NationStates Jolt Archive

Could you be kind enough to show me what the first and second best economies are? It's a bit of a puzzle for me, since there's no real solid criteria for this.

United States and Japan. However, I don't think of Japan as powerful because it's military is almost non-existent. In fact, it's not even called a military.

Could you be kind enough to show me what the first and second best economies are? It's a bit of a puzzle for me, since there's no real solid criteria for this.
Traditionally it was always the US, then Japan and then Germany.

That's not quite true anymore, I don't think. I'd consider the EU as one economy these days, rather than single countries.

What of the Chinese economy? I've always thought of it as a bit of a very enigmatic one.

What's the criteria for economic strength, then? Influence?

Traditionally it was always the US, then Japan and then Germany.

That's not quite true anymore, I don't think. I'd consider the EU as one economy these days, rather than single countries.

I agree. *cough Euro cough*

Or maybe Continental Europe, the UK and Russia. That's kind of how I look at Europe.

Stalin was a shrewd guy, right?

I doubt he was really that committed to destroying capitalism; otherwise he would have followed some Trotsky-ist path.

He wasn't devoted to destroying capitalism. He was devoted to his own power and how best to keep that power. He did a very good job.

What of the Chinese economy? I've always thought of it as a bit of a very enigmatic one.

What's the criteria for economic strength, then? Influence?

GDP. Gross Domestic Product.

China has the potential to be an economic power, but not because of their technology, it's their production lines. >_>

What of the Chinese economy? I've always thought of it as a bit of a very enigmatic one.
That's because it is. :p
They are growing very fast, and have been doing that for longer than anyone thought possible.
They still have underlying structural problems, but I have come to the conclusion that if they manage it right, they'll do very well indeed.
My uni offers a "China's economy" course - hopefully I'll be able to choose it soon...I don't get many electives.

What's the criteria for economic strength, then? Influence?
Well, sheer GDP of course (which would put the EU before the US). GDP per capita to account for the size of the place (in which case Liechtenstein kicks butt) and the general health of the economy (which is difficult to measure).

Not to forget that for warfare, you'd probably want a good defence and manufacturing industry, rather than lots of insurance firms.

GDP. Gross Domestic Product.

China has the potential to be an economic power, but not because of their technology, it's their production lines. >_>
Too true. XD

Last time I visited China, I observed that there was quite a disparity between the rich and the poor. The irony of "communism" is great, although I wouldn't describe China as a communist country at all.

I'd say that the environmental problems are going to have adverse effects fairly soon. Beijing is just nasty. Could this eventually be a factor?

So I think it's clear that Great Britain and China are the main contendents, correct? Under what criteria should we really analyse them?

So I think it's clear that Great Britain and China are the main contendents, correct? Under what criteria should we really analyse them?
People just choose Britain because they're anglo-centric. A few don't, and they just figure that Britain's got a pretty good Navy and force projection, which is probably true. That alone doesn't make for a war-winning force though.
And people choose China just because the place is so big. And some might also have considered that the PLA isn't actually that bad training and equipment-wise. They're doing a lot of modernising.

Personally, I chose India. It's got the economy, it's got the people and it's got aircraft carriers.
But it's a moot point anyway.

No one can hold a candle to NATO.

No one can hold a candle to NATO.

That would be because NATO include the US. :p

That would be because NATO include the US. :p
Yes, although many European armies have been doing a lot to change themselves to fit the new mission profile.

The US Military is great at crushing things, but in the future, crushing things may not be as important as small operations to intervene, stabilise, rescue or peacekeep.

Which makes this whole "most powerful"-debate kinda pointless.

Yes, although many European armies have been doing a lot to change themselves to fit the new mission profile.

The US Military is great at crushing things, but in the future, crushing things may not be as important as small operations to intervene, stabilise, rescue or peacekeep.

Which makes this whole "most powerful"-debate kinda pointless.

We'll run it like a mining operation: We blow the hole, you guys stabilize it, like using concrete and giant steel screws in coal mines. ;)