Who leads the world economy?

[ZenOps]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...mic-superpower

China or the USA? I suggest that if the US bombed the crap out of Australia and killed off a couple million citizens, they would come around to saying the USA. I'd also suggest that if China bought more property in Mexico, mexico would come around to saying China (although Mexico doesn't really need any more printed money)

[zhao]

I'm not even going to bother reading that, but there is no leader of the economy IMO.

If the chinese economy tanks, my stock portfolio is going to shit the bed. If the US economy tanks, same thing. If the european economy tanks... maybe the same thing.

I'll tell you this though from my mining stock knowledge. 40% of the zinc mined in the world is used by China (zinc is required for anything built with steel you dont want to rust so it's a good indication of the amount of manufacturing and construction a country does). For commodities I am slightly more worried about the Chinese economy than I am about the US, but that's only because the chinese buy commodities so they can turn it into something to sell to the yanks. If the chinese economy tanks it's because people are getting laid off and companies are going under and that would be because no one is buying their shit anymore. That means things probably aren't going well in the rest of the world... or some other country is trying to get a piece of the pie China has (but that is a slow process).

IF you want to play it by the numbers though, it's still the US by a long shot. The US economy still almost doubles china's, and china's more than doubles japans, which is the 3rd biggest. China doesn't have a hope to surpass the US until at least 2030 IMO.... and thats only if things go very right for them. When I was just entering university in the late 90s I predicted China would surpass the US in about 50 years, and it looks like I may be correct on that.

The problem with china is they have a growing middle class who does not want to manufacturer shit for 3 cents on the dollar. They also have huge problems with pollution and are trying to stamp out dirty industry. IMO China is going to develop itself in to USA 2.0 at some point, and turn vietnam or some other south east asian country in to mexico 2.0. The next China is probably going to end up being India, if india can ever get its shit together...

[Darell_n]

I do.

I'm just an AI that hangs around here to throw everybody off.

[ZenOps]

I've felt that the difference between communism and capitalism was important sixty years ago.

But yes, with the rise of automation, efficiencies, and artificial intelligence - human work in general is becoming less valuable, so it really doesn't matter what economic system you place a human inside of. Does a machine care, does it produce more or less, happier or less happy - if its 100x more productive in a communist or a capitalist system? Capitalism vs Communism is becoming increasingly irrelevant as an argument for even a political system or an argument for starting wars, neither system is the future.

Minimum wage = irrelevant to the machine.
Slave labor conditions = irrelevant to the machine.
Common good = irrelevant to the machine.
Amassing wealth = irrelevant to the machine.

What could be useful in the future is improvements in efficiency. One of the last things that are stupidly inefficient would be the combustion engine and the stupid amount of carbons that have to be toted around the world just to get a little bit of useable movement.



Still need humans for some of the toppings and the delivery - but not for much longer. I nominate Pepe for employee of the month and a 5 cent per day raise as a capitalist incentive.

Politics are becoming less relevant, as are human leaders in general. Disclaimer: This forum post may or may not have been sponsored by our new robot overlords.

[Buster]

China benefits from automation induced deflation more than the USA does. (Or at least the Chinese population does).

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The US economy still almost doubles china's, and china's more than doubles japans, which is the 3rd biggest. China doesn't have a hope to surpass the US until at least 2030 IMO.... and thats only if things go very right for them. When I was just entering university in the late 90s I predicted China would surpass the US in about 50 years, and it looks like I may be correct on that.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/c...jected-gdp.php

US no longer double of China and China is now almost triple of Japan's.

The thing is, ever since fake communism is adopted, China is one of the biggest trading block that rival EU and US. Can't ignore potential business there. The question is can it be sustained or are they going to have a lost decade that Japan experienced.

[Buster]

I don't find the comparison particularly interesting because of the population difference. It's a bit like saying "how does the US compare to Africa". At the moment, China is able to keep it's borders relatively intact, and the diversity of its population under wraps. But in general, a "per capita" comparison is more interesting comparison.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't find the comparison particularly interesting because of the population difference. It's a bit like saying "how does the US compare to Africa". At the moment, China is able to keep it's borders relatively intact, and the diversity of its population under wraps. But in general, a "per capita" comparison is more interesting comparison.

If per capita catches up to US, China will basically BE the world's economy.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If per capita catches up to US, China will basically BE the world's economy.

I don't think it's possible for them to catch up on a per capita basis (and still be China as we know it).

[Supa Dexta]

I think we've passed the 'golden age' of available income to lifestyle balance. Meaning from here on out, you'll have to work harder/longer to achieve any sort of well to do life. Jobs get fewer and crappier, living gets more expensive.. etc On a global scale anyways, more and more people are chasing wealth and prosperity, but automation and cheap crap fill the void. It won't be a fast fall, but a general settling. You already see it in not being able to have a nice house on a big lot, your wife home with the kids and a couple cars in the driveway. Where you shut off work after your 8 hour, 5 day a week job.

[Buster]

Actually, technology and automation make people richer, not more poor. We're vastly more rich today than at any point in history.

[phreezee]

[Supa Dexta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually, technology and automation make people richer, not more poor. We're vastly more rich today than at any point in history.

We are yes. But the rest of the world won't attain it. The growing middle class of the under developed world meets our shrinking middle class.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually, technology and automation make people richer, not more poor. We're vastly more rich today than at any point in history.

Depends on your definition of wealth.

I agree, its never been easier for people to live to 85 in a healthy manner with a roof over their heads, no matter how awful the liberal media makes society sound.

But a lot that pays for that to happen is due to taking from the rich. So are we wealthier, or just taxing the rich more?

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually, technology and automation make people richer, not more poor. We're vastly more rich today than at any point in history.

I see each generation after is having tougher time to enjoy the same quality of life as the generation before. We may be more rich as a whole but it's a bit lopsided in wealth distribution.

Yes, there are some rags to riches stories on the tech side like Gate, Zuckerberg and the likes but we are not enjoying the same level of living like people in the 60s just simply having a reliable job.

[Buster]

"wealth distribution" is a different argument than the overall wealth of the average/middle-class/lower-income people. We're way, way ahead of where we were in the 60s.

Unless you think that "wealth distribution" extremes is the SAME was poverty. Which is an argument that has never made sense to me. I'd rather have more money, regardless of whether or not there are more rich people than me around at the same time.

[zhao]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I see each generation after is having tougher time to enjoy the same quality of life as the generation before. We may be more rich as a whole but it's a bit lopsided in wealth distribution.

Yes, there are some rags to riches stories on the tech side like Gate, Zuckerberg and the likes but we are not enjoying the same level of living like people in the 60s just simply having a reliable job.

Not having a reliable job is a trade off of a rapidly advancing society. I'll probably be out of a job in 10-15 years if I stay doing what i'm doing now, but there will be other jobs. The challenge is seeing if I can transition in to something else without affecting my salary.

Not having the same 'quality' of life is because people want to buy more disposable crap they dont need and that will be obsolete or broken in 2 years. IMO, for most things we're ahead its just we spend more money... everyone could get more, and your average person would just spend more. Some people you could give a million dollars and they'd still be broke within no time.

Where each generation is legitimately getting worse and worse is how affordable land is IMO. land is fricken expensive now compared to 30 years ago, or 60, or 100.