Tumgik
#geoeconomics
informacionanalisis · 9 hours
Text
0 notes
businessstrategist · 2 days
Text
Why China is on gold buying spree?
Arguably China the largest producer of gold is not exporting but importing huge gold quantum from many countries. The irony is, it is buying gold from the second largest producer of gold that is Russia. What is the business strategy behind it and how this impacts geoeconomics?
0 notes
pressnewsagencyllc · 22 days
Text
Chinese revenue in Africa is in decline, and the situation is unlikely to change
According to data from the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, engineering and construction contracts in Africa earned Chinese companies US$37.84 billion in gross annual revenues in 2022, which was a 31 per cent drop from US$54.78 billion generated in 2015, the year lending to Africa was at its highest. Africa made up…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
taqato-alim · 2 months
Text
Analysis of: "The 2023/24 Human Development Report - Breaking the gridlock: Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world" (UNDP)
Tumblr media
PDF-Download: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2023-24reporten.pdf
Summary of the key points discussed:
The document provides a balanced assessment of persistent global ties and ongoing challenges of global interdependence.
It argues economic, digital, cultural, climate and other ties ensure interdependence remains a defining feature despite some slowed integration.
Concentrated risks, socio-political polarization, slowed cooperation and planetary pressures pose challenges.
Better cooperation is needed to manage interdependence through global public goods, reframing issues, and renovating institutions.
Climate change is framed as an opportunity for cooperation through its technological and developmental implications.
Geopolitical tensions complicate cooperation required to collectively manage interconnected challenges.
Beyond GDP metrics and planetary perspectives are needed given Anthropocene dynamics.
The document demonstrates principled and evidence-based reasoning while accounting for multiple perspectives.
Ideas centered on pragmatic solutions, nuance, long-term thinking and global collaboration.
Widespread acceptance could foster an adaptive, holistic, cooperative and responsible global culture.
Genre of the document
Based on the content and style of writing, this document appears to be an analytical piece intended to inform and analyze a topic, rather than to simply report facts or tell a story. Key indicators that point to this genre include:
The use of an objective, somewhat detached tone without much emotive language.
Presenting arguments and reasoning to support key points, rather than just narrating events.
Referencing other research and literature to support the analysis and arguments being made.
Explaining concepts and framing issues for consideration, rather than just listing details.
Drawing conclusions and implications from the analysis presented.
Discussing macro-level trends and forces rather than just recounting specific events.
Therefore, I would classify the genre of this document as analytical. The purpose seems to be to examine and explain the dynamics of global interdependence in a reasoned, evidence-based manner, rather than just to report facts or tell a story.
Summary of the key points
Global interdependence persists despite a slowdown in economic integration. Hyperconnectivity through flows of information, people, ideas, and culture linking vast geographic distances is a defining feature of our time.
Planetary changes of the Anthropocene - pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss - transcend borders, as do advances in digital technologies which shift economic structures.
While policy choices shape certain flows, the Anthropocene reality is that impacts like climate change cannot be managed through controlling at-border flows. We must embrace managing interdependence.
Digitalization links vast distances, enabling real-time collaboration and information sharing among billions. Digital services exports account for over half of commercial services trade.
The persistence of global ties comes despite concerns over concentrated global value chains increasing vulnerabilities to disruptions. Risks arose from liberalizing without effective safeguards.
If interdependence is inevitable, choices center on harnessing it or retreating behind borders. Neither fully avoids reshaped interdependence like climate change. managing interdependence better is key.
Anthropocene epoch
According to the document, the Anthropocene is:
A proposed new geological epoch characterized by unprecedented human impact on Earth systems.
Humans have become geological-scale drivers of planetary changes through activities like greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, etc. that alter the climate, biosphere, etc. at a planetary scale.
This ushers a new set of planetary challenges in addition to economic globalization, including pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss that transcend borders and cannot be contained or directly managed by curbing flows at borders.
Under the Anthropocene the connections between social, economic and ecological spheres have been made inseparable, requiring a joint framing of issues.
Technological development and choices, like digital technologies and efforts to decarbonize, are profoundly reshaping interdependence in multiple ways that will persist far into the future.
So the Anthropocene provides a planetary lens to understand deeply interlinked human-nature interdependence that continues to evolve through human activities on a shared planet, demanding new approaches to global cooperation.
Persistent global ties
According to the document, despite a slowdown in the pace of economic integration, several key types of global ties remain at historically unprecedented levels of interdependence, making it an ongoing characteristic of the current era:
Economic interdependence: While trade in goods as a share of GDP appears to have plateaued, total trade (goods and services) remains at very high absolute levels. Financial interdependence also remains historically high, though is a smaller share of GDP than pre-2008 levels.
Cross-border flows of people, finance, information: Migration levels continue setting records, remittances approach the scale of foreign direct investment, and digital connectivity enabled huge growth in cross-border data flows despite plateaus in goods trade.
Planetary interdependence: Challenges like climate change and future pandemics cannot be circumscribed or escaped through restricting flows given their planetary scale impacts that transcend borders.
Technological drivers: Digitalization, clean energy shifts, continuing innovation ensure new forms of interdependence persist and intensify existing connections between economies.
Conceptual infrastructure: Ideas, knowledge, cultural influences spread globally almost instantaneously through digital communication networks.
In summary, despite slowed economic integration, multiple established and emergent drivers still characterize the world as one of unprecedented sustained overall interdependence well into the future.
Destabilizing dynamics
The document identifies several destabilizing dynamics that are reshaping global interdependence in problematic ways:
Concentration in global value chains and markets increases vulnerabilities, as disruptions can propagate through integrated systems. This was highlighted by COVID-19 supply chain disruptions.
Policy preferences regarding globalization have become more polarized in many countries, fueling the discontent that feeds populism and challenges international cooperation.
Societal polarization is on the rise, complicating collective action on shared challenges like climate change that transcend borders.
Geopolitical tensions among major powers are escalating for the first time since WWII, complicating multilateral cooperation.
Loss of control over economic flows that underpin populist discontent, as seen in heightened profit shifting to tax havens by multinationals.
Planetary changes like climate change intensify inequalities in human development impacts between societies.
Economic shifts tied to digitization may disrupt labor markets and development prospects without adequate policies.
Pandemics and conflicts spill over borders, surging amid gridlock in collectively managing interdependence.
In summary, changes in the scale and speed of interdependence alongside societal polarization and geopolitical tensions are destabilizing in multiple ways that complexity collective action.
Societal polarization
Here are the key points the document makes about the effects of societal polarization:
Rising populism and polarization of views on globalization in many countries complicates the ability to take collective action on issues requiring international cooperation.
When domestic public opinions are at opposite ends of the spectrum on global challenges, it fuels discontent and makes consensus difficult within and between nations.
This polarization of policy preferences regarding economic integration and the costs/benefits of interdependence clouds opportunities for partnership.
Issues like climate change that require a global response become more politically contentious as tensions rise within societies.
Divided publics are harder to unite behind joint efforts and make collective sacrifices or changes in behavior needed to tackle planetary-scale problems.
Polarization challenges the framing of shared global issues as opportunities rather than just obligations or risks.
So in essence, growing societal divisions hamper multilateral progress by fueling the "globalization of discontent" and limiting political will for internationally coordinated solutions.
Geopolitical tensions among major powers
According to the document, geopolitical tensions among major powers have been rising for the first time since the end of the Cold War:
Large-scale conflicts involving major powers such as the US, China, Russia are escalating, reversing the decline in conflicts between states witnessed after the Cold War ended.
The involvement of major powers in the wars in Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, etc. indicates how geopolitical interdependence is playing out through aligned military and funding support for combatants.
While countries depend on each other to break out of conflicts, it is not evident that external involvement helps achieve solutions more quickly or ends wars.
The document notes major powers' competing interests make cooperation limited on specific policy issues, evidenced in failures at international institutions where certain proposals have been tabled over the years to reform governance arrangements.
Growing strategic competition/distrust between the US, China and Russia complicates addressing shared global challenges through international cooperation including for providing global public goods.
So in summary, rising tensions among major powers are seen as complicating international collective action needed to manage global interdependence.
Managing interdependence
The document argues that fully retreating from or unwinding interdependence is not really an option, given the drivers that will persist well into the future, like:
The planetary challenges of the Anthropocene (climate change, pandemics, biodiversity loss) which transcend borders and require global cooperation.
Digital technologies and their intensifying global flows of data/information, reconfiguring economies.
Instead, the document emphasizes the need to embrace and manage interdependence better through:
Addressing drivers of the "globalization of discontent" like unequal distribution of costs/benefits.
Framing shared global challenges like climate change as opportunities for cooperation.
Providing global public goods to cooperatively manage interdependence in an equitable way.
Considering planetary public goods to navigate dangerous planetary changes.
Harnessing interdependence through digital technologies in ways benefiting all.
Renovating multilateral institutions and governance to better address 21st century challenges.
The focus is on managing interdependence positively through globally coordinated approaches and institutions, rather than attempting to withdraw from or contain interdependence through border controls.
Digitalization
The document does not provide extensive details on the effects of digitalization, but it does mention a few key points:
Digital technologies are reshaping global interdependence and economic flows in deep and ongoing ways that will persist far into the future.
They are intensifying existing cross-border flows of data, connectivity, and information in unprecedented ways that reconfigure economies.
If harnessed appropriately with policies supporting societies, digitalization has potential to help decarbonize economies and shift interdependence toward more sustainable patterns.
However, digitization may also disrupt labor markets and development prospects without adequate policies to manage the changes and ensure widespread benefits.
New forms of global connection and economic interaction enabled by digital technologies will persist and further embed global interdependence, requiring governance of issues like data and AI.
So in summary, while not the core focus, the document recognizes digitalization as a defining driver that is both intensifying interdependence but also could help transition relationships in a positive direction if harnessed cooperatively through globally coordinated efforts.
Global public goods
According to the document, global public goods are characterized as:
Anything - an object, action, inaction, idea - that when provided, everyone around the world can enjoy.
Non-exclusive, in that one person's use does not reduce availability to others.
Non-rival, meaning use by one does not reduce use by others.
Hard to exclude people from access and enjoyment.
Diverse - include both tangible outputs as well as intangibles like knowledge.
Can be provided fully with contributions from one country (best-shot) or cumulatively from multiple countries (summation).
Weakest-link type depends on the contribution of the least able country.
Examples discussed include climate change mitigation, pandemic control, open knowledge/ideas.
Providing them goes beyond making something available to devising ways for universal access and enjoyment.
Can be determined once provided, or purposefully established and made available by countries through coordination.
The document frames global public goods as pertaining to challenges of shared interest where approaches are needed to manage cross-border spillovers and interdependence.
Climate change as opportunity for cooperation
The document frames climate change as both a profound global challenge stemming from mismanaged interdependence, but also as an opportunity for cooperation. Some key points made:
Positive framing: Climate change mitigation reframed from an obligation to a technological opportunity, through clean energy innovation. This could help crowd in support.
Accelerating clean technologies shifts interdependence in a potentially positive direction, toward more digital, less emissions-intensive economies.
Very high and high HDI countries have made improvements to their HDI without increasing planetary pressures, showing decoupling is possible.
Framing climate action as providing best-shot global public goods like transformative clean technologies could mobilize cooperative ambition.
Emphasizing mutual benefits of climate solutions could help build support beyond those directly impacted.
Renewable energy "moonshots" have potential to inspire global cooperation the way Apollo program inspired collective will in 1960s.
The document suggests a positive vision highlighting shared interests and mutual benefits has potential to build momentum and catalyze collective action to scale, where a focus only on obligations fails. However, it acknowledges ongoing political challenges and uncertainties remain. Overall the assessment is that climate change can be repositioned from primarily an obligation to additionally an area of cooperative opportunity.
Renovating the multilateral institutions and governance
The document argues that renovating multilateral institutions and global governance is important to better manage evolving global interdependence in the 21st century. Some key points:
Current institutions reflect post-WWII power dynamics and global context, but the world has changed substantially.
Governance arrangements remain unrepresentative and face legitimacy challenges restricting cooperation.
Achieving development requires institutions aligned with expanding what we value in human development (beyond GDP/outcomes to include agency/freedoms).
Institutions have tools to foster cooperation (frame issues, aggregate actions, distribute burdens/benefits fairly).
Weak capacity to deliver planetary public goods for navigating the Anthropocene is a governance gap.
Financial architecture requires complement to traditional aid, supporting global public goods provision.
Digital technologies require discussion of appropriate governance for AI, data flows and new challenges.
Focus is shifting to "Beyond GDP" metrics and planetary/intergenerational thinking versus short-term growth.
The document argues reshaping multilateral cooperation based on an analysis of how interdependence is evolving could better promote managing global challenges through collective action.
"Beyond GDP" metrics and planetary/intergenerational thinking
According to the document:
"Beyond GDP" metrics refer to expanding what is valued in development beyond just economic growth indicators like GDP, to also include well-being achievements and other aspects like agency and freedoms.
This recognizes limitations of GDP/outcomes metrics alone in fully describing development progress in the 21st century context.
Planetary/intergenerational thinking acknowledges the interdependence between human societies and the planet, requiring consideration of longer term impacts on future generations from current actions.
It represents a shift from short-term growth priorities to accounting for effects on the biosphere that sustains all life and on what will be inherited by coming generations.
The document argues expanding metrics and perspectives in this way is important given:
Intensifying planetary challenges from human impacts like climate change in the Anthropocene epoch.
Recognition that development should increase capabilities, beyond production to well-being aspects like agency.
Emerging limitations of existing metrics to address new inequalities and uncertainties.
This framing helps reorient institutions to better reflect what humans truly value in development and guides transitioning to sustainability given global interdependence.
Key stakeholders affected
Policymakers and governments: The document evaluates how governments can better manage interdependence through global cooperation and public goods. It aims to inform policy approaches.
Researchers and analysts: The analysis advances understanding of evolving global interdependence and options to manage associated challenges.
Citizens globally: All people are affected by how global interdependence is shaped, through its impacts on things like conflicts, forced migration, climate change and pandemics.
Businesses: Firms are profoundly affected by policies governing global economic integration, flows of information, and sustainability transitions.
Evaluation:
The document takes a global perspective, seeking to understand interdependence comprehensively rather than privileging some stakeholders.
It identifies both opportunities and risks of interdependence, considering implications for well-being, agency and human security across groups.
By framing shared challenges rather than differences, it aims to inform cooperation among stakeholders with diverse interests and preferences.
However, it does not engage stakeholders directly, making the arguments and analysis but not consulting those affected.
On balance, while taking a balanced view, the analytical nature of the document means it informs but does not directly engage the range of stakeholders affected by choices on managing interdependence.
Evaluation of the situation
The document provides a generally positive evaluation of the current situation of global interdependence, while also highlighting some ongoing challenges:
Positive aspects:
Global interconnectedness through information, digital, economic and movement links remains high overall, despite slower trade/financial integration. This reflects the deep roots and persistence of global ties.
Economic interdependence remains at historically unprecedented levels, stabilizing after hyperglobalization, indicating integration is not unraveling.
Digital connectivity in particular continues intense growth, shrinking distances between places through real-time online collaboration and communication.
Challenging aspects:
Concentration in global supply chains increases vulnerabilities to disruptions from any one actor/region.
Anti-elite populism exploits discontent with uneven distribution of globalization gains.
Slowed trade and potential trade barriers may curb economic opportunities in some places.
Planetary changes like climate change intensify cross-border interdependencies and risks through pandemics, displacement and market/financial volatility.
Overall, while the deep roots and persistence of global ties are acknowledged, the document points to challenges from concentrated global risks and slow policy adaptation to emerging drivers of interdependence like the Anthropocene. On balance it depicts the situation as a complex mix of persistent global ties alongside destabilizing dynamics warranting better cooperation to manage.
Type of culture that would result from widespread adoption of the ideas
Globally cooperative/interdependent: By emphasizing shared global challenges and opportunities for partnership, it would foster a culture of cooperation between nations accustomed to seeing issues through an interdependent lens.
Forward-thinking and adaptive: Focusing on long-term sustainability, emerging trends and modernizing institutions promotes flexibility, innovation and preparedness for future changes.
Holistically prosperous: Broader view of development prioritizing well-being, freedoms and responsibility to future generations encourages fulfilling lives on a preserved planet.
Evidence-based and pragmatic: Relying on fact-driven analysis to find workable solutions rather than ideology encourages realism balanced with hope.
Collaborative problem-solving: Emphasis on managing interdependence cooperatively rather than confrontation fosters partnership on complex issues.
Respectful of complexity: Appreciation for multiple valid viewpoints and uncertainties reflects tolerance rather than simplistic thinking.
Responsible stewardship: Recognition of humanity's planetary impacts motivates ethical restraint and caretaking of shared natural resources.
Overall, this culture would be globally-minded, future-oriented, solutions-focused, empirically-grounded and driven more by cooperation than competition or unilateralism. It prioritizes sustainable prosperity through nuanced, collaborative problem-solving.
Key wisdoms reflected
Complex interdependence persists - Recognizing interdependence is multifaceted and not subject to simple containment reflects wisdom in understanding connectivity cannot be simplified.
Balance opportunities and risks - Weighing both positive and negative dynamics of globalization shows balanced, nuanced perspective over optimism or alarmism.
Frame shared interest not just obligations - Framing climate change cooperative opportunity, not just threat, recognizes appeal encouraging collective will.
Consider long-term and indirect impacts - Accounting for future generations and biosphere impacts displays forward-thinking about consequences beyond immediate horizon.
Innovate cooperative solutions - Solutions-focused angle on managing interdependence through cooperation rather than conflict reflects practical problem-solving approach.
Represent multiplicity of human development - Holistic perspective on development beyond GDP acknowledges diversity of what progress means.
Embrace change and evolution - Recognizing dynamics evolve and institutions require renovation to remain relevant rather than resist all change.
Overall, the document demonstrates practical wisdom through its balanced, nuanced and adaptive understanding of globalization - recognizing complexity rather than oversimplification, considering multiple perspectives and long-term impacts, and seeking cooperative solutions through principled yet flexible representation of shared challenges.
Quality of reason
The document presents a logical and evidence-based argument for its main conclusions regarding the nature and drivers of global interdependence. Some strengths in the quality of reasoning include:
It clearly outlines the empirical evidence supporting key claims about the persistence of various dimensions of global ties despite a slowdown in some aspects of economic integration. References credible data sources.
Provides theoretical framing around concepts like the Anthropocene to help contextualize evidence and root conclusions in a deeper understanding of dynamics.
Uses multiple examples and case studies to illustrate broader arguments, giving a sense of concrete real-world impacts.
Qualifies some conclusions by noting uncertainty in aspects or acknowledging contradictory evidence, showing nuanced consideration of different perspectives.
Logically draws out implications of evidence presented for how global challenges should be approached going forward.
References other research and literature to supplement analysis and situate within peer-reviewed discourse.
Potential weaknesses are relatively minor, such as not always explicitly stating assumptions underlying some conclusions. But on the whole the quality of reasoning is strong, leveraging empirical observations and logical argumentation to build and support its primary thesis. While individual claims could spur constructive debate, the overall case presented is evidence-based and cogently argued.
Evaluation of potential biases
Ideological/country bias: The analysis takes a relatively impartial, global perspective without undue focus on any one nation, ideology or set of interests.
Confirmation bias: Multiple forms of evidence and perspectives are considered. While certainly aiming to support its central thesis, the assessment does not ignore contradictory evidence.
Financial bias: No direct financial interests are apparent that could bias shaping of arguments. The analysis is presented in academic/informative tone.
Selection bias: A wide range of perspectives on globalization are discussed, not just those fitting a certain viewpoint. The framing acknowledges both opportunities and risks of interdependence.
Anthropic bias: Planetary impacts are given due considerations alongside human-centric factors like economics, showing no bias ignoring environmental dimensions.
Optimism bias: Both positive and negative dynamics of interdependence trends are weighed without just optimism or pessimism about the future state of global ties.
Overall, while any analysis inevitably reflects some viewpoints, I did not find strong evidence of systematic biases skewing the framing, fact-selection or conclusions in ways that would seriously undermine the credibility of the arguments presented. The analysis takes a balanced, evidence-based approach.
Key criteria for evaluating analytical genres and assessment of how this document meets each criterion
Thesis/central argument: The document clearly establishes its central argument that global interdependence persists despite a slowdown in economic integration, and is being reshaped by planetary change and digital technologies.
Evidence/reasoning: The analysis provides empirical evidence and logical reasoning to substantiate its claims about the persistence and reshaping of interdependence.
Objectivity: The tone is reasonably objective without emotive language, focusing on presenting arguments over narrative.
Contextualization: Issues are framed within discussion of macro trends and drivers like the Anthropocene and Digital Revolution.
Implications: The chapter draws implications about better managing interdependence through a global public goods lens.
Referencing: Arguments build on cited research, statistics, concepts from other sources to support points.
Overall, the document performs well against standard evaluation criteria for analytical genres. Its clear thesis, evidence-based reasoning, objective tone and contextual framing, implications drawn, and references used suggest it achieves its aim of analytically examining and explaining dynamics of global interdependence.
0 notes
geopoliticalmatters · 7 months
Text
0 notes
Photo
Tumblr media
Are the EU-Latin America Trade Agreements politcally high-impact proof? While raw materials, fossil fuels and natural resources, the environment and nature still have their importance as political flashpoints, the leading global and regional powers are currently engaged in an increasingly tough technological race as well as a network and cyber dispute. Future disputes will increasingly be conducted digitally: The disputes will be about supremacy in key technologies: decarbonization, digitalization, digital weapon systems, blockchain, cloud computing, cyber security, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT). Lecture by Dr. Emilio Astuto. VHS Olm / Aschheim, November 9th, 2022. TFF!
0 notes
nasmu · 2 years
Text
Where are the new dynamos?
Where are the new dynamos?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nikkeiasia_rival-trade-blocs-would-lead-to-huge-global-activity-6988650308222484480-MvO7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
columboscreens · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
57 notes · View notes
kajmasterclass · 1 month
Text
youtube
0 notes
argumate · 2 months
Text
Expert policy-makers in Western capitals feel that they have to make a response to major historic challenges like climate or the rise of China, or South Africa’s energy crisis. It is their job to look to the future and to devise at least purportedly rational strategies of power. But those who make policy on such matters as sustainable development do not hold the purse-strings and have limited capacity to shift budget-constraints. Those that do set budgets, either do not care about broader global issues, prefer other tools for affecting those goals - such as military power - or are revenue constrained and unwilling to levy more revenue from their constituents for the far-flung goals favored by the policy-making elite.
There is thus never “enough money” for the softer and more complex dimensions of development and global policy. But, despite these all too obvious limitations, the policy-machine grinds on. Faut de mieux those tasked with geoeconomic policy and sustainable development cooperate to come up with programs like JET-P. The policies tick all the boxes as far as sophistication of design and conception. Powerful interests - notably high-finance - ensure that they are arranged, at least notionally, so as to offer derisking and to promote the vision of public-private partnership. The promise of “mobilizing” private money helps to paper over the lack of solid public funding.
But despite all the self-interested engagement by private finance, the fiscal constraint remains paramount. The forces interested in global development are not as powerfully engaged as they are around the military-industrial complex, oil and gas or the Wall Street nexus. The result are ambitious and professionally designed policies that whip up waves of enthusiasm in the ranks of analysts, think tanks, NGOs, pundits, but which have no prospect of materially affecting reality either with regard to the announced policy objective or the profit opportunities of Western capital.
From experience since 2021 the conclusion we must surely draw is that the one interest that such policies undeniably serve is the perpetuation of the policy circuit. Practical effectiveness is not necessarily the main driver of policy-generation. Indeed, failure may be productive in generating new policy. This not only perpetuates the machinery of policy-making. More importantly it contributes to the generation of a “state effect” - the US has a policy for x,y,z. It sustains the common sense that the world is governed and that “governance” is in some sense a coherent process.
brutal
56 notes · View notes
businessstrategist · 3 days
Text
China overcapacity, why the fuss now?
In a recent statement Janet Yellen US Treasury Secretary upbraided China for her over capacity and her efforts to export the surplus to the global markets including America. But there are lot of things, than that meets the eye. Read for more:
0 notes
grendelsmilf · 1 year
Note
Have you heard that is going to be a new avatar series, post-korra? Not sure how i feel about that, I guess it depends who’s involved, because the books have been good, but if they try to make it even more modern than korra it’s probably going to backfire
ugh, yes. really not looking forward to this. or the “adult gaang” movie. or the netflix live action. i like the novels because they do a good job of fleshing out the worldbuilding through past avatars (seeing, for example, a fire nation pre-sozin, air nomads pre-genocide, the geoeconomic conditions that led to the north/south pole divide, the way internal earth kingdom politics affected all nations, the ripple effects how the spirits were affected by human choices, etc.) but it’s clear that they have no idea how to handle the politics of their world in a post-atla-finale landscape.
the comics are godawful, and of course lok is a political dumpster fire. i really see no way for them to make a show about an avatar post-korra because it would simply highlight and exacerbate the problems they established with lok, namely the facts that they don’t know how to “modernize” the world they created without westernizing it, all the radical anti-imperialist politics of atla being replaced with pro-colonial centrist copaganda, the bizarre developments with the spirit world, and the fact that atla specifically works as a standalone story in the first place so trying to expand on it in any way shape or form beyond the timeline of the show’s finale simply doesn’t work!
i wouldn’t mind if they made more content about past avatars (because again, i like the novels!) but it’s clear they have no idea how to handle their postwar future. i don’t want to see the gaang as adults! considering we know how they turned out in lok (zuko maintaining a colonial presence in the earth kingdom, toph becoming a cop, aang and katara nuclear family, etc etc) that sounds depressing as fuck! i don’t want to see an avatar after korra in some bizarre attempt at a “modern” world.
even if the writers on these projects do truly understand the ethos of the show, these characters, the themes that made atla work in the first place, they’ve written themselves into a corner with what they already established in lok. it shows with faith erin hicks’s attempt to salvage the comics. she is good at writing these characters and this world, and yet she still has to abide by the worldbuilding established by the godawful gene yang comics on one end of the timeline and the lok world on the other, so she’s severely limited by what she can write about in a way that doesn’t contradict “canon” (in quotes because i refuse to abide by it lol).
if avatar studios really wanted to expand their franchise without taking a big fat shit on atla’s legacy, they would make media expanding on tangential lore that people care about, like a kyoshi warriors spinoff series, or a kanna bildungsroman (just as examples). it’s clear they don’t know what they’re doing, so i have absolutely no faith in them. that said, hire me bryke you need me
265 notes · View notes
crisalidaseason · 2 years
Note
which subjects in school would be aot characters favourites?
Umm let's go!
AOT characters favorite school subjects
Eren
Honestly, his favorite subject would be anything he's excelling at the moment. That man probably has ADHD so he cannot focus in one thing for that long. But if he had to choose he would pick Sociology.
Mikasa
I think she would be good at everything, but absolutely hate school subjects. She's like "I'm only here because I need, but everything I learned is useless". The only subject she likes a bit more is Physical Education.
Armin
Complicated. He would be good at everything either! But he also values every subject as important. If he had to choose it would be Literature and sometimes Science/Biology.
Jean
My man is a filosophy lover and he would be so freaking smart about it. If the teacher isn't nice or good, the students would definitely ask Jean to help them.
Connie
Math. If jean loves filosophy, he needs a friend that is crazy enough to genuinely like math. And Connie is really good at it.
Sasha
I think she would love Biology, specially field classes and sanctuary/zoo visits.
Historia
She's a history girl. She would specially love ancient history and develop a cute love for archeology later on.
Ymir
Art. She doesn't like any school subjects besides art. In my mind, she's good at everything art related but enjoys sculpting and clay modeling the most.
Hange
Chemistry. They are completely nuts! Chemistry is their life and reason to live. Knows everything and teaches people how to make homemade explosives.
Levi
Hates absolutely everything, but tolerates English.
Erwin
Sociology man too. He would love history and filosophy too though.
Annie
I think she wouldn't like a specific subject, but maybe she has a soft spot for P.E (she is definetly an athletic girl) and Physics (I know, terrifying, just like her).
Bertholdt (bertolt? bertoldt? idk)
He would be into Geography, specially Geopolitics and Geoeconomics.
Reiner
Chemistry kind of guy, wanna be Walter White. Definetly too interested in making some sort of drugs.
Porco
Lunch time, that's it. He only wants lunch time.
Pieck
Sleep time. Porco and her share one braincell that's contantly hungry or sleepy. Kidding, she would be into either music or art (maybe play the piano? do a little painting?)
Colt
My man is average in everything, I don't think he has a favorite subject, but would love to have higiene and basic care classes (so he can take care of our children)
Zeke
Baseball, only thing that smelly monkey cares about (oh, besides abortion and eugenics, he would be a blast to have in sociology class)
I am sure I must have forgotten someone, but tell me which character you'd like me to talk about!
94 notes · View notes
hondayota · 7 months
Text
i typed yeowch and my phone tried to autocorrect to geoeconomics
4 notes · View notes
eelhound · 11 months
Text
"[Van] Jackson 
Since the 1970s, America had repeated military buildups in response to perceived threats. Whether it’s the Soviet military buildup, or the War on Terror, there have been multiple periods where we do these large-scale buildups. This is why America’s military is so ginormous. We have done that under conditions where we don’t raise taxes in four different instances since the 1970s, and because we don’t raise taxes and spend so much on the military, we have to bring in large amounts of foreign capital to finance it. And so, you create global imbalances when you’re the giant sucking machine sucking foreign capital into your economy.
The result of that is not just global imbalances, which produce things like the Asian financial crisis, but it also produces imbalances in our own economy, too. It creates real estate bubbles. So, this is a giant volatility machine to the global economic order and the financial pipes that bring the capital to us. We know it’s a giant volatility machine. It’s driven by high risk financial instruments and speculation, and all of this is pretty destabilizing, in a financial and creating bubbles sense, but it also creates a system where all of these developing economies in Asia have to suppress labor rights to be competitive in the export market because their models of development rely on exports. This system that we perpetuate in the name of supporting military primacy, and military primacy is supposed to in turn support the system, prevents domestic redistribution and balanced capital labor relations in these other Asian economies and countries.
And so, not only are we creating conditions where labor rights get repressed, and imbalances in other countries, it creates systems of kleptocracy and oligarchy, which is rampant in Asia — not everywhere, but it’s pretty prominent. It’s structural violence, and structural violence is what gives way to greater political insecurity, and makes countries need Chinese capital. Chinese capital spreading around Asia is one of the things American foreign policy is so worried about, but we’re creating conditions that we don’t like, and then we do things that worsen those conditions.
[Nathan J.] Robinson 
Yes, it seems ultimately kind of self-defeating, even though we might say that what lies beneath the rhetoric of freedom and openness is the desire to pursue dominance and hegemony, or what the U.S. would call 'U.S. interests.' Ultimately, I think one of the conclusions of your work is that our current approach is not actually leading towards a world where the United States gets everything it wants, but, in fact, is putting not only other people but also ourselves in quite a bit of danger. 
Jackson 
Yes, the thing that Washington has to wake up to, and that I’m worried that it will not because it has incentives not to, is that the requirements of peace and primacy are deeply at odds with each other. Peace requires a certain degree of economic interdependence, regional cohesion, inclusivity in various ways, and above all, military restraint. Primacy requires the opposite of all of that. It requires the formation of rivalry and geoeconomic blocs. It requires containment against your rising rival, arms racing, and weapons proliferation.
It’s patently obvious that by pursuing primacy, we’re making ourselves the enemy of what remains of the Asian peace. It’s that insistence on primacy, coated rhetorically as openness, that is undermining the sources of the Asian peace. The preservation of stability the past 44 years is something that we somewhat take for granted in Washington, and we shouldn’t because it’s eroding rapidly, and Trump was simply a very vibrant data point along a larger trend line. And so, we’re not on a good track."
- Van Jackson being interviewed by Nathan J. Robinson, from "Why This Foreign Policy Expert Thinks Americans Dangerously Misunderstand China." Current Affairs, 16 May 2023.
9 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
What is the Perspective of the Controversial Investment Agreement that the EU and the People's Republic of China concluded in January 2021 and the COSCO-HHLA Financial Participation Deal of October 26th, 2022? Lecture by Dr. Emilio Astuto. VHS Germering, November 2nd, 2022. TFF!
0 notes