[paydayuscf]

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.

[texprofi]

Panama definately

[Chooriwrocafn]

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.

[Alexeric]

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.

[Eugen80]

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 isn´t 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 römische Reich deutscher Nationen",so I do think ,there is a fair bit of a general german culture around.

[MilenaJaf]

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 isn´t 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.

[yQvpyNt3]

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 hasn´t played a role as big as germany or france in europes history ,but the main reason is because I love speaking german. =)

[Loovikeillilen]

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.

[genna]

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.

[bxxasxxa]

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 hasn´t 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.

[Unonounaple]

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.

[sapedotru]

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.

[Saduyre9de]

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?

[AntonayPina]

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.

[fereupfer]

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 �l–¯‘fŽ¿.
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.

[QHdy5Z3A]

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

[AOE6q4bu]

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.

[Sapremolz]

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 ). 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.

[FuXA8nQM]

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 ?