by This is a review of Frank LI's new book, History 2.0.The first paragraph of this post is obviously out of paradigm with MMT in holding, "In the US, the big commercial banks own the central bank (the Federal Reserve Banks)…" But the post goes on to explain that the while the supposed agenda of the US is "democracy," the reality is plutocratic oligarchy, where the elite in effect own the government through capture. That understood, the post is an interesting comparison of the US American and Chinese systems. While reality is much more nuanced, Frank Li's analysis gets some of the big things right.Part of Frank Li's argument is about the differences of Western and Chinese ideology. These are outcomes of different civilizational development. These are not written in stone, however. One
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Jodi Beggs writes Economists Do It With Models 1970-01-01 00:00:00
Mike Norman writes 24 per cent annual interest on time deposits: St Petersburg Travel Notes, installment three — Gilbert Doctorow
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Daniel Waldenströms rappakalja om ojämlikheten
Merijn T. Knibbe writes ´Fryslan boppe´. An in-depth inspirational analysis of work rewarded with the 2024 Riksbank prize in economic sciences.
This is a review of Frank LI's new book, History 2.0.
The first paragraph of this post is obviously out of paradigm with MMT in holding, "In the US, the big commercial banks own the central bank (the Federal Reserve Banks)…" But the post goes on to explain that the while the supposed agenda of the US is "democracy," the reality is plutocratic oligarchy, where the elite in effect own the government through capture. That understood, the post is an interesting comparison of the US American and Chinese systems. While reality is much more nuanced, Frank Li's analysis gets some of the big things right.
I would add that Li more or less conflates Confucianism and Taoism, which is not wrong — the way a Chinese fried of mine put it, contemporary Chinese ideology is blend of tradition (Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism) and modern (Marxism with "Chinese characteristics). However, there are important differences between Confucianism and Taoism that bear mention, with which people in the West may not be familiar.
Confucianism is pretty much as Li describes it, about living in tune with Tao (meaning "way,""path" or "road"). It involves living a good life in a good society through human intelligence, which is superior to animal intelligence guided by instinct, owing to the rational nature and moral capacity of human intelligence. But it is chiefly an ethical approach. Conversely, Taoism's approach is natural, and Taoists regard Confucianism as artificial and contrived, only needed by those that lack sufficient (spiritual) "cultivation." Here "spiritual" means "holistic."
Chinese ideology is not only nuanced but it is practical. Given the level of collective consciousness at present, an ethical approach is needed. But as collective consciousness advances, then living a good life in a good society becomes more and more natural than rational. This is not the naturalness of instinct but rather of knowledge of the heart, which is superior to knowledge of the head in that it is immediate instead of mediated by concepts.
Part of Frank Li's argument is about the differences of Western and Chinese ideology. These are outcomes of different civilizational development. These are not written in stone, however. One civilization can learn from another. China has already begun adopting what it considers valuable ideologically from the West, but the West considers itself exceptional.
econintersect
Book Review: History 2.0
Derryl Hermanutz