Yeah, the biggest problem is that the Western countries are already 'developed', so developing countries taking their advice, or seeking to emulate their current policies and systems is the stupidest thing ever. And so Western "experts' advice" (pressure) is both deceitful and harmful (on purpose). The biggest bullshit is focusing on services and consumptions instead of industry and investment. Most of the capital should go to the latter two fundamentally.
The only reason those Western countries are focusing on the first two now is that they already developed all of their innate human capital and productive limits, now getting diminishing returns on physical investments (E.g. roads, factories, technology) so they have to 'squeeze' what is left over to get that artificial 'growth'.
It is better said, that since their wealthy elites don't get the same investment prospects there, as before, due to competition, for example, for limited human capital, resulting in higher wages, unionization, more costs, and fewer profits, in various industries, they switched their capital for investment to less-productive services (including finance, passive investing) and lobbied for consumption-based economic models after taking control over their governments (and public perception and media) with generations of amassed concentrated wealth.
So, those countries are not really 'growing' themselves at this point, they are stagnating (real wages freeze or fall over years, no new productive value created in the economy), and only their elites continue to grow their wealth through various machinations internally, albeit at the cost of entire countries collapsing/falling back at later dates due to rising wealth inequality and losing competitive productive physical, tangible advantage to outside rivals.
The modern US is at this stage, for example, but fares way better than other contemporary or past similar empires due to the successful globalization of their currency, to this extent, for the first time in history. However, even that could be and is about to be lost thanks to them losing comprehensive physical, industrial, and tangible power in comparison to their biggest rival China, who could, therefore, burst that modern, global virtual scheme any time it chooses to now, and will get even better and better fighting chance as the time goes on.
Nevertheless, if a country has upward potential still, like most of the Global South, in terms of educational improvement for the existing population (more meritocracy, gross enrollment rates, especially tertiary levels, and STEM), total R&D, and infrastructure, potential, then it should go all in on manufacturing and investment. Investment and industry are the only ways that every entire in the history of the world managed to reach advanced standards of living and power. However, if we are talking about systems, then it is an autocratic system + a preferably somewhat directed economy. See colonial, mercantilist monarchies.
East Asian example is the best example you could theoretically follow on rising without having colonies or being surrounded by wealthy colonial empires of the past (entire Europe), descending from them (North America, Australia, NZ). China rose thanks to
investment as seen from these two graphs, just match its GDP history with them and you will see what I mean. So, every time some Western CIA "economists" advise it to do more than now in terms of policies for spending, consumerism, more financilization - less real economy, less money in the state banks for strategic investing, less investment in total, etc, he is doing it out of sinister intentions (same as manufacturing, see "overcapacity" clown show).
View attachment 128147
View attachment 128149
