Yemen Herald News 
The sky-creepers are not signs of development, and the accumulation of trillions of dollars is not a sign of wealth
I can assume that besides my literary and academic career, I had some experience in the field of economics, in addition to my political experience that lasted for twenty years. What concerns me in this article is my interest in economics. Numbers and data are the best and brief way to know about other nations and countries, both in the present and in the past. My fascination with numbers leads me to read about the strongest economies and how countries are ranked by financial and economic institutions. I usually do that only to reassure myself about two countries: the United States and Egypt. The first is the biggest economy in history, not only in the present day, and the second, Egypt, is the biggest Arabic country and is usually associated with the dreams and hopes of the Arabic renaissance. The burning issue is that all forecasts talk about the removal of the United States from the throne of the world’s strongest economy and China replacing it in 2030, then the U.S. comes after it, then India, and so on… and Egypt will be the sixth-largest economy in the world.
As for the United States, I follow its news like billions of people around the world do, because it’s like the father of all of us. It is the father of the global order, the one that maintains its balance and keeps it from deviation, collapse, and destructive or authoritarian tendencies. Of course, America has been successful in this role and performs it perfectly. If we look back at the history of wars between empires, kingdoms, and states before the existence of the U.S., we’d find eras full of conflict with tens of millions of victims. The world only saw relative stability under U.S. dominance—no expansionist or colonial tendencies, no empires—and everything, to some extent, has, peacefully, progressed economically, technologically, scientifically, culturally, and politically under the guidance and control of the United States.
Back to the economy: I have read and watched some Arabic economist who scattered their terrible and melancholic projections about the economy, predicting an economic chaotic state caused by conflict and war between the United States and China. What I want to say is that the American economic system is a unique phenomenon, and the United States will, economically, reign the world for at least a hundred years and will remain, politically, on top of the world’s political systems forever. If we look at the size of the U.S. economy, we’ll see how hard it is for any economy to compete with it. The U.S. population is about 300 million people, yet they produce one-fifth of global GDP and consumes one-quarter of it. It means that 300 million people produce what 1.5 billion people produce, and consume what 1.7 billion people consume. So where does China go, and who is it competing with? If China wants its economy to be equal to that of the U.S., it would need to produce five times as much as the United States and to consume four times as much as the United States. Accordingly, it is a matter of nonsense to say that the production of 1.5 billion people will equal that of 300 million in ten years is nonsense. Moreover, it is imprudent to say that patent output from 1.5 billion people equals that of 300 million.
The point is that the American system, as a model of capitalism in general, is attractive and suitable for individuals because it values individual freedom above all else. Opportunities are equally available, and you can become whatever you want and succeed in any field you choose. Everything produced by capitalism suits not just its own people but humanity as a whole—it is more efficient, faster, cheaper, and easier to use. For example, everyone wears jeans, everyone eats pizza, and consumes McDonald’s, KFC, Subway, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, espresso, cappuccino—there’s nothing tastier or better. Meanwhile, China is an authoritarian, totalitarian state that suppresses freedoms—you can only be what the party allows you to be. If we look at Chinese production, which is neither truly socialist nor capitalist, we find it based mainly on imitation and copying rather than original cultural expression. People’s willingness to adopt Chinese-style products is practically impossible. Instead of Coca-Cola, drink frog juice? Instead of KFC, eat fried snakes? Instead of McDonald’s, eat a bat sandwich? People cannot think of doing such things or imagine themselves eating and drinking such foods and drinks. As for clothing, the Chinese still sit in straw hats, and if they want to look modern, they wear jeans in the American casual style. The main point is that Chinese, Asian, and African lifestyles in general are far from the spirit of the modern age. Even when they have undergone economic development, like China, they lack the zeitgeist spirit. These countries are a mere large, cheap American factory—without originality, just imitations, often distorted ones. China may achieve strong economic numbers, but they are just abstract figures that don’t reflect a real political and economic model that can inspire other nations or that can be applied by other countries. The Chinese economic model is deeply rooted in its locality, operating within its narrow and limited mechanisms. The Chinese economy produces what the world needs rather than what has been invented and originally produced by China. The American economy is of a global dimension. It produced its own goods, transforming them into culture and necessities, and exported them to the world. On contrary, the Chinese economy produces American and European, and American goods and exports them to these countries.
The American system supports freedoms, democracy, dialogue, rejects violence, and seeks human welfare. That’s what makes it attractive to countries and people. But if China were to lead the global system, all countries would become authoritarian, and any protest would be crushed by tanks, just like in China. There would be no personal, political, media, or social freedoms—only a totalitarian regime where no voice rises above the party’s voice. This might appeal to dictators, but the ordinary people cannot accept it or give their consent to its policy and rulers. Nevertheless, even if a leader adopted this system and succeeded, the final shape of such an experience would be turning into something like North Korea. When the leader dies, people fear change, so power stays with the ruler and his family. The point is that as responsibility is the core part of the American system, it’s difficult for any system, no matter how strong economically, to replace the United States politically and economically. The American responsibility can be seen, for example, during the COVID-19 epidemic. If we compare how the two countries – the United States and China – handled it, we will find out that the U.S. bore the heaviest burden to maintain the global economic system. To avoid economic collapse, the U.S. endured huge losses in lives and refused a full lockdown to preserve the economy. No authority could strip Americans of their freedom, so social distancing was voluntary, not forced. New York remained open even when it became a major hotspot, unlike China, which locked down entire cities and forced tens of millions into quarantine. When the outbreak began in China, the Chinese government rushed to buy stocks, bonds, and company assets in a process resembling nationalization—if not outright theft—seizing citizens’ property. Meanwhile, the U.S. adopted an extra budget of trillions of dollars and distributed them to individuals and companies to protect people’s rights and prevent bankruptcies. To sum up, you can adopt all the elements of the American or Western system, but that won’t make you surpass them. For example, are we going to go back to straw houses instead of skyscrapers? Whatever we take from Americans is useful and valuable, but it won’t make us superior. You can see the whole world now has skyscrapers in the American style—some even taller—but that doesn’t indicate a real development. For example, Dubai was called the financial capital of the East, yet an Indian scammer managed to defraud it of $6 billion in one of the largest frauds in history. Dubai competed with New York in buildings, but cannot match its financial strength, economic power, or financial system, which is almost impossible to defraud, even by thousands of dollars, let alone billions.
Dr. Sadek Al-Salemi
About the Author
