<p>
[quote]
Lol UC_Benz got pwnd. I love this thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh...yeah. I'm not going to reply to Alexandre's post because we are obviously getting our facts from two different places. The person I talk to studies European economies and lives in Spain; I value his opinion greater only because I've talked to him in person and Alexandre is over an online forum. However, I respect Alexandre and there's no use arguing over it since we have two different sets of perceived facts.</p>
<p>UC-BENZ, I agree that it is pointless arguing about this topic...not because one of us is right or wrong, but because there is no right or wrong. And by the way, I lived in Berlin, Paris and London for a total of 7 years. Half of those years, I was a financial analyst. I consider myself fully qualified to pass judgement on countries that colonized and brutalized my race for centuries. I will tell you, as much as I dislike their history, there is much to respect about their present.</p>
<p>For the next decade, America will be the sole superpower. Only India, China, and maybe Japan and Russia (any takers on Brasil?) have the potential to change that in the near future.</p>
<p>Yes, I think America will be the leader for 10-12 years, but no more than that.. India has little chances to be the new one, coz China now develops very fastly. </p>
<p>BTW What about WW III in this century? I think it's rather possible, and it can be much more cruel than previous. Something like east vs. west... Next world power will definately not be welcomed by surrounding world.</p>
<p>I would say that for at least the next 2 decades, the US is going to be the sole super power. The only entity that will be able to catch up (not replace mind you) with the US is going to be Europe...if they find a common sense of destiny. The way things are going, it is actually very likely to happen. But it will take a couple of decades to catch up to the US in terms of cohesion and purpose. By 2025, I would say you are going to see two major blocks in the World. The US and the EU. </p>
<p>China is the next likely candidate. But China will take over 40 years to catch up. </p>
<p>Russia is like China. It has a lot of potential, but it will take several decades to get back on track. </p>
<p>India will require twice the time that China will need to get up to speed. I would be surprised if India reach the technological or societal advancement of the US or Europe before the end of the century.</p>
<p>Forget about Japan. Although it is very wealthy and technologically advanced, it has very limited growth potential. Japan's population has peaked at 125 million and its useable land is very limited.</p>
<p>Brazil and Indonesia are way too far behind to catch up to the US any time in the next half a century.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. India has little chances to be the new one, coz China now develops very fastly.
2. India will require twice the time that China will need to get up to speed.
[/quote]
You don't realize that China's burst growth rate cannot be sustained for long. Maybe at most 10 years. However, India is doing it 'slow and steady.' Another factor is that China's growth is polarized (Beijing and Shanghai). The rest of tha mainland is among the poorest of the poor... Whereas, India is developing steadily, with a sizable number of very developed cities, each with its own market - like Bangalore for IT, Bombay of movies, Delhi for trade/diplomacy. Half of the major cities are also seaports in addition to being international gateways (Bombay, Calcutta, Chennai, Cochin etc.)</p>
<p>Moreover, the level of communal harmony and tolerance in India can only be matched by, maybe Australia. Can you imagine a Muslim being the president of the USA in the next 10 years? India has one. India even has a sikh PM.</p>
<p>Finally, to those who support Japan. Think about it. Japan might be a great economy, but it doesn't have all of the resources. It's such a small country. You might as well say hong kong or singapore will rule the world next :D India on the other hand is large and has a lot of variations in terms of land, soil, minerals and people, cultures etc.</p>
<p>So you see, it's not too unplausible that India might just overtake China.</p>
<p>Mercurysquad, even if what you say were true, India's current GDP is roughly 40% that of China ($700 billion to $1.8 Trillion). GPD per capita in India is slightly over $600 where GDP per capita in China is slightly under $1,400. It will take an incredible spurt for India get caught up. </p>
<p>I disagree with some of the things you say however. </p>
<p>For example, you seem to think that China cannot maintain its 7%-9% annual growth but you feel that Indian can. I agree that China cannot...but neither can India. No country can maintain annual growth of 8%. </p>
<p>Secondly, I disagree that China's growth is polarized only in two cities. It is actuallt polarized in five large provinces. Two of those provinces are currently at the same level as Spain or Portugal. </p>
<p>Thirdly, China has a more educated population. Close to 90% of Chinese are literate as opposed to 60% of Indians. </p>
<p>Finally, China has a natural trading relationship with Japan, South Korea and Indonesia. India relies more on the West than on regional allies.</p>
<p>Mercurysquad, even if what you say were true, India's current GDP is roughly 40% that of China ($700 billion to $1.8 Trillion).</p>
<p>Sorry, Alexandre, but it's obviously wrong. This data is too old. I heard: India--1.5 Trillion, China--3.5 Trillion. They're really dangerous as economic states. </p>
<p>Another factor is that China's growth is polarized (Beijing and Shanghai). The rest of tha mainland is among the poorest of the poor...</p>
<p>That is the main feature of Chinese developement: it developes as a country, not as a people (I mean here 'welfare state'). China is much more dangerous, coz it has great military power, and has some plans on expanding its territory (unlike India, I suppose). And I'd like also to mention, that China can rule not as a country, but as a race. Remember Indonesia, its population was Indian-like people, now, they're alike Chinese (and it's 230 millions!). That happens to USA now. I mean, that all world in future will be Chinese. They will rule it in spite of whether they're strong economically or not. They will be the world. Do you grasp?</p>
<p>And mercurysquad.. Alexandre is right here, India has no chances now, but later it'll be the part of China. Maybe it's not so obvious now, later it'll be..</p>
<p>oh and Alex.. I think GDP per person is not so important now in Asian countries, beacuse of their great population. They may have poor people, but strong country.</p>
<p>It depends what data you look at StarDragon. I was looking at the Economist 2005 edition. It does not tate PPP into consideration. So my data is actually accurate. I mean, Germany's GDP is $3 Trillion. France and the UK are at about $2.3 Trillion. Along with Japan and the US, those are the 5 largest Economies in the World...in real terms. If you take PPP into consideration, China is the second largest Economy in the World...and India is the 5th largest Economy in the World.</p>
<p>Either way, China's economy is seriously larger than India's. I do not see it taking over China ay time in the next half a century.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ou don't realize that China's burst growth rate cannot be sustained for long. Maybe at most 10 years. However, India is doing it 'slow and steady.' Another factor is that China's growth is polarized (Beijing and Shanghai). The rest of tha mainland is among the poorest of the poor...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. Thats another reason why China will have a very difficult time becoming the worlds next superpower. It may be one in many years, but not in the near future. If you've ever been to China, you'll notice to very different countries. Shanghai and China seem to rival places like New York City in commercialism and growth, while the small times still look to be stuck in the past and are EXTREMELY poor.</p>
<p>The 2 biggest problems in India right now are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Corruption. Lets face it, it affects almost all levels of government. The Transparency International 2002 Corruption ranking lists India as #71 (#1 being least corrupt- its Finland, btw), tied with such illustrious nations as Zimbabwe and Honduras. While thats not bad for the 3rd world, its not good enough for an emerging world power.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a large gap between the urban and rural areas, just like what you guys mentioned about China. Although India's rapidly growing middle class is greater than the entire population of the US, there are still hundreds of millions of villagers in poverty. Yes, cities like Bangalore have become high tech hubs, and India's literacy and college education rate is fast growing. E-commerce is very popular, and there are real signs of prosperity in the cities and large towns. However, the countryside is living in the medieval age, which is the real reason for the low GDP per capita- it's not evenly distributed. India must stunt its population growth and find a way to feed, educate, and lift its poor out of poverty and into the modern age before it can be considered a superpower.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Ameechee - that is the same for every country, even the United States. There are parts of Phoenix that are worse than the worst towns in any Latin American country, you just dont go visit them. China for the most part is developing exponentially fast. There a many cities like Shanghai scattered throughout China that are developing economically and commerically. I agree that China's growth rate will slow down but in the future perhaps a few decades, China will surpass the US. </p>
<p>Sorry mercurysquad, I oon't think India will ever catch up. But exactly what silmon said. India has far too many illiterate citizens and not much is being done about its population growth/shortage of food, much needed improvements for it to climb to the top of the ladder</p>
<p>lol awesome. I thing congo would be next</p>
<p>ok seriously take this in </p>
<p>half of indias population is currently unde rthe age of 25. thats hwo america was in 1900. Furthermore China has a huge problem of concentrated wealth. I am awilling to bet india will overtake china in the near future . And all the multinationals know this too as you see their preference to india over other other asian nations to set up new factories and offices.</p>
<p>And yet China is the biggest recipient of FDI...ahead of the United States.</p>
<p>"lol awesome. I thing congo would be next" - nomad</p>
<p>lmfao.</p>
<p>Has anyone looked at this report by Goldman Sachs?</p>
<p>Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050
<a href="http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf</a></p>
<p>It is impossible to predict economic growth that far into the future, but it's better than nothing. They predict that these will be the highest GDPs in 2050:</p>
<p>China: 44.5 trillion
U.S.: 35.1 trillion
India: 27.8 trillion
Japan: 6.7 trillion
Brazil: 6.1 trillion
Russia: 5.9 trillion
U.K.: 3.8 trillion
Germany: 3.6 trillion
France: 3.1 trillion
Italy: 2.1 trillion</p>
<p>Interesting. This report takes current social and economic trends and projects them into the future. It is unlikely that any of it will be accurate, but I think much of what they predict will happen in one form or another.</p>
<p>hey it was a spelling mistake! lol</p>
<p>How can italy still be on that list. I dont think there are going to many people left in there considering the present brith rate (which is negative)</p>
<p>Alexandre</p>
<p>I see your point about the bigger countries getting more power. Money from some of the bigger states in the US is spent in the smaller states. However, I don't see France letting their money be spent in eastern europe any time soon.</p>
<p>I remember reading awhile ago about some laws that France supported in the EU, but didn't follow itself.</p>
<p>They way countries in the EU will vote to let other countries in if they work out trade agreements or buy things from them is ridiculous. (was this Turkey maybe? or Ukraine? something about buying like 6 large passenger planes)</p>
<p>The EU is full of so many different cultures, I think it will be very difficult for them to present one opinion on international topics.</p>
<p>CIA says EU will not exsist in 2020 unless major changes are made:
<a href="http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=56762005%5B/url%5D">http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=56762005</a> (not saying this is right, just an opinion)</p>
<p>My humble little opinion (btw, I would consider myself an economic Libertarian):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The US will not fall from its post. Despite doomsdayers who (this coming from a Bush supporter) cannot see past 4 years, the US economy has been able to resist many forms of government, many outside shocks, etc. The strength of the US lies in the fluidity of capital. I'm not an econ major, but, for the most part, Capitalism, and the US economy more specifically, can allocate capital quickly and over a wider populartion than, say Communism. This, combined with, when compared to say the EU, a free-er trade system, not only allows the US to allocate and "establish" capital sources quickly, but also attracts more capital/business to the US- strengthening the US in perhaps its greatest strength: technology and innovation (the US has a history of borrowing, and improving upon, the best of every county). The US cannot be left behind. </p></li>
<li><p>China will become a superpower, as vast resources and a large population will help in this. However, to reach the superpower staying plateau, I believe they will (and are to some extent already) turn more towards capitalism. They will recognize that the USSR fell, in part due to its inability to sufficently allocate capital. As they are seeing in places such as Hong Kong, when capital is allowed to move freely, it will generally spread faster and help sustain its large population. If they do not move more towards (not completely, sort of a synthesis) Capitalism, expect a USSR type "reign." However, if/when they become a superpower, it will not be a rivalry type thing with the US, as the two countries are on good terms, and both need each other to do business. They should remain on good terms, do not expect another Cold-War type situation. </p></li>
<li><p>I do not believe the EU will become a "superpower," as it lacks the military might to do so. They will be very influencial in the global economy and in "diplomacy", but they will never reach the level of a USSR, China, or US. It is an economic union for the most part, and even with a strong EURO, I think their lack of capital liquidity will prevent them from ultimately reaching superpower status. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.</p>