The Next 100 Years: Why the 21st Century Will Be an American Century
posted at 4:57 pm on June 3, 2009 by CK MacLeod
[ National Defense ]
The first, last, and main thing to understand about the 21st Century as George Friedman, founder of the security consulting and forecasting firm STRATFOR, sees it unfolding is that the more things change, the more a few things not only stay the same, but become even more so.
Friedman’s approach is thoroughly geopolitical, and it’s almost tautological to observe that the most important geopolitical factor is geography – which in turn means that everybody trying to make a case for Sinophobia, Islamophobia, Russophobia, Indophobia, or any other conceivable -phobia (or -philia) attached to a nation, region, religion, or ideology will have to contend with facts of life that don’t change, at least in the human time-scale. In short, the global economy is critically and fundamentally dependent on oceangoing trade; North America, the North American economy, and specifically the U.S. Navy dominate the oceans; and this predominance, now firmly established, is self-reinforcing and extremely difficult to dislodge. It produces a series of relatively simple U.S. strategic objectives, as well as fairly straightforward means of achieving them affordably – and, in the final analysis, almost everything else is distraction.
In Friedman’s view, geography explains why America became rich and powerful. You can attribute American success to democratic capitalism, but it was geography that made democratic capitalism of the American type possible. In this sense, geography is why we were in a position to win the 20th Century War of the World that finished Europe, and set up a finals match between ourselves and the Soviet Union; why the Soviet Union never really had much of a chance; and why the outlines were already visible to people like de Tocqueville and others when the United States was (or were) a small and fractious confederation as much as it was a nation, Russia was a backwater, and all of the action was emanating from Western Europe.
It’s also why, looking ahead, China and India are more likely to fragment and recede than to grow and lead; why Turkey is more important than Iran; why Islam is not an existential threat and why in fact the idea may be laughable; and why certain patterns of conflict, such as between the U.S. and Japan or between the U.S. and any power threatening to dominate the Eurasian landmass, are likely sooner or later to recur and to follow familiar paths – mainly to the benefit of the U.S.
It’s not fair, but don’t blame Friedman. He wasn’t the one who created a rich, arable, relatively easily traversable, thinly populated but eminently inhabitable continent with multiple ports on both of the world’s most important oceans.
This unique position, or its results, explain further why we can afford to be sloppy, wasteful, and moody – oscillating between overconfidence and despair; why when we “lose” we so often win despite ourselves; why events that loom very large in the American public mind at one or another point in history can be all but forgotten a few years later; why citizens of less favored lands pay a much steeper price for our mistakes than we do; why we recover more quickly than anyone else can; and why no matter how much we’re envied, resisted, and hated, we’ll likely never be without friends, clients, and customers.
Unabashedly but not naively pro-American, Friedman also remains unperturbed by our recent national agonies in Southeast Asia and the Middle East: “These conflicts are merely isolated episodes in U.S. history, of little lasting importance – except to Vietnamese and Iraqis.” After explaining how our “barbarism” in such matters – a term Friedman uses descriptively, not judgmentally – works to our advantage, to the dismay of nations with much smaller “margins of error,” Friedman then sums up the “U.S.-jihadist war,” which he sees as “slither[-ing] to an end”:
An Islamic world in chaos, incapable of uniting, means the United States has achieved its strategic goal. One thing the United States has indisputably done since 2001 is to create chaos in the Islamic world, generating animosity toward America – and perhaps terrorists who will attack it in the future. But the regional earthquake is not coalescing into a regional superpower. In fact, the region is more fragmented than ever, and this is likely to close the book on this era. U.S. defeat or stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan is the likely outcome, and both wars will appear to have ended badly for the United States. … But on a broader, more strategic level, that does not matter. So long as the Muslims are fighting each other, the United States has won its war.
Sure, in addition to leading to loss of life and treasure, this kind of thing leaves people angry, but, as Friedman is quick to point out: “Anger does not make history. Power does.”
Finally, this same higher, virtually from-orbit perspective enables Friedman to handle our current economic troubles in a few sentences:
The U.S. economy has a net worth measured in hundreds of trillions of dollars. Therefore, a debt crisis measuring a few trillion cannot destroy it. The problem is, how can this country’s net worth be used to cover the bad loans, since that net worth is in hundreds of millions of private hands? Only the government can do that, and it does it by guaranteeing the debts, using the state’s sovereign taxing power, and utilizing the Federal Reserve’s ability to print money to bail out the system.
“The crisis of 2008,” he continues,” is hardly a defining moment. Think of it as a straw in the wind, a sign of things to come.”
In other words, Friedman’s not quite Glenn Beck about our present difficulties, and is probably inclined to give Obama-Geithner-Bernanke more latitude than most conservatives will be, but he’s not a Polyanna either: He thinks we’re heading for a demographically driven economic crisis truly worthy of the name, but expects it to arise in the 2030 time frame, not next year or 2016, and expects us to be, as ever, comparatively well-positioned to handle it – and, in good time, to move on. Though Obama in particular may not, from a geopolitical view, have or need as much freedom of movement as some may wish to believe, or as Obama himself has sometimes pretended, there’s also nothing in Friedman’s analysis that prevents us from criticizing Obama-Geithner-Bernanke for handling things less well than they could or should, or that prevents us from taking advantage of the next American mood swing to correct for Obama-era over-corrections. Indeed, if Friedman’s right, it’s by no means too early to begin preparing for problems that may be much more challenging and transformative than the ’08 financial crisis and the Conflict Formerly Known As The War On Terror.
Whether you’re pleased, dismayed, surprised, or simply unpersuaded by Friedman’s depiction of a war in 2050 precipitated by a Turko-Japanese alliance, of an eventual showdown within North America itself, of nearer term hopeless maneuvers by Russia and China, or of the technological, economic, and social changes that will accompany, drive, or be driven by such events, his guesstimates and projections always combine ruthless logic and well-informed, relentlessly fact-based extrapolations. The effect may shake your assumptions, or at least shake you out of habitual modes of thought, and it may be especially welcome to Americans who’ve lately been given to exaggerated fear, pessimism, and despair – or, in some quarters, to unrealistic expectations – about the state of our nation and the world.
The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
George Friedman
Hardcover: 272 pages
Doubleday (January 27, 2009)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
What about the prediction that Europe will be a predominantly Muslim continent in 25 years due to birth rates and immigration? Does that factor into the equation?
Disturb the Universe on June 3, 2009 at 5:17 PM
DtU – Friedman considers Western Europe pretty much a shot wad geopolitically. He does consider the “population bust” to be extremely important worldwide, but I don’t think he accepts the “worst-case” predictions about the Islamicization of Europe, among other things because Islamic birth rates are also tapering off. In truth, he doesn’t show much interest in Steynian projections, and seems to believe that France, Germany, Great Britain, and others will all become third-rate powers anyway. I suspect that, even if he did think Europe was going to be Islamic by 2035, he wouldn’t see it as in itself a major threat to U.S. power.
CK MacLeod on June 3, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Interesting.
I’m not saying Friedman is wrong, but… I’m more concerned that the friction between the poles in U.S. politics is getting worse.
External threats aren’t the problem – the whole system shaking apart is far more likely.
Mew
acat on June 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Hahaha! That guy is impossibly rosy!
Let me count the ways …
*First – doesn’t the “Nyah, Nyah, I got the best rock to sit on!” reasoning for continued American dominance ring a bit simplistic to you? Even if it’s true – it’s logical to assume that, the oceans – which have been shrinking since Chris Columbus due to technology – will eventually shrink away our little “island continent” advantage.
*Hey – don’t the Aussies have the best geography?
*How about the fact that nuclear proliferation has FAILED and basically everyone’s going to be building in them in their garages. They’re going to be smaller too – and easier to smuggle.
*I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. Navy’s dominance is not certain.
**Most of the fleet moves on OIL. My Aegis Cruiser was often tied to the pier for training exercises due to lack of fuel in the Pacific Fleet. That was in 2003. But – you can expect that we’ll play hell getting oil if the balloon goes up. No Oil – you can’t move an Aircraft Carrier (need’s conventionally powered escorts). Without moving carriers – you can’t project American Airpower.
**We now officially have an aging Submarine fleet. The Los Angeles Fast Attacks and the Ohio SSBN / SSGN’s make up the bulk of the fleet – they are 1970′s designs. I recently went on a 688i (in the last two months) – and what I found was an aging old lady – not at all the bright shiny 688 I first reported aboard in 1983. We are building new SSN’s at about the rate of one per year I think. That’s … really not fast enough to replace these geriatric 688′s.
**We don’t have enough Carriers. In fact – we’re now using Amphibs as the major flatop. Carrier Battle Groups are out and now the “Expeditionary Strike Group” is in. Problem is – these ESG’s are extremely vulnerable because they don’t have the defensive air canopy that Carriers do. Don’t get me wrong – we still deploy Carrier Battle Groups – but to fill in the gaps we use ESG’s. Those ESG’s have a lot of vulnerable people in them (they carry a full Marine Expeditionary Unit along with escorts) .
*I don’t care who you are or what castle you think you’re sitting in – if the rest of the playground wants to take you down – they’ll do it.
*America is in the middle of a vast moral erosion. No, strike that – we’re at the end of it. The Chinese may have some divisions coming but let me tell you – THEY ARE FOCUSED. This applies to the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese, etc. The coming age is about ASIA – not the Americas – not even close.
*If you want to talk about division – we have some coming in this country. We have not been this polarized and angry at each other since just before the civil war. That is NOT going to be resolved peacefully. Hard to see how the U.S. will dominate when we’re fractured to pieces.
And that IS coming.
HondaV65 on June 3, 2009 at 7:58 PM
My Ancient Near Eastern professor would always say, without apology, that what determines all nations and their advancements comes down to three things: topography, topography, topography.
Weight of Glory on June 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Logic indicates that in the long term North America will remain one of the more viable regions of the world in many respects; largely doe to the geographic factors Friedman indicates. But that does not mean it will remain under the control of a form of government that we would recognize as our own. After all, the indians had all the same geographic advantages, and that did not save them or their culture.
MikeA on June 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Sorry don’t see this rosy picture. This boy is projecting. In the short to medium term I can’t see how our power is augmented for the long term with a debased dollar, crippling deficits, hollow military, internal polarization, and the increasing political illegitimacy of the “ruling class”.
elduende on June 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM
a lesson the Israelis have taken to heart with all those hilltop settlements.
elduende on June 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM
I think this is true. The response that Geitner received in China was a bit unnerving. The image I took away was less one of weakness than one of a Nation at a begging nadir.
I can’t comment on the book or on geopolitical determinism, but what seems to me like a re-inflation of an unholy economy bodes ill. Now the bubble is a government bubble. It’s like we’ve built a building straddling the fissure of a quake.
Eirenic Rebel on June 3, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Well, I am going to pick this book up tomorrow and have a good read – sounds interesting.
Honda –
Wonderful comments – and of course your service – my dad served on the USS Angler Sub in the early 60′s…
While I dont question your insight, namely to the military might – a few comments: Oil is important to the navy, as you expressed – I beleive a large group of experts believe the lack of fuel led to Germany’s demise in WW2 – but oil was discovered here in good ole USA – Penn. in fact – and based on Freidman’s assesment – N America is ripe with fossil fuels, oil, etc – but its the ideological dogma surrounded by “enviro” nuts hampering any real attempts at harvesting the full productiviy. Off shore rigs, Alaska, and desert rock stripping are readily abundant here.
That seems to support his “geo” view – yet I understand converting that in the short term may not be available to a carrier waiting to be refueled.
The rise of Asia has been promised for over 500 years – and while advanced in many ways compared to western civilizations – seems to have the same problem (barring political history) due to geography in flourishing: land locked on 2 sides, mountainous terrain for 1/4 the country, flooded in 1/5th – difficult sea patterns and a lack of many core raw goods, elements and materials
I dont put 100% weight into this theory – and will read the whole book – but concerning our own country’s internal strife – the Civil War disrupted our nation for awhile – but ultimately led to its flourishing – of which I beleive is the “macro” argument being made by Freidman.
Odie1941 on June 3, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Indeed.
Weight of Glory on June 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Interesting point, but I would add “indians” in North America still exist, with some flourishing (through casinos, other advanced industries)and the fact they were micro nations or territories as tribes and, not a cohesive entity.
As I mentioned above – oil is available in America – and the recent “shut down” of a oil refinery in the Quechan Indian Tribe region tends to side more with enviro issues to symie their growth, rather than a geographic hinderence.
Odie1941 on June 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM
10 years ago Friedman wrote how India and China would be eating us for lunch. Now all of a sudden 21st Century will belong to America. Mayne his next book will say Lichtenstein will own the 22nd Century. Makes about as much sense.
The US died last year. Anyone who believes the US will be anything but a mediocre 3rd world country in 2050 is smoking something I would dearly love to get a hold of.
angryed on June 3, 2009 at 8:42 PM
I’d like to clarify one of my comments about “Carrier Battle Groups” being “out” and “ESG’s In”.
What I meant to say is – due to the lack of carriers – we’ve been filling the deployment gaps with Amphibs like Pelilieu.
Now, the official line is that we use these ESG’s in order to cover more hot spots. That’s only partially true. Sure, we cover more hot spots – but the ESG is not the ideal battle unit to cover it. We use ESG’s simply beacause there are too many hot spots for our Carriers to cover.
A Carrier Strike Group is a moving piece of U.S. territory and it controls both the sea and air wherever it moves. Not so with the ESG. ESG-1 was able to field at most THREE of the four Harrier jets assigned to it. Readiness of the Harriers is pathetic – and they are not up to the task of intercepting air threats coming at the ESG. Now – we know that AEGIS cruisers escort ESG’s – and AEGIS cruisers can shoot down any air threat quickly. However – the can’t properly IDENTIFY an air threat. You may remember the case of the Iranian Air Bus we shot down in the Gulf back in the 1980′s – proof that not ever “threatening” target on a radar screen is indeed threatening. As a result – WE IDENTIFY all targets now using multiple means – the primary one being Aircraft. If you can’t get a Harrier off an Amphib quickly – the threat closes so fast you’re left with fewer options. Eventually – you have to let the target overfly and pray for the best (that it’s a harmless civvie) – or you have to shoot missiles. No one likes that situation.
I am a Submariner – but I have seen all communities. I’m loyal to my community – but I will tell you there is nothing on the planet like a Carrier Strike Group – and we don’t have enough imo.
HondaV65 on June 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM
That implies that there was a single cultural and political Indian nation across what is now the United States. That simply isn’t true. Think more like Africa: dozens of different peoples of varying ethnicities, cultures, and levels of technological development; often at war with each other. Those “geographic advantages” would have been, to all practical intents and purposes, nonexistent.
jic on June 3, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Hey, Odie1941 – thanks for your comments. I hope you’ll bookmark this page and come back after you’ve picked up and fnished the book! That goes for anyone else who reads it.
I’ll also say that Friedman addresses many of Honda’s arguments – from shrinking of the world and, relatedly, to the complex of oil/hydrocarbon issues to the building and running of navies, though not to the same level of “granular” detail regarding specific submarines (it’s only a 270-page book covering 100 years plus background). Shrink as the world might, the bulk of trade, which includes the world energy economy, depends on the oceans and will likely do so for generations to come. He does see the US eventually leveraging its command of the seas, its technological head start, and its economic and political primacy into a virtual monopoloy on outer space.
He believes China’s going to be either torn apart or forced to relapse into isolationism by around 2020, and he devotes extensive analysis to China and the other Asian nations.
As for our problems, considering the importance of the Navy, I’m all for keeping it, um, shipshape!, and making up for our derelictions post-haste, but I don’t think our polarization even comes close, so far, to what we had during the ’60s or even the early ’80s, much less the pre-Civil War period. Oldie’s comments about Civil War and recovery are on point here, too.
Given the Indians’ technology, they weren’t in a position to exploit North America’s geographic advantages fully – to state the obvious. On the other hand, they had a pretty good run, and some major civilizations, that benefited mightily from not being interfered with by the rest of the world. Viewing the situation very broadly, the US still benefits from its relative isolation in that regard.
CK MacLeod on June 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM
While I won’t bet on the 21st century being an American century, what I can admit is that the US dollar still is the best bet despite the bankruptcy of the system upon which it is based simply because of military power. He who has the guns, has the money. Since no other free nation has the ability, or really the will, to assume the role of the world’s policeman, investors will always view the US as the safest place to invest capital and the safest place to run to when things get scary. Regardless of how bad the US economy gets, it will always be worse for the other guys. So the US dollar will still be the reserve currency.
As Mao once said, all power comes from the barrel of a gun. In the end, it is power that matters. Even if you are fat and lazy and broke, if you have the gun, you have the power. If you have the power, you have the money. If not your money, at least you have the other guy’s money. There is no free nation on earth that is willing to spend huge portions of GDP on military spending. All the other advanced free nations are military phobic, nor do their economies have the ability to create a US-size military. But more importantly, they don’t want to be militarily strong. They have abdicated defense of law and order and world trade to the US. Basically, they get a free ride while the cost of maintaining the trade routes falls to the US. In exchange, the US gets to be boss.
While China and Russia want to be strong and rule the world, their dictatorial culture and lack of English common law, property law and contract law and the lack of respect for intellectual property rights, not to mention human rights, precludes fundamental foreign investment, or any kind of American-style renaissance, so their currency will never make them powerful.
keep the change on June 3, 2009 at 9:07 PM
CK –
Will do and thank you for the sentiments. While a bit different – I highly recommend Voltaire’s Bastards by John Raulston Saul. Great read and snap shot through the past 500 years or so and uncovers or “opines” as to geopolitical forces being, well, basterdized by elitists in government towards the 21st century.
Odie1941 on June 3, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Voltaire’s Bastards is now on my list, Odie. Thanks for the tip.
CK MacLeod on June 3, 2009 at 9:30 PM
FYI, ESG’s from what I understand are going away. I don’t know all of the details, but this is a fact. It’s pretty much going back to the regular Carrier battle groups, and the ARG’s as far as I know.
gator70 on June 3, 2009 at 10:01 PM
While China and Russia want to be strong and rule the world, their dictatorial culture and lack of English common law, property law and contract law and the lack of respect for intellectual property rights, not to mention human rights, precludes fundamental foreign investment, or any kind of American-style renaissance, so their currency will never make them powerful.
keep the change on June 3, 2009 at 9:07 PM
If we continue to inflate our dollar to neverland standards, then our own government will be the dictatorial culture…who lacks English Common Law understanding, property rights, human rights etc.
Conservative Voice on June 3, 2009 at 10:10 PM
I don’t mean to quibble but the Soviets had over a 200 division advantage to us in Europe (even after including 60 or so turkish divisions) as well as a strategic parity in nuclear weapons and we exhausted them economically. Their power imploded because they did not have an economy to sustain it.
If our economy implodes our power implodes what happens then is akin to what is happening now…multiple regional hegemons become dominant…which is why Brazil is emerging in South America as a manufacturing, energy, investment, and security powerhouse…if our economy the rest of our supposed power cascades….we’re toast the rest of the planet may revert to a mercantilist model akin to China and we’ll either reemerge later or not but don’t fool yourself money and prestige have no ideology.
elduende on June 3, 2009 at 10:28 PM
should read:
…if our economy goes the rest of our supposed power cascades….we’re toast, the rest of the planet may then revert to a mercantilist model akin to what China has now with a planet wide scramble for resources akin to the early 20 th century. As for us we’ll either reemerge later after we get our economic house in order or not, but don’t fool yourself money and prestige and global power respects no ideology.
elduende on June 3, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Excellent review, CK! I have a feeling that the historian’s bedrock faith in the importance of geography will turn out to be one of those principles that remains reliably true… right up until it isn’t.
I wonder if one consequence of the Information Age, coming on the heels of an Atomic Age that unleashed vast amounts of energy and movement potential, will be the increasing tendency of the human factor to shape geography, rather than the time-honored tradition of geography shaping human civilization. The 20th century left us with a remarkable ability to rearrange the topography of the planet – not just in the terrifying nuclear kaboom sense, but in the way we can transport food and raw materials cheaply over vast distances. What we do with these resources is increasingly dependent on collective human will.
A flagging, exhausted West seems to be in the process of squandering the tremendous advantages geography and history have bestowed upon it. The steely will to power of China, or the feral bloodlust of fascist Islam, can go a long way to overwhelm a bloated, dissolute America that is too fat and overcome with self-doubt to raise its weapons. Fortress America won’t be that hard to sack, if the gates are hanging open and the guards had to cash in their bullets to pay for national health care.
Europe’s nearly inevitable fall to Islam may have more of a ripple effect than Friedman seems to anticipate. The American Left is deeply invested in the idea that Europeans are our intellectual and cultural betters. What will the Left of 2030 make of those wise old socialist countries’ submission to Islam? Organized Islamic communities have already extracted astonishing concessions from nominally agnostic American liberals – concessions that would never be extended to any other religious group. Geography and technology may ensure that no one could take America by force, but the more uncertain question is whether Americans can prevent their elites from handing America over to the outsiders who most passionately demand it.
Doctor Zero on June 3, 2009 at 10:50 PM
So his whole case rests on a foundation of China being “torn apart” or something in about 10 years. Pretty thin gruel to rest all his sweeping predictions on.
MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I heard that same thought over and over during my undergrad years (poli sci) usually in the context of explaining why Africa has always fared so miserably. It doesn’t explain the Roman Empire, though.
exlibris on June 3, 2009 at 11:45 PM
I don’t think our polarization even comes close, so far, to what we had during the ’60s or even the early ’80s, much less the pre-Civil War period. Oldie’s comments about Civil War and recovery are on point here, too.
– C.K. MacLeod
Geography and technology may ensure that no one could take America by force, but the more uncertain question is whether Americans can prevent their elites from handing America over to the outsiders who most passionately demand it.
–Doctor Zero
Gotta agree with Doctor Zero on this one.
My humble opinion is that the far right has been pushed a hell of a lot further in the last 10 years (yes, under Bush) than they like, and that a lot more are thinking “No further” this year than were in 1968 or 1982.
It’s not the social by itself, it’s not the financial by itself, it’s that both are hitting at the same time.
The Left can stand against the Religious Right just fine, or against the Fiscally Sane just fine, but both together?
Mew
acat on June 3, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Well, you’ll have to sip the gruel at the source to determine for yourself how thin it is. I certainly wouldn’t expect you to take my word for it. I wouldn’t say at all that his whole case rests on it at all. In brief, China is limited by its geography, boxed in by virtually impassable regions east and south, with a channel into Sibera to the north, and other than that Korea. The coastal area’s interests and development tend to diverge from the inland regions, and the central government has been able to keep the centrifugal forces in check mainly by economic growth, which is insustainable at past rates, and even more vulnerable to international economic disruption. That’s the torn apart part. The isolationism part – China’s preferred pattern historically – comes when the central government tries to deal with inequities by clamping down. Resource limitations, deeply fraudulent bookkeeping and reporting, corruption, nepotism, inefficiency, etc., etc. If the US dollar cracks, then Chinese exports crack and Chinese holdings of US debt is devalued. For the US dollar to hold, China has to keep on buying and holding US debt.
Why do you think they were all laughing so hard about their money being safe?
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Sorry, dropped a thought off my last post.
The Left will cut both down, and end up with a U.S. that resembles Europe… Broke, buried under social programs, and incapable of being more than another spent wad .. or, my guess, balkanized and ripe for a partial or total takeover.
Mew
acat on June 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I don’t want to be in the position of defending Obama-Geithner-Bernankonomics, but, on the other hand, it’s not good forecasting to assume facts not in evidence. We’ve withstood extended bouts of inflation and other relatively radical economic problems before without turning into “neverland.”
Friedman doesn’t predict unicorns, rainbows, and uninterrupted good times. He just asserts that the US has a lot further to fall and a lot more to fall back on than anyone else. Before determining that our decline is irreversible and illimitable, I’d like to have better evidence than inchoate fears and generalizations.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:16 AM
They are buying up resources around the globe. We are not even exploiting our own very well. Solar and wind just are not going to cut it.
That description fits the U.S.A. pretty well too, maybe even better. In fact that is what got us into this economic mess. With Obama it is getting even worse.
They are slowly tip-toe’ing out the door. They just don’t want to run and cause a out-of-the-dollar stampede.
Because they believe that the U.S., under Obama is going down the tubes.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 12:16 AM
The first part is a complex subject, and Friedman’s own predicted “solutions” to our entitlements/age structure problems may not be something conservatives are primed to endorse, but there’s nothing that can be put into law that can’t be revised in law.
Who’s going to take us over? Even if we disbanded our military tomorrow (though why would we?), who has the financial wherewithal to launch a takeover overseas? On our own continent, who’s going to take over? Canada? Mexico, for now, can’t even run itself.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Most of us have criticized those who, like Al Gore, predict weather/climate decades out when forecasters can not even accurately predict more than a few days out, sometimes not even that. I see no reason why it should be any different with this. Even less in fact, as there are so many potential “game changers” with something like this. You know what Rumsfeld said.
“There are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know that we don’t know.
- Donald Rumsfeld
Does this George Friedman have a past record of successful prognostication that we can be impressed by?
Does he have yearly “benchmarks” for the 21st century that we can follow to see if he is on the right track? i don’t know about the rest of you but I don’t think I am going to last through the rest of the century and I doubt that George Friedman is going to either.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 12:28 AM
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 12:16 AM
You’re referring to generalizations. Friedman refers to numbers – for instance, in the comparison of “fraud and inefficiency” in the US vs. the same in China. He’s not the only by any means who views China as an economic paper tiger, by the way.
Or in resources – even with both hands tied behind our backs, the US is still one of the leading oil-producing countries in the world. It’s just that our super-huge economy demands a huge amount of energy.
It’s not all geography, though it does in an indirect way all go back to it eventually. All of those oil tankers safely transit from the Persian Gulf and other regions to China because we like it that way.
We’re so conscious of our limitations and focused on ourselves that we’ve lost awareness of how far ahead of a country like China we still are in per-capita income, energy usage, production, etc., not to mention overall military power. Our “hollowed-out” manufacturing sector (accounting for something like 20% of our economy in 2007) is still larger than China’s entire economy.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I suppose the “moral of the story” is to make prognostications so far out that nobody will even remember them by the time the “drop-dead-date” arrives, even if they are still alive.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 12:35 AM
STRATFOR is considered the world’s leading private intelligence and forecasting firm. It’s reports are used by corporations and governments worldwide. Take that as you will.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I don’t see how I am doing that any more than he is. I am mainly questioning his generalizations.
Numbers? Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but I don’t see his “numbers”. He has numerical values that he puts on “deeply fraudulent bookkeeping and reporting, corruption, nepotism, inefficiency, etc., etc.” in the U.S. and in China? I don’t see them. Where are they and where did he get them?
Again -
Does this George Friedman have a past record of successful prognostication that we can be impressed by?
Does he have yearly “benchmarks” for the 21st century that we can follow to see if he is on the right track? i don’t know about the rest of you but I don’t think I am going to last through the rest of the century and I doubt that George Friedman is going to either
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 12:45 AM
When someone figures out how to ship a barrel of oil or an aircraft carrier over the internet, then we’ll be in a different world.
Seems that way, because the USN guarantees free transit through the sea lanes. Air transport is extremely expensive compared to shipping – otherwise all those cars, containers, natural gas and oil tankers, etc., etc., would be dropping at airports and backyards instead of ports.
Easier said than done.
How are they going to get here? Swim?
They’ll get over it. Or we’ll get over them.
Not really convinced by the Steynian case, but, even if I was, who cares what the Left of 2030 makes of anything?
Don’t see any money it. Maybe the American elite of the present day is a parasitic sub-class that will change its tune when it senses opportunity elsewhere, or be dispensed with.
Such a bunch of defeatists on the right, these days. Sheesh. Some of you guys would have been worthless in 1942 or at Valley Forge! Even Lenin had more confidence in capitalism – always finding away out of its historical cul-de-sacs – than you guys do.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:46 AM
They’re in his book. My review is 1 page. His book is 270+. For instance, he refers to an estimate of the total value of bad loans (given out in the communist system for every reason other than economic efficiency) as $600 – $900 billion “or between a quarter and a third of China’s GDP.”
To your repeated questions, MB4:
I’ve already given his credentials. You can look up STRATFOR yourself.
Yearly benchmarks would be absurd: He’s not pretending to be able to foretell the future in detail. He provides a forecast, explaining his method all along. You can assess his reasoning and evidence for yourself if it interests you, but I can’t write the book out for your here, dude.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM
If their intelligence is so good, what did they say about Iraq and Afghanistan back in 2003 and 2001? Did they predict that there would be 4,000 dead American troops AFTER a successful Saddam regime overthrough, that we would spend many hundreds of billions there and that we would still have well over 100,000 troops there more than 6 years later? Did they predict that American troop levels, and costs, in Afghanistan would be escalating more than 7 years after the invasion there?
If their economic forecasts are so good, they should all be super rich and retired by now. Did they tell people to get out of the market when it was at it’s peak and tell people to get back in this past March when it started to do it’s big run up?
Paint me skeptical of those who would prognosticate the future, especially so far out. It’s not just STRATFOR, nor just George Friedman, nor just Al Gore. I think that prognosticators are all just damn fools, at least if they take their own prognostications too seriously.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Here’s a straightforward, mainstream report on China’s economic situation, just one of the first articles that turned up on a Google search.
http://blog.aranca.com/global_recession/2009/03/unemployment-in-china-%E2%80%93-trouble-looming-ahead/
When you consider the degree of China’s dependence on exports than there are only two alternatives: If the consumer economies recover, then China can perhaps stay afloat, though it’s an open question whether it will ever resume the yearly double-digit growth that it had been accustomed to up until last year – that is, it faces major, uncertain adjustments even in what most consider a best case scenario for the world economy.
If, as so many here seem to believe, we’re heading into the crapper, with a broken dollar unable to buy anything, then China is in deep trouble. If we get a cold, they get pneumonia. If we get pneumonia, they die.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 1:06 AM
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:01 AM
You have strange ideas about what forecasting is about, and frankly are coming across as kind of cranky, too.
Can’t say I followed STRATFOR day by day over the last eight years, but from what I read they were always skeptics, without being alarmists, regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. Even in the review, I quoted Friedman’s own rather pessimistic view of them.
I do believe that Mr. Friedman’s probably doing a helluva lot better than I am financially. Betcha he bought gold, but I can’t tell you for sure.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 1:10 AM
I think we have got a lot more than that and growing and with no end in sight. Did he even take that, things that have been coming out and happening over the last several months in the U.S., into account in his book? If not it’s got big holes in it already.
I just very quickly looked at a review of his book and it says that he says that “Mexico will emerge as an important world power.” That seems a little hard to believe.
I also see that he wrote an earlier book called The Coming War With Japan published in 1991. LOL. I think he may have been a bit off on that.
I dunno, maybe someone should check the ventilation at his residence.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:23 AM
For those looking for a evidence of competence on the part of STRATFOR, consider that they were the ONLY voice highlighting the danger the Bush Administration were setting themselves up for in using WMD as their main selling point for the Iraq war; i.e. -if it’s not found they’ll be screwed. They did an expert job of laying out the entire case for the war and the Administration’s rationales, but Bush was taking the easy way out and publicly highlighting only WMD. Only STRATFOR called them on it. Shame they didn’t listen.
You can sign up for free emails from STRATFOR and if you aren’t impressed by what you get for free, well, just check it out for yourself, it is impressive.
Maquis on June 4, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Anyone can forecast, being right is another matter entirely.
As to me being “cranky” (Having a bad disposition), well I do not believe that I am cranky at all and certainly not nearly “cranky” enough on my worst day to start calling you “cranky” just because we may disagree on some matters.
As to the other definition of “‘cranky” (Having eccentric ways; odd), I would say that, as demonstrated by his book The Coming War With Japan published in 1991, that would seem to rather well fit George Friedman to say the least.
Oh well, it’s been “interesting”.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:43 AM
I bought gold and oil ETF and China ETF and India ETF, but am thinking about getting out, more or less, now while I am still ahead. Don’t want to press my luck.
MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Prognostication, especially when published to take advantage of a fad – such as the Fall of the Great Powers/Rise of Japan stuff that was so current during the late ’80s/early ’90s – is subject to making fools of the prognosticators. However, from my glance at the Amazon review, Friedman and his co-author were coy about a setting a date, and the mention of “hypersonic missiles” leads me to believe that the alarmist title was a bit off.
Hypersonics have been a favorite among future-war types for a while now. They re-appear in this book, and Friedman also still believes that the US and Japan are on an historical collision course – just not anything to worry about anytime soon.
He’s almost 20 years older now. At least he’s still in the same job! I’d hate to be held responsible for everything I thought made sense in 1991.
I read an interesting article recently about economist Richard Duncan, who wrote was dismissed and even ridiculed because he underestimated the last economic growth spasm that accompanied the housing bubble, but has become fashionable again because he otherwise forecast the unfolding of the financial crisis rather accurately – with a collapse of the dollar or other major adjustment still to come. If you’d bought gold when he recommended, but held for just a few years longer, you’d have done quite well – but that’s not the point. The point is that you can be off a few years with your predictions – an eyeblink in the grand scheme of things – and still have valid and useful arguments to make. Hyman Minsky gave what amounted to an excellent forecast of our financial troubles as well – in 1986. It’s useful not because it can tell you how to make your own economic forecasts, but because the underlying thinking can help you to put solutions and non-solutions in perspective.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 1:55 AM
Uh, no – not in relative terms: The number refers to the equivalent of non-performing loans China -$600 to $900 BN in an economy ca. $2.5 T in size. If you’re thinking about US public deficits and debt, or maybe about the huge numbers sometimes conjured up in theoretical derivatives exposure, or maybe credit card debt, each is something else again. All god’s chilluns got problems, but not all problems are alike.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 2:18 AM
CK MacLeod:
Very interesting post. You raised an issue that I have never seriously factored in before.
Hi HondaV65,
Us non-military types appreciate your military information here. I found your post to be very informative.
I recently finished a You Tube history of the Falkland War, which Britain barely won over Argentina (according to the clips I saw).
I think Ed Morrisey wrote a fine Hot Air article about how American dominance in the South Pacific is no longer a future thing to count on. Also, the Aussies recognize this and are preparing for a day without American naval presence in the Pacific.
Personally, I think the Amazon author here is overly optimistic, but then again, I have not read the book either.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2009 at 2:21 AM
Maybe its just the review, but this sounds like naive oversimplified sunny-day garbage and a rehashing of 19th century geopolitical ideas.
The oceans are key to global dominance!!! Been reading Mahan much?
matthewbit07 on June 4, 2009 at 5:24 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »