One of the most often cited arguements for the decline is the "Rise of China and India."
This one is actually rather simple. Because the real question is, "Are China and India really on the rise?" And the answer is: no, not yet. Well over 90% of China's economy is still of foreign origin. And India isn't much better.
And as Ireland has discovered, foreign investment comes rapidly can go just as rapidly. China and India hold that foreign investment only as long as the cheap labor exploit that that is being taken advantage of their remains available, as long fuel prices are kept low keeping the exploit viable, and as long as no other country captures the investment with an even more advantageous exploitable resource or an undercutting of their resource of cheap labor with even cheaper labor.
If any of those things happen, all of that investment disappears.
China and India know that, which is why they are trying hard right now to get their local economies brewing. The idea has always been that they would do as Hong Kong and Puerto Rico did before them -- take the infrastructure and skills that foreign investment built and trained them in, and use those to rapidly advance their own internal economies.
Only, for every Puerto Rico, there is a Cuba. For every Hong Kong, there is a Detroit. For every Japan, there is a Russia.
Likewise, all of that growth is based on a trade relationship with America and to a lesser extent Europe, and trade relationships are not stable. The current relationship is based on a nest of laws, agreements, and exploits on both sides. If anything should happen to alter that relationship -- an insult, a tariff, a culture shift, anything -- then the whole thing could collapse overnight.
Rapid foreign investment is no guarantee of an economically successful future.
More to the point, though, is the question -- has a country really risen when so little of their growth is from their own economy, when all of their growth is based on an exploit that could collapse at any moment and for several different reasons, when their rapid growth is so completely based on a trade relationship that could change at any time.
No.
China and/or India might be able to navigate through the rocky shoals of rapid foreign investment and soon begin to rise, following the path of Japan, Hong Kong, and Puerto Rico. But not yet.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
America in Decline? - Answers Part II
One of the supposed reasons that I find particularly interesting is "The Increasing Coarseness of American Culture."
This regular accusation by politicals and political media seems to have three, very related aspects - 1, vulgar language, 2, decadence, and, 3, indifference to others.
Decadence is a difficult one to assess. Is America more decadent than it was? Beauty pageants can't even buy an audience anymore. Dance halls are all but gone. The make love, not war days are in the increasingly distant past.
True, people are more open to talking about sex, but not so much in a vulgar fashion once a ways past puberty.
There is only one place where the din of conversation is actually increasingly decadent - advertising and entertainment. There are so many advertisers and shows out there, the din of voices has become so loud, that it is difficult to be heard above the cacophony. In order to be heard, they turn to things that will catch the public's attention - like humor and sex. Someone pushes the envelope in order to be seen. And then everyone else that also want to be heard do the same, and on.
But why is that old bit of reasoning important? Because, outlaw the use of that imagery over public airwaves, and all of it disappears instantly, because that decadence isn't a part of the culture of the PEOPLE of America. It is only a part of the culture of the business of America.
The only part of American culture that has actually changed to any measurably degree in this area is to become increasingly closer to allowing American business to do or say anything they want.
The casual indifference to the people around you is partly tied into that same business culture. American business wanted a mobile workforce, and America increasingly gave it to them.
A mobile workforce means a workforce ready and willing to go wherever business is or wants to go, instead of business having to set up where people are. That means, no extended ties of family, place, or community. If you have ties, you aren't mobile.
So, cut those ties, and what do you have left? No family, no place, no community. A group of strangers.
This isn't actually a new phenomena either. It is the ancient problem of cities. You might live in close proximity to a million people, but you know none of them, they are all strangers. And it is part of the nature of humanity not to trust or much empathize with strangers.
Tie that in with the old merchant-middle class values of wealth and competition, along with the increasingly numerous middle class in America, and you have an increasing indifference to the people around them.
But, to point it out more directly, increasingly large cities and an increasingly middle class are not signs of decline. Just the opposite.
The last, and most interesting, of these accusations, though, is the "increasing coarseness of the language." The frequency in which people curse with words like f*ck and sh*t.
And it is true that cursing is in much more common use that in recent times past. But, why?
To understand that, you have to understand the nature of curse words, or taboo words. An English professor of mine pointed this out to his classes long ago.
Every culture has taboo words. But they do not always have the same taboos from one era to another. Times change, cultures change, and Taboos change with them. So, the question then becomes, why does a culture make certain words taboo.
Why were words like f*ck taboo in America?
Most of America's old taboo words were just regular Saxon words. But when the Normans conquered the Saxons, they brought their French culture to Britain, and they considered the Saxons to be little more than barbarians, and considered their language to be coarse and vulgarly barbaric.
Back then, you didn't want to use Saxon words because you didn't want to be seen as vulgar, and, worse, common (the Saxons being the underclass under the ruling Normans).
And on down through history, people who cursed were told: "Don't be vulgar!" Or crude. Or common.
But then, there was a sea change in American culture during the 60's and 70's, and it became not just acceptable to be seen as common, it became the ideal. People took pride and power in being common during that time, and trailing on into the 80's.
And in doing so, the old Saxons words lost their taboo.
But, that doesn't mean that America no longer had any taboo words. Instead, it had new taboo words. N*gg*r. Ch*nk. M*nk*y. Those were the taboo words of the day.
American culture hasn't became suddenly debased or immoral. It simply changed, at least for a while, from taboos of the common and vulgar to the taboos of racism and slavery. In doing so, morality-wise, American culture became more moral, for a while.
The taboos of class began to return in the 90's, however, until it has become once more okay to say: "You want to be a janitor? Why? That's a job for a Mexican."
So, America is heading back to its more traditional taboos. But even if it weren't, it would have shown America to be more moral than it had been, instead of having the same level of morality it has traditionally had.
In other words, nothing much has changed in the coarseness of American culture. And, really, a quick trip down the memory lane of the Wild West could show you that. No, the one part of American culture that has actually changed is the American people's relation with its businesses.
This regular accusation by politicals and political media seems to have three, very related aspects - 1, vulgar language, 2, decadence, and, 3, indifference to others.
Decadence is a difficult one to assess. Is America more decadent than it was? Beauty pageants can't even buy an audience anymore. Dance halls are all but gone. The make love, not war days are in the increasingly distant past.
True, people are more open to talking about sex, but not so much in a vulgar fashion once a ways past puberty.
There is only one place where the din of conversation is actually increasingly decadent - advertising and entertainment. There are so many advertisers and shows out there, the din of voices has become so loud, that it is difficult to be heard above the cacophony. In order to be heard, they turn to things that will catch the public's attention - like humor and sex. Someone pushes the envelope in order to be seen. And then everyone else that also want to be heard do the same, and on.
But why is that old bit of reasoning important? Because, outlaw the use of that imagery over public airwaves, and all of it disappears instantly, because that decadence isn't a part of the culture of the PEOPLE of America. It is only a part of the culture of the business of America.
The only part of American culture that has actually changed to any measurably degree in this area is to become increasingly closer to allowing American business to do or say anything they want.
The casual indifference to the people around you is partly tied into that same business culture. American business wanted a mobile workforce, and America increasingly gave it to them.
A mobile workforce means a workforce ready and willing to go wherever business is or wants to go, instead of business having to set up where people are. That means, no extended ties of family, place, or community. If you have ties, you aren't mobile.
So, cut those ties, and what do you have left? No family, no place, no community. A group of strangers.
This isn't actually a new phenomena either. It is the ancient problem of cities. You might live in close proximity to a million people, but you know none of them, they are all strangers. And it is part of the nature of humanity not to trust or much empathize with strangers.
Tie that in with the old merchant-middle class values of wealth and competition, along with the increasingly numerous middle class in America, and you have an increasing indifference to the people around them.
But, to point it out more directly, increasingly large cities and an increasingly middle class are not signs of decline. Just the opposite.
The last, and most interesting, of these accusations, though, is the "increasing coarseness of the language." The frequency in which people curse with words like f*ck and sh*t.
And it is true that cursing is in much more common use that in recent times past. But, why?
To understand that, you have to understand the nature of curse words, or taboo words. An English professor of mine pointed this out to his classes long ago.
Every culture has taboo words. But they do not always have the same taboos from one era to another. Times change, cultures change, and Taboos change with them. So, the question then becomes, why does a culture make certain words taboo.
Why were words like f*ck taboo in America?
Most of America's old taboo words were just regular Saxon words. But when the Normans conquered the Saxons, they brought their French culture to Britain, and they considered the Saxons to be little more than barbarians, and considered their language to be coarse and vulgarly barbaric.
Back then, you didn't want to use Saxon words because you didn't want to be seen as vulgar, and, worse, common (the Saxons being the underclass under the ruling Normans).
And on down through history, people who cursed were told: "Don't be vulgar!" Or crude. Or common.
But then, there was a sea change in American culture during the 60's and 70's, and it became not just acceptable to be seen as common, it became the ideal. People took pride and power in being common during that time, and trailing on into the 80's.
And in doing so, the old Saxons words lost their taboo.
But, that doesn't mean that America no longer had any taboo words. Instead, it had new taboo words. N*gg*r. Ch*nk. M*nk*y. Those were the taboo words of the day.
American culture hasn't became suddenly debased or immoral. It simply changed, at least for a while, from taboos of the common and vulgar to the taboos of racism and slavery. In doing so, morality-wise, American culture became more moral, for a while.
The taboos of class began to return in the 90's, however, until it has become once more okay to say: "You want to be a janitor? Why? That's a job for a Mexican."
So, America is heading back to its more traditional taboos. But even if it weren't, it would have shown America to be more moral than it had been, instead of having the same level of morality it has traditionally had.
In other words, nothing much has changed in the coarseness of American culture. And, really, a quick trip down the memory lane of the Wild West could show you that. No, the one part of American culture that has actually changed is the American people's relation with its businesses.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
That Syrupy Thing
If you look, you might be surprised how many of the foods you eat use high-fructose corn syrup. It’s in soft-drinks and candies, sure, but it’s also in ketchup, cereal, crackers, breads, bacon, protein bars, and beer.
Yeah, it’s everywhere. Which makes it easy to take in way too much of it. Way, way too much of it.
Eating too much of any food is bad for health, can make you immediately sick, and can even poison you. But I would suggest that in the case of high-fructose corn syrup, ANY is way too much.
A debate has started about the use and astounding prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup. Not a debate debate, of course. It’s more of an argument—people saying that they don’t want to eat high-fructose corn syrup, and the industry declaring that yes, they do.
People are reacting to the fact that studies are starting to come out showing that high-fructose corn syrup can lead to weight gain, high triglyceride levels, copper deficiency, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Seeing that, people naturally start to gravitate away from high-fructose corn syrup. However, the industry is counter-arguing that this reaction is only based on fear, and that high-fructose corn syrup is just another sugar, and is not worse for the body than sugar.
If you like this article, you can finish reading it here at Tranquil Notes!
Yeah, it’s everywhere. Which makes it easy to take in way too much of it. Way, way too much of it.
Eating too much of any food is bad for health, can make you immediately sick, and can even poison you. But I would suggest that in the case of high-fructose corn syrup, ANY is way too much.
A debate has started about the use and astounding prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup. Not a debate debate, of course. It’s more of an argument—people saying that they don’t want to eat high-fructose corn syrup, and the industry declaring that yes, they do.
People are reacting to the fact that studies are starting to come out showing that high-fructose corn syrup can lead to weight gain, high triglyceride levels, copper deficiency, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Seeing that, people naturally start to gravitate away from high-fructose corn syrup. However, the industry is counter-arguing that this reaction is only based on fear, and that high-fructose corn syrup is just another sugar, and is not worse for the body than sugar.
If you like this article, you can finish reading it here at Tranquil Notes!
Friday, November 12, 2010
America in Decline? - Answers Part I
Well, let's start with the big, hairy, ugly one right from the start. War.
The media looks at America's inability to win the Aphganistan War and the Iraq War (some say Iraq War II), and declare that that shows America has fallen far in its power.
But does it really?
I really don't know where they're looking for all of these successful American wars. America has always has a pretty terrible war record. Shall we count the losses? Lets.
The French & Indian War (yes, the unsuccessful fighting goes back a long ways), the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. A lot of losses, in other words.
Then in middling kind of wins there's the Revolutionary War (won not through means other that combat), World War I (where we came in only at the end and at a much smaller scale than the European participants), and World War II: European Theatre (same as WW I).
And in the winning column is the Kuwait War (or Iraq War I), the Spanish American War, and World War II: Pacific Theatre. That's it. And only one of those successes is a real full-scale war.
Yeah, it's not really a lot to hang your hat on.
Of course, you could add various Indian wars, but that's not one America tends to be proud of.
And it's still not a lot to hang your hat on.
So, when it comes down to it, we shouldn't be asking the question "Why is America losing these two simple wars?" We should be asking the far more pertinent question of "Why does America think it should easily when any war?"
Or, more to the point - "Why does America keep losing its wars?"
Why, when America spends more on arms than all of the other countries of the world combined, why does it still lose so often.
Now, the answer to that question is complex, but there a few basic facts which tell much of the reason.
First. Yes, America spends a LOT on defense. But, by heaps and mounds, the vast bulk of that money goes to Support (that would be rockets, artillery, special forces, satellite technology, medics, etc). After all, Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessors were in charge of the armed services for a long time, and they were advocates of turning the American military into a small, highly-advanced, mobile army. And you can't have the leadership of the armed services advocating that for that many years without the armed services at least starting to become that.
Look at what we did with rocket technology in the last few wars. Historically, rockets were one of the most inaccurate weapons ever made. You could fire them from a fixed position at a target a few dozen feet away that isn’t even moving and still miss because the rocket spun away to the side. But we have developed the technology to be able to fire rockets not from the next street over, not from the nearby hills, not from a nearby city, but from the ocean complete outside of the country that contains the target. In things like rapid response. satellite technology, and medical response, America is what it says it - in a class by itself, in all of these area of...Support.
And that's the problem. The very nature of Support.
Support can help you win any battle, and there may not be any battle anywhere in the world that America can't win. But wars are more than winning battles, much more. Wars are a succession of battles and others tasks performed in order to achieve a goal.
Take one example. Missiles can defeat lots of enemies. But missiles can't hold territory. If you're taking hostile territory and you defeat the enemy in that territory, that's not the end. Far from it. Then you've got to control that newly taken territory. Security. Missiles can't help you with that.
For that, you need ground forces. Boots on the ground, in modern parlance. Troops and tanks and the like. And in that area, America has been skimping for several decades. Our tanks are now well beyond the technology curve, we don't have enough armored vests and armored transports to go around, and, most of all, we have too few soldiers to secure and control hostile territory.
As I said, you can't have Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessors in charge of the armed services for that many years without the military becoming what they advocated.
This is like Military Tactics 103, by the way. Not exactly high-end, you know. But any military commander who stated it at the time was immediately fired. And that's called Supporting the Troops.
But, the problems with the Rumsfeldian Philosophy go even deeper than that. The army said flat out that not only did we need a lot more soldiers for these wars, we needed set, achievable goals before any combat. Goals such as Removing the Taliban From Power or Arresting These Al Qaeda Agents on Our List.
But instead, we got goals such as Prevent the Taliban From Ever Being in Power Again. Forever as in FOREVER. That means we have to be there FOREVER, or at least support puppet-leaders there who will act in our name FOREVER. That kind of war implicitly can't ever be won. That is the nature of FOREVER. It goes on FOREVER.
And even with puppet-leaders, the old Roman Imperial rules stated that a newly conquered colony would resist for about 100 years before settling down (and don't think I didn't notice you Senator McCain advocating America being over there for 100 years).
So, we have a small, poorly-equipped army led by yes-men generals (anyone who said anything got fired, remember) fighting a war with no goal, just FOREVER. A war that can be lost, but can never be won.
That's the war war that America set out to fight in Aphganistan and Iraq.
No, America hasn't lost any of its ability to win battles. Nor any of its ability to listen to ignorant elites over military specialists. Nor any of its ability to lose wars anywhere in the world.
In all things military, America is still the country it has always been.
The media looks at America's inability to win the Aphganistan War and the Iraq War (some say Iraq War II), and declare that that shows America has fallen far in its power.
But does it really?
I really don't know where they're looking for all of these successful American wars. America has always has a pretty terrible war record. Shall we count the losses? Lets.
The French & Indian War (yes, the unsuccessful fighting goes back a long ways), the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. A lot of losses, in other words.
Then in middling kind of wins there's the Revolutionary War (won not through means other that combat), World War I (where we came in only at the end and at a much smaller scale than the European participants), and World War II: European Theatre (same as WW I).
And in the winning column is the Kuwait War (or Iraq War I), the Spanish American War, and World War II: Pacific Theatre. That's it. And only one of those successes is a real full-scale war.
Yeah, it's not really a lot to hang your hat on.
Of course, you could add various Indian wars, but that's not one America tends to be proud of.
And it's still not a lot to hang your hat on.
So, when it comes down to it, we shouldn't be asking the question "Why is America losing these two simple wars?" We should be asking the far more pertinent question of "Why does America think it should easily when any war?"
Or, more to the point - "Why does America keep losing its wars?"
Why, when America spends more on arms than all of the other countries of the world combined, why does it still lose so often.
Now, the answer to that question is complex, but there a few basic facts which tell much of the reason.
First. Yes, America spends a LOT on defense. But, by heaps and mounds, the vast bulk of that money goes to Support (that would be rockets, artillery, special forces, satellite technology, medics, etc). After all, Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessors were in charge of the armed services for a long time, and they were advocates of turning the American military into a small, highly-advanced, mobile army. And you can't have the leadership of the armed services advocating that for that many years without the armed services at least starting to become that.
Look at what we did with rocket technology in the last few wars. Historically, rockets were one of the most inaccurate weapons ever made. You could fire them from a fixed position at a target a few dozen feet away that isn’t even moving and still miss because the rocket spun away to the side. But we have developed the technology to be able to fire rockets not from the next street over, not from the nearby hills, not from a nearby city, but from the ocean complete outside of the country that contains the target. In things like rapid response. satellite technology, and medical response, America is what it says it - in a class by itself, in all of these area of...Support.
And that's the problem. The very nature of Support.
Support can help you win any battle, and there may not be any battle anywhere in the world that America can't win. But wars are more than winning battles, much more. Wars are a succession of battles and others tasks performed in order to achieve a goal.
Take one example. Missiles can defeat lots of enemies. But missiles can't hold territory. If you're taking hostile territory and you defeat the enemy in that territory, that's not the end. Far from it. Then you've got to control that newly taken territory. Security. Missiles can't help you with that.
For that, you need ground forces. Boots on the ground, in modern parlance. Troops and tanks and the like. And in that area, America has been skimping for several decades. Our tanks are now well beyond the technology curve, we don't have enough armored vests and armored transports to go around, and, most of all, we have too few soldiers to secure and control hostile territory.
As I said, you can't have Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessors in charge of the armed services for that many years without the military becoming what they advocated.
This is like Military Tactics 103, by the way. Not exactly high-end, you know. But any military commander who stated it at the time was immediately fired. And that's called Supporting the Troops.
But, the problems with the Rumsfeldian Philosophy go even deeper than that. The army said flat out that not only did we need a lot more soldiers for these wars, we needed set, achievable goals before any combat. Goals such as Removing the Taliban From Power or Arresting These Al Qaeda Agents on Our List.
But instead, we got goals such as Prevent the Taliban From Ever Being in Power Again. Forever as in FOREVER. That means we have to be there FOREVER, or at least support puppet-leaders there who will act in our name FOREVER. That kind of war implicitly can't ever be won. That is the nature of FOREVER. It goes on FOREVER.
And even with puppet-leaders, the old Roman Imperial rules stated that a newly conquered colony would resist for about 100 years before settling down (and don't think I didn't notice you Senator McCain advocating America being over there for 100 years).
So, we have a small, poorly-equipped army led by yes-men generals (anyone who said anything got fired, remember) fighting a war with no goal, just FOREVER. A war that can be lost, but can never be won.
That's the war war that America set out to fight in Aphganistan and Iraq.
No, America hasn't lost any of its ability to win battles. Nor any of its ability to listen to ignorant elites over military specialists. Nor any of its ability to lose wars anywhere in the world.
In all things military, America is still the country it has always been.
America in Decline?
The big essay I have been working on for some time, which kind of got waylaid by RPG design - craziness.
Anyway, back to the musings on the world.
America in Decline. I keep hearing that statement again and again from many different sources of media. It seems they have all made the assessment, and they are all in agreement - yes.
But is there anyone in the world actually learned enough in the nature of the peoples and cultures of the world to make that assessment? I've come to have my doubts.
I certainly don't have that level of knowledge.
But I am more than qualified enough to rip apart the poor reasoning that those media outlets keep dredging up to make their arguements. And not only can I do so, I am going to.
Their stated arguements are many. Here is the list just those that I have heard ad-infinitum, in no particular order:
A growing addiction to beauty
Inability to prosecute even a small war successfully
A rising courseness of culture
Crumbling infrastucture
Declining wages
Declining economy
A growing lack of respect in the world
The rise of Chaina and India
Erosion of the family structure
Non-competitivenss of US children in math and science.
It's a long and disheartening list, so I'm going to ransack my way through it over a couple of posts.
Anyway, back to the musings on the world.
America in Decline. I keep hearing that statement again and again from many different sources of media. It seems they have all made the assessment, and they are all in agreement - yes.
But is there anyone in the world actually learned enough in the nature of the peoples and cultures of the world to make that assessment? I've come to have my doubts.
I certainly don't have that level of knowledge.
But I am more than qualified enough to rip apart the poor reasoning that those media outlets keep dredging up to make their arguements. And not only can I do so, I am going to.
Their stated arguements are many. Here is the list just those that I have heard ad-infinitum, in no particular order:
A growing addiction to beauty
Inability to prosecute even a small war successfully
A rising courseness of culture
Crumbling infrastucture
Declining wages
Declining economy
A growing lack of respect in the world
The rise of Chaina and India
Erosion of the family structure
Non-competitivenss of US children in math and science.
It's a long and disheartening list, so I'm going to ransack my way through it over a couple of posts.
Games
So, probably the craziest thing I have done, recently I decided to design an entire, and very complex, game.
See, I enjoy a good video game, but the genres of games that I used to like have died out one by one. My personal favorite were Tactical RPGs. Now, these days, while RPGS still exist, technically, it's really in name only.
One of the highest profile RPGs are the ones designed to mimic good old D&D. I used to play the old pen & paper version back in the 80s, back when it was almost a pure tactical wargame. It's nothing like that now.
A little bit incensed at the direction the Video Games have shown D&D to be going, and having heard about the latest changes being adapted to the games from 4th Edition (which essentially are turning the game more and more to a MMORPG, even the Pen & Paper version), and greatly missing the old tactical feel in everything, I decided to spend a bit of time making a high-end tactical version, or the direction that I would have taken the games (argueably unpopular though those decision might have been, seeing as how much money the MMORPG-influenced RPGs are making), which has turned from a gentle pastime into a time-eating, mutli-month odyssey.
So, anyway, here it is Aaroneous Lives again!
See, I enjoy a good video game, but the genres of games that I used to like have died out one by one. My personal favorite were Tactical RPGs. Now, these days, while RPGS still exist, technically, it's really in name only.
One of the highest profile RPGs are the ones designed to mimic good old D&D. I used to play the old pen & paper version back in the 80s, back when it was almost a pure tactical wargame. It's nothing like that now.
A little bit incensed at the direction the Video Games have shown D&D to be going, and having heard about the latest changes being adapted to the games from 4th Edition (which essentially are turning the game more and more to a MMORPG, even the Pen & Paper version), and greatly missing the old tactical feel in everything, I decided to spend a bit of time making a high-end tactical version, or the direction that I would have taken the games (argueably unpopular though those decision might have been, seeing as how much money the MMORPG-influenced RPGs are making), which has turned from a gentle pastime into a time-eating, mutli-month odyssey.
So, anyway, here it is Aaroneous Lives again!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)