淘客熙熙

主题:cited article, 中国除了不断地说“不”之外 -- parishg

共:💬53 🌺408
全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖
家园 I am no experty in economy

nor military. I am merely a chemical engineer. Regarding to your comments:

Tianjin's mayor, so he should not be blamed for making comments as a bystander.

Anyone can make a comment. But idle comments are worthless. Negative thinking or neh saying does not get anyone anywhere.

It is now the elected officials' reponsibility to create a better system there. Esp., for China, as the other G2 nation.

A better system is not created by a few people. History is created by the masses. Leaders are but a catalyst.

NOW if China wants to lead the world, China needs to propose a better solution. 世界经济需要的不是新的技术,而是新的世界社会经济秩序。 Then China needs to give a better plan to the whole world, do not expect Americans or Canadians will do that. They are the largest beneficiaries under the current system.

China is not proposing. China is leading by example. That is what Beijing Consensus is about.

Euro is not better. Global gold is not enough for the current trade payment need.

You are rushing to conclusion. It is convenient to have an international clearance currency but not a necessity. Before WW2, there was no single international clearance currency, or you can say there were multiple parallel ones: sterling, francs, US dollars, marks, etc. It will be less convenient to go back to a similar system but not impossible. Bilateral clearance as China is setting up with a number of countries is another route.

Overseas dollars flowed back and were eliminated electronically through the Fed reserve system.

You are talking about delinking money and wealth. How do you think Feds like that idea? Or anyone else? Small amount can be considered as a monetary policy adjustment. But a massive one is the start of a general collapse of US dollar if they try that on a massive scale. And once US dollar starts to flow back en masse, only a massive one can "absorb" the surplus. Or a massive inflation. Your pick.

establish new infrastructure to support another 60-year of technological expansion and economic growth,

--this is the 1970s solution which does not destroy the current system. It is a low-cost option to avoid too much political disruption.

No one, China included, likes to destroy the current system if it still works. And that is a big "if". If that system still works, western economy would not have been in such a mess. No revolution is voluntary. And don't confuse revolution with agitation. Agitation is to stir things up when things are not fundamentally broken.

全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖


有趣有益,互惠互利;开阔视野,博采众长。
虚拟的网络,真实的人。天南地北客,相逢皆朋友

Copyright © cchere 西西河