US political futures foreign [Archive]

James A. Donald

06-12-2008, 08:26 PM

"Dan Goodman" wrote:
> The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet
> Union collapsed; there can't be a lone superpower.

If the Soviet Union collapsed *because* the US resisted
its expansion, and encouraged various political and
armed groups attempting to dismantle it, then the US
certainly can be a lone superpower.

> Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major
> power on Earth and in space. But it will be behind
> China and the EU. Quite likely behind India and
> Brazil. Possibly also behind Argentina, Korea (which
> will have reunified), and Japan.

Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
been from its formation. In a few decades it is likely
we will see political collapse as armed groups with
radically un european institutions take over large
areas, as is already happening in France and beginning
to happen in Britain. Europe has already lost control
of some parts of Europe, and is losing control of a lot
more of Europe. The world smells weakness. Weakness is
provocative. On the fringes of Europe, various hostile
groups believe that only the power of the US stops them,
or bad people that they fear, from doing as they please.
"Europe can't stop anything" they say. If they sense
lack of interest from America, or weakness of will,
Europe goes up in flames as all and sundry go forth to
carve themselves a slice.

Argentina was first world, exceeding America in personal
wealth, a long time ago. It is descending further into
darkness every passing year.

Korea will prosper, and will soon have a living standard
higher than America, so long as it keeps its present
institutions - institutions that were created by
America, sustained by American power, and which are
continually threatened by Argentinean style political
collapse.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Jonathan L Cunningham

06-12-2008, 09:31 PM

Dan Goodman <dsgood@iphouse.com> wrote:

> As I see it:
>
> The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.) has
> been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt) and
> certainly since some time in the 1960s.

Cultural influence may have peaked, but much more recently (if at all).
The other factors probably peaked in the 1950s (IMHO).

> The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
> there can't be a lone superpower.

Why not? The US *is* a lone superpower from my perspective.

It won't last, but not from any inherent paradox.

> Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth and in
> space. But it will be behind China and the EU. Quite likely behind
> India and Brazil. Possibly also behind Argentina, Korea (which will
> have reunified), and Japan.

My prediction: China and India first and second, then the US, then the
EU. South American countries will be nowhere (because of political
problems) another new Asian superpower may emerge, but it won't be Japan
or Korea in isolation. It may be some kind of coalition (in the same way
that the EU is a coalition of European states).

Australia may or may not be significant, partially depending on
immigration policies

> English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> won't be US English.

It isn't US English now, but I agree it won't be current English. I
expect the international English to have even more loan words from other
European languages: mostly West European, i.e. German, Spanish and to a
lesser extent Italian and French, rather than East European languages,
such as Polish, Czech etc. But I also expect pronunciation to be more
heavily influenced by Indian (and to a lesser extent Chinese) English
speakers.

IME, most Scandinavian, and many Germans, currently speak English
with an American accent (after allowing for their native accent). But
there are many other countries whose accent is British English (after
allowing for their native accent). My impression is that the proportion
influenced more by British English is growing: but that could be because
I live in Britain.

Possibly the "mid Atlantic" accent will become even more common.

Just my 2p worth of thoughts.

Jonathan
I.e. a majority, but by no means all.

Brian M. Scott

06-13-2008, 12:15 AM

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:31:18 +0100, Jonathan L Cunningham
<spam@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<news:1iigbmv.inaf7f1oqf2hrN%spam@sofluc.co.uk.inva lid> in
rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.history.future:

[...]

> IME, most Scandinavian, and many Germans, currently
> speak English with an American accent (after allowing for
> their native accent). But there are many other countries
> whose accent is British English (after allowing for their
> native accent).

It still amuses me to read that this or that German title is
'aus dem Amerikanischen (�bersetzt) von' So-and-So.
Nowadays I'm not at all sure that it isn't more common than
'aus dem Englischen'.

> My impression is that the proportion influenced more by
> British English is growing: but that could be because I
> live in Britain.

If so, and I'm inclined to doubt it, I suspect that it's a
very recent phenomenon; when I was a kid RP was the usual
model for Europeans.

[...]

Brian

eatfastnoodle

06-13-2008, 06:18 AM

On Jun 13, 6:27�am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> As I see it:
>
> The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.) has
> been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt) and
> certainly since some time in the 1960s.
>
> The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
> there can't be a lone superpower.
>
> Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth and in
> space. �But it will be behind China and the EU. �Quite likely behind
> India and Brazil. �Possibly also behind Argentina, Korea (which will
> have reunified), and Japan.

China and EU certainly possible, India and Brazil at best debatable,
Japan a very very far-fetched scenario. Argentina and Korea, no way in
hell.

I don't think any country can be a great power without first being
physically big, certainly not in the long run.

>
> English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> won't be US English.

If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
international language.

> Dan Goodman
> "I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
> Tennessee Williams, �A Streetcar Named Expire
> Journalhttp://dsgood.livejournal.com
> Futureshttp://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
> mirror 1: �http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
> mirror 2:http://dsgood.wordpress.com
> Linkshttp://del.icio.us/dsgood

eatfastnoodle

06-13-2008, 06:22 AM

On Jun 13, 8:26�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> "Dan Goodman" wrote:

> Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
> and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
> been from its formation. �In a few decades it is likely
> we will see political collapse as armed groups with
> radically un european institutions take over large
> areas, as is already happening in France and beginning
> to happen in Britain. �Europe has already lost control
> of some parts of Europe, and is losing control of a lot
> more of Europe. �The world smells weakness. �Weakness is
> provocative. �On the fringes of Europe, various hostile
> groups believe that only the power of the US stops them,
> or bad people that they fear, from doing as they please.
> "Europe can't stop anything" they say. �If they sense
> lack of interest from America, or weakness of will,
> Europe goes up in flames as all and sundry go forth to
> carve themselves a slice.

Sound like words from a radical right wingers who think America is
better than any body else because America is not socialist.

Bernard Peek

06-13-2008, 07:13 AM

In message <4851a2b8$0$14942$804603d3@auth.newsreader.iphouse. com>, Dan
Goodman <dsgood@iphouse.com> writes
>As I see it:
>
>The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.) has
>been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt) and
>certainly since some time in the 1960s.

Agreed

>
>The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
>there can't be a lone superpower.

I don't think I agree with this. Why shouldn't there be a lone
superpower?

>
>Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth and in
>space. But it will be behind China and the EU. Quite likely behind
>India and Brazil. Possibly also behind Argentina, Korea (which will
>have reunified), and Japan.

I think the ranking is more likely to be; China, EU, India, US as the
superpowers followed by a number of others jockeying for position. I
think Japan is going to be another one of the losers. You missed out
South Africa which may be one of those second-rank countries.

In another 50 years after that the South African and Southern American
states will either be major powers or smoking ruins.

>
>English will still be the leading international language -- but it
>won't be US English.
>
That's going to depend on some decisions yet to be made. China may see
the benefits that India has gained from having a large English-speaking
population. If China decides it wants a slice of the action it might
train its own people to undercut the Indian call-centres and software
industry. That would lead to English taking over inside China. For
political reasons I think that China would elect to adopt BBC English,
but with American spelling.

It's also possible that China will be strong enough to demand that
people who deal with it speak Mandarin. If so, most business people will
be bilingual.

--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.

Jonathan L Cunningham

06-13-2008, 07:29 AM

Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:31:18 +0100, Jonathan L Cunningham
> <spam@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> <news:1iigbmv.inaf7f1oqf2hrN%spam@sofluc.co.uk.inva lid> in
> rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.history.future:
>
> [...]

> > My impression is that the proportion influenced more by
> > British English is growing: but that could be because I
> > live in Britain.
>
> If so, and I'm inclined to doubt it, I suspect that it's a
> very recent phenomenon; when I was a kid RP was the usual
> model for Europeans.

I thought it was just the "black hats" in the movies that had British
accents, and the "white hats" had American accents. :-)

More seriously, is it possible we are both suffering an observer effect?
When I talked to Germans with strong German accents, ten or fifteen
years ago, I was likely to notice Americanisms and American vowel sounds
as "American accent" overlaying the German accent (or underlaying) but
otherwise merely as a German accent. You might notice my "otherwise"
cases as British accent.

Going beyond accent: how would you expect them to pronounce "schedule"?
I pronounce it "shed" not "sked" although the "sked" pronunciation is a
lot more common here now - it may even have overtaken the "shed" (which
isn't even listed in thefreedictionary.com -- but my oldish paper
dictionary gives sh- with sk- as U.S. dialect.)

Similarly, word choice: it's a lot more noticeable when a German talks
about elevators instead of lifts. And if he also talks about taps,
instead of faucets, you might tend to notice the Britishisms, whereas I
noticed the Americanisms - the truth being that he's somewhere in the
middle. (I don't know whether these specific examples apply to you
personally - they are just to illustrate a general point.)

It may also be that many of my contacts with continental Europeans were
with people who might have done post-graduate work in the USA, or had
spent time in the USA. (After all, they were selected in part for these
projects *because* they spoke English very well -- and those who had
polished their English in the UK would be less noticeable to me for the
reasons suggested above.)

But the reason I think that the proportion of non-native English
speakers may now be increasing *now* is because with the enlargement of
the EU, there are relatively large numbers of less highly-educated
people (i.e. without post-graduate degrees) moving around, e.g. over
400,000 Poles alone (I don't have a problem with this; it's a standard
joke that if/when they all go home, it will become impossible to hire a
plumber). It is estimated (although the figures are extremely iffy) that
0.7% of the population are illegal immigrants, as well as the 400,000
Poles plus umpteen other EU nationals who are here legally. There are
also now a *lot* of EFL schools along the South Coast (including the
town where I live) which attract students mainly over the summer - so
these tend to acquire British accents whereas a generation ago (IME/IMO)
they would more likely have acquired their accents from Hollywood and
American TV shows.

These are all my personal impressions, of course, but when I was a boy,
it was very unusual to hear a foreign language in the street, ten years
ago, I would listen and recognise Italian, or Spanish or German (or
Japanese) - now I usually can't recognise what language they are
speaking: I don't assume Polish automatically, because I can't tell
Finnish from Polish :-) This change is relatively recent, in historic
terms. (As are Polish sections in the supermarket, and Polish beer in
the off-licences etc.)

The fact that many of these aren't immigrants in the sense of intending
to settle here, but that they intend to go home tends to spread the
British accent (v. the US) around Europe more. All IMHO - but this
thread is about speculation.

Jonathan

Jonathan L Cunningham

06-13-2008, 07:29 AM

eatfastnoodle <d12s34f56@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 13, 6:27 am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> >
> > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> > won't be US English.
>
> If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
> international language.

Too late for that, I think. With both India and the EU using English as
well, and the Chinese all learning it too, we've passed a tipping point.

What *other* language could take its place? The only two credible
candidates are, I think, Spanish or Mandarin . If the USA adopts
Spanish as its official language, that would give Spanish a boost -
otherwise, you are talking about Mexico and South America (and Brazil
speaks Portuguese anyway).

The Chinese will use Chinese internally, but what will they use to trade
with India, other Asian countries, Australia, North America, Europe?

Jonathan
I'd include Arabic as an outsider, too, for religious rather than
economic reasons.

Bernard Peek

06-13-2008, 07:30 AM

In message <gpe354pnn2sm3grt8aahog1ljjgumrh86o@4ax.com>, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> writes

>Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
>and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
>been from its formation.

The EU economy is currently stronger than the US and is growing while
the US is past the peak of its economic power. Growth in the EU is being
limited by the need to invest in the new territories, and that is
soaking up the increased productivity of East Germany. In turn Poland
and Czech will fund the development of newer territories. Who knows
where it will stop?

--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.

Brian M. Scott

06-13-2008, 01:20 PM

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:29:35 +0100, Jonathan L Cunningham
<spam@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<news:1iih1xx.1unwtbvsc7000N%spam@sofluc.co.uk.inva lid> in
rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.history.future:

> Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:31:18 +0100, Jonathan L Cunningham
>> <spam@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> <news:1iigbmv.inaf7f1oqf2hrN%spam@sofluc.co.uk.inva lid> in
>> rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.history.future:

>> [...]

>>> My impression is that the proportion influenced more by
>>> British English is growing: but that could be because I
>>> live in Britain.

>> If so, and I'm inclined to doubt it, I suspect that it's
>> a very recent phenomenon; when I was a kid RP was the
>> usual model for Europeans.

[...]

> More seriously, is it possible we are both suffering an
> observer effect?

Almost certainly to some extent, at least. However, my
comment was based less on personal experience than on
various things that I've read over the years.

[...]

> Going beyond accent: how would you expect them to
> pronounce "schedule"?

Depending on other details of the accent, I'd consider the
\shed\ pronunciation either a spelling pronunciation based
on German orthographic rules or a marker of a background in
British English.

[...]

> Similarly, word choice: it's a lot more noticeable when a
> German talks about elevators instead of lifts. And if he
> also talks about taps, instead of faucets, you might tend
> to notice the Britishisms, whereas I noticed the
> Americanisms - the truth being that he's somewhere in the
> middle. (I don't know whether these specific examples
> apply to you personally - they are just to illustrate a
> general point.)

Indeed these particular examples don't work well. Both
'tap' and 'faucet' are common over here, so I'd probably not
notice either. I'd probably notice 'lift', but since I'm
aware that <der Lift> has entered German usage, I might
register it as a Germanism rather than as a Briticism.

[...]

Brian

Dan Goodman

06-13-2008, 06:21 PM

eatfastnoodle wrote:

> On Jun 13, 6:27�am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > As I see it:
> >
> > The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.)
> > has been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt)
> > and certainly since some time in the 1960s.
> >
> > The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
> > there can't be a lone superpower.
> >
> > Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth
> > and in space. �But it will be behind China and the EU. �Quite
> > likely behind India and Brazil. �Possibly also behind Argentina,
> > Korea (which will have reunified), and Japan.
>
> China and EU certainly possible, India and Brazil at best debatable,
> Japan a very very far-fetched scenario. Argentina and Korea, no way in
> hell.
>
> I don't think any country can be a great power without first being
> physically big, certainly not in the long run.

England was, for some time.

One reason often suggested for Western Europe's rise is that its states
were small enough that none of them could relax. There were always
neighbors with depressingly large armies, for example; and it wasn't
possible to stop improving military technology without taking a huge
risk.

> > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> > won't be US English.
>
> If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
> international language.

Not if India or the EU becomes top dog -- though in the latter case, it
would probably go down a step or two.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Dan Goodman

06-13-2008, 06:41 PM

eatfastnoodle wrote:

> On Jun 13, 8:26�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > "Dan Goodman" wrote:
>
> > Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
> > and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
> > been from its formation. �In a few decades it is likely
> > we will see political collapse as armed groups with
> > radically un european institutions take over large
> > areas, as is already happening in France and beginning
> > to happen in Britain. �Europe has already lost control
> > of some parts of Europe, and is losing control of a lot
> > more of Europe. �The world smells weakness. �Weakness is
> > provocative. �On the fringes of Europe, various hostile
> > groups believe that only the power of the US stops them,
> > or bad people that they fear, from doing as they please.
> > "Europe can't stop anything" they say. �If they sense
> > lack of interest from America, or weakness of will,
> > Europe goes up in flames as all and sundry go forth to
> > carve themselves a slice.
>
> Sound like words from a radical right wingers who think America is
> better than any body else because America is not socialist.

My opinion: Being relatively open to immigrants has helped the US in
the past.

At one time, Milwaukee was predominantly German-speaking. (I keep
seeing the figure 78 percent; I haven't yet checked it.) It had a
string of Socialist mayors. Neither of these things kept descendants
of German immigrants from assimilating.

As for the EU: France has gotten immigrants in the past; its current
President has a Hungarian surname. I'm sure that in the 1930s (for
example) Hungarian immigrants were seen as A Menace To The French Way
of Life. In spite of their being Roman Catholic.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Dan Goodman

06-13-2008, 06:52 PM

Bernard Peek wrote:

> In message <4851a2b8$0$14942$804603d3@auth.newsreader.iphouse. com>,
> Dan Goodman <dsgood@iphouse.com> writes
> > As I see it:
> >
> > The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.)
> > has been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt)
> > and certainly since some time in the 1960s.
>
> Agreed
>
> > The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
> > there can't be a lone superpower.
>
> I don't think I agree with this. Why shouldn't there be a lone
> superpower?

In practice, there hasn't been.

As to my theories: I think a superpower system requires that various
weaker countries have to either choose which they'll side with or
announce their neutrality.

> > Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth
> > and in space. But it will be behind China and the EU. Quite
> > likely behind India and Brazil. Possibly also behind Argentina,
> > Korea (which will have reunified), and Japan.
>
> I think the ranking is more likely to be; China, EU, India, US as the
> superpowers followed by a number of others jockeying for position. I
> think Japan is going to be another one of the losers. You missed out
> South Africa which may be one of those second-rank countries.

Might, but it has a long way to go.

> In another 50 years after that the South African and Southern
> American states will either be major powers or smoking ruins.
>
> > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> > won't be US English.
> >
> That's going to depend on some decisions yet to be made. China may
> see the benefits that India has gained from having a large
> English-speaking population. If China decides it wants a slice of the
> action it might train its own people to undercut the Indian
> call-centres and software industry. That would lead to English taking
> over inside China. For political reasons I think that China would
> elect to adopt BBC English, but with American spelling.

I think a large part of the reason English has its current status in
India is that it's not possible to replace it internally with another
language. There are Hindispeakers who would like to see Hindi
completely replace English; but oddly enough, native speakers of other
languages object.

> It's also possible that China will be strong enough to demand that
> people who deal with it speak Mandarin. If so, most business people
> will be bilingual.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Joy Beeson

06-13-2008, 07:50 PM

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:18:12 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
<d12s34f56@gmail.com> wrote:

> If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
> international language.

More likely, it will be more popular than ever for its neutrality.

Consider Latin after the fall of Rome.

BTW: shouldn't "will" be "would"?
Or, alternatively, change "stopped" to "stops".

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

James A. Donald

06-13-2008, 09:43 PM

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
> Sound like words from a radical right wingers who
> think America is better than any body else because
> America is not socialist.

Compare the American growth rate with the European
growth rate. Compare American wealth with European
wealth.

Observe the humiliation of European military forces in
the states of the former Yugoslavia, British humiliation
in Iraq, French loss of control of Muslim areas in
france, and the beginnings of the same in Britain.

Europe is poor and backward relative to the US. The way
things are going, at best it will be poorer and more
backward in another fifty years. At worst it will be on
fire in a decade or two, attacked from within or
without. The worst is always more likely than you
think. Weakness is provocative. Appeasement is
provocative. Danegeld is provocative. People always
under estimate the probability of events that they have
not experienced in their lifetime, and thus nations tend
to repeat past mistakes at intervals of eighty years or
so. The problem with the treaty of versailles was not
imposing harsh terms, but imposing harsh terms and then
retreating from them in the face of threats.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-13-2008, 09:59 PM

Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
> My prediction: China and India first and second, then
> the US, then the EU. South American countries will be
> nowhere

Only if India continues with the reforms. It is
wobbling, and shows strong symptoms of Argentinean style
collapse.

The reforms were not really a political decision, more a
collapse of the planning system. They remain unpopular
with the elite and the voters, despite, or rather
because of, their tremendous economic success. The
reforms are making people affluent who are not supposed
to be affluent, and there is a growing demand that those
people be put down - that relative wealth should reflect
the proper relative status, analogous the distaste of
American intellectuals for the bourgeoisie.

> It isn't US English now, but I agree it won't be
> current English. I expect the international English to
> have even more loan words from other European
> languages: mostly West European, i.e. German, Spanish
> and to a lesser extent Italian and French

This depends on the cultural influence of Europe. I
don't see any European cultural influence.

I hear some new words coming from Japan. What new words
have come from Europe lately?

Everyone watches American movies, plus some Hong Kong
and Japanese stuff, and a little bit of Indian stuff. I
am seeing Japanese loanwords carried into circulation by
the popularity of anime, and Hong Kong/Chinese
pronunciations carried into circulation by trade with
asia and asian actors and music.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-13-2008, 10:09 PM

"Dan Goodman" wrote:
> As for the EU: France has gotten immigrants in the past; its current
> President has a Hungarian surname. I'm sure that in the 1930s (for
> example) Hungarian immigrants were seen as A Menace To The French Way
> of Life. In spite of their being Roman Catholic.

Muslim immigration would probably benefit Europe, compensating for its
low birthrate, if they dared tell the Muslims to assimilate.

Weakness is provocative. If the French were more militarily capable,
and more confident in their Frenchness, Islam would not be a problem
for them.

There is a difference between Hungarian immigrants and Muslim
immigrants. I doubt that the Hungarians had special schools France in
which they were taught that it is right to rob non Hungarians. The
difference is real, but strength would make it unimportant. Weakness
makes it important.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:32 AM

On Jun 13, 7:29�pm, s...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid (Jonathan L Cunningham)
wrote:
> eatfastnoodle <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 6:27 am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> > > won't be US English.
>
> > If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
> > international language.
>
> Too late for that, I think. With both India and the EU using English as
> well, and the Chinese all learning it too, we've passed a tipping point.

EU are doing it because smaller countries don't want to be seen as
being dominated by France and Germany. That will change after tighter
integration has achieved. After all, no sovereign country, especially
country with long history, would want to use somebody else's language.
You seem to forget nationalism is a powerful political tool in all
countries. As for India, only elite speaks English, most people still
speak their local language. Just like any other country, when India
gets rich and strong, it will want its own "international" language.
In China's case, China is too big and too oriental for a successful
English take-over. English maybe mandatory in school, but the fact
that English is SO different from Chinese means that it's unlikely
that English will be nothing more than a business language adopted
when it still makes business sense to speak English. (look at Hong
Kong, after more than 150 years of British colonial rule during which
fluent English was essential to succeed, most people remains non-
English speakers, those with college degree speaks English, but they
are the minority).
> What *other* language could take its place? The only two credible
> candidates are, I think, Spanish or Mandarin . If the USA adopts
> Spanish as its official language, that would give Spanish a boost -
> otherwise, you are talking about Mexico and South America (and Brazil
> speaks Portuguese anyway).

Depend on the relative strength of the US, if US remained the dominant
power and center of the world, whatever adopted by the US will be
adopted by the rest of the world. But we are talking a different
scenario.

> The Chinese will use Chinese internally, but what will they use to trade
> with India, other Asian countries, Australia, North America, Europe?

Chinese will get a big boost as the influences of China grows, but all
depends on what kind of world we are going to see 50 years from now, I
don't think it's likely that any power will achieve the dominance US
has right now. It will be a truly multipolar world. Most people will
know at least 1 foreign language, but I don't think any specific
language will attain the must-learn status English enjoys now.

> Jonathan
> I'd include Arabic as an outsider, too, for religious rather than
> economic reasons.

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:38 AM

On Jun 13, 7:30�pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> In message <gpe354pnn2sm3grt8aahog1ljjgumrh...@4ax.com>, James A. Donald
> <jam...@echeque.com> writes
>
> >Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
> >and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
> >been from its formation.
>
> The EU economy is currently stronger than the US and is growing while
> the US is past the peak of its economic power. Growth in the EU is being
> limited by the need to invest in the new territories, and that is
> soaking up the increased productivity of East Germany. In turn Poland
> and Czech will fund the development of newer territories. Who knows
> where it will stop?
>
> --
> Bernard Peek
> London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.

and don't forget EU will get larger, if EU could successfully lift
living standard of its relatively poor members to that of its more
developed member, in another word, if EU could reproduce Ireland and
Spain success story in eastern Europe or even Turkey, EU will become a
economic juggernaut comparable to the combination of US and Japan.

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:38 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:44 AM

On Jun 14, 6:21�am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> eatfastnoodle wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 6:27�am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > > As I see it:
>
> > > The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.)
> > > has been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt)
> > > and certainly since some time in the 1960s.
>
> > > The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
> > > there can't be a lone superpower.
>
> > > Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth
> > > and in space. �But it will be behind China and the EU. �Quite
> > > likely behind India and Brazil. �Possibly also behind Argentina,
> > > Korea (which will have reunified), and Japan.
>
> > China and EU certainly possible, India and Brazil at best debatable,
> > Japan a very very far-fetched scenario. Argentina and Korea, no way in
> > hell.
>
> > I don't think any country can be a great power without first being
> > physically big, certainly not in the long run.
>
> England was, for some time. �

Not England, British Empire, nobody can say British Empire isn't
large. As history showed, without her Empire, Britain is nothing more
than a middle power.

> One reason often suggested for Western Europe's rise is that its states
> were small enough that none of them could relax. �There were always
> neighbors with depressingly large armies, for example; and it wasn't
> possible to stop improving military technology without taking a huge
> risk.
>
> > > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> > > won't be US English.
>
> > If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
> > international language.
>
> Not if India or the EU becomes top dog -- though in the latter case, it
> would probably go down a step or two.

If India became top dog, it will want shed its colonial identity and
establish itself as a great power of its own.

> Dan Goodman
> "I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
> Tennessee Williams, �A Streetcar Named Expire
> Journalhttp://dsgood.livejournal.com
> Futureshttp://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
> mirror 1: �http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
> mirror 2:http://dsgood.wordpress.com
> Linkshttp://del.icio.us/dsgood

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:44 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:44 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:44 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:45 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:47 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:49 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 02:49 AM

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 03:06 AM

On Jun 14, 6:41�am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> eatfastnoodle wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 8:26�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > > "Dan Goodman" wrote:
>
> > > Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
> > > and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
> > > been from its formation. �In a few decades it is likely
> > > we will see political collapse as armed groups with
> > > radically un european institutions take over large
> > > areas, as is already happening in France and beginning
> > > to happen in Britain. �Europe has already lost control
> > > of some parts of Europe, and is losing control of a lot
> > > more of Europe. �The world smells weakness. �Weakness is
> > > provocative. �On the fringes of Europe, various hostile
> > > groups believe that only the power of the US stops them,
> > > or bad people that they fear, from doing as they please.
> > > "Europe can't stop anything" they say. �If they sense
> > > lack of interest from America, or weakness of will,
> > > Europe goes up in flames as all and sundry go forth to
> > > carve themselves a slice.
>
> > Sound like words from a radical right wingers who think America is
> > better than any body else because America is not socialist.
>
> My opinion: �Being relatively open to immigrants has helped the US in
> the past.

Well, given the current anti-immigrant atmosphere, it's hard to
imagine how long the US could remain relatively open. Not to mention
the current wave of immigrants originates from Latin America, not
Europe. As the size of Latino population grows, all sorts of **** will
happen. The current Latino-black conflict could be just a preclude to
wider racial conflict. You know, the call to make English the official
language stem from insecurity felt by certain segment of white
population, who knows what will happen. Timothy McVeigh committed the
worst domestic terrorism act ever because Clinton wanted to take over
their gun rights. If they believed their own "mainstream" were in
danger of being overwhelmed by Latino immigrants and culture, only God
knows what will happen. I don't believe racial tension and hatred
disappeared, I don't believe it will disappear or even weakened to the
point it doesn't matter any more in the foreseeable future.
> At one time, Milwaukee was predominantly German-speaking. �(I keep
> seeing the figure 78 percent; I haven't yet checked it.) �It had a
> string of Socialist mayors. �Neither of these things kept descendants
> of German immigrants from assimilating.
>
> As for the EU: �France has gotten immigrants in the past; its current
> President has a Hungarian surname. �I'm sure that in the 1930s (for
> example) Hungarian immigrants were seen as A Menace To The French Way
> of Life. �In spite of their being Roman Catholic.

It's not just about immigrants. Remember back in the 80s, Japan used
to be viewed as invincible, and Japanese system was emulated by
everybody? certainly it isn't as strong as people feared as the lost
decade showed us. But who knows what kind of performance American
system will pull off in the future. True, America had better economic
performance over the last 20 years or so. American model had its time,
so did Japanese model and German model. Being relatively open and
regulation free don't necessarily America get to grow faster.
Otherwise, Germany and Japan would never have grown to nearly as rich
as America. My point is there are different routes to success. The
path taken by EU might be no in vogue now, but it can change in the
future.

> --
> Dan Goodman
> "I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
> Tennessee Williams, �A Streetcar Named Expire
> Journalhttp://dsgood.livejournal.com
> Futureshttp://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
> mirror 1: �http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
> mirror 2:http://dsgood.wordpress.com
> Linkshttp://del.icio.us/dsgood

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 03:15 AM

On Jun 14, 9:43�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
>
> > Sound like words from a radical right wingers who
> > think America is better than any body else because
> > America is not socialist.
>
> Compare the American growth rate with the European
> growth rate. �Compare American wealth with European
> wealth.

You are looking only at the 90s, before then, Germany and Japan had
far better growth than America did. Every system had its ups and
downs. America was the most recent up story, but that, in no way,
guarantees it will remain the up one for ever. The current economic
crisis might just be the beginning of another era.
> Observe the humiliation of European military forces in
> the states of the former Yugoslavia, British humiliation
> in Iraq, French loss of control of Muslim areas in
> france, and the beginnings of the same in Britain.

European countries didn't invest any where near America did in the
military because they don't have the strategical need for a global
reaching military. That can change. As for military humiliation, I'm
the one who think Vietnam and current Iraq can be categorized as
military humiliation. You may have different opinion. As for "French
loss of control of Muslim area in France", I don't know where you got
that story, I have never seen anything like that in any mainstream
media. Even if it's true, is that anydifferent from what you can see
in certain part of Chicago or any major city's black neighborhood.

> Europe is poor and backward relative to the US. �The way
> things are going, at best it will be poorer and more
> backward in another fifty years. �At worst it will be on
> fire in a decade or two, attacked from within or
> without. �The worst is always more likely than you
> think. �Weakness is provocative. �Appeasement is
> provocative. �Danegeld is provocative. People always
> under estimate the probability of events that they have
> not experienced in their lifetime, and thus nations tend
> to repeat past mistakes at intervals of eighty years or
> so. �The problem with the treaty of versailles was not
> imposing harsh terms, but imposing harsh terms and then
> retreating from them in the face of threats.

You are getting way ahead of yourself. You need to get a certain
historical perspective. I'm sure Europeans and Russians used to say
the same thing about America when racial violence exploded in the
past.

> --
> � ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/� � �James A. Donald

eatfastnoodle

06-14-2008, 05:45 AM

On Jun 14, 9:59�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
> > My prediction: China and India first and second, then
> > the US, then the EU. South American countries will be
> > nowhere
>
> Only if India continues with the reforms. �It is
> wobbling, and shows strong symptoms of Argentinean style
> collapse.
>
> The reforms were not really a political decision, more a
> collapse of the planning system. �They remain unpopular
> with the elite and the voters, despite, or rather
> because of, their tremendous economic success. �The
> reforms are making people affluent who are not supposed
> to be affluent, and there is a growing demand that those
> people be put down - that relative wealth should reflect
> the proper relative status, analogous the distaste of
> American intellectuals for the bourgeoisie.

That's too broad a statement. What India should do is to fix their
flawed democracy. The government needs to make hard decisions, to fix
the broken infrastructure and to really expand education. Software and
service along can't lift a nation out of poverty. They need to first
industrialize, then they can go forward to do whatever they need to
do. They are getting ahead of themselves. (I don't understand why they
are talking about going to moon or even to Mars before they can even
send a human to space. Seriously, things need to be done one step a
time).

> > It isn't US English now, but I agree it won't be
> > current English. I expect the international English to
> > have even more loan words from other European
> > languages: mostly West European, i.e. German, Spanish
> > and to a lesser extent Italian and French
>
> This depends on the cultural influence of Europe. I
> don't see any European cultural influence.
>
> I hear some new words coming from Japan. �What new words
> have come from Europe lately?
You didn't try hard enough, and the world is larger than you thought.

> Everyone watches American movies, plus some Hong Kong
> and Japanese stuff, and a little bit of Indian stuff. �I
> am seeing Japanese loanwords carried into circulation by
> the popularity of anime, and Hong Kong/Chinese
> pronunciations carried into circulation by trade with
> asia and asian actors and music.

French movies are quite popular in Asia, and don't forget "American
culture" is just another name for European culture taken to North
America by immigrants. Sure, some innovations happen during the past
200 years, but the very foundation of American culture is still
European. And don't forget, if you ask a girl where she wants to go, I
suspect the top ten answers will have at least more than half European
cities. That's real cultural attraction.

> --
> � ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/� � �James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 05:57 AM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:15:56 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
> European countries didn't invest any where near America did in the
> military because they don't have the strategical need for a global
> reaching military. That can change. As for military humiliation, I'm
> the one who think Vietnam and current Iraq can be categorized as
> military humiliation.

Vietnam was indeed humiliation, but the US is winning in Iraq (having
wisely redefined "winning" from successfully nation building a stable
democracy to successfully slaughtering al Quaeda, shattering the
ability of our enemies to do us harm.)

America is, however, now losing in Afghanistan, due to the fact that
our "ally in the war in terror" Pakistan is attacking US forces in
Afghanistan, and the US is reluctant to attack Pakistani forces in
Pakistan - which patience, however, has its limits. America will
surely lose in Afghanistan if it is reluctant to inflict sufficient
harm on Pakistan to deter them. Bush would probably be willing - US
forces recently blew up twelve Pakistani soldiers as a gentle warning,
but he will not be in charge for much longer, and Pakistan's present
conduct is probably intended as a test of his successor. Iran is
preparing a similar test, but is less enthusiastic about starting the
test under Bush. As you should recall, they tried it on Britain with
wonderfully satisfactory results. The British groveled nicely. Iran
has not yet attempted the same against the US, but will probably try
it on the next president. repeat performance of what Britain got.

> You may have different opinion. As for "French
> loss of control of Muslim area in France", I don't know where you got
> that story

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/429
"Three years ago, a French friend who had his car stolen
learned that the thieves had parked the car in a particular suburb.
When he went to the police he was told that the police did not operate
in that neighborhood and consequently would not be able to retrieve
his car."

“There’s a civil war underway,” one officer declared. “We can
no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither
have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for
street fighting.”

> I have never seen anything like that in any mainstream
> media. Even if it's true, is that anydifferent from what you can see
> in certain part of Chicago or any major city's black neighborhood.

For a time East Pal o Alto was the most violent black ghetto in
America. Police and firemen could, and did, travel through it without
problems.

> You are getting way ahead of yourself. You need to get a certain
> historical perspective. I'm sure Europeans and Russians used to say
> the same thing about America when racial violence exploded in the
> past.

Recall that in the most recent black riots, Europeans were shocked to
read of how when they attempted to set fire to korean neighborhoods,
they were shot. Americans did not look weak in recent black riots.
Europeans looked weak in recent Muslim riots.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 06:28 AM

eatfastnoodle
> As for "French
> loss of control of Muslim area in France", I don't know where you got
> that story, I have never seen anything like that in any mainstream
> media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1530659/Muslims-are-waging-civil-war-against-us%2C-claims-police-union.html

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical
Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an
intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or
three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying
into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 06:47 AM

eatfastnoodle
> What India should do is to fix their
> flawed democracy. The government needs to make hard decisions, to fix
> the broken infrastructure and to really expand education. Software and
> service along can't lift a nation out of poverty. They need to first
> industrialize, then they can go forward to do whatever they need to
> do.

They tried that sort of stuff. Did not work. What they are doing
now, is working. If they stick with what they are doing now, they
will be first world soon enough.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Bernard Peek

06-14-2008, 08:06 AM

In message <4852fa22$0$96659$804603d3@auth.newsreader.iphouse. com>, Dan
Goodman <dsgood@iphouse.com> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>> In message <4851a2b8$0$14942$804603d3@auth.newsreader.iphouse. com>,
>> Dan Goodman <dsgood@iphouse.com> writes
>> > As I see it:
>> >
>> > The US's relative strength (economic, political, industrial, etc.)
>> > has been declining perhaps since WW II (as other countries rebuilt)
>> > and certainly since some time in the 1960s.
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> > The US stopped being a superpower when the Soviet Union collapsed;
>> > there can't be a lone superpower.
>>
>> I don't think I agree with this. Why shouldn't there be a lone
>> superpower?
>
>In practice, there hasn't been.

On thinking about it further you may have a point. Superpowers are
unlikely to evolve except in response to competition from another power
of comparable size. They have to be roughly equal or one would swallow
the other. But if one implodes then the other could remain a superpower
provided its people agreed to continue funding a high level of military
expenditure in the absence of a credible external threat.

>
>As to my theories: I think a superpower system requires that various
>weaker countries have to either choose which they'll side with or
>announce their neutrality.
>
>> > Fifty years from now, the US may still be a major power on Earth
>> > and in space. But it will be behind China and the EU. Quite
>> > likely behind India and Brazil. Possibly also behind Argentina,
>> > Korea (which will have reunified), and Japan.
>>
>> I think the ranking is more likely to be; China, EU, India, US as the
>> superpowers followed by a number of others jockeying for position. I
>> think Japan is going to be another one of the losers. You missed out
>> South Africa which may be one of those second-rank countries.
>
>Might, but it has a long way to go.
>
>> In another 50 years after that the South African and Southern
>> American states will either be major powers or smoking ruins.
>>
>> > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
>> > won't be US English.
>> >
>> That's going to depend on some decisions yet to be made. China may
>> see the benefits that India has gained from having a large
>> English-speaking population. If China decides it wants a slice of the
>> action it might train its own people to undercut the Indian
>> call-centres and software industry. That would lead to English taking
>> over inside China. For political reasons I think that China would
>> elect to adopt BBC English, but with American spelling.
>
>I think a large part of the reason English has its current status in
>India is that it's not possible to replace it internally with another
>language. There are Hindispeakers who would like to see Hindi
>completely replace English; but oddly enough, native speakers of other
>languages object.

That's not a situation unique to India. Within Europe we have
competition between English and French. China has multiple spoken
languages too. AIUI Mandarin is the most common one in the parts of
China that have had lots of dealings with the rest of the world.

English is so successful in India for historical reasons. Although
different areas all had their own language everyone had to have some
English to communicate with the imperial power. That's precisely the
same reason why English became the dominant language in North America.
For India it was a heaven-sent opportunity to trade with both the old
and new empires, both of which spoke the same language.

--
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author.

David Friedman

06-14-2008, 12:52 PM

In article
<2f7c8123-9aaf-48db-a046-d3d87d59afd8@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
eatfastnoodle <d12s34f56@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 9:59�am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
> > > My prediction: China and India first and second, then
> > > the US, then the EU. South American countries will be
> > > nowhere
> >
> > Only if India continues with the reforms. �It is
> > wobbling, and shows strong symptoms of Argentinean style
> > collapse.
> >
> > The reforms were not really a political decision, more a
> > collapse of the planning system. �They remain unpopular
> > with the elite and the voters, despite, or rather
> > because of, their tremendous economic success. �The
> > reforms are making people affluent who are not supposed
> > to be affluent, and there is a growing demand that those
> > people be put down - that relative wealth should reflect
> > the proper relative status, analogous the distaste of
> > American intellectuals for the bourgeoisie.
>
> That's too broad a statement. What India should do is to fix their
> flawed democracy. The government needs to make hard decisions, to fix
> the broken infrastructure and to really expand education. Software and
> service along can't lift a nation out of poverty. They need to first
> industrialize, then they can go forward to do whatever they need to
> do.

It seems to me that you are providing a little bit of evidence in favor
of James' thesis. The planning system was built on the idea that what
India needed to do was first to industrialize, following the supposed
model of the Soviet Union--hence all the five year plans, the attempt to
create an auto industry by very high trade barriers against the import
of foreign autos, and the like. Your post shows the existence of at
least one person still making that mistake.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

Kevin Cherkauer

06-14-2008, 12:52 PM

From the premise that the world shall be getting larger again as air travel
declines, I would expect there to eventually be increasing, rather than
decreasing, fragmentation of language use, although as long as there is
still significant global business involving various forms of telecomm,
English or some other already well-positioned language will remain the
language of business. But the people in large countries will more and more
speak different languages. In most large countries (e.g. India, where Hindi
is far from the "national" language) there are already numerous languages
fragmenting the landscape.

Whenever people are not frequently talking to each other over a wide area,
languages start to diverge. Even in a hundred years new dialects will spawn,
and over time they will eventually become mutually unintelligible. Once we
can't trade over long distances easily, there will be less need to conduct
business via telecomm over these distances, thus even though telecomm will
still exist, its ability to keep languages from diverging regionally will
decrease with time.

Utopia in Decay
http://home.comcast.net/~kevin.cherkauer/site/

Kevin Cherkauer

"Jonathan L Cunningham" <spam@sofluc.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:1iih3l9.10z4llflw0bquN%spam@sofluc.co.uk.inva lid...
> eatfastnoodle <d12s34f56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 6:27 am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > English will still be the leading international language -- but it
> > > won't be US English.
> >
> > If US stopped being the top dog, English will stop being the
> > international language.
>
> Too late for that, I think. With both India and the EU using English as
> well, and the Chinese all learning it too, we've passed a tipping point.
>
> What *other* language could take its place? The only two credible
> candidates are, I think, Spanish or Mandarin . If the USA adopts
> Spanish as its official language, that would give Spanish a boost -
> otherwise, you are talking about Mexico and South America (and Brazil
> speaks Portuguese anyway).
>
> The Chinese will use Chinese internally, but what will they use to trade
> with India, other Asian countries, Australia, North America, Europe?
>
> Jonathan
> I'd include Arabic as an outsider, too, for religious rather than
> economic reasons.

David Friedman

06-14-2008, 01:02 PM

In article <DRNwdXDnplUIFwLq@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com>
wrote:

> In message <gpe354pnn2sm3grt8aahog1ljjgumrh86o@4ax.com>, James A. Donald
> <jamesd@echeque.com> writes
>
>
> >Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
> >and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
> >been from its formation.
>
> The EU economy is currently stronger than the US and is growing while
> the US is past the peak of its economic power. Growth in the EU is being
> limited by the need to invest in the new territories, and that is
> soaking up the increased productivity of East Germany. In turn Poland
> and Czech will fund the development of newer territories. Who knows
> where it will stop?

Checking Wikipedia, % GDP growth for the European Union, 2004-2007, was
2.4,1.8,2.8,2.4

The figures I found for percent change in real GDP for the U.S. for
those years were: 3.6, 3.1, 2.9, 2.2

That was from data at the Wikipedia link for "Bureau of Economic
Analysis."

What's the basis for your assertion?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman

06-14-2008, 01:19 PM

In article
<0680dc59-7d54-49eb-b7d2-953830bdfe95@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
eatfastnoodle <d12s34f56@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think any country can be a great power without first being
> physically big, certainly not in the long run.
>

England was not a great power? Earlier Holland? Going back a lot
further, and in a smaller context, Athens?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman

06-14-2008, 01:30 PM

In article <o9mdnUI3rNrba87VnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Kevin Cherkauer" <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:

> From the premise that the world shall be getting larger again as air travel
> declines, I would expect there to eventually be increasing, rather than
> decreasing, fragmentation of language use, although as long as there is
> still significant global business involving various forms of telecomm,
> English or some other already well-positioned language will remain the
> language of business.

Even if air travel declines--I'm not sure it will in the long
term--online interactions will continue to grow. What matters for
language isn't where you are but who you are conversing with.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

William Black

06-14-2008, 04:09 PM

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:gpe354pnn2sm3grt8aahog1ljjgumrh86o@4ax.com...

In a few decades it is likely
> we will see political collapse as armed groups with
> radically un european institutions take over large
> areas, as is already happening in France and beginning
> to happen in Britain.

Erm...

Where?

I haven't noticed any 'armed groups' in the UK recently.

And even the IRA didn't actually try to take over any areas after they got
thrashed in MOTORMAN in 1972.

Europe has already lost control
> of some parts of Europe, and is losing control of a lot
> more of Europe.

Which bits?

On the fringes of Europe, various hostile
> groups believe that only the power of the US stops them,
> or bad people that they fear, from doing as they please.
> "Europe can't stop anything" they say. I

Who exactly are we talking about here?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black

06-14-2008, 04:17 PM

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:rh8654pc34euioqihf3e45dgk64k0vtev9@4ax.com...
> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>> My prediction: China and India first and second, then
>> the US, then the EU. South American countries will be
>> nowhere
>
> Only if India continues with the reforms. It is
> wobbling, and shows strong symptoms of Argentinean style
> collapse.
>
> The reforms were not really a political decision, more a
> collapse of the planning system. They remain unpopular
> with the elite and the voters, despite, or rather
> because of, their tremendous economic success. The
> reforms are making people affluent who are not supposed
> to be affluent, and there is a growing demand that those
> people be put down - that relative wealth should reflect
> the proper relative status, analogous the distaste of
> American intellectuals for the bourgeoisie.

Well no.

You're about a decade out of date now.

The expansion of the 'dalit' middle class because of the quota system
imposed on the Indian university system and on the Civil Service recruitment
process many years ago has changed the economic position of the
'untouchable' group to an extent that is almost unbelievable.

In today's India this usually isn't even considered a matter worth
commenting on by anyone but the old.

The problem is the system of government not being connected with the
administrative system in any meaingfull way.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black

06-14-2008, 04:20 PM

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:f7875497o06m4mil5ts79cirtji67957k9@4ax.com...
> eatfastnoodle
>> What India should do is to fix their
>> flawed democracy. The government needs to make hard decisions, to fix
>> the broken infrastructure and to really expand education. Software and
>> service along can't lift a nation out of poverty. They need to first
>> industrialize, then they can go forward to do whatever they need to
>> do.
>
> They tried that sort of stuff. Did not work.
Well, yes it is.

The industrialisation using the 'Special Economic Zones' is changing the
face of India at a hell of a rate.

Earlier in this year I was in Gujarat and the =rate of industrialisation is
incredible.

The problem is the westerners tend to see the tourist areas (and the
environs of Bombay) where the industrial expansion isn't happening.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black

06-14-2008, 04:23 PM

"eatfastnoodle" <d12s34f56@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e5b6b54-8a87-4b79-b665-019538e9dbed@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

.. As for India, only elite speaks English, most people still
speak their local language.

---------------------------

Not any more.

The government had finally managed to get just about all children into
school from age 5 to 11

English is taught from age 5.

English is the 'second' national language and the courts and most major
government institutions use it in preference to Hindi, which is seen by
'South Indians' as a form of cultural imperialism by the Delhi elite.

Just about everyone in India speaks some English.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 04:41 PM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:02:44 -0700, <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> In article <DRNwdXDnplUIFwLq@shrdlu.com>, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In message <gpe354pnn2sm3grt8aahog1ljjgumrh86o@4ax.com>, James A. Donald
> > <jamesd@echeque.com> writes
> >
> >
> > >Behind China, most likely, but the EU is economically
> > >and militarily declining relative to the US, and has
> > >been from its formation.
> >
> > The EU economy is currently stronger than the US and is growing while
> > the US is past the peak of its economic power. Growth in the EU is being
> > limited by the need to invest in the new territories, and that is
> > soaking up the increased productivity of East Germany. In turn Poland
> > and Czech will fund the development of newer territories. Who knows
> > where it will stop?

David Friedman
> Checking Wikipedia, % GDP growth for the European Union, 2004-2007, was
> 2.4,1.8,2.8,2.4
>
> The figures I found for percent change in real GDP for the U.S. for
> those years were: 3.6, 3.1, 2.9, 2.2

The figures are close enough that if someone chooses their figures the
right way, they will get the result they want.

Of course one of the reasons the figures are similar, is that America
and European policies are not so very different - the level of
socialism differs only in small degree.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has resulted in a rising tide of
support for socialism, as the horrifying example of the economic and
political consequences of socialism are no longer around.

This, the need for diverse programs to reveal what works, was an issue
in the recent Irish referendum - that "harmonization" would mean that
stinking policies could be imposed, and no one would be able to tell
that they stank. Instead, as in the 1920s and 1930s, polticians would
say, and quite likely believe, that all the problems were occurring
because these wonderful humane and caring policies were not being
imposed with sufficient vigor. The "no" campaign was conducted at an
extraordinarily high intellectual level, while the "yes" campaign was
directed at complete morons, yet the intellectuals voted yes and the
working class voted no. Perhaps the intellectuals are in some sense
complete morons.

Maybe it was because the "no" campaigners were successful in reducing
complex ideas into simple soundbites and striking images. Instead of
saying "governance has diseconomies of scale" they showed the three
monkeys with the caption "They don't see you, they don't hear you,
they don't speak for you" - but the working class voter still has to
understand the idea behind the striking image.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 04:58 PM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:09:48 +0100, "William Black"
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I haven't noticed any 'armed groups' in the UK recently.

I have noticed hilarious videos on you tube of british police
retreating before Muslims. I am sure the Jihadis laughed even more
than I did. I cannot give you the link because the videos I had
linked to have gone down, though I expect they have been replaced by
others.

I have noticed that officers of the state such as firemen are attacked
it they enter certain "disadvantaged communities" in Britain and have
no expectation that these attacks will be punished, and are therefore
refusing to enter some these areas without a police escort - though to
judge by the you tube videos, the police escort may merely give them
time to flee.

The British news is extremely coy in identifying these areas, though
in videos taken form the other side, they cheerfully tell you who they
are.

> > Europe has already lost control
> > of some parts of Europe, and is losing control of a lot
> > more of Europe.

> Which bits?

Muslim areas in France.

> > On the fringes of Europe, various hostile
> > groups believe that only the power of the US stops them,
> > or bad people that they fear, from doing as they please.
> > "Europe can't stop anything" they say.

> Who exactly are we talking about here?

<http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/06/a-dark-corner-o.php>

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 05:03 PM

eatfastnoodle
> >> What India should do is to fix their flawed
> >> democracy. The government needs to make hard
> >> decisions, to fix the broken infrastructure and to
> >> really expand education. Software and service along
> >> can't lift a nation out of poverty. They need to
> >> first industrialize, then they can go forward to do
> >> whatever they need to do.

James A. Donald:
> > They tried that sort of stuff. Did not work.

"William Black"
> The industrialisation using the 'Special Economic
> Zones' is changing the face of India at a hell of a
> rate.
>
> Earlier in this year I was in Gujarat and the =rate of
> industrialisation is incredible.

But this is the result of the collapse and abandonment
of the state policy of state led and planned
industrialization, not a result of that policy.
"Special economic zones" are special in that the state
has retreated further in those areas, not in that the
state has intervened in support of those areas.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 05:18 PM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:17:51 +0100, "William Black"
> You're about a decade out of date now.
>
> The expansion of the 'dalit' middle class because of
> the quota system imposed on the Indian university
> system and on the Civil Service recruitment process
> many years ago has changed the economic position of
> the 'untouchable' group to an extent that is almost
> unbelievable.
>
> In today's India this usually isn't even considered a
> matter worth commenting on by anyone but the old.

Dalits who get in by quota under the supervision of
their betters are not a threat. Dalits who make money
in the new economy on their own ability are a threat.
The big threat, however, is not dalits, but the next few
ranks up, who are now treading on the toes of the
supposedly superior top people. The top people are
perfectly comfortable to elevate Dalits over the
next to bottom ranks. It is when the some of the next
to bottom ranks start elevating themselves over the
better and superior people that they throw a snit.
Similarly in America, you see the old money going
Democrat and academic, and the new money going business
and republican.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Helen Hall

06-14-2008, 05:23 PM

In message <ae7654tbumj7vqrdnsno6orateklkpa6np@4ax.com>, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> writes
>
>Observe the humiliation of European military forces in
>the states of the former Yugoslavia, British humiliation
>in Iraq, French loss of control of Muslim areas in
>france, and the beginnings of the same in Britain.
>
Oh, dear. You've been believing the alarmist headlines in the press
again, haven't you? We have not lost control of Muslim areas in the UK,
neither are we about to do so. The French haven't lost control either.
The problems in the late 80s with gang fights between Asian and white
youths were more about class and tribal rivalries than religion.
Besides, the US is in no position to lecture anyone about this when
there are areas of US cities that are more dangerous than anywhere in
Europe.

>Europe is poor and backward relative to the US.

Er, right... Would you like to expand on this and give some instances
about how we're poor and deprived and backward? I've visited the States
and even though I live in a rural area in the UK, I wasn't left with any
feeling that you were ahead of us in any respect.

>The way
>things are going, at best it will be poorer and more
>backward in another fifty years. At worst it will be on
>fire in a decade or two, attacked from within or
>without.

Attacked by whom?

Have you ever visited the UK or the rest of Europe? Perhaps if you
actually came over here and saw what life was really like it might stop
you believing the exaggerated reports you seem to be relying on for your
information.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 05:28 PM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:52:34 -0700, "Kevin Cherkauer"
<aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:

> From the premise that the world shall be getting
> larger again as air travel declines, I would expect
> there to eventually be increasing, rather than
> decreasing, fragmentation of language use, although as
> long as there is still significant global business
> involving various forms of telecomm, English or some
> other already well-positioned language will remain the
> language of business. But the people in large
> countries will more and more speak different
> languages. In most large countries (e.g. India, where
> Hindi is far from the "national" language) there are
> already numerous languages fragmenting the landscape.

The rising cost of oil is not going to stop people
watching American movies, which is why American movie
makers tend to have their stars speak in a synthetic
global accent - which I suppose is these days becoming
less synthetic, and more of an actual and natural global
accent.

US cultural dominance is, if anything, increasing -
certainly increasing relative to Europe, though asian
influence is increasing rapidly relative to the US, and
will probably increase a great deal further as asians
become richer, and focus more on cultural creation.

Compare today's British comedies, with those of a few
decades back. All the great ones, the ones that have
substantial and lasting influence, are *old*, and
showing their age.

> Once we can't trade over long distances easily, there
> will be less need to conduct business via telecomm
> over these distances

Designs are still going to be globally created.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald

06-14-2008, 05:43 PM

Bernard Peek wrote:
> Superpowers are
> unlikely to evolve except in response to competition from another power
> of comparable size. They have to be roughly equal or one would swallow
> the other. But if one implodes then the other could remain a superpower
> provided its people agreed to continue funding a high level of military
> expenditure in the absence of a credible external threat.

Dar al Islam is pretty credible - as shown by the EU policy of
appeasement, and the payment of substantial tribute.

Suppose, as seems likely, Iran gets nukes capable of reaching Paris.
They are unlikely to be troubled by a credible threat of nuclear
reprisal, and the French will be unable to make such a threat
credible.

Just as mass conscription and the ability and willingness to
completely use up conscripts, to send conscript hordes to the front
with the expectation and intention that none of them would return,
gave the communists a great advantage in conventional warfare during
the earlier part of the twentieth century, today, in an age where
weapons are enormously destructive and defense impossible, willingness
to die gives religious movements an enormous military advantage.

> That's not a situation unique to India. Within Europe we have
> competition between English and French.

Not so much competition, as that the French have lost and are
reluctant to admit it.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Graham Woodland

06-14-2008, 06:09 PM

James A. Donald wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:09:48 +0100, "William Black"
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> I haven't noticed any 'armed groups' in the UK recently.
>
> I have noticed hilarious videos on you tube of british police
> retreating before Muslims. I am sure the Jihadis laughed even more
> than I did. I cannot give you the link because the videos I had
> linked to have gone down, though I expect they have been replaced by
> others.
>

I have heard unashamed reports, confirmed by police and
self-righteously justified, of the cops retreating for *days*
before a few-score drunken suburban ravers who have invaded and
trashed somebody else's property because they felt like it.
"What do you expect us to do about it?" is an actual, though
second-hand and anecdotal, quote. On some other occasions --
calls to loudly advertised, purely private murders have not been
responded to, because the police 'had nobody available'.
Curiously enough, there are always scads of heavily-armed
officers available in case of really serious terrorist action,
like honouring the names of dead British soldiers at the Cenotaph
without at all intending to honour the Government.

Likewise, the Police Federation gleefully admits that its
officers are 'forced' to trump up stupid technical crimes, like
charging small children for building snowmen on the pavement,
because trumped-up charges against harmless people under
catch-all laws are an efficient way of meeting Government arrest
and conviction targets with minimal risk and unpleasantness.

There is some reaction against this even as we speak, and the
Government is already pretending that it was somewhere else at
the time, and in any case it was two other guys.

There are plenty of troublemakers besides militant Islamists who
benefit from this black farce, and there are plenty of militant
Islamists in British jails.

What is rewarded is not merely the specific set of bad behaviours
common to flaky theo-thugs, but bad behaviour in general.

The present Government has a characteristic pattern of operation:
randomly opportunist, typically incompetent, as yet relatively
mild repression, which comes down on whichever side is convenient
this week -- with a bedrock of real viciousness whenever it sees
its own power or the growth of same under threat. To put it
plainer: it is both a bully and a coward, no rare condition for a
promotion-based ruling clique. This sometimes yields local
results similar to what you suggest. None of the other groups
who benefit from this now and then -- the militantly anti-Muslim
neo-Nazis have been one, and in the early nineties they got away
with more brazen rough stuff than I've ever seen anyone else
manage -- are going to take over, either.

If the Westminster oligarchy ever thinks itself *really* under
threat, and has any appreciable sympathy left amongst the wider
population, there will be a sudden break from desultory
incompetence to murderous mustelid rabies, and the small militant
percentage of the [X]-ist minority will be briefly very unhappy
indeed -- as will, I fear, large numbers of other [X]-ists, who
may have more compelling reasons than anybody to despise the
militants in any case, but will gain small mercy thereby. Do you
really imagine the British system has been so stable for so long
because we are all such extremely nice people?

[X] as truly international or truly parochial ideology --
communism or fascism, for instance -- might *just* manage the
trick under sufficiently desperate circumstances, with a
sufficiently long lead-in. Such things have happened elsewhere,
that's how I know. [X] as specific enthusiasm of small and
highly visible immigrant minority, that couldn't muster five
percent of the population even if the militants' most deadly
enemies were counted amongst their numbers? Like, let us say,
'Islam', as if that were a unified force in the first place?

With the corner up it will, laddie!

If we ever *did* degenerate that far, which is ridiculous, then
locally much larger groups of thugs would immediately kick said
minority's arses, as well as mine and my family's and many
others' who would make their bovver boots itch. You might also
want to consider some basic strategic issues, like the
distributions of ethnic origins and political sympathies amongst
the armed forces and the security services, in this context.

There are other bad effects of the general debauching of the rule
of law which are *far* better placed to screw us over than the
Caliph of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land will ever be in my lifetime! Please
excuse me if I worry about them first, since I live in an area
with a very considerable Muslim population indeed, no few of whom
are tolerably big donkeys, at that; and almost all the present
**** on my and my neighbours' doorsteps appears to emanate from
arseholes of a profoundly ecumenical nature.

But that is boring, and in no wise an approved news story by
almost any measure. So, not living here, you don't see it. And
won't.

Lucky old you!

--
Cheers,

Gray

---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.