Collingwood wrote:

The economic new from China is not good, and the political risks are large.

Many commentators, as recently as a month ago, were predicting that China would emerge relatively unscathed and power a global recovery. That nchinever seemed likely to me. The CPC has organised the country on the Japanese and South Korean style venture in export maximization driven by currency undervaluation. To be sure, they have a large buffer of foreign reserves, but turning foreign reserves into jobs is not straightforward, and even China's forex stock could be burnt through before this is over.

China has a number of problems. First, there is the old problem of state owned companies and banks. These are losing money. But they cannot be closed down because the unemployment will cause riots. Banks are ordered to continue to lend to them without hope of recovering the money. China needs fast economic growth through exports to keep the state owned banks and companies from going bust. Now with exports crashing, things are looking serious. The huge forex reserves should act as a cushion for a period of time.

How much time? I don't know. But the longer this thing lasts, the greater the risk of social unrest.

Secondly, there is tension between rich coastal provinces and poor interior provinces where the majority lives. Beijing will have to squeeze the coastal provinces to feed the interior. This will cause the coastal provinces unhappiness.

Collingwood wrote:

The economic new from China is not good, and the political risks are large.

Many commentators, as recently as a month ago, were predicting that China would emerge relatively unscathed and power a global recovery. That never seemed likely to me. The CPC has organised the country on the Japanese and South Korean style venture in export maximization driven by currency undervaluation. To be sure, they have a large buffer of foreign reserves, but turning foreign reserves into jobs is not straightforward, and even China's forex stock could be burnt through before this is over.

China is a country with a great balance sheet - with the largest surpluses in the world. These surpluses have been exported, exchanged for claims on foreign economies (assets), which will have to be repaid, with interest. Moreover, her people are productive, and each of them, from the least to the greatest, finds ways to save over 50% of his/her income. Chinese individuals are producing far more than they consume. If the US will not take Chinese goods, the Chinese people will have to enjoy their own surplus production (all the Walmart stuff), and what a bonanza that will be! Living standards would rise two to three fold instantly. China's problems are demand-side and amenable to demand-side solutions (Keynesian stimulus packages), US economic woes are supply-side related (low productivity, poor balance sheet, debt-funded consumption), and are therefore profound and perhaps ultimately insoluble in the long run. US GDP is currently about 20-30% above its sustainable level. That is the measure by which US households must eventually reduce their consumption, and the extent of the correction we will see in the next 5 years.

ethan_jin wrote:

Collingwood wrote:

The economic new from China is not good, and the political risks are large.

Many commentators, as recently as a month ago, were predicting that China would emerge relatively unscathed and power a global recovery. That never seemed likely to me. The CPC has organised the country on the Japanese and South Korean style venture in export maximization driven by currency undervaluation. To be sure, they have a large buffer of foreign reserves, but turning foreign reserves into jobs is not straightforward, and even China's forex stock could be burnt through before this is over.

I wasn't. I was saying that they were lying. And I was right.

ethan_jin wrote:

China is a country with a great balance sheet - with the largest surpluses in the world. These surpluses have been exported, exchanged for claims on foreign economies (assets), which will have to be repaid, with interest. Moreover, her people are productive, and each of them, from the least to the greatest, finds ways to save over 50% of his/her income.

That's because China has a large local investment demand that can be reasonably met by the incomes of Chinese people and that the economic lives of the average people of China are fairly sad by Western standards. It isn't because you're more moral than Europeans, sorry to say. It's because Chinese people do the same cost/benefit analysis on all possible ways to spend money and, because of their situation, saving is better.

ethan_jin wrote:

Chinese individuals are producing far more than they consume. If the US will not take Chinese goods, the Chinese people will have to enjoy their own surplus production (all the Walmart stuff), and what a bonanza that will be! Living standards would rise two to three fold instantly.

Yes, well, that's nonsense. Best of luck with that, though. To do that you'd either have to cut the prices the goods are selling for, in which case the factories will go bankrupt, or increase the salaries that factory workers are making so that they can afford them, in which case the factories will go bankrupt. You don't have the productivity to create a better lifestyle or you already would have.

ethan_jin wrote:

China's problems are demand-side and amenable to demand-side solutions (Keynesian stimulus packages).

I hate the word "problems." China doesn't have "problems," it just lacks the strength of a modern economy. Specifically, its people are less educated, have less capital, inferior infrastructure, and much lower productivity. These are all improving. China has been doing better every year, thanks to foreign investment and the raw might of the West's economic power exporting jobs to China. But China is living on the surplus of the West's high standards of living, and will be hurt badly by any downturn.

ethan_jin wrote:

US economic woes are supply-side related (low productivity, poor balance sheet, debt-funded consumption), and are therefore profound and perhaps ultimately insoluble in the long run.

Right. No, actually, US workers are the most productive in the world. None beat them. And there is no field in which this is not true. American industry is preposterously productive. And they gain 10% a year, or at least have for decades now. American agriculture is by far the world's most productive. American service industries are, though by smaller margins, the world's most productive. American entertainment industries are by orders of magnitude the world's most productive. They spend more money than they should, but will cut back and spend less than they should before spending more than they should again. That's just how that works. I'm not concerned in the least.

ethan_jin wrote:

US GDP is currently about 20-30% above its sustainable level. That is the measure by which US households must eventually reduce their consumption, and the extent of the correction we will see in the next 5 years.

Now you're just being silly. 20-30% over sustainable levels? Please. The Americans will save more, and their GDP will continue to increase.

Quote:

Right. No, actually, US workers are the most productive in the world. None beat them. And there is no field in which this is not true. American industry is preposterously productive. And they gain 10% a year, or at least have for decades now. American agriculture is by far the world's most productive. American service industries are, though by smaller margins, the world's most productive. American entertainment industries are by orders of magnitude the world's most productive. They spend more money than they should, but will cut back and spend less than they should before spending more than they should again. That's just how that works. I'm not concerned in the least.

I noticed that you cited agriculture, services, and entertainment. But what about the other industries?

What about the auto industry, for example?

I think it's dangerous to believe in the basic superiority of American industry. Companies can and do become less competitive for many reasons.

Having one of the best foundations in the world helps, but it's not a guarantee against incompetency.

Also, I do think that China's economy has "problems," particularly political ones.

Lathdrinor wrote:

Quote:

Right. No, actually, US workers are the most productive in the world. None beat them. And there is no field in which this is not true. American industry is preposterously productive. And they gain 10% a year, or at least have for decades now. American agriculture is by far the world's most productive. American service industries are, though by smaller margins, the world's most productive. American entertainment industries are by orders of magnitude the world's most productive. They spend more money than they should, but will cut back and spend less than they should before spending more than they should again. That's just how that works. I'm not concerned in the least.

I noticed that you cited agriculture, services, and entertainment. But what about the other industries?

What about the auto industry, for example?

I think it's dangerous to believe in the basic superiority of American industry. Companies can and do become less competitive for many reasons.

Having one of the best foundations in the world helps, but it's not a guarantee against incompetency.

Also, I do think that China's economy has "problems," particularly political ones.

Yes this is true, America has a constant battle against incompetence simply because the wages necessary just to keep basic services going are higher than in China.

Still, corruption is more easily ventilated and liquidated here. A bridge to nowhere is not a scandal in China, it's life.

Lathdrinor wrote:

Quote:

Right. No, actually, US workers are the most productive in the world. None beat them. And there is no field in which this is not true. American industry is preposterously productive. And they gain 10% a year, or at least have for decades now. American agriculture is by far the world's most productive. American service industries are, though by smaller margins, the world's most productive. American entertainment industries are by orders of magnitude the world's most productive. They spend more money than they should, but will cut back and spend less than they should before spending more than they should again. That's just how that works. I'm not concerned in the least.

I noticed that you cited agriculture, services, and entertainment. But what about the other industries?

What about the auto industry, for example?

I think it's dangerous to believe in the basic superiority of American industry. Companies can and do become less competitive for many reasons.

Having one of the best foundations in the world helps, but it's not a guarantee against incompetency.

Also, I do think that China's economy has "problems," particularly political ones.

When I said 'industry' I meant manufacturing. And I do not believe that American business is superior to other kinds of business. I'm not making a value judgment. I'm pointing out that it is, by leaps and bounds, more productive. And since what I want business to do is make things, I don't care about anything else. I imagine you feel the same way. As to their 'continued dominance:' the only thing they can change is the rate at which they become wealthier. And if someone surpasses them by growing more quickly it makes no difference to me. On the other hand, nobody is even coming close at the moment, and I don't see that changing any time soon, rendering any discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various economic systems and cultures pointless until such time as some economy is actually benefiting itself by deviating from the American/Western/Protestant economic or social norm.

Sadly I can't post URL, if a forum veteran could, I would greatly appreciate it.


The Euro-nationalist/Conservative blog Brussels Journal has a post (From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 5: From Screeching Cats to SDG) concerning the Essay China's Six to one Advantage. I thought Spengler might be interested to see Mr. Seiyo's disagreements.

Also interesting is the link several paragraphs down, reporting that china is producing an army of 50,000 geologists to Americas 500.

... And I was to become a Geologist.

Here it is. Glad to do it:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3700

Quote:

Spengler’s December 1 much-quoted essay for Asia Times was entitled China’s six-to-one advantage over the US. In it, Spengler expounded on an issue I had commented on before, for it impresses daily on the mind of the thinking Westerner who lives in the Orient. I last expressed it in these words:

“China has 30 million students of classical piano and 10 million classical violinists. America has 40 million of ¿Tiene Preguntas? China has 50,000 students of geology who will be launched all over the world to look for new sources of raw materials. America has 500 students of geology, most of them foreigners, but 50,000 students in law schools.”

The Far East, in this case China, is running circles around the West, particularly with respect to the U.S. Frankenstein that hot-wired this Oriental colossus. Spengler adduces China’s six-to-one advantage in the number of classical pianists as an indication that China is rising to a dominant position versus the United States – and Europe, we might add.

“Chinese parents are selling plasma-screen TVs to America,” writes Spengler, “and saving their wages to buy their kids pianos - making American kids stupider and Chinese kids smarter. Watch out, Americans - a generation from now, your kid is going to fetch coffee for a Chinese boss. [snip] Americans really, really don’t have a clue what is coming down the pike. The present shift in intellectual capital in favor of the East has no precedent in world history.”

Spengler continues, “The world’s largest country is well along the way to forming an intellectual elite on a scale that the world has never seen, and against which nothing in today’s world [snip] can compete. Few of its piano students will earn a living at the keyboard, to be sure, but many of the 36 million will become much better scientists, engineers, physicians, businessmen and military officers.”

Or, maybe this is the interesting quote:

Quote:

I don’t know much about the next generation of anti-missile radar and electric car batteries that Spengler projects from Lang Lang’s playing. But as a son of a mother who, like many such Polish mothers of her social class, wanted her son to be another Frederic Chopin, I know something about piano playing.

So listen up. Lang Lang’s performance of Mozart’s 24th Concerto conjures irresistibly Noel Coward’s quip that Mozart’s music is “like piddling on flannel.” And seeing Lang Lang’s playing, doubles that impression.

This is Mozart by a musical prodigy who doesn’t understand Mozart. Lang is a technical wizard with a perfect memory and total control of his fingers and his instrument. But one whose idea of Mozart must have come from the frilly portraits on confectionery wrappers and gilded souvenir saucers he may have bought as a tourist in Salzburg.

Mozart could ride a horse, punch a man, insult a prince, belch and fart heartily. He has probably dallied with more than a few wenches standing up on a dark staircase with odors of boiling potatoes and sizzling speck wafting about. This was no silk-stockinged court poodle, piddling on flannel while standing on brocade – though he may have played that role when necessary.

There is strength, vigor, grandeur, defiance, resilience, even force in Mozart, not just streams of little pearls spilling from Meissen porcelain. And Lang Lang’s 24th Concerto misses all that. To him, Mozart is a technical exercise in delicate finesse. But to a thinking, feeling Westerner, Mozart is a spiritual epiphany and a testimony to God's greatness.

Izzrdgrrl, thanks for the post.

Lang Lang's Mozart certainly leaves something to be desired, and I don't know how much I disagree with the riposte; in my essay I had said that he was no Murray Perahia or Radu Lupu. There are better pianists than Lang Lang in incubation in the next generation; I have heard some of them at private conservatory concerts. Nonetheless Lang Lang understands that there is a joke to get, and avoids playing the K. 491 with the soporific seriousness that plagues virtually all of the commercially-available interpretations.

But Mozart as evidence of God's greatness is a bit of a stretch. Take Cosi fan Tutte, in which the basest motives and worst sort of petty betrayal are glorified by music worth of his D Minor Requiem. Mozart is ambiguous. Or take Don Giovanni, an object lesson in why no-one should try to convert Jews. Da Ponte gives us a civil society composed of fools who each encounter evil (untrammeled lust and self-interest) in the form of Don Giovanni, and all in turn are bested by him, until a Deus (or Diabolus) ex Machina drags him down to Hell -- leaving his victims just as stupid as they were before.

If the author at Brussels Journal wants to say that the Chinese haven't yet cracked the code, as it were, I would agree, with the proviso that it is next to impossible to hear Mozart played well any more by anyone (find the old Horszowski performance of the Mozart G minor Piano Quartet with the Budapest String Quartet for an example of who he should be played) -- except the Chinese pianists who are likely to get Mozart right already are at the starting gate.

What ludicrous pseudo-scientific crap. Its hard to imagine Takuan Seiyo takes himself seriously and he has a terribly poor facility for statistics if his brain-dumps in the article are anything to go by - what the hell is a self-profession of being a 'cultural Christian' anyway but a euphemistic way of saying "help, I'm horribly confused"?

Finally, one last minor point of correction - get it into your head Seiyo, the Chinese don't practice eugenics.

lzzrdgrrl wrote:

Here it is. Glad to do it:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3700

Quote:

Spengler’s December 1 much-quoted essay for Asia Times was entitled China’s six-to-one advantage over the US. In it, Spengler expounded on an issue I had commented on before, for it impresses daily on the mind of the thinking Westerner who lives in the Orient. I last expressed it in these words:

“China has 30 million students of classical piano and 10 million classical violinists. America has 40 million of ¿Tiene Preguntas? China has 50,000 students of geology who will be launched all over the world to look for new sources of raw materials. America has 500 students of geology, most of them foreigners, but 50,000 students in law schools.”

The Far East, in this case China, is running circles around the West, particularly with respect to the U.S. Frankenstein that hot-wired this Oriental colossus. Spengler adduces China’s six-to-one advantage in the number of classical pianists as an indication that China is rising to a dominant position versus the United States – and Europe, we might add.

“Chinese parents are selling plasma-screen TVs to America,” writes Spengler, “and saving their wages to buy their kids pianos - making American kids stupider and Chinese kids smarter. Watch out, Americans - a generation from now, your kid is going to fetch coffee for a Chinese boss. [snip] Americans really, really don’t have a clue what is coming down the pike. The present shift in intellectual capital in favor of the East has no precedent in world history.”

Spengler continues, “The world’s largest country is well along the way to forming an intellectual elite on a scale that the world has never seen, and against which nothing in today’s world [snip] can compete. Few of its piano students will earn a living at the keyboard, to be sure, but many of the 36 million will become much better scientists, engineers, physicians, businessmen and military officers.”

Or, maybe this is the interesting quote:

Quote:

I don’t know much about the next generation of anti-missile radar and electric car batteries that Spengler projects from Lang Lang’s playing. But as a son of a mother who, like many such Polish mothers of her social class, wanted her son to be another Frederic Chopin, I know something about piano playing.

So listen up. Lang Lang’s performance of Mozart’s 24th Concerto conjures irresistibly Noel Coward’s quip that Mozart’s music is “like piddling on flannel.” And seeing Lang Lang’s playing, doubles that impression.

This is Mozart by a musical prodigy who doesn’t understand Mozart. Lang is a technical wizard with a perfect memory and total control of his fingers and his instrument. But one whose idea of Mozart must have come from the frilly portraits on confectionery wrappers and gilded souvenir saucers he may have bought as a tourist in Salzburg.

Mozart could ride a horse, punch a man, insult a prince, belch and fart heartily. He has probably dallied with more than a few wenches standing up on a dark staircase with odors of boiling potatoes and sizzling speck wafting about. This was no silk-stockinged court poodle, piddling on flannel while standing on brocade – though he may have played that role when necessary.

There is strength, vigor, grandeur, defiance, resilience, even force in Mozart, not just streams of little pearls spilling from Meissen porcelain. And Lang Lang’s 24th Concerto misses all that. To him, Mozart is a technical exercise in delicate finesse. But to a thinking, feeling Westerner, Mozart is a spiritual epiphany and a testimony to God's greatness.

Last edited by ethan_jin on Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:20 pm; edited 2 times in total

The only really satisfactory performance I ever have heard of the Mozart C Minor Concerto is a pirate of Horszowski at the Casals Festival in Puerto Rico some time during the 1960s, with Alexander Schneider conducting. I own a dozen others -- Perahia, Rubenstein, Solomon, Klien, Barenboim, Brendel, etc...

Lang Lang leaves a lot to be desired, but so does Perahia, without doubt our greatest pianist. Perahia recorded the whole Mozart series when in his 20s; I wonder what he would do today? I heard him play Beethoven's response, the 3rd Concerto in C Minor, with Sawallisch some years ago, and it was jaw-dropping.

I have read the whole Brussels Journal piece and must agree with Ethan_Jin. I am profoundly uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data, which seems "pseudo-scientific" enough to me.

Spengler wrote:

I have read the whole Brussels Journal piece and must agree with Ethan_Jin. I am profoundly uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data, which seems "pseudo-scientific" enough to me.

Uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data and agreeing with Ethan_Jin? Ethan Jin is the only person on this person to consistently cite IQ data as a part of his arguments regarding the inherent superiority of his own race.

In what situation does IQ data become relevant? Is it even a good measure of Intelligence. Spengler, you believe culture to be a strong determinant in
smarts. How does one measure culture? Mozart's C minor

Spengler wrote:

I have read the whole Brussels Journal piece and must agree with Ethan_Jin. I am profoundly uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data, which seems "pseudo-scientific" enough to me.

Even if IQ measures the sort of general intelligence it claims to measure, there is no reason to think average IQ would measure how innovative a society is. That is more down to culture and institutions.

Tor wrote:

Spengler wrote:

I have read the whole Brussels Journal piece and must agree with Ethan_Jin. I am profoundly uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data, which seems "pseudo-scientific" enough to me.

Uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data and agreeing with Ethan_Jin? Ethan Jin is the only person on this person to consistently cite IQ data as a part of his arguments regarding the inherent superiority of his own race.

Whatever did happen to Lucius Vorenus?

Ethan_Jin dismissed the piece as "pseudo-scientific." I agree with that assessment.

Tor wrote:

Spengler wrote:

I have read the whole Brussels Journal piece and must agree with Ethan_Jin. I am profoundly uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data, which seems "pseudo-scientific" enough to me.

Uncomfortable with drawing broad conclusions from IQ data and agreeing with Ethan_Jin? Ethan Jin is the only person on this person to consistently cite IQ data as a part of his arguments regarding the inherent superiority of his own race.

Get your facts straight, Tor.

1. I have always cautioned against the use of IQ tests; only the statistically uninstructed will take these things with more than a pinch of salt.

2. I stand by the view of traditional Chinese pedagogy that intelligence is malleable. Besides what the Chinese care about is not intelligence per se, but its cultivable correlates which are wisdom, understanding and knowledge.

3. I have never argued for the inherent superiority of my own "race".

I don't know about this IQ stuff. But I do know that Asians do better in school:

[img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Higher_education_in_the_US_by_race.svg[/img]

Whether this is due to nuture or nature or a combination of both, you can be sure that the Chinese in Asia are every bit as over-achievers as those in the US from which the above graph was taken.

Ethan_Jin was wrong on one thing. Chinese people have been practicing eugenics for thouands of years, albeit without realising it. The imperial exam system selected by exams the smartest people to serve the emperor. These people were given lucrative jobs in the Civil Service and rewarded with high pay. Since polygamy was common in those days, they begat smarter children. So there was a selection process for intelligence.

Those who believe in natural selection and in the validy of IQ tests will use this as evidence to prove that some races are smarter than others and that evolution is still continuing. On the other hand, some Darwinists say that evolution is a slow process and a few thosand years won't make much of a difference. After all, dinosaurs remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. They say that for all practical purposes, human evolution has stopped. Therefore, there is unlikely to be differences in intelligence between different races.

But if evolution can stop for hundreds of millions of years for dinosaurs, how is it that in the fossil record, you suddenly get new species? It is so puzzling.

A sentence of Takuan Seiyo's article caught my eye:

Quote:

A timid suggestion that it might be so, relative to genders, got the President of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, fired from his job. After all, Body Snatchers don’t fool around when it comes to Heresy, Apostasy and Desecration of the Host.

That is what I have been saying. The Left or Liberals are stifling free enquiry. Whether its the difference between boys and girls or between races, they cannot tolerate any departure from its politically correct orthodoxy.

I am shocked and sad at Larwrence Summers' sacking from Havard, America's top Univesity. An university is a place for free enquiry. Any issue can and should be debated. I don't know if Summers was right or wrong but he has the right to debate this issue without penalty.

This is in principle no different from Galileo's persecution by the Church. The same thing happened to James Watson.

The lesson we learn is that whenever someone's power is threatened, he or she will react strongly and sometimes violently to protect it. In this case, the Leftist parties of the west derive their votes from minorities. It is in their interest to maintain the narrative that they are left behind because of white racism. This victimology justifies compensation in the form of affirmative action to a guilt ridden white majority.

By saying the whites may be smarter than blacks, James Watson suddenly challenged this narrative. If this idea gains ground, then suddenly the Left cannot justify their narrative any more even to their minority "clients" who vote for them. I don't know if he is right or not, but he has the right to debate this issue without persecution.

If the West wants to seriously compete with China, it has to abandon this Liberal nonsense. Reimpose meritocracy.