Ajit Pai ruined Xmas

From InterSciWiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Forwarded Message --------

Subject: Re: convergence Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:51:31 -0800 From: drw <drwhite@uci.edu> To: FROM: Andrey Korotayev <akorotayev@gmail.com>, Douglas White <Douglas.White@uci.edu>

Hi Andrey: I just had lunch with Doug White and we discussed your work on divergence. We would like to spend some time on your issues, has detailed in "Great Divergence and Great Convergence". Would you be so kind as to provide a pdf of some chapters. I already have Chapter 1 and 5. You might select other things of relevance.


On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andrey Korotayev <akorotayev@gmail.com> wrote:

   Dear Duran,
   Thank you for your very valuable comments!
   To Andrey:
   2017-12-17 5:29 GMT+03:00 Duran Bell <bellduran1@gmail.com>:
       I just read with considerable interest your "Chapter 5" . and I have two concerns. 
       First, you seem to believe that a failure to replace USA dominance is a problem. However, as I see it, American dominance has been the single most importance source of instability over the last 50 years. The US has attempted to continue implementation of a 19th century notion of national power. The emerging power of China does not replace that and should not. The Chinese are attempting to form economic development zones rather than military ones and they can be a factor in reducing global inequality and instability, whereas the American military alliances have privileged oligarchs and the associated military-industrial complexes. The greatest damage has been, of course, the Middle East, where an uncompromising defense of Israel as empowered a truly ugly regime and has promoted the Arab resistance and the global tragedies associated therewith. The Americans now want to move their focus on Asia, in order to disassemble that area and prevent its development. Clearly, a loss of this American power is much to be wished.
       Secondly, you mention in the last paragraph the notion of a growing global middle class. You see the intelligentsia of the 19th century as a model. Hey, I hope you are right. But note that the intelligentsia was in ideological conflict with the ruling elite and I see little chance of such an ideologically independent group in the west. Indeed, the public dialogue has been concerned about the loss of the middle class, in its broadest respect, and the general proletarianization of the 90%. In this context would-be intellectuals struggle to differentiate themselves from the mass and ape the ideas of their overlords. 
       I thank you for provoking me.