Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (3 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

China's New Silk Road $1.4 Trillion. U.S. Cuts Education Funding

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Robert De Filippis     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Inspiring 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 5/17/17

Author 86186
Become a Fan
  (30 fans)

From flickr.com: View of Pudong, Shanghai {MID-73048}
View of Pudong, Shanghai
(Image by Dimitry B)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

From NBC News, "BEIJING -- China is aiming to re-create Marco Polo's ancient "Silk Road" that connected Europe to Asia.

But instead of the camels and caravans that transported spices and silk hundreds of years ago, a $1.4 trillion network of modern trading routes would be built.

Analysts suggest the project could shift the center of global economy and challenge the U.S.-led world order."

Also from NBC News, "Fired FBI Director James Comey wrote an internal memo saying President Donald Trump asked him to shut down an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, multiple sources with first-hand knowledge of the memo told NBC News on Tuesday."

So, what's going on here? Why is China developing a new Silk Road costing $1.4 trillion and we, still the wealthiest nation on the planet, are distracted with the issues being created by a woefully unqualified and incompetent man in the White House?

In practical terms, here's my question. Does the American two-party system of democracy work better than the Chinese one-party system of communism?

Taking an overview of the human social construction called government, a primary meta-narrative shows up. It claims that the natural evolution of government should lead to the best one. In other words, human social constructions should improve as our species becomes more evolved, i.e., more competent, conscious and enlightened and we will naturally come to the best system.

On the surface this makes sense. That is if we also agree that humans are logical beings who make rational decisions and learn from their mistakes.

Our second problem is that the meta-narrative disagrees as to which is the final best system, communism or democracy. And this is also where human rationalism and logic break down.

In one system, the voter is supposedly in charge, at least that's the theory. In the other, the people agree that someone smarter, more experienced and competent is in charge and functions in the interests of those people who would have been voters.

To answer this question, American educated, Chinese born entrepreneur, Eric X. Li uses three criteria in his TED presentation here: Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy. I encourage the reader to check it out. But for purposes of this piece, I want to focus on just a few differences.

The Chinese system is run by an organization consisting of five levels. Nine hundred thousand people enter this system at the bottom. Based on their performance in one of three tracks, social organizations, state owned enterprises and civil services, they vie for the next level consisting of 600,000 positions. As they prove themselves in these positions, they are vying for 40,000 positions at the next level. Those who excel move to the Central Committee made up of 300 people. Finally, the very best arrive at the Politburo made up of twenty-five people.

The whole process usually takes between two and three decades. Think of the experience and seasoning of people who've spent twenty to thirty years of their lives in this system. And then think of how we elect our governmental representatives. Think of the shear incompetence of our elected officials making decisions that affect science, technology, engineering, medicine, education, infrastructure, geopolitical commerce, civil and human rights.

Their qualifications? Campaigning, (a euphemism for pandering) fund-raising, and a glibness that allows them to answer every question with a party-programmed answer.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Inspiring 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://robertdefilippis.com

Author, columnist, and blogger with a long career in business management, management consulting and executive coaching. I've authored and published six books: "You, Your Self and the 21st Century,"The Flowers Are Talking to Me," and "Faith (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Illinois Is Now on Board. We Can Carry Concealed Weapons in Every State.

Don't be Fooled: Black Racism Causes White Racism

The Primary American Meme: Be Afraid.

What Jesus said and What the Christian Lunatic Fringe Hears.

This Pope Makes Me Want to be an Atheist

Ethan Couch: An Example of the Pathology of Wealth