Now the challenge for us is that we’re still stuck thinking stores full of Chinese junk is the pinnacle of civilization and we’re unable to know any better despite accumulating evidence of planetary destruction.
we have a big cultural problem. our current economy is great at optimizing for low cost mass produced items that last 6 months and then get thrown in the dump.
a pair of shoes that lasts years isn't as profitable as a pair sold every 6 months. a coat or car that can be repaired is one less customer shopping for a new one. engineers design cars they don't have to work on or repair, and will never drive.
in a healthy economy new entrants who introduce more competitive products that push us towards some impossible limit for utility and value over the lifetime of the product would be more successful. but that's not happening.
maintainable products that last are out there (fewer every year) but people don't buy them.
I have a pair of 5 year old redwing boots that feel fantastic amd look great.
I have a 1986 Toyota pickup I can repair myself that runs like the devil was chasing it. (new Toyotas are a disgrace)
I don't know how to fix it beyond getting people to really value and embrace these concepts of simplicity, maintainability and longevity, over convenience, trendy, flashy, and novelty.
even weirder, if you ask people they will tell you they value maintainability and longevity. Something is perverting the market to drive people towards cheap bullshit. I believe this is concentration of power in cartels of companies that control the markets.
we have (accidentally?) erected a finely tuned machine that pushes markets towards cartels who sacrifice domestic craftsmanship and utility for mass produced crap while both creating and sponsoring the role models our culture idolizes. this is a feedback loop that will eventually become so inefficient that it will collapse.
Cars have never been more reliable and safer, however "better" is a woefully underspecified and subjective thing.
Things I don't like about modern cars: they all look the same, crappy capacitive controls and touchscreens inside the car, constant tracking mandated by law, much harder to work on the car if you are a car enthusiast.
To me, a classic car from the 80s, or even early 90s is a far nicer vehicle to be in and drive, and provides a far better subjective experience, both in and out of the car, so in a sense, modern cars are "worse" for me.
> To me, a classic car from the 80s, or even early 90s is a far nicer vehicle to be in and drive, and provides a far better subjective experience, both in and out of the car, so in a sense, modern cars are "worse" for me.
Just to get this point out of the way: I believe that you are talking about enthuiast cars and not the the Oldsmobile, Taurus, and Chevy Calvaliers I rode around in as a kid.
If you are talking about a "fun-looking car", and you miss the 3-series from the 90's vs those today, buy a mini cooper. That's basically what they are now.
If you want to give up safety, reliability, affordabilty, and fuel efficency, you can still buy a 911. Move up the price range and you can buy Lambos and Masseratis.
Modern cars are safer in a crash and much more efficient. However the experience of sitting inside one, the everyday experience of using one is worse in nearly every single respect except for how much you pay at the gas station. And crash safety is the sort of advantage you hope to never experience.
I'm not sure. I was joking with a friend recently, telling him that he should have asked the seller in the salon for a real car, not his Mercedes that talks and turns on some settings that annoy him and he turns off again and again at every engine start. My mute and semi-dumb Citroen is a better car on that metric.
Have you gotten your Redwings resoled?
Assuming you live in a 1st world country, how much did that cost? How much did you pay for the pair of Redwings?
Goodyear welted soles are expensive. You can buy 6 pairs of workboots from Walmart or hiking shoes from Decathlon at the same price. Resoling welted shoes cost more than double compared to going to buying a new pair of cheap Timberlands on discount.
Both of you are missing the point. Soviets didn't have one sort of butter in the way west had its 20. You couldn't go to the store and buy however much of that shitty butter you needed when you needed it. You had to catch it when it's there and get in line before it runs out, or know someone who'd tip you off, or know someone who'd sell you from the back door. And then somewhere else (not where it was produced) they'd be dumping excess butter into the ditch because it went bad.
It really isn't something you want to find middle ground with. That's like looking for middle ground between wearing nail polish and having a gangrene.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just find it funny that this discussion is happening in context of soviet planned economy, which had no market to speak of, no competition, complete politically moderated indirection between demand and production, and entrepreneurship being outlawed thus no concept of market entry.
Most of the food in the grocery store in the US is not produced abroad. Especially perishables like dairy which have import restrictions and would be too pricey to bring in from far away.
> Maybe we can correct (economic) future by simply insourcing some goods and therefore work and forget about the knowledge society boloney?
WE do insource some goods – where we have comparative advantage, or where the cost of trade negates the benefits of trading with someone who produces it at lower opportunity cost. Insourcing beyond that draws the production possibilities curve inward, making us (and our trade partners) poorer.
Generally, this is a losing deal. It is possible that there are incidental distributional advantages, so that it makes us poorer in aggregate but distributes returns in a way which reduces harms from the current distribution. But that’s not obviously generally the case, and in any case without clear and overwhelming evidence that this would be the effect I’d rather just attack distribution from a position of greater aggregate prosperity than start lopping off prosperity and hoping better distribution came out of it.
It is also xenophobic to believe that Chinese are not able to design junk by themselves. They have a huge internal market and have a lot of reasons to do so. Also, a lot of the junk in question is white label, with pretty much no western engineer or designer involved even when it is sold in the US or Europe.
But the bottom line is, it is junk that comes from China, ergo Chinese junk.
Much of the really well made stuff that we buy here in the US also comes from China. They are now quite capable of very high end manufacturing as well.
All designed in the US, using manufacturing methods pioneered (for the most part) outside of China?
I mean it was only a short while ago that they were able to manufacture metal balls with enough precision to make ballpoint pens.
Besides the fact that they are known for making jumps and leaps in progress by stealing trade secrets. Just calling it how it is, I don't think they deserve credit for working in this way at all, if it weren't the case then I'd be applauding them.
Foxconn and Pegatron are both Taiwanese companies (who make devices for many major manufacturers, not just Apple) but most of their manufacturing has been in mainland China.
Although some of that manufacturing has started to shift recently to India and Vietnam.
I'm sure they do. But the junk comes from many places, and the responsibility is on the companies here. I just think calling it Chinese Junk is hiding the blame.
Look at my fridgidaire fridge and dishwasher - both recently broke at the same time after a few years. Both top of the line consumer models. They're still made in the US, but they're disposable junk sold at the homeless despot.
The fridge is $2k, but has the same cheap components from $400 fridges. Cost cutting is everywhere. Hold the right people accountable, IMO.
China is in the special position of having both a great industrial capacity for complex products and at the same time being the main source of complex products that are poorly designed/constructed. So referring to "Chinese junk" identifies an objective economic phenomenon and is not simply a product of prejudice.
"Chinese junk" can also be used as a term of criticism for a tendency among Chinese suppliers to dishonestly skimp on quality. Hearing of the many troubles American companies have with suppliers in China, this seems to be a valid criticism. However, having worked in the Middle East, I can testify that this problem can be as bad or worse elsewhere.
It is noted than Japan had a similar reputation in the early 20th century, and I think Switzerland also had a reputation for poor quality in the 19th century. In both cases, the governments started programs to change things. There is desire within China to change their reputation. I've read that Alibaba is actively trying not to be seen as a venue for selling "Chinese junk."
>"being the main source of complex products that are poorly designed/constructed"
It is also the main source of complex products of high quality. Problem is the price. Where it matters I buy industrial grade stuff for home use. It works for ages. But it also priced accordingly. Canadians with median income and below simply can not afford quality stuff.
Meanwhile, not sure about the rest of the world, but my personal impression is that in Canada general public mostly thinks that Chinese only steal, copy and produce nothing but junk and are not capable of anything else. So yes it is racist / xenophobe attitude in my opinion.
It the same way that "Made in Japan" or "Made in Taiwan" used to be a label for cheap knock offs. Over time, as China shifts their economy, it will probably change, but right now "Made in China" have a certain connotation, and it becomes an easy shorthand for the disposable crap that fills our stores.
Yes it is Chinese junk if it is junk and manufactured in China - they have created an entirely new economy just for this stuff.
And "xenophobic" is just a nicer way to call someone racist. It was a smart move on China's behalf to produce this junk, they have most of the world's manufacturing.
I think it's a bit harsh to call them xenophobic, but I did have a similar thought recently. What's worse, manufacturing cheap junk for pay, or filling your home with cheap junk?
Maybe it was harsh. However I think it makes the Chinese people look bad, where they aren't really to blame. The CCP keeps labor prices low, and we exploit it, and then we sit here and complain the stuff they make is junk.
> Maybe it was harsh. However I think it makes the Chinese people look bad, where they aren't really to blame. The CCP keeps labor prices low, and we exploit it, and then we sit here and complain the stuff they make is junk.
When someone says "Chinese junk" you're not really insulting the people IMO. Just the cheap grade disposable crap you can find in corner bazaars. That stuff that breaks after 2 uses.
Like someone else said, in the 80s "made in Taiwan" was a rubbing joke and before that Japan. But it has nothing to do with the people, just the phase their industry is in.
It's like people here in Europe saying American cars are gas guzzlers (which they mostly are compared to EU models). You wouldn't take that personally.
Labor prices are much lower in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines among others, than they are in China. So there is a bit more to the story than "the CCP keeps labor prices low".
The cost of labor has increased a lot in China and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Perhaps other choices could do an even better job but certainly a far worse policies could be instituted.
>"What's worse, manufacturing cheap junk for pay, or filling your home with cheap junk?"
Thanks to modern economy in Canada for example people with median and below income currently can't afford to buy anything but junk. Same goes for quality food. Price of accommodation, food and many other things have skyrocketed.
Just did a trip to Loblaws in Toronto yesterday. I disagree. Organic groceries -- sure -- median income people can't really afford it.
The traditional, raw items common to the Anglo-Irish diet like potatoes, corn, flour, butter, cabbage, etc are super cheap in Canada. Meat pricing has been super challenging since the pandemic started.
Canada don't really have the same kind of agricultural subsidies that the United States has. Buying a bag of doritos isn't cheaper than a bag of potatoes. Nor, a big mac cheaper than raw ground beef.
Making those your main source is highly unhealthy. It does not matter if it is called "Anglo-Irish".
Greens, veggies, decent fruits, meat, fish - through the roof. In Loblaws in particular as I often shop in one.
Vine tomatoes - $5 (used to pay $2). Fucking green onions - $2 for pathetic bunch (used to pay $0.5 for a bunch at least 3 times as big). Smaller box of mixed greens - $6 (used to pay $3-$3.50). Etc. etc.
Potatoes are cheap because we have an industrial supply-chain for potatoes that developed and grew for a hundred years. This is linked to the whole "Anglo-Irish" thing.
Potatoes are also cheaper to grow and store.
Greens and fruits are super-perishable and require lots of packaging and protection.
> Making those your main source is highly unhealthy.
I hope nobody is eating green onions as their main source of food. (I am being faceous)
Civilizations have since the dawn of time had some kind of staple cereal crop that provided the majority of the caloric intake. It can be rice, millet, maize, wheat or potato. If you don't use one of these as your main source of calories -- yeah, your grocery bill is going to be expensive in any place and in any time.
For sure -- food price inflation has gotten way more expensive this year and I have no idea how anyone lives in Toronto at the median household income. I think I agree with you, but maybe we have a different way of expressing things.
>"It can be rice, millet, maize, wheat or potato. If you don't use one of these as your main source of calories -- yeah, your grocery bill is going to be expensive"
That is exactly my case. Also I am toll(ish) muscular guy and do about 2 hrs of cardio per day. My main diet is lots of meat / fish / chicken in combination with salad (greens, tomatoes, cukes and green onions), apples and berries. So yes it is expensive but I consider it better choice when one can afford it and for my lifestyle.
Yes I love fried potatoes and some other unhealthy stuff so I may sometimes go wild on weekend but if I switch to it as main caloric source (and I did so some times) I do not feel all too well.
What is your point? I've heard that fast food places had become way more expensive. So yes average Jane/Joe would have nothing left after covering basic expenses. Myself I do not go to places like this at all. We either cook at home or on very rare occasions go to some restaurants where I can get some really good food.
Junk is way cheaper than healthy food if you buy it in the stores vs going to fast food restaurants. But yes almost everything is less expensive in the US.
Please can we stop with this ridiculous exaggeration. It is actually very harmful. There is no evidence of “planetary destruction” or anything like it.
