Great powers of the 21st Century

[Ambracia]

We all know that the world balance of power since WWII has been totally swung in the U.S's favor and that since the collapse of the Soviet Union the worl has entered a period of Unipolarity without precedent. Some will say that the U.S's power will come to an end to be followed by a new multipolar world. I tend to disagree but I'd like to know what you think the future balance of power in the 21st century will be and why you think so.

 

[Real Talk]

We all know that the world balance of power since WWII has been totally swung in the U.S's favor and that since the collapse of the Soviet Union the worl has entered a period of Unipolarity without precedent. Some will say that the U.S's power will come to an end to be followed by a new multipolar world. I tend to disagree but I'd like to know what you think the future balance of power in the 21st century will be and why you think so.

Uni polarity can not exist.
You need multiple poles to bind the poles.
The U.S right now is the msot pwoerful state in a multipolar system.

 

[Alex Libman]

See projections for largest economies by 2050... :shock:

China will dominate the 21st century, and India probably the century after that...

And in terms of top economic hot-spots, hyper-capitalist cities like Hong Kong and Singapore are about to leave places like New York in the dust...

In any case, the value of traditional military power is declining. It's all about competitive advantage. War is out. Business is in. It's all about the Pentiums, baby!

 

[Ambracia]

Uni polarity can not exist.
You need multiple poles to bind the poles.
The U.S right now is the msot pwoerful state in a multipolar system.

The U.S has 23% of the world GDP, over half its defense spending and its economic strength is equal to the GDPs of the four next greatest nations combined. It is the centerpiece of the NATO alliance which holds 70% of world GDP,is the center of world trade (Which was shown again just recently) and has a Navy larger than the next 12 nations combined. Unipolarity is when one nation is at the center of world power. The U.S currently fits that definition.

 

[Joe Castro]

I'll make an idealistic prediction. The increasing scarcity of resources will see a rise in Russian power which will act as a vehicle for change in Eastern Europe with former Soviet states re grouping together with Russia. Co-operation with China and the emerging socialist bloc in Latin America will follow. As capitalism's inherent contradictions continue to rise to the surface these groups of powers numbers will grow as Europe jumps ship.

 

[Ambracia]

See projections for largest economies by 2050... :shock:

China will dominate the 21st century, and India probably the century after that...

And in terms of top economic hot-spots, hyper-capitalist cities like Hong Kong and Singapore are about to leave places like New York in the dust...

In any case, the value of traditional military power is declining. It's all about competitive advantage. War is out. Business is in. It's all about the Pentiums, baby!

Singapore and Hong Kong are far too small and far too dependent on international trade to ever be powers in their own right.

Now onto the two elephants in the room, India and China, There are a number of reasons why China won't be a superpower starting with the fact that China still is less than a third of U.S GDP and that as it starts to close that gap its going to reach limits to its growth, the first being that China primarily is growing by bringing people en masse out of its rural heartland rather than by increasing efficieny, production, wages and so forth. This poses a major problem in that China's population isn't infinite and much of its population would rather remain in rural areas than move to the coast, 500 million Chinese already live there and Chinas economy is dependent on 20 million people moving there a year. Second its still a authoritarian socialist country whos highest priority is generating employment rather than making a profit, one of the reasons why China is a manufacturing powerhouse is China's banking system which gives out heavily subsidized loans to state owned enterprises and businesses. This sounds like a good thing in principal but it has a few key problems, the first being that it helps keep failing unprofitable businesses afloat by giving them loans they know they can't pay back (Which can cause major issues in the future, some estimates put China's NPLs as high as 40% of its economy), the second being that again China's number one priority is employment not profit and Chinese businesses tend to sell their goods at very low or no profit in order to keep competitive against foreign manufacturing in other third world countries, which usually generates more profit for Walmart than Norinco. Third China's economy is completely dependent on exports and thus cannot grow larger than demand for those exports. Despite all the commotion over U.S trade deficits foreign trade accounts for only around 15% to 20% of U.S foreign trade and European nations are supposedly considering protectionist measures for their domestic industries (At least thats what the medias been telling me). Finally China is politically unstable because the insterests of its poor rural heartland and its wealthy coastal regions are conflicting, Rural china wants Beijing to heavily tax Coastal Chinas wealth and distribute it amongst its poor interior. As time goes on the imbalance of wealth will continue to grow and Rural China has a larger population and thus more gov't influence than the coast yet if Beijing supports Rural China in this the Coastal regions may break off for independence as they have done historically. Foreign interests who as I stated earlier are making large profits off Coastal China will support their bids for independence and as a result China will be politically torn to pieces.

India is alot simpler, theres a point where a massive population becomes unprofitable, its a 14th the size of U.S GDP, only growing around 6% a year (The U.S itself has hit 5% in just this decade), India is truly more of a conglomeration of indian nations forced together by the British so in order to keep the nation together power rests more in the provinces than the federal gov't, some provinces choose to develop, some choose not to and this also poses limitations on its ability to execute foreign policy and finallt the U.S has an ally in Pakistan whom it can militarily bolster if neccessary in order to force India to raise its defense spending, which also has the effect of decreasing India's economic growth.

I can admittedly see Brazil, Mexico, Turkey (I think it'll actually be more powerful), Korea (Them too) and Nigeria reaching the status Goldman sachs is predicting.

 

[Ambracia]

I'll make an idealistic prediction. The increasing scarcity of resources will see a rise in Russian power which will act as a vehicle for change in Eastern Europe with former Soviet states re grouping together with Russia. Co-operation with China and the emerging socialist bloc in Latin America will follow. As capitalism's inherent contradictions continue to rise to the surface these groups of powers numbers will grow as Europe jumps ship.

I'd argue that the recent developments between NATO and Russia will lead to a small scale cold war. The DARPA will gear research programs towards increasing alternative energy effieciency, decreasing cost and increasing the effieciency of resource consumption that will come from Russia in order to cut Russias Natural gas and Resource stranglehold over Europe. Eventually it'll lead to a dramatic drop in Russias GDP and combined with Massive military force amassed along its border it'll fall apart just like it did in 1991 all the way back to Moscow, possibly even the Urals.

 

[Real Talk]

The U.S has 23% of the world GDP, over half its defense spending and its economic strength is equal to the GDPs of the four next greatest nations combined. It is the centerpiece of the NATO alliance which holds 70% of world GDP,is the center of world trade (Which was shown again just recently) and has a Navy larger than the next 12 nations combined. Unipolarity is when one nation is at the center of world power. The U.S currently fits that definition.

Having a very large share of world power does not "at the center of world power".

U know what made the U.S. the center of Western power in the cold war? Tip: it was the existance russian power, not U.S. power.

Im not debating America's military hegemony (although its effectiveness is being challenged, and its utility being shown to be previously greatly exagerated), or its enourmous political and economic resources.
Merely to critique your understanding of what "polarity" means, and how it operates.

 

[Agent Ferris]

We all know that the world balance of power since WWII has been totally swung in the U.S's favor and that since the collapse of the Soviet Union the worl has entered a period of Unipolarity without precedent. Some will say that the U.S's power will come to an end to be followed by a new multipolar world. I tend to disagree but I'd like to know what you think the future balance of power in the 21st century will be and why you think so.

China of course will be a major power, however, the U.S. will eventually form the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the America's) which in conjunction with the proposed TAFTA (Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Area) and the proposed FTAAP (Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific) will be the largest economic force on the planet with the U.S. at the center.

It may not occur within the next decade but it will occur within the next century.

 

[Ambracia]

Having a very large share of world power does not "at the center of world power".

If you want to argue semantics :roll:

U know what made the U.S. the center of Western power in the cold war? Tip: it was the existance russian power, not U.S. power.

Then why is it still in that position after Russia fell to pieces ?

Im not debating America's military hegemony (although its effectiveness is being challenged, and its utility being shown to be previously greatly exagerated), or its enourmous political and economic resources. Merely to critique your understanding of what "polarity" means, and how it operates.

K

 

[Real Talk]

Then why is it still in that position after Russia fell to pieces ?

It is not in that position. It has remained powerful. But the nature of the western "pole" (Western states essentially following the U.S lead, Eastern following the Russian, and a relatively powerful nonaligned movement and China playing favourates + relative nobodies) has been altered.

To use a metaphor. If the world were a fish tank.
In the cold war era, it would look like this: 2 schools of fish. Each centered around one exceptionally large fish each. Working together, and eyeing the other school up.

Now: A bunch of fish of varying sizes cooperating and competing with eachother in a lose and decentralised manner with relatively little "big fish" oversight over their day to day interactions. With one still exceptionally large fishs till dwarfing all others. But its hard to tell if its that its shrinking, or that some others are growing really quickly. Because it just doesnt seem as big as it was. And the school no longer seems to accept its headmasters prior central role in its affairs.

But just between me and you, the real reason the little fish dont look at the big one the same as the used to? Because the other pole no longer exist to threaten and mobilise them.

U need a 'them' for an 'us', and need an 'us' for a pole.

This is my theory of polarity. Hegemony can exist, altho it is temporary. But unipolarity is a myth.

 

[Ambracia]

It is not in that position. It has remained powerful. But the nature of the western "pole" (Western states essentially following the U.S lead, Eastern following the Russian, and a relatively powerful nonaligned movement and China playing favourates + relative nobodies) has been altered.

To use a metaphor. If the world were a fish tank.
In the cold war era, it would look like this: 2 schools of fish. Each centered around one exceptionally large fish each. Working together, and eyeing the other school up.

Now: A bunch of fish of varying sizes cooperating and competing with eachother in a lose and decentralised manner with relatively little "big fish" oversight over their day to day interactions. With one still exceptionally large fishs till dwarfing all others. But its hard to tell if its that its shrinking, or that some others are growing really quickly. Because it just doesnt seem as big as it was. And the school no longer seems to accept its headmasters prior central role in its affairs.

I agree and disagree. It certainly is true that since the fall of the Soviet Union the absolute need to stay in Americas good will has fallen dramatically and even U.S allies no longer fear criticizing it. But at the same time these nations choose to remain linked with the U.S despite Iraq (We Americans truly are sorry about that ) because while its not neccessary it is profitable. Allies of the U.S tend to have better economies, better militaries and better scientists because of it and the U.S has shown in Iraq that it doesn't expect its allies to engage in offensive operations unless they feel its a moral, justifiable conflict (Afghanistan). And its important to remember that the number of U.S direct and NATO allies has increased dramatically since 1989. Finally I think this whole U.S is going to be surpassed by India or China things BS and that if G.W.Bush couldn't destroy the U.S's position internationally, Obama will be able to build it all the way back up to or past the clinton era.

But just between me and you

The real reason the little fish dont look at the big one the same as the used to? Because the other pole no longer exist to threaten and mobilise them.

U need a 'them' for an 'us', and need an 'us' for a pole.

This is my theory of polarity. Hegemony can exist, altho it is temporary. But unipolarity is a myth.

I think that the world is like a big equation of power (Don't know why I'm using this example I'm absolutely awful at math) which is always trying to balance itself out to establish parity. The U.S emergence after 1945 on the international stage has greatly upset this equation because its unique geographical position makes it virtually impossible to invade, it can sustain a very large population and a very large economy. So the name of the game will for the 21st century plus will be groups of weaker nations trying to form coalitions to counter the U.S with enough power that an effective navy capable of reaching the U.S can be built while the U.S from its untouchable position in North America uses economic, military and technological tools to build its own coalitions, break enemy coalitions and keep them from forming.

 

[Alex Libman]

Singapore and Hong Kong are far too small and far too dependent on international trade to ever be powers in their own right.

I didn't say those places could be powers in their own right, but "hot-spots" complementing the growth of Mainland China. Urban financial centers are an important aspects of economic power, and if you count those two urban superstars then the Sinosphere has 5 of the world's top "Alpha Cities" (not counting Kuala Lumpur, where 43% of the population are ethnically Chinese). The English-speaking world and Europe still dominate, but this benchmark distinguishes China from Greater India (which just has Mumbai) and Latin America (which just has 4 -- Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Caracas, and Santiago -- but all are much lower on the list).

There are a number of reasons why China won't be a superpower starting with the fact that China still is less than a third of U.S GDP and that as it starts to close that gap its going to reach limits to its growth, the first being that China primarily is growing by bringing people en masse out of its rural heartland rather than by increasing efficieny, production, wages and so forth.

Those GDP numbers are based on China's artificially low currency, when you adjust for purchasing power their GDP is actually 55% of the United States already. To claim that they can never surpass America's GDP is to claim that an average American will always be 3-4 times more productive than an average Chinese - that's quite a stretch.

As for natural resources - some of those 1.4 billion Chinese would love to move to Siberia (pop 25 mil), Kazakhstan (pop 16 mil), the Russian Far East (pop 7 mil), Mongolia (pop 3 mil), Alaska (pop 0.7 mil), or Northern Canada (pop 0.1 mil). It doesn't mean they can take those regions over outright, but they can influence their trade policy with China quite a bit. In the future it will matter less what nation the land belongs to rather than which nation can afford to buy the natural resources in question.

This poses a major problem in that China's population isn't infinite and much of its population would rather remain in rural areas than move to the coast, 500 million Chinese already live there and Chinas economy is dependent on 20 million people moving there a year.

What makes China remarkable is the possibility of it manipulating its birth rates to suit its economic needs. It was able to lower them with their One Child Policy, but if they find that they need a baby boom they could try to institute a Three Child Policy just as well. :shock:

Second its still a authoritarian socialist country whos highest priority is generating employment rather than making a profit, one of the reasons why China is a manufacturing powerhouse is China's banking system which gives out heavily subsidized loans to state owned enterprises and businesses.

It's authoritarian alright, but whether its "socialist" or not is up to debate. A country like that can't just turn on a dime, but everything they've done over the past few decades has been entirely pragmatic. Examples like Singapore demonstrate that you can have a top-notch wealthy service-driven economy while remaining as authoritarian as you want.

[...] Third China's economy is completely dependent on exports and thus cannot grow larger than demand for those exports.

It is dependent on exports, but not "completely". A nation of 1.4 billion people can buy a lot of stuff internally, and the 40+ million overseas Chinese, who are disproportionally likely to be business owners, represent a far-reaching economic network. As the rest of the world grows in wealth, China will be able to do more trade with other nations while decreasing its dependence on exports to the United States.

 

[Real Talk]

I think that the world is like a big equation of power (Don't know why I'm using this example I'm absolutely awful at math) which is always trying to balance itself out to establish parity. The U.S emergence after 1945 on the international stage has greatly upset this equation because its unique geographical position makes it virtually impossible to invade, it can sustain a very large population and a very large economy. So the name of the game will for the 21st century plus will be groups of weaker nations trying to form coalitions to counter the U.S with enough power that an effective navy capable of reaching the U.S can be built while the U.S from its untouchable position in North America uses economic, military and technological tools to build its own coalitions, break enemy coalitions and keep them from forming.

I agree with you to a point but you focus too much on military aspect of power. The future of great power competition will not be military dominated. And if it is, there will be no winners. Nukes assure us of that.
It is the economic, political and even cultural aspects of power that are likely to prove much more important. And I have real structural concerns about the foundations of our post industrial economies in the west. I think it will be our downfall.

But as to your arguments about balancing and polarity. Balancing is already occuring.
I strongly reffer you to Kennet Waltz : the origins of war <in the international system. I think> and various other sources if you would like to explore this stuff further.

 

[Ambracia]

It is dependent on exports, but not "completely". A nation of 1.4 billion people can buy a lot of stuff internally, and the 40+ million overseas Chinese, who are disproportionally likely to be business owners, represent a far-reaching economic network. As the rest of the world grows in wealth, China will be able to do more trade with other nations while decreasing its dependence on exports to the United States.

900 million of that 1.4 billion is dirt poor, like starving can barely afford the clothes on their back and the roof over their head poor and the other 500 million still make so little that they have to save a large amount of their in the banks which I've shown are pissing money like water, propping up companies which are ineffiecient and should be allowed to fail. Second just because a person is of chinese descent doesn't mean they identify themselves as chinese I know peoplle who were born in China and identify themselves as american. Third China does do significant trade with the rest of the world as well but the U.S is the largest market in the world and thus a good indicator of foreign trade. Fourth I don't think demand for cheap low quality exports is equal to the overall U.S GDP.

The rest is on the way

 

[Ambracia]

Those GDP numbers are based on China's artificially low currency, when you adjust for purchasing power their GDP is actually 55% of the United States already. To claim that they can never surpass America's GDP is to claim that an average American will always be 3-4 times more productive than an average Chinese - that's quite a stretch.

I'm not claiming they'll be less productive, that'd be racist, what I will say is that China artificially deflates their currency because if they didn't business would move elsewhere. But this also creates a problem in that China depreciates the ability of their citizens to purchase goods which forces their economy to specialize to manufacturing for export, which is a risky business because you have to depend on another nations good will and that your economy can't grow larger than demand for your exports.

As for natural resources - some of those 1.4 billion Chinese would love to move to Siberia (pop 25 mil), Kazakhstan (pop 16 mil), the Russian Far East (pop 7 mil), Mongolia (pop 3 mil), Alaska (pop 0.7 mil), or Northern Canada (pop 0.1 mil). It doesn't mean they can take those regions over outright, but they can influence their trade policy with China quite a bit. In the future it will matter less what nation the land belongs to rather than which nation can afford to buy the natural resources in question.

Why would the chinese leadership want thier citizens living, working and being taxed in foreign countries ?

What makes China remarkable is the possibility of it manipulating its birth rates to suit its economic needs. It was able to lower them with their One Child Policy, but if they find that they need a baby boom they could try to institute a Three Child Policy just as well. :shock:

:lol: Coastal China environmentally can barely support 500 million in such a small area. Their rivers are disgusting and China already has an agricultural deficit. And I'm sure that living in rural china would be more cost effiecient if you had to have three children in the coast.

It's authoritarian alright, but whether its "socialist" or not is up to debate. A country like that can't just turn on a dime, but everything they've done over the past few decades has been entirely pragmatic. Examples like Singapore demonstrate that you can have a top-notch wealthy service-driven economy while remaining as authoritarian as you want.

On the economic freedom index China ranks 132 out of 179 nations. Its banks are completely socialized and only a handful of the nations pots are open to trade. Singapore is number 2. That right there is a huge difference

 

[Ambracia]

I agree with you to a point but you focus too much on military aspect of power. The future of great power competition will not be military dominated. And if it is, there will be no winners. Nukes assure us of that.

Nuclear weapons are mutually unusable in war and nobody wants to be the guy to push the button first (Unless they know all is lost). Besides anti missle technology is developing rapidly and its quite possible nuclear weapons will cease to be the effective detterent they were of the past 50 years.

It is the economic, political and even cultural aspects of power that are likely to prove much more important. And I have real structural concerns about the foundations of our post industrial economies in the west. I think it will be our downfall.

Explain ?

But as to your arguments about balancing and polarity. Balancing is already occuring.
I strongly reffer you to Kennet Waltz : the origins of war <in the international system. I think> and various other sources if you would like to explore this stuff further.

I can't find the book your talking about, do you mean The Use of Force ?

Second you seem confident that a counter to American power is coalescing already, who do you think that power is, how do you think the conflict between the two would play out and how will it end ?

 

[Real Talk]

i reffered you to the wtong article
heres the one I thought I meant, which is interesting.
But which isnt the one I thought it was
Waltz - The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory

ill hit u up with the toher one when i get my comp back from the shop ok>