Spread of "western culture" responsible for our technological advances?

[bethanygm]

I was just watching this thing on Discovery Channel about the Spanish Inquisition and the torture "Rack"....
And I was thinking.. Were the leaders at this time really stupid enough to support this stuff? Were they all too dumb to realize that anyone would say whatever they needed to say when they were being tortured? Especially by something as painful as "the rack"??
Maybe they just wanted to kill a lot of people, but it seems to be something that got out of control when there were no intelligent people in power to really stop it.

Of course, in that time, maybe intelligent people somehow logically came to the conclusion that this culling of those that weren't Catholic was somehow the right thing to do.--- But there were probably always people who thought outside the box and so I feel if they could have gained power, perhaps things could have been different.

I am wondering if our technological advances can be said to be a direct result of the mechanisms in Western Society by which the most intelligent people can gain power and influence (as opposed to previous societies where power and influence were usually determined by family lines and not by intelligence).

I think we can all agree that not ALL people who reach positions of power are incredibly intelligent.. but

When societies began to develop in which intelligent people had a chance to "make it on their own", we started seeing a lot of inventions and advances.
Certainly, many of the technological advances we've seen have been made by people who, in earlier times, would have been born into a lower class of people and had no chance to do many great things or gain an education.


You can just broadly blame some of these atrocities on the Church or religion, but I am not asking a question about religion.- I want to think about it in terms of intelligence. Intelligent people who questioned the norm probably existed back then and so they are the ones I am referring to. If there were people who questioned the church, they may have been killed for it, but eventually some of them prospered and we ended up with a new kind of society.


I know it's really really complicated, but some thoughts would be nice.



I just asked my husband for some thoughts, and he brought up the questions
What about when a society of people chooses a moron for a leader????
(This is possible, esp. since the majority of people in the world aren't ridiculously bright)
The Show says that a lot of the technology developed for the Spanish Inquisition ended up helping to develop some technology we use today (like the speculum)... Also the first supercomputer was made to be able to track the trajectory of missiles? I think.
Weren't some of the first things produced on an assembly line GUNS????

Maybe some of our most useful advances HAVE been spawned by our worst human characteristics.


Hmm

[metamagnet]

Guns were the first mechanical objects built with interchangeable parts. (Thank you Civil War!)
Next to the cotton gin (I think).

People have endorsed stupid ideas over the years, just nature I guess - learn from your mistakes.

The most shocking thing I've read about recently are transorbital lobotomies. I couldn't believe just 30 years ago that was acceptable medical practice. Ugh!

[Fanowene]

I don't think I fully understand your question. It potentially could lead to a really interesting discussion, but right now I can't see where you are headed.

You are basically saying that the spread of "Western Culture" (= "free society") has resulted in technological advances? Are you trying to find an explanation for the technological explosion we've seen in the past decades/centuries?

[Tocsin]

If you want an interesting perspective into the fundamental causes of western civilization's rise to technological and military dominance over the rest of the world, you might want to try watching the three part PBS series "Guns Germs & Steel."

From the PBS website (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

Based on Jared Diamond's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name, Guns, Germs and Steel traces humanity's journey over the last 13,000 years – from the dawn of farming at the end of the last Ice Age to the realities of life in the twenty-first century.

Inspired by a question put to him on the island of Papua New Guinea more than thirty years ago, Diamond embarks on a world-wide quest to understand the roots of global inequality.


Why were Europeans the ones to conquer so much of our planet?
Why didn't the Chinese, or the Inca, become masters of the globe instead?
Why did cities first evolve in the Middle East?
Why did farming never emerge in Australia?
And why are the tropics now the capital of global poverty?


As he peeled back the layers of history to uncover fundamental, environmental factors shaping the destiny of humanity, Diamond found both his theories and his own endurance tested.

"Guns, Germs and Steel lays a foundation for understanding human history, which makes it fascinating in its own right. Because it brilliantly describes how chance advantages can lead to early success in a highly competitive environment, it also offers useful lessons for the business world and for people interested in why technologies succeed."—Bill Gates

[lisakki]

This is why I said in the sustainability thread that I have faith in human technological advances to save us from environmental disaster. Although I'm speaking in broad terms here, I think you're absolutely right; human's worst attributes provide our greatest technological advances.

You just know that, someday, when Earth is on the brink of catastrophe, some rich asshole somewhere will shell out bazillions of dollars for some technology that will allow him and a woman to survive. We will all die, but he will survive, and thus the human race will repopulate and survive.

[bethanygm]

I don't think I fully understand your question. It potentially could lead to a really interesting discussion, but right now I can't see where you are headed.

You are basically saying that the spread of "Western Culture" (= "free society") has resulted in technological advances? Are you trying to find an explanation for the technological explosion we've seen in the past decades/centuries?

In western culture the most intelligent people have a chance to learn and create and possibly be involved in change and discoveries/advances. Have we progressed as much as we have due to the mechanisms (pull yourself up your bootstraps)present in our society that allow the smartest to rise to the top?


Or.. Maybe we just made all these technological advances every time we were making use of our most primal need to survive. Wars, feeling threatened, needing food. A lot of that seems to have happened because it was needed.

Maybe a combination of the two.

[zibber]

First off, I don't think it's fair that you equate "western culture" to "freedom of intelligence" or whatever you want to call it. It's insanely, um, westcentric. Secondly, why should intelligence logically lead to a technological drive?

I think political and (mostly) commercial interests have been responsible for a lot of what is considered technological "progress". Isn't it true that the biggest sponsors of modern science are the electronics and weapons industries?

[Fanowene]

I don't really know what to say... I heard/read somebody discovered batteries that probably were invented/manufactured in ancient Babylonia (if I'm not mistaken). So technology existed way before the most recent centuries (and just disappeared for some reason or another). "Western Society" has also played its part in destroying scientific writings, from what I have learned (Crusades and such). But I have to admit that I don't know much about this subject.

[thod]

Europe has had thousands of years of constant warfare. This is what forged the modern world. Not only the tech advances which enable you to kill the other guy, but also the society. The creation of ever bigger groupings into what we call nations in order to beat the other groupings. The society is about marshaling all resources be they men or production capacity to make war.

[bethanygm]

First off, I don't think it's fair that you equate "western culture" to "freedom of intelligence" or whatever you want to call it. It's insanely, um, westcentric. Secondly, why should intelligence logically lead to a technological drive?

I think political and (mostly) commercial interests have been responsible for a lot of what is considered technological "progress". Isn't it true that the biggest sponsors of modern science are the electronics and weapons industries?

Many other societies in the past haven't allowed people to rise on their own merit. Ours isn't perfect, but at least a "peasant" (like myself lol) can get an education and use their brains to further our knowledge. I guess my theory is that there may have been many many intelligent people in past societies who never had a chance to learn and explore their potential because of the constraints society placed on them.

[meanlittlechimp]

First off, I don't think it's fair that you equate "western culture" to "freedom of intelligence" or whatever you want to call it. It's insanely, um, westcentric.

Especially since Europe was behind the East technologically until around the 18th century. Some historians would argue until the 19th century. The rennaissance and the industrial revolution in Europe would have been impossible without the adoption of Eastern technology. China had modern steel (Bessemer process) almost 2,000 years before the West did. The printing press, paper, gunpowder, steel, first canon, the compass and other naval technologies (invented in the EAST) helped create the conditions necessary for the West's colonization of the new world and it's industrialization.

China had cities in that numbered in the millions by the 5 century AD. Europe didn't see cities this large until the 20th century (mainly because their agricultural technology was significantly behind the the East until then). Their inventions of the shoulder harness plow, multi-seed tube drill, and the cast iron plow weren't adopted by the west for almost 1,800 years after they were in the east (which allowed them to harvest far more food per acre to support large urban populations).

The "industrial revolution" occurred in China BEFORE the west. Even as late as the 19th century, China had a larger GDP than all of Europe and the US combined (including their colonies). To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Guns were the first mechanical objects built with interchangeable parts. (Thank you Civil War!)

The Chin emperor used an assembly line process for the manufacture of his weapons by at least 200 BC (but probably earlier). It would be pretty hard to field million man armies without some sort of assembly line process. Regardless, there was a pretty interesting documentary about the assembly line process used when they manufactured the Tomb and it's warriors as well as the processes used for their real armies.

It's silly notion, that I often hear, about Ford inventing the assembly line process. And I'm pretty sure someone before Emperor Chin, probably did as well. Incidentally, the weapons buried with the life sized "terracota warriors" were in perfect condition (with no corrosion) because they invented chromium plating by at least 400 BC (that an american got a patent for in the 1920s).

[downtheline]

Let's not forget the Chinese had a meritocratic testing system in place dating back to the Han dynasty (which ended around 200 AD). The civil service examination system is one of the first methods of allowing people comprising any social class to become a high ranking official. Granted, studying and succeeding in passing any of the exams often required expensive tutoring which limited the success of people outside the wealthy class (not too different from Western society a century or couple centuries ago). There were definitely successful examinees from the lower classes.

[Tocsin]

The premise of the original question seems essentially reversed.

It is not the spread of western culture that allowed us to become technologically advanced, it is the advancements in western technologies that allowed it to become culturally dominant, though the relationship between the two is not exclusive or one way. There is a certain feedback loop in that "western" technological advantages made it possible to dominate other cultures, and the domination of other cultures then provided the west with better opportunities for technological advancement.

[meanlittlechimp]

Guns were the first mechanical objects built with interchangeable parts. (Thank you Civil War!)

Actually forgot to mention the device I was referring too, when I first responded. Europe didn't adopt the inferior medieval crossbow until William the Conqueror around 1,000 AD (after it was transferred to them via the Muslims, who got it from the Chinese). China had a variety of crossbows including repeating crossbows by 600 BC

It carried several bolts and fired without reloading. A gatlin gun for crossbows. Take a look at it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. There are a fair amount of interchangeable parts (even though that is a homemade version made out of wood). The Chinese would put to death anyone who might transfer bow technology to outsiders. It eventually got out, but no one else had it for quite a long time. The Greeks had a version, but was ineffective and ultimately abandoned in Europe until they adopted the Chinese version, thousands of years later.

The Qin in 200 BC fielded divisions with tens of thousands of crossbowmen (Europe didn't have modern crossbows until 1,500 years after they came from China) and had million man armies fighting other Chinese warring states (Zhao, Wei, Han, Chu, Yan, and Qi - that had million man armies of their own!)

Compared to Napoleon who had created the largest army Europe has ever seen in it's history (early 19th century) which had only 690,000 men.


It is not the spread of western culture that allowed us to become technologically advanced, it is the advancements in western technologies that allowed it to become culturally dominant, though the relationship between the two is not exclusive or one way. There is a certain feedback loop in that "western" technological advantages made it possible to dominate other cultures, and the domination of other cultures then provided the west with better opportunities for technological advancement.

Yeah I agree with this for the most part.

Though, I think the big first leap of the west was Newton and development of modern physics.

Copernicus was highly overrated (the east understood the planets rotated around the sun at least 1,000 years earlier). In fact many argue he only figured it out, because they've found texts explaining this - Arabic translated into Latin by Jesuit priests that pre-date him. Though it's debatable whether he stumbled across those translations or not.

[Tocsin]

Guns were the first mechanical objects built with interchangeable parts.

What about the Gutenberg printing press?

[meanlittlechimp]

What about the Gutenberg printing press?

China had the first printing press (I think 400 yrs before Gutenburg); Korea had the first metal moveable type printing press (by around 200 yrs).

[Tocsin]

China had the first printing press (I think 400 yrs before Gutenburg); Korea had the first metal moveable type printing press (by around 200 yrs).

True. The point I was trying to make is that the gun wasn't the first mechanical device with interchangeable parts. Chances are it wasn't even the printing press.

[Krazy P]

I would suggest a couple of books - "The history of the World" by J.M. Roberts and "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Yes, western European culture produced incredible advances and now dominates the current civilized world. Keep in mind that both China and the Muslim world were far ahead of Europe just a few hundred years ago.

Yet, Western Europeans passed them by.

Check out these books and then make your own judgments. Good reading!

[Henry]

I was just watching this thing on Discovery Channel about the Spanish Inquisition and the torture "Rack"....
And I was thinking.. Were the leaders at this time really stupid enough to support this stuff? Were they all too dumb to realize that anyone would say whatever they needed to say when they were being tortured? Especially by something as painful as "the rack"??
Maybe they just wanted to kill a lot of people, but it seems to be something that got out of control when there were no intelligent people in power to really stop it.

Of course, in that time, maybe intelligent people somehow logically came to the conclusion that this culling of those that weren't Catholic was somehow the right thing to do.--- But there were probably always people who thought outside the box and so I feel if they could have gained power, perhaps things could have been different.

I am wondering if our technological advances can be said to be a direct result of the mechanisms in Western Society by which the most intelligent people can gain power and influence (as opposed to previous societies where power and influence were usually determined by family lines and not by intelligence).

I think we can all agree that not ALL people who reach positions of power are incredibly intelligent.. but

When societies began to develop in which intelligent people had a chance to "make it on their own", we started seeing a lot of inventions and advances.
Certainly, many of the technological advances we've seen have been made by people who, in earlier times, would have been born into a lower class of people and had no chance to do many great things or gain an education.


You can just broadly blame some of these atrocities on the Church or religion, but I am not asking a question about religion.- I want to think about it in terms of intelligence. Intelligent people who questioned the norm probably existed back then and so they are the ones I am referring to. If there were people who questioned the church, they may have been killed for it, but eventually some of them prospered and we ended up with a new kind of society.


I know it's really really complicated, but some thoughts would be nice.



I just asked my husband for some thoughts, and he brought up the questions
What about when a society of people chooses a moron for a leader????
(This is possible, esp. since the majority of people in the world aren't ridiculously bright)
The Show says that a lot of the technology developed for the Spanish Inquisition ended up helping to develop some technology we use today (like the speculum)... Also the first supercomputer was made to be able to track the trajectory of missiles? I think.
Weren't some of the first things produced on an assembly line GUNS????

Maybe some of our most useful advances HAVE been spawned by our worst human characteristics.


Hmm

The west was and is ahead because of one thing: vicious competition. When China was several competing fragmentary states, there was a ton of innovation, when united it flattened. Its still pretty flat today, as to date its basically copied western economic structures and production methods.

[Marcus]

Its still pretty flat today, as to date its basically copied western economic structures and production methods.

Japan started the same way after WWII, and where are they now? Also Korea was just copying like China some 20 years ago.

I think you cannot pinpoint a simple reason why the West took advantage on the East, (for a while).

My two cents: the scarcity in West has driven people to aggressively acquire resources by colonization and trade while the East had no such drives and closed off itself from the rest of the World.

[Henry]

Japan started the same way after WWII, and where are they now? Also Korea was just copying like China some 20 years ago.

Neither are at the forefront in innovation, and both are highly dependent on the US economy for their own growth. Every major innovation in the 20th century with the exception of the fuel injector came from the west. Airplanes, automobiles, highways, jet technology, mass integrated rail systems, modern central banking theory, personal computers, most advances in medicine, the internet, space flight, etc are all distinctly western.

They just copied everything both structurally and procedurally, other than the racist "I take money white man, white man no take money me" element in their societies, which is uniquely eastern.

Once they've run out of stuff to copy - ie when their per capita GDP began to equal our own in the late 1980s- they went and have been flat ever since.

My two cents: the scarcity in West has driven people to aggressively acquire resources by colonization and trade while the East had no such drives and closed off itself from the rest of the World.

If China continues its record growth for another 2 decades it may have the same GDP per capita that the US had at its inception. There's plenty of scarcity in Asia and has been for some time.

I think your notion that the east cut itself off from trade retarded growth is absolutely correct. Then again, it probably serves the racism that is still prevalent in these countries today with justice.

[Krazy P]

Another data point for you from some recent research. In the early 18th century in England, the population exploded for the wealthier among the population. The reason: higher savings and longer working hours.

Culture is the reason the West has dominated - a superior culture. Culture is nothing but the sum of the behaviors that a society values and rewards. That culture then competes with others and we get to see which culture outperforms the other.

So, I have played my hand - I am not a cultural relativist.

So, "culture wars" matter - and matter greatly.

[Luthor Rex]

I was just watching this thing on Discovery Channel about the Spanish Inquisition and the torture "Rack"....
And I was thinking.. Were the leaders at this time really stupid enough to support this stuff? Were they all too dumb to realize that anyone would say whatever they needed to say when they were being tortured? Especially by something as painful as "the rack"??
Maybe they just wanted to kill a lot of people, but it seems to be something that got out of control when there were no intelligent people in power to really stop it.

Or maybe what they 'knew' to be true about human beings and nature was so radically different from our own time that to make sense of it you must first understand how they saw the world.

Of course, in that time, maybe intelligent people somehow logically came to the conclusion that this culling of those that weren't Catholic was somehow the right thing to do.

If you absolutely believe that the devil is real and that god commands you to do certain things, then you too will fly airplanes into buildings.


I am wondering if our technological advances can be said to be a direct result of the mechanisms in Western Society by which the most intelligent people can gain power and influence (as opposed to previous societies where power and influence were usually determined by family lines and not by intelligence).

I think we can all agree that not ALL people who reach positions of power are incredibly intelligent.. but

When societies began to develop in which intelligent people had a chance to "make it on their own", we started seeing a lot of inventions and advances.

The history of civilization is not a always-upward moving advance. It's more like the stock maket. You have your crashes and depressions, but over time things go upwards. Intelligent people have always had some power in civilizations throughout the world, please read Homer's Odyssey and you'll see that (even if they were fictional) the portray of Odysseus and Penelopie were portrayals of two gifted people.

Intelligent people who questioned the norm probably existed back then and so they are the ones I am referring to. If there were people who questioned the church, they may have been killed for it, but eventually some of them prospered and we ended up with a new kind of society.

I'm guessing that you are making a false assumption that I notice some intelligent people make. You are assuming that some form of passifism is the most logical position to hold. You would be wrong because evolution has rewarded war. War gets the job done. World War 2 was all about violence solving our problems.

Nature is the best guide for this: violence exists because it is an evolutionary benneficial strategy. This is why we remember the Roman Empire and not the Sabine Empire. The Romans used force to steal the Sabine women and have children with them. The Sabines weren't able to fight back effectivly to keep their daughters from being taken. War, rape, and theft are part of human nature because evolution has rewarded these behaviors when they are used effectivly. Thus war, rape, and theft are the most logical behaviors when specific circumstances arrise that serve evolution.

Nothing makes sense in biology outside of the context of evolution and nothing makes sense in human psychology outside of the context of evolution. If you feel that certian human behaviors are bizzare (be they past or presant), then study evolutionary psychology; you will find your answers there. But you probably won't like what you find.

[Marcus]

Culture is the reason the West has dominated - a superior culture. Culture is nothing but the sum of the behaviors that a society values and rewards. That culture then competes with others and we get to see which culture outperforms the other.

But culture stems from the level of economic development. Take the early 19th century England as depicted in the novels of Dickens. What kind of culture was that?

I think your notion that the east cut itself off from trade retarded growth is absolutely correct.

The classic example is the Dutch getting rich (partly) by trading between China and Japan.

Then again, it probably serves the racism that is still prevalent in these countries today with justice.

(Anti-eastern) racism is also prevalent in the West.

[Henry]

(Anti-eastern) racism is also prevalent in the West.

Uh, not nearly to the same degree.

China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam all have tariffs designed to keep the white man out of their markets. Japan just does the same think with their notion of keritsu and informal notions that its unacceptable to buy from whites.

Its common for Asians to refuse to buy from whites. Its common for Asians to participate in "Asian frats" and "Asian parties". I even recently heard an ad on the radio that it was an Asian's responsibility to buy Asian automobiles in times of economic crisis. Substitute "white" for any of the above and people would be screaming bloody murder.

There is some anti-asian sentiment, and frankly I harbor a fair amount of it because of all the racism and petty clanishness that's common in asian communities, but its not anywhere near the scale that it is in asian communites.

[meanlittlechimp]

China, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam all have tariffs designed to keep the white man out of their markets. Japan just does the same think with their notion of keritsu and informal notions that its unacceptable to buy from whites.


I think it has more to do with the fact we make crappier products than we used too. Although China has a huge trade surplus with us; they have a 100 billion trade deficit with the rest of the world.

Do you think this is because they are singling us out? Are you claiming their racism is helping there economy in some way?

Uh, not nearly to the same degree.
There is some anti-asian sentiment, and frankly I harbor a fair amount of it because of all the racism and petty clanishness that's common in asian communities, but its not anywhere near the scale that it is in asian communites.

There is some truth to this, but I don't know if their racism is greater than ours. One could show plenty of (and probably more) examples of racism towards asians by whites.

[LaoTzu]

From my studies I learned that western culture was indeed backwards in respect to their Asian counterparts just a few hundred years ago. Westerners tried to crack the Asian markets with their products, but were basically rejected because the products they were selling were inferior. (going way back to medieval times) Westerners basically grabbed weapons and forced them to buy the stuff :P

Western Culture, of which I have heritage; basically culled all the best Asian/M.E. practices and adopted them as their own, and has evolved from there. Adaptability and adoption of new ideas is probably our real strength...and military might to protect it of course.

The idea that differing cultures have differences in innovation and knowledge now based solely on race or upbringing doesn't really sit well with me...

China is just getting back now to what it had been for thousands of years. The manufacturing hub of the entire world.... but its not their innovation thats making it so.

Economics drives innovation and probably to an extent, knowledge itself.
And economics doesn't really have anything to do with cultural self-interest.
Just personal self-interest.

Western advances have come from , i believe the military for the most part.
So yes, our best stuff has come out of a desire to kill others :) wonderful world ain't it?

[meanlittlechimp]

Economics drives innovation and probably to an extent, knowledge itself.
And economics doesn't really have anything to do with cultural self-interest.
Just personal self-interest.

I think it's the reverse. Knowledge drives innovation, which in turn, drives economics.

[Marcus]

I think it's the reverse. Knowledge drives innovation, which in turn, drives economics.

Or it's like the egg/hen problem. They're driving each other.

[meanlittlechimp]

Or it's like the egg/hen problem. They're driving each other.

I always thought the egg had to come first. Since eggs evolved in amphibians and fish before land animals came into existence.

The first chicken (which mutated from another avian/reptile species) had to come from an egg before the first chicken evolved.

[Marcus]

I always thought the egg had to come first. Since eggs evolved in amphibians and fish before land animals came into existence.

The first chicken (which mutated from another avian/reptile species) had to come from an egg before the first chicken evolved.

Well, the real question is whether chicken egg precedes the chicken or vice-versa.

My answer: we think of chickens as being constant in time, but it's not true. They are evolving continuously. We just put an arbitrary label to separate this process into two distinct states. So the problem lies not in the chicken, but in our interpretation of the world.

[Tocsin]

Well, the real question is whether chicken egg precedes the chicken or vice-versa.


So the real question should be; which came first, the mutation or the mutant?

[Henry]

I think it has more to do with the fact we make crappier products than we used too. Although China has a huge trade surplus with us; they have a 100 billion trade deficit with the rest of the world.

The Chinese have a long-standing practice of devaluing their currency relative to our own. That leads to large trade surpluses.

Do you think this is because they are singling us out? Are you claiming their racism is helping there economy in some way?

I think that racism is a dominant feature of Asian economics and is not a significant feature in western economics. See Japan's restriction on capital, goods, and western solutions to what could have solved their now 15 year old banking crisis.

There is some truth to this, but I don't know if their racism is greater than ours. One could show plenty of (and probably more) examples of racism towards asians by whites.

Really? Can you find an advertisement somewhere that tells white americans that its their duty during times of economic crisis to buy white product? Name for me a single "Anglo-American Fraternity" on a college campus today. Name for me a single economist or policymaker forming BS theories about why western products should be kept out of their markets. What percentage of white families do you think would disown a child because they were dating an Asian? What percentage of white people refuse to buy from Asians?

Collectively, the most actively racist group in American today is the Asian community. Worse, its tolerated and rarely commented on so its unlikely to change.


From my studies I learned that western culture was indeed backwards in respect to their Asian counterparts just a few hundred years ago.

True - up to the ming unification, at which point there has been little/no technological, political, philosophical, or military progress from anywhere but Europe, the vast majority of this coming from England, Germany, France, and the US.

Westerners tried to crack the Asian markets with their products, but were basically rejected because the products they were selling were inferior. (going way back to medieval times)

A debatable position stated as an absolute. Cultural concerns were also dominant in Japan's decision to keep trade to an absolute minimum and also played a significant role in China's decision to ban trade with the British.

Westerners basically grabbed weapons and forced them to buy the stuff :P

An over-simplified statement. Westerners had success in Eastern markets early in trade, this had cultural/racial/economic impacts and this caused the Chinese to ban trade. At which point the British use selective naval/marine action to force a liberalization of policy.

Western Culture, of which I have heritage; basically culled all the best Asian/M.E. practices and adopted them as their own, and has evolved from there. Adaptability and adoption of new ideas is probably our real strength...and military might to protect it of course.

Here's where you go from oversimplifying everything to just being completely full of it. Just looking at the past century, where western advantages in technology narrowed considerably, every major innovation in the 20th century with the exception of the fuel injector (a small but very significant contribution) came from the west with zero credible relationship with the east. Airplanes, automobiles, highways, jet technology, mass integrated rail systems, modern central banking theory, personal computers, most advances in medicine, the internet, space flight, etc are all distinctly western.

The west lagged because Aristotle and Plato were its leading epistemologist and there was an intense focus on religion led to little/no competition or challenging the status quo. When Francis Bacon revolutionized the field and pioneers like Galileo dared to defy dumb old men claiming divine right to rule, there was little to stop western progress.

Creativity probably resides in the ego, and when you have a culture that strongly discourages ego development - as in the case of europe 476-1492 or China 1368-today - then you get little or no creative development. A hilarious outgrowth of this is people who migrate from countries where ego development is strongly discouraged to countries that are all about ego tend to be 20-30 years old physically and have a 3 year old's ego, which leads to some truly absurd characters, with things like waiting in line or sharing becoming extremely difficult.

[meanlittlechimp]

The Chinese have a long-standing practice of devaluing their currency relative to our own. That leads to large trade surpluses.
Did you read the second half of the sentence? They have a 100 billion trade DEFICIT with the rest of the world, excluding the US. Again, why aren't their devaluation strategies and racism being applied to the rest of the world.

The fact of the matter is that US products have become less competitive - you doubt this? How many of our industries have collapsed that we used to dominate in decades past? That is why we have a huge trade deficit. You think if the US simply devalues it's currency, GM wouldn't be near bankruptcy? You don't think it has anything to do with their poor strategies and management over the last few decades?


I think that racism is a dominant feature of Asian economics and is not a significant feature in western economics. See Japan's restriction on capital, goods, and western solutions to what could have solved their now 15 year old banking crisis.
So you're saying if we increase our racism, our economy would flourish and our trade deficit would be solved. They're somehow cheating the system while we're playing fair? That's incredibly knaive.


Really? Can you find an advertisement somewhere that tells white americans that its their duty during times of economic crisis to buy white product? Name for me a single "Anglo-American Fraternity" on a college campus today. Name for me a single economist or policymaker forming BS theories about why western products should be kept out of their markets. What percentage of white families do you think would disown a child because they were dating an Asian? What percentage of white people refuse to buy from Asians?
There has been a long history of racism towards Asians in this country. I don't have time to educate you about this, if you're aren't aware of this. I do recall seeing Made in the USA ads here, though I'm not sure if it's to the extent of the ads you are referring too that you claim happens in Asia. Care to provide evidence of the ads you speak of?? Btw, Tawaiin, Singapore, Hong Kong and I forget which other asian nations actually have a MORE open economy than the US. Are you saying all Asians economies are thriving because of their racism or just the Chinese and Japanese?

This disowning thing is a bit over-stated. I know plenty of asians dating white people and their parents don't give a shit. If you have any actual evidence beyond your vast knowledge of Asian culture, go ahead and provide it. I'm sure there are some Asian parents who do fit this mold, but you can't say there aren't some white families that feel the same way. Have you ever visited a red state, gimme a break.

[Henry]

Did you read the second half of the sentence? They have a 100 billion trade DEFICIT with the rest of the world, excluding the US. Again, why aren't their devaluation strategies and racism being applied to the rest of the world.

ENJOYING THE USE OF THE CAPS BUTTON?

For one, they've been devaluing their currency for years, that leads to trade surpluses that are immaterial to comparative advantage.

For two, your facts are wrong. Their current account balance is 371bn, roughly 250 of which is with the US, so they're running a 120 bn surplus with the ROTW. Would probably check facts before I regurgitated them from other forum posters.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Chinese have a long history of basing trade policy on cultural concerns. Ditto for the Japanese and Koreans. Nothing is changing.



The fact of the matter is that US products have become less competitive - you doubt this? How many of our industries have collapsed that we used to dominate in decades past? That is why we have a huge trade deficit. You think if the US simply devalues it's currency, GM wouldn't be near bankruptcy?

Basically every "asian tiger" has substantially devalued relative to the US dollar because the US will tolerate it and has a voracious demand for the inexpensive, low quality items that are common from Asia.

US unit labor costs are the second lowest in the developed world, only Ireland has lower unit labor costs than we do, and this is traditionally seen as the most significant measure of competetive advantage. That said, when artificial devaluations are taking place to the tune of 15-25% over the course of a decade, its virtually impossible to overcome that barrier.

So you're saying if we increase our racism, our economy would flourish and our trade deficit would be solved. They're somehow cheating the system while we're playing fair? That's incredibly knaive.

Use a dictionary or firefox please.

Am I advocating increasing our racism? Hardly - merely pointing out the eastern trade policy is significantly influenced by racial considerations.

[meanlittlechimp]

For two, your facts are wrong. Their current account balance is 371bn, roughly 250 of which is with the US, so they're running a 120 bn surplus with the ROTW.

I think you might want to check your facts. Maybe if I put in bold this time, you might catch on (this is what I do when the caps don't work).

"It is important to put these numbers in perspective. Although China represented 22 percent of the U.S. trade deficit last year, that is down from 27 percent in 1997. Also, China runs a trade deficit with the rest of the world." This suggests China is not running a trade policy aimed at subsidizing exports or keeping out imports; otherwise, it would be running a surplus with everyone."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

more detailed breakdown:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Am I advocating increasing our racism? Hardly - merely pointing out the eastern trade policy is significantly influenced by racial considerations
The point is that if you claim it's simply their racism and unfair devaluation practices is causing our trade deficit, wouldn't we gain from enacting the same policies you claim, they are pursuing?

[Henry]

I think you might want to check your facts. Maybe if I put in bold this time, you might catch on (this is what I do when the caps don't work).

ARGUMENTS IN ALL CAPS AND BOLD = WINS

Your facts are off and you're arguing against false arguments.


China's total surplus is 370 billion, 250 of which is a surplus with the US.

China's Balance of Trade - CH/US Balance of Trade = China's Balance of Trade with ROTW

370-250=?

Its not a negative number.

"It is important to put these numbers in perspective. Although China represented 22 percent of the U.S. trade deficit last year, that is down from 27 percent in 1997. Also, China runs a trade deficit with the rest of the world." This suggests China is not running a trade policy aimed at subsidizing exports or keeping out imports; otherwise, it would be running a surplus with everyone."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

more detailed breakdown:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hrm, the World Factbook or Peterson Institute?


The point is that if you claim it's simply their racism and unfair devaluation practices is causing our trade deficit, wouldn't we gain from enacting the same policies you claim, they are pursuing?

You just made up an argument that I never made or implied. I never stated that they're benefiting from it - they're not; like all formal and informal protectionism, its mutually destructive.

The appropriate response? I have no idea, but cultural and racial concerns have a long and storied history of determining trade policy in Asia.

[meanlittlechimp]

Hrm, the World Factbook or Peterson Institute?

I got the original number from Stiglitz (Nobel prize winning economist -who was being interviewed on Charlie Rose). I just pulled the first few links that came up when I searched; the quote I listed was not from the peterson intstitute btw, it was an article written in the Washington Times (the author is a senior economist for the National Center for Policy Analysis)

How about this quote written by another economist at a different think tank:

"Seen from an U.S.-perspective it may appear as if China (as it was said of Japan in the 1980s) was competing in an unfair way. It is said that China keeps its currency intentionally undervalued. But while the United States has a huge trade deficit with China, most other countries have a surplus in their trade with China.[ii]"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not going to dig any more up for you. I've also read the same statements in the WSJ and the economist but go ahead and believe what you want. Besides, you're missing the entire point.

Are you aware that the yuan is pegged to the dollar (so they can't be devaluing their currency). This misplaced and simplistic line of reasoning - which is essentially racism and unfair devaluation - is used by uninformed losers, who want to blame the winners, for making products the world wants to buy. Furthermore, if they're so racist, why are they buying up all our T-bills and essentially loaning the US government money so it's consumers can live an easy lifestyle on credit?

[Henry]

Mean,

You have now argued against 3 false arguments, cited facts that I have shown to be flatly wrong, provided links with data pertinent to a similar discussion 7 years ago and irrelevant today, and now made personal comments. In the most recent post you show a lack of understanding of very basic mechanics of international economics. I think its time to know your limits.



Are you aware that the yuan is pegged to the dollar (so they can't be devaluing their currency).

Are you aware that they've steadily devalued the yuan to maintain the peg? Are you aware of how this peg is maintained? How else do you think they've acquired 1t in T-Bills - by swapping yuan for dollars and buying T-bills.

Its why there's a persistent inflation in China - their monetary policy is determined by balance of trade and US policy, they can't step on the brakes in the same manner that a floating exchange rate system can to contain inflation.

This misplaced and simplistic line of reasoning - which is essentially racism and unfair devaluation - is used by uninformed losers, who want to blame the winners, for making
products the world wants to buy.


Well since you display a lack of understanding of basic principles of international economics, you're going to call me names. And I think calling me "uninformed" when you don't even know how an FX peg is maintained is a bit much, don't you?

The so-called "world's winners" with a per capita GDP of between 2.5-7k, median incomes being a fraction of that, with the world's worst human rights and environmental record?

But I guess since they force their people to work for .12 per hour, engage in a variety of anti-competitive behaviors, have virtually no environmental protection whatsoever, heavily subsidize exports in a variety of fashions, rip off trademarks and copyrights, and artificially manipulate their currency they are "winners" (at making low value-added consumer products) and the US are "losers" because they...uh...have a per capita income between 8 and 20 times Chinese PCGPD?

[qutoe] Furthermore, if they're so racist, why are they buying up all our T-bills and essentially loaning the US government money so it's consumers can live an easy lifestyle on credit?[/QUOTE]

lol - Answered my question above.

No you are not aware of how they maintain the peg. They sell yuan and buy t bills. Its not out of charity, its a necessity to maintain the peg, and as a side note it buys them geopolitical power.

[meanlittlechimp]

Mean,

You have now argued against 3 false arguments, cited facts that I have shown to be flatly wrong, provided links with data pertinent to a similar discussion 7 years ago and irrelevant today, and now made personal comments.

I cited several economists (working at prestigious conservative think tanks) stating their view - you can tell them, why they're wrong. You took one data point from the CIA factbook and extrapolated that China doesn't have a trade deficit with the rest of the world. If you include the surpluses they have with a few other European nations, it would explain why one simplistic data point is not the complete picture.

China pegged their currency to the dollar ONCE. That is not the same as when a country continually devalues their currency by printing money, the way the Fed does. Some argue their currency is under-valued (which I agree with) but that is not the same as de-valuing in the typical context when a country devalues their currency in terms of expansionary monetary policy.

And you still have not addressed the fact if the Chinese are so unfairly devaluing their currency why do they have trade deficits with most of the countries they trade with outside of the US (and a few European countries).

The racism thing is just stupid, so let's just drop that out of discussion for now.

As far as their environmental record - the US is responsible by far for the world's pollution. They only surpassed us in the past 6 months in total CO2 emissions (we still pollute considerably more per capita) and they would have to pollute for quite some time to catch up to total pollution we've already outputted. Furthermore, we pollute while driving SUVs, and heating/cooling 4,000 sq foot homes on credit. They pollute to manufacture products that we wastefully consume, while borrowing the money to do so.

Human rights? How many countries have the US bombed or invaded relative to the Chinese. We killed millions bombing farmers in Indochina. But to you that's probably not a human rights violation. Outside of ignorant Americans, most of the world is well aware that we have been one of the largest human rights violators since world war II. Though I would say the Chinese government violated their own citizen's human rights more; the US violates others (non US citizens) humans rights, far more, than the Chinese.