This strengthens my suspicions that OTers have little economic or financial sense by a factor of 5 to 6.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

That has nothing to do with economic influence and power.

Storm_Marine

Uhmm...ok? So?

I think he's saying that aggregate economic influence on a national level is not as important or as relevant as it used to be.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Of course. But the fact remains, things are soon going to start graviating around China. Just like America now and Britain before it.

Storm_Marine

I suppose it's inevitable. Empires rise and fall, and they all have their unique expiration dates. But that is not to say that the U.S. will become irrelevant and China will be completely dominant. It will just be a multi-polar world again.

To quote Jim Rogers, "If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to America, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia."

It's interesting because China and economically similar Asian nations are facing many of the challenges of rapid development and industrialization that the U.S./Britain faced during the Industrial Revolution. Re my per capita comment: I see the sheer investment China is making into education as a possible game changer. Combine that with a large human capital pool and rapid continued growth (even if not 10%+ year over year for 30 more years) and think of the possibilities.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Not enough to do what?

Storm_Marine

I guess I'm driving more at the fact it's more important to have internal prosperity than just playing geopolitical games. Why would you care so much about the latter when you're doing well with the former?

Of course. But the fact remains, things are soon going to start graviating around China. Just like America now and Britain before it.

I suppose it's inevitable. Empires rise and fall, and they all have their unique expiration dates. But that is not to say that the U.S. will become irrelevant and China will be completely dominant. It will just be a multi-polar world again.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

That has nothing to do with economic influence and power.

Storm_Marine

The point is that sheer population alone is not enough.

Not enough to do what?

I guess I'm driving more at the fact it's more important to have internal prosperity than just playing geopolitical games. Why would you care so much about the latter when you're doing well with the former? And like I said, a significantly higher per capita GDP means that a country has a disproportionate influence relative to its population.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

The U.S.A. is still projected to remain at least the second largest economy in the world for at least another five decades, similarly so for military power, and has a network of diplomatic relations so vast that it would be impossible to attack them because half the world would declare war on you in the process. Regardless of the bullsh*t in the OP, these facts will take decades to change.

Its days as the sole superpower may be numbered because of China, but this doesn't really suggest that they'll somehow fall below par as a nation.

Storm_Marine

And really, you have to ask yourself: even if China becomes the largest aggregate economy, is it as effective per capita? Because a larger economy with a much larger population and a per capita figure many levels lower is still not such a good thing.

That has nothing to do with economic influence and power.

The point is that sheer population alone is not enough. Per capita still matters to the extent of the implied share of each citizen's contribution to the aggregate economy.

The U.S.A. is still projected to remain at least the second largest economy in the world for at least another five decades, similarly so for military power, and has a network of diplomatic relations so vast that it would be impossible to attack them because half the world would declare war on you in the process. Regardless of the bullsh*t in the OP, these facts will take decades to change.

Its days as the sole superpower may be numbered because of China, but this doesn't really suggest that they'll somehow fall below par as a nation.

Barbariser

And really, you have to ask yourself: even if China becomes the largest aggregate economy, is it as effective per capita? Because a larger economy with a much larger population and a per capita figure many levels lower is still not such a good thing.

It's all relative, really. I'm willing to bet residents in every single country in the world can come up with a doomsday list for their country much like the original post contained herein.

Even if the US as a world power is being challenged, it is by no means "finished." That would imply an imminent collapse, but a collapse of the US - physically or economically - would cripple the rest of the world economies. The economies of every nation are tied into the US (and vice-versa). It is in the best interest of everyone everywhere to see the US succeed.

That said, it may be true that the US is facing a possible decline in relative power due to the rise of other nations, in particular - but not limited to - the BRIC countries. What you might see is a decline much like that of the Great Britain or Spain, who remain powerful and influential nations, today. Also:

Happy gaming,

Boz

Bozanimal

Well said.

And really, at the end of the day, the U.S. is still a country that offers one of the best balances of stability, economic development, transparency and openness, further opportunity, and generally strong institutions in the world. Why do you think people, with all of its problems, still flock and migrate to Western Civilization (as in U.S., Canada, Oceania, Western Europe), even now? This includes people from the rapidly rising BRIC/BIIC countries (for instance, a huge amount of the Chinese upper class wants to emigrate from China).

'Cuse me *kisses this guy/the sky*.

The topic title sounds like something right out of The Onion, at least at first glance.