Tuesday, January 30, 2007

After a Late Dinner

Maybe I shouldn't have had the grappa. I'll find out in the morning.

It’s an interesting experience to have four people from four countries –- U.S., Britain, Italy, Belgium -– who are all in more or less the same sort of business so they wind up talking about which is their favorite Italian restaurant in Taipei. We all have children about the same age too, going through the same sorts of things. The moment is a reminder that we really are becoming a single world.

There are more pressing concerns. Italians and other Europeans are pondering the same puzzle as Americans (and increasingly the Taiwanese). We remain competitive by moving our manufacturing operations to China and India. Those countries offer the world low production costs. But what do we offer? In the short term, the ideas, the capital and the expertise that drives the manufacturing. But that can’t last forever. What then, when they’ve become as good at the entire production cycle as us? We’ll need something else to do that the entire globe will find value in. No clue yet what that will be.

This dovetails with doomed discussions I have periodically with a certain editor of books who is convinced I know shit about economics. The reality is I haven’t the energy or interest in providing a clear education. Besides, when a given worldview is internally consistent, any external discussion becomes nothing more than a religious argument.

The weather in northern Italy is unseasonably warm. Apparently it hit 21 last weekend, a record high. Locals are recounting the colder, foggier days of their youth. Interestingly, the Englishmen are recounting the exact same thing. Farmers in Worcestershire are planting wine grapes, something Britain hasn’t been famous for since Roman times. It all raises questions. Some people of course point to it as proof of global warming. The truth is we don’t know. Events caused by weather cycles that have periods longer than we’ve been taking data may appear to be troubling anomalies. But we all do agree there’s no harm in reducing emissions. We only need the industrializing nations to cooperate, and maybe then the biggest polluter of them all will buy in too.

Well, I don’t know if it was the grappa, or the white wine before dinner, the red wine during, or the dessert wine after, but it’s after one in the morning and I’m more wired than the radio towers outside Art Bell’s studio. I think I’ll lie down and stare at the ceiling for a couple of hours.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

No! No! Never grappa! NEVER GRAPPA! No!

Dr Zen said...

YMTS "receive a clear education." It's your worldview that is internally consistent: it doesn't admit uncomfortable facts.

You don't "offer" anything. You continue to see the West's engagement with the third world as a trade, when it is nothing of the sort. It is coercive. We use cheap labour because that labour has no option. It works for practically nothing or it starves.

Because you cannot jettison your model of fair dealing, you just aren't grasping that we are not "offering" anything to them bar the opportunity to earn low wages. We are not "competing" in that regard. We do provide inward investment, which is a positive, of course, if your intention is to create growth (which in the case of the governments concerned it is). But the investment is not something we are "giving" to them. It is something we use to take something. An analogy that might work for you is hiring a hitman. You can claim you are giving a job to someone but the person getting killed is having something taken away. What you are unable to see, because your model does not permit it, is what is taken away.

Don't fret though. We have a huge productivity edge over them, which if they ever close it, will cause them to cost as much as we do.

And dude, we will be a single world on the day a peasant from Sichuan can move to SF for work.

Don said...

we will be a single world on the day a peasant from Sichuan can move to SF for work

That day's coming, about when they close the productivity edge. This is when the West will truly discover what it's like not to be the richest, unless we come up with something else of value, as I said. I'm not fretting. Merely recognizing. To fret would suggest we somehow "deserve" better than them. We don't.

And so long as we focus on making money, i.e. getting wealthier by competing in an more or less open market, we will come up with something. People are creative. Stagnation would only occur if we lost that incentive, perhaps got all sentimental over global equal opportunity or some such thing, to which we would ultimately be driven by our nature to react with violence. History never follows a man-made plan.

We offer them the chance to earn lower wages, as you said. They take it because as horrible as conditions are down the supply line, away from inspectors and visitors like me, the workers' alternatives are even worse. Worse, or else they wouldn't take the job. (Unless they're coerced int it, but you'll have to talk to the caring pseudo-socialist Chinese authorities about that.)

Steve T. said...

I'm not sure about Dr. Zen's comments about 3rd world labor exploitation. Some of those he says are being exploited might well say, don't you DARE try to end my exploitation and take away my paycheck!

But one thing I'm sure of. Grappa is fucking awful. Stay away from that shit.

Don said...

It wasn't so bad. I'm just glad to have somehow escaped a hangover.

He's absolutely right that 3rd world workers labor in shitty conditions. But it isn't coercive.

We use cheap labour because that labour has no option. It works for practically nothing or it starves.

If this is true, then there's nothing wrong with giving that labor the opportunity to not starve. Why are conditions so bad to start with anyway? I still think it terribly ironic that a "communist" country such as China provides neither education nor health care, and that the former USSR is such a basket case.

I think some people believe we should hire no one until we can hire them for what we make ourselves (or at least half what we make). That is a nice sentiment but completely irrational. If we operated that way, it would take ten times as long for humanity to rise up to the level of universal prosperity that we would like to see. (BTW this absolutely does not mean equal wealth - that's unattainable, even with violence, the socialist's ultimate tool.)