"I’m trying to prepare them as best I can for the world as I see it ... The money is in the East, and the debtors are in the West. I’d rather be with the creditors than the debtors”
I certainly think it says a lot about the way he sees the world that the location of global capital is apparently the most important factor in raising his children.
You may call it global capital, others may call it opportunity and if they do, then they can rephrase your statement as "the location of opportunity is apparently the most important factor in raising his children." Stated that way, I don't think he's any different than any other parent in history.
More precisely it is "economic opportunity". I've yet to see more than a handful of people search out places of opportunity targeted at raising flourishing children, as opposed to seeking out economic opportunity. Raising flourishing children requires a community with good social capital, amongst other things --- money is only one, small contribution, and it is possible to make flourishing communities and children without much money. When I saw the headline about a global kid, I at first thought along these lines, since American society sucks at the pursuit of happiness and human flourishing (despite the propaganda to the contrary) --- and so it makes sense to move to another country/culture for a better social fabric.
If you take this articles as "Very wealthy man with the resources to do so moves family to where he perceives the focal point of future growth and opportunity will be," it's a rather uninteresting story.
However, if you take this as "American investor perceives future opportunity to be greatest in China, enough so to relocate family"...then it's a bit more interesting. Mostly, because I can be fairly confident in saying that he's wrong. Dead wrong.
Or maybe he's just narrow-sighted? Perhaps his vision is two crowded by the blinders of American investment activity to see that China's prominence in the world economy is directly tied America's prominence in the world economy. Perhaps he's ignored the impending Chinese demographic disaster because it doesn't look too different from the one America is now just starting to face.
Either way, this article reinforces for me the notion that to be rich doesn't require you to be the smartest kid on the block, just the gutsiest (with a good dose of good luck mixed in). You see, if it were up to me, I'd be moving my family to Brazil or Turkey. They have youthful populations. Their economies are well rounded and fairly diversified. Most importantly, though, they are going to be future hubs of their respective regions. Is there any doubt that Brazil will be the future superpower of South America? With Turkey's geographical, political, and demographic position, how can it not be the future nexus of the "East-meets-West-meets-Middle-East" economy?
China...you can have China. I'd even take India over China...but, China is fashionable. And somehow I doubt that Newsweek would write the article about the wealthy family that relocated to Brazil or Turkey.
Yes, I wrote my comment in a bit of a hurry (as evidenced by the ridiculous typo I made). I could be trite and say that "Singapore is where a capitalist moves when that capitalist really wants to move to China." But off-handed insults aside, he is still definitely betting on a period of Chinese ascendency.
"to see that China's prominence in the world economy is directly tied America's prominence in the world economy."
What makes you think that?
For current Chinese trade the US is important, but not overwhelmingly so (http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html). In the future -- China is building links with Africa, with South America, with basically everywhere in the world. Whatever happens to the US, China will be a superpower for the next few decades.
The problem is that China is just now building those links. Brazil and Turkey have their links already in place (and fairly well cemented in history).
That said, I do see China (or some agglomeration of China + US) being a world power for the next generation – probably at least for the majority of Jim Rogers daughter's lifetime – but their trajectory doesn't look much better than the US's...it's just a bit more delayed. (Though, China's impending demographic crisis, depending on how bad it gets, could really bring all that down much sooner.)
The E.U. needs Turkey because Turkey has a young population (and therefore a young workforce) and someone is going to have to pay the taxes that will be needed to support all those European pensioners.
The US needs Turkey for it's strategic geography that allows the airbase at Incirik to be a forward base for any operations near China, Russia, or really anywhere else in Asia.
Russia needs to be friendly with Turkey because Turkey controls the only alternate pipeways to get gas and oil from Asia to Europe. Turkey also controls the Bosporus, which is one of the only ways for cargo ships to reach Russia. Also, read up on the canal that Turkey has just announced plans to build. (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/27/istanbul-new-bos...) If they go through with it, this new shipping channel will allow them to bypass a number of limitations placed by international agreements on shipping through the Bosporus.
The middle east has historical ties with Turkey. Also, Turkey has been really smart about sensing the impending power shift in the region from Israel to the emerging Arab societies, and so they have allowed their relations with Israel to atrophy a bit (but not too much) while playing the part of the champion for persecuted populations in the middle east. See, for example, how they're allowing Syrian refugees to settle in Turkey for an indefinite period, and how Angelina Jolie thanked the Turkish gov't for their help (if you can't trust a celebrity, who can you trust?): http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=angelina-jolie-arri...
Turkey has a society that is rapidly modernizing, but unlike many of their European brethren (and the US), they still have a vibrant manufacturing sector. For example, most of the cars driven in Europe are manufactured in Turkey. So, yeah...Turkey is definitely one to watch (along with the rest of the CIVETS countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIVETS).
Is raising an American kid to integrate culturally and economically with Asia really that great of an idea when taking into account all that we know about the future?
Yes, China is a creditor, but global trade is probably set to wane with the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels. It will certainly become increasingly expensive to pump liquid hydrocarbons into jumbo jets and criss-cross the Pacific. I think forward looking parents will impress upon their kids the importance of local and regional relationships because long-haul transport of goods will likely be seen as a blip on the historical radar.
My impression is that the majority of global trade is either in the form of services, which involve only transporting bits (e.g., a US hospital emailing X-rays to an Australian radiologist); capital, which involves even fewer bits; and physical goods that can be transported cheaply by ocean freight and rail. (Shipping a standard cargo container from Asia to the US costs less than US$2000; think of how many iPhones can fit into a box that size.)
This article doesn't get all the facts. What it fails to mention and what I remember watching on MSNBC(?) a few years ago is that Jim Miller paid $80,000 per year for a Chinese nanny for his daughter since she was born. She is fluent in Mandarin from this, not from "packing up and heading to Singapore." Must be nice to have all the cash to do stuff with.
It seems to me that this is a continuation of the old American gold-rush mentality: there's always someplace where a new life can be built and a new fortune can be won. The media whip up a frenzy around these topics while the vast majority continue what they've been doing.
This is why I'm not worried about the future of the US, we are always on the lookout for something new and different and despite all the flag waving we're always fretting about being left behind. Compare that with Europe, which takes the opposite approach and is currently on a return path to the nation-state.
There's one thing about it: growing up global does make you see the world different. I'm a Caucasian, English-speaking American, but have lived in Thailand since I was 11. My parents were missionaries, and while we were far from wealthy, we did get to see many of the countries around Thailand due to travels for visas and more. And, of course, we grew up bilingual, never thinking it was odd for others to speak a different language, have different customs or ideas, or eat different foods. Perhaps best of all, we weren't in an elite part of the country full of foreigners, but we lived right in a neighborhood of normal Thais.
And it does make you see the world different. I'm always amazed how much most other Americans see the world as American-centric, and even seeing logos with a globe with the US front and center seem odd to me now. Economics and business classes have been much easier, since the ideas of foreign exchange, international law, and more were a part of everyday life. And speaking a second language as close to fluent as you can is a huge asset, and makes you analyze why you think what you do and why language and society work the way they do in a huge way.
Perhaps sadly, experiencing prejudice from others while being the minority in another country also helps you see the evils of disliking someone because of their language, the way they were educated or raised, their skin color, nationality, or anything else. That in itself can make you a much better person. This won't be the same everywhere, but I've experience enough of it to make my blood boil when I hear racist remarks against others in the US.
Living abroad is not for everyone, but I do think more people growing up with a global perspective would be a very good thing. You can do it right where you live, though. There are ethnic communities all around the world, and the internet brings content of every language to your living room. Raise your children to see diversity as normal, and make sure they know that they're not any different than someone from any other part of the world just because of where they were born, the language they speak, and the color of their hair. Help them see that they can make a difference in the world, and are not limited to jobs or lifestyles in their own community.
If more people were raised like that, the world would definitely be a better place.
I agree with your point (moreso than with the article itself), and I would add that growing up as a member of a "traditional" ethnic minority in a country also gives you extra perspectives (even besides the automatic learning of two languages).
This is far from obvious, many of my peers as I grew up saw it as a handicap or as a misfortune that they were supposed to learn two languages and cultures. I say, unless you are facing serious discrimination and as long as you have decent opportunities of practicing both languages, it is a great advantage.
Besides language, another thing I see as advantage is a natural skepticism towards nationalism and all sorts of "rallying" behind a flag (unless you find yourself locked into the mini-nationalism of your own group.) Growing up in minority you realize that countries are artificial constructs, not the most important in the greater scheme of things, that ethnic/linguistic identities are not nearly as absolute as they are made to seem, etc. etc.
>“I am worried that in this interconnected world, our country risks being disconnected from the contributions of other countries and cultures.”
Now there's a non-sequitur.
>“I’m doing what parents have done for many years,” Jim Rogers says. “I’m trying to prepare my children for the future, for the 21st century. I’m trying to prepare them as best I can for the world as I see it.”
Setting aside the fact that the future is unpredictable, and more unpredictable today than it's ever been, this demonstrates the fundamental error of human relationships: trying to get somebody to live out your vision of what their life should be.
In the case of parenting, imo, it's better to try to be a better person generally than to treat your children as products.
Jim Rogers is a pretty interesting guy. He's a well known author of "Investment Biker" and "Adventure Capitalist" about trips he took biking or driving around the world. He definitely has cultivated a unique world view for himself.
I grew up in Singapore (for 16 years), and there are fantastic international schools there. The local schools focus less on learning through creative problem solving and more on learning through repetition. I wouldn't put my kid in a local school, but that's interesting he did.
I think that living in another country as an expat creates it's own problems, but trying to totally assimilate is impossible, especially when you look nothing like the locals. The first tends to make you feel superior or separate like I'd imagine the colonials felt. The second will give you humility and expose you to what it's like to be a minority.
There are many ways to skin a cat. Exposure to thinking other than your own is good regardless of how it happens.
25 comments
[ 0.68 ms ] story [ 58.9 ms ] threadI certainly think it says a lot about the way he sees the world that the location of global capital is apparently the most important factor in raising his children.
However, if you take this as "American investor perceives future opportunity to be greatest in China, enough so to relocate family"...then it's a bit more interesting. Mostly, because I can be fairly confident in saying that he's wrong. Dead wrong.
Or maybe he's just narrow-sighted? Perhaps his vision is two crowded by the blinders of American investment activity to see that China's prominence in the world economy is directly tied America's prominence in the world economy. Perhaps he's ignored the impending Chinese demographic disaster because it doesn't look too different from the one America is now just starting to face.
Either way, this article reinforces for me the notion that to be rich doesn't require you to be the smartest kid on the block, just the gutsiest (with a good dose of good luck mixed in). You see, if it were up to me, I'd be moving my family to Brazil or Turkey. They have youthful populations. Their economies are well rounded and fairly diversified. Most importantly, though, they are going to be future hubs of their respective regions. Is there any doubt that Brazil will be the future superpower of South America? With Turkey's geographical, political, and demographic position, how can it not be the future nexus of the "East-meets-West-meets-Middle-East" economy?
China...you can have China. I'd even take India over China...but, China is fashionable. And somehow I doubt that Newsweek would write the article about the wealthy family that relocated to Brazil or Turkey.
What makes you think that?
For current Chinese trade the US is important, but not overwhelmingly so (http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html). In the future -- China is building links with Africa, with South America, with basically everywhere in the world. Whatever happens to the US, China will be a superpower for the next few decades.
That said, I do see China (or some agglomeration of China + US) being a world power for the next generation – probably at least for the majority of Jim Rogers daughter's lifetime – but their trajectory doesn't look much better than the US's...it's just a bit more delayed. (Though, China's impending demographic crisis, depending on how bad it gets, could really bring all that down much sooner.)
I can see Brazil and heard others mention it as well. But why Turkey? Just curious.
The US needs Turkey for it's strategic geography that allows the airbase at Incirik to be a forward base for any operations near China, Russia, or really anywhere else in Asia.
Russia needs to be friendly with Turkey because Turkey controls the only alternate pipeways to get gas and oil from Asia to Europe. Turkey also controls the Bosporus, which is one of the only ways for cargo ships to reach Russia. Also, read up on the canal that Turkey has just announced plans to build. (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/27/istanbul-new-bos...) If they go through with it, this new shipping channel will allow them to bypass a number of limitations placed by international agreements on shipping through the Bosporus.
The middle east has historical ties with Turkey. Also, Turkey has been really smart about sensing the impending power shift in the region from Israel to the emerging Arab societies, and so they have allowed their relations with Israel to atrophy a bit (but not too much) while playing the part of the champion for persecuted populations in the middle east. See, for example, how they're allowing Syrian refugees to settle in Turkey for an indefinite period, and how Angelina Jolie thanked the Turkish gov't for their help (if you can't trust a celebrity, who can you trust?): http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=angelina-jolie-arri...
Iran needs Turkey because it's one of the last countries that they can still bank with, though they are skirting the line there: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=us-officals-warned-...
China needs Turkey because it's still the quickest way to get to Europe without going through Russia, and they are even looking to construct a railway based on that premise: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turks-chinese-to-bu...
Turkey has a society that is rapidly modernizing, but unlike many of their European brethren (and the US), they still have a vibrant manufacturing sector. For example, most of the cars driven in Europe are manufactured in Turkey. So, yeah...Turkey is definitely one to watch (along with the rest of the CIVETS countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIVETS).
Yes, China is a creditor, but global trade is probably set to wane with the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels. It will certainly become increasingly expensive to pump liquid hydrocarbons into jumbo jets and criss-cross the Pacific. I think forward looking parents will impress upon their kids the importance of local and regional relationships because long-haul transport of goods will likely be seen as a blip on the historical radar.
That's amazing, can you point me to a source for that?
I got it from the “Recent liner freight rates” table on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#Freight_market) and misread the caption.
This is why I'm not worried about the future of the US, we are always on the lookout for something new and different and despite all the flag waving we're always fretting about being left behind. Compare that with Europe, which takes the opposite approach and is currently on a return path to the nation-state.
And it does make you see the world different. I'm always amazed how much most other Americans see the world as American-centric, and even seeing logos with a globe with the US front and center seem odd to me now. Economics and business classes have been much easier, since the ideas of foreign exchange, international law, and more were a part of everyday life. And speaking a second language as close to fluent as you can is a huge asset, and makes you analyze why you think what you do and why language and society work the way they do in a huge way.
Perhaps sadly, experiencing prejudice from others while being the minority in another country also helps you see the evils of disliking someone because of their language, the way they were educated or raised, their skin color, nationality, or anything else. That in itself can make you a much better person. This won't be the same everywhere, but I've experience enough of it to make my blood boil when I hear racist remarks against others in the US.
Living abroad is not for everyone, but I do think more people growing up with a global perspective would be a very good thing. You can do it right where you live, though. There are ethnic communities all around the world, and the internet brings content of every language to your living room. Raise your children to see diversity as normal, and make sure they know that they're not any different than someone from any other part of the world just because of where they were born, the language they speak, and the color of their hair. Help them see that they can make a difference in the world, and are not limited to jobs or lifestyles in their own community.
If more people were raised like that, the world would definitely be a better place.
This is far from obvious, many of my peers as I grew up saw it as a handicap or as a misfortune that they were supposed to learn two languages and cultures. I say, unless you are facing serious discrimination and as long as you have decent opportunities of practicing both languages, it is a great advantage.
Besides language, another thing I see as advantage is a natural skepticism towards nationalism and all sorts of "rallying" behind a flag (unless you find yourself locked into the mini-nationalism of your own group.) Growing up in minority you realize that countries are artificial constructs, not the most important in the greater scheme of things, that ethnic/linguistic identities are not nearly as absolute as they are made to seem, etc. etc.
Now there's a non-sequitur.
>“I’m doing what parents have done for many years,” Jim Rogers says. “I’m trying to prepare my children for the future, for the 21st century. I’m trying to prepare them as best I can for the world as I see it.”
Setting aside the fact that the future is unpredictable, and more unpredictable today than it's ever been, this demonstrates the fundamental error of human relationships: trying to get somebody to live out your vision of what their life should be.
In the case of parenting, imo, it's better to try to be a better person generally than to treat your children as products.
I grew up in Singapore (for 16 years), and there are fantastic international schools there. The local schools focus less on learning through creative problem solving and more on learning through repetition. I wouldn't put my kid in a local school, but that's interesting he did.
I think that living in another country as an expat creates it's own problems, but trying to totally assimilate is impossible, especially when you look nothing like the locals. The first tends to make you feel superior or separate like I'd imagine the colonials felt. The second will give you humility and expose you to what it's like to be a minority.
There are many ways to skin a cat. Exposure to thinking other than your own is good regardless of how it happens.