Analysis Of The Scottish Company Base And Market: Fill & Download for Free

1 IntroductionI have already written three major papers on the Medium site on this topic but due to the complete ignorance of the vast majority of people about this topic I will review and revisit these in response to different recent questions on Quora.This question refers to the economic case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish independence and the implication is that the Barnett Formula and the low oil prices might somehow inhibit Scottish independence.This Answer is a copy of The Economic Case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish Independence first published on the internet on September 13 2014. I have renumbered the paragraph numbers and added to the case where required.2 Purpose This Answer points out the main economic effects of a “Yes” vote and estimates that the financial gains to an independent Scotland are very real and quantifiable while the losses are minimal. Comment is also offered on the effects of an independent Scotland continuing to use the Pound or otherwise, and on other relevant issues.3 The effect of the transfer of 90% of North Sea Oil and gas receipts to Scotland An independent Scotland would become much richer due to the expected transfer of about 90% of North Sea Oil sales and tax revenues. The rUK, on the other hand, would receive a perhaps a few brass plates representing the registered headquarters of some insurance companies and some of the banks which the British Government have recently bailed out. On balance, there can be little doubt about the great benefit to Scotland and the minimal benefits to the rUK in that transfer.3.1 The Revenue Effect The BBC’s Robert Peston has calculated the major economic effect of the Yes vote — the transfer of of 90% of the oil and gas income to Scotland, which will result in the rUK having a balance of payments deficit of about 6.9% of its smaller GDP. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103437). These estimates provide a good indicator to part of the finances of Scotland’s future if independent, and the change in the finances of the rUK.Peston remarks that the current UK deficit in 2013 was about 4.4% of the UK GDP. Given that GDP was about $2.5 tr. (or £1.55 tr.), a 4.4% current account deficit is equal to a British borrowing requirement of about $110 bn (or £68bn) a year.The reduced GDP of the rUK would equate to the current figures minus the estimated $213bn (£132 bn) GDP of an independent Scotland, or an rUK GDP of about $2.37 tr. And Peston’s figure of 6.9% of that amount implies an annual rUK borrowing requirement of about $163bn (£101bn).The estimated value of the oil sales in this scenario are about £33bn a year, which is approximately 25% of an independent Scotland’s GDP (of £132bn).As Robert Peston points out, the independence deal is the southwards transfer of the “Brass Plates” of the heads of the registered offices of Banks and some insurance companies to London in exchange for the northwards transfer to Scotland of 90% of the receipts of of North Sea oil and gas. Given that there might be, say, six brass plates and the total revenue loss to the UK (90% of oil and gas sales plus the oil and gas taxes plus the revenue from 45% of the management and operating cost in the North Sea) is about £33 bn plus £9 bn, or £42 bn a year in total, that’s £7 bn per brass plate. Brass has never been so valuable. The £42 bn annual gains to the Government of Scotland are very real and absolutely enormous, the brass plate gains to England are unquantifiable and of minimal value compared to the near-certain Scottish gain of £42 bn a year. And the idea that an independent Scottish Government which has an extra 32% revenue is somehow not going to be able to pay its pensioners and keep a good quality NHS is laughable — these funds mean the Scottish Government can look after its people much better than ever before.All of these numbers are of course illustrative, but they are of the right order of magnitude. I have not included the recent upwards adjustments in UK GDP to include prostitution and drug dealing because these activities by their nature do not produce much direct tax revenues, although they act as income transfers and may increase expenditure-based sales taxes.3.2 The McCrone Report The current British Coalition Government, of course, know all about the above numbers — it would be very surprising if they did not know. And they have known all about this issue for decades.In 1974, a brief report was written by Professor Gavin McCrone to advise the Conservative Government then led by Edward Heath. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report.) As Wikipedia comments:‘The eighteen-page report focused on the likely effects of North Sea oil revenue on the economic viability of an independent Scotland. Professor Gavin McCrone wrote the paper as advice to the UK Government. The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be “embarrassing”, making the country “as rich as Switzerland.” He also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe “with the exception of the Norwegian kronor”.’Another paragraph of the Wikipedia report observes:“A year after Professor McCrone had written his report, civil servants in London (including McCrone himself) met to discuss its implications. They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state. They also concluded that Scotland’s “economic problems would disappear”, and it would become “the Kuwait of the Western world”, though this was balanced somewhat by the opinion that Scotland could risk “disaster” if the oil price collapsed. The civil servants in London summed up by finding that there was “a good case for the continuation of the Union.”And a much better case for Scottish independence! As the current SNP Government of Scotland have demonstrated, since in 2005/6 they got their hands on the previously classified-as-secret McCrone Report under the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, Wikipedia continues:“UK oil production peaked in 1999 and had declined 67% by 2012, but petroleum still contributed £35bn to the UK balance of payments in 2011. The UK government took an estimated £6,530m in direct petroleum taxes in 2012–13[7] plus £6bn in income tax, national insurance and corporation tax from supply companies in 2011–12. As of 2012 around 45% of UK oil & gas employees are in Scotland.”and“In his evidence to the Lords Committee on the Economic Implications of Scottish Independence in 2012, Professor McCrone stated that Scotland’s GDP would increase by around 20% if North Sea oil were counted as part of it.”Alex Salmond’s claims that Scotland would be much better off when independent are fully justified in the light of that report, which concludes:“In an interview for Holyrood Magazine on the 19th of May 2013, ex-Labour chancellor Dennis Healey (who served in the Cabinet at the time the McCrone Report was submitted) stated: “I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism… I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.” [9]The Westminster Government, having miscalculated the likely outcome of the independence referendum, are now utterly terrified about the possible loss of about £33 bn (a bit less than the £35bn in 2011) on the future UK balance of payments and losing about 75% of the tax revenues arising from North Sea operations, equal to another c£9 bn a year. It’s not so much that a new love for Scotland has belatedly appeared in the breasts of the Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, it is more that their one indisputable and certain love — the love of money — is probably motivating their every action. The No case could be summed up as“Dear Voters of Scotland, please continue giving us £42 bn a year. We need it, we have got used to having it, and we have wasted it so far, but that’s no reason not to let us keep doing that. We know these oil revenues are yours, and acknowledge that we have tried to mislead you immensely to act against your own better interests by trying to imply that somehow the costs and uncertainties of independence are very great, because the economic case for Scottish independence is actually unanswerable. Our case is ridiculous because none of the disadvantages of independence could possibly total £42bn a year, and we have wasted hundreds of billions of pounds of North Sea gas and oil proceeds since these resources were discovered. But think of our position. How can the rUK possibly raise the £42bn a year Scottish Independence will cost us? Please be reasonable and help us by voting No! If you don’t our neoclassical economics game is up! ”3.3 Implications of the higher rUK borrowing requirement.An rUK borrowing requirement of 6.9% of GDP would probably not be seen by the markets as sustainable in the long run. Therefore the rUK would have to develop an industrial policy and to produce a lot more high-quality exportable goods because otherwise it would not only become, but it would also remain, as an economic basket case. Therefore a Yes vote would not only be to the advantage of the Scots, it would greatly advantage the English, Welsh and Northern Irish workers , because the future governments of the rUK of whatever hue would have to make a much better use of its very capable and highly trained workforce, by framing policies to increase economic growth and the productivity and employment in manufacturing. The rUK would not be able to continue the decades-long policy of successive UK Governments, of having a financial policy without an industrial policy, and of preferring the London-based financial sector over the nationwide industrial sector. Other nations — particularly Germany and the Tokyo Consensus high-growth group — have a financial system which supports industrial growth and development. (See https://medium.com/p/a-comparison-of-the-washington-berlin-and-tokyo-consensus-zones-221e7e53018b) The rUK would need to develop one.The “panic in the breastie” or desperation of the Westminster politicians is therefore because the UK cannot afford to lose the resources of Scotland and the Scots as part of the union. Far from the insulting initial No campaign refrain of Scotland being “wee, stupid and incapable of governing themselves”, Scottish resources per head are vast, the Scots are highly educated (as per ONS assessment “maybe the best-educated on the planet”) and the Scottish Government team are highly competent and credible.And the Scots will live in a much richer, high-growth economy if they vote Yes.3.4 The BBC and the media frighteners campaign Given the combination of two key facts — the fact that Scottish independence involves an inter-state transfer of about £33bn plus about £9bn a year, giving an enormous funds transfer to Scotland, and that the Scots through an industrial policy intend to turn that gain into an enormous advantage to Scottish industry — a Yes vote would require the end of Thatcherism south of the border. It would see the back of the existing Coalition government and its hopeless neo-classical economics and all that implies.Given the continual campaign of yammering lies told by the BBC on behalf of the No campaign, the BBC and BBC Scotland has acted and is acting as the major campaigner against the YES vote. Salmond and his team have been given one long programme but the headline is the story and the BBC have not acted with any impartiality — every downside of Scottish Independence is being given a daily major airing while the great commercial and economic advantages of independence are hardly mentioned at all. The 130 major industrialists not supporting Scottish Independence are featured prominently on the BBC TV headline, but the 200 in favour of independence are not. The relocation into London of several brass plates of financial institutions is interesting but has almost no economic effect at all, except to give these these institutions the comfort of the Bank of England as a lender of last resort, but that issue has been regularly featured as a daily item on the BBC TV news as if it was much more significant than it is, with an entirely mistaken “loss of jobs” implication either stated or implied. The McCrone Report has not had a mention on the BBC, although it is a major factor driving the actions on both sides of the campaign. The BBC have not highlighted the deadly analysis of their own economic correspondent Robert Peston which indicates the increased economic difficulty of the rUK after Scottish independence, which is hidden away on one page of the BBC website.It is perhaps inevitable, given the disastrous economic position of the Westminster Government if the Yes vote wins, that the BBC (with would not welcome renaming itself as the Rest of UK Broadcasting Corporation, or the rUKBC) would become the major mouthpiece of the Westminster campaign against Scottish Independence. The BBC is no longer the British Broadcasting Corporation, it has become the Westminster Broadcasting Service, highlighting and repeating all the misleading misinformation of the No campaign. It is already the rUK BBC in all but name.Of course, one defence of the BBC’s partiality is that it is acting in the interests of most, or the rest of the people in the UK and is only repeating the Westminster frighteners in order to keep all the the North Sea Oil assets within the income of the Government of the United Kingdom. But the effect is not as intended — the effect of the BBC’s activity might be to produce an increased No vote, which, if successful, would prolong the life of the Coalition Government which does not act in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.The effects of Independence on rUKIf the Scots get independence it is not Scotland that is economically destabilised, it’s the rUK which becomes a bit more of a basket case. In retrospect, Cameron should have agreed to having Devo Max being put on the ballot paper and the price of his misjudgement is almost as high as that of Margaret Thatcher.But as the Guardian research has shown from the showing from the political donation registry, the Tories are 83% funded by 15 super-wealthy individuals, of whom 14 are London-based financial operators.The future of the Conservative PartyThe Conservative party was once popular, unionist and conservative. It has turned into a very unpopular party, ruling by division and belonging to the radical right, the purveyors of the mistaken neo-classical economics which only acts in the interests of the rich and privileged. When there are only 15 major financiers providing 83% of the funding of the Conservative Party, who can possibly believe that the UK is still a democracy? These piper-payers are dominating the policies of the Conservative-dominated Coalition Government, which are not framed to increase the prosperity of the majority of the people of the UK, but are acting in favour of the monied interests which fund the Conservative Party. A national “Party of the Rich” is only acceptable if it does not act viciously against the interests of the majority of the people, but the current poverty-increasing NHS-privatising Coalition does and is doing exactly that. So much national income has now been transferred out of wages and into profits since 1980 that the only way more of the same can be delivered is by impoverishing more and more of the working people. In my opinion the limit of doing that has not only been reached, but has now been exceeded. The Coalition Government have produced some economic growth which is of no benefit to the great majority of the British people, with more poverty and starving children, with a million people depending on food banks. That is one of the major drivers behind the rise of minor parties in general and the decline of the Conservative vote in particular.The Scottish Currency IssueThe highly paid Mark Carney, Head of the BoE, has said time and again again the Scots can’t continue to use the pound if the Yes vote wins. He will say the opposite shortly after the Scots vote for independence, because the pound will go into a very steep large nosedive if he doesn’t. The money markets can do their sums and they know that a 7% borrowing requirement for the rUK is not easily sustainable and the riskiness of UK lending will increase. The value of the pound will be much more stable if the oil earnings are part of sterling area sales, as Mr Alex Salmond intends. It will be difficult enough for the rUK to borrow to fund its balance of payments without having to defend the value of the pound as well.And What Can One Say about Paul Krugman’s Advice, that the Scots Should “Be Afraid, be Very Afraid”? Perhaps just this:“Be foolish, Mr Krugman, be very foolish. Please keep living up to your reputation as probably the most foolishly opinionated Nobel Prize Winner, as a man who argues in the abstract and never does his homework and who therefore often has no knowledge of what he is talking about. After all, your Nobel Prize win gives the right to be listened to, when there is often no substance, no research, and no merit whatsoever in what you are saying.“Was your opinion solicited by the current British Coalition Government, Mr Krugman, or did you manage to be that foolish all on your own? Even your analogies are bizarre. Global warning is making Scotland and the United Kingdom nothing like Spain without the sunshine. The weather over here is now bizarre, with long blazing heat waves, often warmer than Spain, and Scotland has in some years had blizzards which make the place look like Switzerland. Except many years you can’t get to the ski slopes in the Cairngorms (the Scottish central highlands) because the A9 is blocked by great drifts of snow. And the wind speeds here are now phenomenal, with more frequent building-damaging gusts of of over 80 miles per hour, and tornados have appeared in the centre of the UK, mild at the minute by tornado valley standards, but not previously seen here. It’s like Spain with the sunshine, and the sun even shines on Leith, and sometimes like a snow scene out of Switzerland, as well as having monsoon-like weeks-long downpours and massive floods burying farmers’ fields for weeks — sometimes for months.“How could a country like an independent Scotland with a GDP of c£130 bn, plus additional oil taxes of £9 bn a year, plus increasing reserves based on oil revenues of £33 bn a year, possibly become unstable? It would have to take the advice of many of your neo-classical colleagues before it could. The aim of Scotland’s government is to make Scotland into a western European economic miracle, into the most prosperous region in the sterling zone, and from my examination of the effects of the oil wealth plus their proposed industrial policy (see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/5184) they know exactly how to do that. The government of rUK cannot prevent that outcome if there is a Yes vote because if the Scots were not allowed to use the pound after a vote for independence, it is not Scotland that would suffer: the value of pound would fall substantially and while the resulting devaluation might help British Industry to export more, it would do nothing to enable Mr Carney to sleep more easily at night.“Of course an independent Scotland, if it had an independent central bank, could bale out its own banks. It would be able to create its own credit for that purpose, in the same way the Bank of England did. And it would have very large reserves, increasing at about 25% of GDP a year, because the First Minister of Scotland is not proposing to waste these funds as the British Government has done for decades. The policy of an independent Scotland would be to build up a large national reserve fund as Norway has. The strength of any new Scottish currency would be enormous, similar to the Norwegian Kronor, as Professor McCrone has remarked in his Report. You seem to be writing without understanding any of that. As a good American liberal, your heart is in the right place but I have no idea where your head is. Perhaps you should do a little more research and not give advice without knowing a lot more about the subjects you pontificate upon.”In any contest between the advice of Krugman and the ponderings of the BBC’s Robert Peston, or the observations of the Professor Gavin McCrone’s Report, which ones would you give due weight to? My credibility scorecard would read: Peston 90%, McCrone 90%, Krugman zero percent.The Bad Faith of the No CampaignThe Coalition government has abandoned all constraint in trying to persuade the Scots to vote against independence. Although the Edinburgh Agreement states that“The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.”several problems have emerged during the last three weeks of the referendum.First, the referendum has not been conducted in a fair or honest way. The McCrone Report has not been promoted or widely discussed during the run-up to the referendum. The Coalition Government and its representatives have used much of the power of Government to try to disadvantage their opponents. The Devo unit of the Foreign Office has written to all foreign governments asking them to express support for the No vote (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484). Most governments have quite properly refrained from endorsing the “No” campaign position. Weak expressions of qualified support such as Obama’s “There is a referendum process in place and it is up to the people of Scotland. The United Kingdom has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well. And we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. But ultimately these are decisions that are to be made by the folks there” have perhaps been typical 0f the guarded response received. The BBC and the British newspapers have often treated these qualified replies as an endorsement of the No vote when it is not.Second, the BBC has not been impartial, as required by sections 21 to 23 of the memorandum of agreement. The BBC has usually exhibited extreme bias in favour of the No camp, and every disadvantage, however minor, of the Yes case has been given great publicity, with the great revenue and tax advantages of the transfer of 90% of the the sales proceeds of North Sea Oil to the Scottish Government hardly mentioned at all. There is no point listening to the BBC on this issue any longer, because their output is almost entirely biased, without any balanced comments or valuable information.Third, the Coalition Government has acted illegally a mere 10 days before the date of the referendum. All the main three leaders of the Coalition Government have quite wrongly argued that if the Scots will please vote No, then something close to the the Devolution Max Option (or Devo-Max) would be implemented. The political leaders have little inclination, no mandate whatsoever, and in the case of Labour politicians no power, to promise that. The leader of the Commons in the absence of the Prime Minister, William Hague, has said at PM’s Question Time that “the British Government has no plans to introduce Devo Max if the No vote prevails.” (See http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/hague-giving-scotland-more-powers-if-it-votes-no-is-not-government-policy.1410350878) The reason why Devo Max is not on the ballot paper is because Cameron red-lined that option — he would not allow it on the paper under any circumstances. And putting forward new proposals within 28 days of the referendum by either party is illegal under the Edinburgh Agreement. The postal voters have now voted and the reason why no new proposals should be put forward 28 days before the referendum date is that these early voters should be voting with the same information as the voters on referendum day, and any new information means they can’t. It is particularly misleading to argue, as all the panicking Westminster politicians visiting Scotland have done, that a No vote is somehow a vote for Devo Max. It isn’t and if the No vote succeeds it won’t be. Wiliam Hague has been very forthcoming on this issue, thoroughly demolishing the claims of the visiting David Cameron and the other part leaders by saying“The statements by the party leaders made on this in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign, not a statement of Government policy today but a statement of commitment from the three main political parties, akin to statements by party leaders in a general election campaign of what they intend to do afterwards.“It’s on that basis they have made those statements.”Promises made during UK election campaigns are notorious for being broken. In 1979, Thatcher promised the SNP MPs that if they voted down Callaghan’s Labour Government and she came into office in the subsequent general election, she would implement the Kilbrandon Report for Scottish devolution. She did win the 1979 elect but did not implement any measure of the Kilbrandon recommendations. Thatcher also promised during the 1979 election that she would use the revenues from North Sea Oil to recover the productivity of the UK economy. Instead the revenues were used to strengthen the value of the the pound and to give very large reductions in income tax to the rich. A lot of British manufacturing industry collapsed in consequence of the higher pound but no doubt many millionaires enjoyed the extra income.In the joint publication “The Coalition: our programme for government” Cameron and Clegg promised that, “We will reform the banking system to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to protect and sustain jobs.” Nothing of that promise has been delivered. In fact quite the opposite has come about — the banking system has not been reformed and is still at risk, nothing has been done done to promote a more competitive economy, and jobs have been threatened, with the spread of zero-hour contracts which the government count as employment but which provide no guaranteed work or stable weekly income at all.William Hague is clearly signalling to the Conservative MPs that the Coalition Government have no intention whatsoever to give Scotland any additional powers after a No vote — it’s back to the normal business of ignoring Scotland as usual. A No vote means no change. The temporary agreement among the party leaders old and new is only a ploy to get a No vote leading to no change. Only a Yes vote can prevent that outcome.Conclusions(All of the above was written in September 2014 and the following conclusions remain valid.)1 The economic case for Scottish independence is very strong, and a Yes vote for independence could make Scotland into one of the strongest economies in Western Europe with high living standards and high reserves from its beginning.2 The No campaign is entirely based on fear and misinformation, and the BBC is the handmaiden of that campaign. The partial behaviour of the BBC was not what was ever meant to happen in a referendum campaign, because it is very unfair.3 The fear and panic of British politicians is soundly based on what happens to the rUK if Scotland leaves the union, but their actions are motivated by money, by the potential loss of oil revenues and probably not by any new-found love of Scotland or the Scots.4 The Referendum Campaign has changed into a race between education — about the real economics of the case for Scottish independence — and the No campaign fear-mongering based on misinformation. Hope should win over fear.5 The No vote is a vote for no change, a vote for the continuation of Westminster policies in Scotland.6 Scotland has led the world before and the referendum creates the opportunity for it to do so again. I hope education wins and the Scots vote YES for the sake of all the Scots and the people in the rUK and the wider world.Updated AnswerThe Barnett Formula is an economic pretence that Scotland is an advantaged English region. It isn’t.© George Tait Edwards 2014Note: George Tait Edwards has published a book about “Shimomuran Economics” at http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-tait-edwards/shimomuran-economics/paperback/product-21688864.htmlThe Economic Case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish IndependenceAn Acceptable Economic Solution to the Scottish Independence Issue?The most relevant question about this issue is: How would the Rest of the UK manage without the enormous contribution of Scotland to the UK economy?They would find that very difficult.

Scotland desperately wants independence?Let us explore this aspect of the question in a little more detail shall we?To be kind, we shall take a look at polling done by the pro-independence side’s very own Angus Robertson (SNP) and what it has to say.More evidence that Scots do not want independence – but you’ll have to search for itA curious thing happened this last week.Angus Robertson’s new company, Progress Scotland (‘commissions public opinion polling … to better understand how people’s views are changing in Scotland’) published its first research. If you missed it, Progress Scotland ‘aims to help prepare the case for Scotland to progress towards independence, keeping pace with the views of the people who make their lives here’.A series of posts on their web site by their ‘Independent polling expert’ Mark Diffley has highlighted some of the main results of a survey carried out for them by Survation of over 2,000 members of that company’s panel of people living in Scotland. The article includes comment on survey results covering – the role views on the EU might play in any future independence referendum; the impact of Brexit on Scottish public opinion; voters who are undecided or open-minded about independence (sic – because they could equally be open-minded about the UK); and belief in whether independence will ever happen. The link above will take you to the articles.The curious thing is that the full results of the survey seem to have been published only briefly on the Survation web site before being taken down. They have yet to appear on the Progress Scotland site. As any good pollster will tell you, only access to the full results of a survey allow you to judge whether any comment or interpretation is both correct and honest.Luckily, the eagle-eyed newshounds at the Red Robin web site (‘We provide serious news from a left perspective’) spotted the full results of the survey and downloaded them before they disappeared. You can find them linked hereand all due credit to Red Robin for being quick off the mark. As they say,Data obtained by ex-SNP deputy leader Angus Robertson’s pro-independence polling outfit has shown low support for independence [my emphasis]. Robertson’s official write up failed to mention the findings, and the full tables were removed by Survation shortly after they were published.Assiduous Tweeter @SteveSayersOne has put out a series of tweets over the last few days looking at aspects of the data obtained by Red Robin. The rest of this article examines one issue arising from the survey in more depth.Notwithstanding all Progress Scotland’s finessing about the impact of EU and Brexit on people’s views about independence, the fundamental question on the subject is people’s propensity to support independence. As monitored by Professor John Curtice on his What Scotland Thinks web site, this is usually couched in terms of ‘How would you vote in a Scottish independence referendum if held now?’ It is a subject missing from Progress Scotland’s analysis of their own survey.The Red Robin web site shows that not only did Progress Scotland collect data on the subject they did it in a more detailed and sophisticated way than the basic ‘How would you vote’ question of most surveys. The fact that they interviewed over 2,000 people also means their results will be somewhat more accurate than the typical 1,000 interviewees of most polls on the subject.The sophistication of the Progress Scotland question is that they asked people to rank their commitment to independence on an 11 point scale, from ‘I completely support Scotland becoming independent’ (0) to ‘I completely support Scotland staying part of the UK’ (10). Here is a graph showing the results (it excludes 3% who said they didn’t know the answer to the question):It’s impossible to know what went through people’s minds if they gave the question a score of, say, 3 or 7. But we can be pretty sure that at the extremes of the range anyone scoring 0 or 10 is pretty damn well fixed in their opinions (‘A recalcitrant nat/yoon’ as their opponents might say). We can also speculate that those at the mid-point of the range of possible answers, 5, might be most amenable to changing their opinion in either direction.This is where the detail of the graph gets interesting.First, note that 40% of people in the survey completely support Scotland staying part of the UK, compared with only 24% completely supporting independence, a much bigger gap than the 55:45 found time and again in other surveys.Second, at each point as you move away from what I describe as the mid-point of the range, there are more people inclined to support staying in the UK than to support independence, for example, towards the two extremes, 5% at point 9 compared with 2% at point 1.Third, the net result is that 58% of people lie on the UK side of that mid-point, compared with 35% on the independence side.Another way of looking at the data is that since 64% completely support either staying in the UK or independence, only the remaining 36% are amenable to change, and some of them (for example, the 1s and 9s, maybe even the 2s and 8s) are also not likely to change. So if there were to be another independence referendum (not in the light of these figures very likely, at least in the short term), any pro-independence campaign would have a heck of a lot more persuasion to do of the 36% than a pro-UK campaign.You might want to dip into the detailed tables to see what impact views on the EU and Brexit might have on public opinion. But bear in mind that the pro-indy/pro-UK figures here come despite 62% of Scots voting to remain in the EU referendum and despite three years of arguable muddle, incompetence and most recently crisis in negotiating the UK’s exit from the European Union, what one SNP MP rather unhappily described as a ‘cluster bourach’.You might now understand why you have to search for the full results of Progress Scotland’s survey and why they did not want them to appear in public. Their obfuscation does not bode well for any reputation they might hope to build. But while there is never any reason for complacency on the pro-UK side of the argument, the survey also does not bode well for those advocating another early referendum on separation.Note. The figures from the survey quoted above have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. The graph has been prepared from the more detailed numbers in Table 1 of the full survey results and so may vary marginally from figures in the text.And the wanting to stay in the EU element of the question.The SNP are also ironically making the case for Scotland staying part of the UK with their arguments for Scotland remaining in the EU.The SNP: Making the Case for UnionBy arguing for a soft Brexit, the SNP are doing a great job of making the case for Scotland remaining in the UK.The SNP lost the independence referendum for many reasons, but the transparent dishonesty of their economic case was probably the biggest factor. They tried to sell Scottish voters a pipe-dream based not just on hopelessly unrealistic oil revenue forecasts and a non-existent currency solution, but also on fantastically optimistic assumptions about how Scotland’s economy would be affected by breaking out of union with the rest of the UK, our largest trading partner.Now the SNP is making the case for staying in the EU single market by using arguments that apply four-fold to the merits of Scotland remaining in the UK single market. They’ve got themselves in a real guddle here, but then it’s hard to be logically consistent when “independence” is your answer to every question.Let’s be under no illusions about why the SNP is dead set against a hard Brexit. It’s not because they think it’s best for the UK, it’s not even because they think it’s best for Scotland, it’s because they think it’s best for their all-consuming obsession of Scottish independence, for their defining political ambition of dragging Scotland out of the UK.The simple truth is that the further the UK is from remaining in the EU single market, the more economically damaging Scottish separation would be. For those of us who oppose Brexit, this is the silver lining in what is otherwise a very dark cloud: if we suffer a hard Brexit, a future independence referendum means asking Scots to choose between the UK single market or the EU single market.Scotland exports four times more to the rest of the UK than we do to the rest of the EU. Of course the EU market is much larger, but even after nearly 45 years of unfettered market access, our exports there are relatively small (16%) compared to those to the rest of the UK (63%). The reasons why are obvious: within the UK we’re transporting goods on the same island, we’re selling services to people who speak the same language, we’ve enjoyed over 300 years of free trade and of course we share the same currency.Faced with this rather obvious point, supporters of Scottish independence either refuse to believe the Scottish Government's own data on exports, or they adopt the quite astonishing position of denying that the UK single market even exists. That it does is self-evident. Since the Act of Union was signed in 1707, all parts of the UK have enjoyed free movement of goods, services, capital and people, there have been no customs borders, we’ve had common laws governing market regulation and we’ve shared a single currency. The Act of Union may have been signed 311 years ago, but the provisions within it that define the UK single market are still very much in force today.One of the arguments used by the SNP during the independence referendum was that Scotland could stay in the EU and so stay in the same market as the rest of the UK, thereby avoiding any trade disruption. This argument was always dubious, but following a hard Brexit it would fall apart completely. None of the benefits of being in the UK single market could be guaranteed for an independent Scotland.Of course nobody’s suggesting trade with the rest of the UK would stop following a hard Brexit, any more than the arguments against a hard Brexit assume trade with the EU would stop. What we’re dealing with here is potential disruption to trade.This is where the SNP’s latest arguments expose them as not just being logically inconsistent but also shamelessly hypocritical. When Sturgeon quotes economists at Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute on the risk to Scottish jobs supported by EU trade, she neglects to mention that those self-same economists reckon that more than four times as many Scottish jobs rely on our trade with the rest of the UK. When our First Minister quotes Treasury forecasters on the likely economic damage a hard Brexit would cause, she assumes we’ll forget that they’re the same Treasury forecasters Salmond accused of producing a “dodgy dossier” when they quantified the likely damage to Scotland’s economy that independence would cause. It seems the SNP are rather keen on “Project Fear” when it suits them.So the current arguments about Brexit highlight the greater relative importance to Scotland’s economy of the UK market compared to the EU – but they should also serve as a reminder that Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom is about so much more than free access to the UK single market.Within the UK, Scotland is part of a UK-wide fiscal framework that currently allows approximately £10 billion a year of higher spending in Scotland than would be possible if we were “fiscally autonomous” (that is: than if we were simply “paying our way” within the UK). These annual transfers now can be seen as the quid pro quo for the fact that the economic benefits of “Scotland’s oil” were shared across the UK in the 1980s; that’s how pooling & sharing works over time.But this UK-wide “pooling and sharing” is something that has no parallel in the EU. When Greece was in trouble, there were no fiscal transfers forthcoming from German tax-payers to bail them out. That these fiscal transfers occur within the UK but not within the EU illustrates a deeper truth that is rarely articulated: the bonds of moral solidarity that bind Scotland to the rest of the UK are stronger than those which bind us to the EU.Whether one explains those bonds by reference to our history of shared endeavour, our shared values, our sense of national pride or some other aspect of shared British identity, the fact that such large sums of money are freely (and largely without complaint) moved between the UK nations is evidence that a deep bond exists. This might be best explained as a shared belief in social justice – we’re comfortable to share financial responsibility for the well-being of all our fellow UK citizens.Hopefully we can agree that the arguments in favour of union aren’t all about things we can put a pound sign in front of, but we should at least consider what those billions of pounds of fiscal transfers mean in practice. They mean £1,900 annually for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That’s extra money the Scottish Government gets to spend on education, healthcare, free prescriptions, free elderly care, no tuition fees, toll-free bridges, business rates cuts and much more - stuff the SNP can crow about in a party political broadcast while still campaigning to leave the very union which makes that level of spending possible.The SNP’s hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is laid bare when they argue for the benefits of union within the EU whilst simultaneously denying those same (but objectively larger) benefits of union within the UK. In terms of both market access and hard cash to support our higher public spending, Scotland’s place within the UK is objectively worth much more to us.The economic case for union is often presented as something which is distinct from the emotional case. In fact these tangible economic benefits are simply a practical manifestation of the emotional case: they exist because of the deep bonds of moral solidarity that bind us.Now the trade element.The Scottish Government (hardly unionist) has produced a nice infographic which tells us the answer, along with an FAQ that busts the key Scottish Nationalist myth that Scotland’s export figures suffers from a sort of Rotterdam effect.Export Statistics Scotland - PublicationExport Statistics Scotland - Frequently Asked QuestionsHow does ESS treat the situation where Scottish goods are initially exported to the rest of the UK, and subsequently re-exported?The ESS estimates only capture the first point of export. This means if a good is exported to a company in the rest of the UK and that company then exports it somewhere else, ESS will only capture the export to the rest of the UK.Direct sales from Scottish companies to international destinations are counted as international exports regardless of where they leave the UK.What proportion of exports to the rest of the UK are then re-exported internationally?While undoubtedly some exports to the rest of the UK will be re-exported, including as part of other products, it is not possible to say exactly what this proportion is. However over half of Scottish exports to the rest of the UK are services (such as financial services) and are unlikely to be re-exported abroad. Also, many of the goods exported to the rest of the UK are in sectors where re-exporting is unlikely (utilities, retail and wholesale).Why do we end up with the “Rotterdam Effect” if the statistics are measuring the end destination?Although it does not matter which port in the UK that Scottish goods leave from in counting export statistics, the port in Rotterdam acts as a major distribution hub as well as a port. This means that Rotterdam is often the destination of many goods exported from Scotland (and the rest of the UK) which are then subsequently re-exported to other destinations. This results in what is known as the “Rotterdam Effect” – where the amount of exports to the Netherlands is artificially inflated.Trading PlacesIs Scotland the biggest export destination for rUK?NB: I have assumed the SNP politicians meant “the rest of the UK (rUK)” rather than “England” here. Primarily because independence would leave the former as the continuating state and, as far as I’m aware, there are no export statistics for England alone. The increase in direct references to England from SNP politicians, as opposed to 2014’s careful reliance on euphemisms such as Westminster, is perhaps a topic for another time.First thing to note is comparing data is actually quite difficult. Intra-UK statistics on trade are not commonly produced and I’m not aware of any report on UK exports excluding Scotland’s, therefore I’ve had to draw several different sources together to make estimates.My presumption is that Salmond and Cherry have used the Scottish Government’s Quarterly National Accounts report for the value of rUK ‘exports’ to Scotland [LINK]. This assumption is supported by Cherry quoting £52 billion for last year (Table G).Further, I presume they have compared this to HMRC’s Overseas Trade Statistics [LINK] which shows UK exports to the USA, our largest single country export destination, as £42 billion for the same year, 2015.£52 billion is more than £42 billion so Scotland is rUK’s biggest export market, right? Wrong.Whilst the ScotGov stats cover goods *and services*, OTS only includes the former.It’s also worth noting UK stats obviously include Scotland’s trade with the US. When these two distorting factors are corrected¹, the comparable data looks very different.For 2014, the rest of the UK exported £84 billion to the USA. Compared to rUK ‘exports’ to Scotland of £50.5 billion. Over £30 billion more.So Cherry and Salmond are simply wrong.But biggest export market or second biggest export market, doesn’t the point remain that no country would volunteer to jeopardise such a valuable market… well perhaps… if you haven’t been paying attention for the last six months.The 27 countries of the EU account for just under half of the UK’s exports and, as we’ve seen in the last week, the current proposal from Theresa May will see us leave the single market and the customs union, a move which is widely expected to damage trade. To suggest economic logic will prevail simply ignores the depressing reality.Besides, if the SNP’s argument is that Scotland should be independent to maintain our position within the EU then our trading relationship with rUK will be governed by the agreement between London and Brussels. Whatever argument is made for loss of trade by virtue of a UK-EU border must logically apply whichever side of that border Scotland finds itself on².And when your trade with one of those entities is worth four times more than the other… well we’ve already seen that economic logic doesn’t matter to nationalists.What is clear to all is that the UK is a hugely successful, highly integrated single market with billions of pounds worth of trade supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the union. Any move to jeopardise this should concern people across the UK.Are EU exports the ‘growth market’ for Scotland?Short answer… no.The latest Scottish Government export statistics [LINK] show Scottish exports to the EU fell by 7.8% from 2013 to 2014; meanwhile our exports to the rest of the UK grew by 3.2% across the same period.Given Joanna Cherry specifically mentioned, twice, that our EU exports are growing I thought perhaps she was referring to a longer timescale. The Scottish Government’s export statistics go back as far as 2002. This is the growth they show for rUK and EU trade from Scotland³ (goods and services).Clearly over the time period covered by ESS, our exports to rUK have grown far more than those to the EU. Indeed, the only possible way by which you could argue the EU is the ‘growth market’ is to compare 2014’s figures against 2010’s which would helpfully include a bumper increase for the EU in 2011.New ESS figures are out this week so perhaps Ms Cherry has had a sneak preview of the report and knows it will show an annual increase of EU exports exceeding that for rUK trade? Aside from questions this would raise on improper leaking of civil service reports to the governing party, would a one-year increase really constitute the definition of a “growth market”.Even so, assuming rUK trade wouldn’t change at all, it would take 15 years of 10% faster growth for EU exports to reach parity. And for what?The SNP have a problem. In 2014, in an attempt to hoodwink people into a “minimal change” prospectus for independence, they committed themselves to the importance of the UK’s single market. By virtue of mutual membership of the EU and a sterling currency union, trade with England would continue unabated.Now, Brexit has simultaneously offered the nationalists a strong emotional argument for separation whilst potentially torpedoing an economic case that was already fundamentally flawed.It is simply illogical to claim Scotland needs independence to ensure a UK-EU border doesn’t damage our trade with the European Union, whilst denying the very same border would damage our much more valuable trade with the UK were we to find ourselves on the other side of it.Scottish Nationalists will disagree but this is part of their grievance campaign.One year on and some crap about “The Vow”It is not uncommon of the SNP to tell everyone else what it is that they really think. From attempting to convince Scotland that people could only vote No if they were risk-averse, feart and duped by scaremongering, their logic has now regressed into telling us that we only voted No because we were fooled by promises of more powers and the infamous “Vow” – which of course has been broken, so they say.This is a barely concealed attempt at generating grievance where none need exist, pretty much the SNP’s only possible tactic these days, as SNP MP Martyn Day openly admitted to in this interview.In 2014 we chose to remain part of a country that stands for freedom, justice and upholding the United Nations Charter. The people for example in the Falklands had freedom and justice and self-determination. They now have it once again. We stand for upholding international law, that means that you must honour the borders of other people's countries, otherwise there is no international law, there is only international anarchy. We stand for self-determination. There was a referendum in 2014 and of course it was won overwhelmingly by those who wished to stay with the United Kingdom. The fact is that the majority of the people in Scotland wish to stay a part of the United Kingdom—that is our right to self-determination. It is a right under the United Nations Charter, it is a right which we enjoy as part of the UK, it is a right which is enjoyed in all democratic countries.even polling by the SNP’s own people doesn’t support any claim that a majority of Scots want independence.

1 IntroductionThe most important aspect of any new understanding is whether it empowers people to do things which could not be done previously.Shimomuran-Wernerian macroeconomics is just such an understanding, becauseIt empowers governments, in co-operation with the energies of their people, rapidly to increase the rate of economic growth by co-ordinated actionIt creates widespread prosperity of the people of a country by creating a high-growth economic miracle and producing within a few decades a more fully developed modern economy which laissez-faire economics has taken centuries to produceIt enables, through capital abundance, the more rapid resolution of major world problems such as poverty, global warming, and inadequate social provision and infrastructureIt ignites the inventive and innovative capabilities of mankind wherever it is fully practicedIt leads to a world of "abundant capital" and may be the key to the starsBUTIt requires that all governments act in the interests of all their people and not mainly for their ruling class or monied elite (which is mainly what they do in the West)It requires long-term, creative and competent governments to act altruistically (as the greatest geniuses of the human race have usually done) both within their economy and internationallyIt requires major international co-operation to avoid the runaway disasters which can result as a largely unintended side effect of high economic growth and new understandingsIn short, greater economic understanding requires governments to exercise greater responsibility and higher practical knowledge with altruism, in a co-ordinated international approach to deal with major world problems competently and constructively.This is more fully set out below.1.1 Definition of The Three Major Dimensions Of Wernerian-Shimomuran MacroeconomicsThere are three major dimensions to that new understanding, because it is:A realistic, practical economics based upon a detailed, meticulous historical observation of the recorded resulting higher economic growth in a dozen locationsBased upon parts of the writings of the six major master economists (Wang Anshi (1021-1086), John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), Joseph A Schumpeter (1883-1950) Dr Osamu Shimomura (1910-89), Kenneth K Kurihara (1910-72), and Richard Werner (1967-? )An inclusive system of interlocking policies reflecting the more complete range of policy options available to governments, andA recognition of the position of individual invention and the role of Small Business Enterprise innovations as the major source of future economic development in all economies.So this Shimomuran-Wernerian macroeconomics is a realistic understanding, belonging to the German Historical school of economics, and is a complete system, not only founded upon the capability of the central bank of a nation to create credit but encompassing all the ways that credit can be focused, allocated and used, and acknowledges and includes the role of Schumpeterian invention and innovation in SMEs as the source of economic progress in all economies. Like this:https://georgetaitedwards.quora.com/The-Most-Successful-Economic-Policy-Of-All-Time-The-German-Historical-Economics-Development-of-Shimomuran-Wernerian1.2 CaveatsThe following paragraphs set out the major historical observations, and briefly indicates the role of master economists in explaining these, the range of policy options this new economics makes possible, and the local sources of invention and innovation as illustrated by history.Finally the rise of China and the new possibilities for effective international action to upgrade the world's future is suggested.The range of this discussion is inevitably incomplete due to the scale of the issues under consideration.The reader is invited to dig deeper into the quoted sources and elsewhere to examine the foundations of this essay. I may quote wherever possible the best book I know about each particular economic miracle, but many such texts may exist, often not in English.This essay is a result of my ongoing studies at the University of Southampton where the agreed focus of my research is "the integration of Shimomuran macroeconomics with Wernerian macroeconomics." It is a "story so far" rather than a “final definitive text" which I hope to produce to the best of my ability within a further two years or so.Eight previous attempts partially to answer this question are atGeorge Tait Edwards's answer to What should everyone know about Japanese history?George Tait Edwards's answer to What did China get right in its economic and social development which the US got wrong?George Tait Edwards's answer to What kind of economic system does modern China use and how does it differ from the modern US economy?George Tait Edwards's answer to What makes a GDP grow high or stay high?https://www.quora.com/Is-China-the-best-example-of-world-economic-growth/answer/George-Tait-Edwardshttps://www.quora.com/How-is-the-future-of-economics/answer/George-Tait-Edwardshttps://www.quora.com/What-is-Shimomuran-economics/answer/George-Tait-Edwardshttps://www.quora.com/What-is-the-hypothetical-scenario-of-the-highest-possible-world-GDP/answer/George-Tait-EdwardsI have stopped at eight articles but there are seven relevant books and over 350 relevant articles, with perhaps another three or four books and a hundred articles on the way.1.3 The Insight of Kurt Godel (1906-1978)Perhaps the greatest insight of Kurt Godel was that all intellectual systems are either inconsistent or incomplete.See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel#Incompleteness_TheoremExperience shows repeatedly that historical reality often produces unintended consequences, particularly when the elite of any country rule that nation only in their interests. Those who do not learn the difficult, sometimes negative but often positive lessons of economic history are usually condemned to play a smaller part in it in future. As Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord observed"History teaches nothing, only punishes those who do not learn its lessons."After over 46 years of private economic research by me and often others, I am keenly aware of the occasional inconsistencies and continuing incompleteness of my understandings. All research covers a continually widening range and is inevitably incomplete particularly when it is summarised.1.4 Why is this Macroeconomics called Shimomuran-Wernerian?This new economics is Shimomuran - because it is based upon the no-cost investment credit creation policies explained by Dr Osamu Shimomura (1910–1989) and practised to produce the economic miracles in the Tokyo Consensus Zone economies (Japan,South Korea,Taiwan and China) and Wernerian because“The prime requirement for continual economic development is the existence of a local (preferably public) banking system which funds the establishment, development and growth of the SMEs which are everywhere the source of the continual invention, innovation, most employment, and better living standards on which economic development depends.” That’s the central theme of Wernerian macroeconomics. Only Germany and to a lesser extent China has such a system. SeeWhat makes a GDP grow high or stay high? andGerman public bank - Wikipedia”and see George Tait Edwards's answer to Is Democracy a prerequisite for economic growth or is economic growth a prerequisite for Democracy? where the above quote originates.2 The Historical Evidence About Economic DevelopmentThis section will list the twelve major historical economic miracles and will encapsulate these tremendous events in very few words. The interested reader is invited to dig deeper into the references quoted and other sources to discover the ever-widening context of the reality of these economic miracles.Modern Western macroeconomics generally does not recognise the importance of the banking systems and money and the use of credit and promissory notes in the process of bringing about rapid economic development. Since money and credit (and all banknotes are promissory notes) is central to the production of economic miracles, there is a hole at the heart of modern Western economics. Major surgery is required to place money and particularly investment credit creation at the heart of Western economic understanding where it belongs.2.1 The First Industrial Revolution in the Song and Ming Chinese EmpiresAfter the Chinese invention of paper money in the 9th century, the Chinese economy exploded into a fuller employment mass production economy in the 11th century Song Empire under the Prime Minister of Wang Anshi and his friend the Emperor Shenzong. See part 2 ofhttps://www.quora.com/What-are-major-Chinese-innovations/answer/George-Tait-EdwardsWhere the role of Wang Anshi is more fully set out. And see the Wikipedia entry on the Song Dynasty (960-1279) atEconomy of the Song dynasty - Wikipediawhich begins"For over three centuries during the Song dynasty (960–1279) China experienced sustained growth in per capita income and population, structural change in the economy, and increased pace of technological innovation. Movable print, improved seeds for rice and other commercial crops, gunpowder, water-powered mechanical clocks, the use of coal as a source of fuel for a variety of industries, improved techniques for iron and steel production, pound locks and many other technological innovations transformed the economy. In north China, the main fuel source for ceramic kilns and iron furnaces shifted from wood to coal.During the Song dynasty, there was also a notable increase in commercial contacts with global markets. Merchants engaged in overseas trade through investments in trading vessels and trade which reached ports as far away as East Africa. This period also witnessed the development of the world's first banknote, or printed paper money (see Jiaozi, Guanzi, Huizi), which circulated on a massive scale. Combined with a unified tax system and efficient trade routes by road and canal, this meant the development of a truly nationwide market. Regional specialization promoted economic efficiency and increased productivity. Although much of the central government's treasury went to the military, taxes imposed on the rising commercial base refilled the coffers and further encouraged the monetary economy.[1] Reformers and conservatives debated the role of government in the economy. The emperor and his government still took responsibility for the economy, but generally made fewer claims than in earlier dynasties. The government did, however, continue to enforce monopolies on certain manufactured items and market goods to boost revenues and secure resources that were vital to the empire's security, such as tea, salt, and chemical components for gunpowder.These changes made China a global leader, leading some historians to call this an "early modern" economy many centuries before Western Europe made its breakthrough. Many of these economic gains were lost, however, in the succeeding Yuan dynasty."The Mongols had no idea about how to use created credit for positive productive purposes but created credit for their own consumption and produced the massive inflation which partly led to the fall of their Chinese dynasty. The Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) refused to allow the Han Chinese to learn Mongolian and their major (or minor) legacy to Chinese culture is in the name now given to Chinese currency. Ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty puts it"Explanations for the demise of the Yuan include institutionalized ethnic discrimination against Han Chinese that stirred resentment and rebellion, overtaxation of areas hard-hit by inflation, and massive flooding of the Yellow River as a result of the abandonment of irrigation projects.[8]"The succeeding Great Ming Empire (1358-1644) understood productive credit creation during the years of the Ming Treasure voyages (1405-1433). SeeMing treasure voyages - WikipediaThe rise of the elite-serving Conservatives in China led to the contraction of the Ming Empire after the death of the Yongle Emperor in 1424. And as I say at"As The Ming Voyages | Asia for Educators | Columbia University records under the heading “The Fateful Decision”“The Ming court was divided into many factions, most sharply into the pro-expansionist voices led by the powerful eunuch factions that had been responsible for the policies supporting Zheng Ho's voyages, and more traditional conservative Confucian court advisers who argued for frugality. When another seafaring voyage was suggested to the court in 1477, the vice president of the Ministry of War confiscated all of Zheng He's records in the archives, damning them as "deceitful exaggerations of bizarre things far removed from the testimony of people's eyes and ears." He argued that "the expeditions of San Bao [meaning "Three Jewels," as Zheng He was called] to the West Ocean wasted tens of myriads of money and grain and moreover the people who met their deaths may be counted in the myriads. Although he returned with wonderful precious things, what benefit was it to the state?"Linked to eunuch politics and wasteful policies, the voyages were over. By the century's end, ships could not be built with more than two masts, and in 1525 the government ordered the destruction of all oceangoing ships. The greatest navy in history, which once had 3,500 ships (the U.S. Navy today has only 324), was gone.”The Great Zheng He Fleets could have formed the foundation of the Sea Silk Road covering almost precisely the same sea “road” routes of the modern OBOR development. China had the option of becoming the world-leading hegemony based on its industrial strength and the high levels of wealth and welfare of its people soundly based upon the towering levels of invention and innovation in its people. The dominance of China's Conservatives resulted in the destruction of their great navy and Chinese decline."That history has recently repeated itself in the decline of the UK navy, once the most powerful in the world, under "Conservative" policies and the reduction in funding of the US Navy under the the Republicans. And in the decline of the British and American hegemonies in the 20th century which accelerated after 1980 when, under Thatcher and Reagan leadership, rule for the benefit of the rich was installed in both of these countries.2.2 The Dutch as a Major Colonial PowerThe small country of Holland (now known as the Netherlands) became a major world power through the creation of credit targeted at funding overseas shipping ventures to trade and colonise many locations all over the world.What the Dutch did is one of the least well recorded triumphs of the successful use of investment credit creation in the foundation of a vast Empire. Because the victors write the histories, the place of the Dutch Empire and its enormous success is either ignored or more usually relegated to a footnote of most Westernised world history books written in English. But see the Wikipedia entry athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Empirewhich does quote 98 sources and 16 books. (The Wikipedia entry on the now defunct larger British Empire, for comparison, quotes 247 sources and hundreds of book references.)One exception to the above comment is the recent book by Noah Harari which describes the Dutch Empire and its enabling major company, on pages 359-363, which begins with"The Netherlands was a small and windy swamp, devoid of natural resources, a small corner of the King of Spain's dominions." and on the same page"The secret of Dutch success was credit." And on the next page:"Financiers extended the Dutch enough credit to set up armies and fleets and these armies and fleets gave the Dutch the control world trade routes which yielded handsome profits."See Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind, Penguin Random House,London 2011.2.3 Three of the The American Colonies Three of the original colonies of what became the USA - Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina - grew to be very prosperous on the back of the slave trade which was founded on the basis of Tobacco Lord promissory notes. These notes, monetised in relation to pounds of tobacco and backed by the provision of goods in the 125 Tobacco Lord shops, became the most stable alternative currency in these colonies. These IOUs cost the Tobacco Lords nothing to create yet the use of these notes as currency - to buy slaves, wives, settle debts, act as a store of value and medium of exchange - was the major reason for the immense early development of these three colonies. I have not yet researched this issue adequately, but a paper on this issue is the first in my PhD and I cannot publish here the results so far of my researches without prejudicing my academic studies.One of the major driving factors behind the American Declaration of Independence might have been the wish of at least two the signatories of that document to repudiate Tobacco Lord loans. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had large tobacco farms with loans to match.In much of history there is often the political cover story imbued with high ideals and a more financial foundation of the advantage conferred to individuals or groups by legal or constitutional changes. So it is with the USA. Of course, the US historians do not wish their founding fathers to be besmirched, as they may see it, by money motives. But whatever the motivational foundation of the brilliantly written US Declaration of Independence, the financial facts are beyond dispute.The repudiation of the Tobacco Lord loans was a great advantage to the largest tobacco farmers but it ruined the tobacco industry for the majority of its farmers. It is often thus.2.4 The First Western Industrial Revolution In Scotland 1700-1800 The Tobacco Lords used their money to establish the first banks in Scotland, led by the almost undocumented Murdoch Bank in Glasgow in 1730, and to fund the early ground-breaking commercial companies in Scotland. A complete list of all of these companies may be difficult to determine, but the data in Tom Devine's book has provided me with this list:Source: Calculated by me from:And see The Scottish Industrial Revolution, or The Scottish First Industrial Miracle 1700–18002.5 The English Industrial Revolution 1750-1880 The earliest part of the English industrial revolution was the smuggling prior to 1750 of a large amount of hogsheads of tobacco into Scotland via Whitehaven in the English Lake District (now called Cumbria).The English Industrial revolution was driven by three major circumstancesthe massive inventiveness of the Scots, who for centuries had (and still have) a much better educational system than that of England and Wales and which led to the development by James Watt of a much more effective (six times more efficient) steam engine, which was the major driver of the first (steam engine) and second (railway era) Kondriatieff Cyclesthe permissive parliamentary framework of new local "Country Bank" creation as illustrated by the fact that there were 116 Country Bankers who were Members of Parliament- see pages 179-82 of Volume 2 of Country Banks of England and Wales, Privatre Provincial Banks and Bankers, 1688-1933, Margaret Dawes and CN Ward-Perkins, which names the MPs and the town banks in which they were involved. Here's page 179 naming some of these MP bankers:the easy creation by industrialists of local private SME-supporting "Country Banks of England and Wales" which provided the funding of local invention and its conversion to factory-floor innovation by means of an 1810 Stamp Office License (costing £20) "Banker's Licence in England" purchased at the Post OfficeSource: R.M Fitzmaurice, British Banks And Banking.a pictorial history, D Bradford Barton Ltd, Truro,Cornwall, 1975, p55.Any company wishing to issue its own banknotes could pay £20 for that privilege and could legally do so. It is a sobering reflection that this system led to Britain becoming the workshop of the world due to the local funding of local industry. No such system exists today - the restrictive legal requirements imposed by the BoE prevent any such banks now being founded in England.Where the local Country Banks of England and Wales were located looks like this:Source: Margaret Dawes and C N Ward-Perkins, Op. Cit., p 12. For a list of defunct banks in the United Kingdom seeCategory:Defunct banks of the United Kingdom - WikipediaA modern map of major “English”banks would show five dots in London. The decline of the UK is intimately linked to the lack of local financial support for small SMEs. The last "Country" (or Provincial) bank in Scotland, the Airdrie Savings Bank (1835-2017) was shut down partly due to (BoE) "increasing cost of regulation."See Airdrie Savings Bank - WikipediaSME-supporting Savings Bank legislation is positive and helpful to German public savings banks but wholly negative in the UK where the BoE supports the Clearing Banks. The Scots under the 1996 LA reorganisation have established eleven Municipal Banks in Scotland. SeeMunicipal bankingThese municipal banks are located in Airdrie, Bellshill and Coatbridge (where the late Airdrie Bank had branches and previously operated) and in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth, Moodlesburn, Motherwell, Norh Lanarkshire, Shotts, Viewpark, and Wishaw and these banks cover the Glasgow-centred area of major operation of the previous Glaswegian Tobacco Lords. This may be a coincidence, but maybe not.The later inventions of the Scots includedthe electromagnetic understandings of James Clerk Maxwell which led to the the third Kondratieff cycle of electrical power provision and generation (and Westinghouse/Tesla AC distribution in the USA)the invention of television by James Baird (and his early experiments with radar)the invention of the telephone by the Scottish-Born James Bell and the massive telecommunications industries based upon that.2.6 Germany 1778 and 1802-2018Probably from observation of how local banks in Great Britain stimulated local SME development, Germany's Sparkassen public banking system was set up and grew in independent public bank numbers from 630 in 1850 to 2,834 in 1903. As Wikipedia reports athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_public_bank"The first savings banks in Germany were founded at the beginning of the 18th century in its major trading cities. One of the first institutions with the business model of modern savings banks was the Ersparungscasse der Hamburgischen Allgemeinen Versorgungsanstalt in Hamburg in 1778. Founders were rich merchants, clerks and academics. They intended to develop solutions for people with low income to save small sums of money and to support business start-ups.[14] In 1801 the first savings bank with a municipal guarantor was founded in Göttingen to fight poverty.[15] Between 1850 and 1903 the idea of the municipal savings banks spread and the number of savings banks in Germany increased from 630 to 2834.[16] Fulfilling public interests is still one of the most significant characteristics of public banks in general and the savings banks in particular."These purposes continue to be delivered to the present day, and although the number of Sparkassen Savings Banks has fallen to 431 the number of bank branches has grown to 15,600.The German Sparkassen Banking system is the most effective in the world at funding the establishment and growth of German SME industry.Here’s where these 431 banks and 15,600 branches are located in Germany:And they have produced the result thatAnd Hermann Kahn, a German author, has suggested that result is produced because Germany has about 50% of the “Hidden Champions”in the world:See Hermann Simon, Hidden Champions of the 21st Century, atThe Success Strategies of Unknown World Market Leaders: Amazon.co.uk: Hermann Simon: 9780387981468: BooksBecause Germany understands and practices a Sparkassen Public Banking System which encourages invention and its conversion to factory-floor innovation, Germany dominates the EU. But Germany’s “Hidden Champions” only grow to medium size. Germany does not practice Shimomuran economics, so many of its best champions become continental leaders within the EU but not world champions.In 1985 I tried to interest the German politicians in Shimomuran macroeconomics. One representative of the Anglo-German Foundation advised me then that Germany had no need of any Asian understanding of how to facilitate higher economic growth.2.7- 2.12 Other Economic MiraclesThe followIng economic miracles have been briefly covered atGeorge Tait Edwards's answer to What should everyone know about Japanese history? and athttps://georgetaitedwards.quora.com/The-Most-Successful-Economic-Policy-Of-All-Time-The-German-Historical-Economics-Development-of-Shimomuran-Wernerianalso quoted above.The circumstances of these economic miracles are therefore mentioned as relevant but not repeated in detail here. Relevant books are listed in the sources, except for these by Alice Hoffenberg Amsden (1943-2012) who authored one major book and co-authored another as listed at 2.10 and 2.11 below2.7 The South Manchurian Railway Company 1905-19452.8 FDR's Economic Miracle 1938-442.9 The Japanese Economic Miracle 1945-52 and 1953-732.10 The South Korean Economic Miracle 1960-80 (also see the brilliant book by Alice Hoffenberg Amsden (1943-2012) See Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization, Oxford University Press, 1989.2.11 The Taiwanese Economic Miracle - also see Alice Amsden's book Beyond Late Development: Taiwan's Upgrading Policies, MIT Press, 2003, (with Wan Wen Chu).2.12 The Chinese Economic Miracle 1975-2018 See http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1620/the-historical-backdrop-to-the-third-economic-bomb-a-brief-guide-to-early-chinese-history-the-land-and-the-people-and-the-first-emperorand A Brief Guide To Early Chinese History: The Mongol Conquest Of China And Its Consequencesand China’s All-Inclusive Economic Miracle: The Third Economic BombParticularly from the section beginning“Chinese ICC development is more complete and on a broader front than Japan’s”which states that“The Chinese have used and are using Shimomuran economics to transform every aspect of China’s economy, given that the national income of a country is the sum of consumer, investment and government expenditure. The successive Chinese Governments have sought to maximise consumer, investment and government expenditure within achievable limits, and to increase each demand sector by the highest amount each year. That policy is entirely different from the Japanese Shimomuran policy of focused industrial growth (or “Economic Growth First”) based upon private-growth company-centred (eg machine tools, shipping) and consumer-goods-centred development for the sake of acquiring a trading advantage. The Chinese development focus is on the full development of all sectors of the economy, increasing the investment capacity of the country to provide for higher consumer demand, better housing, and higher government expenditure. Planning is on a giant and unprecedented scale - not only city construction but city-copying in China - and nothing required for the better functioning of the economy is left out of that development.Official Chinese data does not fully reflect the level of Chinese investment. As the CIA World Factbook comments:“official data; data cover both central government debt and local government debt, which China's National Audit Office estimated at RMB 10.72 trillion (approximately US$1.66 trillion) in 2011; data exclude policy bank bonds, Ministry of Railway debt, China Asset Management Company debt, and non-performing loans.”’and George Tait Edwards's answer to Why is China more outstanding in its economic growth than a having political figures like in Europe and the US?3 Brief Comments on The Significance of Six Major Economists3.1 Wang Anshi (1021-1086)Wang Anshi was the first investment credit economist whose understandings enabled the economic miracles of the Song and Ming Empires. SeeGeorge Tait Edwards's answer to How did Wang Anshi contribute to the economic world?and note the role of Wang Anshi as set out in Section 2.1 above3.2 John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)John Maynard Keynes in his writings produced the three major insights which are the foundation of investment credit economics.The first is in what is usually called the General Theory.“While there are intrinsic reasons for the shortage of land, there are no intrinsic reasons for the shortage of capital” (Book 6, Chapter 24, Section 2, p. 376).The second great insight was his statement that savings can be created to fund investment prior to the returns which justify them.And the third is that“Central Banks can purchase no-debt assets by making claims against themselves - In the “Tract on Monetary Reform”, Keynes recognised that a Central Bank “may itself purchase assets, i.e. add to its investments, and pay for them, in the first instance at least, by establishing a claim against itself” (Keynes, 1923).”See Shimomuran Economics and the Rise of Japan and ChinaKeynes did not see the possibility that the Central Bank could create vast flows of investment credit annually, canalising that credit to enterprises through local banks and producing very high rates of economic growth. The Asian Keynesian who became the Asian Keynes - Dr Osamu Shimomura - made that observation the central pillar of his explanation about how to produce higher investment and growth in his Economic Model of the Japanese Economy.3.3 Joseph A Schumpeter (1883-1950)As Joseph Schumpeter - Wikipedia comments“Schumpeter identified innovation as the critical dimension of economic change.[35] He argued that economic change revolves around innovation, entrepreneurial activities, and market power. He sought to prove that innovation-originated market power can provide better results than the invisible hand and price competition. He argued that technological innovation often creates temporary monopolies, allowing abnormal profits that would soon be competed away by rivals and imitators.”Schumpeter made the crucial distinction between the inventor and the innovator, who took that invention to the factory floor and sold the products.3.4 Dr Osamu Shimomura (1910-89)I have written so much about this master economist that I find it difficult to select relevant published articles, because my books are best. But seeThe Master Economist – George Tait Edwards – Mediumand the Gresham College slides athttps://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/content.gresham.ac.uk/data/binary/260/03mar15longfinance_georgetaitedwardsfinal.pdfandhttp://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1566/the-origin-of-shimomuras-japanese-economic-miracle-or-the-second-economic-bomb-japan-from-to-economic-miracles-partandDr Osamu Shimomura (1910–89) — His Major AchievementsandShimomuran Economics is the Most Significant Advance Ever Made in Economic Understanding and the…3.5 Kenneth K Kurihara (1910-72)Kenneth Kenkichi Kurihara was born in 1910 in Kuchan, Hokkaido, Japan but immigrated to the USA where he worked for the US Government, became a noted growth economist and in turn Professor of Economics at Princeton University, Rutgers University and the State University of New York. SeeKenneth K. Kurihara - WikipediaHis insights into how Shimomuran macroeconomics propelled the rapid development of Japan were largely ignored by US and Western economists. Seehttps://medium.com/@georgetaitedwards/the-key-relevance-of-the-writings-of-professor-kenneth-kenkichi-kurihara-the-world-expert-on-high-99d1f80e1733. 6 Richard Werner (1967-? ) Richard Werner has not simply postulated that increases in investment credit cause economic growth, he has used the recently invented technique of Granger Predictive Causation analysis to show that annual increases in investment credit at the Bank of Japan is a leading “Granger Predictive Indicator” of subsequent Japanese economic growth. And he has used the same technique of Granger Predictive Causation analysis to show that increases in speculative credit at the Bank of Japan is a leading “Granger Predictive Indicator” of subsequent asset bubble growth in Japan.4 The New Capabilities of China4.1 Large Capital Investment Projects The full practice of Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomics enables very large and historically unprecedented capital investments successfully to be made. Of course, we can only clearly see the first of these, but there are many other potential international projects which can be Chinese led. Some of these projects are essential to the future of the world.4.2 The Associated Scientific Advantages Emerging from The Chinese and the World Rennaissance In addition to these greater capital projects, there are likely to be advances in scientific understanding that will have an immense significance. Some of these are part and parcel of the increased invention and innovation associated with higher local funding of SMEs, but still others will arise spontaneously as the boundless ingenuity of mankind and womankind becomes more activated.By their very nature, these developments are less forecastable. I think these might include the drug stimulation of intellectual development, much more effective mood control drugs, easier genetic modification techniques, and the improvement of the partly developed and developing researches of Professor David Andrew Sinclair about life extension and health improvement. I cannot fully cover all of these here.4.3 The Actual and Likely Very Large Capital Projects4.3.1 OBOR - a $5tr Project Over 5 YearsSee George Tait Edwards's answer to How will China's One Belt One Road influence urban development in Central Asia? andGeorge Tait Edwards's answer to What is it about the Chinese “One Belt, One Road” initiative (beside the economic aspect of it) that has a lot of European leaders critical of it? One said it threatens western liberalism, for example.There is no genuine comparison between the OBOR project (costing $5tr in all) and the Marshall Plan for the recovery of Europe which would cost about $160bn in current prices. OBOR is monumental: the Marshall Plan, while it was not trivial, was and is not really comparable in scale.OBOR will have a gigantic positive effect on the economies it connects.4.3.2 Reversing Global Warming - A more than $29tr Project over 30 yearsSee The Drawdown Project at DrawdownWhich is one of the best listings of the likely costings of reversing global warming is the list of approximately costed policies which estimate the extent of global CO2 reduction and the net benefits of eighty activities.4.3.3 Educating Willing Nations About Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomics - a 30-year programme involving trillions of dollars a yearSee The Chinese have set up a New Structural Economics Department at Peking University under the…which contains the sentences“Needless to say, the Western media as usual has no idea about what is going on.I think the Chinese are going to get round to teaching the Rest of the World (RoW) about how to produce rapid economic growth and I’ve suggested I might possibly lecture there, if they’d have me.”I have so far had no response to my email to Mr P H Yu or from his two colleagues at Beijing University. Perhaps the Chinese during the 2010s are as self-confident about Shimomuran Macroeconomics as the Germans were during the 1980s about Sparkassen Banking economics. We’ll see.The current ($2017 PPP) best estimate of the GDP of the world is c$129 tr. Investment credit economics in the entire world requires CB credit creation of about 10% to 15% of GDP pa for decades. This will produce a final rise in finance of about 20% to 30% pa with the usual 14% to 20% fixed investment plus 6% to 10% of financial liquidity investment and an increase in government incomes of between 5% to 7% of GDP pa. World economic growth would initially increase by about 5% to 8% pa.But these are whole-world figures and what is most likely to happen is the faster development of particular countries.Subtext: The Menu of Economic ChoicesThere is a complex menu of political choices in Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomics, both sets of options illustrated on two slides during the Gresham College lectures by me and by Professor Richard Werner. My presentation was headed asand contained Slide 19 which saidWhile Professor Richard Werner’s banner wasAnd his Slide 23 wasThese two slides briefly set out the available choices in the use of credit creation.4.3.3.1 Accelerating India’s Economic Growth RateThe indian Government has recently set up The National Instute For Transforming India, (NITI) headed by Amitabh Kant. That organisation has the objective of increasing India’s growth rate to 10% for the next thirty years.I have tried over several decades to interest India in increasing its rate of economic growth. SeeI agree that India needs to grow rapidly for decades in order to improve the prosperity of its…Maybe the Indians via the NITI are now looking for Answers. I do hope so.4.4 Leading Disaster Recovery - an ongoing $1 to $2tr tr project a YearThe deteriorating weather over much of the world - the emergence of very powerful hurricanes over 300 mile an hour winds in the Atlantic, and the historically unprecedented downpours of very large amounts of rainfall in a few hours in many locations in much of the world - is the natural result of global warming.I calculate about one to two trillion dollars worth a year of property damage is being caused outside the USA by that much worse weather.China could lead and partly fund an international disaster recovery programme, which is sorely needed by many nations.4.5 The Mars Project -Perhaps a $20tr project over 20 yearsThe Americans went to the moon. The Chinese are going to be able to afford to colonise Mars by setting up substantial numbers of colonists in the Martian tunnels.Astronauts previously were all damaged by radiation. Prior to the recent epigenetic advances of Professor David Andrew Sinclair a trip to Mars would kill the astronauts all of whom would be suffering from cancer on arrival.NASA has invested in these epigenetic researches so as to acquire a pill which will protect interplanetary travellers. But that’s not all it will do. See 5.1.1 below. And seeAnd the article is athttps://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/mars-organic-compounds-methane-curiosity-space-science/?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=wildscience_20180618::rid=89305642155 The Chinese Renaissance and Likely New Technological Advances5.1 In Biochemistry5.1.1 The Epigenetic Control of the Aging Process and The Epigenetic Key to Interplanetary TravelThe only major government in the world which appears to be talking to David Andrew Sinclair is the Chinese Government. SeeThe Transition to the Long-Living Society Part 5 – George Tait Edwards – Medium particularly section 4.11 which points out:“Astronauts experience DNA damage in space that can lead to cancer and premature aging, so when news of the study began to circulate, NASA got in touch. Sinclair has another project now — “What we’ve been working on with the NASA scientists is to formulate the [NAD] pill for a journey to Mars,” Sinclair said.”At present, the radiation on a trip to Mars would kill the occupants of the spaceship, but Sinclair’s research is very likely to provide a survival pill for that journey, with profound implications for human life on Earth.And Section 4.2 says“4.2 ChinaThe most intelligent government in the world — the Chinese one — are in discussions with Prof Sinclair. The highest levels of the Chinese Government appear to be involved in these discussions, as Professor Sinclair reports atDavid Sinclair’s beginner’s guide to anti-ageing“In passing, he [David Andrew Sinclair] mentions he’s advising a large Asian nation (China, he clarifies after some questions) on how economic growth and a healthy population intersect.“This gets down to how do you transform the planet economically and not just [with] health,” he says.“The advice I’m giving that nation — and it’s at the highest level — they now want to know how do they raise up not just the economics, but the health [of their people]. Because they are very clever, they know [the two] have to go hand in hand.”If the Trump administration understood that principle, Obamacare would be extended and not reduced. If the British Government understood that principle, the underfunding of the NHS would cease. But these governments would also have to understand the Shimomuran Macroeconomics which makes such policies affordable and an assistance to growth.”5.1.2 The stimulation of intellectual capabilityThere are many drugs which improve the duration and often the intensity of intellectual endeavour. Most of these so-called "nootropics" do not have any proven effectiveness but a few seem to be effective.Drugs that are used to treat Alzheimers, for example, seem to reverse some of the outcomes of mental decline. Hydergine (or ergoloid mesylates) appears to work by reducing the increases in monamine oxidase (MAO) in the blood, where it assists cognitive impairment or recovery from a stroke. Side effects from Hydergine are minimal.Other substances which elevate dopamine and safely limit MAO appear to be effective. Pharmaceutical advances in this area are likely to have a major effect in future and will improve the basic level of inventiveness across the world.5.1.3 The "vital arts" - the genetic modification route to the futureGenetic modification of DNA will be one of the industries of the future. When frozen mammoths are again discovered in the Siberian ice, it may become possible for their cells to be implanted in and delivered by a female elephant. The repopulation of the Mammoth plains by herds of Alaskan elk, Sami reindeer and re-born mammoths could make a great contribution to global cooling. One image from the drawdown project shown below illustrates that possibility.5.1.4 The improved understanding of the electromagnetic foundation of gravityI think that should be possible.SeeGeorge Tait Edwards's answer to Can we use the scientific method to combine electromagnetic and gravitational forces into a unified field theory?6 My Caveats - The Downsides of Rapid Economic DevelopmentI can only see these potential developments in capital projects, in biological issues and in scientific developments in which I happen to be interested. The above list is inevitably incomplete and may be inconsistent with the stable economic development of nations. There are downsides in these new developments which are too large to be fully considered here.6.1 The Sterility of Conservative Rule Governments only come in two flavours, in the Progressive and the Conservative varieties. The Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven, that governments are only stable and successful when they act in the interests of all their people, is highly relevant to the future of mankind.6.2 The Fractious Nature of Rapid Economic AdvanceMany of these advances can be made within a nation without external assistance. This too has immense implications which are too large to be considered here.6.3 The Spread of Low-Income Limited hours or No-Hours contractsThe widespread adoption of low-income jobs in many nations is discouraging the formation of marriages. This problem seems most developed in Japan where many young men perhaps are disappointing their more realistic female potential partners, resulting in a significant dip in the Japanese birth rate. The Japanese Government has recognised this phenomenon and has produced a report upon it. See The Mystery of Why Japanese People Are Having So Few Babies. The Japanese Government at present sees no solution yet to this issue. But the re-adoption of Shimomuran-Wernerian macroeconomics by Shinzo Abe could lead to many more generations of the Japanese economic miracle.7 Conclusions7.1 Shimomuran-Wernerian macroeconomics opens the door to a new world by providing a newer and fresher intellectual universe, partly consistent with but vastly superior to the current level of Western economic understanding.7.2 The people of the world stand on the edge of a human explosion which is unprecedented in history. That parcel of changes leads to the abundant capital of a much better world and can be enormously beneficial to the prosperity and achievements of mankind, and may be brought about by the widespread adoption of Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomics.7.3 Shimomuran-Wernerian Macroeconomics is the key understanding in the future of mankind because it empowers people to achieve things they could could not possibly do before, such ascreate a much richer capital-abundant world with widespread prosperity,reduce and resolve the problem of global warming andgo to Mars and perhaps elsewhere in this galaxy.We'll see. This collection of essays is perhaps most relevant:George Tait EdwardsBristol, England18 June 2018