afruff23

@tetrishead

It is not a matter of whether I think that line of work is good or not. It is the practicality. Soon, China will be the next US and the US will be like Switzerland (doing well but removed from the sphere of influence).

cooledge

afruff23, first I think from your perspective America would become more like an Britain, which lost its old power and prestige.
And second, I believe you're wrong. China might equal the US or perhaps surpass it slightly, but the rest of the world is too interdependent with the US for it to shy from the political limelight.
And don't let all of this current expansion woo you. Remember that many other asian countries expanded with incredibel growth and then faltered (the so-called "Paper Tigers"). While China might have more stability due to its size and natural resources, it has to slow eventually.

tetrishead

I'm not talking about law. China will not be the next US, and the US will never be removed from the sphere of influence due to GDP spent on the MIC and the proliferation of Americans and American PE in the developing world. Globalization mitigates us, but it also puts a floor in on how far we can fall. The US was probably the last great overwhelming superpower, although the possibility of a pandemic or some kind of massive catastrophe doesn't make it impossible.

What you said just fundamentally makes no sense. Lawyers have little to nothing to do with the human rights situation in China, they aren't set up the way we are judicially and they can't challenge certain issues. The US has nothing to do with it, nothing you said really has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter if the US is the dominant country or not, mutually assured destruction exists amongst all countries with the capability of firing long distance nuclear warheads, and if China was a fraction of their strength in every way we still wouldn't do anything other than slightly prod them and make "recommendations."

Mr Payne

Depends on your loan level.

afruff23

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.

Human Rights First - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 think we are on the same page here, namely that lawyers in the US have nothing to do with human rights in China.

tetrishead

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.
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.
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.

MattsMomFL

@tetrishead

The st johns pmax's son was accepted to doesn't have a basketball team (that's st johns university in NYC),and it actually is pretty well known among intellectual types

@pmax

any kid who spends his senior year in China and wants to return in order to advocate is a unique independent, free-spirited kid who's going to be fine no matter where he goes to college. I would be, however VERY concerned about the loans he takes on. I don't think he's going the 9 to 5 route straight out of college no matter where he goes. He sounds to me like he'll go to grad school to pursue the path he has already begun. That may be law school, or something totally unpredictable combining his interests as they evolve through college. He needs to avoid loans as much as possible in undergrad, so that there is money or room for loans for grad school.

If money is not significantly different between the 2 schools, it sounds to me as though St Johns would be a great fit for him where he can be himself and add to his existing base of knowledge. The world really needs more like him. Trust him to find his way. Sounds like you already have - it can't be easy for you to have a young son so far away.

UCBChemEGrad

@afruff23

You're forgetting one thing in assuming that China succeeds the U.S. in terms of economic power and that is demographics.

Due to the one child policy, China will likely grow old before it gets rich.

The U.S. will continue to grow in population (ironically due to its more liberal immigration policy - which we were discussing in another thread).

afruff23

I think I'm going to bow out of this one, since I find the original topic interesting.

pmax57

I am sorry. I did not mean to change the subject. As for studying philosopy and the question of whether or not that pursuit is worth it I would have to say yes. If we study any subject with our eye on money alone we may very well be dooming ourselves. If you have ever seen an Warren Buffet speak of the reasons why he does what he does you will see the joy on his face and the sparkle in his eyes as he explains how he reaches decisions of where he will invest. I work as a nurse and heard 2 physicians talking. One told her child that to be a physician you must love it, especially under todays rules. Philosophy teaches us how to think. It helps us know ourselves, our morality and ethical standards. Yes philosophy is worth it.
By the way my son does not want to return to China to help with rights there. Instead while there he felt a new appreciation for our laws and rights and would like to help promote and uphold them in the country he loves and respects even more than he did before he left. It seems to me that many men that put together the Declaration of independence and The Bill of Rights probably spent some time reading philosophy. Good footsteps to follow.

4321234

^sorry to change the subject, but we were just discussing the declar of independ in phil class, and it was pointed out how they made a mistake in their reasoning for the DoI. lol!

Ejhfast

I think Mr. Jefferson knew what he was doing. Rhetoric does not have to be logically sound, just effective...

No Quarter

This China debate is just stupid. Lawyers becoming irrelevant? IR Law makes up an incredibly small percentage of lawyers in America and whatnot. The majority of them do fairly mundane preceding. Unless there's a major major catastrophe, these lawyers will still be there.