It's difficult to explore this question without being accused of racism, but I'd like to better understand why some cultures are so much more economically successful than others. The Chinese are such a great example of this. Wherever they go, they seem to end up being very successful. For example, in the Philippines it's claimed that Chinese are 1% of the population, but control 60% of the economy (http://opinion.inquirer.net/31223/ethnic-chinese-dominate-ph...).
China
91–100 of 317 posts
Re: China
#92Should the goal of the US be to emulate happy, stable, wealthy, smaller economies but arguably more egalitarian northern European democracies? Or rather, should we chase China in a race to the bottom? Lower corporate taxes, longer working hours, reduced environmental protections, with the goal of creating a fabulously wealthy klepto-capitalist ruling class? How dare people criticize kids burning the candle at both en…
You can't have endless impressive growth. Once you're developed its going to hit a reasonable cap. China is still developing. You can't compare the most mature economy to one of least developed. The move from back-breaking farm labor all day to manufacturing is MASSIVE growth. The problem with Western democracies is that we moved past that stage over 100 years ago. Now we're in a service based economy. That just does…
> These pro-China pieces are mystifying to me. Geeks always seem to worship autocrats and dictators for whatever reason.
It's because we see the world through the lens of our relationship with our computers, and in that relationship, we are dictators. We tell the computer what to do, and it just does it. It never asks for more vacation time or complains when we push it to its physical limits. In those cases where it doesn't do what we told it, 99% of the time the reason is because we phrased the request wrong. Then we look at democracy and start thinking, man, how inefficient all this taking into account other peoples' needs and principles and desires is!
When you start thinking of the world as a computer, it's not a giant leap to think that the solution to all its problems is just to give someone out there root privileges.
Re: China
#93I wish I was a high-profile VC. Then I too would be writing essays exhorting people to take on high amounts of risk and to spend their 20s and 30s grinding through 60 hour workweeks, so I could grow my portfolio. Because, we're losing to China! Honestly, it has never been clear to me why "growth" was the metric that we, as a society, have been optimizing for. Who stands to benefit? You? The middle class? Everyone? Or…
Bravo, you hit the nail on the head.
Growth is the metric for success because we currently use the wealth of the richest as our benchmark for success. How much marginal gain in terms of quality of life do these richest people even get from the growth?
Re: China
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I think he is talking about the general 'anti-workaholic' attitude. I see it all the time and have personally been called out for wanting to work too much. I don't know enough about China's culture, but I know in America it is looked down upon to work non stop even if it is just for a few years of a person's life.
For good reason. It is both unhealthy and inefficient to work massive amounts of hours. There are multiple studies that show that overall productivity increases when you don't work over 40 hours a week.
The studies I've seen show productivity falling at 40 hours and dropping off a cliff at 50 for most activities.
I don't think the blame for the workaholic culture lies primarily with VCs, though some do encourage this. I think it's mostly a part of the cult of male ego. "I worked 70 hours last week! How many did you work? 50? Wuss! I'm so much more hard-core than you!"
People also lie about how many hours they worked. In reality they work maybe 20-40 and then do things like... uhh... hang around in here... for the other 20-40. Again part of the macho one-upmanship thing... putting on an act of working ridiculous hours to look hard.
Re: China
#95Two disparate observations: 1. US GDP per capita is still almost 8x that of China: $53,042 US vs. $6,807 China ( http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD ). While there are other ways to measure this (such as the PPP Sam cites), the magnitude of difference remains large. So even if China's economy in the aggregate is larger than the US's, the US is still much richer per capita. 2. As China grows richer, I e…
US GDP per capita is still almost 8x that of China
One reason this might not be the right metric is because absolute power of a country matters more than power per citizen. Imagine a country with only one citizen, but a trillion dollars. The country wouldn't be very relevant. Even if the citizen tried to hire a military and use it, they wouldn't get very far. They wouldn't exert much influence economically either, in the sense of causing other countries to become dependent.
Also, total number of citizens is an important metric in itself. People in both the US and China will pretty much do whatever their power structures tell them to do. If that means beating a war drum, there are going to be a lot of people agreeing with war on both sides, but far more in China. Overwhelming forces can be stopped with tactics and technology, but when technology is comparable the casualties are usually comparable. And China has been gathering our technology for a long time.
War isn't the concern right now, though. The example was just meant to illustrate that China seems to have more options than the US.
As China grows richer, I expect the US will too. In modern inter-connected economies with few trade barriers growth in one generally benefits the other too.
History seems to disagree. As one country grows richer, other countries tend to become subservient. There's no such thing as modern human nature.
Re: China
#96Should the goal of the US be to emulate happy, stable, wealthy, smaller economies but arguably more egalitarian northern European democracies? Or rather, should we chase China in a race to the bottom? Lower corporate taxes, longer working hours, reduced environmental protections, with the goal of creating a fabulously wealthy klepto-capitalist ruling class? How dare people criticize kids burning the candle at both en…
We've already chosen the race to the bottom, friend.
The Chinese have a head start, but don't worry, we're following as closely as we can manage and as our nation-specific bonus we already have the klepto-capitalist class in place.
Re: China
#97Regarding exceptionalism, I had a course in law school taught by Justice Scalia. His first words were, "I believe in American exceptionalism and if you don't, you can find the door." His intentions were to provoke us and he was baiting a brave law student to disagree with him. Required reading for the course included De Tocqueville's - Democracy in America - as to "leave it to a Frenchman to explain America to Americ…
Is American exceptionalism a glorified term for "we're special just cuz?" Isn't every country special by virtue of its individuality? Or is America thought to be exceptional because it excels on generally accepted criteria (wealth and military power.) Criteria whose importance, funny enough, was determined in the first place by...America. Like being both judge and participant in a beauty contest.
Re: China
#98I don't mean to eye-roll, but Sam on economics tends to be, well, meh. The thing I always remind people when they say that China will take over the world is that everyone said the same thing about Japan in the 1980s (remember the movie/novel Rising Sun?). What happened? Well, the mercantilist economic toolkit has an endgame. Neither Sam nor I knows when it's going to let them down, but building an entire economy on c…
It's the straight line fallacy: the belief that a trend that's operating today will continue to operate in the same way in the future. History doesn't work like that. It is much more like the biological model of punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium), where things don't change until suddenly they all do.
China over the next 50 years has a lot of promise, but it has a lot of challenges to face too: environmental degradation, systemic corruption, authoritarian politics that increasingly clash with the needs of a more educated populace, the temptation to flex its new muscles by knocking over some of its more annoying neighbors. There's no guarantees that China in 2065 will look anything like China does today.
Re: China
#99In other words, stop complaining about unsustainable work habits leading to physical and mental problems among founders, and let venture capitalists turn that hard work into (a) profit for them while (b) keeping you all safe from Chinese Dominance.
I don't understand why Altman doesn't address the underlying arguments against "hard work". The modern workers movement was about receiving more of the profit from business. He seems to want workers to take the pay cut while still providing the same incentives to capital investment.
Which is pretty much what every capitalist ever has wanted from his workers.
Re: China
#100 The historical track record of the largest economy being
overtaken by another is not good. Sometimes it’s
violent. (For example, Germany and the UK in 1914.
As I understand it, the Kaiser's geopolitical motive was to avoid being dominated by the Dual Entente given Russia's growing strength. He expected GB to stay neutral given it was generally more friendly to Germany than Russia and was fairly isolated from European mainland issues given its interests in the colonies.
In any case, why compare UK GDP and not British Empire GDP which at that time would have dwarfed Germany?