#south korea vs singapore
Text
Astro obs part 9
🐌 The planets in your 12th house indicate your sleeping style:
Sun in 12th house - their sleep schedule is extremely messed up; for them, daylight hours = nighttime hours and vice versa, so they have trouble being themselves during the day; their true self comes out at night
Moon in 12th house - goes to sleep very late; full moons have a special effect on these people; their intuition is more clear at night; as kids, they probably slept a lot with their mother
Mercury in 12th house - loves texting/calling people late at night; they might journal their thoughts before sleep because they overthink a lot and it helps to clear their mind or maybe they just like to relax by reading a book at night
Venus in 12th house - cares a lot about getting their "beauty sleep"; sleeps with sleep masks on, buys expensive bed lingerie, skincare night routine might be very important; loves sleeping in general lmao
Mars in 12th house - enjoys working out before going to sleep, can go to sleep angry because they tend to get into conflict more at night than during the day
I have Uranus in 12th house and i can be both a light sleeper or a heavy sleeper, depending on where i am. For example, when i'm traveling, during the first night i wake up several times, but from the second night on i sleep like a baby lmao. Another thing would be that i can't sleep in a quiet car but i don't have any problem sleeping during a thunderstorm
🐌 Mars in fire signs (Aries, Leo, Sag) and Mars in 3rd house individuals love riding motorbikess
🐌 While Mars in 9th house peeps would probably love to go on a world tour on their motorbike. The sign ruling their 9th house represents the countries they would love to visit (i'm aware that some of these can only be visited by plane, take it with a grain of salt):
♈ in 9th house: Ireland, Poland, Japan, Zimbabwe
♉ in 9th house: Cuba, Paraguay, South Africa, East Timor
♊ in 9th house: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Montenegro
♋ in 9th house: Canada, USA, Bahamas, Argentina, Slovenia, Madagascar
♌ in 9th house: Hawaii, France, Italy, The Netherlands, India, South Korea, Peru, Bolivia
♍ in 9th house: Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Vietnam
♎ in 9th house: Belgium, Portugal, China, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho
♏ in 9th house: Panama, Spain, Turkey, Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE), Palestine, Lebanon
♐ in 9th house: Finland, Lithuania, Romania, Tanzania, Thailand
♑ in 9th house: UK, Germany, Czech Republic, Australia, Camerun
♒ in 9th house: Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka
♓ in 9th house: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritius, Saint Lucia
🐌 I have a feeling Pisces Suns like to spend their time in a garage lmao. Mostly because their opposing sign, Virgo, would hate to spend time in a garage due to how dirty it can get.
🐌As a 7th house Sun who's been in love for almost a year now (haha, are we surprised, ofcours not; i'm not even in a relationship with him but ugh we're so perfect for each other), i realised that Sun in 7th house people tend to behave differently with their partner when they're in a healthy relationship vs when they're in a toxic one
Sun in 7th house in:
♈ Aries in a healthy relationship: empowers their partner, knows how to balance me time vs us time in a healthy manner, encourages their partner to take safe risks
♈ Aries in an unhealthy relationship: impulsive, impatient, selfish, dismisses their partner's feelings, often controlled by rage, prone to abusing their partner
♉ Taurus in a healthy relationship: veryyy generous (their love language is gift giving), accommodating to their partner's wants and needs, cooks for their partner
♉ Taurus in an unhealthy relationship: stubborn af, hard to please, focused more on the material gain from their partner rather than the love they share
♊ Gemini in a healthy relationship: curious, always lightens the mood of their partner by cracking up tons of jokes or telling them funny stories, knows that communication is key to everything so they're not afraid to discuss serious topics, teaches their partner a lot of random stuff
♊ Gemini in an unhealthy relationship: superficial, doesn't have a problem moving on from their partner to another person in a matter of seconds, if they're still in school/college, then they prioritize studying over their partner
♋ Cancer in a healthy relationship: nurturing, knows how to balance babying their partner vs being babied by their partner, emotionally vulnerable, feels safe enough to present their partner to their family early on in the relationship
♋ Cancer in a unhealthy relationship: if they don't trust their partner, they tend to become emotionally closed off to hide their deep sadness; defensive, but if their partner attackes them, then they'll hide, worries excessively, avoids presenting their partner to their family
♌ Leo in a healthy relationship: treats their partner like the king/queen they are, keeps their ego in check so it doesn't interfere with the relationship, if they've got artistic talents (music, acting, art etc.), they'll show their love for their partner by performing in front of them
♌ Leo in an unhealthy relationship: egocentric, shows off their partner/relationship too much out of pride, often feels entitled in the relationship and wants to be put on a pedestal by their partner
♍ Virgo in a healthy relationship: selfless to a healthy degree, remembers every lil detail from every casual conversations with their partner just to please them, remembers every important date and plans ahead for it, takes care of their partner when they're sick
♍ Virgo in a unhealthy relationship: critical, overfixates on past hurts and mistakes that their partner made in the relationship (often times their partner doesn't even remember those things because they're usually not that serious), loves their pets more than their partner
♎ Libra in a healthy relationship: romantic, charismatic, truly values their partner and the relationship with them, acts fair in the relationship, teaches their partner lovingly about the importance of honesty, truth and a healthy give and take dynamic in a relationship
♎ Libra in an unhealthy relationship: doesn't prioritize the relationship; instead, they flirt with others despite being in a relationship, emotionally detached, cold and calculated in their current relationship
♏ Scorpio in a healthy relationship: loyal, loves their partner deeply and intensely, but without suffocating them, keeps their partner's secrets like they're a locked safe box with no public access
♏ Scorpio in an unhealthy relationship: obsessive, manipulative, seeks to dominate their partner, displays stalkish behaviour in the relationship, liar
♐ Sagittarius in a healthy relationship: exposes their partner to various cultures, belief systems and philosophies to expand their mind and form their own opinion on certain topics, loves freely but is still able to maintain a long-term relationship, improves their partner's mood, usually brings an element of surprise and excitement to the relationship
♐ Sagittarius in an unhealthy relationship: travels in order to avoid dealing with their partner, parties a bit too much, doesn't take the relationship seriously
♑ Capricorn in a healthy relationship: loves their partner in a mature, serious and secure manner, doesn't shy away from improving their partner's social status and/or career if they can, discusses plans for the future (getting married, having kids, adopting pets, buying a house) with their partner early on in the relationship, they make time for their partner, despite the fact that they're busy most of the time
♑ Capricorn in an unhealthy relationship: displays no emotions or physical affection in the relationship, has a hard time communicating their thoughts with their partner, settles in a relationship for the wrong reasons (money/kids/safety/"i'm getting old and i need to have my life established"), prioritizes work/career over their partner
♒ Aquarius in a healthy relationship: flexible, makes their partner's dreams and aspirations come true (whether they're related to the relationship or not), has got a very open-minded attitude towards their partner's opinions, lifestyle and identity, takes the time to become friends firsts with their future partner because they value a relationship built on solid foundation (often times their partner is also their best friend), knows how to balance couple time vs time with friends
♒ Aquarius in an unhealthy relationship: displays wishy-washy behaviour, emotionally detached, prioritizes their friends over their partner, seeks online validation from strangers and acquaintances to fulfill their needs
♓ Pisces in a healthy relationship: sensitive to their partner's emotions, knows how to balance wearing their heart on their sleeve vs hiding their emotions in unfavourable circumstances, always honest with their partner
♓ Pisces in an unhealthy relationship: prone to drown their relationship problems and sorrows in alcohol, drugs and meds for mental health issues, runs away from problems instead of dealing with them with their partner, displays dishonesty to a fault, prone to self-sabotage
#astro#astro community#astro placements#astrology#astro observations#astro posts#astro notes#astro blog#astroblr#astrology notes#astrology observations#natal chart#sun in 7th house#sun in 12th#12th house#mars in 3rd house#mars in 9th house
1K notes
·
View notes
Text
The Color Concept on Little Women (2022)
Part 1: Princess of Thieves
The Princess of Thieves Orchid have 2 colors: Pink and Purple
Which is the color of dress that Injoo and Hwayoung wear during Singapore climax scene
Injoo: Pink
Hwayoung: Purple
Pink as Injoo's color
Pink orchid have meaning: Romance, Love, Friendship
Injoo's main plot always not far from her sisters and Hwayoung. Her love for them is driving force that keep made Injoo move foward
Purple as Hwayoung's color
Purple orchid have meaning: Wisdom, Intellegence, MYSTERY
Wisdom: Hwayoung is Injoo's senior at workplace. Injoo saw Hwayoung as someone who teach her many things
Intellegence: Hwayoung had planned things very further and details, and outsmarting Sangah's manipulation
Mystery: Hwayoung is central mystery of the story
Hwayoung's Apartment
Hwayoung have small purple orchid on her apartment at Singapore
Hwayoung's apartment wallpaper at South Korea have purple as main color. The wallpaper also used as background for one of main poster
***
Purple and Pink on title of Little Women
In opening sequence, the title Little Women have purple with pink shade as background color
In each ending of episode, the title Little Women appear before credits, usually appear in white text and black screen, before the text got painted. The first color of paint in text is Pink and Purple
Which is color of Injoo and Hwayoung
It's like indicating how Little Women's plot story, beside the Oh Sisters, mostly will be around Injoo and Hwayoung
***
A glimpse of Pink and Purple color on Injoo and Hwayoung's clothes at South Korea
At South Korea, Injoo mostly wear earth color pallete clothes and Hwayoung mostly wear colorless (black/white) clothes
(more explaination on Part 2: Earthenspoon & Nospoon)
But in 1st episode, there's small purple part in Hwayoung clothes. And when Injoo "playing rich", she wear pink clothes.
It's like hinting how they are part of Princess of Thieves later in story
***
Cinderella and Fairygodmother
Hwayoung and Injoo in restaurant scene heavily referenced from Cinderella
Hwayoung is like Fairygodmother who dressing Injoo, the Cinderella, to "playing rich"
The Purple color on Hwayoung and Pink color on Injoo is similar with purple color on Cinderella's Pink dress and Fairygodmother's Purple cloak
***
Color Mood of Princess of Thieves
In each scene when Injoo had thinking or talking about Hwayoung, the color mood around her change into combination of Pink and Purple; the color of Princess of Thieves
Quoting from Choo Jahyun (Hwayoung's actress)'s interview:
"It felt like Goeun (Injoo's actress) was living as both Injoo and Hwayoung at the same time in Little Women"
The combination of pink and purple color mood on those scenes is like symbolized how Injoo and Hwayoung become one on Injoo's mind
***
The Intruder: Yellow
On Princess of Thieves that appear on Singapore's auction, the flower has little shade of Yellow
Which is color of Won Sangah and fake!Hwayoung's dress on Singapore
Won = name of Korean money currency
Korean highest currency (50,000) has color of Yellow
Yellow = Sangah and Won Family = Capitalism
Yellow vs Purple
On color wheel theory, Yellow and Purple are color that opposite to each other
Symbolized how Hwayoung (Purple) and Sangah (Yellow) are total opposite
In opening sequence, Oh sisters were drawn mostly with shade of purple, and their background is yellow.
Indicating how the sisters are like "actors" in Sangah's play vs Hwayoung; how the battle between those masterminds was told from three sisters' perspective
It's also symbolized how Sangah = Yellow = Money = Capitalism is the main enemy
***
The Shadow of Flower
Hwayoung (화영)'s name have meaning Beautiful Flower. The writer JSK had mentioned that she want to give a name to Hwayoung that relate to Flowers because Hwayoung love gardening
In hanja, Hwayoung have secret meaning of her name: 花影 = 꽃의 그림자 = Shadow of Flower
It's like symbolising how Hwayoung is shadow part of flowers:
1. Princess of Thieves: to Injoo
At first, Hwayoung's color seems like also Pink
Hwayoung mostly wear pink on her second account/alter ego Jin Mikyung and on Injoo's imagination about Hwayoung's second life
It's like foreshadowing how Hwayoung live under Injoo's name at Singapore
On locker scene, Hwayoung seems like giving off her pink clothes to Injoo. Like symbolizing she's fully giving the pink side of Princess of Thieves to Injoo, together with all money and Bruno Zumino shoes that she give to her on the bag
2. Blue Ghost Orchid: to Sangah and Won Family/Jeongran
The surname Jin (진) on Jin Hwayoung is to give impression that Hwayoung is came from place that far away (indeed in character description of Hwayoung on official website, it's written Hwayoung is not from Seoul and came to there to work on Orchid Construction). If we look to Jin in Chinese surname version, it has meaning GOLD
It's like secret meaning on how Hwayoung in back have so many money and assets, because she's part of secret society Jeongran and worked for Won family
***
Thief Princess
youtube
There's Little Women OST titled "Thief Princess"
The OST indeed mostly got played in some scene that relate to Injoo or/and Hwayoung:
When Injoo decided to search the truth behind Hwayoung's death, and she look to the unbloomed Princess of Thieves
When Sangah give Injoo a blue suit, and then Injoo remembering how Hwayoung give her a black suit before this
When Hwayoung confess that she want Injoo to be happy on court scene
#little women#tvn little women#little women 2022#little women korea#kim go eun#choo ja hyun#oh in joo#jin hwa young#김고은#추자현#작은아씨들#youngjoo#hwayoung x injoo#wi ha joon#choi do il#oh in hye#oh in kyung#park ji hu#nam ji hyun#won sang ah#uhm ji won#oh injoo#jin hwayoung#kim goeun#choo jahyun#little women theory#little women analysis#화영인주#sapphic ships#ggonekim
87 notes
·
View notes
Text
It's here! I'm enjoying myself a lot and thought I'd share some bits and pieces, again, starting with the introduction.
Introduction: Boys Love (BL) Media and Its Asian Transfigurations by James Welker, in: Welker (editor), Queer Transfigurations. Boys Love Media in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2022. p. 1–16. [Jstor]
I took notes by hand while reading, tried to type them up as coherently as possible here.
BL is an umbrella term for all sorts of media (going by volume, the primary mode is still written – prose or manga) that depict male-male romantic and sexual relationships and are primarily marketed to young women. BL has had fans 'around the globe' since the 1980s, especially in East and Southeast Asia, though it really 'dramatically expanded in popularity in the current century'. (p. 1)
Asian BL fandoms do not exist in isolation from the rest of the world (p. 2)
queer as in a) gender/sexuality-related expressions that flout social norms, b) queering norms of (female) sexuality and c) creating breathing room for queer individuals (p. 2)
there's no clear line between BL and LGBTQ media (p. 2)
why 'transfiguration'? -> transit from one culture to another (p. 3)
BL: minor and often underground as a genre, still
4 overlapping attributes of BL and fandoms: 1) transnational + transcultural media phenomenon, 2) useful tool for unsettling gender and sexual norms, 3) cannot be separated from LGBTQ issues including politics, 4) BL is political (p. 4)
note on piracy of BL, its impact on Japanese producers, and how this is rarely discussed (*) (p-5)
1980s/1990s: BL makes it to Taiwan, Korea, China -> category blurring? (p. 5)
shipping as a part of BL fandom (p. 6)
legal issues in Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore (p. 7)
shipping/fan works were a part of BL culture from the 1970s onwards (cf. Welker 2015) (p. 7)
seme/uke dynamics + shifts? -> mutability of gender (p. 8)
way of alternatives to masc stereotypes for cishet men (fudanshi) (p. 8)
blurring of gay and straight? (p. 8/9)
taboos around BL in Japan arise because it's often sexual and women engage with it (p. 9)
elsewhere in Asia: BL often serves as 'first conscious contact' for middle-class Indian and Indonesian fans with homosexuality -> may prompt reconsideration of own preconceptions/ideas/religious doctrine. (p. 9)
"representational appropriation" of images of gay men (cf. Ishida 2007) (p. 10)
fans turning activist for queer rights in Taiwan (p. 10/11)
rosy image of Japan among gay male fans of BL in mainland China (p. 10)
BL as progressive force for good (p. 10)
impact of US lawmaking on international fan communities (p. 10)
fan wars in South Korea (odeokku vs hujoshi) ca 2016; -> more recently: SK version of yaoi ronsou? (p. 11)
BL queer in that it flouts and facilitates the flouting of sexual and gender norms, has been pushing cishet fans to think about queer rights and the social standing of queer folks, sometimes even pushed fans to activism (p. 12)
grouping chapters under national/regional headings potentially misleading -> borders not so clear in the lives of fans and the texts they engage with (p. 13)
(*) I would LOVE to read more about this personally, anyone got anything? point me!
… this took entirely too long and I REALLY need to work on my handwriting, but I hope this might've been interesting to some. If you read this book (or anything else from the realm of BL scholarship), feel free to hmu, I'm an amateur but I love to talk this sort of stuff!
#acafandom#queer transfigurations#james welker#welker et al#bl history#bl academia#facets of bl#my nonsense#reading academic papers for fun not profit#hellsite (derogatory)#why do I even bother to try and format things nicely#guess at least they didn't kill my alt text for the images#if they had to rearrange them like it's 20-fucking-13
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
In case you hadn’t noticed, the world economy’s gone rather topsy-turvy.
Japan is up while China is down—and in danger of Japan-like deflation. The United States is practicing Japanese-style protectionism and industrial policy, while Japan is championing what Washington used to promote: newer, better open trade rules.
These trends represent a virtual reversal of the neoliberal narrative we had grown used to since the end of the Cold War, when the disintegration of Soviet communism appeared to discredit the whole idea of government-directed economic growth. This was followed by the collapse of Japan’s bubble economy in the early 1990s, which in turn touched off a long period of slow, geriatric growth in the granddaddy of the East Asian “miracle.” But the economics profession, having made so many bad calls since this long, strange trip of globalization began, can’t keep up. That’s because most mainstream economists still have trouble admitting that their model of free-market fundamentalism—the “Washington Consensus”—has failed catastrophically, and in several dimensions.
While Brexit has proved a disaster for Britain and the U.S. is floundering with ever-worsening inequality, Japan may well have entered a new chapter of its extraordinary postwar story. It is enjoying a new spurt of activity, including annualized growth of nearly 5 percent in the second quarter and some price and wage increases. These indicators “suggest the economy is reaching a turning point in its 25-year battle with deflation,” as the government said in its annual white paper. Japan also remains socially stable to a degree that should make Americans envious, since it doesn’t suffer the huge income inequality problem that bedevils the United States, though Japan is, of course, far less ethnically diverse. Japan is hardly a perfect model—it is still backward, for example, in recognizing women’s rights—but its Human Development Index is rising among the rich countries. Whether measured by equality, life expectancy, or its stellar jobless rate of 2.7 percent, Japan is today in the “top rung of the most affluent and most successful societies in the world—and now seven and a half years longer than for America,” as economics historian Adam Tooze puts it.
Other economists who have long invoked the Japanese and East Asian “middle way” of market-sensitive government industrial support agree. “I wouldn’t attribute too much to Japan’s quarterly growth rate—but I would give them some credit for not leaving as many people behind,” said Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. “The big advantage they had was that before their malaise set in, they had achieved a far more egalitarian state.” Or as International Monetary Fund (IMF) economists Fuad Hasanov and Reda Cherif conclude in one recent paper, the Asian miracles’ economic models—mainly the ones used in Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan—“resulted in much lower market income inequality than that in most advanced countries.”
How did East Asia do it? By focusing on export competitiveness and forcing subsidized firms to compete in global markets, these countries created good jobs for the middle class and avoided the pitfalls of failed “import substitution” policies that have characterized bad industry policy in the past across countries from Latin America to Africa. Building upon that, they also imposed progressive tax systems.
By contrast, there is also some agreement that one reason for China’s slowdown is that its dictatorial leader, Xi Jinping, has cracked down too harshly on the market part of the economy, disturbing the delicate balance of government-vs.-market control that began in the late 1970s. Xi “doesn’t seem to know how to use the levers of government with subtlety or within a market framework,” Stiglitz said.
All this is surprising, because in the policy debate with advocates of East Asian-style market intervention, the Washington Consensus had until fairly recently been winning, hands down. “Industrial policy” of the kind practiced by Japan and other East Asian nations was toxic and had to be practiced, at best, below the radar, especially in the United States. Capital flows were heedlessly unleashed around the world and market barriers eliminated at the insistence of both Democrats and Republicans in Washington. When the Asian financial crisis hit in the late 1990s, the neoliberals at first claimed vindication, saying corrupt crony capitalism and heavy government interference were to blame. But after the 2008 crash sank Wall Street—and nearly the entire U.S. financial system—it was clear that the crisis was, in fact, one of global capitalism and the excesses of neoliberalism. The problem in both the U.S. and Asia wasn’t the heavy hand of government so much as its opposite: totally unregulated capital flows and financial markets, not to mention (in the United States) regressive tax policies that favored Wall Street and capital gains earners.
As Eisuke Sakakibara, Japan’s former vice minister of finance and international affairs and one of Asia’s intellectual champions for an alternative model, told me presciently back then: “Global capital markets are responsible to a substantial degree. If you look at the so-called Asia crisis, the root cause has been the huge inflow of capital into Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, and China. And all of a sudden … all of that has [fled] from those countries. Borrowers have been borrowing recklessly, and lenders have been lending recklessly. And not just Japanese banks. American banks and European banks as well.” Sakakibara proved to be correct, and something similar—indeed, much worse—struck the U.S. economy nearly 10 years later.
Beyond that, it was also clear during this three-decade period that China was paying scant attention to trade rules, deploying among other systematic violations industrial espionage, investment controls, currency manipulation, and intellectual property theft. During the same period, American confidence was badly misplaced that the nation’s high-tech advantages would automatically translate into a new manufacturing age for the middle class. It wasn’t just American capital that was fleeing abroad: By the mid-1990s, it was obvious that Silicon Valley-style startups don’t take one’s economy very far when most of the scale-ups—the manufacturing and downstream jobs, in other words—are happening overseas in low-wage countries.
So neoliberalism’s been dying ever since, and Donald Trump and Joe Biden have delivered the death blows. The most significant failure, perhaps, was not purely economic but social and political. It has become clear that in the United States, as well as in other major Western economies such as Great Britain, deepening inequality brought about by an almost religious devotion to neoliberal thinking has generated jarring social instability and populism on the right and left. Trump and former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson turned the two democracies that built the postwar global economic system into anti-globalist, inward-looking confederacies. Trump focused his ire on starting a trade war and crippling the World Trade Organization (WTO), and Johnson stormed out of the European Union. How did we get to this topsy-turvy place? A little historical perspective might help.
What’s been playing out on the global stage all this time has been nothing less than a historic test of alternative approaches to economic development—and an unprecedented test of social stability, too.
It began about three decades ago, when U.S. President Bill Clinton rolled into office in the triumphalist aftermath of the collapse of the USSR and decided that markets and globalization were the answer—even for formerly progressive Democrats like him. Command economies were utterly discredited. So was big government in the United States. And in the developing world, government intervention—so-called import substitution, meaning the support of domestic industry and the closing of trade barriers to foreigners—had also been an abysmal failure, especially in Africa and Latin America, leading to corruption and endemic poverty.
But then there was that strange outlier, East Asia. The East Asian “Tigers,” inspired by the postwar champion of managed economies, Japan, had dared to tinker with market forces like demiurges playing with elemental fire, and they had largely succeeded. Around that time, Masaki Shiratori, Japan’s executive director at the World Bank, lobbied passionately for a study of East Asia’s unusual success, its unique and savvy combination of deft government promotion of markets.
The World Bank came up with one—350 pages long—that hesitantly concluded that “market-friendly state intervention” might sometimes work. But it was so heavily hedged that it had little impact. Washington didn’t want to risk turning countries like India into government-supported export giants with East Asian-style policies, especially when U.S. markets were already seen as being under assault and Clinton was preaching “jobs, jobs, jobs.” And U.S. policymakers didn’t want countries like Russia to find excuses for only half-reforming their way out of command economics.
Mainstream economists rolled out their big guns against the idea that East Asia had a viable alternative. In a 1994 Foreign Affairs article, “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle,” Paul Krugman argued that pouring all that capital into industry at home was only going to yield “diminishing returns” and compared the Asians to the Soviet Union, saying that people forget “how impressive and terrifying the Soviet empire’s economic performance once seemed.” Krugman cited in particular the work of economists Alwyn Young and Lawrence Lau, who argued that East Asia’s “total factor productivity” numbers showed East Asian economic growth was entirely based on “inputs” such as rapid labor force increases, not on improved efficiency. It was merely “economic growth on steroids,” Young told me in an interview for Institutional Investor magazine in 1993. “You look impressive, but inside you’re rotting.”
Young and others pointed to Japan’s slow-growth period as evidence of this, but he and other economists failed to take into account the ultra-long time frame of the East Asian model—the fact that these countries were laying the institutional groundwork for later improvements in productivity and efficiency. And all the while neoliberalism was being slowly undermined by the departure of U.S. capital for foreign shores, along with cheaper labor. What the Clintonites and their advocates failed to see was that “[a]s capital becomes internationally mobile, its owners and managers have less interest in making long-term investments in any specific national economy—including their home base,” Robert Wade—then a renegade World Bank economist—argued at the time.
Wade and others were, of course, ignored. The historical tide of neoliberalism was too powerful, and the Japanese too meek about asserting their views. Japan, as ever, was bad about “forming universal theories from the economic success of Japan,” Naohiro Amaya, one of the country’s legendary bureaucrats, told me in 1992 when I lived there. It was a culture of pragmatism; the Japanese had no Keynes or Marx of their own. And frankly, few bureaucracies were as savvy as those of the East Asians, with their agile technocratic class and Confucian tradition of service. India, for example, which had grown up with Nehru socialism, had suffered for decades under the “license raj,” which involved a bureaucratic tangle every time someone wanted to start a business.
Yet much of this long-entrenched economic “wisdom” is now cracking—much like the melting glaciers that neoliberal capitalism, during its rampage across the planet, has helped to promote. As Cherif and Hasanov write in “The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named”: “Our summary of 50 years of development showed that only a few countries made it from relative or absolute poverty to advanced economy status,” giving rise to the idea that government can’t make much of a difference. East Asia proved that it could, but “until recently, the experiences of the Asian miracles have been mostly considered as ‘accidents’ that cannot and should not be emulated, at least from the point of view of standard development economics.”
That is no longer the case. For better or worse, a new global economic consensus is being born, if rather painfully. As John Maynard Keynes wrote in the preface to The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money: “The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones…”
The new look in economics is being driven by two related factors. One is the anger of the Western middle class—which has been hammered by globalization and the spread of technological advances around the world—and the other is the rise of China. As if awakened collectively from a Pollyannaish, post-Cold War dream, the U.S. political class has, in the space of a few years and across both political parties, cast off Reagan-era free-market thinking and re-embraced the mindset of the early Cold War. In particular, the China threat has reawakened memories—so long buried—of how successful industrial policy was back then.
As Wade—author of one of the original East Asia studies, Governing the Market—has pointed out, the U.S. remains by far the most innovative economy in the world due in no small part to an ongoing, if stealthy, industrial policy. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and several other federal agencies have helped produce U.S. breakthroughs in “general purpose technologies.” Among them, the National Science Foundation funded the algorithm behind Google’s search engine, and early funding for Apple came from the Small Business Innovation Research program. In her 2013 book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, economist Mariana Mazzucato notes that all the technologies that make the iPhone “smart” are also state-funded, including the internet, wireless networks, the global positioning system, microelectronics, touchscreen displays, and the voice-activated SIRI personal assistant.
Hence a new conventional wisdom has come out of the closet, economically speaking—at least among policymakers. This fresh approach amounts to what one critic, Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist and nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, disapprovingly calls “the new Washington-Beijing-Brussels Consensus of building up certain national industries through government subsidies and trade restrictions.” Instead of the Washington Consensus, we are seeing the rise of what some are calling the “Washington Constellation,” a collection of many disparate growth theory concepts.
But the economics profession itself is still not sure it ought to abandon its neoliberal convictions. “Prominent people in the profession still have convictions against this,” said Nathan Lane, a young economist at Oxford who wrote a pathbreaking paper that employed neoclassical economics to explain the success of South Korea’s state investment in heavy industry. “It’s a very uncomfortable thing that’s going on, which is economics made this empirical turn the past couple of decades, and people like myself, who are not attached ideologically to the Washington Consensus, said, ‘We’re just empiricists. Let’s explore this.’ People said, ‘Don’t do that.’ People get extremely reactive to even asking the question of whether it works.”
At the IMF, once the face and voice of the Washington Consensus, acceptance of industrial policy has been an uphill battle over the past few decades. That’s why, in 2019, Hasanov and Cherif were forced to coyly title that working paper “The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named.” A year later, they followed with a higher-ranking departmental paper, “The Principles of Industrial Policy.” But the IMF still published a rebuttal from Irwin this past June.
“The debate over industrial policy has long been locked in a stalemate,” Irwin wrote. “Some see it as essential to productivity growth and structural transformation, while others see it as abetting corruption and fostering inefficiency.” Irwin echoed generations of neoliberal thinking in concluding that “quantitative models suggest that the gains from even optimally designed industrial policies are small and unlikely to be transformative.”
Yet new empirical data from the last few years indicates that many of East Asia’s industrial policy investments from decades ago have paid off big time. Younger economists such as Ernest Liu of Princeton University have debunked some of the old biases against industrial policy—mainly that it lacks the reliable information necessary to target appropriate sectors—by showing that new measures of market distortions can supply just that.
Even as the Biden administration has fully adopted industrial policy, it uses, instead, the term “industrial strategy.” As IMF First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath said in a speech earlier this month, the fund’s advice is “to tread carefully. History is replete with examples of IPs [industrial policies] that were not only costly, but also hindered the emergence of more dynamic and efficient companies.”
Nowhere does the success of industrial policy play a greater role in the world today than in Taiwan. One of the reasons Taiwan has become such a hot issue geopolitically—as the U.S. and China vie over its future as a state—is because of its world-beating semiconductor industry, which produces an astonishing 60 percent or more of the world’s chips. This was not the work of the private sector alone but the creation, in 1987, of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which received at least half of its initial funding from the government and over subsequent decades emerged as the preeminent maker of advanced chips. In South Korea, the World Bank once advised against setting up an integrated steel company, saying it wasn’t in Korea’s comparative advantage. But what became POSCO (formerly Pohang Iron and Steel Company) “fairly soon became the most efficient steel plant in the world,” Wade said.
So it’s unavoidable to conclude that a subject that was once taboo—the idea of government-directed industrial subsidies, along with semi-closed markets and economic nationalism of the kind practiced by Taiwan—is being embraced on all sides. A paper summing up these effects, “The New Economics of Industrial Policy,” by economists Réka Juhász, Nathan Lane, and Dani Rodrik, is slated for publication early next year by the mainstream Annual Review of Economics. And the chairman of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisors, longtime progressive economist Jared Bernstein, has invited the co-authors to speak to the council later this month, according to Lane.
In the last two and a half years, Biden has enacted what his former National Economic Council director, Brian Deese, calls its “modern American industrial strategy” based mainly on “four foundational laws”: the American Rescue Plan, which brought our economy back from the brink, and more recently the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act (under which Washington is subsidizing low-carbon technologies and prioritizing homemade technological leadership).
What this means, Deese said, is that rather than “accepting as fate that the individualized decisions of those looking only at their private bottom lines will put us behind in key sectors,” the government plans a long-term strategic investment “in those areas that will form the backbone of our economy’s growth over the coming decades, areas where we need to expand the nation’s productive capacity.” There have been some promising early results: U.S. manufacturing employment has hit its highest levels since the early 2000s, and the White House boasted in June that nearly 800,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created under Biden, while private-sector companies have announced more than $480 billion in manufacturing and clean energy investments since he took office.
The key factors: building sophisticated industrial sectors with government seeding, export orientation, competition, and accountability for the support received. While the policy is not yet fully articulated, the administration is seeking to emulate some of the key principles of the Asian miracle’s success—and at the same time recognize the deficiencies of neoliberalism.
“If neoliberalism is going to generate inequality, then you need government to compensate the losers,” said former World Bank economist Nancy Birdsall, referring to education, retraining, and other major investments. “That didn’t happen in the U.S. The government came up with sort of pathetic little programs that did not come close to dealing with the China shock” of jobs moving there in the last two decades.
In a recent essay in Foreign Policy, Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute, argued that while industrial policy is occasionally useful, the “zero-sum” economics it embraces is bound to backfire based on “four profound analytic fallacies: that self-dealing is smart; that self-sufficiency is attainable; that more subsidies are better; and that local production is what matters.”
Deese has sought to address these common neoliberal objections to industrial policy, arguing the administration is not cherry-picking winners and crowding out private investment but instead seeking to use “public investment to crowd in more private investment, and make sure that the cumulative benefits of this investment strengthen our national bottom line.” By this he means transportation infrastructure, which “literally lays the groundwork for private investment”; government-funded technological innovation; and government investing in STEM education and training at schools and universities nationwide. Harking back to the glory days of the Cold War, Deese said Biden is “making a larger investment in innovation than even President [John F.] Kennedy and the Apollo program that took us to the moon.”
Another major area for industrial policy is clean energy, Deese said. “We know the climate crisis cannot be addressed by market forces alone. We know public leadership and investment is key to the solution. And yet for decades, our country stood by. But now, with our industrial strategy, we’re making the largest investment in clean energy ever in our nation’s history” so as to “encourage the private sector to invest at massive scale.”
And yet aspects of the new policy scheme remain incoherent. One such area in Biden’s plan is his embrace of Trump’s tariffs: Economists such as Hasanov say the East Asian model works much better if there is a vibrant export market around the world to sustain competition.
These inconsistencies arise partly “because the mainstream is still coming up with bogus arguments about crowding out other ‘good’ investments,” Stiglitz said. “It’s an embarrassment. The U.S. is all over the place. The Republicans have no coherent framework for thinking about the role of industrial policies—other than the market can’t compete with China. The Democrats can’t come up with the kind of coherent approach that is needed because of the politics of [Sen. Joe] Manchin—the policy is whatever we can get through Congress.”
Today, ironically, Japan is one of the countries carrying the banner of free trade in the absence of Washington. During the Trump administration, Tokyo helped resurrect the Trans-Pacific Partnership after Trump pulled out by joining with other members such as Canada to renegotiate the successor Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. In a 2019 interview, James Carr, Canada’s then-international trade minister, told me that “the Japanese position, attitude, and support for the rule-based multilateral trading system and fair trade has been exemplary and very important.” This year, Japan sought to rescue the WTO by joining the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, a multilateral framework that duplicates the Appellate Body by enabling members to resolve WTO disputes among themselves.
The European Union is also embracing industrial policy, launching the Green Deal Industrial Plan and Net-Zero Industry Act—which emulates Biden’s IRA by giving member states greater flexibility to incentivize private investors and match foreign subsidies such as those available under the IRA. The European Commission also recently launched a European Critical Raw Materials Act, to aid in identifying and securing access to those raw materials that are critical across various sectors of the European economy, and is leading multiple initiatives in artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Today, it is the policymakers who are surging ahead, while economists straggle behind.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Osu World Cup Bracket
This is just for me to keep track. Below each read more is the matches that have been played + the next few if I want to keep track of the schedule.
Final score is in brackets before the countries. The country on the left is higher seeded (number in parenthesis after country is seed # [what the country is expected to place, essentially]).
Matches are in the order they were played. If two or more matches were played at once, the one that was on the main stream is first, the one on the alt 2nd, and if there are any others they go last.
Weekend 1
Round of 32
[5-3] Chile (10) vs. Sweden (23)
[5-0] USA (3) vs. Thailand (30)
[5-0] Poland (2) vs. Argentina (31)
[2-5] France (15) vs. Brazil (18)
[5-3] Great Britiain (8) vs. Turkey (25)
[5-1] Philippines (5) vs. Mexico (28)
[5-4] Italy (14) vs. New Zealand (19)
[5-0] Australia (7) vs. Taiwan (26)
[0-5] Indonesia (9) vs. Ukraine (24)
[5-0] South Korea (1) vs. Kazakhstan (32)
[5-3] Hong Kong (13) vs. Finland (20)
[5-1] Russia (4) vs. Netherlands (29)
[5-4] Romania (12) vs. Singapore (21)
[5-4] China (16) vs. Japan (17)
[5-0] Germany (6) vs. Spain (27)
[5-1] Canada (11) vs. Norway (22)
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
i like that knowing what global south means requires at least a little bit of global political knowledge. it is not just a replacement for third world or underdeveloped, and it is also not a geographic descriptor. like there are "developing" and "second world" countries in europe but they are still a part of the imperial class. yes china, india, and vietnam are also global south. it's funny to see someone who doesn't know what they're talking about make assumptions based on how they "feel" about certain countries trying to use this terminology and not anything based on what anything means. i like that it is nearly impossible to liberalize vs what they have done w so much social theory because global south is a descriptor of both economic and imperial relations so japan, hongkong, south korea, singapore, apartheid isreal, even turkey are all global north countries too. and like hearing someone use global south and north is like a pretty good indicator to know if they have anything meaningful to wrt to politics, global south solidarity etc etc.
#less serious... but north american leftists will not even get hype over football... that is how broken their sense of global south#solidarity is lol
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
tech vs nature
ppl. with low resources become inventive or they don't survive, so most low resource areas that have today a flourishing community based on education and know-how, see Swiss, Sweden, Singapor, South Korea - or at least their names begin with an S
then there are communities that have abundant natural resources and can sell that to the previous ones for lots of advanced goods, and most of which begin to suffer from the resource curse meaning that selling shiploads of coal, oil or lithium does not require a lot of people, workforce, knowledge still, so oligarchs arise and dictators are elected and supported
such dumbass leaders always want more, and start to restrict the natural resources from the more developed communities, who naturally understand that their days are counted without the raw materials
so they attack a lands with raw materials to sustain their own existence and fuck them up in order to keep the price of their materials low
this can even happen on-the-fly, like a developed land actually having had all it needed for its development, but times are changing, and new technologies require such raw materials, that it happens to lack - this is the case of the USA and China with oil so far and rare earth metals newly
rare earths are needed for every computer and communication high tech...
i think from an engineering point of view there should be a layered system of world commerce to avoid the next global war
like a physical layer which actually cares about that on one hand there are plenty of resources worldwide to select from
then a political layer that guarantees that these don't really form alliances like the OPEC, or if they do, that is independent and sells all materials to everyone at the same contemporary price,
and an economical layer for actually doing business in a way that truly helps the local communities too and does not support oppressive systems' development
Or some similar system where everyone grasps that layers of distribution have to be supported by all to avoid conflict, while all layers have redundancy to outlast short time conflicts when some members violating the system are put into place.
0 notes
Link
0 notes
Link
0 notes
Text
Spot Bitcoin ETFs See Inflows as BTC Struggles; Coinbase vs. SEC Updates
This week, spot Bitcoin ETFs saw significant inflows as the digital currency struggled to maintain its price around $41,000. BlackRock's IBIT and Fidelity's FBTC both recorded substantial inflows, while the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) experienced outflows due to its high fees. The combined volume of all spot Bitcoin ETFs reached $1.8 billion, four times the volume of all 500 ETFs launched last year. Countries in Asia expressed their stance on spot Bitcoin ETFs, with Thailand and Singapore cautioning investors against trading them on the international market, while South Korea's presidency called for a reconsideration of the country's stance. Grayscale CEO Michael Sonnenshein predicted that only a few of the existing spot Bitcoin ETFs would survive in the long term. The SEC acknowledged Nasdaq's filing to open options trading for ETF products and invited public feedback. Fidelity's spot Ethereum ETF filing was deferred by the SEC until March 5. Despite JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon being an authorized participant for BlackRock's IBIT, he continues to criticize Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry. Bitcoin struggled throughout the week, failing to hold above key price thresholds. Miners sold off their BTC and triggered massive liquidations in the futures and perpetual market. IntoTheBlock highlighted factors behind the BTC downturn, including increased movements by long-term holders, an influx of BTC on centralized exchanges, and shifts in BTC among wallets. Miners took advantage of the price drop to accumulate more BTC. In addition, TrueUSD experienced a depeg event, dropping to $0.985 due to massive outflows and market participants shifting to USDT. Coinbase's legal battle with the SEC continued, with the company seeking a dismissal of the case. Judge Katherine Polk Failla criticized the SEC's use of outdated legislation for regulating cryptocurrencies. Analysts believe that the judge is likely to grant Coinbase's request to dismiss the case.
Continue reading the original article
0 notes
Text
3 Simple Ways To Break A Bad Habit! Self Love vs Narcissism | Georgia Tech QnA With Gurudev" on YouTube
youtube
Rejuvenate yourself with Ayurveda and Yoga Campaign - Ayurveda , Doctor , Treatment , Nadi Pariksha , Medicine , Pure Herbs ,Sudarshan Kriya , Yoga , Meditation in
Mumbai, Delhi , Bangalore , Hyderabad , Ahmedabad , Chennai , Kolkata , Surat , Pune , Jaipur , Lucknow Kanpur , Nagpur , Indore , Thane , Maharashtra,India , United States ,
Netherlands , France , Ukraine , Germany , Indonesia , Bulgaria , United Kingdom , Ireland , Russia , Canada , Singapore , China , Poland , Japan , South Korea , Brazil , Egypt , Portugal , Spain , Azerbaijan , Australia .
0 notes
Text
youtube
Group: Itzy
Song: Dalla Dalla
Album: It’z Different
Release Date: February 12, 2019
Lyrics: Galactika
Composers: Galactika, Atenna
Arrangement: Galactika
Label: JYP - Dreamus
Average Age of Members: 18
Numbers
Total Number of Words: 298
Average words per Member: 36.4
Standard Deviation: 23.8
Margin of Error: 10.6
160 (53.7%) in Korean vs. 138 (46.3%) in English
116 (38.9%) Sung by All vs. 182 (61.1%) by Individual
Member with the Highest Number of Words: Yeji - 98 (32.9%)
Member with the Lowest Number of Words: Chaeryeong - 29 (9.7%)
Rank
Yeji - 98 Words (32.9%)
Ryujin - 85 Words (28.5%)
Lia - 84 Words (28.2%)
Yuna - 72 Words (24.2%)
Chaeryeong - 29 Words (9.7%)
Charting
Japan Hot 100: 31
Malaysia (RIM): 8
New Zealand Hot Singles: 20
Singapore: 3
South Korea Gaon: 3
South Korea (Kpop hot 100): 2
Billboard US World Digital: 2
South Korea (Gaon) Monthly: 3
South Korea (Gaon) Year End 2019: 11
South Korea (Gaon) Year End 2020: 186
Awards
Music Video Awards: 9
Win: 1
Nominations: 5
Lists
Billboard: 20
Buzzfeed: 18
Dazed: 8
Refinery29: 26
South China Morning Post: 8
Points: 1,527.6
Itzy masterlist
Masterlist
#ITZY#ITZY Dalla Dalla#Lead Single#Dalla Dalla#ITZY Yeji#ITZY Ryujin#ITZY Lia#ITZY Yuna#ITZY Chaeryeong#Yeji#Ryujin#Lia#Yuna#Chaeryeong
0 notes
Text
US Uses ‘Ideological Bias To Split World,’ Aims For Confrontation
— Yang Sheng and Xu Yelu | March 28, 2023
US democracy Illustration: Liu Rui/Global Times
As the US will hold its second "Summit for Democracy" from Wednesday to Thursday, Chinese experts said that compared to the first summit in 2021, the latest event shows nothing new in nature - fake democracy but real hegemony, as the standard for inviting the guest countries is based on Washington's diplomatic preferences and serves its hegemonic strategy to split rather than unite the world with ideological bias.
The US is a country with messy internal governance, and the human rights situation in the country is in deep trouble. The US political system, with endless partisan struggles, continues to divide the nation and fails to solve problems of grave concerns to Americans, analysts said. Therefore, Washington is totally unqualified and is in no position to lecture others about democracy and "human rights," and the event will only make the US look even more awkward and embarrassed.
According to the US Department of State, the "Summit for Democracy" will be held from March 29 to 30 with leaders from Costa Rica, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia participating. The US has also extended invitations to 120 foreign governments and other partners to attend the event, mainly via video links.
The criteria for invitation is very vague, as many countries with Western democratic political systems are not on the list. For instance, the EU member Hungary and the NATO member Turkey are apparently not included. Singapore, a small country with a developed economy which plays a key role to bridge the West and the East, has also not been invited. The US Department of State refused to discuss the criteria, media reported.
Fake Democracy, Real Hegemony
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday that the summit is all about forming an ideological platform for combating countries whom the American political elite labels as autocracies, primarily Russia and China.
"The US has no moral right to lecture others amid chronic domestic issues. This binary way of thinking in 'black-white' or 'good guys vs bad guys' does not work in real life. And it is in no way good for building long-term relations with sovereign countries," Zakharova said, according to Tass.
"We applaud the remarks of the Russian side," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a routine press conference on Tuesday. "We have stated our position on the so-called "Summit for Democracy" on multiple occasions. Despite the many problems at home, the US is hosting another "Summit for Democracy" in the name of promoting democracy, an event that blatantly draws an ideological line between countries and creates division in the world. The act violates the spirit of democracy and further reveals the US' pursuit of primacy behind the facade of democracy," Mao said.
Experts said just as at the first summit, the second summit will still be a platform for the US to use the pretexts of democracy and "human rights" to divide other countries and to gather a group of its followers to target another group of countries that refuse to obey the US hegemony. Many of those participants will be reluctant to simply follow US instructions to show hostility to countries that the US dislikes.
US President Joe Biden understands that the previous Trump administration seriously damaged the image of US "democracy," and the fairytale of being a so-called beacon of democracy had basically collapsed. "So, he hopes to use the 'democracy summit' to restore the US' confidence, curb China's influence, and at least maintain an advantage of an ideological slogan in its competition with China," Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Tuesday.
Chang Jian, director of the Research Center for Human Rights at the Tianjin-based Nankai University, told the Global Times on Tuesday that the Biden administration is using "democracy" as a strategic tool. Such a summit is not inclusive but more hegemonic, which runs counter to the nature of democracy.
Is US democracy heading toward a dead end? — Xin Ping! Crumbling US democracy. Illustration: Liu Rui/Global Times, September 30, 2022
Arrogant Lecturer
China's State Council Information Office on Tuesday issued its Report on Human Rights Violations in the US in 2022, revealing that human rights legislation and justice in the US have seen an extreme regression, further undermining the basic rights and freedoms of the American people.
2022 witnessed a landmark setback for US human rights, the report said. In the US, a country which labels itself a "human rights defender," chronic afflictions such as money in politics, racial discrimination, gun and police violence, as well as wealth polarization are rampant, it noted.
The report said that the US is a country defined by extreme violence, where people are threatened by both violent crime and violent law enforcement, and their safety is far from being guaranteed. Prisons are overcrowded and have become a modern slavery establishment where forced labor and sexual exploitation are commonplace. The US' self-proclaimed civil rights and freedoms have become empty talk.
Since the first "democracy summit" in 2021, the bad situation of US "democracy" has not been improved, Lü said. "The latest shooting in Tennessee, where three children were killed, is living proof. The terrible gun problem has not been solved or eased at all, and it's even worsening. This, in fact, shows the infirmity of US 'democracy,'" he noted.
A "democracy summit" under failed internal governance and countless social problems is meaningless, Lü said. "It might make sense if the participants at the summit were genuinely talking about how to solve the problems for US 'democracy.' But what the US wants them to do is hail the US as 'a beacon of democracy' in the world, and that the participants are 'democracies' with US recognition. They are supposed to follow the US leadership to lecture, oppose and confront those who are not 'democratic' enough. This brings nothing good and is harmful for the international community."
"The so-called summit is not a serious event. It is being used by the Biden administration to consolidate its domestic positions. Even within the US, the summit is not been taken seriously by many people. I don't think we should even pay attention to it," Alexander Lukin, director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, told the Global Times in a previous interview.
0 notes
Text
7 Reasons Why Your Medical Device Firm Should "Aim for Asia"
Medtech Asia is facing fast-paced growth and tremendous opportunities especially for medtech manufacturing. Medical devices manufacturing is one rise in the region. Medtech News brings to the limelight seven compelling reasons for medical device companies, particularly from the West, to enter or expand their presence in Asian markets.
Asia's Strong Growth and Purchasing Power
Ten years ago, roughly 20% of the world's population controlled 80% of the world's wealth. The United States, Europe, and Japan accounted for nearly 20% of the world's population. In five years, 20% of the world's population will own 70% of the world's wealth. This 10% decrease means that developing countries, which account for the remaining 80% of the world's population, will receive more of the world's wealth.
The majority of the increased wealth comes from developing Asian countries such as China and India. Singapore and Hong Kong currently have higher per capita incomes than the United States. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have per capita incomes that are comparable to or slightly lower than the United States. China and ASEAN (Association of SouthEast Asian Nations) member countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia have rapidly growing middle classes with higher per capita incomes. Many of these more affluent Asian customers are willing to pay more for higher-quality, more effective medical devices. With rising per capita incomes and a growing middle class, more Asians can now afford to buy high-priced, sophisticated medical technology.
Large Populations= Potential Customers
Companies frequently fail to comprehend the global demographic situation. Asia, with 4.7 billion people, accounts for roughly two-thirds of the world population. Companies that are becoming more global frequently invest the same resources in Central and South America as they do in Asia, but the statistics show that this rarely makes sense. If a medical device company is already selling their products in the United States and Europe and wants to expand their international business, it would be normal for them to enter Asia as soon as possible.
Rise of Western Disease Patterns in Asia
Asian countries and their people are becoming more "Westernised" in terms of health care. Latest medtech news is that Asians are following Western lifestyles (including cuisines and eating habits). Asians are becoming more prone to Western-style illnesses such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, which are now the leading causes of death in India and China. Asia accounts for more than half of all new cancer cases worldwide. Many countries in the region are also rapidly ageing (for example, Japan and Korea), increasing the demand for elderly care and treatments for age-related diseases. Western medical device companies that already manufacture products that can diagnose and treat these lifestyle diseases should see increased demand in Asia.
Asian Market Opportunities
While many large Western medical device companies' products are available in Asia, many small to mid-size companies with unique technologies have yet to penetrate the region. Small to mid-size medical device companies that are willing to deal with the region's diverse languages, cultures, and regulatory systems may find that their products are in high demand.
Local Medical Devices vs High-End Products
While some Asian countries can afford expensive, top-of-the-line Western medical devices, many other countries still require medical devices that provide basic diagnostic or therapeutic services at lower costs. Western medical device companies with high-priced medical devices should also develop a "B-line of products" with fewer bells and whistles and sell at lower prices than their high-end product line. Large Western medical device companies are already considering a "B-line" strategy in which they manufacture more of their high-priced items locally in Asia and market at affordable prices.
Tremendous Opportunities
Medtech manufacturing should focus outside of Western markets to save money or get closer to their customers. Medtech manufacturing firms should consider outsourcing R&D to various Asian countries where the cost of a mechanical engineer or chemist is significantly lower than in the West. For example, India has highly skilled R&D, engineering, and software executives at a fraction of the cost in the West. Of course, intellectual property protection is critical in these situations. Many companies now conduct R&D for various device components in different locations throughout Asia, so that no single factory in Asia can recreate or reverse engineer the final Western device product.
Possibilities in Rural Asia
Medical device manufacturers who create devices for use in rural areas will also benefit. Western medical devices that are durable, portable, and do not require a lot of resources or support to work are becoming increasingly popular. For example, Qiagen successfully launched an HPV test in India in February 2014 that was specifically designed for rural areas with underdeveloped healthcare infrastructure. The test is inexpensive and portable. It is simple to use, with self-contained reagents and colour-coded menus that are simple to understand. The product is also long-lasting and can function in situations with limited electricity, water, and temperature control.
0 notes
Text
Google Year in Search 2022 is an impressive list of favourite searches which capture our interest. This year, 2022, was one of many challenges, and by staying home for most of the year, searches via Google rose in Thailand and around the world. It is incredible to see how different, but also what interests people worldwide. Find it out.
Most Favourite Thailand destination in Google Search 2022
https://thailandeventguide.com/thailand-chiang-mai-events-guide/
People often search for the most favourite tourist destinations in Thailand, with Bangkok and Suphanburi topping the list, followed by Hua Hin and Chiang Mai. Thai people love to travel, and as soon as the borders open, there is an increased search for foreign tourist destinations. Singapore is the hottest place to be, while Vietnam and Laos won from the traditional locations of Japan and South Korea.
A primary concern in Thailand was the State welfare card, which ranked number 1 on the list of most searches in 2022. Most searched news that was necessary for the Thais to know more about the shooting, the news around the Thai King and the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Best Shops in Thailand according to Google
When Thais look for shops, most searches on Google are around restaurants and sex shops, although the last one is illegal in Thailand. The favourite cafes that won the Google Search ist for 2022 are Lalita Cafe. Lalita is a cafe located in Chiang Rai. It offers a stunning backdrop while, other than expected, and you can find the restaurant in the urban area of the Chiang Rai province. Sparkling Cafe in Phuket is second-ranked on the list. The cafe offers a health concept and has well-varied drinks, desserts and Thai and Pasta food to check out.
One topic that excites Thai people is Justin Bieber coming to Thailand with his Justice Tour as part of a World Tour. Bird Thongchai, BTS and Blackpink drove people down to see their shows. Unfortunately, after Bieber first had to postpone the tour, he had later to cancel the show for severe health reasons.
Thai Cooking is Yummy in Google Year in Search
Cooking and Thai Food is an essential topic in Thai Culture, and you can notice the trend also on Google with lots of searches for Thai food recipes with simple meals topping the list, including chicken dipping sauce and boiled chicken with fish sauce. Nam Prik Ong, found in northern Thailand, is a popular search for this pork-based relish that balances the sweet acidity of tomatoes with savoury fermented soybeans and shrimp paste.
How to cure Covid stood in third place in Google Search, while people wanted to learn more about ATK while not forgetting about the sticky mango rice to eat while searching for more serious stuff.
Google Year in Search around the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go8nTmfrQd8
On a global scale, Google Search also found some interesting searches. The passing of Queen Elizabeth scored second, and Ukraine was first. The court fight between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was top news in 2022, not to forget that Will Smith smashed Chris Rock on the Grammy stage, ultimately leading to the banning of Will Smith from the academy.
People are highly excited about cricket sports matches. In sports World Cup was noted first. Novak Djokovic was the best search of 2022. Rafael Nadel and Serena Williams didn't score poorly, either. In the game, India vs England scored first, followed by India vs South Africa.
https://youtu.be/4WXs3sKu41I
With love and thunder, Thor is the absolute winner of 2022, with Tom Cruise returning to the screen in Top Gun: Mavering ending as third. Black Adam scored second in the global list of movies.
The top scenic spots and landmarks go to England. Buckingham Palace and the Sky Garden are the absolute winners in the battle for searches, while Brazil, Indonesia and Egypt keep scoring high interest.
Keisya Levronka in the Global Google Search List
http
s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZYvZ7XfQU4
The most popular global artist search is Keisya Levronka with her hit song Tak Ingin Usai. She is an Indonesian singer with more than 4,1 million listeners on Spotify. The artist welcomes 984,000 subscribers on YouTube and scores as absolute number one. A strong follower searched for the dark song Pasoori from Ali Sethi and Shae Gill. The song has more than 475 million views on YouTube and is one of the Top 53 global videos.
Surprisingly, most global searches do not even appear in Thailand year in search 2022. https://thailandeventguide.com/google-year-in-search-2022/?feed_id=1114&_unique_id=63a9d725d7e1e
0 notes
Text
Blockchain Game Market is set for a Potential Growth Worldwide: Mythical Games, OpenSea, ITAM Games, Robot Cache
Advance Market Analytics published a new research publication on “Global Blockchain Game Market Insights, to 2027” with 232 pages and enriched with self-explained Tables and charts in presentable format. In the study, you will find new evolving Trends, Drivers, Restraints, Opportunities generated by targeting market-associated stakeholders. The growth of the Blockchain Game market was mainly driven by the increasing R&D spending across the world.
Major players profiled in the study are:
Decentraland (Argentina), Mythical Games Inc. (United States), OpenSea (United States), Sky Mavis (Singapore), Dapper Labs Inc. (Canada), ITAM Games (South Korea), Robot Cache (United States), MakerDAO (United States), Kriptomat OÜ (Estonia), VZ Games (Latvia)
Get Exclusive PDF Sample Copy of This Research @ https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/sample-report/181586-global-blockchain-game-market#utm_source=DigitalJournalVinay
Scope of the Report of Blockchain Game
Blockchain is the technology that enables the existence of cryptocurrency. It is a play and earns type game. Start 2021 as the most popular blockchain game with around 8000 daily unique active wallets. It is a video game that includes elements that use cryptography-based blockchain technologies. Blockchain elements in these games are most often based on the use of cryptocurrency or non-fungible tokens NFTs which players can buy and sell with other players. The blockchain game market is expected to grow rapidly during the forecast period.
The Global Blockchain Game Market segments and Market Data Break Down are illuminated below:
by Type (Splinterlands, Axie Infinity, Plant vs Undead, Forest Knight, Others), End-Use Verticals (Individuals, Groups), Platform (Browser PC game, Downloaded/ Boxed PC Game, Smartphone Games, Console Game, Tablet Game, Others), Features (Immutability, Decentralization, Enhanced Security, Others), Age (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-55, 55 Above)
Market Opportunities:
Rising Blockchain Games Demand from Lack of Gamers
Market Drivers:
Players can Earn Money by Playing Games
A simple way for the Gaming Industry to earn Money
Market Trend:
Advancement in PC and Mobile Gaming
The popularity of Blockchain Games
What can be explored with the Blockchain Game Market Study?
Gain Market Understanding
Identify Growth Opportunities
Analyze and Measure the Global Blockchain Game Market by Identifying Investment across various Industry Verticals
Understand the Trends that will drive Future Changes in Blockchain Game
Understand the Competitive Scenarios
Track Right Markets
Identify the Right Verticals
Region Included are: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Oceania, South America, Middle East & Africa
Country Level Break-Up: United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Germany, United Kingdom (UK), the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Turkey, Russia, France, Poland, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, India, Australia and New Zealand etc.
Have Any Questions Regarding Global Blockchain Game Market Report, Ask Our Experts@ https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/enquiry-before-buy/181586-global-blockchain-game-market#utm_source=DigitalJournalVinay
Strategic Points Covered in Table of Content of Global Blockchain Game Market:
Chapter 1: Introduction, market driving force product Objective of Study and Research Scope the Blockchain Game market
Chapter 2: Exclusive Summary – the basic information of the Blockchain Game Market.
Chapter 3: Displaying the Market Dynamics- Drivers, Trends and Challenges & Opportunities of the Blockchain Game
Chapter 4: Presenting the Blockchain Game Market Factor Analysis, Porters Five Forces, Supply/Value Chain, PESTEL analysis, Market Entropy, Patent/Trademark Analysis.
Chapter 5: Displaying the by Type, End User and Region/Country 2016-2021
Chapter 6: Evaluating the leading manufacturers of the Blockchain Game market which consists of its Competitive Landscape, Peer Group Analysis, BCG Matrix & Company Profile
Chapter 7: To evaluate the market by segments, by countries and by Manufacturers/Company with revenue share and sales by key countries in these various regions (2022-2027)
Chapter 8 & 9: Displaying the Appendix, Methodology and Data Source
Finally, Blockchain Game Market is a valuable source of guidance for individuals and companies.
Read Detailed Index of full Research Study at @ https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/buy-now?format=1&report=181586#utm_source=DigitalJournalVinay
Contact Us:
Craig Francis (PR & Marketing Manager)
AMA Research & Media LLP
Unit No. 429, Parsonage Road Edison, NJ
New Jersey USA – 08837
#Blockchain Game market analysis#Blockchain Game Market forecast#Blockchain Game Market growth#Blockchain Game Market Opportunity#Blockchain Game Market share#Blockchain Game Market trends
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
johannesburchard
For Posterity
financial-advice
Advice-Only-Financial Planner
kvm24
K.v.M.
madlyirrelevant-blog
Irrelevant_사람
amra1965mitra
Sin título