Toadfish Monastery

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 01, 2009, 01:26:46 AM
Another argument is the ability of the west to sustain its own markets, if the current trends of production displacement continue a 'wealth balancing*' is likely and such contraction would benefit the east and its level of influence. 

All this assumes some sort of political stability that may not be warranted, and we could have revolutions and wars in the interim, making most predictions moot.

* jobs go to the cheapest possible provider, raising the unemployment in the rich countries and lowering it in the poor ones, distributing the wealth (or the poverty depending on how you look at it) in a more uniform way. Add higher productivity by the use of technology and the rate of change is even higher.

True, particularly the second point.

Those 3D printers might be a great leveller, if they can ever be made cheap enough for mass production and sale.

Quote from: beagle on March 31, 2009, 08:35:15 PM

Quote from: Kaliayev on March 31, 2009, 05:13:50 PM
Even if China develops as planned, it cannot play the role of world hegemon for at least another 80 odd years, and lots can happen in the meantime, especially without a powerful state to try and order the international system.

Sort of depends what you mean by hegemon.  If you mean unrivalled production capacity for goods and weapons I'd say around 20 years; if you mean able to veto any policy it doesn't like by threatening to  bring the economic house down, I'd say now.

I meant in the classic International Relations sense of the overbearing military, economic and cultural power in world affairs.  Sorry, I should have made that more clear.  At the moment, China is certainly a great power certainly, but not a hegemon.

Also, their ability to project power seriously sucks.  Their logistics are a wreck and I cited the 80 years time period because that is, at least according to current estimates, how long it will take China to create a first class blue water Navy.  A lot of hegemonic theorists place too much emphasis on naval force, I would admit, but even so, hegemon's usually sustain their position by beating the crap out of anyone who imperils the prevailing political-economic order, and if China cannot secure international trade to the degree the USA or British Empire did, then I suspect it will be rather short-lived in its hegemonic role.

Also, with Russia, Japan and India on its borders, things could get...very interesting.  The US helped set the Great Game II into motion after invading Afghanistan, but I sometimes wonder if they knew exactly what they were doing.  Brezinski aside, of course, but since when did the Bush administration ever listen to him?

Congrats Scrib!

The quite charming lady I am sort-of romantically involved with is finally back from University for the next couple of weeks, so that is certainly good news for me.

Iggy Pop - Lust For Life, going into Immortal Technique - Death March

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on April 04, 2009, 02:28:14 AMOH, KV...there must be some other Sibling Chatty that Mero's talking about. While I DID comment favorably on your post, this smart person he's describing has GOT to be somebody else... I'm just a girl from Texas that happened to grow up with LBJ as one of my Grandfather's oldest friends...and in an area where I was "privy" *feh, feh* to contact with the Bush Family. (We wuz on th' poor side of town...)

I'm really MUCH prouder of having known Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison and Willie Nelson than any of the politicians.

LBJ, all politics aside, was a very impressive man.  I read about his first Congressional campaign in The 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene and, well, the man had some incredible drive and willpower.

As for the Bush family, well...to say Marvin is probably the best member of the family because he is the one to have caused least destruction through personal actions to the world at large says a lot about that particular clan.

But Bill Hicks, on the other hand...did you ever consider arranging for him to meet with the Bushs?  That I would have liked to have seen.  I swear I must have spent the last 8 years thinking "if only Hicks were around today, he'd either have an aneurysm or be the most popular comic in the world.  Probably both."

Quote from: Griffin NoName on March 31, 2009, 07:29:03 PM

I've never been sure why parties are called parties. Parties to me are where one goes home with a goody bag full of treats

Oh I don't know, depending what party it is, you could go home with lots of "treats"...peerages seemed popular a couple of years ago, and right now it seems to be lump sums of cash.

Of course, those parties can be rather hard to get invites to...

The Runaway : The Chronicles of a Spy in Medieval Europe during the Reign of Louis XI of France by Thierry Bontoux
From Civil to Political Religion: The Intersection of Culture, Religion and Politics by Marcela Christi
and
Death's Dream Kingdom: The American Psyche since 9/11 by Walter A. Davis

I'm trying to get more into the psychological and cultural aspects of political theory, so hopefully the latter two books will help there.

Quote from: beagle on March 30, 2009, 08:49:18 PM

Quote from: Kaliayev on March 30, 2009, 08:50:15 AM
I'm not so sure the future is Asian...in the short term at least, though I'd like to look at anything that suggests otherwise.  China's fate seems strongly tied to America's, and although their banking system is certainly more robust, their financing of their own bailout seems every bit as corrupt. And Japan's trade is going down the drain.  I have a friend teaching over there and she is seriously considering leaving this summer, once her contract is set to be renwed, things are getting so bad.  The two Koreas. the Phillipines, Indonesia et al will almost certainly follow the fortunes of the US, Japan and China, as they have previously.

Well, it's more a historical inevitability argument (see, Tories can do Marxism) than statistics. It goes like this:

Once upon a time the great and innovative Powers were the big countries with big populations, India and China.
Then some Europeans worked out that all it took to rule the World was a reasonably temperate climate (so the institutions weren't washed away each rainy season), some coal and superheated water (to wipe out the economies of scale), and a political system slightly more stable and  less arbitrary than anybody elses.
This combination was sufficient to maintain supremacy for a couple of centuries. Admittedly in that time power around shifted in the West, but it was generally heading to the most populous country that had worked out the "banging the rocks together and not shooting too many of your own people" paradigm.

However, pretty much the whole World has mastered the trick now, China has woken up from the sleep of which Napoleon so approved, and once again power will shift through economies of scale to the most populous countries.
There's nothing special about the U.S./ U.K. middle classes (other than a propensity to live beyond their means). One day, the populous Indian and Chinese consumer will make them peripheral to the World economy.

Short term, perhaps the most obvious marker was Geithner's market gaffe about the possibility of a global currency.
Already the U.S. cannot afford to offend Zhao and China, because the Chinese are already in a position to pull the temple down, the only reason not to being it's not in their immediate interest.

Anywhere near convincing you?

Heh, Marxism.  I always preferred Foucault, though Gramsci's an alright read.

OK, in the very long term, their populations should, in theory, carry them to the heights of power, I agree.

However, eventually is a very long time and they will have to survive as unitary states first, and I don't believe for a moment that is a given.  The normal historical state of China is that of various warring factions.  And two of the four pillars of state power for the current ruling elite, seem imperiled (ideological and economic) and could be the conditions for another falling apart, if not checked properly and if they mesh with other factors, such as rising Chinese nationalism.

India, equally, has problems.  Between the Naxalite rebellions and Muslim insurgents, the country could soon become a hollow state.

Also, we might have to consider there may be social and economic advances in Western countries in the meantime which may not appear among Asian giants - new ideologies and modes of living which are more efficient and productive.  Its not likely, but depending on what time frame we are considering here, its possible.

In the long term, I would hedge my bets on Asia, I would have to admit.  The context of the statements in my previous post were more short term.  However, I'm not really convinced its a given, or historical inevitability, only that there is more of a chance of things falling into place that way, given how things currently stand.  The future is, as they say, uncertain.  Even if China develops as planned, it cannot play the role of world hegemon for at least another 80 odd years, and lots can happen in the meantime, especially without a powerful state to try and order the international system.

Thanks.  Another two complete today.  I don't hold out too much hope, I mean I've been applying at this rate since October, pretty much, but at worst I'll probably get a couple of interviews out of it, and I can charge the expenses of travel on the potential employers.  Man is my life sad right now.

Well, they shouldn't hold it against you if you cannot make it, Scrib.  Doesn't mean they won't, but they shouldn't.  Good luck regardless.

Just finished House, Series 5, ep 19 "Locked In".

Quote from: Opsanus tau on March 30, 2009, 03:56:54 PM
Well, hey there, stranger! New in town?

I should be writing up an interview on a local historian. I have all the information and the photo. I am just not doing it. But I should be!

Fairly new, yeah!

I should be writing a personal statement for this job, instead of flirting on MSN.

Quote from: beagle on March 30, 2009, 08:11:15 PM

Quote from: Kaliayev on March 30, 2009, 09:45:00 AM
The Pixies - Monkey Gone To Heaven

Good choice

Thanks.  I need to get more Pixies stuff, really.

Leonard Cohen - The Future

Glenmorangie, floating on a sea of ice.

Going to need a coffee after this, though.

Indeed.  Though it should be pointed out a well known Corsican general would probably reply:

"If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots."

Quote from: The Meromorph on March 30, 2009, 06:37:49 PM
A belated welcome, my dear chap!
I get the distinct impression that discussions with you involved are likely to be lively and informative. 
You may not yet realize it, but our beloved Sibling Chatty has kinda given you an initial 'Seal of Approval' with one of her responses to of you your other posts. Sibling Chatty is a fount of 'inside' information on some areas of American Politics/History and may well be the smartest person here (as well as the most loved).
I'm an expat Brit myself, and know rather more than I'm prepared to admit about British politics in the seventies. (Some of what I don't admit to knowing was influential in my moving over here in '79 - I was, in fact, wrong in my private predictions at the time, I'm happy to say.)

And if that hasn't piqued your interest, you may not be as knowledgeable as I think you are.

Thank you, and to those above as well.

Inside knowledge eh?  Interesting...oh dear, this mean's I'll have to do something intelligent soon.  Things always go wrong when that happens.

The late 70s?  So was it Thatcher or Callaghan who convinced you to bail ship?  Not that I can blame you, both of them were utterly useless in so many ways.  Callaghan's record speaks for itself, and that the Thatcher years inspired V for Vendetta is revealing...even if the author is a drug-taking, spell-casting fake Snake-God worshipping loon.

I should probably point out I'm actually Australian at this juncture, as well.  I live here, and have done for a long time, but my detached approach to UK politics does indeed partly come from the fact I'm an outsider and so all parties are fair game.