The World in 25 years?

[lordmandeep]

Japan was greatly greatly helped by the Americans after WW2.


However in the 60's the Japanese really started to become independent and they worked very very hard. That is where the stereotype came from about Japanese workers. So, all I am saying is that they did get help, but it was mostly due to them helping themselves.


Japan is a poor example as even before WW2, Japan's standard of living was still quite high.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If African can get its house in order they are ideally positioned to take the role of cheap-labour market of the world from China. As China's middle class grows and domestic consumption eats up more of their productivity, the rest of the world will need a cheap labour supply for their running shoes, televisions, clothes and neon electric vibrating sex toys, etc. I don't know if African has the robot-like work ethic of the Chinese, but I'd say the role will be theirs if they're ready for it.

 

[afransen]

Africa has potential, but all of it is dependent on stable, effective government. Even an ironfisted dictatorship like China would be an improvement.

 

[kEiThZ]

Anyway, we've wasted 3 pages with Moonmouth's ridiculous distractions...having to explain the root causes of Africa's challenges to a person who supposedly lived there. But apparently, if we comment on it at all, and deviate from the suggestion that Africa can improve on its own, we're racist 'neo-cons'. Some people love their ignorance.

Moving on to the issue at hand, we are talking about relative power in 25 years. How does the suggestion come about that BRIC countries could overtake the US? Economically, perhaps. But they are far from a cohesive group on anything.

 

[lordmandeep]

I think America's source of power will be for a long time, its Military.
Even when China or The EU overtake economically, America's military will still keep it dominant and relevant on foreign policy issues.


However, once it loses economic dominance, how long can it keep military supremacy???

 

[kEiThZ]

I think America's source of power will be for a long time, its Military.
Even when China or The EU overtake economically, America's military will still keep it dominant and relevant on foreign policy issues.


However, once it loses economic dominance, how long can it keep military supremacy???

I disagree. Any strategic studies course will tell you that military power is composed various other factors. Chief among them is economic power. This is the reason, you don't see the Chinese who are growing trying to upset the boat. Until they have achieved a reasonable standard of living across the country, any conflict could be disastrous and they would surely loose if it was the US (say over Taiwan or North Korean integration).

As to losing its economic dominance, that will happen for sure. The BRIC countries combined may have more economic power than the US by as early as 2020. However, they don't all have uniform power or similar visions. Brazil and India are increasingly friendly with the US and may at some point achieve the status of non-NATO allies (like Japan or Israel). Russia has a declining, aging population and is dependent on oil for economic progress. That's not too sustainable. That leaves China.

But best estimates put it at around 2040-2050 and that assumes China keeps growing at its current pace and that US growth remains constant too. I doubt those estimates will hold. Concerns about global warming, air pollution, water scarcity, and an aging population will put a damper on growth in china for the decades to come. All the enviro NGOs may not care about China's greenhouse gases now (which have surpassed the US) but imagine what happens when it hits 2-3 times what it is today, a realistic possibility (within 15-20 years) given China's growth strategy focused on industry (they are failing miserably at transitioning to a post-industrial economy). We can thank our lucky stars the Indians didn't take that route. The enviro NGOs won't be able to argue then, that it's all about per capita when Chinese emissions swamp the planet.

So that leaves the US with relatively less power but hardly the least dominant. The US will just have to learn how to cooperate more with other powers. And that's already happening. US-India nuclear deal is a prime example. Under Obama, diplomacy is likely to occur at an even more frenetic pace.

 

[kEiThZ]

One suggestion....how about we actually read the NIE and discuss that. It's quite an interesting read.

 

[lordmandeep]

India and America are becoming very close actually.


Quite a change from 40 years ago, when they supported Pakistan to defeat India, because Nixon thought India was going to become a communist nation. Well after India separated, a lot of the leaders in India had went to the Soviet Union and really liked communism. Socialism in India existed for a long time for sure.

Its about the late 80's and early 90's that India reformed its economic ways and clearly for the better. Sure India is largely poor, but in the past it was your either poor or rich. Now there is a powerful middle class.

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm not sure why people wish to equate the United States with being an empire. Empires are very specific entities with very typical structures, and the United States does not fit the description.

What the U.S. has is a growing population 303,800,000 people. It is the third largest country in the world by area, and the third largest in terms of population. It possesses the most powerful military force. It has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world. The per capita GDP is about $46,000 US. It's the leading industrial power in the world that is both highly diversified and technologically advanced. Items produced include refined petroleum products, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining and cultural products. The U.S. possesses a large, technologically advanced multipurpose communications system, and produces 4.167 trillion kWh of electricity.

Natural resources mining and production includes copper, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, timber. The US has the world's largest coal reserves with 491 billion short tons, accounting for about 27% of the world's total.

In terms of agriculture, the United States produces wheat, corn, other grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton, beef, pork, poultry, dairy products, fish, and forest products. It's the world's largest exporter of agricultural products. In fact, agriculture in the United States is roughly 2.6 times more productive than it was in 1948.

All of that makes it quite powerful. Barring extreme and unforseen change, it still will be a major power in twenty-five years.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^Don't forget education. The United States punches well above its weight in its research output at universities, due both to the sheer number of schools, as well as their quality. Although Chinese universities like Tsinghua and Nanjing are very good, it is unlikely that China, or any other nation, will steal the torch of higher learning from the Americans anytime soon.

 

[Admiral Beez]

^Don't forget education. The United States punches well above its weight in its research output at universities, due both to the sheer number of schools, as well as their quality. Although Chinese universities like Tsinghua and Nanjing are very good, it is unlikely that China, or any other nation, will steal the torch of higher learning from the Americans anytime soon.

It's certainly in vogue to report that education in India, China, etc. is producing far better qualitified students than the USA, or Canada for that matter. However, what we usually forget to mention is that these countries use streaming at a very early age. Imagine the ruckus if in the USA they tested kids in Grade 2 and then took only the most academically advanced kids forward, and pushed the rest to trade schools. In the US, and Canada, everyone gets an average to above average education, whereas in many developing countries or emerging powerhouses, a very few get an excellent education, and the rest left behind.

 

[lordmandeep]

well they are not sent to trade schools.


Mostly to regular schools.

 

[Hydrogen]

It's certainly in vogue to report that education in India, China, etc. is producing far better qualitified students than the USA, or Canada for that matter. However, what we usually forget to mention is that these countries use streaming at a very early age. Imagine the ruckus if in the USA they tested kids in Grade 2 and then took only the most academically advanced kids forward, and pushed the rest to trade schools. In the US, and Canada, everyone gets an average to above average education, whereas in many developing countries or emerging powerhouses, a very few get an excellent education, and the rest left behind.

Actually Hipster's point is a very important one. The United States is, if you will, the major importer and exporter of people seeking and acquiring university and post-graduate education. The contemporary model for the modern research university was established in that country - where it flourishes to this day. Many emerging industrial nations are looking to copy that model.

As, for testing, streaming, etc., comparing "qualified" students in primary and secondary education in different countries is quite problematic as the testing (and test preparation) is not the same. As for streaming, find me a system anywhere in the world that can determine an actual fit for students to jobs, education or vocation. Streaming merely places people on the basis of limited assumptions concerning their abilities. Taken from another perspective, streaming limits opportunity during a period in life where people do not have the capacity to question what is happening to them. Streaming is an educational and social convenience, and should not be mistaken for an accurate measure for determining individual capabilities.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As for streaming, find me a system anywhere in the world that can determine an actual fit for students to jobs, education or vocation. Streaming merely places people on the basis of limited assumptions concerning their abilities. Taken from another perspective, streaming limits opportunity during a period in life where people do not have the capacity to question what is happening to them. Streaming is an educational and social convenience, and should not be mistaken for an accurate measure for determining individual capabilities.

I'm not advocating streaming, only suggesting that it may be behind those stats we often here that students in India or China score much higher than those in the USA (and Canada) in mathematics and science.

 

[Hydrogen]

You might want to question how those statistics are collected - such as the tests and test preparations. My experience is that such tests differ from one country to the next.

Students usually do better when they are taught the test. Whether that is actually education is debatable.