Comments on: Macroeconomic Indicators Show That Chinese Growth Has Softened http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/macroeconomic-indicators-chinese-growth/2008/10/22/ An independent perspective on the Australian and global investment markets Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Charles Norville http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/macroeconomic-indicators-chinese-growth/2008/10/22/comment-page-1/#comment-48115 Charles Norville Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:24:40 +0000 http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/?p=4121#comment-48115 The thing to remember about China is that it is a national socialist type structure in so far as the Govt calls all the shots in China and is really the biggest company in the world. It can if it wants promote its own internal capital works indefinitely, so it would seem, to keep its huge work force working - cheap energy, cheap food, cheap materials and abundant cheap labour the main economic ingredient. So long as the environment holds out But there is technology on the horizon, to be developed every where, that would make the cost of labour irrelevant requiring abundant energy using relatively less materials per capita with a labour force supefluous to need. Where does the sustenance for an abundant population come from which would have essentially nothing to do? This technology would be a global phenomenon and we always have had the problem of balancing technology with unemployment, some nations don't even use the unemployment statistic - I think this is the fad of Keynesian technology. The word 'poor' is analogous to 'cannot provide technology at a reasonable cost to an individual or living thing'. Technology increasingly advanced is inevitably energy:material costly perhaps not in monetary terms depending on the ease of abundance, even with less entropy when materials are efficiently applied. A relatively small population like Aus would have all the material and energy needs it required for such advanced technology and with the cost of labour irrelevant would not need the massive industrial machinery synonymous with the old BHP steelworks in Newcastle. Most of the Aus population could go about doing the same non productive work they do now having the abundance of advanced technology with its abundant energy:material on demand, the essential productive work being done by a core of technicians and engineers (fairly usual). It seems to good to be true and in it is. Aus does not have this wonderful technology and we have long since deindustrialised, we just enjoy doing the same non productive stuff and let the rest of the creditor nations pay for it and the good we use. Most deep recessions and certainty depressions require industrial capacity. So in answering my own question, viz the quandary of sustenance for abundant populous nations, I would say that it may be necessary for Aus to help out voluntarily or otherwise the access to advanced technology energy:material, per capita needs of the more populous nations and I note that Kevin Rudd's immigration policy has got a handle on this prospect already. The thing to remember about China is that it is a national socialist type structure in so far as the Govt calls all the shots in China and is really the biggest company in the world. It can if it wants promote its own internal capital works indefinitely, so it would seem, to keep its huge work force working - cheap energy, cheap food, cheap materials and abundant cheap labour the main economic ingredient. So long as the environment holds out

But there is technology on the horizon, to be developed every where, that would make the cost of labour irrelevant requiring abundant energy using relatively less materials per capita with a labour force supefluous to need. Where does the sustenance for an abundant population come from which would have essentially nothing to do?

This technology would be a global phenomenon and we always have had the problem of balancing technology with unemployment, some nations don't even use the unemployment statistic - I think this is the fad of Keynesian technology. The word 'poor' is analogous to 'cannot provide technology at a reasonable cost to an individual or living thing'. Technology increasingly advanced is inevitably energy:material costly perhaps not in monetary terms depending on the ease of abundance, even with less entropy when materials are efficiently applied.

A relatively small population like Aus would have all the material and energy needs it required for such advanced technology and with the cost of labour irrelevant would not need the massive industrial machinery synonymous with the old BHP steelworks in Newcastle.

Most of the Aus population could go about doing the same non productive work they do now having the abundance of advanced technology with its abundant energy:material on demand, the essential productive work being done by a core of technicians and engineers (fairly usual). It seems to good to be true and in it is.

Aus does not have this wonderful technology and we have long since deindustrialised, we just enjoy doing the same non productive stuff and let the rest of the creditor nations pay for it and the good we use. Most deep recessions and certainty depressions require industrial capacity.

So in answering my own question, viz the quandary of sustenance for abundant populous nations, I would say that it may be necessary for Aus to help out voluntarily or otherwise the access to advanced technology energy:material, per capita needs of the more populous nations and I note that Kevin Rudd's immigration policy has got a handle on this prospect already.

]]>