THE NEW WORLD ORDER is simply returning to those societal structures existing two thousand years ago---that is why we call it MOVING FORWARD BACK TO THE DARK AGES. These Asian leaders were happy to help US/UK leaders bring the American people and their wealth down to achieve MOVING FORWARD because they want to return to that same GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% BEING EXTREMELY WEALTHY AND 99% BEING EXTREMELY IMPOVERISHED AND ENSLAVED. The global 99% are that ENEMY OF MY ENEMY for the global 1%--
JOINING TO KEEP THE GLOBAL 99% UNSTABLE AND POOR---THESE GLOBAL 1% WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO KEEP AND GAIN THE OTHER'S WEALTH
'It’s also important to keep in mind that since China holds such a large position in U.S. debt, the nation has a vested interest in maintaining the health of the Treasury market. Naturally, this provides ample motivation for China to avoid any action that would cause Treasury prices to plunge'.
'The bottom line: the soaring level of U.S. debt is problematic, and to many citizens, the high percentage of Treasuries now owned by a rising economic rival is even more troublesome'.
No one knows better than the global investors in US Treasury bonds that the goal is imploding the US economy and killing the US DOLLAR.
How Much U.S. Debt Does China Own?
By Thomas Kenny
Updated November 06, 2016
China's Large Position in U.S. Treasuries
The United States’ debt load has risen substantially since the start of the millennium raising concerns about the country’s long-term financial health. But who owns all of this debt? A nation’s debt is, after all, the total of bonds that the country has issued. Given the size of the U.S. debt – $17.6 trillion as of June 30, 2014 - it should come as no surprise that the largest investors in U.S. Treasuries are other governments and central banks.
China, which owned an estimated $1.268 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, is the number-one investor among foreign governments, according to the June 2014 figures released by the U.S. Treasury. This amounts to over 21% of the U.S. debt held overseas and about 7.2% of the United States’ total debt load.
Why These Big Numbers Aren't Necessarily a Problem
There are two reasons why China’s huge investment in U.S. government bonds has stirred controversy in recent years.
First, if the country stops buying or elects to sell even a small portion of its position, Treasury prices would fall and yields would rise. The result of higher rates, in turn, would likely be slower economic growth and higher borrowing costs for the U.S. government.
Second, China’s huge Treasury position is seen as leaving the United States economically vulnerable to the decisions of a foreign government.
That may seem like a potential danger until you consider why China is buying so much U.S. debt. The reason is highly technical in nature, but the short answer is that China is buying Treasuries to help depress the value of its currency (the yuan). A cheaper yuan makes the country's exports less expensive for foreign buyers, thereby keeping the country’s export-based economy chugging along.
Consequently, the Chinese economy would suffer as much, if not more than, that of the United States if China were to suddenly stop buying U.S. debt.
It’s also important to keep in mind that since China holds such a large position in U.S. debt, the nation has a vested interest in maintaining the health of the Treasury market. Naturally, this provides ample motivation for China to avoid any action that would cause Treasury prices to plunge.
Having said that, China did utilize its large position in Japanese government bonds to influence discussions surrounding Japan's purchase of disputed islands during September 2012. In addition, the Chinese government felt compelled to comment on the U.S. debt ceiling debate in October 2013. With under two weeks to go until the United States would have exceeded the limit, thus raising the possibility of a default, China's Vice Foreign Minister, Zhu Guangyao, warned U.S. politicians that "the clock is ticking" and said, “We ask that the United States earnestly takes steps to resolve in a timely way the political issues around the debt ceiling and prevent a U.S. debt default to ensure the safety of Chinese investments in the United States.” This helps demonstrate that China may indeed try to influence the course of events in the United States when it feels its interests are threatened.
What if China is Forced to Stop Buying U.S. Treasuries?
One aspect of China's economy argues against its being able to invest as much in Treasuries as it did in the 1990s and 2000s. For years, China generated a massive amount of dollar earnings by virtue of its trade surplus with the United States. These dollars need to be invested somewhere, and the U.S. Treasury market – due to its enormous size – was one of the few places that China could recycle its surplus greenbacks without disrupting the market. Today, however, China's trade surplus is shrinking – and that means fewer dollars to invest in Treasuries.
Don't Overemphasize Global Trends
The bottom line: the soaring level of U.S. debt is problematic, and to many citizens, the high percentage of Treasuries now owned by a rising economic rival is even more troublesome.
While there is little reason to expect that China will engage in any actions that would amount to economic warfare, it may nonetheless be compelled to buy fewer Treasuries due to its decreasing trade surplus.
That said, individual investors are always better served by constructing their bond portfolios based on their own specific situation rather than news headlines or broader global trends.
TPP designed by far-right wing global Wall Street is controlled by BUSH neo-conservatives and continued by Clinton neo-liberals-----OBAMA AS BUSH CHAMPIONED TPP. What TPP tries to do is bring Asian nations tied to several decades of Foreign Economic development to these ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE structures isolating the large economies like Russia, China, India, and Brazil----see why BRICS was created! The leaders in smaller nations like Brunei, Chile, Peru, Singapor, Vietnam are only billionaires because global Wall Street made them extremely rich. If a China, India, Brazil, Russia takes over these small nations these leaders would simply be that 99%. As Western nations are taken down to third world ancient regime structures with MOVING FORWARD FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIAN MARXISM----these nations will sit back and watch trying to secure its trade routes and empire.
Canada, New Zealand, US, UK, and Europe are all captured by OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE as too Chile, Brazil, and Peru-----remember, the North and South America's are simply the same OLD WORLD COLONIES to those OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1%!
While China supported the global 1% Wall Street in keeping its 99% impoverished and enslaved----it will be maneuvering to bring the Koreas, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, AND Japan into as ASIAN TRADE ECONOMY and likely will. Does global Wall Street know this?
OF COURSE---THEY WERE JUST USING THESE ASIAN NATIONS TO EXPAND EMPIRE AND WEALTH.
'The countries currently party to the agreement — currently including Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, most critically Japan and potentially Korea '
The global 1% are simply rebuilding that OLD WORLD TRADE ROUTE structure with North and South America being made colonial city states tied to global corporate tribunal rule.
Is Trump throwing those small Asian and Latin American nations having been reliable Foreign Economic Zones these several decades UNDER THE BUS? We can be sure CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were tied to that OLD WORLD MERCHANT GLOBAL 1%-----
Everything you need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership
By Lydia DePillis December 11, 2013
Play Video 1:18
Brockell/Photo: ERIK S. LESSER/The Washington Post)
If you're just now hearing about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, don't worry: It's not too late to get up to speed. Negotiations over the huge trade agreement — which, when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S.' imports and exports — were supposed to wrap up this past weekend in Singapore, but, well, they didn't quite make that deadline, which means meetings will likely continue into the new year.
You'd also be forgiven for not hearing about it: The talks, as with all trade agreements, have been conducted largely in secret. Global health advocates, environmentalists, Internet activists and trade unions have deep concerns about what the deal might contain, and are making as much noise as possible in order to influence negotiations before a final version becomes public. Here's what you need to know.
1. What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Basically, it's a giant free trade deal between the U.S., Canada, and 10 countries in the Asia-Pacific region that's been under negotiation for nearly a decade now (it began as an agreement between Singapore, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei before the U.S. took the lead in 2009). It's expected to eliminate tariffs on goods and services, tear down a host of non-tariff barriers and harmonize all sorts of regulations when it's finished early next year.
2. Giant, huh? How giant?
The countries currently party to the agreement — currently including Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, most critically Japan and potentially Korea — are some of the U.S.' biggest and fastest-growing commercial partners, accounting for $1.5 trillion worth of trade in goods in 2012 and $242 billion worth of services in 2011. They're responsible for 40 percent of the world's GDP and 26 percent of the world's trade. That makes it roughly the same size as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, another huge trade agreement that got rolling this past summer. The hope is that more countries in the region will join down the line.
As we read national media describe US-China relations in South China Sea we can see where these Asian alliances are falling back to a consolidated Asian trade economy. All those small Asian nations used by global Wall Street as Foreign Economic Zones creating a super-rich global 1% in Asia are now folding back into centralized control and their own ASIAN TRADE ROUTES.
While OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE/ROMAN EMPIRE make economic colonies of North and South America-----the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF ASIAN EMPIRE are consolidating what are Asian nations into colonies. Each US CITY AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE will be an independent economic colony ruled by that global corporate tribunal. The boundaries between South America, Central America, US, and Canada are slated to disappear as the Foreign Economic Zones in these regions also fall under that same global corporate tribunal rule.
WE THE PEOPLE will return to being OLD WORLD COLONISTS as too the global citizens in nations surrounding China.
Why Did China's Navy Gain Use of a Malaysia Port Near the South China Sea?
The recent move needs to be put in proper perspective.
By Prashanth Parameswaran
November 24, 2015
Over the past few days, some alarmist reports have surfaced about Chinese navy receiving access to a Malaysian port near the South China Sea. As is the case with much sensationalist reporting, caution is warranted and perspective is needed.
The brouhaha can be traced back to an agreement reached on November 10 between Admiral Wu Shengli, the commander of the People’s Liberation Army – Navy (PLAN), and Admiral Abdul Aziz Jaafar who until last week was the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) chief. Wu was leading a goodwill visit by a 12-member Chinese military delegation to Malaysia as part of a broader three-nation visit which also included Indonesia and the Maldives. The trip itself was significant: as Abdul Aziz noted, it was the first ever-visit by a PLAN commander to Malaysia.
Few specifics have been made publicly available about the pact itself. But Malaysian media reports indicate that an agreement was made by the two sides to give China stopover access to the port of Kota Kinabalu to strengthen defense ties between both countries.
First, it is important to stress that this kind of port access is a pretty routine affair. In general, allowing a ship to dock at a port for a break to load or unload, obtain supplies, or undergo repairs is a fairly standard process. The idea of Chinese ships at Kota Kinabalu is also not new. Back in August 2013, the Zhenghe, a PLAN training vessel, had already docked at the harbor in Kota Kinabalu to begin a five-day goodwill visit to the country. So, if anything, the agreement represents the formalization of access rather than some sort of groundbreaking entry.
Second, such port access is not equivalent to basing rights, contrary to what some reports have suggested. An access agreement would allow the Chinese navy to dock for a break in Kota Kinabalu for the various reasons cited above – nothing more. Equating this as part of some Chinese ‘basing strategy’ is rather dubious. In addition to being out of step with Malaysian foreign policy which avoids too close of an alignment with any major power, it would also be a tad bit strange to allow a foreign country who has outstanding disputes with Malaysia to have a base there since Kota Kinabalu also houses Malaysia’s regional naval headquarters and the country’s submarine base (See: “Malaysia Eyes Submarine Base Expansion Near South China Sea”).
Third, this port access is not something that has only been given to China. As Abdul Aziz, the then-Malaysian naval chief, emphasized to Malaysia’s national news agency Bernama, a number of other countries including the United States and France have already previously docked in the Malaysian port. In fact, before conducting the recent U.S. freedom of navigation operation within 12 nautical miles of one of China’s controversial man-made islands in the South China Sea on October 27, the USS Lassen had docked in Kota Kinabalu for a regular port visit on October 19 after a routine South China Sea patrol.
How, then, should we read Malaysia’s granting of port access to China? According to Abdul Aziz himself, the move was part of a broader effort to enhance defense relations between the two countries’ navies to “overcome problems and issues relating to overlapping border claims.” He was no doubt referring to the South China Sea disputes, in which both China and Malaysia are claimants.
His comments are consistent with Malaysia’s broader approach to China and the South China Sea, which I have explored in detail previously (See: “Malaysia’s South China Sea Approach: Playing it Safe”). Despite bolder and more frequent Chinese incursions into its waters and some adjustments, Malaysia is determined to manage the South China Sea dispute while keeping its overall relationship with China intact, including in the defense realm (See: “How is Malaysia Responding to China’s South China Sea Intrusion?”). Just last year, Malaysia and China carried out their first ever joint military exercise (See: “Malaysia, China Begin First Joint Military Exercise”). That was expanded significantly this year (See: “China, Malaysia to Hold First Ever Joint Live Troop Exercise”).
In that vein, the aim of granting port access to countries including China, a Malaysian official familiar with the matter told The Diplomat, is meant to function more as a confidence-building measure amid outstanding disputes. Abdul Aziz himself spelled out how this might work, noting that allowing Beijing such access would also provide an opportunity to learn from Chinese methods of operation and about Chinese submarines that could be docking there. This, he said, was in line with the government’s aspiration to adopt the best solution to secure peace and security in the South China Sea. While one might not be convinced about the wisdom of such an approach, it is nonetheless one Malaysia has chosen to adopt.
What’s in it for China?
First, there is no doubt that having access to more ports in strategic locations is good for any nation because they can serve as supply stops along the way. Second, the Malaysian official also noted that for Beijing, symbolically such an agreement does put it on par with Washington in terms of the access to the port and its strategic presence in those waters more generally.
Third, it could also provide Beijing with an opportunity to shore up its image, consistent with the confidence-building motive on Malaysia’s end. In addition to serving as breaks for ships and sailors, port visits have long functioned as a confidence-building measure to boost familiarity. For instance, when the USS Lassen recently docked in Kota Kinabalu, sailors participated in cultural tours around the area while local dignitaries were given guided tours of the ship.
China already sees its naval presence as a ‘soft power’ instrument, which is why it is misleading to only focus on the military aspects of Beijing’s moves. It is no coincidence that these two Chinese naval goodwill visits in 2013 and 2015 occurred prior to Chinese leaders’ visits to Malaysia, or that Beijing has emphasized Zheng He’s voyages in the 15th century during the Ming Dynasty in both cases (Zhenghe, the PLA training vessel, docking in Kota Kinabalu in 2013 before Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit, and Chinese premier Li Keqiang visiting the Zheng He Museum in Malacca during his recent visit).
For China, Zheng’s legendary seven voyages of trade and discovery are testaments to Beijing’s benign intentions toward its neighbors, and Malaysia – where he is believed to have visited at least five times – is a perfect place to illustrate this. “Today, when we look back at that past episode in China-Malaysia exchanges, we also admire Zheng He for what he had not done,” Li wrote in an op-ed published November 20 in major Malaysian newspapers ahead of his visit, noting that Zheng He had not plundered or colonized despite commanding what was then the most powerful fleet in the world.
There is substance behind that symbolism too. Among the deliverables that Li’s visit produced were the establishment of a port alliance between China and Malaysia. The two countries have already seen several of their ports ink cooperation agreements with each other as well as the appointment of a special envoy for Malaysian ports to China in recognition of the promise of the Maritime Silk Road. All this is to emphasize that for Beijing as well as Kuala Lumpur, ports hold much more than just military significance.
For now, Abdul Aziz told The Straits Times that with respect to the port access agreement, the PLA Navy “has noted the offer, but no indication yet” has been given on when it may begin to dock at Kota Kinabalu. When it begins to do so, it will be important to keep its significance in perspective.
Global Wall Street being far-right extreme wealth and extreme poverty see Singapore and China as the societal structure a colonial US re-industrialization would take. Global Wall Street is moving out of ASIAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and MOVING FORWARD to colonizing Africa and US with what used to be global corporate campuses and global factories in these ASIAN NATIONS. Global Wall Street and the global 1% of Asian nations are not fighting over these transitions----it was designed several decades ago when Asian Foreign Economic Zone policies were developed. This is why US cities having US manufacturing moving overseas were allowed to simply DECAY AND REMAIN STAGNANT instead of rebuilding US city local economies. There is no tension between US, UK, European global 1% and these Asian global 1% MOVING FORWARD NEW WORLD ORDER.
Now, are the 1% inside each of these small Asian nations feeling tension? You betcha---just as in US that pesky 5% to the 1% are getting ready to be thrown under the bus.
THE SOCIETAL TENSIONS OCCURRING IN THE NEXT DECADE OR TWO WILL BE INTERNAL AS THAT PESKY 5% AND THAT 2% ARE THROWN UNDER THE BUS.
China wants to turn Singapore into its mouthpiece
Bloomberg News reported on 1 Dec some comments by Bilahari Kausikan on the recent spat between China and Singapore.
“This is not the first time Singapore ships equipment from Taiwan through Hong Kong,” said Bilahari Kausikan, an ambassador-at-large for Singapore. The fact this particular consignment was picked up shows China wants to “send a signal
not only to us, but to all” Southeast Asian nations. China’s long-term strategy is to turn Singapore into an ally and “mouthpiece” for its positions, he said.
I am not sure whether Bilahari said the above in the capacity of an ambassador or as an ordinary citizen. The comments are likely to irk China again and may draw some flakes. At this point in time, with the heat still on, Singapore officials especially diplomats and ambassadors should be more careful in what they said. Maybe there is already an official position to take.
There are two schools of thought on this. The more garang and brave group that could not understand the meaning of ‘牛存不示虎’, literary translated as little calf did not know what is a tiger, would be egging the govt to be strong, to stand up, look China into the eyes, to tell China we cannot be bullied. The more mature and sensible group would recommend not to aggravate the situation by talking cock, oops, I mean talking tough. Talk reasons in a reasonable and respectful manner and try to resolve the issue as amicably as possible. But looking at the tense situation, this is unlikely.
If Bilahari is speaking in his capacity as an ambassador, it is likely that this is an official position and his choice of words was precise and intended. If he is speaking in his private capacity, then he can talk all the cock he wants and Vivian would just say in Parliament when questioned that he need not have to waste his time discussing about what a private citizen said.
Would China send a note to the MFA demanding an explanation and would Vivian said, stuff it? Whichever, these comments are not helpful except to prove that Singapore got balls to stand up to China, to punch above its weight. The consequences for such bravado would be for the people to bear.
There is a time and place to be tough and principled. There are times when talking cock would look silly and incur strong reactions. Without good men in charge, the lack of wisdom is glaring.
Modern India has thousands of years of being occupied by more powerful neighbors ------while that Indian 1% are closely tied to the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE BRITISH OCCUPATION which direction it takes in this NEW WORLD ORDER must have our East Indian 99% concerned. This is why India did not sign onto Trans Pacific Trade Pact and is visibly angry at seeing all those Foreign Economic Zone connections with US fading as in other Asian nations -------
AS TRUMP SHOUTS 'NO' TO TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT EVERYTHING IS MOVING FORWARD IN US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES AND COLONIAL RE-STRUCTURING OF NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.
How big a role did ancient India play on the Silk Road?
A BBC documentary depicts that raw silk from China was put to wonderful fabric in India, and it was these fabric that made silk in high demand in the West. Can anyone elaborate on this?
Balaji Viswanathan, Indian by Birth. Indian by Thought.
Answered 3 Apr 2015
India, Persia and central Asian empires all played key intermediaries in the Silk Road as China and Rome didn't have a direct relationship during the Classical age [Sino-Roman relations]. Rome knew China only through its products and China abstractly knew Rome as a major power rivaling China in size. However, key direct contacts failed due to the great distance.
Silk Road was not a road per se, but a collection of routes through central, south, south east and west Asia. It includes the Ancient tea route (between Sichuan, Yunnan, Burma and Bengal), Incense Route, Spice route, maritime silk road through the Indian ocean and the land route through Kashgar in central Asia. Other than the land route through the central Asia, India was a part of other routes.
Some key ways India contributed:
Buddhist link: One key commonality with most of the silk routes is the spread of Buddhism. While the silk road is a little older than Buddhism, trade was at its peak at the height of Buddhism. In all the key routes, India was able to spread its culture through the route. In fact, some historians believe the key contribution of Silk Road was not silk, but the cultural connections. Silk Road transmission of Buddhism
Roman relationships: As mentioned earlier, the distance & geography meant that China and Rome never was in direct contact. However, India maintained a strong relationship with both. With Rome, there was a variety of trade links [ Indo-Roman trade relations] and with China there was a deep cultural link in the Buddhist golden age. Thus, India was able to understand the consumer tastes of both.
Central Asia-Indian links: Under the Kushan empire of Kanishka and the Parthians who ruled some parts of northwest India, north India and many parts of central Asia were under a common union as the Kushans rode into the post-Mauryan India. Kushans played a key connector in the ancient silk route.
What made Western nations different than OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF ASIA AND NEAR/FAR EAST was the revolutions of Russia, Europe, and Americas. We discussed at length these policies as the declining MERCHANTS OF VENICE angry over the KINGS AND QUEENS shifting that ancient SPICE/SILK TRADE ROUTE to trade routes to COLONIAL AMERICAS stirred the 99% into revolutions to bring down those royalty taking all that royal wealth for themselves. These are the OLD WORLD JEWISH AND CATHOLIC MERCHANTS OF VENICE---not religious but tied to ANCIENT FREEMASONRY and secret societies. While citizens in these nations gained in wealth and freedom over 300 years----those ANCIENT OLD WORLD OF VENICE FREEMASONS now see themselves as those KINGS AND QUEENS. This is behind the fall of Europe, the American nations---into a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE COLONIZATION. Same thing as KINGS AND QUEENS----only OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE as the colonizers.
Now, when the European KINGS AND QUEENS flipped trading routes to the AMERICAS----the declining OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE were not the only global 1% and their 2% killed---those ASIAN SPICE AND SILK ROUTE empires and 1% were thrown into decline as well. Their trade and economy died these several centuries now being rebuilt by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----when folks ask---why would CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA want to bring down a thriving, strong first world quality of life US----this is the answer----these OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% RELATE TO THE OLD WORLD RICH and not WE THE PEOPLE.
The OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE tied to these ANCIENT FREEMASONRY groups see themselves as global 1% trading with global 1% as in old times----with extreme wealth extreme poverty and a 99% as slaves and serfs----that is where MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES leads.
All of those societal shifts outlined in this article is what MOVING FORWARD back to the DARK AGES will try it erase
What triggered the chain of revolutions circa the 1700s?
e.g. The French revolution, the American revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the Haitian revolution...
Promoted by The Great Courses Plus
Learn about American History from those that teach it.
Michael Cardinal, Man for All Seasons
Answered Jul 12, 2011
A single trigger does not really exist for all the revolutions, rather several larger factors contributed to the chain of revolutions:
Protestant Reformation (1500's-1600's): Fundamental shift in religion that had long term ramifications and led ultimately to the English Civil War (1640's) which in turn led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688
Social Shift (1600's): Related to the shift in religion, a general resurgence of conservative values emerged following the openness of the Renaissance (this cycle has repeated itself throughout history). This would also help to end the slave trade which factored in the Haitian Revolution. This factored into the Witch Hunts of the 1600's as well.
Intellectual Shift (1500's-1700's): The printing of the Gutenberg Bible opened the floodgates for mass publication, increasing the availability and profusion of knowledge. Again the English Civil War, Glorious Revolution and Americana and French Revolutions came into play here.
Economic Shift (1400's-1700's): Beginning with the advent of paper based credit (money) for the trade of goods during the Renaissance, the general level of distributed wealth increased and lead to economic bubbles that impacted colonial trade (e.g. the Boston Tea Party resulted from the economic bubble that hit the East India Company).
Balance of Power Shift (1400's-1600's): The arrival into Europe of large amounts of gold and trade goods from the New World caused a power shift initially towards Spain, then France and England. This allowed for the emergence of new power families like the Hapsburgs. The increase in wealth and power caused discontent and dissatisfaction and new jealousies among the poor. This played into the French Revolution.
Geographic Shift (1400's-1700's): The Age of Exploration and the Age of Colonization followed by the Age of Imperialism all added to the global presence of new peoples and powers. The Seven Year's War and the American Revolution were both part of this larger set of movements that caused countries to vie for power.
Here is the Hillary connected Foreign Economic Zone installation in Myanmar----these several years have seen that global labor pool brought into these global sweat shop factories----as global corporations are brought back to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones----US workers will be these Mynamar 99% along with the flooding of US cities with global labor pool by the tens of millions----
Workers strike over wage demands
By Noe Noe Aung | Wednesday, 30 November -0001
More than 12,000 striking workers from 30 Yangon factories gathered in Hlaing Tharyar township on June 9 to protest against their wages and working conditions, and to reiterate their strike demands. Among their complaints was employers’ defiance of decisions made by the Dispute Settlement Arbitration Council.
Factory workers protesting in Hlaing Tharyar township on June 9.. (Boothee/The Myanmar Times)
Other demands included a basic daily wage of K3000 per day, and an end to dismissals without cause and to compulsory overtime.
“When the factory owner fired six of us, the Dispute Settlement Arbitration Council decided we should be rehired and paid compensation for the days lost. But when we tried to go back to work, the factory owner said he couldn’t accept the decision,” Ma Khin Htay Yee, a worker at Htaik Tan Myanmar garment factory, told The Myanmar Times.
She added that in January workers protested because the owner had not raised wages as promised, but then they went back to work anyway. “Only six of us stayed out, and the owner then fired us for protesting.”
Ko Zaw Zaw Tun, a worker at Bo San pipe factory, said he and his colleagues were upset at being forced to work overtime.
“Workers don’t want to work overtime every day. We have to work day and night, and have no time for our personal lives. But without overtime we don’t earn enough to live on,” he said.
“Negotiations went on for months without a solution. ... Last month labour ministry officials got involved but they couldn’t solve the problem either. They told us to go to the Dispute Settlement Arbitration Council but the council referred us to the township-level dispute settlement board.”
Activists say basic factory wages are too low, and have to be supplemented by bonuses and overtime. Some workers also demand action against owners who defy decisions of the Dispute Settlement Arbitration Council by refusing to allow successful claimants back to work.
“The council decided in my favour after I was fired. Workers from our factory are now demanding a wage increase,” said Ma Hla Hla, who works in the Hlaing Tharyar Industrial Zone.
Ma Hla Hla, who has been working at the factory for four years, said her take-home salary is K50,000. She pays K30,000 a month in rent and can barely support her family.
But U Myat Thin Aung, president of Hlaing Tharyar Industrial Zone’s management committee, said in a meeting in May that factory owners could not pay more wages because they were facing electricity shortages and increases in the prices of materials and imported goods.
U Aye Tun, managing director of Aung Thein Than and secretary of the Hlaing Tharyar Industrial Zone management committee, said that while salaries are low the Dispute Settlement Arbitration Council’s decisions were too favourable for workers.
“Officials from the council always talk to the owner when they negotiate a dispute but they make the owner fulfil the workers’ demands as much as possible. I think the council should use a standard payment system to resolve the disputes,” he said.
He said both sides needed to show “understanding and transparency”.
“Workers should understand the conditions and difficulties of the owners and owners should understand the lives of the workers as well,” he said. “I think most of the protests occur because of lack of transparency between owners and workers.”
But U Win Shein, director of the Department of Factories and General Labour Laws Inspection Department, said government bodies were doing their best to resolve the disputes fairly.
“We are trying to resolve the situation between workers and owners by negotiating in the factory or at the township-level dispute settlement boards. If the dispute is not solved at these levels, we can go to the Dispute Settlement Arbitration Council and even to the district-level dispute resolution office in accordance with the new Settlement of Labour Disputes law,” U Win Shein said.
“Government officials from the relevant department are trying to resolve disputes between workers and owners. They solve problems fairly.”
Global UnderArmour et al the global garment corporations will be leaving these Asian Foreign Economic Zone and building just the same in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones as Baltimore. These same conditions will exist for US workers and again our US cities will be flooded with tens of millions of global labor pool. If you don't like it LEAVE we already hear----when global corporations kill all local economies as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA made sure to do----if massive global Wall Street frauds fleece US citizens of wealth and assets while imploding the US dollar in massive debt just so only the global 1% will have access to money---
WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES A 99% OF US CITIZENS GO?
In Wage Protest, Hundreds of Garment Workers Block Road
by Buth Kimsay | May 18, 2017 | អានជាភាសាខ្មែរ
More than 1,000 garment workers from a factory in Kandal province’s Takhmao City blocked a public road on Wednesday in protest over unpaid wages that have left them struggling to afford food and pay their rents, a union official said.
Employees of the Gawon Apparel factory had not received their wages on May 10, the traditional monthly payday, and gathered on nearby Road 21 in Takhmao commune, said factory worker Ran Bora, a representative of the Cambodian Apparel Workers’ Democratic Union.
Some workers complained of being unable to make payments on loans taken out from microfinance institutions—renowned for high interest rates and late payment charges—and others had problems affording basic necessities and accommodations, Mr. Bora said.
“Workers need money to pay their rent bill and food. That’s why they came out to block the road to demand the factory owner pay their wages,” he said.
Mr. Bora said that workers blocked the road starting at about 7:30 a.m. to alert authorities to their plight, who could then pressure the factory’s owner, South Korean national Cha Kyeong-hee, to pay their wages.
The protest ended at about 2:30 p.m. after Ms. Kyeong-hee came to negotiate with the workers, offering each $50 and promising to pay the remainder of their wages by Saturday evening, an offer the workers accepted, Mr. Bora said.
Kris Chan Tha, a factory supervisor, said that Ms. Kyeong-hee had already offered $20 to each worker on May 12, which had been flatly rejected and led to a small protest that night, which was called off after darkness fell.
“On the 12th, our workers blocked the road for a short time because the company failed to pay April’s salary,” Mr. Chan Tha said.
May Nimith, the factory’s administration director, said on Wednesday that the late payments were due to a cash flow problem and a lack of orders.
“The factory hasn’t shipped the products to the new buyer that recently ordered them yet. That’s why the factory hasn’t received the payment yet,” Mr. Nimith said.
According to the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia, Gawon registered with the government in 2005 and has 1,400 employees in Takhmao.
Global UnderArmour et al the global garment corporations will be leaving these Asian Foreign Economic Zone and building just the same in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones as Baltimore. These same conditions will exist for US workers and again our US cities will be flooded with tens of millions of global labor pool. If you don't like it LEAVE we already hear----when global corporations kill all local economies as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA made sure to do----if massive global Wall Street frauds fleece US citizens of wealth and assets while imploding the US dollar in massive debt just so only the global 1% will have access to money---WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES A 99% OF US CITIZENS GO?
What builds density in US cities of global labor pool ---pretending there will be $15 an hour.
California Moves Toward $15-an-Hour Minimum Wage
Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed to state Legislature increasing pay floor to that level by 2022
Fast-food workers and their supporters demonstrate in favor of higher wages at a McDonald’s in Los Angeles in November. Photo: lucy nicholson/Reuters
Alejandro Lazo and
March 27, 2016 5:54 p.m. ET
California appears poised to raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration has told leaders in the Democratic-controlled state Legislature he supports boosting the state’s minimum wage to $15 by 2022, a person familiar with the matter said. The approach would give the governor some control over an issue that looked set to be decided directly by voters in November.
Moving ahead with the plan would give the most populous U.S. state the nation’s highest minimum pay floor. The minimum wage in California is now $10 an hour, already one of the highest of any state, though some cities have set higher minimum levels.
The deal proposed to California lawmakers by the Democratic governor, reported earlier by the Los Angeles Times, comes after one of two labor-sponsored initiatives to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour qualified for the November 2016 ballot.
A wage of $15 an hour—about $30,000 a year for full-time workers—has become a rallying cry by many on the left in recent years, with intensity rising amid concerns about economic inequality.
Fast-food workers and unions have pushed for wage hikes to that level in numerous states, and Sen. Bernie Sanders has made a $15 an hour federal minimum wage a plank of his presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, has endorsed a $12-an-hour federal minimum wage. The federal level is $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009.
Mr. Brown signed a minimum-wage hike in 2013, though he has recently cautioned against further increases. In his January budget proposal, the governor said raising the minimum wage to $15 too quickly would return the state to annual deficits and could exacerbate economic woes by raising costs for businesses.
But labor unions in the state pressed ahead with signature-gathering efforts to place competing measures on the November 2016 ballot. A poll by Field Research Corp. in August 2015 showed 68% of Californians were in favor of raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2021.
Last week, one of the labor-sponsored measures, circulated by the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West, qualified for the ballot. That proposal would have raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2021.
“If a California minimum wage bill passes and is signed into law by the governor, we will take a careful look at it and our executive board will decide what to do with our ballot initiative,” said Steve Trossman, the union’s public-affairs director.
Until now, efforts had largely been focused on the local level. Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco have all opted to phase in $15-an-hour minimum wages in coming years.
States appear to be the next battleground. Lawmakers in New York are in advanced discussions to bring that state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, from $9 now. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, is trying to include a vote in the Legislature on the measure as part of the state’s budget, due April 1, although details are still under negotiation.
The proposed increases have met resistance from business groups and Republicans—including presidential front-runner Donald Trump —who say they will lead to fewer jobs for low-skilled Americans. Critics say they are an inefficient way to help the poor, as many minimum-wage earners are high-school students or others without dependents.
Of particular concern is the magnitude of the proposed increase. Previous hikes have generally been more gradual, and large swaths of big states like California have a low cost of living and fragile economies.
“I think there’s going to be job loss everywhere,” said David Neumark, an economist at the University of California, Irvine. “You get out of the big cities and California is not a rich place at all.”
The plan, which was outlined to legislative leaders by Mr. Brown’s office last week, would raise the wage from $10 an hour to $10.50 on Jan. 1, 2017, followed by a 50-cent increase in 2018, the person familiar with the proposal said. Yearly $1 increases would continue through 2022, the person said.
Businesses with fewer than 25 employees would be given an extra year to comply with the increases, the person said. Starting in 2024, any further increases would be based on the federal consumer-price index. The proposed legislation would give the governor the power to block some of the initial increases in the event of a recession, this person said.
If the California increase moves forward, it would represent the second time this year that labor leaders have pressured a Western governor to raise minimum pay by using the initiative process.
In March, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, signed a landmark minimum-wage law that makes that state the first in the nation to mandate higher pay in cities than rural areas. The law, which enacts a series of minimum-wage increases through 2022—with the level set to reach $14.75 an hour in Portland—was proposed by the governor after labor officials and activists in that state also proposed minimum-wage ballot initiatives.
Gabe Horwitz, economic program vice president at Third Way, a left-center Think Tank in Washington, said California’s approach is “blunt” compared with the tiered increases Oregon passed.
“Fifteen dollars an hour may work in places like San Francisco or Los Angeles, but it could have very different economic effects in some of the very rural areas in the state,” Mr. Horwitz said. “Oregon took that into effect and adjusted their wage to address fears that a big-city minimum wage would destroy jobs in low-cost small towns.”
Whereas we do not agree with every economic stance of ZERO HEDGE----they have these several years of Obama and Clinton neo-liberal economic policy been the most honest and true to reality.
Ben Bernanke and the US FED came to office in 2009 to bring this coming SOVEREIGN DEBT COLLAPSE---it was deliberate. As this article states it was designed to take US to colonial status---it will not look like last century's GREAT DEPRESSION. The global 1% will be the only winners. As much as national media sold the idea of AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY during these several years of Obama---there never was---we have been in recession heading for depression. The only economic gains of any lasting value went to the global 1%.
WE THE PEOPLE must stop allowing global Wall Street 5% to the 1% players pretend to be our populist leaders. Get engaged in politics---educate on REAL left social progressive policy AND GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS. There will be NO $15 AN HOUR in this coming economic collapse.
Zero Hedge is a global Wall Street player----this is why he does not give a left progressive stance of fighting and reversing these ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE policies----we should definitely not be depressed or overwhelmed but we do not want MOVING FORWARD because there is no opportunity for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE........
'Look for the opportunity side of the crisis. The Chinese symbol for "crisis" is a combination of two other symbols - one for danger and one for opportunity'.
The OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE global 1% already have all those 2% they need and they will be throwing those 2% under the bus if SMART CITIES technology creates a DEEP STATE.
"The Greater Depression Has Started" - Comparing 1930s & Today
by Tyler Durden
Apr 9, 2016 7:35 PM
Submitted by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,
You've heard the axiom "History repeats itself." It does, but never in exactly the same way. To apply the lessons of the past, we must understand the differences of the present.
During the American Revolution, the British came prepared to fight a successful war—but against a European army. Their formations, which gave them devastating firepower, and their red coats, which emphasized their numbers, proved the exact opposite of the tactics needed to fight a guerrilla war.
Before World War I, generals still saw the cavalry as the flower of their armies. Of course, the horse soldiers proved worse than useless in the trenches.
Before World War II, in anticipation of a German attack, the French built the "impenetrable" Maginot Line. History repeated itself and the attack came, but not in the way they expected. Their preparations were useless because the Germans didn't attempt to penetrate it; they simply went around it, and France was defeated.
The generals don't prepare for the last war out of perversity or stupidity, but rather because past experience is all they have to go by. Most of them simply don't know how to interpret that experience. They are correct in preparing for another war but wrong in relying upon what worked in the last one.
Investors, unfortunately, seem to make the same mistakes in marshaling their resources as do the generals. If the last 30 years have been prosperous, they base their actions on more prosperity. Talk of a depression isn't real to them because things are, in fact, so different from the 1930s. To most people, a depression means '30s-style conditions, and since they don't see that, they can't imagine a depression. That's because they know what the last depression was like, but they don't know what one is. It's hard to visualize something you don't understand.
Some of them who are a bit more clever might see an end to prosperity and the start of a depression but—although they're going to be a lot better off than most—they're probably looking for this depression to be like the last one.
Although nobody can predict with absolute certainty what this depression will be like, you can be fairly well-assured it won't be an instant replay of the last one. But just because things will be different doesn't mean you have to be taken by surprise.
To define the likely differences between this depression and the last one, it's helpful to compare the situation today to that in the early 1930s. The results aren't very reassuring.
Banks, insurance companies, and big corporations went under on a major scale. Institutions suffered the consequences of past mistakes, and there was no financial safety net to catch them as they fell. Mistakes were liquidated and only the prepared and efficient survived.
The world’s financial institutions are in even worse shape than the last time, but now business ethics have changed and everyone expects the government to "step in." Laws are already in place that not only allow but require government intervention in many instances. This time, mistakes will be compounded, and the strong, productive, and efficient will be forced to subsidize the weak, unproductive, and inefficient. It's ironic that businesses were bankrupted in the last depression because the prices of their products fell too low; this time, it'll be because they went too high.
If a man lost his job, he had to find another one as quickly as possible simply to keep from going hungry. A lot of other men in the same position competed desperately for what work was available, and an employer could hire those same men for much lower wages and expect them to work harder than what was the case before the depression. As a result, the men could get jobs and the employer could stay in business.
The average man first has months of unemployment insurance; after that, he can go on welfare if he can't find "suitable work." Instead of taking whatever work is available, especially if it means that a white collar worker has to get his hands dirty, many will go on welfare. This will decrease the production of new wealth and delay the recovery. The worker no longer has to worry about some entrepreneur exploiting (i.e., employing) him at what he considers an unfair wage because the minimum wage laws, among others, precludes that possibility today. As a result, men stay unemployed and employers will go out of business.
OH, REALLY??? AND WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL LABOR POOL?
If hard times really put a man down and out, he had little recourse but to rely on his family, friends, or local social and church group. There was quite a bit of opprobrium attached to that, and it was only a last resort. The breadlines set up by various government bodies were largely cosmetic measures to soothe the more terror-prone among the voting populace. People made do because they had to, and that meant radically reducing their standards of living and taking any job available at any wage. There were very, very few people on welfare during the last depression.
It's hard to say how those who are still working are going to support those who aren't in this depression. Even in the U.S., 50% of the country is already on some form of welfare. But food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, Social Security, and local programs are already collapsing in prosperous times. And when the tidal wave hits, they'll be totally overwhelmed. There aren't going to be any breadlines because people who would be standing in them are going to be shopping in local supermarkets just like people who earned their money. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of it is that people in general have come to think that these programs can just magically make wealth appear, and they expect them to be there, while a whole class of people have grown up never learning to survive without them. It's ironic, yet predictable, that the programs that were supposed to help those who "need" them will serve to devastate those very people.
ZERO HEDGE HAS A BIT OF RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET IN HIM---OF COURSE ALL FEDERAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS WILL BE IMPLODED BY DEBT.
Most economies have been fairly heavily regulated since the early 1900s, and those regulations caused distortions that added to the severity of the last depression. Rather than allow the economy to liquidate, in the case of the U.S., the Roosevelt regime added many, many more regulations—fixing prices, wages, and the manner of doing business in a static form. It was largely because of these regulations that the depression lingered on until the end of World War II, which "saved" the economy only through its massive reinflation of the currency. Had the government abolished most controls then in existence, instead of creating new ones, the depression would have been less severe and much shorter.
The scores of new agencies set up since the last depression have created far more severe distortions in the ways people relate than those of 80 years ago; the potential adjustment needed is proportionately greater. Unless government restrictions and controls on wages, working conditions, energy consumption, safety, and such are removed, a dramatic economic turnaround during the Greater Depression will be impossible.
SO THE PROBLEM IS NOT MASSIVE US TREASURY BOND AND MUNICIPAL BOND SOVEREIGN DEBT FRAUD----IT IS ALL THOSE PESKY NEW DEAL PUBLIC PROTECTIONS.
The income tax was new to the U.S. in 1913, and by 1929, although it took a maximum 23.1% bite, that was only at the $1 million level. The average family’s income then was $2,335, and that put average families in the 1/10th of 1 percent bracket. And there was still no Social Security tax, no state income tax, no sales tax, and no estate tax. Furthermore, most people in the country didn't even pay the income tax because they earned less than the legal minimum or they didn't bother filing. The government, therefore, had immense untapped sources of revenue to draw upon to fund its schemes to "cure" the depression. Roosevelt was able to raise the average income tax from 1.35% to 16.56% during his tenure—an increase of 1,100%.
Everyone now pays an income tax in addition to all the other taxes. In most Western countries, the total of direct and indirect taxes is over 50%. For that reason, it seems unlikely that direct taxes will go much higher. But inflation is constantly driving everyone into higher brackets and will have the same effect. A person has had to increase his or her income faster than inflation to compensate for taxes. Whatever taxes a man does pay will reduce his standard of living by just that much, and it's reasonable to expect tax evasion and the underground economy to boom in response. That will cushion the severity of the depression somewhat while it serves to help change the philosophical orientation of society.
THINK OF THE BALTIMORE MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT AND HOW IT WILL CREATE SOARING TAXES ON CITIZENS---THIS WE ARE TOLD IS GOOD BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL HATE TAXES AND CALL FOR REFORMS----
Prices dropped radically because billions of dollars of inflationary currency were wiped out through the stock market crash, bond defaults, and bank failures. The government, however, somehow equated the high prices of the inflationary '20s with prosperity and attempted to prevent a fall in prices by such things as slaughtering livestock, dumping milk in the gutter, and enacting price supports. Since the collapse wiped out money faster than it could be created, the government felt the destruction of real wealth was a more effective way to raise prices. In other words, if you can't increase the supply of money, decrease the supply of goods.
Nonetheless, the 1930s depression was a deflationary collapse, a time when currency became worth more and prices dropped. This is probably the most confusing thing to most Americans since they assume—as a result of that experience—that "depression" means "deflation." It's also perhaps the biggest single difference between this depression and the last one.
Prices could drop, as they did the last time, but the amount of power the government now has over the economy is far greater than what was the case 80 years ago. Instead of letting the economy cleanse itself by allowing the financial markets to collapse, governments will probably bail out insolvent banks, create mortgages wholesale to prop up real estate, and central banks will buy bonds to keep their prices from plummeting. All of these actions mean that the total money supply will grow enormously. Trillions will be created to avoid deflation. If you find men selling apples on street corners, it won't be for 5 cents apiece, but $5 apiece. But there won't be a lot of apple sellers because of welfare, nor will there be a lot of apples because of price controls.
ZERO HEDGE KNOWS CONGRESS PASSED LAWS TO ALLOW WALL STREET BANKS TO CONFISCATE CITIZENS' ACCOUNTS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO FEDERAL BAILOUT-----
Consumer prices will probably skyrocket as a result, and the country will have an inflationary depression. Unlike the 1930s, when people who held dollars were king, by the end of the Greater Depression, people with dollars will be wiped out.
The world was largely rural or small-town. Communications were slow, but people tended to trust the media. The government exercised considerable moral suasion, and people tended to support it. The business of the country was business, as Calvin Coolidge said, and men who created wealth were esteemed. All told, if you were going to have a depression, it was a rather stable environment for it; despite that, however, there were still plenty of riots, marches, and general disorder.
The country is now urban and suburban, and although communications are rapid, there's little interpersonal contact. The media are suspect. The government is seen more as an adversary or an imperial ruler than an arbitrator accepted by a consensus of concerned citizens. Businessmen are viewed as unscrupulous predators who take advantage of anyone weak enough to be exploited.
A major financial smashup in today's atmosphere could do a lot more than wipe out a few naives in the stock market and unemploy some workers, as occurred in the '30s; some sectors of society are now time bombs. It's hard to say, for instance, what third- and fourth-generation welfare recipients are going to do when the going gets really tough.
THE WAY PEOPLE WORK
Relatively slow transportation and communication localized economic conditions. The U.S. itself was somewhat insulated from the rest of the world, and parts of the U.S. were fairly self-contained. Workers were mostly involved in basic agriculture and industry, creating widgets and other tangible items. There wasn't a great deal of specialization, and that made it easier for someone to move laterally from one occupation into the next, without extensive retraining, since people were more able to produce the basics of life on their own. Most women never joined the workforce, and the wife in a marriage acted as a "backup" system should the husband lose his job.
The whole world is interdependent, and a war in the Middle East or a revolution in Africa can have a direct and immediate effect on a barber in Chicago or Krakow. Since the whole economy is centrally controlled from Washington, a mistake there can be a national disaster. People generally aren’t in a position to roll with the punches as more than half the people in the country belong to what is known as the "service economy." That means, in most cases, they're better equipped to shuffle papers than make widgets. Even "necessary" services are often terminated when times get hard. Specialization is part of what an advanced industrial economy is all about, but if the economic order changes radically, it can prove a liability.
THE FINANCIAL MARKETS
The last depression is identified with the collapse of the stock market, which lost over 90% of its value from 1929 to 1933. A secure bond was the best possible investment as interest rates dropped radically. Commodities plummeted, reducing millions of farmers to near subsistence levels. Since most real estate was owned outright and taxes were low, a drop in price didn't make a lot of difference unless you had to sell. Land prices plummeted, but since people bought it to use, not unload to a greater fool, they didn't usually have to sell.
This time, stocks—and especially commodities—are likely to explode on the upside as people panic into them to get out of depreciating dollars in general and bonds in particular. Real estate will be—next to bonds—the most devastated single area of the economy because no one will lend money long term. And real estate is built on the mortgage market, which will vanish.
Everybody who invests in this depression thinking that it will turn out like the last one will be very unhappy with the results. Being aware of the differences between the last depression and this one makes it a lot easier to position yourself to minimize losses and maximize profits.
* * *
So much for the differences. The crucial, obvious, and most important similarity, however, is that most people's standard of living will fall dramatically.
The Greater Depression has started. Most people don't know it because they can neither confront the thought nor understand the differences between this one and the last.
As a climax approaches, many of the things that you've built your life around in the past are going to change and change radically. The ability to adjust to new conditions is the sign of a psychologically healthy person.
Look for the opportunity side of the crisis. The Chinese symbol for "crisis" is a combination of two other symbols - one for danger and one for opportunity.
The dangers that society will face in the years ahead are regrettable, but there's no point in allowing anxiety, frustration, or apathy to overcome you. Face the future with courage, curiosity, and optimism rather than fear. You can be a winner, and if you plan carefully, you will be. The great period of change will give you a chance to regain control of your destiny. And that in itself is the single most important thing in life.