The Chinese Century

[Derek Thunder]

A recent discussion on NPR's Fresh Aire (interview can be found here) sparked a moment of introspection about the future of the United States in the shadow its primary economic competitor, China. One of the main themes of the discussion was the rapid industrialization and modernization China has been undergoing since 1991, and the phenomenal economic growth over the past decade (8-12% annual increases in GDP). America is not necessarily lacking in natural resources, our population is large, and we do have a respectable community of scientists, engineers, and planners, but for some reason we seem to be standing still in comparison. Could it be that our moribund political system is holding us back, and should we look to our Eastern neighbor for solutions?

A Tale of Two Stimuli

One recent example that favors China is the response to the global recession of 2008. Both the US and China agreed that a Keynesian response was required, but the breakdown of the stimulus packages reveals a fundamental disconnect between long-term planning on the one hand, and political convenience on the other.

China's stimulus package (detailed here) contains approximately 220 billion dollars worth of spending just on infrastructure (roads, high-speed rail projects, ports). Additionally, 54 billion is earmarked for basic technology research on top of spending for sustainable technology development. Essentially, it's a stimulus package geared entirely towards long-term success, creating the groundwork for a more advanced manufacturing and commerce economy. It's forward-thinking and ambitious.

The stimulus package passed by the United States (here), however, is a much more mixed affair, dictated by a bizarre legislative system. The largest single provision of the act is tax cuts, politically popular but of dubious value (see here). A large portion of additional monies (health care/education) seem to be things that should not require a crisis for funding. State aid is useful, but highlights shortcomings in the ways states collect revenues. The US stimulus is larger in totality, but contains less money for long-term infrastructure projects. Basic science receives a very tiny portion of the bill.

It seems simple enough to recall the extreme political wrangling that occurred during the stimulus debate as a stronger bill was watered down by Blue Dogs and Republicans to include more tax cuts, while shrinking the bill overall (the Senate especially). In a body where the majority ostensibly rules, the threat of a filibuster put an enormous amount of pressure on Democrats to weaken the bill as to appeal to individuals like Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman.

"Economic Ground Game"

It goes without saying that China's economic hopes are pinned to the idea of being the world's manufacturing base. China has huge export surpluses, producing goods that are shipped around the world. Once a rural farm economy that produced only small quantities of low-quality disposables (toys, etc), China now has a booming high-tech industry that produces goods necessary for our modern existence. China's government actively encourages this by targeted stimulus and promoting science and engineering to students.

The United States, on the other hand, promotes an economy increasing based on debt-shuffling. Lax regulations and low taxes on capital gains have created a system where the fastest route to wealth is the reorganization and resale of debt, rather than creating any goods of real value. Roads and bridges crumble while the government slacks on any meaningful regulation of get-rich-quick derivatives markets or the unethical practices of private equity firms that gut companies for short-term profits, then sell off the carcass. Indeed, the very economic collapse that caused the stimulus debate in the first place was caused by this unhealthy system. No action has of yet been taken to repair this issue, as a privately-funded campaign system ensures that the continued employment of any politician requires being on the friendly side of such interests.

The Difference

The main difference between the two systems seems to be the means of affecting policy. China's one-party system (hereby termed Jintao-ist Third-Worldism or JTW for short) brooks no opposition and is unhindered in its attempts to provide economic stability and ensure its own survival. It is authoritarian, but it is technocratic and hearkens back to the civil-service system China has utilized since the early days of Confucianism. The American system, on the other hand, is inexorably tied to the whims of its financiers. There is a fundamental barrier between the civil servants and elected policymakers and their political appointees (thank Jackson and the spoils system). This is not to say that the Chinese system is spotless in terms of its human rights record, but this is a debate fundamentally about economic survival. While our system seems unable to take on any projects of significance in a bold fashion (see health care), JTWism seems vital, responsive, and forward looking. Is it time for the United States to consider adopting the JTWist political system as a means to ensure economic competitiveness in the 21st century and beyond?

[General Havoc]

I literally do not have time to express in all the manifest fullness of my rhetorical capacities how absolutely and completely this article or dissertation is wrong.

It is total, frivolous, craptrap. If I get the time to explain why, I will do so, but not one word within it is anything but absurd.

[Ace Pace]

and yet it has nothing to do with DB. moving up.

[Stofsk]

Havoc if you think something is wrong then please outline, even briefly, why you think it is wrong. It does no good to give a couple of one-liners about how you think something is wrong without demonstrating why.

[SirNitram]

I find it claptrap from the usual brigade, as it ignores the endemic problems China has. It's rural majority is in open revolt, the excessive censorship is driving away talent, and a single party system has been shown again and again to be corrupt.

[General Havoc]

I more or less agree with Nitram (I know, I'm astonished too), but I would go a shade further than that. This article is inane, and the author who wrote it is a fool. He wishes to make the claim that the US political system is "moribund", and that the Chinese system he is lauding is by comparison a dynamic powerhouse worthy of claiming the leadership of this century. In doing so, he has indicated to me in no uncertain terms that he has no conception of what the Chinese system is, nor for that matter any real understanding of the American one.

To begin with, the notion that this century, in which we have lived nine years, can be claimed to belong to anybody is completely asinine. An observer in 1909 would have looked at the world and declared with equal assurance that he was witnessing the dawn of the German century, for Germany was a powerful, industrializing, autocratic regime whose stated goal was to usurp Britain's place in the order of things and dominate the world. Lest you doubt me, H. G. Wells did just that at around the same period. Ask yourself how well that prediction turned out?

But leaving such notions aside, not one thing this author has claimed even remotely resembles the truth. He takes a series of perceived US "failings" and contrasts them with cherry-picked and wholly misunderstood "virtues" of the Chinese political system. He argues for example that China has allocated 220 billion dollars in infrastructural projects, and contrasts that with the US program that has allocated somewhat less. He neglects to mention that of the monies that the Chinese allocated towards that same goal last year not one cent was actually spent on the programs in question. China's government (and by extension economy, for the two are in many ways the same thing) labors under a degree of official corruption that would make the Syrian Ministry of Finance blush. I'll remind you that this is the same infrastructure-happy country wherein the last earthquake collapsed tens of thousands of buildings and schools that had been supposedly earthquake-proofed, revealing that the necessary funds had been stolen or siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats in every single case. And when the parents of slain children protested this and demanded a reckoning, they were arrested, beaten, and shot. Say what you will about the US stimulus package, but I have some faith that the money allocated will in most cases actually go to the projects specified, and that those who object to the allocations in question are reasonably assured of waking up alive the next day.

Moreover, the author objects to the allocations of the US stimulus funds, saying that in contrast to the "long-term" spending of the Chinese system, the US squandered much of its stimulus on frivolous spending such as healthcare and educational spending. I confess, I do not comprehend by what metrics spending on education is to be considered anything but Long-Term, nor do I interpret a government spending money on improving those things as a sign of societal degeneracy. Is it this author's assertion that China will usurp our position in the world because we idiotically spent money educating our children, and they did not?

But these are mere nitpicks compared to the idiotic claptrap that is the meat of this author's argument. He recites the tired old claim that China is to be stronger than the US because we engage in lengthy debate and "bizarre" legislative processes, rather than the decisive action that China's semi-oligarchical dictatorship is capable of.

Forgive me, but I shall at this time cite Churchill's oft-repeated quote that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others that have been tried. Despite what the inane drivel of this author, plurality of opinion is not a vice, even when some of those opinions tend to differ from your own, nor is enforced unanimity of opinion a virtue. Oh they can appear to be such things, when ignorant people (such as this author) recite the old, tired notion of "if only everyone would do what I want!" The author cites the fact that concessions were made to Blue Dogs and republicans so as to pass the stimulus, forgetting conveniently the enormous debates that took place within the democratic party itself, concerning the size of the stimulus, and the purposes to which it was to be set. The resulting bill is not perfect. I have spilled ink personally regarding its shortcomings, but it has at least stood the crucible of the legislative process, one this author describes as “bizarreâ€

[Comrade Tortoise]

With Derek's permission I am outing this thread.

Frigid put him, our resident parody artiste' up to posting this, said he didnt have the Cajones. Derek proved him wrong.

You all get this? This was parody, and the fact that you responded to something so fiercely that was originally posted in Down Below speaks to its skilled application.

[rhoenix]

... An elegantly written troll article. Well played.

Even so, seeing those points enumerated was good to see, and proved to start a few good conversations.

[General Havoc]

And?

Forgive me, but I do not care to speculate as to the purposes for which someone posted this feigned article. Either the article was posted because the person who posted it agrees with the sentiments involved, or the article was posted because the person who posted it wishes to give the impression that he does. So in other words, either the OP is stupid, or he wishes to be perceived as stupid. I simply fail to see the difference, in practice, between the two.

Either way, he made a post in the News forum, and I answered it in full detail. I do not regret doing so, and stand by the assertions I have made therein. What games you people choose to play surrounding the practice of "trolling" are entirely immaterial to me. The arguments are still idiotic, and at request, I have illustrated the manner in which they are so.

Or would Mr. Thunder prefer that I assume all posts he makes in the future are merely being made for the purposes of being stupid?

[The Minx]

The OP was a well written parody no doubt about that, but the response was even better.

Love your rants, General Havoc. :luv: ^^

[Comrade Tortoise]

Havoc you are a fucking moron who does not understand parody. That you are

Forgive me, but I do not care to speculate as to the purposes for which someone posted this feigned article.

You dont have to. I am giving it to you. I have known both people involved in this little joke for Years. Personally. It was a dare to parody and a troll. Nothing more

or he wishes to be perceived as stupid.

Or he wants to get a rise out of people through parodying insane ideologies and applying Poes Law, like The Onion. That you refuse to chuckle, admit you were had, and then continue to rant only makes it more amusing. You are squirming and stewing in order to save face.

Either way, he made a post in the News forum

No. AcePace moved it from DB, as per his post.

Or would Mr. Thunder prefer that I assume all posts he makes in the future are merely being made for the purposes of being stupid?

If you are that stupid yourself, go ahead. As a general rule, if it sounds insane then you are seeing him engage in parody. That is how I do it. That and the giggling that happens when we try to argue.

[rhoenix]

So the "IT WAS A JOKE DAMMIT LAUGH" crowd is getting upset because...it turned into something of a discussion?

Whatev, get cranky about it all you want, but the OP article and Havoc's response have already sparked some interesting debates and discussions. So, though he evidently didn't mean to actually cause something so terrible as a discission, Derek Thunder has my thanks for starting it.

My thanks to AcePace as well for being complicit enough to give the OP some semblance of feasibility by moving it to the N&P forum.

[General Havoc]

Havoc you are a fucking moron who does not understand parody.

No sir, I understand parody quite well. That this was parody in no way alters the discussion I came here to have. Your revelation as to the motivation for the posting of this article does not interest me, nor does your opinion as to my mental capacities. Now fuck off.

Or he wants to get a rise out of people through parodying insane ideologies and applying Poes Law, like The Onion. That you refuse to chuckle, admit you were had, and then continue to rant only makes it more amusing. You are squirming and stewing in order to save face.

Oh I was certainly "had". I believed that the article was in earnest and responded to it appropriately. I confess that it did not cross my mind that someone should wish to be thought of as the author of such things unless they believed them, but then different strokes and all that...

Of course given that you had nothing to do with it, by your own admission, that you now walk into this thread for the purpose of calling me a moron for arguing a political point in a political forum indicates to me that you are an ignorant shit who has not the wherewithal to debate matters. Mr. Thunder, at the least, had the wit and skill to disguise his intentions with a reasonably well-articulated series of points, sufficient for me to respond to them in a comprehensive manner. You however show no evidence that you have even the first idea what we are talking about, and are thus wasting my time. Go away.

If you are that stupid yourself, go ahead. As a general rule, if it sounds insane then you are seeing him engage in parody. That is how I do it. That and the giggling that happens when we try to argue.

You mistake my lack of interest for lack of aptitude. I will make this plain. I don't care why someone posts a thing. I will treat it as the thing itself. To do otherwise is to appeal to motive, which is a fallacy. If Derek Thunder was not arguing in earnest, then he at least had the rhetorical skill to convince me that he was (perhaps he was practicing Ersetics?). Either way, I stand by the points I made in response.

The OP was a well written parody no doubt about that, but the response was even better.

Love your rants, General Havoc. :luv: ^^

Why thank you kindly. And I agree, it was a very well written parody. It resembled faultlessly the sorts of arguments one sees about the subject. Hell, I believed it was from a magazine (one of the dimmer ones, like Newsweek).

[Comrade Tortoise]

My revelation of the joke nature of this thread was a mod action. I am a supermod on this board last I checked.

You are not an idiot for responding and you have no reason to regret posting it. It was not my intention to indicate that it was. You did however not seem to take the joke for what it was after it was revealed. That was why I called you an idiot

To whit:

Of course given that you had nothing to do with it, by your own admission, that you now walk into this thread for the purpose of calling me a moron for arguing a political point in a political forum indicates to me that you are an ignorant shit who has not the wherewithal to debate matters.

No. I was not calling you a moron because you argued the matter. I was calling you a moron because you seemed to be acting butthurt about it afterwards. Perhaps however one of us or both are having linguistic difficulties.

take this for example.

Forgive me, but I do not care to speculate as to the purposes for which someone posted this feigned article.

This indicates that you do not take my Outing of the Troll at face value. Now given the statement you just made it is clear to me that you meant this in the Past Tense. However you spoke in the present tense

.
You however show no evidence that you have even the first idea what we are talking about, and are thus wasting my time. Go away.

That is the whole point. Even if I did not know what you were discussing, I know that the argument was not genuine. Hence the outing of the original post. I do on the other hand know what the "discussion" was regarding, and there is no debate on the subject matter that will occur. He posted to see if someone would bite. He had no intention of actually trying to defend the position. I know, because I asked before I ever posted.

You mistake my lack of interest for lack of aptitude.

This is what you said

Or would Mr. Thunder prefer that I assume all posts he makes in the future are merely being made for the purposes of being stupid?

That is a question about whether you ought summarily dismiss all his posts. That is not a question of lack of interest. I informed you that doing so would be a moronic thing to do. Now, your intention may have been otherwise, but I also cannot appeal to motive.

Now, I will admit that I misread your statement. I apologize for insulting you.

[frigidmagi]

I honestly didn't think he do it. I owe you a cookie Derek. Name your poison sir.

That said, here is what was meant to be. Derek suggest this thread and asked if it was going to far. My first knee jerk response was yes, then I actually thought about it. Derek was suggesting frankly a weak position, easy to take by storm if anyone thought about it, but would anyone take the time and effort to debate this? More importantly it hit me that I had heard words like this in the past, I'm a firm believer of dragging shit out into the light. Derek at least was just trying to out crazy the birthers here. Call it a controlled experiment. Also, I bluntly didn't believe Derek had the fucking balls to post something so clearly bat shit insane. To be fair, telling him that was kinda like salting the wound.

In the spirit of that, I would like to see some reasoned out replies with a minimum of screaming hate and invective. You can throw that at me if you like. We'll call it a debate post, your mission if you chose to accept it is to present a reasoned, rational argument with sources if you like defending the American Political System versus the Chinese Political System in this regard. Is a two party democracy better for economics then a single party kleptocracy. Now I know it's in vogue to sneer, insult and throw manly disdain at the opposing side and fair enough there's certainly a place for that, but let's see if we can do it the other way this time. Call me nutty. Hell I was planning on doing a long response in defense of America (it's what I do right?) Monday after finishing my round at work this weekend.

That said I will apologize for any hurt feelings, that wasn't my intention. And to give credit where credit is due, I enjoyed Havoc's 3 page rant to. It was one of your better ones man.

[General Havoc]

Hey, like I said, it was well done. I assumed on reading it that it was derived from one of the newsmagazines. That's the reason I referred to "the author" as being stupid and ignorant so many times. It did not occur to me that the author was someone on the board, or I would have been more circumspect (... maybe). I assumed this was one of those opinion page editorial rants from the back pages of Newsweek or some such, and thus I went after them wholesale.

As to your challenge, Frigid, while my rant was filled with disdain and insult, it also contains most of the points I would make surrounding such a thing. I'll see if I can muster up the wherewithal to illustrate them in a slightly less disdainful manner.

[Hadrianvs]

To begin with, the notion that this century, in which we have lived nine years, can be claimed to belong to anybody is completely asinine. An observer in 1909 would have looked at the world and declared with equal assurance that he was witnessing the dawn of the German century, for Germany was a powerful, industrializing, autocratic regime whose stated goal was to usurp Britain's place in the order of things and dominate the world. Lest you doubt me, H. G. Wells did just that at around the same period. Ask yourself how well that prediction turned out?

A more astute observer would have placed their bets on the United States of America and Russia. Or to quote Alexis the Toqueville "There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans... Each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world." That was in 1835...

I think it is possible to make very general predictions of how the future will turn out with careful analysis of existing trends. Off hand I would say that the United States will probably remain at the head of the world for some time to come, but will experience some level of relative decline. Almost assuredly from the European Union solidifying, maybe the industrialization of India, maybe from the industrialization of China, and maybe from the Russians getting their shit together. So we're probably looking at anywhere between two and five powers dominating world affairs over the next century.

[Steve]

De Tocqueville had a very good reason for his prediction, as both nations (the US and Russia) had access to a large mostly untapped continent that they would, in the course of a hundred years, eventually settle and begin developing. He figured that the possible mineral wealth and other bounties of these regions would indeed fuel the rise of the USA and Russia as the world's dominant powers.

And of course he was eventually proven right... 110 years after he made that prediction.

[General Havoc]

While de Tocqueville was right, and no doubt had good reasons for his prediction, his was one prediction out of thousands made regarding all manner of ascendancies and world dominations that were inevitably to come in the 20th century. Everything from predictions of China's domination of the world by 1930 to Germany's to Russia's conquest of the European continent were made by all manner of learned men, who each had their reasons for doing so. No doubt one of the ten thousand predictors nowadays is right, but determining which one is unlikely to bear a lot of fruit.

[Steve]

Well, history is a complex beast. de Tocqueville's prediction may have not born fruit had Lee's General Order not been lost in 1862, or if Sherman's army had been held outside Atlanta until November 1864. It was predicated upon the US of A remaining a whole nation; a further-divided North America with potential for conflict and other division would have thwarted that.

From the other end, Russia had little real risk of division, but if a very complex series of events had torn it apart in civil war or retarded its exploration into Siberia, the same thing may have happened.

[The Minx]

The Civil War was pretty one-sided in terms of raw power, though.

Even if more things would have gone wrong for the North, I don't really think the South could have held out in the long run.

[Hadrianvs]

Even if the South had managed to win, I honestly doubt it would have affected the United State's strength as a world power much.

[frigidmagi]

It wouldn't have, but it would have affected our priorities and concerns. One of the big reasons behind at least some of the US' actions throughout that time was the knowledge that well... No one could really hit us at home. We were practically untouchable (something I've read Bismark really envied). In the very unlikely case of a southern victory that changes, we have to invest in defense against the south and that will always have our first attention.