China: Too Little Too Late

A Chinese governmental think tank has suggested ending China's population control policy which is commonly, if inaccurately, known as the one child policy.  China's elite are starting to realize, or perhaps knew for some time, the demographic trap that they are in. The unfortunate truth is, ignoring the inevitable bad end to state directed economy, is that they will get old before they get rich. China has seen a rather dramatic change in the make up of their country already.

Back in the 1980s, around the time the policy was introduced, the median age of China was 22, making it a very young country, and is now 34, which is only 3 years fewer than the United States. In fact, from 2010 to 2050 while the US population is expected to grow by 30%, assuming that the coming economic crisis doesn't reverse our immigration trends, while China is expected to decrease by 3.4%.  The population drop could even be more drastic for China if we consider the implications of a major economic contraction in China; a possibility that I am almost certain will happen.

The key lesson to take away from this is that China has effectively shot themselves in the foot.  While I am sure that an economic contraction will happen in China, if they had still been a young country, there is a possibility that they could weather it. But instead they will also have to deal with an old population, and the lack of their greatest advantage, a cheap young workforce. Even worse is that the article fails to mention a major gender imbalance, due to the one child policy, that will make it incredibly difficult to avoid a dramatic population contraction.

 This is the best, or shall we say worst, example of the ability of the state to dramatic harm to the future of its people even if the fallout is unintentional.  As bad as the FED and the effects of monetary depreciation are, societies and nations can survive them, see Rome, Germany, the American colonies, so on and so forth.  It is a very difficult thing for a society and a nation to survive when its population have collapsed, see the Minoans, Etruscans, Ainu, Sumerians, Aztecs, Mayans, and countless others. Of the hundreds, or thousands, of cultures that exist today, they are but a small microcosm of the millions that have been snuffed out and no longer exist.  Given the size of the Han people I don't see their culture completely disappearing, but it could very well be drastically different, in terms of size and cultural impact in East Asia a century or two from now.

Crusaders Have Too Much Time On Their Hands

This is wholly evident considering that PETA is pettitioning officials in Irvine to establish a memorial for the fish that were killed in a traffic accident. Crimmeny.

Cognative Dissonance

This my friends, is a display of cognative dissonance. They cannot fathom that individuals might not what Obama has done, and must bring out the tired old trop that it must be whiteys racism.  According to the New York Times 43% of the white electorate voted for Obama, a sizable minority of the white vote. Of the 55% who voted for McCain it would be absolutely foolish to think that even a majority of that number voted against Obama because he was black; and in fact more whites voted for Obama, both absotely and proportionally, than they did John Kerry.

But no, the whites who oppose Obama must be latently racist, and the blacks that oppose him must be race traitors by that same logic. If anyone wonders why racial tensions are high, it's because of bogus bullshit studies like this. Personally, I think the results of such a study, based on very subjective criteria and analysis, is suspect; however, if we assume this line of thought to be logical, it isn't, then shouldn't we consider an alternative hypothises? That to the 51% of white Americans did not display 'anti-black' sentiment back in 2008 may have gotten tired of racial guilting and accusations of being racist because they were simply opposed to Obama's policies and not Obama the black man?

Either way this study is pure and utter fiction that proves nothing and only continues to insulate those who cannot see anything outside of a racial lense; or have the ability to recognize questionable sutdies.  Trying to guilt people into revoting for Obama is not going to work. White guilt is overplayed, you'll only succeed in getting raised eyebrows from generation y and x collectively, and the fact is, that Obama has had a very controversial presidency and the economy is in the crapper.  That is why Obama is having a close reelection, not because of any suppossed negative views about black people.

Gangster Economy

Essentially an entire economy run like a mob operation, it can make certain leaders, and officials, incredibly wealthy.  This should also explain why so much Chinese money is knowing flowing into the US and European countries for investment visas and permanent residency. Now our politicians certainly make use of their power to accrue wealth and help elevate their relatives, this happens in business as well, however there are two major differences.

One is that outright profiteering is rather rare, rather, connections are used to open doors and avenues that allow one to create wealth for themselves. The second is that, considering the differing and more mild nature of nepotism and cronyism in the west, it is unlikely that minor officials will be thrown under the bus.  This does not exist in China, and as the case of Bo Xilai shows, even major party officials are now open to being ousted if they fall on the wrong side of the political battlefield.

This isn't to to say that there isn't corruption in America, or that it hasn't gotten worse, as I blogged in parts one and two of what makes a nation prosperous corruption plays a very big roll, perhaps an even bigger roll than democracy; though the two are generally correlated.  But by all accounts of various groups, and by many who travel, the US is a far less corrupt place than China.  Corrupt regimes, be they democratic or authoritarian, are far less stable than uncorrupted ones.

What will happen to China, if at one point, the leadership, or strongest faction within the leadership, starts to go after a political individual that won't go down quietly? Or what if that person happens to be very influential with the PRC military? Ever heard the phrase crossing the Rubicon? It means to go past the point of no return; it refers to Julius Caesars march to Rome were he used his military might to install himself as a dictator.

Caesar had done this for two reasons, one, he had acquired a lot of debt from very influential friends and he needed another pro consulship so that he could commit the tacitly approved of, within reason, grafting. And the other was that he had made a lot of enemies in a lot of high places, and he had broken a lot of laws, and the consulship provided legal immunities to his person.  When his political opponents, who in fact were just as guilty as Caesar of malfeasance, used legality to deny him his pro consulship and order him to return to Rome; where he would be tried for breaking various laws.

Now how do we expect this to go down? A man who conquered modern day France and defeated a foe that had beset Rome since its founding is simply going to disband his army and return to Rome in disgrace? Hardly.  The same could very well happen in China, or even America if we continue on our current path, and nothing destroys wealth and prosperity like a civil war.  The best case scenario in this instance would be a return to the warlord days of the early 20th century and a divided and weak China.

So mule this over for the rest of the day. How stable can a country be when an elected leaders family can use its influence to not just get wealth, but fantastic amounts of wealth on the order of billions of dollars, when almost 600 million Chinese live in abject poverty? And an economy that is at best stagnating, or worse in recession? I think the answer is pretty apparent; not very.

Winning the Battle But Losing the War?

Now that the race is neck and neck, with real clear politics giving Romney a narrow edge in the popular vote and Obama the edge in electoral votes, if we discount battleground states, the likelihood of Obama being dethroned is a possibility; though I have always maintained that if it were Ron Paul versus Barack Obama the election would have been decided months ago, and a republican victory a foregone conclusion in a 1980s style electoral landslide.  However, Obama has shown us that hope and wishes do not make something into reality, so let us continue in reality.

The republicans will absolutely remain in control of the house at the end of this election cycle.  They also stand a chance of gaining the senate, though I am pretty sure the senate will remain in the control of the blue party. As for Romney, here is the electoral map at Rasmussen which shows Obama with 237 electoral votes to Romney's 235 and 66 toss ups, meaning 7 states are in play.

Of those 7 states Colorado and Virginia look like they will go to Romney, giving him 21 needed electoral votes, and that would bring his total to 257; just 13 shy needed to win. Rasmussen shows Romney winning by 2% of the popular vote in New Hampshire, though Real Clear Politics shows Obama up by a small margin.  Assuming that it goes to Romney his total electoral count would go to 261. Meaning if he wins Wisconsin then he wins the day without the much vaunted Ohio.

But Romney probably won't win Wisconsin based of the the the current  polls I have seen; though to be fair there are instances were the polls can be very off like in 2010. A 2% chance is pretty large, so baring a major stumble by Obama and Romney, not outside the realm of possibility, I think that state will go to Obama.  Likewise Nevada looks like it will tilt towards Obama.  However if Romney won both Nevada and Iowa he would still win, despite losing Ohio.  Yet the surest bet at this point is that Romney needs Ohio.  If Romney wins Ohio, with its 18 electoral votes then the only other battle ground state he would need to take, outside of Virginia, would be New Hampshire, or Colorado.  Colorado will probably go to Romney, so if Romney wins Ohio, he pretty much is guaranteed the election.

But that is neither here nor there for me. I am not a polster so my guesses are nothing more than lazily thrown darts, and I have no bone in this race as I am not voting for Obama or Romney; OK I lied, there is a small bone for me. I would derive some small temporary pleasure from the gnashing of teeth from my blue blooded friends and the pathetic cries of racism by certain public figures and talking heads.  I personally bear no ill-will towards Obama as he was no different than Bush, Clinton, Gore, or McCain, or even Romney, but I am exceedingly tired of the cult of Obama that has been perpetuated ever since he won his senate seat all those years ago (I wonder if opponents to Scipio Africanus were also tired of the cult of personality that surrounded him those many thousands of years ago?).

I will also attest to being some what concerned. In my eyes, Romney is really no different than Obama, if perhaps more competent. I know all too well that the president has very little power to make major changes to policy. Domestically the power resides in congress, as the constitution intended, to pass laws and decide the course of the country. And internationally, whatever the president may wish, his actions are constrained by realpolitik. At the beginning of his term Obama wished to reset the relations with the world, and look what has happened, his policies have differed very little from Bush; who himself had expressed a desire to move away from nation building and world policing when he ran for office. 

The most a president could do domestically is make it harder for bad laws to pass, via their presidential veto, and small changes in foreign policy.  Ron Paul would have done this. I am not so foolish enough to think that all our military bases, or military treaties, and clandestine activities would come to an end. Yet, he would move slightly that direction and the most egregious actions and superfluous bases would probably have been closed. Obama and Romney will do none of that. And Romney will not use his veto power to help reign in congress, I have seen or read nothing that indicates that he would.  Don't be fooled by his selection of Paul Ryan; he is a fiscal welter weight compared to either Paul the older or younger.

So here we stand, the republicans have picked a presidential ticket, that in my mind, will do nothing to stop our descent into fiscal and economic madness.  There is no way that what we are doing can continue to go on for another 4 years.  Japan may have gotten away with 20 years of propping up a deck of cards, but that was done with an economically strong Europe, China, and America willing to play ball.  There is no one capable, or even willing at this point, that can keep the charade going.  We will redescened into recession, there will be a major global currency crisis, we will have to pay the piper.  If I had thought Romney could have forestayed, or even lessened, the coming pain I would have voted for him; but he won't, so I won't. My greatest fear at this point, is that the republicans have won the battle, but ultimately lost the war for us.

People will blame Romney and the republicans for the next saga of our crisis. They will utter lines about failed policies of the past, leftist policies but leftists won't tell you that, and blame free markets. We defenders of liberty, who have seen small gains these past few decades, will be forced to defend what little we have.  I fear there is a very real possibility of a quickened descent away from free markets into Argentinian or Greek style democracy.

So even if Romeny wins don't breath a sigh of relief, rather, batten down the hatches and prepare to argue more voraciously against the economic foolishness we are witnessing. We cannot go the way the anti-war movement did when Obama won.  Now if Obama wins then we are in a much better position to argue for the cause of freedom once everything goes down. But if Romney wins, well, sharpen your swords, string your arrows, and ready the dogs of war.