China is building a city-sized cloud computing center. For more details see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686213&postcount=91
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2686213&postcount=91
China's Emergence As A Global Superpower
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
IMHO, China has started WWIII* at least a decade ago & Japan did not really start WWII - Brittan did. With ships operating from the large naval base at Singapore, Brittan closed the Straight of Malacca thru which all of Japan's oil tankers had to pass (and two other tiny gaps between Indonesian islands).
Before doing this Churchill had been assured by both the Royal Navy and the Singapore high command, the Singapore was safe, but that proved to be wrong. With less than 90 days of oil left the Japanese attacked and occupied Singapore. Thousands of Brits had no choice but to flee northward into the jungle.
Then the vast, and previously dispersed, US Pacific fleet was assembled into the port of Pearl Harbor as that, being very far from Japanese controlled Pacific, was considered to be a safe staging point for the drive to retake Singapore, rescue the Brits from the jungle, and reclose the St. of Malacca. We all know what then happen on Dec 7
Once again the judgment of high naval command underestimated Japanese capacity and was proven wrong by the Japanese, and WWII began - It was desperate choice for the Japanese Military as they knew well that the US industrial might would likely crush them in the end, but they had no other viable alternative as they had to get oil thru the St. of Malacca and had zero chance of stopping the US navy force once it set sail for Singapore and that straight. An "impossible" surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was their only chance, and they took it, with self sacrifice of much their air force in one-way "divine wind" bomb-laden planes.
---------------
* An economic war, which they are clearly winning, as there will never again be a War with Arms between two powers with nuclear ballistic missiles. China has twice placed a satellites in orbit around the moon, and blasted a Earth satellite in low Earth Orbit to pieces. According to US military intelligence, they now have operational a "ballistic" (not true ballistic as it has terminal target tracking an maneuver capacity) which can sink a zigzaging US carrier 1800 miles from China.
Last edited by a moderator:
China’s “one child” policy has a human as well as economic cost, which is too few workers now and much worse a decade hence for supporting the retired.(“ The average Chinese person lived to 73 in 2008, compared to just less than 47 years in 1960, according to the World Bank.”):
“… China now has more than 100 million people with no siblings as a result of the rules imposed in the late 1970s that limit many couples to only one child. That means one child will be responsible for taking care of two parents and four grandparents or what some call the "4-2-1 syndrome."
In one recent survey, 66.2% of Chinese high school students said they planned to take care of their parents in old age. Taking care of parents is part of Chinese tradition but the country's one-child policy and the trend of people moving away for work have put strains on the traditional family structure.
Some are left alone, like 81-year-old Zhang Meiling, who sits sadly in a tiny one room house in Beijing. "No one came to visit me," she tells our CNN crew on the eve of the Chinese New Year. "… No one comes here. I feel so lonely and I would rather die than be alone." Zhang has no children. She has two sisters but they too are old and live far away with their grandsons. From time to time, volunteers from Xiezuozhe (Facilitators), a non-government organization, drop by to visit. For a while they make her happier, but nothing can take the place of family.
Chinese authorities are trying to educate the youth about the need to care for their parents. The Ministry of Education has supported a resurgence of Confucian studies, which promote respect for the elders.
From: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/china.aging.population.change/index.html?hpt=C2
“… China now has more than 100 million people with no siblings as a result of the rules imposed in the late 1970s that limit many couples to only one child. That means one child will be responsible for taking care of two parents and four grandparents or what some call the "4-2-1 syndrome."
In one recent survey, 66.2% of Chinese high school students said they planned to take care of their parents in old age. Taking care of parents is part of Chinese tradition but the country's one-child policy and the trend of people moving away for work have put strains on the traditional family structure.
Some are left alone, like 81-year-old Zhang Meiling, who sits sadly in a tiny one room house in Beijing. "No one came to visit me," she tells our CNN crew on the eve of the Chinese New Year. "… No one comes here. I feel so lonely and I would rather die than be alone." Zhang has no children. She has two sisters but they too are old and live far away with their grandsons. From time to time, volunteers from Xiezuozhe (Facilitators), a non-government organization, drop by to visit. For a while they make her happier, but nothing can take the place of family.
Chinese authorities are trying to educate the youth about the need to care for their parents. The Ministry of Education has supported a resurgence of Confucian studies, which promote respect for the elders.
From: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/02/13/china.aging.population.change/index.html?hpt=C2
superstring01
Moderator
Do you think that the Chinese are planning to scrap the "one child" policy in favor of a "two child" policy? I'm starting to wonder. Either way, no matter how you break it down, unless a population is growing, then it will always end up being one child taking care of too many parents and/or grandparents.
~String
~String
Yes, I thnk they will and already have for many. If your son dies, and a new sister is born, you may try again for a son. If you are willing to pay a not too high fine for many, you may have more than one child.
China has a labor shortage now. They can see the coming demographic problem. - I am certain the old policy will be scrapped before 2018. Probably by 2025, there will be bonuses or at least generous tax deductions up to and perhaps including the third child. By 2015, I bet birth control pills will cost more than viagra!
superstring01
Moderator
What do you think that says about the actual stability of the nation?
One of the reasons I'm bullish on the US/Canada situation is because we are heading for a total ecological collapse of the Subcontinent within 25 years, especially in Bangladesh and Pakistan. India is doing little to slow its population growth. Once the Subcontinent reaches 2.5 billion they will be pushing the limits of what can be sustained.
China has a lot more space, but nobody's moving to it. The same number of people are living in a similar size of territory. I wonder what that says about political stability and their ability to feed themselves.
~String
Answer to question depends upon time scale and what is definition of instability. In the long run (10,000 years) I don't think "intelligent" life forms are stable, by any definition, as I think they will self destruct and take many lower forms with them - I.e. human level of "intelligence" is evolution's greatest "mistake."
Lets consider / guess at 100 years hence, and define "instability" as the death of 10% of the population in one year or less. IMHO, the probability of that is low and about equal for both the US and China. Both countries will be greatly changed 100 years from now, but not likely to have any instability when that is defined this way.
On the food issue, the US certainly has the capacity in the mid-west to feed itself and China does not; however, less than ~5% of the Americans and less than 15% of Chinese have the ability to grow the food they need. Others buy it. Some countries have much greater food production capacity than they need so they will export food to those countries that can pay. Brazil may be most advantaged in this respect, but the US can feed at least twice its population. I doubt if it will not export all it can to those who will and can pay higher prices than the domestic market. Argentina two years ago tried to limit agricultural exports to hold down the inflation, mainly in food, with the result than angry farmers burned their crops. It will be very hard for the US to for example tell Cargill it must sell to the domestic market at less than half the price China will pay.
Thus the internal distribution of food, not its production, in a capitalistic system, is the US's food problem. Many in the US, and their numbers are growing, already cannot afford the food they require without some form of financial food assistance. It is certainly conceivable for me, that this trend of increasing financial transfers may have a reaction / rebellion by tax payers. Many private food banks are already not getting the donations they need so their shelves are often bare.
Energy costs are a great part of food cost, and they are rising, causing food price inflation to have one of the highest rates of increase. Many years ago, I read a study of the cost of an Idaho potato eaten in NYC. In that study every production input was expressed as oil used, say for tractors, transport, fertilizer, pesticides, harvesters, even the plastic of the bags, etc. and then converted to dollars. It claimed that that potato eaten in NYC was 90% oil, so now with oil much more costly, at least 95% of that Idaho potato eaten in NYC is the energy cost.
That Idaho potato may be an extreme case, but on average food on a US table has traveled 1200 miles to get there. If and when oil is $300/ brl, and US economy is very depressed, as I expect the growing debts will make certain, many in urban areas will be with hunger to the point of riots. US may still be stupidly converting corn into alcohol so those well off can continue to drive their cars, which will not “sit well” with parents who cannot feed their children. I.e. the increasing and still growing gap, which started under GWB, between rich and poor does have explosive social potential and the fact that there is approximately one gun for every American is like adding gasoline to a social fire.
I don’t think this food based rioting will happen in more socialistic China if it continues to enjoy a growing economy. They will have the funds to buy food they need from Brazil (and yes even the US as they will pay twice more than Kroger, A&P etc. can). There, if there are nation-wide riots in China in next 100 years, it will be because the CCP is not able to transform itself enought to give the freedoms the increasing wealthy population probably will demand.
I went into some details about US’s possible social instability as few think there is any possibility of 10% of US population dying in one year and as stated, I think that very unlikely too, but no less likely than instability (defined that way) in China.
Last edited by a moderator:
China just surpassed Japan as the worlds #2 leading economic growth indicator.
Oh wow. Errors...
It was Japanese naval planes (not air force) and Kamikaze attacks were not involved in pearl Harbour - they didn't start until October 1944.
And they lost "only" 29 aircraft out of 414 at Pearl.
You are correct; However I was using "air force" generically, not speaking of the Japanese Air Force, JAF. None the less I was wrong to state anything about the Kamikaze at Pearl Harbor. One reason for my error was my false impression that many of the planes attacking Pearl Harbor were launch from catapults so could not make any landing on the ships that carried them to their launch point. If 414 -29 survived then they were carrier launched.
My main point was that Great Britain, not Japan, started WWII and I knew little about the make up of the Japanese naval force that attacked Pearl Harbor, and did not check up on it as that was not my point.
It would have helped tremendously to have correctly defined "Global Superpower."
What differentiates a "Global Superpower" from an ordinary garden-variety powerful country is the ability of the Global Superpower to project its hegemony worldwide whenever it wants.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that the Soviet Union was a superpower. Its currency wasn't even traded on the world market. It had no ability to project its military. It did have ICBMs, but then so does France, but no one would claim that France is a Global Superpower.
The Chinese are far from being a Global Superpower. While their currency is internationally traded, it is neither the de facto reserve currency nor the de facto currency of international commercial trade. It is incapable of projecting any force.
Perhaps in the future China may be able to do that, but as of now, they're just another powerful country.
That highlights the vast difference between Chinese foreign policy and US foreign policy.
The goal of US foreign policy has always been to oppress. The US oppresses the people of its economic-slave colonies. In doing so, the US has created an un-level playing field tilted heavily in favor of the US. The playing field became so tilted that it was vertical, with the US on top, and the majority of the world on the very bottom.
That was incredibly short-sighted.
Yes, Americans benefited with a grotesquely outrageous higher standard of living and wages, but only for the briefest of times, about two generations or so.
That's all changing now, thanks to BRIC and especially China.
The standard of living and wages in the US will continually decline, while the standard of living and wages in other countries constantly increases until an equilibrium is reached. That will take decades for that happen, and it will be a very painful transformation period for Americans, and there is nothing the US can do stop it. Even "going nuclear" won't help.
While the US oppresses, the Chinese lift people up, creating future consumers and trading partners.
A few good examples to look at is Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. After 150 years of US "protection," those countries are still wallowing in poverty. People in those countries still don't have electricity, running water, sewage or roads. On the HDI Scale, Castro's Cuba is far superior (more than twice as well off) to those countries in terms of quality of life, standard of living and wages. Even Vietnam, who was bombed by the US for 12 years and then suffered another 25 years of trade embargoes and economic sanctions levied by the US has risen above those three US economic-slave states in spite of US actions.
The first thing China does in a country is start building roads and laying water, sewage and electrical power lines, and unlike the US, China shares profits from natural resource processing.
You can at Mexico. US oil companies had the standard coerced arrangement, the US gets 92% of the profits, Mexico gets 8%. And even that wouldn't have been so bad, except that US oil companies then engaged in standard US corporate practice when operating in foreign countries, and that is they devalued their assets to avoid paying any royalties, profits or taxes to the host nation governments.
Then the Mexican government called them out on it. Mexican oil workers sued to get paid salaries comparable to their US counter-parts. Those weren't field workers, those were university graduates in management and engineering positions educated at US, British, French, Spanish and Italian universities. And the government also sued to force the US oil companies to pay the taxes they owed. Both cases ended up in the Mexican Supreme Court who orders the US oil companies to pay comparable salaries and pay all the back taxes owed. The US oil companies refused, in spite of warnings from President Cardenas, who gave them every opportunity to comply with the Mexican Supreme Court's orders. So President Cardenas ordered the expropriation of all US oil company assets, which was his right under US, Mexican and International Law.
So the US wants to invade Mexico to seize the oil fields, except it can't because WW II is looming and FDR wisely decides not to take action because he needs the oil and doesn't want to tie up US troops. An the US oil companies have the gall to get indignant when Mexico offers $26 Million in compensation, even though that is exactly what the US oil companies stated as being the total value of their assets (to avoid paying taxes and royalties and profits).
That was a great opportunity for the US to reach out to a neighbor, share profits, help Mexico develop and grow economically and politically, but it was squandered because of a failed foreign policy. So, how is it working out for everyone now with all the illegal immigrants?
Iran is another good example. British Petroleum is operating the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, sucking up 92% of the profits and they play the same "devalue the assets to avoid paying taxes, royalties and profits" game. Prime Minister Massadeq then legally expropriated BP's assets. And of all things, Britain has the unmitigated gall to cry "Foul!" In 1950s Britain, everything is nationalized: television, radio, rail travel, air travel, shipping, defense industries, telecommunications, the postal service, the automobile industry, everything, save Sainsbury's and the pubs. So how hypocritical is that to get indignant when another country nationalizes its assets? Iran offered to pay $48 Million, which I believe was twice the stated value of BP's assets. It isn't like BP was going to lose on the deal.
After much bitter complaining, the UK convinces the US to take Massadeq out, and after three failed assassination attempts, the best the US can muster is a kangaroo court trial for, um, "treason."
The US and UK had 60+ years to move Iran toward a stable democracy, but refused to do so. And how has that worked out for everyone? Well, Iran is finishing construction of its dual reactors at Bushwehr, one to power desalinization plants and one to electrify the Iranian Plateau so the water from the desalinization plants can be used to irrigate the Plateau and establish a good agricultural base there. The point is the Plateau should already be irrigated, because the US should have invested its money to that development, instead of spending $Millions arming, funding and training the SAVAK, the Iranian state secret police who imprisoned, tortured and murdered people to the the Shah in power after the US deposed Massadeq.
And there's Panama. The US wants to build a canal. Columbia wants to be joint partners, the US doesn't want a partner, so it sends mercenaries to foment revolution, and when the Colombian Province of Panama, um, declares its "independence" the US sends in the troops and builds the Canal. A number of South American countries beg the US to help fund and build a trans-Andean highway, but the US refuses because it would decrease profits from the Canal. Well, China has taken over the Panama Canal, and what is it doing? It's building the trans-Andean Highway, Rail and Pipeline System that the US refused to build for 70 years (because it feared losing "profits"). And not only is China doing that, but it's also expanding the Canal. How smart was that of the US to refuse? Not very.
So where the US has always done everything wrong, China is doing everything right, and they are winning "hearts and minds" and that is why in the end, China will win and eventually emerge as a true Global Superpower.
The US still hasn't changed its foreign policy, and there is no possible way the US could ever match China's investments Dollar for Dollar. To even attempt to do so would only accelerate the decline in standard of living and wages for Americans.
I think I read where someone rather ridiculously attempted to blame Bush the Younger for the growing disparity in "income equality" in the US.
Bush is not to blame. Blame is to be placed on his many predecessors who engaged in such a destructive foreign policy over the last 100 years or so, since the time of the Spanish-American War.
It's a matter of simple 6th Grade math.
The US, although it is only 4.5% of the world's population, uses 29% of the world's non-oil resources.
If 300 Million of the 1 Billion Indians and 300 Million of the 1.6 Billion Chinese were to have the same life-style and standard of living as Americans, then we have this:
29%(US) + 29%(India) + 29%(China) = 87%
Uh-oh. That would leave the remaining 86.5% of the world's population fighting over a paltry 13% of the world's non-oil resources. Sure, more resources will be found, but not enough, and not developed to a level of production quickly enough to ever allow everyone to live like an American.
If anyone thinks the rest of the world is going to lay down and live a life of squalor so that Americans can live a life of luxury, they might want to ask their psychiatrist to increase their dosage of Thorazine, because that ain't gonna happen.
How do you stop an American from charging? Take away their credit cards and HELOCs and the easiest way to do that is to devalue the US Dollar by controlling the sale of resources and commodities on the world market and shifting them from Dollars to Euros, Rubles and Yuan. US purchasing power declines, the rest of the world's purchasing power increases. BRIC will do that incrementally at various stages as they see fit.
If China has positioned itself correctly, then it can merge its currency with the Yen or Ruble or create a BRIC basket currency and it may ultimately become the de facto international reserve currency and de facto international currency of trade, and perhaps they'll eventually develop their navy to project Chinese hegemony where they will, and then at that point, China would emerge as a true Global Superpower.
What differentiates a "Global Superpower" from an ordinary garden-variety powerful country is the ability of the Global Superpower to project its hegemony worldwide whenever it wants.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that the Soviet Union was a superpower. Its currency wasn't even traded on the world market. It had no ability to project its military. It did have ICBMs, but then so does France, but no one would claim that France is a Global Superpower.
The Chinese are far from being a Global Superpower. While their currency is internationally traded, it is neither the de facto reserve currency nor the de facto currency of international commercial trade. It is incapable of projecting any force.
Perhaps in the future China may be able to do that, but as of now, they're just another powerful country.
That highlights the vast difference between Chinese foreign policy and US foreign policy.
The goal of US foreign policy has always been to oppress. The US oppresses the people of its economic-slave colonies. In doing so, the US has created an un-level playing field tilted heavily in favor of the US. The playing field became so tilted that it was vertical, with the US on top, and the majority of the world on the very bottom.
That was incredibly short-sighted.
Yes, Americans benefited with a grotesquely outrageous higher standard of living and wages, but only for the briefest of times, about two generations or so.
That's all changing now, thanks to BRIC and especially China.
The standard of living and wages in the US will continually decline, while the standard of living and wages in other countries constantly increases until an equilibrium is reached. That will take decades for that happen, and it will be a very painful transformation period for Americans, and there is nothing the US can do stop it. Even "going nuclear" won't help.
While the US oppresses, the Chinese lift people up, creating future consumers and trading partners.
A few good examples to look at is Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. After 150 years of US "protection," those countries are still wallowing in poverty. People in those countries still don't have electricity, running water, sewage or roads. On the HDI Scale, Castro's Cuba is far superior (more than twice as well off) to those countries in terms of quality of life, standard of living and wages. Even Vietnam, who was bombed by the US for 12 years and then suffered another 25 years of trade embargoes and economic sanctions levied by the US has risen above those three US economic-slave states in spite of US actions.
The first thing China does in a country is start building roads and laying water, sewage and electrical power lines, and unlike the US, China shares profits from natural resource processing.
You can at Mexico. US oil companies had the standard coerced arrangement, the US gets 92% of the profits, Mexico gets 8%. And even that wouldn't have been so bad, except that US oil companies then engaged in standard US corporate practice when operating in foreign countries, and that is they devalued their assets to avoid paying any royalties, profits or taxes to the host nation governments.
Then the Mexican government called them out on it. Mexican oil workers sued to get paid salaries comparable to their US counter-parts. Those weren't field workers, those were university graduates in management and engineering positions educated at US, British, French, Spanish and Italian universities. And the government also sued to force the US oil companies to pay the taxes they owed. Both cases ended up in the Mexican Supreme Court who orders the US oil companies to pay comparable salaries and pay all the back taxes owed. The US oil companies refused, in spite of warnings from President Cardenas, who gave them every opportunity to comply with the Mexican Supreme Court's orders. So President Cardenas ordered the expropriation of all US oil company assets, which was his right under US, Mexican and International Law.
So the US wants to invade Mexico to seize the oil fields, except it can't because WW II is looming and FDR wisely decides not to take action because he needs the oil and doesn't want to tie up US troops. An the US oil companies have the gall to get indignant when Mexico offers $26 Million in compensation, even though that is exactly what the US oil companies stated as being the total value of their assets (to avoid paying taxes and royalties and profits).
That was a great opportunity for the US to reach out to a neighbor, share profits, help Mexico develop and grow economically and politically, but it was squandered because of a failed foreign policy. So, how is it working out for everyone now with all the illegal immigrants?
Iran is another good example. British Petroleum is operating the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, sucking up 92% of the profits and they play the same "devalue the assets to avoid paying taxes, royalties and profits" game. Prime Minister Massadeq then legally expropriated BP's assets. And of all things, Britain has the unmitigated gall to cry "Foul!" In 1950s Britain, everything is nationalized: television, radio, rail travel, air travel, shipping, defense industries, telecommunications, the postal service, the automobile industry, everything, save Sainsbury's and the pubs. So how hypocritical is that to get indignant when another country nationalizes its assets? Iran offered to pay $48 Million, which I believe was twice the stated value of BP's assets. It isn't like BP was going to lose on the deal.
After much bitter complaining, the UK convinces the US to take Massadeq out, and after three failed assassination attempts, the best the US can muster is a kangaroo court trial for, um, "treason."
The US and UK had 60+ years to move Iran toward a stable democracy, but refused to do so. And how has that worked out for everyone? Well, Iran is finishing construction of its dual reactors at Bushwehr, one to power desalinization plants and one to electrify the Iranian Plateau so the water from the desalinization plants can be used to irrigate the Plateau and establish a good agricultural base there. The point is the Plateau should already be irrigated, because the US should have invested its money to that development, instead of spending $Millions arming, funding and training the SAVAK, the Iranian state secret police who imprisoned, tortured and murdered people to the the Shah in power after the US deposed Massadeq.
And there's Panama. The US wants to build a canal. Columbia wants to be joint partners, the US doesn't want a partner, so it sends mercenaries to foment revolution, and when the Colombian Province of Panama, um, declares its "independence" the US sends in the troops and builds the Canal. A number of South American countries beg the US to help fund and build a trans-Andean highway, but the US refuses because it would decrease profits from the Canal. Well, China has taken over the Panama Canal, and what is it doing? It's building the trans-Andean Highway, Rail and Pipeline System that the US refused to build for 70 years (because it feared losing "profits"). And not only is China doing that, but it's also expanding the Canal. How smart was that of the US to refuse? Not very.
So where the US has always done everything wrong, China is doing everything right, and they are winning "hearts and minds" and that is why in the end, China will win and eventually emerge as a true Global Superpower.
The US still hasn't changed its foreign policy, and there is no possible way the US could ever match China's investments Dollar for Dollar. To even attempt to do so would only accelerate the decline in standard of living and wages for Americans.
I think I read where someone rather ridiculously attempted to blame Bush the Younger for the growing disparity in "income equality" in the US.
Bush is not to blame. Blame is to be placed on his many predecessors who engaged in such a destructive foreign policy over the last 100 years or so, since the time of the Spanish-American War.
It's a matter of simple 6th Grade math.
The US, although it is only 4.5% of the world's population, uses 29% of the world's non-oil resources.
If 300 Million of the 1 Billion Indians and 300 Million of the 1.6 Billion Chinese were to have the same life-style and standard of living as Americans, then we have this:
29%(US) + 29%(India) + 29%(China) = 87%
Uh-oh. That would leave the remaining 86.5% of the world's population fighting over a paltry 13% of the world's non-oil resources. Sure, more resources will be found, but not enough, and not developed to a level of production quickly enough to ever allow everyone to live like an American.
If anyone thinks the rest of the world is going to lay down and live a life of squalor so that Americans can live a life of luxury, they might want to ask their psychiatrist to increase their dosage of Thorazine, because that ain't gonna happen.
How do you stop an American from charging? Take away their credit cards and HELOCs and the easiest way to do that is to devalue the US Dollar by controlling the sale of resources and commodities on the world market and shifting them from Dollars to Euros, Rubles and Yuan. US purchasing power declines, the rest of the world's purchasing power increases. BRIC will do that incrementally at various stages as they see fit.
If China has positioned itself correctly, then it can merge its currency with the Yen or Ruble or create a BRIC basket currency and it may ultimately become the de facto international reserve currency and de facto international currency of trade, and perhaps they'll eventually develop their navy to project Chinese hegemony where they will, and then at that point, China would emerge as a true Global Superpower.
Err, if you can do that, then you're more than a "global superpower." You're the global hegemon.
If we're setting terms straight, then we should start by noting that "global" is redundant - the definition of "superpower" is:
"A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."
For comparison, a "great power" is:
"A great power is a nation or state that has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale."
So, a country has to be projecting power on a global scale to even qualify as a "great power." To make it up to "superpower," you have to achieve a dominant position in the international system. That doesn't imply hegemony - there can be multiple superpowers at once - but it does imply serious, institutional clout. A superpower is one step below a global hegemon - basically, it's a country with a reasonable shot of attaining global hegemony.
Which would be to imply that the USA is no longer really a "superpower," either, but rather the hegemon (the term "hyperpower" has also been thrown around). For some other country to attain superpower status, absent some coincident change in US status, would still leave them on the second tier of global power.
On the contrary, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Well, mostly.
There was no single "world market" during that time. Exactly because of the presence of the Soviet superpower.
Tell that to Afghanistan, or Cuba, or the Warsaw Pact countries.
Although the definition speaks of "projecting influence," rather than "projecting military" as such.
France was (and is) a Great Power. But there is a qualitative difference between France's arsenal and the USSR's. The USSR had a sufficient arsenal to bring about the end of human civilization - or just wage an offensive nuclear war while retaining a credible nuclear deterrent. France does not, and never has.
Which is not to say that nobody has seriously claimed that France was a superpower during a certain period of history (early 20th century, for example).
One needn't possess a reserve currency or trade currency to project economic force. For that, one mostly just needs (lots of) plain old currency.
I'd say that China is a great power, but it's debateable whether they're a superpower. The latter term has definitely been devalued in recent years, with some voyeuristic appetite for Sino-US drama visibly wrapped up in that.
LOL
Where does Europe fit into this picture?
More LOL. Propping up African dictators while you empty their countries' mines and oil/gas reserves is not "lifting people up" or "creating future consumers and trading partners." Maybe some of their relations with, say, Brazil are constructive - but that's because Brazil is ready and able to take care of itself, and emphatically not because of any enlightenment on the Chinese side.
Those would be roads and infrastructure to supply soon-to-be-empty mines and forests. Won't be of much economic use, once the Chinese miners finish stripping the area clean and go home.
That's true, but not in the sense you mean. I.e., the USA doesn't typically get any profits from such - Saudi Arabia nationalized their oil production and refining decades ago, for example.
It would behoove you to update your analysis of US relations into the current century.
If we're going to use that sort of dated approach, we might as well write China off as a pre-industrial peasant colony.
LOL, get down off those stilts.
Ridiculous - relations between the USA and Panama, Mexico, etc. are nothing like the ancient history you cite above.
That's just stupid. The outflow of FDI from the USA into China alone outstrips total Chinese FDI outflow by a factor of 3. I.e, for every dollar that China invests in another country (and note that many of those dollars go to the USA), the USA invests three dollars just in China. Total American outward FDI outstrips Chinese outward FDI by an order of magnitude. The ongoing, massive American investment in China is a key factor in their development, and so a big reason why they have money for FDI in the first place.
Which, given that the resources in the USA are similarly stilted relative to the US population, implies that everybody else, in their crowded, resource-scarse countries, is never going to reach our standard of consumption.
We've got enough food and coal to live high on the hog for a long, long time yet. The rest of the world can come try to take it, if they dare, but we've got a decent stronghold (surrounded by huge oceans) and a gnarly military besides. More likely we'll just sell it at a tidy profit, the better to maintain the standard of living.
This stuff is only particularly salient when it comes to US dependence on imported petroleum. But, peak oil is imminent regardless, so I don't see that as having much impact one way or the other on the issues you are interested in (could be bad for global warming, for example, if the response is heavier use of coal).
lol. america's resources are stilted? i would hope others would not reach the level of 'consumption' as americans as that isn't necessary or even best. it's getting out of poverty that is necesssary though.
yeah and it's making the population sick overall. obesity, heart disease, diabetes is prevalent but even cancer. there is a time when greed backfires just as too little is not good, too much is not good. there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
You mean like you have?
n.b.: Reagan. GWB's tenure was more or less entirely an extension or culmination of Reagan's administration, and everything characteristic of basic importance (like the establishment of a trend of growth in the income gap) traces to Reagan's watershed first term repudiation of the New Deal.billy said:
China is genetically more uniform than the US, which increases its intrinsic vulnerability to epidemic disease - the most likely cause of sudden large mortality. It is much closer to the edge of its carrying capacity in fresh water, and simultaneously much more vulnerable to large scale flooding as well as sea level rise - water surplus or shortage being the most likely factor in environmental catastrophe.billy said:
Increasing internal income inequality, within the US, is not a direct or inevitable consequence of bad US foreign policy - as the years after the New Deal proved. Reagan and his heirs - GWB chief among them - are to blame for that, and their domestic policies rather than their foreign policies are the significant ones in that matter.mircea said:
The choice is not between "life of squalor" and "live like an American" in "luxury" (tell it to the Mic Mac). Neither is the comparative wealth of American life necessarily built on squalor elsewhere (or squalor in America, yet) - as you yourself pithily note in this post quoted, the squalor impositions elsewhere have been a net cost to the ordinary Americans at home, not a benefit.mircea said:
China has some BIG plans for the EV and Hybrid car market.1 million cars per year by 2015 and 100 million cars and buses by 2020.Kinda puts President Obama's goal of 1 million EV's by 2015 look rather anemic huh.It was stated by China that they are making this commitment a National priority.Given China's past commitment record,they will get this done too.
http://tinyurl.com/64kmu33
http://tinyurl.com/69vm7rz
http://tinyurl.com/64kmu33
http://tinyurl.com/69vm7rz
i live pretty simply as i found it doesn't make me happier to have more than i need.
i mean consumption that is too much. why do you think i mentioned obesity and diabetes? people actually go on diets from eating too much. think about how crazy that is. how about eating too little? not good either.
having a lot of 'things' rather than doing things you enjoy don't make you happier, unless those things are for a purpose. it's healthy to walk instead of drive everywhere just because you can or do activities rather than shop everyday. that's how most people live. they go to work to make money to buy more stuff while eating more food.
ask the majority of people what an outing is and it usually involves eating or shopping. it's what just about everyone i know does which is either shopping or eating and repeat. if i said let's go go the park, they would look at me like i was crazy or let's take a pottery class or let's go take an art class together or go to a museum.
it's shopping and eating while driving everywhere, occasionally going to a movie. :shrug:
it's just the culture is just more focused on consumerism rather than activities for enjoyment or enrichment.
i do understand this consumerism frenzy and that is our urge to horde and also have enough food to eat but i just think that does not necessarily brings happiness, that is survivalist/desperate thinking.
perhaps when we get to a point that is not so much an issue, we can get past that urge to pile on unneeded calories and compulsive material hording and be more free to pursue things we may really be interested in and enjoy instead.
there is a difference between moderation and gluttony.
