FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Asian Economy





Abhishek1984
As most of you might be aware of the increasing asian economy. Do you think its time tat US would no longer be a super power? What you think would be the affect of this to developing nations like China and India?
whitehole
China is ~40% of the size of our economy. I believe that the stronger they get, the better for everybody. The EU is slightly larger than our economy at some points but again. More competition = more people earning/spending money and more of so many other good things.
RubySlasher
When the china gets a better economy than us, that's when we'll get mass-produced mechs. Then the world will be a better place.
bogger
The U.S.A will be a superpower until it gets broken up, due to it's bountiful supply of natural resources.
The question you should be asking is whether it will lose its monopoly on Super-Poweriority (not a word, I know).

A problem is that China is limited in one of the 4 economic basics:

1)Land
2)Labour
3)Entrepreneurship
4)Capital

While China has an insane amount of labour available to itself, and a lot of Capital a là the Chinese government, it is constrained by it's land mass size.

9,598,0861< China < 9,640,8212
USA: 9,629,091 (all km^2)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_area

We can see from this that While china may be able to equal the USA's Super-Poweriority, it would be difficult for it to completely overtake it

It also lacks in entrepreneurship. The Chinese communist ideal tends to disparage innovation, alas.
Afaceinthematrix
Even though I see the Asian economies growing, I don't see the US not being a superpower any time soon - with soon I mean within a few years. The US is falling behind in several areas - especially education, so I predict it falling far behind many other countries. But I still don't see this happening for another 10-20 years. Each new generation of Americans seems to care less and less about education, so I give it another generation.
Bikerman
Quote:
We can see from this that While china may be able to equal the USA's Super-Poweriority, it would be difficult for it to completely overtake it

I'm not at all sure that is a valid argument.
Take the case of Britain, for example. The land mass is tiny and yet it was undoubtedly the super-power for a century or more. Being a 'super-power' is a relative term - it simply means being the (or one of the) most powerful 'kids on the block'. I'm not convinced that geographical size is such an important factor in this - if it were then we could argue that Canada should be on a par with the US.
US power is, as I see it, based on military and economic might. The economic side of the equation is certainly changing and the US will cease to be the global superpower by this measure pretty soon. The military side of the equation is less easy to predict. The US spends a large proportion of GDP on the military and there is no sign that this will change anytime soon. China is certainly capable of outstripping the US militarily if it decides to go down that route - it's greater potential GDP means that it could simply outspend the US should it choose to.
Personally I hope that the military side of the equation becomes less important, though real-politik suggests we are a long way from that.
bogger
@ Bikerman.
wikipedia wrote:
"By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.[1] It covered about 36.6 million km² (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area."


While I accept that wikipedia isn't an exceptional source, their point is pretty correct.

The main problem is that China will have a more difficult time invading another country and using their population to their own means (I hope)
Bikerman
bogger wrote:
@ Bikerman.
wikipedia wrote:
"By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.[1] It covered about 36.6 million km² (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area."


While I accept that wikipedia isn't an exceptional source, their point is pretty correct.
Ah. OK, I misunderstood your point. I thought the point you were making was about the 'native' land size rather than the 'colonial' land occupied.
Quote:

The main problem is that China will have a more difficult time invading another country and using their population to their own means (I hope)

Well I think (hope) that it is true that we live in a post-colonial era and to that extent I would agree. In this era, however, I think economic control is much more important that 'occupation' of a territory. Having production centres, ownership of land and facilites, and control of companies, in a foreign country can be seen as a post-colonial form of occupation.
Colonialism was always problematic - it requires vast expenditure. To keep a foreign country under 'control' requires legislature, political structures, military occupation etc. Britain was probably the last great colonial power we will see in that sense of the word - the world has moved on.
Related topics
FOR WAR OR NOT
Asian movies
Frankfurt Motor Show, 2005
Misunderrepresented again, Dubya and the US economy
asian human rights
.co.uk for Asian ?
Talking about China
crisis possible for U.S. economy
US Boder Patrol Kills a man
How do other countries see Australia? (out of curiosity)
India will be 3rd largest economy in 2006
Asian guys can't get girls.
CON-serve-va-tives and LIE-ber-alls are essentially the same
Moving countries. Do you think you might do that one day?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Economics and Marketing

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.