tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post6790909148932653029..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: MEDIAFAIL: Is there no Internet in the Economist's Offices?Michael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-29951105264959512402016-05-16T17:55:27.900+08:002016-05-16T17:55:27.900+08:00That is, what percentage can you attribute to one-...<b>That is, what percentage can you attribute to one-off historical factors, and what percent can you attribute to dumb luck? I have no idea. </b><br /><br />I am not comparing the two periods on their performance, but on the Economist's description of the situation. If Ma was ballooning, what was happening during the Chen era? Of course the Economist never mentions that.<br /><br />Of course they were different periods. Chen was the tail end of a golden age. Ma was beginning of a slump. <br /><br />I knew someone would come in with this line, and that is why I didn't attribute anything to the management of either, except for ECFA, whose performance effect is rather obvious. Chen was obviously luckier than Ma. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-28224976082562850982016-05-16T17:34:43.711+08:002016-05-16T17:34:43.711+08:00I understand your point about ommission and it is ...I understand your point about ommission and it is a good one. Nor am I defending The Economist's point of view. <br /><br />The paragraph below, however, while potentially refuting The Economist (which I am not defending), commits the very error of comparison that should not be made. The Economist should not make it, nor should any one else: Any trained social scientist would make the same point about making static assumptions across two very different historical periods, particularly as China's economy has changed so much over that time period. That is, what percentage can you attribute to one-off historical factors, and what percent can you attribute to dumb luck? I have no idea. <br /><br />"Note that trade under Chen skyrocketed from $10.4 billion in 2000 to $98.2 billion in 2008, or a gain of nearly $88 billion. What happened in the "ballooning" Ma era? Trade grew from $98.2 billion and peaked at $130.1 billion. Using that peak, the best gain was just $32 billion, less than half the Chen Administration figure. Through 2015 the total net gain was a paltry $17.1 billion (115.3-98.2). To put those numbers in perspective, in the two years between 2002 and 2004, trade gained $35 billion (in fact, trade gains were larger than the entire Ma Administration in almost any two year period in the Chen Administration). Nor did the Chen Administration experience any negative trade growth."Troeltschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05988291394950099326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-50237278449363004542016-05-16T17:29:31.922+08:002016-05-16T17:29:31.922+08:00This might be more easily explained by the Economi...<b>This might be more easily explained by the Economist's steadfast refusal to see any of the subtler or more negative effects of free trade. Which, again, why would they?</b><br /><br />It's all bound up with the simple fact that the Economist has become a 1% rag.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-52344849531454184052016-05-16T17:16:27.346+08:002016-05-16T17:16:27.346+08:00.,But your analysis suffers from an equally egregi...<b>.,But your analysis suffers from an equally egregious error: you assume that the commercial environment, including the global and regional economic environment, is the same over the two time periods. This is usually not a good idea. </b><br /><br />You've badly misread this. The issue is NOT which President had better conditions. That's simply not relevant. <br /><br />The issue is that the Economist told two spectacular lies of omission, which I documented using the trade figures. <br /><br />These lies are pro forma in the media. To my knowledge not a single journalist has ever mentioned the falling trade surplus.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-85921164043051168032016-05-16T17:15:42.870+08:002016-05-16T17:15:42.870+08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-12239306911032740522016-05-16T15:23:17.892+08:002016-05-16T15:23:17.892+08:00Is there no Internet in the Economist's Office...Is there no Internet in the Economist's Offices?<br /><br />Where do you think they(and most journalists) get(copy) there stories/info?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-80665062400343621142016-05-16T14:55:35.925+08:002016-05-16T14:55:35.925+08:00I think you make a good point that The Economist d...I think you make a good point that The Economist does, to some extent, rely on a troupe rather than evidence to back up their point. <br /><br />But your analysis suffers from an equally egregious error: you assume that the commercial environment, including the global and regional economic environment, is the same over the two time periods. This is usually not a good idea. <br /><br />That is, the state of China's economy and Chinese firms during Chen's administration was still developing and at a relatively low-value added level. Thus, one might expect robust trade and investment as Taiwan possessed better technology and Chinese firms may have needed greater imports of goods, particularly intermediate inputs. This time period also coincided with China's WTO accession meaning that China's commercial environment was experiencing rapid change, change that would not be replicated in any other time period. <br /><br />This does not fully discredit such an analysis to keep the two time frames static; however, it certainly does mean you are not measuring apples-to-apples. To be fair, I think the Economist fails to do a lot of research to back up their point, and their point may ultimately be invalid, but we need to be careful about across time comparisons.<br />Troeltschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05988291394950099326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-75377875942902938292016-05-15T06:35:24.899+08:002016-05-15T06:35:24.899+08:00This might be more easily explained by the Economi...This might be more easily explained by the Economist's steadfast refusal to see any of the subtler or more negative effects of free trade. Which, again, why would they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-68507557580992742562016-05-14T23:57:22.496+08:002016-05-14T23:57:22.496+08:00You are on target as usual. A close examination of...You are on target as usual. A close examination of investment trends should also show an unfavorable comparison between the Ma and Chen years. Inward or domestic investment in Taiwan contracted as well under Ma, accelerating the hollowing out of the economy begun years earlier but clearly unimpeded by Ma's misguided policies of all-in with the PRC. His policies amounted a criminal neglect of Taiwan/s best interests, with no long-term strategy other than the political one we all know too well.Julianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10544888878269982586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-15888711443376451262016-05-14T23:56:22.687+08:002016-05-14T23:56:22.687+08:00You are on target as usual. A close examination of...You are on target as usual. A close examination of investment trends should also show an unfavorable comparison between the Ma and Chen years. Inward or domestic investment in Taiwan contracted as well under Ma, accelerating the hollowing out of the economy begun years earlier but clearly unimpeded by Ma's misguided policies of all-in with the PRC. His policies amounted a criminal neglect of Taiwan/s best interests, with no long-term strategy other than the political one we all know too well. Julianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10544888878269982586noreply@blogger.com