The Fall of Empires

[Stickler]

franklin: I'm going to use em-dashes instead of colons or quotation marks to indicate speech, because I care nothing for the traditional conventions of the English language.

 

[franklin]

franklin: I'm going to continue to interject unrelated issues into the conversation and behave as though they're relevant. Whenever I'm asked how they're related or why they're relevant, I'm going to deflect, dodge, and parrot the indefinite and imprecise talking points that I have, for some reason, settled upon as the bedrock of my "position" on this topic.

Am I supposed to be amused you don't get that you don't get it? It's not my fault you don't understand the simple implications. I'll defer to every economist with a major impact over the last 90 years or so that says my points are highly relevant and intertwined. The scale may be close, but I think the balance weighs ever so slightly against your claims and favors the professional side. Do yourself a favor and start with the two historic camps: Monetarists and Keynesians. Guess what, they're both in agreement with the simple point you've required a couple dozen times, but still don't get.

One final question: Are you a hard money Mises type/gold bug? If not then you agree with me but don't know it. It's either that or incoherent and inept, and prefer to wave your magic wand rather than address reality.

 

[Stickler]

Failed to grasp the implications....? That's just the problem. I've asked you, repeatedly, to do more than imply. You've had many opportunities to clearly state your case, and you've declined to do so. And while you've been declining to make any clear connections between my points and yours, you've been insulting, preening, and obnoxious.

We were never even having a debate.

I never understood what point you were trying to make because you never made one.

 

[franklin]

And you've done nothing but imply your position. I'm not debating you, I'm asking questions. I've asked many. You've been on the defensive and I don't think you've answered a single one.

Strict balance the budget requirements do not work with debt-based fiat. Our system requires countercyclicals. What do you propose we do when monetarism fails as ZIRP, etc. are now?

Again, you'll need sufficient countercyclical monetary policy to assure your budget cuts in drastic times don't pull revenue down more, which leaves you with, guess what, a budget deficit. Current monetary policy isn't exactly working.

Are you denying this claim you're calling an implication? Are you claiming that monetary policy can't fail? I don't think you are, but if so then just say so. Why would I give a damn? If not then what would you do in times when monetary policy fails, as you don't want to utilize fiscal policy? This is all I've been asking since the beginning.

Yes, I think now is not the time for Hayek. I believe that would have crashed the system back in 2008. Do I have proof? Of course not. There's no control group to test things on. If we're going down that road then there's no point in discussing anything, as I can't prove something and you can't deny it. However, I've been clear that I trust modern economic theory in the belief that our system requires monetary expansion. If we cut out the fiscal debt tool then what else should we use?

 

[Daedalus]

Chinese is not the preferred nomenclature, Asian American, please, dude.

Funny, my wife has never used the term Asian-American. She calls herself and all friends of her race Chinese, or Asian if forced to generalize. They are indeed a race -- not for us to be prejudiced against, but for us to realize they have a unique and distinct culture that they're not necessarily willing to integrate with any other "races". Maybe the A-A title suits the ones who have been born and raised as wholly-immersed Americans. Interestingly, I have met very few of them -- even the young ones are rarely taught English as they grow up, learning just enough to get through school.

Oriental? Has anyone really used that word in the last 20 years?

(hi Catz)

For all y'all arguing about the position the Chinese have in the world marketplace -- I believe they are a contender. They are driven to become number one in the world. They are a fiercely proud people who would do anything to promote their superiority. And there are a lot of them, both in China and worldwide. My wife is funny about it -- she complains when she sees too many Chinese people at Costco, acting too Chinese, etc..

The only thing keeping them from being #1 is their corruption. They are not lazy people (I found that to be a silly implication in another post), but they do take advantages of shortcuts if they see them. My wife has asserted that they NEED a dictatorship to run the country, otherwise the people would not allow themselves to be governed at all.

China is enduring an Industrial Revolution that we Americans endured in the 19th century, shortly before we became the next world power. The pollution, the corruption, the "robber barons", all there. If you think they don't have a future and can't rise above it, you're not doing the right things to watch your back. History repeats.

I second the notion that American children should learn the Mandarin Chinese dialect and learn more about the culture. I don't mean for us to be swallowed up in their economy, but for us to learn to work with them, to understand why they think the way they do. My wife and I sent her oldest son to China to intern for the summer, and we think it was a wise move for his career. It really is a fascinating culture, and worth the time to study.

By marriage to a Chinese woman from Hong Kong (fully fluent in English) I feel I've learned a lot about the race in the last 9 years. I'll repeat: The only thing that's stopping them from succeeding (and believe me, they want to) is themselves.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

i dont believe that a society that is that hierarchical can be truly economically dynamic. they're fine as an industrial economy, but i don't think their society is conducive to innovation.

if you think my earlier post implied that the chinese culture is lazy - that is not what i intended. But in my opinion it doesnt encourage initiative and risk-taking the way ours does, and it promotes corner-cutting to an extent that is dangerous for certain fields.



maybe that will change as economic opportunity expands.