Who will be the next world power?

America's power is on the wane. China looked to be emerging but still faces massive problems due to inefficient bureaucracy and ballooning population. India is similar. Russia shows potential but political squabbling and socialist work habits have dampened initiative. Europe has money but is mired in schisms. Japan has efficiency but lacks resources.Who do you think will be the next world power?

According to Glubb's model of the rise and fall of empires, U.S.A. is in or near the last stage of decline.Whether its collapse is imminent or not, United States will not be the dominant world power forever. What country or countries will be the next world power(s)?

Canada also will suffer(sob) as they are U.S.'s biggest trading partner and visa versa. I can't see the middle east playing any significant role. Even if oil remains the energy coinage in the world, money does not make a superpower. Look at Spain in the 1500 - 1600s. They had a firm hold on the gold of the Americas but continued to decline as a world power. You need a work ethic and stable government among other things to achieve dominance.

I think there were a lot of factors but I think that its reliance on the infux of gold probably contributed to it's decline. What I meant was money alone does not make a superpower.

I could see that possibility if climate change does not create a wasteland out of their agricultural areas. They are not very imperialistic though but perhaps lack of water will create an excuse to become more aggresive.

Hmmm. Aggressive - check. Resources - check. Population - check. Infrastructure - check. If it secedes, I think it may have a chance. Wait a minute. How's the financial outlook in Texas????

I imagine that is what many in the former Soviet Union said just before its collapse. There are similarities between the situation in the United States today and the former Soviet Union on the brink of collapse. The fear of poverty and instability can be a strong motivating factor. I'm not saying that secession is probable, just possible if conditions deteriorate enough. Edited by alaninnont, : No reason given.

1. Centralized power - while there are state governments, the majority of the power is held in Washington.
2. No outside parties - There are technically two parties in the U.S. but I haven't seen any major differences between them. There is, in effect, one party and others (while legal) are not allowed.
3. Following the party line - On a trip to the Soviet Union in the late 80's I noticed how many people toed the party line because of pressure from government sponsored patriotism. I noticed the same thing in the U.S. After 9/11, for example, the voices that said that U.S. had been attacking other countries for years and they were justified in attacking back were not allowed on a large scale. Instead, the pressure was on to fly the flag and support the government.
4. Power in the hands of a few.
5. Huge debt
6. Crumbling infrastructure (health care for example)
7. Distancing of those in power from ordinary people.
8. Decreasing freedoms - The Patriot Act
9. Inefficiency - lawsuits

The power has become more centralized in recent years. While I realize that legally other parties are allowed, the system does not allow them. In Canada a new party, the Reform Party sprang up and went on to win 60 seats. They morphed into the Canadian Alliance. In 1991 another totally new party, the Bloq Quebecois was formed and have taken between 38 and 54 seats in elections since their inception. This is a party who promotes Quebec separation. Nothing like this ever happens in the U.S. because the system does not allow it. I didn't know that. I guess I've been listening to the media too much. How about if I change the similarity to "Huge finincial distress?'" Elections have limited meaning in a country the size of the U.S. A small percentage actually vote. The media, political party, and financial support have a great deal to say about who holds the power. That's overstating. They did have freedoms and some areas had quite a lot of them. My point was that both countries had/have decreasing freedoms.

Yes, but it is a similarity. When power becomes concentrated in fewer hands with fewer checks and balances mistakes happen more frequently and with greater impact to the country. I'm not saying that you have two parties, but one. Whatever they say they believe, I have noticed no major difference in the way they govern the country. Other parties are not allowed for whatever reason. It's the same with the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada - basically no difference. In Canada, other parties are allowed to spring up and become part of the government if they have the support. In the United States they are not.What exactly do you mean by the "lower house" in Canada? Not yet. I predict that the U.S. will emerge from this current financial crisis with less economic power on the world scale and then decline over the next 20 to 30 years depending on what happens with their wars. The former world powers, Britian and France were removed from their status partially because of the devasting expense of the world wars. U.S. came out financially stronger because they didn't join the wars until the bulk was over and instead made money by selling arms and supplies. If the wars that the U.S. is involved in move to home turf, I predict that the decline will be faster. You said that the U.S.S.R. had "no" freedom. That is an overstatement. Yes, I am familiar with the Stalin purges as many of my relatives were taken away or shot during that time. Since then, however, there have been many freedoms. Even in the 80's when we visited relatives there my great aunt went to church regularly. In one city we saw a church group take a government bus to a very large established church. We were free to wander the cities, take taxis where we wanted and be safe from theft or violent crimes. We were travelling with Americans on an American tour. Obama is a blip on the graph of voter turnout in the last 50 years. The current electoral system in the U.S. is of limited value because there are too many people who feel they don't make a difference with their vote.

The original question was "Who's next?" The U.S. may last for a long time or may collapse in the near future but it won't last forever as the main world power. Who do you think will be the next in line?

I think I would put China first, Russia second, and EU third in the list of possible candidates. I don't think India would ever form a world-power sharing union with China. They have enough problems sharing power within their own country. I don't think they have enough of the requirements to become the next major world power.I also don't think that, whoever emerges, they will be as dominant a world power as the U.S. was. At least not in the near future.

I went out for my run after my last post and got to thinking about what it takes to become a world power. Some of these would be major factors and others minor. I'm sure the list is not complete. Feel free to add. I listed them in the order that they came to my mind.1. Stable government
2. Aggressive
3. Sound economy
4. Infrastructure
5. Destiny culture
6. Broad base of resources (natural, human, technology)
7. Some skill at international diplomacy
8. A large portion of the people are ethical
9. Military prowess
10. The bulk of the population in the middle between conformist and radical.
11. International trade systems
12. Work ethic in the population
13. Patriotism
14. Substantial land base
15. Efficiency

It's the rise and fall of the Roman Empire (or most any world power for that matter) on a galactic scale. While we can see trends in the behaviour of large groups of humans, I don't think we'll be able to apply a mathematicaly formula to the movement of power and large scale actions any time soon. We can even mesh quantum mechanics with Newtonian physics.

Even though the challengers had allies, they were still challengers. The challengers were just trying to bolster their hand by padding it with other country's support. I think that a challenger actually helps to create a world power. It keeps the country sharp, always wanting to stay ahead (look at the moon race) and it gives the government a bad guy to use to bilk the population. I think that the collapse of the Soviet Union may have contributed to the decline in the U.S. Without the "Red Scare", there is no urgency to stay on top of the game.Edited by alaninnont, : No reason given.