To better communicate the point you’re making, my suggestion would be to avoid the use of these kinds of phrases if you’re not implying a nationalist competition. If “too good for too long” is short hand for the US’s heavy handing use of foreign and military policy, directly or through organizations (e.g. NATO, IMF, World Bank, etc.) then say so. It’ll help bring clarity to your narrative, and help you own and internalize what you’re writing – making it both more impactful and personal.

If the US and the rest of the “West” have had “perks” they’ll lose, then name some of them. If the perks are the ability to bully through fiscal policy backed by military might, lay it out.

Additionally I’d substitute something other than “West”, like “economically advanced nations”, or OECD, since Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and other advanced economies like Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, are all eastern hemisphere. But be clear that the more advanced economies are not homogeneous and are not simple a substitute for the US, G5, G8, EU or the OECD. Too, understand the East isn’t the only region rising. Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, are part of this rise out of nationally induced structural poverty. The use of East and West are better shorthand if you’re implying a US/China competition – if so, use “US and China”.

If “have to share” implies the sharing of political, fiscal and military power, use those terms. If “have to share” means a sharing of resources and economic results because one group is intrinsically better at extracting and using, describe what you mean. (While keeping in mind that free trade abrogates the concept that there are winners and losers. If voluntary trade meant this, we’d all still be living like Neanderthals).

(As for statement of fact – quoting others, and suggesting attitudes is not a statement of fact. All of those quotes and excerpts are centred on opinion and prediction, including even the immensely intuitive Rosling.)

All the feedback aside, keep writing! I am enjoying the articles.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my narrative but I’ve re-read it and didn’t mean to create a competition, nor do I think it reads that way.
Everything in the piece is a statement of fact and opinions of others.
I agree that nationalism has been the root of most many world conflicts and that’s certainly not what I’m promoting here. It’s merely interesting to see how the west is gradually losing its global dominance, and I’m curious as to how nations in the western world will deal with having to give up some things, likely not have all the perks they’ve grown accustomed to. Most interesting is if people will view the east’s rise as something that is okay, realize they have to share and if nationalism can be kept out of the dialogue.

Technology has indeed played a major role in helping nations quickly develop and there’s nothing wrong with that. This is without a doubt the fastest period of growth the world has ever seen, regardless of how it’s happening and it will be interesting to see what the world looks like in 30 years and how all nations manage their egos, expectations and place in the world.

I’m all for every country elevating their living standards, while creating a more peaceful and prosperous world.

Thanks for your comment Todd.

Over the past 30 years, the same oh-my-god-look-how-fast-they’re-growing-they’ll-take-over-the-world blather was talked about the Middle East, Japan, Taiwan/Korea, SE Asia, recently China and India, and now parts of Africa.

It’s very cool to see both those countries change and reduce government oversight. That increase in freedom is directly responsible for lifting half a billion people out of abject poverty.

At the root of what you’re talking about – this competition for who’s the most powerful nation on the planet – is nationalism, at the root of most of the wars of the past century.

Well articulated and again, I agree with most of your points here. You’re clearly much better informed in such things and do a wonderful job of looking at multiple angles.

There’s no argument that prosperity does enable and lead to education as we in the west know it. I’m under no illusion that we can just ‘kerplunk’ western-style and western-quality education systems in the developing world.

Awareness is no doubt an issue, but in the developing nations we’re talking about, funds would be better spent on education, rather than PR initiatives to promote education.

My main and only point is that education, in some form, offered to as many people as possible, serves as a spark that leads to a small fire, can spread and go from there. A population kept ignorant is easier to control, easier to keep down and allows dictators and nefarious types to keep their populations down even longer. Giving people even a basic education opens their minds, gets them talking, spreading ideas and is the initial spark that leads to full-on development, prosperity and lower birth rates as you’ve pointed out.

Thanks for your comments Todd.

To be fair, if it’s an “awareness” issue, public service media campaigns can help immensely. We saw those same kind of campaigns have an effect in Canada WRT littering in the 60s and 70s, condom use for STDs in the 90s, et al. They were quite effective.

But, it is very important to distinguish the difference between education as we see it in the west – grade 1 to 12 with post-secondary as a possibility – and education campaigns. Remember that education of the schooling for the masses type, came about as wealth increased, and children were no longer needed for the farm, or labour for additional household income. Education did not come first – and in those situations where governments forced mandatory education before prosperity increased, education often increased poverty by making a huge portion of the population legally idle. Without broad based prosperity to sustain educational organizations they wither quickly. Loads of examples from Africa and Latin America exist where lots of money is pored into educational infrastructure, which falls into disuse when:
- teachers cannot be well paid
- parents cannot afford the education tax or fees
- students find that even with this new education their prospects have not changed).

(Don’t forget a lot of the mandatory education/anti-child labour laws that came about in the west in the 19th and early 20th centuries were heavily supported by unions looking to keep lower cost labour out of the pool.)

Your Quote:

“But, some education is the initial building block that gets all that started.”

Is not true at all. Education, in the broad sense, only becomes possible when prosperity rises – and prosperity comes through opportunity afforded by freedom.

There is this idea in the West along these lines: The middle class is educated so to make more people middle class we need more education. The same thing happened with housing in the US over the past couple of decades: The middle class owns their own home, so to make more middle class people let’s get more people owning homes.

The problem with this is that home ownership, like education is a symptom of prosperity, not a seeder of prosperity. There is a virtuous cycle that education (and even home ownership) provides to help drive more prosperity, but again, it’s important to understand the carrying capacity of an economy for education before creating educational programs. (And, the best way to test the carrying capacity is through a transparent and free market).

It’s also important to not merely believe that experts in understanding education are also those that can deduce problems and provide broad-based, government run solutions to a very dynamic problem.