All about CHINA "land of the red dragon"

[kagalingan]

Kags: Hindi ako misogynist.
Also Kags: Binuntis lang naman nanay niya sa ibang bansa.

Bakit totoo naman bebe miswa. Paano ba nalahian mga yan. Syempre ofw. Ano ba majority syempre women. Eh si binibining pilipinas nga nanawagan sa tatay nyang palestinian. Gusto raw makita nagpapasalamat sa genes.

Alangan naman si lalakeng ofw ang makadagit ng caucasian. True love na yun.

Balance ako. Nakita mo nga si kahwai binanatan ko eh lalake yun. Natawa nga ako sa banat ni travahans pinaalala yung mama issues hahahahahah

- - - -

Pero ayan dok nakita mo example ko ng china sa olympics or any international sports. Kung gusto nila manalo napakadali. Pwede sila kumuha half-half sa america.

Dito sa pinas number 1 eh maghanap ng NALAHIAN sa ibang bansa. Tapos titira sa pilipinas more than 10years na eh pabulol-bulol magtagehlog. Feeling martin nievera tragis na buhay yan,.

[ray_noel]

Kags sa presinto kana magpaliwanag...


Sent from my iPhone XS Max using Tapatalk

[kagalingan]

kishore knowledge was introduce to us by "intelligenica of the phllippines" way back year 2008 or 2009 pa ata. Kaso hindi ko pinapansin dahil may pagkaracist ako.

Ngayon ko lang nacheck na singaporean pala sya pero pakistani ang dugo.

Malalim pala ito !!!!


Kishore Mahbubani - Wikipedia

ito post ko yesterday. Ito yung book na sinabi sa amin ni "intelligencia of the philippines for us to read pero hindi ko gaano pinansin. Mas gusto ko lang kasi makinig. But now i will buy this book and his new book "has the west lost it ?" Tapos pag nabasa ko ito gagamtan ko ng behavioral science na gift ko.

New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East
Product details

Paperback: 336 pages
Publisher: PublicAffairs; 1 edition (April 28, 2009)
Language: English

For two centuries Asians have been bystanders in world history, reacting defenselessly to the surges of Western commerce, thought, and power. That era is over. Asia is returning to the center stage it occupied for eighteen centuries before the rise of the West.

By 2050, three of the world's largest economies will be Asian: China, India, and Japan. In The New Asian Hemisphere, Kishore Mahbubani argues that Western minds need to step outside their “comfort zone” and prepare new mental maps to understand the rise of Asia. The West, he says, must gracefully share power with Asia by giving up its automatic domination of global institutions from the IMF to the World Bank, from the G7 to the UN Security Council. Only then will the new Asian powers reciprocate by becoming responsible stakeholders in a stable world order.

Excerpt

The need to develop a better understanding of our world has never been greater. We are now entering one of the most plastic moments of world history. The decisions we make today could influence the course of the twenty-first century. But it is clear that the worldviews of the leading Western minds are trapped in the previous centuries. These minds cannot even conceive of the possibility that they may have to change these worldviews to understand the new world. Unless they do, we could make disastrous decisions.
The best illustration of a disastrous decision is the decision by the U.S. and UK to invade Iraq in March 2003. The Americans and British had benign intentions: to free the Iraqi people from despotic rule and to rid the world of a dangerous man, Saddam Hussein. Neither Bush nor Blair had malevolent intentions. Yet, the mental maps that they brought to understand Iraq were mired in one cultural context: the Western mindset. Many Americans actually believed that invading American troops would be welcomed with petals thrown on the streets by happy Iraqis. The idea that any Islamic country would welcome western military boots on its soil defies belief. The invasion and especially the occupation of Iraq will go down as one of the most botched operations in human history. Yet even if it had been well-executed, it was doomed to failure. In 1920, as secretary for war and air, Winston Churchill could use poison gas to quell the rebellion of Kurds and Arabs in British-occupied Iraq. He said, “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” If Blair had tried the same in 2005, he would have been crucified. The world has moved on from this era. Sadly, Western mindsets have not moved on.

A Note from Kishore Mahbubani

For over two decades, I have lived the life of a nomadic intellectual, absorbing ideas at great intellectual watering holes, like Davos and Aspen, Ditchley and Pocantico. Initially, I was overwhelmed by the confidence and energy of Western intellectuals. They had sharp minds, always producing new insights as they spoke.
It has come as a huge personal shock for me to see this same group of Western intellectuals now becoming totally blind to emerging new realities. At a time of rapid change, these Western minds remain complacent and smug. I tried to puncture this smugness in my speeches and columns. Sadly, I failed. They could not see that we are moving from a monocivilizational world to a multi-civilizational world.
These failures taught me a lesson. The only way to persuade the West of the need to change mindsets was to try and develop an alternative weltanschauung. That is the ambitious goal of this book. If we do not wake the West up from its intellectual complacency, we are headed for trouble.

- - - --

ibang klase salita yang weltanchauung = a particular philosophy or view of life; the worldview of an individual or group.

[kagalingan]

This is why China is going through a very plastic phase trying to figure out what his role in the world is but how the Chinese behave would also be influence by their past history as you know. And the Chinese for some reason, for whatever reason never saw themselves as natural colonialist.

Now i dont know how many of you know this but the Chinese in the 15th century if im not mistaken under Admiral Zheng He, Admiral Zheng He had a much bigger fleet, much bigger boats than the portuguese ever had.

The Portuguese with much smaller boats colonized South America therefore you have Brazil, colonized Africa you have Angola and Mozambique, took a bite of India you have Goa, took a bite of China, Macau.

Now thats kind of colonial, what do i call it, drive - thats been very much part of Western history. But the Chinese for whatever reason havent had that same drive.

So for example, Australia as you know, is so far away from, lets say the United Kingdom, or England. Australia is so close to China, its been close to China for 2000years. No Chinese went there, but the British came all the way, sailed halfway across the world, more than halfway across the world and ended in Australia and Australia today is remnant of a British colony, right?

So the question therefore is,. wil China naturally follow what the west did as it becomes powerful? Now theres absolutely no doubt that when China becomes more powerful it will definitely become more assertive. Very clearly, no doubt whatsoever, but there's a big difference between becoming assertive and becoming aggressive, and thats the question. And for example, will the Chinese go out and bomb Syria? My answer is no, China will not. Cause they cant figure out why, why would you wanna go and bomb Syria? So their mentality therefore is in some respects is fundamentally different. So it will not therefore replicate the Western style of what you might call hegemonic intervention that the west has been doing. But of course, I have to qualify by saying that because it depends also on how you treat China in this period, and if you provoke China theres gonna be a reaction. How, what kind of reaction, I dont know. It depends on the issue, it depends on the context and everything so and so forth. So thats why the period of history we are going through now is very, very important, because we are going to shape the future by many of the decisions we're gonna make today.

[StockEngine]

[baludoy]

an article about the lure of chinese rural folks seeking jobs in the PH and its effects on them and on the country they chose to work in.

China has a new casino: the Philippines - Los Angeles Times

[kagalingan]

Kishore Mahbubani: The West needs to rethink its strategic goals for Asia
Just as America is reluctant to face the prospect of China overtaking them, the Chinese are reluctant to face the prospect of becoming number one

Home Thought Leadership CKGSB

Kishore Mahbubani: The West needs to rethink its strategic goals for Asia
Just as America is reluctant to face the prospect of China overtaking them, the Chinese are reluctant to face the prospect of becoming number one
By Dominic Morgan
10 min read
Published: Feb 27, 2019



The West needs to radically rethink its strategic goals for the Asian century, argues Kishore Mahbubani, Senior Advisor and Professor in the Practice of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore
Image: Courtesy CKGSB


Few thinkers can speak about global governance with as much authority as Kishore Mahbubani. A former President of the United Nations Security Council, Permanent Secretary of Singapore’s Foreign Ministry and Dean of the renowned Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, he has been named “the muse of the Asian century” and listed among the top 100 most influential public intellectuals in the world by the Financial Times, Foreign Policy and Prospect.

In his latest book, due this year, Mahbubani plans to tackle the rising tensions between the United States and China, and the former diplomat has some frank advice for the West. As he explains, the election of President Donald Trump and the launching of a trade war with China should be viewed as symptoms of the refusal of the US to accept its inevitable decline as the world’s number one economy. Instead of howling at the moon, the US should embrace a more minimalist and strategic approach to foreign policy to maximize its interests in an era of Asian dominance.

Q: In your last book, Has the West Lost It?, you point out that there has been a remarkable improvement in the quality of life of people across the world over the past 30 years, but public discourse in the West has become increasingly pessimistic. What is behind this contradiction?

A: The great paradox, as I emphasize in the book, is that the dramatic improvement in the human condition is the result of the generous gifts of the West to the rest, especially the gift of reasoning. And, frankly, future historians looking back at our time would say that the 30 years from roughly 1980 to 2010 saw probably the most dramatic improvement in living standards in human history. So, this should be a moment of great celebration in the West—the great Western project of improving the human condition has succeeded.

Paradoxically, the West has never been more depressed. I think the one reason for this is that the West made a huge strategic mistake at the end of the Cold War in 1989: it was seduced by the essay of Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?,” which basically said that the West had defeated the Soviet Union and it could just switch on autopilot, whereas the rest of the world needed to make strategic adjustments to this new world.

Fukuyama’s essay did a lot of brain damage to the West. He put the West to sleep precisely at the moment when China and India were waking up. For 1,800 of the past 2,000 years, the world’s two largest economies have always been those two countries. The last 200 years have been a major historical aberration. And, of course, all aberrations eventually come to a natural end.



Image: Shutterstock

But what no one could have foreseen in 1989 was the speed at which China and India have re-emerged. In 1980, in purchasing power parity terms, the United States’ share of global GDP (gross domestic product) was 21.7% and China’s share was 2.3%, which means that China’s share was around 10% of the US. By 2014, astonishingly, China’s share had become bigger. That’s why it’s such a dramatic period in human history.

Q: You outlined two key factors that have destabilized the West: first, a decline in real wages following the entry of China and Eastern Europe into the global trading system; and second a realization that national governments are becoming powerless to control the forces of globalization. Which of these is the most important?

A: They’re both related. I think just as the West made a big strategic mistake at the end of the Cold War, another strategic mistake was made in 2001 when 9/11 happened. I was actually in Manhattan on 9/11, so I understood the shock that was felt by America. What happened as a result of 9/11 was that America decided its biggest strategic challenge was going to come from the Islamic world, so it launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That was a mistake because the most important strategic event that happened in 2001 was not 9/11 but China’s admission into the World Trade Organization. China’s entry injected 800 million workers into the global capitalist system and—as Joseph Schumpeter taught us—that would lead to creative destruction. So, it’s not surprising that in the decade that followed, lots of people in the US and Europe lost their jobs. But because the elites were benefiting from the expansion of the global economy, they didn’t notice that their own masses were suffering.

So, I would say that future historians will see that the election of Donald Trump in 2016 was not a surprise, but an inevitable result of the elites not taking care of their masses. The median income of the American worker had not improved for 40 years. That’s shocking. Everything is tied together to China’s admission to the WTO.

Kishore Mahbubani: The West needs to rethink its strategic goals for Asia | Forbes India

[kagalingan]

continuation
last part

Q: Recently, many commentators in the US have been debating whether it was a “mistake” to allow China to join the World Trade Organization in 2001. What is your view on this debate?
A: There’s a wonderful Western expression, ‘there’s no point shutting the door after the horse has bolted.’ This is a classic demonstration of that saying. China has already joined the WTO; it is part of the global trading system and is incredibly integrated into it. There is nothing you can do about that.

What the West, and especially the US, needs to do is to adjust to this new competitive global system. I think it can adjust and can do well, but it is a question of working with rather than against China, which is why the current trade war is misguided. In fact, any sensible Western economist will tell you that America’s trade deficit is not a result of China playing unfairly. It is actually the result of the US having the global reserve currency, which allows it to consume more than it produces. That is actually a privilege.


Q: In a recent article for Project Syndicate, you said you were struck during a recent sabbatical in the US by how decisively sentiment among the US elite has turned against China. What has caused this change?
A: I don’t know, it’s mystifying, but it has happened. I think there is a growing awareness that China is becoming bigger and stronger. Even though Americans don’t like talking about America becoming number two, subconsciously they must realize that America is moving toward that status. Instead of looking in the mirror and asking what mistakes you have made, it’s always easier to find a scapegoat, and China is the obvious one. The danger is that when you look for a scapegoat, you ignore the core structural issues that America has to deal with in this new era.


Q: How receptive should China be to the US’s complaints about its economic and trade practices?
A: I think the Chinese should figure out which complaints are valid, and which are invalid. The invalid one is that the bilateral deficit is the result of the Chinese playing unfair—that is not true at all. In fact, the trade deficit paradoxically helps American workers in some ways. Even though their income has not gone up, they can buy more things, more cheaply thanks to Made-in-China products.

But, of course, there are also valid complaints. First, China may have been stealing intellectual property from American firms. Second, China has insisted that if American firms invest in China, they are to transfer technology to China. Third, there are non-tariff barriers. China has lowered its tariff barriers and fulfilled its WTO obligations, but there are non-tariff barriers that have hindered Western exports to China.

I think what China needs to do is respond with a certain generosity of spirit, because China has done very well thanks to the West opening up its markets. Now, China can reciprocate by opening up its markets even more. That would also give the US and Europe a greater strategic interest in maintaining good ties with China.


Q: The US is increasingly focusing its ire on China’s Made in China 2025 strategy. What is your view on this strategy?
A: I think it’s legitimate for China to aspire to become a technological superpower in its own right. Frankly, I think that China is going to succeed. The US should not complain about what China is doing, and instead ask itself what the American response should be. But here, the ideology of people like US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer—who believes that all government-led industrial policies don’t work—gets in the way.

If industrial policies don’t work, then why not allow this one to fail? If you complain about it, that suggests you believe it’s going to work. Now, if it’s going to work in China, why doesn’t the United States launch its own comprehensive national strategy to maintain its technological lead? Instead of complaining about Made in China 2025, they should have a Made in America 2025.


Q: If China does emerge as the world’s leading economy, how do you expect China to reshape the global order?
A: Just as America is reluctant to face the prospect of China overtaking them, I think the Chinese are reluctant to face the prospect of becoming number one. The Chinese should think more about this, because it’s very important that China makes a big effort to reassure the world that they’re going to maintain the current rules-based order that the West has given the world. This is essentially what Xi Jinping promised in his two speeches in Geneva and Davos in January last year. And that’s the message that needs to be repeated by China to the world.

It would be wise for China to strengthen the WTO, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, but that will require that the West gives up control. There was a rule created over 50 years ago that said the head of the International Monetary Fund should always be European and the World Bank leader should always be American. That rule was credible when the West’s share of global GDP was overwhelming, but when your relative share of the global economy declines, and the most dynamic economies are in Asia, why are you disqualifying Asians from running these two organizations?


Q: How should the US and Europe position themselves in a global system dominated by Asia?
A: Europe and the US need to face the fact that the last two centuries of Western dominance have been a historical aberration, and that aberration is coming to a natural end. They need to be ready to deal with a world in which they remain strong, but in which their relative share of global GDP has gone down. If your share of GDP goes down, you need to adopt a new strategic approach, and what I suggest in Has the West Lost it? is a new “three-m” strategy for the West.

• The first is “minimalist.” The West should ask itself: should it get involved in so many wars? Should it be intervening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and so on? The Chinese haven’t fired a shot in 40 years, since the end of the war with Vietnam in 1979, whereas even during the last year of the presidency of Barack Obama, a peaceful man who won the Nobel Peace Prize, America dropped 26,000 bombs on seven countries. That’s crazy.
• The second “m” is multilateral. Here, I build on the advice of former President Bill Clinton, who told his fellow Americans that if you can conceive of a world in which America is number two, then surely it is in America’s interests to strengthen the world’s multilateral order, which will then constrain the next number one, China. The tragedy is that although the world’s multilateral institutions are the West’s gift to the world, it is America with the silent collusion of Europe that has been weakening them. That’s unwise.
• And the third “m” is Machiavellian, which is just short for “be pragmatic.” You want to focus on your own priorities and do what’s important for you. So, for example, Europe’s long-term challenge is not going to come from Russia—Russian tanks are not going to invade Germany. But what you’re going to get is a demographic explosion in Africa that’s going to be a challenge. You’re going to get more refugees coming, and we’ve seen what has happened to Europe politically because of refugees. Therefore, it is in Europe’s interests to see Africa develop, and the best partner to develop Africa is China. America is frightened of China’s influence in Africa and condemns Chinese investment there, and the Europeans, because they’re subservient to America, also criticize China. But China’s long-term strategic investment in Africa is a gift to Europe. That’s what I mean about thinking in Machiavellian terms about where your interests lie.

[StockEngine]

obama was a war monger.. Isis proliferated during his administration

[CVT]

an article about the lure of chinese rural folks seeking jobs in the PH and its effects on them and on the country they chose to work in.

China has a new casino: the Philippines - Los Angeles Times

It has driven the high rental of condos and apartment/houses in our area bro...

And with that the prices of properties...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -