Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The IMF has Brazil growing by over half a trillion in 5 years. As for the US. The US can't hold the G7 up on it's own. It doesn't matter about Indonesia's population just as it doesn't matter about China and India. What matters is the drastic increase in power they are attaining through their share of global wealth which is increasing as the west outside the US is deceasing. As i said Bric will overtake G7 in 20 years as predicted by the IMF if world events don't change.
Do you mean this solely in total GDP adjusted by purchasing power parity and if neither of the constituent parts of either organization is allowed to change? That's possible, but also doesn't really mean anything in the context of what you said about multi polar worlds. Your first link is also odd because it does not include the rest of the EU which is part of G7 and for some reason includes Saudi Arabia which is not part of BRICS and is currently in multiple proxy wars with Iran, which is a BRICS member, for the last half century or so.
The IMF has Brazil growing by over half a trillion in 5 years.
But it didn't grow **** in 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
As for the US. The US can't hold the G7 up on it's own.
It actually can. The US economy has grown 60% nominally in 10 years and is larger than all the other G6 combined. Which means collectively the G7 has grown 30% even as all the other ones completely flatlined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
It doesn't matter about Indonesia's population just as it doesn't matter about China and India. What matters is the drastic increase in power they are attaining through their share of global wealth which is increasing as the west outside the US is deceasing. As i said Bric will overtake G7 in 20 years as predicted by the IMF if world events don't change.
Actually that is completely untrue. If you check, the nominal growth for advanced economies (US + allies) is larger than the nominal growth for developing economies.
Real growth might be higher for developing countries, but as far as standings and influence go real growth is irrelevant.
The growth is mostly just the US and China by shear size (and by the fact that other larger developed economies like Japan, Germany, UK and France and other larger developing economies like Brazil and Russia are all completely hopeless).
Now China is on terminal decline while the US is doing fairly well. There isn't much of a future for the developing world, except India and maybe SE Asia, but given the low place they occupy in the value chain it is unlikely that they will be able to sustain growth and catch up with advanced economies.
Another thing is that advanced economies (Anglophone + EEA + Japan + Asian Tigers (excl. Hong Kong) + Israel) are all broadly on the same boat and are now turning protectionist/friendshoring, while there's no alliance amongst developing countries. In fact many absolutely hate each other. For example China and India, the two largest developing economies, have absolutely no love between them.
It actually can. The US economy has grown 60% nominally in 10 years and is larger than all the other G6 combined. Which means collectively the G7 has grown 30% even as all the other ones completely flatlined.
Actually that is completely untrue. If you check, the nominal growth for advanced economies (US + allies) is larger than the nominal growth for developing economies.
Real growth might be higher for developing countries, but as far as standings and influence go real growth is irrelevant.
The growth is mostly just the US and China by shear size (and by the fact that other larger developed economies like Japan, Germany, UK and France and other larger developing economies like Brazil and Russia are all completely hopeless).
Now China is on terminal decline while the US is doing fairly well. There isn't much of a future for the developing world, except India and maybe SE Asia, but given the low place they occupy in the value chain it is unlikely that they will be able to sustain growth and catch up with advanced economies.
Another thing is that advanced economies (Anglophone + EEA + Japan + Asian Tigers (excl. Hong Kong) + Israel) are all broadly on the same boat and are now turning protectionist/friendshoring, while there's no alliance amongst developing countries. In fact many absolutely hate each other. For example China and India, the two largest developing economies, have absolutely no love between them.
I don't care about 10 ten years previous. I'm talking about today and tomorrow.
As for the US can hold the G7 up. No it can't as China and India combined is set to have a higher GDP than the entire G7 combined including the US in 20 years
As for China's growth is on a terminal decline, again this is nonsense. The IMF over the next 5 years has China's economically dropping a percent before stabilizing. 3% growth of a $20 trillion dollar economy by that stage is something i doubt the US would be capable of never mind every other developed nation.
As for claiming many Bric countries hate each other. That is irrelevant. Less than a century ago the G7 were at war with each other. What matters is how they move forward in close cooperation and increasingly many dislike and are creating an alternative world order that isn't dominated by US interests. This has become something that is Unifying all those in Bric together. This much should be evident given Russia's economic growth amidst the economic sanctions by the west. In reality these sanctions only hurt the west especially Europe more than it hurt Russia. That's where we are at in the world.
I don't care about 10 ten years previous. I'm talking about today and tomorrow.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If Brazil couldn't grow at all from 2014 to 2024, there is no reason to believe that it would grow from 2024 to 2034. The Brazilian economy has not gone through any transformation. Brazil did not industrialise more or invest in R&D more and is projected to grow only 2.2% in 2024.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
As for the US can hold the G7 up. No it can't as China and India combined is set to have a higher GDP than the entire G7 combined including the US in 20 years
No institution's 20 years forecast is ever accurate. They can't even get the growth rate next year right, let alone in 20 years lmao.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
As for China's growth is on a terminal decline, again this is nonsense. The IMF over the next 5 years has China's economically dropping a percent before stabilizing. 3% growth of a $20 trillion dollar economy by that stage is something i doubt the US would be capable of never mind every other developed nation.
Last decade people were saying that China's GDP would surpass America's in the 2020s. We are halfway over by now and it's not even remotely close. In fact that trend has reversed and the US is now widening the gap. In the 80s people said the same about Japan and now Japan's economy isn't even 1/5 as large.
At this point China will never surpass the US economy by size. And China is not growing 5%. That is obviously horse****. China is totally in recession. They just submit fake data. The country is all about lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
As for claiming many Bric countries hate each other. That is irrelevant. Less than a century ago the G7 were at war with each other. What matters is how they move forward in close cooperation and increasingly many dislike and are creating an alternative world order that isn't dominated by US interests. This has become something that is Unifying all those in Bric together.
So a century ago G7 were at war with each other means BRICS would just become BFF now? Delusional. China and India absolutely hate each other now and they have no interest in working together at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy234
This much should be evident given Russia's economic growth amidst the economic sanctions by the west. In reality these sanctions only hurt the west especially Europe more than it hurt Russia. That's where we are at in the world.
Right, the sanctions are only hurting the West, which is why Russia never demands the sanctions be lifted. Lmao.
It's apparently fun for some people to believe there is a shift in world power, but there isn't.
BRICS is nonsense. Countries may trade wherever and however they wish, but the BRIC countries will never set policy.
I don't care about 10 ten years previous. I'm talking about today and tomorrow.
As for the US can hold the G7 up. No it can't as China and India combined is set to have a higher GDP than the entire G7 combined including the US in 20 years
As for China's growth is on a terminal decline, again this is nonsense. The IMF over the next 5 years has China's economically dropping a percent before stabilizing. 3% growth of a $20 trillion dollar economy by that stage is something i doubt the US would be capable of never mind every other developed nation.
As for claiming many Bric countries hate each other. That is irrelevant. Less than a century ago the G7 were at war with each other. What matters is how they move forward in close cooperation and increasingly many dislike and are creating an alternative world order that isn't dominated by US interests. This has become something that is Unifying all those in Bric together. This much should be evident given Russia's economic growth amidst the economic sanctions by the west. In reality these sanctions only hurt the west especially Europe more than it hurt Russia. That's where we are at in the world.
How do you expect BRICS infighting to be irrelevant? It seems to have a fairly direct impact. Saudi Arabia had an invite from the organization to come in on January 1st, 2024 and declined to become a member with likely very direct correspondence to conflict with other BRICS members, primarily Iran. This isn't a temporary flare up or spat--it's one from a half century of fighting. The border conflict between India and China goes through phases of different degrees at different time periods, but since the founding of both under their current nation-states, those flare-ups have at times been rapid and heated. Chinese citizenry and Indian citizenry polling of attitudes towards their respective countries are almost at their nadir right now and there is little sign it's getting better and the Modi government has put an emphasis on import substitution from China. This makes sense in that their most recent skirmish with casualties was four years ago with Indian territorial control loss to China, a massive uptick in military purchases from Russia (though halted now given Russia's dearth of war materiel), development of more Indian war materiel, public burial of Indian KIA in both Indian and Tibetan flags, and no resolution.
It's reasonable to assume US power has been and naturally will continue to go down relative to the entirety of the rest of the world because of the much more rapid rise of population and GDP in most other parts of the world including a lot of it outside of G7 or BRICS. That's not something particularly in favor of BRICS functioning as a major bloc.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine seems to point to Russia's ability to exert power being far more limited than it and other countries believed. This was supposedly a rapid operation that would have taken Kiev and installed a puppet state and annexed over half of Ukraine so that it became a landlocked stub if Russia's early settlement maps are to believed. That limited invasion has now dragged on for over two years into war with no end in sight and their current line of control is less than a fifth of Ukrainian territory with very little movement. The lion's share of Russia's economic growth has been from government deficit spending on war materiel which provides limited economic advantage and shifts it from industries that actually provide a higher quality of life and actual household wealth. Meanwhile, some of the largest export industries of China are a direct threat to the petro-economies of multiple BRICS members. China has taken the occasion to casually redraw official maps to include a smidge of Russian territory that had supposedly already been settled and has since had high level talks and summits with Central Asian republics that were formerly Russia's backyard without Russian delegates and were informally off limits to discussion without a Russian presence prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. These Central Asian countries have also themselves greatly benefited from the sanctions in that bypassing sanctions has meant taking an increasingly massive middleman stake and has thus poured money into Russia's neighbors who were formerly firmly under Russia's thumb.
I agree that the talk of China's economic demise is premature. China's getting a firm hold on the Russian economy and greatly expanding into Russia's sphere of influence in Central Asia and meanwhile building up its strategic petroleum reserve off of discounted Russian fossil fuels while simultaneously steadily weaning off its need for such.
It is ironic that you don't care about ten years previous, but you're citing war among G7 countries eighty years ago. You're also ignoring that some of the BRICS countries have been developing the conditions for war against each other as the G7 countries did eighty-five years ago (or 110 years ago). Some of the more unstable parts of the world is at the boundaries of the major BRICS powers including areas between these countries and there are competing spheres of influence that are rapidly in flux. I think the weirdest part of all this is what Brazil thinks it's doing in there. I hope that Brazil at least smartly manages that with trying to play these powers amongst each other to try to get the best trade agreements possible. The NDB at least is a real entity within BRICS and that can be to Brazil's advantage. That being said, G7 and its institutions don't really work the same way and so do not have a competing G7 organization per se. I think long term prognostications are fun, but almost impossible really nail down with any accuracy. The thing is, the conflict among BRICS countries is not just a long term prognostication but deeply embedded issues that exist *now* and have decades long track records.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-30-2024 at 10:37 AM..
It's apparently fun for some people to believe there is a shift in world power, but there isn't.
BRICS is nonsense. Countries may trade wherever and however they wish, but the BRIC countries will never set policy.
For those of us living outside the US we are under no illusions. I understand for someone living in the US it is still very much it's own bubble with not much understanding of the outside world
That makes no sense whatsoever. If Brazil couldn't grow at all from 2014 to 2024, there is no reason to believe that it would grow from 2024 to 2034. The Brazilian economy has not gone through any transformation. Brazil did not industrialise more or invest in R&D more and is projected to grow only 2.2% in 2024.
No institution's 20 years forecast is ever accurate. They can't even get the growth rate next year right, let alone in 20 years lmao.
Last decade people were saying that China's GDP would surpass America's in the 2020s. We are halfway over by now and it's not even remotely close. In fact that trend has reversed and the US is now widening the gap. In the 80s people said the same about Japan and now Japan's economy isn't even 1/5 as large.
At this point China will never surpass the US economy by size. And China is not growing 5%. That is obviously horse****. China is totally in recession. They just submit fake data. The country is all about lies.
So a century ago G7 were at war with each other means BRICS would just become BFF now? Delusional. China and India absolutely hate each other now and they have no interest in working together at all.
Right, the sanctions are only hurting the West, which is why Russia never demands the sanctions be lifted. Lmao.
Try harder, tankie.
It seems you just cheery pick to believe what you want to believe. In regards to Brazil you use IMF figures to state it's growth yet over the next 5 years you completely refute the IMF data. Cherry picking will get you nowhere.
As for no institutions forecast over 20 years is correct. In terms of detailed Accuracy yes your correct but in terms of understanding a general direction of nation's trajectory they are usually bang on. The Urbanisation of China being a perfect example. The development of India to become in the top 5 nations in terms of GDP being another. As for claiming China and India hate each other. Remember they might dislike each other but they both hate the US more. Just look at the west to see how a common enemy can unite them. US western power over the last century dictating Global policy has created a rift in the world in which nations that disagree with US policy are coming together. I really do think you underestimate how much the US has led to the creation of a new Bi-polar world.
Living in Australia we can clearly see an Asia that is becoming more powerful with a dissenting voice in regards to US policy and the US can do NOTHING about it.
As for the sanctions hurt the west more. Look at Europe, the effects of imposing sanctions on Russian oil and Gas in nations that are barely experiencing any growth compared to Russia which is powering forward. There's more to the west than the US
For those of us living outside the US we are under no illusions. I understand for someone living in the US it is still very much it's own bubble with not much understanding of the outside world
I used to live in China and in Taiwan and still go there for very long stretches for work and family. I read, speak, and write in the language. I think you might be under some kind of illusion that BRICS is a coherent force or that the US is far more important as a foil than it actually is. Potential anti-US sentiment is not that much of a binding force when you have far more deep-rooted historical and ongoing conflicts right on your borders. You're talking about growth in BRICS countries in the sense of competition with the US or the general West, but you don't seem to realize that growth when you are in actual ongoing conflicts with your fellow members is perceived as a a threat by other BRICS nations.
Your arguments don't even seem to be internally coherent. How did you go from something that's not relevant because it's ten years ago to using a historical example from several decades ago as an argument? This seems somewhat irrational and so makes me wonder if there's something else that your factoring in besides what is ostensibly the topic matter.
Europe is doing terrible but the US is doing well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greysholic
Yes Europe is ****ed
How? The "Decline of the West" was put forward in 1918 by Oswald Spengler that Europe is done. 106 years and another world war plus a cold one later it still isn't. Yes the British, French and Dutch empires are gone, but that can hardly be considered a bad thing. And yes, Europe's absolute share of the world economy is declining, but the continent in general isn't.
Europe is still politically the most stable continent on Earth with robust economies and a highly educated workforce. And despite declining birthrates the workforce is still growing, and the number of employed people is 20 million higher than it was 10 years ago. Italy has been seen as a chronically ill patient for a longer time, but this year Italy's economy is on trajectory to grow faster than Germany's, which has been seen as an economical powerhouse. There is a lot of economical power for growth in Europe left.
Regarding BRICS, the big odd one out here is South Africa. It has experienced severe social unrest in recent years, and its economy is a small one, in nominal GDP roughly the size of Romania, the 13th largest economy in the EU. Romania is projected to have a robust economic growth in 2024, with around 3%. South Africa is projected to be on a 0.9-1.4% GDP growth track.
New BRICS member Egypt is a smaller economy than Denmark, though the former has 101 million more people. If we look forward to 2050, we can with very high confidence say that Denmark will be a high-income stable democracy and economy, which is in the EU and NATO, and has room for stable economic growth and prosperity. Making estimations how Egypt will look like in 26 years is much much harder.
Another example: estimating Iran's GDP is hard, but it is estimated to be a smaller economy than Norway. In 2050 we can say with very high confidence that Norway will be a multi-party constitutional monarchy. Meanwhile, we can't say if there is an Islamic Republic of Iran at all in 2050. It might be under new leadership and the country's name has reverted to Persia.
Yesterday 20 years ago in 2004, Poland joined the EU, and at the total GDP was around 255 billion $. In 2024 it is estimated to be 844 billion. And the population is 1 million smaller. So quite the Taiwan story there for Poland. And the Polish economy is projected to grow 3.5% this year.
The Czech Republic recently overtook Finland in total GDP. 20 years ago the Czech economy was less than half of Finland's, and similar to the size of Egypt. Today the three countries have roughly the same total GDP, though only one country's population has doubled since. And only one of those countries are contemplating if having half of the population - the women - in the workforce at all is a good or bad thing.
Europe is far from done, and while the population is aging, Europe still has a lot going on for it. There's lot of innovation, the population is wealthy, it is a desirable region for immigration, there's no brain drain, unemployment is low (6.0% in the EU in January), NATO has made a total rebirth thanks to Russia, and after the disastrous Brexit debacle, not even the populists anymore want their country to leave the EU, but reform it.
That the birth rates are low now doesn't mean that they will always be so. And the world in general is aging, it's not only Europe. China is of course the most acutely rapidly aging country, but the fertility rate in Brazil is also well below replacement levels, around the same as in Latvia. Saudi Arabia and South Africa are just barely above replacement. What to these countries will be a problem is that the older population is much poorer and their retirement and elderly care infrastructure is underdeveloped.
The meme is that Europe's population is shrinking, so is the workforce, there's stagnation in innovation and economy, infrastructure is collapsing, government spending is unsustainable, people have low hopes for the future etc etc. Do you know what country ticks all those boxes the most? Well, that is Russia.
Last edited by Baltic Whaler; 05-02-2024 at 11:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
