Our fading 'superpower'

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Wednesday, September 29, 2004 | Dan Simpson

[Cronos]

with half our debt obligations being owed to foreign creditors. in DOLLARS, printed by us.

[Cronos]

An antiquated banking system, an oppressive political system, and lack of investment in R&D don't bode well for China becoming a developed country.

Good points -- though I would call their banking system an almost non-existent ones, it seems like the banks are just around to prop up ailing state industries. Chinese people are vey innovative and entrepreneurial but the Communists don't want individuals to do well -- it could challenge the govt so they suppress the businessmen. That's why China has next to no home-grown multi-nationals -- it's largest factories are set up by outside companies. Contrast this with it's neighbour India which has quite a few in the global 1000. That's why I still say a democracy will win against a communist state in the long term

[Cronos]

12: Bush has a plan to reform the tax code and begin the dismantling of SS and Medicare in his 2nd term.
WG: Fat chance, the boob has already drasticly expanded Medicare.

do you MIND not talking about our President that way?

[Cronos]

Who made India a knowledge-power?

Quite simply it was the fact that India had an excess of engineering grads at a time when the supply in our market was low and the demand high. Many came over and became an integral part of OUR IT industries. Then, the companies realised that it woudl be cheaper to hire the Indians in their own country rather than hiring them here.

[Cronos]

China and India have been around much longer, but haven't done squat for their people. Their civilizations are very much "sprouts."

Well, actually, you're both correct AND incorrect -- from a civilisational point of view, China and India WERE oaks until the 1700s when they went into decline and remained in decline throughout the 1800s (their conquest by European powers was a symptom of that decline and to some extent also the cause). Now, civilisationally, they are far more surer than the US so could be called oaks in comparison to our sapling. However, economically they ARE sprouts compared to our oak

[Cronos]

I cut mortals to pieces with this sharp, deadly weapon.

Say, Loki, is that you masquerading under another name? ;-P

[Cronos]

Their standard of living does not and will never match ours

That's a blanket statement -- they do not currently match our standard of living. They may match it, but decades in the future, if at all. Of course, by 2100 Burkina Faso could be a first world nation for all we know -- prediction more than a decade in the future is pretty silly

[Willie Green]

do you MIND not talking about our President that way?

Why? Is he some kind of anointed deity or something?
Am I being blasphemous, mean-spirited or judgemental?
LOL! Here's a clue for you: In the good ol' US of A, I have the God-given inalienable right as a sovereign citizen to call the prez a "boob" if I want to. Despite the high office to which he was properly elected (not "selected" as some bozos claim), he is still just a humble public servent. And if in my good judgement his performance is that of a "boob", then I'll call him a "boob" if I want to.

[johnnycap]

"I would mostly guess that China and India -- the two big population centers will spend the next century bringing their entire huge populations to a decent standard of living. They won't be a threat."

-I do believe you are right, sir.