Reading about China

The first weekend in Stockholm in almost two months. I watch old Daily Show episodes and the first three episodes of The Trip. I read last week’s papers that I brought home from the office. Part of my job is keeping track of what is happening. A man told me this when I interviewed him about something else this week. “I don’t have time to do that, it is about quality”. I forgot to ask if he receives my weekly business intelligence report. Interviews outside in the sun is no good for clarity.

I like reading papers that are a few days old. Being first with something is an over rated quality. Understanding long term trends and its reasons is what I care about. I read about the difficulty of writing the second novel. I think of the difficulty of writing the first one. Mine is resting on a shelf after two rejections. “Seven publishers rejected mine” one of the most successful writers in Sweden said somewhere. I spend time trying to find someone to blame.

I read a long article in Swedish about the rise of China. Jakob Lagerkranser has read The Future Of Power written by Joseph S Nye. According to Lagerkranser he argues that China will not become the new super power because of its inability to innovate and its lack of openness. Democracy becomes more important when the middle class grows and he claims that the power of the central government is highly over stated in poor rural areas. One of the biggest problem is said to be China’s aging population. The US is much younger and innovative because of its international reach; more than 50% of the country’s doctoral students are foreign.

In the end of the article Jakob explains what this means for Sweden. It is a Swedish paper so it is important that there is a Swedish connection, why would anyone read so many words about this topic otherwise? This is my estimation of how the editors argued. Sweden needs to attract more skilled workers and be open to the rest of the world is the answer according to Jakob.

The academic consistency regarding openness and democracy as driver for societal development.

How it always manages to contrast the rhetoric of populist politicians.

Because people rather have easy answers that seem good although there are empirical evidence against it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s