> Just a hunch, but if the Chinese and the Indians > ans are going to be doing all the manufacturing, I > suspect they, and not Americans, are going to be > doing all the planning and all the development. >
I expect it'll be more like it is now: supranational teams of mixed nationality create enclaves of prosperity, wherein planning and manufacturing both occur. Then you have the slower types, who still live in an us versus them world, based on what's stamped in their passport. Which isn't to say the USG has no operational role. It does. In setting up those new overseas public schools for example (earlier thread).
> >So now we're supposed to blame the Filipinos for > >studying hard enough to be qualified math teachers, > >and for taking "our" jobs? I don't think so. > > I think you misread Watkins. Watkins is not > not blaming the Filipinos for anything, he is blaming > Mike Goldenberg and his un-indicted co-conspirators > in the Education Mafia.
I think you put too much emphasis on MPG and his network, just as MPG does on Wayne and his.
> >I do appreciate that Watkins calls them "three > >billion capitalists." We're all playing by the same > >rules for a change. May the best teams win, and/or > >reap what they sew. > > Maybe, but if so, why can we not be the "best > team"?
We have Olympic teams, other such, to represent us as a nation, plus a USG we hope will be more coordinated and deserving of respect than in the recent past.
But when it comes to economic prosperity or something like that, I think you know as well as I that a "team" isn't anything so huge as a nation of millions. We have lots and lots of teams, of mixed ethnicity. If your team is well rounded, some of those ethnicities will be good at teaching math, other numeracy skills.
China is always changing. The bout with Communism, an inferior ideology from the west, wasn't the culmination of Chinese history or anything like that, Russian either. Capitalism is a moving target as well, a theme in that 'Grunch of Giants' book you were unable to make sense of.
> Analysts say the move is an important step away from > Chinese egalitarianism and towards a market economy.
You can have division of labor, some stratification of income, and not lose a sense of egalitarianism, which we've strived to preserve in North America as well -- some call it the pioneer spirit.
Anyway, this was geared for your "socialist friends" so I'll stop reading now.