Which country will be 'top dog' this century?

[Harpo]

(I don't know where else to put this topic)

It's been said that sometime this century China will become the Number 1 nation in the world, overtaking the USA (which itself overtook the UK in the 20th century, which in turn overtook somebody else in the 19th century - it seems to change about once per century) but how accurate is this forecast?

Looking at GDP, I notice that the USA's GDP is more than twice that of China. If the European Union were a country, it'd be ahead of the USA. But maybe it's not just about GDP, I dunno.

Will it be USA? Will it be China? Will it be Brazil or India? Will it be somewhere else?

What's your opinion?

[Fried Egg]

My understanding is that the USA's GDP overtook the UK's some time in the 1870's. As for GDP per capita though, I don't know but I suspect that it was quite a bit later.

And that's quite an important point here. China may eventually overtake the USA in terms of GDP but it has a long way to go to overtake it on a per capita basis.

[Dave]

The UK and France were quite close before the Industrial Revolution. The UK's Iron, coal and other mineral resources gave it the edge. Earlier than that I think our Oak trees gave the Royal Navy and edge over Spain and France. I don't know if they measured per Capita GDP back then, it was all about how much territory you had conquered, otherwise the Dutch trading operation would probably win hands down.

[Connavar]

I dont think there will be a top dog other than economicly. There wont be imperialistic super power like UK was before WWII and US has been since WWII.

I wonder if another country become the economic top dog like US is now, will they become culturally too ? I mean many big artist,scientist,academics goes to work in US because there is the big money to rent the talents of the world.

[Venusian Broon]

The knee-jerk reaction is to point to the Chinese - growing fast, homogoneous, a strong central government in control. And at some point (I don't have the figures so can't guess when) the inevitable will happen and China's GDP will overtake the USA.

However,

As has been pointed out, GDP/capita however is important to look at - and it will be much lower. In fact I think China's problems in the 21st Century will be, despite their control over a vast area of the globe, the fact that they really still don't have adequate water, food & energy security and other basic resources for their population.

On top of this their economy is geared towards manufacturing - a lot of it low-end. They are very dependent on the big spenders of the world for themselves to perform well. If the people buying your products are in long-term recession then you are in a bad state too. Then as their manufacturing industry matures either they will face stiff competition from elsewhere and lose market share or they will have to really "sit" on their workforce and possibly cause dissent.

Finally technology-wise I don't see them competing with the dynamic tech culture and entrepreneural spirit of the United States. And the best tech = the best military for top dogs and that counts for a lot.

---

What about, as a dark horse, Russia? Sure it's got its problems. But loads of resources and loads of land and not overcrowded (and loads of land in the right place for global warming!) i.e. plenty of growth possible. Top dog in the 22nd Century perhaps?

[Parson]

Hmm, interesting question. If I had to bet I would bet it will stay the USA for at least the first half to 3/4's of the century. Longer term? I think you need a stable economic system which Russia doesn't appear to have, Maybe Brazil?

[thaddeus6th]

India could be.

I've read that their demographics are tastier for the medium term (say, 50 years) than China. They also have a democracy, whereas China has some tensions because the government's unaccountable. So long as growth is fine I think the Communists are ok but if it slows down they could be in trouble (not that I expect this to happen anytime soon).

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Parson

Hmm, interesting question. If I had to bet I would bet it will stay the USA for at least the first half to 3/4's of the century. Longer term? I think you need a stable economic system which Russia doesn't appear to have, Maybe Brazil?

To be honest I don't know too much about Brazil. I suppose the problem I have with them - and with the rest of Latin America - is that they are really in the sphere of influence of the USA, hence will alway be overshadowed.

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

India could be.

I've read that their demographics are tastier for the medium term (say, 50 years) than China. They also have a democracy, whereas China has some tensions because the government's unaccountable. So long as growth is fine I think the Communists are ok but if it slows down they could be in trouble (not that I expect this to happen anytime soon).

India has potential of course. But if China's got problems with resources, I think the Indian nation has multiple times the difficulty in solving these problems. And India might have ~200 million people economically at the same level as Western Europe - but it also has 1 billion people+ and growing fast in deep poverty - and I* can't see how they are going to allievate their condition.

As for the form of government, If living conditions plummet because of harsh repression or failure of monsoon causing famines then any government type is going to get seriously challenged and potentially removed one way or another.



*Mr pessimist worldoutlook 2011

[svalbard]

Ultimately I think it will boil down to who comes up with and controls the next big energy resource. Oil has a limited lifespan and come 2050 or so on we shall be in a very interesting(and terrifying) place in a geo-political context.

[thaddeus6th]

Shale!

Which means us and America

On resources: don't China have an absolute stack of coal, or stuff which will become useable as coal in the next few decades?

And couldn't they just use nuclear as well?

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

On resources: don't China have an absolute stack of coal, or stuff which will become useable as coal in the next few decades?

And couldn't they just use nuclear as well?

Yes, again don't have figures, but I'd guess quite a lot.

But they have a lot of people - hence a lot of energy to generate still
And the modern world currently is oil-based. I'm no chemist but I think coal to synthetic oil is probably not an efficient option ('cause then the UK would be doing it as we have loads of the stuff as well).

Nuclear requires Uranium (or thorium if they ever get that up and running). Perhaps China will buy out Australia as a province for their reserves (they're strip mining the place anyway and shipping it to China...)

[Bowler1]

I'd have to chance Brazil. Nice and big which is a good start, hard working (mostly), lots of resources and currently have a strong focus on education.

[JimBraiden]

Have a look at 1912 and try and guess which country would emerge as top dog in the 20th century.

[Overread]

China, the way I see it, has a few possible pitfalls to overcome.

1) Social change - a massive part of their high productivity has come from their social structure and much of that since long before communism's more recent influences. However western media and a lack of females in their own population is going to result in China having more and more alien influences affecting their people. This might well undermine part of their strength as a society.

2) Market. At the moment their market is the west; however that will only remain the state whilst the west seeks active trade with China. As markets get more pressure from cheap products from china and as the quality of those product increases over time I could well see a time when there is pressure to restrict trade from China in order to preserve home industries (we've already had this happen from time to time).
Anything that would disrupt or suddenly reduce the export from China could cripple them - at least in the short term.

Otherwise China could indeed make it. They've more political focus than many western nations and the bonus of that focus being longer term - over the shorter (3-4) year thinking of many democratic nations.

[Fishbowl Helmet]

China is my guess. They may not have the scientists to invent all the cool toys, but they have the cash, spies, and hackers to get their hands on anything they want. Their share of US debt is enormous. If the States aren't careful, the Chinese could literally own the country in a few years. Bad policies, stupid politicians, and a stupider electorate won't help the US stay on top. By comparison the Chinese government is genius. Not endorsing, just saying.

The big boys are beyond large-scale war for the next few decades, at least with each other. The next time armies go marching it will be for oil, most likely in the middle east, or some other resource under all the glacial ice that's melting. We're more likely to see brushfire wars than anything like another world war, again except for the 2050s or so when the oil crisis hits us like a ton of bricks. But even then, China has the manpower. They could field more troops than all nations that went to Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and still have more troops left at home than the US and several top countries combined. Over 1,000,000 troops is nothing to sneeze at. And that's not taking into account the 1 billion Chinese citizens.

Their government may suck, but they've had how long to winnow down the loud mouths? With so many people then can disappear entire towns and no one will notice. Their brand of Leninism may not have worked on the small scale, but they're the largest "communist" country on Earth. There's no telling how long they can last on that scale.

Energy-wise they have a larger need than a few countries combined, so that doesn't help, but they're building a new hydroelectric dam every few days, or coal plant. I forget, but it's impressive. All they have to do is wait for their tokamak to start paying off--which was build at something like 1/20 the cost of European tokamaks (go lack of labor rights)--and they're that much closer to energy independence.

Ask a British national to predict the fall of the Empire while it was still at its height. You'll have the same luck with most US citizen now. But, I am one, so there's a spot of irony for you.