is America the new Rman Empire?
The article is a turd.
(I win this debate, by posting the most eloquent opinion about it so far.)
Wrong, UT. Nothing can top the original post.
The stylishly casual title, misspelling left intact, as to fully communicate the sense of glib superiority Phil has coursing through his veins as he reaches towards the keyboard and slams home his coup de grâce: a bone-crushing <Ctrl+V> combination! [COLOR="White"]>>>>>>>[/COLOR] The crowd goes wild!
Oh, darn. I thought America was finally making strides in the quest to forcibly provide everyone with database recovery management solutions.
RMANI didn't actually read the article :P I have however, on numerous occassions suggested that America is the new Rome. Inasmuch as it represents a cultural centre for much of the world, is looked to for security, is the most powerful nation and greatly envied. It is the new great Empire.
We are not the New Rome. We are Better than Rome.
We are Americans.
We have the best possible bread, and most amazing circuses.
We're different from Rome, because we're gonna stay on top of the world forever!
But it must be said that the best possible bread is usually something of Italian origin, and the most amazing circuses are Quebec's Cirque du Soleil.
We're different from Rome, because we're gonna stay on top of the world forever!
America will eventually fall to the status of Britian or France today.
is America the new Rman Empire?
As wolf says, better. We grow better weeds in our fields (Kentucky's #1 cash crop is...). We have better pasta. Our sauce comes from Jersey tomatoes that Rome never had. Our leaders even spell out how we have a better potatoe. We grow bread that tastes so much better ... contains 50% sugar. We don't need roads that lead to Rome. Tainted money gets to Washington electronically. We never needed Brutus. As Jay Leno so appreciated, we have Monica. And what good empire has a coliseum only in its capital? Our gladiators fight every Sunday in cities all over the Empire; returning every week to confront attacking Lions, Eagles, and Seahawks. When America is dumb, it does not just make useless war with the Huns. It finds a whole axis of evil. Of course Romans also denied it. Rome was overrun by massive illegal immigration and invasions from the Gauls. Meanwhile, when we lose those wars, we don't lose whole legions. We just end up with thousands of disabled. That too is better.
In the empire, when someone learned of a good idea, he would smack himself in the head and say, “Why do I not think of that”. In America, we sit in a boat in the Mississippi River and let the fish do the smacking. During the Roman empire, one could be attacked by Wolves. Today, we only worry about Wolfovitz.
Of course, in Rome, spies were everywhere. America has simply taken it to new heights and extremes - satellites and routine wiretapping without judicial review. But like in Rome, eventually, the government cannot trust the people. New patriot acts make America safer. Rome never had such powers.
In Rome, if you were suspected, then the emperor would have you smitten. Today we have all those electronics devices so that courts can kill with certainty. We kill off just as many innocent people. But that’s OK. It’s done legally with a death penalty.
Every new empire eventually must invent its own religion. Rome created Christianity. America has Intelligent Design, Church of the Latter Day Saints, and Kwanza complete with disciples and philosophers such as Jimmy Swagert, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson.
Eventually the Empire broke up into Red states (Rome) and Blue states (Constantinople).
Oh yes. And we have Santa Claus. Ceasar did not.
America will eventually fall to the status of Britian or France today.
And whom, may I ask, do you think will be the "New Lead Nation?"
And whom, may I ask, do you think will be the "New Lead Nation?"
That depends on when we do fall to that status.
If we fall in the next 50 years (very unlikely but it is a possiblity) then China may take over if they can pull themselves together or the EU might be able to take charge. Or both. Realistically, the US and one or both of those two countries would share superpower status for a good amount of time before one breaks down.
If happens after 2050 then I have no idea because countries change power very quickly. Sooner or later America will fall to the status of Britian or France, it probably won't happen in the next century but it will happen eventually.
Round of applause TW, I like.
picking up on typos is very, very mature.
See we are better.
Keep a close watch on your grammar, too. You won't know what hit you.
picking up on typos is very, very mature.
See, what you did wrong there was not capitalizing the beginning of the sentence. That's 50 lashes with a wet noodle.
i cant be arsed. and i like being lashed with wet noodles.
and i like being lashed with wet noodles.
Then, we have many things to talk about, comrade!
Seriously, if America
is the New Roma, which way to the baths?
:D
Then, we have many things to talk about, comrade!
Seriously, if America is the New Roma, which way to the baths?
:D
[B]F[B]rom Bush Square, go past the Bush memorial statue (the one where he holds the world above his head) turn right onto Bush Drive, past the other Bush memorial statue (the one where he holds an AK47 in the shape of a crucifix), and if you can get past the guards, the Baths are easily visible by the Bush memorial statue which dominates the Baths from atop : the one where he holds Brittania's head to his dick. ;)
That depends on when we do fall to that status. Sooner or later America will fall to the status of Britian or France, it probably won't happen in the next century but it will happen eventually.
I'm sure there will be a major change in nation status in the next 50 to 100 years. Countries may merge together or we'll be divided only by continents - I think the world will be so different in 50 yrs due to technological advances and whatnot.
[SIZE="1"]Then again :alien: may come and visit us, or we may have outposts elsewhere in the universe.[/SIZE] :vader1:
I would really like to the see the EU unite in all aspects. They would have to create a new language and that would be the easiest problem but it would be symbolic nevertheless. Other than that I am not currently aware of any other countries that have potential to unite, but there could be some.
Our gladiators fight every Sunday in cities all over the Empire; returning every week to confront attacking Lions, Eagles, and Seahawks.
Oh, dear. you're a Cowboys fan?
That would be way too fitting!
Oh, dear. you're a Cowboys fan?
You see. The Romans did not even have Cowboys in their Coliseum. Romans will never be as good as us.
From this
list of reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire
Unemployment
During the latter years of the empire farming was done on large estates called latifundia that were owned by wealthy men who used slave labor. A farmer who had to pay workmen could not produce goods as cheaply. Many farmers could not compete with these low prices and lost or sold their farms. This not only undermined the citizen farmer who passed his values to his family, but also filled the cities with unemployed people. At one time, the emperor was importing grain to feed more than 100,000 people in Rome alone. These people were not only a burden but also had little to do but cause trouble and contribute to an ever increasing crime rate.
Now substitute Illegal Aliens for Slaves. :eyebrow:
From this list of reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire
Now substitute Illegal Aliens for Slaves. :eyebrow:
And still, you have to pay them. Or else word gets around and you don't get
anybody looking for work. I'd say calling them "slaves" is stretching the term unconscionably. Remember that "unfair treatment" differs considerably in definition from "slavery," for slavery is a mere subset.
Now the big thing that keeps us from being a new Empire is our country's fundamentally anti-imperial mindset. We remain in that habit, and have a certain, inchoate understanding that imperial conquest does not serve our trade interests, which we set first in priority -- fundamentally, it's that wealthy trade partners, not being tapped for tribute nor constrained in their own markets and trade, trade more, and the enrichment becomes mutual.
Capitalism, basically, is what keeps us non-imperial. The logic of empire was based on a mercantilistic economic model, which we rejected in the 1770s and -80s for good and all, having been on the short end of that stick.
UG, for someone so apparently well educated, you seem to have very little grasp on what it means to be an imperial nation.
Capitalism certainly does not save you from that.
UG, for someone so apparently well educated, you seem to have very little grasp on what it means to be an imperial nation.
UG is well traveled. He knows a gallon of gas is larger in an imperial nation.
*phweeeet* Flag on the play. That's three very humorous posts from tw in one thread.
UG is well traveled. He knows a gallon of gas is larger in an imperial nation.
:eek:
the most amazing circuses are Quebec's Cirque du Soleil.
Dude, I saw Delirium and it was the most pretentious bunch of crap I've ever seen. I'm no cultural idiot, I wasn't expecting bears on tricycles...but for God's sake. I just wanted it to stop, especially that guy whose role it must have been to walk around the stage slowly looking amazed and scared the entire time. Puh!
:)
Seriously, if America is the New Roma, which way to the baths?
:D
Or the vomitoriums.
You must have seen one of the "B" Circques. Go to Vegas next time :)
*phweeeet* Flag on the play. That's three very humorous posts from tw in one thread.
In one thread???? Three. tw
funny - I'm lovin it. It must be a new years resolution! :D
You must have seen one of the "B" Circques. Go to Vegas next time :)
My mom had seen previous Cirques, and loved them, hated this one...I think it was the Delirium show itself.
Of course, I am willing to keep an open mind if you'd like to send me to Vegas (baby)! ;)
And still, you have to pay them. Or else word gets around and you don't get anybody looking for work. I'd say calling them "slaves" is stretching the term unconscionably. Remember that "unfair treatment" differs considerably in definition from "slavery," for slavery is a mere subset.
Here you miss the point quite completely. Whether they're actually slaves or not isn't relevant- the point was the use of extremely low-cost labor on huge farms which destroys small business.
Because of economies of scale, capitalism constantly pulls towards monopoly, and should be managed.
Thank you, HM. Yes, I said "Now substitute Illegal Aliens for Slaves", I didn't say substitute the words. :thumbsup:
In one thread???? Three. tw funny - I'm lovin it. It must be a new years resolution! :D
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Because I've been there, done that, and burned the T-shirt.
Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.
tw's being funny all over the place today - I'm loving it
In one thread???? Three. tw funny - I'm lovin it. It must be a new years resolution!
Just Notre Dame getting beat by LSU - a New Orleans team doing a job. Puts a whole new perspective on religion. The victims fight back.
Go, Cellar, Go!
Out-freakin-standing
Aliantha, I know enough to know that empires are obsolete. I find the use of "imperial" in this context to be intellectually dishonest and altogether straining the definition of the word.
What I am doing is contending that the "imperial"-users are bullshitting, and bullshitting in a manner over-reminiscent of the Soviet Union and Red China, both of whom threw the term around in the usual lying totalitarian way.
Aliantha, I know enough to know that empires are obsolete. I find the use of "imperial" in this context to be intellectually dishonest and altogether straining the definition of the word.
What I am doing is contending that the "imperial"-users are bullshitting, and bullshitting in a manner over-reminiscent of the Soviet Union and Red China, both of whom threw the term around in the usual lying totalitarian way.
This is the problem with imperial thought. The ones employing it will always argue that they're not being imperial in their thoughts (and actions).
What do you think the British empire told the people when they were invading other nations? That they were 'civilising' them. Bringing God into their lives. Educating them. The list is long.
Don't display your ignorance UG.
Aliantha, I know enough to know that empires are obsolete.
The term may be, but the concept and practice is alive and well.
Unless you're counting Han Chinese policy of annexing buffer states around the Han center of China -- to make up mainland China -- I can't think of a single surviving example. The Soviet Union was the other one, and look what a fistful of states are there now.
What is the foundation of our dominance? It's entirely that we are good at trade, mutually beneficial transaction, large scale or small. That's the only thing we've ever done with consistency or persistence. Unlike Charlemagne, we regard warfare as an aberrant crisis and not the regular state of affairs.
we regard warfare as an aberrant crisis
I would laugh if I actually thought you believed that.
That's a compliment, by the way.
Keep on living in your delusions UG. I'm not even going to bother arguing this one with you considering the fact that it's obvious the actions of the US have been empirical.
EG: HAWAII; ALASKA; HALF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS. (just to name a few)
And lets not forget the failures! ie the countries the US tried to 'settle' with little or no success.
If these types of actions are not empire building then I'd like to know what they are.
So, rather than trying to suggest that the actions of the US have not been empirical, try telling me what you think has changed so that you can support the fact that perhaps the US is no longer empirical.
Urbane.....how many countries and islands, has America built military bases on?
EG: HAWAII; ALASKA; HALF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS. (just to name a few)
Whoa, there. We bought Alaska from the Russians. Seward's folly, it was called.
As for Hawaii, the people living there requested the US to take charge. They, missionaries, sailors, fortune hunters, fishermen, planters, from everywhere, had already greatly out numbered and displaced the natives.;)
So, when do we get to feed Pat Robertson to a puma? Huh? Huh?
As for Hawaii, the people living there requested the US to take charge. They, missionaries, sailors, fortune hunters, fishermen, planters, from everywhere, had already greatly out numbered and displaced the natives.
Ask the 'natives' now and they'll tell you they'd like their islands back.
We bought Alaska from the Russians
Did anyone bother asking the Inuit tribes how they felt about this transaction?
Ask the 'natives' now and they'll tell you they'd like their islands back.
Spain wants Central America back. Russia wants eastern Europe back. Japan wants Chins back. I want my youth back. So what, I'd expect them to say that.
The Hawaiian "natives", who were émigrés also, were a bunch of constantly warring tribes. When Kamehameha finally kicked ass, with outside help, and created his kingdom, he delayed any political system developing. And by the time the monarchy ended there were more non-natives than natives, from the four corners of the earth. You'd be hard pressed to define, let alone locate a Hawaiian native.
Anyway, a few planter families had the islands by the short hairs and the majority of the people living there wanted the US to annex the islands and stop the abuse of the majority by the minority. It worked, giving full citizenship rights to the children of the original immigrant laborers that were being oppressed by the planters.:us:
We bought Alaska from the Russians
Did anyone bother asking the Inuit tribes how they felt about this transaction?
Why, they didn't own it, unlike the Aborigines. :p
We are definitely imperial...
You think it is coincidence that we invaded a nation that was NO THREAT to us IN ANY WAY AT ALL a few years after they discovered they had the world's largest land-locked untapped oil reserve?
Ummmm.... no.
It is an invasion and occupation, nothing else.
Why, they didn't own it, unlike the Aborigines. :p
The indigenous tribes of Australia have never claimed to own it. They are part of the land and consider themselves to be an integral part of the natural law.
Much the same as the Inuit I believe you will find.
Under that reasoning, if you've bought the land, you've bought the people also.
Slavery?
Spain wants Central America back. Russia wants eastern Europe back. Japan wants Chins back. I want my youth back. So what, I'd expect them to say that.
The Hawaiian "natives", who were émigrés also, were a bunch of constantly warring tribes. When Kamehameha finally kicked ass, with outside help, and created his kingdom, he delayed any political system developing. And by the time the monarchy ended there were more non-natives than natives, from the four corners of the earth. You'd be hard pressed to define, let alone locate a Hawaiian native.
Anyway, a few planter families had the islands by the short hairs and the majority of the people living there wanted the US to annex the islands and stop the abuse of the majority by the minority. It worked, giving full citizenship rights to the children of the original immigrant laborers that were being oppressed by the planters.:us:
I wonder where the planters came from? I'm sure they would have benefited from an army coming in to protect them from the 'restless natives' huh?
Who benefits from the US entering these areas? What does the US do with these islands it 'anexes'?
Put lots of big guns on them mostly. Why? To protect themselves from the 'yellow hoard'!
To protect themselves from the 'yellow hoard'
*cough*EastTimor*cough*
East Timor. A new nation which had been invaded by Indonesia and was screaming for liberation. Australia, along with other UN forces entered the country and halted the civil war and Indonesia's influence was removed from the country.
Australia still has a military presence there after the recent elections. In fact, my cousin will be heading there very shortly with his unit.
Australia has no sovereignty there.
What's your point UT? There are many other points around our borders where Indonesia and the rest of Asia is closer.
I wonder where the planters came from? I'm sure they would have benefited from an army coming in to protect them from the 'restless natives' huh?
Who benefits from the US entering these areas? What does the US do with these islands it 'anexes'?
Put lots of big guns on them mostly. Why? To protect themselves from the 'yellow hoard'!
Go back and read for comprehension, you've got it exactly ass backwards. :crazy:
"I wonder where the planters came from? I'm sure they would have benefited from an army coming in to protect them from the 'restless natives' huh?"
China?
"Who benefits from the US entering these areas? What does the US do with these islands it 'anexes'?"
Go back and read for comprehension.
"Put lots of big guns on them mostly. Why? To protect themselves from the 'yellow hoard'!"
The biggest gun in the world, mounted on Hawaii, would hit Hawaii. :eyebrow:
Bruce, if you choose to ignore the reasons the US was happy to go sort out the squabbles of these pacific islanders then enjoy your ignorance.
You'd be better off acknowledging the fact that the US has been and still is empire building, which is the point of this thread and the point I was demonstrating.
Oh, and as to the big guns. They're airborne. I would have thought that would go without saying.
Australia still has a military presence there after the recent elections. In fact, my cousin will be heading there very shortly with his unit.
Sounds like Mission Accomplished to me.
What's in East Timor that makes it in Australia's interests to endanger her sons and daughters?
Now the key question: did East Timor ask you to get out?
America has left every country that asked it to.
It's not too hard to know what Australia is getting out of it. Our government is no more altruistic than yours.
There's natural gas under their ocean which they don't have the resources to exploit. Australia does, so for providing an army, Australia has a lease on the rights.
I imagine once the gas is gone, so will Australia be gone although I believe it's a fairly large resource, so it might take a while.
Shameful. No War For Natgas!
It would have been more humane to set them up and take a debt or tax so that they could build their own economy. There are many things that could have been done differently, and the government is under pressure to address them, so things may change if things in the region settle down.
So are you going to clean up your own house, or are you going to fling around accusations of empire at everyone else, under any ridiculous flimsy pretense you can find, feeling smug and self-satisfied about it?
Aussies are descended from a bunch of criminals and losers that were run out of England on a rail that didn't manage to throw off the Imperial yoke like we did.
It's jealousy, pure and simple.
I never said I was feeling smug or self satisfied UT. I'm simply responding to the thread, and the fact is, to all intents and purposes, the US is the new empire - roman or any other kind. You could just as easily suggest the US is the new British Empire.
The fact is, there will always be one more powerful nation which builds it empire on that strength, and just as all the others have done before, the glory days will end. I don't believe any empire in history has been an empire for the good of the countries they absorb or anex or settle. There's always been something in it for them. That's what empire building is for.
Of course there are often benefits for the 'new' members of that empire, but history suggests that the benefits are usually outweighed by the losses of culture suffered due to the nature of empire building.
Then again, that depends whose perspective you're viewing it from. Some do not value culture as highly as others.
Aussies are descended from a bunch of criminals and losers that were run out of England on a rail that didn't manage to throw off the Imperial yoke like we did.
It's jealousy, pure and simple.
Careful wolf, you're sounding a bit like buddug. lol
I can guarantee you that 99% of Australians are very happy to be Australians and not Americans btw.
There's nothing to be jealous of.
I never said I was feeling smug or self satisfied UT.
Nobody
says they feel smug or self-satisfied, they just act like... you.
Urbane.....how many countries and islands, has America built military bases on?
Come now: how many countries and islands do we get imperial tribute from, eh? How many of these do we colonize these days? I'm listening for the tramping of hordes of settlers and it's so nice and quiet I'm about to go to sleep...:p
How many countries do we lock up their economies into a mercantilist "sell your raw materials only to us, buy manufactured goods of these materials only from us" deal?
Imperialism in large measure springs from a mercantilist economic paradigm. Mercantilism is something we've never really practiced, having gotten too much of a taste of it in the Colonial era, which led directly to the American Revolution -- which in its turn had a great influence on the form and behavior of the British Empire -- rather better, I think, than the behavior of other empires of the last two centuries. Parliament and nation learned something about what not to do by the American example, and it worked rather well -- see Canada, the "pine" part of the "Dominion of palm and pine."
Full-on capitalism in our manner (okay, it's how most humans do capitalism if they at all can) does not encourage imperialism, and is why we're the one non-imperialist great power and superpower.
I would laugh if I actually thought you believed that.
That's a compliment, by the way.
I don't mind; laughter is a good gift to give -- get a good start on your 2007.
We Americans regard a state of war as an abnormal and unfortunate state of affairs. Which does not make us peaceniks, merely sensible. Not, I think, uniquely so, but sensible nonetheless. Bear in mind wars invariably devour wealth; it's a war-college tenet that the execution, prosecution, and evolution of a war is at bottom economic. The winner, as a rule, is that economy that can endure the greater damage, or suffers the less damage.
Yielding to a temptation:
R. Lee Rman, centurion. :D
Aussies are descended from a bunch of criminals and losers that were run out of England on a rail that didn't manage to throw off the Imperial yoke like we did.
It's jealousy, pure and simple.
You actually believe that Australia would LIKE to be like America?! :eek:
to use the "theyre all descended from criminals" cliche displays a snobbery and unjustified attitude of superiority the world has come to expect from certain people in the US.
You actually believe that Australia would LIKE to be like America?! :eek:
Australian culture, and the experience that made it, are indeed similar to the American -- which is why Australians and Americans get on very well together. Consider that both are a fundamentally English society, with English expectations, transported to a very wide, hotter and drier land, with agrarian national beginnings and industrial development later -- both even have less than completely creditable relations with the indigenes. These leave similar stamps upon their peoples. Where American culture diverges from this is that it's more polyglot, each nation having taken respectively different paths there.
To use the "they're all descended from criminals" cliche displays a snobbery and unjustified attitude of superiority the world has come to expect from certain people in the US.
And it happens to be about as true in the US case as in the Australian -- see how the state of Georgia was founded. Nor, in either, did the influx end with the end of the penal colony -- what sustained both these nations was the continued seeking of improved opportunity.
Aussies are cooler than Americans, any day.
If there's jealousy, its the OTHER way around.
I can't believe I just read a post by UG without rolling my eyes!
It's a miracle. (sorry UG, but I'm sure you see the humour ;) )
Ibram, I think most Aussies are pretty daggy (self included) actually, but if you think that's cool then that's ok. lol
Miracles provided free of charge, roughly on a monthly to bimonthly basis.
(I mulled over the smilies. I can't pick one.)
Now you see my difficulty!
There's some justice in regarding Americans and Australians (alpha. order, nothing more!) as funny-talking versions of each other.
And both parties have been known to wear broadbrimmed hats -- with good reason!
There's no doubt that American's and Australian's have a lot of similarities in their cultural heritage both as settled countries and also as new nations (in so far as the history of the world goes). Australia doesn't have the climate or resources to support such a population as the US does though. Most of the country is inhospitable and not very pleasant to live in (for white fellas).
Our outlook is a bit different than a lot of other countries though. Maybe that's because of our youth. Still a bit carefree perhaps, but certainly worth knowing.
Our outlook is a bit different than a lot of other countries though. Still a bit carefree perhaps, but certainly worth knowing.
I'm certainly glad I've gotten to know the Aussies from the cellar. I'd love to go there at some point in my life and see it for myself. From all I hear and read it is beautiful.
You actually believe that Australia would LIKE to be like America?! :eek:
to use the "theyre all descended from criminals" cliche displays a snobbery and unjustified attitude of superiority the world has come to expect from certain people in the US.
Please remove the stick from your anal cavity.
A careful reading of my statement makes it clear that I was also refering to America's rather similar origins ... however, as nations we dealt with this different, America choosing to fight for independence, Australia remaining part of the British Empire.
I'm certainly glad I've gotten to know the Aussies from the cellar. I'd love to go there at some point in my life and see it for myself. From all I hear and read it is beautiful.
I don't know if I ever said this, but when I was pretty young, JR HI, I think, I had a dream about Australia. Nothing spectacular, it was just that i was living there with my grandmother for some reason or another. I remember waking up and feeling really good, peaceful. From that point on I swore I would go one day. I even wrote a poem about it (a silly trite young girl poem, but a poem nonetheless.) I hope to do some traveling a bit later in life and Australia will be one of my visits.
Please remove the stick from your anal cavity.
A careful reading of my statement makes it clear that I was also refering to America's rather similar origins ... however, as nations we dealt with this different, America choosing to fight for independence, Australia remaining part of the British Empire.
*hands you stick covered in shit*
you said they were jealous .... end of argument.
*hands you stick covered in shit*
That happens to me about three times a week.
Hope it isn't the pointy end too!
They are jealous. They've always wanted to drive on the right side of the road. :p
The right side of the road is the left:P
If you go left, you'll be right.
If you go right, you'll be left. :p
I drive on the right hand side of the road when I overtake. I don't always feel like overtaking though.
which side did the Romans drive on?
I haven't read much of the thread but I'll pitch in my two cents on the type of nations that will be world dominating forces in the future.
Here are some criteria (be kind, this is off-the-cuff):
1. Nations with a very high level of urbanization and population density (i.e., usually, smaller island nations)
2. Access to large amount of, not necessarily native, man-power (the more skilled the better).
3. Deep integration of high-tech, communications, and information services on a national level
4. Strong leadership (I was going to say "good leadership" but most likely these leaders will be barely distinguishable from villains in our lifetimes and for several subsequent generations)
5. World financial centers
I think Singapore and Hong Kong are probably the best bets. They have China and other resources to draw on, are rich enough to build world-class armies, and have technological penetration outdoing all but perhaps South Korea and Taiwan (maybe Finland, too?).
Taiwan gets some bonus points for having very strong ties to certain areas of mainland China (the province name doesn't pop immediately to mind).
South Korea is another decent bet. They have to maintain military vigilance because of their friends to the north, Seoul is a world city (one of the most well connected in the world), and they have a reasonable agricultural base.
I thought money and education would be more important?
The reason why America is a superpower is because they have all the money. The reason why America will fall is because of education. The other nations are stressing education more so all the jobs that need workers with a higher education will go there resulting in that country getting the money.
There's the oft-quoted (by me)
Ralph Peters' Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States:
Traditional indicators of noncompetitive performance still apply: corruption (the most seductive activity humans can consummate while clothed); the absence of sound, equitably enforced laws; civil strife; or government attempts to overmanage a national economy. As change has internationalized and accelerated, however, new predictive tools have emerged. They are as simple as they are fundamental, and they are rooted in culture. The greater the degree to which a state--or an entire civilization--succumbs to these "seven deadly sins" of collective behavior, the more likely that entity is to fail to progress or even to maintain its position in the struggle for a share of the world's wealth and power. Whether analyzing military capabilities, cultural viability, or economic potential, these seven factors offer a quick study of the likely performance of a state, region, or population group in the coming century.
These key failure factors are:
* Restrictions on the free flow of information.
* The subjugation of women.
* Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
* The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
* Domination by a restrictive religion.
* A low valuation of education.
* Low prestige assigned to work.
There's the oft-quoted (by me) Ralph Peters' Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States:
Traditional indicators of noncompetitive performance still apply: corruption (the most seductive activity humans can consummate while clothed); the absence of sound, equitably enforced laws; civil strife; or government attempts to overmanage a national economy. As change has internationalized and accelerated, however, new predictive tools have emerged. They are as simple as they are fundamental, and they are rooted in culture. The greater the degree to which a state--or an entire civilization--succumbs to these "seven deadly sins" of collective behavior, the more likely that entity is to fail to progress or even to maintain its position in the struggle for a share of the world's wealth and power. Whether analyzing military capabilities, cultural viability, or economic potential, these seven factors offer a quick study of the likely performance of a state, region, or population group in the coming century.
These key failure factors are:
* Restrictions on the free flow of information.
* The subjugation of women.
* Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
* The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
* Domination by a restrictive religion.
* A low valuation of education.
* Low prestige assigned to work.
Several of these factors are applicable in China, which, as we all know, is a non-competitive state. Or issit?
They have massively increased in the last decade, according to
this competitiveness scorecard which seems to be pretty prominent. They
spent 1997-2001 ranked in the 30s, but in 2006 they ranked 19th in the world in 2006 (after rising from 31st in 2005).
Maybe it's a fluke, I don't know how the rankings are set. Based on the past years and this year, China would be roughly considered in the same "bracket" as Belgium, Scotland, Thailand, Korea, Chile.
Luxembourg is in 4th place. Which parameters are they using?? Clean air, use of toiletpaper?
Luxembourg is in 9th place, Iceland is 4th.
They are ranking the economies from the most to the least competitive, which rate a country on how efficient and sucessful the country is in business. How well their citizens should be able to maintain a good standard of living. That doesn't mean they could become a world power. That requires more than this rating covers. :cool:
China may have its... shortcomings, but it sure as hell has a competitive economy, for all their bluster about the CCP.
Let's give UT's Ralph Peters link a bit of testing -- I not only got a "Firefox couldn't find" but no URL shown in the browser window at all. Will it (the link and the site) come up later?
Thanx, tanx, cranx... Manx. ;)