Might China’s “new game plan” come first than the European Union or the USA?

Telling in this partial story that we have available the thought leadership necessary to create roadmaps for both the electricity sector since the end of 2013 and for the Systemic Civilization since earlier that 2017, this follows up the conversion model of recent tweets conversations. This time we have 11 tweets on the conversation that was started by RSA Citizen Economy of the United Kingdom. Tweet #11 was my first reply to Minxin Pei.

While there are many tweets on #Fordism and I am able to see (there might be some tweets I am not able to see) at this moment about 94 on #Jobsism, of two thirds are mine. In addition, I see that all 20 tweets on the combination #Jobsism and #Fordism are mine, reflecting that #Jobsism is a key “bone” of the #SystemicCivilization structure. Probably my first use of Jobsism came in the following post.

After my first reply to Minxin Pei, other comments are as follows:


According to the IMF, China’s growth rate for 2015–2017 was 6.9%, 6.72%, and 6.856%. China’s projected growth rate for 2018–2021 is 6.558%, 6.408%, 6.252%, and 6.0%. These are among the fastest growth rates in the world. For better or worse, China’s leaders enjoy more legitimacy and support than their western counterparts. That’s not about to change

JOSE A Aug 3, 2018 reply to PETER SCHAEFFER Aug 2, 2018

Please help on the following thought experiment.

What credibility does the IMF has left?

What were the IMF’s growth forecasts for Brazil before 2013? Were those forecast not about to change then?

Does that growth only accounts on market norms, but not on social norms? As the gap between those norms decrease does legitimacy increase?

Should nations or unions, like China, Rusia, USA and Europe be headed in the direction of collapse by a strategy of terrain myopia similar to that of the over-expansion of the railroads industry at the end of the 19th century?

What would happen to China growth when strategies of trajectory is develop in the European Union under a referendum of their 28 members in order to enjoy more legitimacy than China?

PETER SCHAEFFER Aug 3, 2018 reply to JOSE A Aug 3, 2018

I won’t attempt to attack or defend the IMF here. My goal was to use IMF statistics to show that China’s growth rate appears to be (is) high and stable. Of course, future statistical projections (as in Brazil in 2013) can be wrong. However, Brazil’s growth was highly dependent on highly volatile commodity prices. China’s growth is not. To use a historical analogy. Japan was hit rather hard by the Great Depression in 1929. However, Japan’s growth dynamic (back then) was so strong that Japanese GDP in 1939 was much higher than 1929. China is in a similar position today.

JOSE A Aug 3, 2018 reply to PETER SCHAEFFER Aug 3, 2018

I am sorry. That was not an attack on the IMF. Most countries are operating in an over-expanded global economy. What would happen to China if their treatment is changed to that of a developed country because, for example, it has the world’s second-largest economy and the third-largest military?

I see you dismissed the systems architecting “fact of life” (not an opinion) that there is not a roadmap for institutional innovations required to reduce the gap between market norms and social norms to increase legitimacy.

I guess you didn’t considered my first comment that started with ‘This is related to a service proposal to which I added a tweet today in my account @gmh_upsa that benefits from Minxin Pei’s assertion that “These developments point to a straightforward conclusion: China is headed in the wrong direction.’”

KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018

Hi, I wonder what “new game plan” Professor Pei thinks China ought to pursue.

It is one thing to criticise the current course (perhaps with good reason), another to propose a better course, preferably giving reasons why it will deliver better long-term outcomes.

Criticism is welcomed, especially when it is useful criticism! I hope to read a follow up piece from Professor Pei on China’s “new game plan”.

JOSE A Aug 3, 2018 reply to KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018

I am jumping to your proactive challenge. Can I give you a first draft outline of China’s “new game plan.”?

But first a few preliminaries. Is it fair to say that China missed the opportunity to adopt a “new game plan” related to The Wealth of Nations? Was that the reason China became a late comer to the industrial civilization? After Identifying a Future Shock in what I learned from Peter Drucker had a 500 years old precedent, Alvin Toffler suggested that China needed tracks for the industrial civilization statu quo and for a new civilization. Toffler also foresaw that the left and right statu quo had the same architecture which I discovered was unsustainable would unite against the new civilization, as we are seen today in a highly interdependent world. Had the statu quo already over-expanded the industrial civilization when it allowed China access to the WTO? Are the mechanistic rules of economics that has many unsustainable “wicked” problems overdue for change to help enable the new civilization opportunities for the whole world?

In my first comment, I addressed those two kinds of game plans which China was supposed to be playing. One old plan with the road map of the mechanistic industrial civilization which have been saturated for two or three decades and a new one without a road map to a new organismic civilization to be driven towards the “fact of life” of a new course that’s the result of my self taught practice on the heuristic methodology of systems architecting. That methodology aims to discover not the parts of a mechanism, but the “bones” of an organism with fast social media feedback, that then enables its growth and development for decades or centuries to come.

In what follows, the terms preceded by the pound sign are Twitter’s hashtags that are “bones” of the emerging architecture that I have been coining as knowledge flows in my thought experiments. For example, the new civilization I coined as the #SystemicCivilization. The new course is for the democratic #BrightGlobalization north star narrative, which I thought was best for the European Union which is under the non democratic #DarkGlobalization narrative which is a degeneration of Margaret Thatcher’s TINA (There Is No Alternative) to Neolberalism narrative, as a result of the #ComputingBigShift that replaces the 500 years old #PrintingBigShift.

As you can see, I am providing useful criticism about the game plan of the “Belt and Road Initiative” which is of the old kind. Do you or anyone else see China is a better position that Europe or the USA as the Path Creator of the #SystemicCivilization?

KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018 reply to JOSE A Aug 3, 2018

Hi, I found it hard to follow your argument, but thank you for your unique perspective. Perhaps one day I shall better understand your insights.

JOSE A Aug 3, 2018 reply to KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018

You are most welcome! Thank you for asking a great question.

Many of my recent thought experiment are available in my Medium blog at https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa for those who one to go beyond knowledge into creative ignorance. Next is what the header of the blog says:

Hashtags on what I stand for: 1 “There is nothing so powerful as #TheWealthOfGlobalization whose time has come;” 2 #BrightGlobalization; 3 #SystemicCivilization

MICHAEL PUBLIC Aug 3, 2018 also reply to KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018 first comment.

I think China’s previous approach of progressing quietly and not provoking international conflict was the right one. Being heavy handed with foreigners about Taiwan, the islands, civil rights, intellectual property, access for foreign companies and trade has brought them here. Looking back at Ancient Rome, Nazi Germany or the USSR — no matter how powerful you are you cannot simultaneously fight the whole rest of the World and win. In the history of the World, the progress China has made since Mao is arguably the greatest — but rather than use it for tangible gain and build a middle class it seems bent on walking in the past footsteps of the USSR — chasing a dream of nationalistic pride that is ostensibly unreachable, and even if achieved, would not give what it really wants, or worst of all, lead to war.

KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018 reply to MICHAEL PUBLIC Aug 3, 2018

Hi, thank you for your perspective. I think you may have misread China’s intentions. My own reading is that China has a developmental agenda, and the latest pronouncements by Xi Jinping (as best I understand them) is to move away from GDP growth per se, towards “better quality” growth, which I understand to mean: (i) inclusive growth (with less inequality over time), and (ii) sustainable growth (e.g., environmentally sustainable, socially sustainable, etc).

China also imagines (rightly or wrongly) that other emerging and less developed countries could learn something from its developmental experience, and adapt those learnings to each of their local contexts. Whatever the merits of the Belt & Road Initiative, I understand it is widely accepted (e.g., by the World Bank and the IMF) that the emerging economies need more infrastructure investment.

I don’t see China as wanting to fight the West, which after all, has been (and is likely to remain) an important market for China. I understand that during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008–09, Russia’s Putin had encouraged China to coordinate with Russia in selling US treasury bonds, which would have exacerbated the Great Recession. However, China chose to support the US government by continuing to buy US treasury bonds which the then Treasury Secretary (Paul Hankson) had lobbied China to do.

China also worked with the Obama administration to address climate change, and unfortunately it is the US that has chosen to strike out on its own and pull out of the Paris Climate Accord.

Finally, China’s consistent view is that all military action ought to be authorised by the United Nations, and China has been a strong supporter of the UN peacekeeping force. The US on the other hand, has frequently taken military action unilaterally, without United Nations authority. In fact, the Western nations (US, UK and France) recently attacked Syria on the basis that punishing or deterring the use of chemical weapons. However, later investigation by the relevant UN agency found that there had been no credible evidence of the alleged chemical attack.

MICHAEL PUBLIC Aug 3, 2018 reply to KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018

I don’t disagree with anything you say but it all relates to facts about the past, and the position china finds itself in has everything to do with impressions created about the future. The west does not want to trade with a country that will grow into a rival akin to the USSR during the Cold War.

JOSE A Aug 3, 2018 reply to KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018

Readings by Michael Public and yourself belong to the statu quo of the industrial civilization. One misreading difference between the two of you seems to be that Michael is biased on the assumption that the West is democratic. But, the perception to the people hard hit is that the win-lose independence mindset of the West statu quo has increasingly become less and less democratic than even China, which of course is hardly democratic.

That’s not an attack to obsolete second wave institutions, like the IMF and the World Bank, as evidence of restructuring to protect unsustainable business models is available upon request. Hard everyday evidence on the ineffectiveness of the Paris Climate Accord is due to industrial civilization roapmaps, like that of the United Nations 2030 [un]sustainable development goals, based on Wicked problem solving consensus illusons, instead of enable the opportunities from institutional innovations that dissolve those Wicked problems.

That means China’s development agenda under unsustainable institutions is at most about incremental innovation on the wrong roadmap infrastructure around mainly tangible goods (on the above mentioned business models), when developing countries need to leapfrog on the basis of win-win or no deal in(ter)dependence, after a new roadmaps emerge on the #SystemicCivilization around the internet infrastructure, mainly on intangible goods on radical business model ecosystems innovations.

KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018 reply to JOSE A Aug 3, 2018

Hi, I would argue it is a mistake to think of China as a rival. China is first and foremost a strategic partner, not a rival.

There are 3 key challenges that humanity faces today: (i) climate change; (ii) fostering inclusive growth, both within countries and across countries; and (iii) overcoming the refugee crisis. All 3 challenges need cooperation between nations. And in fact, China has cooperated with the West on climate change. Further, trade between the West and China have undoubtedly led to global growth.

Perhaps there are areas of rivalry between the West and China. Even so, it would be a mistake to focus only on the rivalry and lose sight of the partnership between China, the West and indeed between all nations of the world.

If we continue on the path of cooperation, I am sure one day all countries of the world (including Africa) will be equally prosperous. I look forward to the day when each one of us, regardless of our national identities, are equally free to live lives and pursue goals that we each have reason to value.

JOSE A Aug 4, 2018 reply to KIEN CHOONG Aug 3, 2018

Thank you for your patience. Let´s see if we can get on the same page without a face to face meeting. The way you framed the three challenges is not about humanity to be addressed with industrial civilization roadmaps. It is a hierarchy of developed, emerging, and developing.

Hell is full of good intentions, means that good intentions are not enough. We need a new global order for an interdependent world.

Lets take one example. Donald Trump left the Paris Climate Accord low carbon transition for the opposite reasons of what must be done, which is to lead to a near zero carbon transformation for society. It is about a transformation to a distributed “demand-side” platform electric power sector without a road map, as opposed to a transition, like that of the centralized Smart Grid (which I used to say the Smart Grid that’s being pushed).

Can you confirm that “The Chinese government dominates smart grid development through centralized planning and a “supply-side policy” used to stimulate aggregate demand in the smart grid industry, and 11 state-owned power companies are viewed as allies in the execution of the smart grid policy for China and are responsible for smart grid…”?

KIEN CHOONG Aug 4, 2018 reply to JOSE A Aug 4, 2018

Hi, I’m afraid this line of discussion is going beyond my area of competence.

Perhaps we can just agree that good intentions are not a sufficient (but perhaps necessary?) condition for just outcomes in the world. I wish you well in your endeavour to make the world better and more just.

This part of the story ends as soon as I tweet to RSA and give thanks to Kien for his kind wish, while inviting people interested in the future of the whole of humanity to help emerge the narrative guided on the Bright Globalization North Star in Europe, USA or China, or anywhere else, like my country the Dominican Republic, which has available the thought leadership necessary to create the new roadmap on the microeconomic electricity sector since the end 2013, as can be seen in the following post.

As can be seen in that post, I conjectured the emergence of the Systemic Civilization, which led, for example, to this other post that tell us we are also have available the thought leadership necessary to create the new roadmap on the macroeconomic side of the Systemic Civilization even before 2017.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Jose A Vanderhorst S

Hashtags on what I stand for: 1 “There is nothing so powerful as #TheWealthOfGlobalization whose time has come;” 2 #BrightGlobalization; 3 #SystemicCivilization