The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

[Sharky]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

WW I was triggered by the assassination of an Arch Duke, but the alliances among and tensions between the 2 sides (Austro-Hungarian Empire + Germany vs. England and France) had long since predicated some outbreak of violence.

Equally WW II was triggered by rising tensions between resurgent fascist Germany and Italy vs. cultural and ideological opposites in England and Russia, while in the Pacific a resurgent Japan was equally opposed by the US.

Today we do not have these types of tensions. Europe has many problems but neither internal militarism nor the WWI/WWII types of tension exists.

What about Israel? Or North Korea? Or India vs. Pakistan? All of which are now nuclear armed. What will happen when Iran has nukes?

If China ever makes a move militarily, Taiwan seems like a possible target/goal -- perhaps preceded by some other territorial issue. Historically, China has made it clear that it does not accept Taiwan as a separate, independent entity.

The issue of the Islamic occupation of Europe is also interesting. If there's a big flare-up in the Mideast, the consequences in Europe would likely be significant.

Food is another area of possible conflict. A large-scale famine by a nuclear armed country could easily provoke desperate measures. Nuclear blackmail only works when there's enough resources to go around.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Worst case scenario is both. I tend to think #1 is happening regardless, but maybe we can avoid #2 along the way. If not, WWIII would definitely speed possibility #1 along.

Provided technological advances are quick enough to solve the limited energy problem. And it's not just China, but also India, and other rapidly developing countries. Everyone wants to live the Western lifestyle. I've always said that this is zero sum game.

But even if the energy factor is solved, there's still the Israel problem. Friendly diplomatic and trading ties between China and Persia dates back to even before they became Muslims. If China rises, Persia will probably rise along. That will be to the detriment of Israel, and unless the Jews are willing to move to Texas or some Israel like land the US can provide, and also ship over the holy monuments, there will be trouble to come within the next couple of decades.

I live in Greece now, and when friends discuss the current crisis, I just tell them it's irrelevant. Bigger changes are coming that will make today's problems look tame by comparison. I'm actually working on starting my farm now. I may be years early, but this is not the kind of event you want to be late preparing for.

I agree, I thought as well that the greatest problem is not economic but famine. The weather has gone nuts, either no rain or too much rain. Harvests throughout the world are failing. Poor countries face the threat of famine. All the coal burning, release of toxins into the seas and pollution is scrweing up the weather.

America does have the advantage here, having a huge food surplus.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

There are only 2 possibilities:

1. The US becomes third world.
2. WWIII.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Worst case scenario is both. I tend to think #1 is happening regardless, but maybe we can avoid #2 along the way. If not, WWIII would definitely speed possibility #1 along.

[gnk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

China consumes 1 million more barrel of oil every year. Can a cold war solve this problem? How much oil does the Soviet Union consume at the height of the last Cold War?

There are only 2 possibilities:

1. The US becomes third world.
2. WWIII.

The US has less than 5% of the world's population, yet consumes over 20% of the energy. That is ending, and with it, everything else that comes with that kind of consumption - it's mind boggling to try to comprehend how every facet of life is affected with a certain level of energy consumption. No war can maintain that lifestyle. War can only speed up the simplification of a civilization... the speed of the unraveling.

I live in Greece now, and when friends discuss the current crisis, I just tell them it's irrelevant. Bigger changes are coming that will make today's problems look tame by comparison. I'm actually working on starting my farm now. I may be years early, but this is not the kind of event you want to be late preparing for.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

While I've always been one of the more gloomy participants in iTulip - I have to say that I disagree with the thesis of a World War III.

Of course, I'm not talking about WWIII in the near future.

I know once the Chinese go on the capitalist route, how it will all end. You just have to look at South East Asia, where Chinese are less than 10% of the population but control all of their economies. In time to come, the same will happen to Africa and possibly some Western economies. It may take 30 years or even 40 years, but it is only a matter of time.

[c1ue]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

While I've always been one of the more gloomy participants in iTulip - I have to say that I disagree with the thesis of a World War III.

In my mind, a world war results from a sudden clash due to accumulated tensions between 2 or more extra-national groupings.

WW I was triggered by the assassination of an Arch Duke, but the alliances among and tensions between the 2 sides (Austro-Hungarian Empire + Germany vs. England and France) had long since predicated some outbreak of violence.

Equally WW II was triggered by rising tensions between resurgent fascist Germany and Italy vs. cultural and ideological opposites in England and Russia, while in the Pacific a resurgent Japan was equally opposed by the US.

Today we do not have these types of tensions. Europe has many problems but neither internal militarism nor the WWI/WWII types of tension exists.

Ditto in Asia - there is grave concern by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan over China, but at least part of this tension is due to US posturing.

There is plenty of economic tension over energy, but it isn't focused by specific blocs. Equally it is impossible for the vast quantities of oil or whatever to be extracted and transported without at least some minimal lack of interference from the local population. Barring a return to Mongol style pacification, of course (kill everyone there).

You can say there is some possibility for warfare due to tension between China and the US - but neither nation can either afford or be able to prosecute a conflict to a successful conclusion (i.e. pacification of the other). At best the result would be a mutual annihilation - not nuclear but economic. I very much doubt even the most moronic and jingoistic military leader in either nation has any illusions about this.

However, I think what EJ perhaps actually envisions is more along the lines of the Revolutions of 1848. The Revolutions of 1848 were a spontaneous but near universal eruption of revolutionary zeal in practically every nation in Europe.

The Revolutions of 2013 won't be due to technological progress in communications, urban worker vs. farmer, guild vs. industry, nobility vs. absolute monarch, etc etc type of tensions. In fact, it is unclear if it will even be a "revolution" in the normal political sense - i.e. an attempt to change the political system. More likely it will be simply an eruption of anger.

"Revolution" in the US will be due to economic tensions: the blue collar worker feeling (and rightly so) betrayed by the white collar management. The technical white collar workers feeling betrayed by the white collar banksters. The general populace feeling betrayed by its regulatory captured politicians. The heavily indebted and unemployed youth feeling betrayed by the entire system. etc etc.

"Revolution" in other nations will be closer to the 1848 model: greater communication, economic divide, access to power, etc etc. What we are seeing in the Middle East and North Africa is a good example: the collapse of autarkic regimes can be directly traced to the end of the Cold War.

Note: 2013 isn't some calculated date, merely a placeholder.

In timing I fully agree with EJ's conclusions.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

cold war shadow boxing along with hot proxy and peripheral wars are a likely means for allocating those scarce resources. that does not solve the long-term problem of limited resources, agreed. otoh, it gives time for, first, strong resource conservation measures to stretch out the adjustment, and second the development of alternative sources of energy, and alternative goods.

China consumes 1 million more barrel of oil every year. Can a cold war solve this problem? How much oil does the Soviet Union consume at the height of the last Cold War?

There are only 2 possibilities:

1. The US becomes third world.
2. WWIII.

[jk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

There are too many people on earth, a cold war won't solve the resource shortage problems. This is really a war over resources.

cold war shadow boxing along with hot proxy and peripheral wars are a likely means for allocating those scarce resources. that does not solve the long-term problem of limited resources, agreed. otoh, it gives time for, first, strong resource conservation measures to stretch out the adjustment, and second the development of alternative sources of energy, and alternative goods.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

There are too many people on earth, a cold war won't solve the resource shortage problems. This is really a war over resources.

[cobben]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Barron's intentional misnomer "The Dragon Kingdom" is symptomatic of warmongering anglosaxons.

Perhaps the Chinese themselves would prefer "The Shire" if any anglification is truly necessary?

the common name remained as Zhōngguó (simplified Chinese: 中国; traditional Chinese: 中國, Mandarin pronunciation: [tʂʊ́ŋkwɔ̌]) through dynastic changes. This translates traditionally as "the central Kingdom", or as "the middle country".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China

addendum:

Sorry, I forgot, "The Shire" has been established as being in Chechnya.

[Slimprofits]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Like a punch in the gut I read this. I've always been around a 3 on the doomer scale. But I didn't expect EJ to come around so soon. Makes me think things are worse than I thought.

Such low expectations!

I think it can traced to three articles by EJ. His first one about the 2008 election, in which he pointed out every candidate but two (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) were FIREmen.....A short time later, he shocked the world and 'endorsed' Obama....And when Scott Brown won in January 2010 he thought that it was a sign of a political awakening. Here we are some 16 months later and how can you come to any other conclusion than that we're fucked?

[raja]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

The way we're headed that someone will be, as usual, the most politically vulnerable, those with the weakest political and intellectual defenses, and the loss will be taken in the form of lost purchasing power, as has been my position here since starting iTulip in 1998.

Creditors will be paid back in devalued dollars . . . if they are paid back at all. Who's that going to hurt?

[flintlock]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Like a punch in the gut I read this. I've always been around a 3 on the doomer scale. But I didn't expect EJ to come around so soon. Makes me think things are worse than I thought.

I have to agree with EJ about how wars don't start out with the intention of getting so bad. WWI started out over a relatively minor regional ethnic struggle. With notes between cousins ( Wilhelm of Germany and Nicholas of Russia) attempting to settle the matter. It just snow balled from there.

There are actually some good comparisons from then with now. The world was becoming more militarized. Imperialism was on the rise. Historically minimized ethnic groups were beginning to flex their muscle and demand better treatment. How do we difuse this? I agree with what someone else said about global corporations to some degree mitigating the nationalism of the past. But to what degree?

[jk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

the beginning of the barron's piece:

Even the most casual observer seems to know that China's economy has been growing at a roughly 10% annual rate for much of the past decade. Less recognized and arguably more important to the state of the world is the fact that China's defense spending rose even faster than that -- 12% or more a year between 2000 and 2009.

"The accelerating pace of China's defense budget increases is driving countries in the region, as well as the U.S., to react to preserve a balance of power and stability," says Jacqueline Newmyer, head of Long-Term Strategy Group, a Cambridge, Mass.-based defense consultant. "There is a real potential for arms races to emerge," she adds. "While once we assumed we'd have access to areas to conduct anti-terrorism or anti-insurgency operations, now we're compelled to think about preserving our ability to gain access to East Asia."

interestingly., the article then raises the question as to whether to invest in companies like lockheed martin, or "Chinese companies such as Xi'an Aero-Engine (600893.China) and China Shipbuilding Industrial (601989.China) ...." and, later, "The arms race could produce a mini-boom in Chinese equity offerings. At present, most of the biggest defense contractors are unlisted state-owned companies, but China wants to take them public."

as i said in 11-10, http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...d-war-solution part of the cold war "solution" for china is that it promotes moving up the technology ladder. as the barron's article says, '"Taking companies public "is a clear strategic priority" that also "promotes development of a dual-use economy" that serves military and civilian needs, says Cheung. Already, there are scores of dual-use firms listed just the way Boeing (BA) is in the U.S. '

other tidbits: "Japanese self-defense forces "are clearly reoriented to China as opposed to Russia," says Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation. Japan plans to add submarines and warships." "India is holding a competition for a supplier of 126 mid-range combat aircraft, its biggest defense deal. The short list includes the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EAD.France); Alenia Aeronautica, a unit of Finmeccanica (FNC.Italy), and BAE Systems (BA.UK). Also contending is the Dassault Rafale, made by Dassault Aviation (AM.France). The fighters will be manufactured with the country's Hindustan Aeronautics, the state-owned defense contractor that plans to go public this year. India also plans a three-carrier fleet." and "Australia is having its largest military expansion since World War II, spending $275 billion over the next 20 years for submarines, frigates, destroyers and the F-35 joint strike fighter. Singapore, South Korea and Vietnam all plan to buy submarines" and, most notably, "OF COURSE, THE U.S. must respond as well." of course.

and "Expect to hear the term "AirSea Battle" more often. It's a concept promoted by the independent think tank Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. This strategy would integrate U.S. air and naval forces to defeat enemies with sophisticated abilities to deny them access. The idea would be to develop ways to blind satellites and defend against or attack with long-range strikes. It's a defense against both China and Iran.

"This will shift demand from counterinsurgency warfare toward more traditional systems like long-range strike aircraft and missiles, high-end naval forces and robust space and cyber capabilities," says Jeffrey Roncka, managing partner at defense consultant Renaissance Strategic Advisors."

[LazyBoy]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

After completing this analysis, I warn the more optimistic among you that I am moving closer to a 3 on the scale.

From where I sit, I see the machine of global political economy churning its way inexorably toward a third world war, its institutions of diplomacy mired in cold war era thinking.

So what is going to happen? more... ($ubscription)

Ok, you got me. I'll subscribe.