Our task is MORE CHALLENGING than China’s.

HondaV65 on June 4, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Honda – just in the last quarter of last year, China had to send 12 million workers home to their villages from the jobs on the coast due to economic dislocation. I ask the same question I’ve asked others: How is China, with an export-driven economy largely supported through an artificially low currency, supposed to maintain anything like its pre-’08 growth rates if, as you seem to believe, its main markets, especially the United States are in the toilet? If the dollar cracks, for example, then a) we won’t be able to buy anywhere near as much Chinese stuff, b) our own exports will become more competitive, c) Chinese debt holdings are devalued. However things work out, China will have to make major adjustments. It won’t be able to produce double digit growth rates year over year financed by American credit cards.

As for the PLAN, even if somehow China is able to finance a massive building effort despite their economy being stopped in its tracks, it takes decades to develop a functional Navy. No one in the world other than the US at this time even knows how to run a modern naval battle group, much less run it effectively. Even if China begins to make significant progress, it would inspire an active response not just from the US, but from its regional competitors, especially including Japan.

I think Friedman’s view is more likely correct – that over the long term the US will be supporting China as it was prior to Mao in an effort to prevent other foreign competitors from dominating it and Eurasia instead.

The demographic challenge is real, but in some respects it’s also been exaggerated. In any event the US is better positioned to cope with it than the other developed economies, whose age structure problems are much worse.

We may experience a labor shortage in the US, alongside real estate devaluation, loss of demand, shortage of investment capital, etc., but what we can do to address it is a big subject. When you consider that the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65 when life expectancy was 61, not pushing 80, you can see already a huge degree of elasticity that has been politically difficult to exploit, but which can sooner or later be exploited with the tap of a keyboard.

Anyway, I think you should read Friedman’s book, since he defends his view in more detail and more expertly than I can, and his and my views do not coincide 100%. I also think you might want to research China in more detail. Basing your judgments on the Chinese you may have met in your travels is an unrealistic way of assessing the prospects for a country of 1 billion people in a changing world.

acat – China doesn’t even have the naval resources and skills to invade TAIWAN. I think North America and Africa are safe from invasion for good while.

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Mac … no one on our side is saying anyone will invade the U.S.

What we’re saying is that this guy’s predictions for American dominance throughout the 21st century they are criminally psychedelic.

Again – you have expanding industrial / technical bases rising in China (and other places). True – the Chines PLAN can’t challenge the U.S. Navy in blue water just yet – but the PLAN is modernizing quickly to do so. They may even be moving quicker than we can know – since it’s alleged they are building many nuclear submarines in hollowed out mountainsides where they are out of sight of our satellites. What else are they building out there that we can’t see?

Make no mistake – China is on the rise. China requires resources now – and lines of trade that it can GUARANTEE will remain open. This will necessitate the PLAN moving to “blue water” status. It has to happen. It will happen. Meanwhile we’re building one nuclear submarine a year.

That’s not a scorching pace.

We’re so conscious of our limitations and focused on ourselves that we’ve lost awareness of how far ahead of a country like China we still are in per-capita income, energy usage, production, etc., not to mention overall military power. Our “hollowed-out” manufacturing sector (accounting for something like 20% of our economy in 2007) is still larger than China’s entire economy.

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Well the facts are these …

What you say about the Chinese economy not being “superhuman” is true – but the fact is – their standard of living is GOING UP.

Yeah – it’s still lower than ours – but it’s increasing. This means they can keep their people motivated and moving forward.

What do you think is about to happen to OUR standard of living?

And what do you think is going to happen to OUR motivation when the government begins to confiscate 50 percent of our incomes and then still can’t deliver on it’s pension, social security, and medicare programs?

We are about to run smack into a age wall. The baby boomers will be the most demanding of all retirees – no doubt. Yet we will move from 4 working adults supporting every retiree to 2 or less supporting every retiree.

And our government officials have no solution.

Our task is MORE CHALLENGING than China’s.

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 1:16 PM
—–
Why should they?

Damn few “America Firsters” on the ground, except in exurban/rural areas, i.e. flyover country. Not that that couldn’t be changed – Reagan changed it, for a while – but right now, there’s no drive to fire up the melting pot.

Ironically, a call for re-unifying the culture would actually help quite a bit, but conservatives are tired of being called racist, and most liberals don’t see the point of unified culture, failing to understand that their multi-culti wishes would be completely ignored by a Muslim-majority country….

We’ll see what happens…

Mew

My Ancient Near Eastern professor would always say, without apology, that what determines all nations and their advancements comes down to three things: topography, topography, topography.

Weight of Glory on June 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM

I agree with him on the first 2 things, but I think he might be wrong about the 3rd.

That’s all well and good for the particular mandarins (though I don’t know if that’s really an accurate description of Chinese international businesspeople), but it doesn’t strike me as a basis for predominating political power. Sooner or later, you need the barrel of a gun…

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 11:47 AM
——-

Ah, but boots-on-the-ground aren’t needed until there’s pushback. Until then, slow and steady encroachment. Buy the U.S. ports on the pacific, slowly replace the operations guys with Chinese immigrants, bring in private security, etc. Wait for backlash, then and *only* then are boots even remotely needed.

This won’t work today – the U.S. is still too homogenized – but it would work if the U.S. were more fragmented. Where is the fragmentation going to come from? It’s the logical backlash to the current federal overreach, and the California budget disaster. The central almost must recede, the current centralization is not sustainable.

Mew

England before us dominated thanks to the English Channel being just enough of a buffer to save them.

Check out Walter Russell Meads “God and Gold” sometime, fascinating book

You could certainly be right about the solar power collectors. Friedman believes that military needs will drive a massive expansion of lift capabilities and reduction in payload costs. I have no idea whether he’s right. For all we know, nuclear fission or even fusion power or hydrogen or something undreamed of may be much more practical. I wasn’t persuaded by his forecast, but took it as an illustration of a potential mid-century dynamic around the eventual transition from hydrocarbons to other energy sources.

One point about Europe and geography: In the age of sail, the positions of England, Spain, and Portugal were relatively much more advantageous vis-a-vis growth-phase Europe than they are in the age of steel-hulled tankers and aircraft carriers, which greatly reduces the Atlantic and Mediterranean in relative importance. The transformation in turn reduced Britain’s margin of error, which WW2 used up.

I do tend to see “cultural rot” as more a symptom than a cause of political decline, and not always a reliable one. There’ve been some pretty darn rotten or otherwise dysfunctional cultures that have survived for centuries in place, if that place was secure enough. Sometimes, being secure gives a culture a chance to explore the outer limits of rot.

China does not do boots-on-the-ground, but mandarins running structurally significant businesses.

That’s all well and good for the particular mandarins (though I don’t know if that’s really an accurate description of Chinese international businesspeople), but it doesn’t strike me as a basis for predominating political power. Sooner or later, you need the barrel of a gun…

China doesn’t invade. Like I said, they’re playing the long game. Look at how much influence China has in southeast Asia. You wouldn’t, I think, call it an “invasion”, but .. there are Chinese fingerprints all over many of the decisions made.

Short term vs. long term. China does not do boots-on-the-ground, but mandarins running structurally significant businesses.

Mew

Yes, it’s harder to see what’s missing than what’s added.

The U.S. growth, like the European growth, was driven in part by a unified culture – German culture gelled before WWI, English culture earlier than that, American culture …

Multiculti is part of the problem because what really happens isn’t mutual respect, but mutual mistrust, leading to separate communities working at cross purposes. In short, balkanization.

Mew

Read between the lines on that article I linked above on China’s economic situation and the contradictory methods the government has to consider – in short, liberalization vs. clampdown. It’s hard to do both at once.

IMO, he almost puts too much weight on geography, and downplays the need for cultural capital. I don’t doubt for a second that geography is an extremely important factor in determining a nation’s fortunes, but any analysis that does not consider a nation’s cultural capital is in my mind incomplete. Someone mentioned the example about regarding the Native Americans being here for centuries without being able to capitalize on the favorable geography of what is now the U.S. It wasn’t immigration from Europe brought Western values over here that the favorable geography could begin to be fully utilized.

The geography may have been an enabling factor to allow Western values to flourish as they did in the US, but it alone wasn’t sufficient. Furthermore, some countries (e.g., Israel, Japan) can do well in spite of geography that is less than favorable because they have the cultural capital.

As another example, Europe was able to rise with virtually the same geography in which they are now falling. The factor that has changed is the cultural rot that has set in over there, and that is what is now driving their downfall. When Europe’s culture was healthy and confident, they rose to prominence. When their culture became decadent and lost confidence in itself, they began to decline. And does anyone believe that the Muslim culture that is ascendant in Europe will be as successful in that same geography as the Europeans were in their heyday?

On another topic, his late-century projection of solar powered satellites seems more than a bit of wishful thinking. Robert Zubrin did an analysis of this concept in his book ‘Entering Space’. In his analysis (done circa 1996), the launch costs for such an endeavor would add up to about $3300/watt of power delivered, which comes out to $3.3 trillion for 1000 megawatts of power – something along the lines of the capacity needed to light up a city like Denver. Needless to say, that’s not economically efficient. Launch costs would have to drop by several orders of magnitude to make such a thing economically feasible, even as a military program. But you can’t change the fact that the surface of the earth sits at the bottom of a very deep gravity well, so the prospects for reducing launch costs by the amount necessary to make this proposal even thinkable are grim at best.

In short, we are going to have to figure out different ways to produce energy in the future. We need to expand our nuclear capability and look at other ways we might produce energy as well (although wind and Earth-based solar will be of little if any help in that area). Solar powered satellites sound cool in theory, but in practice they will simply be too expensive to be workable, even by the late 21st century. The laws of physics will have the last word on that.

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:23 AM
—–
One would look at China.

Yes, China has internal stresses. External adventurism is a classic “treatment” for internal stresses, though – and there’s clear evidence that the “broken branches” are looking at Africa.

I’d also point out the Chinese have, traditionally, played a long game while the U.S. leadership have become rather focussed on the next quarter, or on the opinion polls for next week.

If China changes focus from Africa to South America … and if the U.S. balkanizes (i.e. Texas secedes, others follow) then.. who knows?

The U.S. has no external adventurism to tap its’ current internal stresses….

Mew

Your arguments are, as usual, very well-taken: A situation of relative decline/frustrated expectations can be much more de-stabilizing, and experienced as a much greater trauma by the subject population, than absolute misery. Niall Ferguson locates the syndrome as being at the heart of German self-destruction during the WAR OF THE WORLD, as he terms European civilization’s century-long mass suicide.

Since I’m in effect arguing for Friedman’s view on this thread, I think he’d say that, however much the US suffers from that syndrome, its main competitors are likely to suffer much more, while the next great opportunities will be outlined in the most last great disasters. As others have pointed out, our situation also affords us the luxury to overreact to historical hiccups without doing ourselves too much harm: Unlike Germany of the ’30s, we don’t have competitors on our borders and in our locale to fight a suicidal war with.

He also tries to explain what the real challenges facing the US are and how the most recent epoch defined by Reaganism and the power of the suburbs (following Roosevelt and the power of the urbs) will have to be replaced by a new paradigm, which he expects the elections of ca. 2028 to usher in.

I find his notion of 50-year cycles in US history to be a bit contrived except as a way of organizing what’s already happened and helping to organize his forecast, but I can’t to justice to it here.

As for Steyn, demographics and population extrapolation has led to some of the greatest forecasting errors. A generation ago, the Population Bomb/Limits to Growth/Malthusian catastrophe school dominated. The green types still believe in overpopulation. Friedman’s in the “Population Bust” school, and does consider birth rates extremely important. He just doesn’t seem convinced that Eurabianization will follow a straight-line progression leading to the kind of unified Moslem super-state that would be geopolitically important. You must be aware that there are other demography mavens and futurists who’ve either attacked Steyn’s assumptions on various levels or who’ve pointed to countervailing factors. For instance, anything short of the Islamist best case instead suggests a Europe in economic decline and facing social turmoil, even civil war – a sad situation but not a geopolitical threat.

BTW, on Mexico, since it relates the demography question, Friedman’s discussion of the North American showdown is in some ways the most speculative chapter, since it occurs furthest out – ca. 2080-2100 – but it’s also one of the hardest to refute. In short, he argues that the borderland area is tending over time to become more Mexican than American, and that at some point the real national border may be 200 miles north of the legal border, creating a situation that the US will find extremely difficult to deal with by its traditional means.

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Yeah I conceded the fractiousness of India will ensure that it is very difficult to become a superpower, however it is different from fragmenting politically. Reg Ian McDonald I am familiar with his work and he doesn’t strike as particularly knowledgeable about India. As I wrote earlier, it is not the first time people have predicted demise of India, I will against betting on it though.

Such a bunch of defeatists on the right, these days. Sheesh. Some of you guys would have been worthless in 1942 or at Valley Forge! Even Lenin had more confidence in capitalism – always finding away out of its historical cul-de-sacs – than you guys do.

CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:46 AM

I think some of the difference between my negative sense of future developments, and Freidman’s more positive one, is a question of perspective. A reduction of living standards or economic power that seems relatively minor to a historian can be horrendous to the people who actually need to live through it. The American standard of living in the years before the Great Depression would have been considered quite high by anyone writing at the time, and any historian would agree it was a tremendously advanced environment compared to any that preceded it… but if the America of the coming century reverts to those standards of living, it won’t seem advanced or opulent to those of us who need to live through it. At the highest level of strategic analysis, the economic turbulence of 2008 to present seems relatively modest, and still leaves the United States swimming in wealth and possibilities. To the population living through that turbulence, watching jobs and fortunes evaporate – and seeing nothing positive on the horizon to replace them – it doesn’t seem very modest at all.

I don’t think we’re utterly doomed. I think we’re in deep trouble. On a timeline measured in centuries, the United States will most likely get along just fine, barring some form of massively destructive terrorist or military attack. The question is how much the population suffers before working things out, and what sort of culture we have when we emerge from our tribulations. It may not make much difference to a big-picture futurist, measuring the 21st century against the grand sweep of human history, whether it takes a massive economic crash to make us adjust our policies of taxation, regulation, and governance. It matters to those of us who have to live through the crash. We can be well north of regression to a society of primitive hunter-gatherers, but still be going through hell. We can still be judged an affluent and prosperous society by global standards, and yet arrive at a future where we tell our grandchildren wistful stories of a bygone era when you could drive anywhere you wanted in your own personal automobile, or purchase your choice of affordable groceries at thousands of convenient corner stores.

As for how we might be invaded, of course we aren’t likely to be fighting off amphibious military invasions of Florida and California. Entering the United States in sufficient numbers to deform, and eventually overwhelm, its culture does not require swimming. It only requires patience, determination, and a higher birth rate than the weary, atomized, self-absorbed culture you aim to displace. I don’t know how anyone could fail to find the Steyn analysis convincing, but you might find it more persuasive if you jet over to France and read it by the light of a burning Citroen.

I don’t know the exact shape of the future, any more than anyone else does, and I don’t expect a record of perfect accuracy from an analyst to find his prognostications interesting. I only know that we don’t seem to be anywhere near doing the things we should be doing to retain our position as the engine of prosperity and liberty for the world. I believe the collective good of all mankind depends on our leadership, and our immediate future is worth fighting for. Even if everything is likely to work out okay by 2030, 2050, or 2100, I think it matters how we get there.

On the other hand DAMN THAT AUSTRIAN MIDGET.

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 9:28 AM

So funny!

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 9:24 AM

I think you are confusing Shubh Labh with Swastika. Although Shubh Labh is accompanied by Swastika, Shubh Labh doesn’t mean Swastika which is almost found everywhere in India. Anyway you don’t need to apologize. I can understand your feeling.

On the other hand DAMN THAT AUSTRIAN MIDGET.

Shubh Labh (Shubh = Favorable, Labh = Profit)

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM

I am born Jewish. I’m afraid it’s ingrained, but the symbol is hideous to me, although I know that is not the original intention. My apologies.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 9:17 AM

The enjoyment was mutual

Shubh Labh (Shubh = Favorable, Labh = Profit)

Well there is always Dharma

I have to concentrate on making some artha now, but, as always, have enjoyed my conversation with you. I hope you have a good night.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Well there is always Dharma.

You think Naipaul induces headache

So much personal drama, the Theroux stuff, etc.

Plus there is nothing wrong with sex as long as it is in moderation.

You will learn that moderation is all you will get as you age, if you are lucky. LMAO.

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 9:06 AM

I meant attain Moksha

I have often thought the same about Naipaul.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 9:01 AM

You think Naipaul induces headache

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Actually scripture wise in order to attain one can only become ascetic after being a householder.

Plus there is nothing wrong with sex as long as it is in moderation.

Anyway the differences betweens Hinduism and Buddhism are so complicated as to induce headache.

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 8:58 AM

I have often thought the same about Naipaul.

so much so that there are actual injunctions against able bodied males becoming ascetic before they have discharged familial responsibilities.

LOL. I am 53 but still have young children. My internal moksha is calling loudly, but I cannot yet respond.

There’s Buddhism for that

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 8:47 AM

It is my understanding that among western atheists Buddhism or what I term intellectual Buddhism is popular. Anyway the differences betweens Hinduism and Buddhism are so complicated as to induce headache.

As for US, it will survive, but like England, will become something different
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 8:40 AM

It is possible, but I feel that despite England being the mother country US is markedly difference in being robust about its identity. I think it comes from pride in being the frontier of human endeavor.

The negative I see is that the lack of att’n on the here and now often allows for things which would be improved in other societies.

Precisely ! In fact a propensity to renounce worldly possession and become ascetic has been one of the recurrent features of Hinduism, so much so that there are actual injunctions against able bodied males becoming ascetic before they have discharged familial responsibilities. Naipaul also observed this elasticity.

The key Hindu concept of dharma – the right way, the sanctioned way, which all men must follow, according to their natures – is an elastic concept.
At its noblest it combines self-fulfillment and truth to the self with the ideas of action as duty, action as its own spiritual reward, man as a holy vessel.
India was trampled over, fought over. You had the invasions and you had the absence of a response to them. There was an absence even of the idea of a people, of a nation defending itself.
Only now are people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalizing of India. The movement is now from below. It has to be dealt with. It is not enough to abuse these youths or use that fashionable word from Europe, ‘fascism’, There is a big, historical development going on in India.
What is happening in India is a new historical awakening….Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

India: A Million Mutinies Now

Actually it is a two way street, even though I eagerly follow the discussion involving Christianity on HotAir, Christian premise is so outside my life experience I am unable to grasp it. Same goes for Dawkinsian Atheism, or controversy around evolution.

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 8:42 AM

I completely understand that comment, and from the little I know about the philosophical underpinnings of Hinduism, also understand from where it derives. That’s what I meant about Hinduism being universal. Too me, it simply has more rational explanations about more things than other religions do, from the creation of the universe, to the nature of God, to my purpose here on earth. And the atheism thing is funny, I agree. There’s Buddhism for that

* On the other hand, I really don’t understand why should US inflict American Idol on rest of the world.

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Have heard of it. But here in the US, you must be very careful what you pick and choose. I have a 25 year old television, but it only receives baseball Because of some technical changes occurring here this month (switch to digital TV signal) it will no longer do even that.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Actually it is a two way street, even though I eagerly follow the discussion involving Christianity on HotAir, Christian premise is so outside my life experience I am unable to grasp it. Same goes for Dawkinsian Atheism, or controversy around evolution.

“Hinduism is a conglomeration of beliefs and rituals; although it lacks missionaries its power of assimilation is immense.It does not know conversion in the Christian or Muslim sense,but it practices, with great success,appropriation. Like an enormous metaphysical boa, Hinduism slowly and relentlessly digests foreign cultures,gods,languages and beliefs.”

That’s precisely what I meant when I termed it “elastic.” But then that is a compliment to it. The negative I see is that the lack of att’n on the here and now often allows for things which would be improved in other societies.

As for US, it will survive, but like England, will become something different.

Less charitably Octavio Paz termed Hinduism as metaphysical boa constrictor

Gaurav on June 4, 2009 at 8:15 AM

Understandable. As I said, I find the religion fascinating, especially insofar as it seems to permeates daily life in a way we can no longer see in the US. But I am aware of some of the philosophical difficulties it presents, and often wonder if I’d be as intrigued if looking from the inside out.

“Hinduism is a conglomeration of beliefs and rituals; although it lacks missionaries its power of assimilation is immense.It does not know conversion in the Christian or Muslim sense,but it practices, with great success,appropriation. Like an enormous metaphysical boa, Hinduism slowly and relentlessly digests foreign cultures,gods,languages and beliefs.”

‘In Light of India’

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 8:25 AM

Don’t feel so despondent over US. You guys are fabulous*. Again I may be wrong, but from what I understand Americans are so argumentative politically because you can afford to by virtue of geography. I am sure that when the need arises Americans will stand as one to defend US.

* On the other hand, I really don’t understand why should US inflict American Idol on rest of the world.