central banking v central planning

central banking v central planning

North African and European and US leaders and/or bankers have managed to dominate the contemporarily known boundaries of civilization over the last 5,000+ years with their bribes and frames and executions and booms and busts and wars.

But now 2 things are happening:

* the planet is reacting to the abuse subjected upon it by these western policies based on short-term gain.
* China's central planning philosophy, based on increasing market-share for long-term gain through central planning, is asserting itself.

There is little evidence that the ancient Asian empires ever tried to dominate the contemporarily known boundaries of civilization over the last 5,000+ years as the western empires have.

They mostly tried to keep western influences out.

The biggest incursions into the east by the west were since the discovery of the Americas.

The west had superior military technology (thanks to the earlier Chinese discovery of back powder for fireworks only) and thus the west prevailed.

Now the technologies are comparable and yet I see no great move by China to dominate the world with bribes and frames and executions and booms and busts and wars.

The Chinese know they have some of the same problems as the western countries (like huge income gaps and pollution) but they are not secretly fooling around with money creation or contraction as the west is/has/will, in order to increase the gap between the rich and poor.

The message in the west is don't buy gold and silver, they're volatile, without saying because we made/make/will make them so.

The message in China to its people is buy gold and silver - they're only volatile if we, your leaders, make them so and that is inconsistent with increasing market-share through long-range central planning.

So the scorecard is:

* the west, 5,000+ years of mostly failure to eliminate serfdom, an almost complete failure.
* China, 30+ years of mixed results to eliminate serfdom, too soon to call.