Who will be the next world power?

My guess is that there will be a levelling of the playing field rather than a complete "new world order". China and India will continue to have the sort of internal problems you suggest but this will not stop them gaining greater economic and political influence overall. Russia will remain a key player and will seek to cement this position by forging relationships with the emerging powers based on a mutual distrust of the current Western supremacy. Brazil and other increasingly influential South American countries may well also be part of this broad "coalition".Western Europe and the US will be the biggest losers in my view but will hardly shrink into the background. The EU remains a potentially impressive economic powerhouse but there seems little enthusiasm for the sort of political union that would be required to form a coherent "superpower". Having been down the colonial route already I am not sure that there is much appetite amongst the "old world" ex-imperialist nations for being a "superpower" in the conventional sense anyway. I think Europe would happily settle for retaining it's current economic power without compromising the dispirate nature of it's political union. However I don't think this is realistic so some lessening of it's economic relevance seems inevitable given the emergence of other competing nations.Despite everything else the US remains economically, politically, infrastructurally and in some ways socially the best placed nation to lead the way. But it's ability to act autonomously and without regard for opposition from other nations both militiaristically and politically will be diminished to a point that is unrecognisable from recent times.Japan will remain a sometimes impressive but relatively isolated significant member of world nations. Africa will continue to be the poor relation of the world although some of the industrial production currently situated in Asia may relocate there.As for the Middle East....well who the hell knows?This is all off the top of my head opinion. It does not even particularly take into account the mass effects of global warming or the increasingly important question of energy resource provision.

That is a pretty radical conclusion.Could you expand on the thinking that leads you to this conclusion?

How does one become a member of this class?On what basis does this class exclude or include such that it is itself definable as a "class"? Is Obama a member of the upper class? If so how did he become a member of this class?Or is this class working independently of him? Military supremacy will get you so far (possibly quite far) but economics and the political appetite (both of the "ruling classes" and the populace) for more potentially long drawn out and "unwinnable" conflicts will be a significant factor as well. In my opinion.

I don't wholly disagree regarding a largely unassailable "ruling class". But your position seems to be a little too conspiracy-theory-like for my totla agreement. Becoming wealthy is not the be all and end all to power. There are a significant number (if minority) of wealthy who disagree with government policies.If taxes are higher for the wealthiest is that because the wealthiest think this is right? Well the two main political parties in the US (and Britian) do have their hardcore followers. This is presumably because the parties involved do have some sort of "principled" foundation that remains relatively constant regardless of particular administrations. No? Well would a pro-freedom of information government policy negate such fears? Or do you think that as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas? If the overall economy of the US is significantly injured by ongoing and expensive conflicts in the long term then even the ruling classes will suffer. The ruling class of the US (or even the Western world) is dependant on the financial supremacy of the US (or the Western world).Short term gains of the sort you speak about will be nullified by any shift of overall economic power. Such a shift is a realistic result of the current economic crisis.Shooting oneself in the foot....I suppose is the closest anaolgy. OK. But the next time US interests are arguably compromised by foreign activities who realistically will have the audacity to advocate that US military intervention is the obvious answer given recent military experiences, the current economic climate and the very likely world political opposition?These things are relevant even if not decisive.

Dude I have to find reasons to disagree with the saner members of EvC otherwise I would be eternally arguing with lunatics. And that would do my own sanity no favours at all....... So you see the raising or lowering of taxes for the richest is a public relations balancing act rather than an ideological difference between a more "pro-enterprise" and a more "pro-equality of social opportunity" political ideologies?Is that correct? If you are a wealthy investor whose wealth is built on oil or some other specific such resource/commodity surely the political party that represents your interests is bound up with the historic principles of that party? No?Arms? Oil? Healthcare? "Green" technologies? Etc. Etc. How did the political/ruling classes ensure that the particular representative of the required opinion was elected?Is Obama just a pawn?I think you underestimate the power of democracy at least a little...... But who exactly are the the members of this ruling class that want Obama to pursue the policies currently being applied?Are they a set of conspiratists that sit around a table and decide this stuff? Who do we want elected? How do we do it? What policies should this new president have?That sort of thing? I think most in that position would rather a meaningful UN ability to militarily intervene than a strictly US one. The desire for US intervention is derived from it's almost sole ability to meaningfully intervene.I also think that the US (and Europe to a lesser extent) quite like it that way too. It means that they can be seen to be doing the right thing whilst retaining power to do the "wrong" thing regardless of what anybody else thinks. The idealistic answer in my view would be a genuine UN military with the ability to genuinely take action against any country invading or attacking any other.This may not be practical. But I think the US (and to a lesser extent Europe) don't want this to be practical as it would mean giving up the right to largely do what they want militarily with little or no global comeback.

There has just been a tax raise in Britain on the wealthiest 1% (those that earn over 150,000 per year). There are certainly arguments that can be reasonably used to justify this. But it is true that the recent deployment of this policy smacks of exactly what you describe given the current economic climate.But I do think that there are genuine ideological differences between the two main political parties in Britain despite the all but inevitable use of such short term knee-jerk reactions. Of course. But is that all that a political movement is? Lobbyists and special interests? Is that why people campaign? Is that solely why people donate? Is that why people turn up in their thousands to show support?Is each party really just a result of the self interested and the brainwashed? Or is there a mass of people with political principle at the heart of such movements? A mass onto which the self interested and brainwashed simply latch themselves?Maybe I am naive. Maybe I am optimistic. Maybe I am just less cynical than you. But I think that there is a great deal more than self interest and brainwashing at the heart of even those political parties whose views I largely despise. Even if the "ruling classes" had wanted a Republican continuation (obviously without Bush) they would have been defeated. People can be manipulated. But push the masses too far and they will push back. And they can push hard.Democracy did not come about because the ruling classes wanted it. They have arguably just found ways to not let it impede their ambitions too much. This is a bit like the "uncaused cause" argument....... Surely there has to be a "King" somewhere down the line? Or at least a chief pawn who answers to no higher pawn?Who do you think is really in charge? And if we are all pawns who does this "chief pawn" answer to? Yes and no. Did the ruling classes cause this shift in social attitudes? Or do they have to go with the flow of the people sometimes?You can lie. You can manipulate. You can falsely present, smear, tell the people what they want to hear etc. etc. etc. But at the end of the day the people themselves put the crosses in those boxes and they do this in their millions.Piss of enough people, have enough people losing jobs, homes etc. etc. Cause enough people to feel that things are unjust and rotten and all of the manipulation and propoganda in the world will not convince them that those in power are worthy of further time in office.That, I think, is what happened to the Republicans this time round. They got found out. And democracy worked. To some extent at least. This had to happen regardless of what the "ruling classes" wanted. The fact that Obama was able to meet many of the criteria that changing social attitudes required amplified this. But these social changes and the loathing of the previous administration are not things that any ruling class can just "manufacture". Fair enough. But how do they decide? Do the CEO's of the big companies sit round and discuss what policies the next pres should have?Big business is obviously massively influential but how can it have the sort of power you seem to be suggesting ("choosing" presidents, defining specific policies etc. etc.) without a coherent and unified strategy in place?I mean the politically "unified" countries of Europe cannot do it so how can the competing businesses of the US achieve this to such a degree? And in "secret"....... Unfortunately I am sure that there would be no shortage of potential contractors........ Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I get what you are saying. I don't disagree that "big business" has undue access to power and influence. I don't disagree that people are manipulated by the media either. For the record nor do I think that the Republicans are the only political party guilty of this. I think that they are worse. But given my relative ignorance of US politics I am quite prepared to concede that this might be a manifestation of my own biased political leanings.I just think it is all a bit more complicated. Sometimes the media and "big business" have to be reactive to the collective will and mood of the people. Sometimes it is they scrabbling to jump onto the bandwagon of public opinion rather than they themselves shaping it. More of a a constant ebb and flow than continuous one way traffic.To define and decide policy, to shape the media to promote those policies and manufacture public mood, to find a potential presidential candidate that both represents those policies and then get him/her voted in AND to then push through that original agenda over a number of years - All of that takes a monumental degree of organisation and unity of purpose as well as huge power, influence and money. I think that is why people are talking "as if" you are advocating the existence of a small collective of "conspirators" (even though I accept that you are not)"Big business" is a catch-all term. A bit like "The Man". I am not sure who exactly it refers to in terms of the actual individual people making such decisions and implementing such specific programmes. That is what I was trying to get at. Who exactly is "big business"? Who actually makes the decisions that you are attributing to "big business"? When you say that "big business" is in control what does that mean? Who is in control? When you say "you need to seperate what the people want vs. what big business wants" exactly who is deciding what "big business" collectively wants?"Big business" I would suggest is itself a dispirate collection of conflicting interests and opposing viewpoints. Far too dispirate and far too conflicting to have the sort of unity of purpose required to define and achieve the sort of long term strategic goals that you are crediting "them" with.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In itself nothing. Nobody disputes the fact that big business is out to make big profit. In itself nothing. Nobody disputes that those with power seek to increase and maintain that power. In itself nothing. Nobody disputes this either.What is conspiritorial is not the "obvious" desire of these institutions to have the sort of power and influence that is being sugested. What is conspiritorial is the claimed extent to which these desires are being put into effect without being able to give any indication as to who or how this claimed level of influence is able to be exerted. OK. So how do these companies go about ensuring that their interests are met in practical terms? What do they do? Who decides which country to invade? Who actuallydecides the military budget? What would happen if the elected government chose to reduce it? OK. So who exactly makes these decisions and how do they implement them? Do the CEO's of "GE, Westinghouse, Dupont, etc. Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Black Water, etc" sit round and work out who they want to be the next president? Do they work out which country should be invaded next?Nobody disputes that these ridiculously wealthy corporations wield a great degree of influence and political power but how do they actually jointly go about selecting presidents and dictating policy in the way that has been suggested?How do "they" do it? Who exactly is "they"?That is all I am asking. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Despite your paranoid schizoid conspiratorial tendancies you know I am a fan really

Of course. Wasn't Rumsfield in on the act as well? And how did Halliburton's rivals feel about this? Was the arms industry of America united in their advocacy of this situation? Or were there disparate and competing interests amongst these different companies regarding the fact that one company in particular had such blatant influence and opportunity to make such huge profits? Where is Cheney now? Does Halliburton currently have a CEO who is also a key senior member of government? Did they choose to end this particular advantage? Or was it effectively taken from them?Nobody has disputed that these companies have a great deal of undue influence. Under the Bush administration in particular this influence was blatant to a degree never previously seen. So much so that the "who" of my previous question was, as you suggest, quite obvious. In fact in many cases the government and "big business" were exactly the same individuals. But surely this is an example of the woeful standards of one particular short term administration rather than evidence of the claim that all presidents are just "puppets" of big business, that all politics is just "bullshit" to convince the voters that they have some sort of influence and that the change of one administration to another is nothing more than an orchestrated PR exercise to appease the masses.It is this sort of "conspiratorial" claim that I am questioning.As I see it these corporations indisputably have a lot of power and money. Sometimes this power and money will get a specific corporation exactly what it wants. Other times these same corporations will be forced to throw their money at a situation not of their choosing in order to leverage what influence they can muster out of it. Situations such as when that damn thing called "democracy" refuses to give them the result that the would consider ideal. But the idea that "big business" as a whole (whoever exactly that is) has some sort of united desire that can be defined and actualised in the long term such that decisions can be made as to who becomes president and what their policies should be to such an extent that democracy and the rule of government is nothing but a media manipulated charade played out for the benefit of the masses while "big business" (whoever exactly that is) gets on with really running the country for it's own evil ends.........Well it is paranoid, conspiratorial bollocks. I agree that this is disgraceful. But what does this tell us about the ability of "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) to manipulate the government to the extent that has been suggested? So are all governments equally up for sale. Or not? Is it just "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) that decides these things or is it a complicated ebb and flow interplay between the results of democracy and the competing and disparate interests of exceptionally wealthy institutions? If enough of the voting populace gave enough of a shit about the influence and corruption that you describe then something would have to happen. And no corporation no matter how wealthy would be able to stop it. Such events are rare. But when they do happen they are history making.

I want royalties!!

If that is the case then fair enough. I am wrong and I will concede that I am wrong and that I have misunderstood your position which, as you phrase it above, sounds pretty cynical but not unduly conspiratorial.When you said: In the context it was writen I took this to mean that you thought "big business" had decided that it wanted a democrat win. So "big business" arranged for a hopeless republican candidate to stand in order to ensure that this strategic aim was met.Is this undeniably conspiratorial interpretation not what you meant? Based on the above example and on your earliest posts in this thread can you not see how this apparently erroneous view of your position might be concluded? (emphasis mine)But who exactly is "they"?The previous example along with these comments and others like them, I think, imply that there exists some coherent entity with powers beyond those of government that has a unity of purpose and long term strategy. These comments and others like them also imply, I think, that this unified entity is able to tactically manipulate things from behind the scenes by putting in place "puppets" and controlling information to ensure that these unified and strategic long term aims are fulfilled to "their benefit"Now that is conspiratorial.But, as I say, if that is not what you meant then fair enough. I apologise for my mistake and suggest the crime of selective reading as the cause. I still don't understand who exactly "big business" or the "ruling class" is? Who are these individuals? Do we mean the CEO's of individual corporations? The board? The shareholders? Who exactly do you mean?Who exactly decides "what big business wants"? Who decides what "the interests of big business" are?Unless "big business" or the "ruling class" is a single entity seeking to meet unified aims I don't see how "big business" as a whole can have "wants" or "interests".If by "big business" we just mean individual competing and rival companies, each one out for what it can grab for itself at the expense of other "big business" rivals, sometimes united in short term common purpose but basically a dispirate collection of "wants" and "interests" being largely independently pursued.................Then, with these dispirate and competing rival independent interests in mind, claims involving "puppets" or using the government for "their benefit" become much less powerful, much less well defined and much less sinister. So much so that highly evocative terms like these seem unwarranted.So what did you mean exactly and who exactly are "they"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. See my above post to Oni for the basis of any "conspiracy straw man arguments". Marvellous.But, unless I am totally misreading them, I am not sure how you could extract this position from Oni's earlier posts. Posts which you felt compelled to agree wholeheartedly with.

At current exchange rates not a problem at all.In fact I look forward to making my civic contribution by paying that high earners tax rate we were talking about earlier

I have reviewed your message 77. I suggest that you do the same. Your "SOMETIMES" was in a previous paragraph that related wholly to media influence and which was not part of the specific chain of responses related above at all.Here is the quite seperate and prior "SOMETIMES" paragraph: It was. So I accept your apology. Now that is a fair comment. Let's remind ourselves of the question you asked and of the portion of your response which I fully concede that I selectively chose to omit from my quote. Nobody has claimed that big business ALWAYS gets their way. And nobody has claimed that anybody is claiming that big business ALWAYS gets their way.Now we are just getting silly.........As for the conspiracy angle: Oni can clarify whether this is what he actually meant or not - but this is how I read it in the context in which it was written - "Big business" arranged for a hopeless republican candidate to be nominated because "they" wanted to ensure a democratic win.It seems also to be later suggested that this outcome was arranged by "big business" basically as a global public relations exercise.If that is what Oni meant then that is conspiratorial.If not.....well then we will take it from there. But quite possibly I owe Oni an apology for misrepresenting his views. It depends what he says I guess.