| Which of those country's/regions do you think will be the worlds financial superpower by the end of this century? |
| China. |
|
25% |
[ 3 ] |
| U.S.A. |
|
25% |
[ 3 ] |
| India. |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Europe. |
|
33% |
[ 4 ] |
| Russia. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Other. |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Cat1981(England) |
 Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: 21st century financial superpower. |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
To get things started, I'll pick Europe.
I've never thought of myself as a European (rather than British) and still don't, but over the last year (since i have had an internet connection) i have been able to read what other people from outside the EU think about it. The first thing that i noticed was that many see it as a single country with a single outlook on the world trying to compete with the USA. Maybe it's because i'm on the inside looking out, but it never entered my mind that there were Europeans with the desire to turn Europe into a superpower or at the very lest to make it into something that can have some political influence in the world. I thought that it was only for social and economics reasons that we had the EU, increase trade and the freedom to work and live anywhere inside of it, but some people are pushing for it to be more than that.
If the country's of Europe do manage to unite under one flag i think that it has all the necessary items needed to be the worlds financial superpower. Good social and political connections all over the world and very mixed economy. A large work force, some of which (western Europe) is as well educated as anywhere else in the world, plus a cheap and hard working work force in eastern Europe. Raw materials might be a problem but Europe is close to most other regions in the world that have those.
So which do you think ?
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The soviet union just broke up, and here we are trying to create another monster, I'd prefer to see the whole fuse together but I reckon that will only happen in a 'nuclear sense' .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
If it was 1907 and the same question was asked avout the economic powers by the end of the 20th century?
Many would have said the USA, Germany and Great Britain. At the end of the century it was those 3 and the addition of Japan and to a lesser extent France, Italy and Canada (members of the G7).
At the end of the 21st century there may not be divisions between nations as we know it today. There may be political divisions but economic divisions will be fluid and less geographic based. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Britain is not an economic power, we may have been a 'super power' at the turn of the twentieth century, but even countries like Italy have a higher standard of living than we do these days. Two world wars and a century of mismanagement killed any standing we had in the world, today I think we only have about 22 capital naval vessels!. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1068
Location: Nederland
|
| Megabrain wrote: |
| Two world wars and a century of mismanagement killed any standing we had in the world, today I think we only have about 22 capital naval vessels!. |
I think we're talking about economics here  But yea, if there'd ever be a 5th Dutch-English naval war I wouldn't place my bets on you guys 
I mostly agree with Jelly, it's not really about different countries or area's anymore. For example some of the worlds biggest banks are based in the Netherlands, but that doesn't mean we are a financial superpower. There are just some headoffices here, but the money isn't bound to the place. In the end it's not really bound to any place. When you're talking about finance I think firms are a more relevant unit than countries or area's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bettina |
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 284
Location: Eastern USA
|
I chose China. My dads company, where he is a vice president, ships some of its materials there to be built because the labor is cheap.
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I've already told him how I felt about his treason. 
Bee
_________________
Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pendragon |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 1068
Location: Nederland
|
Well, your dad's 'treason' doesn't have to be so bad  Every international economic theory I know stresses that moving labour intensive production to places where labour is abundent and cheap makes perfect sense. What we do have to worry about in the 'the west' is to keep less labour intensive jobs, like management, research and highly skilled labour in our own countries. As long as we retain these the losses of lower skilled labourers (who loose their jobs to low-wage countries) can be softened by redistributing the gains made by consumers, higher skilled labourers and factory owners (who all gain from the higher efficiency caused by moving production to low-wage countries). But once we start losing this it would be time to get worried.
And another issue is that while wages payed by 'western' firms in low-wage countries are usually fine (domestic level or above), labour standards of safety and worker rights are often way below our standards. This in turn threatens labour standards in our own countries: if workers would protest against longer working hours or more dangerous machines, the firm could just threaten to move to countries without strong unions (and without other employment opportunities, so people have to take any job they can get). That's something we have to keep a close eye on (especially consumers, we have the power to punish any wrongdo-ers). So as long as your dad's firm respects reasonable labour standards, I wouldn't convict him for treason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
| Megabrain wrote: |
| Two world wars and a century of mismanagement killed any standing we had in the world, today I think we only have about 22 capital naval vessels!. |
I think we're talking about economics here But yea, if there'd ever be a 5th Dutch-English naval war I wouldn't place my bets on you guys |
Well it has been fairly evenly matched over the years, more posturing I suspect than outright conflicts, yeah the people would certainly give in, you couldn't make a worse job than the current government....
My point was that the economic devastation of wars almost certainly means it would take a long time to crawl back up, especially with the competiton being so much more competitive these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1064
|
the political, natural resources, population and infrastructure of a nation, will determine the future economical power. to become this China, Russia will have to make dramatic changes in political. Europe in general will need to get off the social bandwagon and the US will need to be careful of that bandwagon. Korea, Japan and Taiwan are mini powers today and will remain so for some time, but lack the populations and natural resources to do much more.
India, has the climate for growth, as well as world location to the masses. they will benefit, from both China and Russia, as well as internal growth.
i don't think the US would have been picked by all that many at the turn of the 20th century and showed no signs until after WW II, of becoming an economic power. the potential for continuation is there and i suspect will be maintained through much of the 21st century. India a close second.
China a third place likely, then Russia, Canada and what will become a South American community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jellyologist |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 330
|
| Pendragon wrote: |
| Megabrain wrote: |
| Two world wars and a century of mismanagement killed any standing we had in the world, today I think we only have about 22 capital naval vessels!. |
I think we're talking about economics here But yea, if there'd ever be a 5th Dutch-English naval war I wouldn't place my bets on you guys
I mostly agree with Jelly, it's not really about different countries or area's anymore. For example some of the worlds biggest banks are based in the Netherlands, but that doesn't mean we are a financial superpower. There are just some headoffices here, but the money isn't bound to the place. In the end it's not really bound to any place. When you're talking about finance I think firms are a more relevant unit than countries or area's. |
The Danish threatened to invade Canada last year over some little 'rock' in the Arctic off Greenland. The war has been postponed until one of us builds a decent naval ship. The Danes have a war ship they might pull out of storage for an invasion. First, however, they want to scrub off the grafitti..someguy called Lief Erickson scribble all over it .
"The Vikings are invading..again, Want to go down to the shore and stop the pillaging and looting?"
"Depends. Isn't there a hockey game on T.V. tonight?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
LOL ^^^
Good point Pendragon-Jellyologist, but those banks do make a lot of their money in certain places in the world.
But what about India's infrastructure ? I thought that was major problem.
And perhaps the Americans here could tell me a bit about your national debt, i have read that the interest alone is $400 billion dollars each year, is there any plans to start playing of this debt ? If not, will it be a problem ?
-------------
Rule, britannia, britannia rules the waves, britons never will be slaves. (except maybe to the EU)
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's not "Never will" it's "Never never never shall" ! - If our own people can't sing a patriotic song what chance have we of ruling the world again?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
Nope, your wrong. It's changed, new eu directive.
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1064
|
yes, the US payments on interest for debts owed are near that 400bpy figure and yes there are potential problems. the primary problems are the dependency which comes from those who hold most the debt, such as China, Japan and many countries which could cash in so to speak. second is the inflationary issue, which could come from this. the US could print money today, covering the entire debt. this would in the end effect our population the most as everything would simply cost much more, or the dollar value reduced in a short period. the off-set to an extreme in a short time are staggered loans, 10 to 30 maturing certificate and at the current very low interest rates. in short, you can watch the current 30 year rates, now about 5.5% and figure the potential problem for 30 years ahead.
as for India's infrastructure, the Central and Northern areas have a fairly sound system. some southern areas lack this but are building fast. they also have 1.2 billion people, already building equity in there country. China, lacks this and though building rapidly, outside metropolitan areas, ox driven carts still the rule.
aside from developing unfavorable conditions for business in Europe, with mandates and labor controls, the overall populations are stagnate or decreasing. these are very important factors in economic growth. like it or not, Europe, may have already gone to far to turn back on socialistic policies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
Thanks for the reply.
| jackson33 wrote: |
| aside from developing unfavorable conditions for business in Europe, with mandates and labor controls, the overall populations are stagnate or decreasing. these are very important factors in economic growth. like it or not, Europe, may have already gone to far to turn back on socialistic policies. |
This is all very true, but there does seem to be small changes happening. A lot of European country's are changing away from left wing politics, even the French are looking to raise to number of working hours and raise the retirement age. The reason i think Europe might be the top dog come the end of the century is mainly because of eastern Europe, who's tax rate is very low compared to "old Europe" and the US. It also has a very high level of economic growth. Due to old Europe's company's moving services and industries to eastern europe, i think, may in time force those countries to start lowering their own tax rates increasing Europe's internal competitiveness and therefor global competitiveness as well.
The sticking points are welfare and working age. The working age i can't see being so much of a problem as most country's are all ready increasing their retirement age (i myself will be 69 before i can claim a state pension) although Germany, France and Italy are having some problems trying to get this though. Welfare is going to be the main problem, even Britain who is the most right wing of all the large European country's has a higher level of government spending per-person than the US, Japan or China. I can only hope that with competition with eastern europe/rest of the world and a realisation that it is unsustainable, old Europe will in time change. This require strong leadership as it is the people that oppose such changes not the politicians.
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
