The analysis of data published in the People’s Republic of China demonstrates that after 1970 the US administration, most probably, has grossly underestimated the level of Chinese strategic forces' development as well as problems this development might create for the US if Peking changes its passive foreign policy to an active one. The author sets forth several arguments in favor of an opinion that the US policy in the past three decades was, by and large, precisely what as the Chinese leaders would like it to be. The only exception to this rule was the problem of Taiwan. Thus, the US foreign policy is far from being the best from the US interests' standpoint.

The analysis of data published in the People’s Republic of China demonstrates that after 1970 the US administration, most probably, has grossly underestimated the level of Chinese strategic forces' development as well as problems this development might create for the US if Peking changes its passive foreign policy to an active one. The author sets forth several arguments in favor of an opinion that the US policy in the past three decades was, by and large, precisely what as the Chinese leaders would like it to be. The only exception to this rule was the problem of Taiwan. Thus, the US foreign policy is far from being the best from the US interests' standpoint.

The author considers differences between the classic market economy and the market economy of the neo-liberal type. The author demonstrates that the transition from the system of regulated market economy to the economy of the neo-liberal type did not bring the modern economy any closer to the 19th model. On the contrary, the present day economy is at greater distance from the 19th model. The author points out that the neo-liberal economy is not the economy of growth: it is the economy of redistribution. Due to its inherent properties the neo-liberal economy’s life expectancy is quite limited. The neo-liberal economy is doomed to disappear in 30-40 years. According to estimates, the neo-liberal experiment in 25 years cost 400 trillion dollars to the world economy and 90 trillion dollars to the US economy. These staggering losses have undermined the American economy’s capacity to compete with the East Asian economies, in particular with the economy of China which is the principal systemic competitor to the global neo-liberal market system. The author presents arguments in favor of position according to which the return to a market economy system characteristics of which will be similar to those of Bretton-Woods System era world economy.

In this part of the article the author describes the process of the world economy’s transformation in the neoliberal vein: demise of Bretton-Woods agreements and development of system of characteristics within the Washington consensus as well as the post-Washington consensus program. The author expounds the essence of the neoliberal transformation of economy and shows that the strong economies are affected by these transformations rather mildly and efficiency of such economies can be greatly enhanced due to efforts taken by the state as a regulator of economy. On the contrary, a weak economy is quite vulnerable and if it is entering the neoliberal regime it is susceptible to pressures of the old negative as well as of new negative factors. At the same time all compensatory mechanisms that existed earlier cease to act. Thus the neoliberal model produces only minuses, one of which is a tendency to increase the mass of shadow and criminal economy. The author’s conclusion is that only a regulated mixed economy may be really efficient.

Adducing rich empirical data the author demonstrates that the central tenet of neo-liberal policy, the proposition that a market economy is able to perform in self- regulating manner is just an illusion. The state regulation is the permanent requirement and only when (and if) the economy is well adjusted it is possible to control pace of growth and rates of inflation. Only under these circumstances an “openness” of economy, i.e. ability of an economy to function in the absence of the state’s protection is possible. A weak economy, if it is “open”, is inevitably becoming a donor for the developed countries.