LSE iQ* must be way below average! Peter Klevius names deeply** racist** extremnist** Sinophobic** Elizabeth Ingleson (LSE) economic bluff-maker of the year. Dear reader, while reading this, also keep in mind US' and Israel's genocide against Palestinians! And that >40% of "Chinese looking" people in the West are racially attacked - with almost no mentioning by BBC etc!
Acknowledgement:
Peter Klevius blogs are 100% AI free so all the flaws are copyrighted
to himself. However, Pentagon steered Google's flip-flopping AI is
remarkably consistent in making Peter Klevius almost invisible.
*
LSE, London School of Economics. LSE iq (sic) is a collaboration with
the LSE Phelan US Centre's podcast, The Ballpark. Sue Windebank and
Chris Gilson speak to LSE’s Elizabeth Ingleson and John Van Reenen and
Ashley Tellis from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Do
note that Carnegie's previous boss William J. Burns is now leading CIA,
the world's worst warmongering agency together with its affiliate NED
(National Endowment for Destabilization, sorry, Democracy).
**
Peter Klevius of course excuses her if she is really that
dumb/ignorant, but if not, then she should be aware of the 1971 "Nixon
chock", i.e. when US essentially stole the world dollar, divided it in
two (by violating the agreed gold standard while keeping full control
over the world dollar), and started an inflation roulette and dollar
printing that has accelerated in US in vain effort to beat China.
Elizabeth Ingleson could also easily have educated herself about China's
R&D etc. (or listened to a real economist like e.g. Jeffrey Sachs),
and taken a brief gaze at ultra high technologies already in the
pipeline in China, such as e.g. analogue photonic chips, large scale
quantum computing, robotics etc. But she hasn't! Or if she has then she
hides it! Why? The only possible answer is extreme US steered
Sinophobia racism, which is hostility to, prejudice towards, or
discrimination against Chinese under the cover of blaming Xi. Primarily,
antisinetic tendencies may be motivated by negative sentiment towards
Chinese as a people or by negative sentiment towards Chinese with regard
to Confucianism and or Atheism and Communism. In the former case,
usually presented as racial antisinetism, a person's hostility is driven
by the belief that Chinese constitute a distinct race with inherent
traits or characteristics that are repulsive or inferior to the
preferred traits or characteristics within that person's society.
Against this background Elizabeth Ingleson ticks every box of
institutional Sinophobia. Persistent negative stereotypes fuel
institutional racism. Racial stereotyping contributes to patterns of
racial segregation and redlining. Institutional racism is racial
profiling by security agencies use of stereotyped racial caricatures,
the under- and misrepresentation of a certain racial group in the mass
media, and race-based barriers to gainful employment and professional
advancement. Additionally, differential access to goods, services and
opportunities of society can be included within the term "institutional
racism". Structured racialization is the the interactions among
institutions, which interactions produce racialized outcomes against
Chinese. An important feature of structural racism is that it cannot be
reduced to individual prejudice or to the single function of an
institution.
IQ+
people in China and US understand what Elizabeth Ingleson doesn't get,
i.e. that nothing can stop China from accelerating even further ahead of
US, and that this will inevitably severe US last hope, its s.c.
"allies" willingness to follow US command when China's trade appeal wins
over US on outdated and poor quality technology based militarism.
Peter
Klevius is astonished by how China still tries to offer a friendly hand
to the criminal desperado US. But of course, China is the only country
that can resque the US wreck from sinking and contaminating the world
before it's repaired. And the refurbishment of US may cost too much for
it to bear, so it may decompose in lesser parts - back to where it
started as a remnant of European colonialism that wanted (Jefferson) to
become a colonial power itself. One coulkd even say that US is still a
colony to which the European colonizers have moved their headquarter. US
is no real nation state because it lacks roots and language of its own -
much like England which is a Fennoscandian colony. English is a creole
of Old Nordic and brought in by Fennoscandian people (see Peter Klevius
analysis of the origin of the Vikings).
Elizabeth Ingleson: In the long term China is no threat to US dollar. It would need a much larger global structural change.
Peter
Klevius: "A much larger global structural change" is already happening
and open for everyone to see. This is the very reason to US evil
behavior that has so contaminated Elizabeth's thinking. Ironically it's
precisely in the longterm US, not China, is doomed - and those in US who
are smarter than Elizabeth Ingleson, can clearly se how US (stolen, not
earned) dollar printing and manipulation will dry up when enough
consumers around the world (incl. in US) demand Chinese products. Only
racist Sinophobia and its dollar dictatorship keeps US still being an
anomaly in economic theory. After all, no other country can print over
its deficit. This also explains why US mother-country England has a per
capita GDP less than half that of US if London finance is excluded - and
if incl. then still less than 2/3 of US.
How $-embezzler US robs the world - click to release the bomb.
Elizabeth Ingleson: The Chinese are
bluffing. A long held belief has been that US sanctions are just helping
rebuilding and strengthening our country starting in the 1950s and 60s
when US sanctions were much more strict than they are today with
completely no trade, but it didn't help China's economy.
Peter
Klevius: You're bluffing or just ignorant. Almost childish ranting
considering it was US "exorbitant privilege" under the Bretton Woods
agreement from 1944 that together with US "Red Scare" propaganda and
siding by the Taiwan tyrant Chiang Kai-shek, that hampered a China that
had suffered tremendously from Western and Japanese attacks. Add to this
the consecutive 1971 theft of the world dollar that "helped" US war
economy in Korea and Vietnam. Moreover, all of this must be counted for
when assessing China today, which leads to the very opposite conclusion,
namely that not only is China the real super power, but unlike criminal
$-freeloader US, China doesn't need war but is developing so fast that
even the other half of the Taiwan population will soon start longing to
belong. After all, China is a regulated capitalist country that has
managed to combine the best parts from capitalism and socialism into a
functioning colossal unit where non-monotheist (i.e. Atheist) Taoist and
Confucianist tradition can appeal to anyone no matter of race, roots
etc. because they use universal values, much like Human Rights (UDHR of
1948) which US, but not China, has abandoned with a Supreme Court
decision! Moreover, although US works hard to send those it doesn't like
to ICC in the Hague, US isn't a member state, but has instead a law
that gives it the right to free with military force those those US likes
from the court.
Yes, US dictated international
trade controls with China were even harsher than those imposed on the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. US China differential trade embargo was
removed in 1957. Changing US dictated "international policy" on trade
with China in the period 1958–1971, culminated in Nixon’s decision in
April 1971 to end the embargo on non-strategic sales to China. Nixon’s
historic visit to China and the signing of the Shanghai Communique in
February 1972 happened as a consequence of US dollar theft in 1971.
Deng
Xiaoping radically ended Maoism and used reform and opening up as the
main policy. In 1982 he established a new Commission for Science,
Technology, and Industry for National Defense. He advanced the three
steps suitable for China's economic development strategy within seventy
years: the first step, to double the 1980 GNP and ensure that the people
have enough food and clothing, was attained by the end of the 1980s;
the second step, to quadruple the 1980 GNP by the end of the 20th
century, was achieved in 1995 ahead of schedule; the third step, to
increase per capita GNP to the level of the medium-developed countries
by 2050, at which point, the Chinese people will be fairly well-off and
modernization will be basically realized. Even here the development is
far ahead of the schedule.
China’s hybrid
“state capitalist”* system, is driven by centralized planning and fierce
competition, that has led to dominance in critical technological fields
and emerging markets. Western multinational corporations are advised to
adopt a pragmatic approach to capitalize on four key strengths of
China’s economy: its innovation ecosystem, its investment in the Global
South, its ultra-competitive markets, and its vast consumer base. Those
who fail to engage risk losing global revenue and strategic
opportunities. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping launched his “Reform and Opening”
policy to leverage Western technology and know-how for China’s
development. It was a politically risky move: Ideological hardliners in
the Communist Party resented the implicit assumption of China’s economic
backwardness under socialism — and the superiority of the capitalist
West. But Deng recognized that China’s modernization required both
pragmatism and humility.
* This incl. Xi Jinping's successful moderation of excessive capitalism.
How
democratic is it that the US congress since WW2 has dictated other
countries incl. "allies" and "democracies" relations with China?
US
Congress pursued a policy of outspoken support for the tyrant Chiang
Kai-shek's Nationalists and urged the president to commit the United
States to the defense of Taiwan. After all, it was US military that
colonized Taiwan after Japan's war with China. During that time, US
Congress continued to approve legislation imposing an international
trade embargo against China and often passed resolutions to discourage
the administration's recognition of the Beijing government. Congress
also launched a campaign in the 1950s and 1960s to forestall moves to
bring China into the United Nations. Congress refused any changes in
China policy until the 1960s. Then some congressional legislators began
to criticize China policy and openly called for changes: Senator J.
William Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was the
first to voice criticism of China policy in 1964. The 1966 Senate
hearings on China were possibly the most notable attempt to expand the
public's knowledge of China, and the most important consequence of the
hearings was the beginning of a more open public debate on China policy,
which contributed to public pressure on the administration to modify
its China policy. Thus, the Nixon administration was credited with
bringing about a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward China, but
Congress was active in effecting these changes. However, Nixon's main
motive was to hinder China's cooperation with Russia.
LSE iQ (sic), in a collaboration with the LSE Phelan US Centre's podcast, The Ballpark, Sue Windebank and Chris Gilson speak to LSE’s Elizabeth Ingleson and John Van Reenen and Ashley Tellis from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Peter
Klevius: CIA Fuhrer William J. Burns used to be director for Carnegie
before. This is how US criminal tentacles work for "peace" while
igniting conflicts and proxy wars conducive to US dictated world order.
LSE iQ: Why is America* (sic) so successful?
*
Using 'America' alone instead of USA - or preferably US - is the very
root of the rot. 'America' comes from Amerigo Vespucci who went to what
is now called South America, after the original name of North-America,
i.e. Parias was abandoned. Sad, isn't it, because it would fit US much
better - from a parias (protection money) to a pariah state.
Peter
Klevius: Because US lives on stolen money it has embezzled since before
1971 - and continues to do in an accelerating tempo to balance its
constant deficit.
LSE iQ: The answer is US size, immigration, openess, innovation, and digital companies which started off in US.
Peter
Klevius: China is way bigger. China is much more self-sufficient with
talents. China is more innovative - as it has been through history and
prehistory. US used its stolen dollar to suck the world of
talents and to monopolize digital tech - just check out how US crashed
Japan's much more advanced digital tech in the 1980s.
LSE iQ: And Google is so big compared to Bing MS.
Peter Klevius: Competition, huh!
LSE
iQ: Strong military. If there are threats to US world order and
security (defined by US) - wherever in the world - then US can shoot
until US world order is in place again.
Peter Klevius: Right, but Westerns are old fashioned, and the best, the s.c. "spaghetti Westerns", were made in Europe!
LSE iQ: A threat to US supremacy is a capitalist dictatorship like China.
Peter
Klevius: China's meritocracy is way more democratic than the one party
dollar voting system via electoral in US where only a quarter of the
population get the name on the ticket right, although not the policy -
it doesn't fit in a tick box. So a tick in a box can never compete with
meritocracy from the grassroots up.
Elizabeth
Ingleson was "surprised" that already during Mao's rule China started to
open up thanks to US and its off-shore manufacturing policy.
Peter
Klevius: She must be easily surprised! US relaxed its criminal embargo
on China to improve its own poor competitiveness and to get China on its
side against Russia. And US 1974 Trade Act (which later became GATT)
was created solely to expand US already unfair trade practices made
possible with the stolen world dollar. She also sees "paradoxes" where
there are none. China's housing problem was a direct consequence of US
trade manipulations at a time when the rural population was expected to
continue to urbanize. But China again made the best of it by
transforming rural China. And China's superior green energy production
isn't an "anomaly" but part of China's overall R&D superiority. Dear
Elizabeth, the only thing that remains is conventional production of
the smallest chips - which US itself can't make, because only the
Chinese in Taiwan master to manufacture them. And this only because US
criminal global trade practices stopped mainland China from accessing
the same Dutch (ASML) made machinery that TSMC in Taiwan uses! And
because this machinery is so expensive to build and no one foresaw US
criminal behavior, no one thought it necessary to build their own until
US stopped ASML's export to China.
Ashley
Tellis: We need guns against China: 1) increased US militarism is sound
and good, 2) cut off China from technologies previously free to buy for
anyone, 3) lock US "allies" against China. Russia's partnership with
China rests on their both view that US is the main threat to them both.
Peter Klevius: Duh!
LSE iQ: India has the fastest growing economy and has the world's largest population.
Peter
Klevius: Not at all, because the 2% difference in growth is easily
outperformed by China's much larger economy and tech size - moreover,
China's much bigger pool of talents and the world's most advanced
infrastructure. Also do realize how far behind India is when it comes to
enhance its poor and rural population. Last but not least, India's
minorities will become a problem which might even affect population
size.
Ashley Tellis: India has to find out how
to utilize its resources. India has been quite successful the last
decades consistently increasing GDP by 5-6%.
Peter
Klevius: So wrong! Compared to the s.c. "non-democratic" China,
"democratic" one party India has clearly performed extremely badly both
re. growth and to decrease poverty. China's growt rate has constantly
been higher than India's until quite recently.
LSE
iQ: India needs constantly at least 8% growth for at least 20 years. I
can't see any threat against US hegemony for the next decades.
Peter
Klevius: Something like that if India continues as a militaru puppet
for US. However, if it continues to buy high tech from China (compare
e.g. Tata's battery deal) then India would develop much faster - and
might, like China, even get the "hostile state" award from US - cause
then "democracy" wouldn't count anymore.
Ashley Tellis: US with the help of its "allies" will remain hegemonic because there are no other competitive constellations.
Peter
Klevius: China in itself is precisely such a "constellation"! Don't you
understand that it's China that will dominate the next decades thanks
to its superior R&D, infrastructure and talent pool. US hegemony
will only cut off US itself and its "allies" from the best - a fact
consumers worldwide already are starting to recognize. It's almost
tragicomic that "experts" like these seem to be the last to get it.
John
Van Reenen: US is the only one to have hard and soft power enough to
continue US "rule based world order" in terms of size, competition,
openness, innovations. Lack of freedom and democracy will hurt China's
growth and innovation. China doesn't bother about privacy which gives it
an advantage with big data collection.
Peter
Klevius: Really! US bothers about privacy! Absurd ignorance (or worse).
US soft power is crumbling under its own sanction policies, and China is
already ahead in hard power. Moreover, China doesn't need 1,000
military basis, simply because its non-aggressive multipolar policy is
the opposite to US aggressive uni-polar "world order". And re. soft
power, is he unaware of the open "secret" that US via its stolen media
monopoly spies, hacks, and collects data of not only US people but all
around the world - except for China now after US attacks on it which
forced China to build its own defense. It's US that tries to stop
China's openness! Also, as China is the technological world leader
(compare e.g. Baidu's old multi purpose super app that no one in the
West has still managed to produce - although Musk tries hard) new
Chinese tech to avoid criminality and ID theft etc. is in the old West
always "explained" as "surveillance" despite US surveillance is all over
the place without managing to stop criminality.
John Van Reenen: We need to utilize our data collection to win over China.
Peter
Klevius: China doesn't need to be "won over" because it's already all
for cooperation. It's US (and its useful idiots) that sits with its self
inflicted problem.
LSE iQ: The capacity to rival China is dependent on using (stolen) private data and innovation.
Peter
Klevius: Although US media and web censorship makes it almost
impossible to get fair info about China, what you still get of US edited
one, should be enough to convince anyone interested to see that China
is way ahead - except in utilizing the web US controls, spies and
collects data from around the world. However, China's "only" 1.4 Billion
of own data is qualitatively of much higher standard. And even the
language divide is rapidly vanishing in the near future.
Elizabeth Ingleson: The biggest question is how to respond to the climate crisis.
Peter
Klevius: "Re-shoring" away from China is re-shoring away from green top
technology! Moreover, it's not the "climate" but the healthiness of
people globally that matters. And in this respect China is since long
the undisputed super power re. green infrastructure and green
technology. And when it comes to climate, China should worry more about
the incipient process of cooling rather than warming. See Peter Klevius
climate analysis links at the top.
Acknowledgement:
Anyone with a human brain should understand that Peter Klevius doesn't,
unlike US, dislike certain people - only US dangerous hegemonic
sentiments!
Will US end up in self-containment and isolation?
When
the world dollar inevitably becomes useless, or in other words, when
consumers start seriously demanding Chinese goods despite made in US
trade embargo and barriers, then the only option (unless total collapse)
would be for US to become self-sufficient, which in turn would mean a
very harsh regression, both in terms of consumer goods quality, but also
in terms of domestic problems.
The
"per capita" delusion, and how Swedish "alternative media" shares the
same racist Sinophobia as does Elizabeth Ingleson. She could fit well in
an anti-China interview with Mikael Willgert.
Unlike the
West, China still has a hangover from its encounter with the West in the
form of a huge (albeit nowhere close to India) rural population which
traditionally doesn't contribute much to GDP. So if one compares urban
China with the West in PPP and infrastructire terms then China is
already clearly ahead.
So the Swedish "alternative media" censor clown Mikael Willgert got his anti-China ranting wrong again.
Swedish "alternative" Swebbtv is equally
Sinophobic as the mainstream media - and led by a dictatorial
intellectually dwarfed China hating clown.
Peter Klevius: Sadly, Swebbtv's main asset Lars Bern is completely wrong when thinking US goal is to get access to Russian raw materials, when in fact the real motive is to contain China, i.e. the same as everywhere else around China. And weakening or even splitting Russia is even that a secondary goal, while the most important is to surround Russia with US short distance "low yield" nukes, i.e. what was ultimately behind Obama's threat 2013 to ploace US nukes on Crimea around Sevastopol, and the push to get NATO closer to Russia which forced Russia to invade Ukraine 2022.US knows that China's progress means US losing its stolen dollar hegemony if it can't stop China
Swedish
white "alternative" supremacists* prefer Russia but are against China
because Russians are seen positively as "monotheist" Caucasians while
Chinese are seen negatively as Atheist Mongoloids - despite the fact
both Russians and Chinese speak languages most Swedes don't master, and
use a scripts system foreign to most Swedes.
* Do realize that
the whole of US dictated West - not only "alternative" mental clowns
like Willgert on Swebbtv - suffers from a white (incl. s.c. "uncle
Toms", i.e. colored Western Sinophobes) supremacism, i.e. the completely
unfounded and debunked (by e.g. the existence of Japan and China)
delusion that West's "monotheistic" "democracy" is somehow superior to
China's meritocracy, the world's oldest civilization and country. And
when Japan stopped making war, it easily outperformed the West in every
aspect. The 12 times bigger China repeats it, and restores its position
as it was before the Western colonialism and imperialism made possible
with copied/stolen Chinese inventions.
No comments:
Post a Comment