Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
Sorry, I might have lost track of the conversation. Is it just about who is powerful, or who is a counterweight to China?

Just a refresher you were adding Japan to my comment about how the P5+1 were the most powerful in the UN because of Germany's increasing world role.

 sebster wrote:
People stare too much at growth rates and ignore the base of the economy. That is to say, Japan's economy is stagnant and has been for a long while, but they're still the third biggest economy in the world. That gives them plenty of aid to splash around the various minor countries of Asia to secure their votes.

Yes they have a massive economy. That economy is ailing, and is for all intensive purposes on the decline. I examine a healthy economy against more then just numbers of employed, wages, etc.

 sebster wrote:
The UN, though, is just a handful of buildings, a budget and a charter. None of which stops it being as powerful an instrument of world peace and human rights as its member nations choose to make it. The problem being, basically, that its member nations aren't very hesitant to spend blood and treasure on someone else's human rights. Now that's understandable, as I wouldn't want my kid getting blown up in some part of the world I can't find on a map, but it doesn't make sense to then blame the UN for committing only the few military resources it's member nations are willing to commit.

Agreed, and I would never assert otherwise. I see the UN as a convenient vehicle to try and rally international support for a cause.

 sebster wrote:
Of course you're a democracy. You just had elections. Everyone got out and voted, and representatives were subsequently put into all kinds of positions. That's democracy.

I would more accurately label us as a democratic republic, and refer to it as the Republic for short. That being said, I apologize, I have been steeped in classical writings lately, and was utilizing a classical definition in the wrong context. My mistake!

 JEB_Stuart wrote:
Yes they have a massive economy. That economy is ailing, and is for all intensive purposes on the decline.

But they can decline for another 20 years, and still be much, much richer per capita than most places in the world.

And it's 'intents and purposes'.

I examine a healthy economy against more then just numbers of employed, wages, etc.

Except much of what we see as 'health' is really just playing catch up. China, for instance, basically produces most of its growth by taking subsistance farmers and putting them to work in factories making low end products with methods invented in the West decades ago. Their competitive advantage is dependant on a lower wages base, and given growth means expanding wages, there will come a point where they cannot simultaneously grow and compete on low wages.

As a result, there's a point where that catch up will end and internally generated productivity is the only way to keep getting bigger. Looking at the basic structures of the Chinese economy, that kind of continued growth is basically impossible.

Agreed, and I would never assert otherwise. I see the UN as a convenient vehicle to try and rally international support for a cause.

Absolutely.

I would more accurately label us as a democratic republic, and refer to it as the Republic for short. That being said, I apologize, I have been steeped in classical writings lately, and was utilizing a classical definition in the wrong context. My mistake!

Cool. And yeah, I'd call you a Democratic Republic as well.

EDIT
Well, the collective 'you'. You individually I'd call a person