Do you think America will still be a world superpower in a hundred years?

[Scorch]

Well?

Honestly I don't think it will. I'm no expert on the issue, but I think the hatred that it's actions are inspiring in the Middle East and it's generally arrogant attitude to world politics will lead to Countries like China and India emerging as world superpowers.

But as I said, I'm no expert.

So I'm quite curious, what does everybody think?

[Caelius]

Who knows what the hell will happen in a 100 years? Seriously. That's why it's best not trying to predict the future that far out.

This thread will probably need to be closed after a page or two because it's basically a magnet for bashers.

But as I said, I'm no expert.

Here's a heads up. No one in this whole forum is either.

[Scorch]

Thanks for the heads up.

I was just wondering if anyone had any theories ... I was just curious.

[MaximiIian]

I don't think it'll be the only superpower. I think the world will again slip into the state of having multiple Great Powers. Most likely candidates being China, the US, a Franco-German-dominated European Union, a more autocratic Russia, a closer-together UK & Commonwealth, and of course, India.

[humvee2800]

Almost certainly

Americans are very creative and have survived far worse

America is a large and reasonably well off country with a country just north of it that has all the things americans need

Few countrys can prevent America from repairing itself every time some idiot damages it

[danzig]

Well?

Honestly I don't think it will. I'm no expert on the issue, but I think the hatred that it's actions are inspiring in the Middle East and it's generally arrogant attitude to world politics will lead to Countries like China and India emerging as world superpowers.

China is already emerging as one regardless of the US's role and India who knows both China and India have various and numerous issues with their large population. It is impossible to predict, what is probably most certain is the US will not have its same amount of 'power' in relation to the rest of the world that it has now and that is only natural...countries DO catch up and no country/nation/empire can maintain such a pace to keep it #1 in everything.

I know dire prediction of dramatic and nearly instant falls of the US are popular among some TWCers but the US isnt just going to poof in a blink of an eye. My best guess is will the US still be a superpower? Possibly but given the shift in power the world is going thru much more likely it will become a 'major' power among many other 'major' powers diluting the concept of a "superpower". Ie MaximiIian's post is probably far more likely to happen.

[Scorch]

I know dire prediction of dramatic and nearly instant falls of the US are popular among some TWCers but the US isnt just going to poof in a blink of an eye. My best guess is will the US still be a superpower? Possibly but given the shift in power the world is going thru much more likely it will become a 'major' power among many other 'major' powers diluting the concept of a "superpower". Ie MaximiIian's post is probably far more likely to happen.

I realize that the US isn't going to disappear in the blink of an eye (aaaaw ), but I think you can see a steady decline in it's global reputation, and even though it's powerful, it's losing a fair bit of respect due to its handling of global matters and foreign relations.

But I do agree mostly with Maximillian, several great powers will probably dominate global politics, but I disagree with the Commonwealth and UK being one of them. I think nations are going to start breaking away from the Commonwealth, as people realize the England that exists today doesn't demand, or even deserve, the same type of loyalty or respect that the British Empire did in the past.

[danzig]

I realize that the US isn't going to disappear in the blink of an eye (aaaaw ), but I think you can see a steady decline in it's global reputation, and even though it's powerful, it's losing a fair bit of respect due to its handling of global matters and foreign relations.

Which is limited to Bush admin, so many non American 'loved' the US when Clinton was President and how he handled things then Bush became President and everyone didnt. US foreign policy and relations change drastically from President to President so no reason to think it wont change again in 2008 depending who is elected as opposed to the doom and gloom scenarios from (ie Tiwaz's post). If relations cant be rebuilt after 8 short years of idiotic leadership in the US under a new President then I think the blame shifts on those who have a 'problem' with the US I mean after all Europe got over Nazi Germany and their actions no? Surely the US can be forgiven for something far less deadly as a President Bush.

[Scorch]

True, but I know even my parents can remember when (in Australia at least) people have thought the same way about America in the past.

I realize relations can be rebuilt, but I think the Bush administration has done a lot of damage to America's global reputation, particularly in the Middle East - where their relations has suffered the most and will be harder to rebuild.

[danzig]

True, but I know even my parents can remember when (in Australia at least) people have thought the same way about America in the past.

I realize relations can be rebuilt, but I think the Bush administration has done a lot of damage to America's global reputation, particularly in the Middle East - where their relations has suffered the most and will be harder to rebuild.

Yes but that reputation has been a long term thing, simply inflamed more over the past 8 years. The fact is few Western nations arent going to have a 'good' relationship" with the middle east in general, the west has interfered and meddled in the ME long before the US and will continue to do so as long as oil is primary energy source. Israel of course is a primary issue and obviously of course the idiocy of Iraq has inflamed that even more but its not like ME and US have been on happy terms Sure Bush has done damage, only a fool would deny that but he hasnt done anything on the level of many other past leaders who's countries managed to get past that blot with regards to the rest of the world. The world will go on, US foreign policy will change come next election and with it (again) the attitude towards the US will no doubt change and those who automatically assume the worse either a) dont understand the way the US works with the Presidency which often creates inconsistent foreign policy due to the nature of each president or b) just bent on having a bad guy to blame everthing on.

[Tiwaz]

No. It most likely won't be.

US economy is living off borrowed money. It would take VERY successful maneuvering to prevent this from pulling the rug off US economy. At which point global economy will take a dip but will recover sooner then US economy. Resulting in USA falling behind the emerging giants (and possibly EU) leaving it in weaker position.

And that is just economically. Failures of rightwing government in early 21st century will haunt USA for decades and help keeping USA down in diplomatic arena. That is unless other powers feel unusually magnanimous towards fallend USA.

China will benefit greatly and become next superpower thanks to their huge internal markets which will help to some extent curb the drop in global economy. EU should be able to weather the fall as well but will not be able to cash in and make quick rise but rather keep slow but steady growth, which might be boosted a bit by UK most likely losing interest in "special relationship" with US influence dropping globally.

Russia and India are great questionmarks. India has population and is making steady rise but they do appear to be in bit weaker position in taking the global drop. Russia has natural resources but tends to depend greatly in selling energy which can cause problems if price of gas and oil fall, but should internal situation improve they have resources to make good rise like India. Much depends on this matter on relations between EU & Russia, if they get along nicely they stand good chance to rise together.

[PSYCHO V]

No. Dito Tiwaz

[Tiwaz]

Problem with "change" in foreign relations is that USA is now stuck with baggage of failure known as "republican government". Democrats can't run from Iraq since it would be bad for their votes.

Also, it is not enough to change policy and change government. Reputation is rebuilt slowly and only way to speed it up would be some concrete show of disowning former "bad" government. Else it is simply silent agreement on past misdeeds.

Change of president, specially with so instable system as US leadership, does not help erase past actions. You need to make... Amendments. Yes, official view will be that all is buried and forgotten but that is "official" instead of "actual". Specially within populations who tend to have collective dislike and forget past crimes much slower, and who control the direction of policies through their voting since all politicians try to agree with as many people as possible.

Either way, political fallout of past mistakes is smaller of problems. US economy is going down and short of incredible row of success in managing, IE raising, interests will result in drop somewhere in decade or two.

[JP226]

US economy is living off borrowed money. It would take VERY successful maneuvering to prevent this from pulling the rug off US economy. At which point global economy will take a dip but will recover sooner then US economy. Resulting in USA falling behind the emerging giants (and possibly EU) leaving it in weaker position.

Could you elaborate a little more on this please.

Either way, political fallout of past mistakes is smaller of problems. US economy is going down and short of incredible row of success in managing, IE raising, interests will result in drop somewhere in decade or two.

What do you mean raising interest rates? Did you here this on tv from some talking head? All that would achieve was a smaller money supply, a lower demand and a fall in prices, thus not curbing consumption habits. Money is always neutral in this case.

[danzig]

Problem with "change" in foreign relations is that USA is now stuck with baggage of failure known as "republican government". Democrats can't run from Iraq since it would be bad for their votes.

Considering the views on the war are extremely negative in the US now it wouldnt exactly hurt them vote wise it IS after all one of the primary reasons that Democrats now control congress...the reason not to run from Iraq is because it messy and we cant just leave something in that manner that we created.

Also, it is not enough to change policy and change government. Reputation is rebuilt slowly and only way to speed it up would be some concrete show of disowning former "bad" government. Else it is simply silent agreement on past misdeeds.

Disowning = changing directions from a failed policy which is almost certainly what will happen with the next President.

Change of president, specially with so instable system as US leadership, does not help erase past actions.

One bad president does not make an unstable system, Nixon created a GREATER internal crisis then Bush and the US managed to bounce back from that. And who is talking about erasing past actions? The US obviously cant do that anymore then Germany, France, Uk etc can erase their past misdeeds but eventually you get over it provided of course that change in course.

You need to make... Amendments. Yes, official view will be that all is buried and forgotten but that is "official" instead of "actual". Specially within populations who tend to have collective dislike and forget past crimes much slower, and who control the direction of policies through their voting since all politicians try to agree with as many people as possible.

Shrug the only people owned anything by the US from the Bush admin actions are the people of Iraq.

Either way, political fallout of past mistakes is smaller of problems. US economy is going down and short of incredible row of success in managing, IE raising, interests will result in drop somewhere in decade or two.

Sky is falling! Europe's population is slowing dying out due to low birth rates, Russia controls your energy and with a snap of the fingers could make you freeze....two other examples of things that *might* happen in the future.

[Ummon]

To the original question: no, and deservingly so. But the real problem is who will take the place of America.

[Garbarsardar]

To the original question: no, and deservingly so. But the real problem is who will take the place of America.

Lega Nord?



Where have you been, I missed you!

[Ummon]

Lega Nord?

Lega Nord is a funny bunch of psychopaths bent on conquering the nearby suburban area, and not the world, luckily.

Where have you been, I missed you!

I have been working, experimenting and studying a lot, thus making internet time a luxury.

That is indeed a great compliment coming from you, for which I thank you in some surprise.

[Tiwaz]

Read more about it in economical paper cousin of my gf got me (forest taxes thingy in it which I needed) so I do not have immediage source at hand.

So you could try googling.

Generally problem appears to be that USA is living off foreign investors. Here is link I got from google.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...453906,00.html

A sea change appears to be taking place on the international financial markets. For years, global capital flowed in only one direction, with $2 billion going into the United States every day. Investors viewed the world's largest economy not only as a bastion of stability, but also as a place that promised the best deals, the most lucrative returns and the highest growth rates.

Caption: SPIEGEL0650 Seite Bollen Datum: 11. Dezember 2006
Zoom
DER SPIEGEL

Caption: SPIEGEL0650 Seite Bollen Datum: 11. Dezember 2006
The Americans, for their part, welcomed foreign investment. For them, it was almost a tradition to save very little and spend more than they earned -- essentially achieving affluence on credit. Foreigners financed the Americans' almost obsessive consumer spending, which spurred worldwide economic growth for years.

Because the US government was unable to fall back on the savings of its citizens, it too was forced to finance its budget deficit with foreign capital. Both consumer spending and the federal deficit kept the dollar high, because the rest of the world was practically scrambling to invest in the United States.

This phase seems to have come to an end, at least for the time being. "There are fundamental weaknesses in the American economy. This could not continue in the long term," says Alfred Steinherr, chief economist at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW).

This comes from article I read but apparently economists think that only way to avoid big drop would be to hike up the interests in USA, force people to avoid overspending and hope USA can keep investors interested long enough to fix the problem through that. But it takes a lot of just right decisions and time.

Another googling.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...14D3%7D&symbol


So unless those corrections are made, bottom most likely falls off from US economy which has been run based on continuous investment from abroad and little savings. This will pretty much grind down US economy, cause following problems globally and feedback into even less investment in USA which further drops american economy.

Rest of world will take a hit but smaller then USA and will recover faster. China being most likely leading figure with EU coming up slowly and steadily. Russia will make it if EU gets through well by selling energy to Europe, but US consumption of oil should result in pricedrop which would hurt Russian profits.

[powerpuff boys]

I think german will become super power again.