Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030

Version 2.0 of this article is posted here. 

One of the most popular dinner party conversation topics is the possibility that the United States will be joined or even surpassed as a superpower by another nation, such as China.  China has some very smart people, a vast land area, and over four times the population of the US, so it should catch up easily, right?  Let's assess the what makes a superpower, and what it would take for China to match the US on each pillar of superpowerdom. 

A genuine superpower does not merely have military and political influence, but also must be at the top of the economic, scientific, and cultural pyramids.  Thus, the Soviet Union was only a partial superpower, and the most recent genuine superpower before the United States was the British Empire. 

To match the US by 2030, China would have to :

1)  Have an economy near the size of the US economy.  If the US grows by 3.5% a year for the next 25 years, it will be $30 trillion in 2006 dollars by then.  Note that this is a modest assumption for the US, given the accelerating nature of economic growth, but also note that world GDP only grows about 4% a year, and this might at most be 5% a year by 2030.  China, with an economy of $2.2 trillion in nominal (not PPP) terms, would have to grow at 12% a year for the next 25 years straight to achieve the same size, which is already faster than its current 9-10% rate, if even that can be sustained for so long (no country, let alone a large one, has grown at more than 8% over such a long period).  In other words, the progress that the US economy would make from 1945 to 2030 (85 years) would have to be achieved by China in just the 25 years from 2005 to 2030.  Even then, this is just the total GDP, not per capita GDP, which would still be merely a fourth of America's. 

2)  Create original consumer brands that are household names everywhere in the world (including in America), such as Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, Citigroup, Xerox, Microsoft, or Google.  Europe and Japan have created a few brands in a few select industries, but China currently has none.  Observing how many American brand logos have populated billboards and sporting events in developing nations over just the last 15 years, one might argue that US dominance has even increased by this measure. 

3)  Have a military capable of waging wars anywhere in the globe (even if it does not actually wage any).  Part of the opposition that anti-Americans have to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the envy arising from the US being the only country with the means to invade multiple medium-size countries in other continents and still sustain very few casualties.  No other country currently is even near having the ability to project military power with such force and range.  Mere nuclear weapons are no substitute for this.  The inability of the rest of the world to do anything to halt genocide in Darfur is evidence of how such problems can only get addressed if and when America addresses them.

4)  Have major universities that are household names, that many of the worlds top students aspire to attend.  17 of the world's top 20 universities are in the US.  Until top students in Europe, India, and even the US are filling out an application for a Chinese university alongside those of Harvard, Stanford, MIT, or Cambridge, China is not going to match the US in the knowledge economy.  This also represents the obstacles China has to overcome to successfully conduct impactful scientific research. 

5)  Attract the best and brightest to immigrate into China, where they can expect to live a good life in Chinese society.  The US effectively receives a subsidy of $100 to $200 billion a year, as people educated at the expense of another nation immigrate here and promptly participate in the workforce.  As smart as people within China are, unless they can attract non-Chinese talent that is otherwise going to the US, and even talented Americans, they will not have the same intellectual and psychological cross-pollination, and hence miss out on those economic benefits.  The small matter of people not wanting to move into a country that is not a democracy also has to be resolved. 

6)  Become the nation that produces the new inventions and corporations that are adopted by the mass market into their daily lives.  From the telephone and airplane over a century ago, America has been the engine of almost all technological progress.  Despite the fears of innovation going overseas, the big new technologies and influential applications continue to emerge from companies headquartered in the United States.  Just in the last two years, Google emerged as the next super-lucrative company (before eBay and Yahoo slightly earlier), and the American-dominated 'blogosphere' emerged as a powerful force of information and media. 

7)  Be the leader in entertainment and culture.  China's film industry greatly lags India's, let alone America's.  We hear about piracy of American music and films in China, which tells us exactly what the world order is.  When American teenagers are actively pirating music and movies made in China, only then will the US have been surpassed in this area.  Take a moment to think how distant this scenario is from current reality. 

8)  Be the nation that engineers many of the greatest moments of human accomplishment.  The USSR was ahead of the US in the space race at first, until President Kennedy decided in 1961 to put a man on the moon by 1969.  While this mission initially seemed to be unnecessary and expensive, the optimism and pride brought to anti-Communist people worldwide was so inspirational that it accelerated many other forms of technological progress and brought economic growth to free-market countries.  This eventually led to a global exodus from socialism altogether, as the pessimism necessary for socialism to exist became harder to enforce.  People from many nations still feel pride from humanity having set foot on the Moon, something which America made possible. 

China currently has plans to put a man on the moon by 2024.  While being only the second country to achieve this would certainly be prestigious, it would still be 55 years after the United States achieved the same thing.  That is not quite the trajectory it would take to approach the superpowerdom of the US by 2030.  If China puts a man on Mars before the US, I may change my opinion on this point, but the odds of that happening are not high. 

9)  Be the nation expected to thanklessly use its own resources to solve many of the world's problems.  If the US donates $15 billion in aid to Africa, the first reaction from critics is that the US did not donate enough.  On the other hand, few even consider asking China to donate aid to Africa.  After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the fashionable question was why the US did not donate even more and sooner, rather than why China did not donate more, despite being geographically much closer.  Ask yourself this - if an asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth, which country's technology would the world depend on to detect it, and then destroy or divert it?  Until China is relied upon to an equal degree, it is not in the same league. 

10)  Adapt to the underappreciated burden of superpowerdom - the huge double standards that a benign superpower must withstand in that role.  America is still condemned for slavery that ended 140 years ago, even by nations that have done far worse things more recently than that.  Is China prepared to apologize for Tianenmen Square, the genocide in Tibet, the 30 million who perished during the Great Leap Forward, and the suppression of news about SARS,every day for the next century?  Is China remotely prepared for being blamed for inaction towards genocide in Darfur while simultaneously being condemned for non-deadly prison abuse in a time of war against opponents who follow no rules of engagement?  The amount of unfairness China would have to withstand to truly achieve political parity with America might be prohibitive given China's history over the last 60 years.  Furthermore, China being held to the superpower standard would simultaneously reduce the burden that the US currently bears alone, allowing the US to operate with less opposition than it experiences today. 

Of the ten points above, Europe and Japan have tried for decades, and have only achieved parity with the US on maybe two of these dimensions at most.  China will surpass Europe and Japan by 2030 by achieving perhaps two or possibly even three out of these ten points, but attaining all ten is something I am willing to confidently bet against.  The dream of anti-Americans who relish the prospect of any nation, even a non-democratic one, surpassing the US is still a very distant one. 

A point that many bring up is that empires have always risen and fallen throughout history.  This is partly true, but note that the Roman Empire lasted for over 1000 years after its peak.  Also note that the British Empire never actually collapsed since Britain is still one of the the top seven countries in the world today, and the English language is the most widely spoken in the world.  Britain was merely surpassed by its descendant, with whom it shares a symbiotic relationship.  The US can expect the same if it is finally surpassed, at some point much later than 2030 and probably not before the Technological Singularity, which would make the debate moot.   

That writing this article is even worthwhile is a tribute to how far China has come and how much it might achieve, but nonetheless, there is no other country that will be a superpower on par with the US by 2030.  This is one of the safest predictions The Futurist can make. 

Comments

[usnjay]

very good article, I'm genuinely impressed.

I think the only way you could be proven wrong is if the majority of people who support the American ideals of individual freedom and liberty, generally called right-wingers, take our progress for granted and allow the country to slip into socialism.

We see now how the socialists, generally called left-wingers, are fighting desperately to regain power through class warfare & racial division. Because they control the media it is still possible for all the freedoms that so many have fought for to be lost by this generation.

But I ramble. Really good article.
usnjay

[GK]

usnjay,

Thanks, as always.

As the decline of the US can come only from within, I write a lot about the fifth-column of traitors in America.

One thing that will prevent socialism from ever taking hold is that tax cuts have *always* been proven to stimulate the economy, so much so that even Clinton did one in 1997 (which caused its own boom). It is thus impossible for leftists to increase taxes by a lot. There will be small periods of high taxes by Democrats in congress (like 1993-94), but those will quickly get reversed when the economy immediately slows.

Plus, almost 50% of US households now own stocks, so that is a major voting block that opposes high taxes too..

Even China does not think socialism makes the economy grow (their restrictions on personal freedoms aside). Check this article out if you haven't already.

[jeffolie]

Best column you have written.

[abc123]

There is a Chinese brand called SOYO. I've been waiting 38 months for my rebate.

[davemon]

Very interesting read. I generally agree with what's written here.

Now to think outside the box.

In 15 years, there's a good chance you can order a vehicle online and then have it drive to you.

Take that a step further. Someone builds a factory that can mass produce UAV weapons platforms in the thousands. It's fully automated and only needs raw materials.

The Global Hawk can fly for 48 hours straight, long enough to get around this planet.

So, imagine swarms of thousands of UAVs flying in at low levels to attack a crounty, enough onboard AI to avoid most threats, and pull their attack.

Take out the human labor factor and anyone with a few hundred million could be a new Superpower.

davemon

[GK]

davemon,

Yes, but that is essentially a James Bond villain, which is a concept that existed since 1962.

Remember, a person with a few hundred million could be stopped by others of similar resources, or even specialized individuals who can eliminate such villains.

It is still not more dangerous than Al-Qaeda getting a nuclear weapon, which for some reason has not happened yet.

[ATS]

GK,

Great essay. Here are a few points.

The US is not an empire and should not be compared with other empires past and present. As Michael Mandelbaum writes in "The Case for Goliath", the world and America's political and economic competitors do not and have never responded to America the way that empires have typically been responded to throughout history. For example, whether in Germany, Italy, Britain, Puerto Rico, the Koreas, Japan, Afghanistan, or even Iraq, we do not see large masses of humanity ganging up on America to destroy it or to flush out its military. China on the other hand might be better termed the Han Empire, i.e., the dictatorial imposition of one national identity, state, language and culture -- the Han --upon a myriad of other, unwilling cultures and nations.

Also, China like most non-Western societies is a closed, xenophobic culture which cannot allow large numbers of non-Chinese (let alone Tibetans, Uighur Muslims, and other minorities within China) to settle and develop China for economic or other purposes. This is illustrated by China's history, and especially one particular chapter.

From 1405 to 1421, well before Europe's arrival to the New World, a massive fleet of over 40 Chinese junks -- sailing vessels many times larger than even the largest Spanish galleons -- captained by the royal eunuch Zheng Hu explored and established trade with 30 countries lining the Indian Ocean, including Malaysia, India, Arabia, and the East African Coast. After returning with a treasure trove of new goods, foods, animals and cultural knowledge, rather than build what would easily have been the largest trans-oceanic trading network the world had seen until then, the Chinese imperial ministers, for fear of contaminating China with the influence of "foreign devils", BURNED Zheng Hu's ships and captain's logs and destroyed most of the valuable goods brought back by his expedition. No trading network was maintained, no new knowledge was gained from 16 long years of exploration, and China descended deeper into despotism and poverty.

That's about all one needs to know to understand the Chinese mindset vis-a-vis "superpowerdom". Even if offered a chance to be the foremost engine of culture and commerce in the world, the Chinese will choose ethnic purity and cultural protection over progress and maturity.

[Yo-yo]

ATS,

Your last sentence is pure nonsense. I've been to China a few times over the past decade, I can assure you the Chinese are not really interested in cultural protection. They want to be a rich developed nation, and they are fully aware of the cultural implications of that. China is becoming a western country at breakneck speed. I would think another 50 years of reform should do it.

[Kate Moe]

I have to agree wtih Yo-yo, having visited China in the last few years. Unlike most nations, China is not afraid of the western/American culture. Where rival nations' mantra is "modernization without westernization", China seem to be "modernization and westernization with Chinese characteristics." China seems determine to learn from other countries' mistakes: from why the Soviet's system collasped to why western Europe is declining. From this they seem to understand that isolation and protectionism have devastating long term result and that is not the fate China is eager to share, after all they are learning from their own past mistakes.

[Kosha]

Great article. I will be sure to keep the 8 points in my back pocket for the many inevitable encounters I continue to have with my many European friends...

[ATS]

Yo-yo,

Are the Han Chinese willing to allow 33% or more of their traditional territories' population to become white, hispanic, Indian, other Asian, etc. (as are now 33% in the US ethnic and racial minorities)? Even 10%? No.

Just like Japan and South Korea decades earlier, China embraces surface westernization -- I agree, Bejing youth do wear jeans, dye their hair pink and listen to iPods -- but it resists any significant relocation of non-Chinese immigrants into Han society. For example, while Mandarin-speaking Han Chinese are permitted to colonize and settle Tibet, Tibetans are confined to their own territory and prevented from settling in Han territory. Despite a desire to develop rapidly, Chinese remain suspicious of the "other" who lives among them (as opposed to the other who injects capital into their economy and makes them richer) and sacrifice the benefits of foreign immigration in order not to be diluted culturally.

This is a different attitude from both the US and traditional Western empires such as the Romans and British who opened their culture's and capital's doors to those they ruled. Beijing and China's other major cities do not contain significant Tibetan or Uighur enclaves, and rightly or wrongly China does not encourage Western, American, Indian, etc. professionals to settle China en masse unlike America and other Western countries which have encouraged such immigration.

This is simply China's traditional protectionist mentality which will, as in the past, prevent it from attaining superpower status. China's economic and monetary policies remain largely protecionist and history shows that the Chinese will have difficulty breaking this pattern.

[E J Hosdil]

Very interesting piece and enjoyable to read. I believe that some of your 8 points are more important than others. All in all you are correct, there is no way that the Chinese economy as well as other factors will catch up so fast.

ATS,

Tibetans and such do move to other Chinese cities. They are not confined to their regions.

That said, consider during the HK handover that the Vitenamese were deported and the Indians in the colony were very worried about Chinese rule.

I think the more confident a nation is, the less it worries about such things. And China is very confident right now.

[Peg C.]

Holy c*ap, this was great, and extremely timely! I sent it to a bunch of co-workers. Our corp. is heavily in bed with BRIC (Brazil Russia India China) and will have few U.S. employees in a decade. It's been a very bad week for us and this cheered me right up! Plus it is RIGHT ON, and needed to be said. Plus, it's guaranteed to drive the anti-America crowd (including all of Hollywood, the Drive-By Media, and 2/3 of the Senate) insane!

[Al Fin]

You might be interested in the article by Liber and Press in a recent Foreign Affairs.

The professors from Notre Dame and UPenn claim the US has enough nuclear superiority over Russia and China to destroy their nukes in a first strike, leaving no nukes to Russia or China for retaliation. An intersting read.

The professors come across as left wing multiculturalists who are uncomfortable with american ideals being backed by that much firepower.

[Professor Blather]

My first - but not last - visit to your blog.

And I'm impressed. Despite the billion words generated each and every day, the blogosphere is actually desperately seeking good, insightful, thought-provoking writing.

That was all of the above.

[usnjay]

Al Fin
I read the article you linked, very interesting and I agree with your analysis.

Here's a couple quotes that indicate the authors oppose American interests:

"Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come"

--It contains an attack on US plans for a missile defense, claiming such a system is offensive in nature:
"the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one"

-- and finishes up with a nice criticism of Iraq:
"But if the United States adopts a more restrained foreign policy -- for example, one premised on greater skepticism of the wisdom of forcibly exporting democracy..."

Foreign Affairs magazine long ago stopped pretending it didn't oppose the US, so this isn't new information.

usnjay

[GK]

Professor Blather,

Thanks for your encouragement, and welcome. Suggestions on further topics for articles are welcome.

I hope to gradually claw up the ladder of blog traffic and get 1000 visitors a day. I am currently at about 350/day, but the rise will take several months at this rate. I will persevere..

[Greg]

Great post, my only comment would be that this might be better represented as a composite rating. Where if a country were to have a dominant role in one or more of the categories you list that might offset weakness in some of the others.

You're biggest single point in the essay to me might be the one about the Asteroid heading for earth. I think you could argue that during the Soviet Union's peak the world community would have looked upon both the US and USSR jointly to solve that problem.

Now the Soviet Union was quite lacking in many of the criteria you list, but in a few it was dominent. Deffinetly no. 3 and in a way 4 and in a totally different manner 8 (by ignoring that criteria, heh). It held sway over much of the globe via its ideology and force of will. An evil empire but an empire nonetheless.

[James Jones]

Great post. However, you support your rosy prediction of continued US primacy by restricting your analysis to a period ending in 2030. What about the rest of the 21st century!??? What do the current trendlines predict if extended through 2050, 2075, 2100?

My objection to your arbitrary restriction of analysis to 2030 is two-fold:

1) We need to plan now for the geo-strategic environment beyond 2030. History isn't going to stop at 2030 and the geo-political and geo-economic balances will continue to evolve --- perhaps very unfavorably.

2) Global influence is partly based on a perception of how global power is shifting. Rising powers tend to gain influence because other nations believe they will be stronger in the medium-to-long term. Declining powers tend to lose influence because other nations believe they will be weaker in the medium-to-long term. You can already see this in the behavior of many nations in East Asia and SE Asia vis-a-vis China and the US. Very few of these nations want to openly balance against China despite great anxiety about China's long term intentions. This behavior is driven by the belief that China will become much stronger over the next two generations in both absolute and relative terms. China is weaker than Japan at this time and substantially weaker than the United States. However, both of these powers are not gaining strength at the same rate that China is. (Note: India is the wild card in this analysis because of its population size and its rapid economic growth over the last decade).

My other objection to your analysis is your use of a US-template for superpower status/behavior. Why do you limit yourself to this template? Recorded human history spans 5,000 or more years. There might be a few other templates that the Chinese, or the Indians, or the EU, or a revived Islamic Caliphate would consider more relevant/advantageous. Your #8 status criteria/behavior is particularly odd:

"Adapt to the underappreciated burden of superpowerdom - the huge double standards that a benign superpower must withstand in that role."

Why does a superpower have to be benign? In particular, why should a superpower be benign if it is competing for global dominance with another superpower and several great powers/potential superpowers? It's quite possible to be a benign superpower (hegemon) when you have crushed all of your peer/near-peer competitors. It's probably very useful in securing the acquiescence of your defeated competitors, especially if you don't want to physically incorporate them.

However, most of recorded history demonstrates that more ruthless behavior is a necessity for long term victory over rival great powers. Maybe China's rise to global power will be different. Let's hope so.

But we shouldn't plan on it.

We also shouldn't plan on maintaining our primacy indefinitely -- unless we change our grand strategy to dramatically increase our relative power versus current/future competitors.

[GK]

James Jones,

The article itself addresses many of your questions. Let me try to put it differently.

1) 2030 is chosen because that is the timeframe many give. Beyond that, prediction is harder, particularly since almost all credible futurists believe that we will experience a Technological Singularity in the 21st century. Read the link in the article. I believe the Singularity will be around 2050.

2) Yes, perception matters. Japan was taken a lot more seriously in the 1980s than today. However, perception is fickle, and moves on once an expectation is not met. Just 5 years ago, everyone was talking about China exclusively. Now almost all articles in the MSM discuss China and India simultaneously.

3) I do discuss past human history, mentioning the British Empire and Roman Era as past superpowers. However, the template has to include at least 6-7 of the 8 factors above. The EU has a growth rate so much lower than the world average that it has no chance of rising in relative importance in the forseeable future.

4) A superpower certainly does not have to be benign, which exactly the point of items 7 and 8. The fact that the US is benign is not appreciated anymore, and people exhibit huge double standards towards the US is evidence of how much people have forgotten that a superpower could be MUCH, MUCH worse than the US.

If China rises, they will be asked for the same things that the US is asked for (aid to Africa, aid for disaster vicitms, peacekeeping forces, etc.) If they do not provide this, the pressure on the US vanishes, anti-Americanism reduces hugely, the burdens the US currently bears are lifted. People won't criticize the US for Abu Ghraib-level offenses if China is regularly conductign a Tianenmen Square massacre every few months.

[C-141 Crew Dog]

Great article, but a country like China does not need to surpass the United States as a superpower, it only needs to end the U.S.'s superpower status. I think opponents of the U.S. and the west see nuclear proliferation as a means to that end. When everybody's got nukes, then who do you blame when a sumggled weapon takes out a city?

[James Jones]

GK -- Thanks for the illuminating response. I did not realize that you expect the Singularity will occur in less than fifty years. (Around 2050). I also did not realize that you agree with many theoreticians of the Singularity that this event will make all past models of human behavior obsolete -- including competition between groups for power and wealth or for racial, cultural, ideological, or religious dominance.

That is an extremely big assumption.

My own assumption is that violent competition will continue between human or post-human groups until there is a planetary sovereign or a solar system sovereign with a monopoly on large-scale force. The three great questions will still need to be answered:

1) Who rules?

2) Who is ruled?

3 What are the rights and responsibilities of ruler and ruled?

The ultimate answers to these questions have always been decided through violent competition. Post-humans may be different, but we should remember the example of the angels in Christian theology who fought a war in heaven to determine who would be master, Lucifer or God.

Post-humans will be the ultimate "super-empowered individuals." There is no guarantee that they will all follow the better angels of their nature.

[GK]

James Jones,

I am comfortable with predicting a Singularity date of aroudn 2050. This is actually later than the predictions of some thought leaders in this area, like Ray Kurzweil (2045) and Vernor Vinge (2030).

I don't think competition ever stops - it has not stopped in 4.5 billion years of life on Earth. I do think the Singularity represents the merger of human and artificial intelligence *for those aware enough to grasp this option available to them*. Thus, the most savvy people in both the US and China will merge, while the less savvy in both will either be left behind or even become extinct. Comparing the US to China will be irrelevant post 2050, but the distinction will instead be between the 'savvy' vs. the 'clueless'.

A crude analogy would be the comparison between humans and great apes today. They have common ancestors as little as 5 million years ago, but humans have driven many great apes to near-extinction, largely through indirect, unintentional means.

[Brian Coughlan]

Fascinating blog, and I'm rather partial to the idea of the singularity myself.

Pity about the politics:-(

[Rasulo]

I comment on only some of the points raised in the article.

2) Create original consumer brands that are household names everywhere

It is obvious that there will be Chinese household names. One time the Japanese and Korean brands were laughed at for their poor quality, and now some of them are state-of-the-art. I predict that in a decade there will be some hot Chinese brands.

3) Have a military capable of waging wars anywhere in the globe.

It's not necessary to be able to control whole world. Even if China controls militarily the Pacific and most of Asia, it will seriously limit, even cripple USA's military power. Remember, when the Soviet Union was strong, USA had no business in Afghanistan.

6) Be the leader in entertainment and culture.

Movies from Hong Kong are popular everywhere in the world and they are Chinese.

7) Be the nation expected to thanklessly use its own resources to solve many of the world's problems.

That's only wishful thinking! USA has done good things but it has also done bad things for the international community. For example, who blocked the anti-pollution treaty? Which country consumes most of the world's deminishing unrenewable resources?

[nick mallory]

Why assume China will even exist in its current form in 2030?

Sooner or later democracy is going to try to take hold in China as it did in 1989, which will result either in another vicious clamp down and consequent strangling of influence from the outside world - which will severely limit its future economic growth - or a victory for democracy which will see a break up of the old Han empire into a constellation of smaller states or the creation of a much more benign superpower.

The growth of China is good in itself, as it means millions won't be starving to death this year as they did under Mao, but it also acts as a spur to the USA to keep a strong military and keep innovating in science and technology. The USA can only fade from laziness and decadence within and the threat of China will keep it on its toes for the next 30 years just as the Soviet threat did in the latter half of the 20th century.

[alzaebo]

Count me in as number 351-
astonishing and wondrous essays.
More! Mooore! (flicks lighter)

[GK]

alzaebo,

Thanks for the encouragement. I wish I had the stamina to increase the article frequency..

[oblomov]

Rasulo,

you ask:

For example, who blocked the anti-pollution treaty?

I assume you mean Kyoto. The answer is "China and India". The reason that the US Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty is that China and India were not required signatories. Effectively, the treaty would have imposed economic growth limits on the developed world, but not on China and India.

[Max Makhija]

China- I live in China.
1. It is a wonderful place to live in.
2. The whole country works very very hard and honestly.(ofcourse there are cheats)
3.The Way the Government has managed to control and run the whole country from a penniless state in 1947 (When Chenkai Shek took away all its gold) till today is fantastic.
4. China has friendly relations with everyone.
5. China's Development is very much like that of USA.
6. China is the next super power for sure.
7.Whatever said and done. China is growing very very fast and we can feel it's speed here everyday - It is a very very vibrant economy and it has everything going for it.
USA might be what you say it is but China is much far better than the USA in many ways.
There is peace and quiet and no disturbance.
All chinese are very patriotic.
I being an Indian feel proud of the Chinese. I wish my Country was like China. But India can never even dream to come close to China.
Hats off to China.
USA watch out.

[GK]

Max Makhija,

It seems you live on a different planet than the rest of us do.

"1. It is a wonderful place to live in."
Apparently, you don't know that the Chinese govt. didn't allow people to have more than one child, and didn't allow people to marry without government approval, until recently. Many Chinese try to hid themselves in boxes just to escape out of China to Britain or the US.

"2. The whole country works very very hard and honestly.(ofcourse there are cheats)"
Apparently, you don't know about piracy of IP in China.

"3.The Way the Government has managed to control and run the whole country from a penniless state in 1947 (When Chenkai Shek took away all its gold) till today is fantastic."
So you are a fan of Communism, and hate the free-market system of Taiwan?

"4. China has friendly relations with everyone."
China has attacked nearly all the countries that neighbor it (including India), and killed 50 million people. Read about the Korean War, Chinese invasion of Tibet, Chinese attack on India, War with the USSR, War with Vietnam, continual threats against Taiwan, etc.

"5. China's Development is very much like that of USA." So you admit that the progress of China is merely do to adopting things invented in the USA? Plus, China's per capita income is $1700 a year, vs. $40,000 for the USA.

And the computer, internet, and email account you are using were invented in America. All the top blogs are written by Americans. Which items that we use in our daily lives were invented by China in the last 100 years? China may do manufacturing, but that is no path to superpowerdom.

"USA might be what you say it is but China is much far better than the USA in many ways."
Why do so many Indians want to come to the USA, and almost none want to go to China?

"There is peace and quiet and no disturbance.
All chinese are very patriotic."
Because people who question the Chinese Communist Party are KILLED. Apparently you don't know about Tianenmen Square.

My god, you are even more brainwashed into Maoist propaganda than even Chinese are.

It might greatly disturb you to know that India is the most pro-US (and pro-Bush) country in the world.

[Max Makhija]

I am a Bush Fan too- I just love him. I am the greatest admirer of the USA and I know what Democracy means.
But cannot a person believe in one or more system ?
Cannot the Beauty of other women impress you at times?
I will try and clarify my High opinion of China.
1. China has one child policy since last 25 years and it has done this to control it's population. This may be a Tough step to make in Country where there was abject poverty 25 years back.Today they have started relaxing the system but they have achieved a growth rate of 0.58%.(India on other hand is my country and it is democratic and has no control-The growth rate is 3.3% and unofficial growth rate may be around 5 to 7%)
So is bringing more lives that are going to be miserable or bringing less lives that will bring happiness around to others too- is more sensible.(Let us forget communism or democracy- Just think what is better ?.)
2.IP yes I agree- China have this problem but if you walk on the streets you can become aware that IP situation in 4 years is much more better than what it was earlier. Earlier i could buy any DVD in some of the Markets - Just Yesterday I was there looking for DVDs and guess what I found not one single shop selling.(DVD Copy in China sells for 50 cents- Just for record)
3. Have you been to China recently- There is no trace of Communism but Capitalism all around one. yes the top and the Center Core is Communist.Come to China and than Talk !
4. China has changed in the past so many years. It is now very friendly to all.(Everyone has a past)
5.Yes China is only $1700 compared to $40000 in USA - But looking at the last few years of the growth Curve and in coming years and you will see one or two zeroes being added to the former.
I just presented my view of China. To this website so that you could see China diffrently. But it seems your mind is set.
Kindly see China more clearly.
I still love Democracy but I wish it was a bit like China Communism.
A mixture of both the worlds could bring a lot of more good.

[Mike Johnson]

Interesting and enjoyable post. One of the best I've read today.

However, I think that what is being argued is that China, based on the extrapolation of 2006 trends, will not be a 2006-style superpower in 2030.

It's unclear just how the future might change the nature or cause of economic growth, or what defines a superpower, but science research and the ability to translate research into product will undoubtedly be very important.

Accordingly, I'd like to see you expand your reasoning in points 4 and 5. They seem a bit under-argued.

[GK]

Mike Johnson,

Thanks for the constructive feedback. I'll try to expand on 4) and 5) a bit more by tommorrow.

Essentially, if Wealth distribution in most countries is any guide, as well as the distribution of profit dollars within any industry with multiple competitors, it appears that 20% of the world's most productive, capable people produce 80% of the wealth. The US, due to having the best Universities, an entrepreneurial climate, and perhaps the easiest society to assimilate into, attracts a disproportionate share of these productive people from across the globe.

This might be changing slightly in recent years, but for the most part, the flow is still solidly in favor of the US. Also note that when someone from India or China comes here for graduate study (and assuming they settle here), their country of origin has already paid the cost of raising them, and educating them up to the level of a Bachelor's Degree. This costs about $200,000 in the US, but when such a person comes to the US as a finished product ready to pursue an MS or PhD, the US has effectively received an impot/subsidy of $200,000 or more. This educational subsidy flowing into the US is estimated to be $200 Billion to $500 Billion a year by BusinessWeek.

[arantius]

"and the English language is the most widely spoken in the world"

What do you mean by that?

http://www.google.com/search?q=most+spoken+language

Everything I can find says that Chinese beats English at least two-to-one, by number of speakers.

[GK]

arantius,

Chinese has more native speakers than English, but far more people KNOW English than Chinese.

Accordingly, the amount of international business and scientific research done in English is orders of magnitude more than that done in Chinese.

And don't people say that India has an advantage over China by having a lot of English speakers? Now why is that so valuable?

Why do so few non-Chinese, whether Indian, French, German, or British, have any interest in learning Chinese? Because the economic value of it is very little. How many jobs, in the world, are available to those who speak only English, vs. available to those who speak only Chinese?

If you still think Chinese will supplant English as a world language, you better start taking some classes soon.

[Virgilash]

Hi guys!

I have a few questions for you :
1. Do you know what is the so called "4-2-1 problem" ? It's something like that : in 20 years from now (so earlier than 2030) 1 working person will sustain 2 non-working parents and 4 non-working grand-parents. This will be in China's 2030. And it will be because of their policy with forcing couples to have 1 child only (in fact it's not about forcing them, it's about paying the school, medicine and so on by the government only for the first child - the rich couples can afford to have more babies. And this problem will be tougher and tougher for the chinese government - the young couples have just discovered the wonders of western civilisation - birth control, the greed for money and wealth and they don't have even the allowed 1 child (they can't forbid the acces to the idea of american lifestyle just by banning some websites) .... The same problem will be all over the world, but especially in China .... With this huge problem aboard China will be far of being a superpower ....
And don't just blame then and try to think, if you were the chinese government, what your solution would be ?
a. diminishing the taxes to encourage the economical growth but killing the non-productive older persons ?
b. rising the taxes will make a better life for older persons but will descourage the youngest to work ?

[Virgilash]

Hi again !

Here's my second question on China :

I am living now in Canada and I can see hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of chinese people here. But actually I am from Eastern Europe (Romania). And during the comunism years, back in Romania, if anybody would try to leave the country it would had been 95% chances for that person to get a bullit in his/her head.
And now the question:
What kind of communism is now in China if it allows its citizens to immigrate anywhere they can all over the world ? And I suppose 90% of chinese immigrants have a bachelor ????
Please, I am thinking for a while on this topic and maybe somebody have a reasonable answer for it ! And dont try to give the first answer which will come in your head ... just think that chinese government is banning lots of western websites ...

And please consider the first problem - they will really need their actual young people in a few years.
I really can't find a good answer for this question, please help !!!

And please don't try to answer by attacking my english ... I explained you that I am not a native english speaker :-(

[Conrad]

Good article, you're probably right that China will not surpass the U.S. in these 10 areas in the next 25 years. But in 40 or 50 years, maybe.

However, you give too little attention to other U.S. competitors. Japan already matches or beats the U.S. in many of the 10 areas. If they just get their economy moving again like it was in the 1980s and decide to have a world-class military, they will. Europe also is in the same class as the U.S. in many of those areas, if they can really become integrated as a single entity, they could rival the U.S. for power and influence within 25 years.

[biledemon]

One question... who would win which war if:
a) China invaded the US;
or b)if the US invaded China...
I think it'd be a close one!

[Joep]

Which nation will lead the pack is dependant on power availablity

Epypt : slave power
Rome : slave power
Britton : slave power
USA : fossil fuel (current energy reservers 1.5 years)

Arabs already knows US is stealing oil. It is only matter of time when they start asking for military hardware in return for oil.

[GK]

Joep,

How is the US 'stealing' oil when we pay market prices for oil?

Plus, we import only 25% of our oil from the Middle East.

Plus, we are innovating in many areas, like ethanol, solar, wind, etc. This will take 10-15 years, but will dent oil consumption by then.

[GK]

biledemon,

Both countries are uninvadeable, due to huge size. But consider ;

1) In the US, half of the households have firearms. In China, they do not.

2) China can only shoot missiles at the US. China does NOT have aircraft carriers to conduct air raids on the US, nor do they have the means to transport troops over the Pacific Ocean, while we do.

3) Japan did invade China, and killed 10 million of them. Japan would have won if not for the US drawing away their military forces. At the same time, the US mainland has not been invaded in the 20th century at all.

4) China still can't even invade little, nearby Taiwan.

[GK]

Conrad,

In 40-50 years, we might have a technological singularity that would make the point moot. The article mentions this.

Japan matches us in at most 2-3 of these dimensions. Plus, they copy US pop culture more than most other countries in the world. In the 1980s, people were worried, but now no one thinks Japan will be a superpower.

Plus, they are among our staunchest allies, and definitely an ally against China. A democratic country like Japan being this powerful is a good thing.

[jmzhodge]

Interesting, you raise some intresting comments, although i do not complely agree with everything, i do agree it willbe a long time before china have the influance america can / does

would be good to take note of this site though
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp

[Sidewinder77]

Hey GK, as a pro-freemarkets singularitarian, I find your blog really terrific! I think maybe your GDP figures are a little off though. From the CIA World Factbook:

Current GDP (purchasing power parity)
US: 12.4 trillion
EU: 12.2 trillion
China: 8.9 trillion
India: 3.6 trillion

Assuming those numbers are correct and constant growth rates of:
US: 3.5%
EU: 2.0%
China: 10.0%
India: 7.5%

GDP in 2030 would be
US: 28 trillion
EU: 20 trillion
China: 87 trillion
India: 20 trillion

That implies that the Chinese government will have an economy that’s 3X larger than the US for which to draw taxes from giving it 3X resources to fund military spending, R&D, etc. Perhaps there's a decent chance strong AI will actually emerge from China.

Keep up the awesome posts!

[GK]

Sidewinder77,

Note that the numbers you quoted are Purchase Power Parity (PPP), while I cite Nominal GDP. Both have their uses. Among developed economies, the numbers are almost identical (EU, Japan, Australia, etc.), but for developing economies, they can be far apart.

You have already seen the PPP list, but look at the nominal list.

But when comparing the size of an economy relative to another, nominal matters, as that is the metrics by which they interact with each other.

For example, US Stock Market Capitalization is $20 Trillion, while China's is just $600 Billion - a 33X difference. US world trade is also about 6X that of China.

PPP matters for comparisons like saying a gallon of milk in China costs $1 while in ther US it is $3, so the person n China earning $5000 a year is more on par with an American earning $15000 a year.

[Rob]

One factor hasn't been addressed concerning the future of China is the demographic one. The Chinese one child per family policy, combined with the asian proclivity for sons is raising a generation of men with no chance of ever finding any women to marry, and procreate to the next generation. What is China going to do with all those surplus males? Are they thinking strategically, and stockpiling cannon fodder for the next war? Or will China suffer a catastrophic loss of population, similar to what Russia is suffering now? Given this factor, I have serious doubts that China will be any kind of a power at all by 2030.

[Doug]

"And the computer, internet, and email account you are using were invented in America. All the top blogs are written by Americans. Which items that we use in our daily lives were invented by China in the last 100 years? China may do manufacturing, but that is no path to superpowerdom."

Sorry, couldn't let this pass. First Computational device - Babbage (British), inventor (sic) of the internet Berners-Lee (British). Top Blogs? I find most blogs written by Americans to be crude, insular, ill-informed and arrogant.

This sort of attitude is why Americans of a certain type, the ones who believe they have the 'Only' truth are loathed in Western Europe and everywhere I have ever lived. (That's quite a few countries by now.)

D