(1) I spend my days here as always, working on this and that, and learning, and doing same w/ the jack
(2) am now listening in on yet another webinar
(2-i) looks good for globalisation 2.0, but hard-slogging for the planet for 5-12 years, after we got to here by accelerated way, shrinking 10-20 years happenings into 2020. super ultra bullish.
(2-ii) globalisation will change, encompassing willing participants and disconnecting unwilling nationalists.
(2-iii) there are risks requiring active management. true economic vectors shall enforce whatever must happen shall happen.
(2-iv) a club (i.e. G7+3 or 4) for the purpose of containing china is doomed to failure at the get-go, because world cannot exist w/o china cooperation, full stop. none sense to try but sure, try by all means and look suicidal
(2-v) china has too many true friends for Cold War 2.0 to even remotely get-go
(2-vi) as one team tries to withdraw by ways of automation, cheap capital, universal income transfer, re-shoring, national security, and and and bifurcation, and
(2-vii) another team tries to outward bound by ways of automation, cheap capital, global inter-connectivities, far-shoring, national security, and and and within arena where bifurcation or hard-forking happening
(2-viii) the world needs and shall recover, but not w/ engaging w/ Cold War
(2-ix) G7 ain't it, outdated, and to be replaced, and let's see which one of USA, China, and EU signs up. Some of the rest would follow as long as the club is not exclusionary, the professor's guess.
(2-x) India - increasingly significant, but has not proved its role in leading any part of the world. Insular at the moment, and chaotic, and devastated. Maybe 10-20 years to review.
(2-xi) No mention of Brazil.
(3) Let's see if the professor is correct
(4) the egg did not make it
        |
