 |
| |
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Why not? we spent decades trying our hardest to AVOID global power (regional power in the Carib was something else again) We stayed out of euro politics pre-WW1, stayed out of WW1 till near the end, stayed out of the League, tried to hide behind the pacifist idealism of Kellog-Briand, and then tried to hide behind neutrality acts. Even after WW2 there was reluctance on some parts to stay involved in Europe. And again in the 70s, with the Mansfield amendments, there were attempts to withdraw from Europe. (I will try to avoid a local flameware about a particular part of ex-Yugo - but lets just say that US isolationism was alive and well in US discussions on that)
Assuming there is SOMEONE who will rise to power (be it another great power, the UN, or just the diffused unconquerable globe) who is as friendly to US interests as the UK was from 1890 to 1945, you should see the US happily turning inward. |
Fair point. But I do think that post-WW2 America is a very different entity that pre-WW2 America. With the minor hiccup in the 70s (caused by Vietnam) there has been a "We're number 1! We're number 1!" attitude amongst at least a large part of America.
The whole "Reagan made us feel good about ourselves again" thing was very much about giving Americans that "We're number 1!" feel back after Vietnem - something a lot of Americans obviously wanted back.
quote:
The US has been in relative decline since World War II. The US is some 22% of the world economy and falling.
That trend could change, of course, even though I don't foresee it. |
I meant the point at which the relative decline allows other states to perminantly overtake the US economically and militarily.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
This isn't a given. While you can create a scenario following current trends where China and the EU overtake the US sooner or later, there is a good chance that the US will continue being the king of the hill. |
It may not happen for a long time but Im sure you dont think that the US, with a population of a third of India or China and substantially smaller than many other fast-growing nations, can remain on top economically forever anymore than Britain could. Surely its a given in the long term.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Fair point. But I do think that post-WW2 America is a very different entity that pre-WW2 America. With the minor hiccup in the 70s (caused by Vietnam) there has been a "We're number 1! We're number 1!" attitude amongst at least a large part of America.
The whole "Reagan made us feel good about ourselves again" thing was very much about giving Americans that "We're number 1!" feel back after Vietnem - something a lot of Americans obviously wanted back.
|
post ww2 it took Communism, which fortunately scared the Bejeezus out of just those sectors of US society most inclined to isolationism, to get the US involved with the world. Even as it was, global strategy was an elite thing - Cuba, which is in our "near abroad" was (and amazingly, remains) a MUCH hotter button for populist anticommunism than anything happening "over there". 1980 was an odd point - it wasnt so much over VN - our reaction to VN was to elect Jimmy Carter. It was a reaction to the specific humiliation of Iran (calling us Satan really DOES get our goat) to the reminder that the cold war was still in effect, and to economic frustration as well, - and to Jimmy Carters style, which was too negative (age of malaise) and too seemingly effeminate. Reagan withdrew US troops from Lebanon - nobody made to much fuss about that, cause he was "tall in the saddle". He was aggressive in Central Am, but thats the "near abroad" - a hot button for the kind of folks who never understood why Clinton wanted to expand NATO, forex. In the '90s the US was divided into Clintonistas who wanted a multilateral approach to systemic world issues - a good transition to managing the world during our decline, one might say - and more or less bristly isolationists on both left and right. The PNAC folks wrote interesting stuff, but had little constituency. (Which BTW, is why its laughable when they blame Clinton for NOT invading Afghanistan in 1998 - there was no constituency for that)
Yah it looks different since the 11 September. I still think most non-Americans dont quite get how huge a thing that was over here. At least in terms of the US polity, the discontinuity is huge, and attempts to read post 9/11 thinking back(apart again from a handul of thnkers), assuming a continuity, miss the reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
No, it's not a given by a long shot. The US population is already growing a lot faster than China's. And India's economy is well behind that of China and is growing slower. |
I have to say that I think you're underestimating China and overestimating the US. That said, I think everyone is overestimating the EU too.
And I dont think that the US population, no matter how fast it grows is going to close the gap with China to any meaningful extent for a very long time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
I didn't estimate, so it's impossible to say that I'm overestimating. If we follow current trends, China's economy will surpass that of the US pretty soon. But those trends aren't a given and the out years (2050-2100) don't seem to favor the Chinese. |
You estimated that "there is a good chance that the US will continue being the king of the hill" - I think there is a chance, but not a good chance.
As for the trends. If you just look and current growth rates and trends in the changes of growth rates then yes, i agree that these are nowhere near given. However if you look at other factors, such as the increasing Chinese economic activity/emerging dominance in South East Asia and the fact that Chinese students who previously studied abroad are now studying in China, there are signs of something much more substantial going on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
As for population growth, the US isn't expected to give up the number three spot for at least 70 years, so I wouldn't give that too much consideration at this point. Even then, the countries that might pass it aren't likely contenders for economic superpower status.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
post ww2 it took Communism, which fortunately scared the Bejeezus out of just those sectors of US society most inclined to isolationism, to get the US involved with the world. Even as it was, global strategy was an elite thing - Cuba, which is in our "near abroad" was (and amazingly, remains) a MUCH hotter button for populist anticommunism than anything happening "over there". 1980 was an odd point - it wasnt so much over VN - our reaction to VN was to elect Jimmy Carter. It was a reaction to the specific humiliation of Iran (calling us Satan really DOES get our goat) to the reminder that the cold war was still in effect, and to economic frustration as well, - and to Jimmy Carters style, which was too negative (age of malaise) and too seemingly effeminate. Reagan withdrew US troops from Lebanon - nobody made to much fuss about that, cause he was "tall in the saddle". He was aggressive in Central Am, but thats the "near abroad" - a hot button for the kind of folks who never understood why Clinton wanted to expand NATO, forex. In the '90s the US was divided into Clintonistas who wanted a multilateral approach to systemic world issues - a good transition to managing the world during our decline, one might say - and more or less bristly isolationists on both left and right. The PNAC folks wrote interesting stuff, but had little constituency. (Which BTW, is why its laughable when they blame Clinton for NOT invading Afghanistan in 1998 - there was no constituency for that)
Yah it looks different since the 11 September. I still think most non-Americans dont quite get how huge a thing that was over here. At least in terms of the US polity, the discontinuity is huge, and attempts to read post 9/11 thinking back(apart again from a handul of thnkers), assuming a continuity, miss the reality. |
Its easy in the current climate to see/remember only the gung-ho side of America and forget the isolationist aspect. I suppose America simply turning in on itself is possibility.
However, in the whole post-ww2 period America was still number one militarility and economically, regardless of how and whether it chose to exercise its power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
I think that you're getting into semantics and are losing sight of the fact that we have no way of knowing if that chance is 10% or 50%. But the chance certainly isn't zero or negligible.
Nothing is inevitable in this world. |
Youre right but I do think that factors away from the basic economic statistics and trends such as the ones i mentioned above (many of which are only now becoming apparent and gaining serious attention) are making it more and more likely that China will overtake America
quote:
As for population growth, the US isn't expected to give up the number three spot for at least 70 years, so I wouldn't give that too much consideration at this point. Even then, the countries that might pass it aren't likely contenders for economic superpower status. |
Absolutely. China, India and the EU are the only contenders overtake the US in the next century at least. Although there are other nations that could 'join the big league' (such as Brazil) or rejoin the big league (such as Russia).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
It is possible that the US will complete fusion power effectively doubling our research and economy and giving our military units double the hit points. Hah!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
I'm not so sure USA comparisons with the UK, France or Germany are really justified. It implies a kind of isomorphism, but in reality all countries and empires are not created equally.
The great colonial powers of Europe were just that - colonial powers. They got huge wealth from far flung empires, and huge populations to draw on for their colonial armies. Thats not the case for the US. The US is not an empire in the traditional sense. The US is a huge, relatively contiguous country of about 9.3M square kilometres and with 300M people, along with millions of new immigrants coming in every year. It also has just about every natural resource you can imagine in relative abundance. And unlike the European powers, there's no realistic chance of, say, California or Texas or New York breaking off, or being lost to some other power. Sort of like how the UK lost India or how France lost Quebec and its African colonies.
The point I'm making is, the US is just naturally a huge, powerful, rich country.. and one which isn't being propped up by the wealth of its colonies (yes I know the US borrows billions a day, thats not the point I'm making). Of course other countries will start catching up, and it wouldn't surprise me if some day the US is neither number 1 militarily or economically. But the US will never, ever become a bit player in the world - like some imagine when they hear "OMG TEH STATES IS DECLINING!!". Short of some political catastrophe like a civil war, or an asteroid hitting, of course.
I don't see the US being anything but a major player, if not THE player, for a long, long time...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
el freako
|
 |
Bristol, European Union
Oct 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Could you point me to those figures? Do they include Greece, et al.'s inflated numbers.  |
Certainly - the IMF's data is in it's World Economic Outlook Database, you will find the EU listed under WEO Aggregates.
This showed the EU25's GDP at $10,024bn in 2000 (the year for which the PPP was calculated) compared to the US's $9,599bn
The OECD's estimates are slightly different using 2002 as a base year, they show EKS PPP GDP at $11,133bn for the EU25 and $10,429bn for the US - the GDDC series is a good place to find these figures, but feel free to check out the OECD's site itself (however you will have to dig around to get the estimates for Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia as they are not OECD members)
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
In any event, like I said, they're so close that it wouldn't surprise me if the EU passed the US on a temporary basis. |
With the accession of the rest of the balkans and turkey likely in the next quarter century that 'temporary basis' will last for at least a generation
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
But how many conservatives are really proimmigration? Not very many I imagine. Neocons are really few and far between. |
Bush and his cronies are big time open borders, and many Republicans are willing to blindly follow him. If he's for open borders, they're for open borders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Ah. I thought "Americas" was a typo and you'd meant to write "Americans"
i.e ... "They have, or will have all of the Americans to draw on in the coming years." - I was like "yeah? Europe and China have all the Europeans and Chinese to draw on in the coming years"
I reply to the post though, I dont think your right about American control of the Americas. Brazil made moves earlier this year with regards to being part of some unaligned nations network (maybe someone can remember the name, we discussed it here on poly) and, as America declines, they will not have the pull over Southern America that they once did. Didn't I read somewhere about some kind of trade agreement between Chile and China?...that's gonna become much more the norm as the rot sets in. |
I think you are a bit uninformed about events and trends over here. Brazil may be making noises that they would hope to form a trade bloc, but a bloc that rivals the EU in size is already in place, and talk of expanding it is common. In fact...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...?hub=TopStories
quote:
Closer trade ties will help sovereignty: Martin
CTV.ca News Staff
Strengthening economic and security ties with the U.S. and Mexico will also strengthen Canadian sovereignty, Prime Minister Paul Martin says.
"If you're competitive, if your standard of living is rising, then in fact what you're doing is strengthening your sovereignty," he told reporters Wednesday in Waco, Tex. after his summit with presidents of the United States and Mexico.
The deal Martin, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox signed, also provides for sweeping coordination with the U.S. and Mexico on trade and public health issues.
The leaders held a 90-minute meeting at Baylor University in Waco as part of the trilateral summit. They then retired to Bush's ranch near Crawford for the afternoon.
In a joint news conference after the Baylor meeting, Bush said the three countries will work together to improve on the prosperity and security of North America.
"It's important the two go hand in hand," he said. "We've done a lot of trade with each other. And we're going to keep it that way."
The prime minister called the agreement a "road map" focused on "finding practical ways to help our citizenship live healthier, safer and more prosperous lives."
Fox said the three countries face "new threats that carry a risk for our societies, but we also want to work toward the good performance of our economies."
"We want to make North America the most competitive region in the world, and we can do it with actions in the fields of energy, education, technology, security and through protecting our natural resources," Fox said in Spanish.
Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, said part of the logic driving the move is the ascension of China and India as economic powerhouses and the creation of the European Union, which has made that continent a giant free trade zone.
"If we want to maintain our high standard of living, then we have to form a competitive economic bloc," he said.
Fife discounted any threat to Canadian sovereignty, noting Britain and France had polar-opposite views on the Iraq war even though they are both EU members.
Sensitive issues
Martin and Bush pushed aside questions from reporters about the relationship between their countries, which soured last month when Canada opted out of the U.S. ballistic missile defence program.
Martin said Canada won't re-consider its decision to pull out of the program, adding that the two countries have had their share of differences in the past but that the relationship remains strong.
Bush dismissed any differences that exist as natural. "I'm amazed we don't have more sharp, whatever you called it, differences," he said.
The president said he knows firsthand that softwood lumber is clearly a sensitive issue.
"But think about all the trade we've got between our countries. We've resolved a lot of issues in a positive manner and will continue to resolve them," he said.
Martin talked about the need to get rid of "nuisance regulations" that would make sure North America stays competitive with rising economies such as Asia.
"What we really want to do is to make very, very substantial progress, and to make sure that we continue to do it so that the forces of protectionism never take over in North America," Martin said.
Fife told Newsnet that Bush is "looking beyond just North American integration" and is setting his sights further to South America.
Fife also warned not to expect any major movement on Canada-U.S. trade issues at this summit. "The key thing here is they're going to try to establish a good working relationship," he said.
Martin seemed to concur.
"What we're really talking about here is not a big bang. We're talking about big progress," the prime minister said.
"What kind of union might there be?" Bush said rhetorically in response to a question. "I see one based on free trade. It entails a commitment to markets and democracy, transparency and rule of law."
But later, Martin denied 'union' meant handing powers to Washington.
"All three sovereign countries, and we were very clear about this, are very jealous of their sovereignty. But we also recognize sovereignty is stronger if North America is competitive."
A joint statement issued by the leaders outlines the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America -- a "trilateral effort to increase the security, prosperity, and quality of life of our citizens."
As part of their efforts to improve security, the countries promise to:
implement common border security strategies,
including a continent-wide screening process of people and cargo;
enhance protection of infrastructure;
co-ordinate emergency response efforts in case of a natural or terrorist disaster at the borders; and
improve aviation and maritime security.
To improve trade, the leaders said they will:
improve productivity through regulatory cooperation;
promote collaboration in areas of energy, transportation, financial service and technology;
reduce the costs of trade through the efficient movement of goods and people; and
enhance the "stewardship of environment" and create a safer and more reliable food supply.
The three leaders gave their officials 90 days to draw up a plan to bring this vision to life.
With reports from CTV's Tom Clark and Robert Fife, plus files from the Canadian Press |
The touchy part over here, is that neither Canada nor Mexico desire to join any sort of political union with the US. So nix the NU as an answer to the EU. This is sensible since our situation is completely unlike that of Europe. We are three nations who have managed to live in peace for over a hundred years. We are not 25 or more countries, some of whom have been at each others' throats in the very recent past.
However, that does not mean that we cannot harmonise our economies. And that does not mean that there isn't a long line to get aboard the train.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
I think you are a bit uninformed about events and trends over here. Brazil may be making noises that they would hope to form a trade bloc, but a bloc that rivals the EU in size is already in place, and talk of expanding it is common. In fact... |
I had heard that there was talk about expanding NAFTA. But a North & South American Free trade agreement is surely a long way off?
The question is would a N&SA FTA do enough to keep the US in the top world economic spot?
AND since some form of political integration naturally flows from these sorts of agreements...would the US be able to go along with the rest. US citizens are hostile to participating in a world court to deal with genocide and are hostile to Kyoto. I can't see them being able to stomach the kind of sovereignty pooling that would come about in the long term.
If the N&SA FTA didn't involve any kind of political integration, it would certainly be more inefficient that the EU - possibly balancing out the EUs smaller population
Just speculating
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
The US military power is based on technology. The Irak war has demonstrated that after the first month, all this technology was useless to win on the political ground. It demonstrated also that the US Army has lost its capacity to bring many soldiers on the ground.
Therefore, the US are in a situation where nobody wants to fight with them, and where they are not able to fight big wars at low technology level.
They will discover that the mondialisation was not a good strategical idea. |
U.S. military power is certainly rooted in technology, but it also rests on the qualitative superiority of its professionals. Add to this the fact that technology still adds a lot of capability to the force even in a low tech counterinsurgency war and you'll see that the U.S. is not exactly toothless.
We are short of the infantry necessary to impose our will on a state the size of Iraq when our will is far removed from the will of the people. Whether that describes the current situation in Iraq remains to be seen, but imo it looks like we will succeed in forming a replacement government in Iraq to replace the regime we overthrew.
The current conflict has changed the Army. Our capabilities for COIN / occupation duty have increased tremendously, largely at the expense of our capabilities for large scale mechanized warfare. Whether this will be a relatively permanent change remains to be seen, but without a doubt the U.S. Army will be a different creature after this war than it was before.
It's true that the current capability of the U.S. for producing a lot of line infantry units is a lot smaller than it was in the time from WW2 through the Vietnam war. However it should be noted that we lost the Vietnam war, and the performance of the larger conscripted force was never all that great at any time. I'm not sure that what we have lost in numbers hasn't been made up for in discipline, experience and morale since that time. Of course we'd like to be fighting the current war with twice the numbers of professional troops than we currently have available. Not all would be constantly deployed, but it would be nice to have a bigger reserve and a kinder rotation schedule than we do currently.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2005 00:53
I told them to stay out of Iraq! 
|