As the cost of labor has soared, the manufacturing base is now migrating to cheap-labor countries like Vietnam, leaving less work in Chinese cities for migrant laborers. With few options left, they’ve started to return to their villages. This leaves China with massive challenges, just when its debt-burdened economy can least afford them.

Given China’s size, “the demise” of its economic-growth model has “huge implications for the global economy,” according to the Financial Times. For the wealthy Chinese, buying a home in the US or Canada has been an effective way to launder some money and get their wealth out of harm’s way. In the trophy markets on the US West Coast and in the Canadian cities of Vancouver and Toronto, rumors of a massive influx of Chinese money have swirled with growing intensity for years. In Vancouver, 33% of sales are to Chinese investors, according to new estimates of National Bank.

In Winner-Take-All Politics, Jacob S Hacker and Paul Pierson explained how political elites have enabled and propelled plutocracy. Now in American Amnesia, they trace the economic and political history of the United States over the last century and show how a viable mixed economy has long been the dominant engine of America’s prosperity.

Like every other prospering democracy, the United States developed a mixed economy that channeled the spirit of capitalism into strong growth and healthy social development. In this bargain, government and business were as much partners as rivals. Public investments in education, science, transportation, and technology laid the foundation for broadly based prosperity. Programs of economic security and progressive taxation provided a floor of protection and business focused on the pursuit of profit — and government addressed needs business could not.

The mixed economy was the most important social innovation of the twentieth century. It spread a previously unimaginable level of broad prosperity. It enabled steep increases in education, health, longevity, and economic security. And yet, extraordinarily, it is anathema to many current economic and political elites. And as the advocates of anti-government free market fundamentalist have gained power, they are hell-bent on scrapping the instrument of nearly a century of unprecedented economic and social progress. In American Amnesia, Hacker and Pierson explain how — and why they must be stopped.

Imogen Wilson, the smiley 22-year old vice president for academic affairs at Edinburgh University’s Student Association (now there’s a mouthful), found herself the subject of a vote by fellow students when she stuck her arm in the air during a council meeting, after someone wrongly accused her of not responding to an open letter. That gesture was deemed ‘inappropriate’ as, according to rules and regulations drawn up by people so prissy they make Hyacinth Bucket look like a swinger, “disagreements should only be evident through the course of normal debate.”

Ms Wilson said that safe space rules were “becoming a tool for the hard left to use when they disagree with people.” Her fellow students voted in favour of her staying in the meeting – though incredibly, 18 of them were precious enough to want her out.

Still, I shouldn’t say much more unless the special little snowflakes read this and accuse me of violating their right to be special little snowflakes. I’m big enough and ugly enough to know by now that the defining characteristic of this supposedly tolerant generation is to not tolerate those they don’t agree with. Block them. No platform them. Create a petition to ban them. I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to the death my right to not hear you say it!

But when people talk of certainty and safety, they also refer to matters economic. That is my subject today. It is true that if we were to leave the EU the immediate situation post-departure is more uncertain than if we remained. But that is trivial. In practice, there would probably be little immediate difference. What the supporters of Remain are really arguing, though, is that we cannot be sure how things would develop over the succeeding years, including the terms of our trading relationships.

This is true. Yet the idea that a vote to stay means that things will stay the same is an illusion because the EU is changing and the world is changing, too. In several key ways the EU could evolve, paraphrasing the words of Japan’s emperor at the end of the Second World War, “not necessarily to the UK’s advantage”. Most importantly, for the euro to survive, banking, fiscal and political union will be needed between members. The UK would be an outsider – but still inside the EU. How this would work is impossible to know.

In helping us to make up our minds about the institutional arrangements with which we may best face an uncertain future, for all the things that we don’t know, we do know this: we functioned perfectly well as an independent country before we joined the EU; our economic position has strengthened since then; most of the world does not belong to the EU, and does not wish to; the EU’s economic record is poor because it has made misguided decisions.

Most importantly, whatever the future throws at us, if we were outside the EU, we would have the power to respond in our interests. If leaving the EU is a leap in the dark, then staying in is a leap in the dark with both legs shackled together and our arms tied behind our back.

He called for a new, tougher approach to integration and the abandonment of “the failed policy of multiculturalism". The survey had made “one truly terrifying” conclusion that “Muslims who have separatist views about how they want to live in Britain are far more likely to support terrorism than those who do not”, added Mr Phillips, who ran the EHRC until 2012 and was previously in charge of the Commission for Racial Equality.

And political parties should no longer turn a “blind eye to appalling misdemeanours in return for votes from community leaders – so-called silence-for-votes deals which created havoc in Rotherham and Rochdale and contributed to the grooming scandals in those towns”, suggested Mr Phillips.

He told the Daily Mail: “We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little – and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims. In my view, we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism.”

I just returned from Libya for the first time in over a year, and the situation is deteriorating. Libya should have showcased how the Arab Spring turned dictatorships into democracies. That's what many, myself included, expected after Moammar Gadhafi's brutal regime fell and a wave of good feeling swept across Libya. But too little was done to assist the transition - and we are now seeing the alarming consequences.

There are two, or depending how you count, four competing governments in the country now - the internationally recognized government in the east, an Islamist leaning government in Tripoli, the UN-backed unification government, and ISIS, which governs a growing amount of territory. In parts of Libya that are still safe, security is maintained by competing militias connected in a tenuous set of alliances.

Given this patchwork of governments and militias, Libya is tense, on the verge of implosion. Events while I was there are illuminating. On February 17, the country celebrated five years since the revolution that freed Libya from 42 years of Gadhafi's rule. Thousands were in the streets for what should have been a joyous anniversary, but Libyans I spoke with felt disillusionment not hope. And with good reason.

Two days later, the United States hit an ISIS compound in Sabratha, a town about 40 miles west of Tripoli, killing 41 militants. The mayor of Sabratha lauded the airstrike, claiming his government had no knowledge of ISIS's presence. Three days later, hundreds of other ISIS fighters - whom he also says he did not know about - stormed Sabratha, raising a black flag over the center of town.

There was a time when the German chancellor and the head of the European Central Bank had nice things to say about each other. Mario Draghi spoke of a "good working relationship," while Angela Merkel noted "broad agreement." Draghi, said Merkel, is extremely supportive "when it comes to European competitiveness."

These days, though, meetings between the two most powerful politicians in the euro zone are often no different than their face-to-face at the most recent summit in Brussels. She observed that his forced policy of cheap money is endangering the business model of Germany's Sparkassen savings banks and retirement insurance companies. He snarled back that the sectors would simply have to adapt, just as the American financial sector has.

The alienation between Germany and the ECB has reached a new level. Back in deutsche mark times, Europeans often joked that the Germans "may not believe in God, but they believe in the Bundesbank," as Germany's central bank is called. Today, though, when it comes to relations between the ECB and the German population, people are more likely to speak of "parallel universes."

ECB head Draghi doesn't understand why he is getting so much resistance from the country that has profited from the euro more than any other. Yet Germans blame Draghi for miniscule yields on savings accounts and life/retirement insurance policies. Frustration is growing. Draghi has pushed the prime rate down to zero and now even charges commercial banks a fee for parking their money at the ECB. He has also bought almost €2 trillion worth of bonds from euro-zone member states, making the ECB one of the largest state creditors of all time.

During his most recent appearance before the Frankfurt reporter pool, he went even further. The idea of pumping money directly into the economy, he said, was a "very interesting concept," with a helicopter to distribute the money across the country if necessary, as economists have half-jokingly recommended. Doing so is seen as a way of boosting the economy. German money being thrown out of a helicopter: It would be difficult to find a more fitting image to show people that the money they have set aside for retirement may soon be worth very little.

To see the tension, all you have to do is look at the current accounts of Germany and its biggest European counterparts – France, Spain and Italy. The current account is the less well- known, but more comprehensive, measure of the economic health of a nation, bringing together its exports and imports, the interest it pays to and receives from others, and even its foreign aid. Running a positive current account balance is, to a point, better than running a deficit.

Since the creation of the euro, Germany has run a pretty much consistent positive current account balance. Germany is better off to the tune of about €1.8 trillion (£1.5 trillion) since 2000. But if you add together the current account balances of France, Spain and Italy over the same time, they are collectively nearly €1.2 trillion in the red. The contrasting current account positions of Germany and the larger debtor European nations is the story of something never tried before; a currency union pre-dating a political union, and the mechanism used to sponsor it.

Sluggish domestic German economics have been supplanted by an export sector boosted by a depressed euro, while those who would have found themselves in trouble have been able to borrow increasingly larger sums at artificially low interest rates.

In many respects it has suited everyone. But what makes you strong eventually makes you weak. Huge amounts of Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Greek and Irish creditor risk now sits within creditor nations, primarily Germany and the Netherlands. Far from talk of Brexit, if there is a route to euro destruction, this recycling money back to the debtor nations of Germany’s current account will be the cause.

The physicist's opinions have been revealed after the 1942 letter he wrote while at Princeton University emerged at auction for £30,000. It was sent to the university's president, Dr Frank Kingdon, who shared Einstein's concerns. It was never meant for public eyes as at the time of writing America had been giving Einstein shelter from fascist persecution in Nazi Germany.

The scientist thought the government's inaction had led to the consolidation of fascism in Europe and that American financiers tacitly encouraged the growth of the Far Right. Einstein, recognized as one of the most important minds in the twentieth century, was angered by America's relationship with Spanish dictator Francisco Franco after the country's civil war; the fact it had a diplomat in Vichy France - the French state which collaborated with the Nazis - and its treatment of Soviet Russia.

He wrote: "You can imagine how the new crimes committed by the Nazis in France make me suffer, crimes assisted to by the 'fascist' Vichy-traitors. I cannot, however, make up my mind to approach Washington on the matter. My reason is a sad one indeed and I wish to explain it to you so that you may understand my negative attitude: Why did Washington help to strangulate Loyalist Spain?

"Why has it an official representative in fascist France? Why does it not recognize a French Government in Exile? Why does it flirt with Franco-Spain? Why is there no really serious effort to assist Russia in her dire need? Because it is a government controlled to a large degree by financiers the mentality of whom is near to the fascist frame of mind." Einstein, who died aged 78 in 1955, wrote his broadside on September 3, 1942, nine years after the US had taken him in as a refugee.

Joe Maddalena, president of Profiles in History, said: "These letters provide a unique perspective on Albert Einstein, the greatest mind of the 20th century. Einstein didn't comment publicly about politics. He was very much on-message while living in America and was not critical of the country that had taken him in. But here he was saying that Washington was corrupted by financiers. Hitler was on the verge to taking over the world and Einstein was disappointed in America for not recognising what was going on."

For months, the North African country has seen a secret build-up of American, British, French and Italian agents and officers, while reconnaissance and armed drones controlled from Sigonella in Sicily have conducted surveillance missions and air strikes in Libya.

Last week, the EU and US moved forward with the installation of their puppet regime in Tripoli. The designated government leader, Fayiz as-Sarraj, left his exile in Tunisia on Wednesday by ship and arrived in the Libyan capital at the head of a nine-member-strong government delegation. As-Sarraj is a front man built up by German UN negotiator Martin Kobler, and has been tasked with demanding an official military intervention at the United Nations as soon as possible against ISIS forces in Libya.

As-Sarraj, a 54-year old architect from Tripoli, has been dispatched to form a so-called government of national unity. He has returned to a deeply-divided and ruined country, in which at least two governments and five militias are conducting a bloody civil war. As-Sarraj can at most rely on the half-hearted support of a section of the internationally recognised parliament which is currently located in Tobruk in the east of the country.

“Following consultations with Russia, we have agreed to hold a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council at Ambassadorial level,” the bloc said in a statement released on Friday. “This meeting will take place in the next two weeks at the NATO headquarters in Brussels,” it added.

“The NATO-Russia Council [NRC] will discuss the crisis in and around Ukraine and the need to fully implement the Minsk Agreements. We will discuss military activities, with particular focus on transparency and risk reduction. We will also address the security situation in Afghanistan, including regional terrorist threats.”

NATO decided to break off all contact with Russia in 2014, when Viktor Yanukovych was ousted as Ukraine’s president during the Euromaidan riots. The last NRC meeting was held in June of 2014. “This meeting is the continuation of our political dialogue … At the same time, there will be no return to business as usual until Russia again respects international law,” the statement said.

The development may add to fears that workers in poorer countries are most in danger of being displaced by automation, with analysis by Citi and the Oxford Martin School, a research and policy unit of the UK university, published earlier this year suggesting that more than 75 per cent of jobs in China are at a “high risk” of computerisation.

Mirae Asset Management, an Asia-focused house with $75 billion of assets, predicts that China’s robot army will expand at a compound annual growth rate of 35 per cent until 2020.

Given that the International Federation of Robotics estimates that China had 260,000 industrial robots last year, Rahul Chadha, chief investment officer of Mirae, says: “Using the rule thumb that one industrial robot replaces four to five workers, this suggests that robots have rendered more than 1 million people jobless.” This figure is set to rise sharply in the coming years.