THE CHINESE HYPOTHESIS
We are on the anniversary of the birth of the People's Republic of China, the formerly called sleeping giant, becoming the largest lender to the United States and the bride that all European countries with liquidity problems are pursuing.
The Chinese economy between 1979 and 2004 grew at an average of 9.6 percent per year, and at this moment despite global uncertainties they continue with unstoppable progress, and together with India and Brazil they are among the few that are growing in an evident sustained manner, which is not the same as sustainable.
The changes in the global economy that are ravaging Europe and most citizens in the United States make no dent in a country that feeds on the weaknesses of the system, European social protection, and investor sensitivity to risks. A simple analysis of its capacity to introduce itself into the world economy reveals that it owes its power to having been able to impose its own commercial philosophy, since it is not China that adapts, it is the rest of the world that becomes Chinese.
Now we hear talk of cuts to the welfare state in Europe, social benefits, wages, etc. At the same time we are beginning to hear news of Chinese workers demanding social and economic improvements. To give an example, a worker in a Chinese factory supplying Nike would have to work 4,500 years at his current salary to earn as much as Mark Parker, the director of the famous multinational in 2006, and that's without counting that they don't count overtime hours and they work many hours, many more than a worker does anywhere in Europe, a fitting expression that of "working like the Chinese."
I don't believe I'm mistaken if I point out that within a globalized future such as the one that awaits us there will be a tendency toward a middle point between the Chinese "union" conditions and the state of social "welfare" in the West, and all this undoubtedly due to the control and direction of those who control the globalized economy, of course and as has been increasingly demonstrated lately we are not referring to the political class and it occurs to me to propose this hypothesis:
A globalized economy but poorly distributed among countries, some very rich and others very poor, has limited economic potential. Its limits are the purchasing power of its inhabitants and their quantity. One part of the world working for the other yields a sum less than both combined. Production and cost move in parallel.
Now imagine that European purchasing power drops, which is beginning to happen, and Chinese, Brazilian, and Indian purchasing power rises, which is beginning to happen. At that moment we will have a much broader market, more efficient productivity for large companies and above all a much more important level of influence and control, and that translates to much more power for mega companies and those who sustain them, undoubtedly the investors, the big investors who are ultimately setting the political and social tone in Europe through the stock markets, and who are precisely capable of influencing the events that are transforming the European economy by undermining the markets.
Therefore, the growth of the Chinese economy is a value for large companies that view it as an opportunity, benefiting the Chinese country which in turn is becoming the world reference point. Europe may be relegated to a territory with a large historical base of medium-grade consumers but without effective economic power for the population, with morale frustrated by debt, and the United States could tend to become the most important military ally of the Asian country. WE SHALL SEE.