Americas status in 2058
1 2 3

thread: Americas status in 2058

  1. #1

    Americas status in 2058

    DISCLAIMER: This thread is meant to spark intelligent debate, if there is any to be had. It's NOT a thread about which nation is good and which is evil, which state ought to be loved or hated, or who's going to kick whose ass. What I am putting down is, for better or worse, reality as I see it at that stage in time. Please feel free to disagree. Actually, I encourage it. If I didn't, I would not be submitting it on a forum. But, I implore you, do so in a manner that's intelligent, logical, and well thought-out, or do not do it at all.



    A WORLD IN CRISIS

    In case you haven't noticed, the entire world is entering a severe catastrophe. There are more and more people on earth, and each of them is striving (and mostly achieving) a greater standard of living. The standard definition of this standard of living suggests a greater per-capita consumption of commodities such as oil, copper, rice, pasta, palladium, cobalt, uranium... The list continues. Additional while soft commodities such as rice are considered to be a renewable resource, they are directly subject to a limited resource, that's the amount (and maximum sustainable yield) of farm land. So while these resources are renewable, they are subject to a maximum rate of manufacturing and that puts an immediate limitation on the rate at which we could consume them. We could push this rate upward by introducing new cutting-edge agricultural technologies, but we can't improve yields indefinitely. We could even improve agricultural yields by subsequent rigorous farming practices, which would create higher yields now, but at the unacceptable cost of ruining the future expansion and usefulness of the impacted territory. I really don't need to get bogged down with all the details of why and how, or what exactly is renewable, what isn't, and under what conditions. These are all topics worthy of discussion, but not here and now. Suffice it to say that demand for most commodities is increasing rapidly, while the supply is either truly limited, or its rate of production is limited, or oftentimes, both. Any way you look at it, supply is constrained.

    A number of the above-mentioned need is coming directly from consumers because, as I said, the world's population is growing very rapidly, and the consumption of each member of the population is growing fairly rapidly. A number of the requirement is coming from speculators that are seeing this trend and want to profit from it. The efficacy of today's markets factors in likely future occasions. If the markets have been sure oil will be worth 200 at some time in the future, then the markets will make it worth $200 TODAY. The nearer we get to $200, the more strongly it means the market considers this to be the fair price considering all known relevant things. In other words, if we see $200 oil now, then the market is 100 percent sure the authentic supply/demand-driven value of oil will be $200 at some stage in the future. Expectation of real future requirement generates speculative present requirement. If you aren't familiar with this idea, have a moment to let it sink .

    The sad, yet indisputable truth is that, unless the world's population decides to stop growing and actually begins to shrink, weak people stop struggling to boost their quality of living, and rich people give their wasteful and decadent ways, the planet is led towards unparalleled tragedy - i.e. resource wars. It's not a matter of if, but when.

    As we all know, there are no winners in war, but there may certainly be various degrees of winners. Here is the way I see things unfolding:


    RICH (Russia, Iran, CHina)

    China, Russia and Iran are currently forming an alliance that's getting more powerful by the day. This alliance is resource rich - large reserves of oil and even larger reserves of natural gas (in actuality, the largest reserves of natural gas on earth are found in Russia and Iran). Russia and Iran would be the fuel, while China is the engine. This rising superpower is up from the current world leader, the US of A. Though the US has its fingers in a lot of pies around the planet, the planet has grown weary of its own dominance, and because of this, the US seems to be losing its grasp on these pies. The US derives its may mostly from oil (and other resources) that are imported from hostile and more powerful countries. Another large chunk of its potency comes form imported labor from China. However, in recent decades the US has had to pay dearly for these imports. The amount of wealth (power) transferred from America to the Middle East and China is already staggering, and growing rapidly. A number of the recipients of this vast amount of recently transferred power odor blood now, and seem prepared to take the wounded giant.


    NEUTRALITY

    Europe, and some of the more neutral Middle Eastern countries are in the middle of this. In the midst of this tension, Europe hopes to be to the world what Switzerland was to Europe in the last Great War. Right now, Europe can't afford to pick a side. Europe isn't abundant with natural resources, also it doesn't have the strength to take them from anybody else. The neutral Mid East countries have had a very long and fruitful relationship with the United States, and also are hesitant to risk losing it.


    ACE IN THE HOLE

    Many Men and Women are calling, together with certainty and a hint of poetic justice in their tone, the passing of the United States of America and its status as the unquestionable ruler of the world. But if there is anything that the recent world rice deficit has instructed us, it is that America still has got the entire world by its balls, and isn't about to release its grasp. Is America reliant on oil? Yes. Is America reliant on imported junk from China? Yes. Is the planet dependent at all on America? ... Yes. Think of a four-letter word that begins with an F. This was discussed here at FF and elsewhere, particularly by clockwork and roro (and others) from the news section, but I'd like to dig a little bit deeper here, and I'd like to cut through as much media bullshit as possible.

    The word you should be thinking of, of course, is FOOD, but I shall return to this in a little while.


    CRUDE REALITY

    Proven oil reserves in the united states are rather low, and domestic crude production was rising since the 1960s. Oil consumption, on the other hand, has grown steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. America is the by far the largest consumer of oil on earth and therefore by far its largest importer. The steady flow of cheap crude oil in the Middle East has been the lifeblood of the American market for decades. It played a major part in shaping American culture. From muscle cars to interstate highways to suburbia to a lack of adequate public transport, American policymakers, and subsequently the general people, never showed much restraint in regards to oil consumption. Oil was cheap and abundant. In addition, it fueled the American automotive industry and retained some very significant Saudi friends happy.

    With prices rising well over 100 percent from what were already considered high levels last year, America's debaucherous, oil-guzzling market is under more stress than people who have built their entire infrastructure based on energy conservation and efficiency - specifically the Europeans and Japanese. But even the extreme in efficiency is only delaying the inevitable - as long as the planet is utilizing non-renewable resources to sustain itself, resource wars will be waiting only over some distant (or not so distant) horizon.

    Contrary to the belief of many, alternatives to oil are riddled with issues. By the total content of energy available, to the conversion price and efficacy, to the supporting infrastructure and supply, to political and technological barriers, to the general refusal of the public, the hurdles are many. In spite of gigantic jumps in mindset and enormous strides in technology, it is improbable that the entire world generally and the United States in particular, will have the ability to wean itself off oil any time soon, if ever.

    So what can the United States do to ensure that it remains the most powerful nation in the world despite so much of its wealth being transferred to its foes?


    THE ART OF WAR

    Based on Sun Tzu, it is important for a fantastic general to make himself appear weak when he is strong. In the backdrop, the US is subsidizing ethanol farming. The cause of this isn't too much this extra fuel will split America#8217;s addiction to oil #8211; it can#8217;t #8211; but it is rather about forcing up the price of food. Since oil producing nations are pretty keen on the high prices everyone is paying for their product, why wouldn#8217;t America make the most of what it generates? Food. By burning off a considerable amount of food on its own highways, America is constraining supply at a time of rapid demand growth. The result, naturally, is increasing food prices. Even though many disagree with the overall moral effect of this practice, it cannot be denied that this is a fantastic move. From subsidising many of its own food manufacturing businesses, America is in consequence addicting the entire world to its economical food exports until prices skyrocket. Naturally, the weak dollar helps this along. This has the impact of more and more countries becoming increasingly determined by American food as domestic food production only isn't capable to compete with its subsidized American counterparts. The Philippines is an excellent example of this. The Korean beef riots are another.

    As much as America is Determined by the energy and labor from China/Iran/Russia, and several Middle Eastern countries, these Nations will be increasingly dependent on American food imports. In the coming decades, they will have nowhere else to import food out of, and certainly won't be able to meet demand with national production #8211; developing environmental issues, urbanization and much more resource-intensive meal choices are merely some of the issues facing Chinese farming, for example. America, on the other hand, will have the ability to import oil from Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, and possibly even Greenland. Some of those countries may not be thrilled about the notion of American domination of the oil reserves (namely Venezuela) but I believe that current populist policies in Venezuela are going to open people#8217;s eyes to their fallacy as their economy crumbles. And let#8217;s face it, if Venezuela doesn#8217;t need to give up its oil, America will come a-knockin#8217;. It is said that when you would like to convince a individual they are either helped by you, or else you hurt them.

    The geographic loion of all the above-mentioned countries ensures that they will be favorable to America, or risk getting hurt rather than helped. As much as Hugo Chavez might like to have in bed with Ahmedinejad (figuratively, of course) it is just not feasible for RICH to shield Venezuela when it comes down to it.

    In the forthcoming years, this may leave America with choices, but will leave its own new arch-nemeses reliant largely on American food. You do not want to provide your oil? No problem, we can only burn your meals rather than your oil.

    This is exactly why America is attempting to secure as much Middle Eastern oil as it can, for as long as it may, irrespective of price. All the power that America transports to all these other countries will come back when those countries #8217; meals supplies begin to dwindle.

  2. #2
    voted other. We won't be here in 2058

  3. #3
    Wow! Well-written, fierceman, your judgment is one I had not thought of nor read anywhere.

    I must wonder if our leaders have that much forethought, or if it just turned out that way, or if markets have once again done what they do, but regardless, things are going only how you said.

    If the earth continues to warm and CO2 levels continue to rise as a consequence (as they have throughout Earth's history) this should lengthen growing seasons and increase ag production. However, when this warming cycle, which started about 10,000 years ago, goes back the other way, then the boom years for humanity will be over. Assuming we continue until then.

  4. #4
    DISCLAIMER: This thread is supposed to spark intelligent debate, if there's any to be had. It's NOT a thread about which country is good and which is evil, which state ought to be adored or despised, or who is going to kick whose ass. What I am putting down is, for better or worse, truth as I see it at this stage in time. Please feel free to disagree. In fact, I encourage it. If I didn't, I wouldn't be posting it on a forum. However, I implore you, do this in a manner which is smart, plausible, and well thought-out, or do not do it at all.

    The US derives its might mostly from oil (and other sources ) that are imported from increasingly hostile and increasingly more powerful countries. Another large chunk of its strength comes form labor from China.
    I didn't bother reading further after those two reasons why the US is powerful.

  5. #5
    Senior Member raqwl.deji's Avatar
    108
    Interesting spin on matters fierceman. Any suggestions on how best to make money? Go long china?

  6. #6
    Its nice to hear that the U.S nevertheless has an ace up its sleeve to the balance of power - to all the its faults and hypocrisies, the U.S still gets my vote over R.I.CH as my preferred selection for world dominator.

  7. #7
    A ha. Who is your dad?

  8. #8
    I really don't think I have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to figure out this. IMHO the entire world is a *little * more complex than that...

  9. #9
    Junior Member hamzaFaris's Avatar
    21
    We can't speculate about anything useful in the long run. Life changing events are sporadic and arbitrary. Your analysis is well-written, however I think we'll just have to wait and watch. Trading gets the best skeptics from the very trusting souls, eh.

    Move USA, home of the brave, land of the free.



    EDIT: Maybe I need to qualify why I'm skeptical about the long-term. I meant to state the chances of heavyweight events which come suddenly and with profound effects, follows a somewhat geometric probability distribution: they don't happen every day. As the time period increases, so does the possibility of seeing one of these (and getting screwed over in your prediction because of it). The sunlight might be here , and that's a gamble, but the sun is going to probably be here in 100 years period is more of a gamble. This is only one reason I don't trade longer than daily figures, if that. We've got enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaosin our lives already thankyouverymuch

  10. #10
    Senior Member patatas08's Avatar
    114
    There is a point I would like to bring up here. There ARE more barrels of oil in Colorado than Saudi Arabia. (Someone help me with this....it's a little reported report the US Congress ignores each year.)

    Either way, who cares?

    If they can not eat - there will not be much of a competition. And like I said before, if it comes to the US eating, or the rest of the world....hmmmm...I think I know exactly where the corn in Iowa is heading. Such exotic locals as Shreveport, Cleveland, Detroit, and surely NOT Beijing or Moscow. (Sorry losers - we can not afford to cover the shipping on all this wheat....oil is too pricey.)

    Another factor to think about is this: Those governments all have something in common. . .corruption.

    Corrupt entities, as a rule of thumb, do not stand long. There are a lot of things to be worried about in the event that you're rooting for Iran. There are a lot more demonions in Iran than there used to be.

    China produces junk. While computers are produced by the Chinese, the Indians produce what makes the real money - applications. India proves a bigger threat in Asia to American interests, if anything. Though I do not believe that India has ill intentions towards the U.S. China on the other hand, comes with a military that frequently makes statements such as I would happily give up a town or two only to nuke L.A.. Unless you have spent a weekend in Encino, that's not a reasonable statement. Army officals possess a lot of these junk factories over there.

    Also, Americans are beginning to actually care where products are made. Poisoned toys in a discount are not as suitable as they once were.

    And Russia is such a wreck, I would not know where to start. It wouldn't surprise me to see a Communist government before it's all over. (Better the devil you know, than the devil you do not.) There are oil companies which were taken over by the authorities. It just so happens that these owners are critical of Kremlin policies, etc..

    And think of this: If you're someone living in Belgium, and sane. . .If someone needed to be #1, who would you really feel comfortable with? Certainly not Iran or China. Russia can not be a better prospect.

    As for me personally, being an American, I vote for the Swedes. They do not appear to cause many issues. Moreover, Vikings are trendy. :--RRB-


    Clockwork

  •