Pax Americana vs Pax Sinica vs Multipolar World

[futon]

23 hours ago, Strannik said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-18/de-dollarization-is-happening-at-a-stunning-pace-jen-says?leadSource=uverify wall

Dollar represents 58% of reserves, down from 73% in 2001.

The dollar's share in global reserves slid last year at 10 times the average speed of the past 2 decades.

The reserve share of US dollar in the 1970s was above 80%. In the 1980s and 1990s it was down to around 55%, dipping below 50%. Towards year 2000, it climbed back up into your article's noted 70%. After that it was a slow decrease to what it is now, upper 50s%. If counting the of other aligned countries's currencies, just Euro alone is at 20% thus puts it to upper 70% Then pound and yen total of about 10.. putting total of the aligned to upper 80%. A similar total sum make up as was during the 1980s actually. Then the sum of following registered dollars of Canada and Australia for 4 to 5, thus the current lower 90s%. Yuan, got on board, and reached 2% fairly quickly but currently is bouncing back and fourth between 2 and 3. So 10% for yuan still looks distant. More negative impacts to the dollar's fate (positive impacts can also occur mind you) can happen surely but until then, the Yuan doesn't look like its going to jump to 10% soon, nevermind a hegemonic level of 40, 50, 60%. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by futon

[Strannik]

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

Capitalism is the idea that what you pay for you own. Its not corporatism. Capitalism means that people who own something are the first who should have a say in its use.  

Dude, I don't want go ad hominem, but you either don't understand the basics of poli sci or ... - I don't understand why are you using "redneck terminology"

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's means of production and the resulting production are controlled by private owners, while in socialism the means, results and their distributions are controlled by the state 

"Having a say" is sloppy and imprecise and open to interpretations.  There were/are many cases when a state had a "first say" in how the means of production (which were "owned by somebody") were used when that state had a compelling interest.

 

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

I don’t know why so many confuse corporatism with capitalism.

Corporations are just a feature (and not a bug!) of the late state capitalism. You can't just pretend they are some alien attribute that sneaked into your blessed life in capitalism and spoiled everything.

I suppose your mentioning it here (besides your cute attempt in trying to distance it from a capitalism) betrays your belief that "non-corporate capitalism" is good and "corporate capitalism" is bad - amirite?

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

As to your original context… how the hell was the USSR or any other communist block nation ethical, moral or gentle when it came to foreign relations? Perhaps we can poll the Client states of the USSR for their past good feelings? 

My "original context" had nothing to do with economic model -  I already stated that pure socialism is not feasible at this stage, yet here you are with the silly gotcha questions.   Why don't you compare life in two states that are right next to each other: Cuba and Haiti?  See how easy it is?

  

Edited May 23, 2023 by Strannik

[rmgill]

It’s still different than corporatism which was your second grade muddying of the waters. As to less evil, than socialism? Or perhaps likewise who are the good socialists? 

Here, is this more precise for you? 

capitalism
Term given currency by *Saint-Simon, and now used in two ways:
1. An economic arrangement, defined by the predominant existence of capital and *wage labour, the former consisting of accumulations in the
hands of private (i.e. non-government) owners, including *corporations and *joint stock companies, the latter consisting in the activities of labour- ers, who exchange their *labour hours (or, according to *Marxian theory, their *labour power) for wages, paid from the stock of capital. The capitalist receives not a wage but a *profit, by realizing in a *market the value of the goods produced. Capitalism presup- poses private property in the means of production, a market economy, and the *division of labour. It does not necessitate, but it may be thought to encourage, *factory production.
2. According to Marxist theory capitalism marks a transient stage of historical development, and is further characterized by the formation of capi- talist and labouring *classes. The former – the *bourgeoisie – accumu- lates all *surplus-value, while the latter – the *proletariat – accumulates noth- ing, and so remains propertyless. Marx himself did not often use the term ‘capitalism’, but the theory is in essence his.
In both explanations ‘capitalism’ denotes a theoretical concept, used in the description and explanation of social arrangements that may have manyaspectsbesidesthosementioned. It is unclear whether there is or has been any society that corresponds exactly either to the Marxist or to any other conception of capitalism. It is more accurate to say that both defini- tions are attempts to specify an *ideal type. Moreover, some (e.g. *Weber, *Sombart), have argued that crucial elements of this type are to be found in almost all historical societies.

[rmgill]

My point of noting the nature of ownership is based upon what you pay for vs the Marxist idea of labor theory of value and a presumption of ownership just based upon being a stakeholder and not a shareholder. Share holders either being investors or workers who exchanged labor for stock as pay. 
 

As to your original context, what are the precepts of socialism that denotes it as a force for good in the world? 

[Strannik]

No clue what you are trying to say here.  Open a new topic if you want to argue about capitalism, corporatism, socialism and your ehhh thoughts on the matter.

[rmgill]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:45 PM, Strannik said:

The unhinged self interest is the essence of the capitalist society, so your complaints are the opposite side of Roman's lamentations about "pro-western Russian elites".

Pretty sure we’re on the correct thread here. 
 

You have property right? Is there any thing unhinged about you wanting to retain ownership of said property as a function of your self interest? 
 

If that is not what you are angling at what is this unhinged self interest? 

[Strannik]

8 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Pretty sure we’re on the correct thread here. 
 

You have property right? Is there any thing unhinged about you wanting to retain ownership of said property as a function of your self interest? 
 

If that is not what you are angling at what is this unhinged self interest? 

Yes and?  What's the problem with people outsourcing the jobs and production to China - they were (EDIT: and currently still are!) in their own right (capitalism baby!).  Complaints about it are ridiculous. QED.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Strannik

[Strannik]

Emerging market countries are on track to surpass their developed market counterparts in gold reserves by 2050

 

 

[Strannik]

India and Bangladesh will start using their own currencies

 

 

 

 

[Strannik]

 China and Brazil will use yuan and real in mutual trade.

 

 

[Strannik]

South Korea and Indonesia

 

 

[Strannik]

Kim likes to troll, but the trend is there

 

 

[JWB]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Cuba and Haiti?

Try Cuba vs the Dominican Republic.

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

Try Cuba vs the Dominican Republic.

https://georank.org/economy/cuba/dominican-republic

Not too shabby methinks despite being blockaded by the US

maybe a tad poorer (higher taxes and lower economic freedom/property index) but

- GDP per capita is higher, inflation is much lower, unemployment is lower

- Cubans live a bit longer: 

Life expectancy at birth, years	78.7	73.7

have better health services: 79.5 vs 70.6  (UK is 78.3!)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290168/health-index-of-countries-worldwide-by-health-index-score/

are better educated: 44 vs 61

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

[NickM]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Kim likes to troll, but the trend is there

 

 

Why do I get the feeling he'd be among the first to end up with his head on a spike, when the "S" hits the fan?

[BansheeOne]

Because he made, then lost his money as a professional online fraudster before reinventing himself as a "net activist"? 😉

[NickM]

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Because he made, then lost his money as a professional online fraudster before reinventing himself as a "net activist"? 😉

Ah.

"To Paraphrase" the words of Nigel Greene as Hercules, in "Jason and the Argonauts", he won't be missed.

Edited May 23, 2023 by NickM
Edited for clarification.

[JWB]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

https://georank.org/economy/cuba/dominican-republic

Not too shabby methinks despite being blockaded by the US

maybe a tad poorer (higher taxes and lower economic freedom/property index) but

- GDP per capita is higher, inflation is much lower, unemployment is lower

- Cubans live a bit longer: 

Life expectancy at birth, years	78.7	73.7

have better health services: 79.5 vs 70.6  (UK is 78.3!)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290168/health-index-of-countries-worldwide-by-health-index-score/

are better educated: 44 vs 61

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

Most of that is communist propaganda.

The real stuff:

GDP growth, 1 year	2.3%	7%
GDP growth, 5-years average	2%	6.6%
Population	11.5M	10.4M
GDP per capita	$8.8k	$8.1k
GDP per capita growth	2.26%	5.83%
Purchasing Power Parity conversion factor	0.32	22.4

GDP per capita, PPP adjusted	$14k	$18k

The numbers to the left belong to the Peoples' Paradise.

[Strannik]

11 minutes ago, JWB said:

Most of that is communist propaganda.

The real stuff:

GDP growth, 1 year	2.3%	7%
GDP growth, 5-years average	2%	6.6%
Population	11.5M	10.4M
GDP per capita	$8.8k	$8.1k
GDP per capita growth	2.26%	5.83%
Purchasing Power Parity conversion factor	0.32	22.4

GDP per capita, PPP adjusted	$14k	$18k

The numbers to the left belong to the Peoples' Paradise.

I see, stats you like are real, the ones you don't - fake.

OK boomer, welcome to my ignore list 🤣

Edited May 23, 2023 by Strannik

[rmgill]

Gen z can’t accept things they dislike. They just put you on ignore. 

[Strannik]

39 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Gen z can’t accept things they dislike. They just put you on ignore. 

says the person who doesn't know what either is: "errr it's not capitalism, it's corporatism"

reading helps, but if it's too much  - here it is in abbreviated form: 

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

You would, of course, point to marxist to prove your point.

[rmgill]

10 minutes ago, Strannik said:

says the person who doesn't know what either is: "errr it's not capitalism, it's corporatism"

 

I was pointing out they were different Daffy. 

Not the same thing. 
 

Here, argue with Roger Scrunton …

 

corporatism (or: corporativism)
The theory and practice of the *corpo- rate state as developed in *fascist Italy (and also, in more tempered form, in the Spain of General Franco). Inspired by aspects of Roman Catholic social doctrine, this attempted to justify the organization of the economic system into ‘corporations’ subordinate to the state, and also argued that such an economic system would render politi- cal *representation superfluous. The economy was divided into associations (called ‘syndicates’) of workers, employers and the professions; only one syndicate was allowed in each branch of industry, and all officials were either fascist politicians or else loyal to the fascist cause. According to law the syndicates were autonomous, but in fact they were run by the state. The ‘corporations’ united the syndi- cates in a given industry, but made no pretence at autonomy from the state. The theory held that, because the people are not politically articulate, their interests could be consulted only through institutions related directly to their occupations. A small ruling *élite of politically competent leaders would, if placed in charge of those institu- tions, both guide and be guided by the people.
The term ‘corporativism’ was also used by *Gramsci, partly in order to criticize the fascist theory of the corporate state, and partly in order to describe what he took to be a general feature of the development of capi- talist society, in which workers see their interest in terms of their place within a corporation, rather than in the universal terms required for political understanding. He defined the awakening of a class to *politics in terms of its ability to ‘go beyond corporativism’.
corruption
The tendency of modern democ- ractic governments to consult corpo- rate bodies representing defined interests within the state, such as the Trade Unions Congress in the UK, confederations of industry and other organised lobby groups has meant the emergence of a new kind of ‘bottom up’ corporatism, in distinction to the ‘top down’ approach of the fascists. Some writers distinguish the two as ‘liberal’ and ‘authoritarian’ corpo- ratism respectively.

 

[Strannik]

That's a whole lot of cockamamie. 

And the real life (the fact that all developed capitalist societies now are full of corporations with all the consequences) is the ultimate proof - it's a natural development in a  capitalist society.

But do not despair - there is still room to go: oligarchy as an ultimate form of corporatocracy.

And now I leave you to enjoy your own made up reality...

 

[rmgill]

Hmmm Roger Scrunton or some random guy?