Six years later, less so.
Though advantage does not immediately translate to leadership, I suspect many underestimate China in the cloud - pic.twitter.com/TXIPk9TE5u
— Simon Wardley (@swardley) January 22, 2016
"Fifty-nine percent of those polled said they believed China will become more powerful than the U.S. within 10 years" - https://t.co/3vN4I1TjwP ... I hate to break it to you but it already is in many areas.
Six years later, less so.
We will ultimately face a more advanced, more wealthy and more equal society ...
Me : No, this has been going on since the 1990s. There has been no effective counterplay to the long game that Deng Xiaoping started. Just hubris, arrogance and exceptionalism with annual Economist articles on "How China will fall".
Me : Nothing sensible other than to adapt. Longer term, you need to get rid of concepts like the "playing fields of Eton" and revitalise leadership. Start with the whole "Me" vs "We" discussion. It'll be a long journey.
Me : You can either do good and educate people or you can manipulate perception and behaviour. The latter is now so cheap (thanks social media), that we will probably respond with more manipulation and denial until it is unsustainable.
Me : Any discussion (including "Me" vs "We") ultimately will lead you to the woeful state of leadership. You're asking me why a bunch of "leaders" are going to try to avoid any discussion on woeful leadership? Because they don't believe it ...
Me : "Today", in that table, was 2015. We're half way through it.
Me : It's a long game. You'd have to rewire education especially in the US. Even basic economic understanding is distorted through belief in that culture's past success. So, unlikely in your lifetime even if you set off with good speed.
Me : China "managed" it last year. They're rapidly growing - https://t.co/rt18db5jW0 ... we're still messing around with not doing lockdown properly, failing on test and trace, not learning, arguing over masks and hoping vaccines will sort it all out.
Me : Quite the opposite. I believe that love is best shown by a willingness to have those difficult conversations and not by pretending that everything is great.
Me : True but generally people only say that when they don't like what it is saying. If they like what it is saying then it's an excellent measure.
X : But is China's growth sustainable?
Me : Watch China start to "tackle inequality"
Me : Exceptional economic play, mixed model with context. Hats off to China Gov.
Me : I would look at Haier, Alibaba and others. There are only a few corporates keeping the West in the game e.g. Amazon which Western Gov's are always talking about "splitting up" because ... well, it's the daft thing to do?
Me : How to improve our position?
X : Yes.
Me : You need to find your Deng Xiaoping. Your problem is that she is likely to be living on a council estate, trying to hold down two jobs in a pandemic to feed the family and you've got no way of finding her.
Me : Do what we always do. Pay some big name management consultancy or think tank to write a report.
X : Will that help?
Me : No but it's all we know. Long path before we can fix this. Just adapt and try to learn from China.
Me : Oh yes it is ... https://t.co/F3lpviYBGc ... especially since we live in a system governed by luck and power laws rather than some form of meritocracy based upon talent and ability.
More from Simon Wardley
More from Politics
I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing
— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
This is partly what makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation nowadays. The stubborn refusal to accept that opposition to Trumpism and GOP nationalism is about more than simply holding different beliefs about things in and of itself. 👇
It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.
So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.
Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.
Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.
No, but you can\u2019t keep labeling half of the country Nazis just because their beliefs are different than yours. Trump has fucked this whole country up in a matter of a few years. No one can even have a constructive conversation without someone getting triggered
— Joshua Savoy (@JoshuaSavoy2) February 11, 2021
It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.
So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.
Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.
Just because some of the politicians act that way doesn\u2019t mean the whole party are Nazis. Some Republicans just vote that way because of abortion. You can\u2019t keep calling all of them Nazis and expect them to just start listening to your points.
— Joshua Savoy (@JoshuaSavoy2) February 11, 2021
Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.
