Political Crossfire Forums

[philm]

It is an undeniable fact that times must and always do change.
The 17th Century was the era of France, the 18th and 19th Britain, the 20th undeniable the USA.
Will the 21st Century be the time of China, or some other power?

[Melcar]

I give the USA another century or so, then the crown may go to the Chinese. Then again, a lot can happen in a century. Still, with the way things are (intercontinental economies and politics) I doubt the USA would just dissapear from the world scene; I think it will forever remain an influential power no matter what the future may bring.

[TNBiologist]

When the US does loose some of its power ( I give it one more generation) I think it will shift to India. India is fast becoming a powerhouse. They still have problems but they are rapidly gaining in the percent of people going on to get higher educations and thus better jobs. They are a fairly moderate country, no religion controls the government and are fairly liberal towards gays, different religions, etc...

[asainspace]

TNBiologist wrote: When the US does loose some of its power ( I give it one more generation) I think it will shift to India. India is fast becoming a powerhouse. They still have problems but they are rapidly gaining in the percent of people going on to get higher educations and thus better jobs. They are a fairly moderate country, no religion controls the government and are fairly liberal towards gays, different religions, etc...

Will they not then from the viewpoint of conservatism have laid the seeds for their own downfall as is seen by the views of many conservatives in the USA?

Is there also not a valid point to this that maybe the pursuit of balance both economically, environmentally, militarily and socially should be the real aims that we must now take in the world and our obsession with power all the time is a gigantic destructive pursuit?

And isn't there a sort of denonciation to the old ways and values of India and China. Did their societies not already give enough to the world in regard to their traditional cultures?

[philm]

I feel India is too unstable to inherit the mantle of World Leadership. In my opinion, India could disintegrate within the next 30-50 years, because of sectarian turmoil.
China, is SLIGHTLY less turbulent. But maybe that is the result of a totalitarian regime. Factors like population, high educational standards, aspirational middle-class, established foreign markets etc contribute to make China, THE growing power.
Unless China suffers a Soviet style collapse, I think that China could become THE global player sooner than many of my fellow forum contributors think.
NEW POINT, maybe a sub-forum on its own.
Considering these points, should not US and EU governments consider changing their neo-liberal trade policies toward China and adopt more traditional protectionist policies.
POINT FOR ARGUMENT-free trade only benefits the wealthy.Free movement of production only shifts jobs from the West to the East. Net result, loss of jobs in the West, cheaper labour costs in the East- discuss

[asainspace]

philm wrote: I feel India is too unstable to inherit the mantle of World Leadership. In my opinion, India could disintegrate within the next 30-50 years, because of sectarian turmoil.
China, is SLIGHTLY less turbulent. But maybe that is the result of a totalitarian regime. Factors like population, high educational standards, aspirational middle-class, established foreign markets etc contribute to make China, THE growing power.
Unless China suffers a Soviet style collapse, I think that China could become THE global player sooner than many of my fellow forum contributors think.
NEW POINT, maybe a sub-forum on its own.
Considering these points, should not US and EU governments consider changing their neo-liberal trade policies toward China and adopt more traditional protectionist policies.
POINT FOR ARGUMENT-free trade only benefits the wealthy.Free movement of production only shifts jobs from the West to the East. Net result, loss of jobs in the West, cheaper labour costs in the East- discuss

I agree, free trade only benefits the richest. I believe in fair and ethical trading. We have more so we should pay more to those who have less. Rather than they get less cause we want to pay less.

I don't like protectionist tendencies towards China......who are we, fat from the feast of development we have enjoyed to dictate to them how they should develop? In all probabilities it would send a bad signal to the next big superpower and put us very much on course for conflict in some form with them. We have to allow China to develop, for the sake most importantly of it's people, but we must insist upon China taking the lead and developing to the highest environmental standards possible..........as well as ourselves (far greater urgency and action is needed immediately, rahter than the photo op, buzzword environmentalism we see in politicians) of course.

China is rapidly opening up. It is frustrating, but I can see that it is actually quite important to open up at a slower rate to reduce the risk of chaos and collapse, as the Communists have said is the intention. It is a transition in work and the Communist rulers knew that it was not maintainable as it was.

China will no doubt be a superpower, but will they learn from our mistakes and try to develop in a more natural, balanced manner? I hope so, but to be honest the signs upto now have not been that encouraging.

[asainspace]

philm wrote: I feel India is too unstable to inherit the mantle of World Leadership. In my opinion, India could disintegrate within the next 30-50 years, because of sectarian turmoil.
China, is SLIGHTLY less turbulent. But maybe that is the result of a totalitarian regime. Factors like population, high educational standards, aspirational middle-class, established foreign markets etc contribute to make China, THE growing power.
Unless China suffers a Soviet style collapse, I think that China could become THE global player sooner than many of my fellow forum contributors think.
NEW POINT, maybe a sub-forum on its own.
Considering these points, should not US and EU governments consider changing their neo-liberal trade policies toward China and adopt more traditional protectionist policies.
POINT FOR ARGUMENT-free trade only benefits the wealthy.Free movement of production only shifts jobs from the West to the East. Net result, loss of jobs in the West, cheaper labour costs in the East- discuss

I agree, free trade only benefits the richest. I believe in fair and ethical trading. We have more so we should pay more to those who have less. Rather than they get less cause we want to pay less.

I don't like protectionist tendencies towards China......who are we, fat from the feast of development we have enjoyed to dictate to them how they should develop? In all probabilities it would send a bad signal to the next big superpower and put us very much on course for conflict in some form with them. We have to allow China to develop, for the sake most importantly of it's people, but we must insist upon China taking the lead and developing to the highest environmental standards possible..........as well as ourselves (far greater urgency and action is needed immediately, rahter than the photo op, buzzword environmentalism we see in politicians) of course.

China is rapidly opening up. It is frustrating, but I can see that it is actually quite important to open up at a slower rate to reduce the risk of chaos and collapse, as the Communists have said is the intention. It is a transition in work and the Communist rulers knew that it was not maintainable as it was.

China will no doubt be a superpower, but will they learn from our mistakes and try to develop in a more natural, balanced manner? I hope so, but to be honest the signs upto now have not been that encouraging.

[Spider]

I see China becoming the dominant force economically in as little as 25-30 years. The CCP is being relativly lax in terms of free enterprise, and blatant capitalism in many respects. My visit there the 2 years ago was an eye opening. In every city the skyline is crowded with construction cranes, and there is a pulsing energy to the place. China is where things will be happening, as long as energy stays cheap. I beleive I read somewhere that China is now the worlds largest consumer of oil, and between demand from the west and them, I see big scary confrontations in the future over energy.

China is an unstoppable force, and I think they will be top dog by the end of this century, perhaps much sooner....unless they have some kind of clash if the CCP needs to be removed...

[Piotr]

philm wrote:
POINT FOR ARGUMENT-free trade only benefits the wealthy.Free movement of production only shifts jobs from the West to the East. Net result, loss of jobs in the West, cheaper labour costs in the East- discuss

I disagree; it gives jobs to people (a source of income) and helps keep costs down at home (and perhaps over there, too). As a secondary result, it helps accelerate economic and material development through increased purchasing power. The so-called trickle down effect. Free trade directly benefits some and indirectly benefits everyone, although maybe some more than others.

However, it doesn't always work that way, and dangers arise especially when economic circles attempt to seize and define political power (especially to eliminate competition, an action from which only a very select few benefit, to the detriment of everyone else).