The American Downslope with Old Style Globalism

Making America Decline with Old Style Globalism

For Americans, globalism is primarily of benefit to the most rich citizens. Globalism directed for the benefit of the most rich Americans appears to exploit the long-term relative economic position of the United States in the world. The rich get richer while the vast majority of Americans don't (relative to other nations of the world). The rise of American feminism coincides with the economic decline of the United States as it compares with other nations -especially those of Eurasia).. It is an unnecessary coincidence yet cannot be easily corrected within the contemporary subversive-activist mileau.

Many Americans continue to view the economy as if it still had the world-leading output health it had during the Eisenhower administration when it accounted for 40% of the planet's economic output. Asia had yet to come on line while Europe was yet rebuilding from war. After 1960 the United States began a gradual downhill slope with wages for male workers stagnating after 1974. Modern feminism was just getting its second wind then and sought greater empowerment and prosperity. It had no concern about the comparative decline of the U.S.A. near-term or over the long haul. Feminists coupled with minority populations of the United States in affirmative action for-themselves while the ship was taking on water. They rose with and developed an anti-white male, anti-American world view. The domestically resistive power sought wealth and felt natural alliances with global populations of peer race and feminist movements.

Today the United States has about 4% of world population and about 20% of the economic output and perhaps somewhat more income. National income differs from gross domestic product in that foreign outflows are subtracted to reflect a more accurate picture of the annual income of a nation. As a percent of the world income the share of the united States continues to decline. The conditions that brought it to be a world leader changed.

Europe's peak percent of global production and wealth, according to one well-known economist and author, was in 1913. The United States did have natural resource advantages of course and a lead from its heritage of brilliant Euro-American inventors in technology and a unified central government yet the great world wars and the vast disruption to most of the industrial production of the rest off the world undoubtedly conferred a temporary advantage to the production and trading position of the United States that reached its peak in the 1950s. At the present rate of decline the portion of global income of the U.S.A. in 2050 may be about 4%. Yet the most rich may take 90% of that even so.

The United States could perhaps act politically to make America great again, yet that would be quite challenging. Presentably feminists and certain minorities are wroth with the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency instead of Hillary Clinton. Homosexuals were too happy with the Clinton-Obama approach to homosexual issues. Homosexuals in the Democrat, decadent, queer, new world order would be assured companionable health love-robots with penis' extensible from an inch to 3 feet in measure for their sucking pleasure. Opioid and queer machines would for democrat mules probably be regarded as mating America great again. The Democratic party mule is seeking ways to re-empower themselves and impeach through any means possible the Trump administration.

One device the Democrats have for attacking the Trump administration is through foreign policy. They have made it virtually a crime for association with Russia. Yet Russia is and was a key to making America great again.

Russia has vast lands and natural resources as well as bright, articulate yet bold people. That is a strength as well as a vulnerability. Russia in the post cold-war environment should be a natural ally of the U.S.A. instead of the enemy it was treated as by the Clinton administration that sought to redistribute the Ukraine and Crimea to the west. Russia and the Ukraine have fewer than 200 million people together and are regarded as easy pickings targets for global expansionists, perhaps in error.

President Barrack Obama said the 21^st is the Pacific century. He was looking at the great population and economic potential of Asia. He grew up in Indonesia. Asia already has more than 60% of the global population and 40% of planetary output. A trend toward development and demographic inertia in economics coupled with equalization of planetary income distribution obviously would bring Asia to be the world economic leader. Versus the billions of Asians with new economic and military power Russia and its smaller population might experience vulnerabilities and political shocks the next century while the United States with just 4% of the planet's population and increasing public debt would be unable to afford a dominant military structure. It would diminish in global political significance to be comparable to France. Asian immigration and economic power would naturally expand into domination of the markets and political control of the United States as the United States for a few decades was an 800 pound gorilla in certain Latin American economies.

American women are about 1.5% of the planet's population, with American blacks comprising a slightly smaller percent. As they exploit foreign alliances to advance their own national standing vs white men the advantages will be temporary. Eventually the U.S. position would tend to merge toward and be equilibrated with global standards and agenda set abroad in politically bad cultural power centers.

Of course some Americans wonder if it isn't possible to de frappe the Asian edge. After all there isn't a Christian nation in Asia and it has numerous atheists as well as Muslims. American women may one day be required to wear hijab or to be atheists under Chinese cultural values. As a nearly insignificant percentage of the world population Americans generally will have little say in defining their own cultural and economic position in perhaps, half a century.

President Trump has at least made a gesture toward resuming American greatness. Like King Canute though he cannot roll back the tide of history. The 1950s are gone along with the American position in the globe. It is not too late to lever the remaining advantages of the United States into a better than global average position for the century ahead however.

What made America great was technological superiority and natural resources given by God with intelligent leadership and a boundless faith in manifest destiny (not the Monroe Doctrine). Americans believed they were working the will of God in His plan for the advance of mankind. He has the tools to accomplish progress. The tools required for that task are more challenging to get today, and are easily misapplied.

Technological proliferation in the communication and information age is nearly instantaneous. Perhaps the sole way to create a national advantage through state-of -the-art technology is to join it to state-of-the-art and inventive ecospheric conservation and restoration leadership that benefits all mankind. It should make the ships rise in all of the harbors of the world as well as the United States. Most people didn't mind too much that Bill Gates or Stephen Jobs got very rich since their products were good and improved the quality of life of users.

In an age where income inequality is increasing in the United States the investment in Asia is great. In the United States tax cuts go to the most rich and wages stagnate for the majority or little rise. Does the value of the stock market rise because the corporations are investing in China, or because all of the free money issued to the big banks has nowhere else to go; loans that pay little interest don’t profit banks so much as buying the market. Perhaps the market rise is really market inflation limited to itself rather than consumers.

Feminists and blacks use a class-exclusive economic analysis based on sex and race instead of individual economic wealth (or lack of it) as a citizen. That divides. Neither does it regard the position of the U.S.A. in the global economic historical tide and currents except perhaps as they seek to reduce income inequality for race and gender. In the process they conflate ideas of income inequality nationally and internationally across race, gender and other lines with national GDP comparisons. Methods to change national sex and race inequality differ generally from those required to change international GDP disequilibria.

Gross GDP inequality may be theoretically changed in several ways. Plainly though within a neo-democratic political environment the sole pragmatic goal would be to find some sort of fair cohesion of income with demographics where nations have a proportionate share of of income globally in respect to population. Regardless of how one reaches that status in the future, American become a very insignificant global player with just 3 or 4% of the world income.

The most rich Americans will not be of help ion changing that future. People like Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs invested in China decades ago. The most rich 1% of Americans will be global plutocrats and remain rich even if the people of the United States sink to slightly below average planetary incomes levels because of As 50 million Americans today have less than a half of one percent of national income, women will still strive to be the leaders in that social structure and Sieg heil the 1% while descrying male advantage.

President Trump expressed the right sentiment about making America great again yet it nearly impossible to do so with the economic engines of the past. In the future Americans may be blamed, rather unfairly, by Asians, for creating global warming. Democrats have become accustomed to regarding Russians as the new Jews for pogroms and blame in their allegiance to globalism and Asia and hatred of U.S. nationalism. One day Americans too may be dumped with Russians as blame-worthy peoples (of Christian nations). Atheist American feminists in radio naturally find resonance in the atheist Chinese communist party yet probably regard its all-male Politburo as repressive and chauvinistic and at any rating, worthy of long-range investment of political effort to evolve.

If President Trump could be a ecospheric technology leader as well as a genius at getting a moon ecosphere started as a first step in exoplanetary human habitat creation he might be able to create the long-term better than average lifestyle position for ordinary Americans. It is doubtful that he can morph that technocrat ensemble realistically. Japan and Russia should be natural American allies in the effort to make lava-tube Eco-habitats self-sustain on the moon and mars. On Earth the U.S. should revolutionize new transport system that do not require vast road building or atmospheric degradation. Better economic models and quicker, less exclusive patent regulations need be made into law. President Trump would have his hands full, and cannot even get a new alternative energy network started in Puerto Rico. Fundamentally, America is snoring through history with blind faith in Asian wealth-management dreams.

The Dopioid Crisis; Bulk National Health Emergency

The national dopioid crisis has finally been declared a national health emergency. Thousands of Americans each year choose to suffer the tragic death of over-use of narcotics and all the euphoria that follows. Treatment costs are very high assuring solid profit potential for those providing treatment. Analysis of the financial loops of intoxication-euphoria, crime, decline, and treatment or death/right of return to resume a new cycler of addiction and euphoria bring us to the happy realization that Obamacare can easily afford to pay for the problem so long as youth subsidizing the insurance market are available to pay for drug treatment for their peers over and over, yet only if the top 1% of income earners are given substantial tax breaks to be then freed to create minimum wage, temporary jobs for the middle class.

There aren't so many people will health issues that are not created through free will choices that dopes that use narcotics freely can't demand free treatment from the government. If most mental and physical maladies that arise involuntarily require expensive treatment too, those sick people should just share.

Dopioid treatment concentration camps centers located around the nation can standardize dopioid withdrawal techniques. Bulk processing of dopioid addicts may be facilitated with the use of select closed military bases partially adapted for reconditioning dopiod addicts at low cost. It might be useful to have the entertainment industry that supports a dopioid social ethic to merge with dopioid drug producers and dopioid withdrawal drug producers, insurance companies and drug stores in a grand Dopioid corporation to maximize efficiency in the cycle of euphoria, withdrawal, bland interval and new euphoria etc.

DT centers could be modeled on Guantanamo Bay terrorist interrogation detention centers. New dopioid inmates would have their hair shaved and receive a vinyl jumpsuit that reads in bold and very small letters with a nice 60s hippest lettering font; “I'm a Dopioid moron.”

Each dopioid addict with have a personal kennel yard with a large plastic dog-house style plastic igloo to a home behind a ten foot razor wire topped chain link steel fence. Guy Lombardo music would cycle continuously for the pleasure of dopes through camp loudspeakers. Each dopioid inmate would be safe and secure with a personal, guaranteed washed blanket and steel bowl for feeding twice daily with a generous portion of a bag of all-food-groups kibbles and bits in addition to three quarts of water. The point is to create a plain safe place for dopioid withdrawal that may be used repetitively at comparatively low social cost. Irish monastics doing penance in former millenia lived in worse quarters.

An emergency medical response team would be available to help inmates if required, within minutes. When the 21 days of liberation were over the former dope would receive free transportation back to his town of choice. The public would be billed no more than 21,000 thousand dollars per dope.

Sect Tillerson May Seek to Protract Syrian Gov Instability ThroughTerrorism

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seemed to express support for continuing terrorist subversion of the lawful Syrian government. With the ISIS problem apparently on the decline, and with Ira’s government attacking former U.S. Kurdish allies now that they are superfluous for attacking ISIS territory in Syria, the Secretary seems disposed to move forward in creating a U.S. neo-puppet interim state in Syria with U.S. puppet soldiers of the Sunni sort until ISIS can return to take over the U.S. sponsored government that would kick out the Assad government with plenty of U.S. military support.

The policy seems a little sketchy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tillerson-no-future-for-assad-regime-in-syria-1509027383

A religious war by a godless atheist power and Sunni neo-terrorists against Christians, Shiites, Alawites and others seems implicitly a bad political direction. It might be better to encourage alternate energy and reconstruction instead as the fine leadership of Crown Prince Adullah of Saudi Arabia is working for in building a 300 million dollar solar, wind and fuel cell powered city in the desert.

https://stepfeed.com/saudi-arabia-will-invest-tens-of-billions-in-renewable-energy-4107

Alaska Should Declare a State Income Tax Too

Pres. Trump's tax reform has a measure that would cancel federal deductions for state income tax. Rich, ppopulous states such as New York can have a very high state income tax and keep their money locally, while states with no income like Alaska pay their income tax to the Federal government entirely without state deductions. Eliminating the state income tax deduction would make rich states pay their fair share of the Federal budget instead of just receiving funds redistributed from tax payers in states with no or low state income tax.

Plainly Alaska should get with it and have a state income tax that could be spent in Alaska and deducted from the federal income tax if the Trump tax reform bill with a revision or two such as raising the tax on the 4th and highest income bracket to 65% so the share of the top ten percent of income earners in the nations stays below 50% where it is today. Even in 1929 the mmost rich had just 35% of the nation's income. The new reform tax bill plus the Obamacare bond slave policy for youth workers make it look llike the vast majority of Americans will be fairly powerless politically and economically. Yet I suppose the politically correct, realistic response is; 'who cares'.

Evolution Is a Bad Moral Example

The fundamental character of biological life evolving is predation and consumption. Human reason rises above mere matter. Reason allows human beings to act cooperatively though evolution itself has no morality. It is immoral. Completely.

Human social reason invented the concept of morality. Morality has no place in evolution. Hence evolution is a bad model for moral and social theory much less practice.

A purely material universe evolves. It changes form. It alters its mass and quantum composition in accord with pre-existing boundary conditions and dynamic thermal inertia. Not before material configuration developed in such a way and so far as to permit the rise of human reason could any kind of moral theory appear. And reason is not of evolution nor embedded in it. Reason is a fundamental phase change entirely different than the insensate, material existence of a Universe such as that humanity appears to co-exist within.

One may of course stipulate that God pre-existed the material Universe and is absolutely moral; perfectly so. Humanity today alternatively, having discovered evolutionary structures and something of the nature of the material Universe often prefers to regard itself as the highest possible appearance of being so far in the Universe as a kind of personification of the Hegelian world-spirit. Be that as it may.

Reason is a break and phase change from matter. It cannot look to matter and energy as moral guides. Some contemporary theorist look to evolution as a justification for moral abnegation and license. If evolution has generated thousands of varieties of insects it goes or if some mammals exist that are bisexual, then it must be OK. for humans to be so too. In the absence of a presiding moral authority such as God, who is believed to have been eclipsed in veracity by the human discovery of evolutionary mechanisms at play in the universe, evolution itself must be the natural model for human social order. Reason is not so good in the paradigm as nature. The natural order of evolving species generates excellent moral models for human reason to abstract from and mimic.

If nature has no natural boundaries than neither must humanity. If a black widow sider eats her male mate, then it would be wrong to judge a female human that does so too.

If a super-computer generates life designs for genomes in every possible configuration for every computationally possible ecosystem on any plant, around any star or within any particle field it would be wrong to prevent the actualization of them. Morality is a matter of success; to fail is wrong, even if the failure allows one’s corpse to be consumed by the dominant successful political powers of the day.

It is ironic that humanity living before the first idea of God appeared along the evolutionary ascent of man had a state that modern, godless man seeks to devolve to dressed in hyper-advanced technology (though it was less than a century ago that most humanity hadn’t electrification and couldn’t ignite a fire with a zip-lock baggie and urine)). Before the rise of the concept of God appeared; probably at the start an idea of a single God, humanity had no moral guidelines except for those of pure force and personal then perhaps group advantage. In time the idea of many gods would arise because different people had different ideas and names about God. As groups banded together many Gods would cohere. Coincidentally society developed more social and legal structure and the idea of morality together with the idea of gods being responsible for everything. Some of those gods were more powerful than others,perhaps in relation to the realms becoming economically important to the people using them such as Neptune and the Sea, or Valhalla for Vikings traveling abroad-sometimes far south.

Many pagan deities and demi-urges followed the development of civilization. With comparison of different laws and religions, of different priesthoods and different worship practices perhaps the most primitive beginning of social sciences arose. In time Moses, the great moral authority appeared to resurrect the primordial idea of one true god to mankind. In the beginning of human intellectual and social ascent. Within the cell of basic mind, mankind needed to reach out in though within an elemental existentialism to think about something more powerful than himself existing as a creator and ruler of everything. Differentiating that capacity into many forms and persons was probably only a much later secondary intellectual development. The book of Jeremiah affirms that in the beginning everyone knew who he was and later forgot with the rise of false consciousness (another existential idea).

Jesus Christ appeared to transform the paradigm for the religion and worship of the One True God. Rather than admonishing everyone to perfectly obey strict and technical behavioral laws and practices, He asked only that people accept Him as their personal Savior and atonement for the sins they do and for their original sin and inability to either atone for it or live a perfect life and abstain from committing any other son themselves. Even today, and even among many Christians, people forget the true salvific work of Christ and believe in a blame compared to social perfection sort of religious criterion akin to that of the Pharisees of Jesus’ first century A.D. appearance on Earth. Seeking to free themselves from shame and blame for given sins and sinful behavior the lost overlook Jesus Christ’s work in taking care of that problem Himself.

Christians should no longer want to sin once they are saved. They would seek to make a doctrinal evolution such that sin is o.k. and ignore Bible truth. In the contemporary American era that evolved through various stages of mass popular Christianity to a present over-willingness to conform itself to popular evolutionary-inspired political and moral beliefs, the formerly Christian Churches that became reprobate gradually accepted the idea that evolution at least makes no moral demands as it has no moral content, and that the truth of evolution theory negates the truth of the Bible, the existence of God and the salvific work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe the Lord Jesus is a person of the one ttrue God. He appeared in history when the evolution of ancient kingdoms had run their course, when pagan deities were pervasive, and civilization was ready to advance and update the pagan and uncivilized world. The strict religious method given unto the Jews that required following external technical observances that catalyzed the cohesion of developing government as well as moral and legal codes was unsuitable for bringing a transcending, universal restoration of faith in One true God. The new covenant in the Lord Jesus Christ brought that Universal and transcending presence of God to all of mankind that received the call.

I want to point out in this essay the problem moderns have in looking toward evolution as a moral inspiration and guide for social morality much less social structure; Humanity has with its thought and reason risen beyond the natural criterion of evolution, though they are for the time-being biological tied to it and fated to live within it.

Reason may generate certain demographic, boundary criteria as moral guidelines, and to use those boundary conditions with a mathematical and algebraic social equivalence. Each human life would be regarded as of equal value; 1 = 1. Yet such a basic moral premise is entirely made gratuitously within an evolutionary criterion. For in nature the only measure of success and truth are historical observations describing what occurred.

There is nothing wrong for the evolutionary immoral criterion to act entirely in personal self-interest to the detriment of everyone else; the sole valid nominal moral judgment would be on the success or failure of an act. Act-based egoism could not differentiate between an evil act of killing one individual and killing a billion or a planetful of life. In evolution immorality there are no moral guides. Pragmatic judgments for self-interest must therein be extrapolated to included a utilitarian criterion for the greatest and most beneficial acts for the most people. Yet that too is a phenomenal and effervescent sort of moral judgment for evolution that has no necessary biological or empirical value. Neither may one use it as a way to predict and judge the value of a particular present world-line of actions for the future such that it would benefit and individual or a group or civilization more than others nor create a preferred direction in directed evolution to produce an ‘optimal’ outcome. Any sort of outcome would be as good as any other in directed evolution.

There is no escaping the fact that human reason is requisite for creating social morality. Evolution is in fact a non sequitur; human scientific and technical knowledge may overcome the criterion of selective material evolutionary change one day to produce a Utopia or dystopia. In the meantime encouraging humanity to refrain from creating dystopia for the masses or individuals is needed for the survival f mankind. I believe that in time, when the age of the gentiles if fulfilled, the church of Jesus Christ will encompass most of humanity and they shall be ready for a return to the absolute moral authority and author of reality. That destiny may be upon Earth or in a meta-urth paradigm greater than presently with the capacity of human imagination.

A Capital Rate of Return for the Aging of Obamacare

President Nixon circa 1970 invented corporate health care insurance for the people of the United States. It was an early version of Obamacare. Would it work today since Wall Street structure and globalization have changed so much with computers, telecoms and deregulation?

Capital is fluid in some investment forms more than others. Capitalization of steel mills and shipyards is less fluid and transmorphic than the near purity of bank capital. In the modern capital ecosphere the insurance business is one of the few business fields that haven even less invested in physical capital stock than banks (that are positioned to take over properties in default or have loans to property owners). Insurers merely promise to pay for claims in return for ‘insurance’ payments that comprise a kind of rent. Insurers have made a science of claims versus profits from rents ratios and would not be in business without being able to receive a normal rate of return on capital. The market rate of return on investment if average at 5% would be the minimum the insurers would expect from their capital or they would likely reallocate it to better business investments. In effect the insurance business would be a close approximation to a purely theoretical capital-investment-return structure.

Nixon-care was envisioned in an era when capital was far less fluid and volatile. Globalism had not yet fused with computers and brilliant quantitative trading algorithms. Capital in the Nixon administration had a greater relationship to physical and national physical structure than in the present era. The insurance capital today is closer to being an abstract capital amendable to instant investment decisions by insurers. If the insurance rate of return falls much below the average for the market capital rate of return on investment it can disappear from insurance investment use as quickly as insurance contracts expire.

Obamacare theoretically is a great unionization of consumers that makes partial bond slaves of healthy youth who are compelled to pay for the high insurance costs of sicker and older Americans. Plainly as Obamacare ages and the supply of a z.p.g. America youth pool dries up; as the formerly younger people age and draw upon insurance for-themselves health insurance costs will skyrocket in the absence of a health pool of exploitable bond-slaves.

Nixon-care/Obamacare may have worked in the 1970s. A generation of uninsured Negroes would have had health insurance resulting in the stop-loss of quite a few avoidable deaths perhaps. Yet Senator Ted Kennedy was against Nixon-care along with Democrat party leadership then. They wanted full British-style national health care and would settle for nothing less. Now, after forty years they have Nixon-care when the market has changed and it is obsolete.

Levering insurance costs through compulsory collective bargaining in effects negotiates directly with the market average rate of return on capital. It will never drop below the market average though, without disappearing into better fields of investment. Thus health insurance costs are more likely to rise or the quality of health care decrease in the long run. Forced to buy insurance in one large body, insurance companies that choose to participate with a lower rate of return can reduce the quality of service and raise profit to the market average.

The enslavement of American youth to subsidize health insurance costs are regarded as being a sufficient tool to keep insurance cost down. As mentioned earlier youth age too and that advantage theory will capsize and become a Titanic reversal. So national policy with Obamacare will require a huge influx of legal immigrants in the style of a ponzi scheme to keep making subsidy payments before they age, or youth and especially women will need to increase fecundity and create large 19^th century size families.

One way to actually reduce U.S. health costs would be to reduce the period of patent exclusivity for manufacturing new technology or drugs to just three years after expiration letting anyone manufacture the product in return for giving 10% of profit to the original patent holder for a century. Companies would be encouraged to invent more and manufacturers could produce generic products for a fraction of today’s medical-pharmaceutical costs. Supply and demand in production is far more valuable in theory, at reducing health costs than the effort to negotiate with pure capital and to reduce its rate of return on investment average.

Capital plainly has become less tied to physical structure in new ways compared to the1970s. A capital management algorithm may reinvest capital in numerous fields as they are predictively able to return an above average profit temporally.

Compare the health insurance business to a casinos. Gamblers want a lower cost or a better share with increased odds of winning. Democrat organizers pass a law to force all Americans into buying gambling insurance against losses (for there are many losers and players that aren’t allowed to gamble on credit because they already owe money and can’t afford to play more). The vast left-wing union of gamblers does force the casinos the lower their profit margin and increase the odds of winning. Non-gambling healthy youth busy working in a nearby salt mine 18 hour days are unhappy about subsidizing gambling insurance for gambling that they don’t even use themselves. Oh well.

The casinos would have been boycotted if they didn’t cooperate with the Democrat Party gambling union, and many just got disgusted and closed their doors (that were just made of laser beams, holographs, smoke and mirrors anyway) and reinvested their capital into a manure reprocessing industry that paid the market average 5% rate of return. Some casinos did stay in business though.

Those casinos cut their costs to keep their profits at 5%. They got rid of the showgirls, eliminated free breakfasts and dimmed the lighting. Carpets became thread bear and gamblers were given extra charges for renting seats to sit at roulette and poker tables. And then, after a few years, the youth in the salt mine that had subsidized the costs became old and sick and moved to the casino gambling all day too. They played bingo as if there were no tomorrow and sadly, for many, there wasn’t.

Democrat party strategists devised a brilliant plan to keep the gamblers in casino chips; flood the nation with legal and illegal aliens on a regular, and secure temporal ponzi schedule at a ration of 4 immigrants for every aging gambler that requires subsidy. That turned out to be a bigger gamble than before though, since capital was global and the casino was seeking to ways to increase profit and return on investment globally. For capital never rests content with exist profit levels, unless in some instances, if it is inherited.

Chinese Communism: Leninism Meets Corporatism

Chinese President Xi Jinping in meeting at the mid-term Communist Party Congress (of his 10 year term of office) put out a vision of a new socialist China open to the world. It seems that China has a fair chance of being the world leader and principle economic power in the decades ahead. How did China manage that (besides U.S. political perfidy and corruption regarding the lack of classic political virtue?).

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/nation/Xis-confident-vision-of-a-prosperous-China/shdaily.shtml

China took the path of Leninism rather than Stalinism in its application of the principles of Marxism in recent decades. While the cultural revolution was neo-Stalinist, Mao’s era was fundamentally revolution without the time paradigm for too much beyond consolidation and basic industrialization/defense.

Stalin was cultist like Dictator Kim Jong Un and purged the Soviet Communist Party of Leninists that were willing to follow Lenin’s choice for New Economic Policy and five year NEP plans allowing limited independent free enterprise to exist. Stalin centralized power, purged the ranks of any sort of leftover sympathies for free enterprise and industrialized while increasing his power base. When he died any sort of liberalization met leftover Stalinist elements and it became reasonable to adopt a moderate Trotskyite global export of revolution seeking world dominion of communism that Stalin has eschewed. The U.S. Col War conflict with the former Soviet Union meant that it had to battle Trotskyite forces and push the Soviet State back toward the more moderate realm of Leninism eventually lest an erstwhile dictator arise and take up the sole hard-line plan remaining; total global thermonuclear war.

Chinese leadership benefit from the end of the former Soviet Union and the natural insatiable greed of Wall Street to open China for business and sales rather than nuclear war. Leninism as a moderate force of modernization that works with global corporatism created the foundation of a future global corporate-socialist elite-run world state that annihilates individual free enterprise except as it is subordinated by law to the networked ruling elites.

I wrote about an alternate economic system that is possible for the U.S.A. in a short essay that could provide a different paradigm for the U.S.A. as a good example for pother nations to follow. Besides that, public debt for the U.S.A. and the concentration of wealth and power globally in a far less than ecological economic efficiency is the general drift.

http://www.garycgibson.us/2017/10/reforming-capitalism-and-federal-policy.html