americavchina.com

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Now you are definitely showing your age!

You both are, that's why you refer to tea and biscuits as you're both stuck in the 1800s potentially. 

I will take them over the American culinary delights of the burger and fries ... oh, they are German and French. Brilliant.

It's funny when people refer to the Queen or think they know how we talk because they've seen too many Hugh Grant films. I think this is not even 0.01% of the population.

It's not a fair comparison as it's like me saying you're all obese (remember those burgers) or a bunch of rednecks, where in fairness that's only 30% ... 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

It's not a fair comparison as it's like me saying you're all obese (remember those burgers) or a bunch of rednecks, where in fairness that's only 30% ...

But we are!   (We do try to spread that uniformly across this vast Continent, a cacophony of complainers, lunatics, and unusual religionists). 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I think this is not even 0.01% of the population.

You have been living in London too long.  Yup, all those "furriners" that moved in....

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You have been living in London too long.

I avoid London like the plague. That's another thing mate, round the world if you say you live in England people think ''London'' 🤣

More of that famous American global geographical knowledge no doubt ... yes, England is just one big city and also known as London. And Britain is also known as England. So Britain is also known as London.

Market about to open. To be continued ...

englandvamerica.com   #rednecks

[SERWIN + 749]

On 12/6/2019 at 11:22 AM, Jan van Eck said:

It turns out that canola oil is a great feedstock for the production of diesel fuel, or "bio-diesel."  Already there are these installations that take used cooking oil and refine the stuff to create diesel, then used to run local buses.Well, if used oil works, why not fresh oil?  The stumbling block to using bio-diesel is that the manufacture of the diesel results in the production of glycerin, a thick fat material that will clog up fuel lines, especially if the temperature drops and the glycerin congeals. So, efforts are directed towards the removal of the glycerin, and to no surprise as some 10% to 20% by weight of the canola oil will result in glycerin in conventional extraction methods, the resale price of glycerin has collapsed, and the material is today treated as a waste product. 

 

Interestingly enough though, the truck manufacturers have recognized that the glycerin in bio diesel is a problem and came up with a solution to that, any modern truck will have this system on it. They run the fuel lines along the block, on the drivers side usually, and it warms the fuel up and recirculates it back into the fuel tanks to keep them above freezing. If you see a truck that has sat running overnight you will notice that no ice/snow will be able to accumulate on the fuel tanks, because they are kept above freezing by that system. If it is that cold you really shouldn't be shutting off the engine or you might not get it started again the next day. I know, the eco freaks will cry about idling, but realistically those engines only used about a gallon an hour idling, and the new truck that I drove was down to just over 3/4 gallon per hour idling. Probably for two reasons, the new engines are generally two liters smaller than the older trucks(13 vs 15) and the newer fuel systems that consume less fuel than the older counterparts. So at about 2.00 a gallon for diesel, running the engine over a ten hour mandatory rest period, you would use around 8 gallons. 16.00 is a lot cheaper than having a service call come out and clear the fuel lines that are clogged, and then having to warm the tanks up to loosen any congealed glycerin in the tanks so the truck can run. And when they do that, the fuel that is in the lines ends up on the ground, so burn it and run it through the emission system, or dump it on the ground and pollute the earth. What a choice!

[SERWIN + 749]

20 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Haha no not bored, and I'm winding up Americans, not Jan. Not exactly hard though is it? Watch ...

Religion is nonsense.

You guys shouldn't be allowed guns.

Trump is a joke.

Greta has many valid points.

China is kicking your ass.

I can feel the anger through my screen already ... 🤣

Believing in a mythical deity that can't be proven or disproved is NOT nonsense...

Come and get them, I'll gladly hand them over ammo first...

The real joke is happening in Congress right now...

Greta has a proven mental disability...

And you mis-spelled KISSING

:)>

Can you feel the anger yet?

[Marcin + 519]

Length of expressways (sometimes called: highways or motorways) by year in China:

Length of National Trunk Highway System by year^[7][8] hide

Year[note 2]	Length
1988	0 km (0 mi)
1989	147 km (91 mi)
1990	271 km (168 mi)
1991	522 km (324 mi)
1992	574 km (357 mi)
1993	652 km (405 mi)
1994	1,145 km (711 mi)
1995	1,603 km (996 mi)
1996	2,141 km (1,330 mi)
1997	3,422 km (2,126 mi)
1998	4,771 km (2,965 mi)
1999	8,733 km (5,426 mi)
2000	11,605 km (7,211 mi)
2001	16,314 km (10,137 mi)
2002	19,453 km (12,088 mi)
2003	25,200 km (15,700 mi)
2004	29,800 km (18,500 mi)
2005	34,300 km (21,300 mi)
2006	41,005 km (25,479 mi)
2007	45,339 km (28,172 mi)
2008	53,913 km (33,500 mi)
2009	60,436 km (37,553 mi)
2010	65,055 km (40,423 mi)
2011	74,113 km (46,052 mi)
2012	84,946 km (52,783 mi)
2013	96,200 km (59,800 mi)
2014	104,438 km (64,895 mi)
2015	111,936 km (69,554 mi)
2016	123,523 km (76,754 mi)
2017	130,973 km (81,383 mi)
2018	136,500 km (84,800 mi)
2019	142,500 km (88,500 mi)

 

In early 2012 Chinese system surpassed length of 2nd longest one: US Interstate Highway System (77,500 km)

[SERWIN + 749]

On 12/6/2019 at 5:37 AM, DayTrader said:

Papillon, you will notice that Rob and Rasmus get confused rather easily   

It appears that they believe France is geographically a part of either America or China, and are still waffling away about it. You must forgive them, they simply have some form of bond due to an anti Brexit agenda I believe, and if it involves a European country then they are all over it  ...   

Just kidding guys lol, but so you know Tom has actually started a France thread and it has no comments LOL.

Sort it out.  #leavewon

France isn't a US state? Oh hell with public run education... now I see. I saw this and thought France was a county in Texas....

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

@Marcin Great stat!

The level of construction in China is truly mind blowing.

This must start to reduce though as infrastructure becomes more widespread and it becomes more maintenance of infrastructure rather than new build, or am I missing something?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Rob Plant

[SERWIN + 749]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@Marcin Great stat!

The level of construction in China is truly mind blowing.

This must start to reduce though as infrastructure becomes more widespread and it becomes more maintenance of infrastructure rather than new build, or am I missing something?

We have that very problem in the US, and China will be facing that problem very soon. Keeping up with maintenance on those roadways, bridges that were designed for 50 years or less service life, and are now overloaded in some areas so the life expectancy goes down, needing replacement rather than a bandage.....

[Marcin + 519]

20 longest metro systems in the world (2 in US, 9 in China)

City	Country	Name	Year opened	Year of last expansion	Stations	System length	Annual ridership (millions)
Shanghai	China	Shanghai Metro[Nb 16]	1993[97]	2018[98]	345[Nb 17]	676 km (420 mi)[99]	3710 (2018)[R 22]
Beijing	China	Beijing Subway[58]	1971[Nb 7]	2019[59]	326[Nb 8]	669.4 km (415.9 mi)[58][59][Nb 9]	3850 (2018)[R 16]
Guangzhou	China	Guangzhou Metro	1997	2018[72]	257[73]	478 km (297 mi)[74]	3029.5 (2018)[R 19]
London	United Kingdom	London Underground[307]	1890[2][Nb 65]	2008[2]	270[308]	402 km (250 mi)[308]	1384 (2018*)[R 97][R Nb 24]
Moscow	Russia	Moscow Metro[268]	1935	2019	232[269]	397.3 km (246.9 mi)[269]	2432.0 (2018)[R 3]
New York City	United States	New York City Subway	1904[327][Nb 73]	2017[328]	424[Nb 74]	380.2 km (236.2 mi)[329]	1680.1 (2018)[R 99]
Nanjing	China	Nanjing Metro[90]	2005	2018[90][Nb 15]	159[91]	378 km (235 mi)[91]	1118.8 (2018)[R 19]
Seoul	South Korea	Seoul Subway[Nb 41][Nb 42]	1974[237]	2019[238]	331[239]	353.2 km (219.5 mi)[237][239]	2836.5 (2017)[R 62][R Nb 15][R Nb 16]
Delhi	India	Delhi Metro	2002[169]	2019[170]	229[Nb 27]	347.6 km (216.0 mi)[171]	926.1 (2018*)[R 39]
Wuhan	China	Wuhan Metro	2004	2019[109]	217	339 km (211 mi)[109]	1054 (2018)[R 19]
Chongqing	China	Chongqing Rail Transit	2005	2019[67]	175	310.3 km (192.8 mi)[67]	857.9 (2018)[R 19]
Shenzhen	China	Shenzhen Metro	2004	2019[102]	215	303.4 km (188.5 mi)[102]	1877.5 (2018)[R 23]
Madrid	Spain	Madrid Metro[Nb 56]	1919[284]	2019[285]	302[286]	288.5 km (179.3 mi)[286]	657.2 (2018)[R 79][R 81]
Mexico City	Mexico	Mexico City Metro	1969[244]	2012[Nb 46]	163[Nb 47]	226.5 km (140.7 mi)[245]	1647 (2018)[R 65]
Chengdu	China	Chengdu Metro	2010	2018[66]	171	226 km (140 mi)	1158 (2018)[R 18]
Tianjin	China	Tianjin Metro	1984	2019[105]	141[105]	222 km (138 mi)[105]	408.5 (2018)[R 19]
Paris	France	Paris Métro	1900[138]	2013[139]	302[140]	214 km (133 mi)[138]	1538.7 (2017)[R 31][R Nb 6]
Singapore	Singapore	Mass Rapid Transit	1987	2019[277]	120[278]	198.6 km (123.4 mi)[278]	1205.2 (2018)[R 78]
Tokyo	Japan[Nb 34]	Tokyo Metro	1927[230]	2008	142[231]	195.1 km (121.2 mi)[232]	2709.1 (2017*)[R 57][R Nb 13]
Washington, D.C.	United States	Washington Metro	1976[341]	2014[342]	91[341]	188 km (117 mi)[341]	226.3 (2018)[R 14][R Nb 1]

[Marcin + 519]

29 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@Marcin Great stat!

The level of construction in China is truly mind blowing.

This must start to reduce though as infrastructure becomes more widespread and it becomes more maintenance of infrastructure rather than new build, or am I missing something?

It depends Rob.

For example in metro's China only just started construction. They have only 5500 km of metro lines(adding 600-800 km a year), but they need 15000 km.

Of course it is a lot since the 2nd United States has 1,300 km of metro lines and 3rd Japan less than 1,000 km.

It is due to the fact that their urban population is 750 million at the moment but will be 1.1-1.2 billion in the future.

And majority of this will be medium (1-3 million) and large 3-25 million cities with significant urban cores. At present China has metro in 40 cities, but they probably will need it in 70-80 when they will get sufficiently rich and have enough money for construction in smaller (1-3 million) and poorer cities.

In railways they are probably midway with some 135,000 km of rail lines (including 25,000 km of high-speed) but they plan to have 274,000 km.

Expressways I do not know.

They are Borg Empire, few people already get it.

[Marcin + 519]

Concentration of people in large cities has significant effect on development of education, science, sophisticated services. For China it is necessity. Chinese citizens will never live in the comfortable environment of vast, sparsely populated country, were majority of terrain is suitable for human activities, and in comparison to China, 90% of US is just flat.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Marcin said:

Concentration of people in large cities has significant effect on development of education, science, sophisticated services. For China it is necessity. Chinese citizens will never live in the comfortable environment of vast, sparsely populated country, were majority of terrain is suitable for human activities, and in comparison to China, 90% of US is just flat.

China is "planned" and there is another 10 years of nation building activity currently locked in before GDP gets to what the West considers normal (economists would say sustainable). 

[Marcin + 519]

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

China is "planned" and there is another 10 years of nation building activity currently locked in before GDP gets to what the West considers normal (economists would say sustainable). 

What is the source of your projection ?

Cause my opinion is it would take 15 years of high intensity nation building as you called it (till urbanization will reach about 70-75% from current 55%, and employment structure agriculture-industry-services reaches developed countries equilibrium: say Japan or South Korea), plus another 10 years of I admit lower intensity infrastructure building, but still intensive to cater for needs of this recent wave of urban dwellers.

And one important sidenote. Due to difficult terrain, some investment projects: large scale hydropower in Tibet and Sichuan, railway to Nepal, Pakistan, Bhutan, will be possible to start only after 2025.

And last but not least: Transfer to nuclear power would be costly.

 

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, Marcin said:

What is the source of your projection ?

Cause my opinion is it would take 15 years of high intensity nation building as you called it (till urbanization will reach about 70-75% from current 55%, and employment structure agriculture-industry-services reaches developed countries equilibrium: say Japan or South Korea), plus another 10 years of I admit lower intensity infrastructure building, but still intensive to cater for needs of this recent wave of urban dwellers.

And one important sidenote. Due to difficult terrain, some investment projects: large scale hydropower in Tibet and Sichuan, railway to Nepal, Pakistan, Bhutan, will be possible to start only after 2025.

And last but not least: Transfer to nuclear power would be costly.

 

Locked in means that China is now committed to what they know they need as a minimum while the source as you ask is based on trend and underlying this is a natural tailing off of the exceptionally broad-based and comparatively more-massive infrastructure projects of recent decades - prima facie "observation" in the absence of data in that there is nothing available to show the $$s set aside for coming years. 

[Marcin + 519]

14 minutes ago, remake it said:

Locked in means that China is now committed to what they know they need as a minimum while the source as you ask is based on trend and underlying this is a natural tailing off of the exceptionally broad-based and comparatively more-massive infrastructure projects of recent decades - prima facie "observation" in the absence of data in that there is nothing available to show the $$s set aside for coming years. 

I agree.

The data about the trajectory of future investment is only sketchy. Some metrics that are helpful:

- next 5th year plan, 14th 2021-2025 it is already under discussion and naturally what was not included in 13th,

- broader measures of stocks of metals in societies,

-history of growth of Japan and South Korea,

- pace of urbanization, pace of rebalancing from agriculture to services,

- projected ultimate electicity generation, oil consumption,

- sectoral projections relating to major transport infrastructure means.

They are not putting $$ aside, investment is funded primarily through bank loans and bonds, with government sources as seed capital. I think BRI will have minor impact, at present it is less than 10% of all Chinese infrastructure investment and primarily funded by foreign countries.

 

 

 

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Marcin said:

They are not putting $$ aside, investment is funded primarily through bank loans and bonds, with government sources as seed capital. I think BRI will have minor impact, at present it is less than 10% of all Chinese infrastructure investment and primarily funded by foreign countries.

Hegemony has provided the US economy with $$ stimulus beyond its present capacity to repay and this has been a trend over many many decades so if we were to take that as a base case then China via hegemony should have no difficulty mirroring it from mid-2030s.

[SERWIN + 749]

On 12/18/2019 at 8:25 AM, DayTrader said:

I avoid London like the plague. That's another thing mate, round the world if you say you live in England people think ''London'' 🤣

More of that famous American global geographical knowledge no doubt ... yes, England is just one big city and also known as London. And Britain is also known as England. So Britain is also known as London.

Market about to open. To be continued ...

englandvamerica.com   #rednecks

I used to live in New York, and you are correct, people assumed I lived in that great big toilet. NY state is actually a beautiful place unlike anything in NYC. And I am a redneck thank you, I resemble those remarks....

[Marcin + 519]

On 12/18/2019 at 6:50 PM, SERWIN said:

We have that very problem in the US, and China will be facing that problem very soon. Keeping up with maintenance on those roadways, bridges that were designed for 50 years or less service life, and are now overloaded in some areas so the life expectancy goes down, needing replacement rather than a bandage.....

This is a very interesting issue. Why United States is not capable at the moment to build physical infrastructure or even keep up with maintenance of the existing ?

This question is not another way to bash US and praise China.

Modern history of the United States shows that after WW2, till about 1980s US had expertise to build physical infrastructure: bridges, tunnels, subway/metro, highways within budget and on time.

Per my observation of US statistics related to physical infrastructure, and this annual appraisal of some Association of Engineers these capabilities deteriorated.

What is the reason ? Or maybe I am just myopic, simply wrong and everything is OK.

I noticed the new "rules of thumb" in US building of significant, complex, linear infrastructure (tunnels, bridges, subways, underground highway bypasses):

budget: 1 billion per 1 km of linear infrastructure (in easy terrain conditions)

timing: 1 year per 1 km of linear infrastructure (on average 10 years for small stretches of infrastructure: 3-10 km, in easy terrain conditions).

 

[Marcin + 519]

Interesting data that tell a lot about huge efforts that are needed to bring country from rural, developing one to urban, developed.

There was some research done about stocks of metals in society. Country needs to use some quantity of major, industrial metals on per capita basis to achieve developed status.

MDC - more developed countries

LDC - less developed countries

Extant in-use metal-stock estimations for the major engineering metals:

Metal	Number of estimates	Percentage of all estimates	Global per capita stock (kg)	MDC per capita stock	LDC per capita stock
Aluminium	9	7.4	80	350–500	35
Copper	34	27.0	35–55	140–300	30–40
Iron	13	10.7	2200	7000–14000	2000
Lead	20	16.4	8	20–150	1–4
Steel		0.8		7085
Stainless steel	5	4.1		80–180	15
Zinc	14	11.5	n/a	80–200	20–40

[Marcin + 519]

The data above are from Report Stocks of Metals in Society.

Building developed country is like preparing a cookie only in much larger scale.

So you need to use about 7,000 kg of steel per capita to become South Korea, Japan or Germany.

For China it means 7*1.4=10 billion tons of steel. But actually China needs more, much more because it is has both the largest population and the most difficult, diverse geographical environment.

China uses about 700 million tons of steel domestically, 500kg of steel per capita. (About 150 million tons is exported as steel or steel embedded in industrial products). So after no more than 15 years of such usage China should be developed and significantly decrease steel consumption. But Chinese infrastructure actually HAS TO BE much better than Japanese, South Korean or German to allow decent living conditions. China needs 50,000 km of high speed railways, 40,000 km of rail tunnels etc. so as to utilize whole potential of its territory and population and make this large country more efficient and more "compact".

 

[Marcin + 519]

Crude steel production (million metric tons):

Rank (2018)	Country/Region	2018[8][9]	2017[1][10]	2016[1][11]	2015[12]	2014[13]	2013[14]	2012__	2011___	2010___	2009__	2008___	2007___	2000___	1990___	1980__	1967
—	World	1808.6	1674.8	1606.3	1620.4	1670.1	1649.3	1552.9	1490.1	1413.6	1219.7	1326.5	1351.3	850.1	770.4	716.4	497.2
1	People's Republic of China	928.3	831.7	786.9	803.8	822.7	779.0	724.7	683.3	626.7	573.6	500.3	494.9	128.5	66.4	37.1	14.0
—	European Union[15]	168.2	168.7	162.3	166.2	169.3	166.4	168.6	177.7	172.8	139.3	198.2	210.2	193.5	191.8	208.0	n/a
2	India	106.5	101.4	95.5	89.6	87.3	81.2	77.3	72.2	68.3	62.8	57.8	53.5	26.9	15.0	9.5	6.3
3	Japan	104.3	104.7	104.8	105.2	110.7	110.6	107.2	107.6	109.6	87.5	118.7	120.2	106.4	110.3	111.4	62.0
4	United States	86.7	81.6	78.5	78.9	88.2	87.0	88.6	86.2	80.6	58.2	91.4	98.1	101.8	89.7	101.4	115.0
5	South Korea	72.5	71.1	68.6	69.7	71.5	66.0	69.3	68.5	58.5	48.6	53.6	51.5	43.1	23.1	8.5	0.3
6	Russia	71.7	71.3	70.5	71.1	71.5	69.4	70.6	68.7	66.9	60.0	68.5	72.4	59.1	n/a[16]	n/a[16]	n/a[16]
7	Germany	42.4	43.6	42.1	42.7	42.9	42.6	42.7	44.3	43.8	32.7	45.8	48.6	46.4	44.0	51.1	41.3
8	Turkey	37.3	37.5	33.2	31.5	34.0	34.7	35.9	34.1	29.0	25.3	26.8	25.8	14.3	9.4	2.5	1.0
9	Brazil	34.7	34.4	30.2	33.3	33.9	34.2	34.7	35.2	32.8	26.5	33.7	33.8	27.9	20.6	15.3	3.6
10	Iran	25	21.8	17.9	16.1	16.3	15.4	14.5	13.0	12.0	10.9	10.0	10.1	6.6	1.4	0.5	—

[SERWIN + 749]

37 minutes ago, Marcin said:

This is a very interesting issue. Why United States is not capable at the moment to build physical infrastructure or even keep up with maintenance of the existing ?

This question is not another way to bash US and praise China.

Modern history of the United States shows that after WW2, till about 1980s US had expertise to build physical infrastructure: bridges, tunnels, subway/metro, highways within budget and on time.

Per my observation of US statistics related to physical infrastructure, and this annual appraisal of some Association of Engineers these capabilities deteriorated.

What is the reason ? Or maybe I am just myopic, simply wrong and everything is OK.

I noticed the new "rules of thumb" in US building of significant, complex, linear infrastructure (tunnels, bridges, subways, underground highway bypasses):

budget: 1 billion per 1 km of linear infrastructure (in easy terrain conditions)

timing: 1 year per 1 km of linear infrastructure (on average 10 years for small stretches of infrastructure: 3-10 km, in easy terrain conditions).

 

Part of the problem is we have our government telling us in the big cities that we need to help these sports teams build huge stadiums, and we pay for the maintenance, so our monies go to billionaire welfare. I actually pay taxes to the "Harris County Sports Authority" another group of needless bureaucrats we have to support on TOP of tax monies going to the buildings themselves. Our "leaders" have pissed away so much of our tax dollars that it is unreal right now. I say we should cut off all foreign aid to the world until we get our own house in order, and I do also mean removing our military bases in the rest of the world. Let Germany support themselves, etc etc etc. You get the idea. We also have this other issue where we are supporting millions of illegal aliens, people that do not contribute any income taxes into the system. Yet we are expected to educate their children, so those tax dollars meant for every legal student have to be stretched out  among all the students, and we feed them for free in the cafeteria. If you've ever driven down through the barrio you would be amazed at how many new Cadillacs, BMW's and Mercedes cars you would see, hell, if I didn't have to pay income taxes, and the gov't took care of feeding my children, I could afford a new car every other year or so too. I say we need to cut off welfare, when they get hungry enough they will go to work or starve. I can't get any type of help, my name is in the system as a contributor and we aren't afforded help when we need it, but lay on your back and pump out babies..... 

Another problem is, the bureaucrats end up getting a kickback in some form or another, and that adds to the crazy cost of construction, along with the contractors using inferior materials to construct the roads in order to cut costs and increase the profit margins, so they do not last the way they were intended. But no one goes back to them and makes them repair the junk they made, so they get away with it and we have to foot the bills for the repairs. You can find articles online about the Clintons being involved in a scandal like this while he was governor of Arkansas. But the real answer is, the people in congress are SO FAR REMOVED from anything technical that they can be told ANYTHING and they will believe it, so they make bad choices concerning our roads and we pay the price ultimately. I think lobbying should be made illegal, make the congress do their own research. Lobbyists only ever tell one side of the story and they put money in the pockets of the politicians to get their way, so we should just outlaw it altogether. Kinda like the military rules they throw on us, we need to start throwing those rules back at them that way. (If you want to get Sudafed you have to show ID, and your name is registered on a database. They want to see if you are using it to make meth, so instead of making the penalties for the mfg of the drug, they put limits on the average person in a futile ignorant attempt to stop it from happening. Military rules, if one of you screws up all of you must pay) It's a bunch of crap if you ask me. I say take them out back and dispose of them the permanent way.... 

[remake it + 288]

58 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

I say we need to cut off welfare, when they get hungry enough they will go to work or starve. I can't get any type of help, my name is in the system as a contributor and we aren't afforded help when we need it, but lay on your back and pump out babies..... 

@Rasmus Jorgensen would be wondering how the EU deals with these issues so comparatively well and these nations are also "democracies."