Next Superpower?

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm sorry Malvinas

It was in a song of Pink Floyd.

Apparently some of the Brits had reservations against what they did.

Most of the world was appauled by it.

But in general Brits are «connected» with realizing foreign suffering. Most of them anyway. Maybe it's all that IRA bombing.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Estilpón
and...will they operate alone?

What has that got to do with it?

Your definition was: "project those forces to countries beyond their immediate neighbors"

They can and have done this in the recent past, therefore your definition is a poor one.

[el freako]

I did a 50 year forecast for economic growth for the major powers while ago.
Whilst economic power does not automatically translate into millitary power it at least provides the means to get it.

GDP as % of USA for countries with at least 20% of the USA total.

1950:
USA: 100%
USSR: 35%
Britian: 20%

2000:
USA: 100%
EU: 90%
China: 55%
Japan: 35%
India: 25%

2050:
China: 110%
USA: 100%
EU: 80%
India: 75%
Brazil: 25%
Japan: 20%

To make the forecasts I used the change in the working age population between 2000 and 2050 (computed using UN population forecasts) assumed a constant convergence towards a single activity rate (the proportion of people of working age in the workforce) and applied the same rate of 'catch-up' to the US's productivity level that Germany, France, Italy, Britian and Japan had in the period 1938-2000.

[Imran Siddiqui]

el freako, do you think that China's current growth rates can be maintained, however? I mean look at what happened with the Soviet Union after the high growth of the 40s and 50s. Do you think that the high interferance in the state will lead to a cap where growth can't advance much further? Of course China is shifting to more market based economy, but with the high levels of inteference of the state can we guarantee continued high levels of growth?

[el freako]

Imran,

A quick look at those figures would show that I don't expect China's growth to continue at the 9-10% that it has managed in the last 20 years.
If it did then instead of China's GDP being slightly bigger than the US's in 2050 it would be 10 times the size!

Here are the Growth figures for 2000-2050:

USA: 2.5%
EU: 1.75% (but the 2050 figure is boosted by new members)
China: 4%
India: 5%
Japan: 1.25%

[Dauphin]

St Malo => Malvinas.

Originally posted by Estilpón

Falklands? ahhhh, las islas Malvinas

The people of St Malo (France) have a more of a claim to the Falklands than the Argentinians.

Apparently some of the Brits had reservations against what they did.

We had no reservations about liberating a dependency.

[GePap]

Some weird choices

I have to say that many of the choices on the polll are just far out (Lybia? Switzeralnd!?) and some of the more important, though highly unlikely ones, such as Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia were left out.

If economics is the key, then what you need are states that can combine both high amounts of resources and large populations. Whether the resources are avilable internally or by importantion is not that important, but population size is, and so is geography. Tiny states are simply too vulnerable to be superpowers (3 nukes and Israel is gone, while it would take hundreads to take out the US) and states with small populations simply can't have that big internal markets or militaries. So out with Canada and Australia, both of which have small populations, when looking at their size. Remeber that the US is #3 in population and #4 in size.
The next best candidate, no matter what their government is, is China- which would actually be a return to the relative possiton they held in the world until the 18th century (China was the worlds biggest economy as late as 1800).

As for stability, according to Political Scinece thoeries, the less great powers, the more stable, since there is a clear hierarchy of power and thus less possible compatition. The more great powers, the more compatition, the less stability. The reasons we are so unstable now is not that unipolar situattions are unstable but that
1. The US does not engage enough to bring down conflict
2. Power has so diffused through the system that the label superpower is relatively inaccurate, since most of mankind will do as it whishes regardelss of waht the big boys think.

[Imran Siddiqui]

el freako, I know you didn't put in the 9-10% growth rates, but I think that even 4% would be a bit too much by 2050.

[TheBirdMan]

I personally think the EU,Japan,USA, and Russia will form a global alliance.

Faded - you just wrote, that you belive in the "Empire"?????

Not that I do belive in the StarWars (that is not the hero/rebellion-parts) - but somehow, many things today DO say to me, that SOMETIME the story COULD BE closer to a reality than most of us ever would like to come true.

[steelehc]

Perhaps I am off in my thinking, if so please correct me. Furthermore, I do not intend any insult to anyone with this post, especially Chinese.

China has over one billion people. Thats a lot of bodies to do manual labor, take bullets, and generally act as slaves. China is low-tech. The population is largely peasant farmers and forced laborers in factories. The per capita income is about $700 per year. Chinese industries are not modernized, they are not capable of doing so to a large enough extent.

The fact is, a superpower is both a nation that can project its influence anywhere on the planet, and a nation that can hold power internally. China can project power to large regions, and if they construct a worthwhile blue-water navy, they will be able to do so over a larger area, however, until the internal economy of that nation is restructured, they will never be a superpower.

The annual per capita income in the USSR was close to $10,000, industries in the USSR were modernized, and the internal economy was (for a time) very powerful.

Steele

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by steelehc
Perhaps I am off in my thinking, if so please correct me. Furthermore, I do not intend any insult to anyone with this post, especially Chinese.

hey! I'm Chinese, and I'm offended.

China has over one billion people. Thats a lot of bodies to do manual labor, take bullets, and generally act as slaves. China is low-tech. The population is largely peasant farmers and forced laborers in factories. The per capita income is about $700 per year. Chinese industries are not modernized, they are not capable of doing so to a large enough extent.

That's a harsh way to put it, but actually you're about right, except for one thing.

http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/gdp_per_capita_0.html

the GDP per capita in China is $3600.
(your wording, however, makes it sound like that most of China's populace is shackled and enslaved by a whip-wielding tyranny. oh well, maybe you're right, but i do think that the Western media tends to exaggerate things.)

The fact is, a superpower is both a nation that can project its influence anywhere on the planet, and a nation that can hold power internally. China can project power to large regions, and if they construct a worthwhile blue-water navy, they will be able to do so over a larger area, however, until the internal economy of that nation is restructured, they will never be a superpower.

The internal economy of China is being restructured right now. The economic freedom in China is immense. People seem to assume that if there's no political freedom, there's no economic freedom. Yet the current communist line in China seems to be: make money in whatever weird way you want, just don't insult the government in the process. That is a very good way to induce economy.

[el freako]

Imran,

That 4% growth rate is based on an assumed average growth in productivity also of 4% (the Chinese workforce is unlikely to grow over the next 50 years compared with an average of 0.5% a year in the US).

This takes China's productivity from 10% of the US level now to 25% in 2050 - that's rate of convergence roughly equivalent to Brazil's over the last half-century - in other words their catch-up in terms of productivity will be as great in the next 50 years as it was in the last 20.

You have to remember that although China is a communist country there are far fewer economic distortions there than in Soviet Russia (for instance I doubt you would find many 'value subtracting' firms there).

Now if China could pull off a Japanese style miracle (Japan raised their productivity from 20% of the US's level in 1950 to 80% in 2000) then they would be untouchable in 2050.

[ranskaldan]

In fact, I wouldn't even say that China is a "communist country".

Rather, it is a capitalistic dictatorship with socialist leanings.

(wait.... that sounds like Canada!)

But seriously, that makes it comparable to South Korea and Taiwan before the 90's.

[WFHermans]

mr Freako, thanks for all your calculations and i know youre right. some other facts that has China as the winner at the end of the 21th century:

1. Chinese (and Japanese) have the highest IQ
2. China has a huge 5th column all over the world; at the same time it is impossible for outsiders to hide in Chinese society
3. Chinese have no compassion, there is no word for it in chinese language, so it will have even less trouble with wars and masskillings than other peoples
4. Chinese are nationalists
5. Their adversaries are morally weak thanks to the moral rot xused by mass media

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by WFHermans
mr Freako, thanks for all your calculations and i know youre right. some other facts that has China as the winner at the end of the 21th century:

1. Chinese (and Japanese) have the highest IQ
2. China has a huge 5th column all over the world; at the same time it is impossible for outsiders to hide in Chinese society
3. Chinese have no compassion, there is no word for it in chinese language, so it will have even less trouble with wars and masskillings than other peoples
4. Chinese are nationalists
5. Their adversaries are morally weak thanks to the moral rot xused by mass media

ummm.... a troll! and a very offensive one.


1. racial prejudice. and a falsehood, of course.
2. ???????
3. lol! i can, well, think of two words at least to translate "compassion" in Chinese. Tong2qing2 and lian2min3. oh, and how about words similar in meaning like ren2ci2 (kindness), he2ai3 (friendliness), you3ai4 (friendliness again), hao3yi4 (well-meaning).......
oh yes, and give me a race that hasn't been involved in mass killings sometime during its history.
4. lol. And so are the Americans, Arabs, English, Russians, Germans, Spanish and Japanese, I believe.
5. ????????