Obsession Massage
Toronto Escorts

Putin planning powerful superpower coalition

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Dyer is talking about a combination of all of those things, but primarily military and economic power. Not everyone in India OR China is "poor, illiterate".

To deny that China and India are growing powerhouses is, I think, to ignore their economic growth. Economic growth fuels all of those things you mentioned. *Especially* military growth.

I'm more inclined to believe Gwynne Dyer's predictions about these things than bbking's about the US election. One is an appeal to authority, one is not. Come on - that's a pretty transparent argument - just because some idiots predict all kinds of idiotic things, we shouldn't believe predictions? Please. We're not picking sporting results here ......
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
Ranger68 said:


To deny that China and India are growing powerhouses is, I think, to ignore their economic growth. Economic growth fuels all of those things you mentioned. *Especially* military growth.

Some interesting numbers from the CIA World Factbook:

Investment expressed as a percentage of GDP and world ranking:

6th: China, 43.4%
45th: India, 23.1%
122nd: United States, 15.2%

(Equitorial Guinea, with that magic combination of plenty of oil and a corrupt government, ranks 1st with 63.6%)

US still has a big lead in GDP compared with China - 10 trillion verses 6 trillion, and an even bigger lead on India's 3 trillion - BUT:

Percentage real growth rate of GDP and world ranking:

12th: China, 9.12%
16th: India, 8.3%
105th: US, 3.1%

(Afghanistan ranks number 1 with 29% - thank God for poppies!Turkmenistan, another totalitarian government with large energy (natural gas) reserves ranks 2nd, while 3rd place goes to - you guessed it! Equitorial Guinea.)
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
More interesting numbers:

Exports:

US: 714 billion in 2003
China: 436 billion in 2003

BUT

Imports:

US: 1.26 trillion in 2003
China: 397 billion in 2003

US: trade deficit of 546 billion dollars
China: trade surplus of 39 billion dollars
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Anyone who thinks the US economy is "going to hell in a hand basket" just doesn't know what they are talking about.

While the current fiscal situation is unsustainable, the US has the most robust, diverse and sustainable economy in the world.

The real question is, how long can China maintain those growth rates. Its banking sector is a joke, it's environmental situation a disaster, political system lacks any transparency. China will find it difficult to move up the economic value chain without addressing some infrastructure issues.

Will China be powerful, yes, when is the issue. A billion poor farmers and 100m lower middle class office workers do not make a powerful country.

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
How will the US reconcile the incredible combination of a HUGE trade deficit, a HUGE debt, and continuing HUGE internal deficits?

The first warning sign is the *precipitous and continuing* drop-off of the American dollar.

I think you're looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses, otb. Even US administrators (Greenspan, among them) have started ringing warning bells. Keep dreaming that dream, though. :rolleyes:
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
onthebottom said:


Will China be powerful, yes, when is the issue. A billion poor farmers and 100m lower middle class office workers do not make a powerful country.

OTB
You don't seriously believe this is all China's got, do you?

At any rate, I find it interesting that nearly half of China's economy is driven by investment, while only 15% of the US's is. What does this say about confidence in both economies?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,021
5,969
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Economic `Armageddon' predicted

onthebottom said:
Anyone who thinks the US economy is "going to hell in a hand basket" just doesn't know what they are talking about.

While the current fiscal situation is unsustainable, the US has the most robust, diverse and sustainable economy in the world.

OTB
As always there are those that differ, Alan Greenspan being only one:

Stephen Roach, the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley, has a public reputation for being bearish.

In a nutshell, Roach's argument is that America's record trade deficit means the dollar will keep falling. To keep foreigners buying T-bills and prevent a resulting rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates further and faster than he wants.

The result: U.S. consumers, who are in debt up to their eyeballs, will get pounded.

Less a case of ``Armageddon,'' maybe, than of a ``Perfect Storm.''

Roach marshalled alarming facts to support his argument.

To finance its current account deficit with the rest of the world, he said, America has to import $2.6 billion in cash. Every working day.

That is an amazing 80 percent of the entire world's net savings.

Sustainable? Hardly.

Meanwhile, he notes that household debt is at record levels.

Twenty years ago the total debt of U.S. households was equal to half the size of the economy.

Today the figure is 85 percent.

Nearly half of new mortgage borrowing is at flexible interest rates, leaving borrowers much more vulnerable to rate hikes.

Americans are already spending a record share of disposable income paying their interest bills. And interest rates haven't even risen much yet.

You don't have to ask a Wall Street economist to know this, of course. Watch people wielding their credit cards this Christmas.

Roach's analysis isn't entirely new. But recent events give it extra force.

The dollar is hitting fresh lows against currencies from the yen to the euro.

Its parachute failed to open over the weekend, when a meeting of the world's top finance ministers produced no promise of concerted intervention.

It has farther to fall, especially against Asian currencies, analysts agree.

The Fed chairman was drawn to warn on the dollar, and interest rates, on Friday.

Roach could not be reached for comment yesterday. A source who heard the presentation concluded that a ``spectacular wave of bankruptcies'' is possible.

Smart people downtown agree with much of the analysis. It is undeniable that America is living in a ``debt bubble'' of record proportions.

But they argue there may be an alternative scenario to Roach's. Greenspan might instead deliberately allow the dollar to slump and inflation to rise, whittling away at the value of today's consumer debts in real terms.

Inflation of 7 percent a year halves ``real'' values in a decade.

It may be the only way out of the trap.

Higher interest rates, or higher inflation: Either way, the biggest losers will be long-term lenders at fixed interest rates.

You wouldn't want to hold 30-year Treasuries, which today yield just 4.83 percent.

Link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7364.htm
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..there is another more dramatic approach, get involved in a real large War. It works, at least in the short term, if the whole country mobilizes behind the effort ala WW2.
Of course there are some very unfortunate side effects to the society that uses this tactic for too long. Not to mention all the unfortunate recipients of the solution.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
I'm not sure the economy of the US could take a really large war.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Ranger68 said:
"The five biggest powers of 2040 will be China, the United States, India, Russia, and Brazil - probably in that order."
- Gwynne Dyer, Future Tense
Ranger,
Just wondering if you are suggesting Dyer's predictions are all that realistic. I seem to remember many were prediciting Brazil to be the next economic super power back in the 70's, and we all saw where that went. Also, how is India included in this list? Explain if you can, I must be missing something.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
It's based on economic growth factors, projected over the next 35 years, and his analysis of the political and strategic direction of the nations.

Who would you put in that list other than those nations?
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..he lives in a dream world where the US reigns supreme, stronger then all other countries combined.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
assoholic said:
..he lives in a dream world where the US reigns supreme, stronger then all other countries combined.
LOL.

Sorry, not even close. Though I do admire your talent for hyperbole.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Why do you think his predictions "unrealistic"?
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..thanks, I use it as a defense against laziness.Basically I think the arguement comes down to is. What is the role of the United States going to be in the world. In all reality the US has been a hyper power since WW2. Most do not realize that in comparison to the 50's the US is much weaker. *
Pat Buchannan years ago warned about "pencil neck geeks in Washington who were yearning to play at Empire".
The US is embarking on "Bringing Piece to the Middle East", give me break.
A bunch of spoiled sons are playing at Empire and we are going to pay the price.
George W Bush, has been a arrogant , loud bully all his life . Just finished reading a book on his life.
One thing though did stand out, for all his billying not once was it ever mentioned he actually got in a fist fight.
Screamed at plenty of people, sneered at everyone else, but Georgie never actually dropped the gloves. This is the kind of person our leader is. The kind of guy who wouldnt even talk to you, yet wants to send your son to War. Die for this guy, I wouldnt stop to talk to him.




*-China had no nukes, Russia had 20,000,000 killed in WW2,
US Economy 25% of Entire Worlds
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Ranger68 said:
Why do you think his predictions "unrealistic"?
Actually, I was mainly asking for you to elucidate a bit on what he had written, since you have read the book and I haven't. Does he address what went wrong in Brazil in the 70's and 80's, and how they can avoid repeating it? I agree they should be an economic super power, but many thought they would be there by now.

I guess what I really don't get is India. I'd be interested in your opinions of the writings on the following link.

http://www.rupe-india.org/36/contents.html
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
It's a one-sentence proposition in Dyer's book, which is mostly about the US.
I'll read that article when I get a chance.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Per captia GDP (2000) in real terms:

USA – 34,000
China - 791
India – 449

Per capita PPP (2003) (from the CIA factbook online)

USA – 37,800
China – 5,000 (est)
India – 2,900

You guys have to be kidding, India has a 59% literacy rate and the Chinese banking and environments are disasters. China will not be able to sustain its 9% growth rate without a major overhaul of its political system. As bbking correctly pointed out you cannot challenge the US without your economy being powered by a strong middle class – only Europe has a chance – interesting that no one thinks of them when they think of economic growth.

From the CIA factbook:

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $37,800. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
bbking said:
Ok guys - some of you won't like this. While I love Dyer's work he makes assumptions that certain things will happen prior to 2040. One of which is a commitment to build a strong middle class and as such reduce poverty rates. Brazil has been mentioned - they have the natural resources to build a strong economey and huge population but it's poverty rate is staggering. Brazil should at least be at par with Canada and Australia but because of the lack of will to deal with this poverty and move them to middle class they lack a strong internal market place. Look at Japan - they regonized the need to maintain a strong internal market and as such shutout much of the world's goods. Japan did this because of their dependency to foriegn markets namely the US and as such they were subject to political and market risk. Look don't get me wrong China and India have the best chances of anyone to catch the US in economic power but I question the political will of both countries to address the poverty issue. In fact the WTO has staded it concerns that after 15 years of economic growth the poverty rate remained the same. You cannot build a US style economey without a strong middle class. It would take balls on the part of the China's leadership to address the poverty issue for they would know given time a strong middle class would demand a different style of Government. I really believe that I don't see that vision in China's current leadership. India - well it maybe democratic but institution still remain in place that limit economic participation of several million people. They have to face the same problems as China and again I fail to see the vision that would be needed to make them an economic superpower in 2040.
Having said all this, there is the perception out there that in the US you either have money or you don't. The numbers don't back that up but perception is often reality. Poverty rates have risen over the last 4 years but that can be expected in any recession but if the US falls into the same pattern of ignoring poverty rates they will also fall by the side as an economic superpower but I don't believe that will happen.


bbk
Where does Dyer make all these assumptions? Or is it YOU who are assuming that he's making all these assumptions?
 
Toronto Escorts