Slashdot Mirror
In the Year 2020
An anonymous reader writes "Every 5 years, the CIA funds a detailed forecast of the future 15 years hence. The biggest trend identified in the latest report is the economic and technological rise of Asia."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
US Unipolarity--How Long Can It Last?
A world with a single superpower is unique in modern times. Despite the rise in anti-Americanism, most major powers today believe countermeasures such as balancing are not likely to work in a situation in which the US controls so many of the levers of power. Moreover, US policies are not perceived as sufficiently threatening to warrant such a step.
Eh, with the Dollar doing as shitty as it has been and the country being run into financial ruins by someone known to have little success with any other financial venture he spearheaded I really don't think that we will be able to recover in as little as twelve years. We are digging an enormous hole right now both financially and in public opinion. When a leader sends a country to war on what we figured were false pretenses but ends up ahead at the end we might forgive them. When a leader sends a country to war on what we figured were false pretenses but ends of admitting we found squat I just don't think that public opinion will remain high...
The country may weaken itself due to internal conflict. Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.
In the future, growing distrust could prompt governments to take a more hostile approach, including resistance to support for US interests in multinational forums and development of asymmetric military capabilities as a hedge against the US.
Too bad they can't come right out and say that the distrust is justified. Who the fuck is going to go to bat for us when we get owned by more organized terrorists (or internal conflict) when anything the leaders of our country have said over the past 10 years is proven bullshit?
Many countries increasingly believe that the surest way to gain leverage over Washington is by threatening to withhold cooperation. In other forms of bargaining, foreign governments will try to find ways to "bandwagon" or connect their policy agendas to those of the US--for example on the war on terrorism--and thereby fend off US opposition to other policies.
And with the dollar so weak and public opinion (both nationally and internationally) low this will probably work. Any pressure they put on us 10 years ago would mean nothing. We would just use our leverage and shove back. With our country weakened on multiple fronts we won't have much leverage or public desire to have leverage (ie more deficit dollars).
From what I've been reading lately, we'll have cured death, enabling us to live over 1000 years while simultaneously have turned the entire world into a gray goo by perfecting nanobots.
My guess is it'll be about the same as it is now, except I'll be 15 years older, taxes will be higher, and we'll have a whole bunch more crap that doesn't really make our lives any easier.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
How the hell can you have a detailed forecast of something 15 years in the future? Do they employ an army of psychics or what? What does this gain? They're just throwing away money every 5 years.
It's mostly just:
a)Wishful thinking
b)bad extrapolation of current trends
c)propoganda
-Military stronger than everyone else's? Check
-Foreign enemy considered barbaric? Check
-Foreign enemy wages hit and run warfare, avoids standing to fight in large battles? Check
-Vast amount of resources used to fight a limited threat? Check
-Power held by rich self serving minority? Check
-Populace stagnating culturally? Check
-Increasing importance placed on personal luxury and materialistic acquisitions? Check
And finally,
-Widening gap between average citizens and the fundamentals of survival (ie farming, etc.)? Check
Just because the US has been around for 200 years doesn't mean it will always be. Putting aside parisan politics and the religious schisms, I think that we really need to start addressing the hard issues that our country has traditionally ignored- until too late. One of these days, it will be.
I believe that China will become freer and more democratic as its citizens grow wealthier.
As far as rotating wealth around, I think you're confused. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Someday, China may have more wealth to us in relative terms, but we will all become richer through trade. Loss of jobs doesn't mean we've permanently lost wealth, it just means people must figure out where they fit in the new economy. As long as we have free trade and a free market, businesses and people will evolve.
The real problem here is the bad monetary policy that both the U.S. and China practices. We both have a lot of government-induced credit expansion. The U.S. boom will be coming to the end sometime in the next 5 years, and China is just starting its boom. If we could just get rid of our god damned central banks and their monetary policies, we could end credit expansion and have sustainable, indefinite economic growth.
If I speak my mind in line at a court house, I oculd be arrested.
If I want to travel by plane, I have to allow some stranger to put his hands on my childs privates.
If I want to protest, I must do it a specially cordened off places, and the press is kept away
If I happen to sell a product, and the MANUFACTURER of that product broke some laws, I will have the HOmeland security threatent to shut me down.
My house can be searched without probably cause.
My phones can be tapped for probably casue.
We are having other peoples 'decency' standards applied to us.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. --Abraham Lincoln
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
Actually seeing how many things they got it right might not be a correct idea. Most(not all ofcourse) of thier gloomy predictions are taken seriosuly and worked upon, so that they do not occur. And if they do not come true then it does not mean that the original prediction was false. For example, suppose in 1995 they said terrorist would attack US in 10 years. If we would have had reacted to that report, we would not have had 9/11. But now if you would have read that report, it would turn out to be false (since we prevented 9/11).
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
Yes... clearly it is the poor people which should shoulder the majority of the tax burden... not those who can... actually... pay... it...
For the sake of the Democratic party, I hope Hillary doesn't win the nomination. No one else has the power to rile up angry red-staters quite like she does, something that people on the coasts, strangely, don't seem to realize. Even Screamin' Dean would be a better pick.
My hopes for '08 are on Ed Rendell or Bill Richardson.
Find one Democratic President who's spent more money he didn't have than any of the last three Republican Presidents. That would be...noone. Oops.
/. sig (the economy has done better under the worst Democratic President than under the best Republican President).
The Republicans have campaigned on their superiority to the Democrats on their spending and economic records, and I'm still trying to figure out why. 2/3 of the national debt was amassed during the last three Republican Presidents. Clinton didn't run the debt in eight years that Bush Sr. ran in four (and he ran the least debt of the three RPs). Clinton had the benefit of the economy, which of course doesn't help, because of the
The claim that anyone would have spent themselves silly doesn't seem to hold, because only the Republicans have shown themselves equal to that task. Since they have spent a good deal of the past decades complaining about the spending that they have been most qualified at undertaking, they are either hypocritical or stupid.
Social Security is a problem, and one Clinton or the Democrats did nothing about. On the other hand, making SS reliant on the entity (the stock market) it was instituted to secure savings from doesn't seem like the smartest policy on the planet. Of course, removing money from the system (to invest in the stock market) while it is reliant on current income to pay current recipients without raising taxes and then saying that future and current SS recipients won't lose money seems to require mathematical legerdemain that is beyond my capacity to understand. In this case, to keep SS solvent without cutting it (which would probably sink the stock market) taxes are probably the best solution (in concert with raising the retirement age). They aren't always the best solution, but they may be in this case.
If this is true, why haven't the economists been coming out of the woodwork in support of this plan? Why have so many of them come out of the woodwork to say that the centerpiece of his plan--private accounts--is more likely to hurt Social Security than help it?
It's Iraq all over again. Remember why we went to war? Because we were facing a grave and imminent crisis that required immediate action. Most experts on the subject disagreed with his analysis of the situation. Instead of substantive responses to these questions, the administration raised the specter of the "smoking gun as mushroom cloud" and essentially scared a whole bunch of people into backing them. Now, which group ended up being right--"grave and imminent threat" or "there's no substantive evidence of that, slow down"?
This is the exact same thing all over again.
Economic experts are raising valid questions about the efficacy of private accounts. Instead of substantive responses, the administration has been hammering into our heads that "we're headed for a crisis" and that we need to take action.
I don't doubt that Bush really, truly believes that his medicine can fix the economy. What I do doubt is his competence in reaching this conclusion. He wears the fact that he's not one for bookishness and intellect like it was the Silver Star, and he's big on talking about faith--not just religious faith, but faith in his advisors, as well. In short, when one of his trusted advisors tells him something, it is Absolute Truth for him. He's said as much on multiple occasions.
I do not trust a good number of his advisors. I genuinely believe that they're harboring some heavy-duty ulterior motives, and that they're willing to do a whole lot to achieve these hidden goals. Some are hardcore theocrats, others dream of pax Americana, and they're willing to mask their intent and promote emotion over logic for the sake of achieving their goals.
The surface: We're trying to fix Social Security. Dig deeper: We're trying to dismantle a socialist program and return it to the hands of private industry. Dig deeper still: We believe it will benefit us in the long run, but we're not about to get bogged down by actually debating this.
Hence, we end up abusing projections, cherrypicking data for the worst case scenarios, and hauling out the boogeyman of a "bankrupt social security" that will leave us broke and destitute--which simply isn't the case. Yes, Social Security needs attention and adjustment. No, it's not the ticking time bomb the administration is so fervently claiming it is.
We've been through this before, dammit.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Years of experience with foreign film and television had conclusively demonstrated that Sturgen's Law applies. This includes chinese cinema. 90% of chinese movies suck - then again, 90% of everything sucks. They may seem innovative to a neophyte, but watch a little more and you'll see that in the context of their own kind most are as predictable and shallow as anything Hollywood turns out.
In particular, I've noticed how plot coherency/novelty is often ignored in favor of eye candy. (I suspect dialogue suffers as well but I'm not really qualified to evaluate that). A word of advice: overuse of rich color is neither clever nor novel nor enough to qualify as art.
Same goes for: Hollywood, Anime, New Wave French Cinema, Independent Film, Film Noir, Bollywood, Japanese Ultra-violence, English Period Drama, and all the other sacred cows of videophiles.
Fortunately, 10% of any genre is not crap, so there's still good stuff to watch. Just keep in mind, while no other film center may be as widely distributed as Hollywood, they can make films that are just as crappy or good.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Canada's oil sands can meet the world's demands during the year 2020 for about 39 years. Combining that with the rest of the oil producers means we still have at least a couple hundred years left, although it will start to get very expensive to mine the oil once it gets too low.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Actually the report points out the following:
Because of the sheer size of China's and India's populations--projected by the US Census Bureau to be 1.4 billion and almost 1.3 billion respectively by 2020--their standard of living need not approach Western levels for these countries to become important economic powers.
Which means these two could have a global impact even if substantial parts of the country were living in poverty. Both these nations cannot afford to wait around for all its troubles to be over before pushing to the front.
The report does a good comparison of both nation's strengths and weaknesses under the "Risks to Economic growth" part. Interesting read..
Rapid Nirvana
Have they given up predicting this one yet ?
"Care to give an example of YOUR freedoms that are being continually eroded?"
Let's start with the freedom to be considered innocent before proven guilty.
Continue on to the right to a fair and prompt trial by your peers.
Continue to the right to a proper legal defense.
And then there's that pesky Habeus Corpus thing, and lots more.
All the govt needs to do now is call you a "terrorist", and you can now be held indefinitely, as in possibly for the rest of your LIFE, without being charged, without access to lawyers, and even under the threat of being shipped overseas to a country that recognizes even fewer rights.
I might have an inclination to support this and other anti-terrorist laws (Patriot Act, etc.) if I thought it would be truly used with care, discretion, and only as intended, i.e., against real terrorist cases. Terrorists play a very nasty, violent, and real game, and we need exceptional tools to fight them on their ground.
However, within 6 months of getting Patriot I passed, Ashcroft's crews were touring around the country giving seminars to prosecutors on how to use these new powers in ordinary investigations and cases. Since the enforcers immediately abused the tools as soon as they were given, they are obviously untrustworthy and must be opposed.
As Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
Your Alfred E Newman attitude is an example of this failure. You have apparently forgotten or do not care that our government is to be "of the people, by the people, for the people"? This attitude gains nothing and harms others, and as such is truly stupid (and I mean that exactly, as in the third law, not as a weak insult).
Many intelligent people are deeply concerned that we are losing the freedoms which made this country great (and not in a trivial red state/blue state way). How do we wake the others?
Maybe if those making 60k would realize that they don't need two H2's in their driveway along with premium cable service and steak every night they wouldn't be so bad off. I sit on about 20K a year right now and I'm quite comfortable. I have enough at the end of the month for a good savings when things work out well, and I'm able to afford it when things don't work out so well (although it's still annoying). The people in this country need to grow up and learn how to actually manage money.
OK.
So now that we've established that both sides are just as good at spending the country into debt, what's next?
That's why you Americans make me laugh so hard. You've been polarized so perfectly that the R's can only throw shit at the D's and vice-versa. All the while, it's clearer and clearer that they only care to decieve you.
They decieve you into believing there's a budget surplus. They decieve you into believing Iraq was a part of 9/11. They lie and lie and lie and all you do is point the finger at the other side, accusing them of lying 'more' or something.
America made such a huge deal out of the most trivial bullshit around, when both candidates had the same stance (gay marriage). Every day you resemble theocratic Iran a bit more. You worry more about buttfucking men and evolution in schools than you do about your own economy, about your position of power in the world.
As your closet neighbour, this saddens me. The collapse of your economy seems inevitable as China and India enter the information age. The Euro stands a great chance of becoming the world reserve currency.
My rant will be lost, simply because of it's place in this thread. But the parent post proves me right, at least in that all you do is point fingers at 'the other side' and say 'LIAR' louder than they do.
Wake the fuck up. Take some responsibility for your nation's future.
The two presidents with the worst budget deficits, both accomplished by combining tax cuts and with increased spending, are Bush (Republican) and Reagan (Republican).
....
The last two presidents to have a budget surplus were Clinton (Democrat) and Johnson (Democrat).
Social Security is NOT in crisis. The trust fund is growing, and will do so for another ten years or so. It will then gradually decline and take about 50 years to be bankrupt. This can easily be fixed by a small payroll tax increase. Entrusting Social Security to the likes of Enron and World Com, who were run to the ground by friends of Bush, is a pretty inept way of rescuing a system which does not need rescuing any time soon, and even then, can be easily rescued by a small tax increase. MOre likely, Bush wants to make it appear to be in crisis so he can destroy this leftover from FDR's New Deal. Socialism and all that, doncha know
The privatization plan would require another two trillion $$$ to finance during the transition period, all borrowed of course. A small payroll tax increase is far less intrusive than the massive inflation tax generated by such borrowing.
Infuriate left and right