tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post115550265412615353..comments2024-03-01T16:32:41.076+08:00Comments on Sun Bin: "Brain damage from one way of loving Taiwan" - Tu ChenhuaSun Binhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1155518018217284362006-08-14T11:13:00.000+10:002006-08-14T11:13:00.000+10:00ROFL on everything that does not agree with your p...ROFL on everything that does not agree with your political view, that is pretty good attitude. :)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the guy is probably partisan. But he made very solid points here. It is a very simple piece of analysis. <BR/><BR/>to your other questions:<BR/>1) The data he used are probably the official data. Of course there will be insible investment. One cannot hope to capture 100% data. But it should be good enough. After all, he was comparing trends, so it is a good approximation. Mind you, LTH and CSB used the same set of data. So it won't gain you any point by discounting his data source.<BR/>2) i drew the chart and made the comment on last paragraph (about 'total investment'), based on the data in his essay. i am not sure what exactly you are saying about 'finite' capital. we are looking at investment as % of GDP. what does finiteness have anythign to do with this? but you are probably right that FDI made the same decision, of avoiding long term investment in taiwan -- not because CSB controls korea or HK, but he made taiwan a less hospitable environment for FDI.<BR/>3) I do no think it was entirely CSB's fault. he was inexperience and made quite some mistakes. that is okay. his problem is, he yield his economic decision to political powers (deep green). the recent flip-flopping about mainland investment restriction is a classic example, that pragmatic Su Chenghcang was strong-armed into giving up his reform. So yes, CSB bears a lot of faults.<BR/>4) what do you mean by 'which correlation coefficient'? the x and y variables were clearly defined (and i translated) above. the coeff is that between the two variables.<BR/>5) I do not think he would submit it to academic journal with just this piece, because the myth he discounted is an assertion by the deep Green, and never been published. How do you publish some work which disproved some sloppy assertion?Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1155516054206805682006-08-14T10:40:00.000+10:002006-08-14T10:40:00.000+10:00ROFL. Thanks, Sun. That one really made my day. Th...ROFL. Thanks, Sun. That one really made my day. There is no way that he could get hold of the investment data of all Taiwanese companies -- since a significant portion of investment outflow is unregistered. The LTH era is not a counterexample for the Chen era as conditions on the mainland were completely different in the LTH period (duh). The article is clearly and deliberately slanted. Hilarious. <BR/><BR/><B>While the % of investment in mainland increased steadily, the total amount of investement by Taiwanese companies (in Taiwan and in mainland) decreased significantly during the period. This would explain the slowing down of the economy in Taiwan.</B><BR/><BR/>No shit. The total amount of capital available to Taiwanese firms is finite. Hence, investment in China or elsewhere means lower levels of investment in Taiwan. Further, FDI has made the same decision -- as flows have redirected themselves from Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong to China. I guess Chen Shui-bian is secretly President of Hong Kong and Korea too.<BR/><BR/>This is just more of the "It's all Chen's fault!" garbage that reduces complex ideas to simpleminded nonsense. <BR/><BR/>BTW, which correlation coefficient was used? How was "investment" defined? is the study peer-reviewed?<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.com