{"id":83242,"date":"2021-12-28T12:17:25","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T17:17:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/schillerinstitute.com\/?p=83242"},"modified":"2022-01-03T20:30:49","modified_gmt":"2022-01-04T01:30:49","slug":"interview-china-and-hamiltonian-economics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/blog\/2021\/12\/28\/interview-china-and-hamiltonian-economics\/","title":{"rendered":"EIR Interview with Justin Lin: China and Hamiltonian Economics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe title=\"EIR Interview with Justin Lin: China and Hamiltonian Economics\" width=\"1290\" height=\"726\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/Pm-61Pw9iCw?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Justin Yifu Lin conducted December 20, 2021 by <\/em>EIR<em> Editor Michael Billington. Dr. Lin was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank from 2008 to 2012, and is now the dean at several institutes at Peking University: the Dean of the Institute for New Structural Economics; the Dean at the Institute for South-South Cooperation and Development; as well as a Professor and Honorary Dean at the National School of Development. Subheads, footnotes, and embedded links have been added.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> This is Mike Billington, I\u2019m with the <em>Executive Intelligence Review<\/em>, the Schiller Institute, and The LaRouche Organization. I\u2019m speaking here with Dr. Justin Yifu Lin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> Thank you very much for the opportunity to have this conversation with you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>What Prevents China-U.S. Cooperation for Development?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> As you probably know\u2014I sent you some of this\u2014there are several senior diplomats and intelligence professionals in the United States\u2014including <a href=\"\/?p=82782\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/blog\/2021\/12\/03\/eir-interview-with-former-us-ambassador-and-china-expert-chas-freeman\/\">Ambassador Chas Freeman<\/a>, who has great experience in China, and <a href=\"\/?p=82958\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/blog\/2021\/12\/13\/graham-fuller-end-u-s-addiction-to-never-ending-war\/\">former CIA official Graham Fuller<\/a>\u2014both of whom have warned that the U.S. foreign policy has been \u201cweaponized,\u201d that diplomacy has been lost, and that this is driving the danger of war between the U.S. and China, as well as with Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">You have argued in the past for what could be called \u201ceconomic deterrence,\u201d that as China\u2019s economy becomes significantly larger than that of the U.S., that \u201cthe United States\u2019 own development could then not ignore the opportunities brought by the Chinese market,\u201d and that this would bring about a \u201cpeaceful and common development between China and the United States.\u201d What in your mind is preventing that peaceful and common development now?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> Thank you very much for this very important question for our world today. First, we need to understand that cooperation between the U.S. and China is crucial for many global challenges, because the U.S. is the largest and the strongest country in the world, and China is the second largest economy in terms of economic size. Their cooperation will be the foundation for combating climate change, containing the pandemic, and to help the other countries to get rid of their poverty in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. So, the cooperation is important, and our cooperation certainly is good for the U.S., for China, and for the whole world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But we did not see the cooperation come along. We see a lot of tensions in the recent years. I think it is because the U.S. has lost confidence in itself. The U.S. was the largest economy in the world throughout the 20th century. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China overtook the U.S. in 2014, but the U.S., for her own interests, tried to maintain its dominance, economically, politically and so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And so now there are some involved in the strategy of the U.S. who try to contain China. And certainly, that kind of strategy reflects in the U.S. diplomatic and foreign relations policy with China. Certainly, that will threaten the stability of the world, because, first, we need to have cooperation to address global issues, but also because that kind of tension is a threat to the foundation for cooperation; that will add to the uncertainty of the world. That\u2019s very bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>How To Resolve the Difficulty<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">How can we improve that? Well, one way is that China could reduce its economic size. If China cut its GDP by half, then the U.S. would not feel threatened. But it\u2019s not possible, because development is a human right. That is in the UN constitution, and that is a constitution has been advocated by the U.S. and many other countries for decades. So, there\u2019s no reason why China would need to cut our income by half or more to please the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The other way is to continue to have development, to have growth. I wrote an article arguing that if China can reach half the per capita GDP of the U.S.\u2014I think that\u2019s very moderate, only half of the U.S.\u2014I think the U.S. will accept China by that time, for three reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First, [even] if China\u2019s per capita GDP is half that of the U.S.\u2014and certainly we would still have some internal differences\u2014our more developed regions, like the major cities, Beijing and Shanghai, and the more developed areas, our coastal provinces, like Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong, have a combined population of a little bit more than four hundred million. Currently, the U.S. population is around three hundred and forty million, but certainly the U.S. population will continue to grow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In those more developed regions in China, per capita GDP will be about the same as in the U.S. Both per capita GDP and the economic size will be about the same as the U.S. We know that per capita GDP reflects the average labor productivity of that part of the economy, and the average labor productivity reflects the industrial achievement, the technological achievement. So, by that time the U.S. will not have the technological superiority that they could use to choke off Chinese development. Currently, you see, the U.S. has put a lot of high-tech companies in China on its so-called Entity List,<mfn>The Entity List is a trade restriction list published by the U.S. Department of Commerce\u2019s Bureau of Industry and Security, consisting of certain foreign persons, entities, or governments that are subject to U.S. license requirements for the export or transfer of specified U.S. technologies, including entities that engaged in \u201cactivities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and\/or foreign policy interests.\u201d<\/mfn> without actually having any concrete evidence for their accusations. That is only because the U.S. wants to use their technological superiority to choke off China\u2019s development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But if at that later time, if the more advanced regions in China had the same income level, the same technological level, then the U.S. would not be able to do that.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Second, our population size is about four times that of the U.S. If our GDP is half the U.S., then in fact China\u2019s economic size will be twice as large as the U.S. No matter how unhappy the U.S. is, the U.S. cannot change that fact. It\u2019s a fact.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And third, China will be the largest economy by that time, and China will continue to grow. For the U.S., for example, if those companies on the Fortune 500 list, want to stay on that 500 companies list, they cannot lose the Chinese market. And also in trade, certainly it\u2019s a win-win. But we know that in trade, the smaller economy gets more than the larger economy. By that time, China\u2019s economy will be twice as large as the U.S., so in trade with China, the U.S. will gain more. So, for that reason, certainly, if U.S. politicians really care about their own people, then, to have friendly relations with China will be necessary. It would be necessary for the U.S. to improve the well-being of their own people and to maintain their companies\u2019 leadership in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Countering Economic Suppression by the U.S.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> You argued once before that the U.S. intentionally suppressed the Japanese economy in the 1980s and 1990s to, as you said, \u201cprevent them from threatening the U.S. economic status.\u201d And, as you\u2019ve just said, they\u2019re doing pretty much the same thing now towards China, having suppressed these Chinese companies with accusations and so forth. How has China countered this today? You\u2019ve already said what you propose will come in the future, but how can China counter this attack on Huawei and other companies today?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I think the first thing we need is to remain calm and open. We need to move our economy to further improve its market efficiency. The U.S. today has some superiority, an upper hand in certain technologies, but the U.S. is not the only country which has those kinds of technologies. The advanced countries in Europe\u2014Germany, France, and Italy\u2014and Japan and Korea\u2014also have many advanced technologies. China should remain open, to have access to the technology from other advanced countries, as long as it\u2019s not technologies in which the U.S. has the monopoly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Advanced technologies require their own heavy R&amp;D\u2014it\u2019s a bit expensive, and once they get those kinds of technological breakthroughs, the profitability of these companies depends on how large the market is. Measured by purchasing power parity, China is already the largest market in the world. Every year since 2008, China has contributed about 30% to global market expansion. So as long as China can open the Chinese market, I figure that other high-tech companies will be ready to fill in the gap that is due to the U.S. restricting its companies from exporting those kinds of technologies to China. China only needs to focus on a few technologies, for which the U.S. is the only supplier in the world. By that we will not be choked off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Second, we need to continue to develop our economies. Currently, if you measure by purchasing power parity, our GDP is about 25% that of the U.S., and by market exchange rate our GDP is about one sixth of the U.S. As I said, if we can maintain the growth momentum, I think the dilemma will be addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>\u2018Industrial Policy\u2019 vs. \u2018Free Trade\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR: <\/strong>You\u2019ve written for years about the fact that the advanced industrial nations reached the point they are at today by using government directed credit, and what you call \u201cindustrial policy,\u201d to protect and support emerging industries and the research that\u2019s necessary for that kind of development. But now these advanced sector countries are denying the same measures to today\u2019s emerging economies, under the demand of \u201cfree trade.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Korean economist Chang Ha-joon called this \u201cKicking Away the Ladder.\u201d Lyndon LaRouche has pointed to this as the primary difference between the British System of \u201cfree trade\u201d and the original American System of protection and directed credit. I have also written that the Chinese economic model today that you promote is closer to the American System\u2014people like Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List and Henry Carey\u2014than is now practiced in the U.S. itself. How do you see this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I fully agree with it, no question. Actually, not only did the U.S. protect her own industries during the \u201ccatching up\u201d stage, but Britain practiced the same. Before the 17th Century, Britain was in a process of trying to catch up with the Netherlands, because at that time the Netherlands\u2019 wool textile sector was more advanced than Britain. The GDP in the Netherlands was about 30% higher than the GDP in Britain. So, Britain adopted similar strategies to protect its own wool textile industries, and created all kinds of incentives to smuggle the equipment from Netherlands to Britain and provide incentives to attract the craftsmen in the textile sector in the Netherlands to come to Britain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Exactly the same process, like what Hamilton argues, and List argues. Britain only turned to free trade <em>after<\/em> the industrial revolution. Britain was then the most advanced country in the whole world, and their industry was the most advanced in the world. They wanted to export their products to other countries, so they started to advocate free trade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At that time, the U.S. wanted to catch up, so the U.S. used exactly the same policy as Britain had used in the 17th century, when Britain wanted to catch up with the Netherlands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If you look at history, only a few countries were able to industrialize and catch up. You can see in the catching-up process, they all used the government\u2019s active facilitation to support their industrial upgrading. Britain and the U.S., after they became the most advanced countries, on the one hand, they argued free trade for their electorates, but at the same time, they also actively supported research and development to further improve their technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And that\u2019s how they can continue to upgrade their technology, and also develop new higher-value industries. Because at that time, their technologies were on the global frontiers, so if they wanted to have new technologies, they would have to invent the technologies by themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The invention of technologies has two parts. One is basic research, the other is the development of new products based on the breakthroughs in basic research. Private firms, certainly, have the incentive to develop new technologies and new products, because if they\u2019re successful, they can get patents, and then they can have a monopoly for up to 17 or 20 years in the global market. But at the same time, if they do not have breakthroughs in basic research, then it would be very difficult or even impossible for them to have the development of new products and new technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But you know, basic research, you\u2019ll find, is a public good, and so the private sectors do not have the incentive to do basic research. If you look into the high-income countries, their governments all support basic research. That is a necessity for them, to continue to have a new stream of technology, a new stream of products and so on. They are still using the industrial policy. But the difference is that they are on a global frontier [of new technologies], and that\u2019s how an industrial policy in the advanced countries, to address market failures, will be different from the type of industrial policy to address market failures in a developing country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In nature it is the same, but actually the areas that the government is required to contribute its efforts will be different. Recently, there\u2019s a <a href=\"http:\/\/[https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/s?k=the+entrepreneurial+state&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQiAk4aOBhCTARIsAFWFP9Fxfe4jppK2WpGxiL-PELVJxbR1qZYPqzMwPCN86KaNuygmjB729PsaAstBEALw_wcB&amp;hvadid=241635440091&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvlocphy=9007597&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvqmt=e&amp;hvrand=7352094751917855798&amp;hvtargid=kwd-47688396272&amp;hydadcr=21905_10171115&amp;tag=googhydr-20&amp;ref=pd_sl_78m6oc9d3i_e\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"[https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/s?k=the+entrepreneurial+state&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQiAk4aOBhCTARIsAFWFP9Fxfe4jppK2WpGxiL-PELVJxbR1qZYPqzMwPCN86KaNuygmjB729PsaAstBEALw_wcB&amp;hvadid=241635440091&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvlocphy=9007597&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvqmt=e&amp;hvrand=7352094751917855798&amp;hvtargid=kwd-47688396272&amp;hydadcr=21905_10171115&amp;tag=googhydr-20&amp;ref=pd_sl_78m6oc9d3i_e\">famous book called <em>The Entrepreneurial State<\/em><\/a><em>,<\/em> by Mariana Mazzucato. Her theme is: In all of the major and competitive industries in the U.S. today, they are the result of the government\u2019s active support in basic research in the previous period. So, the area in which a country requires the government to put its efforts will be different, depending on the stage of development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Hamilton vs. Jefferson<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the U.S., there are two traditions: One tradition is the Hamilton tradition, to argue that the government should provide support to overcome the barriers for further development. The other tradition is the Jefferson tradition, to say the government should do nothing, should leave the market to function\u2014the government should be minimal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In fact, in practice, the U.S., since the founding of the nation, has been following Hamilton. But in rhetoric, it is totally dominated by the Jefferson tradition. I think you have a split between the reality and your rhetoric, but unfortunately your rhetoric has been so powerful, and it\u2019s all over the developing countries\u2014they are advised not to do anything by their government, and as a result\u2014except for a few countries whose governments followed the Hamilton tradition and were able to industrialize and catch up\u2014but other countries were misguided by the Jefferson tradition to not do anything, and so they were unable to narrow the gap with the advanced countries.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Money Accounting\u2019 vs. \u2018Wealth Accounting\u2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> You and other Chinese officials, including Premier Li Keqiang, have called for a new means of accounting the strength of nations, arguing that looking only at the GDP and the debt\u2014which are the money side\u2014is what you call \u201cseverely flawed,\u201d for considering only monetary data and leaving out the underlying national assets, including human capital, natural capital and produced capital. You call this alternative method \u201cwealth accounting.\u201d How far has this idea been developed and put in use in China or anywhere else?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> First, I\u2019m delighted to see an increasing recognition for change in some nations. GDP is a flow concept\u2014how much you produce every year. But the production every year depends on the stock of the wealth, including human capital, natural resources, biodiversity, as well as the produced capital: the equipment, the machinery, and also the infrastructure. All those are the wealth of that nation and the foundation for producing goods and services to generate the GDP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the past, we only looked at the flow concept, the GDP, without paying attention to the condition of the foundation to generate the flow. The foundation should be based on the wealth\u2014the assets we just described. I\u2019m delighted to see now, increasingly, there is a recognition of the necessity to change the concept, including in the IMF recently, which has produced a paper saying that if the government can use debt to finance an investment in infrastructure, it generates assets; and it is different from the government using that debt to finance consumption\u2014those are pure debts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So, if we calculate debt according to whether the government used the debt to support infrastructure or other improvements in human capital, then it will contribute to the ability for the nation to generate new streams of income and thereby enhance the ability to pay back its debt. In the past, when we talked about the debt-sustainability framework, that framework only calculated the gross debt, without paying attention to the asset side. The IMF today called for a revision in its debt sustainability framework. So, we are delighted to see now this more inclusive concept has been increasingly recognized and put into the policy consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> Were you and other Chinese economists involved in that change at the IMF?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> When I was at the World Bank, I started to advocate that. I wrote policy notes to advocate that. To change peoples\u2019 beliefs, people\u2019s ways of behaving, certainly takes time. I was the Chief Economist of the World Bank from 2008 to 2012. The proposal to change to the new framework came only after about four years after I left! So, I think that if we want to change the world, conversations like this one with you and me, and people with a better concept, a better idea, should not stop advocating for that. And the more people understand, then I think that gradually, in the end, I\u2019m sure the world will change for the better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> You are attacking neoliberal orthodoxy. But while you were at the World Bank between 2008 and 2012, you were face-to-face with that as the dominant ideology at the World Bank and the IMF. I guess you are explaining now how you dealt with it then, and how it\u2019s having a longer-term effect from your arguments. Does that sound right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> Yes, that\u2019s very true. For example, when I first arrived at the World Bank, I started to say, okay, structural transformation is the foundation for inclusive and sustainable development in any country. But if you look into the structural transformations, you not only need to rely on the entrepreneur in order to have innovations, but entrepreneurs, if they are to be successful, need to be provided with adequate infrastructure. You need to provide adequate financial support. You need to have an improvement in infrastructure, improvement in the financial structure, institutions, and so on. Also legal institutions. All those things that individual enterprises will not be able to deal with. You need to require the state to do it.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But the state\u2019s capacity and resources are limited. You need to use your limited capacity and resources strategically. That means you need to pick certain areas that you want to do. And those certainly require so-called industrial policy. At the beginning, industrial policy was a taboo in international development organizations, including World Bank. But I started to advocate for it. I\u2019m delighted to see, increasingly now, people accept that it is necessary to have industrial policy, including the U.S. government, which now openly says we embrace industrial policy for our future development. Right? For example, infrastructure. In 2008, I started to advocate investing in infrastructure, on the one hand, to cope with the necessity for counter-cyclical intervention, but at the same time to lay the foundation for long-term development in the developing world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So, it\u2019s one stone killing two birds. At the beginning, people were also very reluctant. At that time, the counter-cyclical intervention was mostly providing rescue packages to laid-off workers and so on. I see, certainly, that to stabilize the economy would be essential. But if you only provided, let\u2019s say, unemployment benefits\u2014it\u2019s about the consumption, yes, but you do not contribute to enhancing the growth potential in the future. If you invested in infrastructure, you [not only] create jobs, but you reduce the need for unemployment benefits, and at the same time you lay the foundation for long-term growth.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the beginning, people were very reluctant. But I\u2019m delighted to see now, the World Bank, the IMF and the European Union, and to some extent also the U.S., accept the idea, and have started to advocate the need for infrastructure. Recently, the Biden administration proposed to the Congress for funds to support infrastructure investment. Those kinds of ideas. When I was at the World Bank, when I started to argue for that, it was so foreign to many people. They thought, well, infrastructure is an investment, so the market will take care of that. But as we see, the market could not do it, and so we need to have an active government participation. Gradually, people started to embrace many ideas I had started to advocate at the World Bank, and put them into their programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> On the other hand, the U.S. and Europe are continuing to deal with their huge debt crisis by simply printing money\u2014Quantitative Easing [QE] and other programs. So, while they\u2019re acknowledging the huge deficit in infrastructure, and they\u2019re making some small efforts in that direction, they\u2019re continuing with the QE, which is threatening hyperinflation today, which I think even the inside gurus of Wall Street and the City of London are acknowledging, that there\u2019s a grave, grave danger of a hyperinflation. What is your view on that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Power of Great Ideas<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> Yes, I think that in order to change their policies it will be essential to change their ideas, their policy orientations. For this, I agree with Keynes. In the last sentence of his <em>General Theory,<\/em> he said: \u201cBut, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.\u201d In the past, the world was influenced by those kinds of inappropriate neoliberal ideas, so the government policy was shaped by those kinds of misguided ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And so, it\u2019s very important for your Institute and for scholars like me to advocate and present alternative ideas which can address the issues, and also improve our way of doing things in individual countries, and also in the world. In the end, people will see the benefit and they will start to make some changes. At the beginning, maybe a very small step. But once they see the power of the right interventions, the power of the right policy, I\u2019m hopeful. I think that the world will move for the better. I do wish the right idea will win the debate in the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> When I looked at your idea of \u201cwealth accounting,\u201d going beyond the monetary figures of GDP and debt, I thought about Lyndon LaRouche\u2019s idea of a non-monetary measure of economic progress, which he called \u201crelative potential population-density.\u201d His view was that these measures were ratios determined by the transformation of the physical economies through the rates of development of new physical principles, discovered in nature, and then applied to the productive process through new machine tools using those new principles. Do you see that as similar to your idea of \u201cwealth accounting\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> Yes, I think that that idea is very close to the idea that we just discussed, what I have been advocating for a long time. And we do see, you know, we share the same wisdom and our ideas, our proposals, converge on the same directions. And so, we need to join hands to propose the right ideas, through your Institute and my Institute, and to convey it to more people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> You recently wrote an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.project-syndicate.org\/commentary\/focac-china-investment-in-africa-sustainable-development-by-justin-yifu-lin-and-yan-wang-2-2021-12\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.project-syndicate.org\/commentary\/focac-china-investment-in-africa-sustainable-development-by-justin-yifu-lin-and-yan-wang-2-2021-12\">article, \u201cDevelopment Begins at Home,\u201d<\/a> with your associate, Dr. Wang Yan, who has also spoken at one of our Schiller Institute conferences, comparing the approach of the IMF and the World Bank to the development of Africa, to that of the Chinese approach, using your \u201cwealth accounting\u201d idea. In that article, you said that despite many decades of aid from the West, the infrastructure bottlenecks were not addressed, and that this was the primary reason that the African countries very much appreciate Chinese investment, which emphasizes infrastructure as the means to lift the productivity of the entire nation and escape from poverty<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Belt and Road Initiative<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As you know, the Schiller Institute and <em>EIR<\/em> have strongly promoted the idea of the New Silk Road, since the 1990s\u2014actually, following the fall of the Soviet Union\u2014as a means of achieving peace through development. Of course, the Belt and Road Initiative, launched by President Xi Jinping [in 2013], is very much in that light. How would you evaluate, so far, the progress of the Belt and Road Initiative in Africa and elsewhere?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I\u2019m delighted to see that these new ideas have been welcomed and also joined hands in practice. For example, the Belt and Road Initiative\u2014there are already 145 countries and more than 30 international organizations which have signed the Strategic Cooperation Agreement with China. I am delighted to see this idea has been widely accepted in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">China also has continued to support infrastructure and infrastructural improvements in the world in spite of the pandemic situation, and those kinds of investments certainly provide the foundations for the future, but at the same time, improve jobs and economic developments, even during these pandemic times. I am also delighted to see the European countries now proposing a similar strategy, like the European Gateway, as a way to improve the infrastructure, to link to other countries. I think the world is moving towards the same direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The infrastructural gap is so huge, that no one country can accomplish all of this. So it is desirable to join hands, with all the initiatives, by China, by European countries, by Japan, by the U.S., because fundamentally we care about humanity, we care about the future of the Earth, the future of human beings. As long as we contribute to that, we should join hands. We should not, in each individual country and for our political purposes, put up barriers to our cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>A Modern Global Health Care System<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> In that same article about African development, you directly blame the IMF and the World Bank for what you called \u201cneoliberal orthodoxy,\u201d and that the result of that was that many low- and middle-income countries continue to suffer from fundamental deficiencies, such as the lack of health care personnel and resources. You noted that even after 70 years of development aid, still \u201cthere is the inability to deliver clean water, electricity and sanitation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As you know, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche has formed what she calls the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites\u2014based on an idea of the 15<sup>th<\/sup>-century genius Nicholas of Cusa\u2014calling for a global mobilization to address the health crisis that you\u2019ve identified, to provide a modern health system in every country, if the pandemic and future pandemics are going to be defeated. I know that part of what China has launched is a Health Silk Road. So, what are your thoughts on global cooperation to achieve this kind of health system in every country?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I think that there is a need, and a huge need, as this pandemic shows up, and China certainly contributes to what you mentioned about health care overall. China already provided two billion doses of vaccine to Africa and other parts of the world\u2014one third of the doses of vaccine in the world excluding China. But that\u2019s not sufficient. So, we need to work harder, to work together. Otherwise, the COVID-19 pandemic may linger, and the longer the pandemic is there, the harder it is to deal with, because there are going to be other new mutations coming out all the time, making the vaccines become less effective. So, we need to join hands to contain it, and the sooner, the better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We also need to set the foundation to cope with similar challenges in the future. When this kind of threatening virus appears, at the beginning, we should cope with it. We should repress it immediately. And with that, we need to have global cooperation. So, I think the call [for a modern health system in every country] is very important, and we should join hands to promote that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Operation Ibn Sina<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> Let me bring up the horrible situation in Afghanistan, where, as you know, 40 years of war, and now the freezing of that nation\u2019s very scarce reserves by the U.S. Federal Reserve and several European banks, and the imposition of sanctions and even cutting off the aid from the IMF and the World Bank, which has created a threat of what has to be recognized as genocide through starvation and disease in that country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In particular, the World Bank was supporting the nation\u2019s health care system for the last 20 years of the U.S.\/NATO warfare and occupation there, but that\u2019s been completely cut off, leaving the country with virtually no public health system at all. In this case, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has launched another project\u2014she calls it Project Ibn Sina, named after the 11th century Persian medical genius, who came from that region, of Afghanistan. Our proposal is demanding not just emergency aid, and the release of these funds\u2014but also to build the nation\u2019s infrastructure, as you have been emphasizing. By integrating Afghanistan into the Belt and Road, and in particular, extending the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the CPEC, into Afghanistan. Do you think this is possible?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I think it\u2019s possible, if we really care about humanity. I think that the support in the health care, in the medical situation, should be unconditional. Conditions in Africa and in Afghanistan and other developing countries will be improved once they have improvement in their health, and improvement in their economic development. Then the socio-political stability there can be maintained. I\u2019m sure that it\u2019s not only good for the individual country, but also good for the global communities, because then we will be in a better situation to work together and to have more collaboration, and it will also reduce the refugees, legally and illegally, to the high-income countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And you know, that will also be a big challenge for the high-income countries. So, in some areas, the support should be unconditional, because only that will get you humanity. If we really care about human beings, then no matter under what consideration, we should support those basic needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Prospects of a \u2018Greater Harmony\u2019 and Peace<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> Right. As you know, the U.S. and China signed a \u201cPhase One\u201d trade agreement in January of 2020 between the U.S. and China. [Vice Premier] Liu He was in attendance at the White House and President Xi Jinping was on the telephone with President Donald Trump. At that time Trump announced that he would soon make a second visit to China, and said he looked forward to what he called, in his words, \u201ccontinuing to forge a future of greater harmony, prosperity and commerce,\u201d which would lead to an \u201ceven stronger world peace.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Now, clearly, that never happened. As the U.S. failed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump eventually fell into adopting the antagonistic approach to China expressed by his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, blaming China for virtually every failure in the United States. And although the current Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, has the same hostile attitude toward China, President Biden has had several long calls with President Xi. Do you see some chance of restoring that \u201cgreater harmony\u201d coming out of this cooperation between Presidents Biden and Xi?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I think that China\u2019s door is always open, and, as we said at the beginning, cooperation between China and the U.S. will lay the foundation to address many of the global challenges that we encounter today. So, it will be essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As to why it did not occur: I think it is because there are some problems in the U.S. If you look into the past, the U.S. always liked to use other countries as the scapegoat for its own domestic problems. That may gain some kind of political interest for the politician in the short run, but it will make the issue become worse for the long term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">So, I hope the politicians and the intellectual communities in the U.S. will have the wisdom to understand the roots of its own problems, and it should not use other countries as the excuse or scapegoat for its own problems. Short-term political gain is for a few politicians, but at the cost of the well-being of the whole nation. I hope that this kind of situation will be improved. If those kinds of using other countries as a scapegoat for its own domestic problems, is removed, then certainly U.S. and China cooperation will be good for the U.S., for China, and for the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Creating a Culture of Science and Art<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> In his own work, Lyndon LaRouche very much focused on the quality of creativity, which distinguishes Man from the Beast, as the same in scientific investigations as it is in artistic discoveries, especially that of classical music. In that light, he insisted that scientific education and aesthetic education must go hand in hand in order to allow for the full development of the creative powers of our youth and our population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I personally have very much taken note of the fact that there is a new appreciation in China, following the dark days of the Cultural Revolution, to honor the classical traditions in China, of Confucius and Mencius and the great minds of the Song Dynasty Renaissance, people like Zhu Xi and Shen Guo, and that this is going on simultaneously with the incredible economic and scientific developments taking place in China, as well as China\u2019s increased acknowledgment of the great cultural developments in Western culture and Western classical music, and so forth. How do you see the relationship between economics and science, and the aesthetic side of cultural development?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I see that science and art\u2014they are complementary to each other, they are both [areas] in which all human beings unleash all of our potentials. So, we should not just focus on one thing and neglect others, if we want to have a better society. We also want to allow the people to develop themselves with greater potentials. And, as you described and you noticed, China now has tried to bring in our traditional culture\u2014appreciation of art, music, classics, not only from China, but from other civilizations\u2014into our programs, educational programs. That\u2019s a good sign. I\u2019m sure that will further the rejuvenation of China to a higher stage, not only materially, but culturally, spiritually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> Thank you. Are there any other thoughts you would like to convey to the readers and supporters of The LaRouche Organization?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> I am delighted to have this opportunity, and I hope our voice will be heard in more corners of the world, because fundamentally, we all care about human beings, and we all want to have a better society for every country in the world. And so I hope that our message will get momentum, traction in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>EIR:<\/strong> Thank you very much. I hope that we can in fact build on this cooperation. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has always insisted that if we are going to bring about a new paradigm for mankind, it\u2019s going to mean that each culture reaches back to its greatest moments, and that we work together to bring about a truly human renaissance, rather than just a European Renaissance or a Chinese Renaissance or an Islamic Renaissance, but that we bring mankind together to address our common humanity. That is the one basis on which we can end this descent into conflict and war and depression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Dr. Lin:<\/strong> Very good. Thank you very much.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Justin Yifu Lin conducted December 20, 2021 by EIR Editor Michael Billington. Dr. Lin was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank from 2008 to 2012, and is now the dean at several institutes at Peking University: the Dean of the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":83243,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-allgemein"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83242"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83242\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":83297,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83242\/revisions\/83297"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/83243"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schillermeet.de\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}