US Will Be the World's Third Largest Economy: Citi

This prediction is based on current trends but they could change dramatically if we had people at the top with a clue about how to build the economy, and create an atmosphere that is conducive to business as apposed to it like The Democrats and the Amateur in Chief Obama are.

We also need a new ruling that makes it illegal for any defense contracts to be allowed with any Nations other than England, Canada, Israel, Japan.
This would help create jobs here at home.

Even other nations that are or seem to be our allies could for political reasons be a problem in a tight situation.
There also needs to be some protectionism when it comes to things like the NYSE that should never be allowed to be in foreign hands.

News Headlines

The world is going to become richer and richer as developing economies play catch up over the coming years, according to Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citigroup.

"We expect strong growth in the world economy until 2050, with average real GDP growth rates of 4.6 percent per annum until 2030 and 3.8 percent per annum between 2030 and 2050," Buiter wrote in a market research.

"As a result, world GDP should rise in real PPP-adjusted terms from $72 trillion in 2010 to $380 trillion dollars in 2050," he wrote.

Click to expand...

Councilman said:

We also need a new ruling that makes it illegal for any defense contracts to be allowed with any Nations other than England, Canada, Israel, Japan.

Click to expand...

Fine thenb, but you're not gonna get our uranium, gold, nickel, copper, antivenoms or marsupials.

Managing America's decline.......The Democrat Party.

"Were #3! Were #3!"
.
.
.
.

Neo-liberalism is to blame... export all the cheap work and then move the domestic economy toward a service based employment system. Problem is, automation is replacing a lot of service based jobs. This is what happens when all the corporate fat cats get their globalist dreams made into reality. All the work moves effortlessly abroad to make their product cheaper, but it does nothing to help employment rates.

The U.S. invented this style of corporatism so now it will just have to live with the consequences. :shrug:

Councilman said:

This prediction is based on current trends but they could change dramatically if we had people at the top with a clue about how to build the economy, and create an atmosphere that is conducive to business as apposed to it like The Democrats and the Amateur in Chief Obama are.

Click to expand...

Badmutha said:

Managing America's decline.......The Democrat Party.

"Were #3! Were #3!"

Click to expand...

There were similar predictions before Obama even began to run for President so how you blame him or the democrats is beyond me.

National Intelligence Council: Robert Hutchings report in USA Today- 2005

I once had another link on this from about 2003 but can't find it right now - besides, it's not a "blame Obama" thing.

It's a GOOD thing that we'll be #3 in 2050. China and India have a HELL of a lot more people than we do. If they don't surpass our GDP by then, it will mean that they're still desperately impoverished. I can't possibly fathom why anyone would want to consign 40% of humanity to poverty just so that you can claim that America has the biggest penis.

Councilman said:

This prediction is based on current trends but they could change dramatically if we had people at the top with a clue about how to build the economy

Click to expand...

Badmutha said:

Managing America's decline.......The Democrat Party.

Click to expand...

Temporal said:

Neo-liberalism is to blame

Click to expand...

Infinite Chaos said:

There were similar predictions before Obama even began to run for President so how you blame him or the democrats is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what the problem is. Why is ANYONE to blame? Why is it "America's decline"? It doesn't mean that we're any worse off than before, it means that the 2.5 billion people in China and India are a lot BETTER off. If we manage 1-3% economic growth and China/India manage 5-7% economic growth for the next few decades, that's fantastic. It means that a huge fraction of humanity will be lifted out of poverty, and the world will be far better off for it.

China has more than four times our population. That means that the average Chinese only needs to be one-quarter as wealthy as the average American in order to match our GDP. If they DON'T become the world's largest economy, something is seriously wrong.

^ I know this, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just pointing out where the U.S. itself went wrong to lose its position of prestige. China and India can do what they want. All the power to them.

Kandahar said:

It's a GOOD thing that we'll be #3 in 2050. China and India have a HELL of a lot more people than we do. If they don't surpass our GDP by then, it will mean that they're still desperately impoverished. I can't possibly fathom why anyone would want to consign 40% of humanity to poverty just so that you can claim that America has the biggest penis.









I don't understand what the problem is. Why is ANYONE to blame? Why is it "America's decline"? It doesn't mean that we're any worse off than before, it means that the 2.5 billion people in China and India are a lot BETTER off. If we manage 1-3% economic growth and China/India manage 5-7% economic growth for the next few decades, that's fantastic. It means that a huge fraction of humanity will be lifted out of poverty, and the world will be far better off for it.

China has more than four times our population. That means that the average Chinese only needs to be one-quarter as wealthy as the average American in order to match our GDP. If they DON'T become the world's largest economy, something is seriously wrong.

Click to expand...

I can't remember the last time I agreed with you on something. A year from now, I probably won't remember agreeing with you on this either. That's what old age does to you. LOL.

But you are definitely right.

I don't see what the big deal is as not being the number one economy, its just a ranking and as we all should know there's a lot more things which are much more important for Americans and the US on an individual, national, and international level than being the #1 economy.

Another partisan conservative chest thumping nationalistic isolationistic thread. The US has always been doomed to be 3 or lower, and that is purely based on population! Any idiot not blinded by nationalistic fever can see that.

The US was in many way arguably destined to become a top, if not the top, economy at the point of its birth. It had many advantages not found in other countries at that time, it had no natural enemies or hostile powers surrounding it, which meant defense spending could be kept a very small part of the budget, it had seemingly limitless amounts of territory to expand over, it had a government which put the individual citizen in a position not seen anywhere else in the world at that time, and it had leaders, political and business, which not only were willing but praised for trying and experimenting new things. Unlike many other nations at the time, the US had almost no interest in stability as it was defined by European powers for example. Of course thats a simple model but merely looking at the geography and political situation in the late 1700s and early 1800s should show the US had a pretty good position to start from. And of course it wasn't guaranteed, any number of things like the Civil War or a poor performance in the War of 1812 could have squashed it, but again it had a good starting position.

However today the world is different, and while political and social constraints hold back what should easily be the worlds top economy and nation, Russia, many of the factors which held other parts of the world down no longer exist. And while they have problems of their own, they certainly are in a much better position to take on the world economically. For example India from 1800 to 2000 underwent 3 changes which moved it from a simple colony and holding, to a potential world economic power. Those were, the access to technology on par with the rest of the world, the end of the caste system, and the induction of capitalism. Of course the description is simple and the actual task of implementing all those things is great, but a few changes can make a world of difference. For example access to technology is one thing, actually integrating it into society is a whole other matter. But imagine if India were totally technologically updated, like S.Korea, Japan, the US or Europe, ended social prejudices, and instilled a philosophy of individual accomplishment(which is has in many ways to an insane degree). It would easily be the top economy in the world, and its enroute to those goals.

And thats a very simple model and argument because frankly the length of any accurate and detailed explanation of why some countries are better suited for economic growth and power would, and should, occupy a book.

Infinite Chaos said:

There were similar predictions before Obama even began to run for President so how you blame him or the democrats is beyond me.

National Intelligence Council: Robert Hutchings report in USA Today- 2005

I once had another link on this from about 2003 but can't find it right now - besides, it's not a "blame Obama" thing.

Click to expand...

BM only knows "blame the dems". He's a hoot to watch spin.

But you're right. This situation has been on the radar of most long range policy advisors and analysts for over 30 years. Stretching back to the Reagan years.

Kandahar said:

It's a GOOD thing that we'll be #3 in 2050. China and India have a HELL of a lot more people than we do. If they don't surpass our GDP by then, it will mean that they're still desperately impoverished. I can't possibly fathom why anyone would want to consign 40% of humanity to poverty just so that you can claim that America has the biggest penis.









I don't understand what the problem is. Why is ANYONE to blame? Why is it "America's decline"? It doesn't mean that we're any worse off than before, it means that the 2.5 billion people in China and India are a lot BETTER off. If we manage 1-3% economic growth and China/India manage 5-7% economic growth for the next few decades, that's fantastic. It means that a huge fraction of humanity will be lifted out of poverty, and the world will be far better off for it.

China has more than four times our population. That means that the average Chinese only needs to be one-quarter as wealthy as the average American in order to match our GDP. If they DON'T become the world's largest economy, something is seriously wrong.

Click to expand...

Very nice speech, everyone can applaude. Now let us know what you think the implications of 1-3% growth are to people who libe in America. You say that this does not mean we will be worse off. Check your math, How does a country running a 10% of GDP deficit from 2% and not adversely impact long term standard of living.

America's standard of living will decline and this administration understands that. Why do you think they have a inflationary policy in the U.S. Forget about reported statistics about core inflation. Try to understand what a family of 4 making 40K spends their money on. Food, housing, medical, taxes and let me know other than home prices what is rising at a 1% rate. So we have wage stagnation with inflation, a sneaky way to lower standard of living.

Kandahar said:

It's a GOOD thing that we'll be #3 in 2050. China and India have a HELL of a lot more people than we do. If they don't surpass our GDP by then, it will mean that they're still desperately impoverished. I can't possibly fathom why anyone would want to consign 40% of humanity to poverty just so that you can claim that America has the biggest penis.









I don't understand what the problem is. Why is ANYONE to blame? Why is it "America's decline"? It doesn't mean that we're any worse off than before, it means that the 2.5 billion people in China and India are a lot BETTER off. If we manage 1-3% economic growth and China/India manage 5-7% economic growth for the next few decades, that's fantastic. It means that a huge fraction of humanity will be lifted out of poverty, and the world will be far better off for it.

China has more than four times our population. That means that the average Chinese only needs to be one-quarter as wealthy as the average American in order to match our GDP. If they DON'T become the world's largest economy, something is seriously wrong.

Click to expand...

Why would America having a larger economy, automatically mean that Indians and Chinese are going to be impoversihed? Is that a round-about-way of saying that if they can't feed their own people that it's America's fault?

apdst said:

Why would America having a larger economy, automatically mean that Indians and Chinese are going to be impoversihed? Is that a round-about-way of saying that if they can't feed their own people that it's America's fault?

Click to expand...

Not automatically no.

What I think he is trying to say, is that India and China are going through the same thing the US did long ago (and every other industrialized country), going from a near slave (and literally) economy to a much more prosperous economy, and that is done by selling loads of stuff to places like the US for next to nothing. So while we enjoy cheap goods, and the Chinese/Indians at first do the jobs for much much lower than we are willing, then it is in our interest to keep the Chinese/Indians in "poverty" doing the job cheaply. Now in reality, over time, the wages will go up and up, making the prices of our goods go up (imported inflation) and so on and so on.

So in many ways, as long as the Chinese are as corrupt as they are, and keep their masses in poverty then it benefits us on prices at least.. now jobs is another matter and a whole other discussion.. those jobs we use to do in manufacturing have been exported to cheaper places.. because we desire cheap goods over jobs.

apdst said:

Why would America having a larger economy, automatically mean that Indians and Chinese are going to be impoversihed? Is that a round-about-way of saying that if they can't feed their own people that it's America's fault?

Click to expand...

Oh my god... NO! NO, that is not what he is trying to say. He is simply saying that in order to remain #1, China and India would have to be lower than #1. China and India have so many more people than the US that, if they are anything but #1 and #2, their people would of necessity be impoverished, since the simple math indicates that inevitability. So, if you hope for the US to remain #1, the reality is that you, by extension, must hope for the impoverishment of 40% of the world's population. He is questioning why anyone would hope such a thing.

In short, you can't hope for both the US to remain #1 and at the same time hope for the Chinese and Indian people to rise out of poverty.

All you have to do to show this to be false would be to devise a scenario where China and India would have their general population with a high standard of living and the US have such a much higher standard of living that we are still #1. Does this seem realistic to you?

The relevance to this thread is that some of the people are trying to say that this has something to do with bad economic policy. Kandahar (and Wiseone a few posts up ^^) have indicated that this is hardly the case.

If people would stop having the kneejerk "BEST COUNTRY EVER AT EVERYTHING" reaction in every single situation, maybe they'd stop and actually think about this situation. Like others have mentioned, the population difference means this is going to happen regardless of how well America is doing.

Blind nationalism is not a good thing.

Infinite Chaos said:

There were similar predictions before Obama even began to run for President so how you blame him or the democrats is beyond me.

National Intelligence Council: Robert Hutchings report in USA Today- 2005

I once had another link on this from about 2003 but can't find it right now - besides, it's not a "blame Obama" thing.

Click to expand...

It's always been a tactic of the GOP to blame democrats for all the problems they help cause. Bush destroys the economy and leaves Obama with a country teetering on depression..Obama gets blamed..........Millions of jobs lost overseas for the last decade.........Obama gets blamed. Eventually they will figure out it's their people ruining the country. I just hope it's not too late.

Dezaad said:

Oh my god... NO! NO, that is not what he is trying to say. He is simply saying that in order to remain #1, China and India would have to be lower than #1. China and India have so many more people than the US that, if they are anything but #1 and #2, their people would of necessity be impoverished, since the simple math indicates that inevitability. So, if you hope for the US to remain #1, the reality is that you, by extension, must hope for the impoverishment of 40% of the world's population. He is questioning why anyone would hope such a thing.

In short, you can't hope for both the US to remain #1 and at the same time hope for the Chinese and Indian people to rise out of poverty.

All you have to do to show this to be false would be to devise a scenario where China and India would have their general population with a high standard of living and the US have such a much higher standard of living that we are still #1. Does this seem realistic to you?

The relevance to this thread is that some of the people are trying to say that this has something to do with bad economic policy. Kandahar (and Wiseone a few posts up ^^) have indicated that this is hardly the case.

Click to expand...

My question still stands.

I disagree that China and India, have to be at the #1, or #2 spot tp keep their populations from being impoverished.

apdst said:

My question still stands.

I disagree that China and India, have to be at the #1, or #2 spot tp keep their populations from being impoverished.

Click to expand...

You don't think having only 1/4 the wealth of the average american household is poor?

Deuce said:

You don't think having only 1/4 the wealth of the average american household is poor?

Click to expand...

Most of them have that much?

That China and India will most likely have larger economies then the US is rather inevitiable at some point provided both continue with more open economies

China does have 4 times the population of the US, meaning if the on a per capita basis the GDP of china is 1/3 of the US it will have a bigger economy. The majority of Chinese would still not have as good a standard of living as an average american, but China would still have a larger economy.

Now as to why it is inevitable.

Competition. Unless the US population grows at a dramatic rate to become at least half that of China, for the US economy can not grow as fast as that of China or India. The rising costs within the US would prevent that. Higher wages would drive business's out of the US to other cheaper countries. In a world where technology is avaliable anywhere, competitive advantages based on technology are short lived as other areas can obtain that tech to improve productivity. This means that the lowest cost areas will see the greatest economic growth (provided the needed infrustructure is avaliable). The US is not and can not be the lowest cost producer with high wages, nor can Canada or Europe. Meaning we will have low growth for an extended period of time as countries like India and China catch up.

Kandahar said:

Infinite Chaos said:

There were similar predictions before Obama even began to run for President so how you blame him or the democrats is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what the problem is. Why is ANYONE to blame? Why is it "America's decline"? --

Click to expand...

Not sure why you quoted me along with those trying to blame the current Obama administration...

I was pointing out (and a couple others read my post properly and understood) that the predictions of India and China developing the largest economies have been predicted far earlier than the story in the OP - thus blaming Obama for something predicted before he even ran for power is foolish.

Councilman said:

This prediction is based on current trends but they could change dramatically if we had people at the top with a clue about how to build the economy, and create an atmosphere that is conducive to business as apposed to it like The Democrats and the Amateur in Chief Obama are.

We also need a new ruling that makes it illegal for any defense contracts to be allowed with any Nations other than England, Canada, Israel, Japan.
This would help create jobs here at home.

Even other nations that are or seem to be our allies could for political reasons be a problem in a tight situation.
There also needs to be some protectionism when it comes to things like the NYSE that should never be allowed to be in foreign hands.

Click to expand...

As long as republican are only willing to cut jobs from the budget, and the republican governors hell bent on lowering wages, we won't make the top 30 in economic strength in the world. We are a fialing economy with jobs to form a strong tax base and no taxes to the rich to pay off the debt. NOT providing jobs BUT giving tax cuts will not make us more than a 3rd world nation in 5 years if we don't get rid of republicans and start putting our workers back to work by regulation business and getting rid of monopolies.

Muddy Creek said:

As long as republican are only willing to cut jobs from the budget, and the republican governors hell bent on lowering wages, we won't make the top 30 in economic strength in the world. We are a fialing economy with jobs to form a strong tax base and no taxes to the rich to pay off the debt. NOT providing jobs BUT giving tax cuts will not make us more than a 3rd world nation in 5 years if we don't get rid of republicans and start putting our workers back to work by regulation business and getting rid of monopolies.

Click to expand...

I have not heard one Governor say they wanted to cut Jobs only put a halt to bloated wages and benefits that are a major contributor to budget problems.

Retirements alone are big contributor and along with too many high taxes and regulations cause businesses to leave States like California and move to Texas and other States that have more reasonable rules laws and Taxes.

Too many Liberals like to make up their own reasons to oppose what is needed claiming it's in the name of the worker when that truth is, it's about being partisan, and not being able to admit the truth, which is Government has because too big and needs to be shrunk to what is needed not what people like Obama want. This goes for State and Federal Governments.

Logic tells us what is needed and that is why Liberals don't get it.