Is Western Civilization Declining?

[Gary Childress]

China seems to have a lot going for it these days. The nation that once had to rely on imports to feed its population is now largely self-sufficient. Their science exploits are catching up with those of the West. They have the largest radio telescope in the world. Their cities are bustling with modern sky scrappers and architecture. They apparently haven't suffered as much under the pandemic as we have.

My question is, does this prove that the Chinese government and their way of life are superior to our hodge podge relative anarchy in the West? Have democracy, freedom, and diversity proven inferior to control, authoritarianism, and cultural homogeneity? Will the world be taking orders from our Chinese overlords one of these days?

[FlashDangerpants]

No. And if we skip the array of questionable assumptions in all that and just take it at face value, then still no anyway.

It's relatively stright forward to become a global military power, you just buy more ships or whatever than the other guys are willing to buy. But at any time, they can pretty much just decide you have too many and buy more themselves, so you maintain the position be being able to outspend them even when everyone is spending more than they can afford.

Usurping the role of global economic super power is much more difficult than building skyscarapers, or even universities. Ultimately you need to have the most efficient economy and you must build economic and legal instutions that foreigners have as much trust in as your own people do. That's how America became such a power, and before the Britain. China isn't doing either of those things, so China won't become the sort of power that you and many others assume. Without those two ingredients there are insurmountable issues to do with debt and trust that will stymie their efforts and make the transition from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge and services economy falter.

incidentally, China has done no better than New Zealand or Taiwan against covid. Being agriculturally self-sufficient is economically pointless and arguably means you have too many farmers. It's fundamentally cheaper and better in every way to trust people - especially your own citizens - as much as you can rather than watch them as much as you must, but once you have taken the wrong choice there your life may well depend on commiting to the bit at any cost.

[Gary Childress]

No. And if we skip the array of questionable assumptions in all that and just take it at face value, then still no anyway.

It's relatively stright forward to become a global military power, you just buy more ships or whatever than the other guys are willing to buy. But at any time, they can pretty much just decide you have too many and buy more themselves, so you maintain the position be being able to outspend them even when everyone is spending more than they can afford.

Usurping the role of global economic super power is much more difficult than building skyscarapers, or even universities. Ultimately you need to have the most efficient economy and you must build economic and legal instutions that foreigners have as much trust in as your own people do. That's how America became such a power, and before the Britain. China isn't doing either of those things, so China won't become the sort of power that you and many others assume. Without those two ingredients there are insurmountable issues to do with debt and trust that will stymie their efforts and make the transition from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge and services economy falter.

incidentally, China has done no better than New Zealand or Taiwan against covid. Being agriculturally self-sufficient is economically pointless and arguably means you have too many farmers. It's fundamentally cheaper and better in every way to trust people - especially your own citizens - as much as you can rather than watch them as much as you must, but once you have taken the wrong choice there your life may well depend on commiting to the bit at any cost.

It may be more difficult to usurp global economic power, but China seems to be doing just that. China owns our debt. They are the number 1 manufacturer in the world. What makes you say they aren't on their way to usurping global economic power other than the fact that it's "more difficult"?

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... ked-170719

[FlashDangerpants]

No. And if we skip the array of questionable assumptions in all that and just take it at face value, then still no anyway.

It's relatively stright forward to become a global military power, you just buy more ships or whatever than the other guys are willing to buy. But at any time, they can pretty much just decide you have too many and buy more themselves, so you maintain the position be being able to outspend them even when everyone is spending more than they can afford.

Usurping the role of global economic super power is much more difficult than building skyscarapers, or even universities. Ultimately you need to have the most efficient economy and you must build economic and legal instutions that foreigners have as much trust in as your own people do. That's how America became such a power, and before the Britain. China isn't doing either of those things, so China won't become the sort of power that you and many others assume. Without those two ingredients there are insurmountable issues to do with debt and trust that will stymie their efforts and make the transition from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge and services economy falter.

incidentally, China has done no better than New Zealand or Taiwan against covid. Being agriculturally self-sufficient is economically pointless and arguably means you have too many farmers. It's fundamentally cheaper and better in every way to trust people - especially your own citizens - as much as you can rather than watch them as much as you must, but once you have taken the wrong choice there your life may well depend on commiting to the bit at any cost.

It may be more difficult to usurp global economic power, but China seems to be doing just that. China owns our debt. They are the number 1 manufacturer in the world. What makes you say they aren't on their way to usurping global economic power other than the fact that it's "more difficult"?

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... ked-170719

That debt thing is childish nonsense. They hold US treasury bills and corporate bonds, which are repaid via coupon according to a contract. This isn't something they can forclose on like a mortgage, and they don't have leg breaking rights borrowed from some Mafia bag man. China doesn't even want to buy US TBills, they do it because they have no choice as there is really no other game in town for this sort of thing. If you really must do a Chicken Little act, then worry about China finding something else to buy (which is itself a vastly overrated concern).

Manufacturing is kind of shit. It's the second worst thing to lead the world in after extraction (gold, copper, oil, coal, or anything that is dug up out of your ground and then turned into something valuable elsewhere). China wants to lead the world in something more valuable than that, such as research and development in general, biotech and AI, insurance, luxury goods, or anything else less shit than just plugging things together. The good bits of manufacturing are owned and locked down already by the Germans, Japanese, Swiss and Americans etc. and China has to import that gear to keep making the things it does now, which won't change any time soon.

[Gary Childress]

No. And if we skip the array of questionable assumptions in all that and just take it at face value, then still no anyway.

It's relatively stright forward to become a global military power, you just buy more ships or whatever than the other guys are willing to buy. But at any time, they can pretty much just decide you have too many and buy more themselves, so you maintain the position be being able to outspend them even when everyone is spending more than they can afford.

Usurping the role of global economic super power is much more difficult than building skyscarapers, or even universities. Ultimately you need to have the most efficient economy and you must build economic and legal instutions that foreigners have as much trust in as your own people do. That's how America became such a power, and before the Britain. China isn't doing either of those things, so China won't become the sort of power that you and many others assume. Without those two ingredients there are insurmountable issues to do with debt and trust that will stymie their efforts and make the transition from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge and services economy falter.

incidentally, China has done no better than New Zealand or Taiwan against covid. Being agriculturally self-sufficient is economically pointless and arguably means you have too many farmers. It's fundamentally cheaper and better in every way to trust people - especially your own citizens - as much as you can rather than watch them as much as you must, but once you have taken the wrong choice there your life may well depend on commiting to the bit at any cost.

It may be more difficult to usurp global economic power, but China seems to be doing just that. China owns our debt. They are the number 1 manufacturer in the world. What makes you say they aren't on their way to usurping global economic power other than the fact that it's "more difficult"?

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... ked-170719

That debt thing is childish nonsense. They hold US treasury bills and corporate bonds, which are repaid via coupon according to a contract. This isn't something they can forclose on like a mortgage, and they don't have leg breaking rights borrowed from some Mafia bag man. China doesn't even want to buy US TBills, they do it because they have no choice as there is really no other game in town for this sort of thing. If you really must do a Chicken Little act, then worry about China finding something else to buy (which is itself a vastly overrated concern).

Manufacturing is kind of shit. It's the second worst thing to lead the world in after extraction (gold, copper, oil, coal, or anything that is dug up out of your ground and then turned into something valuable elsewhere). China wants to lead the world in something more valuable than that, such as research and development in general, biotech and AI, insurance, luxury goods, or anything else less shit than just plugging things together. The good bits of manufacturing are owned and locked down already by the Germans, Japanese, Swiss and Americans etc. and China has to import that gear to keep making the things it does now, which won't change any time soon.

How do you figure that manufacturing is "shit"? It's how the US became a an economic superpower during and after WW2. The only "Chicken Little Act" around here seems to be your reaction to what I've posted. I'm not panicking. Just pointing out the obvious. And ad hominems aren't lending much to your position. Try arguing the point and not the person making them.

[FlashDangerpants]

It may be more difficult to usurp global economic power, but China seems to be doing just that. China owns our debt. They are the number 1 manufacturer in the world. What makes you say they aren't on their way to usurping global economic power other than the fact that it's "more difficult"?

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... ked-170719

That debt thing is childish nonsense. They hold US treasury bills and corporate bonds, which are repaid via coupon according to a contract. This isn't something they can forclose on like a mortgage, and they don't have leg breaking rights borrowed from some Mafia bag man. China doesn't even want to buy US TBills, they do it because they have no choice as there is really no other game in town for this sort of thing. If you really must do a Chicken Little act, then worry about China finding something else to buy (which is itself a vastly overrated concern).

Manufacturing is kind of shit. It's the second worst thing to lead the world in after extraction (gold, copper, oil, coal, or anything that is dug up out of your ground and then turned into something valuable elsewhere). China wants to lead the world in something more valuable than that, such as research and development in general, biotech and AI, insurance, luxury goods, or anything else less shit than just plugging things together. The good bits of manufacturing are owned and locked down already by the Germans, Japanese, Swiss and Americans etc. and China has to import that gear to keep making the things it does now, which won't change any time soon.

How do you figure that manufacturing is "shit"? It's how the US became a an economic superpower during and after WW2. The only "Chicken Little Act" around here seems to be your reaction to what I've posted. I'm not panicking. Just pointing out the obvious. And ad hominems aren't lending much to your position. Try arguing the point and not the person making them.

There's nothing remotely ad hominem going on here.

The US became the world's leader in R&D, and developed new and outstanding products of great value, it didn't just make foreign stuff cheaply. Your companies either created entirely, or took the technical lead in new categories of consumer goods such as vacuum cleaners and refrigerators, television and radio to become the world's leading manufacturer. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single Chinese manufacturer that has revolutionised any market in the way that General Electric, Kodak or Hoover once did. Can you?

It is the research, development, marketing and design elements that make a product valuable, the manufacture merely needs to comply to a spec and a price point. Manufacturing is shit, at least manufacturing anything that could be made by somebody else. That's why rich countries don't really pursue it much, we don't make our own plastic buckets because anyone can do it.

Now if you are talking about manufacturing something where the process of manufacture itself does add value, such as single-crystal turbine blades for jet engines, or specialist lenses to produce semiconductors, these things are imported by China because they cannot make their own. They very recently sunk a vast amount of money into the pointless task of developing their own technology stack to make - and I am not inventing this - their own tips for ball point pens.

[Skip]

What is "Western Civilization"? Is there an "Eastern Civilization" which is fundamentally different?

China seems to have a lot going for it these days. The nation that once had to rely on imports to feed its population is now largely self-sufficient.

No, it isn't. https://www.statista.com/statistics/257 ... ort-value/ But then, no nation is. China does a lot of manufacturing, but needs raw materials to do so, and still isn't capable of producing all of its own food.

Their science exploits are catching up with those of the West.

Largely by buying/stealing/copying/adapting scientific knowledge from western countries.

They have the largest radio telescope in the world. Their cities are bustling with modern sky scrappers and architecture.

And they're paying a heavy price in human hardship and environmental degradation. There is nothing inherently beneficial or superior about bigness. I realize that the west hasn't learned that yet, but China repeating all the same mistakes, a few decades behind, is not a mark of ascendancy.

They apparently haven't suffered as much under the pandemic as we have.

Chinese people aren't allowed to talk about their suffering. They probably wouldn't whine and howl as much as Americans, anyway; the Chinese have weathered long, hard times before.

My question is, does this prove that the Chinese government and their way of life are superior to our hodge podge relative anarchy in the West?

That's not a single question. The Chinese government is repressive, oppressive, ruthless and selectively genocidal.
What do you mean by 'relative anarchy'? It seems to me that most western governments have reasonably good organization of their public services and day-to-day administration; the traffic flows, the tap-water flows, the credit flows, with very few glitches. That's not what anarchy looks like.
In an unprecedented emergency, they don't have the crack-down power of authoritarian regimes, that's true - but they don't in normal times, either, which is generally good news for the citizens not being shot down in the streets for disagreeing with a policy.

Have democracy, freedom, and diversity proven inferior to control, authoritarianism, and cultural homogeneity?

That depends on the principle on which you base the standard. Superior/inferior by what criteria?

Will the world be taking orders from our Chinese overlords one of these days?

It's quite possible. Great swathes of it took orders from Assyria, Rome, Turky, Spain, Germany, England and the USA at one time or another. Which of those empires were superior to which, I couldn't begin to guess.

[Gary Childress]

That debt thing is childish nonsense. They hold US treasury bills and corporate bonds, which are repaid via coupon according to a contract. This isn't something they can forclose on like a mortgage, and they don't have leg breaking rights borrowed from some Mafia bag man. China doesn't even want to buy US TBills, they do it because they have no choice as there is really no other game in town for this sort of thing. If you really must do a Chicken Little act, then worry about China finding something else to buy (which is itself a vastly overrated concern).

Manufacturing is kind of shit. It's the second worst thing to lead the world in after extraction (gold, copper, oil, coal, or anything that is dug up out of your ground and then turned into something valuable elsewhere). China wants to lead the world in something more valuable than that, such as research and development in general, biotech and AI, insurance, luxury goods, or anything else less shit than just plugging things together. The good bits of manufacturing are owned and locked down already by the Germans, Japanese, Swiss and Americans etc. and China has to import that gear to keep making the things it does now, which won't change any time soon.

How do you figure that manufacturing is "shit"? It's how the US became a an economic superpower during and after WW2. The only "Chicken Little Act" around here seems to be your reaction to what I've posted. I'm not panicking. Just pointing out the obvious. And ad hominems aren't lending much to your position. Try arguing the point and not the person making them.

There's nothing remotely ad hominem going on here.

I was referring to your "chicken little" comment and characterization of some of my comments as "childish". They are ad hominems, my friend. Look up the definition.

[Skip]

That debt thing is childish nonsense.

refers to the content of the post, not the character of the poster.

If you really must do a Chicken Little act,

is possibly contentious as to whether it reflects more negatively on the person or the act.
Responding to those, rather than the argument of the post that also contains those strikes me as either hypersensitive or a deflection from the topic. I may be wrong....

[FlashDangerpants]

How do you figure that manufacturing is "shit"? It's how the US became a an economic superpower during and after WW2. The only "Chicken Little Act" around here seems to be your reaction to what I've posted. I'm not panicking. Just pointing out the obvious. And ad hominems aren't lending much to your position. Try arguing the point and not the person making them.

There's nothing remotely ad hominem going on here.

I was referring to your "chicken little" comment and characterization of some of my comments as "childish". They are ad hominems, my friend. Look up the definition.

"Childish" is just a description of the debt argument, which rests on childishly unsophisticated misunderstandings about debt. Which I explained, but then you ignored my explanation to complain about me instead - which is sort of ad hominem, you can look that up if you like.

There's nothing wrong with describing your overall thrust as fatalism, you are describing it yourself as "not panicking. Just pointing out the obvious" and as that is in reference to an abusive authoritarian regime taking over the world that makes you quite the Cassandra really. If you are really too petty to survive being called Chicken Little in that context, then consider it withdrawn.

Are you done whining at me now?

[uwot]

Manufacturing is kind of shit.

Yeah, but doesn't it employ lots of people who can see the product of their own labour? Isn't that good in itself? Doesn't it give some insight into how things are made? Can't that insight stimulate innovation? Isn't that innovation precisely the aspirational, post-industrial, cor blimey clever shit? And isn't having a practical idea about how stuff works some protection against believing any old bollocks?

[Skip]

Manufacturing is kind of shit.

Yeah, but doesn't it employ lots of people who can see the product of their own labour?

It employs a lot of people, but they don't get to see the product of their labour. They're on an assembly line, screwing on a knob or gluing on a sticker; not actually making anything. And most of what they produce is crap destined, after a long ocean-killing journey and a brief useful life, for the land-killing North American garbage dumps.

Isn't that good in itself?

It would be, if they were independent artisans, making durable, beautiful, original object, like their long-ago ancestors.

Doesn't it give some insight into how things are made?

No: nobody sees the entire process. Maybe a computer knows the plan and will be able to run the whole operation, once all the human cogs have been replaced with robots.

Can't that insight stimulate innovation? Isn't that innovation precisely the aspirational, post-industrial, cor blimey clever shit? And isn't having a practical idea about how stuff works some protection against believing any old bollocks?

1. No: modern manufacturing gives no individual worker an insight into the process, or even the product. A couple of engineers who bypassed the German or American copyright to create a template understand the product and have a vague idea of the process, but no influence over what happens after they hand in the specs.
2. Sure. It just doesn't happen on the factory floor, and certainly not in Chinese factory, where workers are well advised to keep their heads down and their ideas to themselves.
3. No. See popular opinion on any subject, in any nation on Earth.

Of course, none of that has any bearing on the decline of western civilization - whatever western civilization is.

[FlashDangerpants]

Manufacturing is kind of shit.

Yeah, but doesn't it employ lots of people who can see the product of their own labour? Isn't that good in itself? Doesn't it give some insight into how things are made? Can't that insight stimulate innovation? Isn't that innovation precisely the aspirational, post-industrial, cor blimey clever shit? And isn't having a practical idea about how stuff works some protection against believing any old bollocks?

That's one way to see it, but there's another way. All of human history is dominated by a single process in which we take our collective labour to manufacture stuff that we need, and we find ways to use less of our human work hours to make that stuff, so that we can use more of them to make things we want. After a while, some of that becomes stuff we now need (much to the annoyance of Henry etc), and we move onto new stuff we want. Reversing that to suddenly use as many man hours as possible just to make stuff won't work out.

What used to be a matter of survival - getting food more easily so that you had extra time on your hands to make warmer clothing - became a matter of improvement - making farmers redundant on a massive scale in the 17th and 18th centuries resulted ultimately in enough spare workforce that we could send all our kids to college today rather than having them all gather crops.

The process that Schumpeter referred to as creative destruction has been with us for thousands of years. Taking an advanced economy and trying to retool it to do old work again is Trumpism, which isn't going to last more than a few more weeks.

[uwot]

All of human history is dominated by a single process in which we take our collective labour to manufacture stuff that we need, and we find ways to use less of our human work hours to make that stuff, so that we can use more of them to make things we want.

Maybe I'm a Bolshie, but if I had to choose one single process, it would be the subjugation of collective labour by gangsters.

After a while, some of that becomes stuff we now need (much to the annoyance of Henry etc), and we move onto new stuff we want. Reversing that to suddenly use as many man hours as possible just to make stuff won't work out.

I'm really not advocating any reversal. No doubt it is naïve, but as a bleeding heart Guardian reader, I would wish that everyone at least had the opportunity to feel that they were contributing. As a slightly more hard nosed Times reader, I would hope that people didn't feel so useless that they latch onto the sort of fuckwittery the disenfranchised currently hoover up.

Taking an advanced economy and trying to retool it to do old work again is Trumpism, which isn't going to last more than a few more weeks.

Oh fuck. Am I really a Trumpist? Make Humanity Great Again! This isn't my purview. What do I need to know?

[FlashDangerpants]

All of human history is dominated by a single process in which we take our collective labour to manufacture stuff that we need, and we find ways to use less of our human work hours to make that stuff, so that we can use more of them to make things we want.

Maybe I'm a Bolshie, but if I had to choose one single process, it would be the subjugation of collective labour by gangsters.

That's true enough I guess. However the forces of conservatism don't really bring about much change. What I describe covers the rise of the bourgeoisie if we want to use Marxist terminology as well as the rise of the capitalist, and is the background against which all those other conflicts play out.

After a while, some of that becomes stuff we now need (much to the annoyance of Henry etc), and we move onto new stuff we want. Reversing that to suddenly use as many man hours as possible just to make stuff won't work out.

I'm really not advocating any reversal. No doubt it is naïve, but as a bleeding heart Guardian reader, I would wish that everyone at least had the opportunity to feel that they were contributing. As a slightly more hard nosed Times reader, I would hope that people didn't feel so useless that they latch onto the sort of fuckwittery the disenfranchised currently hoover up.

As a neoliberal I think it's good that we don't do subsistence farming or 60 hour working weeks any more. I look forward to us being able to spend 3 days a week at work and the rest of our time doing what seems nice to us, and I hope that this lifestyle becomes available in Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Vietnam before too long as well. There's really no particular reason anyone should be left out. If the Chinese actually wanted to become a hellish sweatshop to further that aim for the rest of us, that would be sad, but they don't, they want to become a mostly services economy and enjoy those benefits too.

Taking an advanced economy and trying to retool it to do old work again is Trumpism, which isn't going to last more than a few more weeks.

Oh fuck. Am I really a Trumpist? Make Humanity Great Again! This isn't my purview. What do I need to know?

Donald Trump basically shares the same intuitions that most people assume prior to asking any experts. We assume that debt is morally bad, that trade deficits are signals of failure, that money exists as something, that in every transaction there is a winner and a loser. All of these are actually wrong.

Another such mistake is that there are these special jobs that have extra virtue because they are about really making things instead of just selling them or something. These are the "real jobs", in the "real economy". Apparently they are honest work because of the dirt, or the physical pain they inflict or something. It all gets very mystical and poetic whenever somebody tries to explain what is so good about them. We can make robots do them all for us, so we will.