The Beijing Consensus and the Washington Consensus, although neither is strictly followed by its namesake, remain two models for developing and expanding an economy. While the models have done each side well, their differences tend to trigger conflicts, as both sides claim the other side is unfair and unsustainable. The Beijing Consensus can be considered to revolve around one word: “manage.” More specifically, centralized governmental management. From such centralized decision-making comes a strategy to be pursued by private and public institutions, with plans laid out by the government. The Washington Consensus can be considered to revolve around another word: “free.” More specifically, freedom to let markets decide value. With that decentralized format, companies decide what they wish to do to excel in the market, as they do not need to align with any national strategy. Lately, the competition has yielded some positive economic and geo-political results for the Beijing Consensus. How will those who support the “invisible hand” of the “efficient market” mount an international response?