Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 85
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456

    We have already entered a Multipolar World

    The New World Economy

    Belém, Brazil – I inaugurate this new series of columns in a New Year and a new beginning for Brazil with the inauguration of President Lula da Silva. His well-wishers poured out across the country in a revival of hope for Brazil after four years of disastrous rule under his right-wing predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who had fled Brazil for Florida on the eve of Lula’s inauguration. Bolsonaro left behind a mob that rampaged government office buildings before being arrested in large numbers by the police.

    The mob tactics will not stop Lula, nor will they have a long-term effect in the US, where Donald Trump’s similar maneuvers on January 6, 2021, were also shut down. In both cases, demagogic politicians used social media to rile up a mob; in both cases, the mob was put down within the day.

    The real issue, in my mind, is not the mob, but the deeper changes in the world that are generating growing tensions in world politics and economy. The deep changes can’t and won’t be stopped by mobs. Our real challenge is to understand the deeper changes at play so that we can manage them for the common good. Such an understanding is the aim of my future columns.

    The biggest turmoil is geopolitical. We are no longer in a US-led world, nor even a world divided between the US and its rival China. We have already entered a multipolar world, in which each region has its own issues and role in global politics. No country and no single region can any longer determine the fate of others. This is a complex and noisy environment – with no country, region, or alliance in charge of the rest.

    One reason why Lula’s return to the presidency is so consequential is that Brazil will be a key regional and global actor in the years ahead. Lula will work closely with like-minded progressive presidents in Chile, Colombia, Argentina, and elsewhere in South America. Brazil will also hold the Presidency of the G20 in 2024, part of a four-year run in which major emerging economies hold the G20 presidency (Indonesia in 2022, India in 2023, and South Africa in 2025).

    The management of a multipolar world is fraught with difficulties. We urgently need more dialogue with other countries, and to move beyond the simplistic propaganda of our own governments. Here in the West, we are bombarded daily with ridiculous official narratives, most originating from Washington: Russia is pure evil, China is the greatest threat to the world, and only NATO can save us.

    These naïve stories, spun out endlessly by the US State Department, are a great hindrance to global problem solving. They trap us in false mindsets, and even in wars that should never have occured and which must be stopped by negotiation rather than escalation.

    When we accept the reality of a multipolar world, we will finally be able to solve problems that have so far eluded us. First, we will understand that military alliances such as NATO offer no answers to the real challenges that we confront. Military alliances are in fact a dangerous anachronism, not a true source of national or regional security.

    It was, after all, the US attempt to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine that triggered the wars in Georgia (in 2010) and in Ukraine (2014 until today). Nor did the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999, or fifteen year failed mission in Afghanistan, or bombing Libya in 2011, accomplish any real objectives.

    Neither is China the grave threat that is portrayed today in the West. The US tries to pretend that we still live in a US-led world, and that China is a dangerous pretender that must be stopped. But reality is different. China is an ancient civilization of 1.4 billion people (almost one in five in the world) that also aims for high living standards and technological excellence. We will solve our global problems not by vainly trying to “contain” China, but by trading, cooperating, and yes, also competing economically with China.

    Other great global challenges lie elsewhere: the deep dangers of environmental catastrophe; the rising inequalities in our own societies; and the onrush of new technologies that can disrupt the world if these technologies are not properly harnessed and controlled.

    Brazil is the epicenter of the environmental challenge. Can the Amazon, constituting half of the world’s rainforests, be saved? Lula came to power promising to do just this. He won the vote of the Amazon states of Brazil. Globally, Europe is in the environmental lead with the European Green Deal. Europe’s main geopolitical opportunity is to encourage other regions, including the African Union, China, India, the Americas and others, to adopt their own bold green deals. That’s a far better task for Europe than expanding NATO, fighting an endless war in Ukraine, or confronting China.

    Brazil is also an epicenter of inequality, with one of the highest degrees of inequality in the world. That inequality was originally created by European imperialism that suppressed indigenous peoples and enslaved millions of Africans. Their descendants continue to pay the price. Social justice is Lula’s calling, and our global calling, after centuries of racial and social injustice.

    Brazil can also be an epicenter of the new technologies, for example a leader in the new bioeconomy in which the wonders of the Amazon’s and Brazil’s biodiversity are not destroyed for more cattle ranches but instead to produce new life-saving medicines, nutritious foodstuffs (such as the açai now booming worldwide), or advanced biofuels for green aviation.

    Technological change is perhaps the deepest driver of global change. We need the new technologies to confront the crises of climate change, hunger, education and health. Yet we also suffer from the new digital technologies when they are misused, such as to mobilize mobs, or weapon killer drones in Ukraine. Advanced biotechnology may well have created the virus that causes Covid-19 (we still don’t know). Every day we confront the disruptions and inequalities caused by artificial intelligence, robotics, and the rapid overturning of jobs.

    The confluence of global change, disruption, and danger is astounding. Solutions lie in understanding, cooperation, and problem solving. A better understanding of the New World Economy will be the aim of this column in the months ahead.


    https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/febj7gnedfemn5b2wh46pbwarye53f

  2. #2
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:29 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,869
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    A better understanding of the New World Economy will be the aim of this column in the months ahead.
    Can't wait....

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Yeh, big call - but I always find Jeffrey Sachs interesting.

  4. #4
    กงเกวียนกำเกวียน HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    สุโขทัย
    Posts
    10,142
    Multipolar Old World cycling back again.

    The paradigm shift ain't gonna look pretty for you traditional Anglophone types.

    BRICS is just tip.
    Last edited by HuangLao; 17-01-2023 at 06:06 PM.

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Multipolar Old World? No, I rather doubt that Britain, France and Spain will be carving up the world's cake between them in the foreseeable future.

  6. #6
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:32 AM
    Location
    Back in Farangland
    Posts
    308
    I don't see the world as Sachs does. I think we're in an era big on military alliances and they're essential to maintain relative peace. The Americans also reign supreme in the scientific fight against Covid. American science is needed more than ever.

  7. #7
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Alliance or Blocs are all well and good as long as they are not at each others throat. The future economic growth & prosperity of the world will surely be paved by trade, not endless warfare.

    Of course, much trade advantage is driven by technology- in which the US is overall very strong. Other form of advantage include low labour costs, mineral/ commodity wealth, agricultural bounty, and indeed geographical proximity/ contiguity.

  8. #8
    กงเกวียนกำเกวียน HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    สุโขทัย
    Posts
    10,142
    Quote Originally Posted by 39TG View Post
    The Americans also reign supreme in the scientific fight against Covid.
    Oh dear.
    Part and parcel of the mindset that's highly destructive.

  9. #9
    5 4 Knoll
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    At Large
    Posts
    21,012
    I'll stick with what I know Bipolar, leader of the pack and the rest.

    There will be the top dog , always wanes as the pretenders jostle their snouts

    Seems to follow the rising Sun, of course many exceptions Kazhars, House Luxembourg, Malian Kings, The Chola and Golden Horde

    If we look at History great Oriental Empires China, Taxila, Persia, Mesopotamia , Assyria, Egypt Greece, Rome The Hohenzollern-Habsburgs

    Then the mercantile era Portugal Spain Netherlands France and the erstwhile pre eminence of the Royal Navy

    The so called Pax Brittanica then new World at the dawn of the 20th Century

    Most ill educated Americans cannot imagine their infant republic of barely a quarter of a milenium will go the way of all others, not today , not tomorrow but one day.

    Some empires fell in battle , due to Plague or catastrophe most dull old debt. they kept spending like the Russians had landed in Rhode Island already!
    Quote Originally Posted by Latindancer View Post
    I just want the chance to use a bigger porridge bowl.

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456

    Why Can’t America Accept An Imperfect World?


    Since the twilight of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s, the United States has meddled militarily–or even waged outright wars–in numerous regions for a multitude of reasons. The roster is a lengthy one: Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and, most recently, Ukraine.

    Moreover, that list does not include Washington’s ongoing “drone wars” in Pakistan and other countries.

    Even if U.S. leaders sincerely believed that those military interventions were both strategically desirable and morally justified, the record proves otherwise. Again and again, Washington’s actions have destabilized countries and regions, empowered unsavory, extremely dangerous political elements, and created massive refugee crises. Most of those crusades have made already bad situations worse. U.S. leaders must learn that frequently it is wise to accept an imperfect, even unpleasant, situation to avoid creating a catastrophic one.

    Unfortunately, most members of the foreign policy establishment show no signs of having internalized appropriate lessons from previous blunders. Acknowledging that Washington’s arrogant insistence on expanding NATO to Russia’s border trampled on core Russian security interests and helped trigger the tragic war in Ukraine would be a good first step. The logical follow up would be to facilitate negotiations for a peace accord that would guarantee Ukraine’s strict neutrality.

    Such a settlement would leave Russia in control of both Crimea and the Donbas, and it would confirm that Ukraine will be in Moscow’s sphere of influence. Instead of accepting such an unpleasant, but still bearable, outcome, Washington is using Ukraine as a pawn in a NATO proxy war against Russia—a strategy that creates the nightmarish prospect of a bloody, multi-year conflict. Worse, the proxy war could escalate to a direct war between NATO and Russia, with possible nuclear implications.

    Such an ill-advised policy typifies U.S. behavior over the past three decades. Instead of allowing the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s to proceed in a natural fashion, despite the accompanying violence, the United States led NATO military interventions to keep the inherently unstable new country of Bosnia intact and (conversely) to sever Serbia’s Kosovo province from Belgrade’s control. Both areas remain ethnic and political powder kegs a quarter century later.

    Washington’s myopia was even more in evidence with respect to its policy toward Iraq. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, once a valued U.S. client, committed the unpardonable sin of seizing neighboring Kuwait without U.S. permission. The United States punished him by expelling his forces from Kuwait and inflicting major damage on Iraq’s own infrastructure. But U.S. leaders did not stop even when those actions created ripples of destabilization throughout the Muslim world. Instead, under President George W. Bush, the United States initiated a new war and ousted Saddam from power.

    Saddam was certainly a nasty, brutal ruler. But he was also a pragmatic, effective secular ruler, who kept the forces of religious extremism at bay. Post-Saddam Iraq has been a mess, punctuated by a Sunni-Shia civil war in 2005-2007 and the subsequent rise of ISIS during Barack Obama’s administration. At one point, ISIS controlled nearly a third of Iraq’s territory, including the country’s second largest city, Mosul. Even today, the Potemkin democratic government in Baghdad retains a precarious grip on power, while Kurds in Northern Iraq exercise de facto independence at the same time as they must fend off repeated Turkish military incursions. With its Iraq policy, Washington undermined stability enforced by a secular tyrant, creating instead a dangerous, much more volatile, environment.

    Obama’s foreign policy team managed to produce an even more horrible outcome in Libya. In 2011, the United States and several key NATO allies (principally, Britain and France) helped rebel forces overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated Qaddafi’s downfall (and sadistic execution) with the flippant quip “we came, we saw, he died.”

    It was extremely difficult to feel any sorrow for Qaddafi’s demise; he was a typical corrupt and brutal Third World dictator, seemingly straight out of Hollywood casting. But as in the case of Saddam, Qaddafi was a secular tyrant who managed (barely) to hold a fragile, artificial country together. By helping to eliminate him, the United States plunged Libya into more than a decade of horrific chaos. The result of NATO’s meddling has been massive refugee flows, both internally and with desperate attempts to make the perilous Mediterranean crossing to Europe. There have even been reports of open-air slave markets selling black African migrants. Currently, a simmering struggle for power continues between the official government in Tripoli and the forces of rebel Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. No rational person could argue that the U.S.-led military intervention made Libya a better place.

    The outcome of U.S. policy in Syria is at least as bad. The Obama administration launched an effort to help Sunni powers (primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) oust Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. As bad as Assad was, his domestic opponents were worse. Washington ended up backing some of the most odious Muslim extremist forces in the Middle East, while falsely portraying them as pro-democracy “freedom fighters.” As in the cases of Iraq and Libya, U.S. meddling has produced a massive humanitarian tragedy. More than 300,000 Syrians have perished in the fighting and some 6.8 million are refugees—creating a huge refugee flow that has created serious social and political tensions in Europe. By refusing to accept the continued rule of a pro-Iranian secular dictator, Washington has made Syria into yet another chaotic arena and a playground for radical Islamist elements.

    Those episodes should induce much greater caution on the part of U.S. policymakers, especially with respect to the conflict in Ukraine. The United States and its NATO allies already caused a needless tragedy because of their clumsy, tone-deaf policy toward Russia and Moscow’s strategic interests in Ukraine. Once again, U.S. leaders refused to accept an unfavorable situation and thereby created a worse one. If they don’t back off now, the ultimate result could make the ugly outcomes in the Balkans, Iraq, Libya, and Syria seem like minor missteps.

    Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at 19FortyFive, is the author of 13 books and more than 1,100 articles on international affairs. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

    https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/...perfect-world/


    ​"Team America- World Police" is sooo last century. We make a great show about our tolerance, and acceptance of plurality and diversity within our own 'free and democratic' society- why shouldn't we take a similar view towards the plurality of other cultures and societies?

  11. #11
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post

    Since the twilight of the Cold War at the beginning of the 1990s, the United States has meddled militarily–or even waged outright wars–in numerous regions for a multitude of reasons. The roster is a lengthy one: Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and, most recently, Ukraine.

    Moreover, that list does not include Washington’s ongoing “drone wars” in Pakistan and other countries.

    Even if U.S. leaders sincerely believed that those military interventions were both strategically desirable and morally justified, the record proves otherwise. Again and again, Washington’s actions have destabilized countries and regions, empowered unsavory, extremely dangerous political elements, and created massive refugee crises. Most of those crusades have made already bad situations worse. U.S. leaders must learn that frequently it is wise to accept an imperfect, even unpleasant, situation to avoid creating a catastrophic one.

    Unfortunately, most members of the foreign policy establishment show no signs of having internalized appropriate lessons from previous blunders. Acknowledging that Washington’s arrogant insistence on expanding NATO to Russia’s border trampled on core Russian security interests and helped trigger the tragic war in Ukraine would be a good first step. The logical follow up would be to facilitate negotiations for a peace accord that would guarantee Ukraine’s strict neutrality.

    Such a settlement would leave Russia in control of both Crimea and the Donbas, and it would confirm that Ukraine will be in Moscow’s sphere of influence. Instead of accepting such an unpleasant, but still bearable, outcome, Washington is using Ukraine as a pawn in a NATO proxy war against Russia—a strategy that creates the nightmarish prospect of a bloody, multi-year conflict. Worse, the proxy war could escalate to a direct war between NATO and Russia, with possible nuclear implications.

    Such an ill-advised policy typifies U.S. behavior over the past three decades. Instead of allowing the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s to proceed in a natural fashion, despite the accompanying violence, the United States led NATO military interventions to keep the inherently unstable new country of Bosnia intact and (conversely) to sever Serbia’s Kosovo province from Belgrade’s control. Both areas remain ethnic and political powder kegs a quarter century later.

    Washington’s myopia was even more in evidence with respect to its policy toward Iraq. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, once a valued U.S. client, committed the unpardonable sin of seizing neighboring Kuwait without U.S. permission. The United States punished him by expelling his forces from Kuwait and inflicting major damage on Iraq’s own infrastructure. But U.S. leaders did not stop even when those actions created ripples of destabilization throughout the Muslim world. Instead, under President George W. Bush, the United States initiated a new war and ousted Saddam from power.

    Saddam was certainly a nasty, brutal ruler. But he was also a pragmatic, effective secular ruler, who kept the forces of religious extremism at bay. Post-Saddam Iraq has been a mess, punctuated by a Sunni-Shia civil war in 2005-2007 and the subsequent rise of ISIS during Barack Obama’s administration. At one point, ISIS controlled nearly a third of Iraq’s territory, including the country’s second largest city, Mosul. Even today, the Potemkin democratic government in Baghdad retains a precarious grip on power, while Kurds in Northern Iraq exercise de facto independence at the same time as they must fend off repeated Turkish military incursions. With its Iraq policy, Washington undermined stability enforced by a secular tyrant, creating instead a dangerous, much more volatile, environment.

    Obama’s foreign policy team managed to produce an even more horrible outcome in Libya. In 2011, the United States and several key NATO allies (principally, Britain and France) helped rebel forces overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton celebrated Qaddafi’s downfall (and sadistic execution) with the flippant quip “we came, we saw, he died.”

    It was extremely difficult to feel any sorrow for Qaddafi’s demise; he was a typical corrupt and brutal Third World dictator, seemingly straight out of Hollywood casting. But as in the case of Saddam, Qaddafi was a secular tyrant who managed (barely) to hold a fragile, artificial country together. By helping to eliminate him, the United States plunged Libya into more than a decade of horrific chaos. The result of NATO’s meddling has been massive refugee flows, both internally and with desperate attempts to make the perilous Mediterranean crossing to Europe. There have even been reports of open-air slave markets selling black African migrants. Currently, a simmering struggle for power continues between the official government in Tripoli and the forces of rebel Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. No rational person could argue that the U.S.-led military intervention made Libya a better place.

    The outcome of U.S. policy in Syria is at least as bad. The Obama administration launched an effort to help Sunni powers (primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) oust Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. As bad as Assad was, his domestic opponents were worse. Washington ended up backing some of the most odious Muslim extremist forces in the Middle East, while falsely portraying them as pro-democracy “freedom fighters.” As in the cases of Iraq and Libya, U.S. meddling has produced a massive humanitarian tragedy. More than 300,000 Syrians have perished in the fighting and some 6.8 million are refugees—creating a huge refugee flow that has created serious social and political tensions in Europe. By refusing to accept the continued rule of a pro-Iranian secular dictator, Washington has made Syria into yet another chaotic arena and a playground for radical Islamist elements.

    Those episodes should induce much greater caution on the part of U.S. policymakers, especially with respect to the conflict in Ukraine. The United States and its NATO allies already caused a needless tragedy because of their clumsy, tone-deaf policy toward Russia and Moscow’s strategic interests in Ukraine. Once again, U.S. leaders refused to accept an unfavorable situation and thereby created a worse one. If they don’t back off now, the ultimate result could make the ugly outcomes in the Balkans, Iraq, Libya, and Syria seem like minor missteps.

    Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at 19FortyFive, is the author of 13 books and more than 1,100 articles on international affairs. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

    https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/...perfect-world/


    ​"Team America- World Police" is sooo last century. We make a great show about our tolerance, and acceptance of plurality and diversity within our own 'free and democratic' society- why shouldn't we take a similar view towards the plurality of other cultures and societies?
    Thus proving my earlier conclusion that, this is yet another opportunity for Sabang to rail against the west in particular, and capitalism in general. Strange how you now forsake the very benefits that gave you a comfy career in HK finance, and blame the same things for the current ‘multipolar’ bollix?

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    7,049
    Quote Originally Posted by 39TG View Post
    The Americans also reign supreme in the scientific fight against Covid. American science is needed more than ever.
    The Biontec/Pfizer vaccine is actually a Biontec vaccine. Pfizer was included for speedy production. Biontec is a german company, founded by a couple of turkish origin.

  13. #13
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    rail against the west in particular, and capitalism in general
    Whoa there- I'm all in favor of Capitalism! What set China off on it's amazing growth trajectory was acceptance of the market economy and the several reforms enacted by Deng Xiaoping.
    I am not in favor of Imperialism, or pretending we are the world policemen. We are not on a jihad.

  14. #14
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Whoa there- I'm all in favor of Capitalism! What set China off on it's amazing growth trajectory was acceptance of the market economy and the several reforms enacted by Deng Xiaoping.
    I am not in favor of Imperialism, or pretending we are the world policemen. We are not on a jihad.
    You are not the worlds policeman or anything else for that matter. The Chinese version of capitalism is a communist fudge.
    What has happened in HK since the colony was handed back should really have exposed that for all to see. Just admit it, you’ve been turned by a tyrant.

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    The Chinese version of capitalism is a communist fudge.
    Could've fooled me- World's largest exporter, 3 major stock exchanges- each of which produced more IPO's than NYSE or LSE in 2022.
    What has happened in HK since the colony was handed back
    GDP over doubled, and the people I know are quite happy living there.

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    25,218
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    GDP over doubled
    That one metric is one important one.

    Fully bellies, etc, generally allows all social classes confidence in the future.

  17. #17
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Faux capitalism I tell ya! Actually, I will keep that one in mind for my HK buddies- we all like a good laugh.

  18. #18
    กงเกวียนกำเกวียน HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    สุโขทัย
    Posts
    10,142
    Manufacturing successive enemies.
    Big time business.

  19. #19
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,541
    Jeff, you're OK, this thread was drivel before you arrived, you can't really help.

  20. #20
    last farang standing
    Hugh Cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Online
    15-03-2024 @ 01:44 PM
    Location
    Qld/Bangkok
    Posts
    4,110
    With alll this anti western sentiment and propaganda, new world orders, the "superiority" of the Chinese Russians etc, the one thing that defeats all these propagandists is people. Look where people are moving to or is their first country of choice. Western democracies are by far the biggest first choice destinations and many of the migrants are leaving from these "new world order" countries. Russia's declining birth rate and increased death rate means the population is expected to drop to 133 million by 2050 from 144 million today which has been decling since 2015 and will drop to about no 17 in population and an economic minnow even smaller than it currently is, despite its size as the biggest country. Then their is the current brain drain and problems with energy exports already declining, and its sanctioned economy.
    China outside of a domestic property market already in serious trouble still relies heavily on the western democracies for its manufactured products. The undeveloped world is their to just be exploited by China for raw materials.
    The western democracies may be heading towards a sunset and hopefully re emerge into something better but it wont be into the autocracies and dictatorships that some on here seen to think. The western mentality alone will see to that.

  21. #21
    Thailand Expat DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Could've fooled me- World's largest exporter, 3 major stock exchanges- each of which produced more IPO's than NYSE or LSE in 2022.

    GDP over doubled, and the people I know are quite happy living there.

    Happy in Hong Kong?

    what were all those protests about then?


    lemme guess, foreign interference?

  22. #22
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Western democracies are by far the biggest first choice destinations
    What, like Ukraine? Anyway, we have gone through this- Russia is in fact the third largest global destination for immigrants after the USA and Germany, and before Saudi. I am an emigrant too (albeit it at a young age). Why do people voluntarily emigrate? Simple- in the hope of a better life.

    what were all those protests about then?
    The extradition bill. After China reversed it's stance on that, the peaceful protesters went home- they had won. Left were the violent assholes, a small minority- and to the eternal credit of the HKP, not one protester was killed.
    foreign interference?
    Well, HK is one of the few places in the world where you can mention the acronym 'NED'- and they know exactly who you mean.

    If HK is so 'bad' why did this much mooted mass exodus fail to materialise? Just as I told you it wouldn't.

  23. #23
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    The Chinese leadership continues to exploit third world and developing countries. The peasants will continue to revolt every time Xi’s autocracy gets it wrong at home.

    Smart move letting them all travel for CNY. Especially the ones who will infect unprotected countries.

    One man makes all the decisions, and some of those decisions will bite him and the country. The same thing is happening in Russia.

    XI and Putin have only one answer to problems at home. Those who are not satisfied with tyranny will be allowed to leave, or get pushed out.

    China survives on foreign debt, and Russia has plenty of dirty energy. Even Europe is slowly waking up to that imbalance.

  24. #24
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    exploit third world and developing countries.
    The peasants will continue to revolt
    Old and tired, already thoroughly debunked. I suppose you are more in favour of invading second and third world countries, to 'liberate' them.

  25. #25
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Old and tired, already thoroughly debunked. I suppose you are more in favour of invading second and third world countries, to 'liberate' them.
    Maybe debunked by similar mindsets as yours, but you only follow your own narrative bias anyway.

    3rd world and developing countries need help, not increasing and penalty ridden Chinese debt which strangles their fledgling economy. But hey, tyrants like dealing with tyrants.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •