One can see that much of Asia is rising from European domination. East Asia is leading but Southeast and South is doing quite well also. So far West Asia (plus Africa and South America lag behind).
One can ask why, and there are many who have tried to answer. I believe Alice Amsden has answered best. The Asians have simply used the method we used when we industrialized: heavy government help to enterprises who try hard to use the most modern methods.
In principle such methods are condemned by WTO, IMF and the rest. But particularly China is big enough to ask these institutions go fuck themselves. That's why the west hates China so much. But the others ask the Chinese to protect them, and good luck!
If only the Europeans could scrutinize its own past – and present!
The EU parliament has decided that the starvation in Ukraine was a crime equal to the Nazi extermination of peoples – but they have so far said nothing about the starvation disasters in the European colonies in the 19th century, so graphically described by Mike Davis. Apparently Europeans are devoid of guilt.
Also, the Russian invations of Ukraine is – rightly – condemned as a crime, while the extermination of Gazans is considered "self-defence". Ukrainans are Europeans, and for that reason sacrosanct, but Gazans are only Asians.
This was interesting and reflective when it comes to more global history. It reminds me also of Johan Norberg's book "Open" and other books such as by Robert Fisk about the Middle East
Except that Norberg is a devout proponent of "the market" – and the reason why Dar-al-Islam fell behind was that they trusted "the market" too much, and refused to use (the then) European-style development policies.
There are also other books about it. Ha-Joon Chang: Kicking away the ladder, and Paul Bairoch: Economics and world history, give examples of how now rich and industrialized countries did to succeed (and now try to stop other countries from doing). Alice Amsden: The rise of the rest gives perhaps the best account of how now rising countries do.
Chalmers Johnson: MITI and the Japanese miracle is a rather famous book about the Japanese development from the second world war on. There is also another famous book I have just ordered for and not read yet: Robert Wade: Governing the market, that gives an account of how Taiwan did.
None of these tells a story of market fundamentalism, all tell about what states did without bothering about petty details.
One can see that much of Asia is rising from European domination. East Asia is leading but Southeast and South is doing quite well also. So far West Asia (plus Africa and South America lag behind).
One can ask why, and there are many who have tried to answer. I believe Alice Amsden has answered best. The Asians have simply used the method we used when we industrialized: heavy government help to enterprises who try hard to use the most modern methods.
In principle such methods are condemned by WTO, IMF and the rest. But particularly China is big enough to ask these institutions go fuck themselves. That's why the west hates China so much. But the others ask the Chinese to protect them, and good luck!
If only the Europeans could scrutinize its own past – and present!
The EU parliament has decided that the starvation in Ukraine was a crime equal to the Nazi extermination of peoples – but they have so far said nothing about the starvation disasters in the European colonies in the 19th century, so graphically described by Mike Davis. Apparently Europeans are devoid of guilt.
Also, the Russian invations of Ukraine is – rightly – condemned as a crime, while the extermination of Gazans is considered "self-defence". Ukrainans are Europeans, and for that reason sacrosanct, but Gazans are only Asians.
Much of postcolonial, history, sociology studies do scrutinize our heritage.
True – but it doesn't seem to make impression politically.
I hope I didn't say that it did.
This was interesting and reflective when it comes to more global history. It reminds me also of Johan Norberg's book "Open" and other books such as by Robert Fisk about the Middle East
This means so much hearing this acclaim from such a learned friend as you yourself. Thank you 💖🙏
Except that Norberg is a devout proponent of "the market" – and the reason why Dar-al-Islam fell behind was that they trusted "the market" too much, and refused to use (the then) European-style development policies.
Colonial development policies and central planing?
If you read https://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/how-rich-countries-got-rich-and-why-poor-countries-stay-poor-9781845298746 you will see that proto-keynesianism led to the rise of the west from the 1300s.
There are also other books about it. Ha-Joon Chang: Kicking away the ladder, and Paul Bairoch: Economics and world history, give examples of how now rich and industrialized countries did to succeed (and now try to stop other countries from doing). Alice Amsden: The rise of the rest gives perhaps the best account of how now rising countries do.
Chalmers Johnson: MITI and the Japanese miracle is a rather famous book about the Japanese development from the second world war on. There is also another famous book I have just ordered for and not read yet: Robert Wade: Governing the market, that gives an account of how Taiwan did.
None of these tells a story of market fundamentalism, all tell about what states did without bothering about petty details.