" Countries that have focused solely on fundamentals and invested in education and governance without successfully promoting successful structural change have reaped meager rewards in terms of economic growth. The supply of human capital and good institutions yields litle growth without simultaneous changes on the demand side of the economy, which typically come from the promotion of new, modern economic activities, and the structure of production, which come from [industrial policies] "
America can peacefully handle Hegemony to another republic, but with the Chinese empire this is impossible. The astoundingly peaceful American Hegemony is the result of nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction and a democratic hegemon (that does not want to annex territories because that would imply integrating foreign populations in participatory internal politics).
China is not democratic, so you do not have Pax Democrática with it.
You really need to read Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson. The only countries that were allowed to develop were the ones given the green light to by USA. But why China? to show the USSR off. You want o have have a leg up on the development game, it sure helps to murder all the leftists in you country. *Indonesia, South America* Then you can you could count on an untamable whirlwind of FDI to fly through your country and leave just as suddenly. And you can count on any any borrowing you put towards development to come just before a crash so as to force you through a structural adjustment program from the IMF. You would have to be a fool to think of america as anything but a bunch of blood thirsty money hungry psychopaths without one one flinching instinct towards good will, ever.
Your comment about IIT struck home. I live&work in Silicon Valley, with large teams of Desis and smaller crews of Chinese immigrants. To my knowledge, India's primary export to the US has been very smart and competent engineers. This is not how you build home-grown industries!
I had not realized that this was essentially a welfare program for the Brahmin class.
Great, compelling data. I wonder how the same figures looked at the time when the US rose to its top global position eg US vs UK/FR/DE? If so perhaps there are other factors, perhaps also causal, common to cognitive training and work-occupation value? In any case, I'd say the conclusion stands.
Being quite aware of the situation, the US strategy will be (is already?) to contrive ways to reduce the human development of other countries.
The answers to your questions may lie in the very fact that a "global division of labor" has been pursued in the first place. A planetary division of labor is a paradigm that seeks minimal redundancy and so it will, almost by definition, severely limit development in most places because diversified and heterogenous scientific and industrial ecosystems will not develop and all the second, third, and so on effects that they generate will never occur at all...
" Countries that have focused solely on fundamentals and invested in education and governance without successfully promoting successful structural change have reaped meager rewards in terms of economic growth. The supply of human capital and good institutions yields litle growth without simultaneous changes on the demand side of the economy, which typically come from the promotion of new, modern economic activities, and the structure of production, which come from [industrial policies] "
- A NEW GROWTH STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPING NATIONS
Dani Rodrik and Joseph E. Stiglitz
January 2024
America can peacefully handle Hegemony to another republic, but with the Chinese empire this is impossible. The astoundingly peaceful American Hegemony is the result of nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction and a democratic hegemon (that does not want to annex territories because that would imply integrating foreign populations in participatory internal politics).
China is not democratic, so you do not have Pax Democrática with it.
The United States is in no wise democratic, in the sense that popular opinion has no impact on government policy.
The American problem is often the opposite: both in politics and high school, popularity is the national obsession.
Oh, a link to a mostly second rate America newpaper trying to make a headline with statistical obfuscation. I rest my case!
www.thenation.com/article/society/cbo-american-wealth-inequality/tnamp/
You really need to read Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson. The only countries that were allowed to develop were the ones given the green light to by USA. But why China? to show the USSR off. You want o have have a leg up on the development game, it sure helps to murder all the leftists in you country. *Indonesia, South America* Then you can you could count on an untamable whirlwind of FDI to fly through your country and leave just as suddenly. And you can count on any any borrowing you put towards development to come just before a crash so as to force you through a structural adjustment program from the IMF. You would have to be a fool to think of america as anything but a bunch of blood thirsty money hungry psychopaths without one one flinching instinct towards good will, ever.
Your comment about IIT struck home. I live&work in Silicon Valley, with large teams of Desis and smaller crews of Chinese immigrants. To my knowledge, India's primary export to the US has been very smart and competent engineers. This is not how you build home-grown industries!
I had not realized that this was essentially a welfare program for the Brahmin class.
Great, compelling data. I wonder how the same figures looked at the time when the US rose to its top global position eg US vs UK/FR/DE? If so perhaps there are other factors, perhaps also causal, common to cognitive training and work-occupation value? In any case, I'd say the conclusion stands.
Being quite aware of the situation, the US strategy will be (is already?) to contrive ways to reduce the human development of other countries.
The answers to your questions may lie in the very fact that a "global division of labor" has been pursued in the first place. A planetary division of labor is a paradigm that seeks minimal redundancy and so it will, almost by definition, severely limit development in most places because diversified and heterogenous scientific and industrial ecosystems will not develop and all the second, third, and so on effects that they generate will never occur at all...