Discussion of Russian economics (split from TSW)

[SilverHawk]

An Economical Superpower, yes. But it's still very much only a Regional military power and it still has a long way to go on the Science front to catch up to the US and Japan.

A long way to go? All it takes is money, which the Chinese have got lots of. Any analogy of the Chinese being technologically or scientifically "stuck in the 1970s" is ridiculous. Do they have to reinvent the microprocessor because somehow, someway, China is stuck in a 1970s tech-base due to a magical "technologically/scientifically stuck in the 1970s" time bubble? Is color television just catching up in China? Like, are the Chinese people just starting to play Pong or something? I hear rollerblades are just around the corner, since it got invented in like 1979.

While they might not have America's shitton of useless "global" military powerdick toys, nor have they wasted all their money sending some assholes to the Moon in a useless feat of astronatic aerobics, neither of those those things are really necessary or that important to China's rise when they're making everyone speak Mandarin and serve kimchi and dog for dinner.

I take exception to the Moon Missions being worthless. Sooner or later, we're going to have to leave this planet for living space, minerals, global diaster or we just want to explore the universe around us. The Moon missions proved that it could be done.

Also, how's that internet and GPS working out for you? You can thank the US military for those powerdick toys as you call them.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, how's that internet and GPS working out for you? You can thank the US military for those powerdick toys as you call them.

Actually, another proof of the point about China being a superpower or very close to that is that they have (a) good internal semiconductor technologies and (b) their own geopositioning system (COMPASS). Which means they have basically replicated the "powerdick toy" that is geopositioning.

But I think the "powerdick toys" are the 11 or so aircraft carriers. America's war machine is enormous relative to the Chinese military, and if China decided to spend more on building high-speed trains when it could've built more bombers or ships or whatever - fine for them.

The Moon missions proved that it could be done.

Quite certainly. But without orbital infrastructure, this is untenable. And orbital infrastructure, just as ALL space exploration, suffered an enormous setback after the collapse of the USSR - and now with the current crisis. Instead of having three space stations (US, Russian and Chinese), we now have one "International" one which was expensive, always failing schedule and basically is the same thing as Mir. Instead of planning the lift of orbital modules that would allow to build exclusively orbit-to-orbit ships for Moon transfer, we are set back many years.

In these conditions, the launch of a single space station and it's supply doesn't seem that little a feat.

[SilverHawk]

You got me there, if China launches their Space Station, hopefully that will convince Congress to give NASA more money and tell them to stop using robots for everything.

[Zixinus]

You got me there, if China launches their Space Station, hopefully that will convince Congress to give NASA more money and tell them to stop using robots for everything.

You do realise that the Cold War is over, right? There is no more nationalistic dick waving done. I somehow don't see any reason why USA would even care about the Chinese space station, as it is very clear that the Chinese are not in the least interested in attacking the USA, not even by accident.

Oh, and I hope they don't cancel the robot jobs. They actually get things done and if they cancel it, then the USA won't bother with space anymore.

[SilverHawk]

You got me there, if China launches their Space Station, hopefully that will convince Congress to give NASA more money and tell them to stop using robots for everything.

You do realise that the Cold War is over, right? There is no more nationalistic dick waving done. I somehow don't see any reason why USA would even care about the Chinese space station, as it is very clear that the Chinese are not in the least interested in attacking the USA, not even by accident.

Oh, and I hope they don't cancel the robot jobs. They actually get things done and if they cancel it, then the USA won't bother with space anymore.

It has nothing to do with dickwaving, bub, it has to do with being the best in space. Something that has been on the steady decline since the end of Apollo. Also, robots aren't people, they don't fire up the minds of the common man like the flesh and blood explorers of the Space Race. People only seemed to care about the Space Shuttle when it blew up.

[Simon_Jester]

The American impulse to be Best in Space always had a strong dickwaving aspect; note that Kennedy's declaration of the Apollo program in 1961 came hard on the heels of a series of Soviet firsts in space.

If we don't care about that, there's no obvious reason why China doing things in space would motivate us to do things in space. It might work, of course, but it might not.

[Shroom Man 777]

I take exception to the Moon Missions being worthless. Sooner or later, we're going to have to leave this planet for living space, minerals, global diaster or we just want to explore the universe around us. The Moon missions proved that it could be done.

The Moon missions got ditched and now Space America is on the cusp of losing its manned spaceflight capability. A bunch of footprints, some dune buggies on the moon, and a dysfunctional space program, ain't really that grand in the grand scheme of leaving this planet for living space, minerals, global disaster, etc.

Also, how's that internet and GPS working out for you? You can thank the US military for those powerdick toys as you call them.

You don't need to launch a man into the moon to develop those. China can get the technology to do that without wasting money sending taikonauts to the moon so they can eat dogs in space or something.

[my point being china doesn't need to do great huge ass epic feats to "match" previous feats by the USA/USSR/Nazi Germany, they can get those thing by being wealthy]

What did the moon shot or space stuff have to do with the internet anyway? Wasn't that ARPANET stuff?

[SilverHawk]

What did the moon shot or space stuff have to do with the internet anyway? Wasn't that ARPANET stuff?

It didn't, you silly hat wearing man. The internet was related to US military dickwaving toys because DARPA developed the system as a way for hardened underground facilities to stay in contact with each other after a nuclear exchange.

[Simon_Jester]

Hawk, I think we need to stop and define "dick waving."

Having a military is not dick waving. Planning to defend one's own country is not dick waving. Having a large economy, building infrastructure projects to make that economy grow, those things are not dick waving.

International dick waving occurs when you start seeing nations engage in unprofitable enterprises, with no obvious objective directly related to the cost of the undertaking. Or when they start trying to define the entire world as their "sphere of interest" and assert their right to interfere anywhere at any time. Or when they start doing things for reasons of prestige. That's the big one right there: reasons of prestige.

Thus. Having a nuclear deterrent, even a large one? Not dick waving, because there is a good and obvious reason to want that- defense of your country against direct attack. Developing a complex communication network to make sure you can still coordinate your forces in a nuclear war? Not dick waving. Again, that's a move that is directly related to a specific need, not something you did so you'd be able to brag about it.

Having carrier battlegroups in every part of the world ocean, ready to bomb the shit out of anyone within several hundred miles of a coastline on a week's notice? Now that can be construed as dick waving. We don't need that capability to defend ourselves; we need that capability in order to tell other people what to do without playing the nuclear card. There's a difference. We build the nuclear force so no one can come over here and kick our asses; we have those carrier groups so that we can go over there and kick people's asses at will, and so that they will know we can.

"Choosing to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard?" That's dick waving. That doesn't mean it's an inherently wrong thing to do, but we should be honest with ourselves that we did it in large part because of a desire for national prestige, and out of the fear that the USSR would do it first and get that prestige instead. The Apollo Program was in many ways a big "Hey, y'all, watch THIS!" project. I wish we were doing more in space, but I don't deny that one of the big motives for space exploration is showing off national capabilities, as with any other kind of monument.

China's space program will not necessarily have the same result as the USSR's, because the US does not see itself as China's rival, or vice versa. Therefore, it is hardly guaranteed that the US will suddenly rally and start designing Next Apollo Program just because the Chinese put someone on the moon. We may just say "good luck with that," because the critical motivation of dick waving is largely gone.

[Samuel]

Having carrier battlegroups in every part of the world ocean, ready to bomb the shit out of anyone within several hundred miles of a coastline on a week's notice? Now that can be construed as dick waving. We don't need that capability to defend ourselves; we need that capability in order to tell other people what to do without playing the nuclear card. There's a difference. We build the nuclear force so no one can come over here and kick our asses; we have those carrier groups so that we can go over there and kick people's asses at will, and so that they will know we can.

I all due fairness you could consider it part of keeping the seas open to American trade and the truely massive overwhelming force a nice and polite way of insuring everyone gets the message so no one ever tests our willness to fight. Of course, we have probably passed that point a while back.

[Zixinus]

And this, otherwise excellent thread, has been derailed by SilverHawk's careless ignorance.

It has nothing to do with dickwaving, bub, it has to do with being the best in space.

So earning the (somewhat meaningless with the current technology) "best in space" title is not dickwaving?

And let me refresh your memory on the political aspect of the Sputnik: to the USA, it was a threat, as it meant that rockets could deliver nukes instead of requiring bombers. The USA could be attacked without any defence (back then). That Russia had no intention of doing so and made the rockets to compensate for their gap in air force and other stuff. For propaganda reasons, there was a vision of a massive (and mostly non-existent) nuclear and missile gap, which the USA wanted to fill back in with its own missiles. It started threatening the USSR back and the end was the Space Race, a big effort to show off rocket technology.

China sending stuff into orbit is not a new thing. The USA is confident that it will not be attacked by anyone on Earth, especially not China who it outsources a good deal of its industry to and owes money to. There will be no new Space Race, there will be no reliving history.

Also, robots aren't people, they don't fire up the minds of the common man like the flesh and blood explorers of the Space Race.

So manned missions should be done because... they look good? And that's the most important?

You see, there is this difference between us: I want to see a practical, working space force that can use reusable vehicles to spend up stuff in higher orbits economically. Stuff that we can make further stuff from, like orbital elevators or interplenatery crafts that can go on several-year missions with much more supplies than what a single rocket could supply. Crafts that can later do stuff like transport people and cargo between planets on a regular basis, rather than do one-off missions.

In short, I would like to see a space force that can establish a permanent space presence of humanity.

For you, assessing from what I have read so far, it is a matter of prestige and showing up that the USA is the BEST IN SPACE, whatever that means. You want another Apollo, perhaps just on Mars. In other words, dick-waving of technological capacity.

Meanwhile, robots do not need air, they do not necessarily have to return to us, they can last years, they can be active 24/7, they can be tailored to the environment they go in (unlike humans), can be more easily sent to places (again, they can wait years in a capsule to reach their destination), are lighter and thus cheaper, are expendable and in other words can get shit done. Robotics have advanced much since the moon missions. If the USA drops its robotic exploration of outer space, it will drop most of its space program, period.

[Zixinus]

And this, otherwise excellent thread, has been derailed by SilverHawk's careless ignorance.

On retrospective, I think I should apologize: I am attacking SilverHawk, while I should be attacking his arguments. I may have become carried away.

I would say for the same reason the US did the same thing and exported all it's heavy industry jobs that it could. (resulting in the Rust Belt). But then I remembered that China already pays it's workers little more then dirt to cut costs. So yeah, but I wouldn't call China a technological superpower by a long shot.

China has over 300 000 engineering graduates while the USA has about 130 000, according to this article (that actually tries to repair an incorrectly stated number of 70 000 engineers in the USA versus 600 000 engineers in China).

As for technological superpower, allow me to a bit more anectdotal: look around your room. Pick up any electronic item and see whether it has "made in China" written on it somewhere. Unless you have deliberately avoided buying Chinese, you will likely find that most of your electronics, including your high-end computers and computer parts, are produced in China. They have their own microchip industry.

If I recall correctly, the USA outsourced a lot of its industry to China because wages (and the cost of living) is lower in China. That is not so with Russia, due to climate. How is the two situations comparable, especially considering that we are talking about a highly-specialized industry (that no longer may exist in Russia to begin with)?

[Simon_Jester]

I all due fairness you could consider it part of keeping the seas open to American trade and the truely massive overwhelming force a nice and polite way of insuring everyone gets the message so no one ever tests our willness to fight. Of course, we have probably passed that point a while back.

The problem is that that's not a critical defensive need; it's us wanting to be the world hegemon. Which, when you get right down to it, is not a critical need for any nation. We choose to do it, and I am not saying we should or shouldn't; I'm just saying we should be honest enough to admit that it's an actual choice on our part, that we are essentially doing this out of a desire to be most powerful, as opposed merely to a desire to protect ourselves.

Self-defense does not begin at your enemy's doorstep.

[Starglider]

Do they have to reinvent the microprocessor because somehow, someway, China is stuck in a 1970s tech-base due to a magical "technologically/scientifically stuck in the 1970s" time bubble?

No, but they did have to build up local facilities and expertise despite stealing a vast amount of IP from foreign corporations (both Western and other Asian countries). Since the mid 90s the Chinese state-sponsored processor development effort has consistently trailed Intel / IBM / AMD etc by about eight years.

Russia had a prime opportunity in the mid to late 90s to become a center for software development outsourcing. It had a large pool of talented programmers and plenty more highly educated people who could learn IT skills. India snatched that prize not so much because of wage differences; IT professionals in India have very high average incomes compared to the country as a whole. India got the bulk of the business despite having a wholly inferior talent base because they were far more entreprenurial, worked out how to present themselves well to Western executive boards, paid for puff pieces in trade journals etc etc. In actual fact in the 1990s most Indian IT consultancies were a thin veneer of reasonably competent people (often Western ex-pats) hiding a vast pool of hopelessly undertrained staff with no real insitutional knowledge or depth of talent. This has improved slowly over the last 15 years as the companies and workforce as a whole gained experience.

In the mid 90s Russians had much more engineering talent to offer at relatively similar costs. But they could not market themselves or adapt to Western standard project management practices. Russian software engineering talent became associated with organised crime, identity theft and zero-day exploits. The best talent fled the country and was not replenished. Data centers are a smaller but still significant missed opportunity; stringing backbone fibre-optic cable is relatively cheap, and Russia had cheap nuclear and hydro power and the skill base to build and man data centers; hell, they even had plenty of spare fortified buildings to put them in. Canada is opening new data centers due to the combination of cheap power and reduced cooling costs - Russia would benefit from much cheaper labor. Complete lack of initiative and letting infrastructure deteriorate instead of upgrading it with resource revenues killed that idea.

From what I've head, even aerospace suffers from the same problem; no understanding of how international business works (even basic things like how much to quote, how to structure bids and contracts). All developing countries had this problem, but they hired in Westerners and sent students to Western universities until they had absorbed the necessary expertise. Russia did not do this; pride perhaps?

Unless you have deliberately avoided buying Chinese, you will likely find that most of your electronics, including your high-end computers and computer parts, are produced in China. They have their own microchip industry.

High end computer parts are overwhelmingly produced in Taiwan, with a smaller portion in Korea and south-east Asia. Arguably Taiwan is geographically part of China, but it isn't part of the PRC.

P.S. Sorry, but this is another 'drive by' posting, I'm really busy with a contract right now and I don't have time to check SDN much.

[mr friendly guy]

High end computer parts are overwhelmingly produced in Taiwan, with a smaller portion in Korea and south-east Asia. Arguably Taiwan is geographically part of China, but it isn't part of the PRC.

Nevertheless products made in the ROC (Taiwan) will be labelled as such to distinguish it from those made in the PRC (China). Thus Zixinus point still stands if one can pick up an electronic item which says made in China. Now Taiwanese companies do produce a lot of electronic goods such as Foxconn which wiki says is the largest manufacturer of electronics and computer components worldwide. Now Foxconn has a giant factory in, you guessed it Shenzhen China where they employ 300 000 people making electronics including parts including that for the ipad. They have recently been in the news because of suicides among staff and giving their employees a pay rise.

So while Taiwanese companies do make a lot of electronic goods, a not an insignificant amount is made in China.

[Starglider]

High end computer parts are overwhelmingly produced in Taiwan,

Thus Zixinus point still stands if one can pick up an electronic item which says made in China.

My definition of 'high end computer parts' is server, workstation and gamer class PC components, because that's what 'high end' usually means in the IT press. If you think that Iphones are 'high end', then sure, lots are assembled in PRC. Note that even there the high-value semiconductors (processors, memory) are not made in the PRC.

[K. A. Pital]

Since the mid 90s the Chinese state-sponsored processor development effort has consistently trailed Intel / IBM / AMD etc by about eight years.

So China's cloning of Pentium 4 factors in here how?

Russia had a prime opportunity in the mid to late 90s to become a center for software development outsourcing. It had a large pool of talented programmers and plenty more highly educated people who could learn IT skills. India snatched that prize not so much because of wage differences; IT professionals in India have very high average incomes compared to the country as a whole. India got the bulk of the business despite having a wholly inferior talent base because they were far more entreprenurial

What a load of crap. India had a greater population base, cheaper wages and finally, yes, Russia DID become a "center for software outsourcing". Which didn't do any good, because you can't feed 140 million people with software development alone. Hello that thing called "diversification". However, what it did, is snatch most software specialists out of Russia and into Silicon Valley in a brain drain hitherto unseen.

In the mid 90s Russians had much more engineering talent to offer at relatively similar costs. But they could not market themselves or adapt to Western standard project management practices.

Oh the contrary - Russians simply emigrated along with their talent. End of story. I can dig up figures on the brain drain, if you like.

[Vympel]

What's the standard of Russian higher education now? I always understood that Soviet technical/scientific education was to a high standard. Has that declined, or is it still of a high standard and the brain drain simply continues?

From what I've head, even aerospace suffers from the same problem; no understanding of how international business works (even basic things like how much to quote, how to structure bids and contracts). All developing countries had this problem, but they hired in Westerners and sent students to Western universities until they had absorbed the necessary expertise. Russia did not do this; pride perhaps?

I think this problem has been recognised. Sukhoi's Superjet program (a regional airliner) is in concert with numerous Western firms and so far it has quite a fair few potential orders from various markets.

The problem is mainly however that its very hard for say Tupolev or Ilyushin to compete with Airbus or Boeing.

[K. A. Pital]

What's the standard of Russian higher education now? I always understood that Soviet technical/scientific education was to a high standard. Has that declined, or is it still of a high standard and the brain drain simply continues?

Astronomy was recently stopped in all schools, physics and math hours greatly reduced. The quality of education fell greatly and the disastrous effects continue. Oh, and should I even mention the introduction of religious lessons

The nationwide examination system reform led to a massive downgrade, because students are no longer judged by an objective standard; instead, a weighted average is made post-facto from the results they display during the exams - which means that they can still pass them even if the quality of education in total continues to slip.

This is downright atrocious.

[Vympel]

Astronomy was recently stopped in all schools, physics and math hours greatly reduced. The quality of education fell greatly and the disastrous effects continue. Oh, and should I even mention the introduction of religious lessons

WTF?!?! Keep in mind that my meaning in "higher education" meant universities - surely astronomy, physics and math hasn't stopped in university? Please tell me you're talking about primary and secondary school.

(In Australia astronomy was never taught in school, AFAIK)

[K. A. Pital]

In Russia, it's reverse. Astronomy used to be in the general school (not "primary", the ordinary school upon ending which you apply to uni). Astronomy has not been a part of the general university curriculum (the first two years of education when all subjects are roughly the same) for all majors not in hard sciences; therefore, by stopping it at school, a huge chunk of population basically will know shit about astronomy.

When I finished school the Soviet program was still in place. For example... My own school used to have a specialized math and physics class program, three languages (French, German, English). Today the math class is gone, physics class is gone (replaced by a single "technical class"), hours for math and physics suffered a 25-30% reduction and of the three languages taught only one remains (English).

Demography, poor teacher's wages and thus a lack of qualified specialists are doing their grisly job. And the reforms are not meant to "fix" the problem but merely to make the current situation the norm. Can't hold up to the standard, lower it and problem solved, that's what they must be thinking.

[Edward Yee]

The demography issue is what spooks me the most, Stas, in a "general foreboding" kind of way...

[SilverHawk]

I almost want the Cold War back, at least then the Soviets weren't trying to stupidfy their citizens.

[Simon_Jester]

I almost want the Cold War back, at least then the Soviets weren't trying to stupidfy their citizens.

What I want is the Soviets but not the Cold War; the two don't have to go hand in hand. Except that if the USSR had never fallen, no way would the politicoes on either side let it end.

[Zixinus]

I almost want the Cold War back, at least then the Soviets weren't trying to stupidfy their citizens.

The only thing required to get good education is political will. The most sensitive part would be saying "fuck you" to those wanting more religious lessons, but less so that you want kids learning more physics, maths, chems, bios and languages.

The bigger issue, of course, is paying teachers non-shit wages.

However, don't expect it under a government that serves itself and not the people.