Balance of power will shift to China and India (2 Viewers)

[supercharged]

So you hate what you call 'imperialist' America but you'd embrace a similar China?

imperialist? just how many foreign military bases in puppet countries does China have? zero.

 

[fish fingers]

pffft, I sure as hell won't be taking America's side in its quest for continued world domination.

Other states are catching up not only China and India, but the European countries are combining and will one day form a new EU military force to look after their own security, replacing the current American dominated NATO. But the shift in world power and influence will not be from other countries developing more advanced weapons than America but rather their economies growing stronger. The shift of power to the East will be the same as the economic rise of the US away from old Europe in the late 1800s to early 1900s.


The world of the future say in around 50 years time will be a multi-polar world all with regional trading blocs, with a strongly combined EU dominating the West, China dominating the East, and India dominating the South. America will still be around but they will no longer be able to act as god of the world anymore. They will remain the kingpin on the American continent dominating Canada and South America.

The economic rise of America was far different to that of Asia today. Asia cant reproduce that economic miracle, as the world is so different, there arent continual wars, there isnt mass colonising and nations cant keep increasing west(or any direction) as America did and discover new resources.

You underestimate the power of America. Lets not forget this nations incredible abilities: it has survived Depressions etc. it prospered greatly from both WW's, and is the only nation in the modern era to survive a war on two fronts. The world only progresses if America lets it. America's corporations rule the world economies, and they can reduce them if need be, just look at how impacts on the American economy lead to impacts on the world economy e.g hurricane Katrina etc. You must also remember how nationalistic Americans are, it is certainly plausible, and indeed probable, for them to act in such ways to protect their nations dominance.

 

[supercharged]

I already have and China is not 'similar' to America in its neo-con adventures.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I agree, I think people are being too hastly to say America will no longer be the super-power in 10 years time... people have been saying this for years. I don't think trading blocs are going to be particularily popular *looks at EU* ...

The reason why you believe there will be such a rise to power in the east, is that you believe they can continue their current economic expansion for decades into the future, which I believe is not true. You cannot have the sort of growing economy China has and have the sort of standard of living people in china are going to begin to demand.

It's the same problem as Australia has essentially, we cannot continue to have our standard of living by making money from selling our resources to China, it is not viable.

 

[Rafy]

China should start an empire

 

[supercharged]

The economic rise of America was far different to that of Asia today. Asia cant reproduce that economic miracle, as the world is so different, there arent continual wars, there isnt mass colonising and nations cant keep increasing west(or any direction) as America did and discover new resources.

You underestimate the power of America. Lets not forget this nations incredible abilities: it has survived Depressions etc. it prospered greatly from both WW's, and is the only nation in the modern era to survive a war on two fronts. The world only progresses if America lets it. America's corporations rule the world economies, and they can reduce them if need be, just look at how impacts on the American economy lead to impacts on the world economy e.g hurricane Katrina etc. You must also remember how nationalistic Americans are, it is certainly plausible, and indeed probable, for them to act in such ways to protect their nations dominance.

150 years ago people thought the exact same thing about the British empire. Colonies in every part of the world. An amazing navy. World domination. Who could beat that? The rise of America did.

Every nation or empire can be on top of the world for a period of time but eventually other countries will catch up. Poor countries (except African ones) do not stay poor forever. Take South Korea for example, in the 1960s its national wealth was on par with Afganistan, now it's an OECD country.

Every country in the world and its citizens have just as much right to be as rich and powerful as any other. Just because America is the uber-nation now, does not mean it is somehow ordaned by god to be the only rich nation in the world.

There is no such thing as "The world only progresses if America lets it." because America cannot take on the entire world. One country no matter how powerful, is never as powerful as the whole world.

 

[...]

i reckon it will take way more than 10 years for China to get anywhere near close to the America of today

i'll put my money on the 30 year mark;

and supercharge, you can't take history as an example in this case, the scenarios are way different. British had the industral revolution with them as well, in the end, as you said they collapsed.

In 10 years time, I can only see China being a "wealthy" country, where people working in the city will be pretty well off, whereas rural area people would still be making a struggle to live; not a "superpower" country state of condition.

Oh, and before China wants to grow bigger, they need to fix the corruption within states, it is a fucken joke

 

[supercharged]

I agree, I think people are being too hastly to say America will no longer be the super-power in 10 years time... people have been saying this for years. I don't think trading blocs are going to be particularily popular *looks at EU* ...

The reason why you believe there will be such a rise to power in the east, is that you believe they can continue their current economic expansion for decades into the future, which I believe is not true. You cannot have the sort of growing economy China has and have the sort of standard of living people in china are going to begin to demand.

It's the same problem as Australia has essentially, we cannot continue to have our standard of living by making money from selling our resources to China, it is not viable.

Someone hasn't studied their economics. Countries achieve their maximum wealth and living standards when they trade according to their relative advantages. That is the most efficient allocation of resources. Why spend $10 trying to build something yourself when you can import it for $5 and use the remaining $5 on something else?

It's like a cold country such as Norway spending $$$ building greenhouses to support a mango industry instead of simply importing them from tropical countries. A massive waste of resources when you aren't trading to your relative advantages.

 

[...]

Why spend $10 trying to build something yourself when you can import it for $5 and use the remaining $5 on something else?

Because then the unemployment rate within the nation will rise due to the fact government decides to import everything

once unemployement rate increases, the amount of spening/investment made by everyday consumer will drop and as a result the whole economy will drop with it


</year8 economic>

 

[supercharged]

Because then the unemployment rate within the nation will rise due to the fact government decides to import everything

once unemployement rate increases, the amount of spening/investment made by everyday consumer will drop and as a result the whole economy will drop with it


</year8 economic>

But that's why you also EXPORT. With all the money you save from importing products instead of building inefficiently yourself, you plow it into industries where your country CAN compete. Trade is the only path to wealth, having a closed off economy will lead to a Cuba like scenario.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

My point was that Chinas competitive advantage is having alot of people willing to work for low wages... that will not last.

 

[fish fingers]

150 years ago people thought the exact same thing about the British empire. Colonies in every part of the world. An amazing navy. World domination. Who could beat that? The rise of America did.

Every nation or empire can be on top of the world for a period of time but eventually other countries will catch up. Poor countries (except African ones) do not stay poor forever. Take South Korea for example, in the 1960s its national wealth was on par with Afganistan, now it's an OECD country.

Every country in the world and its citizens have just as much right to be as rich and powerful as any other. Just because America is the uber-nation now, does not mean it is somehow ordaned by god to be the only rich nation in the world.

There is no such thing as "The world only progresses if America lets it." because America cannot take on the entire world. One country no matter how powerful, is never as powerful as the whole world.

You are commiting several logical fallacies in your current comments which dont advance your argument. You have ignored WW1 and WW2 which destroyed British supremecy. Those cant arise again however due to the UN, media and globalisation. Britain did not have global domination in the sense that America does. American Corporations rule the world at the moment. They could cut China off and destroy that nation without any military action, as they could any nation in the world.
In the past other nations caught up, however as I keep pointing out, the world is different and nations dont collapse like they use to. The barbarians wont sack Washington. South Korea is only rich because of America. American corporations developed that nation and they can destroy it as easily.
I disagree with your statement all nations have the same right to be rich and powerful. It is philosophically impossible to have all nations with power. Power only exists amongst a minority who rules the rest. Not to mention nature doesnt comply with humanitarian notions. it decides which nations are rich through resources and people etc. and it doesnt spread them evenly.
As I said there is such a thing as the world only progresses if America lets it, as America controls the world both through its military, its economy and its industry. America can take on the entire world, what do you think its doing now. it controls the world, and those who realise its immense power ally with it. Your notion that one country cant take on the entire world is too theoretical. If in theory a nation such as America controlled 90% of the worlds land surface which is a plausible notion, then it is more powerful the the whole wold, which I presume doesnt include America itself.

 

[supercharged]

My point was that Chinas competitive advantage is having alot of people willing to work for low wages... that will not last.

PLEASE STUDY ECONOMICS FIRST before making irrelevant remarks.

ALL East Asian Tiger eonomies such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore relied on cheap labour manufacturing to kick start their economies. As wages, economic and infrastructure conditions improved, they moved towards higher end manufacturing and service industries as labour intensive industries headed towards the lower cost mainland.

Mainland China is no different, while its economy is currently based upon mainly labour intensive industries, in say 10-20 years time alot of these industries will move to other places such as Vietnam or India where the wages are lower. China inturn moves up the value chain towards high end manufacturing and services. It's a well trodden path towards economic development.

 

[supercharged]

You are commiting several logical fallacies in your current comments which dont advance your argument. You have ignored WW1 and WW2 which destroyed British supremecy. Those cant arise again however due to the UN, media and globalisation. Britain did not have global domination in the sense that America does. American Corporations rule the world at the moment. They could cut China off and destroy that nation without any military action, as they could any nation in the world.
In the past other nations caught up, however as I keep pointing out, the world is different and nations dont collapse like they use to. The barbarians wont sack Washington. South Korea is only rich because of America. American corporations developed that nation and they can destroy it as easily.
I disagree with your statement all nations have the same right to be rich and powerful. It is philosophically impossible to have all nations with power. Power only exists amongst a minority who rules the rest. Not to mention nature doesnt comply with humanitarian notions. it decides which nations are rich through resources and people etc. and it doesnt spread them evenly.
As I said there is such a thing as the world only progresses if America lets it, as America controls the world both through its military, its economy and its industry. America can take on the entire world, what do you think its doing now. it controls the world, and those who realise its immense power ally with it. Your notion that one country cant take on the entire world is too theoretical. If in theory a nation such as America controlled 90% of the worlds land surface which is a plausible notion, then it is more powerful the the whole wold, which I presume doesnt include America itself.

Ahh you obiviously think America is GOD, yes America needs to 'allow' other countries to prosper. That is pure bullshit, sure America could individually destroy countries on a military basis, I'm not disputing that.

BUT America cannot destroy other major economies economically without killing itself as well. Sure America is the richest 'individual' country, but did you know that currently the combined EU has a bigger GDP than America? Globalisation has pulled countries closer together than ever before. The South East Asian countries have formed the very successful ASEAN. In the future the world will be dominated by regional trading blocs and America will be in its NAFTA trading bloc. Can America kill off the EU or ASEAN without trashing itself? I think not.

The British Empire of 150 years ago was far stronger than America today but in the end it still dissolved because other nations do not stay weak forever since all humans have the same potential. Yes ww1 and 2 diminshed British power but that only happened because the other European countries and America were strong enough to challenge its domination. Prior to that, Britain was the kingshit of European nations just as how how America is now the top dog of the Western world. However nothing lasts forever.

 

[withoutaface]

imperialist? just how many foreign military bases in puppet countries does China have? zero.

I am not talking about China in its present state. I'm talking about China in 20-50 years time.

 

[Comrade nathan]

I still think that China relies too much on the US, and the US too much on the China. It is only been recently China has begun to expand its economy overseas. This can be seen in Australian mining, the first was at Mount Channar. The are also going in paternship with Australia to build a hydro power plant in Nepal.

I don't see China and India coming a world power with economy base built on cheap labor for the rich Western countries to expliot.

I also don't see WAF's idea of China becoming a bourgioes democracy like that of Australia and the US. Since its economy is based on a strong dominant bourgioes party of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

[supercharged]

I am not talking about China in its present state. I'm talking about China in 20-50 years time.

There's no evidence to suggest China will take the same path as American gun boat diplomacy. Even if China was already as rich and power as the US today, it would have zero motive to invade Iraq or threaten Iran.

 

[fish fingers]

There's no evidence to suggest China will take the same path as American gun boat diplomacy. Even if China was already as rich and power as the US today, it would have zero motive to invade Iraq or threaten Iran.

Actually if China was as rich powerful as America, and hence its quality of life as high as America's, it would have MORE reson to invade Iraq etc. then America. America has its own substantial oil fields, and can produce for itself to an extent, unlike China, and has a FAR smaller population.

 

[fish fingers]

PLEASE STUDY ECONOMICS FIRST before making irrelevant remarks.

ALL East Asian Tiger eonomies such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore relied on cheap labour manufacturing to kick start their economies. As wages, economic and infrastructure conditions improved, they moved towards higher end manufacturing and service industries as labour intensive industries headed towards the lower cost mainland.

Mainland China is no different, while its economy is currently based upon mainly labour intensive industries, in say 10-20 years time alot of these industries will move to other places such as Vietnam or India where the wages are lower. China inturn moves up the value chain towards high end manufacturing and services. It's a well trodden path towards economic development.

If China attempts to move away from highly labour intensive industries, which would be very difficult with such a population, its economic growth will plummet as the west will have no use for it. Its only purpose at the moment is to involve itself in such work which it provides at cheaper rates than the West.

By the way, dont confuse yourself. South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore were all Western colonies. You shouldnt be so quick to ignore such things, considering your being quite rude to others who allegedly dont study economics.

 

[fish fingers]

Ahh you obiviously think America is GOD, yes America needs to 'allow' other countries to prosper. That is pure bullshit, sure America could individually destroy countries on a military basis, I'm not disputing that.

BUT America cannot destroy other major economies economically without killing itself as well. Sure America is the richest 'individual' country, but did you know that currently the combined EU has a bigger GDP than America? Globalisation has pulled countries closer together than ever before. The South East Asian countries have formed the very successful ASEAN. In the future the world will be dominated by regional trading blocs and America will be in its NAFTA trading bloc. Can America kill off the EU or ASEAN without trashing itself? I think not.

The British Empire of 150 years ago was far stronger than America today but in the end it still dissolved because other nations do not stay weak forever since all humans have the same potential. Yes ww1 and 2 diminshed British power but that only happened because the other European countries and America were strong enough to challenge its domination. Prior to that, Britain was the kingshit of European nations just as how how America is now the top dog of the Western world. However nothing lasts forever.

Excuse me? i think America is god? you concluded this from my comments that your underestimating its power? Perhaps you would do well to realise what the term God means, as i do not think America is God, and I have in no way implied this.

All thats obvious is that you underestimate the power America. America can easily destroy other economies with no significant problems. Many people would disagree with such a comment about globalisation. Many believe that it is destroying nations, and is like "trading gold for bronze". you are speculating about the future without substantiation. America could destroy EU(which it never would) or ASEAN without 'trashing itself'. Once again this nation's corporations rule the world economy and its individual constituents. Once again, dont forget this nations history, it has been challenged before and has always survived and prospered,(war of Independence, war of 1812, civil war, WW1 and WW2 with two fronts etc.) this wont change until it is truly challenged outside of just economics.

You asked others not to make irrelevent comments without studying econmics, well I ask you the same in relation to history. This is not true. America has no rivals for world superpower. It dominates and controls other economies. It has the weaponry to destroy all other nations, and its military is much larger and advanced than others. Britain did not have this. Britain always had competition, with France and Germany etc. as you mention later for some reason(strange as it goes against your argument). Your comment about egalitarianism is irrelevent again, I ask you to not make such philosophical and scientific comments without studying it in depth. In case you dont realise America didnt challenge british power in WW1 or WW2. Germany and the Habsburg, Ottoman, Italian Empires did. Britain NEVER had the power that America has, before that as you mention it was in competition with France, America, Spain, Russia etc. America is in competition with NO ONE after the Soviet collapse.