Unrelated to China but related to your first paragraph about how leftists view the world- I've always felt that the difference between the left and the right is demonstrated in how they view the concept of work/labor. To the left, work is inherently demoralizing and demeaning unless it's the correct, approved type of work. To the right, work itself is almost always uplifting and it doesn't matter the type of work involved. Even the lowliest, least glamorous job is educational. To a leftist, having a job is tedious. To someone on the right, having a job shows that you are being productive.
Your view is interesting. I have to think about it, as I'm trying to find examples where this might be wrong, and nothing has yet popped into my head.
If true, isn't it an even further incongruity and indictment on communism? How can a system that depends on everyone to "work for society's sake" and not personal reasons survive if work is "demeaning and demoralizing?" Wouldn't you need even MORE incentive to get everyone to function in a communist society?
I've never understood how Leftists think or how they can't see the contradictions in their own theories.
Great book by Arthur Brooks, The Conservative Heart. There is dignity in work and menial jobs can lead to something bigger and more sustainable than a government transfer payment.
I would add one thing that many people overlook when analyzing the economics of China.
Performing daily security checks on one billion people is not free of charge, it costs China an immeasurable fortune to follow its citizens around, spy on transactions, trace money from point A to point B, make sure everyone is pretending to be a good communist who is loyal to the party and to chairman Xi. The Chinese do laugh, and appropriately so at what they call "Baizuo". American hypocrites who use virtue signaling to display their so-called purity. Can there be anything more artificial than to pretend for an entire lifetime that you are everything the government wants you to be? China, the laugh is on you.
Communist and totalitarian societies are anything but efficient, as they claim. They are extremely inefficient, as they spurn efficient market mechanisms and function only under laborious decision-making and corrupt incentive structures.
An interesting recent book gives a good account of how corruption and contacts work in China. Red Roulette by Desmond Shum who is one of the people that became a billionaire in China, but got out. His ex-wife and still business partner has, um, disappeared. It's biography long on how the incentives work, no economics required.
Another point I just read, and one that may explain the Russian army’s problems. Dictators can only be threatened by their State Security or military, so they prefer loyalty over competence when choosing who will run these two groups. Looks like Putin ended up with Generals who are loyal but don’t know how to run a war.
Did they study why the Soviet Union collapsed? Doesn't seem like it.
And then Russia went right back to it. Now they wonder why they can't get anything done.
This is why although I believe that China is formidable, it is not as powerful as they project. Motivation and human spirit are big drivers of success, so why would they suddenly have "figured out" how to overcome those things in their communist wonderland? I realize that there is somewhat of a nationalist fervor they generate, but how deep is that?
I think that in general there is nothing less practical than communism as a governing philosophy. It takes no account of human nature and behavior, which is why it appeals to academics. I think that is because communism relies on the simple fact that in order to survive, a person must indeed work. It adds a lot of pretty little bells and bonnets to hide it but in the end, work is about survival. While this is also true of capitalism (i prefer the phrase free enterprise), capitalism gives the individual a choice as to type of work, intensity of effort beyond survival needs, location of work, etc. I think it is that choice that gives the concept of work more dignity in free enterprise systems than it does in communism. Without choice, it is slavery. Since leftists tend to be OK with communism, they see work as slavery. Hence, unapproved work is slavery and thus, demeaning.
Awesome comment. Right on. I especially like the use of the phrase "free enterprise" over capitalism. I'm going to steal that!
Capitalism suggests that all inputs derive from capital or are based on capital incentives. Free enterprise suggests that I can freely give my labors in any which way to satisfy my own needs. It does not depend on how much money another has, but whether the transaction generates value for both of is, even if not resulting in explicit monetary capital.
Exactly. One of the many traps conservatives have fallen into was allowing the left to own language. That started in the 60's. I remember learning about the free enterprise system in junior high. By the end of the 60s, it had morphed into capitalist pigs. Imagine screaming "free enterprise pig" at someone! It lacks the same venom.
The Republicans should be using the abortion decision as a springboard to talk about all of the other things that should be decided at a State and not at a Federal level. This discussion now should primarily be about the role and function of Federalism, to the point that a pro-life Republican should say that a State that keeps abortion legal is properly expressing the will of its citizens, even if said Republican disagrees with it.
But the Republicans squandered the opportunity of this teachable moment and let the Democrats control the narrative as an “abortion ban”. A discussion about Federalism should have been in the wings waiting for this decision, and would have put the Dems back on their heels.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a Leftist raging about "millionaires and billionaires." I then have to get to the "stupid" level of simple questions, essentially getting them to see that wealthy people (on the whole) have created their wealth, not taken it. Of course, there are exceptions, namely theft, corruption, monopolistic behavior or rent seeking by government fiat. But generally the free market is a wealth creating structure, not a wealth transferring one, like governments.
I always get the quizzical look.
When you explain to someone that they don't have to do anything for Jeff Bezos simply because he's a billionaire, and that anything they do for his "billions" is purely voluntary--some get it, most don't. Then when I explain they also don't have to give him any "billions" in exchange for what he's selling, some get it, most don't.
I say, "so if you are not forced to interact with Bezos on the selling side or the buying side, including your own labor...why do you care how much paper money he has? Why does it bother you?"
"No one should have that much money."
"But I just explained to you that money is just a representation of a unit of exchange. You are not obligated to do any exchanging with him, thereby rendering his wealth of no importance to you either way, right? If it is only others who voluntarily work with him and his billions, then why is that a problem for you?"
At this point, I have a completely confused Leftist on my hands and I just have to go to the summary: "the only reason wealth is created is because two parties decided to enter into a transaction that created wealth for both. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. A billionaire is someone who has literally created wealth for other parties billions of times. That's like saying they gave something to many, many people. What's wrong with that?"
But they are stuck on the pie being one size, and everyone has to fight for their piece. They don't get it.
Most of the ones raging are a millionaire or billionaire. Nothing is more disgusting to me than "
Yes, I am hyper rich and I sure wish they'd tax me more". Course, they are bullet proof while people trying to accumulate wealth, or compete with them, aren't.
You mentioned the original effect of the Kung flu on China, but unless I misunderstood your point you neglected to mention that China's hysterical overreaction to Covid continues. It is by far and away the most restrictive country in the world in this regard (among so many others). This has got have an effect on the the economy.
Did you mean to say Leftists see the world as half-full, but also later in the piece you say Entrepreneurship sees the world as half-full? I figured there would be a contrast, because I don't imagine Leftists and Entrepreneurs see things the same way
Great article. I wonder how long before the system implodes and what collateral damage it will cause. A wounded animal is dangerous. Do you think Xi does other things like invade Taiwan or start trouble elsewhere before the end comes?
I don't think they can invade Taiwan successfully. Amphibious landing. Tough. If their military is anything like Russia's they don't have the capability, especially if Japan and the US get involved.
An optimist looks at half a glass of water and says the glass is half full. A pessimist looks at it and says the glass is half empty. An engineer looks at it and says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Unrelated to China but related to your first paragraph about how leftists view the world- I've always felt that the difference between the left and the right is demonstrated in how they view the concept of work/labor. To the left, work is inherently demoralizing and demeaning unless it's the correct, approved type of work. To the right, work itself is almost always uplifting and it doesn't matter the type of work involved. Even the lowliest, least glamorous job is educational. To a leftist, having a job is tedious. To someone on the right, having a job shows that you are being productive.
Your view is interesting. I have to think about it, as I'm trying to find examples where this might be wrong, and nothing has yet popped into my head.
If true, isn't it an even further incongruity and indictment on communism? How can a system that depends on everyone to "work for society's sake" and not personal reasons survive if work is "demeaning and demoralizing?" Wouldn't you need even MORE incentive to get everyone to function in a communist society?
I've never understood how Leftists think or how they can't see the contradictions in their own theories.
.
Smart and wise comment. We are defined by our work. Ask a man what he does and he responds with his work.
There is dignity in work and there is chaos when there is not enough work.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
Great book by Arthur Brooks, The Conservative Heart. There is dignity in work and menial jobs can lead to something bigger and more sustainable than a government transfer payment.
I would add one thing that many people overlook when analyzing the economics of China.
Performing daily security checks on one billion people is not free of charge, it costs China an immeasurable fortune to follow its citizens around, spy on transactions, trace money from point A to point B, make sure everyone is pretending to be a good communist who is loyal to the party and to chairman Xi. The Chinese do laugh, and appropriately so at what they call "Baizuo". American hypocrites who use virtue signaling to display their so-called purity. Can there be anything more artificial than to pretend for an entire lifetime that you are everything the government wants you to be? China, the laugh is on you.
Your point is a good one.
Communist and totalitarian societies are anything but efficient, as they claim. They are extremely inefficient, as they spurn efficient market mechanisms and function only under laborious decision-making and corrupt incentive structures.
An interesting recent book gives a good account of how corruption and contacts work in China. Red Roulette by Desmond Shum who is one of the people that became a billionaire in China, but got out. His ex-wife and still business partner has, um, disappeared. It's biography long on how the incentives work, no economics required.
Thanks for the book mention. It's now on my list of books.
Another point I just read, and one that may explain the Russian army’s problems. Dictators can only be threatened by their State Security or military, so they prefer loyalty over competence when choosing who will run these two groups. Looks like Putin ended up with Generals who are loyal but don’t know how to run a war.
Another good point.
Did they study why the Soviet Union collapsed? Doesn't seem like it.
And then Russia went right back to it. Now they wonder why they can't get anything done.
This is why although I believe that China is formidable, it is not as powerful as they project. Motivation and human spirit are big drivers of success, so why would they suddenly have "figured out" how to overcome those things in their communist wonderland? I realize that there is somewhat of a nationalist fervor they generate, but how deep is that?
History does indeed repeat.
Who is brave enough to give a dictator honest advice or constructive criticism?
I think that in general there is nothing less practical than communism as a governing philosophy. It takes no account of human nature and behavior, which is why it appeals to academics. I think that is because communism relies on the simple fact that in order to survive, a person must indeed work. It adds a lot of pretty little bells and bonnets to hide it but in the end, work is about survival. While this is also true of capitalism (i prefer the phrase free enterprise), capitalism gives the individual a choice as to type of work, intensity of effort beyond survival needs, location of work, etc. I think it is that choice that gives the concept of work more dignity in free enterprise systems than it does in communism. Without choice, it is slavery. Since leftists tend to be OK with communism, they see work as slavery. Hence, unapproved work is slavery and thus, demeaning.
Awesome comment. Right on. I especially like the use of the phrase "free enterprise" over capitalism. I'm going to steal that!
Capitalism suggests that all inputs derive from capital or are based on capital incentives. Free enterprise suggests that I can freely give my labors in any which way to satisfy my own needs. It does not depend on how much money another has, but whether the transaction generates value for both of is, even if not resulting in explicit monetary capital.
That's my take, anwyay.
Exactly. One of the many traps conservatives have fallen into was allowing the left to own language. That started in the 60's. I remember learning about the free enterprise system in junior high. By the end of the 60s, it had morphed into capitalist pigs. Imagine screaming "free enterprise pig" at someone! It lacks the same venom.
That's so true. Why are we in a debate over abortion-which has been settled? Why aren't Republicans talking about the underlying causes?
The Republicans should be using the abortion decision as a springboard to talk about all of the other things that should be decided at a State and not at a Federal level. This discussion now should primarily be about the role and function of Federalism, to the point that a pro-life Republican should say that a State that keeps abortion legal is properly expressing the will of its citizens, even if said Republican disagrees with it.
But the Republicans squandered the opportunity of this teachable moment and let the Democrats control the narrative as an “abortion ban”. A discussion about Federalism should have been in the wings waiting for this decision, and would have put the Dems back on their heels.
I love this point.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across a Leftist raging about "millionaires and billionaires." I then have to get to the "stupid" level of simple questions, essentially getting them to see that wealthy people (on the whole) have created their wealth, not taken it. Of course, there are exceptions, namely theft, corruption, monopolistic behavior or rent seeking by government fiat. But generally the free market is a wealth creating structure, not a wealth transferring one, like governments.
I always get the quizzical look.
When you explain to someone that they don't have to do anything for Jeff Bezos simply because he's a billionaire, and that anything they do for his "billions" is purely voluntary--some get it, most don't. Then when I explain they also don't have to give him any "billions" in exchange for what he's selling, some get it, most don't.
I say, "so if you are not forced to interact with Bezos on the selling side or the buying side, including your own labor...why do you care how much paper money he has? Why does it bother you?"
"No one should have that much money."
"But I just explained to you that money is just a representation of a unit of exchange. You are not obligated to do any exchanging with him, thereby rendering his wealth of no importance to you either way, right? If it is only others who voluntarily work with him and his billions, then why is that a problem for you?"
At this point, I have a completely confused Leftist on my hands and I just have to go to the summary: "the only reason wealth is created is because two parties decided to enter into a transaction that created wealth for both. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. A billionaire is someone who has literally created wealth for other parties billions of times. That's like saying they gave something to many, many people. What's wrong with that?"
But they are stuck on the pie being one size, and everyone has to fight for their piece. They don't get it.
Most of the ones raging are a millionaire or billionaire. Nothing is more disgusting to me than "
Yes, I am hyper rich and I sure wish they'd tax me more". Course, they are bullet proof while people trying to accumulate wealth, or compete with them, aren't.
If you want a quizzical look, ask them what a free market or price discovery is. Or tell them that corporations don’t pay taxes, only people do.
I think of it as people who want a larger slice of a shrinking pie as compared to people who want the pie to grow so that their slice gets bigger.
You mentioned the original effect of the Kung flu on China, but unless I misunderstood your point you neglected to mention that China's hysterical overreaction to Covid continues. It is by far and away the most restrictive country in the world in this regard (among so many others). This has got have an effect on the the economy.
it does. it's biding Xi time and also getting him re-elected to an unprecedented third term
Did you mean to say Leftists see the world as half-full, but also later in the piece you say Entrepreneurship sees the world as half-full? I figured there would be a contrast, because I don't imagine Leftists and Entrepreneurs see things the same way
Great article. I wonder how long before the system implodes and what collateral damage it will cause. A wounded animal is dangerous. Do you think Xi does other things like invade Taiwan or start trouble elsewhere before the end comes?
I don't think they can invade Taiwan successfully. Amphibious landing. Tough. If their military is anything like Russia's they don't have the capability, especially if Japan and the US get involved.
An optimist looks at half a glass of water and says the glass is half full. A pessimist looks at it and says the glass is half empty. An engineer looks at it and says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.