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)
Something i would like to mention
As the report states, India and China will both be big economic powers partly due to their huge population, but the standards of living won't necessarily be better.
I've been to India 12 years ago and i've been last year, and yes the standards of living have vastly improved, but for it to be at an acceptable level, it definitely won't take another 15 years. My hope is within 50 years (and that's being optimistic).
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
OK, trollish subject aside (and yes I believe that's why it was modded up), what makes you believe that anyone else would be any more fiscally responsible?
I'll agree that Bush isn't doing us any favors, but you don't replace one big spender with another and expect things to be any different.
Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social Security and rescue it from the inevitable financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That there is no financial crisis in Social Security, that the problem can be fixed by simply raising taxes.
Let me reiterate: Bush isn't doing this country's finances any favors. But neither would Democrats. The whole lot of them need to be given a lesson on how to spend other peoples' money (hint: sparingly).
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
It's interesting to look at the (nearer) "2010" one (done in 1996.) I was expecting a laugh, but it's not too bad. Tidbits that struck me:
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
September 11, 2020
It has been exactly nineteen years today since the view from the 38th floor changed with the destruction of the Twin Towers. I was remarking when the President of the United States phoned that more than the skyline has been altered since. Not only has a new structure been built, partially obscuring the devastation of 9/11, but the US has risen like a phoenix--albeit a beleaguered one--and it again seems to be the bedrock of the international order.
I would say it started when Europe and America began to get together again. It turns out Venus and Mars cross each other's orbits from time to time. The 2010 terrorist attacks in Europe had a lot to do with it. They changed attitudes, and suddenly the Europeans had a better appreciation of catastrophic terrorism--a whole different kettle of fish from what they had known. Publics quickly became energized, particularly as the attacks were seen as totally unjustified. The seriousness of the attacks was such that Europe and America got beyond the name-calling and, in fact, Europeans began imploring America to get tough on terrorism.
The closing of transatlantic ranks was prompted by more than this. One thing that became clear is that Europe was more unified than some of our American friends imagined. New Europe turned out to be not that much different from Old Europe, once it joined the EU club and began hanging out in Brussels. NATO went through some rough times but is now working better with the EU. There is grudging acceptance on both sides that NATO has the necessary military tools while the EU can bring to the table a capacity for nation-building.
On the European side, a lot had to do with Turkish accession--something I never expected to see. With the prospect of Turkey coming in, the Europeans realized that their border was now squarely in the Middle East and that meant they had to be more prepared to deal with all the problems of terrorism, fundamentalism, youth bulges, etc.
Coming together as they did, Europe helped to persuade the US that something had to be done to stop the spiraling violence in Palestine. For the Europeans, that had always been the root of the problem, but divisions and a lack of will always got in the way of any concerted action.
Energy and climate change are also playing an increasing role in the US-European dynamics, but not the way one would have expected. For a while, the Europeans looked like they were trying to isolate the US and insist on Washington playing by EU rules. But that was never really going to happen, and European leaders did not factor in their own publics' increasing resentment of China's and other developing countries' flaunting of environmental standards. Kyoto was suddenly out and a new framework had to be thought up with the Americans inside.
The US role changed even more dramatically in Asia. China was rising and, while not directly challenging the US, was certainly displacing it in the region, particularly economically. America's preoccupation with Iraq and terrorism looked set to diminish the US role even more. Japan stood close to the US on Iraq but was conflicted too because of its economic dependence on China. In South Korea, the younger generation blamed the US for the division and problems with the North. It seemed only a matter of time before the US would be pushed to the sidelines.
Then a series of events occurred which changed the dynamic. Frightened by the continuing impasse in North Korea, rumors leaked of the Japanese seriously thinking about their own bomb. About this time China also suffered an economic relapse, which exacerbated the confrontational tone over Taiwan, also heightening worries in Japan and Southeast Asia. The US initially wanted to heighten its profile but found that many worried about a US-China conflict. Washington ended up scaling back its military presence in Korea and Japan. Most do not want the US to leave; even China, I think, secretly sees some virtue in having the US around inasmuch as it ma
The only reason Clinton was able to balance the budget is because of the historic tech boom at the time and the lack of military spending.
Military spanding is a tiny sliver in the overall budget. Even today, in the middle of a war, military spending is a lower percentage of the federal budget than when Jimmy Carter was President.
Clinton was able to balance the budget because he *GASP* cut social programs. We have big deficits now. NOT because of the meager tax cuts, and NOT because of the war. It is because Bush has gone apeshit with welfare spending.
Visit cbo.gov and see for yourself.
Reminds me of a quote in Gibbons Decline and Fall of Rome (a light three volume read)
"The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long."
First of all, the first world's population will be radically altered from the vast number of people emigrating from 3rd world countries to 1st world countries. This is has prons and cons: it will definitely give a boost to local economies, due to more young people working, but it will also bring havoc to social peace.
Secondly, we are plunging with great speed into a 2nd age of darkness. More and more, people don't use their critical thinking and logic and they are based on emotion, faith and mysticism. Although technology has done quantum leaps in the last century, the average person (average, when including 3rd world countries, of course) has no clue about mainstream science and attributes everything to God (just like with the recent tsunami being viewed as a punishment from God).
The standard of education goes down like a rock falling from a cliff, and there are gonna be millions of people with diplomas and degrees which are essentially uneducated into what makes society tick.
The computer business will reach a point where everything halts. Processing power would be so great, that upgrading will be meaningless. Of course that is after computers can do realtime raytracing and voice synthesis.
We are never gonna go to Mars.
There is a possibility of a 3rd World War, much more devastating than the first two, especially if politicians keep ignoring the facts that the west's wars are viewed as religious wars by East.
To be honest, as long as the renminbi remains pegged to the dollar, as long as the Japanese Central Bank is buying dollars to slow the rise of the yen vs the renminbi, and as long as European companies are forced to cut into their margins to remain competitive vs the Japanese*, then American consumers won't see too big of an increase.
Oh wait, they are already. OIL PRICES.
Remember, the 1973 oil shock wasn't only in retaliation to Western support for Israel in the Kippur War, but also to make up for the loss of purchasing power since the mid 60's.
I am convinced the recent rise in oil prices is linked to the depreciation of the dollar, and not only to Chinese growth increasing demand faster than reserves are discovered, or insecurity in Russia or the Middle East.
If I remember correctly, since Nov. 2000 the euro's appreciation has more or less matched oil's ($.85 to $1.35, vs $30 to $50 : +60% in both cases).
When arab investors became persona non grata in America after 9/11, petrodollars started getting increasingly invested in Europe (or in China), which fuels the euro's rise over the dollar. The resulting fall of the dollar makes the Arabs painfully aware of the loss of purchasing power they're getting (since they're getting fewer euros per barrel), so they have to improve their prices.
Oh yeah, and they convert their dollars into euros event faster.
So far, American consumers have been protected from the effects of the dollar's depreciation by external factors. However, if China has to increase its prices because of the increase in oil prices, if the Federal Reserve has to increase interest rates, if Japan stops being able to buy those T-bills, or if OPEC suddenly starts demanding payment in euros, American households will feel the heat. Or even be wiped out.
* I'm working at a small German sports car manufacturer. We're selling our entry-level model at a loss in the US because we're supposed to be 20% more expensive than a Nissan 350 Z, but we cannot afford to be twice as expensive...
There was a news article a while ago about how the searchers at the terminals were touching people in places they did not feel comfortable with.
One woman complained about a searcher pressing her hand between her breasts.
The GP was taking the issue a bit farther out, but ( IHMO not too far out ). Kids are ( sometimes ) taught to obey, and might not feel at liberty to say "I dont want this". This is ( sometimes ) how child abuse happens ( as I understand it ), so I think the issue reasonable.
( Yes, the presumption is that your child would be going with you, not an unreasonable presumption ).
emt 377 emt 4
IRAs are a scam.
We're hearing that goold old SS is failing because of demographics - ie that employed people will be unable to pay for pensioners because there too many pensioners for too few employed people.
The sad truth, however, is that the very same reason that is killing SS, will kill stock markets. We often hear the myth that stock markets outperform other investments on the long term.
The truth is, stock markets can only rise if there are more people willing to buy, than people willing to sell, i.e. if there are more 40-year-olds than 65-year-olds.
Think about it: Stock markets rise because demand is growing faster than offer.
But who is usually buying stock? People saving up for their retirement. So they buy stocks (or shares in mutual funds, which then buy stocks).
What is usually selling stock? Retired people - that are selling to finance their retirement.
In other words, if the ratio of retired people to employed people increases, offer grows faster than demand. Markets tank.
And this, ladies and gentlement, is the reason the market will be bearish for at least two decades once boomers hit 65 (that is in merely 5 years).
Remember the boom years of the 50's and 60's, during which stock markets notably underperformed?
No wonder demand was weak, if there were fewer 40-year-olds than usual, since so many had died 20 years ago during WW2.
The stock market only got real big under Reagan. Surprise, this is exactly when the first boomers reached 40 year olds, whilst there were very few sellers (WW2 generation): demand was much stronger than offer. Markets rose, and kept rising until today.
However in 5 years, there will be more people wanting to sell than people willing to buy. In other words, IRAs are a disaster waiting to happen.
The only way out is if the Chinese come in and do a massive buy out, 80's Japan style.
Really? You coulda fooled me.
Consider some of this:
I've heard counter-arguments that the theory is bunk and we have plenty, but so far, every piece of documentation I can get my hands on points the other way - that we are going to be in a world of hurt in about 5+ years or so, with nowhere to go but down. Think of the Great Depression of the 30's, but think of one that never ends. Oil prices and the activity with Euros you describe above are merely a reflection of that theory. Given that we are now over the $40/barrel threshold, I'm (anxiously) awaiting the crossover even in 2008, when combined OPEC production is projected to match the production from ALL OTHER NON-OPEC MEMBERS. After that point, it's all downhill; OPEC will effectively have the majority of reserves on the market, and whenever you have a de-facto "monopoly" of this kind, prices go up. Give that nearly all of our culture and economy is predicated on cheap, readily available energy (oil, gasoline, diesel, methane - which is a byproduct of oil production), I don't see things going well in 5+ years unless the public has a MASSIVE wake-up call, scales back consumption (just long enough to buy time), and starts taking a serious look at how we live. What's that? You like driving your car? Well, I can guess that it's not going to happen - people will continue until the price of oil is too prohibitive. By the time prices reach the point that most of the public notices, it's too late - we're on the downward slope of the production curve, and production expenses will continue to mount.
The 1970's oil shock was nasty, and there are people here on Slashdot who weren't even born yet when it occured, so it's