Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
dogbox

Brics - Apparently The West Is Doomed

Recommended Posts

The new super players, the 'BRICs' some say will simply replace Western business, leaving them richers and us a lot poorer. Even Seimens now has ALL its R & D capability located in China, so even the much fabled 'high end, value added' sectors are no longer safe.

What does this mean for us?

I personally think those espousing the above are being overly simplistic.

Surely Europe and America are'nt just going to become theme parks for the newly enriched 'BRICs' tourists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Seimens now has ALL its R & D capability located in China, so even the much fabled 'high end, value added' sectors are no longer safe.

Really, and there was me thinking they had research centres in Berlin, Erlangen, Munich and even Romsey, I guess either I imagined that or someone has got their facts wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr.... where do I start with this one.

If Bric's as you call the emerging economies become super rich and leave the west behind then, and stop me if I'm going too fast here, wouldn't the roles be reversed and cheap labour be found here?

Then would we not start making dirt cheap goods to export to the chinese, russian and whoever?

Would we then be in a position to far surpass them?

Would Bric's then be doomed?

Or is that just B*LL*X

Bric's will never catch up. Their growth is spawned by the rich poor gap. As soon as they start becoming wealthier their exports become less competitive and chinas $104 billion trade surplus will retract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i often woder about this, but then i realise more or less ALL our global competition have extras which wont be there forever.

china is a communist government thats enslaved its peoplein sweat shop living.

this wont last forever. the chinese wont want to be slaves forever.

brazil and that bit of the globe is purley oil wealth and poverty wage driven.

and that also wont last forever.

nope. what they all have, which we the britsh dont is a CORRUPTION of asset.

there may be ups and down for us british, but never forget your british and the best ethical workers in the world. always will be. perhaps germany will pull strong, but overall these new economies we so afraid of are built on mud bricks. and it will rain one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new super players, the 'BRICs' some say will simply replace Western business, leaving them richers and us a lot poorer. Even Seimens now has ALL its R & D capability located in China, so even the much fabled 'high end, value added' sectors are no longer safe.

What does this mean for us?

I personally think those espousing the above are being overly simplistic.

Surely Europe and America are'nt just going to become theme parks for the newly enriched 'BRICs' tourists?

I think you can take it they'll have a pretty tough job pushing out the combined power of North America and the EU. Russia's economy is smaller than that of Britain alone, likewise China and India have economies smaller than Britain alone. You underestimate just what an immense accumulated advantage the West has in terms of educated populations long accustomed to working in large and generally pretty efficient organisations, with access to huge infrastructures all maintained to a high quality. In fact, as oil supplies become tighter, the nations that now are trying to get in on the act will be starved out by the rich West, unless like Russia they have large energy resources to export. The real future for China and India is extremely bleak (especially India), while it is not marvellous for the West, just not as bad because we're richer and have more guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You underestimate just what an immense accumulated advantage the West has in terms of educated populations long accustomed to working in large and generally pretty efficient organisations, with access to huge infrastructures all maintained to a high quality.

Even if that was true (and Britain's tax-funded infrastructure has seen massive underinvestment in the last few decades and is only getting worse), why do you think that large organisations are beneficial? Large has some benefits with economies of scale and name recognition, but it also often means inefficient and slow to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real future for China and India is extremely bleak (especially India), while it is not marvellous for the West, just not as bad because we're richer and have more guns.

People are always far too quick to forget the guns. The rest of the world is sh*t feared of the west, and for good reason.

Until I find more relevant scripture to quote remember,

“Your god is smarter, bigger, stronger and much, much wealthier, so rejoice, go forth and prosper.â€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can take it they'll have a pretty tough job pushing out the combined power of North America and the EU. Russia's economy is smaller than that of Britain alone, likewise China and India have economies smaller than Britain alone. You underestimate just what an immense accumulated advantage the West has in terms of educated populations long accustomed to working in large and generally pretty efficient organisations, with access to huge infrastructures all maintained to a high quality. In fact, as oil supplies become tighter, the nations that now are trying to get in on the act will be starved out by the rich West, unless like Russia they have large energy resources to export. The real future for China and India is extremely bleak (especially India), while it is not marvellous for the West, just not as bad because we're richer and have more guns.

Don't quite follow this.

If it's manufacturing, then it doesn't seem to be that difficult to get in on the act, unless you're talking aerospace and pharmaceuticals. This "accumulated advantage" seems to be less and less applicable in most areas because the technology is widely available and cheap. Cars? Electronics? Telecomms kit? Not sure where the advantages are for us here. Pharmaceuticals you can decide to save money on, if you think your population is big enough already. Not suggesting that this is the line that soem countries will take but it is a possible approach. Aerospace maybe, but it's less and less obvious that the most modern designs are so much better that you could get away with reverse engineering a recent Boeing or Airbus. And these countries have loads of educated engineers. The latest Boeing or Airbus might be 10-20% more fuel efficient, say, but the costs of maintaining complex composite structures may outweigh those.

We're richer - at the moment, but will that last? In the case of UK/USA it looks more and more like we're richer because we've got more debt and they're holding the credit, which they can't/won't spend.

As to having more guns...well, maybe. But NO country in the world, including the US, can afford to fight a high-tech war for long. Fire off a load of missiles and run up the airframe hours on your high-tech jets and pretty soon you're grounded and it's back to fighting wars with machine-guns. There isn't the manufacturing capacity to replace this kit fast enough. Unless you go for all-out destruction, and then what?

It looks like a global levelling and I don't quite follow your optimistic line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rest of the world is sh*t feared of the west, and for good reason.

Really? The full might of the US military can't even control Iraq, for God's sake... Bush may be able to destroy things on a whim, but that's hardly going to be beneficial to Western economies: particularly with the cost of high-tech weapons.

I'd say that Iraq has proven the West to be a paper tiger, myself. The only thing China has to be afraid of are our nukes, and even Bush would need massive provocation to justify launching them.

There isn't the manufacturing capacity to replace this kit fast enough.

And, don't forget, many of the components used in the weapons are probably made in Asia these days.

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to having more guns...well, maybe. But NO country in the world, including the US, can afford to fight a high-tech war for long. Fire off a load of missiles and run up the airframe hours on your high-tech jets and pretty soon you're grounded and it's back to fighting wars with machine-guns. There isn't the manufacturing capacity to replace this kit fast enough. Unless you go for all-out destruction, and then what?

What???

The definition of a super power is a nation that can fight two full scale wars against two separate industrialized nations on separate hemispheres and win.

I.e. the US in WWII. Supported Western Europe against the Germans and following Peal Harbour utterly quashed the Japanese.

The US air force is easily capable of bombing any nation none stop for decades. They only stop once they have destroyed all of their targets, sometimes they get over zelous and try to raze the whole country from the skies, Vietnam? Next time they go to war watch the news.

It will clearly show the US carrier fleet level all military opposition before any infantry are on the ground. US troops are essentially only there for arresting survivors of the air war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US air force is easily capable of bombing any nation none stop for decades.

Not if the Chinese don't pay for it to do so... America is currently borrowing more than its entire military budget each year.

sometimes they get over zelous and try to raze the whole country from the skies, Vietnam?

Yeah, and that was so successful. As, for that matter, was the attack on Serbia, which barely damaged the local military.

US troops are essentially only there for arresting survivors of the air war.

LOL. Don't tell me, you've been watching 'the shape of things to come'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? The full might of the US military can't even control Iraq, for God's sake... Bush may be able to destroy things on a whim, but that's hardly going to be beneficial to Western economies: particularly with the cost of high-tech weapons.

I'd say that Iraq has proven the West to be a paper tiger, myself. The only thing China has to be afraid of are our nukes, and even Bush would need massive provocation to justify launching them.

And, don't forget, many of the components used in the weapons are probably made in Asia these days.

The full might of the US military??

The US Army has 37 active combat brigades of which 10 are in Iraq 1 is in South Korea and 1 is in Afghanistan

I make that 27% of the US Army is in Iraq, they have the man power for four simultaneous Iraq wars.

The USAF is free to bomb any nation stupid enough to fall far enough out of line

The US Navy is playing a mere support role

By 2007 the US Army is planning on having 43 – 48 active combat brigades of which 9 will be in Iraq

Leaving them room for up to 5 similar wars/occupations

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...deployments.htm

The full might of the US military? Have a word.

It would have been accurate to say a quarter of US Army or (bearing in mind the ridiculous USAF spending), the one twentieth of the US military can’t control Iraq

Are you scared yet?? You F*cking should be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The full might of the US military??

So you think that Bush is deliberately sending less troops than necessary to Iraq in order to guarantee that it becomes a disaster zone that he's forced to pull out of? The reality is that he's sent as many as he can sustain in the field.. and, even then, not indefinitely.

The USAF is free to bomb any nation stupid enough to fall far enough out of line

Which has proven just so successful in the past. Bombs don't win wars, the infantry win wars: and Bush won't commit infantry to fights where they may get killed.

Are you scared yet?? You F*cking should be

Why? The US military hasn't risked taking on an adversary who could fight back since WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to recommend this book to you all "1421 The Year China Discovered The World" by Gavin Menzies.

The revelations in the book and description of the world economy pre 1500 is absolutely astonishing, and I believe provides a very good context for the current Chinese resurgence as well as a good idea of his China will manage it's hegemony.

I am a firm believer in his hypothesis as it explains so much that is apparently bizzare in the way that Europe arose to a position of such power in the last 300-400 years. Only to loose it quickly in the 20th Century.

The relationship between the Roman Empire the Mughal Empire in India and the far larger Chinese empire.... all of which were well aware of one anothers existence is also a revelation.

This is the history that we were not taught as school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy getting worked up about India/China etc - but these places will have to spend most of their new found wealth on infrastructure. Reading a report on the cold snap in India which killed hundreds really brought it home. There were interviews with many people who lived on the street - they weren't tramps or beggars, they had jobs like security guards and drivers! India has a lot of open sewers to cover up before they start buying up the EU.

We in the West sweat about an aging population - what are the demographics of China going to be like in a few decades - aren't they still officially limited to 1 child per couple? There's already a huge imbalance of young men to women because of selective abortion of female fetouses..fetuoses..feuto....unborn babies. Both countries are also tribal powderkegs - if one caste is seen to be getting too much of the pie, all sorts of mischief might break out.

We're down to the black stuff as usual - the US will start to pull Brazil ever closer economically, and no doubt is still throwing CIA dollars at Venezualan opposition groups who are pro-US. America has been working to secure a controlling interest in world oil production for years. It's going to be very interesting watching the camps form over the Iranian nuclear issue - sanctions veto by China, anyone? Russian abstention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new super players, the 'BRICs' some say will simply replace Western business, leaving them richers and us a lot poorer. Even Seimens now has ALL its R & D capability located in China, so even the much fabled 'high end, value added' sectors are no longer safe.

What does this mean for us?

I personally think those espousing the above are being overly simplistic.

Surely Europe and America are'nt just going to become theme parks for the newly enriched 'BRICs' tourists?

Do not forget GE with its research centre outside Banglore in India. Work is being

moved from the centre oustide New York. One American Phd engineer/scientist is

equivalent to 5 Indian Phd engineer/scientist.

Wake up smell the coffee the UK is too expensive.

Long live India / China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bombs don't win wars, the infantry win wars: and Bush won't commit infantry to fights where they may get killed.

Nah, Bombs can win wars, Nagasaki ring a bell?

I also believe Bush was well aware that US soldiers may get killed before he commited them to Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 years ago, if you'd have said the British Empire would be finished in a few decades then people would have laughed at you. The US has been living on borrowed time for a while now. Super powers are never crushed by opponents they generally rot from within. You only have to look at the "have it now", "me me me" society in the UK to understand that the cult of the individual, so prevalent in the west, makes pretty much any major, long term war impossible.

Power balances shift throughout history. It will always be so. China and India will become more powerful but it will not be a smooth ride to the top. There are many problems for them to overcome yet. The two crunch moments will be 1 after the Olympics (which the Chinese believe will be the start of a new era in the world) and 2 when the first stirrings of dscontent occur within the population. Historically governments look for a small war with which to rally the population and distract them. This is when things will become problematic for both China and the world order. Many people talk about Taiwan as being the crucible of these changes. Maybe, maybe not, but the question will be whether China can bring about their will or whether they siffer a US-Vietnam/USSR/Afghanistan black eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 years ago, if you'd have said the British Empire would be finished in a few decades then people would have laughed at you. The US has been living on borrowed time for a while now. Super powers are never crushed by opponents they generally rot from within. You only have to look at the "have it now", "me me me" society in the UK to understand that the cult of the individual, so prevalent in the west, makes pretty much any major, long term war impossible.

I don't think WWI helped the British Empire, which was surpassed in Economic might by the US in 1917.

A coincidence?

Major wars, generally consume such vast resources they quickly become wars of attrition, and whoever runs out first loses.

Power balances shift throughout history. It will always be so. China and India will become more powerful but it will not be a smooth ride to the top. There are many problems for them to overcome yet. The two crunch moments will be 1 after the Olympics (which the Chinese believe will be the start of a new era in the world) and 2 when the first stirrings of dscontent occur within the population. Historically governments look for a small war with which to rally the population and distract them. This is when things will become problematic for both China and the world order. Many people talk about Taiwan as being the crucible of these changes. Maybe, maybe not, but the question will be whether China can bring about their will or whether they siffer a US-Vietnam/USSR/Afghanistan black eye.

I agree with this point, but rather worryingly the US keeps saying they would back Taiwan in such a conflict! gulp..

Maybe I am to blame here, but:

Is it not a bit of a worry than when the topic of china surpassing the west is mentioned we all start talking about war?

I think westerners would not surrender global domination lightly. Also I do not think there are enough resources in the world for China to catch the economic might of the states.

Check out who owns most of the worlds assets

No surpises Western banks own most the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new super players, the 'BRICs' some say will simply replace Western business, leaving them richers and us a lot poorer. Even Seimens now has ALL its R & D capability located in China, so even the much fabled 'high end, value added' sectors are no longer safe.

What does this mean for us?

I personally think those espousing the above are being overly simplistic.

Surely Europe and America are'nt just going to become theme parks for the newly enriched 'BRICs' tourists?

We can make money out of House Price Increaes and they can not catch us (with 10% HPI a year)

wicked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that was so successful. As, for that matter, was the attack on Serbia, which barely damaged the local military.

In the case of Serbia the US air force (aided by the RAF and air forces of other countries) was very successful, accomplishing precisely the military and polictical objective: ending to ethnic cleansing in Europe without committing ground troops.

Edited by BoredTrainBuilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BRICS rise to the top is all about cheap labour. Looking at the states within the USA that once thrived on cheap labour (i.e. illegal immigrants) they are now all very poor, mainly because they were very slow to adopt labour saving technology.

Cheap labour isn't the means to the end. It is the end.

Having said that, isn't the USA mortgaged to China in the form of treasury bonds. Maybe at some point, when the market for super powers collapses, China will reposses the USA, allowing them to rent it from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.