6 ms·
It feels like we're at the end of an era. Most of us spent an entire lifetime in a particular model. The model being that supply is pretty much unlimited, give
by fleddr 4y ago
It feels like we're at the end of an era.
Most of us spent an entire lifetime in a particular model. The model being that supply is pretty much unlimited, given that you have money. And even money is a pretty fluid concept. Not only is everything unlimited, in recent years we've also made most of it instant. We've become completely detached from real world resources like commodities but also workers.
Indoctrinated to the maximum into this consumer economy, ordering something and learning that you can't have it despite putting up the money, comes as a system shock. The very concept of "NO" is back from past times. What do you mean, no? I said I want it.
Optimists would find it an excellent time to recalibrate society. Acknowledge critical dependencies and in-source them. Spent limited resources, such as workers, on areas considered vital instead of dispersing them across a million things less vital.
Of course, none of this will actually happen. Just like during COVID where we had the "nature is healing" meme, we soon learned that it's same-old as soon as restrictions were lifted. We're unwilling to let go of a fragile and unsustainable global supply chain. We're afraid to make any hard choice at all.
Unlike China. We're all aware their economy is more planned but one of their most fascinating moves is to slash the tech sector. And with "tech" I mean what the US considers tech. Which is the stuff coming out of SV. Most of it is entertainment, social network stuff, games, the like.
According to China, this isn't tech. It's unimportant soft tech that in many ways is a net negative to society. Plus it's hard to censor. So they decimated the entire thing and re-calibrated "tech" to real-world tech.
I'm in no way in favor of this type of intervention but I do find it a fascinating example of making actual hard choices. In the West, we don't seem to prioritize anything at all, we'd rather continue with the limitless illusion in a world that isn't.
- garbanz0 4y agoThis is well written but also very alarmist. There are supply chain issues, but in the west they're limited to certain industries. Amazon orders still arrive in two days. My grocery store is still stocked full. Inflation sucks, and so does the stock market, but we're in the middle of a European war and just out of a global pandemic. Demand has already risen to pre-pandemic levels, so supply will eventually reorient to meet it. All things considered, the economy is still doing pretty great!
- jfim 4y agoThere's all kinds of stuff that's affected though. For example, if you want a 16x7 garage door, you're looking at getting it in November or December of this year if you're ordering now [1]. [1] https://www.homedepot.com/p/Clopay-Classic-Collection-16-ft-x-7-ft-Non-Insulated-Solid-White-Garage-Door-HDB-SW-SOL/204598371 https://www.homedepot.com/p/Clopay-Classic-Collection-16-ft-...
- gedy 4y agoI just find this really silly that something as simple as a garage door takes 5 months and held up by a global supply chain, given this is the United States and our history of steel and machinery manufacturing.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago> our history you said it ;)
- tinco 4y agoCarter and Reagan and basically every president afterwards decided that it was better for the economy if the USA didn't have steel plants. They were probably right too unfortunately.
- majormajor 4y agoThe stuff I've seen issues with have fairly clear demand-side stories behind them. For instance: everything home construction or renovation-wise. A lot of things that were planned around a certain level of demand is struggling to keep up with a boom. "Supply is unlimited" was 'fleddr's impression of the old status quo, but I don't think that was ever accurate. I think demand was predictable and well-planned-for is a better description of what the status quo was. Historical supply constraints showed themselves in areas like console launches - a certain level was planned for, and it wouldn't be economical to meet that all on day 1 vs a lower steady-state production, for instance. Covid-induced behavioral changes shifted a lot of demand around very rapidly. We are learning that the system can't respond instantly, but: * how surprising is that, and is it really something that could realistically be avoided in the future in case of other major instantaneous changes? Investing a lot of money in new garage door production right now is a big gamble - what happens if you clear that backlog and demand settles back to historical levels? * and, how concerning should that be? Is it indicative of permanent societal decline or future failure? That's the part I'd consider alarmist and poorly supported based on what we've seen so far. Many sorts of leisure goods, grocery store items, etc, have nearly fully recovered compared to summer of 2020 shortages. My amazon orders anecdotally mostly are coming in 1 day. Not all of them have, but which way do we think it'll go?
- tester756 4y ago>According to China, this isn't tech. It's unimportant soft tech that in many ways is a net negative to society. Plus it's hard to censor. So they decimated the entire thing and re-calibrated "tech" to real-world tech. hi, any source on that? I'm curious because I do share this opinion.
- fleddr 4y agoSorry, didn't bookmark the article but when you search for "China tech crackdown" and/or "China slashes tech sector" you'll find many articles detailing what happened. I'll update this if I find the article in question again.
- systemvoltage 4y agoDefeatism and giving up on challenges is exactly what I want humanity to not do, but this kind of regressive society is being fed by social media constantly. To live poor, to eat vegan food, to give up technological progress and to save energy. The fact that out of all places, HN advocates it, is truly an end of an era of human ambition. I come to HN for optimism and relentless push to change the world for the better.
- nebula8804 4y agoWhy you bagging on vegan food? Sure not all vegan recipes taste good but it is quite healthy and makes people feel good (at least me). The fact that it can be cheaper and less energy intensive is just a bonus. Think of it another way, that is money and energy you save for something else, like synths!
- systemvoltage 4y agoThat’s perfectly good and fine. I’ve seen veganism marketed as a way to reduce carbon footprint or some ulterior collectivist morality. Also add: Depopulation.
- DoughnutHole 4y agoSometimes solving problems means working with the situation as it is and with what you actually have to work with. Very often that means doing more with less. The world has gotten worse many times before. We need to be able to find ways to cope with and mitigate that rather than just hoping that things will work out and that we can keep on having more, more, more, more and more without ever making sacrifices. Preventing further catastrophe can sometimes do a lot more to make the world better than making the next big shiny thing would. Ambition doesn't put bread on the table in and of itself.
- fleddr 4y agoWell, perhaps you've come to the wrong place. Most tech discussed here, and produced in SV, is basically hijacking people's emotions to click on things. That seems to be where trillions of USD and the world's best engineers are working on. Which is exactly my point: recalibration. Those resources should be spent instead on real tech that solves real problems. Making renewables cheaper/more efficient. Advancing lab-meat. Innovation in housing. AI manufacturing to deal with the population pyramid. Existential things. Not "click this ad".
- goldenchrome 4y agoWhat’s “real-world tech”?
- honkler 4y agonow you'll ask what are "bullshit jobs"
- quickthrower2 4y agoI assume this means things like cars, factories, infrastructure, building industry, military and so on. One of the biggest/famous companies in the world with the most cash is in the US needs China to make it’s devices still. That might tell us something. Are we (westerners) the sheep being well fed, for now?
- fleddr 4y agoTech producing real, hard, undisputed value, typically in the real world. To make the distinction more clear, think of what you can take away. Facebook could stop today and society will be just fine, despite some moaning here and there. The same is not true when you take away real world essentials.
- substation13 4y agoI think WhatsApp has real, hard, undisputed value.
- fleddr 4y agoNo, it doesn't. It has value but no hard value. Perhaps to clarify what HARD means: not getting the necessities of life. Food, energy, health, transport, defense. It's existential.
- unionpivo 4y agoIt has some value. But if it goes away, there are other Apps that work similary. Maybe not as slick, or have all the features, but they have most of them. Hell even if whole App messenger ecosystem would go away, people could go back to SMS and voice calls and still manage to do 70-80% of what they used WhatsApp for. Now consider what would happen if hardware phone vendors would go away. Or car makers. Or ...
- golergka 4y agoI'm confused; are you bringing up China as a good example? Because they currently have much more dangerous problems both with economy and society than the first-world countries, and unlike first-world countries, don't really show agility and self-reflection required to address them.
- fleddr 4y agoI'm sure you're right, but my comment was not a pro/anti China comment or an assessment of the much larger scope you seem to make of it. It's a mere example of a society making a hard choice in where it defocuses and focuses in the backdrop of supply limitations. Plus, don't you think it's interesting how the incredibly lucrative SV tech sector, the one we consider to rule the world...is considered not just worthless by China, but a plain negative? You should really look into the story of the slashing of their soft tech sector. It is the purposeful destruction of an entire sector and its billionaire class in record time.
- DennisP 4y agoRead Peter Zeihan, who very much agrees that it's the end of an era. In his view, globalization is coming to an end, and the supply chain issues we're seeing now are just a hint of what's coming for the rest of the decade. He's not optimistic about China's prospects, though.
- omginternets 4y agoWhat’s his thesis on China, at a high level?
- DennisP 4y agoThere are two main parts to it. First is that, in his view, globalization is mostly coming to an end. The US protected global trade and borders as a trade for help in containing the Soviets, and has been gradually pulling back from that effort since the Soviets fell. This is coming to a head, and is bad for everyone heavily dependent on the global system, especially if they import critical goods. China imports over 80% of their energy and agricultural inputs. One reason the US can't afford to police the globe anymore is that the boomers are retiring. But at least US boomers had lots of kids, because the US urbanized slowly and built things like suburbs. Most other countries urbanized more rapidly, and their boomers lived in little urban apartments and had fewer kids. This is very much the case in China, which of course had the one-child policy on top of that. Their population is going to shrink dramatically over the next couple decades. Russia has similar severe demographics. Zeihan predicted in 2014 that they would invade the rest of Ukraine around the end of 2021, because if they waited much longer they wouldn't have the manpower. This is the first of many trade-disrupting conflicts he expects.
- majormajor 4y ago> Russia has similar severe demographics. Zeihan predicted in 2014 that they would invade the rest of Ukraine around the end of 2021, because if they waited much longer they wouldn't have the manpower. This is the first of many trade-disrupting conflicts he expects. "if they waited much longer they wouldn't have the manpower" isn't really a reason to invade Ukraine. It's a reason to invade before waiting to long if you already have decided to invade for another reason. In 2014 lots of people were predicting Russia would come back at some point. Does he have a unique take on a more underlying reason for the conflict in the first place? That would be more telling in terms of predicting further global breakdown.
- jdgoesmarching 4y agoI’m very tired of this outdated free market in a vacuum ideology that blames consumers for decisions made by and for the benefit of large corporations. Average consumers weren’t clamoring for mass outsourcing, JIT supply chains, or even faster deliveries. These are all decisions that had far more value for shareholders and balance sheets than the average customer. What is the expectation, that individuals should turn up their noses at cheaper prices or faster deliveries to make a statement against globalization at their own expense despite having no real power to change it? I’m all for rejecting the supposed benefits of capitalism, but I don’t imagine that’s the goal for people who push this narrative of shifting the blame from literal decision makers with some hand-waving about “the market.” I’m sure in 5-10 years we’ll have similar revisionist claims that trickle down from The Economist and WSJ that we were all begging for every product to have data-harvesting apps and SaaS billing. Don’t complain, you asked for it.
- fleddr 4y agoI agree in part that this type of economy was "enforced". Still, it's absolutely critical to own our own role in it, as citizens and consumers. With the cheap unsustainable option being there, we all exploited it to the maximum. Also people that in no way needed to economically "optimize" like that. You have a point in that it is predictable human behavior. In the same way that stocking a grocery store for 75% with cheap tasty junk food on average will lead to an unhealthy population. We just don't have that much agency as we like to think to go for the right choice, the 25%. We act on impulse and instincts not made for this modern world. If that is true, then the more important point is that if we were to undo this mess (which I doubt), we must also accept the pain of the better way. To lose a portion of our fake unsustainable wealth. The problem is of course that people cling to it, even to incredibly recent products/services at a particular price. As if it forever was a right they were born with. Further, any politician to propose such policy is going to be wildly unpopular. We see a bad company but don't want to pay for the good company. We see bad politicians but vote away the good one. It's the main flaw of democracy: it has no solution for unpopular yet required measures.
- rufus_foreman 4y agoIt's nothing that a deep recession won't fix.
- throwaway290 4y agoSpeaking of China... What is causing chip shortage exactly? Have they decided the time has come to cut the ideological enemy off? Might be a safe bet, since most people in the West are only going to blame their governments and point how things are better in China.
- fleddr 4y agoNo, because China doesn't produce chips (a few minor exceptions aside). Producing modern chips such as found in smartphones, laptops, etc is pretty much done exclusively using ASML machines. Which are under embargo and cannot be sold to China. Hence, China imports chips. They are machines so complex and high-tech that they basically cannot be reverse-engineered or copied, despite their attempts. China has launched a program to set up their own semiconductor manufacturing and is throwing a huge amount of money at it. You should see this as a two decade effort with absolutely no certainty if it will work at all.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]