The US is gone,Who will be the next superpower.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I'll admit that. They have a better GDP at the moment, and less poverty.

India has a huge population base, which can be good for progress in the long term. Unfortunately, they also have a huge population base, which makes things difficult in the short-term. And if you don't get the short term worked out, the long-term prospects will never pan out.

Which is why we need the short-term worked out. China suffered similar problems in the 1970s. Do you think that the fact China was an autocracy let them grow better than India, or were the other factors more important?

[Keronians]

Let's see... a decade...

Would have the same effect as the Eurozone crashing and burning. I think that's descriptive and short enough.

Or, even shorter: bad. Like, REALLY bad.

I think we know it'll suck (understatement of a few trillion years there), but would it suck more for the non-Chinese East or the West?

*pauses music since this question requires a LOT of thought*

The effect would be worldwide.

For the developed world, we have just lost our cash cow. China has, for the EU, been a really big stabilising factor. Without the Chinese, the Euro would be even more volatile than it is now (read: oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck).

Now, the real decider: the US. For the US, the effect is fairly catastrophic. Such a collapse would really establish a deflationary spiral all over China. Most multinationals have just lost literally millions, if not billions, of dollars, and the largest (per capita, not by amount of consumption) market in the World.

They will have also lost a considerable amount of fixed assets. Again, oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck. Investors do not like seeing that shit on balance sheets. So stocks will probably crash, worldwide. Gold will once again skyrocket, etc etc.

Now, cash flow. Cash outflow has dramatically increased (higher labour costs, more bank loans, more shares issued to raise short and long-term finance, to re-purchase capital goods, purchase other premises, etc), while cash inflow has dramatically decreased.

Now, for the developing world. China has taken the role of the West as the investor. It practically owns half of Africa. Without it, much of the economic development of the East will not be possible, since, their finance, comes from the Chinese. Both Chinese government and Chinese firms. However, both are now gone. So, again... oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck.

A decade is not enough for India to be able to take China's role. At all. We also rely heavily on China in terms of trade. A lot of trade takes place between our borders. So, our growth will be offset. American and European companies, out of money, will be forced to shut down operations here as well. Or, they will probably increase demand for property to ludicrous levels, causing our construction bubble to pop.

[Conserative Morality]

Which is why we need the short-term worked out. China suffered similar problems in the 1970s. Do you think that the fact China was an autocracy let them grow better than India, or were the other factors more important?

I think the fact that they opened up their markets and cut some of the Communist crap was more important.

[Keronians]

India has a huge population base, which can be good for progress in the long term. Unfortunately, they also have a huge population base, which makes things difficult in the short-term. And if you don't get the short term worked out, the long-term prospects will never pan out.

Which is why we need the short-term worked out. China suffered similar problems in the 1970s. Do you think that the fact China was an autocracy let them grow better than India, or were the other factors more important?

Liberalisation.

They opened up over a decade before we did.

[Fassoon]

Australia.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I think we know it'll suck (understatement of a few trillion years there), but would it suck more for the non-Chinese East or the West?

*pauses music since this question requires a LOT of thought*

The effect would be worldwide.

For the developed world, we have just lost our cash cow. China has, for the EU, been a really big stabilising factor. Without the Chinese, the Euro would be even more volatile than it is now (read: oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck).

Now, the real decider: the US. For the US, the effect is fairly catastrophic. Such a collapse would really establish a deflationary spiral all over China. Most multinationals have just lost literally millions, if not billions, of dollars, and the largest (per capita, not by amount of consumption) market in the World.

They will have also lost a considerable amount of fixed assets. Again, oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck. Investors do not like seeing that shit on balance sheets. So stocks will probably crash, worldwide. Gold will once again skyrocket, etc etc.

Now, cash flow. Cash outflow has dramatically increased (higher labour costs, more bank loans, more shares issued to raise short and long-term finance, to re-purchase capital goods, purchase other premises, etc), while cash inflow has dramatically decreased.

Now, for the developing world. China has taken the role of the West as the investor. It practically owns half of Africa. Without it, much of the economic development of the East will not be possible, since, their finance, comes from the Chinese. Both Chinese government and Chinese firms. However, both are now gone. So, again... oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck.

A decade is not enough for India to be able to take China's role. At all. We also rely heavily on China in terms of trade. A lot of trade takes place between our borders. So, our growth will be offset. American and European companies, out of money, will be forced to shut down operations here as well. Or, they will probably increase demand for property to ludicrous levels, causing our construction bubble to pop.

Thank you Kero, that was well-thought out and had many good points. Good work.

[New Manvir]

I'm not sure there are any real immediate contenders. Depending on fast they can get their shit in order, I'd give either Brazil or India a chance at the title in thirty or so years. Brazil is the more immediate contender, truth be told.

Just bring Brazil into NATO, problem solved.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Which is why we need the short-term worked out. China suffered similar problems in the 1970s. Do you think that the fact China was an autocracy let them grow better than India, or were the other factors more important?

I think the fact that they opened up their markets and cut some of the Communist crap was more important.

You mean when they went from Communist to 'Communist'?

Which is why we need the short-term worked out. China suffered similar problems in the 1970s. Do you think that the fact China was an autocracy let them grow better than India, or were the other factors more important?

Liberalisation.

They opened up over a decade before we did.

"We'?

Damn it Kero, you European or Indian?

[Keronians]

I think the fact that they opened up their markets and cut some of the Communist crap was more important.

You mean when they went from Communist to 'Communist'?

Liberalisation.

They opened up over a decade before we did.

"We'?

Damn it Kero, you European or Indian?

Both.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

You mean when they went from Communist to 'Communist'?


"We'?

Damn it Kero, you European or Indian?

Both.

What country you from?

[Conserative Morality]

Just bring Brazil into NATO, problem solved.

^Truth

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Just bring Brazil into NATO, problem solved.

^Truth

Brazil in North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

[Conserative Morality]

Brazil in North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

Turkey's in NATO. So yes.

[Keronians]

Both.

What country you from?

*finds wriggle room*

I am from India.

I have a European passport.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

^Truth

Brazil in North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

Not any weirder an Turkey.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Brazil in North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

Turkey's in NATO. So yes.

They need to change the name.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

What country you from?

*finds wriggle room*

I am from India.

I have a European passport.

I'm from India and have an American passport, but that doesn't make me American.

[The Bread Sultan]

The US isn't losing economic power, the entire world is.

Some people.

Actually no.

The World economy grew by 4%...thats right folks, Just because YOUR feeling it doesn't mean everyone is.

getting back to the post PAX-AMERICANA world.

In force projection terms, the US will for a long time to come have the strongest and most powerful army.
however the degree to which that force is the strongest will be seriously lessened.

as it currently stands, the anecdote is:
"If the world went to war against the USA, the USA would probably win"
(which when you consider that the have year on year on year contributed to over 50% of total global defence spending, doesn't sound so surprising.)

However the future America, will be in a position where it will have to pick it's battles.
Yes you could probably still kick Chinas ass in a big ol' war,
but if a bunch of South American countries or Russia decided to attack the US at the same time...game over

as for being the worlds largest economy, and dominant global political force.
Those days are I am afraid going to be gone for good.
The central driving force politically and economically will be,
P&G-Uni-soft, in association with Google.

This is not my view....This is the view of the US (and other governments)

By 2025, nation-states will no longer be
the only—and often not the most
important—actors on the world stage and
the “international system” will have
morphed to accommodate the new reality.
But the transformation will be incomplete
and uneven. Although states will not
disappear from the international scene, the
relative power of various nonstate
actors—including businesses, tribes,
religious organizations, and even criminal
networks—will grow as these groups
influence decisions on a widening range
of social, economic, and political issues.

taken from
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
(link is US National Inteligence council web page (the people who are above CIA - so if yer paranoid, better stick to teh executive summary which i will post below)

Some of our preliminary assessments are highlighted below:

The whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.

The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.

Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources—particularly energy, food, and water—raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.

The potential for conflict will increase owing partly to political turbulence in parts of the greater Middle East.

[Conserative Morality]

They need to change the name.

When you say NATO, that word has widespread acceptance and recognition. The name stays.

[Keronians]

They need to change the name.

When you say NATO, that word has widespread acceptance and recognition. The name stays.

Russia joins NATO.

7 billion heads explode.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

When you say NATO, that word has widespread acceptance and recognition. The name stays.

Russia joins NATO.

7 billion heads explode.

North Korea joins NATO.

God dies.

[Sucrati]

It's not gone yet.

Honestly though, we need to get our noses out of the business of the international community, pull out of the UN and kick them to Belgium >:D

[Nightkill the Emperor]

It's not gone yet.

Honestly though, we need to get our noses out of the business of the international community, pull out of the UN and kick them to Belgium >:D

Why pull out the UN?

[Sucrati]

It's not gone yet.

Honestly though, we need to get our noses out of the business of the international community, pull out of the UN and kick them to Belgium >:D

Why pull out the UN?

Hmm... because:

We have more countries there that hate us than like us but yet we keep... funding them through UN mandates or other 'assistance' which we cannot afford
We pay the majority of the funding that goes to the UN and other world wide organizations, again, with our current financial problems, we can't afford them
We face more overreach and regulations through the UN, but don't forget we already face an ever expanding government here in the US
The UN seems to be okay with ignoring the fact that you can go around local or national governments to get what you personally want done
We have enough bickering politicians within our borders, why would we want more?

[Keronians]

Why pull out the UN?

Hmm... because:

We have more countries there that hate us than like us but yet we keep... funding them through UN mandates or other 'assistance' which we cannot afford
We pay the majority of the funding that goes to the UN and other world wide organizations, again, with our current financial problems, we can't afford them
We face more overreach and regulations through the UN, but don't forget we already face an ever expanding government here in the US
The UN seems to be okay with ignoring the fact that you can go around local or national governments to get what you personally want done
We have enough bickering politicians within our borders, why would we want more?

The UN allows the US to project influence and protect its national interests. That permanent seat on the UNSC is very valuable.