01-24-2017, 03:10 PM
(01-24-2017, 02:56 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(01-24-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: A China that secured the 1st and maybe 2nd Island chains, and its sea lanes to the Middle East and East Africa, which had an economic and political weight commensurate with its demographic one, that was the epicenter (at least at first) of whatever the 20th K-wave turns out to be...I don't see this as nearly equivalent to what previous hegemons had, This seems like nothing to me. Also the K-wave stuff is the precursor to hegemony. Hegemonic powers dominate K-waves long before they became hegemons. For example, Portugal began its K-wave program in 1415. It did not emerge as hegemon until 1516. The Netherlands had already dominated Baltic trade in the 16th century and sealed the deal with the development of the fluyt in the 1570's, long before they became hegemon in 1609. The British began building the economic foundations for hegemony with the successful cultivation of tobacco at Jamestown (tobacco) in 1617 and settlement of Barbados (sugar) in 1627, long before 1714. America built the foundations for hegemony by their domination of the railroad (including the development of the telegraph which made railroads a true leading sector) and the steel leading sectors in the 1840's and 1850's--long before 1945.
If China dominates the 20th K-wave, it will power the hegemony to emerge after that time. Consider the 1792 railroad date given by M&T. The railroad-industrial leading sectors, built on the existing British strengths in steam engines technology and metallurgy, power their second round of hegemony to emerge after 1815.
If we compare the 1973 beginning of the IT leading sectors to the 1792 ones you have to agree than this sector started in the US, it is NOT a Chinese sector. Other countries (e.g. Japan) who had industrialized after the US could have run with this sector. Japan already was a leader in electronics. But it happened here. This is why I came up with my alternate hegemonic cycle. The US had been a major player in the railroad/industrial leading sectors and the following mass market leading sectors (automobiles/electricity/consumer products) and now was looking like it was dominating yet another leading sector with IT. In M&T's scheme only the UK had led on more than two leading sectors, so it seemed the US was due for another round of hegemony.
Anyways, if the 20th K-wave is to be dominated by China, that would make 2030 like 1792, indicative of Chinese hegemony 20 years later--i.e. 2050, not 2016.
Yes, but where has the GROWTH from the post-1973 K-wave been centered? It is normal for future leading sectors to start in the existing hegemon, but find their full expression somewhere else. You might want to consider that, as you have complained all this time, the real money made from IT might not be from the Googles and Facebooks of the world but the manufacturers of the equipment they run on. And that the Chinese equivalents to those software companies like Alibaba and Weibo are just as innovative and have more stable revenue streams.
I am not arguing that China will start dominating leading sectors from the 20th K-wave on, but that it has been capturing the growth from those sectors of the 19th k-wave that give it the resources to challenge during the coming macrodecision phase, and if successful, it will be hegemon AFTER that phase concludes, around 2050, yes.
As for your comment on hegemony, again, you're ONLY pointing to Britain II and the US. Those are not the only hegemons in the cycle.