I agree that debt accumulation is an intriguing element to consider seeing as wages have shifted and the average debt is currently $78,396 for 24-39-year-olds while the average family in 1989 had a credit card debt of $2,697 (I know these are not directly comparable, but it was the only data I could find). Despite the slightly different contexts, I believe that it gets the point across. Debt accumulation is also interesting in the midst of this election because an important policy that has been proposed, although unsuccessfully, is student debt forgiveness. It would be intriguing to see how this analysis changed if a policy like this was enacted.

The GINI coefficient for Burkina Faso was 35.3 in 2015, which is down from 50 in 2000. In the last five years, this is going in the opposite direction from China who from 2015- 2019 grew to 46.8, although this is down from 49 in 2009. For obvious reasons, the context behind these are very different but given China's involvement and ongoing interest in Africa, I think it is interesting to compare.

@Jay Rosato Another interesting metric to compare is the expense of living in the US compared to China and how capable citizens are of meeting it. In the United States, 10.5% of people live below the poverty line while in China 0.6% do. This sounds dramatic, but their poverty line is much lower than ours, at 2,300 yuan per year ($348.91). This is obviously nowhere near attainable to support even one person, which proves a division in the states' concern for economic stability in the household. I hope to see the "dual circulation" concept inspire a wave of more comprehensive plans for domestic stability to decrease this gap in equity.

Internal economic stability is an interesting metric to measure. I am curious how these charts would have looked if they compared more than just the male experience in the workforce. Economic stability is split by gender, but even more so by the race which has been especially exposed this year due to the increase in racial awareness in America. At the beginning of this document the question "what factors contribute to household-level economic insecurity" is asked which reminded me of a paper I read in an environmental injustice course last year that clearly finds that age, gender, education, remittances, unemployment, inflation, assets, and disease are the most important factors for dictating a household's economic security. All of these other than age and gender are directly impacted by a person's race. Policies that will promote racial equality in all aspects of the human experience (employment, housing, healthcare, etc) will improve the economic security of the country as a whole. I have high hopes for the incoming administration when it comes to their dedication to improving the household economic stability from a holistic perspective. The appointments that Biden has made thus far are already leaps and bound more inclusive and diverse. This, as I said yesterday, will improve the inclusivity of decisionmaking especially after a summer of racial tensions, bringing these issues to the forefront of policy formulation. Proven by voter turnout alone, a higher rate of citizens are engaging in politics due to the tumultuous year and divisive administration, which will hopefully spill over into the next administration as well. As far as this topic relates to China, economic security by household is laughable. This paper discusses how China is moving from traditional economic and social structures and how during this shift "welfare provision by the state has been dramatically reduced". An important aspect of Xi Jinping's upcoming14th Five-Year Plan is likely going to be the idea of "dual circulation". This is the concept that the domestic economy, or "internal circulation", will be "supplemented and reinforced" by the international economy, the "external circulation". This concept would likely focus on job opportunities, wealth redistribution, along with an ongoing push for innovation.

I was curious to hear your thoughts on this document given that it is two years old. The section is brief, although emphasis is given to cyberspace's importance in the coming years. Do you think this policy will change in the next administration?

It is interesting to compare all of the aspects that administrations outline for their "national security". This document is one that I found very interesting, given my region of study. I think it will be interesting to see how the next administration impacts this relationship, specifically in reference to the South China Sea. This issue is one that Michele Flournoy has spoken on in the US-China Economic Security Review Committee and her statements reflect the same idea, that the United States' policy on China will remain tight.

The goal of "defending the homeland and projecting power globally, now and in the future" has been represented fairly consistently throughout the last two years. Donald Trump ran in the 2016 election with an aggressive "America First" platform that was initially thought to play out in an isolationist sense, although in practice it showed up as seemingly abrupt and unhinged decisionmaking in the name of American security. China and Russia have both been defining aspects of Trump's administration due to their centrality to this goal. 2018 began with Mueller indicting several Russian nationals, carrying on through mid-2019 when the investigation was closed. 2018 was also when Trump began targeting China with heavier tariffs and escalating the trade-war that we have seen play put for the last few years. Vice President Pence also gave a speech in October of 2018 dictating a rare clear articulation of policy from the administration stating that they planned to raise tariffs to combat economic aggression as well as condemn their actions in the South China Sea and increased censorship and persecution. It is very important to note that it is unlikely that the next administration will "go soft" on China, but I suspect that their actions will be made more analytically. The next National Military Strategy will be interesting to read in comparison to this one seeing as the current and incoming presidents have opposing views when it comes to defense. Even today, as more of Biden's picks for cabinet positions come to light, it seems at the very least we will have a much more well-rounded and diverse group of decision-makers, compared to the previous administration, which has statistically lead to a higher margin of actions that protect the widest scope of the American population.

I was also surprised to learn where they are operational, as Jay said, I was not expecting there to be programs in China, especially surrounding the protection of Tibetan culture. Their goal to promote inclusivity within a democracy is also very important work. This comes in many forms in including job and entrepreneurship opportunities, promotion in political participation, increased education opportunities, decreasing gender-based violence, an increase in legal rights, awareness around human trafficking, and minimizing the spread of HIV and AIDS.

Researching Africa it makes sense that you come across them so often. Their work lines up very well with needs in that region. The article about Burkina Faso is fascinating, as they are a stable nation as far as African regions go, yet they still have a large issue with voter visibility. Do you think this is a problem that is solvable by USAID work, or will this change have to come from the regime and political change?

@Jay Rosato I believe that this is why their third action is to assist the Chinese law enforcement. I think that to allow their presence, USAID had to agree to these provisions.

USAID has three missions related to China. These include aiding Tibetan societies in China, assisting regional programs, and assisting in law enforcement, and decreasing emissions. The Tibetan program promotes employment opportunities, helps them manage natural resources important to community livelihoods, and preserving their culture. Regional programs aid in cross-border challenges specifically preventing disease spread, fighting wildlife trafficking, collaborate with the Asian Development Bank, and encourages infrastructure investment minimizing negative impacts in Lower Mekong. The third initiative is at the direction of China's Congress and has less priority placed on it than the other two.

It will be interesting to follow the 14th Five Year Plan when it is released in February. Although I am skeptical that it will yield the type of change China would need to see to reach their 2060 goals, it could set them on the course for a more sustainable future. My worry is less their personal pollution, although obviously it affects more than just their population anyways, but like Jay mentioned, the pollution they are causing in developing nations that will likely not be accounted for and therefore left to burden the poorer countries.

Biden’s approach to China is a very anxiously awaited policy. I am curious if the president-elect is being forced to remain silent on the matter for the time being due to his lack of allowance within the current administration to any transition documents or official briefings. I assume policy on such a contentious issue would need to be as informed as possible before it is mentioned publically.

This is a significant concern for those studying climate change around the world. Obviously climate change is not an issue that it made a priority by one country can be solved completely. The climate effects everyone and China’s commitment to carbon neutrality within their own boarders shows a lack of concern for the problem as a whole and displays more a wish to be seen as a leader in global problem solving.

China's relation to climate change is a very important one that has ramifications for the rest of the world's wellbeing. In 2018 China was the biggest CO2 emitter, releasing 10.06GT, but also is a leading innovator when it comes to sustainable technology and alternative power sources. It has been clear through the last four years that with the new US-China trade war, the US has all but forgotten about any allegiances to protect the environment, for example opening up historically protected lands for oil drilling. It is obvious that if the global community wants to create a significant impact on the speed that climate change is developing at, there is no hope without China. China's plan to be completely carbon neutral by 2060 is a very high goal and has gained worldwide skepticism in regards to its practicality. Many proposals call for the strategy of beginning to generate clean zero-emission power before moving into the implementation of this energy anywhere possible. The next step would then be to find ways to collect the pollution that is created when CO2 is released and ultimately storing it underground. Another proposal calls for nuclear energy production, increasing it to 28% on top of 21% wind, 17% solar, 14% hydropower, and 8% biomass. A large problem with this plan is the cost of shifting Chinese production off of fossil fuels. Coal-fired power alone accounts for more than 60% of all electricity in the country. Another ongoing barrier to China's 2060 goal is the construction of the Belt and Road Initiative. A study published in November of 2019 said that it was likely that the construction of these initiatives would disrupt the ecosystems of up to 800 different species. Chinese dams for hydropower along Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam are already disrupting river flow changes and fish migration (which in turn affects the communities on the coast). This is just one example of the disruption this project will introduce into the region.

I think the metric of $14,000 is an interesting focal point. Jumping in incomes by more than $10,000 just by moving countries seems like a done deal, but it is important to consider the standard of living in the countries people come to the US from that is less impressive. On top of that, although politically more stable and often safer than their home countries it is also disheartening to look at the trajectory of several immigrant career paths. We are working in the right direction as a country, but there are still massive leaps to be made in terms of accessibility for minorities in the US.

That is a very popular argument, that one bad immigrant will spoil the reputation of the rest. Like you said, this is a very hypocritical argument, specifically in the United States given all of the ways citizens have harmed our own society. The fear of other cultures, lifestyles, and change in general guides our society towards being unaccepting and that is holding our country back. The more widespread acceptance that is promoted, the better our society will be.

I was incredibly surprised by the 3% statistic, I would have guessed that it would be much higher. Immigration in Africa is interesting because, as the article mentions, a large barrier to migration is often the price. That would explain why the majority of the migration you talked about is local and seasonal. From 1990 to 2019, migration from Africa has grown from between 100,000-1million to 100,000- 5million, although it depends heavily on region. The states that grew the most in this rate are South Africa, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Cote d'Ivoire.

The arguments I see against immigration, like the article stated, tend to be very repetitive. People are worried that the immigrants will take their jobs, lower their wages, hurt our already unideal healthcare system, and decrease national identity and by virtue national security. These have all been proven false on several occasions. For example, a study by George Borjas, a Harvard professor, said that the Mariel Boatlift (increasing Miami's population by seven percent in less than fifty days) actually had positive effects on the wages of Miamians. China has historically had a much larger emigration rate than immigration, 9.3million leaving in 2013 and only 594,000 immigrating to China in 2010 (these were the most proximal and recent years I could find). For several decades the immigration policy that ruled China has been the 1985 Law of Administration of Entrance and Exit of Foreigners that allows immigration into 31 different provinces or autonomous zones in China. In 2016 revisions were made to the regulations for permanent residency in China and this rate grew by 163% from 2015. When this document discusses the benefits on a society from immigration, China is a perfect example. China is the definition of a leader in globalization and although their immigration rates are not as high as western countries, the immigrants they do have are shaping its future. China is attracting more students than ever and as we discussed when addressing intellectual property and technological innovation, their attraction to high-skilled foreign workers has helped their economy and technology and research sectors immensely.

I think when it comes to human trafficking several options are to promote the education and protection of women in societies where they are continually oppressed and devalued. Education on what it often looks like to come across sex trafficking victims and resources for their success. Legalizing or decriminalizing sex work is also a good way to release these acts from the hood of the black market, making them more moral in trade.