Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[Ziggy Stardust]

That wasn't a negative. It's so entertaining even I as a Dutchie can derive great enjoyment from it.

 

[Borachio]

But music in what sense exactly?

And American acting in movies? Is that a #1 or not?

Ah yes. There's Disney, ofc.

Finance #1? Hmm.

Tell me again. Are we talking positives or negatives?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Is there some kind of structural systemic reason for China's "inevitable stall"? Or is it something like China's dependence on coal-fired power, which might put some kind of ceiling on further development simply by choking the populace?

I can see China's growth has slowed down to ~8%(?) just recently. But I thought that was due to loss of markets in Europe and the US. Simply because people aren't buying so much.

I think it was OWEN GLYNDWR () who astutely pointed out that much of the screaming GDP growth is attributed to infrastructure building. It's relatively easy to go from low growth to extremely high growth when their is virtually no modern infrastructure to speak of in a country.

It's a simple task to put your exceedingly poor populace to work building railroads, airports, highways and buildings using (and this is essential) borrowed technology.

I am not saying that China is incapable of innovation; quite the contrary. However, almost all of the growth they have experienced is due to the fact that they don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Take their highway system for example, it's based on the American Interstate System, which in turn is based on the German Autobahn. This means that the Chinese can skip all of the expensive R&D (which often does not lead to a payoff) and go straight to building.

[Worthy of note: Scientists, researchers and planners of all stripes in Western nations put out these wonderful little things called 'peer reviewed articles' and 'patents' that cost nothing to read (with respect to a nation's resources, not an individual's) that contain all the blueprints needed to steal an idea, concept or invention]

Now extend this over virtually all of their infrastructure and you see how relatively easy it is to rack up massive growth building things other countries have already figured out how to build. Now factor in the fact that China's workforce is so poor and uneducated that they can work cheaply enough to cut the bottom out of the workforces of richer nations.

But all of these things, from infrastructure building to cheap labor are temporary. They will reach, as all rich nations do, the point where there is not a lot of new roads to build and the workforce won't work for $.001/hour.

That's where the slowdown comes into play. Also, the fact that the government has yet to deal effectively with major problems such as overinvestment, overbuilding and out of control lending, coupled with massive worker unrest and you have the beginnings of a real crisis.

I for one, expect China to emerge from any near-future crisis intact and probably maintaining one-party rule. I even expect them to have a bigger economy than the US. That does not mean, however, that their standard of living will reach western standards anytime soon or more importantly that China will come close to replacing the current vanguard of international politics.

Regarding USA#1: I agree with other non-Americans that it is sometimes confusing. It's often used in such an over the top way in very inappropriate situations that I never really can tell if it's genuine, ironic or a self-aware combination of both.

USA#1! is all of the things I have bolded in the sentence above. Context and knowledge of a poster's general attitude is key here because without that USA#1! can come off as obnoxiously patriotic/nationalistic, when it often is actually the opposite. Then again, it often is just obnoxious patriotism.

What bothers me is more that if there's a discussion about legitimate problems and the reaction is just "Doesn't matter USA#1" as if you're trying to ignore the problem and not acknowledge it's there. And I don't say that because I just love to see Americans admitting to problems, but because I think it's better for everyone to address problems instead of covering them up with other areas where you're doing great. That's true greatness imo.

I don't think there has been a lot of pointless, chest-thumping USA#1 going on in this thread. Though I could be mistaken, it seems like most of the posters have been quite serious and critical in their analysis.

Yeah, as I said, you still have the biggest defense budget. That is a fact nobody contests. The question is, what is it actually good for?

Giving you something to whine about.

If we assume that all peoples and nations are equally resourceful (and there's no reason to think otherwise) then, all other things being equal, population size must surely win out, in the long run. Depending on what you mean by "long run"

Population size will 'win out' in the race to the economic top. However, as explained before, it will be quite a long time before being at the economic top will grant international political 'dominance' (for lack of a better word) to either China or India.

That dismissive attitude is exactly what I am talking about.
I mean, you might be right. But how would we know without even a cursory discussion?

Cursory discussion? Did you just walk into this thread 5 minutes ago?

Or are you just confusing the fact that people aren't just swallowing your USA#0 attitude, rolling over and toeing your line? Because from what I can tell, this thread has been neither USA#0 or USA#1; it's been a frank, exhaustive discussion about the future of global politics and the implications of relative economic decline for the US and the relative economic rise of China.

I've generally interpreted USA#1 as high satire.

You mean, now, all you 'muricans are sincerely proud of your nation?

You're correct on both counts.

You come off as willfully blind and as if you never bothered to read the article in full.

I am willfully blind. I have not bothered to read the article. My general decision making loop for reading an article is thus:
1)Am I interested in the subject of the article?
2)Is the poster using the article to support their point?
3)Has the issue raised by the article not been covered by other's posts already? (provided the article poster gives some sort of brief synopsis of the article; without a synopsis I probably won't open it)

If the answer to any of these three questions is no, then I back out the loop and don't read the article. #2 is crucial, because while many people act like their point is supported by an article, quite often what they are really doing is:
"Hey read this article. The article is my point".

I am interested in debating the posters here, not in debating the author of an article who isn't.


In any case, I'm not entirely sure what the article says, because I didn't read it. But I do believe that the points it raised have been reposted by posters in this thread and covered. At the very least, no one has said, 'oh but there is this point in the article you aren't considering", well besides you that is. You haven't even had the decency to point out what 'damning points' it raised that haven't been covered already.

Important question:
Have you read this thread?

It makes several quite damning points, yet I haven't really seen any of them being addressed in the thread.

Do tell.

Instead it is just "bhah, German Schadenfreude!" and "nah, China will slow down" and "nah, we still have the biggest defense budget".

Well, I take it the answer to my previous question is "No".

 

[Borachio]

The thing is though, if you're #1, there really is only one direction to go. And sooner or later you must go that way. Or defy every precedent for ever.

 

[Farm Boy]

The thing is though, if you're #1, there really is only one direction to go. And sooner or later you must go that way. Or defy every precedent for ever.

To the moon? There's farther to go in that direction. To infinity and beyond!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The thing is though, if you're #1, there really is only one direction to go. And sooner or later you must go that way. Or defy every precedent for ever.

I have not, nor has any serious poster here, denied that.

All I have done is tried to give my analysis on why China gaining the biggest economy does not grant automatic #1 status politically.

But since I cannot escape being labled a USA#1 bigot and someone else brought up the moon, I'll just leave you with this little explanation of the differences between the US and China:

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Edit: Sorry I don't know how to resize them.

 

[Borachio]

But that's not an explanation. That, to be blunt (not james) is an observation of two individuals.

What is your explanation?

I grew up in a house with a privy at the bottom of the garden. I have never, yet, been to the moon. Not many people have.

 

[Farm Boy]

I do plenty of random manual labor. Beep beep! Ruh roh, I think my tire pressure is low. Need to have somebody check and blow on my valvestems.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But that's not an explanation. That, to be blunt (not james) is an observation of two individuals.

What is your explanation?

I grew up in a house with a privy at the bottom of the garden. I never went to the moon. Not many people have.

My point?

I don't know. It was deep, but now I lost it.

Probably something stupid and also USA#1!

Oh yeah. It was had something to do with the date of the pictures taken. One's from the 60's, the other's from today. Take from that what you will. It actually had little to do with the moon landing, that was just a bonus for awesomesauce points.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. I understand. Dangerous ground, eh?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah. I understand. Dangerous ground, eh?

How so?

 

[Borachio]

Well, you must explain how an American landed a job of landing on the moon, while a Chinese person gets to act as a donkey? Without reference to the qualities of being either American or Chinese. Or maybe this is a constraint that applies only to me.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, you must explain how an American landed a job of landing on the moon, while a Chinese person gets to act as a donkey? Without reference to the qualities of being either American or Chinese.

One country rocks and the other kind of sucks???

It's was meant as a joke Borachio, given all the flak I've been getting for my posts.

 

[Borachio]

Oh right? You too, eh?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yup. If you buy what some people have been posting, I'm an unapolagetic American loving, Chinese hating bigot who thinks USA#1! all day and night and screw the world because we effing pwn you all. Forever and ever amen.

 

[Farm Boy]

Glory be to the Fed'ral
and to the states in their glo-o-ry
As it was under Washinton
is now under Obama
U S A, number one, number one.

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

^


I feel like every post I've made in this thread that was longer than 2 lines was a waste. I get attacked for positions I don't actually hold even though I've gone to great length to explain exactly where I stand.

 

[sophie]

I think it was Crezth who astutely pointed out that much of the screaming GDP growth is attributed to infrastructure building. It's relatively easy to go from low growth to extremely high growth when their is virtually no modern infrastructure to speak of in a country.

No, that was me!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No, that was me!

Sorry Owen, I'll edit that.

Edit:
Fixed! Oh and thanks for reading that great wall 'o text. It took me almost a half hour to write.

 

[Yeekim]

In any case, I'm not entirely sure what the article says, because I didn't read it.

Maybe you should. It is just 4 pages and, unlike most of this thread, actually both interesting and well written. EDIT: it also provides "the evidence" you ask for in your very first post. Do you need to be spoon-fed everything?

But I do believe that the points it raised have been reposted by posters in this thread and covered.

No, they haven't.

At the very least, no one has said, 'oh but there is this point in the article you aren't considering", well besides you that is.

Probably because most of them didn't read it either.

You haven't even had the decency to point out what 'damning points' it raised that haven't been covered already.

Why should I take the effort to retype what you won't bother to read, although it is already there, linked to in the bloody OP?

Important question: Have you read this thread? Well, I take it the answer to my previous question is "No".

I gave up on page 7, because it was mostly what I described earlier.