The end of the American Century, 25 years early

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would agree with this, but America still have a pretty powerful level in terms of trade. When you run significant trade deficits with countries like China, it can be used for a similar type of leverage to China owning U.S. debt.

Economies are so intermingled I'm sure the USA will always be strong, I don't think anyone takes on a dominance though, at least not these days.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When you control the sea for example its something that does have to be taken into account. China is not in a terrific strategic situation based on both historic enemies and their lack of ability to project power.

Military will always need to be taken into account because we do live in a violent nasty war.

I think there is a major reason why powerhouse countries don't go to war anymore. At most postering, but I don't think military strength is that significant anymore.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Frankly it does matter because it dictates how China interacts and negotiates with other countries.

From a country to country standpoint, or business to business? Business to business, it happens every day.

[The Yen Man]

I agree with Phanuthier that today, military strength is more for posturing than back in the past. I think Mutually Assured Destruction (I think that's what they called it) has ensured no superpower ever goes to war with one another.

Now it's all about economic strength that determines how powerful a country is.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Economies are so intermingled I'm sure the USA will always be strong, I don't think anyone takes on a dominance though, at least not these days.

Oh I agree, we saw how a global economy is like a cheap set of dominos, one fall effects all. I remember back in the 80's the Japanese were poised to take over the world, there was fear in the States of losing their economy through sales to Japan. At the end of the day though the U.S. will do whatever it can to protect its economy through fair means or foul. Its the same here, if China gains to big of an influence in terms of economic gains, the U.S. will adjust how it does business, and adjust its economic based laws to protect itself. So your right, I don't think that there will ever be a dominant economy on a global scale because the world hates a lack of balance.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think there is a major reason why powerhouse countries don't go to war anymore. At most postering, but I don't think military strength is that significant anymore.

Right now I would agree if we were talking Russia and America, because the nuclear forces number literally makes war unwinnable. China while a nuclear power doesn't have the offensive or accurate counterforce numbers to ensure mad. If there was a nuclear exchange between China and the U.S., that exchange is still winnable by the Americans.

For example China has about 240 warheads, I believe the Americans have about 5000 active and a equal number of inactive but not destroyed. The Ruskies have about 5000 active and I think 7 to 8 thousand stockpiled.

So realistically China doesn't really have counterforce deterant.

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

From a country to country standpoint, or business to business? Business to business, it happens every day.

From both a business to business and country to country perspective.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Right now I would agree if we were talking Russia and America, because the nuclear forces number literally makes war unwinnable. China while a nuclear power doesn't have the offensive or accurate counterforce numbers to ensure mad. If there was a nuclear exchange between China and the U.S., that exchange is still winnable by the Americans.

For example China has about 240 warheads, I believe the Americans have about 5000 active and a equal number of inactive but not destroyed. The Ruskies have about 5000 active and I think 7 to 8 thousand stockpiled.

I hardly think the Americans would consider getting nuked only 240 times "winning".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

I hardly think the Americans would consider getting nuked only 240 times "winning".

Thats why America has focused so heavily on counterforce, its unlikely that those 240 weapons would get off of the ground.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats why America has focused so heavily on counterforce, its unlikely that those 240 weapons would get off of the ground.

I think if a nuke ever left got off any countries ground, you can forget numbers of nukes or GDP or power or whatever. USA launches an nuclear attack on China and the world will turn on China (and vis versa). Nobody major country is going to launch a nuclear attack. Everything is economic and influential these days.

All military does is in between major countries is just postering. Move a few troops here, mobilize some others there, go back to the table to negotiations and its quiet again.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sure, currently, but I think we're eventually due for another great hate, but this time the war won't be based around ideaology. Its going to be based around economies and resources.

This planet cycles through times of relative peace and massive blood letting like my heart pumps blood.

I'm pretty much resigned to a major conflict in my lifetime.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure, currently, but I think we're eventually due for another great hate, but this time the war won't be based around ideaology. Its going to be based around economies and resources.

This planet cycles through times of relative peace and massive blood letting like my heart pumps blood.

I'm pretty much resigned to a major conflict in my lifetime.

I have to think the world is way too internationally tied together for the world to go to war cause we're "due for one" ... Resources are usually acquired though deals and contracts, I don't think superpowers really go to war over it anymore. Economically, they rely on each other so I can't see war helping either country ... and I'm pretty sure they are intellectual enough to realize that. Major businesses from GE to Johnson&Johnson to Intel to IBM have major business centers in both countries. Much of USA is made up of Chinese people who make a major impact on the American economy, can't see going to war just cause "we're due for one" is gonna fly there. There is also the influence of social media and social figureheads, from a Chinese athlete like Yao Ming, a movie star like Jackie Chan or other respected positions that have a ton of influential influence.

Besides, more and more, it seems international matters and pressures are slowly coming from influential "pop culture" social figurehead like a Sergei Brin rather than even government itself.

[CaptainCrunch]

War starts with the most inconsequential incident.

Because of globalization and economic treaties you could almost argue that we're heading back to the major precurser to the First World War where nations were forced into conflict due to secret treaties, and the war was ignited by one minor event.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I agree, we saw how a global economy is like a cheap set of dominos, one fall effects all. I remember back in the 80's the Japanese were poised to take over the world, there was fear in the States of losing their economy through sales to Japan. At the end of the day though the U.S. will do whatever it can to protect its economy through fair means or foul. Its the same here, if China gains to big of an influence in terms of economic gains, the U.S. will adjust how it does business, and adjust its economic based laws to protect itself. So your right, I don't think that there will ever be a dominant economy on a global scale because the world hates a lack of balance.





Right now I would agree if we were talking Russia and America, because the nuclear forces number literally makes war unwinnable. China while a nuclear power doesn't have the offensive or accurate counterforce numbers to ensure mad. If there was a nuclear exchange between China and the U.S., that exchange is still winnable by the Americans.

For example China has about 240 warheads, I believe the Americans have about 5000 active and a equal number of inactive but not destroyed. The Ruskies have about 5000 active and I think 7 to 8 thousand stockpiled.

So realistically China doesn't really have counterforce deterant.


From both a business to business and country to country perspective.

When speaking on each country's military you're always speaking in the present term. What about the future? Surely China's nuclear arsenal won't always remain at present levels or China's military can become competitive with the American military.

[llama64]

China is in a rough spot.

In order to transition into a high technology society (and compete with the US), they need to educate their population. An educated population is dangerous to their current form of government since the people will want a much higher standard of living then what they currently get.

Trying to build a middle class in China will cripple their economy if it is not handled properly. It will be fascinating to watch how China handles this situation. The scale of the problem dwarfs any issue America has.

[The Yen Man]

The average person in China cannot have a quality of living as high as a person from North America. For better or worse, the fact that China houses 1.4 billion people means the country has to provide for their citizens differently than North America does. Can you imagine the drain on resources if the average person in China consumed as much as we do here? The planet's resources would be depleted pretty quickly.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

War starts with the most inconsequential incident.

Because of globalization and economic treaties you could almost argue that we're heading back to the major precurser to the First World War where nations were forced into conflict due to secret treaties, and the war was ignited by one minor event.

How do you see the USA funding a war against China? Do you think China will buy bonds to sponsor this?

How do you see war between China and the USA affecting international businesses, like a Johnson&Johnson or IBM or Intel?

What message do you think war with China will have in the USA, when a lot of their citizens are Chinese?

Do you see a war between USA and China to start off with Nukes? Do you think the USA will nuke Beijing?

[HPLovecraft]

China's entire economy is based on not consuming, and instead exporting everything. I'm not an economist of any sort, but it almost seems to me that their economy is going to need an overhaul, starting with their philosophy. Once the nation gets rich enough, people are going to want to start consuming the way Western nations, or Japan, or S. Korea, etc., do. Hard to do that when your entire economy is based around poor, cheap-ass labour that sends everything it makes to other countries.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by llama64

China is in a rough spot.

In order to transition into a high technology society (and compete with the US), they need to educate their population. An educated population is dangerous to their current form of government since the people will want a much higher standard of living then what they currently get.

Trying to build a middle class in China will cripple their economy if it is not handled properly. It will be fascinating to watch how China handles this situation. The scale of the problem dwarfs any issue America has.

I'm not sure the world has enough resources to allow it to happen.

When the West became globally dominant, it was fueled by colonialsim and the theft of resources from less powerful nations. Even to this day, former colonial empires tend to have uneven trade and power in former colonies, and if we lack a particular resource (or if resources aren't moving the way we prefer), we go to war for it. Our middle class is actually a wealthy class on a global scale and it doesn't come naturally. If China did aspire to that, they are going to need resources... which means we will probably lose some as resources are finite..

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

China's entire economy is based on not consuming, and instead exporting everything. I'm not an economist of any sort, but it almost seems to me that their economy is going to need an overhaul, starting with their philosophy. Once the nation gets rich enough, people are going to want to start consuming the way Western nations, or Japan, or S. Korea, etc., do. Hard to do that when your entire economy is based around poor, cheap-ass labour that sends everything it makes to other countries.

Not really, no. You are a century behind there. In the field that I work in and I'm familiar with (semiconductors) there is certainly design centers and research being done in China (and India). I loosly follow pharm and I see stuff coming out of Asia as well. It would be foolish to think all China does is make cheap ####. Again referring to a industry and area I live in (Silicon Valley, semiconductors) Asians comprise approx 75% of the workforce here, a portion of which came over in the past decade and have talked about going home one day. Not to mention that the top schools aren't just USA schools, there are top schools that many consider better than USA's best like the IIT's.

Ex: Using Intel, http://www.techeye.net/chips/intel-r...ese-dalian-fab

The $2.5 billion Intel spent to build a fab in Dalian in China will be ready to roll by the end of its month. And Intel's $1 billion testing and assembly factory in Vietnam is ready for production, too.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/hardware/...n-in-india-525

Intel announced Monday that it will invest over $1 billion in India. The money includes $250 million it will invest in a venture capital fund, to help stimulate technological innovation in the country and drive the growth of the country's IT industry. The company is also investing $800 million over the next five years to expand its business in India, including its research and development center in Bangalore, marketing, education and community programs.

Or Cisco in China, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63E4RN20100415

(Reuters) - Cisco Systems Inc (CSCO.O) is poised to step up investment and acquisitions in China regardless of trade frictions between Beijing and Washington, aiming to secure its place in a tricky but pivotal market.
Already the world's largest Internet and mobile phone market, China is likely to become even more crucial to the network equipment maker's growth as the country's burgeoning middle class gains access to new technology.
What's more, Cisco faces growing competition from Chinese companies, unlike other U.S. tech heavyweights like chipmaker Intel Corp (INTC.O) or Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) that enjoy overwhelming leads in their markets.
The result is that Cisco will likely pursue local joint ventures and acquisitions to compete against the likes of Huawei Technologies Co Ltd HWT.UL and ZTE Corp (0763.HK). That could also help it work around difficult regulations to ensure it fully benefits from the market's explosive growth.


"China is a high growth market that comes with opportunities but also challenges and unique ways of doing business. Foreign companies will find they will have to rely on joint ventures, local partnerships, and multiple ties across various Chinese agencies," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Mark Sue.

etc etc

[mikey_the_redneck]

I think America will take a big step backward when the rest of the world decides not to use the U.S. dollar as the standard currency for international trade.

Ultimately, the City of London and Wall Street decide who is going to be the big player...

[Cowperson]

China participates in competitive tests measuring education standards for the first time . . . . and dazzles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/ed...e&ref=homepage

Then again, as I said earlier, I saw those headlines out of Japan in the late 80's and early 1990's too.

Cowperson

[macker]

Even the greats like Jack Welch have no idea....when you read his book Jack and then listen to him now all his timelines keep getting bumped forward. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...-much-ado-abou

When you can outsource a job and save 75% on wages and increase productivity by 100% you have just described what China can offer. With 1.3 Billion people and 160 cities over 1 Million people it is hard to compete in the areas that they are dominating right now. They aren't stopping and neither is Brazil, India etc. Nobody really knows the timelines because the data that comes out of China can tell us whatever they want it to tell us. I am not saying they are manipluating their economic data but I just don't know about it....

[macker]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think America will take a big step backward when the rest of the world decides not to use the U.S. dollar as the standard currency for international trade.

Ultimately, the City of London and Wall Street decide who is going to be the big player...

The Fed's expansive monetary policies since the early 1990s can be seen as the magic wand of liquidity. With the wand, the Fed has created an illusion of boundless econonomic prosperity. Many other things are confirming that this wont continue like this. As a simple example Chart Silver over the past 10 years as it has moved up from $4/oz. to $28/oz. Memo to Bernanke prices going up are not deflation

"With all due respect, U.S. policy is clueles,' German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.