01-24-2017, 04:19 PM
(01-24-2017, 03:10 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:(01-24-2017, 02:56 PM)Some Guy Wrote: 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.
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
How so? I gave these examples: 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.
Quote: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.This is a deviation from the earlier cycles. I would point out that a nation that cannot pioneer a new leading sector on its own is not really a candidate for hegemon. I would point our that Japan in the 1970's and 1980's had a vibrant economy that could easily have hosted the IT leading sector. Didn't happen. And how much NEW cutting edge tech is being developed in the next hegemon today?. By now they should be decades ahead of us. I don't think they are. It is going to take a few decades for China to pull ahead of us by sufficient margin to be a world leader.
You seem to think if China gains control over it's near abroad and gains a free hand in trade policy that constitutes hegemonic status. We had that in the 19th century and Britain gained it after the Armada crisis. I see more as necessary.