I don't think you can really judge that. Honestly as an American, living in Texas, there are a lot of things wrong with the United States. The Tea Party, I'm sure you all know. However, the United States isn't that bad. It's still a Superpower, obviously, but it's not the best country in the world. It's a very diverse place, and that creates a forum for lunatics to voice their opinions, and they're listened to. Ted Cruz, a White Supremacist Canadian Latino, is running for President. The point is, every country except for maybe Rwanda or North Korea has good or bad things. You can't really judge a country for not being perfect. All you can do is improve the good things.

I don't know the Tea Party. But America is definitely very up there in living conditions, many Americans don't realise this.

By the way, go Ireland for superpower status.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2gtXHjYNZk really? Stanley McChrystal sounds kinda smart

Innovation-driven? There is no economy driven by innovation - this is just more propoganda talk from you. Perhaps you should explain more what you mean, but I think it's propoganda. Factor-driven? Anyhow, China is one of the highest working and producing (the highest working and producing) economy, in fact, so I think you meant it as degrading, but you're wrong. A SAIC and Xiaomi may not be at the same level as American technology, but there's four times more and growing faster.

Innovation-driven economy is not something that I came up with. Economies are either factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven. The term is semi-technical and is used by groups like the WEF to classify economies.

Factor-driven economies- like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia- are heavily dependent on the price of commodities like oil for their growth.

Efficiency-driven economies- like China, India, etc.- process those commodities and depend on their ability to provide cheap/efficient labor in a global market.

Innovation-driven economies- like Singapore, the US, and perhaps Germany (I'm rusty)- create new items and processes to drive their growth. They aren't able to simply grow off natural resources and aren't able to provide cheap/unpaid labor, so they focus on research (lots of patents here) and making new (like iPhones/iPads) or better goods (like really good cars) to compete in the global market.

The first type of economy is extremely susceptible to commodity costs- i.e., when demand for oil decreases, Russia's economy shrinks. The second type of economy is vulnerable to rising labor costs- i.e., when Chinese workers start earning more, their economic growth slows. The third isn't dependent on things that fluctuate so easily- research is a great long-term investment because you start creating new markets that you can dominate in and often are the only group that's capable of producing what you produce. Someone can't just show up with cheap labor or more access to silicon to outcompete Apple- they have to be able to make good gadgets and be able to improve them. So that's why it's called an "innovation-driven" economy, not because innovation is a great buzzword (DAE Silicon Valley?) but because these economies depend on their ability to innovate in order to compete.

Tsh, China is twice as strong as America, China and America are the worlds' superpowers - with America barely on the superpower scale anymore. Hardpower - immeausurable. Soft-power - China is part of the most powerful group on the planet - the SCO. English - a high status tongue - don't flatter yourself. It's a common tongue, but we don't speak it because it's cool - we speak it because of the British Empire's former dominions. Wear American brands? Watch American films? Are there such things (Obviously there are, but I have not heard of any except Avatar). I suppose in NATO, there is, but that's because America has them wrapped around their little finger.

By 2050, your hard power argument will probably be true- America will be getting outspent in military deveopment by both China and India. However, throughout the post-WWII period, America has dominated the world in military spending, currently spending 4 times as much as China. This has led to decades of accumulated advantages in research and development- for example, until 2011, no other country in the world even knew that the United States has stealth helicopters. China's navy, as I've probably pointed out before, is at best a green-water navy. The US has had a blue-water navy since the turn of the 20th century and is currently able to project power around the globe. Right now, China's military capabilites are mainly defensive and almost entirely focused in the Asia-Pacific region. Their research is focused on things like Dong Feng missiles- which are designed to block American aircraft carriers- not on technology that enables them to compete with the US in proxy wars. China is far behind in terms of aircraft carriers (which, admittedly, are probably the way of the battleship in 20 years, but still serve as the core of any blue-water navy) and, unlike the American navy, isn't yet at the stage where it's thinking about what to replace aircraft carriers with. Instead, China's focusing on catching up in the naval arena.

I don't think I quite explained what soft power is- soft power is the ability to use your culture in order to influence other countries. It's not about which military or economic groups you're in- that's still a form of hard power. (Even then, I'd argue that NATO trumps the SCO as NATO is a much more tightly-knit alliance and is also responsible for more military spending than any other military organization- NATO gets shit done).

For example, the UK has an incredible amount of soft power- as you pointed out, people speak British English in some places (although, if you look at countries like India, you'll notice a transition toward American English in the past 20 years- "zed" is now "zee", oddly enough). People know James Bond, watched the Royal Wedding, etc. However, the most recognized character in the world (by far) is Mickey Mouse. Hollywood movies often dominate other countries' theaters- for example, Kung Fu Panda kicked ass in China. That's an incredible concentration of soft power- people in China wear suits to KFC. Most people in the US think "shitty take-out" when you say "Chinese food" and "Jackie Chan?" when you say "Chinese movies."

There's still a massive gap that needs to be covered in both these categories. China is, of course, rapidly catching up- it's got a body of resources that guarantee its rise to superpower status in the long run, and of course the US is taking notice of this when it comes to military and economic strategy. However, it's not quite there yet, and won't be there in the next few years.

You have to figure out some things for yourself, powerful when it comes to politics. The worst thing you can listen to is to a biased account - Joseph Nye, maybe for America, did pioneer International Relations, but, you know, in some big American university, they have a former general teaching International Relations - these are just paid propoganda spreaders. He'd say whoever is currently America's target/enemy/queasy has very little soft power, is weak, because good old American might. Have you heard of David Storkey? British historian, probably your version of Joseph Nye. That said, Russia does have less soft power than America and China, but it has the best friend in the world - China. Russia is also magnetising some former EU states, so to say it has little influence is just outright doltish and dumb.

There's a great difference between "figuring out things for yourself" through critical thinking, in which you also take in a great deal of external sources- and "figuring out things for yourself" the way ancient Greeks did when it come to the natural world, which is just making things up after talking to yourself.

Joseph S. Nye is someone who literally pioneered the field of soft power studies. Both the Chinese and Russian governments take his accounts seriously. Moreover, if you want to call him a propagandist, read his works and actually find flaws in them. He offers analysis which is, fortunately enough, a falsifiable type of argument (unlike just calling someone a "propagandist" based on your limited knowledge of how American IR studies work).

Well it was just a little argument..(Was taken light-heartily) Was never meant to offend anyone just really a Topic in general.. If there is one thing America is the best at it is certainly the Olympics.

Innovation-driven economy is not something that I came up with. Economies are either factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven. The term is semi-technical and is used by groups like the WEF to classify economies.

Factor-driven economies- like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia- are heavily dependent on the price of commodities like oil for their growth.

Efficiency-driven economies- like China, India, etc.- process those commodities and depend on their ability to provide cheap/efficient labor in a global market.

Innovation-driven economies- like Singapore, the US, and perhaps Germany (I'm rusty)- create new items and processes to drive their growth. They aren't able to simply grow off natural resources and aren't able to provide cheap/unpaid labor, so they focus on research (lots of patents here) and making new (like iPhones/iPads) or better goods (like really good cars) to compete in the global market.

Ok, thanks for explaining your meanings. Factor-Driven Economies - Iran and Russia are not in here, 1990s Russia would be there, but since, Russia has greatly decreased it's dependence on oil. But then again, it's not really good enough to be in any of the other two, so I guess put it there. Iran? Same deal, but it does have some efficiency factor.

I already do not like this system, it is too broad. China has been in Innovation-Driven since Xiaoping times.

The first type of economy is extremely susceptible to commodity costs- i.e., when demand for oil decreases, Russia's economy shrinks. The second type of economy is vulnerable to rising labor costs- i.e., when Chinese workers start earning more, their economic growth slows. The third isn't dependent on things that fluctuate so easily- research is a great long-term investment because you start creating new markets that you can dominate in and often are the only group that's capable of producing what you produce. Someone can't just show up with cheap labour or more access to silicon to outcompete Apple- they have to be able to make good gadgets and be able to improve them. So that's why it's called an "innovation-driven" economy, not because innovation is a great buzzword (DAE Silicon Valley?) but because these economies depend on their ability to innovate in order to compete.

Second sentence, I think you mean, economic acceleration. It's certainly growing. With Apple (those sucky computers)...have you heard of Lenovo? You've heard of Xiomi. America still dominates the world in video games and in general, computers, but China is not far behind at all. And I guess I was mistaken about "innovation-driven", but you should have meant it before hand.

By 2050, your hard power argument will probably be true- America will be getting outspent in military deveopment by both China and India. However, throughout the post-WWII period, America has dominated the world in military spending, currently spending 4 times as much as China. This has led to decades of accumulated advantages in research and development- for example, until 2011, no other country in the world even knew that the United States has stealth helicopters. China's navy, as I've probably pointed out before, is at best a green-water navy. The US has had a blue-water navy since the turn of the 20th century and is currently able to project power around the globe. Right now, China's military capabilites are mainly defensive and almost entirely focused in the Asia-Pacific region. Their research is focused on things like Dong Feng missiles- which are designed to block American aircraft carriers- not on technology that enables them to compete with the US in proxy wars. China is far behind in terms of aircraft carriers (which, admittedly, are probably the way of the battleship in 20 years, but still serve as the core of any blue-water navy) and, unlike the American navy, isn't yet at the stage where it's thinking about what to replace aircraft carriers with. Instead, China's focusing on catching up in the naval arena.

Woah, woah, woah. I said nothing about hardpower. Hardpower, especially contemporary hardpower, is impossible to measure. We can really only use milestones for it, and I say, judging by how fast China went from fusion-fission, it's pretty scary. You're just going off the shady statistics the government gives you, which is always probably going to be an underestimation, just some number to put on. So, you can't talk here. End.

I don't think I quite explained what soft power is- soft power is the ability to use your culture in order to influence other countries. It's not about which military or economic groups you're in- that's still a form of hard power. (Even then, I'd argue that NATO trumps the SCO as NATO is a much more tightly-knit alliance and is also responsible for more military spending than any other military organization- NATO gets shit done).

SCO trumps NATO as it is arguably more tight-knit - but that's an argument for another time. Point - mean what you say before you say it. (Also, er, what? Culture? Government? Influencing? We are all living in what France's dream world 1000 years ago is, with Latin-based words in many European tongues, ties, bowties, and we still think speaking French is "classy".)

For example, the UK has an incredible amount of soft power- as you pointed out, people speak British English in some places (although, if you look at countries like India, you'll notice a transition toward American English in the past 20 years- "zed" is now "zee", oddly enough). People know James Bond, watched the Royal Wedding, etc. However, the most recognized character in the world (by far) is Mickey Mouse. Hollywood movies often dominate other countries' cinemas- for example, Kung Fu Panda kicked ass in China. That's an incredible concentration of soft power- people in China wear suits to KFC. Most people in the US think "shitty take-out" when you say "Chinese food" and "Jackie Chan?" when you say "Chinese movies."

Britain doesn't...the British Empire, yes. India is still "Zed" - it's generally folk working in computers that use "Zee". I don't know what James Bond is, don't know what the Royal Wedding is, don't know who Mickey Mouse is, Hollywood - American films. Kung Fu Panda? Have not heard of it, but what a dumb name :) I practised Tae-kwan do - waiting for Tae-kawn do Bear.

And what does culture matter? Your meaning of softpower is quite different to mine - I mean softpower as everything, just not actual weaponry. Relations, allies, so on. Here are some things that everyone has actually watched - Seventeen Moments of Spring, the sorrow when Brezhnev was laid to rest and The Trio from Petroposhkem. I have never been to America, so just looks like Americans are generally racist to Chinese.

Innovation-driven? There is no economy driven by innovation - this is just more propoganda talk from you. Perhaps you should explain more what you mean, but I think it's propoganda. Factor-driven? Anyhow, China is one of the highest working and producing (the highest working and producing) economy, in fact, so I think you meant it as degrading, but you're wrong. A SAIC and Xiaomi may not be at the same level as American technology, but there's four times more and growing faster.


Innovation-driven economy is not something that I came up with. Economies are either factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven. The term is semi-technical and is used by groups like the WEF to classify economies.

Factor-driven economies- like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia- are heavily dependent on the price of commodities like oil for their growth.

Efficiency-driven economies- like China, India, etc.- process those commodities and depend on their ability to provide cheap/efficient labor in a global market.

Innovation-driven economies- like Singapore, the US, and perhaps Germany (I'm rusty)- create new items and processes to drive their growth. They aren't able to simply grow off natural resources and aren't able to provide cheap/unpaid labor, so they focus on research (lots of patents here) and making new (like iPhones/iPads) or better goods (like really good cars) to compete in the global market.

The first type of economy is extremely susceptible to commodity costs- i.e., when demand for oil decreases, Russia's economy shrinks. The second type of economy is vulnerable to rising labor costs- i.e., when Chinese workers start earning more, their economic growth slows. The third isn't dependent on things that fluctuate so easily- research is a great long-term investment because you start creating new markets that you can dominate in and often are the only group that's capable of producing what you produce. Someone can't just show up with cheap labor or more access to silicon to outcompete Apple- they have to be able to make good gadgets and be able to improve them. So that's why it's called an "innovation-driven" economy, not because innovation is a great buzzword (DAE Silicon Valley?) but because these economies depend on their ability to innovate in order to compete.

Tsh, China is twice as strong as America, China and America are the worlds' superpowers - with America barely on the superpower scale anymore. Hardpower - immeausurable. Soft-power - China is part of the most powerful group on the planet - the SCO. English - a high status tongue - don't flatter yourself. It's a common tongue, but we don't speak it because it's cool - we speak it because of the British Empire's former dominions. Wear American brands? Watch American films? Are there such things (Obviously there are, but I have not heard of any except Avatar). I suppose in NATO, there is, but that's because America has them wrapped around their little finger.


By 2050, your hard power argument will probably be true- America will be getting outspent in military deveopment by both China and India. However, throughout the post-WWII period, America has dominated the world in military spending, currently spending 4 times as much as China. This has led to decades of accumulated advantages in research and development- for example, until 2011, no other country in the world even knew that the United States has stealth helicopters. China's navy, as I've probably pointed out before, is at best a green-water navy. The US has had a blue-water navy since the turn of the 20th century and is currently able to project power around the globe. Right now, China's military capabilites are mainly defensive and almost entirely focused in the Asia-Pacific region. Their research is focused on things like Dong Feng missiles- which are designed to block American aircraft carriers- not on technology that enables them to compete with the US in proxy wars. China is far behind in terms of aircraft carriers (which, admittedly, are probably the way of the battleship in 20 years, but still serve as the core of any blue-water navy) and, unlike the American navy, isn't yet at the stage where it's thinking about what to replace aircraft carriers with. Instead, China's focusing on catching up in the naval arena.

I don't think I quite explained what soft power is- soft power is the ability to use your culture in order to influence other countries. It's not about which military or economic groups you're in- that's still a form of hard power. (Even then, I'd argue that NATO trumps the SCO as NATO is a much more tightly-knit alliance and is also responsible for more military spending than any other military organization- NATO gets shit done).

For example, the UK has an incredible amount of soft power- as you pointed out, people speak British English in some places (although, if you look at countries like India, you'll notice a transition toward American English in the past 20 years- "zed" is now "zee", oddly enough). People know James Bond, watched the Royal Wedding, etc. However, the most recognized character in the world (by far) is Mickey Mouse. Hollywood movies often dominate other countries' theaters- for example, Kung Fu Panda kicked ass in China. That's an incredible concentration of soft power- people in China wear suits to KFC. Most people in the US think "shitty take-out" when you say "Chinese food" and "Jackie Chan?" when you say "Chinese movies."

There's still a massive gap that needs to be covered in both these categories. China is, of course, rapidly catching up- it's got a body of resources that guarantee its rise to superpower status in the long run, and of course the US is taking notice of this when it comes to military and economic strategy. However, it's not quite there yet, and won't be there in the next few years.

America does have the slight edge on China in your meaning of soft power, maybe even a more than slight edge, but America has ways to go in foreign relations and power before it catches up to China. Aim for Jinping, so you'll land on Obama. (Aim for the stars, you'll land on the Moon). Remember, not everyone lives in NATO.

There's a great difference between "figuring out things for yourself" through critical thinking, in which you also take in a great deal of external sources- and "figuring out things for yourself" the way ancient Greeks did when it come to the natural world, which is just making things up after talking to yourself.

Ok, let's call it critical thinking - you don't rely on just one, probably pretty biased American source, Joseph Nye. Chinese and Russian governments - come on, be sensible. You even say yourself that he is flawed - all IR, politicans, and politics professors are this way, swinging to one side of the fence or the other. Don't try anything else. The reason his books sell is not for their amazing neutrality, but because they say "So we bombed the SAND N******s back to the stone age! And before that, the JUNGLE N******S!", which makes proud Americans (you) feel good.

Last three olympics - only one of them did America win. Russia won in 2013, and 2014 (though it was their country - but second place was Norway - America was fourth.)

Olympics

Russia won in 2013

Whoops, for 2013, it was the Deaflympics.

So we bombed the SAND N******s back to the stone age! And before that, the JUNGLE N******S!", which makes proud Americans (you) feel good.

That's not quite what they say. His works aren't even that pro-American. Social scientists in the US tend to be far from jingoistic- my history professor's the one I'll forever hold responsible for turning me into a dirty commie. >_<

That's not quite what they say.

For example, Joseph Nye (who pioneered the field of soft power studies) has controversially argued that China and Russia don't even have any considerable amount of soft power

Just because you are against the current government of your country does not mean you are against your country - did you know Russia is capitalist?

Edited 6/17/2015 05:40:10

did you know Russia is capitalist?

Not at all. It's not like your last post consisted of two mind-blowingly cliche statements revealing your ignorant attitude about Americans. :P

- Notice how only Americans call me anti-American.

Ctrl+F "anti-American"

And what do you find?

By the way, I was wrong - one Canadian called me anti-American, come to think of it, but that's pretty rare.

Saying Americans love seeing people from the middle east blown up is pretty Anti-American