What does this say about the relative commercial success of the diaspora? I've had some recent experience in commercial relationships with non-diasapora Chinese, and that certainly put a big dent in any notion I had of natural Chinese business acumen - which what you write here seems to support. So was emigration a self selection mechanism?
The commercial success of Chinese diasporas has been usefully studied. They do well in low-trust societies. In high-trust societies, not so much. In the latter societies, they just show the level of economic success one would predict from their education levels (and other capital).
In low-trust societies, networks along which information and reputation flows readily, with strongly aligned mutual expectations, have major commercial advantages. That is how you get market-dominant minorities (to use Amy Chua’s term). Chinese society generates such networks very readily. Hence the importance of “dialect” networks.
Interesting, though the document refers to 1993–94, when the Chinese diaspora generated ~$500 billion, roughly equal to China's GDP at the time. It shows that the diaspora was successful only relatively, largely due to the recent mismanagement of the Chinese economy. Now, with China's GDP at ~$20 trillion, this is no longer the case.
And yet all points about a successful minority with high internal trust within low-trust societies remain valid! This naturally led to endemic envy in these low-trust societies feeling being exploited (validly or not); there are no easy ways to develop high trust and also to match the same level of IQ. This is evident in typical examples of repercussions faced by market-dominant minorities, though I adhere to moral error theory and refrain from applying judgment.
In this context, I always recall the largely-forgotten Fiji coups against elected ethnically-Indian governments, which confirmed that it's not just the Chinese diaspora that gets targeted.
Ironically, during the Voice campaign, the Fijian "Great Council Of Chiefs" was lauded by the Yes campaign as a wonderful example of indigenous "involvement", completely forgetting (or not having an ounce of historical knowledge to start with) their wildly anti-democratic (& nakedly racist) role in the 1987 and 2000 coups.
The recent loony tunes from the White House has completely undone what was a burgeoning wave of dislike for Big Daddy Xi. Only days ago, popular sentiment was hating on the guy. Now, it's coalesced nearly everyone into supporting him in giving implicit double middle fingers to Agent Orange.
We see a similar effect in Canada. Of course, if Xi fell, there is the danger the next CCP guy would be cleverer. (Carney is clearly cleverer than Justin Blackface: this is not a good thing.)
Bill got played. For Trump, no cost to be decent and a nice guy for an evening. Bill just normalized the guy based on an evening and a photo op for Trump.
Progressives complaining about normalizing the abnormal never fails to make me chuckle. They’ve spent the past 25 years doing exactly that on a social, sexual and moral basis.
Question. Is the American "experience" in China (Barbara Tuchman`s book about Stillwell comes to mind) the foundation of the Australian "experience" of China?
Not really. The Australian “experience” of China mainly comes from Chinese immigrants. We sent a small contingent to put down the Boxer Rebellion, but that is mainly a footnote to our military history. We participated in the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960), but that was the Chinese diaspora again. We did fight against Chinese troops in the Korean War.
The most obvious feature of our recent experience is (1) we sell lots of stuff to China (2) CCP attempted bullying and intimidation.
As a child I remember my parents having this very eccentric old guy over for dinner a few times, who apparently knew Kissinger from Harvard, and claimed that it was Tuchman's book that sent everybody over to China in 1972.
Excellent, insightful article.
What does this say about the relative commercial success of the diaspora? I've had some recent experience in commercial relationships with non-diasapora Chinese, and that certainly put a big dent in any notion I had of natural Chinese business acumen - which what you write here seems to support. So was emigration a self selection mechanism?
The commercial success of Chinese diasporas has been usefully studied. They do well in low-trust societies. In high-trust societies, not so much. In the latter societies, they just show the level of economic success one would predict from their education levels (and other capital).
In low-trust societies, networks along which information and reputation flows readily, with strongly aligned mutual expectations, have major commercial advantages. That is how you get market-dominant minorities (to use Amy Chua’s term). Chinese society generates such networks very readily. Hence the importance of “dialect” networks.
See, for instance, https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/overseas-chinese-business-networks-in-asia-2
Interesting, though the document refers to 1993–94, when the Chinese diaspora generated ~$500 billion, roughly equal to China's GDP at the time. It shows that the diaspora was successful only relatively, largely due to the recent mismanagement of the Chinese economy. Now, with China's GDP at ~$20 trillion, this is no longer the case.
And yet all points about a successful minority with high internal trust within low-trust societies remain valid! This naturally led to endemic envy in these low-trust societies feeling being exploited (validly or not); there are no easy ways to develop high trust and also to match the same level of IQ. This is evident in typical examples of repercussions faced by market-dominant minorities, though I adhere to moral error theory and refrain from applying judgment.
In this context, I always recall the largely-forgotten Fiji coups against elected ethnically-Indian governments, which confirmed that it's not just the Chinese diaspora that gets targeted.
Ironically, during the Voice campaign, the Fijian "Great Council Of Chiefs" was lauded by the Yes campaign as a wonderful example of indigenous "involvement", completely forgetting (or not having an ounce of historical knowledge to start with) their wildly anti-democratic (& nakedly racist) role in the 1987 and 2000 coups.
South Asians in East Africa are another example. Market-dominant minorities regularly get targeted.
Yes, I am old enough to remember the Fijian coups, as I was curious around 2002 to visit Fiji, and reconsidered based on that. No noble savages...
Thomas Sowell wrote about that as well, though the name of the book escapes me.
So Bette Midler's character in Down and Out in Beverly Hills was right, and the Chinese DO travel in gangs?
Tangential observation here in Wuhan...
The recent loony tunes from the White House has completely undone what was a burgeoning wave of dislike for Big Daddy Xi. Only days ago, popular sentiment was hating on the guy. Now, it's coalesced nearly everyone into supporting him in giving implicit double middle fingers to Agent Orange.
We see a similar effect in Canada. Of course, if Xi fell, there is the danger the next CCP guy would be cleverer. (Carney is clearly cleverer than Justin Blackface: this is not a good thing.)
I’d put Xi staying right where he is at about 99.99999% probability likelihood.
mf: Mr. Maher Goes to Washington | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxlopbcfXpQ
Bill got played. For Trump, no cost to be decent and a nice guy for an evening. Bill just normalized the guy based on an evening and a photo op for Trump.
This is the best take on it so far...
https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-theater-of-intimacy?lli=1
The way folk are freaking out because Trump 2.0 has worked out how to use the authority handed to US Presidents is, amusing.
Progressives complaining about normalizing the abnormal never fails to make me chuckle. They’ve spent the past 25 years doing exactly that on a social, sexual and moral basis.
Right, that reminds a passage from Lorenzo's previous post:
"It is notable, for instance, that a 2012 study found that US liberals https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092 were more inaccurate about both fellow liberals and about conservatives than US conservatives were about US liberals and fellow conservatives."
Question. Is the American "experience" in China (Barbara Tuchman`s book about Stillwell comes to mind) the foundation of the Australian "experience" of China?
Not really. The Australian “experience” of China mainly comes from Chinese immigrants. We sent a small contingent to put down the Boxer Rebellion, but that is mainly a footnote to our military history. We participated in the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960), but that was the Chinese diaspora again. We did fight against Chinese troops in the Korean War.
The most obvious feature of our recent experience is (1) we sell lots of stuff to China (2) CCP attempted bullying and intimidation.
As a child I remember my parents having this very eccentric old guy over for dinner a few times, who apparently knew Kissinger from Harvard, and claimed that it was Tuchman's book that sent everybody over to China in 1972.
I suspect the Sino-Soviet border war and the Soviet enquiries about whether it would be OK if they nuked China had more of an effect.
You're probably right, but I heard that Pat Nixon was actually an avid reader.
On Australians in the Korean War see:
https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/korea
Cool. You read it. It's the first step in seeing and understanding Chinese society.