This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- University applications questions
- LSE or King’s
- Our Distance Learning MBA ranked best in the world for value for money & net zero!
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- Study an MBA at Bradford | Thread
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- A Level AQA History Help
- A level chemistry HELP
- Cournot Calculation help!
- The sickly seaside town that turned its back on work
- Cambridge Masters - Land Economy
- angbrads's Laptop recommendation thread
- Economics degree without Economics or Further Maths A-levels?
- Seeking Guidance from a fellow college Alum!
- IB Law Subjects
- Land Economy Cambridge
- Economics B alevel (edexcel) pre release
- University of York - which college? 2018/19
- Too risky uni choices?
- Choose my future for me please
Top 10 economies in 2050
Scroll to see replies
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
Which would also devastate the USA, and then the rest of the world.
Never heard the term?
Never heard the term?
You said it yourself. It would be globally devastating. That's why economic wars no longer happen.
Perhaps I might, you can see where I'm coming from right?
I do mate, but that doesn't mean i consider it a plausible suggestion
I really don't pay attention to India so wouldn't have an idea what these companies are, however to my knowledge, the Pakistani - Indian rivalry can only be matched by that of the Arab - Jewish tensions, and I can't say it's looking good.
Naw, it's cooled down immensely. The latest Kashmiri elections showed that there was minimal support for the pro Pakistan movement, and i think assuming America sees sense vis a vis Pakistan and India and stops funding Pakistan, the world's #1 sponsor of terrorism will either have the choice of sticking with China which it has no common history, people, culture with just to support its status as a client state that exists to support its military, or to realign its foreign policy goals along with what makes the most sense and is best for it in the medium and long terms.
Well, China's 1 party government hasn't been all that bad, it has indeed industrialised China and put it on the world map, and thanks to it will make it a superpower, something no one would've even thought of prior to WWII.
The problem with China is that it's capitalist market, which emphasizes personal progress and success, is diametrically opposed to its government structure, which is top down non consensual authoritarianism. The two will clash sooner or later unless the "Communists" implement reform, regardless of the economic successes of the past.
This rant about India becoming more powerful than China, does it have anything to do with you being Indian by any chance? I'm all for patriotism, but you're taking the biscuit.
It's hardly a rant
Historically, countries with the highest populations and most ideal geographic locations have done well economically for their times(Germany, Britain, France, Spain, the US, China, India even, all when they were relatively highly populated).TheNorth
What I want to know is what Germany does between 2025 and 2050 for it's economy to skydive?
Emerging nations, overtake it, Germany isn't doing anything wrong, it's simply not big enough. To take on the likes of Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and Russia. Which are all bigger and more populated.
Lent
Well I don't know much about Indian society, but the question is this: does mainstream India aspire to democracy, tolerance and civil liberties? The way I see it, as long as a given society aspires to these ideals, it doesn't matter what language they speak, how they dress or what they eat and drink, they are Western.
Absolutely! Tolerance is part of the core of Hinduism
Civil liberties will come with the economic growth and liberalism that develops out of it, i imagine, but even today's India is a very liberal place compared to a lot of the third world (much much more liberal than China, certainly).
Democracy is a relatively new ideal, but yes, it is firmly rooted in India.
Lefty Leo
two times China's population
oh really...?
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
Yes, just like Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, Australia and New Zealand.
This is absurd! How can you possibly say that Pakistan is a Western country? When non-Muslims, gay people and women are not discriminated at a legal and societal level in Pakistan, you can have another go at arguing that Pakistan is a Western country.
Let's separate the countries you have listed. Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Israel, are, without a doubt, Western countries. This is because they share a common culture with the Western world: most people in Australia, Israel and New Zealand are of European descent. Furthermore, most people in these countries aspire to Western ideals eg democracy, human rights, tolerance and the Rule of Law.
I would argue that Japan and South Korea are semi-Western countries. They are (sort of) democratic, but they differ from the rest of the Western world when it comes to historical, ethnic and cultural ties. Just as an example, there's a deference to authority in Japan and South Korea that simply does not exist in the Western world proper.
EnthusiasticEntusiast
India being the world's biggest democracy and being allied with.
I guess it's debatable.
Lefty Leo
You said it yourself. It would be globally devastating. That's why economic wars no longer happen.
It would be, but there are several ways of waging economic wars, some hurt less than others. Oh and economic wars will be a thing of the future, they'll simply replace the nuclear threat with someone arguably worse.
The problem with China is that it's capitalist market, which emphasizes personal progress and success, is diametrically opposed to its government structure, which is top down non consensual authoritarianism. The two will clash sooner or later unless the "Communists" implement reform, regardless of the economic successes of the past.
I still don't see why they would have to clash sooner or later, furthermore don't you think the Chinese elite have thought of something?
It's hardly a rant Historically, countries with the highest populations and most ideal geographic locations have done well economically for their times(Germany, Britain, France, Spain, the US, China, India even, all when they were relatively highly populated).
Historically, countries with the highest populations and most ideal geographic locations have done well economically for their times(Germany, Britain, France, Spain, the US, China, India even, all when they were relatively highly populated).I agree, but that's hardly an argument against the millions of economists around the world who say that China will be numero uno in 2050.
IAmCroissant
oh really...?
Yeppers; China's population will start declining around 2020 i think? and be at about 1 billion or something like that by 2050.
Let me show you a demographic chart:
The one child policy has, effectively, halved each chinese generation .. so assuming it is continued effectively for the foreseeable future, the chinese population willl effectively half every 70-100 years.
Ofcourse it won't, they'll stop it soon (or should
) if they want to maintain their country. But if they don't China could be in dire straits 
Compare that to India's:
Notice the numbers; the final Chinese cohorts are significantly lesser than the Indian cohorts (assuming the numbers denote millions). But yeah, the "twice the population" estimate was a huge overestimation, i retract it
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
It would be, but there are several ways of waging economic wars, some hurt less than others. Oh and economic wars will be a thing of the future, they'll simply replace the nuclear threat with someone arguably worse.
Perhaps, but i think it would be monumentally stupid to wage any kind of economic war today.
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
I still don't see why they would have to clash sooner or later, furthermore don't you think the Chinese elite have thought of something?
Because they are diametrically opposed ideologies existing in one country; capitalistic living and earning but not consensual government.I agree, but that's hardly an argument against the millions of economists around the world who say that China will be numero uno in 2050.
Never doubted China will be #1
Just think it won't be there for very long, or that India will still be behind the US in 2050 
Lent
This is absurd! How can you possibly say that Pakistan is a Western country? When non-Muslims, gay people and women are not discriminated at a legal and societal level in Pakistan, you can have another go at arguing that Pakistan is a Western country.
Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
I would argue that Japan and South Korea are semi-Western countries. They are (sort of) democratic, but they differ from the rest of the Western world when it comes to historical, ethnic and cultural ties. Just as an example, there's a deference to authority in Japan and South Korea that simply does not exist in the Western world proper.
Japan and South Korea are both fully democratic countries, they do not differ from other western countries, Seoul and Tokyo aren't that different than London, Paris and Frankfurt.
Culture has nothing to do with being a westernised country.
TheNorth
What I want to know is what Germany does between 2025 and 2050 for it's economy to skydive?
Because its population is set to nosedive.
Put it this way, today its population is ~20 million more than France and the UK - according to the European Commission, by 2060 both of these countries will have overtaken it. In the next few decades, Germany's population is going to decrease at the same rate as France's and the UK's are increasing.
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally.
So what? That doesn't make Pakistan a Western country. The only Muslim-majority country that could remotely be described as Western is Turkey, and that's not really because Turkey is politically or militarily alligned with the Western world. The reason why many people regard Turkey as a Western country is because it's a pluralist, secular, liberal demoracy.
EnthusiasticEnthusiast
Culture has nothing to do with being a westernised country.
Of course it does, you silly boy!
Lent
So what? That doesn't make Pakistan a Western country. The only Muslim-majority country that could remotely be described as Western is Turkey, and that's not really because Turkey is politically or militarily alligned with the Western world. The reason why many people regard Turkey as a Western country is because it's a pluralist, secular, liberal demoracy.
Being a major non-NATO ally, does indeed speak for itself, you're thinking about two different types of Pakistan which are easilly confused.
The government which is 'western' and the Pakistan we see on the TV, run by Al-Qaeda. Do not confuse the two.
Of course it does, you silly boy!
Japan and South Korea haven't got much in common with the USA or Western Europe. Their history wasn't shared with the white man, however their politcal ideology,democracy, human rights permits them to be recognised as western countries, so culture has nothing to do with it(I'm talking about the culture that differentiates the likes of Britain and Spain, perhaps I should've used the word background instead as it can get confusing).
Well, I cannot see how Indonesia and Mexico are set to beat Japan or the UK.
Those two governments are reliant on natural resources; such countries tend to have poor distribution of wealth and thus lack the potential for growth to become a top 10 nation. Futhermore, the bureaucratic system in both countries are corrupt and ineffective.
Meanwhile Japan and the UK both are democracies. Noteworthy is that Japan just achieved its first government change; it took a long time -- 55 years -- but it means that there may be scope for sudden improvement and the possibility of a new dawn after a rather long sun set.
Next, I cannot see China surpassing the United States in the next 50 years. To use Japan as an example, people thought in the late 80s and early 90s that Japan might take over the US's position as a world leader. Today, that would sound very stupid. My point is that just because an economy is growing fast does not mean that it is sustainable for another 30-40 years.
Another reason against suggesting China being at the top is the lack of democracy. Democracy, as someone said earlier, brings about long term stability. Some argue, such as the NY times, that Japan was a one-party state because of one party ruling for 55 years. However, that was only because the public voted that way -- the Chinese do not have that right. When the Japanese finally got pissed off at the government, they voted for a different party. When the Chinese get pissed off (perhaps after economic growth slows or takes a bad turn), what will they do? Take it to the streets? Protest? May that lead to chaos? Unlike Japanese history where unification of Japan has been often maintained peacefully, Chinese history is full of rebellions, which to me suggests that it is a possibility for the future. We can only hope that the Communist Party re-thinks its one-party rule, but once it savours the taste of power, we can not be too hopeful.
Finally, I do not think Japan and S Korea are fully western countries, due to cultural and historical backgrounds. However, the idea of Western = democratic is rather old. Therefore, I think it would be more appropriate for the purposes of this forum to state whether a country is 'democratic' or not, rather than 'Western' or not.
Those two governments are reliant on natural resources; such countries tend to have poor distribution of wealth and thus lack the potential for growth to become a top 10 nation. Futhermore, the bureaucratic system in both countries are corrupt and ineffective.
Meanwhile Japan and the UK both are democracies. Noteworthy is that Japan just achieved its first government change; it took a long time -- 55 years -- but it means that there may be scope for sudden improvement and the possibility of a new dawn after a rather long sun set.
Next, I cannot see China surpassing the United States in the next 50 years. To use Japan as an example, people thought in the late 80s and early 90s that Japan might take over the US's position as a world leader. Today, that would sound very stupid. My point is that just because an economy is growing fast does not mean that it is sustainable for another 30-40 years.
Another reason against suggesting China being at the top is the lack of democracy. Democracy, as someone said earlier, brings about long term stability. Some argue, such as the NY times, that Japan was a one-party state because of one party ruling for 55 years. However, that was only because the public voted that way -- the Chinese do not have that right. When the Japanese finally got pissed off at the government, they voted for a different party. When the Chinese get pissed off (perhaps after economic growth slows or takes a bad turn), what will they do? Take it to the streets? Protest? May that lead to chaos? Unlike Japanese history where unification of Japan has been often maintained peacefully, Chinese history is full of rebellions, which to me suggests that it is a possibility for the future. We can only hope that the Communist Party re-thinks its one-party rule, but once it savours the taste of power, we can not be too hopeful.
Finally, I do not think Japan and S Korea are fully western countries, due to cultural and historical backgrounds. However, the idea of Western = democratic is rather old. Therefore, I think it would be more appropriate for the purposes of this forum to state whether a country is 'democratic' or not, rather than 'Western' or not.
Student2806
OP, you seem to be mixing GDP and GNP rankings there.
I found Goldman Sachs' The N-11: More Than an Acronym publication a while ago, providing projections for 2025 and 2050 GDP figures.
2025
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan
4. India
5. Germany
6. Russia
7. UK
8. France
9. Brazil
10. Italy
2050 (with very rough US$ trillion GDP figure)
1. China (70)
2. USA (~40)
3. India (~40)
4. Brazil (11)
5. Mexico (9)
6. Russia (8)
7. Indonesia (7)
8. Japan (6.5)
9. UK (5)
10. Germany (5)
I found Goldman Sachs' The N-11: More Than an Acronym publication a while ago, providing projections for 2025 and 2050 GDP figures.
2025
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan
4. India
5. Germany
6. Russia
7. UK
8. France
9. Brazil
10. Italy
2050 (with very rough US$ trillion GDP figure)
1. China (70)
2. USA (~40)
3. India (~40)
4. Brazil (11)
5. Mexico (9)
6. Russia (8)
7. Indonesia (7)
8. Japan (6.5)
9. UK (5)
10. Germany (5)
I realise those aren't your personal predictions
but still ... why on earth does it predict Indonesia overtaking Japan? I think that's a major mistake. And why are these figures so kind to the UK? France and Italy are currently level with the UK. Why would they largely fall over the next 40 years but the UK stay fairly strong? And why has the UK overtaken Germany? That's hardly very likely!Figures like this always predict too much for the growing economies. Indonesia, Mexico, India, Brazil ... all countries gaining wealth due to industry, but why should there be a call for that much industry when there isn't right now? The world in 40 years will be still massively service based, which plays to the US advantage. Out of the growing industry nations there is only room for one (or two) of them, China probably ... maybe India. Why is Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil going to be wealthy? What will they be able to do that China couldn't?
The world in 40 years time will still need banks, universities and building societies and whatever. Why do they predict the world as becoming suddenly mainly industrial again?
Craig_D
I realise those aren't your personal predictions but still ... why on earth does it predict Indonesia overtaking Japan? I think that's a major mistake. And why are these figures so kind to the UK? France and Italy are currently level with the UK. Why would they largely fall over the next 40 years but the UK stay fairly strong? And why has the UK overtaken Germany? That's hardly very likely!
Figures like this always predict too much for the growing economies. Indonesia, Mexico, India, Brazil ... all countries gaining wealth due to industry, but why should there be a call for that much industry when there isn't right now? The world in 40 years will be still massively service based, which plays to the US advantage. Out of the growing industry nations there is only room for one (or two) of them, China probably ... maybe India. Why is Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil going to be wealthy? What will they be able to do that China couldn't?
The world in 40 years time will still need banks, universities and building societies and whatever. Why do they predict the world as becoming suddenly mainly industrial again?
but still ... why on earth does it predict Indonesia overtaking Japan? I think that's a major mistake. And why are these figures so kind to the UK? France and Italy are currently level with the UK. Why would they largely fall over the next 40 years but the UK stay fairly strong? And why has the UK overtaken Germany? That's hardly very likely!Figures like this always predict too much for the growing economies. Indonesia, Mexico, India, Brazil ... all countries gaining wealth due to industry, but why should there be a call for that much industry when there isn't right now? The world in 40 years will be still massively service based, which plays to the US advantage. Out of the growing industry nations there is only room for one (or two) of them, China probably ... maybe India. Why is Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil going to be wealthy? What will they be able to do that China couldn't?
The world in 40 years time will still need banks, universities and building societies and whatever. Why do they predict the world as becoming suddenly mainly industrial again?
The UK will apparently have the highest population in Europe due to immigration, which is why I'm guessing we'll be doing so well.
As for the rest, i'm as puzzled as you are.
Related discussions
- University applications questions
- LSE or King’s
- Our Distance Learning MBA ranked best in the world for value for money & net zero!
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- Study an MBA at Bradford | Thread
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- A Level AQA History Help
- A level chemistry HELP
- Cournot Calculation help!
- The sickly seaside town that turned its back on work
- Cambridge Masters - Land Economy
- angbrads's Laptop recommendation thread
- Economics degree without Economics or Further Maths A-levels?
- Seeking Guidance from a fellow college Alum!
- IB Law Subjects
- Land Economy Cambridge
- Economics B alevel (edexcel) pre release
- University of York - which college? 2018/19
- Too risky uni choices?
- Choose my future for me please
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
