NationStates Jolt Archive

Love America or hate it, you must admit that it is THE dominating country, economically,and militarily. How long do you think it will last, and who will be next? I say that while I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime(I'm 25), I see it as inevitable, whether it be in 100 years or 1000. The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?

Love America or hate it, you must admit that it is THE dominating country, economically,and militarily. How long do you think it will last, and who will be next? I say that while I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime(I'm 25), I see it as inevitable, whether it be in 100 years or 1000. The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?

Transnational corporations control world policy. The question should be; How long will it be before people from the U.S. realise this?

The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?
1) About 20 years or so. Max. Things are already going pear-shaped for them. Despite what some say, a country cannot rule the planet against everyone else, only with them.

2) It's forces overstretched, it's economy struggling, the Chinese or Indians will overtake them.

3) China or India, and eventually the UN....(wishful thinking?)

Well, I for one, doubt China will take over. I'm hoping it'll be Japan, though that's not likely.... Okay... Give it up. We all know that we are gonna be OWNED by Andorra! :P

BTW, 20-50 years and it will be by some country like China or something most probably.

1) About 20 years or so. Max. Things are already going pear-shaped for them. Despite what some say, a country cannot rule the planet against everyone else, only with them.

2) It's forces overstretched, it's economy struggling, the Chinese or Indians will overtake them.

3) China or India, and eventually the UN....(wishful thinking?)
The U.N.???!!! Are you freakin crazy? The ones who ignore the genocide in Africa, while stuffing their pockets from Sadaam? By the way, do you realize MOST of their funding comes from America?

Well, I for one, doubt China will take over. I'm hoping it'll be Japan, though that's not likely.... Okay... Give it up. We all know that we are gonna be OWNED by Andorra! :P

BTW, 20-50 years and it will be by some country like China or something most probably.

Why the hell would you want Japan to take over?

A nation, as in a single, sovereign, economic entity; yes, indeed the United States is currently the world's dominating economy. I can see that, probably in about 10 years at, maybe the most, the People's Republic of China would have surpassed us or at least met our standards. However, if we're looking at economic systems and groups, rather than individual nations, the European Union has already surpassed the United States.

And yes, of coarse, the United States being almost half (2004 est.) of the entire world's military spending, the United Stats is of coarse the obviously dominate military power in the world. It's difficult to some-what accurately depict exactly which nations would surpass the United States in terms of military prowess. However, China is the foreseeable nation to fill this quota. It really depends on the situation really; obviously the United States would lose if they attempted to defeat China in a ground war by invading China and it's homeland. Although the United States offers overwhelmingly superior technology over the Chinese, their basically unlimited human resources would eventually drive the United States Armed Forces out of their nation.

But that's just my opinion on the matter. :)

dude... we don't dominate the world market anymore Euros are like $1.40 now. Even though the manufacturing in china is run by americanm companies labor's still done in china which gives them the benifit... if china let their currency float it'd be right up there with the US dollar. Military I say no more then 25 years if china doesn't pass us by then the EU will once they make it all one country

The U.N.???!!! Are you freakin crazy? The ones who ignore the genocide in Africa, while stuffing their pockets from Sadaam? By the way, do you realize MOST of their funding comes from America?
Yup, exactly those.
And about funding figures, ask someone else, I really can't be bothered to find a link right now. I do know however that in per capita terms the US is omewhere down the list.

Why the hell would you want Japan to take over?because of the remote possibility that anime is an accurate portrayal of Japan
http://ranmahentai.ranma.ws/fanfiction/AFG/Agent_Aika/Agent_Aika1-08.jpg
yes, I hijacked the thread

A nation, as in a single, sovereign, economic entity; yes, indeed the United States is currently the world's dominating economy. I can see that, probably in about 10 years at, maybe the most, the People's Republic of China would have surpassed us or at least met our standards. However, if we're looking at economic systems and groups, rather than individual nations, the European Union has already surpassed the United States.

And yes, of coarse, the United States being almost half (2004 est.) of the entire world's military spending, the United Stats is of coarse the obviously dominate military power in the world. It's difficult to some-what accurately depict exactly which nations would surpass the United States in terms of military prowess. However, China is the foreseeable nation to fill this quota. It really depends on the situation really; obviously the United States would lose if they attempted to defeat China in a ground war by invading China and it's homeland. Although the United States offers overwhelmingly superior technology over the Chinese, their basically unlimited human resources would eventually drive the United States Armed Forces out of their nation.

But that's just my opinion on the matter. :)
I see your point about China's overwhelming manpower, but if it ever came down to America HAVING to invade China, I'm sure we'd have some type of "shock and awe" strategy that would make the entire Iraq war look weak. Remember, we aren't "at war" with Iraq anymore. The war with Iraq lasted 48 hours. Now were fighting foreign insurgents. If we were mad at the entire country, it would be a parking lot by now.

For a very long time. Nevermind military or economics, it's because of culture. So long as America keeps making things, and other nations keep snapping them up, American influence will grow.

As long as we have each other. :fluffle:

Yup, exactly those.
And about funding figures, ask someone else, I really can't be bothered to find a link right now. I do know however that in per capita terms the US is omewhere down the list.
"Per capita" is a term people use when they don't want to look at real figures. WE pay most of the dues, dollar for yen, dollars per euro, dollars per deutchmark!

The USA domination will come to end. My hope is that it ends with every nation on Earth, and its people, living happy, healthy and comfortable as opposed to a struggle for power between nationstates. Many nations have seen significant progress as a result of free market policies and US support. China is a tremendous example. Ultimately, capitalist competition raises the standard of living for everyone. I just hope we can push forward sooner rather than later.

If it does come down to a struggle between nationstates, it will take many decades of poor performance and poor decision-making to unseat the US as the world's economic and military power. I would say 100 years at least.

Western Europe's economic progress is only a fraction of the US's and most of its momentum follows US economic booms. Southeast Asian countries (Taiwan, Singapore) are too small to make an impact and have some civil rights issues to work through. The Middle East still fights too much and Africa hasn't made enough progress for a variety of reasons to exert global influence. Russia never bought into democracy appropriately and Japan is struggling to innovate.

China, of course, is an obvious competitor and I've been tremendously impressed with their progress. However, if you look at the raw numbers, a vast majority of their population lives in poverty. In addition, they depend on the US economy for stability, that is why so much of their financial holdings are in US Treasury Bonds. In addition, the more US corporations expand into China, the more dependent they will be us. As long as they continue to builld their infrastructure through US industry and technology, severing economic ties will be much more damaging to them.

Some of the most intriguing cases are in South America, mainly Brazil; Eastern and Southern Europe (i.e. Poland and Brazil); and Australia. As long as these countries continue to pursue free market policies and fully back the education and training of their populace, they could exert significant global influence within a few decades.

Kudos to the previous comment about the UN. A majority of the UN's funding does come from the US. While I wholeheartedly believe it should support the rights of all nations and peoples, it fascinates me how often the institution fails to act responsibly and/or staunchly opposes our recommended policy.

A nation, as in a single, sovereign, economic entity; yes, indeed the United States is currently the world's dominating economy. I can see that, probably in about 10 years at, maybe the most, the People's Republic of China would have surpassed us or at least met our standards. However, if we're looking at economic systems and groups, rather than individual nations, the European Union has already surpassed the United States.

And yes, of coarse, the United States being almost half (2004 est.) of the entire world's military spending, the United Stats is of coarse the obviously dominate military power in the world. It's difficult to some-what accurately depict exactly which nations would surpass the United States in terms of military prowess. However, China is the foreseeable nation to fill this quota. It really depends on the situation really; obviously the United States would lose if they attempted to defeat China in a ground war by invading China and it's homeland. Although the United States offers overwhelmingly superior technology over the Chinese, their basically unlimited human resources would eventually drive the United States Armed Forces out of their nation.

But that's just my opinion on the matter. :)

That is exactly why China will become the dominant world power in a few years because they have unlimited human resources and they are starting to become a force economically with that much man power and money China could start a huge empire or at least become more powerful than the U.S.

Also eventually the nation-state of Europe will be the most powerful country in the world.

Also if Israel had more man power it would be the most militarily powerful nation in the world just because they get the technology first use it and then they give it to the U.S. so basically the U.S. gets Israel's old technology

because of the remote possibility that anime is an accurate portrayal of Japan
http://ranmahentai.ranma.ws/fanfiction/AFG/Agent_Aika/Agent_Aika1-08.jpg
yes, I hijacked the thread
I would give up power for that! Anime chicks are SEXY! hehehe :fluffle:

In any case. I wish to be around when our policy-domination ends.

That way I can say to my children as they are fighting Imperialist Canada, "Yes boys. When we were proud and true no damn nation dared to cross paths with the United States after we helped pound the Nazis to the ground along with our allies and single-handedly NUKED Imperial Japan. No one dared to fuck with us so long as we threatened to invade everyone we saw. Those were the days...."

;)

Honestly though. Who knows how it'll turn out?

I see your point about China's overwhelming manpower, but if it ever came down to America HAVING to invade China, I'm sure we'd have some type of "shock and awe" strategy that would make the entire Iraq war look weak. Remember, we aren't "at war" with Iraq anymore. The war with Iraq lasted 48 hours. Now were fighting foreign insurgents. If we were mad at the entire country, it would be a parking lot by now.

Yeah, well what I seem to see in a lot of people is that they too commonly assume that the United States would be very quick in pushing the nuke button. However, you have to remember that China has nuclear ICBMs and tactical ballistic missiles within their arsenal. If the United States were to level Chinese cities, the People's Liberation Force would be happy to return the favor, using tactical missiles against our forces, and ICBMs against our cities. I think the leaders of both nations would be considerate enough to rethink the button pushing, and a war might even ensue without the use of nuclear, or at least Weapons of Mass Destruction.

However, I was just assuming if it were nation vs. nation, one on one. If such an event were to occur where the United States were forced into a war with China, chances are the United States would invite the other world powers to help them eliminate the threat. But even if the United States leads a large coalition into the Chinese borders, a guerilla war of that scale would make an invasion of China never work, and an occupation of China would be impossible.

The US would beat China in a ground war, air war, naval war, you name it. Every US soldier has body armor and a vehicle. Not true for China. Who's gonna win here, 500,000 Americans with M-16's in Bradleys or 1,000,000 Chinese running around, wearing no bulletproof armor, with AKs.

The econemy, well, it's like this. For one reason or another, which I won't begin to explain because I'll be accused of racism and ethnocentrism, a few countries became more advanced than others. After the industrial revolution, and with the development of items considered to be higher in technology, labor began to diversify, and these items became valuable. The value of labor in these societies began to grow in value for various reasons, among them demand, efficiency due to technology, government regulation against child labor and low wages, etc...

My point is that shit costs more in some countries than others. That means that it costs less to build something in one country than it does in another. It also means that raw materials generally would cost less. Globalization allows for greater international trade, with fewer boundaries, such as taxes and tariffs, and due to improvements in shipping.

In the United States, shit is expensive. A pound of widgets is more here than it is in China, so importers buy widgets there and ship them here. As a result, American widget manufacturers are losing business, because American consumers want to buy the cheapest shit there is.

Because of great demand for widgets, China and India (which manufacture a great deal of widgets imported to the USA) become wealthy, and invest in education. They educate their citizens who want part of America's consumer culture. They get paid more, and they buy more high technology from the US, which is good for us. They now produce high tech electronic widgets from the US, and high tech widget firms here who cannot compete with American companies who produce their widgets in China and India go out of business.

What I'm saying is, because China and India have lower wages, they're getting more jobs, and their countries are growing.

The answer is to either lower America's wages or increase China's and India's to our level. The best way to do this is try both, and Bush is doing just that.

At the end of the Cold War, China and India were poor, with people riding around on bikes or in shitty cars. Now, their major cities are virtually indistinguishable from our cities.

Basically, if we don't lower our wages, they'll do what we do for a lower price and everyone will buy from them. If you don't have lower prices, you're not going to sell a fucking thing. Sure, America will still be able to produce the best high tech goods, like jet fighters and shit, but that's a small market, and most people work with shitty low tech low price goods.

We need to slow down the economy and people need to work for much less. Bush is doing this, if he doesn't, then indeed, one day, China will take us over.

Of course, the experts have realized this, and they're making sure it won't happen. But look at Europe. Minimum wage there is ridiculously high, so in order to survive, they're forced to tax shit like crazy. As a result, they will fall behind. Don't invest in Euros.

See, it's no longer about countries, now it's about the whole world, and whomever can submit the lowest bid will get the contract. That's how capitalism works, so in order to compete, we'll have to lower our standard of living. This doesn't necessarily mean actually lower our standard, but it means keeping it the way it is for a bit. There's really no alternative to international capitalism, because not participating in internationalism will eventually spell a nation's defeat and the alternatives to capitalism are gay.

And yes, I know what I wrote isn’t very accurate, I was trying to make it simple to understand.

However, I was just assuming if it were nation vs. nation, one on one. If such an event were to occur where the United States were forced into a war with China, chances are the United States would invite the other world powers to help them eliminate the threat. But even if the United States leads a large coalition into the Chinese borders, a guerilla war of that scale would make an invasion of China never work, and an occupation of China would be impossible.

Trying to occupy is like trying to invade Russia which is one mistake that every single great conquerer (of the past 200 years) has made. You can't take over Russia and you can definitely not take over China.

Yeah, well what I seem to see in a lot of people is that they too commonly assume that the United States would be very quick in pushing the nuke button.
I said parking lot, not piece of glass. I'm talking strictly non nuclear warfare. No one can match the M1A1 Abrams, or the Superhornets, or the Stealth Bombers, or the new laser weapons we are currently developing. Not to mention that one of the reasons so many people hate us is our "cowboy attitude". Its all about attitude. Remember a famous Patton quote. "Nobody ever won a war by dying for their country. They won it by making the other bastard die for his!"

I figure that if the US gets bogged down in another war in the Middle East, which I think is likely, then I believe that US domination could actually end in less than 10 years.

I figure that if the US gets bogged down in another war in the Middle East, which I think is likely, then I believe that US domination could actually end in less than 10 years.
We try to do our best, and protect civilians, but if we enter another world war, we will abandon ALL non-American civilians, and just start kicking some ass. We are bogged down because we care, but we care about our nation more. If it came down to it, as sad as it might sound, we will bomb the fuck out of anyone who threatans our soil!

Who's gonna win here, 500,000 Americans with M-16's in Bradleys or 1,000,000 Chinese running around, wearing no bulletproof armor, with AKs.

Your chinese estimate is about 1,000 times undervalued... If we try conventional methods, we won't stand a chance. It's a logistical nightmare to even get supplies there. Look at vietnam. Less than 30 million people were our enemy there. The law of large numbers will catch up to us. Even if the entire Chinese military was equipped with spears, rice sacks, and cows, we'd lose. Realize how the Russians defeated German forces in WW II

because of the remote possibility that anime is an accurate portrayal of Japan
http://ranmahentai.ranma.ws/fanfiction/AFG/Agent_Aika/Agent_Aika1-08.jpg
yes, I hijacked the thread

Hah. As someone whose been to Japan, I can testify as to how boring it is.

Your chinese estimate is about 1,000 times undervalued... If we try conventional methods, we won't stand a chance. It's a logistical nightmare to even get supplies there. Look at vietnam. Less than 30 million people were our enemy there. The law of large numbers will catch up to us. Even if the entire Chinese military was equipped with spears, rice sacks, and cows, we'd lose. Realize how the Russians defeated German forces in WW II
The Germans' supply lines were stretched too thin and they were already suffering huge losses.

We only have to sack Beijing, not too far from the shoreline.

And with China's population increasingly becoming more and more obese, it will soon have an even larger amount of obese people than the U.S.

Your welcome for that useless bit of trivia.

Well, both China and the USA have their own obstacles to overcome.

USA:

Declining world support
Weakening debt-based economy
Declining birth-rates and population growth, therefore, it will have to rely on immigration to supply the workforce in the future
Government slipping into religious fundamentalism, which is at best, stagnant, and at worst, fanatic, oppressive, and commits to murder, war, etc. with sanctimonious zeal
Growing disagreement & dissent among the populace
Prospect of future terrorist attacks
China manufactures a lot of its consumer goods

PRC:

Government allows economic freedom, but not political freedom (keeps its heavy hand down on everyone)
Enjoys even less world support than the USA, due to flagrant human-rights violations
Rural populations are somewhat alienated, and miss out on the benefits of the New China's economy
Rural populations are also somewhat uneducated and ignore the one-child policy, which leads to:
Overpopulation
If/when China becomes a "modern" economic power the way America is, since it has ~4x more people and only ~2x more useable land area, their environment will become a polluted quagmire
Prospect of future terrorist attacks, *IF* China expands its sphere of influence into Central Asia
America buys a lot of its consumer goods

If it ever went head-to-head with a full-scale war between the USA and PRC:

Best Air Force (the deciding factor in modern warfare, or more accurately, aerial blitzkreig): USA

Best Navy: USA (The only navy in the world that can "project" its power onto the mainland, via the use of Aircraft Carriers. The PLA Navy is essentially a coastal-defense fleet, the main threat to the US Navy would be cruise missiles, which the Aegis system might LIKELY neutralize)
Best Army: PRC (MUCH larger, and technology only a generation or two behind that of the U.S. Army. Even if the USA enjoys total supremacy in the air and at sea, it would take way too long to dislodge forces from Chinese cities and the countryside.)
Best Intelligence: Tie (USA relies mostly on ELINT via satellites, etc., and the PRC has operatives among the Chinese populace in North America. One such operative has come forward recently in Vancouver)

Both sides have thousands of nukes, so the philosophy of MAD comes into play here.

If it ever came down to it, the USA could bomb China like crazy, but could never, ever, occupy and hold Chinese territory for long. The place is just too big, and the U.S. Army is not designed for occupation. For that your soldiers need to be brutal (as in, f*ck civilian casualties), and they need to be many.

This is the peaceful scenario I envision: The world will continue living the way it is, because American culture still reigns undisputably supreme. I suggest reading a book called "Jihad vs. McWorld", and it will explain everything. Either the global community will continue to divide, USSR-Style, or the global economy will make peoples and cultures homogenize into one big capitalizt mush.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-ff04se.html

1.4 million US forces compared to basically the population of China.

as much as i hate to diss mein country(well, not really, i dont like being hated by many people worldwide :D ) , but what we're doing right now militarily is essentially why hitler failed, splitting armies up... but we've been doing that for so long now. hmm... i wanted to move to another country but now i hear that people are so like prejudice against all americans that its just sad.

We try to do our best, and protect civilians, but if we enter another world war, we will abandon ALL non-American civilians, and just start kicking some ass. We are bogged down because we care, but we care about our nation more. If it came down to it, as sad as it might sound, we will bomb the fuck out of anyone who threatans our soil!
And who the hell is threatening your soil? Certainly not Iraq, although Georgy would have led you to believe that they were an "imminent threat". It is that kind of ideology that could lead to a US downfall.

We only have to sack Beijing, not too far from the shoreline.


Just by taking the capital doesn't mean you're done. If some nation were to invade us, and they only took Washington, that makes everyone suddenly loyal to the big oppressors?

And if we happen to destroy China's Armed Forces, it doesn't mean it stops there. Just because we easily destroyed the Republican Guard in Iraq, doesn't mean it's over. Or else we would have left Iraq within months of invading, rather than waiting for years upon years.

The thing is, we won't have to go to war wth China. They're smart, and they know that if they break off relations with us, their econemy is fucked, not to mention ours. And human casualties will be sky high. Seriously, the only people threatening us are the terror cells around the world.

And who the hell is threatening your soil? Certainly not Iraq, although Georgy would have led you to believe that they were an "imminent threat". It is that kind of ideology that could lead to a US downfall.
Well, I guess you have taken the "screw the thread, make fun of Bush" approach. Way to give Canada a good name, aye? LOL

because of the remote possibility that anime is an accurate portrayal of Japan
-snipped-
yes, I hijacked the thread
Let's hope so. Reality T.V. ratings would soar.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6517/11220707357246hg.gif (http://imageshack.us)

~bump~

Jesus! Who picked "it will never end"?!! Seriously, I knew there would be some idiots who would pick the option (as well as the fact that the post starter would give the option in the first place.)

It's like those people who selected the option on my poll saying they thought the 98% statistic about teen marijuana use was accurate. It's just sheer stupidity. Some people need to just be beaten senseless till they get some sense.

I mean really, how does one happen to miss out on the whole concept of empirical judgement?! How do you survive in life if you are so unbeleivably imperceptive?

"Never"? Besides the evident decline of America's popularity, economy, and alliance with other nations, how about the omniverse imploding? That's an end, is it not?!

2005 GDP
(nominal)
millions of USD

European Union 13,926,873
United States 12,438,873

no futher comment ...

Remember, we aren't "at war" with Iraq anymore. The war with Iraq lasted 48 hours. Now were fighting foreign insurgents. If we were mad at the entire country, it would be a parking lot by now.

the war never ended, it's still going..
and a "war on terrorism" will never end..
because there are more terrorists now than ever before..


1984...

the governments need a war like the "war on terror" because there is no victory, and it will continue until all our civil liberties and rights are taken away and replaced with identity cards and detention without charge.

oh wait... thats already happening.

2005 GDP
(nominal)
millions of USD

European Union 13,926,873
United States 12,438,873

no futher comment ...

wow you must be able to see into the future since 2005 isnt even over with.

the 2004 estimates were
USA 11.75 T
EU 11.65 T


But that isnt important, what you need to look at is the growth rates

USA 4.4%
EU 2.4%

*taken from CIA factbook-2004*


the EU may very well be ahead now, but that is only because they keep adding members to their fictional "country" which is nothing more then a lets pile all our numbers together to make us look big scheme, either way, they are running out of countries to add, and by the % rates the US would pass them again, thats baring even if they are in the lead.



Anyways, they dont use GDP to measure a countries strengh, they measure it using the countries energy production because that gives a better overall sign of the develpoment of the country or mythical country if you believe in the EU scheme.

United States 3,839,000,000,000
European Union 2,888,000,000,000

Thing is growth never lasts forever. The whole economic system is fucked up anyway but China will match or overtake the US fairly soon in most things. Assuming the current regime is never violently overthrown (remember that doesn't mean it can't change to democracy or something else) it will continue growth steadily until it takes over as world power (again).

Thing is growth never lasts forever. The whole economic system is fucked up anyway but China will match or overtake the US fairly soon in most things. Assuming the current regime is never violently overthrown (remember that doesn't mean it can't change to democracy or something else) it will continue growth steadily until it takes over as world power (again).

You have to remember they were saying the same thing about Japan in the 80;s


top 5 "countries" via the energy production strength.

United States 3,839,000,000,000
European Union 2,888,000,000,000
China 1,910,000,000,000
Japan 1,044,000,000,000
Russia 915,000,000,000

If you take out the EU, you would have Germany behind Russia. and for note then Canada.

You have to remember they were saying the same thing about Japan in the 80;s


top 5 "countries" via the energy production strength.

United States 3,839,000,000,000
European Union 2,888,000,000,000
China 1,910,000,000,000
Japan 1,044,000,000,000
Russia 915,000,000,000

If you take out the EU, you would have Germany behind Russia. and for note then Canada.

And energy production means? America wastes so much of it's energy it's probably down there with the EU on the amount it USES.

And energy production means? America wastes so much of it's energy it's probably down there with the EU on the amount it USES.

I was waiting for somebody to say that =) The inefficenty comment is utter BS as a any highly capitalist system isnt going to have high inefficency because they get weeded out quickly.

Energy Production/Consumption is what you use to truely define how advanced a nation is economicly and scientificly. Energy is really the world currency, not the dollar or the Euro. In fact, various scientific theroies use energy as the main source of telling now advanced a certain civilization is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

quite an intresting theory, and seemly it does seem to work out correctly. It predicts that mankind will achive total domination of our planet in 2200. Trust me its a very intresting read, it shows we are at an appex.

United States 3,660,000,000,000
European Union 2,661,000,000,000
China 1,630,000,000,000
Japan 971,000,000,000
Russia 894,300,000,000

I was waiting for somebody to say that =) The inefficenty comment is utter BS as a any highly capitalist system isnt going to have high inefficency because they get weeded out quickly.

United States 3,660,000,000,000
European Union 2,661,000,000,000
China 1,630,000,000,000
Japan 971,000,000,000
Russia 894,300,000,000


http://www.swans.com/library/dossiers/energy01.html

Almost 60% wastage there. Capitalism isn't a cure-all, it's as much a quack as any medicine pronounced as such.

:rolleyes: http://www.swans.com/library/dossiers/energy01.html

Almost 60% wastage there. Capitalism isn't a cure-all, it's as much a quack as any medicine pronounced as such.

sorry but all she is concluding is the US has a higher per capita use then china which is no shit correct because average american uses more power because the average american is much better off then the average chineese, the entire report is flawed because it isnt taking into account the development levels of the two countries. The average chinnese lives close to work and doesnt own a car, the average american does.

And she is adding general known machine inefficenties that are globally known and not just American problems, since no machine is 100% efficent energy put in to energy put out to make it look like a huge waste (which is indeed true, but these rates are global inefficences not just american)


All you have done is proven the american culture is more advanced because the per capita use is larger per citizen, that doesnt mean they waste more, it just means they use more :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

sorry but all she is concluding is the US has a higher per capita use then china which is no shit correct because average american uses more power because the average american is much better off then the average chineese, the entire report is flawed because it isnt taking into account the development levels of the two countries. The average chinnese lives close to work and doesnt own a car, the average american does.

And she is adding general known machine inefficenties that are globally known and not just American problems, since no machine is 100% efficent energy put in to energy put out to make it look like a huge waste (which is indeed true, but these rates are global inefficences not just american)


All you have done is proven the american culture is more advanced because the per capita use is larger per citizen, that doesnt mean they waste more, it just means they use more :rolleyes:

Surely more advanced tech would in fact be more energy efficient...

They won't dominate for too long, I hope. Because then the revolution will come!

Seriously, though, I think the US will always be a major power, since it is, and always will be, a wealthy and high-tech nation.

However, i'd rather not have more than one superpower in the world at the same time for very long. A 'cold war' between China and the USA would be very dangerous, and Taiwan could throw a very bad spanner in the works.

Let's have the UN become the superpower :D

America will be around until either 1) the world finaly gets its crap togeither and figure out that we all need to work as a team or 2) we all go out in a nuclear storm. I know there are other possability but I think that these two are the primary ones.

Anyways, they dont use GDP to measure a countries strengh, they measure it using the countries energy production because that gives a better overall sign of the develpoment of the country or mythical country if you believe in the EU scheme.
Who's "they"?
What is your problem with the EU?
And do your figures take any notice of a country's size?

"Per capita" is a term people use when they don't want to look at real figures.It's also wrong. It should be 'per caput'. Of course I don't criticise YOU here, since I know the erroneous usage is standard.

But putting aside pedantry for the moment...

The United States' rule of the world is inevitable, as has been said, because of its undeniable military superiority. However, if - as I believe is a worryingly real possibility - the US transforms itself into a dictatorship in the next 20 or so years, that military will become stretched beyond practicality. Commitment to home security and order will be have to be emphasised while overseas deployments will necessarily be reduced and isolationism in general will increase. The opportunity will be there for another nascent superpower to step in and seize the top spot.

Why are per capita figures not real? What are you guys talking about?
How else are we going to compare the contributions of Liechtenstein and the US?

You're deluding yourself.

1) Nothing changes quickly, especially in a stable government. The US goverment has been around longer than most other countries' in the world at this point. (Unlike France, Italy, Germany, China, etc: the US has staying power.)

2) The #2 and #3 militaries in the WORLD are still only 25% as powerful as the US. That will take a LONG time to change.

3) The US economy is still a bit larger than the EU's, or China's.

4) Before you count on China's economic miracle, look at Japan in the 80's. Everyone thought they'd be in the catbird seat by now, but bad loans decimated their economy until this very day.
China has similar problems: rampant pollution, corruption, and a pegged currency. They may well overheat and suffer a depression. Similarly, their own people are going capitalist, which is at odds with Communism. How long can the regime keep the place in line (and keep the controls on the economy, which is what keeps their growth so high)?

Let's have the UN become the superpower

Because the UN can SO enforce its authority among such military and economic powerhouses as Africa???

Back on the thread topic, all empires decline, and if you said the USA will be the dominant power forever, you have wasted your vote. Kinda like voting for Ralph Nader. Or Jack Layton, if you happen to be a Canadian.

Anyways, what would happen if, because both countries are so co-dependent, the USA and China form an economic, political, or even military alliance? Then the world would get, literally, owned.

The US domination is holding for now but China is taking over. The US growing scared of China as it has Chinese companies start taking over US and European companies (happening now) and their technology base grows. US companies are sabotaging the US economy by outsourcing production of goods and services to China, India and the third world.

Watch for the Dragon!

I hope it happens soon, so the closed-minded rightist fucks will shut up for a change (I know they won't, but they'll lose bragging rights, which is good enough).

I hope it happens soon, so the closed-minded rightist fucks will shut up for a change (I know they won't, but they'll lose bragging rights, which is good enough).

It's interesting you say that.

It's the Right who advocate less control over the same US corporations who are right now outsourcing their production to other nations to make more money. So econonically, the US is handing responsibility to it's economic decisions to outside parties and blowing out the trade deficit. When the US was strong during WWII, American-made was the motto not "Let's Outsource".

At the moment, you can say through US corporations world domination is still here but the Chinese are playing the same game. It's hard to find things not with "Made in China" on it. I rarely see "Made in the USA" these days.

It's the Right who push aggressive foreign policy and then stretching the US military to the extent it's withdrawing forces from allied nations (eg South Korea) to hotspots like Iraq.

I hope it happens soon, so the closed-minded rightist fucks will shut up for a change (I know they won't, but they'll lose bragging rights, which is good enough).
Somebody needs a hug, i think!

1) Nothing changes quickly, especially in a stable government. The US goverment has been around longer than most other countries' in the world at this point. (Unlike France, Italy, Germany, China, etc: the US has staying power.)
What do you mean by "staying power"?

Well, I for one, doubt China will take over. I'm hoping it'll be Japan, though that's not likely.... Okay... Give it up. We all know that we are gonna be OWNED by Andorra! :P

BTW, 20-50 years and it will be by some country like China or something most probably.

How can u doubt CHina will overtake USA when all world economists agree that they certainly will within 30 years.

What do you mean by "staying power"?

229 years of consecutive government, about half of that as a world power.
I can't think of another current government that has lasted so long, other than things like the Holy See (Vatican City).
The US has the most stable government on the planet, really. Even the two parties are only about 10-25% dis-similar!

229 years of consecutive government, about half of that as a world power.
I can't think of another current government that has lasted so long, other than things like the Holy See (Vatican City).
The US has the most stable government on the planet, really. Even the two parties are only about 10-25% dis-similar!
What about the United Kingdom and Sweden, and or are they like the Holy See? ;)

the EU may very well be ahead now, but that is only because they keep adding members to their fictional "country" which is nothing more then a lets pile all our numbers together to make us look big scheme, either way, they are running out of countries to add, and by the % rates the US would pass them again, thats baring even if they are in the lead.



I'm sorry but is that not what the United States were, a collection of colonies that formed a confederation and later gained a more centralized government? I see no differance from the United States as a collection of States than the European Uniun as a collection of more independant States.

What about the United Kingdom and Sweden, and or are they like the Holy See? ;)

What about them?

Sweden: While they've been Independent since about 1520 or so, they've only gotten a Constitution in my lifetime. Thus, it's not the same government.

UK: Changed a couple of times since 1783, including:
1800: Now the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland.
1927: Now the United Kingdom of NORTHERN Ireland.

Yes, I'm being nitpicky, but even those 2 would fit in the 5% error margin I gave myself... :D

What about them?

Sweden: While they've been Independent since about 1520 or so, they've only gotten a Constitution in my lifetime. Thus, it's not the same government.
Erm... a change in Constitution does not equal a change of Government. The USSR was regularly adopting new constitutions (in 1924, 1936, and 1977) -- do you want to say that each time it was a change in government?

UK: Changed a couple of times since 1783, including:
1800: Now the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland.
1927: Now the United Kingdom of NORTHERN Ireland.

Yes, I'm being nitpicky, but even those 2 would fit in the 5% error margin I gave myself... :D
Yes, you're being nitpicky... here the change of the name of the state did not result in legal changes (the unwritten constitution remained the same, the powers of Parliament remained the same, etc)

I'm sorry but is that not what the United States were, a collection of colonies that formed a confederation and later gained a more centralized government? I see no differance from the United States as a collection of States than the European Uniun as a collection of more independant States.

The US is more federalized than the EU.

However, Americans identified with their individual state, not the US, if asked their nationality until the 1870s. Maybe it will not be long before people stop saying "I'm Brittish" or "I'm French" and start saying "I'm European".

Erm... a change in Constitution does not equal a change of Government. The USSR was regularly adopting new constitutions (in 1924, 1936, and 1977) -- do you want to say that each time it was a change in government?

As I understood it (and I'm not Swedish...), it changed a rather lot, including how the Legislature functioned and redefined the Kingship?

Re: USSR: Actually, yes. Especially the 1977 and the 1988 amendment.

Counter idea: France has been independent for about 1000 years. In that time, they've had two Empires, five Republics and no less than four Monarchial lines -- Charlemagne, Capetian, Valois, and Bourbon; plus perhaps Orleans. Each one was a different government.

Yes, you're being nitpicky... here the change of the name of the state did not result in legal changes (the unwritten constitution remained the same, the powers of Parliament remained the same, etc)

Yeah, yeah... I confess I am. Still within the 5% tho. :)

Transnational corporations control world policy. The question should be; How long will it be before people from the U.S. realise this?
Agreed in part, but I think the real question is how long until the rest of the world wakes up & realizes it.

Once other nations like China realize the full potential of what American companies impact has had. Oh, boy watch the US economy crumble.

As I understood it (and I'm not Swedish...), it changed a rather lot, including how the Legislature functioned and redefined the Kingship?
That's a bit more complicated than that, because the Constitution of Sweden IIRC comprises several basic laws... Still, it was a constitutional monarchy with a weak King, and it is a constitutional monarchy wheere the King is even weaker than before.

Re: USSR: Actually, yes. Especially the 1977 and the 1988 amendment.
I beg to differ. The (real) power structure of the Soviet state remained the same each time (I didn't mention the amendments of 1988).

Counter idea: France has been independent for about 1000 years. In that time, they've had two Empires, five Republics and no less than four Monarchial lines -- Charlemagne, Capetian, Valois, and Bourbon; plus perhaps Orleans. Each one was a different government.
If we are nitpicky, I'd like to split the Valois kings into Valois proper, Valois-Orleans and Valois-Angoulême. ;) And the change of dynasty is not a change in government, or we'll have to count the years of the present British system from 1901 or 1917. :)

And the French... Yes, each time it was a change in government, incomparable with 1936 and 1977 in the USSR, for example.


Yeah, yeah... I confess I am. Still within the 5% tho. :)
I won't gainsay this... :)

Love America or hate it, you must admit that it is THE dominating country, economically,and militarily. How long do you think it will last, and who will be next? I say that while I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime(I'm 25), I see it as inevitable, whether it be in 100 years or 1000. The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?

It will dominate as long as business leaders in other countries want Americans to buy their products.

Militarily the only reason why I see America dominating is because of our global bases which few other countries possess. As soon as another country starts possessing such bases (and will run into the same gamut America faces with bad propaganda for being in countries they shouldn't be in) then there is going to be conflict.

I'm sorry but is that not what the United States were, a collection of colonies that formed a confederation and later gained a more centralized government? I see no differance from the United States as a collection of States than the European Uniun as a collection of more independant States.

I believe it is possible, with a common language. The EU however is comprised of people who do appreciate their own culture to the point where they might not adopt a common laungage. Furthermore, our colonies became a federation because of unique threats that were posed to ALL of the colonial citizens. Those threats defined them in a way that made them understand what other colonials had to deal with. The EU kind of needs a common threat. Like space aliens or something.

The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?

Thats 3 questions :p

But anyway

1) Within the next 20 years.
2) Because George Bush has kinda muddled the economy of the US, and it is predicted it will pretty much crash in 20 years.
3)China

No President has the power to kill the economy 30 years after their reign, thank you very much. The economy is doing quite well, actually.

The EU will never become a single state or world super power in general for the sheer fact that every 60 or so years they start killing themselves.

China will fuck themselves up and slip into being a 3rd world Country again.

Now this doesn't mean the US will stay dominate, and I don't think we will. I envision a series of semi-isolationist Presidents that keep our people at home and economy strong while helping other causes with the economy. Eventually everyone will stop worrying about who is the world superpower because conflict between people in general will decrease.

Barring a full-blown nuclear exchange with another superpower, why is America any more likely to cease existence than any other country?

Policies come and go, administrations change, the country adapts to new challenges. As happens with all nations. I don't buy into the concept that America is going to hell in a handbasket. We'll be around for a long time in one form or another.

We're not the great satan, we're not trying to rule the world, and other nations won't boycott us economically because they don't like the policy of the current president. We're part of the world, whether some like it or not, and we'll always play a significant role in world affairs - as will other economically powerful nations.

I voted for 20-50 years, which I actually think is a little generous.

American dominance is already falling off (and it will fall off even faster if we keep being gits on the international stage, but that's beside the point). Militarily, I don't know, but economically, we've sort of shot ourselves in the foot, because we have outsourced a lot of our manufacturing to other countries - although that trend is reversing somewhat now - and are importing quite a lot.

I think China will be the next big superpower, and India may become a major player too. The "developing" nations are going to become "developed" soon and won't be on the bottom of the heap any longer.

The economy is doing quite well, actually

At the moment

It takes 20 years after an Economical muck up for it to be noticable, and then it is only when it crashes

And who the hell is threatening your soil? Certainly not Iraq, although Georgy would have led you to believe that they were an "imminent threat". It is that kind of ideology that could lead to a US downfall.

It is at least as dangerous to simply pay lip service to bad people like Saddam and terrorists.

Saddam gave terrorists money, and allowed Al Qaeda to function in Iraq... he wasn't exactly cracking down on them. Terrorists might try to hurt the US and other countries. How was Saddam not a threat again?

That notwithstanding, there's the whole "vote/freedom" concept.

Someone mentioned that a pro for China was what they called economic freedom. China is nowhere near as economically free as the united states, using tax rates as the measure (they're still communist, for crissakes).

We try to do our best, and protect civilians, but if we enter another world war, we will abandon ALL non-American civilians, and just start kicking some ass.
So is there any actual intelligence and reasoning behind your support for a militant foreign policy, or is it all based on testosterone?

229 years of consecutive government, about half of that as a world power.
I can't think of another current government that has lasted so long, other than things like the Holy See (Vatican City).
The US has the most stable government on the planet, really. Even the two parties are only about 10-25% dis-similar!

An American, talking about longevity? O the irony...Your nation isn't even 300 years old, it's a toddler by international standards. The Roman Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years, and was the superpower for about 600. America has a long way to go, by any standards. It should also be remembered that America is essentially an British (or European) creation; if you compare it with the nations of Europe or Asia, it has nothing like the history.

Future will be a multi polar world with integrated economies and big regional trading blocs of EU , Americas and possibly a combined Indo-China trade bloc or seperate Indian subcontinent bloc and a Chinese Far East and SE bloc.

US will still be the pre-eminent power for the foreseeable future but its dominance is eroding and will steadily erode and it cannot impose its will on the world as unilaterally as it can afford to now.

Saddam ...allowed Al Qaeda to function in Iraq... he wasn't exactly cracking down on them.

:headbang:

An American, talking about longevity? O the irony...Your nation isn't even 300 years old, it's a toddler by international standards.

Yep. And it has the car keys.
Irony? Care to name any longer lived governments, (aside from the somewhat questionable) UK, The Holy See, and Sweden?

The Roman Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years, and was the superpower for about 600. America has a long way to go, by any standards. It should also be remembered that America is essentially an British (or European) creation; if you compare it with the nations of Europe or Asia, it has nothing like the history.

Minor detail: America isn't an Empire. At least yet. :)

America is the creation of it's immigrants, whom were, by all accounts, not wanted in their own countries for one reason or another. BTW, I think you'll find those immigrants came from all over the world. The Chinese have been in America longer than the Poles or the Irish, for example.

As for history, true, US Colonial History only begins at 1620 or so. That's what makes the rise all the more impressive.

Will America stand the test of time? Only time will tell.
But it still has THE longest, (or, one of the longest depending on how you measure) lived governments in the modern era.

But it still has THE longest, (or, one of the longest depending on how you measure) lived governments in the modern era.
Which brings up a definition question:
What does that have to do with anything? The Government may be the same, while in Germany it is different. Does that mean America is an older nation than Germany, that can pretty directly trace its line back to Charlemagne?
Does it has anything to do with whether it can dominate world policy?

The US is more federalized than the EU.

However, Americans identified with their individual state, not the US, if asked their nationality until the 1870s. Maybe it will not be long before people stop saying "I'm Brittish" or "I'm French" and start saying "I'm European".

hehe, i still refuse to say im British, i am English and i always declare myself as an English Citizen, the scots pretty much think they are alone with their pride of their actual country, they are wrong.. i will occasionally (like on US Visa waivers) state im British, i will NEVER state that i am European

sometimes people forget Britain is a union as well, and England is at the head of that union.

i will NEVER state that i am European
Guess what! You are an European!

It is at least as dangerous to simply pay lip service to bad people like Saddam and terrorists.
Saddam was a US puppet who was used as a tool to fight against the Iranians.

Saddam gave terrorists money,
And the US trained Bin Laden and supplied arms and money to the Taliban. And when Iraq started to win the war against Iran, the US supplied weapons to Iran.

and allowed Al Qaeda to function in Iraq...
You have concrete proof? The 9/11 Commisiison couldn't find any?

he wasn't exactly cracking down on them.
Did the US crack down on the Al Qaeda agents in the US that were learning to fly airplanes?

Terrorists might try to hurt the US and other countries. How was Saddam not a threat again?
A better question would be.....how was Saddam a "threat" to the US?

That notwithstanding, there's the whole "vote/freedom" concept.
The Iraqis voted, and they still want the US to leave. The Iraqis enjoy less "freedom" under US occupation than they did under Saddam?

Someone mentioned that a pro for China was what they called economic freedom. China is nowhere near as economically free as the united states, using tax rates as the measure (they're still communist, for crissakes).
However, China has bought billions upon hundreds of billions of US treasury bills and they have a resource that the US lacks.....people....lots of them.

And another consideration:

When President Bush took office our Total National Debt was $5. 716 trillion or $19,972 per capita, and it is now $7.778 trillion or $26,280 for every man, woman and child in the U.S., an increase of 31.6%.

And then there is this massive US trade deficit of approximately $600 Billion....

Which brings up a definition question:
What does that have to do with anything? The Government may be the same, while in Germany it is different. Does that mean America is an older nation than Germany, that can pretty directly trace its line back to Charlemagne?

An older nation? No. An older state/country, with a longer experience with representative government and stability, absolutely. The US was already 142 years old when Germany dumped the Monarchy.

Does it has anything to do with whether it can dominate world policy?

The country has been around for a long, long time, which contributed to it's success, as has it's resources, people, etc. So: yes, it is a factor.

No more than 15 years!

Not to sound like a religious extremist but I'm a christian personally and I definetly believe China would be the one country to overtake us as far as dominance goes. Considering facts like the one that their currency gained more value against the dollar just last weekend so in a way it's already happening. plus we might have the best military in terms of hardware and mobilization but they outdo us in manpower by a serious number value. Anyway the reason i brought up the religion part of things is because I have always been taught that china would play a big role in the last days or end times whatever you choose to call it. As far as I can see that seems to be true even discounting the theory of a religous connection. But hey who knows this world is an insane place and there are a number of possible countries to do it so it could be any one of them very easily.

Nothing lasts forever. The whole economic structure will eventually have to change. I mean there is nothing more unstable than an economic stucture based on constant growth, It can't be kept up forever. When that limit is reached, then noone can know what's going to happen. When it's going to happen...I don't know, but the natural resources are already starting to drain so...we'll see.

Nothing lasts forever. The whole economic structure will eventually have to change. I mean there is nothing more unstable than an economic stucture based on constant growth, It can't be kept up forever. When that limit is reached, then noone can know what's going to happen. When it's going to happen...I don't know, but the natural resources are already starting to drain so...we'll see.

The scarcity arguement has actually been disproved many times. Back in the early 1800s, it was widely assumed that the world could not sustain a billion humans.

Technology always seems to find a way to make things workable. Consider the productivity gains/time saved by using cell phones, e-mail, and cargo containers (the ones that go from ship to rail to truck directly) alone. Never mind all the automation.

My guess? Within 40 years, we will see cars that are entirely hybrid and wider use of coal, wind, nuclear and solar (in that order) for power generation.

Love America or hate it, you must admit that it is THE dominating country, economically,and militarily. How long do you think it will last, and who will be next? I say that while I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime(I'm 25), I see it as inevitable, whether it be in 100 years or 1000. The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?

Well when we are all drowning and living in the sea because of the Americans polluting the earth... then they're domination will end...

Love America or hate it, you must admit that it is THE dominating country, economically,and militarily. How long do you think it will last, and who will be next? I say that while I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime(I'm 25), I see it as inevitable, whether it be in 100 years or 1000. The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?
i think that america is only in place cause right now is the time in between real powers. like how the soviet union fell, but china is coming up. usa is just the kind of holding power until the next.

UNITE EUROPE that it may become a rising nation and in the end THE DOMINATING COUNTRY/union
(perhaps we could even incloude russia and then even the probs with our lack of ressources would be solved)

Love America or hate it, you must admit that it is THE dominating country, economically,and militarily. How long do you think it will last, and who will be next? I say that while I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime(I'm 25), I see it as inevitable, whether it be in 100 years or 1000. The only question is 1)when? 2)how? 3)who's next?


America will rule supreme until every socialist, communist, and monarchy system in the world is bowed under the weight of the American goose-stepping heel :p


46 years, 7 months and 22 days. Then, on that day, America will become the second most powerful country. It will be surpassed by in military power and influence by a secret sect of Amish Lunar settlers that developed primitive but effective catapults to launch large boulders from the dark side of the moon and are able to target every sector of the planet earth with city shattering barrages, at next to zero cost.

46 years, 7 months and 25 days from now, America will again be the most military powerful country in existence when at the cost of 36 quadrillion dollars the 227 tactical nuclear warheads launched by the USSS Bush (US-Space-Ship) blows off the dark side of the moon :p

America will rule supreme until every socialist, communist, and monarchy system in the world is bowed under the weight of the American goose-stepping heel :p


46 years, 7 months and 22 days. Then, on that day, America will become the second most powerful country. It will be surpassed by in military power and influence by a secret sect of Amish Lunar settlers that developed primitive but effective catapults to launch large boulders from the dark side of the moon and are able to target every sector of the planet earth with city shattering barrages, at next to zero cost.

46 years, 7 months and 25 days from now, America will again be the most military powerful country in existence when at the cost of 36 quadrillion dollars the 227 tactical nuclear warheads launched by the USSS Bush (US-Space-Ship) blows off the dark side of the moon :p


Psycho

i think that america is only in place cause right now is the time in between real powers. like how the soviet union fell, but china is coming up. usa is just the kind of holding power until the next.

On what possible grounds could you claim that the Soviet Union was a "real power" but the U.S. isn't?

Also, I'm convinced that China's a bubble.