03-02-2017, 09:40 PM
Quote:According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave.
I'm sorry, just so we are clear, am I to understand that you are abandoning this claim? Because M&T absolutely did not say this.
Quote:Today growth can be directly assessed using GDP, one doesn't not need to assess leading sectors.
And yet China had a larger GDP than Britain well into the 19th century.
Quote:Given the industries they deem important I looked at the first leading sector they assigned to a future hegemon and noted the span of time between when that sector took off and when the future MD phase began which would make them leader.
I realize you like making these very mechanistic rules when devising your theories, but I am not sure I am buying this one.
Quote:We are trying to make forecasts, We cannot wait until the end of the leading sector development (i.e, when it become mature) because the MD phase will have already begun by then.
You're right, which is why I don't think a start date 30 years in the future makes any sense. The 19th K-wave will be long over by then.
Quote:You point out that although Britain invented the Bessmer process, the US later overtook them. This is quite true. The same story is told by GDP, Britain was passed by the US in the 1880's. Yet it was 30 years later that the next MD phase started that would make American the leader. China is where America was in the 1880's, with its position in the IT industries on the verge of passing the US, and its GDP having very recently moved past ours in PPP terms. And you would expect the MD phase to then begin around 30 years from now. You are arguing for a start in the cycle-equivalent of the 1890's which I see as a couple of decades early.
No, I would expect the M&T macrodecision phase to start about when they said it would.