How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

[Actinguy 862]

24 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Not even close to Poland? Not clear what you're saying here.

 

What do you mean?

Again, to have this conversation in a real way, it would require someone to read the book or at least watch the videos of the author discussing the book (and answering questions from his Australian audience).

The argument made for Poland is not that the Polish have a naturally powerful economy — it is that the US will inflate the Polish economy through investments, shared tech, and military sales — as a counter to Russia.  The parallel is South Korea, which was just rice farms in the 1950s until their strength became vital to American interests.  Now, thanks to US support, they’re a technological powerhouse.

[Actinguy 862]

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

Just pointing out that all of these factors being in place didn't keep the British Empire "Ruling the Waves Under Pax Brittanica," longer than it did.

Discussed in the second video, in direct response to someone bringing this exact example up.

The answer is that even as the US stretches it’s military power around the world, it keeps its networth at home.

Also, it you look at the number of deployed US troops compared to US population, against deployed British troops at the peak of the British empire compared to Britain’s native population, it is not even close.

[admin_270 833]

6 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The parallel is South Korea, which was just rice farms in the 1950s until their strength became vital to American interests.

S. Korea in itself isn't a real competitor to China. It is too small in terms of population and geographically isolated. S. Korea doesn't stand a chance against China without (the threat of) American intervention.

Similarly, Poland isn't going to be a real competitor to anyone on the superpower global level anytime soon - not Russia, not China, not India - because it has too small a population and is geographically isolated. It doesn't matter how much tech and money are pumped into it by the States. It might become a significant regional power, however.

[Actinguy 862]

32 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Seems to me almost certain. It is already the case with new cohorts. What plausible mechanism could change the demographic trajectory the U.S. is on?

Agreed.  Indeed, as populations of industrialized nations (including the US) decrease as adults have fewer and fewer children, it will cause a global economic crisis.

This will be combated, in part, with further development in robotics — but also with pro-immigration policies.  Countries such as Mexico, where religion plays a significant role in the higher birthrate, will begin exporting workers.

[Actinguy 862]

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

S. Korea in itself isn't a real competitor to China. It is too small in terms of population and geographically isolated. S. Korea doesn't stand a chance against China without (the threat of) American intervention.

Similarly, Poland isn't going to be a real competitor to anyone on the superpower global level anytime soon - not Russia, not China, not India - because it has too small a population and is geographically isolated. It doesn't matter how much tech and money are pumped into it by the States. It might become a significant regional power, however.

I never said South Korea was or that Poland would be a Superpower.  They both remain dependent on US support.  Because we are the Superpower.

I did say Poland will be one of the main competitors for global power — but Poland remains a US ally in the book because they know where their bread is buttered.

[admin_270 833]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

but also with pro-immigration policies.  Countries such as Mexico, where religion plays a significant role in the higher birthrate, will begin exporting workers.

This might be so, and I don't have a problem the general point that population contraction could cause economic problems - but Mexico will 'begin' exporting workers? They've been doing that for a large time. But Mexico's fertility rate is below replacement, and the gap between standards of living in Mexico and the U.S. have decreased significantly over the last few decades. Indeed, the main sources for cheap, pliable labour into the U.S. have shifted further south - Guatemala, Honduras, and so on.

[admin_270 833]

3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I never said South Korea was or that Poland would be a Superpower.  They both remain dependent on US support.  Because we are the Superpower.

I did say Poland will be one of the main competitors for global power — but Poland remains a US ally in the book because they know where their bread is buttered.

Can you say more about what you mean by 'competitor for global power'?

[Actinguy 862]

8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This might be so, and I don't have a problem the general point that population contraction could cause economic problems - but Mexico will 'begin' exporting workers? They've been doing that for a large time. But Mexico's fertility rate is below replacement, and the gap between standards of living in Mexico and the U.S. have decreased significantly over the last few decades. Indeed, the main sources for cheap, pliable labour into the U.S. have shifted further south - Guatemala, Honduras, and so on.

A better way to Put it would have been “America will begin (intentionally) importing Immigrants” but I also already said that in this thread, I believe.

[Actinguy 862]

6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Can you say more about what you mean by 'competitor for global power'?

Again, I could be more specific with my wording — but I’m summarizing concepts that are spread across an entire book.

”regional superpower” is perhaps a better phrase.  These (in the book, roughly 70 years from now) are Japan, Poland, and Turkey — plus the US as still the global superpower.  
 

I use the word competition because Japan and Turkey begin expanding beyond the US’ comfort level, leading to escalating conflicts that ultimately result in WWIII (mostly spent targeting each other’s satellites to hurt military, communication, and power grid capabilities).  Poland remains allied with the US.

[admin_270 833]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

”regional superpower” is perhaps a better phrase.

OK - Yes, I can see that with all the countries you listed.

[vcczar 1,224]

On 9/28/2020 at 12:55 PM, admin_270 said:

All countries rise and fall. We sometimes have a hard time appreciating this, even though geopolitical lines are continuously changing in other places around the world. How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

I think another good question would be this: Which countries will cease to exist in 300 years?

1. United States

2. Russia

3. China

4. India

5. United Kingdom

6. Germany

7. Saudi Arabia

8. Israel

9. Japan

10. France

11. Sweden

12. Canada

13. Mexico

14. Brazil

15. Iran

[admin_270 833]

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think another good question would be this: Which countries will cease to exist in 300 years?

1. United States

2. Russia

3. China

4. India

5. United Kingdom

6. Germany

7. Saudi Arabia

8. Israel

9. Japan

10. France

11. Sweden

12. Canada

13. Mexico

14. Brazil

15. Iran

Another question (which I thought about while framing the original question) is what do we mean by 'cease to exist'? If Scotland breaks off, does the U.K. cease to exist? If India and Pakistan re-merge, does India cease to exist? If Quebec left Canada, would Canada cease to exist? And so on.

[Patine 468]

34 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Again, I could be more specific with my wording — but I’m summarizing concepts that are spread across an entire book.

”regional superpower” is perhaps a better phrase.  These (in the book, roughly 70 years from now) are Japan, Poland, and Turkey — plus the US as still the global superpower.  
 

I use the word competition because Japan and Turkey begin expanding beyond the US’ comfort level, leading to escalating conflicts that ultimately result in WWIII (mostly spent targeting each other’s satellites to hurt military, communication, and power grid capabilities).  Poland remains allied with the US.

 

31 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

OK - Yes, I can see that with all the countries you listed.

 

19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think another good question would be this: Which countries will cease to exist in 300 years?

1. United States

2. Russia

3. China

4. India

5. United Kingdom

6. Germany

7. Saudi Arabia

8. Israel

9. Japan

10. France

11. Sweden

12. Canada

13. Mexico

14. Brazil

15. Iran

Another issue that no one here has addressed yet, especially when talking about such an immensely long time frame as 300 years - the very real and plausible factor of an actual and true global government having formed.

[SilentLiberty 219]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

 

Another issue that no one here has addressed yet, especially when talking about such an immensely long time frame as 300 years - the very real and plausible factor of an actual and true global government having formed.

Scary thought

[Actinguy 862]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

 

Another issue that no one here has addressed yet, especially when talking about such an immensely long time frame as 300 years - the very real and plausible factor of an actual and true global government having formed.

The same guy who thinks that segments of the US are too fractured to remain a country thinks that every segment in the world will unify. ;c)

[Actinguy 862]

19 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Another question (which I thought about while framing the original question) is what do we mean by 'cease to exist'? If Scotland breaks off, does the U.K. cease to exist? If India and Pakistan re-merge, does India cease to exist? If Quebec left Canada, would Canada cease to exist? And so on.

Yeah. India and China are both ripe for potential collapse/civil war — hundreds of millions (and in India, over a billion) living in poverty.  They won’t stay there forever.  
 

But what replaces them?  Presumably, fractured segments of India and China.

[Actinguy 862]

Actually, I guess if India did collapse, Pakistan would take over.  But the US would presumably intervene.

[Patine 468]

9 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The same guy who thinks that segments of the US are too fractured to remain a country thinks that every segment in the world will unify. ;c)

Ah, I see you've resorted to using the belittling and derisive tactic of declaring two theories you PERSONALLY have a distaste for and don't WANT to engage that are both viewed as quite realistic and plausible scenarios to be taken into account by people far more educated on the matter than either of us by far, as being solely and completely MY OPINIONS ALONE, and thus easily dismissed as such. You were actually doing so well carrying on a mature and intelligent conversation here, but inexplicably you felt the need to resort to one of your old limp, pitiful, childish, schoolyard tactics again. And you still don't seem to have learned that those tactics gain you nothing, and ONLY expose you for an ass. You are trying to kid here? I mean, really?

[vcczar 1,224]

23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Another question (which I thought about while framing the original question) is what do we mean by 'cease to exist'? If Scotland breaks off, does the U.K. cease to exist? If India and Pakistan re-merge, does India cease to exist? If Quebec left Canada, would Canada cease to exist? And so on.

Yeah, that is a good question. I think as long as the government is run by the same home-grown people that live there then it is really just the same country, even if it is a different name or different government. If it is taken by invaders, colonized, or then it isn't the same country. 

If you were to say, which government is going to last longer? Then that's a different thing.

[Actinguy 862]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Ah, I see you've resorted to using the belittling and derisive tactic of declaring two theories you PERSONALLY have a distaste and don't WANT to engage that are both viewed as quite realistic and plausible scenarios to be taken into account by people far more educated on the matter than either of us by far, as being solely and completely MY OPINIONS ALONE, and thus easily dismissed as such. You were actually doing so well carrying on a mature and intelligent conversation here, but inexplicably you felt the need to resort to one of your old limp, pitiful, childish, schoolyard tactics again. And you still don't seem to have learned that those tactics gain you nothing, and ONLY for an ass. You are trying to kid here? I mean, really?

I'm sorry I pointed out that your one statement contradicted your other statement.  I promise to never point out any contradictions ever again.

[Patine 468]

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

I'm sorry I pointed out that your one statement contradicted your other statement.  I promise to never point out any contradictions ever again.

Given a 300 year timeframe was being discussed, and only prognoses, predictions, and hypotheses, and not supposed to be based on personal ideology and wish fulfillment - not claims of knowing the future as fact (as in prophecy), there was, in that light and scope, no contradictions.

[Actinguy 862]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Given a 300 year timeframe was being discussed, and only prognoses, predictions, and hypotheses, and not supposed to be based on personal ideology and wish fulfillment - not claims of knowing the future as fact (as in prophecy), there was, in that light and scope, no contradictions.

Yeah man.  I know.  I was kidding.  Which is usually what I mean when I use this image:  ;c)  You overreacted. 

[Patine 468]

3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yeah man.  I know.  I was kidding.  Which is usually what I mean when I use this image:  ;c)  You overreacted. 

That image has no matching emote on the TheorySpark site forums, so I don't really know it means offhand. It's just like one of my favourites of old, :S , has no match on this forum.

[Actinguy 862]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

That image has no matching emote on the TheorySpark site forums, so I don't really know it means offhand. It's just like one of my favourites of old, :S , has no match on this forum.

It's one I made in my teens, back before emoticons were a thing.  It's reflex now.

[Patine 468]

19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

It's one I made in my teens, back before emoticons were a thing.  It's reflex now.

Mine, which did exist on other forums, means "dubious," - a very oft-appropriate one for me - when my response is moderate. :P