2009-05-27

Map: anti-podal maps


(Via Armcontrolwonk) This map shows where the opposite (anti-podal) point on the earth is. i.e. North Pole corresponds to South Pole. One can easily check up one's anti-podal point by change the coodinate (change lattitude from N to S, then add/subtract 180 on longitude). But it is neat to view this on a globe.

ACW cited this when he read that vibration typically get 'magnified' on anti-podal points as noted by astronomers observing the moon and some planets. He thinks this may be used to measure earthquake (and nuclear tests).

The physical explanation may be quite simple, as the anti-podal point represents THE equi-distant (both on earth surface and via the mantle/core) point, such that all waves arrive IN PHASE (ignoring fluctuations in rock type/etc). This means it would be difficult to measure earthquake anti-podally since these are random events and one does not know where to place the probe in advance, but for monitoring nuclear tests with known sites this could be pretty effective.

A few interesting observations
  • Very few land has land as antipodal points, mainly because there are only 30% land on earth and most of it is on the northern hemisphere. (this makes ACW's plan more difficult/costly)
  • The few land-land pairs include (this site provides a great tool)- Beijing's anitpode is a few hundred km south of Buenos Aires, Xian and Santiago (Chile) are almost exact antipode pairs (perhaps the only major city pair). Jakarta/Bogota and Singapore/Quito are also close enough. New Zealand's antipode is Spain (auckland/Seville). -- play these games to test your geographic knowledge.
  • The Yucatan meteorite at Chicxulub crater, which allegedly killed the dinosaurs, would probably have had created some folding under the ocean between NW Australia and Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean. However,  some people believe that the Chicxulub antipode is actually the Deccan Traps inside India because techtonic movement shifted the Indian subcontinent
---



The map above shows the wave-front of the DPRK shock (test). Ideally these contours should be circle, but they are distorted because of rock/water structure the p-wave passes through (changes the speed the sound wave travels).

Given these contours, it is now easy to measure future shocks (from the same location) much more accurately. The trick is to put an array of probes spaced on a chosen contour such that the signal these probes received are all "in phase". Adding these signals (time-plotted) up will result in strong signal since the noises are not in phase and tends to cancel out. This will achieve similar or even better results than a measure from the antipode.



2009-05-25

How credible is DPRK's nuclear stockpile?

In 2006 North Korea claimed it conducted a "nuclear test". But many analyst suspected it was a faked test mimic by traditional explosive, for 2 reasons:
  1. the energy was only bout 1/3 of the Hiroshima bomb, showing that the explosion is likely really from a nuclear bomb. Because for a chain reaction to happen, there need to be at least certain critical mass of Uranium (or Plutonium), as demonstrated first by physicists Rudolph Pierls. And the Hiroshima bomb is just over the critical mass
  2. There had not really been confirmed radioactive trace from the surrounding international observation. (The US said the signal is "consistent" with a nuclear test, but radioactively of this small amount (for underground test) is easy fake. Note also the choice of word, "consistent" is a much weaker word that "confirm", which will mean consistency in both strengh, spectrum, and also spatial distribution. "consistency" only means that there is some radiation detected and that no obvious contradiction)
The most recent claim has a magnitude of 4.7 (vs 4.2 in the previous test). The energy is about 3 times larger ( 10^(4.7-4.2) = 3.1 ), making the total energy similar to that of the Hiroshima bomb.

For a nuclear test it still seems to be very minor. Two possibilities
  1. It is a real nuclear blast, but DPRK has barely enough Pu/U, so they used all the 'available' material for this "test"
  2. It is another fake test, they figured the previous test was 2/3 short in magnitude, and got the right amount to make a more credible fake (it would to too expensive to use more)
---
p.s. it is hard to accurately measure the energy with seimological measure, as the rock/water of the surrounding is complex and differ from the calibration references (for both seimic calibration and also underground nuclear test energy calibration). the most reliable data is perhaps the 'relative scale' (i.e. the difference) in energy for data taken by the same probe(s).
e.g., from one source (NEIC National Earthquake Info Center, which i think is the USGS) the numbers read 4.7 (2009) and 4.3 (2006) so the difference is 10^0.4<3.>

2009-05-19

Cheung on RMB again

I am going to revisit this topic again and again, until Beijing listens. I think this is what Prof Cheung is trying to do. So what I have to do is to just check his blog regularly and quote him when he makes some (seemingly/relatively) new point(s).

Here are the key points I would like to emphasize
  1. China can made Shanghai a financial centre (at least at the regional level) if it opens up its currency, which means getting an independent (or currency market "neutral") anchor for the RMB -- i.e. the Commodity Basket!
  2. One key strength of the Commodity Basket is that it is (largely) linear independent of any existing currency (eg USD or EUR). It provides a new dimension for other currencies in the  world to "reference". I say "largely" because some currencies do depend on some commodity (eg OPEC on oil, and AUD on its minerals, etc) but all these dependencies are only partial and more importantly, they are influenced by human factors such as the macro-economic policies (interest rates, etc) of these countries. OTOH, a Commodity Basket peg provides a "pure" axis for other currencies in this world to reference on. Countries such as Singapore can use RMB as one of the main component of its basket (it can also chose its own basket, in which case it will help to stabilize the commodity price -- i.e. make it more difficult for speculators to influence the short term price fluctuation). I think this is the most important reason for adopting the Commodity Peg.
I agree with Cheung that many countries (esp developing countries) would use RMB as one of the reference in their currency peg. However, I do not agree with him that overseas Chinese would affect the demand of RMB (perhaps Koreans would be so patirotic as to put once own saving to the state, very few people from other nationality will, Chinese are no exception). The reason for anyone, ethnic Chinese or not, to put his money in RMB is because it provides a unique proxy that nom other exisiting currency provides, and that it has very clear transparency. Commodity Peg provides both.

---


《金融中心上海将远胜香港》(二○○九年四月十四日)发表后,读者差不多一致同意。该文提出的第五点,行内的朋友拍案叫好。我是这样写的:

搞金融中心,你道上海胜香港最重要是哪一点呢?我赌你猜不中。这是严格地说,港元没有自己的面目。钩着美元或转钩人民币,港元算不上是可以独当一面的货币。多年以来,港元在国际上打出一点名堂,算是了不起,但要搞出一个举足轻重的国际金融中心,自己的货币可以独当一面非常重要。

回顾历史,英镑曾经雄视地球,今天还清楚地有自己的面目。伦敦是世界级的金融中心,有其因也。美元的成功故事不用说,面目得来不易,带起华尔街。七十年代日圆呼之欲出,一时间东京红得发紫,可惜政策出了大错,一蹶不振二十多年了。欧洲采用欧元之前有三几只货币有看头,但国际上不成大器。今天的欧元有面目,但金融中心没有国籍名堂。再者,金融危机出现后,欧元能否保得住是问题,因为不同的国家需要有不同的货币政策。当年佛利民反对蒙代尔的欧元建议就是为了这一点。

要搞起一个重要的国际金融中心,货币有自己的面目重要。这是说货币需要是一只名牌,有公信力,容易被各方接受为结算单位。弱币不成,强币较好,但太强也不成。与物价水平衡量,币值稳定重要;国家本身的生产力可靠也重要。人民币有十三多亿人口的可靠生产力支持,过了一个难关,而如果依照我多次建议的以一篮子物品为人民币之锚,物价当然稳定,所有难关都过了。这里要说的,是不久前周小川先生提到凯恩斯三十年代建议的以三十种物品为货币之锚,与我建议的方法不同,施行会有困难。我建议的要点,是为锚的一篮子物品要化为任何人可以大约地在市场自由成交的物价指数。这是重点,我解释过多次了。

这里要说的,是北京不久前公布会在二○二○年在上海推出国际金融中心。那是十一年后,他们在等什么?不明白北京的朋友怎样想。经济的发展历来千变万化,见一步走一步要反应快,要判断准。搞金融中心可不是搞北京奥运,不是要按着既定的时间表进行的。金融中心早就应该搞,而对中国来说,数千年来,最有机会达大成的时机是今天。夜长梦多,再等是劣着。让我分点说说吧。

(一)搞国际金融中心最重要的条件是没有外汇管制——即是说,外人要多少人民币皆可按市价购买,其进、出口政府一律不管。搞国际金融中心,有汇管不能搞。这里有一个传统的谬误,虽然我认为是维护某些利益团体的借口。这是有些人认为放开汇管要等到什么时机成熟云云。是大错。已故的香港财政司郭伯伟曾经对我说,二战后,香港有关当局也认为需要有汇管,放开要等时机成熟。但他们当时不知怎样管,于是不管。后来见不管的效果好,就想也不再想了。

二十年前,佛利民最执着的是中国立刻解除汇管。他对我举出人类历史无数的汇管为祸的例子。后来北京把汇管放宽了不少,但不少沙石今天还在。要是中国没有放宽汇管,不会有今天。目前看,全部放开是搞国际金融中心的先决条件。

我不要在这里指出哪些团体或机构因为人民币有汇管而获利,但要指出一点北京朋友信奉的,是神话。他们认为汇管可以阻止资金外流。其实不然。汇管可以阻止或妨碍的是生意的正常运作,要把资金搬出国外的人总有办法。几个月前美国的外交部公布的中国投资于美国金融的数字,比中国央行的估计高出一倍!

(二)像中国那么庞大而有经济实力的国家,搞国际金融中心大有可为。但要打出名堂,人民币在国际上要成为名牌,要有自己的面目,不容易。数千年来,中国货币能打出名堂的成功机会最高是今天。这是因为国际金融大乱,人民币推出去会给国际人士在保值上多了一个选择,何况炎黄子孙满布地球,给祖宗一个面子我是相当肯定的。

自由地放人民币到地球云游四方,国家赚钱,有需要时收回就赚了利息。另一方面,放人民币出去不是要在国际上取代美元或其它先进之邦的名牌货币,而是因为我在《人民币的故事》(二○○九年三月三日)指出的一个重要观点:

目前的形势是,因为这些年落后之邦发展得非常快,先进之邦如在梦中,从汇率的角度衡量,前者与后者之间出现了一个很大的断层,连接不上了。上层之间有竞争,下层之间也有竞争,但上层与下层之间的竞争是脱了节的。北京的朋友认为可以容易地打上去,推出腾笼换鸟,失之轻浮。治安转劣,是腾笼换贼乎?回乡归故里是连笼子也换了吗?

目前看,上述的「断层」很现实,但向前看,这断层早晚会收窄,会平服下来。因为这些年发展中国家的生产力上升得快,而先进之邦的法定最低工资高企不下,需要的过渡期会为时甚久。人民币放出去,其它落后之邦或发展中国家的货币,不直接或间接地跟着人民币走是很愚蠢的。我反对中国做什么发展中国家的一哥,也反对中国要领导世界什么的。但我肯定今天把人民币放出去,会协助发展中国家的发展,从而可以远为容易跟他们贸易而获利。

(三)这就带来另一个重点。自二○○三年起我极力反对人民币兑美元升值,同时解释过多次,这反对不是人民币兑美元的本身,而是其它发展中国家的币值跟着美元走,人民币兑美元升值,于是兑其它竞争国家的货币也升值。解除汇管,人民币自由进出,发展中国家多了一个重要的选择,情况会很不相同。

这是说,依照我解释过的,一九九七的亚洲金融风暴之后,发展中国家的币值与人民币达到了一个均衡点,成为一个层面,跟着的发展是这层面与先进之邦的币值层面出现了一个相当大的断层。如果人民币独自在国际上提升,对中国的竞争力会带来灾难性的影响。人民币有外汇管制,不放出去,亚洲的发展中国家没有选择,跟着美元走,人民币兑美元升值是劣着。但如果央行解除汇管,让人民币自由外流,聪明的发展中国家会把其币值跟着人民币走,或起码会重视与人民币汇率的调节,也会考虑以人民币作为他们的一部分外汇储备。读者要知道,任何国家都可以随时选择及调校他们的国际币值。这调校要考虑到自己的竞争力、国际贸易的利益与国民收入的实质享受。这也是汇率在市场浮动的主要功能。如果大有差池,不按经济原则处理自己的货币的国家,执政者是要下台的。

这些年我担心因为中国有汇管,人民币兑美元升值等于兑其它发展中国家的货币升值,在竞争中会中计。解除汇管,让发展中国家多了人民币的选择,他们不按经济原则处理币值,不维护自己的外贸利益,中计的就转到他们那边去。这也是说,只要人民币解除汇管,稳定着自己的货币的购买力,避开了不可以接受的通胀或通缩,美元兑人民币怎样变动中国大可不管。中国要管的是与其它发展中国家的互相得益的竞争,而如果人民币不自由放出,他们的币值老是跟着美元走,中国不能不管人民币兑美元是何价。

上述的道理不浅,但属一等的经济分析。是纯正的价格理论。纵横学问五十年,我认为除了价格理论,可取的经济学没有其它。

(四)人民币解除汇管,有机会带来另一项麻烦。以小人之心度君子之腹,四方君子可以凭炒买炒卖来扰乱人民币在国际市场的运作。机会不高,也不难处理。中国要稳定人民币对物品的购买力,而最简单的方法是用我建议过无数次的、把人民币与一篮子任何人可以在市场直接成交的物品指数为货币之锚,也即是与这篮子物品的价格指数挂钩了。肯定可行,我解释过多次,这里不再说了。人民币下了这个锚,对任何货币的汇率皆自由浮动。这样,在货币的话题上,中国是不怕任何扰乱的。

这里要说的,是如果人民币与一篮子物品为锚,其它发展中国家的币值会跟着人民币走的意向一定激增,而某程度他们选用人民币作储备也可以肯定。这些判断我乐于赌身家。

(五)也说过多次,无锚的货币制(fiat money)不可取。这一点,不少经济学者同意,只是以大国而言,他们想不出怎样把货币下一个固定的锚。十多年前跟进朱镕基的货币政策时,我霍然而悟,想出了可以用一篮子可以在市场成交的物价指数为货币之锚。

八个月来,为了跟进地球金融危机而读到不少美国行内专家的货币言论,更证实了无锚货币不可取之见。这些专家不少是老朋友,他们的学问我历来欣赏。无锚货币的困难他们当然知道,但在美国现有的经济结构下,转用我提出的下锚制不容易。欧元可以采用,而人民币采用是更容易了。

无锚货币的一个无可救药的缺点,是适当地调控货币量难于登天。这些年美国联储用上调控利率的方法,基本上是价格管制,违反了费沙的不可能错的分析,也违反了价格浮动是引导资源使用最重要的功能。我曾经指出,美国的次贷之灾的其中一个主要起因,是联储把利率辘上辘落。利息是提前消费或提前投资之价,利率应由市场决定,央行不要管,但这重要的市场利率运作,是要在人民币下了一个可以在市场运作的锚才可以安枕无忧。

我明白如果把人民币下了一个稳定的锚,让利率自由浮动,央行的调控经济的权力会大幅下降。这是正着:市场的运作一般可靠,远胜政府的左右。不是说政府不要管经济:应该管的事项多得很,但该管的不管,不该管的却干预频频,出错的机会十之八、九也。

上海搞国际金融中心,原则上是前途无限的。要放开汇管才可以搞,而央行的工作会转到另一些重要的事项去。央行还在等什么?北京的朋友还在等什么?国际金融中心是那么重要的工程,有大成可勒碑志之,北京今天的领导人为什么要把这样重要的功绩推到接班人那边去?他们为什么要胡里胡涂地把自己的名字押在新《劳动合同法》这项劣迹上?难道将来的历史怎样写对他们不重要吗?