Who will be the next world power?

As has seemed to be the case here on EvC with my opinions. Absolutely. I wasn't intending it to mean that it was. I just didn't know how you meant when you asked, "how does one become part of this class?"...I just didn't know what you meant by "class". If just Tax bracket "class" or the actual political ruling class.There are wealthy people with NO political opinion at all, wealthy is not the be all and end all of power. I mean, Dave Chappelle is wealthy, I don't think he has a political power at all. Well something has to make the poor and middle, wait that's not PC anymore, the lower(I forget the *new* euphamisms) class and working class, feel good. The wealthy getting taxed higher seems to do that. Sure. That they can shift their investments depending on who's in charge does not mean that they will. What they seem to do is what we see, which is campaign for their individual parties that back their investments. But, technically speaking, if you are a wealthy investor you could make money with either party in charge.Now at the level of the average citizen, including those who are wealthy with no serious political affiliations, the way you sway them is through party line dividing issues that rally support. Gay marraige, abortion, gun control, even with cigarettes...what ever works, basically, to keep people supporting one party or the other. So the average citizen, lower/middle/upper, are controled by exploiting their "principled foundation(s)" with propaganda agendas.Just think how easy it is to gets liberals to vote one way and conservatives to vote the other way, this isn't coincidental, this is a very analized process and is studied very closely...and used in political power struggles...and maintained for those purposes. Sure, if in fact that's what you're getting and not the illusion of it. Time will tell. And the only way you'll know is simple, the US public will tell you how the "feel". Right now we "feel" like there was a lot of government secrecy and information control. This has created descent. Now the agenda is to re-instill this sense of trust back in government, and one good way to do that is to make the people "feel" as though they are actually getting all of the information. But, again, well see.I'm not going to be convinced of that change in 100 days in office. Or 4 years in office. In fact, no one president will convince me, it needs to be an overall change for a long period of time. And thus you now have Obama... And thus you now have Obama... Well any shift has to be attributed to something, this one is economic. That is what political strategies base themselves on, a cause of some sort. But, let's be honest, economic reasons weren't the only things people took issue with with the last administration.But, my point is that economies are balanced by who you put in office. A change in power can be all that is needed to boost an economy, which in my opinion is what Obama's presidency will achieve (and seems to be achieving), a change in opinion of the US and a global economic boost. Having continued down a republican path I don't think it would have had the same effect, thus you now have Obama instead of McCain. The agenda was *new* government, with the intentions that this *new* face would stimulate the economy, and it seems to be working. Whether or not Obama is making it work, the intentions were that it would work, and it is.Good for him if he does this, but also, good for the political ruling class that was protecting it's global investments. Anyone who finds themselves with no other means of protection.Now, believe me, I would hope that the day of military invasions, like that of Iraq and Afgahnistan, are over. I would hope for passive means to end and all global problems. I would hope that all governments see the negative of going to war. With that being said though, we are currently fighting terrorist groups, not political powers. However, if WWIII breaks out the US is the most superior military force on the planet, currently. "Who will advocate US military intervention?" - Anyone with half a brain, at that point.No one wants to admit it but they need the US and Europe. They need our big balls, our big guns, our huge military force, if for nothing more than as the big brother they can point to to scare those who are attacking them. Then, once they get the aid, they can turn on the US and Europe and call them all kinds of nasty names, however, only after the conflict is resolved.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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.

I'll admit I was being a bit facetious. I do think for the most part it has something to do with pro-enterprise equality, but would you agree that it does help on a mental level, sort of like a mental feeling of justice for those less fortunate? Yes. Each party has it's specific interests and lobbyist who lobby for it. In this particular case the president was so bad that there was a general dissatifaction of the republican party. Other times it can get very dirty, like during the Bush 1 campiagn. We are all pawns, Straggler, to someone.I'm sure he's doing the best he personally feels he can. "Democracy" voted for Bush, twice...Only someone who was being flat out stuborn didn't know that the US was voting democrat. We all knew. "Obama" could have been "Hillary" or "Edward" just the same...it was "Obama" for specific reasons. "Hillary" was part of the old politics and "Edward" was, well, just another white guy. "Obama" is the better choice for many reasons.If it's not about looks and characteristics then why are the new GOP future presidencial hopefuls an Indian, a black guy, and a woman? Where's the rich white guy? Why is he gone? Are we really meant to believe that these 3 just so happen to be the best qualified? What a fucking coincidence, huh? Just when they needed diversity, diversity shows up!It's all bullshit, Straggler. Let's say one of the 3 beats Obama, was that really democracy that would have voted him/her in, or propaganda? Yes. 5 industialist smoking cigars, who bring the new president into a room and roll down a screen. They then show the new president a video of the Kennedy assasination from an angle that no one has every seen before. Then they turn on the lights and ask the new president, "Any questions?" - Hick's joke. All I mean is big business drives government policies. No Illuminati, if that's whay you mean. - lol I agree. Who would sell the UN military it's weapons?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I wonder is Onifire subscribes to the conspiracy of the illuminati?Personally, I think Onifire is advocating the same kind of conspiracy that creationists like to advocate (except for them, it's all of the scientific world that's in on the secret and is keeping dissent quiet). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and they just don't have it.

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.

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 believe the next world power is China. Trust me, China has become a serious global competitor to the US both financially and militarily. Though there are some economic incentives to keep China from directly challenging us outright militarily. However I do believe we are on the verge of a China/US cold/finanical war. This could all turn on the dime if China convinces the world to switch global currency from the dollar to the an internationally neutral currency, the Special Drawing Right (SDR) created by the IMF. Just my thoughts.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi Straggler,I guess we've side tracked this thread enough. I'll make some final comments and give you the last word, sir.I'd be happy to continue in another thread, if you like. Good, then I'm not that crazy after all.It's also very hard to pin-point the actual intentions of any policy since it is so well concealed with propaganda, but you can make a logic conclusion from what you observe that points to their intentions. But it's always in hindsight that those intentions are revealed. I don't think there is any sole purpose to any movement, there are projected outcomes that are campaigned towards.In my opinion, you need to seperate what the people want vs. what big business wants. Sometimes they are one and the same, other times they're not, and that's the game that is then played via media persuation. How do you get the people to rally behind certain politicians/policies? The 2 different parties use their best stratagist to figure these things out, sometimes they are successful, sometimes they're not, but most of the time they can count on party divide to sway voters. Liberals are swayed one way and conservatives the other way, both sides know the game quite well and do what they gotta do to get the outcome they want.I hope this isn't considered some big conspiracy theory, this is US politics, there's no secret to it. I think it goes through phases where honesty pays off at times, then misinformation tactics works other times. But I feel that in either case, the interests of big business out weighs the interests of the people. I feel that there are 2 sides that are appealed too. One side is the citizens the other side is big business. The key is to satisfy big business while maintaining support from the citizens. Again, this also may be seen as a conspiracy theory but I don't see why, this is US politics and there's no secret about it. At the heart of it, which I consider that to mean "at the individual politician level" I think you are right, there's more to it than brainwashing and special interests, but regardless of what an individual politician may want to achieve he must still play by the rules of Washington, which is to, at least was to, lobby for your causes.At the individual level there is no need for "brainwashing". It's not at the level of the individaul politician, this is behind the scene Washington bureaucracy, which, if too much bullshit goes on, or someone pisses the wrong person off, gets made public to give the people the illusion that Washington polices those commiting fraud.But this can also be viewed as dirty politics in the sense that everyone does it and those with the most power control it. The bigger ranks in Washington get away with the most, until again, they piss off the wrong people with more power than they have.This is not a consipracy theory, this is normal US politics, and it's all legal. It also looks like Obama's camp is trying to regulate this, or at least this is what they tell the public they are doing. Time will tell if he will be successful, but even Obama recognizes the bullshit done by lobbyist in Washington and made it clear to the US public that action needed to be taken. Again, whether or not action will be taken remains to be seen. The overall impact of his anti-lobbist movement may or may not be pure propaganda to settle the citizens mind. Remember, Washington is older than him, the rules have been established long before he wanted in, he will either play by the rules or try to change it, but let's not forget what happened to the last guy who tried to do this, he got to take a ride in a convertible through Dallas that he never got to enjoy. I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party. That, I'll admit, is purely speculative, but so was your statement that any republican would have lost, so I get to speculate too. Of course people will push back, but what conditions have been put in place to avoid such a revolt? Financial debt? Longer work hours? Government dependancy? Constant materialistic distractions? TV shows? etc, etc, etc.The "people" have been subdued, in my opinion, by these methods of persuasion and distractions. Now, I don't think it's a conscious effort to distract and persuade but it is the effect of the type of society that glorifies materialism and vainty and has placed their selfworth on their ability buy and consume. King? Cheif pawn? Really in charge? - This all gives the impression that you feel I'm talking about some small group of rich people who control all mass media and politics, well, I'm not.Big business dictates government policy, there's no conspiracy to it. US politics runs like that. Perhaps with this new administration it will change, I doubt it, but at least they're giving the impression that they are going a different route.But, I also feel that it would benefit Obama's administration, to gaining the trust of the American public again, which has fallen due to the last administration, by doing things the way they're doing it. Giving the impression of change that may or may not be real. Again, time will tell what their true intentions are. I believe you are being optimistic here for the sake of showing some optimism. The republican party is showing just how stupid they think Americans are, that if a black guy was voted, then anyone with color will be voted for before a millionare white guy will.And, sadly, people are that fuck'n stupid to believe that those 3 poster kids for diversity actual are the best choices. They are not the best choices, they are what the market wants, or what they "feel" the market wants.There's an appeal for diversity, so that's what you'll get. Until such time that people won't care either way, then they'll think of a new strategy. For now though, the strategy is present diversity to the ignorant masses and trust that they'll follow. No. Big business lobbys for what they want. There IS a strategy in place, lobby for what you want.If you are under the impression that big business ONLY supports republicans then you are wrong, IMO.This time around a democrat was better for the global economy, more so one who looks like Obama, given the issues with the Middle East. Had big business wanted a republican, and when I mean "big business" I'm not talking about one sole group of people, I'm just referinig to the general consensus that would be agreed upon by those with global interests, which should be common interests, they would have made a push for Romney in the media and to the public. I'm not saying it would have worked, but had they wanted a republican you would not have seen a McCain/Palin ticket. McCain/Palin was a sure fire loss. Because we aren't talking about just US businesses, I'm talking global monsters. I'm not talking about Walmart changing governemnt policies, I'm talking about Saudi oil demands and companies at that level. The major global players who do have interest in US gov. policies and support presidencial candidates. Exactly, and because there will be many, including the US, government will make a push for control of that market and the American public will be convinced through media persuasion that it's good for world peace.I wouldn't be surprised if at that point the UN would feel a need to be armed with nuclear weapons.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

It's not speculation when you have polls. And when you have a lot of polls, you can plot trendlines.During the last election, a generic democrat beat a generic republican. In fact, for a while, a generic democrat was polling better than Obama, who was polling better than a generic republican.During the last election, Obama was beating a generic republican.So yeah, straggler's comment isn't all that speculative.

I think India has a good chance as well. If CHina and India were to join forces, so to speak, it could be a very powerful alliance indeed.

India could become a serious world power. However, India is our ally. India will not challenge us militarily or politcally. Neither do I see them ever teaming up with China as they are idealogically opposed.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Not to mention some border disputes.India is not comfortable when it comes to China at all.

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.

Good posts Onifre. I don't know why people always jump to the "conspiracy" angle when this is discussed. What's so conspirational about business wanting to make a profit? (A LOT of profit) What's so conspirational about ruling powers wanting to maintain or increase their powers? (A LOT MORE power) What's so conspirational about business wanting to usurp/lobby/join the ruling powers to make money? Eg., the US military: The US dept of defense spends as much as the rest of the world combined. This is ridiculous. The US military is hardly about defense. It's about profit. A LOT of profit. Half Trillion $ worth of profit. You'll note there is no difference between Bush and Obama's annual military budget. That's why the US wants conflicts abroad. GE, Westinghouse, Dupont, etc. Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Black Water, etc. These companies don't have dispirate interests. They all love the smell of napalm in the morning. And then re-stocking more napalm. And then more napalm. Ka-ching! Why do people think there has to be conspiracy in profit and power? It's both natural and obvious in a capitalist or fascist nation.BTW, just got back from three weeks traveling across China. I am jetlagged, zzzz. Unfortunately, China and this subject of next super-power is so complex I don't have anything specific to add to this thread (sorry), except, I think the rulers SHOULD worry about a revolution. The police state in China is terrible. China has very scary security. I was often searched and questioned for no reason. I visited another similar police-state-nation two years ago, Myanmar. Americans should know with every small liberty/right we allow our government to take away from us we become more like those nations. But I suppose as long as our government/elite rulers takes liberties and rights away gradually, the slow-witted critical mass won't complain until it's too late. I am reminded of the boiling frog experiment when the frog doesn't leap out in time.LASTLY, Oni, if you are getting short on comic material, you might want to consider an oriental trip. Superstition and hyper-contradictions abound which allow some humorous observations. The sexism/discrimination is a major downer though.regardsEdited by dronester, : clarity

Currently, but as China and India both advance their space programs, and if, as some in the space fields advocate, we invite China to be a partner in the ISS, then they will begin working together more closely. I don't think they would team up in the near future, but if we accept that it will be a LONG time before the US and EU fall, there is sufficient time for relations between India and CHina to evolve.