patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

because of Western Greed

Like Milton Friedman said, you think the Chinese aren't greedy? You think Russia isn't greedy! You think Cuba isn't greedy? You're not greedy? It's always someone else who's greedy, isn't it.

bgamall4 says

If people did not work, new generations of people, you could call Social Security a pyramid scheme. But since new workers always come to fund the system, it is not a pyramid scheme. Once there are no more workers, Social Security will be the least of our problems.

People did not stop working in the late 1960's, yet LBJ had to cook up Medicare/Medicaid taxation in order to fund government cash flow to fund Social Security obligations;

People did not stop working in the 1980's, yet Reagan had to raise Social Security tax rate in order to keep it solvent, again;

People did not stop working now, yet Romney/Obama/SCOTUS have to pass Obamacare in order to generate additional tax revenue to fund SS and MM

You have been listening to too many sicko libertarians.

You are just gullible when it comes to politicians promising you the sun and the moon, all to be paid by your own offpsrings of course (and your own later years), while taking their cuts at the present.

bgamall4 says

That is not the problem here in the US. We have crumbling infrastructure. You are listening to those pesky sicko libertarians again.

The discussion was on Chinese infrastructure building overcapacity. As for the US, I doubt any politician living today can really central plan what will be useful infrastructure, given that the arriving of self-driving cars will fundamentally change the landscape and how/where people will live and commute.

bgamall4 says

Fuck self driving cars.

So you are against mobility for the disabled, the young and the old, as well as the economicly disadvantaged. What a surprise. LOL.

P N Dr Lo R says

Like Milton Friedman said, you think the Chinese aren't greedy? You think Russia isn't greedy! You think Cuba isn't greedy? You're not greedy? It's always someone else who's greedy, isn't it.

Strawman! I didn't say they weren't, I said we are.

The Greed of the Western elite, who were making handsome profits throughout the 20th Century before outsourcing, allowed the greatest transfer of industry and know-how to rivals.

Geopolitics is about relative gains, not absolute gains, between countries.

Reality says

What has happened in some of the BRICS countries is what amounts to monoculture facing drastic envrionmental change: massive die-off's across the board in the near future! That's what's facing their businesses; whether that turns into physical destruction of human lives will depend on whether they can find a political solution to absorb all the disappointments instead of massive wars to settle conflicting pension/pay expectations.

Believe it when I see it. I don't think China has monoculture; they make everything from chips to pink lawn flamingos. Additionally, their currency is kept artificially cheap, and there is tons of unsatisfied demand among the 1B people of China.

As for Concrete, obviously when you're building from a low level, you'll need a lot of concrete at first. Then, production will fall. Same thing happened in the USA (and Europe, and Japan) with Concrete and Steel also.

Reality says

The difference between German Autobahn built by Hitler in the 1930's vs. American Interstate in the 1950's was that the Germans did not have the large number of cars to run on the Autobahn; they eventually had to allow bicycles on the Autobahn in the 1940's because the pristine roads were empty and facing weather erosion anyway.

Vehicle congestion is a major problem in China, as is smog - China doesn't enforce those nasty Green is the new Red Enviro laws.

thunderlips11 says

The Greed of the Western elite, who were making handsome profits throughout the 20th Century before outsourcing, allowed the greatest transfer of industry and know-how to rivals.

And I'm saying it is due to monetary policy.

indigenous says

And I'm saying it is due to monetary policy.

We've been over gold vs. fiat a thousand times.

This thread is about geopolitics.

thunderlips11 says

Believe it when I see it. I don't think China has monoculture; they make everything from chips to pink lawn flamingos. Additionally, their currency is kept artificially cheap, and there is tons of unsatisfied demand among the 1B people of China.

As for Concrete, obviously when you're building from a low level, you'll need a lot of concrete at first. Then, production will fall. Same thing happened in the USA (and Europe, and Japan) with Concrete and Steel also.

Monoculture as in their massive overbuilding of secondary and tertiary infrastructure industries that fed the rapid copycat development in the past 20 years or so. For example, the concrete production capacity that enabled the rapid 20 year build-out can not possibly find use in the coming years after all the cities are already connected by highways. 20 million a year car production capacity that enabled the Chinese middle class to have their own wheels in the past 10-20 years will face enormous "overcapacity" when new car ownership becomes limited by licensing and pollution control while used cars are now entering the market for entry-level buyers. "Monoculture" in the sense that too many businesses were planned according to the rapid initial build-out, which now is past.

The situation in the US, Europe and Japan was never quite as severe, as the build out was slower therefore the build-out capacity was never built up to the current Chinese level of capital malinvestment.

thunderlips11 says

The difference between German Autobahn built by Hitler in the 1930's vs. American Interstate in the 1950's was that the Germans did not have the large number of cars to run on the Autobahn; they eventually had to allow bicycles on the Autobahn in the 1940's because the pristine roads were empty and facing weather erosion anyway.

Vehicle congestion is a major problem in China, as is smog - China doesn't enforce those nasty Green is the new Red Enviro laws.

In the major cities yes. But out in the vast interior, they are already building long stretches of highways that hardly have any cars, where the toll collectors literally fall asleep waiting for cars to pass by. Both the highway building capacity and the car building capacity in China will turn out to be waste: as roads will not have to be added as quickly as they had been 10-20 years ago, and city dwellers will find self-driving cars via Uber less costly than owning a car + pollution license. Who will then buy the 20 million / year cars and 60+% of the entire world's cement production? Massive die off among carmakers, cement factories, along with their payrolls and pension plans, not to mention the bond holders and stock holders.

Reality says

given that the arriving of self-driving cars will fundamentally change the landscape and how/where people will live and commute.

How do you see the arrival of self driving cars changing the landscape and how/where people will live and commute?

In what year do you see self driving cars become affordable for the masses?

3-5 years. When the self-driving car is here, the masses won't need to own cars because self-driving taxi/Uber will be like 50 cents a mile then quickly dropping to 10 cents a mile and won't need to pay parking fees.

People will be able to live much farther away from where they work. Even the semi-autonomous cars are already making the commute driving much less stressful, albeit doesn't allow for sleeping, exercising, showering, cooking and eating dinner onboard, yet! Much of public transportation will be obsolete. Much of automobile support industry will be obsolete. Even short-haul flights with dozens of passengers onboard will be obsolete, opening up regional airports to private family aircrafts also under autopilot. That may take another 10 years or so, due to certification of new mass produced self-piloting aircrafts at about $50-100k a piece.

Reality says

Monoculture as in their massive overbuilding of secondary and tertiary infrastructure industries that fed the rapid copycat development in the past 20 years or so. For example, the concrete production capacity that enabled the rapid 20 year build-out can not possibly find use in the coming years after all the cities are already connected by highways. 20 million a year car production capacity that enabled the Chinese middle class to have their own wheels in the past 10-20 years will face enormous "overcapacity" when new car ownership becomes limited by licensing and pollution control while used cars are now entering the market for entry-level buyers. "Monoculture" in the sense that too many businesses were planned according to the rapid initial build-out, which now is past.

Well, we'll see. There's another $1.1T package started in January, not including various massive, multi-thousand mile Silk Road rail and highway and pipeline projects.

I certainly agree in that eventually concrete will fall. However, roads were needed, housing was needed, outsource destination factories were needed and needed fast, so increasing the concrete production was vital.

There is a huge consumer market just waiting for an RMB revaluation (and some token social programs) to get kicking.

thunderlips11 says

Well, we'll see. There's another $1.1T package started in January, not including various massive, multi-thousand mile Silk Road rail and highway and pipeline projects.

I certainly agree in that eventually concrete will fall. However, roads were needed, housing was needed, outsource destination factories were needed and needed fast, so increasing the concrete production was vital.

There is a huge consumer market just waiting for an RMB revaluation (and some token social programs) to get kicking.

RMB is about to fall in value. The most recent number put out by the Economist BigMac Index is simply wrong. You can find out what a BigMac cost in China via internet, and it is fairly close to its price in the US, not 60% lower or whatever the Economist claims (they used October 14, 2010 price to arrive that claim; whereas the real price there has doubled in the past half decade). All types of meats are already more expensive in China than in the US at current official exchange rate. It's of course ridiculous to have the total real estate value in the city of Beijing, Shanghai or Shengzhen (any one of three) to be worth much much more than all of California and NYC combined. RMB is about to fall, and fall hard.

None of the vendor financing construction projects along "Silk Road" will help alleviate the cement production surplus in China. It makes no sense to ship cheap basic material like cement that far. Besides, I still can not figure out how the Chinese plan on collecting ROI from those foreign aid projects. It's not like they can drop in the marines like we did when accounts go bad. LOL. If one account starts going bad overseas, what's to prevent domino default? I don't think the Chinese will be able to own the local politicians in another country like Germany and IMF own Greek politicians.

Reality says

I don't think the Chinese will be able to own the local politicians in another country like Germany and IMF own Greek politicians.

They've been doing just fine in Africa. The vast majority of the time the US didn't need to send marines, just fund another branch of the Oligarchs to toss the others out.

http://www.bdlive.co.za/africa/africannews/2014/11/20/chinas-aid-to-africa-funds-corruption-says-report

Chinese aid to Africa surpassed the USA's a couple of years ago - and "no strings attached".

http://www.voanews.com/content/corruption-concerns-tain-buregeoning-china-africa-trade/2432469.html

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

And I'm saying it is due to monetary policy.

We've been over gold vs. fiat a thousand times.

This thread is about geopolitics.

No, as I referenced before it is about the current account. By definition it is about global trade.

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Current Account'
A nation’s current account balance is influenced by numerous factors – its trade policies, exchange rate, competitiveness, forex reserves, inflation rate and others.

Since the trade balance (exports minus imports) is generally the biggest determinant of the current account surplus or deficit, the current account balance often displays a cyclical trend. During a strong economic expansion, import volumes typically surge; if exports are unable to grow at the same rate, the current account deficit will widen. Conversely, during a recession, the current account deficit will shrink if imports decline and exports increase to stronger economies.

The currency exchange rate exerts a significant influence on the trade balance, and by extension, on the current account. An overvalued currency makes imports cheaper and exports less competitive, thereby widening the current account deficit (or narrowing the surplus). An undervalued currency, on the other hand, boosts exports and makes imports more expensive, thus increasing the current account surplus (or narrowing the deficit).

Nations with chronic current account deficits often come under increased investor scrutiny during periods of heightened uncertainty. The currencies of such nations often come under speculative attack during such times. This creates a vicious circle where precious foreign exchange reserves are depleted to support the domestic currency, and this forex reserve depletion - combined with a deteriorating trade balance - puts further pressure on the currency. Embattled nations are often forced to take stringent measures to support the currency, such as raising interest rates and curbing currency outflows.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currentaccount.asp#ixzz3h2ovxtee
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter

thunderlips11 says

Chinese aid to Africa surpassed the USA's a couple of years ago - and "no strings attached".

Right

It seems to me that this explains the deflation in commodities

The other concern I have is that this gives incentive to China to war.

We've been hearing gloom and doom pronouncements of China's debt load since the 2008 Financial Crisis. The country's GDP has been growing between 7-8% over the last few years.

All industrializing powers take on high levels of private debt. The US Total Debt to GDP is worse than China's - 330% of GDP, or $62T Dollars. Unlike China, The US does not have 7%+ GDP growth rates and is already a fully advanced economy.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1381/debt-to-gdp-ratio-historical-chart

Another question is, to whom do the Chinese owe the debt? I believe less than 10% of private debt is owed to foreign entities, and that's with China being the #1 destination for Direct Foreign Investment.

China's Public Debt is much lower than it was 4 years ago; China's Government has done the correct Keynesian thing of reducing debt and raising revenue after lean times.

We'll see.

China might have a nasty recession, but there is nothing here to point to some kind of permanent "Chinese Collapse", other than Black Swan term misuse and abuse (something has to be utterly unforeseen or unplanned for to be a Black Swan, countless people and institutions have warned about a Chinese Economic Collapse.)

Finally, China has over $4T in cash reserves to play with, largely in USD. That's cash reserves, not a line of credit, but actual cash money. In other words, China has more Cash Reserves worth several years of the US Federal Budget Deficit.

indigenous says

The other concern I have is that this gives incentive to China to war.

Why? Lower commodity prices are great for China, lower oil, coal, iron, etc are all beneficial to a manufacturer. Not so great for the resource extractor.

Low coffee, oil and banana prices are great for Americans who consume much more of it than they produce. Not so great for South America or the Middle East.

bgamall4 says

Reality, I always knew you were all about controlling the masses. You say the masses will not need cars. That is a sure fire way to establish totalitarianism. Screw you, reality. You cannot take the guns so you want to take the cars.

LOL. I did not say banning the ownership of cars. Simply that at the beginning few years of self-driving cars, most people living in or near cities will find riding in ultra cheap taxis/ubers at $0.1 to $0.5 per mile is going to be much cheaper than buying the initially highly priced self-driving cars or even driving their own cars at high parking fees and amortization cost for owning new cars. That enable the self-driving cars to have an even greater impact on the society than what people would realize counting on car replacement cycle or lack of production capacity to slow things down.

After a few years, after self-driving cars come down in price, I think self-driving cars will give people much greater mobility, and finally free from the rent-seeking patterns of city politicians. People will move much further out away from the city, and keep or pool less expensive self-driving cars and self-flying family airplanes.

I don't see that development as totalitarian at all. On the contrary, when self-flying family planes and helicopters become reality (the same collision avoidance system worked out in the market place among cars first), we will be able to escape nonsense like the Obamacare just by flying 12 miles offshore to a cruise ship helipad to see our doctors. LOL.

thunderlips11 says

Why?

Not regarding commodity price. War is the go to when the politicians are dealing with financial problems.

indigenous says

Not regarding commodity price. War is the go to when the politicians are dealing with financial problems.

Sure is. Next to neighbors, the next likely source of enemies has historically been major trading partners.

bgamall4 says

I don't see that development as totalitarian at all.

Well then you have the IQ of a midget.

How is looking forward to ownership of cars that can take people much farther away "driving" alone indicative the IQ of a midget? The last time I checked, IQ 140 would make for a very smart midget if the person were a midget. LOL.

thunderlips11 says

historically been major trading partners.

Sarcasm duly noted, however it would appear that the major trading partners is changing wouldn't you say?

indigenous says

Sarcasm duly noted, however it would appear that the major trading partners is changing wouldn't you say?

No sarcasm intended. The second likeliest source of conflict is between major trading partners.

WW1, WW2, Opium War, Russia-Ukraine...

thunderlips11 says

No sarcasm intended. The second likeliest source of conflict is between major trading partners.

WW1, WW2, Opium War, Russia-Ukraine...

Is that true, it is counter-intuitive, you learned me something.

The conflict is usually not due to trading partnership per se, but due to:

1. two countries sharing border, which causes border disputes and conflict as well as making each other's important trading partner in peace time;

2. two countries are the leading economic powers of the world or the continent. It's the competition in power leading to conflict; they are each other's important trading partner simply because both are leading traders in the world/region.

thunderlips11 says

We've been hearing gloom and doom pronouncements of China's debt load since the 2008 Financial Crisis. The country's GDP has been growing between 7-8% over the last few years.

I have my doubts on the validity of their numbers. GDP has little to do with real economy. IMHO, sooner or later we will find out that much of their economic development after 2008 was malinvestment, waste, and book cooking.

thunderlips11 says

China's Public Debt is much lower than it was 4 years ago; China's Government has done the correct Keynesian thing of reducing debt and raising revenue after lean times.

The state and local governments there however owe enormous amount of debt, many on the verge of bankruptcy

thunderlips11 says

Finally, China has over $4T in cash reserves to play with, largely in USD. That's cash reserves, not a line of credit, but actual cash money. In other words, China has more Cash Reserves worth several years of the US Federal Budget Deficit.

So it is claimed. I have my doubts regarding how much of that money is remaining after capital flights in recent years.

Reality says

two countries sharing border, which causes border disputes and conflict as well as making each other's important trading partner in peace time

So we need to watch Canada?

indigenous says

two countries sharing border, which causes border disputes and conflict as well as making each other's important trading partner in peace time

So we need to watch Canada?

haha, we had that already in the 19th century. Twice.

thunderlips11 says

The other interesting story is Saudi Arabia's $10B investment in Russia, and some other tidbits that seem to show Saudi Arabia is hedging a bit against the ye olde "Bitter Lake" Alliance between itself and the USA. Interesting things happening with Saudi Arabia and India, as well as the other Gulf States (esp. Qatar) and China. The Iran deal is also fueling it a bit.

Spent 5 weeks in UAE last summer (highly NOT recommended time to go to UAE unless you are really into 120 degrees and humid) and the amount of large contracts with china (and around the world) being reported in the local business news was stunning. Interesting twist. UAE banks are marketing themselves around the muslim world as being muslim law compliant and trying to displace the western banks.

That's a lot of dosh to invest in russia. Gee I wonder if FINCEN is going to have any banks in suadi arabia blacklisted off the swift system for dealing with russia, iran, etc.? Not very likely I would say. Better to make a political point with Andorra banks. Gee, since the US and Cuba are now BFF and we're dealing with Iran again is Banca Privada d'Andorra going to get a we're sorry it's all ok now card for christmas. I've been wondering for a while where is all the enforcement against the big time money laundering (makes BPA numbers look like a rounding error) banks in NY and London?

Reality says

2. two countries are the leading economic powers of the world or the continent. It's the competition in power leading to conflict; they are each other's important trading partner simply because both are leading traders in the world/region.

Yep.

What you're seeing in the South China Sea and the Diayou Islands with China is the same shit we pulled with the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean with the Monroe Doctrine.

BTW, Taiwan claims the same islands Mainland China does based on the same evidence.

indigenous says

So we need to watch Canada?

Canada is America's vassal state. Canada is no threat to the US because we outclass them every which way, by population and economy, and unlike the 19th Century, we need not fear the UK, as it is also greatly inferior to the US today (it wasn't in the 19th) and they simply cannot project enough military power across the Atlantic.

Only when it became clear that Canada didn't stand a hoot in hell of resisting the US or holding out for a relatively weaker UK to render them assistance as a British Vassal, did Canada become a full vassal of the USA.

We have about 10x the population of Canada, and 90% of Canada's population lives within a few hours drive from the US-Canadian border. The reason Canada's capital is Ottawa and not Toronto is due to Strategic Fears of a US Annexation.

The reason the US can deploy overseas belligerently, is because we have no equal on this continent, and really in the whole hemisphere.

It's not because we're fighting them over there, it's because we face no threats we couldn't stamp out in a heartbeat over here, and we have the luxury of screwing about abroad to expand our power and influence.

But it's also the reason we need so many foreign bases, in order to dominate the world. Sea and Airlift is difficult, infinitely more so without vassals and long prepared bases and pre-positioned equipment...

We moved from Fucked Up to Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.

komputodo says

3-5 years. When the self-driving car is here, the masses won't need to own cars because self-driving taxi/Uber will be like 50 cents a mile then quickly dropping to 10 cents a mile and won't need to pay parking fees

Not to mention the effect it will have on truck driving.

thunderlips11 says

we need not fear the UK, as it is also greatly inferior to the US today (it wasn't in the 19th) and they simply cannot project enough military power across the Atlantic.

There hasn't been a country since the war of 1812 that could project enough military power (except icbm's) across the atlantic to present any threat at all to the US. The idea is absurd.

bob2356 says

There hasn't been a country since the war of 1812 that could project enough military power (except icbm's) across the atlantic to present any threat at all to the US. The idea is absurd.

54 40 or fight.
Oh, Yanks? First Lord of the Admiralty, prepare the ships for a blockade of America.

Crap, the British can choke our commerce to death. They burned Washington a few decades ago. Well, uh, okay, let's agree on the 49th Parallel.

Britain's navy was much, much larger than the US in the mid 19th Century and could have easily broken and blockaded the United States.

The size of the British Navy and the potential to intervene on the side of the Confederacy was a huge source of fear for Lincoln, as well. The Trent Affair was a great example of America backing down in the face of British threats. The Presidential attempts to stop the Finian Raids into Canada (after initial support by local governments and members of Congress that engendered British Warnings) in the years after the Civil War was another example of trying to not to provoke the UK.

thunderlips11 says

It wasn't until the end of the 19th Century when America became roughly Power to Britain, that the relationship took on a different turn.

But that narrative doesn't support the myth that USA is #1 at everything and all-powerful, so damn be history and your facts! Patriotism trumps historical facts, especially those that just don't feel right. Colbert called this truthiness.

Dan8267 says

But that narrative doesn't support the myth that USA is #1 at everything and all-powerful, so damn be history and your facts! Patriotism trumps historical facts, especially those that just don't feel right. Colbert called this truthiness.

Yeah, the War of 1812 devastated the US Economy. By 1814, the economy basically collapsed; double and triple digit percent price increases for goods and food. The US Merchant Fleet took 20 years to recover. Most ships of the USN were captured or burnt, the USN Flagship was captured by the British and became the HMS President.

Also should be mentioned that the Peace Treaty was signed prior the Battle of New Orleans, and that the British literally at the President's dinner off his plates when they took Washington. The US got nothing from the Treaty of Ghent, specifically their main war aims which was a formal agreement by the British not to search American ships on demand, to respect American neutrality, and to not seize Sailors on various grounds (and their desired bonus goal, incorporate Canada into the USA).

It wasn't until the end of the 19th Century when America became roughly equal in Power to Britain, that the relationship took on a different turn. The British began to make concessions to us, like over the Alaska-Canadian border, in order to avoid having to fight in Canada against an increasing powerful USA.

Now, how to deal with China?

thunderlips11 says

Britain's navy was much, much larger than the US in the mid 19th Century and could have easily broken and blockaded the United States.

The size of the British Navy and the potential to intervene on the side of the Confederacy was a huge source of fear for Lincoln, as well. The Trent Affair was a great example of America backing down in the face of British threats. The Presidential attempts to stop the Finian Raids into Canada (after initial support by local governments and members of Congress that engendered British Warnings) in the years after the Civil War was another example of trying to not to provoke the UK.

That's just not true. The british were much more concerned about napoleon and bismark than the civil war. By the 1860's the british policy was to tread very lightly on confronting the US. Milne (commander of british navy in the americas) was ordered to avoid even any appearance of partizanship. His fleet avoided contact with US vessels from either side and american ports. Milne sent a letter to lord admiral somerset saying the fleet was totally absorbed in protecting commerce and had no ships to spare beyond that. Williams (CIC north america based in canada) was very concerned about the US taking canada as part of the civil war. There were only about 4000 troops in all of canada at the start of the civil war and never more than 20,000 with local malitias activated.

The british naval advantage is far from clear cut. Ironsides and new weapons were rapidly changing naval warfare. Russel Weigley in A Great Civil War: A Military and Political History, 1861 - 1865 writes:
The Royal Navy retained the appearance of maritime supremacy principally because it existed in a naval vacuum, with no serious rivals except for halfhearted and sporadic challenges by the French. At that, the British Navy would have had a difficult time making itself felt on the North American coast. The coming of steam power had destroyed the ability of its best warships to cruise indefinitely in American waters as the blockading squadrons had done in 1812. Even with a major base at Halifax, or possible aid from Confederate ports, the British Navy would have found it a precarious venture to try to keep station on the U.S. Coast. No steam navy operated with success against any reasonably formidable enemy at the distances from its home ports that a trans-Atlantic war would have imposed on the British fleet until the U.S. Navy fought the Japanese in World War II

thunderlips11 says

The British began to make concessions to us, like over the Alaska-Canadian border, in order to avoid having to fight in Canada against an increasing powerful USA.

Wasn't the borders resolved with a binding arbitration panel? 1903 or something? no time to look it up now.

Not all British vessels were steam; in any case, the British had dozens of Steam-powered Ships of the Line, the USN had Zilch in 1860. Almost all of those ships also had sails as well.

Almost all US Ironclads (not built until later in the war) were Riverine boats, and the few that weren't were limited to Coastal cruising, they had neither the seaworthiness or range to enter the deep Ocean. Most USN ships were simply converted merchant vessels, not purpose built combat vessels. Good for blockading merchant ships, not good for actual sea warfare.

The British outfitted Privateers for the Confederacy, and declared neutrality right away, before the Confederacy had a single privateer or had demonstrated any military power. This was actually leaving the door open for recognition of the Confederacy as neutrality gave a sort of veneer to the idea that the South could be an independent nation.

After the Trent Affair, the British sent or organized tens of thousands of regulars and militiamen to/in Canada.
bob2356 says

Even with a major base at Halifax, or possible aid from Confederate ports, the British Navy would have found it a precarious venture to try to keep station on the U.S. Coast. No steam navy operated with success against any reasonably formidable enemy at the distances from its home ports that a trans-Atlantic war would have imposed on the British fleet until the U.S. Navy fought the Japanese in World War II.

That's Nonsense. The British Navy could have easily staged itself in Savannah or New Orleans or Norfolk, with plenty of coal at hand, but most steam warships of the era had sails in addition to steam. Or blockade/raid Boston and New York from Halifax. British steam vessels patrolled sections of Chinese coastline in the 1840s Opium War, and fought in the Black Sea in the Crimean war (1850s, with the US sympathetic to Russia). The US had no problem scooting over to Manilla and winning a victory against Spain thousands of miles from California.

The "Reasonably Formidable Enemy" is weaselly bullcrap because for most of the 19th Century, Britain and France worked together and none of their opponents had formidable Overseas Possessions at the time. It's like saying nobody won a naval engagement in the Med during the Roman Empire after Augustus - there was really no other power to fight !

The US Navy took a potential British naval intervention very seriously and was very worried.

The famous Commerce Raider CSS Alabama was built in Liverpool, and wrecked havoc on US Shipping. It operated well away from the Confederacy and was resupplied constantly in French and British ports to whence it sent it's prizes.

Geopolitically, the British had always wanted the US checked after Independence. The British attempted to create an independent Indian Vassal State west of the Appalachians several times. A US divided into North and South countries would have benefited the British enormously and secured Canada. Gladstone and Russel fulminated (esp. after Antietam) for support of the Confederacy; Napoleon III wanted to impose a 6 month ceasefire by joint UK-French declaration, and use the anticipated Union rejection of it to justify military intervention (the Union, a rogue state that encourages disorder and rebellion). The French wanted a speedy Confederate Victory because their mills were running out of cotton.

In fact, Napoleon III took advantage of the Civil War to invade Mexico in 1862 - something he would not have done had the US not been at war. Immediately following the Civil War, the US sent troops to the Mexican Border and the French took off.

The main events that dissuaded the British and French from Intervening was the port Visit of the Russian Baltic Fleet to New York and San Fran in 1863 - the Russians were strongly Pro-Union and wanted to signal displeasure with Britain over British sponsorship of a Polish revolt - followed immediately by the battle of Gettysburg. The Secretary of the US Navy, Gideon Welles gladhanded the Russians and he, like the rest of the US, was elated. The Russian Far East Fleet visited San Francisco, and received orders to engage CSS Raiders if they attempted to raid the Bay, as there was not a single US Navy warship in the Pacific.