Future of the BRIC nations?

<p>Any thoughts on them? Who thinks that Brazil, Russia, India, and China will rise up (w/ Russia, again) and become global superpowers. Or who argues that they already are global superpowers?</p>

<p>Brazil- A bit of influence in S. America obviously, I think corruption and crime affects it radically. But natural resources and a pretty strong army are in its favor. Only BRIC to not have nuclear weapons.</p>

<p>Russia- A lot of it's old Soviet 'sphere of influence' like with Georgia. It's huge oil and natural gas supplies to Europe give it a bit of leverage. Plus, it's alliance with China in the SCO benefit it as well. It's military is no joke either.</p>

<p>India- The underdog of all the BRICs. Characterized by more troubles than advantages. It's huge economic growth, large population, and strong military give it a mighty bump. A lot of Indians abroad have definately gone up in their respective societies and are more than willing to feed some of that glory back to their motherland. Poverty and other troubles of India's former socialist government still lurk around. </p>

<p>China- According to the (retard) newscasters of America, China is already a formidable power. It's economy is poised to grow without bounds, ahead of the US, and a strong military and absolute government contribute to it too. With allies like North Korea and Russia, it's not something that can easily be overrun. Huge currency reserves can pretty much knock the US Dollar out. Though economic success is nearly entirely dependant on the spending of foreign nations' poor trade balances.</p>

<p>Long post, what do you guys think? It's part of a debate, and I'm trying to get other's opinions in here.</p>

<p>I'm actually quite scared for the Brazilian elections of this year. To be honest, Lula is pretty much a puppet in the government, but that could change depending on who is elected come November.</p>

<p>Without a doubt China is the next superpower.</p>

<p>
[quote]
other troubles of India's former socialist government still lurk around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens</p>

<p>Russia is going nowhere until it gains some semblance of a rule of law. Public servants make their living off of corruption. Nobody wants to do business with them because they don't want to be shaken down. Along with its terrible strife in the Caucasus, Russia has far too much going against it at this point.<br>
Its military is built upon old technologies and soldiers who are drafted and do not want to be there. Every man is out for himself. The only unifying factors of the Russian military are nationalism and xenophobia (hatred of Georgians, inferior Caucasian peoples). Moreover, its relationship with China is not exactly one of alliance. It is of conditional and strategic partnership.</p>

<p>I don't think a nation can make any claims at being a superpower without a basic concept of national identity or balance of nationalities, something which India distinctly lacks. Ethnic riots around the country are not uncommon. Moreover, I think many outsiders underestimate the poverty in India. There aren't just shantytowns, there are shanty-cities with populations in the hundreds of thousands to millions. A nation whose economy largely rests upon doing the Western world's dirty work, and whose education system is not conducive to innovation, is not poised to rocket to the top of the world.</p>

<p>Brazil has similar issues to India. Very bad poverty, very bad drug problem, and a government which does not control much of its population. </p>

<p>China is a different story. It has, by often forcible means, imposed a sense of national unity upon its people. Its law enforcement is strong when it wants to be, although its corruption is still abhorrent by Western standards. The PLA is not a particularly advanced military, but it certainly has volume. It holds a great amount of leverage over the Western world, but this leverage will dissipate within the next few decades, at least in terms of balance of trade (debt holdings are an entirely different matter). As the lower, working classes in China grow more prosperous, they will begin to take the form of the American working class. The American working class consumes a lot, spends a lot, and has--comparatively--a lot of money. It will soon not become drastically cheaper to manufacture goods in China. The days of paying sweatshop workers pennies an hour will not last forever.</p>

<p>@IBfootballer- You're right. Corruption is consistantly a problem with Russia, I was just watching a talk show that was discussing how Russia's billionaires 'gain ranks' depending on how close they are to whoever's the leader of Russia. And we all know of the puppet idiot known as Mendev. Still, it's military technology isn't shabby.
Although I think you've somewhat exagerrated the unity of India. Ethnic riots primarily involve those between Hindus and Muslims, but that's been kind of rare now.
And China, I've read dozens of reports of how their unity won't last. Think about it, all the big cities, wealth, and greatness we contribute to China is only on their Eastern coast. You'll still think China's some village inhabited country once you move into the West. Mao Zedong took advantage of these inequalities by rounding up his army in the West with peasants, and then moved into the wealthier merchant cities of the East.</p>

<p>


.
I hope you realize that those idiotic socialist policies have led India to it's poverty. It only got the recognition it has today after Manmohan Singh dismantled many of the Socialist policies in 1991. </p>

<p>Maybe it's because I'm biast of India, but I see some potential. At current rates, poverty rates will be rather low within 20-40 years. There are countless documentaries about those 'shanty cities' that they aren't as bad as we think. The GDP of Mumbai's Dharavi slum was predicted I think around $800 million dollars. Several companies have offered a plan that if the slum dwellers surrender that land and allow developers to build apartment buildings, they'll in return get a lump sum and an apartment. Those plans have widely been rejected as a method of just disturbing the life style Dharavians are so used to.
Though I think China's been playing around, and knows what it's doing. They've made a lot of stragetic 'investments' and that'll undoubtly pay off.</p>

<p>I actually don't think that China is poised to become a superpower yet. So many people forget that an incredible majority of the Chinese population are in extremely poor conditions in the mountain regions, by rivers, etc. By the time the US became a superpower it had a small unemployment rate, citizens that didn't earn so much could still live a decent life, etc. In China, they don't even count the unemployment rate of rural areas in their official census. If you count the last unofficial estimate of rural unemployment plus the current unemployment rate in urban areas, that's about 25% unemployment. For the other 75%, an average salary (this time counting both urban and rural areas) is about the equivalent of 4,000 dollars a year. How many Americans do you know that could survive off of this? If you count only the urban area (again, much segregation between both areas..) it bumps up to about 7,000 dollars. Not much better, is it? Of course the cost of living in China may be less, I don't know, but coming from someone who is originally from a BRIC nation, the cost of living for a middle class family in the US is much less than for a middle class family from where I'm from (Brazil).</p>

<p>China is, without a doubt, making a lot of money. However, it doesn't seem like this money is being invested back into the country, but rather remains in the very heavy pockets of those at the top.</p>

<p>This seems to be the same problem that the rest of the BRIC nations (and nearly all African nations as well) are suffering. It pains me to see this, but none of the nations will grow until they see this.</p>

<p>Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

<p>"socialist policies have led India to it's poverty" -> Didn't we start out poor?</p>

<p>Well in the 1940s early 50's most countries were due to troubles related to world war 2 and ending of imperialism.</p>

<p>But the socialism 'capped' up India's growth. Had that not been in place, India right now could've been possibly a lot better off.</p>

<p>India has a long way to go before it can even be considered a first world country. However, Manmohan Singh is probably the greatest leader India could currently have, so I sense some hope.</p>

<p>I think the Chinese government is more considered with being a superpower than it is with looking out for the welfare of the people/fixing the country. </p>

<p>Russia has a strong military, good natural resources, and a crappy leader. </p>

<p>Brazil, I don't know much about besides that it is (or Rio is) hosting the 2016 Olympics</p>

<p>

Amen.</p>