Five Questions: II
Sep. 27th, 2008 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danalwynSo, I read the debate transcripts from last night. Mostly I was unsurprised; both candidates spent time rehashing their positions. This is perhaps reasonable; when it comes to foreign policy there seems to be only one straight, narrow, and reasonable path that politics will let us follow. The consensus robs the foreign policy debate of any edge, since it carefully steered the candidates away from problems that have no easy answers.
So I'm continuing to write down the questions that I think are the most paramount for the candidates to actually need to answer. I reaffirm my promise to vote for anyone, even McCain, if they start answering these question to my liking, but based on what I saw last night, I doubt that I'm going to have to change my vote any time soon.
2) How is America going to deal with the global economy?
It may seem odd to talk about the future of the economy while it is currently undergoing a meltdown, but the truth is, we have to start talking about it now. Sooner or later we're going to stop digging and have to start figuring out how to get ourselves out of this pit that we've dug.
The problem is that while the US may be the best, and most capable of the 20th century economies, the 21st century offers a whole new set of challenges that nobody really understands. One thing is certain; whatever we have been doing just isn't going to cut it anymore.
The essence of the free market is competition, and a recognition that the less resources are spent creating each good, the more efficient the process, the better the economy as a whole is. This is why the economic potential of the world really has jumped, even as we have seen our jobs go overseas. If it's cheaper to build our cars in Mexico, or in China, then it not only lowers prices in the United States, but also frees up our own workers to work on something else. In theory, this is a marvelous system.
In practice, it's had some lumps. Lots of lumps. It's sent American jobs flying overseas, reduced our capability to be completely self-sufficient, and even worse, now that the floodgates are open, they can't be closed again. It is too late to pretend that the world looks the same way it did in 1950, unless we want the rest of the world to pass us by.
The problem is that once we strip away manufacturing, the only real jobs that we have left are the ones that come from developing new technologies, and new creative ideas. For that we need a workforce capable of investing heavily in the latest technological frontier. So far we've been able to do that. Despite falling manufacturing jobs, the United States came out ahead on the internet, and despite the activities of a portion of the religious right, and the attempts of nations like Singapore to catch up, the US still has a formidable presence in the new frontier of biotechnology. And the US remains ahead in vital fields like semiconducter technology and green energy research.
But nobody knows what tomorrow may bring. Today, nothing is more important, it seems, then oil. But in as little as fifteen years we could be looking at crude, petroleum fired engines as a thing of the past, as a relic out of history. In a hundred years we could be lofting constellations of satellites into space on solid-fuel boosters, or in fifty we could be nearing the finishing stages of the first space elevator. Biotech could form the gateway to a new generation of medicines, or it could end up stalling where we are now. Nobody knows.
There is only one constant in all models and predictions. There is only one resource that we can say for certain will be decisive in every possible economic situation, with every change in technology, and able to adapt to every shift in the market. We need to devote ourselves to producing as much of that as possible. And that resource is people. Smart, capable, talented people.
Because we cannot predict what we will need people to work in, we need experts in every field of science and technology. We need to be the experts in engineering, in entertainment, in computers, and in marketing. And because the development of new technologies often yields huge benefits to the nations that develop them, we need to maintain our position at the forefront of research and development.
Long term, the only thing we can do to prepare ourselves for the future of the global economy, where we can no longer guarantee ourselves manufacturing jobs, where we have competition on a scale never before envisioned, is to be faster and more flexible then everyone else. Nations like Singapore can afford to put most of their eggs in one or two baskets, but the United States is too large to accomplish the same feat. The only way we can put our eggs in every basket is going to be to create a workforce that has the skills necessary to move almost seamlessly into any field that appears promising.
That means a lot of investment now into educational opportunities, into long-term research projects, and a commitment to remaining in the forefront of global development. If companies are going to have to hire someone to take advantage of new discoveries in the fields of micro-robotics or genetic engineering, we want to make sure that they hire here. If any nation is going to make blockbuster films, or award-winning television shows, they should be us. That means that tomorrow's workforce has to be trained by the best system that we can come up with.
We can't hope to go back to what we were, nor can we hope to close the doors and still stay on top of the world. If we are going to compete in the new global economy we are going to have to do it by developing, not manufacturing jobs that will go abroad at the first opportunity, but development jobs. And because development jobs are quickly outsourced, we must always be opening up new fields to exploit, in any industry. And the only way of even having a prayer of doing that is by making our workforce the best-educated, and most flexible force in history.
Of course, even then we might have a hard time competing with other, even larger nations. There's a way around that, of course, but we'll have to save it for another time.
So I'm continuing to write down the questions that I think are the most paramount for the candidates to actually need to answer. I reaffirm my promise to vote for anyone, even McCain, if they start answering these question to my liking, but based on what I saw last night, I doubt that I'm going to have to change my vote any time soon.
2) How is America going to deal with the global economy?
It may seem odd to talk about the future of the economy while it is currently undergoing a meltdown, but the truth is, we have to start talking about it now. Sooner or later we're going to stop digging and have to start figuring out how to get ourselves out of this pit that we've dug.
The problem is that while the US may be the best, and most capable of the 20th century economies, the 21st century offers a whole new set of challenges that nobody really understands. One thing is certain; whatever we have been doing just isn't going to cut it anymore.
The essence of the free market is competition, and a recognition that the less resources are spent creating each good, the more efficient the process, the better the economy as a whole is. This is why the economic potential of the world really has jumped, even as we have seen our jobs go overseas. If it's cheaper to build our cars in Mexico, or in China, then it not only lowers prices in the United States, but also frees up our own workers to work on something else. In theory, this is a marvelous system.
In practice, it's had some lumps. Lots of lumps. It's sent American jobs flying overseas, reduced our capability to be completely self-sufficient, and even worse, now that the floodgates are open, they can't be closed again. It is too late to pretend that the world looks the same way it did in 1950, unless we want the rest of the world to pass us by.
The problem is that once we strip away manufacturing, the only real jobs that we have left are the ones that come from developing new technologies, and new creative ideas. For that we need a workforce capable of investing heavily in the latest technological frontier. So far we've been able to do that. Despite falling manufacturing jobs, the United States came out ahead on the internet, and despite the activities of a portion of the religious right, and the attempts of nations like Singapore to catch up, the US still has a formidable presence in the new frontier of biotechnology. And the US remains ahead in vital fields like semiconducter technology and green energy research.
But nobody knows what tomorrow may bring. Today, nothing is more important, it seems, then oil. But in as little as fifteen years we could be looking at crude, petroleum fired engines as a thing of the past, as a relic out of history. In a hundred years we could be lofting constellations of satellites into space on solid-fuel boosters, or in fifty we could be nearing the finishing stages of the first space elevator. Biotech could form the gateway to a new generation of medicines, or it could end up stalling where we are now. Nobody knows.
There is only one constant in all models and predictions. There is only one resource that we can say for certain will be decisive in every possible economic situation, with every change in technology, and able to adapt to every shift in the market. We need to devote ourselves to producing as much of that as possible. And that resource is people. Smart, capable, talented people.
Because we cannot predict what we will need people to work in, we need experts in every field of science and technology. We need to be the experts in engineering, in entertainment, in computers, and in marketing. And because the development of new technologies often yields huge benefits to the nations that develop them, we need to maintain our position at the forefront of research and development.
Long term, the only thing we can do to prepare ourselves for the future of the global economy, where we can no longer guarantee ourselves manufacturing jobs, where we have competition on a scale never before envisioned, is to be faster and more flexible then everyone else. Nations like Singapore can afford to put most of their eggs in one or two baskets, but the United States is too large to accomplish the same feat. The only way we can put our eggs in every basket is going to be to create a workforce that has the skills necessary to move almost seamlessly into any field that appears promising.
That means a lot of investment now into educational opportunities, into long-term research projects, and a commitment to remaining in the forefront of global development. If companies are going to have to hire someone to take advantage of new discoveries in the fields of micro-robotics or genetic engineering, we want to make sure that they hire here. If any nation is going to make blockbuster films, or award-winning television shows, they should be us. That means that tomorrow's workforce has to be trained by the best system that we can come up with.
We can't hope to go back to what we were, nor can we hope to close the doors and still stay on top of the world. If we are going to compete in the new global economy we are going to have to do it by developing, not manufacturing jobs that will go abroad at the first opportunity, but development jobs. And because development jobs are quickly outsourced, we must always be opening up new fields to exploit, in any industry. And the only way of even having a prayer of doing that is by making our workforce the best-educated, and most flexible force in history.
Of course, even then we might have a hard time competing with other, even larger nations. There's a way around that, of course, but we'll have to save it for another time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-28 06:20 pm (UTC)Though if this was ever true for us, it was in my parents' day, when the country was industrialising on a massive scale in order to move beyond being merely "British Naval Base" and "Regional Entrepot Port". It's likely we're even less able to afford putting our eggs in one basket than the US is, given that there's still a significant amount of competetive industry over there to help absorb market failures. Singapore, on the other hand, doesn't have that capacity. The government's ventures into biotechnology are just the ones that get the most publicity overseas--it's widely acknowledged over here that expansion into as many creative endeavours as possible is imperative for the nation's continued survival.
Long story short--for the US, upgrading is necessary in order to maintain the position it's held for the past century at the head of the free world. For us, it's an outright existential struggle.
Of course, the real sticking point in all this renewal that's going on is what happens to all those people who, before the big paradigm shift, were making comfortable livings working in factories and various other old economy jobs, and are now finding themselves incapable of functioning in the new economy. Not only don't they have the skills necessary to contribute to the new economy, how are they expected to educate their children to be able to participate if they can't pay for it? Worse, many of them may not even know how much they or their children need to upgrade in order to fit in, and may actively resist any effort to change. One thing leading to another, this is likely to end in the creation of a permanent underclass. I'm not too sure about this, but it seems pretty likely that there'd be a lot more people like this, proportionally speaking, in the US than there would be in Singapore. Do you happen to see this as an issue that needs tackling?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-02 04:03 pm (UTC)There is a potential for an underclass - which is why I think that the government is going to have to pay the bill for educating everyone. That's going to be a major sticking point in the US. The problem is that I think those jobs are going to fail anyway. I don't really know how they can avoid failing. I don't think there's a way to protect them. It's like watching the fishing industry die once all the fish are gone. The only way to handle it is to provide new jobs, but first we're going to have to build up new industries for those jobs to be in. So yes, I see it as a problem that needs addressing, but it's going to have to wait until we've opened up new fields. If there are no jobs, nothing I can do will have much of an effect.
I don't know if Singapore has the capacity to expand into so many ventures at once; you would know better then I. Each one takes a lot of money, and I don't know how much Singapore actually has in reserve.