I had posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here too. Power comes from more then money, though having a lot of money is one catalyst that leads to power... after all can one have a strong military or afford geopolitical adventurism without the funds? let's examine some of the nations included in the OP to assess their "power"
German is a regional power with massive sway over Europe. It's military is weak, very weak, too weak to punch outside of Europe, but it doesn't need to as Germany's geopolitical goals are Euro-centric. Its political sway over the EU and Eurozone, its economic prowess which allows for its political sway, these are the reasons Germany is a power. It dominates the
WHOLE EU AND EUROZONE - from an economic standpoint. No other regional nation has that kind of power in Europe.
Neither Russia nor China dominate their regions. Russia is kept in check by its poor economy and military adventurism which threatens its regional support... that and China's competition outweighs its cooperation, both are competing for influence in Central Asia - China's winning that fight. Russia is a very, very limited nation with a strong military, average regional, but dismal international clout, a poor economy thanks to bad fundamental and an over-reliance on a single product and a cultural mouse - it's cultural basically revolves around being happy that they aren't the US.
China is a strong economic power... a really strong economic power. it will be the strongest economic power in a very short time-frame. But economics and politics don't always mix. The US welcomes Chinese money, so to does Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, Europe too, but these nations/regions are all much less ready to accept Chinese political clout or influence on their domestic and regional affairs. India loves Chinese money, it wishes China would stop supporting its geopolitical rivals. A loan is a type of political dealing, a way to get one's foot-in-the-door, but that doesn't equate to the type of long-lasting political dealings that are seen in the US with its alliance system. All nations like money, they all want it, this doesn't mean they want your influence too.
China is a rising military power with a growing international capability, but it will always be limited to a regional area if it can't develop international allies that will host Chinese troops. I'm not talking about Pakistan or Sri Lanka, those are still too regional, I'm talking about African or South American nations. True, perhaps China doesn't even want to be an overseas adventurer, that chapter hasn't yet been written in the annals of history so lets not say it wont happen, but even if it wants to, it can't. Still, in its region China is the king.
Culturally... well outside of China and perhaps South Korea, Chinese cultural has a bad reputation. It basically panda diplomacy and a reputation for theft and not innovation. It's going to take a lot of time to change these perceptions - the panda don't need to be change though. More pandas please!!!
So what have we learned so far? Many nations are powerful, but only regionally. They combine some metrics, but fail badly in others. Germany is a regional economic and political power, but its presence outside of the EU and Eurozone is nearly non-existent. Russia can't leave Central Asia and China's ascendancy is threatened by its region too, especially a resurgent Japan, a growing India a still-existent, but weakened Russia and the US.
Only one nations combines all aspect power. That nation is the US:
The Death of a Superpower?
It’s a question that has been rehashed for many, many years, and in many iterations, but a question that will neither be answered definitively until a fall occurs nor will it abate so long as a superpower exists. The question of superpower-dom is a much a reflection of relativity as it is reality, as others rise the relative strength of a stronger nation falls, even if that nation isn't actually declining. Whether the decline of the US is real or not cannot be answered easily, especially as others grow but may or may not reach the zenith of strength, but it is a question I will attempt to answer based on the four metrics I believe best represent the strength of a nation; Military, economic, political and cultural strength.
Military
The US military, actually three different militaries (more on that in a minute), is still the strongest fighting force on the planet, with an unparalleled global reach. From high-technology, to large numbers and world-beating training and practical experiences, intelligence assets and logistics, no nations even comes close to what the US can offer in the military realm. True, others are rising to the challenge, but they remain regional powers with little prospect of gaining a global reach (though their intentions to do so must also be assessed, but I won’t do so here). You see, for all its raising power, China remains geographically limited by its lack of real friends. China has a lot of business partners, but business links do not a friend make (even during the height of the Cold War, the USSR and US maintained business ties), and surely not a friend that will allow foreign troops on their soil. As a result, it’s limited to regions that it can easily replenish and move logistical support though, and this isn't a large area. On the contrary, the US can count on a number of allies around the world, on every major continent. From Japan, to Ethiopia, to nearly all of Europe, to Columbia and Saudi Arabia, the US has unprecedented support for its military capabilities… and a logistics fleet that makes it possible.
The US also remains the king of high-tech, others grow, but the US usually is first to an idea and first to put it into operational usage. I won’t spend too much time on this though.
The US military is large and the US has the political will and lack of care for the opinions of others that is needed to put it into use. Our military is huge, and three separate militaries… no, really, the US has three militaries. It’s not the US military, its police and armed civilians. It’s the US military, its PMC support (technically armed civilians, but operating on behalf of corporations contracted by the Pentagon), a clever designation that doesn't technically violate the UN convention on mercenaries, and NATO that will back the US up if needed and requested, even if some NATO members are reluctant to support US adventurism around the world.
The military is well funded, with three separate and massive budgets that see it retain its technological edge. The base budget supports the military and procurement, the “black budget” maintains US covert actions and programs, and the R&D budget offers money to US universities to research useful technologies and concepts. Adding to this is the civilian budget for the US intelligence agencies such as the CIA, NSA and NRO, which are not under the command of the Pentagon and have their own budgets.
The US can’t fight the whole world all at once, though this is often claimed, but its global reach is unprecedented and unmatched… and will likely remain so, especially as rising nations continue to lack allies that can support global actions.
Political
If a carrot fails to entice and a stick fails to threaten, turn your efforts towards persuasion through back-channel, international or shameful, but unseen politics. In a world of regional blocs, all striving to usurp power from the US in favor of their own regional strongman, one nation, for better or worse (and often seen in the latter light) can influence events through political means on a global scale. The US is the disputed, but reigning and yet to be dethroned king of politics.
US politics are a strength… from our perspective as surely others would disagree with their government being replaced by anarchistic chaos. We can rally nations to squash a threat, punish rouge actors, fight climate change, shake the foundation of global institutions, protect our neighbors or demolish them. We bully, we beat, we persuade, we pamper, we dominate, we mentor, we build other nations… all in the name of US political power
But who says political strength is always a benefit? The US can influence global events, this is undisputed, but whether thought is put into the action is often a forgone conclusion that the US didn't actually think through the progression of consequences prior to making a decision. Perhaps this is a benefit too… at least it allows our military some practice, our political strength to continue by facilitating alliance building to defeat a threat we fostered where no threat formerly existed, and it allows us to be seen as trying to solve the problem (and simultaneously as the problem), rather than sitting on the sidelines. It’s disingenuous, it’s devious, it’s dangerous, US foreign politics often are, but can any other nation truly influence global events in the same way?
While a mess, US foreign politics are actually quite logical. The US has no foreign policy… you might be asking yourself where the logic is in this, but there is some. No two events are the same, even if they appear to have the same symptoms the causes differ. This is where the US lack of foreign policy becomes a benefit. It allows the US to tailor its behaviors to fit the situation's unique qualities, not be bound to some ethereal notions (such as the persuit of democracy... we all know the US doesn't actually care about democracy) that see it commit actions out of feeling and not practicality. True, the US does a bit of this too, its foreign policy of supporting Israel, largely without blinking or thought, is a testament that the US can actually form a concrete policy if needed, but leaving yourself adaptable is even more advantageous. Seen as a mess, is our lack of foreign policy actually an issue… or a benefit?
Russia is the most prominent of US political rivals, we often stick our noses into each other business, but considering we consider each other’s business our own from a policy perspective, this can’t actually be considered an unwanted consequence, just a natural occurrence between two angry neighbors (going north that is). But, there is a difference between us. True, we both influence events, often to the detriment of a nation and its surrounding region, but one is a global and the other a regional power. Even as Russia continues to make the attempt at rekindling its geopolitical strength, suppressed by growing Chinese clout (though China remains largely an economic-political power, as many nations want Chinese money, but not political influence, such as European nations in a financial malaise) in Central Asia and an angry Europe, it remains unable to punch outside of its small and growing smaller sphere of influence.
The US remains and will remain the sole power able to influence global events, especially as challengers to US power either reject the notion of interfering in global events, or lack the political reputation and respect to do so. In some regions our influence will and is falling, take Russia’s ECO initiative, but there is no where that a lack of political influence can’t be rectified by an old-fashioned revolution. For good or bad, and most commonly viewed as bad, the US remains the alpha nation in global politics.
Economic
Perhaps in this metric alone is the US influence on global affairs diminishing in favor of China, mostly, but other regional nations too, such as Brazil who grows regional respect as its economy prospers (though recently it’s been doing anything but prospering, often going in reverse). That isn’t to say the US has ceded its place in the world as a global economic power, it still is as no nation has yet reached the all aspect economic strength, even though China will likely overtake the US in nominal GDP within a relatively short time. No, it still has work to do to catch the US in all aspects. Economics involve much, much more than the amount of money that shows up in your coffers each year, and though growth is impressive, how you use and generate it is equally important.
The US is a diverse economic power. While others are making the transition to a consumer driven economy, a shift the will take time to implement and even longer to shift traditional “save-first” habits, the US combines a healthy mix of consumerism, manufacturing, world-renowned consolatory services, business investment and technology. It’s currently an all-aspect economic power and continues to strengthen as its recovery builds momentum. Where once you would question high-growth in the US, now it’s not uncommon for growth to be revised up on quarterly reports… revised up by .5% or more from the initial report.
U.S. manufacturing output surges in November| Reuters
The US is also rich in natural resources, so too are its competitors, but the US is doing a bit of reversing its importing trends, especially the importing of oil and natural gas, at a time when others even more deeply invest themselves in energy imports. We are weaning ourselves away from “black gold”. Not only does this allow the US to run a budget surplus with oil exporting nations, a benefit from an economic perspective, but it reduces the need and justification for the US to interfere in regions that would rather see it fall off a cliff and into obscurity. A reduction in oil, even if the US, as is often wrongly attributed, never really relied on the Middle-east in the first place (the US relied on itself, Canada and Mexico) allows it to justify not being in the Middle-East… and this is something that benefits the world.
Don’t believe me? let Bloomberg explain the lessening of the US’ oil addiction
Bloomberg Graphics - Business, Financial & Economic News, Stock Quotes
Cultural
Contradictory to common thought, with the US military seen as the strong-arm of US power with its political clout a close second, its cultural strength is the true metric by which the US should be measured. From global brands, to music and artistic inclinations and even the much maligned, but often demanded governmental system, the US has more cultural prowess the any other nation.
Let’s examine some aspects of US cultural strength:
Brand strength. US brands have built a reputation as being high-priced, but high-quality and packed full of tech that is only later replicated by others. Around the world people queue to purchase the next iPhone, with the possible exception of nations under US embargoes or trade restrictions, such as Myanmar and Cambodia (which see Chinese products gain prominence as a result of the lack of competitive items). US companies have built a reputation of excellence and quality. From military suppliers such as Raytheon, cited as the world’s leader in rocketry and military electronics, to the much maligned, but widely-used Facebook, the US is a brand Phenom, across the globe and in all corners.
But brand strength doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is the end result of another aspect the US has; innovation. While not considered the most innovative nation according to the Global Innovation Index, the US still has a monopoly on putting innovative ideas into practice and upping their amplitude to the point of global saturation. Not the first of its kind, certainly more iteration then innovation, but Facebook is a great example of US innovative strength. Whereas Myspace and several others came before, it was Facebook, now a template followed with success by other iterations that turned the concept of social media into a global force. US scientific contributions, brand and technology inventions, it has been the US that has lead the world through its progressions.
Global Innovation Report 2014 | The Global Innovation Index
Arts, the US has them and then some, though this can be seen as a lesser quality of US cultural strength as it’s often diffused by regional cultures and interests. From cinema to video games, live-acting on Broadway to musical sensations, the US artistic scene has been a bridge between nations. However, as stated this is a lesser quality of US cultural strength as it can be easily diffused or used as a springboard for more successful regional cultural phenomenon’s such as K-pop or J-Pop in East Asia, which often overshadows US arts.
Culture is its own political ambassador, even in the darkest recesses of the globe. From Venezuela to Russia and China, the US cultural clout not only exposes nations and people to the US style of innovation and thought, but they can influence global politics in ways not seem though diplomacy. The yearn for US style economic policies, personal freedoms and abilities to choose one’s own government has toppled many others, though the black hand of US diplomatic strength may be the force that finally coalesces yearnings into actions and revolutions. Still, no revolution happens without first a belief that life can be better with a different system… and the US is the undisputed king in this respect.
Whether you know it or not, you are influenced by US culture, even those most virulently opposed to the US are bound to hatred through recognition of US strength. Even if you try, you cannot avoid US cultural domination. But is US cultural strength declining as others grow? No, not at all and for the reason that even as others grow, they too are captivated and influenced by US technology, science, music and power. China is making strides, often seen as the US rival or next great power, but its cultural influence is limited to its surrounding region… the US will remain the undisputed cultural power.
The death of the US has been foretold since it was formally founded. First our former colonial masters, then the Germans, the Soviets, casual onlookers, yet no prophesy has come to pass. The US is resurgent in one metric, the undisputed king in three others. Sure, others make progress, erode parts of US power, but our influence is far from challenged on a global scale. Like it or not, we are here to stay. As was once famously uttered,
“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
@LeveragedBuyout @Lure @Nihonjin1051 @Chinese-Dragon @levina - some of you have already read this, sorry for that, but additional input is always welcome (I won't delete it this time
).
Was it a good movie ?
as I think that it can not be ignored for it has the capacity to emerge as a phoenix. India I agree is not a very ambitious country but I do feel that we produce quality goods and that too at low costs albeit not as low as Chinese, which btw has been the usp of Chinese goods. But in recent times as workers 've started to demand higher wages ergo Chinese goods 're loosing their edge over brands from other countries.
