Given that net fixed capital formation as a percentage of GDP has considerable predictive power, shouldn’t we then ask what kind of fixed capital are we talking about? The machinery defining the origins and development of the industrial era; Ford’s assembly line; feedback; automation; digitalisation; robotisation; AI? - not necessarily in that exact historical order and recognising overlap for considerable periods of time.
In short, if country X invests 5% of GDP in net fixed capital formation per annum, as does country Y, but X invests exclusively in automation, while Y opts primarily for artificial intelligence, might Y not grow faster than X?
Isn’t this why the level of antagonism between the USA and China is rising so rapidly and dangerously? The tech war morphing into a potential kinetic war, using AI-guided missiles and bombs etc?
It seems to be a competition (to what end I don't know- just to say such and such country is the top, just to say Americans are better than Chinese) to see who has the best balance between consumption and production. Is that right Ben?
In any case whoever wins the balance war- the environment loses. Any economy based on growth of things and activities is unsustainable and damages humanities future on this planet.
Does capital formation mean issuing of debt? Money created from nothing by banking enterprises and loaned to putative producers.
Does capital formation turn into investment? Capital investment, in a paradigm of capitalist orthodoxy, implies the return of the loan over the period of the debt, with periodic interest payments as profit. There is no guarantee that the productivity desired ever takes place.
But capital investment to initiate or increase the productivity of an enterprise of collaborative working isn't the only way of creating the production of material things, services, or usable order [administration or infrastructures].
Commissioning is by far the most operable initiator of productivity, usually free of investment capital provision.
Social vectors of provisioning/commissioning without investment include:
by gift/grant; subsidy; self-service; suggestion/encouragement; overt local communal approval; direct or indirect provision of wherewithal; making available the means of accomplishment; ...
Commissioning is the engine of productive performance in families and local communities, and in mutualist socioeconomic systems. It is almost impossible to measure, and can only be inferred from indications of the relative well-being of the populace.
Commissioning doesn't show up in measures of currency flows, so can't be assigned a role in increase of Gross Domestic Product. It is absent from your graphs and calculations of relations between general economic factors.
In China's 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' commissioning is a major engine of social development - the people are asked to do particular needed endeavours and the general desire to contribute makes them happen. Self-commissioning makes voluntary organisations work.
I'd say it was a conflict between US Imperialism/Rules based order and multipolarity/International law. The economies of the whole world, even China's though her banks are state owned, are based on capitalist growth.
Who wins is irrelevant to the climate and environment. Both are unsustainable, even in the short term.
Given that net fixed capital formation as a percentage of GDP has considerable predictive power, shouldn’t we then ask what kind of fixed capital are we talking about? The machinery defining the origins and development of the industrial era; Ford’s assembly line; feedback; automation; digitalisation; robotisation; AI? - not necessarily in that exact historical order and recognising overlap for considerable periods of time.
In short, if country X invests 5% of GDP in net fixed capital formation per annum, as does country Y, but X invests exclusively in automation, while Y opts primarily for artificial intelligence, might Y not grow faster than X?
Isn’t this why the level of antagonism between the USA and China is rising so rapidly and dangerously? The tech war morphing into a potential kinetic war, using AI-guided missiles and bombs etc?
I don't really understand any of this.
It seems to be a competition (to what end I don't know- just to say such and such country is the top, just to say Americans are better than Chinese) to see who has the best balance between consumption and production. Is that right Ben?
In any case whoever wins the balance war- the environment loses. Any economy based on growth of things and activities is unsustainable and damages humanities future on this planet.
Does capital formation mean issuing of debt? Money created from nothing by banking enterprises and loaned to putative producers.
Does capital formation turn into investment? Capital investment, in a paradigm of capitalist orthodoxy, implies the return of the loan over the period of the debt, with periodic interest payments as profit. There is no guarantee that the productivity desired ever takes place.
But capital investment to initiate or increase the productivity of an enterprise of collaborative working isn't the only way of creating the production of material things, services, or usable order [administration or infrastructures].
Commissioning is by far the most operable initiator of productivity, usually free of investment capital provision.
Social vectors of provisioning/commissioning without investment include:
by gift/grant; subsidy; self-service; suggestion/encouragement; overt local communal approval; direct or indirect provision of wherewithal; making available the means of accomplishment; ...
Commissioning is the engine of productive performance in families and local communities, and in mutualist socioeconomic systems. It is almost impossible to measure, and can only be inferred from indications of the relative well-being of the populace.
Commissioning doesn't show up in measures of currency flows, so can't be assigned a role in increase of Gross Domestic Product. It is absent from your graphs and calculations of relations between general economic factors.
In China's 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' commissioning is a major engine of social development - the people are asked to do particular needed endeavours and the general desire to contribute makes them happen. Self-commissioning makes voluntary organisations work.
This article is very interesting as a history in Comparative Economics. However, it is IMO irrelevant in the current Geopolitical climate.
There is no protracted war between two countries, but, there is a coming conflict between two world changing economic philosophies.
One is the Old World Order of US led Capitalism and the other is the BRICS+ Alliance devoted to development of a New World Order.
I'd say it was a conflict between US Imperialism/Rules based order and multipolarity/International law. The economies of the whole world, even China's though her banks are state owned, are based on capitalist growth.
Who wins is irrelevant to the climate and environment. Both are unsustainable, even in the short term.