Actually, Luko I have a subscription to the IRJ, and I've read all sorts of rah-rah give me a big C articles about China's development. And I read your so-called contributions, responding in detail to the uncritical glowing reports of growth you provide. As for hiding the information about which message I am replying to-- obviously you're the one who doesn't read the contributions to the list as it is clear in the body of the response what I am replying to as I usually include quotes from the previous post.
You raise all sorts of ridiculous charges-- previously claiming you had not idea what FDI was, that is was an US-centric term blah blah blah. I showed then that the term had been used on the list for sometime and that you had never raised an objection before. Now you make an equally absurd charge. As for the discrepancy in track-kilometers, or track mileage, I don't know how they count track-miles in China, but in the US the standard is to count exactly that -- track-miles, so if you have 4 tracks running between 2 points 50 miles apart, that's 200 track miles. Makes sense if you stop and think about [you might try that in between pom-pom classes], because your costs of maintenance are for maintaining 200 track miles, not 50; your tonnage per track mile is dispersed, perhaps equally, perhaps not but that doesn't matter, over the total track mileage-- that's one reason excessive track mileage, overproduction of track, was such a burden to US railroads in the 50s, 60s, 70s, driving up costs, driving down returns, and leading to much deferred maintenance. That's the big reason for introducing advanced signal systems that allow you to run at higher speeds in both directions on a single track. That's the big reason railroads don't construct passing sidings every 5 miles or so, making economic decisions which become operating decisions on how many sidings, how long the sidings, how many interlockings, how much multiple track territory they require and can be "redeemed" by operating revenues. Now this entire exercise started when you claimed, suggested, stated, asserted, whatever that China had possibly overtaken the US in freight transport. For 2008, US freight traffic declined about 1.5% from the previous year to 2773 ton-kilometers. China's grew, but by only half the rate of growth of 2007, by 3.5% to 2338 ton-kilometers. OK, no overtaking there. China has a network of, according to the UIC 60,000+ km, the US 192,000 + km so no overtake there. Tons hauled per train are at least 6-7 greater in the US than China, so no overtake there. And simple math will tell you, that for China to haul that amount of tonnage with so little tonnage on each train requires an extraordinary number of operating crews-- locomotive operators, conductors, etc, not to mention an extraordinary number of locomotives. So there's no overtake there, unless of course you think lots of locomotives moving light tonnage trains indicates growth, means more, which perhaps you do. So where is the overtake in freight rail transportation? Where is the overtake in labor productivity? Somewhere in the future? I have no doubt if China were to develop fully, to realize the potential of the labor and resources it has, it would by the very nature of its population exceed the current and future state of US capitalism. To do that however, to realize the potential of that labor and those resources, it will require a.... [here it comes] revolution, overthrowing the capitalist development which the CCP has administered in and to the country; and to do that will require an international revolution. So you keep at it with those pom-poms Luko, but spare us the bullshit charges, the misposting of statistics, and all the other craps that defines your "contributions." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lüko Willms" <lueko.wil...@t-online.de> To: "David Schanoes" <sartes...@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] China investing heavily in infrastructure: Railway ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
