They've long since surpassed the UK in football, now here, too. I suspect England will counter with thong wearing beach bunnies. Not.
Daily Wail: Brazil overtakes UK as sixth biggest economy as Britain falls behind a South American nation for the first time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078596/Brazil-overtakes-UK-sixth-biggest-economy-Britain-falls-South-American-nation-time.html)
Quote- Figures show a dramatic illustration of changing global fortunes
- China, Japan, Germany, France and the U.S. occupy the top five places
- Brazil fast-becoming one of the powerhouses of the global economy
Britain has been deposed by Brazil as the sixth largest economy in the world, latest figures show.
In a dramatic illustration of changing global economic fortunes, the UK has fallen behind a South American nation for the first time.
The figures, from the Centre for Economic and Business Research's annual world economic league table, show Britain is now the seventh richest country in the world.
The U.S., China, Japan, Germany and France occupy the top five places.
More often associated with football and dirt-poor shanty towns known as favelas, Brazil is fast becoming one of the powerhouses of the global economy.
The largest country in Latin America, its economy has surged because of vast reserves of natural resources and a rapidly growing, and cash-rich, middle class.
At the same time the UK languishes in the grip of a national debt crisis and lack of bank credit. Britons continue to be better off and enjoy a far higher standard of living than the vast majority of people in Brazil but the latter's 203million population provides huge economic clout.
'The punching power of Brazil as a whole has overtaken Britain because of the huge economic potential of people who live there,' Peter Slowe, a former government economic policy advisor, told the Daily Mail.
'Brazil has a variety of natural resources to rely on including gold and silver as well as oil off-shore and minerals in the Amazon.
World economic league
'By contrast the UK economy is affected by the problems of the eurozone.'
Brazil's stable political situation also attracts investors.
Its hard-won democracy also provides foreign investors with the peace of mind that the status quo is unlikely to be overturned by a popular revolution. Brazil floundered under a number of military dictatorships throughout the 20th century until civilian control was established in 1985.
The rapid economic development in the huge South American state is likely to come at the expense of the Amazon – and its indigenous people, animals and extraordinary forests.
Dr Slowe said: 'Brazil, unlike China, is a democracy which is much more attractive to investors.
'This means the country is unlikely to undergo prolonged civil unrest which is likely to occur at some time in China.
'The country has huge potential but the vast majority of their resources are in Amazon basin.
'And the cost of exploiting this mineral wealth is the loss of the habitat and the traditions of indigenous tribes who have lived the same way since the Stone Age.'
The relegation to sixth spot is the latest blow to the British economy.
In the middle of a prolonged economic downturn and dragged into the euro crisis because of its trade relations with the Continent, the UK has also been involved in an unseemly spat with France.
London has come under sustained attack from French ministers over which country has the best economic prospects.
Although the latest figures from the CEBR would suggest the French are ahead, they also predict that Britain will leapfrog France by 2020. The CEBR says that by then the UK economy will be the eighth largest in the world, one ahead of France and two behind Brazil.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2011%2F12%2F25%2Farticle-2078596-0F45DD1700000578-793_233x370.jpg&hash=d9b76c13c3e5f94a5fb73180f28448a81e577825)
QuoteForget the EU...this is where our future really lies
By ALEX BRUMMER
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2011%2F12%2F25%2Farticle-2078596-0EB566DA00000578-807_233x423.jpg&hash=d9fd25165b412233908b04e55f9c781fdf0e012e)
Carnival: Brazil can celebrate
Britons have long been proud of the economic success of a nation that has punched well above its weight in the world. So news that our output has fallen below that of Brazil will come as something of a jolt.
After all, the British empire – and its engineers and financiers – were behind the building of much of the infrastructure of Latin America, a legacy that endures today.
But rather than viewing our decline vis-à-vis Brazil and other fast-growing economies as a blow to our prestige, we should see it as an opportunity.
The tectonic plates of the global economy have shifted dramatically in the past decade with the relentless rise of Russia, India and China, as well as Brazil.
Other emerging market nations from South Africa to Indonesia, from Korea to Malaysia and Singapore are pushing for places at the top table.
The Group of Seven rich industrial nations, which excluded the new wealth creators, was expanded in 2009 – at the height of the financial crisis – to include many of the new powers to create the G20. That has become the world's top economic decision-making body.
The events triggering Britain's fall down the global league table are partly predictable. Britain's economy has failed to expand since the 2008-09 financial crisis and output remains 4 per cent below its pre-crash peak.
In contrast Brazil, which accounts for approximately two-thirds of the output of Latin America, has been enjoying a boom based on soaring prices for resources including oil, agricultural products and metals such as iron and bauxite-aluminium.
Unlike the economies of the Northern hemisphere, Brazil also managed to avoid being caught up in the United States sub-prime crisis of 2007-09 and the sovereign debt catastrophe that has turned much of Southern Europe into a basket case.
Leading economists – notably Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs – believe the rise of the newly wealthy nations provides a huge break for Britain.
With the current slow growth in the sclerotic eurozone, which is likely to persist for years, it is a chance for the Government and UK companies to direct their operations away from the over-regulated single currency area to new markets.
Despite a decline in manufacturing in recent decades Britain still has leading-edge companies in aerospace and pharmaceuticals that are already making serious inroads in Asia.
DIAGEO, distiller of Johnny Walker and the world's largest spirits group, has conducted a series of lightning raids on newly wealthy countries from China to Africa and Latin America (it sponsors the Brazilian Grand Prix). Its goal is that within a few years up to 50 per cent of its earnings will come from these regions.
Most importantly, however, Britain has an edge in service provision. This extends beyond banking and insurance activities where the City of London is a world leader, to other key areas of expertise including legal activities, accounting and consulting.Mr O'Neill and others believe that these technical services together with architecture and engineering consulting, as well as advice on energy, infrastructure and water projects, offer a new dawn for Britain.
So instead of seeing the rise of Brazil and other emerging markets as a challenge to our national prestige we should exploit it for our own benefit.
It is time to jettison our focus on the European Union, the keystone of our economic and trade policy since our entry into the Common Market in 1973, and restore Britain's historic ties to Asia, Latin America and Africa where the growth markets are orientated. Brazil should not be regarded as a competitor for economic hegemony but a vast market to be exploited.
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK. I think of it as a good news story and don't see why we should get upset that a country with 192m people produces more than our country with 60m :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK. I think of it as a good news story and don't see why we should get upset that a country with 192m people produces more than our country with 60m :huh:
Yeah, on a per capita basis, the UK is still well ahead of Brazil, or almost any place that isn't a desert sitting on top of an oil field.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK. I think of it as a good news story and don't see why we should get upset that a country with 192m people produces more than our country with 60m :huh:
Indeed. Goldman Sachs did their global forecast thing recently and I saw an article on it today. It predicted that we'll rebound quite strongly once growth gets properly underway. In part due to our greater tolerance of immigration they think we won't stall or shrink as many other European countries will. They expect the UK to carry on being one of the richest countries and to overtake Germany and Japan. All of that was somehow seen as less interesting than the natural declinism in countries like India overtaking us in GDP. It was a really bizarre report :huh:
Quote from: Syt on December 30, 2011, 01:34:58 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2011%2F12%2F25%2Farticle-2078596-0F45DD1700000578-793_233x370.jpg&hash=d9b76c13c3e5f94a5fb73180f28448a81e577825)
Damn, look at India. Those democracies sure do have an economic advantage.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK. I think of it as a good news story and don't see why we should get upset that a country with 192m people produces more than our country with 60m :huh:
It's in the same category of news as China passing up Japan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK. I think of it as a good news story and don't see why we should get upset that a country with 192m people produces more than our country with 60m :huh:
Indeed. Goldman Sachs did their global forecast thing recently and I saw an article on it today. It predicted that we'll rebound quite strongly once growth gets properly underway. In part due to our greater tolerance of immigration they think we won't stall or shrink as many other European countries will. They expect the UK to carry on being one of the richest countries and to overtake Germany and Japan. All of that was somehow seen as less interesting than the natural declinism in countries like India overtaking us in GDP. It was a really bizarre report :huh:
:hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 02:13:15 PM
Damn, look at India. Those democracies sure do have an economic advantage.
:rolleyes: They reformed their socialist economy ten years after the Chinese and they've had explosive growth since then.
woosh
So, is Brazil finally starting to get on the ball?
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 02:13:15 PM
Damn, look at India. Those democracies sure do have an economic advantage.
That was the curious part for me too. Brazil passing UK was inevitable. India falling behind Russia after having overtaken them, while probably a momentary blip, is quite surprising.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 02:13:15 PM
Damn, look at India. Those democracies sure do have an economic advantage.
That was the curious part for me too. Brazil passing UK was inevitable. India falling behind Russia after having overtaken them, while probably a momentary blip, is quite surprising.
The World Bank and the CIA disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
isnt britain being below france the past few years just down to recent exchange rate weirdness?
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2011, 09:38:49 PM
isnt britain being below france the past few years just down to recent exchange rate weirdness?
No.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2011, 09:38:49 PM
isnt britain being below france the past few years just down to recent exchange rate weirdness?
The euro getting beaten up makes france look worse--so no.
But India passing Russia and then getting passed by them again probably is a result of that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2011, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 02:13:15 PM
Damn, look at India. Those democracies sure do have an economic advantage.
That was the curious part for me too. Brazil passing UK was inevitable. India falling behind Russia after having overtaken them, while probably a momentary blip, is quite surprising.
The World Bank and the CIA disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
Tim, what is the point of your link?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2011, 08:46:21 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 08:37:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 02:13:15 PM
Damn, look at India. Those democracies sure do have an economic advantage.
That was the curious part for me too. Brazil passing UK was inevitable. India falling behind Russia after having overtaken them, while probably a momentary blip, is quite surprising.
The World Bank and the CIA disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
Tim, what is the point of your link?
The World Bank has India significantly ahead of Russia as well as Canada in GDP. The CIA also has India ahead of Russia.
In the IMF list the difference between India and Russia is negligible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2011, 06:48:01 PM
:rolleyes: They reformed their socialist economy ten years after the Chinese and they've had explosive growth since then.
Actually India's economy's slowed down a lot this last couple of years. I'm not sure why, but it's worrying and, I think, under-reported.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 31, 2011, 03:12:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2011, 06:48:01 PM
:rolleyes: They reformed their socialist economy ten years after the Chinese and they've had explosive growth since then.
Actually India's economy's slowed down a lot this last couple of years. I'm not sure why, but it's worrying and, I think, under-reported.
From like 9% to 6% per anum, that's still quite good.
Quote from: mongers on December 30, 2011, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2011, 09:38:49 PM
isnt britain being below france the past few years just down to recent exchange rate weirdness?
No.
I would agree with Tyr on this one. The GNP at PPP rates of the two countries are virtually the same at the moment (Britain is slightly ahead if anything). Meanwhile at market exchange rates France is ahead by 15% or so, but those are the figures of a year or so ago when the Euro was just above 1.1 to the £. A few years back it was 1.4 Euro to the £ and Britain flattered herself that her economy was ahead of France, but that apparent lead was overwhelmingly an exchange rate artefact.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 31, 2011, 03:23:19 AMFrom like 9% to 6% per anum, that's still quite good.
On its own, perhaps. Though I've always liked the bike analogy with India, that it needs to be moving pretty fast to stay stable.
But the aspects of that decline from 9-6% is still troubling. The decline has been broad based and over the last 9 months or so has been almost as large as leading into February 2009. I think a lot of it's due to the Central Bank aggressively targetting inflation which was a huge problem last year. There's some evidence of capital flight and the Rupee's weakened a lot which makes paying off the foreign debt many Indian companies have a lot more difficult. All of which are serious problems and make it seem rather odd that the potentials of a Chinese crash have been so well-reported and analysed while there's not been a great deal on India.
India's economy is still nowhere near as important as China's. China is a massive consumer and industrial market nowadays, outdoing the USA in many areas already. India is still much poorer and doesn't have nearly the amount of middle class people. So fluctuations there won't have such a big impact on multinationals and thus the media doesn't care as much.
so when does the G7 gets shaken up?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 31, 2011, 08:09:29 AM
so when does the G7 gets shaken up?
It's already irrelevant. The G20's the important one.
Quote from: Zanza on December 31, 2011, 05:46:06 AM
India's economy is still nowhere near as important as China's. China is a massive consumer and industrial market nowadays, outdoing the USA in many areas already. India is still much poorer and doesn't have nearly the amount of middle class people. So fluctuations there won't have such a big impact on multinationals and thus the media doesn't care as much.
Does China really have that much of a middle class?
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 31, 2011, 05:46:06 AM
India's economy is still nowhere near as important as China's. China is a massive consumer and industrial market nowadays, outdoing the USA in many areas already. India is still much poorer and doesn't have nearly the amount of middle class people. So fluctuations there won't have such a big impact on multinationals and thus the media doesn't care as much.
Does China really have that much of a middle class?
It's now probably as numerous as the US middle class and possibly rapidly approaching it in total net worth, perhaps.
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2011, 06:23:01 PM
Quote from: dps on December 31, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 31, 2011, 05:46:06 AM
India's economy is still nowhere near as important as China's. China is a massive consumer and industrial market nowadays, outdoing the USA in many areas already. India is still much poorer and doesn't have nearly the amount of middle class people. So fluctuations there won't have such a big impact on multinationals and thus the media doesn't care as much.
Does China really have that much of a middle class?
It's now probably as numerous as the US middle class and possibly rapidly approaching it in total net worth, perhaps.
Do you have any sources for that, or is it just your impression?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 31, 2011, 12:03:19 AM
The World Bank has India significantly ahead of Russia as well as Canada in GDP. The CIA also has India ahead of Russia.
In the IMF list the difference between India and Russia is negligible.
If there's one group that I would never, ever trust to get anything right, it would be the CIA.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 31, 2011, 03:12:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2011, 06:48:01 PM
:rolleyes: They reformed their socialist economy ten years after the Chinese and they've had explosive growth since then.
Actually India's economy's slowed down a lot this last couple of years. I'm not sure why, but it's worrying and, I think, under-reported.
It's been bad all over. It'll pick up when the rest of the world economy does.
The Economist has a nice chart in this week's issue which runs a comparison on how the USA and China's economies compare :
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
China to have a bigger GDP at market rates by 2018? Even I didn't think it would be that quick. Only 5 years ago the forecast for that was 2030 or so. Still seems a bit fast to me. Unless of course they're factoriing in a managed rise in the yuan-dollar rate.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
The Economist has a nice chart in this week's issue which runs a comparison on how the USA and China's economies compare :
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
at which point al the anti-americans will have to change into anti-chinese... That should be fun.
I suspect the Chinese fudge their numbers a bit. They still have a communist party after all.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 01, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
The Economist has a nice chart in this week's issue which runs a comparison on how the USA and China's economies compare :
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
at which point al the anti-americans will have to change into anti-chinese... That should be fun.
Let's not be so sure. After all, the Chinese aren't white.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2012, 01:38:37 PM
I suspect the Chinese fudge their numbers a bit. They still have a communist party after all.
They've certainly done it in the past. I have no reason to believe that they're going to overtake us that soon.
Well, we have strong reason to believe they aren't entirely truthful about military spending.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 01, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
The Economist has a nice chart in this week's issue which runs a comparison on how the USA and China's economies compare :
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
at which point al the anti-americans will have to change into anti-chinese... That should be fun.
I wouldnt be so sure. Britain still has more than its fair share of haters.
Yeah, you are a bitter people.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK.
You know what's a bad thing? For the first time since Trafalger, the French Navy is larger than the Royal Navy. THAT'S what you should be embarrassed about.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 07:08:05 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
I find it interesting the way this has been spun, in general, as somehow a bad thing for the UK.
You know what's a bad thing? For the first time since Trafalger, the French Navy is larger than the Royal Navy. THAT'S what you should be embarrassed about.
Even that is not as bad as the saga of the aircraft carriers which will have no planes :(
But, you are right, the countries we should compare ourselves to are France and Germany; we fell badly behind in the 1970s..........a reliable sign of underperformance.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
Excellent.
But really the US passed the UK in the size of its economy decades before it replaced it as hegemon so it may not be as soon as you think.
China? A hegemon? Yeah, right.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
Excellent.
But really the US passed the UK in the size of its economy decades before it replaced it as hegemon so it may not be as soon as you think.
So you want the USA to carry on doing the 'heavy-lifting' and run itself into the ground, all the while the Chinese builds up massive economic power to be ready to take over once the US is a spent force ? :hmm:
edit:
I can 'tdecide if what I posted applies to 2040-50 or to Nov 2012 depending how daft the US electorate is or to the Thursday after next if the Wall Street 'masters of the universe' continue on their ego trip ?
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 08:56:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
Excellent.
But really the US passed the UK in the size of its economy decades before it replaced it as hegemon so it may not be as soon as you think.
So you the USA to carry on doing the 'heavy-lifting' and run itself into the ground, all while the Chinese builds up massive economic power to be ready to take over once the US is a spent force ? :hmm:
I understand each word, but they don't seem to work together in that order. :hmm:
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Quote from: sbr on January 02, 2012, 08:57:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 08:56:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
Excellent.
But really the US passed the UK in the size of its economy decades before it replaced it as hegemon so it may not be as soon as you think.
So you the USA to carry on doing the 'heavy-lifting' and run itself into the ground, all while the Chinese builds up massive economic power to be ready to take over once the US is a spent force ? :hmm:
I understand each word, but they don't seem to work together in that order. :hmm:
Missed out a want as the third word.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of the stuff in your Condo has 'made in China' printed on it ?
30 years ago just about the only thing you'd find with that on it would be some stuff inside particularly cheap Xmas crackers or those horrible small novelty playing cards that seemed to come via the Eastern Block. :)
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of your stuff in your Condo has made in China stamped on it ?
I have three telephones that say "Western Electric, Model 500" stamped on them. BUILT TO MOTHERFUCKING LAST.
So fuck you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 09:13:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of your stuff in your Condo has made in China stamped on it ?
I have three telephones that say "Western Electric, Model 500" stamped on them. BUILT TO MOTHERFUCKING LAST.
So fuck you.
I think he was referring to those girls you've got chained in your closet.
No country that's outnumbered 500:1 in the only field that counts is likely to wield a true hegemonic power.
Cable channels? Craft beers? Breakfast cereals?
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
Excellent.
But really the US passed the UK in the size of its economy decades before it replaced it as hegemon so it may not be as soon as you think.
I agree with your comment but can't say that the thought is very cheery. Having to be hegemon with insufficient relative power is a recipe for even faster relative decline. The UK is still working through the consequences and exhaustion of that period of responsibility without sufficient power.
I would suggest that the EU could help to take up some of the burden and work as an equal partner with the US, but do not want to derail the thread into comedy territory.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2012, 02:42:45 AM
Cable channels? Craft beers? Breakfast cereals?
Don't be coy.
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 08:56:05 PM
So you want the USA to carry on doing the 'heavy-lifting' and run itself into the ground, all the while the Chinese builds up massive economic power to be ready to take over once the US is a spent force ? :hmm:
I thought the US should have stopped with the heavy lifting as soon as the Cold War ended. I am stating I want somebody else to be the hegemon, but I doubt the Chinese passing us in economic size is going to magically accomplish that....unfortunately.
Heck why does there have to be a hegemon?
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of the stuff in your Condo has 'made in China' printed on it ?
Well everything used to say 'Made in Taiwan' 'Made in South Korea' and 'Made in Japan'.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 03:11:15 AM
I would suggest that the EU could help to take up some of the burden and work as an equal partner with the US, but do not want to derail the thread into comedy territory.
If only we had some sort of alliance structure that could facilitate that.
QuoteEU could help to take up some of the burden
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophistry.com%2Fscans%2F2010%2Flol-face.jpg&hash=c673b8ba140beb5774f1074d7e82db9d4189f5b5)
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 08:36:35 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 03:11:15 AM
I would suggest that the EU could help to take up some of the burden and work as an equal partner with the US, but do not want to derail the thread into comedy territory.
If only we had some sort of alliance structure that could facilitate that.
:hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 03:11:15 AM
I would suggest that the EU could help to take up some of the burden and work as an equal partner with the US, but do not want to derail the thread into comedy territory.
The trouble is the US has done too much and is simply overstretched. It's not a case of someone stepping in, so much as no-one else really finding that breadth of deployment in their vital interest. I don't think it's even in the US's interests.
I'm not sure what 'heavy lifting' there is still to do.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 08:31:54 AM
Heck why does there have to be a hegemon?
To ensure world peace.
(Guards, take this traitor away! :menace:)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 09:13:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of your stuff in your Condo has made in China stamped on it ?
I have three telephones that say "Western Electric, Model 500" stamped on them. BUILT TO MOTHERFUCKING LAST.
So fuck you.
:huh: Never heard of those. Do they run on Android or Windows 7?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2012, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2012, 08:31:54 AM
Heck why does there have to be a hegemon?
To ensure world peace.
(Guards, take this traitor away! :menace:)
Indeed. Centwuwion! Thwow Walmy to the fwoor!
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 09:13:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of your stuff in your Condo has made in China stamped on it ?
I have three telephones that say "Western Electric, Model 500" stamped on them. BUILT TO MOTHERFUCKING LAST.
So fuck you.
:huh: Never heard of those. Do they run on Android or Windows 7?
Steam.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 01, 2012, 02:37:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 01, 2012, 01:38:37 PM
I suspect the Chinese fudge their numbers a bit. They still have a communist party after all.
They've certainly done it in the past. I have no reason to believe that they're going to overtake us that soon.
Indeed they have, but one number that they've fudged a lot is the exchange rate which if anything underestimates their market rate GDP. So even if other numbers are fudged, they probably cancel each other out.
Quote from: Valmy on January 02, 2012, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 01, 2012, 05:26:08 AM
So unless China crashes and burns soon we may have a new hegemon in a couple of decades.
Excellent.
But really the US passed the UK in the size of its economy decades before it replaced it as hegemon so it may not be as soon as you think.
Indeed, the US surpassed the UK economy by 1852, and apart from 1853, they've been bigger ever since. Curiosuly, I've read that Britain only surpassed China in GDP by around 1850, so it could be argued that Britain was the world leader geopolitically without actually being the economic number 1.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2012, 09:08:41 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 03, 2012, 03:11:15 AM
I would suggest that the EU could help to take up some of the burden and work as an equal partner with the US, but do not want to derail the thread into comedy territory.
The trouble is the US has done too much and is simply overstretched. It's not a case of someone stepping in, so much as no-one else really finding that breadth of deployment in their vital interest. I don't think it's even in the US's interests.
I'm not sure what 'heavy lifting' there is still to do.
Well, for one thing Iran needs to be put down, or at least their current leadership.
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:21:36 PM
Well, for one thing Iran needs to be put down, or at least their current leadership.
That's arguable. I've said that if it reaches the point where Israel wants to take out the Iranian nuclear program then I think that's something that the US (and probably Britain) should do. But that's where I'd draw the line.
The leadership's unpleasant and bad for the Middle East. But they're not that consequential, not significantly worse than Iran in the 80s and actually, I think, a fair bit weaker than they were a few years ago. Is there any real need to put them down? Not at all.
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 09:13:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 02, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I find it difficult to define a hegemon by the amount of counterfeit watches, handbags and pharmaceuticals it produces. You'll have to do better, mongers.
Money keep telling yourself that, but just look around you, who much of your stuff in your Condo has made in China stamped on it ?
I have three telephones that say "Western Electric, Model 500" stamped on them. BUILT TO MOTHERFUCKING LAST.
So fuck you.
:huh: Never heard of those. Do they run on Android or Windows 7?
They're heavy enough to kill you. That's all you need to know.
China is never going to take over as the world's superpower in the way the US is. It is going to get old long before it gets that rich. Not that I see its growth lasting long enough for that problem to bite (or any of the other big ones, like industry moving abroad as China becomes less and less the cheap option), I give it 5 years max before the bubble bursts and it undergoes some rather iffy times.
China's not going to continue growing at 8-10% forever, but they have four times as many people as us. They're bound to catch up in total gdp with halfway competent leadership.
They'll never catch up. A nation and its economic engine expressly built on graft and corruption can never last. China's culture is imbedded with and built upon those premises, and therefore completely antithetical to traditional western economic success. And until they figure out how to spread the wealth to the 90% of the rest of the population that still farms dirt and eats mudcakes, they never will. Because they can't. They don't possess the infrastructure, the history, or the flexibility to do so.
Their economy will collapse, much in the same way the Soviet's political system collapsed: rather quickly.
This is a bit over the top, the Chinese at least make modern goods for export, something that the Soviets never really mastered.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2012, 08:15:06 AM
This is a bit over the top, the Chinese at least make modern goods for export, something that the Soviets never really mastered.
:yeahright:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6IOEXNjEPWhBYTWkAw6vMXGejc7G9dpcUUVk2zFl0b4gj7mXVHQ)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2012, 08:15:06 AM
This is a bit over the top, the Chinese at least make modern goods for export, something that the Soviets never really mastered.
Fuck you over the top.