

The Dictatorship of Talent - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04brooks.html?em&ex=1197003600&en=11676006ac944c4e&ei=5087%0A

======
cglee
It's a good observation, but of course, not a complete one. China is still
mired in thousand year old traditions and the country as a whole is more
analogous to a diverse Europe than an evenly developed country like the US.

This article obviously focused on the city dwelling folks, while some other
articles I read focus on the poor, undeveloped countryside. On the whole, all
views of China are correct - it's simply that diverse.

~~~
robg
Chomsky once wrote about how the founding conditions of a country determine
the eventual outcomes. They're extremely resistant to change because they're
so deeply embedded with the fabric of the culture. And that seems especially
true of this country with the constant social tension between freedoms and
Puritanism.

~~~
byrneseyeview
The easiest way to illustrate that is to note that our 'founding' conditions
probably involved an extended mammoth hunt. At what point is a country
'founded' in Chomsky's model? Is he talking about when a dynasty begins, or
when it achieves independence, or when it's first settled, or what? If your
American example is from Chomsky, it's hilariously un-Chomskian "Since America
began -- by which I mean, when Europeans got there..."

------
sethjohn
I was thinking the other day about why American scientists are so successful,
given that they tend to work much less diligently than the Chinese or Indian
scientists I've known. Of course issues of funding and infrastucture have a
lot to do with it, but I think there's something else as well...

As a lazy American I spend a lot of time wandering around campus or at home
not-working, instead I dream up new ways to adjust my methods so that they
take less time and effort. In the long run, tinkering with methods leads to a
lot of innovation. It's this link between a tolerance for laziness and
creativity that has made American science so successful.

------
rms
Great article, this is a good quote:

>You try to tell them that China isn't a communist country anymore. It's got a
different system: meritocratic paternalism. You joke: Imagine the Ivy League
taking over the shell of the Communist Party and deciding not to change the
name. Imagine the Harvard Alumni Association with an army.

It's true, except recently in China it's no longer Harvard alums with the
army, it's MIT (Tsinghua) alums.

~~~
mxh
William F. Buckley wrote: "[I'd] rather be governed by the first 2,000 names
in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 members of the Harvard
faculty."

Posted without comment.

~~~
michaelneale
fantastic quote.

Unfortunately all I have to offer is an episode of the simpsons where the
intelligentsia take over the town for a while __

__The funniest bit being Comic Book Guy saying there will be forced mating
only once a year, "for some, this will be much much less, for me, much much
more".

~~~
michaelneale
Upmods for a simpson quote ! All you hackers just pretend to be high brow
intellectual types. Deep down I know you still like the simple things in life
;)

~~~
jacobolus
You know a very large percentage of Simpsons writers went to Harvard, right?
;)

from <http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1517.html> (via google):

> _I myself have spent the past 19 years working for The Simpsons;_

> _indeed half our writers are Harvard graduates._

------
Alex3917
"They instill in you ... the values of hierarchy and hard work."

Rule of thumb: Any organization that allows you to level up is out to fuck
you, take your money, or both.

Examples: School, business, military, computer games, government, religion,
etc.

~~~
cglee
I get the feeling from traveling there fairly frequently and talking to some
of the yuppies there that, unlike 5 or 10 years ago, all is not lost if you
don't attend college and follow the hierarchy. There is a growing creative
class who were not mechanical enough to get into college, but are smart enough
to channel their efforts to the arts, entertainment, literature and
entrepreneurship. I think this is only true in big cities though, as I have a
hard time imagining country folk being very hip at all. But who knows.

I'll give an example: my cousin is 17 and lives in Beijing. He's exceedingly
intelligent but hates schoolwork. He knows more rappers (in the US) than I do
and knows NBA scores before I do (I live in the US, I should clarify). He
wants to attend college, but knows it's very difficult, but has backup plans
as he's already making decent money as a web developer by day and a DJ by
night.

Sure, "they instill in you ..." blah blah blah, but I get the sense that
there's a strong undercurrent creative subculture emerging and we're going to
see a lot of results come from that in the future in the form of movies, arts,
music and, of course, startups.

~~~
nostrademons
Dunno about that. One of my former teachers is over there now setting up
schools (and doing some management consulting on the side - he's a former
startup founder), and he said that it's very different than the charter school
I went to. China's educational system is great for the 1% that makes it into a
top university, but they really don't care about the 99% that don't, and there
are few opportunities available for them.

His information is current (as of last year), but as part of the
"establishment", he might be unaware of an underground subculture, so it
doesn't necessarily contradict your cousin's experience. As far as the
official system is concerned, though, it's still a vicious meritocracy with
few opportunities for niche players.

------
kirse
You order the delivery of millions of lead-based children's toys and poisoned
toothpaste. You grin mischievously; it is a small sacrifice the consumerist
Americans must pay for your country's increasing economic power. You know
because of your pegged currency, they have no choice but to buy everything you
produce.

------
rms
China really is ruled by academics:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsinghua_clique>

------
mattmaroon
Wish I knew enough about China to know how accurate that is.

~~~
staunch
I'm sure the author does too.

~~~
ivankirigin
Brooks isnt exactly a lightweight. Nick Kristof, who lived in china for years,
has written similar articles.

------
ivankirigin
I liked the article, but thought the note about the communist party not being
Communist was a bit naive. It has _always_ been this way: every communist
country has been ruled by dictators who like power. Only the useful idiots in
the west believed the ideology.

The ending note is interesting. I'd like to hear more about expectations of
change in China. The growth of a middle class could help out a lot. The
inevitable failure of the Great FireWall will help.

The biggest push will probably come from the top, as insightful leaders see
the need for independent thinking and creativity -- the opposite of rote
memorization.

~~~
anamax
> The biggest push will probably come from the top, as insightful leaders see
> the need for independent thinking and creativity -- the opposite of rote
> memorization.

Many leaders have talked about that, but how many have actually done so? (Is
it even possible to "push" for that or is the required action fundamentally
different?) Why will China be any different? ("Because they must" isn't enough
- lots of orgs have died rather than make changes required for their
survival.)

~~~
ivankirigin
Letting people start businesses and reap the rewards is probably all that is
needed. A great deal of business in China is either state owned or heavily
invested by the state (which are effectively the same). The banking sector
that could power an entrepreneurial caste doesn't exist. Credit in China is
extremely bad.

Opening China to foreign banks would help a lot. The first consumer banks move
into China on 2009, I think, but that might be pushed back.

People are smart there. Given the choice between a state owned bank which had
25% non-performing loans just a few years ago, and a citibank, they will
choose the citibank almost every time. This transition could be blocked by the
people on top.

~~~
anamax
> Letting people start businesses and reap the rewards is probably all that is
> needed.

My poorly-expressed point is that that's not really a "push" so much as it is
a pulling back by the leader's organization, a giving up of power. Worse yet,
it's allowing potentially competitive powers.

Orgs and their leaders gain power by controlling. Creating by giving up power
is very different.

~~~
ivankirigin
All real booms in history have to do with people in power stepping back and
letting it happen. Even government sponsored R&D requires a free market to
blossom. Of course growth of truly creative forces requires a pull back of
power.

Put another way, you'll never get dynamic distributed growth through top-down
decision making.

Yes, they need to give up power. If they don't, the change won't happen.

------
DanielBMarkham
The article failed to mention one thing -- corruption. In a chaotic, churning
society, corruption is kept lower because you never know who's going to be in
power next year. In China you always know. That makes it too tempting for
little side deals to be set up. Every one of those side deals takes a little
something from the rest of their society. That's why corruption is so
officially scorned in China, although it is pervasive.

I don't see them overcoming this problem with their current system, much less
moving to a service economy. But I wish them well.

~~~
Kaizyn
I would be willing to bet you that they have no interest in becoming a service
economy. The US built its power up by having a mighty manufacturing sector -
it's what let us build tanks and planes and all the other instruments of war
so well in WWII. Another point to consider is that manufacturing jobs produce
many more jobs to support the work than than do jobs in the service industry.

~~~
felipe
> I would be willing to bet you that they have no interest in becoming a
> service economy.

I completely agree with you. More so, I believe China (and other developing
nations) is pursuing a _knowledge_ economy. We were pursuing it too, until
neocons like Brooks took over 7 years ago and got us stuck in the middle of
the transition.

~~~
rms
What is a knowledge economy, exactly? The Wikipedia article
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_economy>) is a whole bunch of
bullshit. Knowledge economy seems contradictory to me, because information is
free.

~~~
aristus
Information is definitely not free, my friend. In the long run, yes, the value
of information is zero. Yesterday's trade secrets are tomorrow's old news. But
in the short run it can be extremely valuable.

Think about Seagate's QA numbers, or their profit margins, or Amazon's
official opinion on FIFO warehousing, etc. All "secret" and all fairly
worthless if they were leaked. But as they stand that data are vital to their
businesses.

~~~
rms
Yes, that is all valuable information, but it's a long way from forming the
basis of an economy.

~~~
aristus
Basis? Maybe not. Linchpin? Absolutely.

------
gills
This writer (<http://www.oftwominds.com/asia-crises.html>) has some
interesting perspectives on the challenges China will face such as
availability of energy and water, and the impediments to advancement posed by
corruption in the current industrial-government system.

I don't know if the author I linked to is knowledgeable, just something I read
a couple days ago which seems quasi-relevant.

------
JohnN
An interesting question here, is whether China can convert to a service
economy, which is much more information based. If they can develop a big
enough internal market with high levels of consumer demand (the Chinese are
savers unlike the west) then I cant see why they wont be able to rival the
west in the service business.

In which case we are all stuffed, lets learn mandarin and move to Shanghai.

~~~
eru
China getting rich does not mean us getting poor.

------
michaelneale
oookkaaaayy... so how does this explains chinas "manufacturing" "talent" ? As
in, shameless shifting of the lowest quality goods legally allowable (and no
drive for improvement or automation, contrasting with Post WWII Japan).

~~~
icky
> and no drive for improvement or automation

How necessary is automation in a country with a billion people?

~~~
pixcavator
>How necessary is automation in a country with a billion people?

Just as much as in a country with a million people, or a thousand. Imagine,
China needs two billion shoes!

~~~
icky
Sir, your argument by vivid imagery has succeeded!

