To understand why Mr Trump's 1461 day presidency to end of 2020 was likely to be the most dangerous whomever ruled the wavelengths, BRI.school invites you to co-edit a 7 minute read on a short history of world trade in millennium 2 - see far right column. In Moore's laws maths -this period's exponential rise breaches singularity - for first one computer chip has more switching/analytic capacity than the human brain's cells- tenmoore.com - The Games

  1. trump's 1461 days were natures, AI, SDG destiny's and most dangerous presidency this month's 3 greatest risks to under 30s goodwill webs and english-language edu- brexit, n korea and huawei (see keynesian analysis in next tweet)

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 4 : special china thanks: BRI Belt Road IQ -need custom guide rsvp chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk normanmacrae foundation, DC-text 240 316 8157
Main reason for optimism is leapfrogging - thats when a society/place that was excluded from industrial age networks leapfrogs an old system to a new one thanks to 1000 times more COMstech than 1946; about a third of the world never had wired telephone lines, now almost all have mobile (text version); more than a quarter of the world never had electricity grids, now microsolar is linking in;. Prior to 2017 only Jim Kim open spaced this debated in DC: let's hope all parents and youth do now from usa to china to Rome, from Scotland to Argentina, from Bangalore to Haiti. from . G1 G2. Join Valuetrue.com and QBG -does your place have a JYK to celebrate global youth? futures of Liberty 1 & education 1
1:08 #2030now 3.19
0:39 0.31 1:40 1:02 1.21
...joy jk search 1........ co
Which is your top 100 jim kim video vote for end-poverty tedx wcg..Jim Kim2030nowjimkim2transcripts.doc2030nowjimkim.doc, where world demands women manage poverty why not development?
http://www.tedxwbg.com/ Sources for millennials Happy 2015 dialogues of pih on 1 Ebola 2 how to leverage technology to radically engage patients on health care; UN is 2015 year of all change to sustainability goals... support economistmooc.blogspot.com
Even as the 1960s moon race inspired the world, we need to understand how unequal the opporttunity to innovate had been - even in the 1960s as many as half the world's people had no access to electricity grids so they got their news of the moon race by word of mouth.

Consider 1000-1500- until the last few years of this period , the known world was Europe-Asia and NE Africa; #BR8 the med sea was the main world trade waterway; places facing this sea increasingly developed win-win trades; moreover #BR7 the west asian border to med sea was the start of an amazing overland relay of traders which stretched all the way to china (the silk road was the greatest overland world trade route ever and to sustain its interfacing markets required positive cross-cultural bridging all along its route. Silks and spices from the Chinese end acted like a positive currency- there was much demand for them whose value naturally went up the further they were merchanted back to Europe. Everyone gained for this trading route- you can read marco polo's diaries- perhaps nowhere invested more in artistic celebrations of being a major hub of positive trade than his hometown venice in europe and the town he was asked to govern for 2 years in china Hangzhou which marco described as the great town of markets in the world.)

What happened towards 1500 that 2 long shipping routes were discovered by north europeans- the new world of the ameriucas to the west (#BR6 N, #BR10 what we now call Latin America), and a way of reaching the @BR2 South Asian coastal Belt (starting with the indian subcontinent) by sailing around africa. A ship captain couldnt affird such a long return voyage unless he goit what trade he wanted- soon this big ships were equipped with gun power and crews were pressganged or even enslaved. Next in the process was colonising. So it was that nations became big by pludering economies of other peoples places. Back in 1500 places economic size was corelated with population. Soon Britain grew at the expense particularly of the Indian subcontiuent. Mainly Britain and France colonised Africa too, Spain andPotrtugal colonised Latin America. North America was settled by a mixyure of Europeans whose declaration of Indendence in 1776 ended any attempt by Britain to colonise America, But we should note that the USA was built on a sort of internal colonisation - natives had theor places taken over and slaves were used to do most of the hard labour. In effect the old war's colonial ways casued the 2 world wars of the fkirst half of the 20th C. From 1946 most of the world's countries regained their independence but starting from (mainly undeveloped states - poverty that the colonia era had gtraped them in).

Ironically whule the UDA came to tghe resuce of the old workld and from 1946 helped relaunch the two biggest losers of world war 2 Germsny and Japan, american (not withstandiong thair family trees origins) had previously had little modern of knowledge of Eurasia but were pulled into peacekeeping and the cold war with russia through the sceond half of the 20th C. Whilst there was some understanding of the extraoerdinary progress japanese enginers made with electornics, civil and other enginnering, the rise and rise of the east and the often difficult bodrers that had been caused by British and Jpoanese colonisation of the region are not deeply studied by most Americans or their media. It should be the best news the world has ever seen that the fifth of the world in chjna tghat closed itself to the world for more than a centiry after Brfits has offered opium as a gtrading currency in 1860 is now as entrepreneurial as anywhere. With over half of tghe world's ;people facikng either the sout asia or east asia coastal belts, the opportunity the east is cfreating to win0pwin gtrade oin line with moore's ever increasing technology should make sustainable youth worlwdie the gfreatesty positive curency-invetsment the human race has ever mapped. But this is not how USA or the block of coungtriues ruled by the Euro have marketed transapfrently. Instead we are caught in the Keynsian crisis of economist not valuing the hippocratic oathes he had published as tghe final chapter of the ngeneral throy of employment money and interest. The 2020s are likely to make the system designs our tech spreads irreversible- will the end game be big brother extinction or little sister sustainability?

Monday, July 3, 2017


EIR Reports: Heritage Foundation Holds Event on Globalization with Chinese Characteristics

A number of interesting Chinese scholars were invited to the Heritage Foundation for a forum titled “China's Emerging Role in the World and U.S.-Chinese Relations.” The first panel was led off by Justin Yifu Lin, a former senior economist at the World Bank and presently the director of the Center for New Structural Economics at Peking University. He went through the development of the Chinese economy since the 1970s, when China was one of the poorest countries of the world, giving the comparative figures with the African countries, which were much better off. In those days, he said, 91% of China's production was consumed domestically, while today trade is 50% of GDP. He underlined that China had not accepted the usual shock- therapy/privatization recipes of the so-called “development economics,” but had adopted a gradualist, pragmatic approach to reform. China prohibits the free flow of capital in the capital accounts, Lin said, but has initiated a series of free trade zones, first in Shanghai, and now in Shenzhen, Tianjin, Guangzhou and Fujian. “But it still prohibits foreign investment in the state-owned enterprises.” China initiated the Belt and Road, Lin said, because, as a rising nation, it felt it had a responsibility to the rest of the world, and instead of extending “gifts,” it decided to extend development cooperation. “China now produces half the infrastructure that is built in the world and is shifting much of its holdings in Treasury bills into infrastructure loans,” he said. As most of the BRI recipients are poor countries, he noted, they will achieve very high growth rates initially, thus securing the loans.
Lin was followed by the Cato Institute's James Dorn, who went on about how private property is necessary for development and the institution of the “rule of law”. Dorn also quoted from some Daoist writings to prove that the laissez-faire principle of Adam Smith also existed in Chinese culture. Ironically, free- market enthusiast Dorn also publishes articles by Justin Lin.
The next panelist was Wen Yi, the Assistant Vice President and senior economist at the Federal Reserve in St. Louis. He effectively refuted Dorn's free-market analysis with the real history of the growth of commerce and capitalism, starting from the Renaissance, during which the monarchs (or the magnates) promoted the development of trade. He also pointed to the function of infrastructure investment as a spur to commerce, in this instance, through the construction of canals. Later on this was pushed further into a second industrialization through the government-supported construction of railroads. Wan Yi had earlier contrasted China's development with the attempt to achieve development “take-off” by other development countries who, unlike China, had adopted the “free market model” — with catastrophic results. He also went through the long process to achieve “human rights” here in the United States, through the 100 years' fight to eliminate slavery, the struggle of women's right to vote, up until the recent Congressional legislation that apologized for the treatment meted out to Native Americans, just to underline that such processes don't always occur overnight. While no one on either panel went after China on the human rights issue, this may have been an attempt on his part to parry any such moves.
During the Q&A, when EIR talked about the development of the BRI going forward, underlining the perspective of it becoming the centerpiece of US-China relations, all the panelists got very excited, underlining how important they considered it, in spite of their somewhat diverse viewpoints.
The second session dealt with the foreign policy perspective as China looks forward to the upcoming 19th Party Congress in the fall. Professor Jia Qingguo, the head of the School of International Relations at Peking University, gave a sober estimate of the foreign policy perspective. Since the founding of the PRC, he said, there have been two periods in China's policy. Between 1949 and 1970, it went from competition to integration. Prior to the 1970s China tried to destroy the Western-based world order, which it considered unjust. After the PRC received UN membership and after the Nixon visit to China, China decided to integrate into the world system and shape it to its benefit. As the 21st century developed, it began to establish itself as an active player in that system.
“With China's rise as a major power it also developed global interests,” Jia said. “And yet China today is not the China of the past, but not yet quite the China of the future,” he said. “China is a rich country and a poor country at the same time, a confident country and a wary country at the same time.” “Everyone wants to know what China wants,” he said, “but China doesn't know itself what it wants. Therefore, its foreign policy is sometimes incoherent and inconsistent.” He continued, “Recent experience shows China becoming more proactive. It has stepped up its efforts to contribute to the international order. And Chinese leaders have been assessing the situation,” Jia said.
Professor Jia noted that China's recent attempts to cool down the problems in the South China Sea and to underline the importance of the BRI were attempts to stabilize the world international order.
“China will make greater efforts to promote US-China relations. This reflects the need for a stable environment before the Party Congress,” he said. After the Congress, he said, “China will become more active than passive. They will work to preserve the world order and their policy will become more consistent and coherent. They will work for more security cooperation and better relations with the U.S.” “China will not strive to become a global leader,” Jia said, “but it will exert leadership in those particular areas where it feels more at home.”

No comments:

Post a Comment