# General Discussion > Opinions >  Who Will Become The Next Superpower?

## Silverbackman

For background info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

What country will become the next superpower?

Personally I think the European Union will become a single federal republic pretty soon. Europe already meets the criteria for a superpower so all they need to do is unify.

China and India come next because of their massive populations and fast growing technologies.

After that there really is no telling who will become superpower status. Russia may make a come back but they aren't improving that much compared to countries like India and China.

Brazil.......who knows. It is a pretty large country with a large population. Can't be for sure.

Japan has the second biggest overall economy in the world next to the US, but perhaps needs more land and more growth in population. But this will never happen because Japan's constitution forbids Japan to go to war except in self defense. And their population rate is dropping quite a bit (like most other developed countries). Still they could have gotten some land in Siberia, who knows. Maybe they can still buy land from Russia, a country that will do anything for money right now! And the government can award families. who have more kids. You never know.

Who do you think will become the next superpower and who will secede the next superpower after that?

----------


## RockLee

My vote goes to China as they are with a lot of people and China is quite big.Let's hope nobody wants to be a superpower!!  :Wink:

----------


## yidaki

With the way globalism works, there won't be any more superpowers.
Could be a company, but more likely a congolomerate of many companies.

The EU will fall apart in civil war.
Russia will grow together with China, in an economic race like a cold war.
USA will crumble like a paper house, all it has is it's past merits (few) and it's reputation.
Japan and Korea will follow China agains't Russia, taking over all the companies in Russia (oil,gas,mines)
China will build up a middle class, unions, general social welfare.
With that welfare, complains will come, complaints about not enough work and too much illiteracy.
After a while it will fall like USA.
It's stuff that comes and goes, there's always ups and downs.
There's no telling who or what might reign in a hundred yrs.
Most likely some kind of transnational conglomerate though.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Interesting topic Silverbackman!


> Personally I think the European Union will become a single federal republic pretty soon. Europe already meets the criteria for a superpower so all they need to do is unify.


I wonder how many Europeans believe that? As a European myself, I believe it is a loooooong way off. The UK seems more likely to become the 51st state of the US than part of a unified Europe!

----------


## Kinsao

I tend to agree most with Yidaki.



> Europe already meets the criteria for a superpower so all they need to do is unify.


So much easier to say than to do! The countries of Europe are quite culturally separate (especially the Eastern from the Western, and the north from the south). Economically, we could be more powerful in unity, certainly; but there are strong cultural cross-currents that make true 'unity' difficult.

If I had to choose one, my vote would go to China, because their economy is growing so fast. However, they do have a _lot_ of problems, so... it could all go more pear-shaped than it is already. And I don't have much knowledge of these issues anyway...

India I think is still behind China and Japan in this 'race'; as for Russia and Brazil, possibly in the longer term future but I think there would be some other 'superpower' before them.

I think Japan will become highly 'fashionable' in the west before too long, with us maybe adopting certain aspects in much the same way as they adopt some of ours, but I don't think it will become the 'next superpower' (if there was to be such a thing).

----------


## KrazyKat

> Interesting topic Silverbackman!I wonder how many Europeans believe that? As a European myself, I believe it is a loooooong way off. The UK seems more likely to become the 51st state of the US than part of a unified Europe!


Yeah I don't see the EU becoming a 'single federal republic' for a long time, if ever. The current trend is breaking apart rather than joining together. Some kind of joint/coordinated foreign policy might be quite nice, but I don't see that happening either. As was said, even before the enlargement the other year the EU was pretty diverse, ecomomically and culturally. The EU might become an economic superpower but not likely a political one.

----------


## Dutch Baka

> The UK seems more likely to become the 51st state of the US than part of a unified Europe!


That would be cool! The rest of the EU, should give them rowingboats or something like this hahaha :Poh:

----------


## Silverbackman

> Yeah I don't see the EU becoming a 'single federal republic' for a long time, if ever. The current trend is breaking apart rather than joining together. Some kind of joint/coordinated foreign policy might be quite nice, but I don't see that happening either. As was said, even before the enlargement the other year the EU was pretty diverse, ecomomically and culturally. The EU might become an economic superpower but not likely a political one.


Well you know the United States Of America was pretty divided too. Until the civil war each state functioned more or less like a different country, the only difference being that they had to sometimes obey the federal government and no army. Actually even before the US constitution was ratified it was very close to being a bunch of nations instead of one unified nation.

India is even more diverse but they got the job done, although not completly (they couldn't unify the entire subcontinent but were close and have most lands today unified).

I think Europe might head down this path soon, maybe 50 years at max? By then China and India may become superpowers but you never know. As long as they don't admit Turkey (a country obviously not European) they will be fine.

----------


## moffeltoff

> Interesting topic Silverbackman!I wonder how many Europeans believe that? As a European myself, I believe it is a loooooong way off. The UK seems more likely to become the 51st state of the US than part of a unified Europe!


I prefer to stay german/english rather than european, but I do hope ,that the USA,as we know them, will fall apart in the not to distant future.

----------


## yidaki

Comparing USA with EU is impossible.
It would be like comparing Canada with Asia.
East coast vs West coast atleast generally speaks american english.
But there's no relation between Finnish and Turkish people whatsoever.
And that's not a bad thing, every culture has it's angle.
There's no point in trying to make everyone the same.
People will always be different.
And that's not a bad thing, diversity is good. :)

----------


## KrazyKat

> I prefer to stay german/english rather than european, but I do hope ,that the USA,as we know them, will fall apart in the not to distant future.


May I ask why? Wouldn't that cause suffering for a lot of people in the US and around the world because of economic effects?

----------


## KrazyKat

> India is even more diverse but they got the job done, although not completly (they couldn't unify the entire subcontinent but were close and have most lands today unified).


I'm afraid you can't draw a parallel with the Indian subcontinent here. They started off with a general unity in the first place, under the Bristish, without idependant states within living memory. At Independance, apart from a few princley states, India was already one country, so it is more a matter of not breaking apart than building anything like the EU. Also remember that Pakistan did break apart, the reverse of what you are using them as an example of. Of course I won't deny that India has done well at keeping internal stability when compared to the ethnic confilitcts in some (most) of the African former colonies.

Also to say 'most lands today unified' is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Pakistan and Bangladesh can't just be overlooked like that, although you can have Ceylon and Nepal.

----------


## Brooker

I think China or India. Who knows, maybe the E.U. Might be nice to take the pressure off the U.S. for a while.

----------


## kirei_na_me

I have been thinking China for a few years now. It just seems they're getting more and more powerful economically. Not to mention all the manpower they have. I just get a feeling they're up to something big.

----------


## Mitsuo

I've been thinking China. They have a big military and it seems that they are growing faster than ever. I can't see europe unifying. That's just me. I don't think a lot of countries would go for that. Because, if one country goes to war, then wouldn't they all have to? Just asking, I don't think some countries would like that. Like France.

----------


## misa.j

China or India. They both have nuclear weapons, but China seems to be economically growing faster than any other countries and it's moving towards that way already.

----------


## Duo

> Comparing USA with EU is impossible.
> It would be like comparing Canada with Asia.
> East coast vs West coast atleast generally speaks american english.
> But there's no relation between Finnish and Turkish people whatsoever.
> And that's not a bad thing, every culture has it's angle.
> There's no point in trying to make everyone the same.
> People will always be different.
> And that's not a bad thing, diversity is good. :)



Funny, all the skeptical talk for EU unification comes from countries that shy away. Did you u know that vikings came all the way down to the balkans in the 7th century AD? They mixed there with local populations, that could be a link. Have you ever been to Turkey before? Do you know turkish and finish culture so well that you can make such a statement. For one both turks and finns had great spirit in defending their nation, the finns in ww2 against russia, the turks after ww1 preventing the break up of their territory from western powers. 

Furthermore why are people associating a lack of diversity with the EU when the EU is promoting diversity and local governance control.


BTW in case you all didn't know the the European Unionfs $10.5 trillion GDP now eclipses the United Statesf, making it the largest economy in the world. The EU is already the worldfs leading exporter and largest internal trading market. 


I think it should be about time that sweden and countries alike stop talkin about "evil" globalization and incompatability within europe and start adopting the euro. Alone out there in scandinavia it can surely get cold. This euro skepticism is holding back the infinite possibilities that a unified europe has.

----------


## Duo

> I prefer to stay german/english rather than european, but I do hope ,that the USA,as we know them, will fall apart in the not to distant future.



It's funny that 100 years ago or so the concept of "german" didn't exist cuz there was no germany... and what about the 50 or so year split between east and west germany? I'd say german identity is rather amibigious.. much like the italian one which also was formed from smaller provinces into one.

----------


## Duo

> As long as they don't admit Turkey (a country obviously not European) they will be fine.


Can you please elaborate on why that is? How do you know turkey isn't a european country? This seems to be the popular yet sorry to say ignorant thought out there...

----------


## Duo

> With the way globalism works, there won't be any more superpowers.
> Could be a company, but more likely a congolomerate of many companies.
> The EU will fall apart in civil war.
> Russia will grow together with China, in an economic race like a cold war.
> USA will crumble like a paper house, all it has is it's past merits (few) and it's reputation.
> Japan and Korea will follow China agains't Russia, taking over all the companies in Russia (oil,gas,mines)
> China will build up a middle class, unions, general social welfare.
> With that welfare, complains will come, complaints about not enough work and too much illiteracy.
> After a while it will fall like USA.
> ...


and through the ashes of this world order melt down IKEA will rise like the phoenix and provide free do it yourself furniture for a better future  :Okashii:

----------


## Silverbackman

> Can you please elaborate on why that is? How do you know turkey isn't a european country? This seems to be the popular yet sorry to say ignorant thought out there...


I know Turkey has some European lands (like Istanbul). Bot most of Turkey is in Asia minor or West Asia and their culture is far different. I think it would be better if Turkey waits it out and join a future Middle Eastern Union or something.

----------


## SortOf

Panama definately

----------


## 4321go

In fact ,almost no one in China think of Superpower!



> A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and has the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale.


China is in fact a poor country~ far from being the superpower

To be a superpower, one must advanced in Cultural\Geographical\Economic and financial\Demographic\Military\Space Technology\Political or ideological\

*World multipolarization is the current trend.*

As the image show ,this is the last two superpower have ever exist in this world.


And I'd say: superpower means high military spending .No one like hegemony in this world.

----------


## godppgo

I am really surprised Canada is 16th in military spending. Consider we only have something like 4 submarines, 3 of them don't even work and only 1 is operational.

----------


## moffeltoff

> It's funny that 100 years ago or so the concept of "german" didn't exist cuz there was no germany... and what about the 50 or so year split between east and west germany? I'd say german identity is rather amibigious.. much like the italian one which also was formed from smaller provinces into one.


But a german nation had existed before it was only ripped apart by the nobles ,who wanted their individual territories to be indipendandt.
And not to forget dutch isnt an own language its a german dialect ,which was spoken about 200-300 years ago in the north of germany and there was always a treatie ,which held the territories togethet more or less "Heilige rmische Reich deutscher Nationen",so I do think ,there is a fair bit of a general german culture around.

----------


## Duo

> But a german nation had existed before it was only ripped apart by the nobles ,who wanted their individual territories to be indipendandt.
> And not to forget dutch isnt an own language its a german dialect ,which was spoken about 200-300 years ago in the north of germany and there was always a treatie ,which held the territories togethet more or less "Heilige rische Reich deutscher Nationen",so I do think ,there is a fair bit of a general german culture around.


You are just proving my point... that culture within Europe has been mixed and intertwined... so attributes of german culture have rubbed on into other nations and vice versa. So when you say German that probaply includes attributes from other cultures as well so i'd say that national identity is somewhat artificial in europe and the only identity that can encompass us all is European.

----------


## moffeltoff

Of course the cultures mixed ,but only to a certain extent and in the E.U. the generall language would probably be English ,even though england hasnt played a role as big as germany or france in europes history ,but the main reason is because I love speaking german. =)

----------


## KrazyKat

> You are just proving my point... that culture within Europe has been mixed and intertwined... so attributes of german culture have rubbed on into other nations and vice versa. So when you say German that probaply includes attributes from other cultures as well so i'd say that national identity is somewhat artificial in europe and the only identity that can encompass us all is European.


Coming from this, I'm predicting a reduction of Nationalism in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The idea of nations seems a bit strange in the first place, dividing the world into us and them, not even based on language, ethnicity or religion. Africa and the Middle east have it worse as many of these countries' borders were jsut a by-product of collonialism and have nothing holding them together. Hence so much ethnic confilct everywhere.

----------


## KrazyKat

Also what I love(?) about that chart of military expenditure earlier is how Japan has a larger budget than the UK, despite claiming to only have a self-defence-force.  :Wary:

----------


## Duo

> Of course the cultures mixed ,but only to a certain extent and in the E.U. the generall language would probably be English ,even though england hasnt played a role as big as germany or france in europes history ,but the main reason is because I love speaking german. =)


I doubt the EU would even try to touch the sovereignty of local languages... that is why in the eu parliament all the documents are in all languages of the members nations and there are translators for the debate so that mps talk their home language.

----------


## Brooker

The trouble with China and India though is that the average quality of life in those countries isn't very good. They have a huge lower class, and small middle class, and a very small yet powerful upperclass. To become a superpower you need a really big middle class.

----------


## godppgo

> The trouble with China and India though is that the average quality of life in those countries isn't very good. They have a huge lower class, and small middle class, and a very small yet powerful upperclass. To become a superpower you need a really big middle class.


Exactly, you can build as many highrise or have a huge army, but without the proper people quality, a country can never be a true superpower.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Exactly, you can build as many highrise or have a huge army, but without the proper people quality, a country can never be a true superpower.


The phrase 'people quality' concerns me! What exactly do you mean by it?

----------


## Clawn

It seems I'm going to have to step alongside many others in saying that China does indeed look up to being a world superpower in the not-to-distant future.

----------


## godppgo

> The phrase 'people quality' concerns me! What exactly do you mean by it?


Again it's probably my bad translation, I translated from the term lf.
The term people quality refers to a person's degree of conformity to modern day rules and ideas (or western rules or ideas). It has nothing to do with the person being a bad or good person. It's just a measure of how adaptable he or she is to modern world rules.

Some common examples of low people quality observed in many asian countries include:

- disobey traffict rule
- pirating
- littering
- tax evasion
- bribery
- refuse to line-up when checking out at a supermarket
- stores selling food well passed its expiry date
- people stealing puplic equipment such as power line or sewege cap. 
- building are constructed using low grade material

These are just a small fraction of low people quality behaviors commonly observed in most asian countries. Most of these behaviors originate from two important aspects of western thinking that asians tend to have problem adapting to. The two aspects are democracy and justice system. A majority of asian's low people quality behaviors result from a lack of understanding and respect for democracy and justice system. Some major consequencs are high crime rate, political instability, environmental degradation, and social unrest due to injustice. 

India is doing a little bit better than China in the democracy category. However, the two countries still have a very very long way to go to teach their people to respect democracy and justice system. This is not accomplished in a matter of months or years, or decades. Until then, India or China will never be a true superpower.

----------


## lonesoullost3

It's spring break!!! Which means I will have time to post!! (Hello lonesoullost3, it appears that you have not posted on the Japan Forum in several weeks.....hahahahaha) So time to start posting ^_^

I don't think China will become a superpower and let me go ahead an argue why. Here's the problem: sure they're growing fast but they will hit a peak because they have inefficient use of manpower. The economic principal is that you want to have an ideal kapital (spelled with a K so as not to confuse with monetary capital) to labor ratio. The problem with China is that they don't have enough kapital. Therefore they have a huge amount of labor that is not being utilized and their productivity is limited by their amount and quality of kapital (the latter being equivalent to technology). By reaching this upper limit China will slowly start decrease in growth rate. Theories in developmental economics suggest that as a country approaches the capacity of the leading country (currently the US) the developing country's growth rate will decline until it actually starts to fall back from the leading country (who is growing at a "normal" rate of about 2-3% per annum).



The vertical axis describes the growth rate of the developing country relative to the growth rate of the leading country (whose growth rate has a relative value of 0). The horizontal axis describes the capacity of the country relative to the leading country (whose relative capacity=100). Also, this graph represents only one country's graph with a an ideal potential capacity and a 1:1 ratio between absorbtion rate and relative capacity (where if my graph wasn't hand drawn in paint, point C would be the intersection of two 45 degree lines coming from points X and Y). A country which has less potential capacity could have B interesect more to the left and thus have point Y be further left, never interescting the leading country's capacity. A country with the same capacity but less absorbtion rate would have a maximum less than C.

Reading the graph:

*1.* Point A is the steady state where the developing country begins the process of 'catching up'.
*2.* Point B is the steady state where the country has reached the maximum (and optimum) equlibrium point of growth rate vs. capacity.
*3.* From point X to point C, the developing country is absorbing information and technology from the leading country (which it must interact with in order to catch up) at a rate less than it's potential capacity to absorb. However, this rate is gradually diminishing (consider it a rule of Diminishing Marginal Growth Rate for each 'unit' of capacity you increase). Point C is where the developing country is absorbing at optimal capacity. From Point C to B is where a developing country is slowly being unable to keep up with the amount of of information being channeled into it from the leading country. I will explain B to Y later.

The following take the above and apply it to the catching up process:

*4.* From point X to point A the developing country is growing _but at a slower rate than the leading country._ Thus, the gap between the two countries _increases_, even though the developing country is growing. If a country does not have enough momentum to reach and sustain point A it will fall back to point X.
*5.*  From point A to C, the developing country is growing (due to bullet #3) and the gap between the two countries _decreases_. It will continue increasing it's growth rate until point C.
*6.*  From point C to B the developing country is still catching up, however because it's absorbtion rate is not optimal, it begins a period of decline in growth rate (also due to the DMGR referenced above).
*7.* From B to Y the developing country is attempting to close the final gap between the leading country and itself. However, once this country crosses point B to the right, it will fall back _up_ to point B because it's relative growth rate (although still positive in absolute terms) is now _negative_. Thus, the gap between the two countries increases (from the excess point) to equilibrium point B again. Therefore, it is possible for a country to exceed point B in the short-run, but in the long run it will always fall back to B. Currently, Japan is at a point B, roughly 90% - but not higher. 

Ok - so why does the country's growth rate go relatively negative at this point? At point B the absorbtion rate decreases to a level at which the developing country can only sustain a growth rate equivalent to that of the leading country. Theoretically, if the country somehow jumped to point Y it's absorbtion rate would be 0 because it now has the same capacity as the leading country - hence all information and technology that is transferable has been acquired. However, we must keep in mind that these growth rates and capacities are all _relative_ and that the leading country is growing and increasing in capacity as well! If the leading country was stagnant there is nothing stopping a well developed country like Japan to catch up 100% with the leading country. However because this is not the case highly developed countries will reach their own "point B" and remain that way. The only way for a country to surpass the leading country is for a _drastic_ change in that country's economy to occur over a _sustained_ period.

OK - I think I explained that as best as I can....let me try to sum it up using an analogy (which I actually think comes from a Chinese saying).

A horsefly lands on the rear of a horse, who then starts running. The horsefly then proceeds to walk along the back of the horse towards its nose. Then the fly, wanting to overtake the horse, leaps off its nose to fly ahead. The horsefly was ahead for a brief instant, but the speed of the horse was faster and the fly falls behind and lands on the horse's back again.

The horsefly first landed on the horse's back - Point A.
Starts walking up the back - point A to B.
Jumps of the nose of the horse - temporarily exceeding point B.
Falls back to land on the horse's back - return to B.

Hopefully that will help make things clearer - but be sure to ask if it doesn't!
One more graph (Solow's Growth Model) then I will sum EVERYTHING up in relation to China (and any other country for that matter).



Y-axis is $, X-axis is amount of K(apital)
This one is easier to explain. sf(k) is the national savings of a country as a function of K(apital). (dn)k is the cost of capital where d is the depreciation rate and n is the population growth rate.

The intersection of these two lines provides K* - the steady state amount of kapital a country wants to obtain. At this ideal amount of kapital the country's output is maximized. Because of the diminishing nature of the savings function (referencing to the decreasing slope) countries with lower levels of savings (and thus lower levels of kapital) will accumulate kapital (and thus increase output) faster than countries with a higher level of k. 

Once a country reaches it's K* it cannot surpass it. Why? Once the kapital curve exceeds the savings curve kapital requires more money than the economy has (which is in the savings rate). In other words, the savings rate limits the upper bound of kapital accumulation.

SO: China (as an example) is growing extremely rapidly - it is definitely near it's peak at point C in the first graph. However, due to it's problems with kapital efficiency and accumulation and it's pending decrease in growth rate it will not be able to successfully become an economic superpower in the way the US is now. Thus, it will eventually reach its own point B. Everyone knows that the one-child law in China is to slow population growth. Why is this so important? The obvious factor is feeding everybody - China already has a HUGE portion of it's population in the agriculture industry (49% by 2001 estimates). The second reason goes back to kapital accumulation and Solow's Growth Model. As n (the population growth rate) increases, the kapital curve becomes _steeper_ and thus K* decreases. When the steady state kapital decreases output is lower and thus growth is lower. Therefore, from an economic perspective, the one-child law is the absolute _best_ move China has done to boost its economic growth.

OK - that's it...I hope I didn't miss anything - sorry for being so long winded. It's break so I'll be sure to check back here to see if anyone has questions.

References:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ch.html
Wan, Henry Y. _Economic Development in A Globalized Environment_
Personal notes from lectures

----------


## godppgo

lonesoullost3,

Wow that's some analysis, I am definitely going to have some questions after digesting what you've written. I'll post after I organize my thought.

----------


## Mikawa Ossan

lonesoullost3, great post!

Do you mean to imply that there will never be another superpower, in your opinion? Or are you just ruling out China?

----------


## lonesoullost3

> lonesoullost3, great post!
> Do you mean to imply that there will never be another superpower, in your opinion? Or are you just ruling out China?


I'm not ruling out the possibility of another superpower. On the contrary, I'm just pointing out it's not as easy as just having sustained 'rapid growth' on a rate of 12% a year. There needs to be some exogenous factor that causes a new superpower to arise. Look at how the US surpassed Europe: the combination of WW1 and WW2 absolutely devastated Europe. 

In WW1 the US was not touched at home even though globally international trade suffered a drastic recession. During the interim between WW1 and 2, the whole world suffered a depression (a "Great" one in the U.S  :Wink:  ). As a result, the whole world stayed at approximately the same _relative_  economic levels. 

In WW2, the US was hardly touched at home in an economic fashion. Pearl Harbour was a major event, yes, but not in an economic fashion (short term losses which is to be expected, but in the long run the market came back with a vengeance). And of course, PH was nothing compared to what was happening all across Europe. But the drastic long term economic hardships in Europe led to the US's ability to surpass Britain, France, and Germany. The US's economy was the most stable during WW2 and thus in 1945 it was the obvious foundation of which to bulid another world economy.

It would take another event of a degree similar to that of a world war for the US to be overtaken by a country - at least in my opinion. There would need to be some event which caused the US to fall behind in technology - because as I said in my previous post, technology is the key factor in determining who's the leader. However, with the clear majority of the US's economy dedicated to either services or technology (and services are always a result of technology), it would need to be a _major_ event.

----------


## Maciamo

In some ways, the EU already is a superpower. It's not yet a single federal entity, but its influence in the world already equals (or surpass) that of the USA. Economically, the EU single-market is the largest market in the world (with the highest GDP). In matters of sports or culture, the influence or power of the EU has long been greater than the US. Militarily, the US still leads, but is it what matters most in today's world ?

----------


## godppgo

I find your analysis on growth rate really interesting. Your analysis is based on theories from developmental economics which I have absolutely no knowledge of (actually I have very little knowledge on economics as a whole, its more like a hobby to me). With lack of training in economics, I tried to use engineering theories to interpret your analysis, which I’ve found to be strikingly useful when understanding your analysis. Here is how I break down the analysis:

1.	A phenomenon is observed in the real world
2.	Numbers and data are collected from the real world
3.	Identify important parameters to the phenomenon 
4.	A model is developed to simulate the real world phenomenon
5.	The model is tested using real data to predict the outcome of a similar phenomenon
6.	Difference between the model and real world result is compared and corrections are made
7.	The model is used to test real data again
8.	Repeat step above steps until a satisfactory model has been achieved 

Most physical and social phenomenon can be modeled one way or another by the above process and it is also the approach I took in understanding your analysis. 

In most engineering problem, the time interval between implementing model and receiving results are usually within a reasonable amount of time and therefore it is possible and practical to develop a so-called optimum model. I could only imagine what a daunting and tedious task it must be is to try to model a social phenomenon as complicated and immense in scale as the growth rate of a country. I guess it would be nearly impossible to consider every single parameters when developing a growth rate model. So what are some of the important parameters you used when plotting the relative growth rate vs. relative capacity graph? 

Also, what causes absorbtion rate to decrease as capacity of the catching up country increases? I guess this question would be the same as to ask what Diminishing Marginal Growth Rate is. I tried to think of is as a student raising his grade from 20% to 70% with relative ease while raising from 95% to 100% would require relatively much more work than raising from 20% to 70% grade. 

Also on the horsefly example, what is perceived as the growth rate here? 

Thanks!

----------


## Silverbackman

> In some ways, the EU already is a superpower. It's not yet a single federal entity, but its influence in the world already equals (or surpass) that of the USA. Economically, the EU single-market is the largest market in the world (with the highest GDP). In matters of sports or culture, the influence or power of the EU has long been greater than the US. Militarily, the US still leads, but is it what matters most in today's world ?


Yes this is true. If considered a single entity it definitely meets the criteria of superpower. However until it becomes a single federal republic it cannot be considered a nation.

----------


## Mikawa Ossan

> I'm not ruling out the possibility of another superpower.... There needs to be some exogenous factor that causes a new superpower to arise. ... 
> It would take another event of a degree similar to that of a world war for the US to be overtaken by a country - at least in my opinion. There would need to be some event which caused the US to fall behind in technology - because as I said in my previous post, technology is the key factor in determining who's the leader.


Thanks once again for a great post!

I, once again, have some questions. (Incidentally, I ask because, although I do have my own opinions, I have never studied economics. Therefore it is very enlightening for me to be able to ask someone who obviously has specific questions. Thanks for answering at least this far! m(__)m )

How do you feel about the enormous national debt that the U.S. has? Do you not feel that this will, over time, erode the U.S.'s financial standing globally as more and more of the budget is devoted to financing this burden? 

How about the military situation? With the U.S. so mired in Iraq, coupled with Rumsfeld's zeal for "slimming down" the military, it seems to me that if another major war were to break out, it would break the military unless the U.S. were either reinstate the draft or leave Iraq. Both possibilities, I suppose, but hardly a position of unequivical strength.

And about the savings rate, which you touched upon earlier. It seemed to me that you basically said that the lower the savings rate, the better. However, do you not think that the savings rate can slip too low? If people have a negative savings rate, it means that they are buying on credit. That hardly seems tenable over long periods of time!

----------


## lonesoullost3

Godppgo and Mikawa Ossan here's to you:




> So what are some of the important parameters you used when plotting the relative growth rate vs. relative capacity graph?


Here is where I must mark my own limitations in understanding growth theory. As I am not the economist who developed this theory (he's actually my professor), I can only say that the two most important factors were growth of income per capita and level of income per capita. When developing economic theories one most always hold _ceteris paribus_ many unmeasurable/abstract variables like consumer preference or attitudes towards the market in the case of investment. Thus these models can come close, but can never accurately predict what would happen if one of these exogenous variables changes drastically. There could be rough estimates (increases, decreases), but nothing with a quantitative value. So I'm afraid that's all I can answer about this question.




> Also, what causes absorbtion rate to decrease as capacity of the catching up country increases? I guess this question would be the same as to ask what Diminishing Marginal Growth Rate is. I tried to think of is as a student raising his grade from 20% to 70% with relative ease while raising from 95% to 100% would require relatively much more work than raising from 20% to 70% grade.


Ok, so your analogy of a student's grade is perfect for explaining Solow's Growth Theory. It's much easier for a developing country to approach a k* level of kapital than a country which is nearly there. The decrease in absorbtion rate is not entirely attributed to the developing country (which also could be explained by your above analogy). Rather, because that country is getting closer to the leading country, there is less information and technology for it to absorb than before.




> Also on the horsefly example, what is perceived as the growth rate here?


Growth rate would be the relative speeds of the horse and the fly. The horse's gallop is the leading country's growth rate. So while the fly is on the horse's back standing still they have the same speed and thus same growth rate. As the fly walks along the horse's back it appears as if it's 'overtaking' the horse so it's relative speed and growth rate are faster. When it tries to overtake the horse by jumping off and falling back, it's relative speed and growth rate are negative.

--------



> How do you feel about the enormous national debt that the U.S. has? Do you not feel that this will, over time, erode the U.S.'s financial standing globally as more and more of the budget is devoted to financing this burden?


Like I said - a _long term_ severe economic depression would have to hit the US (which in turn would actually effect the global economy, but we'll hold that constant for now). The debt issue is not that big - the US has only been debt-free only a handful of years since its inception. Debt can be easily financed by increasing taxes (instead of giving rebates like Bush has done - although it does have its potential merits). Also, more of the budget would be focused to financing the debt only by taking away money from other projects (e.g. military spending or more likely odds: domestic spending).




> How about the military situation? With the U.S. so mired in Iraq, coupled with Rumsfeld's zeal for "slimming down" the military, it seems to me that if another major war were to break out, it would break the military unless the U.S. were either reinstate the draft or leave Iraq. Both possibilities, I suppose, but hardly a position of unequivical strength.


The US military relies more so on being technologically advanced than on manpower - hence the recent push for unmanned vehicles and using animals. Both of these lines of research are primarily funded by DARPA - the Department of Defense's head research institution. The DARPA Grand Challenge has been going on for several years and is a competition to create an autonomous off-road vehicle that can travel 132 miles (roughly 220km) at "military speeds". These vehicles aren't remote-controlled - 100% robotic decision makers. Anyways, my point is that the US uses technology, not manpower. And thus the constant development of technology for military use (whether actual standing army is decreased or not) will contribute to the economic growth of the US. And well, if we left Iraq we'd have a heck of a lot of money to start paying back that debt wouldn't we ;).





> And about the savings rate, which you touched upon earlier. It seemed to me that you basically said that the lower the savings rate, the better. However, do you not think that the savings rate can slip too low? If people have a negative savings rate, it means that they are buying on credit. That hardly seems tenable over long periods of time!


I didn't mean to imply that a lower savings rate is better - in fact it's completely the opposite! I've reread my post and can't find where I might've made that error - could you point it out to me? The higher the savings rate the more kapital a country can accumulate and thus output is higher which will lead to more growth. If you can point out your confusion I can explain better and in more detail.

Hopefully I covered everything you two wanted me to cover ^_^.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

I tempted to vote for China, but Russia has so much potential! If only the country could sort itself out, it would be so mighty...But who knows?

----------


## Thor

It's definently going to be the European Union, or China. They are both growing rapidly.

----------


## Mitsuo

I think Utah will.....Oh wait...that's not an option.

I actually think it will be the EU.

----------


## Minty

My husband thinks it is the EU, I am waiting a couple more years to see what happens before I decide. :Poh:

----------


## hershal

I don't think there will be one superpower but more then one super power countries with power distributed among them. The most candidates will be large countries with large population.

----------


## Matiasu

I suspect China's economy bubble will soon burst, I'm going to go with India.

----------


## Carlitos

Another one that now exists and resurjirá when all that is on the list have ceased to exist as such.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> Another one that now exists and *resurjira* when all that is on the list have ceased to exist as such.


Carlitos/Aristander, in Spain we said resur*G*ira, not resur*J*ira.  :Good Job:

----------


## Aristander

We Spanish literate Americans use resurgirá also, I don't know where resurjirá is used. What I think Carlitos was trying to say, was:

Some other country that might not even exists now will rise up after all on the list have ceased to exist. 


Personally I think Carlitos does a pretty good job in trying to translate Spanish into understandable English using translation software. I'll bet that if he keeps at it in a few weeks he will become literate in English. 

Keep at it Carlitos!  :Good Job:

----------


## ^ lynx ^

The most typical spelling mistakes in Latin America at writing spanish are:

Write J instead of G.
Write B instead of V (or vice versa).
Write S instead of Z (or vice versa).


This is due to not being able to pronounce V, Z and J correctly. You can find spaniards that make spelling mistakes of course, but certainly not THIS kind of mistakes.


Greetings. :37:

----------


## Carlitos

> Carlitos/Aristander, in Spain we said resur*G*ira, not resur*J*ira.


I have sent a lot of private messages I've said I'm not Aristander, I'm Carlitos and nothing else, I am honest and I have no need to play with two nicks, so stop and paranoia.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Spaniards don't use to post from 2:00 AM to 5:00 AM in the Internet or write 'resurjira'... 

Seems like you'll have to create a new account. Not a problem I'm sure you are already used to it.  :Good Job:

----------


## Carlitos

> Spaniards don't use to post from 2:00 AM to 5:00 AM in the Internet or write 'resurjira'... 
> 
> Seems like you'll have to create a new account. Not a problem I'm sure you are already used to it.


 

*Total paranoia.*

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> *Total paranoia.*


You have been connected the whole night and it's not the first time. And you wrote 'resurjira' instead of 'resurgira' in one of your messages, anyone can see it... that's a typical latin american mistake at spelling spanish.  :Satisfied:

----------


## Carlitos

No misspellings soil, but will understand if I am writing at 3 am or 4 am, it sometimes happens that such errors. And if an error is typical of South America, I'm from Cádiz and there is some or much influence language and going-back, in my vocabulary for example is the term "vaina", eres un vaina, is very common in South America and is on my mother's vocabulary.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

Some of the first spanish colonizers to settle in America were from Andalusia, so it's understandable that they keep using some andalusian words in there... but that has nothing to do with the spelling mistakes we are talking about here.

People in Spain (including Andalusia) write 'resurGira' correctly, not 'resurJira', because they know how it's pronounced. This kind of mistake is very common in Latin America not Spain.

Greetings.

----------


## Chris

One only has to look at India's handling of the Commonwealth Games to see how population size and potential to turn that into a consumerist society can degenerate into farce. Ditto China, although they do have the political structures (i.e. dictatorship) to facilitate an effective Olympics . Both societies are too unwieldy, with huge amounts of backward infrastructure etc to sustain superpower status.

If they ever did, kiss goodbye to natural resources, as China is already consuming huge amounts of raw materials, and pushing global prices through the roof.

My vote is with the EU.

----------


## blue sky

I predict America!!!!!!!

----------


## Canek

brazil alone, can't be the next superpower... but if latin america would stay united, i'm surely we would be the next superpower in the world.

----------


## Riccardo

I think China!

----------


## Antigone

Yes, China or India. But I think China is currently ahead of India in the race.

----------


## Riccardo

> Yes, China or India. But I think China is currently ahead of India in the race.


They have both an enormous economic potential!

----------


## Canek

they don't have so many natural resources as latin american countries.

----------


## Riccardo

But the potential is not only about natural resources! ;)

----------


## Canek

why do you think europe is attacking the arab world? for its oil. natural resources are the key. and latin american is called to be the next superpower.

----------


## Rastko Pocesta

I'm afraid it will be China. Unfortunately, the future is in Asia. But we, Europeans, must resist the insallation of the patriarchal and conservative values which are currently present in Singapore, Malaysia, China and even in many areas in Japan.

----------


## Melusine

China, has some big issues to address in the next 20++ years. That is of its aging population.. currently at 13.3 percent of the population or 178 million people. The problem is that because of Chinas "one child policy (since 1978). Many children feel increasingly trapped by the responsibility of each caring for an "upside down pyramid" of two parents and four grandparents.

Source: The Telegraph China's population ageing rapidly by Malcolm Moore, 28, Apr 2011. However there is more information and Google is full of information on this population ticking time bomb. There will shortly not be enough young people joining it's workforce to keep up with world consumer goods consumption.

China has the numbers in population, however, in order for them to keep producing the worlds goods as they currently are they need workers. 

They may also have a vast army, however, its not the number of "warriors" that keeps countries in power it the nuclear power .

At the same time, there is a sharp drop in the numbers of young Chinese, with under 14 (age) making up just 16.6 percent of the population, down from 22.9 percent. And China's economy is not fully developed.

China also has very little gas resources, and currently they are dependant on the Middle East, however, no doubt sooner rather than later they will be looking to Russia for their gas source.

India, also has the 1 billion plus population, however, currently there is still much poverty and uneducated people, and there is still a "caste system", that will hold them back from being number one anytime soon.

Melusine

----------


## barbarian

being superpower is not only having a big economy. otherwise, most of the european countries would already be superpowers. a superpower must also have internal consistency, economical independence, a strong army, political and historical dominance, national culture etc.

the main problems of china, i believe, are loosing their economical independence and different ethnicities in the country, which will be used in the future by others to hedge their dominance.

----------


## LeBrok

Once a democratic country (in the future) China might get smaller if provinces decide to separate, as happened with Soviet Union.

----------


## NickP

Heh, no surprise the majority of votes are for China. It seems to be leaning that way but can't say for sure really. And military power isn't everything. It's not assured that the U.S. is done for in terms of economic progress, but unless something happens soon to change things, it's not looking that great. We need to bring manufacturing back, especially in creative ways with high or more advanced technology to differentiate from that of other countries. Robotics are already starting to replace some peoples jobs even in China from what I hear. Some bitter or jealous people accuse China of failing to innovate and just imitating, but they're making some real progress in public works, like those giant bridges and other transportation projects; no one else has managed to do that.

As for the E.U., if they can get their stuff together and get out of their crisis and cooperate, maybe they can come closer to unifying and filling in voids left by the decline of other powers. India, as well as the other BRIC countries, is another rising power to look at in the future; population does play a role in power, but they have to come out of poverty first. I don't mind countries like Brazil becoming strong regionally and asserting themselves in their area; that's not a bad thing necessarily. Maybe a unipolar hegemonic or bipolar world system isn't sustainable for too long.

Russia has been making somewhat of a comeback since it's immediate post Soviet days, but we still have yet to see how they will develop and what direction they'll take. Japan astounded many with its rapid progress in the past but things have also been slowing down a bit for them lately.

----------


## LeBrok

> Robotics are already starting to replace some peoples jobs even in China from what I hear.


That's why creativity and jobs related to it will be the way of the future. All countries will have robots for manufacturing and physical work in 30-50 years from now. US or Europe can have more robots than China people, or even 10 times more, because robots can make new robots, etc. Who has the most creative power will win the race (if there is one), and of course, more energy and raw materials.

----------


## James

Haha.. Robots are out! 
China is producing vast amounts of goods with very simple means and technology.
They use robots. but the main factor is cheap (slave) labour.

And there will never be a democratic China, as long as the west with the USA as 1st customer provides China with an ideal export market. China is countering capitalism with capitalism..
Very clever!

----------


## Christiaan

> For background info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower
> 
> What country will become the next superpower?
> 
> Personally I think the European Union will become a single federal republic pretty soon. Europe already meets the criteria for a superpower so all they need to do is unify.
> 
> China and India come next because of their massive populations and fast growing technologies.
> 
> After that there really is no telling who will become superpower status. Russia may make a come back but they aren't improving that much compared to countries like India and China.
> ...



I don't thnk there will be one particular superpower like the US used to be in the 20th century. There will be several blocks of powerful nations and alliances that will try to keep the balance globally and in favour for themselve regionally. And Europe, well it has to be seen if it becomes a super power at all - the alternative is becoming the playing ball of the other super powers.

----------


## Jackson

I voted for China, but i think some attention should be paid to India. Although quite poor the Indian people seem to be extremely ingenious and business-savvy. It would not surprise me if they were one of the major superpowers along with China within the next two centuries. They have the potential.

----------


## Vallicanus

> I don't thnk there will be one particular superpower like the US used to be in the 20th century. There will be several blocks of powerful nations and alliances that will try to keep the balance globally and in favour for themselve regionally. And Europe, well it has to be seen if it becomes a super power at all - the alternative is becoming the playing ball of the other super powers.


Europe will be the playing ball of other powers as well as a huge historical theme park. :Laughing:

----------


## [email protected]

China is a good country, all in all, i feel so comfortable.

----------


## sherlockholmes

probably Israel

----------


## John Doe

> probably Israel


Maybe in the middle east, but a world power? Unlikely, I reckon China will.

----------


## Garrick

> Europe will be the playing ball of other powers as well as a huge historical theme park.


I don't think so, federal Europe has potential to compete with the giants from other continents.

But the key is to create a federal Europe.

----------


## Angela

How optimistic, considering that not so long ago (20 years?) Balkan ethnicities were trying to exterminate one another, and that the animosities in certain areas seem to still be astonishingly and grotesquely high.

----------


## Garrick

> How optimistic, considering that not so long ago (20 years?) Balkan ethnicities were trying to exterminate one another, and that the animosities in certain areas seem to still be astonishingly and grotesquely high.


People who lived in Yugoslavia have experience life in federal state. Yugoslavia was serious country with 22,000,000 inhabitants.

Yes, the country has fallen in difficulties in eighties, and unfortunately, after communists, nationalists and separatists in each republic had come to a position of decision-making.

They won, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, because Yugoslav federation was better than today weaker mini states (ex republics in Yugoslav federation).

Yugoslav federation should have market economy and democracy (after Communist party) but not nationalism and separatism. But it was gone.
...

Federal Europe with over 500,000,000 people is big potential and strength, for example giants with other continents has no special advantage in abilities of human resources, or another abilities.

Euro zone is good step in that direction, but it is impossible that currency union exists without fiscal union, and much more.

Future Europe, in my humble opinion, most preferably should be federal Europe, with one currency and fiscal system, and more, with all the prerogatives of state, including banking system, different ministries (finance, economy, health, policy, defense and so on), etc.

Such Europe can be very competitive compared with others (perhaps the leader).

----------


## Yetos

China for the next 30 years,

EU is at defensive stance and US sold everything to china, except military industry,

after china will be India,

when Chinese be the richest in the world, like today N americans and N Europeans, will rise India,

basic laws of anarcho-capitalism,
Industry travel were salaries are cheap and production is allowed with no pollution criteria,

----------


## Angela

> People who lived in Yugoslavia have experience life in federal state. Yugoslavia was serious country with 22,000,000 inhabitants.
> 
> Yes, the country has fallen in difficulties in eighties, and unfortunately, after communists, nationalists and separatists in each republic had come to a position of decision-making.
> 
> They won, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, because Yugoslav federation was better than today weaker mini states (ex republics in Yugoslav federation).
> 
> Yugoslav federation should have market economy and democracy (after Communist party) but not nationalism and separatism. But it was gone.
> ...
> 
> ...


Garrick, one of many ways to divide people into groups is to divide them into optimists and pessimists. Perhaps you're the first. Maybe I'm the latter, although I actually think I'm just a hard eyed realist. 

Maybe I tend to think that way because of my own temperament, or my own life experiences, or the history of my birth area. That may well be true. 

However, I think I could make a good argument based on human nature and European history and the current attitudes within many European countries that it is doubtful that Europeans will be moving beyond their national identities and interests any time soon. 

Imho, Germany is the only country that totally gained from the Euro. Now, it may be suffering because of the Euro as it has tied it too tightly to other more faltering economies. Bottom line, though, just generally, Germany is out to serve German interests. France the same. Britain certainly is of two minds about the issue. Italy doesn't even know its own mind or where its interests lie. 

The worse the economy becomes the more it will be every country for itself, and the economy is getting worse. Even Germany's is tanking, partly because there are consequences to the adoption of the Euro that were unforeseen. Another issue, in my opinion, is that the economic policies adopted will not get you out of a depression.

It gives me no pleasure to say these things, in fact I personally wish it were otherwise, but it's the way I see it. People, and countries, keep making the same mistakes over and over again. It almost seems as if we never learn anything. 

Specifically as to Yugoslavia, I don't want to get sucked into these noxious Balkan wars. As an outsider, an outsider who, however, saw a good number of refugees from there, I think to imply that the separatists were somehow to blame for everything that happened there is absolutely not true. There is more than enough blame to go around.

----------


## Garrick

> Garrick, one of many ways to divide people into groups is to divide them into optimists and pessimists. Perhaps you're the first. Maybe I'm the latter, although I actually think I'm just a hard eyed realist. 
> 
> Maybe I tend to think that way because of my own temperament, or my own life experiences, or the history of my birth area. That may well be true. 
> 
> However, I think I could make a good argument based on human nature and European history and the current attitudes within many European countries that it is doubtful that Europeans will be moving beyond their national identities and interests any time soon. 
> 
> Imho, Germany is the only country that totally gained from the Euro. Now, it may be suffering because of the Euro as it has tied it too tightly to other more faltering economies. Bottom line, though, just generally, Germany is out to serve German interests. France the same. Britain certainly is of two minds about the issue. Italy doesn't even know its own mind or where its interests lie. 
> 
> The worse the economy becomes the more it will be every country for itself, and the economy is getting worse. Even Germany's is tanking, partly because there are consequences to the adoption of the Euro that were unforeseen. Another issue, in my opinion, is that the economic policies adopted will not get you out of a depression.
> ...


 
Yes, I’m optimist, because Federal Europe is better option than state each for themselves or group of states. 

Yes, you’re right, implementation will be extremely hard. It should connect and harmonize many different interests and situations and deal with high resistance and interference factors (including foreign).

But, what’s alternative. Individual states have no chance to compete with giants from other continents.

Federal Europe should be main strategic goal. Of course, the path to this goal is hard, but every small victory and small shift, make good approximation.

Some experiences of Yugoslavia. Country was strong when it had strong leadership and leaders: King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic and President Josip Broz Tito. After them the influence of central government would fall and nationalisms and separatisms were strengthened.

My humble opinion is that Federal Europe, including all ministries, agencies and services that are necessary, must have strong leadership.

This includes the establishment of position of President of Federal Europe. Although modalities this position certainly will be different from the existing in the world, Federal Europe needs this position.

Can you imagine that the people from the South to the North of Europe, and from the West to the East of Europe, elect their president. And certainly they will be able to choose someone who has leadership skills, who will be able to inspire and motivate them, give direction, demonstrating purpose and guidance.

Therefore, the role of the President of Federal Europe should not be only symbolic.

Moreover I think that the crisis that emerged in 2008 and more or less continues today was partly because of lack of appropriate leadership, in other words leadership is needed.

----------


## Aberdeen

A monetary union and/or a custom union will perhaps make it inevitable that there will be a more complete political union, in order to make it feasible to take the political steps necessary to alleviate the regional economic disparities that tend to be aggravated by such things as a currency union and the removal of barriers to trade. That certainly seemed to be part of the reason Prussia was able to create the modern German state in the 19th century - it seems to have been as much about economic realities as military might. But, given that many Bavarians still seem to prefer seeing themselves as Bavarians rather than Germans, there's reason to think that a pan-European political entity would be more popular with politicians and economists than with the general public. That certainly seems to be the case with the EU now, and I can imagine resistance growing as political amalgamation increases, particularly in those regions that have the most to gain economically, since they're apt to be the regions that have the most to lose socially from greater political union

----------


## qpi4z

My vote goes to China

----------


## Jovialis

> My vote goes to China


Mine too,

In fact, they are not just a superpower, but in many ways _the_ world hegemon. The way they are able to mobilize their population, and marshal their resources to exact the will of their government is truly awe inspiring. These are much more tangible aspects of power, than the disorderly and fragmented nations of the West can achieve in this day, and age.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't want to live under the rule of their government. Human-life, and the individual are not valued by the Chinese communist government.

----------


## DuPidh

The way I see it, Europe has the potential to be the leading superpower of the world. The argument behind this is that Europe as a whole has the brain power to supersede any other country in the world. Europeans have always been at the driving seat as far as science is concerned. I don't see the competition within Eu states as a bad thing. Competition is the engine of the inventions China has made great advances as technology is concerned But so far most of their technologies are either bought or stolen. The west is mobilizing against Chinese thievery and from now and on they have to rely on their capabilities. Their practice of government subsidizing the private companies to gain an edge in international markets will have tough time to advance, since they are being watched. Its not impossible for them to be a technological powerhouse since they have bought all the worlds laboratories and have the human resources to support them. But they are also are seen as suspicious in every move by any country in the world with the exception of Africa. Europe has the reputation as culture exporter in many aspects and is received more positively from most countries. But also the advances of internet have made knowledge available for everybody so who knows how things turn around

----------


## Olivia_19

European Union

----------

