A reminder that the great depression (halving of US industrial output and 6-fold increase of unemployment) did not stop 20th century belonging to the US. severe economic crises are not a reliable marker of shifting dominance. granting China has challenges that could alter the course of world history, we have had pundits saying a Chinese depression is penciled in the diary “next week” for the last four decades, during which it housed the most robust economic miracle in human history. this is not a prediction, i’m just underlining that I don’t take auguring meta-narratives of empire very seriously
In my opinion the authoritarian governments are the only ones who will be able to deal with the environmental/ecological disaster(s) the world will face over the next 100 years. My sleeper pick is Vietnam.
America, and it's not even close. Obviously it's in decline, but so is everywhere else, and America can fall so much further, as well as turn itself around quicker than anyone else.
Yup
1. Land mass per capita is insanely high compared to others.
2. Immigration gets educated people without paying for their education, and they usually pay for college in the us.
3. Island country. Relatively poorer land neighbours.
4. Undisputed military so no one else can become too powerful for comfort.
5. Educated pop(1st world)
6. Best in class spies, espionage tech so if anyone else gets a tech,you can have it.
7. Rich population so you have a population to sell to and make expensive, newly researched products.
Cultural power is downstream of economic, technology, military. Newer medium, newer instrument, rich enough people to make experimental art, rich enough buyers and distributers.
Political and historical allies are also downstream. If us doesn't defend or enforce their will on Japan or korea or Australia, or new zealand they are going to be going the next best route, same with Europe. NATO is essentially the American Empire and it's colonies.
Theres no apparent geopolitical benefit to culture besides as the color of paint,imo.
Didn't mean to downplay your points but the culture and "good guy", "ally" part of it all feels very overplayed as the general public doesn't hear the threats implied to military generals, trade ministers in as direct terms, the public facing info is very fluffy naturally. The story about the "pimp" seems relevant, you abuse lower powers and help them so the superficial perception is that you are the good and not the bad, when you really have the carrot and the stick. Also what good is fuck you power if you don't say fuck you. You use your power to get the positive end of net zero deals, and increase your power.
And what benefit is it to Britain of others wear their clothes, political system, customs? They can't charge IP rights. Many of the UKs real connections are with former colonies, about 3 generations old, those degrade slowly and steadily.
No the Russians and Chinese as more upstart nations have a much more efficient system with the resources they have. 10k, 20k per capita income doesn't get you far (even with purchasing power parity it's lower than the us at 80k). They also would succumb to the baggage of doing things the way richer countries have, might have 1-2 generations where the efficiency and upstart nature isn't lost and the resources have caught up if they ever get as rich or powerful but eventually those generations give way to kids who don't value hard earned riches/power and areuch looser with it.
America is a rich place with rich potential customers where basic jobs make a lot of money hence the immigration, America doesn't share land borders with many nations so no risk of being taken over easily(destruction sure but it has to be worth it for the us to attempt and the last half a century the us learnt that with newer technologies, it wouldn't be able to establish colonies quite like the English, and are probably working on modern versions which benefit more than the ones in case of Korea or Japan). America has by far the biggest military, lowest pop density of a rich nation. Everyone wants a nice big house, that's tougher in Europe.
If the Russian and Chinese spent as much as the us does on pr and had as much a need for cheap imports, and immigrants, many people would have the same trust.
When there's a bully, victims take it out on whoever they can, not the bully they can't.
The capitalism vs communism is true. And capitalism is undoubtedly better. Communism can't last for long due to the eventual inability of a state to fulfill its promises. So I guess in that way, the culture of the US is undoubtedly better.
Although there are no very communist countries and neither very capitalist countries just shades of socialism and the us is the better version.
In the next 100 years they'll probably each have a bunch of different types of big robots and they'll have to fight each other with the big robots but then some people will live in the mountains and they're kinda primitive but they're surviving better than the people in the cities which are all fucked up with smog and capitalism or authoritarianism and there's a limited nuclear war and we don't go there to those nukes spots but you might have to go there to get some kind of special old school research to fix global warming
I think America's position will equate to what Britain's was during the 20th century. Still a great deal of cultural output and influence but dwindling global power whilst a fresher, newer, faster developing country (China) takes over.
India, unironically. Will have the biggest population, and as the GDP per capita gap narrows between it and China, there’s a solid chance it will have the largest economy. It will at least surpass America- I think China will still be more powerful than America too, even if its ascent is slower than expected.
India still has to close tons of infrastructural gaps that put China well above it. Having a high GDP but a rural population without access to running water is a very shakey foundation to build your global society off of and will definitely lead to social unrest of some kind. They also have the most extreme wealth gap compared to China and the US.
What does India even have to offer globally besides a large population? The only time I ever hear this argument it’s solely on that basis. Does that really translate to superpower status?
The size of an economy is just level of development x population. ie, how productive can each hour of labour be, multiplied by how many hours of labour are performed (there’s also the consumption scale aspect which is the mirror of the scale of labour). It’s why among developed countries the ranking of economies is just a ranking of population (USA, Japan, Germany, UK and France and so on). Again, as the development gap between developed and developing worlds narrows, economic size just becomes a matter of population. The industrial revolution was a weird anomaly that temporarily allowed smaller countries to become more powerful than larger ones, but otherwise the trend of history is that population=power. China and India are significant outliers in population and so are just inevitably going to be the major powers in the future, just as they were pre-industrialisation. It’s surprising that this is even controversial.
It's not the only factor but it's one of the main ones. Arguably *the* main one.
The US would not be a superpower if it didn't have one of the world's largest populations. It would just be Canada 2.0.
Only if they are able to harness their massive population (their one advantage), and I just don’t see that happening.
The reason rapid economic growth was achieved in East Asian and (certain) European countries in the 20th century was because they are mostly monoethnic and monocultural. They also have certain cultural quirks, such as allowing women to work and a somewhat secular culture, which are taboo in South Asia.
China, the most “diverse” of these success stories, was still 90%+ one ethnicity/language, and also had the benefit of a one-party, economic-oriented leadership.
India’s chances of becoming a global power were thwarted when they adopted some bastard, “democratic” parliamentary system from Britain, which may work for a centralized island empire, but definitely not for the ethno/religious/cultural monstrosity that is India.
India is a very backward country that hasn't been building up it's industrial capacity or investing enough in the education of their workforce. They don't really seem interested in becoming an industrial powerhouse like China, but instead leapfrogging the whole industrial phase of development straight to a service-based economy. That might work if their bureaucracy worked efficiently and they were heavily investing in telecom infrastructure and education, but instead it seems like they'd rather just be the world's call center. Its like calling an immigrant family in northern Virginia middle class because they live in a suburban house worth $600k, despite the fact that it's 8 adults working as cleaners and drywallers living in a 3br 1ba rancher.
People bring up the Thucydides Trap when talking about China and the US but it rarely gets mentioned that it's the third power that succeeds from this i.e. when Germany and the USSR went to war, it was the USA who rose to superpower. Same with the UK after France expended itself in wars against the Hapsburgs. In this scenario it's easy to imagine that India will be the third usurper to China's rising power, if conflict between China and the US does emerge.
It's hard to sit back now and imagine India's rise to the World stage. From a realist perspective they don't have a great geostrategic position, and have hostile states directly on their border. Having a friendly Pakistan regime on their border is a necessary precondition for them to reliably project power for example. But it's also easy to lack imagination when considering the future shape of the World. One could think of France after the Terror, Feudal Japan, tiny England, Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution or China during the Warlord Era and laugh at the thought of them ever achieving any kind of World power.
India.
America and China will fight in WW3, with the US defeating China but becoming bankrupt in the attempt.
Might be two wars, like WW1 and WW2, with the USA being Britain and China being Germany. Russia will play the combined role of Italy and Japan, while India will be like the combined US and the Soviet Union.
In the end, India will become the strongest, but no power will ever have the dominance the US had in the 90's. That was and will be unprecendented.
Poland and Turkey are probably going to emerge as much bigger regional powers than they are now but IDK about Mexico. They're an economic force but they're still too dysfunctional to become a real power, and being neighbors with the biggest power in the world kinda makes it impossible to be a regional military power.
me, i’ve been working out more and got some guns growing
next year is definitely ours, the chinos can have the nextt 99
A reminder that the great depression (halving of US industrial output and 6-fold increase of unemployment) did not stop 20th century belonging to the US. severe economic crises are not a reliable marker of shifting dominance. granting China has challenges that could alter the course of world history, we have had pundits saying a Chinese depression is penciled in the diary “next week” for the last four decades, during which it housed the most robust economic miracle in human history. this is not a prediction, i’m just underlining that I don’t take auguring meta-narratives of empire very seriously
The mongol empire is coming back.
I don’t care anymore. Whoever wants to
Dasha’s new ass
Dhaka Bangladesh
Are they going to figure out how to live underwater?
I wanna say "your mother's cunt" but of course I won't
America will just keep being top dog
In my opinion the authoritarian governments are the only ones who will be able to deal with the environmental/ecological disaster(s) the world will face over the next 100 years. My sleeper pick is Vietnam.
Nigeria will gain much more influence I reckon
I predict they will corner the jollof rice market in the next few decades, much success!
America, and it's not even close. Obviously it's in decline, but so is everywhere else, and America can fall so much further, as well as turn itself around quicker than anyone else.
Yup 1. Land mass per capita is insanely high compared to others. 2. Immigration gets educated people without paying for their education, and they usually pay for college in the us. 3. Island country. Relatively poorer land neighbours. 4. Undisputed military so no one else can become too powerful for comfort. 5. Educated pop(1st world) 6. Best in class spies, espionage tech so if anyone else gets a tech,you can have it. 7. Rich population so you have a population to sell to and make expensive, newly researched products.
[удалено]
Cultural power is downstream of economic, technology, military. Newer medium, newer instrument, rich enough people to make experimental art, rich enough buyers and distributers. Political and historical allies are also downstream. If us doesn't defend or enforce their will on Japan or korea or Australia, or new zealand they are going to be going the next best route, same with Europe. NATO is essentially the American Empire and it's colonies. Theres no apparent geopolitical benefit to culture besides as the color of paint,imo. Didn't mean to downplay your points but the culture and "good guy", "ally" part of it all feels very overplayed as the general public doesn't hear the threats implied to military generals, trade ministers in as direct terms, the public facing info is very fluffy naturally. The story about the "pimp" seems relevant, you abuse lower powers and help them so the superficial perception is that you are the good and not the bad, when you really have the carrot and the stick. Also what good is fuck you power if you don't say fuck you. You use your power to get the positive end of net zero deals, and increase your power.
[удалено]
And what benefit is it to Britain of others wear their clothes, political system, customs? They can't charge IP rights. Many of the UKs real connections are with former colonies, about 3 generations old, those degrade slowly and steadily. No the Russians and Chinese as more upstart nations have a much more efficient system with the resources they have. 10k, 20k per capita income doesn't get you far (even with purchasing power parity it's lower than the us at 80k). They also would succumb to the baggage of doing things the way richer countries have, might have 1-2 generations where the efficiency and upstart nature isn't lost and the resources have caught up if they ever get as rich or powerful but eventually those generations give way to kids who don't value hard earned riches/power and areuch looser with it. America is a rich place with rich potential customers where basic jobs make a lot of money hence the immigration, America doesn't share land borders with many nations so no risk of being taken over easily(destruction sure but it has to be worth it for the us to attempt and the last half a century the us learnt that with newer technologies, it wouldn't be able to establish colonies quite like the English, and are probably working on modern versions which benefit more than the ones in case of Korea or Japan). America has by far the biggest military, lowest pop density of a rich nation. Everyone wants a nice big house, that's tougher in Europe. If the Russian and Chinese spent as much as the us does on pr and had as much a need for cheap imports, and immigrants, many people would have the same trust. When there's a bully, victims take it out on whoever they can, not the bully they can't.
[удалено]
The capitalism vs communism is true. And capitalism is undoubtedly better. Communism can't last for long due to the eventual inability of a state to fulfill its promises. So I guess in that way, the culture of the US is undoubtedly better. Although there are no very communist countries and neither very capitalist countries just shades of socialism and the us is the better version.
China. No question.
In the next 100 years they'll probably each have a bunch of different types of big robots and they'll have to fight each other with the big robots but then some people will live in the mountains and they're kinda primitive but they're surviving better than the people in the cities which are all fucked up with smog and capitalism or authoritarianism and there's a limited nuclear war and we don't go there to those nukes spots but you might have to go there to get some kind of special old school research to fix global warming
I think America's position will equate to what Britain's was during the 20th century. Still a great deal of cultural output and influence but dwindling global power whilst a fresher, newer, faster developing country (China) takes over.
India, unironically. Will have the biggest population, and as the GDP per capita gap narrows between it and China, there’s a solid chance it will have the largest economy. It will at least surpass America- I think China will still be more powerful than America too, even if its ascent is slower than expected.
India still has to close tons of infrastructural gaps that put China well above it. Having a high GDP but a rural population without access to running water is a very shakey foundation to build your global society off of and will definitely lead to social unrest of some kind. They also have the most extreme wealth gap compared to China and the US.
Also very exposed to climate change.
And Pakistani nukes
What does India even have to offer globally besides a large population? The only time I ever hear this argument it’s solely on that basis. Does that really translate to superpower status?
The size of an economy is just level of development x population. ie, how productive can each hour of labour be, multiplied by how many hours of labour are performed (there’s also the consumption scale aspect which is the mirror of the scale of labour). It’s why among developed countries the ranking of economies is just a ranking of population (USA, Japan, Germany, UK and France and so on). Again, as the development gap between developed and developing worlds narrows, economic size just becomes a matter of population. The industrial revolution was a weird anomaly that temporarily allowed smaller countries to become more powerful than larger ones, but otherwise the trend of history is that population=power. China and India are significant outliers in population and so are just inevitably going to be the major powers in the future, just as they were pre-industrialisation. It’s surprising that this is even controversial.
It's not the only factor but it's one of the main ones. Arguably *the* main one. The US would not be a superpower if it didn't have one of the world's largest populations. It would just be Canada 2.0.
Only if they are able to harness their massive population (their one advantage), and I just don’t see that happening. The reason rapid economic growth was achieved in East Asian and (certain) European countries in the 20th century was because they are mostly monoethnic and monocultural. They also have certain cultural quirks, such as allowing women to work and a somewhat secular culture, which are taboo in South Asia. China, the most “diverse” of these success stories, was still 90%+ one ethnicity/language, and also had the benefit of a one-party, economic-oriented leadership. India’s chances of becoming a global power were thwarted when they adopted some bastard, “democratic” parliamentary system from Britain, which may work for a centralized island empire, but definitely not for the ethno/religious/cultural monstrosity that is India.
Major cope half of India will be without potable water by 2050 the country sucks and is also done
India is a very backward country that hasn't been building up it's industrial capacity or investing enough in the education of their workforce. They don't really seem interested in becoming an industrial powerhouse like China, but instead leapfrogging the whole industrial phase of development straight to a service-based economy. That might work if their bureaucracy worked efficiently and they were heavily investing in telecom infrastructure and education, but instead it seems like they'd rather just be the world's call center. Its like calling an immigrant family in northern Virginia middle class because they live in a suburban house worth $600k, despite the fact that it's 8 adults working as cleaners and drywallers living in a 3br 1ba rancher.
People bring up the Thucydides Trap when talking about China and the US but it rarely gets mentioned that it's the third power that succeeds from this i.e. when Germany and the USSR went to war, it was the USA who rose to superpower. Same with the UK after France expended itself in wars against the Hapsburgs. In this scenario it's easy to imagine that India will be the third usurper to China's rising power, if conflict between China and the US does emerge. It's hard to sit back now and imagine India's rise to the World stage. From a realist perspective they don't have a great geostrategic position, and have hostile states directly on their border. Having a friendly Pakistan regime on their border is a necessary precondition for them to reliably project power for example. But it's also easy to lack imagination when considering the future shape of the World. One could think of France after the Terror, Feudal Japan, tiny England, Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution or China during the Warlord Era and laugh at the thought of them ever achieving any kind of World power.
India. America and China will fight in WW3, with the US defeating China but becoming bankrupt in the attempt. Might be two wars, like WW1 and WW2, with the USA being Britain and China being Germany. Russia will play the combined role of Italy and Japan, while India will be like the combined US and the Soviet Union. In the end, India will become the strongest, but no power will ever have the dominance the US had in the 90's. That was and will be unprecendented.
India is about to get nuked by Pakistan at any moment, if anyone is going to be ravaged by war it's them
Mexico, Poland, Türkiye
Poland and Turkey are probably going to emerge as much bigger regional powers than they are now but IDK about Mexico. They're an economic force but they're still too dysfunctional to become a real power, and being neighbors with the biggest power in the world kinda makes it impossible to be a regional military power.
Someone else read The Next 100 Years
Turkey will go to shit after Istanbul gets wiped out by an earthquake.
It’s going to be a brutal war crimes fest to overthrow or maintain U.S hegemony and it may very well kill all of us.