Quote:
GDP is not really a good indicator because it only reflects expenditures rather than production. Back when the economy was in its early blooming, it might have been more accurate but know it holds little basis in our heterogenous dynamic economy.
But anyhow, the US is going to crash. This recession is only the beginning of it.
|
GDP spending on the MIC is relevant when the discussion is... relevance. Military + economy = relevance, we're the leader in pretty much all things military. Except for the whole not having enough troops and running those we do into the ground with extended tours of duty, but whaddayagonnado. At least we're #1 in military innovation! USA! USA! USA!
I don't buy it. The world is much more stable compared to the times of the fall of the Roman and British empires. The Romans were the last great implosion anyway, so if anything it'll be a slow slide.
Quote:
|
Even if these groups of lawyers did have any influence now, it will be gone after China succeeds the US. It'd be like people of Switzerland trying to tell Soviet Russia not to do bad things.
|
I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that China will ever "succeed" the US (I assume you mean surpass, because China can't really be considered a replacement for America when the countries are so different), because it implies that the EU is not considered a singular entity and India will somehow magically disappear into space. The American issue is one of degrading infrastructure + massive debt. I think we'll see a large amount of debt forgiveness in the future and a strengthening of NAFTA (no matter what presidential candidates may say), leading to a strengthened North American continent. We were the singular dominant force for a long period of time (not as long as certain empires historically, but we live in an accelerated time) in this world after the dissolution of the USSR, and I can't see how we're going to see another singular dominant force without some unexpected and cataclysmic event that shifts the way we look at everything.
Quote:
|
I think we are on the same page here, namely that lawyers in the US have nothing to do with human rights in China.
|
And where we diverge is that you thought
independent citizens of the United States ever had any influence on internal issues in any country that has nuclear strike capability. 20 years ago these people meant nothing, today they mean nothing. You cannot argue legalities in a country that does not recognize you and does not recognize the same legalities, and "discussions" on the issue are almost always useless. Expensive lawyers and celebrities and think-tanks and NATO and the UN couldn't do anything about poor, broken African countries--and you're surprised they can't do anything about abuses in China?
The only leverage the government has with a country is (1) aid, (2) threat of war. Aid with India and China and other countries is irrelevant as long as they are weaponized, we were never able and will never be able to direct the internal government policy of a country that we are giving aid to if they have nuclear weapons (as opposed to South American countries, who we toy with regularly). As for the second, the last time we went to war to stop a genocide was WW2--and the Jewish issue was not even what got the US to declare.
You think this somehow relates to "power," that the strengthening of China and the weakening of the United States means we can't tell them what to do when it comes to how they run their country. I'm telling you that for the last 50 years we haven't been able to do that with a lot of countries in this world, and it has nothing to do with fluctuates in perceived economic, political or military strength.