US or China's economic advantage


Sep 28, 2012
Reaction score
For a hundred years slavery gave the US an advantage over nations relaying on opium, indenture workers and other business models. By the start of the 20th century these business models had been replaced with two free enterprise models best described as new and old money. New money relayed on innovation enjoying public support because the concepts were mutually beneficial for the consumers and businessmen, while the old money like mine and rail barons relayed on undue influence whether by monopoly or political connections to retain their businesses.

Today most western manufacturers have gone out of business, yet old money has survived by engaging overseas sweatshops, and by looting other nations as well as their home nations of mineral resources for benefit of the overseas manufacturing plants. While brave people were advancing innovation and ideas of human rights and world prosperity such as in the UN Charter, the grandchildren of the old money have been manipulating governments and the UN to create the sweatshops and mines such as in Indonesia.

What about the future? With China able to assert control of its people to maintain upper and lower classes for the foreseeable future, China can exploit a vast population more efficiently than America's old money can. It seems to me that we either maintain the lies, the denial of abuse by the immoral elite families; or we adopt the new path of innovation and world prosperity in which China would find it much more difficult to become the world economic superpower.

For example: do we release West Papua from slavery? Under a US plan benefiting Robert Lovett and the Rockefellers the Dutch asked the UN to take-over responsibility for the colony and by corrupting the UN for the pass fifty years a select group of Americans have had almost free access to the world's largest gold mine while the Papuan land owners have been killed and oppressed by the hundreds of thousands.

If we want the Chinese population to demand human rights, and if we hope to ever get China to adopt some of the business and human values we ask of it, shouldn't we clean our own house first ?


Jul 28, 2013
Reaction score
If we want the Chinese population to demand human rights, and if we hope to ever get China to adopt some of the business and human values we ask of it, shouldn't we clean our own house first ?
I don't think we can clean our own house. American corporations, about 50 larger than all but 50 of the world's nations (comparing gross receipts with GDPs) have enough cash flow to bribe all members of Congress, and major appointed officials, if they don't get their way, so they are too powerful to do anything about. They have way more cash flow than any other group in America. They bribe members of Congress with the mobilization of massive campaign contributions and highly paid jobs after someone leaves office, and their lobbyists write large chunks of bills passed by Congress.

So, the only approach I can think of is to convince the wealthy that they would be much better off is a much more advanced civilization. I already commented on research and the Arts in the Offer to China message, so I will go on to make some economic comments.

Even now, the American mean income is about $40,000 per year, so if income were divided equally, every family of four could have an income of about $160,000 per year. Of course, I don't think it would be politically possible to get income divided equally.

However, we are automating rapidly, so if we administer the economy properly, the average income should double or more. That means that when we become more highly automated, the wealthy could still be just as wealthy, and also every American could be provided with a very good income.

Further, if this were administered properly, many of those ordinary Americas could be provided with jobs in research and the Arts, especially since with automation, they wouldn't be needed to produce and distribute goods and selected services. In research, the most intelligent people could be scientists, and people with lower intelligences could be various kinds of lab assistants, so there would be jobs for all.

So the wealthy could still have their wealth, but they could also have the benefits of increased research and increased work in the Arts.

I will note that the economic expansion needs to be done with alternative energy, but that would be easy to do.

So the route to a paradise on earth isn't to destroy the wealthy. The route to a paradise on earth is to administer an automating economy properly, to increase
research by many times, and to increase work in the Arts many times.

This could be done even though we are not able to clean house.


New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List