Could you please elaborate on this? I've heard the opposite from the MSM, that China will become the economic powerhouse of the 21st Century, and so on and so forth. I'd love to hear your take on this.
It will be an economic powerhouse. But I think it has a great chance of crashing, and spectacularly. China has to keep up an outrageous level of growth that's almost unsustainable. It'll also have to deal with an issue that's vexing us right now - unrealistic expectations of an enormous middle class (five times the size of our middle class). It also has another problem we do - a huge portion of its population is old. And, like us, finally, it has a society embracing debt - a growing middle class leveraging against future gains. Right now, the urban centers ringing China are filling with bodies at an astounding rate. If the engine of China's expansion, it's manufacturing and exports, falters from sustained decreased foreign demand, this grinds to a halt.* If this grinds to a halt, China pops. And it's ugly, as those cities are enormous, and a rapid delevering of 500 million Chinese consumers would be insane. Their domestic consumption would freeze and their exports drop in price, causing global deflation. Our markets would also get crushed because of the enormous exposure our corporations have in China. It'd look a lot like what happened to the world when the US housing bubble finally burst, only bigger. * Foreign demand is decreased right now, but China's got a stimulus plan filling in the blanks like we do at the moment.
Would you consider compiling a reading list of material you've read and are currently reading? I think a lot of people are drawn to your ideas about politics, economics, etc., and want to know how you've formed them.
I agree, but doesn't China hold massive amounts of US Treasury securities, foreign currency reserves, and the lack of a "Social Security" type plan mitigate against some of that?
They're going to have to care for the old in some fashion approximating that which is expected of an all but fully emerged superpower. Those people will be a drag, as the old are here. As to their purchase of US notes, if they stop buying, we're in deep shit. On their stockpiling of foreign reserves, they've been more interested in stockpiling foreign commodities lately. If they stagnate, that stuff could be sold, and quickly, creating a mess in those markets and the markets directly tied to them.
They're going to have to care for the old in some fashion approximating that which is expected of an all but fully emerged superpower. Those people will be a drag, as the old are here. As to their purchase of US notes, if they stop buying, we're in deep shit. On their stockpiling of foreign reserves, they've been more interested in stockpiling foreign commodities lately. If they stagnate, that stuff could be sold, and quickly, creating a mess in those markets and the markets directly tied to them.[/quote] Agreed, but culturally, the Chinese place their elderly on a higher pedestal then we do, so I think it is assumed that the elderly there will be cared for by their family as opposed to the government. However, I do agree that as China's standard of living rises, they will run into one of the major problems we have now...rising health care costs for the old and infrim. China has used the current mess to make inroads into foreign markets* (particularly Africa) to secure mining and drilling rights for raw materials and markets to sell their goods to. *Reference here Question for you Philalawyer: I have no doubt China will be a superpower within the next few decades. Does China have what it takes to lead the world order as the US has done in the post-WWII era? There's more to leading the world order then having the biggest military, economy, and worldwide clout. I would argue that it takes a sense of altruism (I use that term very loosely, especially when discussing international relations) that the Chinese don't seem to possess. There's an article in Newsweek that I read, but can't seem to find, that discusses this very topic. I don't see the Chinese willing to initiate a Marshall Plan type program, rebuilding enemies entire economies, and protecting them militarily. It doesn't seem to be part of their worldview. The US' actions, motives, and foreign policy in the latter part of the 20th century aren't as pure as the driven snow, but I think that we tend to try to cooperate more rather then strong arm nations. (at first anyway) If anything I said is retarded, feel free to flame me, I'd rather be corrected then continue to spout retarded bullshit. Edit 1: Second question for PL. You mentioned "hedging" against China's eventual collapse. How would you suggest we go about doing that?
Agreed, but culturally, the Chinese place their elderly on a higher pedestal then we do, so I think it is assumed that the elderly there will be cared for by their family as opposed to the government. However, I do agree that as China's standard of living rises, they will run into one of the major problems we have now...rising health care costs for the old and infrim. China has used the current mess to make inroads into foreign markets* (particularly Africa) to secure mining and drilling rights for raw materials and markets to sell their goods to. *Reference here Question for you Philalawyer: I have no doubt China will be a superpower within the next few decades. Does China have what it takes to lead the world order as the US has done in the post-WWII era? There's more to leading the world order then having the biggest military, economy, and worldwide clout. I would argue that it takes a sense of altruism (I use that term very loosely, especially when discussing international relations) that the Chinese don't seem to possess. There's an article in Newsweek that I read, but can't seem to find, that discusses this very topic. I don't see the Chinese willing to initiate a Marshall Plan type program, rebuilding enemies entire economies, and protecting them militarily. It doesn't seem to be part of their worldview. The US' actions, motives, and foreign policy in the latter part of the 20th century aren't as pure as the driven snow, but I think that we tend to try to cooperate more rather then strong arm nations. (at first anyway) If anything I said is retarded, feel free to flame me, I'd rather be corrected then continue to spout retarded bullshit. Edit 1: Second question for PL. You mentioned "hedging" against China's eventual collapse. How would you suggest we go about doing that?[/quote] No. Their govt seems to be corrupt and more focused on trying to control a decentralized hierarchy and keep their economy growing, but under control, than anything else. I agree with you on a lack of altruism. But as they take a greater place on the stage, that'll abate. They just gave a bunch of cash to Africa this week. (Of course, who knows what commodities contracts they'll quietly get in return, but still... it's a positive gesture.) How do we hedge? We can't be as dependent on borrowing from them. That's an overly simple answer, but all the longer ones trail back to it in one fashion or another. If you think the bank where you have a line is going under and essential liquidity with it, you have to save, or find another lender. Nothing on this subject is retarded. It's a nonsense science, and I'm just a lawyer who wrote a book. There's a damn good chance I'm wrong. And I hope I am.
Dr. Rob and I started a new series of posts tonight, titled "Is America Psychologically Devolving?" The first piece, dealing with Reality TV and the "Cult of Celebrity," is here. "This is a dumb, rotten age, and allusions to Rome aren’t extreme. Imbeciles and thieves at every turn, stalking us in all the headlines.... Self-help pimps rule our literature, mega-churches swell with frightened masses and the “MySpace Nation” soldiers on, blissfully unaware as it consumes its diet of Kardashians, Ritalin and low carb Mango-tinis. A country “doped,” as Lennon sang, “with religion and sex and TV.” Welcome to the New Dumb, the United States of Decline."
You mention that you were never had a mind for math or science but you're trying to teach yourself. How do you go about this? I took the passage in the commencement speech about "numbers being the language of the 1%" to heart, but I was abominable. How did you go about learning more about math, economics etc?
At this point, would you two consider Idiocracy to be more than just a funny Mike Judge film? Is there a lining of truth to it? 'Cause that's what I'd gather from that post. Surely our society isn't that bad off. ...is it?
Can we debate this? Delete it if it's too political. I don't think we're devolving as much as you seem to think we are. For example, there were public executions in the 1800s. Hell, if you count lynching, there were public executions through the 1950s. That was their reality show; a random Joe Average really, really screws up (or looks at a white chick) and gets his retribution. Same plot as half the shows we get today, except it's one man. In 1900, bare-knuckle boxing was a popular, organized sport that everyone would get dressed up for. My grandparents remember being taken "down to the fights," where wealthy people got to watch bare-chested men beat each other bloody. Today's UFC and padded boxing is quite tame compared to their fights. So we aren't devolving in the sense that our entertainment is solely brainless. An argument can be made that we are narcissists thanks to Facebook, Myspace, and reality shows, but how many people honestly think that they matter after spending five years working a 9-5 job? Narcissism is a young man's game, and it's been around since young people started getting told that they could be someone. I think that trends come and go. What a college student is frantically blogging about will probably mean nothing to him in ten, maybe even five years. How many 40-year-olds actually keep a Twitter account that they expect everyone to pay attention to? I confess that I'm very skeptical to any assertions that we are devolving as a society, because everyone's been saying that since the beginning of civilization. Augustus made himself very unpopular by making a bunch of speeches regarding Rome's societal decline. While a speech like that may have been accurate a hundred years after his reign, it certainly wasn't true under him. We have a nostalgia of what people acted like in the good old days, and we have a cynical idea of what people act like today. But I think that we ignore the immature behavior of the good old days, and focus exclusively on the immature behavior of today. Sure, Wall Street is a circus, and so is the legal profession and everyone's fascination with it. But we have engineering, agriculture, manufacturing, all this other stuff that people work hard at and make advances that everyone immediately takes for granted and then ignores. If you just look at people's behavior regarding reality TV, the legal profession, Wall Street, and politics, you're doing the exact same thing that they are. Here's Dwight Eisenhower's campaign slogan: "I Like Ike." How is that any less brainless than Change We Can Believe In? If we go back further, we get Tippecanoe and Tyler Too. Politics has always been brainless.
But let me ask you- doesn't this sentence further prove the point that they are trying to make- where a no-talent attention whore on youtube can garner more publicity and fame with the general public than, say, the person who has been working for the last 40 years to develop a cure for cancer? Human society has always been fascinated by the train wreck, this is true. But in the mass media world of today where almost everyone has on outlet for self expression ( Reality TV, Internet, whatever), more and more people are seemingly willing to trade dignity for exposure.
The democratization of expression has given light to an ugly reality: Most people ought not express themselves publicly. (Some would apply that to people like me, and in some instances, I'd have to agree.)
True, but how is this evidence of a decline in culture? All that this means is that the brainless have more exposure than they did fifty years ago. They were just as brainless back then, but they didn't have Twitter. But even today, with all our idiocy, we still make just as much or more progress than we did back then. Now - if we were stagnating because everyone was more willing to play Guitar Hero and post Twitter rather than learn how to play guitar and write books, then Philalawyer would have a point. But we aren't stagnating; there are plenty of good books being written, and there are plenty of good artists who are recording music. The evidence that we are declining is just not there. Sure, it makes every self-respecting person wince every time they see another ad for a reality TV show, but there's always decent TV to round out the crappy shows.
In the past, the dumb and wretched left the planet early. Now they last as long as the rest. This creates a stronger, longer form of "lifelong stupid" polluting society at a level unseen before. Healthcare is undoing Darwin at the moment, and you needn't look far to understand what I'm saying. A third of this country thinks Evolution is fiction. And many believe the world is 5000 years old. Granted, in the past, everyone thought that. But in the past, nobody had any contrary evidence to prove that false. Today, the overwhelming evidence clearly shows imbeciles they are imbeciles, in everything from hysteria about govt conspiracies, to vaccines causing autism to the Rapture, etc... The dim and ridiculous are just smart enough to preserve their corporal vessels long enough, and get a pedestal from which to yawp nonsense in the public square, to make themselves a dangerous, long term force in our society. And the media caters to them more than it ever did before. Trust me when I tell you, much more than TV and movies and book publishing create excellent, thoughtful product, they spoon feed truly atrocious junk to the masses. It's their model, and as the market emphasizes short term profit more and more, they lower the bar further and further because there's one thing about the Stupid... They Buy. They're impulsive and they buy in the simplest Pavlovian fashion. Ring a certain bell and they come running. Edit: And yet, if you look at my most recent piece on my website, regarding why the Internet will never kill books, I still believe there's a good chance some this trend can turn in a positive direction.
For those who asked, here is the discussion between Phila and Evil Conservative on Health Care, Capitalism vs. Collectivism, and other political and economic issues. There is also much more information located in the comments section below the article. Once again, this is not the place to discuss the majority of the things covered in the article.
I just tried Ketel One for the first time, based on your list. Cheaper than the shit I'd been drinking, a much cleaner drunk, and less of a hangover. Thanks.