1. i) Although t I do not disagree with the basic facts laid out in the article, I do have a lot of trouble accepting that they know what they are doing, a-la what another Prof. Kishore Mahbubani likes to say, that the Americans have no strategy to handle China.1. ii) Suppose that the facts laid out are a deliberate plan and was debated in the halls of power in the United States, and that was what they came up with. What exactly is the point here? I don't know.
The perfect example, recently someone wrote an article comparing the stock prices of ZTE and Nokia and Ericsson. As we know, Chinese telecom companies are being sanctioned by the United States. So everyone should expect business and profits to flow to those European telecom companies, which should give their stock prices a boost. The opposite is happening, ZTE stock going up, Nokia and Ericsson stock going down. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
2. Okay, let's suppose Prof. Micheal Hudson is right, and there is a good chance he is right, what should happen is this American empire is being hollowed out. If Europe because of NATO is part of this military economic empire, and the economic part is being hollowed out, then the empire is being hollowed out. Is that suppose to be good?
We have seen this before. The British Empire had India as its crown jewel. After they left, there was nothing left except Hong Kong. In fact, at that stage of the British Empire, outside of Hong Kong, the colonies required money from Britain, just to maintain themselves, the money did not go the other way. When the hollowing out gets bad enough, we can arrive at a situation like that.
Bottomline, a hollowing out of the empire weakens it, that does not strengthen it.
Prof. Hudson says the west is in decline in this article, and the facts support him.
Is this the real plan?
Or is this how capitalism works, how it works itself out in the Marxist material dialectic?
It is going to get more interesting!
