Older Men Wage War, Younger Men Fight Them?

Is it safe to assume that when a country is still young and full of energy, it prefers to take more risks and expand? Is it safe to assume that when a country is old, it prefers to play it safe? What would make a country young? In my opinion, a country is young when it got a huge amount of people that are between the age of 12 to 27. Why? These young people can and will be able to lead their country in the direction that they want since the older generations have to pass their torches eventually. Furthermore, a young country got enough young soldiers to wage a war! This will not be that important when a country decides to employ more AI robots and automation in a war, but at the presence, human soldiers are still being mainly a deployable asset for any combat situation. Human soldiers are still driving and flying war machines and drones.

A small country with a small population and not enough economic power and technological might cannot be a threat to bigger countries even though such a small country may have a huge population of young people. It would be a different story for a huge country with a huge population size because such a country can deploy young, energetic human resources to grow and expand a country’s multifacet powers. It’s even more dangerous when such a country got a really large, energetic, young population. Why? Assuming we’re not going to use automation anytime soon, and so if I’m running such a country I would think about capitalizing the power of a huge young population to grow and expand my country. For an example, I wouldn’t be so timid in launching a war against a hostile country.

I have a feeling that even when automation gets to be in the driver seat, an unrest young population of whatever country could still drive their country into a more risky proposition than otherwise. After all, logically if they’re not taking risks when they’re young, what would make them excited when they’re old? If my theory is correct, I wonder could we see a lot more wars and deaths if the world’s population is full of young people? Of course, I could be wrong in a way because older people do take risks too! What if a small group of older people can make and drive the agenda that make use of the aggressiveness features of the young population? Nonetheless, I still think the huge population of young people still is an important element in the equation for taking risks. Without the huge, energetic young population, nothing will happen even if the small group of old people wants to wage a war!

G20 In China: Performances For The Leaders

World leaders of most powerful 20 countries are in China for G20.  China isn’t playing around when it hosts the G20 for the first time.  Thus, in Hangzhou, China displays awesome performances to welcome the leaders of the countries that are attending the G20.  Check out the performances in the video right after the break.

Why Chinese People Don’t Feel Oppressed By Their Authoritative Regime?

One of the top stories from my Quora’s feed is a question in regarding to “why a lot of Chinese people don’t feel oppressed by their regime“, and this topic generates many interesting answers through Quora.  Here in the West, our heart is with democracy, because it’s the ideal that we have been taught and inspired by since childhood.  In practice, true democracy probably isn’t really existed.  In the West, we practice partial democracy, because our system makes it hard for true democracy to flourish.  Otherwise, we would have seen hundreds if not thousands of major political parties that compete for governmental power.  Instead of such thing, we have two major political parties in the United States (i.e., Democrats and the Republicans).  Elsewhere in the West, few major political parties would hold the key to governmental positions.  If we really practice true democracy, the system would be way more complex and chaotic.  The competition for governmental positions would be way more competitive, and ideals would be constantly conflicting each other to create political gridlock of sorts.  Thus, partial democracy is in practice instead.  Freedom of speech, press, and so on would still be considered the core elements that support the partial democracy foundation.  In the East such as in China though, we have seen Chinese people practice a political system in which we in the West think as authoritative regime.

Why Chinese people don’t feel oppressed by their regime?  This question is very interesting, because as China rises the West is wearily trying to understand China more. China is just going to get more powerful, and so the West is concentrating on how to prepare when facing an even more powerful China in the near future.  China isn’t practicing partial democracy, because there is only one political party in China — yet China is still prospering.  Basically, nothing is written in stone in which to set the requirements for partial democracy to be the only path to have a successful political structure.  It seems China is an authoritative regime that listens to people’s wishes and dreams.  Although Chinese government is hell bending on stopping any sort of controversial political views from average and non-average citizens alike, the regime in China does strive to improve everyday people’s lives by nurturing a stable job market, healthy economy, youthful innovative research and development institutions and environment, and so forth.  Meanwhile, China’s one party system is trying to weed out corruptions from within the political party and elsewhere in China.

The Chinese youngsters — who are born after the major upheavals (e.g., Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, cultural revolution during Mao Zedong’s day, etc…) — do not have any experience in hardship as how their parents had experienced before, but they have been taught of how their parents were suffering from the chaoses that occurred in China.  Their parents speak of extreme hunger during Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward movement, because their parents remembered the Great Famine which caused untold amount of deaths that caused by hunger and extreme poverty during those days.  Chinese youngsters can also look at so called democracy states elsewhere around the world that are doing poorly in providing jobs, wealth, and happy life for the citizens, and so they can appreciate that their Chinese government is doing something right which allows them to prosper.  For an example, Chinese youngsters would look at India as a poor, chaotic largest democracy state in the world.  In Africa, Chinese youngsters see how democracy does not put foods on average citizens’ kitchen tables.  Chinese youngsters may dislike their strict government, but they do not yet mind of being disciplined by a strict government as long the Chinese government is doing the right things for the people.

In summary, I think the phrase “people rule” is quite powerful and real, because no matter the political system would be, what matters most is the people within such a system.  Although the system does rule the people, but it’s that the people who are feeding the system.  Without the right people that can intelligently upkeep the system, the system would get corrupted and rotted from the core, and this is when it’s hostile to their own people.  As the people within the system feel uncomfortable and unbreathable, it’s when the people are going to overthrow such a system.  The common sense and fundamentals of decency can be locked away for some time, but it doesn’t mean the unjustness can go on forever.  I think, as long a governmental system in the West or in the East is doing the right things for its people, the system can thrive on for quite some time.  This is why I don’t think we should be surprised to see the Chinese people are proud of their government, because the Chinese are prosper under their current regime.  (I once heard a phrase which speaks of how the Chinese don’t love their government, but they do respect their government.)

 

People’s Bank of China Creates Chinese Digital Currency To Hedge Against Upcoming Collapses of Fiat Currencies

According to various news sources and Simon Dixon, People’s Bank of China has announced China’s own digital currency.  According to Mr. Simon Dixon, China is buying up gold and announcing digital currency to hedge against the upcoming biggest collapse of most fiat currencies in the world.  Near the end of his video, Mr.  Simon Dixon says people may adopt China’s digital currency, but this will encourage many more people to use Bitcoin.  Mr.  Simon Dixon thinks that Bitcoin is more attractive to people since it got no governments’ censures.

In my opinion, any government has the ability to outlaw Bitcoin.  I think Bitcoin might not have such a bright future when China herself is creating a brand new digital currency.  If China is going to be successful in convincing her own people and other peoples to use her digital currency, she can totally outlaw Bitcoin.  Once Bitcoin is being outlawed in China, China’s own digital currency will continue on to be one of the future, central crypto currencies.

Of course, any other government besides Chinese government can follow China’s playbook and come up with another government’s digital currency.  Thus, I don’t think China will be the only country that would create a government sanction digital currency.  I guess it would be fun to see a government sanctions another with outlawing another government digital currency within one’s own territory.

In the video, Mr.  Simon Dixon suggests that China may use the brand new digital currency to implement quantitative easing.  Instead of printing more fiat currency, China may as well create the second tier monetary system such as digital currency to help ease the many debt related bubbles that fiat currency has been creating.  It’s an interesting idea for sure, but I think only China would know what she will do with her brand new digital currency.  I guess time will tell.

Check out Mr.  Simon Dixon’s video on People’s Bank of China creates a Chinese digital currency in the video right after the break.  Enjoy!

What Will Happen If The World Uses One World Currency?

What will happen if the whole world is going to use the same currency?  Imagine if the whole world only has one currency, the economy would behave rather differently than how it is now.  Currency war would be history.  Trade war through currency manipulation might not be easily executed as now.  Is it really that positive to have one world currency?  If you’re reading on, you might see that I’m not so sure about this idea.  Nonetheless, the idea is interesting and provocative.

Saying is easy, but having one currency for the whole world would be difficult.  Our world is made of countries with histories and sovereignties.  Thus, each country has its own financial and currency systems.  Except the Eurozone member states, most countries are able in printing their own currency for whatever purposes.  Since each country is being ruled by a specific umbrella system that supports the financial and currency systems, and so it’s rather difficult to have any country in such situation to give up their right to print their own currency.

Nonetheless, let’s say the whole world gets together and decides to have one currency for all countries in the world, the question is how one world currency system would behave?  Perhaps, it’s like a democracy, because each country should have the right amount of currency printing privilege in percentage quota.  The world could use the population size of a country to determine how much percentage quota for the right to printing the one world currency a country should have.

The idea of one world currency is just too radical, because nothing like this has ever happened in the human recorded history.  Since this is too radical and has never happened before, I don’t think anyone is clever enough to see the consequences if one world currency is actually taking place.

My suggestion — if this scenario takes place, the country’s population size should determine the percentage quota of right to printing the one world currency — is having many flaws.  On the top of my head, a flaw of this suggestion is noticeable in regarding to how a country should prioritize their policies, because the larger the population size the bigger the percentage quota would be for printing the one world currency.  In a competitive world with one currency, poverty might be increasing instead of decreasing.  If a country decides to make policies that encourage population growth but without policies to help keep the population stays competitive in the world market, it’s a disaster in the making since bigger population means more mouths to feed.  In one world currency system, wrong prioritization of policies can encourage a disaster on a very large scale.

I think there are positives and negatives in regarding to have one world currency.  The positives are cohesive world monetary system, less aggressive trade and currency manipulations, and so forth.  The negatives are poverty might be increasing in uncompetitive countries/regions, losing sovereignty, democratization of currency printing is still going to be dictated under one central umbrella govern body which oversights the regulatory bodies of how one world currency should work, and so forth.

Since I’m just a puny human, I don’t really know all of the negative consequences might bear fruit if one world currency system is actually taking place.  One thing I do know is that most things are possible, and so you would never know that one day the whole world might band together to come up with one world currency.  Who could have thought Eurozone would be possible, right?  Nonetheless, the jury is still out in regarding to how effective and prosperous the Euro has been for the Eurozone member states.  After all, Eurozone as a whole is facing greater uncertainty in regarding to the increase of financial instability within several Eurozone member states.  Greece comes to mind in this regard.

I don’t particularly side with the idea of one world currency, because seeing how Eurozone member states are facing the problem of not having to be able to print their own currency to support their uncompetitive trade markets.  Still, seeing how one country can manipulate her own currency to boost trade competitiveness at the cost of other countries’ trade welfares, perhaps one world currency might be able to stem this problem.  To sum things up, I’m not sure having one world currency can solve the world’s financial uncertainties, because Eurozone member states have shown that even they are not immune to the financial uncertainties even though they are using one currency (i.e., the Euro) to trade with each other.

War and Politics Are Money Making Machines

When core commodity prices such as oil are going down, logically, anything else that depends and adjusts to these commodities would become cheaper too.  Let’s say oil prices are going down big time, and so the gasoline prices should be plummeting too.  Let’s say oil prices are going down big time, foods and transportation costs should also plummet too.  With lower oil prices, companies that produce products should see cost reliefs (e.g., transportation, commodity prices, etc…).  Basically, any price of core commodities plummets should bring the prices of the related products and services down.

As we speak, world politics and agenda have pushed the prices of oil way down.  Not too long ago, I remember oil prices were near $100 price range.  Nowadays we are seeing oil prices go under $40.  I don’t think we are seeing the natural cycle of supply and demand is at work for oil here, because world politics is dictating the terms.  Sure, many countries are pumping more oil out of the oil wells even though the oil prices are being suppressed at a super low level, but these countries are doing so to manipulate the world’s oil market in an artificial supply and demand way.  Normally, the world market should be the factor that influences the supply and the demand curves.

Since oil prices are plummeting way low in unnatural manner, any small positive news could really affect the oil prices.  Oil prices are also being stressed out by the advances of green energy technologies.  As the present keeps on pushing for a greener future, oil will have to compete with various green energies for market share.  If the politics stays away and the world market gets to decide, prices for oil and other energies should balance out according to the supply and demand curves.

It’s worrisome to see that countries are not on best of terms with each other nowadays.  Middle East is still experiencing great violences.  Europe’s economic might is in further decline.  Elsewhere is not doing too good as the whole world is experiencing a recession or depression, depending on who you would raise the topic with.  Cheaper oil could also mean oil is more accessible for stockpiling.  Great oil stockpile means instigating war or prepare for one is rather convenient.

If war breaks out now, prices of most services and commodities will shoot up.  This too isn’t natural since war conditions would push the natural market forces aside.  Both politics and war would be the major factors in manipulating the market prices, and I surmise that people who can easily wield these factors will be able to make a lot of money.  This is why we keep hearing someone would say something along this line, war is money.  Well, politics is also money!  I think war and politics are money making machines.