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
-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.
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...
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.
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
"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?