US Official Predicts End Of World Power Status

by metatron 34 Replies latest jw friends

  • fulltimestudent


    An alliance could emerge that suddenly upsets the balance of power , making Anglo-America number 2.

    Umm. OK! What if China and Russia decided on a union, would that make the US-NATO combination No2 in the world?

    That WSJ (the long arm of Rupert Murdoch) report, has most likely originated somewhere in the US defence establishment as part of the ongoing 'scare' campaign against defence force spending cuts.

    I doubt that either Russia or China want to spend the sort of money that the US has been spending (to the detriment of its citizens) on playing silly buggers.

    I'm sure that China at least, has had the good sense to realise that there are better things to spend your money on.

    If in 20-25 years, China, avoiding a silly war, achieves financial equality with the USA, that will achieve more than any hollow victory in a war.

  • fulltimestudent


    China doesn't have a middle class like the US. Yes their workers are willing to work for pennies per hour to assemble tchotchkes that americans can afford to buy, but these people live in poverty. There isn't a social infrastructure set up, and their growth was so rapid that they have no standards or regulations to keep up with the growth. Their people live in poverty, while businessmen get richer, and they have no regards for their resources while they continue to pollute their environment with unregulated production.

    You really ought to take a trip to China and see for yourself. If you cant afford it, then at least do some research before making assertions such as

    " China doesn't have a middle class like the US"

    Another alternative, just use Youtube and examine what Chinese cities now look like.

    A further distorted statement:

    There isn't a social infrastructure set up, and their growth was so rapid that they have no standards or regulations to keep up with the growth.

    Even under the Imperial system, there was an organised (but basic) level of social welfare. Under the PRC, a quite strong social welfare system was organised. Its true that China's fast growth has caused distortions, some of which are serious. Of course, in the past, there was not much money to share around and social organisation could only attempt to provide a very basic level of existence. Current National, Provincial and City level governments continue to work at making the system fairer.

    they continue to pollute their environment with unregulated production.

    More and more government organised efforts to control pollution are being made.

    OK, I've made a number of assertions. If you don't believe me, challenge one assertion. I don't have enough time to do more than one at present.

  • umbertoecho

    I have to agree with "fulltimestudent"

    Living where I live and having worked in the mining industry, watching China mine the life out of the ore industry and cart it away at very, very low prices.

    They are very savvy, own more land in this country than we would like to admit. This includes huge amounts of farming and cattle land.

    Half of the large business buildings are owned by them and .......I could go on. My daughters partner is over there right now, and he said to me the other day that all is very thorough and organized. Actually to quote him (he is not religious) ..." they definitely have a one hundred year plan... All the infrastructure is in place....." " The roads and transport systems are organized and clean, and the average person lives really well...."

    This was his observation and it was a casual one. He is one of the most casual understated Australians I currently know.

  • freddo

    You yanks needn't worry about losing superpower status - we brits lost it after WW2 and it hasn't done us any harm. Only your pride gets hurt.

    No one will defeat China, Russia, USA or India and no one will try.

  • mynameislame

    China is buying all the gold and they probably own half of the US's debt.

    Of course if they try to collect, the US they will just say "sure thing, we hope you don't mind your payment in bombs".

  • DJS

    There is so much wrong with this article that it is difficult to know where to begin. But Met, I will say one thing; you cetainly are consistent. I get it. You hate the U.S./British/Israeli militaristic system. I've followed so many of your posts; the last one was pathetic. This one is barely better. You can find any 'government official' who will say just about anything. Note this ridiculous statement from your link: " But China’s economy is growing much more quickly , targeting growth of about 7.5% this year. In contrast, the U.S. economy will be lucky to grow by 3% ."

    "Lucky" to grow by 3%??????That's exactly what the target is for the U.S. and has been for decades. It is considered sustainable and almost all economic decisions are made based on that target. 7.5% is considered by almost all economists as unsustainable in this and just about every other country for more than a short time, and typically leads to problems, sometimes big sometimes bigger.

    This is jaundiced 'journalism' if you even want to call it that. China has a growing middle class but is in no way similar to the U.S. in this manner. Millisons of peasants are being forcibly 'relocated' without any say in the matter. Eminent domain has a different meaning there.

    What they do have is a government that can make unilateral economic/environment/cultrual changes and immediately implement them, as in the U.S. it is a partnership between government and capitalism. Don't like the polluton in Bejing? The government simply says no cars are allowed and everyone must ride bicycles. Let's see if that is a sustainable 'business model." It may well be, but the government better freaking 'choose wisely Indiana" or it will be a crash and burn one day of historic magnitude not dissimilar to fthe crash of Communism where the government made all of the (usually really bad non-free market) decisions.

    The free market invisible hand is much more likely to ensure economic efficiency (yeah I know there are problems here too but Adam Smith's invisible hand is much more at work here than in China).

    Met, I suggest you actually do some real research on both sides of this topic before your next anti-west/U.S./Brit/Israeli post. At least this one isn't simply a delusional rant with definitive statements devoid of facts. But its freaking close.

    By simple fact that China has over 4 times the population they will eclipse the U.S. in many economic matters. DUH. And military??? Puh-lease.

  • metatron

    "delusional" "pathetic"

    It must be rewarding for you to recite words such as these to the mirror you must certainly be facing.

    FACT: A Significantly Highly Placed US Official with first-rate expertise in the US economy has publically stated that China is rising and the American public should be prepared for loss of the US position of primacy (I assume you can read)


  • kaik

    In human history countries, states and civilizations experience rise followed by decline and fall. USA is not exception. UK was world leading power so did other players from Roman Empire to Mongol and all became thing of the past. Croatian poet of the renaissance era, Ivan Gundulic wrote that all the past kingship of the mighty empires are plowed under the plough of time and became past. However, I would not write off USA, but its influence in the world is certainly wanned over 25 years. China experienced numerous rises and falls from Han dynasty to 19th century, and there is not set that it will maintain its leading position in the future.

  • DJS


    Global and macro economic theory is very complicated. Economists build models to try to understand, and help governments predict for example how a proposed socio-economic program will impact a society. The good ones get Nobel Peace Prizes when they are accurate, but their models are always being re-tooled, scrapped and re-built. That's because societies and cultures change. Spending and saving habits change. Countries move from agrarian (the U.S. in the early/mid 20th Century and China, I don't know, NOW) to an industrial economy. Trying to justapoze a few factoids onto a nation or culture or predict its future with any accuracy when the entire mosaic isn't understood simply doesn't work.

    And economic theory suggests that governments should spend LESS when the economy is booming and MORE when it is in recession. Its called Keynsian theory and was initially explained by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression as the solution to getting out of it. Roossevelt employed it to move out of that rut, as did Bush and Obama during the Great Recession. The theory runs counter-intuitive to humans but makes sense when you actually think about it. Let the private sector fuel growth and governments cut spending during great times and governments prime the pump by spending and getting people buying and selling during bad times. That's how most governments work now, but it took decades to get it. My point is trying to look at a snap shot of China right now and make solid predictions about it, when it is similar in many ways to the U.S. 75 years ago is fruitless.

    So the Chinese may be getting it completely right, but there are very good historically accurate economic reasons to suggest there may be a few bumps in the road. A GDP of 3 percent annual means that the economy will double in 24 years. A GDP of 7.5 percent would mean a nation would double its economy in less than a decade. That is so fast that it doesn't typically allow nations to re-consider investments, tack in the wind, adapt to changing social, environmental and political changes. Big mistakes are often made. That's why a 3 percent growth rate is desirable, as it allows for all of that and is better for planning long-term.

    As I pointed out in your previous post about this, economic theory is very complicated and takes years or decades to become clear. Google Economist jokes and you will see. The government official, and the person who wrote that article you posted, are clearly not experts. Find better material to quote/reference.

    As far as military spending, geesh man, google the percent of U.S. military spending as a part of the GDP since the Eisenhower Era (you referenced this in a previous OP about the same topic) and you will see that it has actually gone steadily down since that time, with blips in the 60s, 80s (Reagan's increased military spending which many credit in large part to the end of the Soviet empire and Cold War-so much for a hawkish/militarist mindset) and 00s (post 9/11). Obama is cutting military spending deeply, and has proposed addiitonal cuts. On a side note, don't think for a second that the U.S. current mindset of rolling back its military spending isn't one of the things Vlad considererd when he went into the Ukraine. There is so much more to this topic to consider.

    Things are complicated. You make some very good posts, but your anti-west bias colors your views on these topics. Ive got an MBA and have studied and taught, at the college level, global, macro and micro economics theory and application. If you want to trade facts - not factoids- about this topic, lets lock and load. And don't get me started about U.S. military might and its technological capabilities. I won't be able to share what I know. But I know.

  • DJS

Share this