the blog of the guy who wrote

that book about china

How can an earthquake felt thousands of kilometers away cause so much damage, while leaving almost untouched a major metropolitan area just 40 miles from its epicenter?

Some may think that it has to do with the quality of construction in the city versus satellite urban areas, but the reason probably has more to do with geology.

The Richter scale is a logarithmic measure, and an quake that registers 5.0 moves the ground ten times as much as one that measures 4.0, and one that registers 6.0 indicates that it is one-hundred times as strong as that 4.0 — but this only describes the movement of the earth. Energy is actually released at a much higher multiple as you go up the scale. 

Without going into the math, an upward change of 1.0 on the Richter scale suggests 32 times the energy, and a 2.0 increase generates around 1,000 times as much energy. Chengdu was close to the epicenter, but it was not in the ‘hot zone’. A quick glance at the ShakeMap made available by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests in a visual way how much worse the earthquake might have been.

-

UPDATE: NY Times took related data from U.S. Geological Survey and made an even better graphic. From the graphic, you can see why Beichuan suffered more, though it was farther from the epicenter than Chengdu.

admin China

The Globe and Mail suggests that corruption explains why ‘tofu buildings’ crumbled in China:

“One man, gazing at the corpse of his nine-year-old cousin, said he had disturbing evidence that could explain the collapse of the five-storey Juyuan school building, along with eight other schools in the region. The man, who gave his surname as Ren, is a 32-year-old steel worker who has worked for a decade in the local construction industry. He said he always knew that the Juyuan school was a disaster in waiting. Local officials…had pocketed money that was budgeted for the school, while a private construction company had saved money by cutting corners on the project.”

Call it corner cutting, or what you will, the phenomenon is a familiar one:

“To boost its profits, the company used iron instead of steel in many parts of the construction of the building… It cut back on the size and number of steel braces in the cement foundation slabs. And it used cheap materials to make the concrete walls, weakening the entire structure.”

Interesting article.

admin China

While the earthquake is a major tragedy, I am not sure about those who are pitching this one as the disaster to end all disasters. What is remarkable is not how much damage has been caused, but how relatively little. Earthquakes that register as high on the Richter scale have done far more damage. A link that came my way: “Deadliest Earthquakes On Record”.

admin China

Following the week’s earthquake, those affected by the tragedy are expressing anger over the poor quality of construction in their province. From the Associated Press:

“This building is just a piece of junk,” one newly homeless resident of Dujiangyan yelled Wednesday, her body quivering with rage. Her family salvaged clothing and mementos from their wrecked apartment, built when their older home was razed 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, CNN has caved into pressure on the Jack Cafferty episode (the one where he claimed Chinese products were junk). Journalists in the West apparently cannot say about China what it would say about itself.

admin China

We read in the press about the importance of Wal-Mart’s relationship to China, and I thought it would be fun to run out some quick figures. Wal-Mart procurement in China has been flat at $9 billion over the last couple of years. Meanwhile, exports out of China have risen fast. In 2007, exports were up 25% to somewhere around $1.2 trillion. What is that, 0.75% of total exports? In general business terms, it is not a significant figure, and as a proportion it is shrinking over time. While Wal-Mart may be a significant customer to some individual suppliers, it is not nearly as significant to the economy as some might have you believe.

[Stepping away from the blog for a couple weeks, or will at least be blogging at low-impact levels...]

admin China

Far Eastern Economic Review published an article of mine in March 2008, wanted to introduce the piece here. For those less familiar with Far Eastern Economic Review, it is one of Asia’s leading business publications, and it shares an association with the Wall Street Journal. A couple of paragraphs, along with the link:

Why Profit Zero Works In China

“… One of the big questions going forward is whether the government will allow foreign companies to compete unfettered, or whether they will burden foreign firms with increased taxes, regulation and the unequal enforcement of laws that were meant to apply to foreign and domestic firms in equal measure. China has been more open than either Japan or Korea at comparable stages in economic development—but one has the sense that profit zero will play out on the macro scale, that the day will come when the nation will come to see the work of foreigners as largely done.

U.S. politicians pushed bilateral trade with China expecting that greater economic prosperity in China would lead to increases in political openness, and trade was seen as a way of integrating China more closely into the global economy. Chinese political leaders have viewed international trade differently by seeing exports as a means to an end. China wishes for itself greater levels of self-sufficiency. China may never be able to do away with exports, but the nation looks forward to a day when it will need the world a bit less.”

May be worth noting that of those factory closures in Mainland China, most of the sizable ones were owned by firms in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. A distinction that was missed.

admin China

Apologies to anyone who was looking for a post and found nothing new here for some time. Like the activity of blogging itself, I found taking a break to be rather addictive! Took a few days off, and then a few more. Felt so good, didn’t want to stop (or, rather, I didn’t want to start).

Here’s an article worth a look, from the Herald Tribune…

Which of the competing Chinese nationalisms will show up at the Olympics in August? An aggrieved, defensive nationalism, or a confident and proud nationalism?

Chinese society embodies both types, reflecting a deeper dualistic set of identities: one xenophobic type rooted in past indignities experienced by the Chinese people, the other more cosmopolitan version taking shape along with globalization and China’s integration into the international community.

In recent weeks, as the Olympic torch has wound its troubled way around the globe to Beijing, the world has been shown the virulent form of Chinese nationalism. While Chinese audiences were genuinely shocked and hurt by the pro-Tibet and anti-China demonstrations on three continents, the resulting anti-Western invective and demonstrations inside China and by Chinese abroad have surprised many around the world.

While it is not becoming to Chinese culture, heritage or dignity - and not representative of all Chinese nationalist feelings - the world should brace itself for more such xenophobic outbursts in the run-up to - and possibly during - the Olympics.

Don’t know about you, but “xenophobic” is not a word I would use to describe the Chinese.

Also, not sure about this idea of “two kinds of nationalism”. Seems that there is only one kind - the prickly, antagonistic sort. It bubbles up to the surface then slips back into the undercurrent.

admin China