top of page

To publish what I am writing The Economist had to do a stretch. If you are reading that it is likely that it had accepted, or that I had to publish it on my own (most likely).

“The Altasian option” thread is clear, its question, “Can Asia’s alternative supply chain steal China’s thunder?”, seemed to have been answered positively: Yes.

However, I would like to go back to one of the arguments raised that seemed to express the overall explanation of why would an Altasian option could be posed.

As for relationships, you don’t start to look away - usually - before something is going wrong. Hence, for the case of “the West” and China, the thing that could have went wrong could have been that moment when the West was eventually sure that China’s increased wages moment wasn’t a phase. That China had changed, that It (ie. The West) hadn’t – that, therefore, “it” had to find another “China” in order to remain the same. A relationship was broken. At least it was transformed.

Can a relationship work if the parties are at equilibrium vis à vis one another? Possibly, but maybe not in market capitalism, at least it’s what I believe the Altasian option is telling us. But let’s continue.

Indeed, as much as this latter point seems true, we could wonder whether the perception of China’s role as the manufacturer of the world would have remained if the promise of a new wave of decreased wages have been set? (Obviously, this is not what we hope for China, for this is just a question). Do relationships end when it doesn’t make sense anymore or when they know it will never make sense again? I would say the latter.

Moreover, do we believe, generally speaking, that aside from opportunism there is a desire to freeze - or secure - countries’s role in one part of the production chain, or that all that is purely arbitrary?

Because, if so, if opportunism is accepted as the main factor for the architectural disposition of rules - which is obvious to some regards indeed - couldn’t we take the incentives that opportunism uses and flip-flop them in order to transform those loosen situations into displayed moment.

Our own time is loosen by the lack of practice to have a stronger representation of time. Time is merely something that passes instead of being something that we mold. Similarly, we dismiss history for those leaving in the future rather than taking actions to correct its path. With everything that we are aware of, we have achieved the power of the medium: prediction. But this had nothing to do with magic.

That posed, and because my clarity is often addressed, I will now share an example of what I meant by the global opportunism being hinder under a loosen display.

Example: I am me. I am friend with somebody. By chance, they happen to have a house in the countryside and we see each other all the time. One day, they sell their house and don’t have a house in the countryside anymore, and we see less. I met somebody else who have a house in the mountain. We start to see each other more. What happened? Many things but not a vocal exchange of understandings. Never did I say that I wanted a friend with a house, neither did my original friend said that he was just bored of me and the others and thought that selling the house was the easiest way to get rid of us, neither did his new friend shared that they just wanted to live in a one bedroom in the city, and that this was the worst thing this could happen. However, that even if they knew we were friends for the house, they had no faith in human nature, so it wasn’t bothering to them. (An allocation puzzle, yes.)

Hence, maybe it is possible that the West is tired to have everything produced half a world from the offices in which it is conceived? Maybe China increased its wages not merely because it is the path of history but also because they want to be pro-active about its path whether or not the others understand what they are doing or not? As for the countries of the Altasian option, maybe they do see it as an opportunity although they would rather work around protecting their environment rather than settling for the international supply chain paradigm.

However, at this time I am mentioning those, it is not anymore about the countries as a political advocating unit than it is about the people that composed the population. As a French, does thousands mile away subcontracting make sense while I want to admire my culture savoir-faire? - not really. Does it make sense under the theoretical framework we live by: yes; but does it when you actually ask the French people what to they want and you understand that what they want is something at a humane scale (-and merely work to provide for themselves and their loved ones).

Hence, without developing my example further, we let our global behaviours be influenced by trends that we don’t design instead of allowing ourselves to have a real conversation about what do each one of us want to be in our global order, what active part do we want to take; and also, for how long do we want to take this part.

Indeed, and this will be me last point: because history is let alone, we refuse to come back. However, retraction is also one of the main traits of human beings. Maybe China would have retracted instead of increasing its wages if it could have (I am not saying it would have); however the way our international community conversations are set don’t allow for the possibility to try to be something else than history has placed you in.

A funny image that I would think about (to illustrate this idea) would be from the Pop Star World. Imagine that Beyonce suddently didn’t wanted to be an icon anymore and came up with some random somebody to replace her. Imagine that she makes a real ceremony and through that passation demands fans to accept this random somebody to take over. Imagine that fans accept it.

Sometimes it is really just about honesty, and whether we (ie. proactive global order actors) are ready for it or not, honesty is always the easiest way to get an answer to what you would have wanted to say.

Hence a question:

Do countries, outside of their PIB agendas, have a desire on whether to be a concept-or or a manufacturer-er. If they do, and we can find some agreement, why isn’t it the case that there exists a General Assembly type of event in which cross-world labour distribution would be discussed and agreed upon. Again, like for children and who gets to have to end of the baguette this time, it doesn’t have to be set in stone, there will likely be a lot more ends of baguette to distribute.

Here is then the perspective that I wanted to share, and where the stretch mentioned earlier is now certified. If we accept that it is the cost of labor that directs who will be the world manufacturer of the decade, why don’t we create a global monetary policy that could consider this phenomenon and create an opportunity for countries to develop different aspects of their economy. For instance, if international organisations were to agree that it is for the wellbeing of their citizen to experience a state that has multiple kinds of labor forces and infrastructures associated with it, couldn’t it be right to think that a global agreement based, for example, on a 10 to 15 years rotation mark based on a drastic monetary policy would offer the historical context for states (ie. tbd) to develop the other side of their profile, identity and economy – side that they couldn’t otherwise developed without a direct-ing of history. Hence, in more simple terms, why don’t we impose that the purchasing power parity of the Euro (for example) dropped in a fashion that would make it be equal to one of the lowest currencies. In the meantime, countries part of the Euro zone – and this is just an example again– could then take in this semi structural shift and develop/redevelop their manufacturer and artisanal skills, while the countries who usually have lower currency values would find themselves with an increased one. This would allow them – I believe - to generate their own development strategies, actually made possible by the fact that their currency would not relegate to one in which nothing is accessible for them but whichever foreign aid provided through discutable means by countries with higher currency values.

Again, even if we were all brought in market capitalism and live by it in some ways or another, we should not be bound to play the same role all the time. Sometimes we do have to stop thinking about developing “The World”, “The World” at this point merely being a collection of data that even itself is too intertwined to even breathe, to think about developing ourselves (ie. the global recognized entities) - its physicality and its latter emanation. We have to put some faith that not everything needs to be captioned as development to still be an emanation from it. We also have to allow what we say we want to happen, happen – this won’t be possible with the tools available right now, and the weight they carry.

Lastly, it is not about development in a similar way that we think of history, linearly- towards the outside; it is about the expansion from within. How can each one of us develop all the facets of ourselves within a global order in which those strong global policies give the opportunity from everyone to support each other in what they want to be instead of supporting “A World” via the lack of truthful risk-taking with the international community, entity by entity.

Relationships also end when there is a communication issue. My letter is to propose the global policy I describe as well as suggesting - more generally speak

ing - that we start to pose the question: what role would you like to play if you could play any? Maybe we have more desire to change that we’ve assume we’ve had. Maybe we have a stronger vision of humanity too.

->List by top choices.

Sincerely, Victoire Mandonnaud

Related: Video I published on Tik Tok about the idea highlighted in bold

Spread from pages 48-49 of the N°1 of The Generator Paper

High seas are the silent waves of nations ends. They are the end of a right to inherent ownership. They are, the proof that exists a place in our administrative global were no one is more entitled to this place than someone else.

Of course, it is not either a place in which, whatever that could be found would be shared; however, it is a canvas virgin of ownership.

It is, finally, like the last embers of a new global architectural promise living in the fire pit of the room we are gathering in, allowing hopes of a renewed warmth.

Tomorrow, the Treaty of the High Seas will likely be signed.

The impact that this treaty could have could be immense. However, what I would like to do is to give couple of ideas that could be integrated in this treaty to further all the potentials that the High Seas as a territory virgin of statehood offers, outside of the inherent goals pursued directly by the treaty.

Every one person’s action is an opportunity to create new grounds for those who would have come its way. Every one text is an opportunity to create new grounds for those who come its way. We need to create an opportunity for future texts to see the paths that were demarcated by this Treaty as an invitation for them to explore, perceive and eventually sharpen those latter.

Many nations don’t have state. I think that we have to take the opportunity of this Treaty to introduce new ideas for the global order sub-textually through the notion of the Highs Seas.


High Seas might be the transitory location of stateless territory. (Until a path is sharpen)

High Seas might be the answer to non-discrimination towards ressources as it might one day be globally.

High Seas might be the disappearing border of a passport-less global world understood through the notion of the seaman.

Hence, in preparation of the history that necessarily gonna be written, we have to start introducing the terminology that will help us making the arguments that we will have to make.

Could we demand High Seas to host sovereign states under the promise of non extraction and non-construction? Could nation such as the International Romani Union could make sense of such a possibility?

Could we argue that the lack of entitlement by any states to the ressources of the High Seas should not merely be congruent to the inherent definition of the High Seas but that the benefices of any extractions should be shared by the international community?

Should we impose that the High Seas would be the proof of concept that a state and the rights that are inhabited by one citizen, are inherent to himself, not to the existence of a territory reaffirming its limits everyday?

Nothing in our world is fundamentally isolated from the rest. It is not merely about acknowledging it, it is also about taking the next steps to live through this snowball effect, since it is what the blueball (ie. Earth) cannot but help itself doing.

I hope those ideas could have the opportunity to be considered before this new accomplishment for the protection the biodiversity is eventually signed. Thank you.


Victoire Mandonnaud

This idea came out as a way to answer the people who, similarly to me, could complain about the radicality under which law is treating time. As will see, we could wander “How could someone justify the start of a regulation to be March 14th versus March 13th 16:38?- There is no rational in the timeline of a law application but the one justify by its own system.” We should always pursue the fight against an arbitrariness.

To prevent any misunderstanding on my proposal, I will begin with an example.

Let’s say that a law stops to be applied of March 14th. (I took this example from Columbia University that is levying its mask mandate starting the 14th.) The fact is that on 00:01am on the 14th, nobody would have to wear a mask. However, until the last second of this last minute living between the first tick of 11:59pm and midnight, the mask with still be as much obligatory than if it was 2 months ago- without any consideration of the fact that it won’t be in one minute. It seems necessary to consider the absurdity of this phenomenon, one whose form could not be found anywhere but in the arbitrariness of a law implementation.

The proposition is the following, and I hope that others might emerge out of it. Please suggests alternatives if ideas come your way.

If the law retirement is to be fully applied on the 14th, as it was originally planned, its retirement should be progressive. Within our example, the process of this retirement would last a day and it would be happening throughout March 13th.

Going from a system in which 100% of the population would be expected to wear the mask indoor, this expected percentage would decrease as the day progresses- to finally reach 0% on the first minute of March 14th.

Neither the percentage, nor the person – chosen on random variables- would be alerted. However, if someone would be willing to challenge the system, they could ask whether or not they are part of the current batch that is “beneficiating” from the curvature of the law retirement process.

Pragmatically, everyone would presuppose that they have to wear a mask, but those who feel an impetus could -within the legality of the progressiveness- inaugurate the enthusiasm of this change imposed by the law, within the regularity provided by such format of legal change - to impose to the character of power an answer towards reguarding the state of their status- without assuming the obviouness of a negation that would be necessarily the case.

Creating a structural form of unpredictacle destibilisation is a healthy process for any form of settled system.

Moreover, it is cooherent - and within the legacy- of my previous conceptualization around the need of Communication to be recenter to be the core of the government duty towards its citizens (ie. article February 8st, 2022). Indeed, it is so in the way that the people willing to provoke communication will have to encounter the system of power in place to demand them whether or not they are part of the current batch that will be free within the progressiveness of the law retirement.

We can note that this system would only work in a beneficial way for the citizens as it would offer individuals randomly picked the possibility to inaugurate the new system. Indeed, it wouldn’t work in the opposite way -assigning more days to randomly assigned people. The most important factor, as discussed previously, being to engage people within their space, the implementation of such system would offer another opportunity for people to use enthusiasm to engage with power, ultimately training citizens to be part of a community in which communication is the tool by which the social is insured.

Furthermore, we can argue that such a system will popularize the curiosity towards legislation, which in itself might engage citizens to communicate and exchange (ideas, emotions, goods, services, etc.)

bottom of page