For geopolitical pundits, this is a discourse board for international political trends, the struggle for influence between the great powers of the East and the West, and how the global communities are aligning themselves with these emerging geopolitical realities.

Feel free to post your observations, predictions, and knowledge concerning the aforementioned topic.

🤔🤔

Nice thread......
I think it is possible that the United States will still be the world power in the next 100 years. Large and diverse economy, which accounts for about a quarter of the global GDP, strong military presence, with hundreds of overseas bases and alliances with many countries, vibrant culture, which influences many aspects of global entertainment, media, education, and innovation, resilient political system, which allows for peaceful transitions of power and checks and balances among different branches of government.

They also have a history of adapting to new international realities, such as the rise of China, the challenges of climate change, and the threats of terrorism.
In reality, the United States faces many challenges and uncertainties in this 21st century, and it cannot take its global leadership for granted. It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050.

Still, I see no one taking that position they hold!

Botragelad:

Still, I see no one taking that position they hold!

I might want to agree with you except for the huge elephant I see growing in the room, which if not shrunk would trample and shrink them.

Good thing is they have lots of assets they can sell to shrink it, but at the cost of their hegemony.

https://wolfstreet.com/2023/07/02/us-national-debt-spiked-by-851-billion-in-one-month-to-32-3-trillion-flood-of-new-debt-in-q3-to-refill-the-tga-pay-for-raging-deficits/

budaatum:


I might want to agree with you except for the huge elephant I see growing in the room, which if not shrunk would trample and shrink them.

Good thing is they have lots of assets they can sell to shrink it, but at the cost of their hegemony.

https://wolfstreet.com/2023/07/02/us-national-debt-spiked-by-851-billion-in-one-month-to-32-3-trillion-flood-of-new-debt-in-q3-to-refill-the-tga-pay-for-raging-deficits/

The US national debt is the amount of money that the US government owes to its creditors, such as other countries, investors, and the Federal Reserve. The debt is mainly caused by spending more than it collects in taxes, especially during wars, recessions, and pandemics. Now, the debt ceiling is actually the legal limit on how much the US government can borrow to pay its bills. If the debt ceiling is not raised or suspended, the US government would/might run out of money and default on its obligations, which could cause a global financial crisis.

The debt ceiling was suspended until 2025 by Congress in June 2023, after a long political standoff. This means that the US government can borrow as much as it needs to pay its existing debts and obligations for two more years, without worrying about hitting the limit. After the suspension ends, the debt ceiling will automatically be raised to reflect how much was borrowed during the suspension period. This was done to avoid a potential default and to give more time for lawmakers to agree on a long-term fiscal plan.

The national debt you speak about does not really pose a threat to its status as a world power, because it still has a strong and diverse economy. One, the US dollar is also the world's reserve currency, which means that many countries use it for trade and savings. This gives the US an advantage in borrowing and paying its debt. The US does not have to sell its assets as its national debt rises, because it can always print more money or issue more bonds to finance its debt. However, this could also lead to inflation. But still, that doesn't pose much of a threat,not enough to take them off their feet!
Understood?

Botragelad:

The US national debt is the amount of money that the US government owes to its creditors, such as other countries, investors, and the Federal Reserve. The debt is mainly caused by spending more than it collects in taxes, especially during wars, recessions, and pandemics. Now, the debt ceiling is actually the legal limit on how much the US government can borrow to pay its bills. If the debt ceiling is not raised or suspended, the US government would/might run out of money and default on its obligations, which could cause a global financial crisis.

The debt ceiling was suspended until 2025 by Congress in June 2023, after a long political standoff. This means that the US government can borrow as much as it needs to pay its existing debts and obligations for two more years, without worrying about hitting the limit. After the suspension ends, the debt ceiling will automatically be raised to reflect how much was borrowed during the suspension period. This was done to avoid a potential default and to give more time for lawmakers to agree on a long-term fiscal plan.

The national debt you speak about does not [b]really pose a threat to its status as a world power, because it still has a strong and diverse economy. One, the US dollar is also the world's reserve currency, which means that many countries use it for trade and savings. This gives the US an advantage in borrowing and paying its debt. The US does not have to sell its assets as its national debt rises, because it can always print more money or issue more bonds to finance its debt. However, this could also lead to inflation. But still, that doesn't pose much of a threat,not enough to take them off their feet[/b]!
Understood?

That is the major reason she is defending the dollar dominance. I don't see Arab countries pricing oil in dollars, but should countries continue to be bullied and sanctioned because the dollar is the world's reserve, options would be searched. There is a limit to bullying other countries.

The debt crisis is not a problem as people say. Even Japan, which has a much bigger debt-to-GDP ratio, is not serious as some opine since the majority is owed to the Japanese rather than foreign creditors.

Botragelad:
Nice thread......
I think it is possible that the United States will still be the world power in the next 100 years.

You are very wrong on this.

Botragelad:

The US national debt is the amount of money that the US government owes to its creditors, such as other countries, investors, and the Federal Reserve. The debt is mainly caused by spending more than it collects in taxes, especially during wars, recessions, and pandemics. Now, the debt ceiling is actually the legal limit on how much the US government can borrow to pay its bills. If the debt ceiling is not raised or suspended, the US government would/might run out of money and default on its obligations, which could cause a global financial crisis.

The debt ceiling was suspended until 2025 by Congress in June 2023, after a long political standoff. This means that the US government can borrow as much as it needs to pay its existing debts and obligations for two more years, without worrying about hitting the limit. After the suspension ends, the debt ceiling will automatically be raised to reflect how much was borrowed during the suspension period. This was done to avoid a potential default and to give more time for lawmakers to agree on a long-term fiscal plan.

The national debt you speak about does not really pose a threat to its status as a world power, because it still has a strong and diverse economy. One, the US dollar is also the world's reserve currency, which means that many countries use it for trade and savings. This gives the US an advantage in borrowing and paying its debt. The US does not have to sell its assets as its national debt rises, because it can always print more money or issue more bonds to finance its debt. However, this could also lead to inflation. But still, that doesn't pose much of a threat,not enough to take them off their feet!
Understood?

Don't you wonder why they borrow at all if they can print money as you suggest?

Still, there may come a time when their printed money is not worth the paper it's written on and creditors ask for more in interest to hold it, is a point you are not considering. Inflation too might erode it's value making it less worth holding.

Here's an opinion on it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/05/03/debt-ceiling-scenarios/

Also note that the British pound was the major reserve currency until World War II, so there's nothing to say America's status of reserve currency would last forever.

Gerrard59:


That is the major reason she is defending the dollar dominance. I don't see Arab countries pricing oil in dollars, but should countries continue to be bullied and sanctioned because the dollar is the world's reserve, options would be searched. There is a limit to bullying other countries.

The debt crisis is not a problem as people say. Even Japan, which has a much bigger debt-to-GDP ratio, is not serious as some opine since the majority is owed to the Japanese rather than foreign creditors.

All countries fight for their dominance one way or the other, but some are more successful than others. Arab countries still price their oil in dollars because of a historical agreement they made with the United States in the 1970s. In return for US military and political protection and purchases of its oil, Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil in dollars and hold reserves partly in Treasury bonds. Other oil exporters followed suit. The Saudis also kept their currency exchange rate linked to the dollar. So!

They can't easily switch to other currencies because the dollar is still the world's reserve currency, which means that many countries use it for trade and savings. This gives the US an advantage. It makes the dollar more stable and liquid than other currencies, which reduces the risk and cost of oil transactions. If Arab countries tried to price their oil in other currencies, they would face resistance from their customers and competitors, as well as possible retaliation from the US.

The US doesn't sanction countries because the dollar is the world's reserve currency, but because it wants to influence their behavior and policies. The US sanctions countries that violate human rights, sponsor terrorism, threaten its interests. etc. Though, sometime we don't agree with their sanctions.

Any country that chooses to stop using the dollar or ditch the dollar is at its own loss, because it would lose access to the largest and most powerful market in the world. It would also face difficulties in finding alternative sources of finance, trade, and investment, risk being isolated from the international community and facing more sanctions from the US and its allies. It would also have to deal with the volatility and uncertainty of other currencies, which could harm its economy and stability. Why would any country want to go through all of that?

Botragelad:
Nice thread......
I think it is possible that the United States will still be the world power in the next 100 years. Large and diverse economy, which accounts for about a quarter of the global GDP, strong military presence, with hundreds of overseas bases and alliances with many countries, vibrant culture, which influences many aspects of global entertainment, media, education, and innovation, resilient political system, which allows for peaceful transitions of power and checks and balances among different branches of government.

They also have a history of adapting to new international realities, such as the rise of China, the challenges of climate change, and the threats of terrorism.
In reality, the United States faces many challenges and uncertainties in this 21st century, and it cannot take its global leadership for granted. It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050.

Still, I see no one taking that position they hold!

While I agree that the US economy is doing very fine compared to her peers, I don't see her dominating the world for the next century as she has for the past century. One is the rise of China and other emerging powers like India and Indonesia. While both I countries are not like China economically, their population and growth of economies mean they would grow clout and demand a greater share in global affairs. Every country outside the West witnesses how China is bullied unjustly and falsely simply because she decides to prosper. The same fate awaits India and Indonesia; I wager they are preparing for it. The US and her allies would have to share global prominence. A unipolar world cannot continue to exist.

Europe's population (America's greatest ally) and, in fact, all of America's allies have rapidly declining birth rates which affect GDP growth, consumption and investment. They use immigration to offset this problem, but in reality, immigration does not solve the birth decline. It only solves population crises. For instance, in the '90s, Germany imported Turks to work in factories and bolster the workforce. Today, the same Germany is inviting immigrants, mostly from Arabian countries, to replace ageing workers. Additionally, Europe's immigration problems are social in nature. Even though I am an immigrant where I am, I don't believe in an open-door immigration system as the Europeans do, especially from cultures which are in stark difference from the native ones. So Europe, like Japan and Korea, would face severe demographic problems. However, Europe's own would be worse because the migrants have distinctive cultures, and Europe is abut to the world's poorest continent.

In some ways, I see it as karma after all the Europeans divided Africa for their spoils. So, they should benefit from the current invasion just as they did to Africa. Also, since they have blatantly refused to appropriately aid Africa's industrialisation just as they did with East Asia and now with South East Asia, anything they see, they should take it like that.

China is still playing the long game. once they are ready,, they will invade Taiwan & annex Hong Kong..

while Russia is moving boldly 2 recover her USSR territories & @ the same time hitting US/EU in Africa thanks 2 US/EU trying 2 isolate moscow.

budaatum:


Don't you wonder why they borrow at all if they can print money as you suggest?

Still, there may come a time when their printed money is not worth the paper it's written on and creditors ask for more in interest to hold it, is a point you are not considering. Inflation too might erode it's value making it less worth holding.

Here's an opinion on it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/05/03/debt-ceiling-scenarios/

Also note that the British pound was the major reserve currencies until World War II, so there's nothing to say America's status of reserve currency would last forever.

The US still borrows, Borrowing allows the US to finance its public services, social programs, military operations, and economic stimulus, maintain it's global leadership and influence, by supporting its allies and partners, and countering its rivals and enemies. The US can borrow at low interest rates, because many countries and investors trust the US government and the US dollar.

The US can't just print money, because that would cause inflation. Inflation reduces the purchasing power of money, which means that people can buy less goods and services with the same amount of money. It also increases the cost of borrowing, which makes it harder for the US to pay its debt. I did mention inflation in my previous answer, but maybe you missed it because you were in a hurry.

The British pound stopped being the major currency after World War II, because Britain lost much of its economic and political power. Britain had to spend a lot of money and resources to fight the war, which left it heavily indebted and exhausted. It also had to give up most of its colonies and territories, which reduced its global influence and trade. They also faced competition from other countries, especially the US and Germany, which had stronger and more dynamic economies. The US dollar then replaced the British pound as the world's reserve currency, because of the size and stability of the US economy, and the role of the US in creating and leading the international monetary system. Which other country can meet up,and do that?

I didn't say that the US will last forever as a world power. I said that it is possible that it will still be a world power in the next 100 years, for several reasons. I also acknowledged that the US faces many challenges and uncertainties in the 21st century, and that it cannot take its global leadership for granted. I think you are missing the whole point of my answer, which was to explain my prediction and reasoning based on facts and logic.

Here are two articles I read on the Financial Times:

"The new commodity superpowers": https://archive.md/EcJcB
"How China cornered the market for clean tech": https://archive.md/qvRuy

In summary, the Europeans are aghast that China has the foresight to be prosperous and think long-term. You need to read the comments - they are afraid, disappointed and disgusted that the Chinese took advantage of a policy they enacted. China has secured almost every material used in EV production, from battery to chassis. China dominates the supply chain from start to finish. To show European arrogance, they sued Indonesia to the WTO because she demanded miners process the raw materials in the country before export. On the other hand, Chinese miners - the majority in the country - opened factories to process the mines. No complaints. Tell me, as an ordinary Indonesian, who would you prefer? The boldness of the Indonesians emboldened Namibia and Zambia to do the same thing. This is why I want China to succeed - let there be options for smaller countries to align with and prosper in the end. Unlike decades ago, the West cannot barge into a country and topple their leaders, just like Mohammad Mosaddegh was in Iran.

Furthermore, unlike the US, Europe cannot cut off China economically. It would result in the decline of profits by European companies - Volkswagen, BASF, Bayer, LVMH, Mercedes, AstraZeneca etc - and overall destruction of the EU economy. The French and Germans know this, but the Anglo-Saxons are adamant that ties should be broken. Where LVMH wan generate billions in revenue other than China? Africa? Literally, all the major European companies generate a third of their total revenues from the Chinese market. European countries that reject Chinese capital tend to perform poorly - the UK and Italy are notable examples.

These folks are angry that the Chinese aren't subservient as the Japanese were during the Plaza Accord.

Botragelad:

All countries fight for their dominance one way or the other, but some are more successful than others. Arab countries still price their oil in dollars because of a historical agreement they made with the United States in the 1970s. In return for US military and political protection and purchases of its oil, Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil in dollars and hold reserves partly in Treasury bonds. Other oil exporters followed suit. The Saudis also kept their currency exchange rate linked to the dollar. So!

They can't easily switch to other currencies because the dollar is still the world's reserve currency, which means that many countries use it for trade and savings. This gives the US an advantage. It makes the dollar more stable and liquid than other currencies, which reduces the risk and cost of oil transactions. If Arab countries tried to price their oil in other currencies, they would face resistance from their customers and competitors, as well as possible retaliation from the US.

The US doesn't sanction countries because the dollar is the world's reserve currency, but because it wants to influence their behavior and policies. The US sanctions countries that violate human rights, sponsor terrorism, threaten its interests. etc. Though, sometime we don't agree with their sanctions.

Any country that chooses to stop using the dollar or ditch the dollar is at its own loss, because it would lose access to the largest and most powerful market in the world. It would also face difficulties in finding alternative sources of finance, trade, and investment, risk being isolated from the international community and facing more sanctions from the US and its allies. It would also have to deal with the volatility and uncertainty of other currencies, which could harm its economy and stability. Why would any country want to go through all of that?

That is why China, India and the rest have to grow so there be options for countries not interested in the so-called liberal order to thrive. If Russia could be ostracised, how much more South Africa or India?

The so-called International Community is not "international", as the name connotes. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and the EU cannot be categorised as International Community when over 4BN people live outside that appellation. As I write, Japan is buying crude from Russia, but India was lampooned for doing the same because she is going against the "international community's" sanctions against Russia. Even Ukraine is still being paid money by Russia for gas which passes through. The UAE is now home to Russian capital, but Africans are criticised for accepting Russian grains

Botragelad:

I didn't say that the US will last forever as a world power. I said that it is possible that it will still be a world power in the next 100 years, for several reasons. I also acknowledged that the US faces many challenges and uncertainties in the 21st century, and that it cannot take its global leadership for granted. I think you are missing the whole point of my answer, which was to explain my prediction and reasoning based on facts and logic.

Facts and logic can be used to suggest they may still be a world power in a thousand years or just the next 10 years. Unless you want to claim your reasoning and prediction itself is fact and logic.

Point is, both our positions are possible, despite you thinking "you are missing the whole point of my answer". As you yourself admit, "It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050", and there's no facts and logic to suggest they would definitely win that competition.

Gerrard59:


While I agree that the US economy is doing very fine compared to her peers, I don't see her dominating the world for the next century as she has for the past century. One is the rise of China and other emerging powers like India and Indonesia. While both I countries are not like China economically, their population and growth of economies mean they would grow clout and demand a greater share in global affairs. Every country outside the West witnesses how China is bullied unjustly and falsely simply because she decides to prosper. The same fate awaits India and Indonesia; I wager they are preparing for it. The US and her allies would have to share global prominence. A unipolar world cannot continue to exist.

Europe's population (America's greatest ally) and, in fact, all of America's allies have rapidly declining birth rates which affect GDP growth, consumption and investment. They use immigration to offset this problem, but in reality, immigration does not solve the birth decline. It only solves population crises. For instance, in the '90s, Germany imported Turks to work in factories and bolster the workforce. Today, the same Germany is inviting immigrants, mostly from Arabian countries, to replace ageing workers. Additionally, Europe's immigration problems are social in nature. Even though I am an immigrant where I am, I don't believe in an open-door immigration system as the Europeans do, especially from cultures which are in stark difference from the native ones. So Europe, like Japan and Korea, would face severe demographic problems. However, Europe's own would be worse because the migrants have distinctive cultures, and Europe is abut to the world's poorest continent.

In some ways, I see it as karma after all the Europeans divided Africa for their spoils. So, they should benefit from the current invasion just as they did to Africa. Also, since they have blatantly refused to appropriately aid Africa's industrialisation just as they did with East Asia and now with South East Asia, anything they see, they should take it like that.

Haha. Emotional much, eh!
China and Indonesia might pose a threat to US world power and dominance like you claim, but at the same time they might not stop the US dominance.

This is because it(The US) still has many advantages and allies. World's largest and most advanced economy, with a strong innovation and entrepreneurship culture. World's most powerful and influential military, with a global network of bases and alliances. Many allies and partners in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, who share its values and interests. The US can leverage its strengths and alliances to counter the challenges posed by China or Indonesia, as well as to cooperate with them on common issues. Easy!

Well, europe's birth decline rate does not really affect the US, because it does not necessarily mean that Europe is becoming weaker or less relevant. Europe's birth rate has been falling for decades, due to various factors such as urbanization, education, contraception,and changing lifestyles. Yeah,it poses a risk, however, the continent is still a major economic and political force in the world, with a high standard of living, yeah, strong rule of law, and a leading role in global institutions.

Europe is also a close ally and partner of the US on many issues such as trade, security, democracy, human rights, climate change, and development. It can cope with its demographic challenges by implementing reforms to boost its productivity. Not much of a problem!

Germany needs them(immigrants) to sustain its economy and society. The country has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe which means that its population is shrinking and ageing,just like you said. At the same time it's one of the country with the largest economy in Europe which means that it needs workers to fill its labour market gaps and maintain its growth.

The decline in birth rate or the importation of immigrants does not make, neither will it Europe the poorest continent because these factors do not determine the wealth or poverty of a region. Wealth or poverty depends on many other factors such as natural resources,human capital,technology, Infrastructure, institutions,governance, trade,
and innovation.
Europe has many advantages in these areas. I think Africa is what you should focus your energy on because most countries in the continent are lacking way behind! LMAO!

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
China is still playing the long game. once they are ready,, they will invade Taiwan & annex Hong Kong..

while Russia is moving boldly 2 recover her USSR territories & @ the same time hitting US/EU in Africa thanks 2 US/EU trying 2 isolate moscow.

China already owns Hong Kong. Westerners wailed when their attempt to foment trouble in HK did not succeed as planned. The UK signed a deal with China in 1997 to let HK practice the "One country, two systems" till 2047. Then all of a sudden, trouble started in the name of "democracy" in HK. Articles were penned several times about how Hong Kong would fail and people would leave (people did leave, though). But the city is booming again as many Mainland Chinese youths are taking over the places left by over-pampered Westerners and ignorant Chinese who migrated to the UK. I will never forget the comments on the SCMP where a Singaporean Chinese wrote that almost half of the HKs who opted for the BNO offer by Boris Johnson then moved back to HK due to the high cost of living, different food and culture and crime rates they experienced in the UK. Some Westerners moved to Singapore, which is as pragmatic and Chinese as HK. The cost of living choked, and most have relocated back to Hong Kong. So Hong Kong is China, and any deviation plunges her into poverty.

As for Taiwan, it is a different ball game. But if the Chinese can hold forth and play the long game, they should get it back before 2040. Heck, the Taiwanese have fewer options as their birth rate is lower than China and the economy is tied to China. Stablise the economy, ensure newer chips are produced, and secure food and oil supplies. Then strike. Kpata Kpata, disgruntled Taiwanese would be told to relocate to Japan.

budaatum:


Facts and logic can be used to suggest they may be still be a world power in a thousand years or just the next 10 years. Unless you want to claim your reasoning and prediction itself is fact and logic.

Point is, both our positions are possible, despite you thinking "you are missing the whole point of my answer". As you yourself admit, "It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050", and there's no facts and logic to suggest they would definitely win that competition.

Blimey, You've completely ignored what I said in my previous posts and gone off on a tangent. You've failed to debunk anything I wrote, mate.

Let me explain to you what I mean by my prediction and reasoning concerning US world dominance was based on facts and logic. I'm not saying that the US will definitely rule forever. I'm just giving my opinion based on some evidence and analysis. That's what a prediction is, innit? A guess or a hypothesis, not a fact. 'Based on fact and logic'

The logic behind my statement is that the US has some advantages over other countries, such as its military, economy, and innovation. I also mentioned some challenges they face, such as inflation. I didn't say they can print money without consequences, did I? You're putting words in my mouth. You're missing the point of my answer, because you didn't pay attention to what I actually wrote.

So, do me a favour and go back and read my initial post carefully, before you reply with more rubbish. Maybe then you'll understand what I'm trying to say, and we can have a civilised discussion. It's up to you, mate. Cheers!

Botragelad:

Haha. Emotional much, eh!
China and Indonesia might pose a threat to US world power and dominance like you claim, but at the same time they might not stop the US dominance.

I did not say the dominance of the US will stop, but rather decline as there are new kids on the block.

This is because it(The US) still has many advantages and allies. World's largest and most advanced economy, with a strong innovation and entrepreneurship culture. World's most powerful and influential military, with a global network of bases and alliances.

Agreed. I already stated it.

Many allies and partners in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, who share its values and interests.

What values does the US share with the Middle East, India and African countries? How a man should fvck another man? How to enable children as young as three choose their genders? Those values? How to bully a country simply because she declined to promote marriage between two men?

The US can leverage its strengths and alliances to counter the challenges posed by China or Indonesia, as well as to cooperate with them on common issues. Easy!

The US is not interested in cooperation. That is the problem. The mantra is "compete, but when you are winning, I want you to recede. Don't out-compete me". That is not cooperation but acts of bullying.

Well, europe's birth decline rate does not really affect the US, because it does not necessarily mean that Europe is becoming weaker or less relevant. Europe's birth rate has been falling for decades, due to various factors such as urbanization, education, contraception,and changing lifestyles. Yeah,it poses a risk, however, the continent is still a major economic and political force in the world, with a high standard of living, yeah, strong rule of law, and a leading role in global institutions.

It does affect as the EU as the US strongest ally. The EU market becomes more stratified and less dynamic. She becomes less attractive for investments compared to India or Indonesia. Low birth rates affect almost developed countries except Israel, and they come with negative effects. Yes, the EU is a major force to be reckoned. But with a declining population vis-a-vis a decline in global GDP, Indonesia might ask why she is still interested in heading the IMF?

Europe is also a close ally and partner of the US on many issues such as trade, security, democracy, human rights, climate change, and development. It can cope with its demographic challenges by implementing reforms to boost its productivity. Not much of a problem!

The US is actually more productive than the EU especially it accepts more skilled migrants. Productivity does not consume goods and services. It is like automation and robotics, yes, they promote higher productivity. But robots don't pay taxes or contribute to the social pension scheme.

Germany needs them(immigrants) to sustain its economy and society. The country has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe which means that its population is shrinking and ageing,just like you said. At the same time it's one of the country with the largest economy in Europe which means that it needs workers to fill its labour market gaps and maintain its growth.

Agreed.

The decline in birth rate or the importation of immigrants does not make, neither will it Europe the poorest continent because these factors do not determine the wealth or poverty of a region. Wealth or poverty depends on many other factors such as natural resources,human capital,technology, Infrastructure, institutions,governance, trade,
and innovation.

Please check the comment above about the pension scheme. A declining population does not necessarily equate to poverty but a gradual decline in living standards, less taxes, less consumption and more social spending since there is a huge proportion of the elderly. Also, unlike the US immigration or Japan, the immigrants in the EU, especially as she abuts the Middle East are culturally, linguistically, religiously and even racially distinct from the natives. These are worries Europeans lament about on the Telegraph and Financial Times. They write about the rising crime rates and decaying social trust in society. Formerly liberal regarding immigration, Denmark has tightened its policies. Funny enough, this was done by a liberal party which espouses an open-door immigration. Others are apeing her because of the social problems accompanied by the policy.

An article by American academics about Africa's population rise and how it affects Europe: https://www.hoover.org/research/africa-2050-demographic-truth-and-consequences

Europe has many advantages in these areas. I think Africa is what you should focus your energy on because most countries in the continent are lacking way behind! LMAO!

We may as well shut down the thread since you believe Africans should have no say on anything geopolitics. You are actually the one who is emotional, not me.

Gerrard59:


I did not say the dominance of the US will stop, but rather decline as there are new kids on the block.



Agreed. I already stated it.



What values does the US share with the Middle East, India and African countries? How a man should fvck another man? How to enable children as young as three choose their genders? Those values? How to bully a country simply because she declined to promote marriage between two men?



The US is not interested in cooperation. That is the problem. The mantra is "compete, but when you are winning, I want you to recede. Don't out-compete me". That is not cooperation but acts of bullying.



It does affect as the EU as the US strongest ally. The EU market becomes more stratified and less dynamic. She becomes less attractive for investments compared to India or Indonesia. Low birth rates affect almost developed countries except Israel, and they come with negative effects. Yes, the EU is a major force to be reckoned. But with a declining population vis-a-vis a decline in global GDP, Indonesia might ask why she is still interested in heading the IMF?



The US is actually more productive than the EU especially it accepts more skilled migrants. Productivity does not consume goods and services. It is like automation and robotics, yes, they promote higher productivity. But robots don't pay taxes or contribute to the social pension scheme.



Agreed.



Please check the comment above about the pension scheme. A declining population does not necessarily equate to poverty but a gradual decline in living standards, less taxes, less consumption and more social spending since there is a huge proportion of the elderly. Also, unlike the US immigration or Japan, the immigrants in the EU, especially as she abuts the Middle East are culturally, linguistically, religiously and even racially distinct from the natives. These are worries Europeans lament about on the Telegraph and Financial Times. They write about the rising crime rates and decaying social trust in society. Formerly liberal regarding immigration, Denmark has tightened its policies. Funny enough, this was done by a liberal party which espouses an open-door immigration. Others are apeing her because of the social problems accompanied by the policy.

An article by American academics about Africa's population rise and how it affects Europe: https://www.hoover.org/research/africa-2050-demographic-truth-and-consequences



We may as well shut down the thread since you believe Africans should have no say on anything geopolitics. You are actually the one who is emotional, not me.

Again,I already gave you reasons why I think these new kids on the block can get no close to US present position of world dominance.
You just be a clown if you think the US cares only about LGBTQ rights in the Arab countries and the continent I mentioned! You're having a laugh.The US has and share many other interests in those regions, such as oil, trade, security, and democracy. It's a superpower that wants to cooperate with its allies and compete with its rivals. That's what every country does, innit? They fight for their survival and dominance, like I said before.

And don't be funny. The low birth rate doesn't make Europe less dynamic or less attractive for investment. Europe is still one of the most developed and prosperous regions in the world . Africa has a high birth rate, but it also has many problems, such as poverty, corruption, conflict, and disease . Eww!
So your point is moot. You can't compare apples and oranges.

And please don't twist my words, I didn't say Africans have no say in geopolitics. I was just responding to your claim that Europe is about to become a failed and poorest continent. I gave you some reasons why that's unlikely to happen, and how Africa is still way behind Europe in most aspects. That's not an insult, that's a fact . So I was kind of telling you to self reflect.

Botragelad:

Blimey, You've completely ignored what I said in my previous posts and gone off on a tangent. You've failed to debunk anything I wrote, mate.

Let me explain to you what I mean by my prediction and reasoning concerning US world dominance was based on facts and logic. I'm not saying that the US will definitely rule forever. I'm just giving my opinion based on some evidence and analysis. That's what a prediction is, innit? A guess or a hypothesis, not a fact. 'Based on fact and logic'.

You'd do well to understand yourself that we are all giving our opinions here based on the "facts and logic" we all have, and our independent reasoning, which all obviously differ to each other's, hence our different opinions.

No one is claiming their guess or hypothesis or opinion is fact, and nor am I trying to debunk your opinion or guess or hypothesis, since I'm fully aware that's all it is, opinion or guess or hypothesis, which is also all I have, opinion or guess or hypothesis. It's after all not as if I have a superior crystal ball to your own that makes my own opinion or guess or hypothesis more valid than yours.

Fact is, and history shows, that no country remains the world power forever, and there's lots of black swans that can topple world powers at any point in time. And current worldwide instability makes those black swans more likely, especially in less than 100 years in my own opinion and guess and hypothesis based on my own prediction and reasoning, which is not a fact but just a different opinion to your own.

By the way, it is my opinion and not a fact (note) that telling someone they ignore what you say and should "go back and read", is you being condescending and patronising. It would be stupid of me to ignore intelligent comments by a person (you) who has intelligence in a thread that requires intelligence.

Botragelad:

Again,I already gave you reasons why I think these new kids on the block can get no close to US present position of world dominance.

You state what you think as if its a fact, while it is merely your opinion.

Botragelad:
You just be a clown...

And this is you being unnecessarily condescending and patronising just because your opinion is not accepted as fact. Which stopped me reading at this very point since I see no reason for you to be so disrespectful!

Gerrard59:


The so-called International Community is not "international", as the name connotes. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and the EU cannot be categorised as International Community when over 4BN people live outside that appellation.

The so-called international community is a tiny minority of the earth's population. In actuality, it is over 7 billion people that live outside the international community, not 4 billion people.

The so-called international community combined is not even up to the population of China or India. Let's break it down.

US population = is 334M people
EU population = is 448.3M
UK population = is 68M people
Canada's population = is 40M people
EFTA population = is 14.4M people
Japan's population = is 125M people
South Korean population = is 77M people
Newzealand population = is 5.2M people
Australia's population = 26.6M people
Singapore population = 5.6M people

A total of approximately 1.150 Billion people, or roughly about 15% of humanity. The West can not be the international community. They are a numerical minority.

pansophist:
US population = is 334M people
EU population = is 448.3M
UK population = is 68M people
Canada's population = is 40M people
EFTA population = is 14.4M people
Japan's population = is 125M people
South Korean population = is 77M people
Newzealand population = is 5.2M people
Australia's population = 26.6M people
Singapore population = 5.6M people

A total of approximately 1.150 Billion people, or roughly about 15% of humanity. The West can not be the international community. They are a numerical minority.

Are they also an economic minority?

Have you heard of the expression-

Big for nothing inconsequentials?

How many big but poor families in your town are consequential in the town’s affairs

seguno2:


Are they also an economic minority?

Have you heard of the expression-

Big for nothing inconsequentials?

How many big but poor families in your town are consequential in the town’s affairs

The term ¨international community¨ is not used in the context of economics but of global agreements on issues.

For example, the term was used a lot to criticize Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with the buzzword being that the international community is strongly against Russia and supports Ukraine. Which of course is not true.

UN uses the term as well, to show solidary by the community of states on global issues such as global warming. It has never been used in the context of economics, you may refer to G7 for that.

I am not saying that numbers equal might, I am only saying that the term ¨international community¨ is a manipulative statement, and this is just not my view, it's a commonly held view. Even on Wikipedia, the term has been criticized a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community#Criticism

pansophist:

The term ¨international community¨ is not used in the context of economics but of global agreements on issues.

For example, the term was used a lot to criticize Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with the buzzword being that the international community is strongly against Russia and supports Ukraine. Which of course is not true.

UN uses the term as well, to show solidary by the community of states on global issues such as global warming. It has never been used in the context of economics, you may refer to G7 for that.

I am not saying that numbers equal might, I am only saying that the term ¨international community¨ is a manipulative statement, and this is just not my view, it's a commonly held view. Even on Wikipedia, the term has been criticized a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community#Criticism

We are actually saying the same thing.

He who pays the piper still dictates the tune, anywhere and everywhere including small towns and villages, not so

pansophist:


The so-called international community is a tiny minority of the earth's population. In actuality, it is over 7 billion people that live outside the international community, not 4 billion people.

The so-called international community combined is not even up to the population of China or India. Let's break it down.

US population = is 334M people
EU population = is 448.3M
UK population = is 68M people
Canada's population = is 40M people
EFTA population = is 14.4M people
Japan's population = is 125M people
South Korean population = is 77M people
Newzealand population = is 5.2M people
Australia's population = 26.6M people
Singapore population = 5.6M people

A total of approximately 1.150 Billion people, or roughly about 15% of humanity. The West can not be the international community. They are a numerical minority.

I was wondering about this too, and think because we are ourselves in the west, think the west is the whole world and it's ruled by the American dollar. It isn't, but our consumption of their copious media deceives.

France is currently being shaken up by African countries they colonised now doing coups against leaders that favour France. Those countries were not independent like British colonised countries were, and that is about to change just as America's hegemony might too.

Botragelad:
Nice thread......
I think it is possible that the United States will still be the world power in the next 100 years. Large and diverse economy, which accounts for about a quarter of the global GDP, strong military presence, with hundreds of overseas bases and alliances with many countries, vibrant culture, which influences many aspects of global entertainment, media, education, and innovation, resilient political system, which allows for peaceful transitions of power and checks and balances among different branches of government.

They also have a history of adapting to new international realities, such as the rise of China, the challenges of climate change, and the threats of terrorism.
In reality, the United States faces many challenges and uncertainties in this 21st century, and it cannot take its global leadership for granted. It will have to compete with other emerging powers, such as China, India, Brazil, and maybe Nigeria which will have larger populations and economies by 2050.

Still, I see no one taking that position they hold!

Please observe the following realities on the ground.

1. Over 100 countries globally (actually over 150) have China as their largest trading partner. Please see the attached illustration

2. China has real international friends, not puppets, vassals, client states, and subservient stooges like the US.

3. The so-called strength of the US is built on US dollars. If it crashes, US hegemony crashes as well.

4. Most countries are trading with dollars not because it is involatile, but because there is no alternative yet. If an alternative emerges, the migration will be swift. Take a clue from the British pound or the Spanish golden dollar.

5. The US debt, no matter the argument to make seems like it is not a problem is actually a problem. The reason why the world can not feel inflation is because inflation is shared by all countries holding it.

So for example, if ten people have 10 USD each, inflation will not be felt by the ten people because they all suffer from it equally. Proof of this is that the USD has lost 90% of its value since the 1960s. So if you have 10 cents in the 60s, it is worth a dollar now.

6. Hegemony is not compatible with multipolarism. The global south which makes up the world population does not want it. US hegemony could thrive for about seven decades because other powers were beaten down after ww2 and were building themselves up.

They have arrived, and they will take their place, and the global south will align behind them. It is only a matter of time.

7. A feature of a superpower is its industry, technology, finances, population, low external debt, diplomacy, military, and allies. China scores very high in all these areas, the US does not.

8. Military bases are powerless in the face of economics. Since the basis of US military bases is to provide security for the host countries, then it should normally not interfere with China which is providing economic access to such countries.

The military base will become nothing but a guard dog to the Chinese and the host state interest, or otherwise, it will expose its true aim as an occupying force for what it is.

9. If just under 22 years (judging from the year China joined WTO) it could develop rapidly, move over 800M people out of poverty, and a nee-peer competitor of the US, what does the 21st century hold for China? May I also remind you that China alone grew more economically that the whole G7 combined annually in the past years?

10. China has the largest standing army on earth and is not interested in fighting wars outside its vicinity. In the event of a war, can the US actually defeat China in its territory?

Do not overestimate the US, and underestimate the new sheriff in town. The world is undergoing a huge paradigm shift, and it is not in favor of the US hegemony.

budaatum:


You'd do well to understand yourself that we are all giving our opinions here based on the "facts and logic" we all have, and our independent reasoning, which all obviously differ to each other's, hence our different opinions.

No one is claiming their guess or hypothesis or opinion is fact, and nor am I trying to debunk your opinion or guess or hypothesis, since I'm fully aware that's all it is, opinion or guess or hypothesis, which is also all I have, opinion or guess or hypothesis. It's after all not as if I have a superior crystal ball to your own that makes my own opinion or guess or hypothesis more valid than yours.

Fact is, and history shows, that no country remains the world power forever, and there's lots of black swans that can topple world powers at any point in time. And current worldwide instability makes those black swans more likely, especially in less than 100 years in my own opinion and guess and hypothesis based on my own prediction and reasoning, which is not a fact but just a different opinion to your own.

By the way, it is my opinion and not a fact (note) that telling someone they ignore what you say and should "go back and read", is you being condescending and patronising. It would be stupid of me to ignore intelligent comments by a person (you) who has intelligence in a thread that requires intelligence.

The keyword in my statement was "prediction and reasoning based on fact and logic". What I mean by that is that I made a guess or a hypothesis about the future, based on some evidence and analysis that I found or did. That's what a prediction is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. And that's what reasoning is, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's not a fact or a truth, but a possible outcome or explanation.

My initial prediction about US world dominance for a 100 years was based on facts and logic, because I used some data and arguments that support my view. I didn't just make it up or say it without any reason. I tried to be objective and rational, not subjective and emotional.

I don't mean to be rude or harsh, but do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, or say that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just trying to share my perspective and explain how I came to it. That's why I asked you to go back and read my initial comment, so you can see where I'm coming from. Maybe then you'll understand better!

seguno2:


We are actually saying the same thing.

He who pays the piper still dictates the tune, anywhere and everywhere including small towns and villages, not so

We are not saying the same thing. He who plays the piper dictates the tunes truly, but in the angle of the vote, numbers win.

Ten billionaires will not win a vote against a village of poor almajiris. Unless it is rigged. In a democracy, it is one man one vote, your wealth is irrelevant.

budaatum:


I was wondering about this too, and think because we are ourselves in the west, think the west is the whole world and it's ruled by the American dollar. It isn't, but our consumption of their copious media deceives.

France is currently being shaken up by African countries they colonised now doing coups against leaders that favour France. Those countries were not independent like British colonised countries were, and that is about to change just as America's hegemony might too.

You are right.

It is normal for humans to assume that their realities are universal.

I have met people that are genuinely shocked that I do not speak French, just because French is the most spoken colonial language in Africa, and the largest speaking francophone country is actually in Africa (Congo DRC), not France.

So yes, we are mostly shaped by our realities. It just makes our life easier, especially if you are in the west and sit on the top of the global food chain.

pansophist:

We are not saying the same thing. He who plays the piper dictates the tunes truly, but in the angle of the vote, numbers win.

Ten billionaires will not win a vote against a village of poor almajiris. Unless it is rigged. In a democracy, it is one man one vote, your wealth is irrelevant.

Poor people usually beg the rich person to lord it over them, even when it is a religious setting.

Idealism is not the same thing as realism.