.
In the literature that is called catch-up growth. ;)
The debt problem also has to be seen in context. The debt is owed primarily by municipalities and SEOs, it is owed to state-owned or controlled banks. I.e. the debt for the most part is paper obligations owed by one part of the state to another part of the state. That doesn't mean it could be cancelled out without fallout but it is a different sort of problem than say Argentina 2001
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2016, 10:14:39 AM
The debt problem also has to be seen in context. The debt is owed primarily by municipalities and SEOs, it is owed to state-owned or controlled banks. I.e. the debt for the most part is paper obligations owed by one part of the state to another part of the state. That doesn't mean it could be cancelled out without fallout but it is a different sort of problem than say Argentina 2001
And the banks in turn owe money to depositors, who are private individuals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2016, 11:26:58 AM
And the banks in turn owe money to depositors, who are private individuals.
That's actually a strength not a weakness. Wholesale funding would be a bigger problem. Depositors have nowhere else to go. And if they did try to run, the government could either suspend or limit cash payout or just have the central bank extend a loan.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 02, 2016, 11:42:06 AM
That's actually a strength not a weakness. Wholesale funding would be a bigger problem. Depositors have nowhere else to go. And if they did try to run, the government could either suspend or limit cash payout or just have the central bank extend a loan.
Leaving aside the relative merits of wholesale and retail funding, my point was that massive default on bank loans is not just an issue of rearranging entries in a government ledger.
There are actual people who have bought the bonds of Chinese real estate developers :ph34r: