The post-Western World?

Op-Ed Columnist - Gone, Solid Gone - NYTimes.com: "The Obama presidency has been a shock to Europe. At heart, Obama is not a Westerner, not an Atlanticist. He grew up partly in Indonesia and partly in Hawaii, which is about as far from the East Coast as you can get in the United States. “He’s very much a member of the post-Western world,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund."

First Fareed Zakaria discuss the post-American World and now Roger Cohen puts the post-Western World on the table for size. Follow the money and all is going to be well? Allow me, to doubt this. Not this time. First of all, this is the last shift of development that takes place and it is already possible to extrapolate the result. Europe wants to build a better society built on Western lore. A more humane society? It might still be that the last shift is a too tall order. Alternatively it might be the next Roman Empire that is forming as a Japanese fellow suggested a while ago when there was a discussion of an Asian Union. Too many people under one flag is my humble prediction.

Cohen's pragmatist President is actually making an attempt to humanize America with the Healthcare bill. Does that actually make him Eastern or European? Obama has recently even put aside the job question for the benefit of health to the dismay of many even if it rather the market that is going to fix jobs, not the government. Maybe he knows his place. Healthcare is more governmental than unemployment. At least in countries where healthcare is a right. There are more sick people than unemployed.

In, Europe, however, a new discussion was started, and as a response to the Asian build-up, there will probably be more of it: sustainability. If you live in Sweden, it is even more so. The Green party is the only one that is making some significant progress. In America there is no Green Party. There is Al Gore but many tend to make fun of him. I learned two things following the Copenhagen conference last fall. America and China are locked in a fight that will hamper their sustainability nerve. Europe is in a different box than these two combatants. However, China is expected to win the battle on green technology which perhaps is going to make it possible for them to develop without suffocating.

The Wild East?

Op-Ed Columnist - A Word From the Wise - NYTimes.com: "Does the Obama team get it? Otellini compared the Obama administration to a “diode” — an electronic device that conducts electric current in only one direction. They are very good at listening to Silicon Valley, he said, but not so good at responding."

Thomas L. Friedman brings up the question of who is in charge in the US--Multinationals or the Government. But what about if the Multinationals are doing business on what could be called enemy soil? Does the lower cost initially encountered become more expensive later on?

I remember reading in The Economist about an investor that came to China with a $450m investment in a car part factory. What happened was that the Chinese were siphoning off know-how and money to start a competing factory down the river. The "illegal" competition won out and the original factory had to close. The investor that had dealt with money other than his own ended up losing all the money. He apparently wrote a book about his endeavour. I wonder if the risks in China are still that high?

An amateur investigator of globalism wonders if it is possible to control your investments in Asia or if you simply are moving civilization over there? Are we closing shop and leaving everything to the Asians? In that case I, for one, would prefer to have a little less growth and develop our civilization further were we currently are instead.