Archive for August, 2008

“China’s Economic Future” and “The Beijing Olympics” Revisited

Saturday, August 16th, 2008

Since I posted my articles on China, I’ve found several articles in the same vein about China that are very interesting, not to mention much better written.

First, from Cracked.com – which is one of the funniest and smart sites around nowadays – is an expletive-filled rant about the Beijing Olympics, “What the Olympics Really Mean to China.” Look for the hilarious bit about the American swim team beating the cocky French team.

io9, a great sci-fi blog, has an interesting post about the future of China, “Coming Soon from China: Dystopic Futures, the Next Steve Jobs, and a World Full of Drumming Androids.” The author makes some predictions that could very well come true if Americans continue in their recent vein of complacency. I doubt that though – at some point we’ll become so pissed off with what our country has become that we’ll improve. I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

Finally, from The Economist, are two articles on China and what’s really going on there: “China’s dash for freedom” and “Welcome to a (rather dour) party.” Both articles touch upon what I believe is really happening minus my optimism. In fact, they’re so well written and offer such a complete view of what I was trying to say that it makes me feel inadequate in my writing. Regardless, I have high respect for The Economist. It’s well-written and seems to be filled with the few journalists with the balls to give their own subjected opinion without sounding like a shrill Pentagon lackey. Oh, and the paper’s view is usually the correct one.

China’s Economic Future

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

Sure, there’s already a post about the Beijing Olympics. But I’m not a big sports fan, so my take on the US gymnastics teams, for example, shouldn’t be taken as my absolute opinion. For example, I didn’t know that the men’s team lost some of their best members yet got a medal; while the women’s team was considered the top contender, only now everyone thinks the Chinese team is the best in the world.

But do know a little more about culture and economics. And China is on display right now. The Olympics organizers are working fiercely to hide the negative and unpretty aspects of Beijing and China, but there’s a lot of people in the world who care enough about the welfare of poor and disadvantaged Chinese that it can’t be completely hidden.

In the US, China is presented in the press as a competitor to America, a rising power that will overtake us much in the same way as Japan was presented in the 80s…and except for Blade Runner  and Neuromancer, that didn’t quite happen. In fact, Japan has been battling deflation and awful credit problems ever since.

Will China turn out the same way? Probably not. But we in the US both overestimate and underestimate China’s future in the world*.

Overestimating China

It’s easy to oversimplify the Chinese economy and think that all those big numbers mean that it’s over for the dominance of the American economy. For one thing, it appears that our economy is faltering at the moment – but take a step back; most people think of the economy in the short-term. Hell, the media looks at the economy short-term, so reports of unemployment, a collapsing housing market, and a bear stock marketing are played up as being the end of our way of life. What’s really happing – and the most fiscally prudent way of looking at it – is that our economy is restructuring. When unemployment goes up every once in a while, that’s a good thing. Companies are correcting their overstaffing and trying to streamline their business. Having the price of homes drop significantly in certain markets is a good thing, because they’re overpriced as it is. Rising food prices is a little worrying though; cheap food is always a good thing. But, for most households food is still a very small expense compared to income. Our grandparents and great-grandparents had to spend a larger portion of their earnings on food than we could ever imagine.

The reason I’m not worried about the American economy is because it’s very likely the most efficient economy in the world. American workers are highly productive (though I know a few people who could challenge that assumption), and most of us enjoy an incredible amount of material wealth. We only think we’re suffering because some people always seem to have even more. But look at it this way: even the poor have televisions and fairly cheap food. I’m not discounting the very poor who don’t even have those luxuries, but that’s a problem without a fix**; a very large swath of average-earning people in the US have access to things which are essentially luxuries (extensive education, sophisticated labor-saving devices, enough forms of entertainment to keep people constantly occupied, etc).

Conversely, the Chinese economy is very inefficient. There are aspects that are improving, like transportation infrastructure and education; but the economy is still very dependent on agriculture and manufacturing, which stopped being major components in the US long ago. There is a staggering number of people, largely hidden from foreign observers, who are just barely getting by growing crops and livestock; while others are just a step better working in what would be called a ‘sweatshop’ over here.

But the biggest thing holding the Chinese economy back is a free flow of information. I may overstate the issue because I find information management fascinating, but what makes makes for an efficient allocation of resources is an unrestricted flow of information about the location and strengths of resources. That’s what makes the American economy so efficient: an investor can do pretty well relying on free resources like Yahoo Finance and a plethora of finance blogs and resources, without having to spend anything on the really expensive institutional tools. Or that anyone with some sense and an internet connection can find enough free information to start a successful business.

Underestimating China

Most of these issues are short-term, and can be easily fixed over time. Providing things go in a general path, Agriculture will be come a smaller part of the Chinese economy, and the flow of information will get better. Think of China today as America in the late 19th century. The opportunities to make a lot of money are great and that the only direction most people have to go is up. The difference is that China is much, much bigger; there’s no frontier (it’s an area that has seen civilization for thousands of years), so there isn’t an easy-to-grasp place where people can go and start new lives***; and that  many of the restrictions on people’s freedoms are artificial (the government restricts information, people are limited in what they can do and where they can live, etc.).

But – and this is a big one – the relative lack of economic development in China also means there’s many people who not only dream of a better life, they have the drive to achieve it. All those kids growing up on poor farms see that they can have it better, so they get an education or just go out and start making money. It’s that hunger that really grows an economy. I bet there’s a lot of boys and girls with that hunger that will make China a force to be reckoned with in the future. There’s plenty of people in the US with that certain hunger, but most haven’t experienced the lack of wealth that many of their Chinese counterparts have, the kind of poverty that makes some people achieve great things.

There are a few developments which could derail China’s growth. For one thing, if China had an efficient economy as the US, there simply isn’t enough resources on Earth to accommodate that. China also has a pretty uncooperative government for the type of growth that people want. The sort of openness that has pushed China this far, can be easily be hampered by a government too concerned for the survival of itself to give its citizens the freedom they need to be even more successful. It’s those kind of fringe groups that the Chinese government is restricting provide the foment necessary to keep the culture fresh and dynamic. One only has to look at China’s history to see what happens if it’s taken to an extreme: when during the late Ming dynasty (I think), China slowed down its trade and communication routes with the outside world, which led to their falling far behind European economy and culture, creating the situation of upheaval in the early-20th century and which led to the establishment of the current Communist government.

So will China be as big and powerful as America, or will it derail and morph into something else? I don’t know, it could go either way. China has lots of people hungry for a better life, but a frightening restriction of information. It’s a good time to be Chinese and smart.

*It’s an odd feeling using one word – ‘China’ – for 1.3 billion people.
**What I mean is that no one has ever come up with a successful way to eliminate some people from suffering economically.
***This is something I find fascinating about American history. By having a place where a person could go where there’s literally nothing but what you can make of it, was a powerful force in America. It’s what made us emphasize the individual, to encourage risk-taking, and to enforce those same freedoms into law for the future. But if there’s no physical frontier, where is a person to go and start over? The best suggestion I’ve heard is entrepreneurship: there’s always an untapped or underutilized market somewhere, and you can be your own boss and make your own rules. Hopefully we’ll start colonizing space, and then that will be the real frontier.

The Beijing Olympics

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

I have to hand it to NBC: they’ve figured out how to get me to watch the Olympics. Their Olympics site is excellent, and offers a massive amount of video and content to keep info hounds like myself interested. I’ve been watching feeds for sports I’ve never paid attention to before: fencing, judo, badmitton, diving, gymnastics – it’s quite an accomplishment: I normally avoid sports games unless there’s a social element to it.

What have I learned so far? Let’s see:

  • The athletes in judo and fencing appear insane. The fencers scream at every point, regardless if it’s theirs. And the judo athletes come onto the mat like bulls let out of a pen.
  • Gymnastics is surprisingly fascinating: these competitions are all about athleticism and the skill of the individual. It’s the Olympic ideal at its purest. However it’s all about USA vs. China – and at least with the team events, USA was beaten both times by China. In the men’s China clearly had the better team (also, based on the off-mat banter I’ve heard, all the guys on the American team give the impression of being dicks in real life); but in the women’s it came down to USA being beaten by a bunch of pre-pubescent Chinese girls. But I don’t know much about the situation, so my gut says the Chinese had the better team.
  • Diving isn’t a sport. I don’t care that it takes training to make the right maneuvers - it’s just not that competitive. Take the men’s synchronized diving that I watched. There was no difference between what the Chinese, Germans, and Americans did when they dived, yet the American guys didn’t win anything and the Chinese got the gold. I mean what’s the point? Make some turns and a small splash? I get swimming; maybe if diving also included some moves once in the water it would make more sense.
  • All the sailing events I watched were boring. I bet it’s much more fun to participate.
  • Badminton is much more interesting than the crappy sport I was forced to play in gym class.
  • The Americans in the audiences cheer much, much more than any other people. Even the Chinese. It’s a little embarrassing.

And then there’s the opening ceremony. It was so good, Roger Ebert even talked about it on his blog. Spectacular doesn’t even begin to describe the whole thing. With the masses of synchronized tai chi masters, the drummers, the massive LCD scroll - even the dramatic raising of the Chinese flag (I love how the one soldier threw the flag up in the air – so dramatic!). I was thinking – along with a lot of other people, it appears – that the Beijing Olympics is a lot like the expositions in Chicago and St. Louis at the turn of the 20th Century. This is China’s chance to show that they’re ready to ascend to the world stage. It will take a lot of work (and a lot of suffering, I’m guessing) for China to match the US as a world power (or rather the post-war US world power).

Back to the opening ceremony. I watched it because I figured that if it cost $300 to produce, it’s going to be entertaining whether it worked or not – and boy what a show! People seem to be getting worked up lately that the 29 foot steps made of fireworks (brilliant!) that was on the video feed was from an earlier recording, or that the flying girl was lip-syncing – but if you think of them as editing tricks (like having someone else sing Natalie Wood’s scenes in West Side Story), it much more forgivable. But there are better ways of having a prettier girl lip-synch to a plainer girl’s more beautiful voice than hiding the latter and making the former a star.

It needs to be mentioned that NBC almost ruined their broadcast of the ceremony with those goddamn talking heads talking over everything. Sure, I want to know all that trivia, but couldn’t you put it in text at the bottom of the screen instead of forcing us to endure all of that chatter? It’s just as bad as someone talking on their cell phone at a movie theater. </rant>.

Although the Olympics aren’t over yet, the Chinese should be proud of this moment on the world stage. They just have to live up to the spectacle from now on.

The Best Music

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008

I used to think that great songs needed complexity and a deep meaning.

Now I know that the best songs are honest and with as little filler as possible. And yet, my inner elitist is amazed at how many great songs are just about girls.

It just jumped out at me: of my top three favorite songs, none are from my hands-down, favorite band, The Beatles. While they created some of the most thoughtful, and fun music of all time – they didn’t write one song that can beat those three. I get more pleasure from “I’m a Believer” than any other song – it’s positive and hopeful and has the best hooks.

Masculine Literature

Friday, August 1st, 2008

Not many people read books for entertainment anymore. There may have been a slight uptick when Harry Potter was still new, but most books sold now are textbooks, self-help and business books.

For all of those who haven’t picked up a book for pleasure, I understand completely. The number of different forms of entertainment available, not to mention the sheer quantity just waiting to be consumed – is staggering and nearly impossible to comprehend. With movies, engrossing television shows, fistfuls of music recordings, video games, phones with games, the web, online forums, and any number of hobbies now available thanks to the wealth of most Americans – who’d want to use their imagination to bring mere words to life?

But for those of us who do read novels, short stories, plays, poems, and the like for enjoyment – we’re a hard lot to sell books to. It’s because we’re also sharing our time with other entertainment, in addition to living our lives. What’s a publisher to do?

What seems to have happened, I think, is that publishers are picking books for publications that will be read by the largest reading demographic group. And the largest group…is women. Most new books appear to b geared toward woman.

Equality, feminism, sexism, and all that aside; most women tend to like stories in a certain way that don’t normally ring with men*. I wish I could put what makes these stories different, just that I can sense it. They don’t affect me the way that stories normally written by men affect me. And it seems to be true with other men.

I first noticed it when I started reading more science fiction by female writers. They just…didn’t give the details that I was used to reading and wanted to know about. It reminds me of when I was young and was at my uncle’s house; her daughter (the only girl cousin I have, out of 6 on both sides) had a toy Volkswagen Beetle. And as my brothers and I were playing with her, each one of us went to the toy car and tried to open the hood, but it wouldn’t move. The hood was not made to be opened. Because it was a pink Barbie Beetle. Girls who would want to open the hood of a toy car don’t play with pink Barbie Beetles.

But this isn’t about the differences of the sexes, I’m talking about literature. There is something I call Masculine Literature. It’s literature with a masculine bent. It’s nearly impossible to describe, but I know it exists. It doesn’t matter if the main characters are male or female, it’s something deeper. Unfortunately, hardly any new fiction is masculine. It’s feminine. And I just can’t wrap my mind around feminine literature most of the time. So I’m stuck reading old stories, because I can’t find any new masculine fiction.

Off the top of my head, here are examples of masculine literature: Invisible Man, Ham on Rye, Madame Bovary, A Season In Hell, “The Waste Land”, Ulysses, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Down And Out In The Magic Kingdom, White Teeth, A Streetcar Named Desire, The Fuck Up, and Vanity Fair.

*I’m only talking about Western Civilization, specifically in America; so your mileage may vary.