The Future of the Chinese Military

 Putting together this Powerline post, which includes a graph projecting China's population to 2100, which shows it crashing.  Meanwhile Mr. Kilcullen in his book notes the "little emperor" syndrome, with parents and grandpartents focusing attention on their one child/grandchild. He argues that it will make China's leaders very reluctant to incur casualties in a war. 

The End of Footbinding in Chinese Culture

 In the past I've commented on Prof. Kwame Appiah's book on Moral Revolutions, which includes a chapter on the end of footbinding in mainland China.  He argued that footbinding was a status symbol (Veblen would agree) which became tarnished as "old-fashioned" and not modern in the early 20th century when modernization was very important in China. So women with bound feet lost their value in marriage, so binding ended quickly-a revolution in morals.

Made sense to me.  Had some resonance because my aunt and uncle worked for the YMCA in China during that time. Among the things they brought back were pairs of sandals/shoes for bound feet.

But I ran across this paper, with this abstract:

We analyze the economic motives for the sudden demise in foot-binding, a self-harming custom widely practiced by Chinese females for centuries. We use newly-discovered Taiwanese data to estimate the extent to which females unbound their feet in response to the rapid growth in sugarcane cultivation in the early 20th century, growth which significantly boosted the demand for female labor. We find that cane cultivation significantly induced unbinding, with the IV estimations utilizing cane railroads – lines built exclusively for cane transportation – support a causal interpretation of the estimated effect. This finding implies that increased female employment opportunities can help eliminate norms that are harmful for females. Further analysis suggests that the need for human capital improvement was more likely to have driven the effects of cane cultivation, rather than the increased intra-household bargaining power for females.

Sounds as if the economists have an entirely different perspective. Since the paper text isn't freely available, I can't evaluate it.  But intuitively it makes sense that upper class/leisure class women would have their feet bound. 

We Were Wrong (Third World)

 Noah Smith writes about China's economic progress and its problems here.

His description of the progress China's made reminds me of how wrong/mistaken internationalist liberals were in the 50's and 60's. Back then it seems to me our focus was on the need for foreign aid to help the "Third World" to advance.  I'm thinking of people like Barbara Ward. For all that our hearts were in the right place, I think it's fair to say we never conceived of China's path out of severe poverty. 

Thank goodness we were wrong, because foreign aid, while important and helpful, never reached the levels we thought were necessary. 

A Parallel Between Chinese and American Development?

 A lot of media attention to China, specifically the possible bankruptcy of Evergrande due to overdevelopment of housing, triggered me. 

China's economic development in the last 45 years or so seems to have been based on privatizing land, or at least selling individuals and corporations a long-term right to farm or develop on a piece of land. (I'm hedging because I vaguely remember that perhaps they used long-term leases in some cases, rather like the Brits did sometimes.)

Anyhow, how did the Chinese state get the land? My impression is that as a result of the Chinese Revolution the Communist Party nationalized land in the 1950's, which they've been privatizing since 1980's. 

To me in a broad view that seems like what the English/Americans did--they nationalized the land held by Native Americans and then fueled economic development by privatizing. 

Understatement of the Month: China Lobby

 Josh Marshall at TPM writes about foreign policy: "For years in DC there’s been a vocal China Hawk community".  

Actually it was decades, almost a century.  The China Lobby was old in the 1950's.  As I recall, it started with influential figures who were associated with missionaries in China, such as Henry Luce. (My aunt and uncle worked for the Y in China in 1910's-20'.) 

It was influential, meant we didn't recognize the People's Republic of China as real, and permit it to take its seat on the UN Security Council, until Nixon and Kissinger recognized it in the 1970's.  People such as George Will fought consistently against Republican and Democratic presidents on the issue, eventually focusing on the effort to keep Taiwan well armed.

The Lactose-Intolerant Chinese Don't Have Enough Cows for Their Thirst

 I got to this Reuters article on the growing Chinese market for milk and their lack of enough cows to produce it from the Illinois extension website.  It sparked my curiosity, so I found this BBC article by Googling.  It tries to explain the demand--maybe partially yoghurt, partially other products, partially prestige? 

I'm reminded of a book I've blogged about before, Appiah's, The Honor Code.  In it he discusses the end of footbinding in China.  At roughly the time my aunt and uncle were in China working for the Y Chinese elites were dissing their culture and elevating Western culture as "modern".  Foot binding became regarded as old-fashioned, retrograde thinking.  I wonder if milk is benefiting by a similar logic.

Trump: Keep Your Cotton Pickin' Hands Off My Money

I remember when the Thrift Savings Plan was created as part of a plan to reform the compensation of federal employees, of which I was one. IIRC the administration tried to eliminate the defined benefit retirement plan under civil service.  Switching from defined benefit to defined contribution was all the rage in private enterprise back then.

IIRC correctly there was some opposition particularly on the right based on the idea the investment money would be under the control of political types who would try to use their leverage to further their socialistic goals.

From EBRI's summary:i

KEY FACTORS TO SUCCESS: Despite initial opposition from labor groups and veto threats from the Reagan administration, Congress ultimately enacted a plan that reduced federal spending and eventually won strong support from federal workers, particularly because of the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Lawmakers deliberately and carefully insulated the TSP from political manipulation and minimized the impact of the federal workers’ investments in the financial markets.

Now the Trump administration is pushing the TSP board not to include Chinese stocks in the I (international) fund.  (Some in Congress are pushing a law forward to effect the same goal.)What it means is a lower return on my money because they view China as an adversary. 

I hope all those conservatives who worried about political considerations impacting TSP investment decisions back in 1986 will now oppose this move.

A Tale of Two, No Three, Countries

Marginal Revolution reports Sydney has more foreign-born residents than all of mainland China.

Kottke links to a map of the 637 languages spoken in New York City.

My bet is on the future of the more diverse and welcoming society.

Count Me a Pollyanna

I know President Trump has support for his China policy from many Democratic politicians and in academia and the chattering classes.  The conventional wisdom today seems to be we need to be tough on China on intellectual property issues and other non-tariff issues.  That's not an endorsement of Trump's specific decisions on tariffs.

I may be naive, I think in the long run, maybe the long long run, that policy is ill-advised.  That feeling isn't based on much knowledge, but these are pointers:

• Theft of intellectual property might be bad, but it seems also true that it's not always easy to exploit stolen ideas.  Ideas rely on a network, a specific environment for their implementation and and further development.
• "theft" of ideas is applying a concept which applies to personal or real property to intellectual things.  Another way to look at it is that the "theft" means additional minds working on scientific and technical issues, coming up with new property which, if shared with the world, can help all of us.
• In the bad old days of the cold war it was reasonable to worry about theft of weapons designs. These days there's no country with an ideology of world domination.
• We used to dream of the US as a model for the world (see the Gettysburg Address).  We're losing that dream.

Fact--China has 7 times more African students than the US.

The Transplant Metaphor

I'd draw some parallels between transplanting plants and transplanting ideas.

This post is triggered by the concerns over Chinese "thefts" of intellectual property, and also by reading a book on the Industrial Revolution in Britain.  The author of The Most Powerful Idea in the World emphasizes the interactions and connections which created the revolution.  

As any gardener knows, it's tricky to transplant a plant. Some are very difficult to transplant; in all cases it has to be the right time of year.  Usually plants need soil and climate in their new location close to those where they originated/  When they don't have the right conditions, they wither and die.

I'd argue similar conditions hold for many ideas. It's more clear when you consider such ideas as democracy, market economy, social and political freedom.  Usually they transfer from one country to another only with considerable modifications.  Consider the operations of democracy in Kenya or India.  When you come to more technological institutions or ideas, we assume they can be transferred easily, but not in many cases.  

Consider history in what we used to call the Third World.  In many cases optimistic first world types financed shiny new things, railroads, roads, bridges.  But without the connections to other parts of society there wasn't the money to maintain them.  In Afghanistan, hurdles to the US training an effective Afghanistan army and air force included the lack of literacy among many recruits and the absence of a mechanism to get salaries from the government treasury to the common soldier without fraud.

I'd argue there are similar problems with science and technology.  Even in the US, lots of cities have aimed to create a new Silicon Valley.  Aimed to, but haven't had major success.  Part of the problem is history, part is the fact of competition--we already have a Silicon Valley, part is the lack of the unique set of conditions.which created Silicon Valley in the first place.

All of the above makes me more relaxed about intellectual property issues than most people.

Endlings and Bare Branches

An "endling" is the last surviving individual of a species.  I ran across the term at this Kottke post on "George", a tree snail, which somehow triggered my memory of:

A "bare branch" is the Chinese term for an unmarried bachelor (therefore with no children to add to the family tree).

(Just for comparison of Chinese social norms with American, compare the "incel" to the bare branch--focus on sex versus the family.)

Space Is Getting Crowded

Technology Review counts up the upcoming Mars missions. I'm aware of EU and US missions in the past, but who knew these nations would go to Mars:

• Russia!
• China!!
• UAE!!!

Upward Mobility Revisited

Robert Samuelson has a column in the Post on the decline of upward mobility in America.

What's being measured is inflation-adjusted incomes, comparing children and parents.  So the percentages of children who exceed their parents income has declined. A Brookings study tries to parse out which classes and which age cohorts see the change.

A couple of observations strike me:  it's (relatively) easy for poor kids to beat their parents; it's hard for rich kids to beat their parents.  The child of a welfare mother with no job only has to make it into a lasting job while the child of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates will never beat her parents.

The 1940 cohort has the greatest success, so using it as the baseline for comparison skews the results.  People like me profited by the post-war boom, the increase in productivity, which hasn't been matched in later years.

One thing the discussions, particularly Samuelson's, don't approach is a hobbyhorse of mine: in a steady-state economy every person who is upwardly mobile has to be matched by another who is downwardly mobile. That's apparent when, as here, you use inflation-adjusted income as your measure; it's less apparent when you talk about people moving from one level (decile, quartile) to another.

With dollars of income, it's possible for everyone to out earn their parents, provided only that the economy grows enough.  (Think of China, where the income measure means everyone is upwardly mobile.)

Congress Reluctant on CCC Program

If China puts tariffs on soybeans and other farm commodities, there's been discussion by the Secretary and President of the possibility of providing help to affected farmers, using the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation.  That's getting some pushback from some in Congress, including Republican bigshots according to this article by Chris Clayton .

Banks With No Cash?

In Sweden, according to Steve Kelman here at FCW: ". In what might sound like a joke if it weren’t true, many banks carry no cash on their premises." Kelman is writing about Sweden and China, which he finds to be ahead of the U.S. in some areas of adopting IT:

"First, other countries’ edge over us is sometimes due to technology developed first outside the U.S., sometimes to quicker user adoption (something that would probably surprise most Americans), and sometimes to a greater ability to make non-tech organizational adjustments, such as eliminating minimum transaction values on credit cars, to get the tech to work better. Second, there are clearly efficiency benefits to the new technologies -- think only of the decline in hold ups in stores and bank robberies thanks to the disappearance of cash. But there are also benefits in terms of the general social climate for innovation."

How China Came to Boom

You must thank the bureaucrats for the almost miraculous changes in China over the last 40 years.  That's what I get from this, via Lee Crawfurd post summarizing presentations at a World Bank seminar on bureaucracy:

 Yuen Yuen Ang — How has China done so well in last 40 years without democratic reform? Through bureaucratic reform which has provided accountability, competition, limits on power. 50 million bureaucrats: 20% managers & 80% frontline workers. Managers have performance contracts focused on outcomes, with published league tables. Frontline workers have large performance-based informal compensation. (bonus podcast edition with Alice Evans here)

Problems in Predicting the Future

I never dreamed in the early 70's we'd see a Sunday NYTimes paper we see today.  Back then we were worried about overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, and the failure of the newly decolonized nations to achieve development.  See this piece.  

The Chinese were an ant-like people, all dressed in Mao jackets and still starving from the effects of his ideology.  In that they weren't much different than the residents in the rest of the Third World.The developed world was bad on foreign aid, often funding projects which were strategic in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, not worthwhile for the recipient.

But today we have an article on obesity in Brazil and Nestle's role in pushing First World junk food on willing Brazilians.  And we have an article in the Times mag about the billions of Chinese investments abroad, and the possible debt trap they pose for the recipient nations.

Of course there's no Soviet Union and rich Chinese are buying Western baubles.

It's a strange world.

Trade Is NOT Simple: Vietnam Spinning for China

Lyman Stone tweets, but has a day job, which includes this piece on cotton exports to Vietnam, which are part of a complex web of relationships among cotton-producing country, yarn spinning countries, yarn consuming countries (i.e. China) and multilateral trade agreements. 

Some curious facts:

• spinning yarn and weaving cloth don't necessarily occur in the same country--I wonder why--the one is simpler than the other and easier to outsource? 
• US cotton shipped in bales across the wide Pacific is competitive with cotton grown in India. Our growers are currently more efficient than Indian, so able to handle transport costs?
• China used to have reserves of cotton but are now reducing or eliminating them. Wonder why--moving to less government intervention, if so, why?

Stone's summary paragraph: "If duty-free access for yarn is driving increased spinning in Vietnam, then the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement could be pushing U.S. cotton exports higher.  Yarn spinning being shifted from producer-countries like India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and to some extent China, into duty-preferred importer countries like Vietnam bodes well for U.S. exports.  Because the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement does not require that raw cotton inputs be sourced within the area, U.S. exporters are able to derive an indirect benefit from China’s duty-free ASEAN access."

The China Lobby--Traces of History

In the 50's and 60's we had something called the "China Lobby", a group of politicians and lobbyists who had long supported the Chinese Nationalists, before and after their move to the island of Formosa (Taiwan).  They had influence, ensuring the US did not recognize the existence of Communist China.  They tended to be right wing Republicans, although not completely so, and had alliances with hard-liners opposing the USSR, seeing a monolithic communist conspiracy for world domination.

Then Nixon went to China, and recognized the regime.  The China Lobby was aghast--IIRC George Will and William Safire were outraged.  Over time the outrage has diminished, partially because the members of the lobby have died (Madame Chiang Kai-shek, a fascinating woman), partly the passage of time has dulled passions.  But there's always been a group which supports more arms to China and resists initiatives of opening to China.

With Trump's tweets and phone call with the Taiwan president I'm wondering whether the China Lobby is still exerting its influence.  We'll see.

Knowing What You Don't Know; a Corollary

I may have blogged in the distant past about a time I discovered the importance of knowing what you don't know.  Briefly, I took a call from the Arkansas program specialist.  I hadn't been in my position too long, the specialist pressed for an answer on an issue, while clearly indicating which way he thought the answer should go.  I don't like conflict (might be an understatement) so I went along with him.

Some months later OIG filed a report challenging the rule the Arkansas office had applied, reporting that they had had approval from Washington for this dubious action.  Big embarrassment when I had to admit to my boss, a very nice guy, I was the one who had screwed up.  After that learning experience I tried to remember the lesson and to teach it to my employees when I moved back into management.

Long story short:  Evan Osnos, a very good writer in the New Yorker, has this paragraph on Trump's phone call with the president of Taiwan:

"For a piece I published in September, about what Trump’s first term could look like, I spoke to a former Republican White House official whom Trump has consulted, who told me, “Honestly, the problem with Donald is he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.” It turns out that is half of the problem; the other half is that he has surrounded himself with people who know how much he doesn’t know."

[The ability to spell diminishes with age, at least in my case.  Misspelled "correllary"]