Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who will be the next world power?
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 1 of 151 (506447)
04-26-2009 10:10 AM


America's power is on the wane. China looked to be emerging but still faces massive problems due to inefficient bureaucracy and ballooning population. India is similar. Russia shows potential but political squabbling and socialist work habits have dampened initiative. Europe has money but is mired in schisms. Japan has efficiency but lacks resources.
Who do you think will be the next world power?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by kuresu, posted 04-26-2009 11:47 AM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 3 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 12:28 PM alaninnont has replied
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2009 12:55 PM alaninnont has replied
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 04-27-2009 1:12 AM alaninnont has replied
 Message 134 by 1.61803, posted 05-12-2009 5:03 PM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 151 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-05-2009 11:43 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 2 of 151 (506448)
04-26-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
04-26-2009 10:10 AM


Your question is flawed on one account.
Excepting Wallerstein's hegemonic cycles (I may have him and his cycles confused with another world-systems analyst), the existence of a super-power in the mold of the US immediately after the collapse of the soviet union is an aberration.
The reason I except the hegemonic cycles is because they find a single dominant power whose reign lasts approximately a century, if not less, before its collapse (although if I recall correctly, Britain has had two such cycles, and the US has as well). Of course, while hegemons are quite powerful, they never approached the power of the US in the post-world war II or post-USSR period. Or rather, their rivals were much, much closer in terms of military and economic power than was the case with the US after WWII.
Britain, for example, had to contend with a powerful France (our revolutionary war and then the Napoleonic wars are examples of France's power) and then Germany (post-unification until WWI, when Britain lost its hegemonic status).
The US, in the cold war, quite obviously had the USSR to contend with. What was unique was that there were two super-powers instead of a constellation of great powers, as by this time the usual great powers were quite exhausted. WWI is a great example of this constellation of great powers, with the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, and Italy) against the Triple Entente (Britain, France, and Russia).
With the collapse of the soviet union there was only one super-power left. This is something that the system doesn't really like. One-power systems seem to be unstable, they revert to bi-polar or multi-polar systems.
So the question isn't really who is the next world power, but who are the next great powers going to be, or who are the next two super-powers going to be?
By the way, the problem with China isn't so much the ballooning population (it has a birth rate of ~13.71 per 1,000, we have a birth rate of ~14.18 according to the 2008 CIA world factbook). It's the shear environmental degradation. They have to keep economic growth at high levels right now in order to provide jobs for everybody. Once their economy is big enough such a high growth rate won't be quite necessary. However, in the process of growing their economy at such a rapid clip they are destroying the environment, which, if they do nothing about, will shut down economic growth. Key example of this is the water issues inland, such as with the yellow river and yangtze river. The first is nearly used beyond capacity for irrigation. The second is extremley polluted (beyond use, really). When you destroy your resources, you destroy your engine of growth. Less or no growth, no ability to be a serious great power.
abe: of course, Italy left the Triple Alliance during WWI, and was never that much of a great power to begin with
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 10:10 AM alaninnont has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 3 of 151 (506453)
04-26-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
04-26-2009 10:10 AM


America's power is on the wane.
Says who? CNN the BBC?
What do you mean by "power"? Military or financial?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 10:10 AM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 5:33 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 151 (506455)
04-26-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
04-26-2009 10:10 AM


Who Knows?
My guess is that there will be a levelling of the playing field rather than a complete "new world order". China and India will continue to have the sort of internal problems you suggest but this will not stop them gaining greater economic and political influence overall. Russia will remain a key player and will seek to cement this position by forging relationships with the emerging powers based on a mutual distrust of the current Western supremacy. Brazil and other increasingly influential South American countries may well also be part of this broad "coalition".
Western Europe and the US will be the biggest losers in my view but will hardly shrink into the background. The EU remains a potentially impressive economic powerhouse but there seems little enthusiasm for the sort of political union that would be required to form a coherent "superpower". Having been down the colonial route already I am not sure that there is much appetite amongst the "old world" ex-imperialist nations for being a "superpower" in the conventional sense anyway. I think Europe would happily settle for retaining it's current economic power without compromising the dispirate nature of it's political union. However I don't think this is realistic so some lessening of it's economic relevance seems inevitable given the emergence of other competing nations.
Despite everything else the US remains economically, politically, infrastructurally and in some ways socially the best placed nation to lead the way. But it's ability to act autonomously and without regard for opposition from other nations both militiaristically and politically will be diminished to a point that is unrecognisable from recent times.
Japan will remain a sometimes impressive but relatively isolated significant member of world nations. Africa will continue to be the poor relation of the world although some of the industrial production currently situated in Asia may relocate there.
As for the Middle East....well who the hell knows?
This is all off the top of my head opinion. It does not even particularly take into account the mass effects of global warming or the increasingly important question of energy resource provision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 10:10 AM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 5:42 PM Straggler has not replied

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 5 of 151 (506480)
04-26-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by onifre
04-26-2009 12:28 PM


According to Glubb's model of the rise and fall of empires, U.S.A. is in or near the last stage of decline.
Whether its collapse is imminent or not, United States will not be the dominant world power forever. What country or countries will be the next world power(s)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 12:28 PM onifre has not replied

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 6 of 151 (506481)
04-26-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
04-26-2009 12:55 PM


Re: Who Knows?
Western Europe and the US will be the biggest losers in my view but will hardly shrink into the background.
Canada also will suffer(sob) as they are U.S.'s biggest trading partner and visa versa. I can't see the middle east playing any significant role. Even if oil remains the energy coinage in the world, money does not make a superpower. Look at Spain in the 1500 - 1600s. They had a firm hold on the gold of the Americas but continued to decline as a world power. You need a work ethic and stable government among other things to achieve dominance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2009 12:55 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 04-26-2009 6:17 PM alaninnont has replied
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2009 10:07 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 7 of 151 (506482)
04-26-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by alaninnont
04-26-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Who Knows?
You need a work ethic and stable government among other things to achieve dominance.
And you don't think Spain had that when it's empire fell apart? When it lost its dominance?
Might spain's fall have more to do with external threats? The rise of the ottoman empire, the protestant reformation (and the wars fought between protestants and catholics, the biggie being the 30 years war), the general overexpansion?
Might I remind you that even as spain lost its dominant role in europe it expanded the size of its empire?
Work ethic and stable government are needed simply for the state to survive. To say they, among others, are needed for dominance is at once an insult to every state in existence and incredibly redudant.
money does not make a superpower.
Money absolutely makes a superpower. Tell me, how are you going to buy all those shiny new weapons without money? That's one of the problems spain faced when it lost its dominance in europe: it ran out of money. It couldn't afford to fight all its wars in europe. The more money you have, the more powerful you are. How else do you think the Netherlands, after the wars of succession, became a great power? They certainly didn't have the resources available them like France, Britain, or Spain. It was through their control of money and trade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 8:17 PM kuresu has not replied

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 8 of 151 (506494)
04-26-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kuresu
04-26-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Who Knows?
And you don't think Spain had that when it's empire fell apart? When it lost its dominance?
I think there were a lot of factors but I think that its reliance on the infux of gold probably contributed to it's decline.
Money absolutely makes a superpower.
What I meant was money alone does not make a superpower.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kuresu, posted 04-26-2009 6:17 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 9 of 151 (506500)
04-26-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by alaninnont
04-26-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Who Knows?
You need a work ethic and stable government among other things to achieve dominance.
You really should do research before you make wild assertions. Do you know anything about Spanish history or history at all? The gradual death of the of the spanish had little or nothing to do with work ethic or stable government.
Here are some things that were the cause.
Reformation and extremist Catholicism.
European wars.
Ottoman empire.
european royalty and succesions
inflation caused by bullion from Americas.
independence movements in the Americas.
Maybe you don't understand what life was like for the majority of people in Europe in that time period. If you wanted to eat, you worked hard. If you wanted to live, you did what the rulers and the church told you to. The regular people had no choices.
Spanish governments were no more or less stable than any other European power. England also had changes in dynasties. They even executed their king. Surprisingly they became the next world power.
My point is you should know what you are talking about before make wild ass comments.
P.S.
If you would like to know source for the above facts, let me know. I can check my books for you. Also, I bet if you do a google search on the subject you might find some reputable sites that will discuss the subject.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 151 (506508)
04-27-2009 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by alaninnont
04-26-2009 10:10 AM


I vote for Australia. After WW3, the northern hemisphere will be a nuclear wasteland. Australia will take over as the next world power after everyone is dead up north.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by alaninnont, posted 04-26-2009 10:10 AM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by alaninnont, posted 04-27-2009 10:25 PM Taz has not replied

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 11 of 151 (506609)
04-27-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
04-27-2009 1:12 AM


I vote for Australia. After WW3, the northern hemisphere will be a nuclear wasteland. Australia will take over as the next world power after everyone is dead up north. I vote for Australia. After WW3, the northern hemisphere will be a nuclear wasteland. Australia will take over as the next world power after everyone is dead up north.
I could see that possibility if climate change does not create a wasteland out of their agricultural areas. They are not very imperialistic though but perhaps lack of water will create an excuse to become more aggresive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 04-27-2009 1:12 AM Taz has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 12 of 151 (506714)
04-28-2009 2:49 PM


Texas of course!

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by alaninnont, posted 04-29-2009 4:17 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 13 of 151 (506830)
04-29-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Artemis Entreri
04-28-2009 2:49 PM


Texas of course!
Hmmm. Aggressive - check. Resources - check. Population - check. Infrastructure - check. If it secedes, I think it may have a chance. Wait a minute. How's the financial outlook in Texas????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-28-2009 2:49 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Perdition, posted 04-29-2009 4:22 PM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 04-29-2009 4:56 PM alaninnont has not replied
 Message 17 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-29-2009 8:03 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 14 of 151 (506832)
04-29-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by alaninnont
04-29-2009 4:17 PM


If it secedes, I think it may have a chance.
Unless, of course, the US goes to war to keep the Union together. I seem to recall something like that happening once...
That might be for the best, though, because we all know nothing helps get us out of a recession like a war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by alaninnont, posted 04-29-2009 4:17 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 151 (506834)
04-29-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by alaninnont
04-29-2009 4:17 PM


alaninnont writes:
How's the financial outlook in Texas????
Pretty darn good. The oil industry there is booming. It's the only state in the union whose economy is booming rather that taking a nose dive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by alaninnont, posted 04-29-2009 4:17 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024