who do you see as the next superpower? i would guess india. also i dont know about this 300 year rule. most of these civilizations probably had systems that were made to be overthrown. since democracies force new leaders on themselves periodically, i think they can last much longer. and i am no historian, but havent lots of "civilizations" been around for more than 300 years. like england.
i dont think that is possible, and if it did happen, there would be lots of wars between countries angling to be the superpower. i actually think the thing that will make a country stay as the most powerful superpower is the extent to which they will be capitalist. i think if china decided to give it's people more economic freedom than any other country, they would quickly become super rich and more powerful than the US. i think the worst thing we can do to ourselves here in the US is restrict free trade, between ourselves and other countries. that means farm subsidies, social security, high taxes, government programs, everything the government does that could be done in the private sector. i think every country's relative success is primarily determined by the extent to which they are willing to be capitalist. if the eu really wants to succeed, the member countries will have to drastically lower taxes. until then, they cannot compete with us. unless of course we continue to increase the size of our government.
Yes, lots of civilizations have survived for more than 300 years - but not remained a superpower for that long. However, the US hasn't been the only super power for all that long. During both world wars there were other super powers. Only in the past 50 years or so has the US been the only true super power. I agree that democracy would probably extend the life of a country because of how the system is designed - I don't think it's free from entropy though. You can't look around at the politics in this country & tell me everything is moving in the right direction. Some things are getting better - lots of things are getting worse (politically). The difference with America will be that it won't require a revolution to change, merely a President with the mind to change it.
Absolutely true. In fact, I'd venture to say that it was the free-market economy that allowed the USA to truley become the only super power in the world today. It could have happened without democracy, but not without capitalism. Capitalism defeated the Russians in the Cold War, and allowed us to win both World Wars. The fastest up & comers in the world of power today are the countries that are allowing the free-market to operate efficiently. Oh yea, and who do I think the next super power will be? Depends. Right now, the US is so strong that nobody would dare try & overcome us militarily - they'd become more powerfull than us by beating us economically. Any country is capable of it. A small country without many resources can do it by maximizing the few resources they have (cheap labor, oil etc.). However, I think this would be short-lived. If a country rose to power using just one resource, it would only be a matter of time until other countries found suitable replacements. The only countries that could really do it are other countries with vast amounts of resources - probably Russia or China. In the end, the USA will have an upper hand for a very, very long time to come because of the ground work that has been laid here over the past 250 years or so. Other countries would have alot of ground to cover before being able to reach our level. The only thing that could bring the US down from superpower status would be US itself.
One word. Five letters. Starts with a 'C". No Longer the Lone Superpower "China, Japan, and the United States are the three most productive economies on Earth, but China is the fastest growing (at an average rate of 9.5% per annum for over two decades), whereas both the U.S. and Japan are saddled with huge and mounting debts and, in the case of Japan, stagnant growth rates. China is today the world's sixth most productive economy (the U.S. and Japan being first and second) and our third largest trading partner after Canada and Mexico. According to CIA statisticians in their Factbook 2003, China is actually already the second-largest economy on Earth measured on a purchasing power parity basis -- that is, in terms of what China actually produces rather than prices and exchange rates . . . by 2025 China will probably have a GDP of $25 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity and will have become the world's largest economy followed by the United States at $20 trillion and India at about $13 trillion -- and Burki's analysis is based on a conservative prediction of a 6% Chinese growth rate sustained over the next two decades. " China: US an Obstacle to Superpower Status U.S. Representative Floyd D. Spence (R-SC), Chairman of the House National Security Committee, today welcomed the release of a report, “Selected Military Capabilities of the People’s Republic of China,” as the clearest official acknowledgment to date that China views the United States as the greatest obstacle to its ambition to become a great power and that China is developing the military capabilities needed to achieve its goal. “Chinese leaders have said that we are the enemy and stand as the major roadblock checking their desire to dominate East Asia,” said Spence. “This report, though couched in careful bureaucratic language, admits as much. It also reveals that the Chinese understand the need to create forces to offset the military advantages that the United States now enjoys. By early in the next century – about the time when the size of the Chinese economy is projected to surpass our own – China will have developed large and capable military forces.” China, The Emerging Superpower The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that China's economic and military transformation, under the current Communist regime, has the potential to seriously threaten the future security of Canada and the West. The paper first looks at the economic reforms that have radically changed the Chinese economy. Then, the paper presents the significant changes that have taken place concerning military strategy, equipment modernization and power projection capability. The strategic view and policies of Canada and the US are discussed in light of these changes and other recent incidents. The paper then presents the argument that there are three potential problem areas in which China could possibly threaten the West. The paper concludes by noting that China is a Communist country that is dissatisfied with its status in the world and that the West must not be naive to its intentions and ambitions. When China awakes, it will shake the world. - Napoleon Bonaparte Once China becomes strong enough to stand alone, it might discard us. A little later it might even turn against us, if its perception of its interests requires it. - Henry Kissinger
Yeah we've hardly ever done anything for Europe. The worst thing we could have ever done was to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. By doing so, we have allowed them to become the farce of countries that they are now.......by protecting them we allowed them to divert their expenditures from protecting themselves militarily to isolating themselves from the Western world through socialism. Are you one of these girls who cries at night wondering why the world hates us? They've always hated us for our economy, influence and military.
If you feel that way then you cannot support the war in Iraq. Likewise, you must also acknowledge that Vietnam was a horrible mistake from its conception. Given that our mission in Iraq is now being touted as 'spreading democracy', if you were opposed to the idea of protecting Europe from communist/socialist takeover, then you inherently must also believe that any other execution of such is not justified. 'Farce of countries'? In what ways are their countries not legitimate? They've all been around far longer than the U.S. has, even before we 'protected' them. So then, what is your criteria for a 'real' country? And how do European countries not meet them? Don't be misguided by blind nationalism. I don't believe that part of the deal with us 'protecting' them entailed an adoption of our economical system. Despite our best efforts over the past 2 years, we are not supposed to be an empire. Further, had we not 'protected' them from Russia, what sort of economic system do you think they would have had forced on them? Remember what the second 'S' in U.S.S.R. stood for? No thanks, dude. I know exactly why they hate us. Really? You can make this statement after you just finished spouting off about how we 'protected' them? I'm guessing they didn't hate our influence or military for that. Why would they hate us for our economy? How does our strong economy affect them adversely?
