Top 10 Richest Countries in 2050 according to Citibank

[chauism]

The US has a legal obligation to defend the Diaoyutai from a Chinese invasion, so don't expect the US to side with China on this, even though Diaoyutai really belongs to Taiwan.

That is because according to US Japan security treaty they do have to defend Japan if Japan is attacked by outside force, and under the 1971 Okinawa Treaty US placed Diaoyu Island under Japan's control. The thing is now US is admitting this is a dispute and as long as no one is attacking anyone there it is neutral in this dispute where it really shouldn't.

No matter how US choose its side in this. This dispute should never be about Japan and China, in should be a China US dispute.

 

[Hyperion]

Analysts @Citi and other western 'economic' research groups, never fail to amuse me!

* In 1980's it was their firm belief that India would implode and would be dirt poor at the turn of the century, with a famine struck population of a billion

* In 1980's it was the firm belief of economists that China would not be able to handle food shortages in the future.

I can continue for future decades as well, however, what's the ******* point?

On topic: Geographically small nations don't make rich or poor countries, they make pawns. Only countries that we need to watch out in the future are.

* India
* China
* Brazil
* USA (which will remain leader for generations)
* Germany
* Saudia (maybe)
* Canada
* Russia
* Turkey
* Norway (relatively big and huge oil and gas supplies)
* Korea
* Sweden
* Australia (Maybe, as they've done nothing till date that shows some sort of initiative that they want to be on any list!)

Note: There is no apparent order above.

Rest of the minuscule nations, pretending to be a hot-shots will remain under influence of countries above...

 

[Audio]

Buddy you did present good argument but this one is rather desperate one. Or may be its me. I told what many "experts" have said.

All I look is that balance is not going to tilt on one side but it will be more or less at equal level lets say 60-40 or 65-35 plus count in 2.5 billion Asians living in India and China. To feed billion people, both countries are already buying land in Africa if you haven't read about but if you do provide this technique, you are ensuring growth of Asians in other part of the world.

What will happen when the Africans will want to eat? Buying land in Africa to relieve hunger is like putting a band-aid on an open fracture in my opinion, slightly better but you can imagine....

As for bringing knowledge back home, my Prof. with whom I am working for past 4 years, is a former NASA scientist and known person in my field, his friends in US/UK/India shares more or less the same view. He say US don't let foreign nationals in advance tech but still they give enough exposure that our own country can't. Its more than Indians ask for. Working in collaboration with US researchers while living in India has also becoming major trend.

I can explain more about this change if you want. I don't challenge US superiority in technology but thinking that gap hasn't reduced especially in case of China, then you are underestimating the entire situation.

Well ofcourse the gap has shrunk, nobody in their right mind would deny it but the amount by which it has shrunk i think is grossly exaggerated to propel the myth of great China, CCP etc...the pics you see here, city centers, all fine and dandy, shines epicly (on a smog-free day), go on a 20 min ride outside and what will you see? Same with India.

He say US don't let foreign nationals in advance tech

This

Win-win is last resort buddy, threatening for all out war can make other smaller nations to back off. That's what they are trying to do.. Why divide with entire SCS if you can share with one or two major countries ? This is Sun Tzu. Defeating the enemy or taking a much larger share without firing a single shot. rather than entire region victory with waging a war.

Sun Tzu would be able to take it all away + whole SCS would be thankful to him.

 

[timetravel]

Well ofcourse the gap has shrunk, nobody in their right mind would deny it but the amount by which it has shrunk i think is grossly exaggerated to propel the myth of great China, CCP etc...the pics you see here, city centers, all fine and dandy, shines epicly (on a smog-free day), go on a 20 min ride outside and what will you see? Same with India.

the Chinese have to perpetuate the myth to control their population and ensure ccp control. India don't do this make up job as you see slums inside Mumbai also. India is growing at its own pace and without any pretensions.

I can explain more about this change if you want. I don't challenge US superiority in technology but thinking that gap hasn't reduced especially in case of China, then you are underestimating the entire situation.

Its a trend which is hard to stop. India and China would look to catch up and reduce the GAP with west. While China is ahead of India economically I don't see China ahead of India in technological sense. I see them broadly at same level. India has reduced the gap equally with US if not more then China, and India could well be ahead in future.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

What deployment issues? They steamrolled over everything. What more would you ask? ofcourse there was room for improvement, there always is, but end result is what it is.

Also in regards to numerical advantage, many weapons dating as far as the cold war were designed specifically with Soviet numerical advantage in mind, in other words it not a new thing, saturation type attack also isn't something unknown, it was as far as forum talk goes the only viable tactic the Soviet naval commanders came up with and even then they estimated that for a sure kill they would have to use tactical nuclear warheads on antiship missiles.
There isn't any numerical advantage in modern equipment, only maybe in old T-55 and MiG-21 knockoffs and ofcourse, manpower.

Of course I'm not saying that USA isn't capable of massive overseas deployment. In fact, USA is the only one that can do it for sure. They deployed 150,000 troops in a very short time, and that's not an easy thing. But these numbers pale when you pit them against the 4.5 million military and paramilitary forces of China, and that's without counting reserves.

Your point that quality is better than quantity makes sense, but still these numbers have their effect. If China is on the defensive, it can take advantage of logistics issues, inability to bring in a huge number of troops all at once. Likewise, if China attacks USA, it's gonna have its arse kicked, 'cause here the US guys will take advantage of deployment and logistics problems.

Everyone is gonna gang up to aquire a piece of rocks they never had before. In fact, China's list of quite not friendly neighbours seems to be growing.

The US needs a place for an effective buildup. it had Kuwait and Saudi in 2003. Who will support them against China? China may have millions of enemies, but how many of them have the guts to oppose it militarily? The only thing keeping the situation from exploding is nukes. China is terrified of US nukes, US is terrified of Chinese nukes. If one of the parties lacked nukes, the issue would have been resolved long ago.

Every GCC nation asked for it, provided support and done some liberating too. Additionally, Saddam was heavily indebted then, he planned to add Kuwait's output as a means to finance his debts from the Iran fiasco. Can't have robbers running around annexing countries, can we?

Of course not, I'm not saying US wasn't justified in that case. I just presented this case because you asked why would USA fight over a few rocks.

 

[Plexyre]

While Hong Kong's fate is uncertain as Beijing may decide to directly absorb Hong Kong in 2047, you can be sure Taiwan will be around in 2050. In order for Taiwan to not exist, the communists must be thrown out and China becomes a multi-party democracy, which isn't going to happen.

Multi-party democracy is hardly the only option forward for progress. Think Singapore-style authoritarianism. The political situation between Taiwan and China will certainly change before 2050, regardless of what direction it goes.

The unification cost is only $250 billion(Korean unification model is "seal and develop", not the German "bring down all walls".) and North Korea has at least $1 trillion worth of underground resources, not counting possible oil wells in the Yellow Sea(Chinese side has oil, so it is widely assumed that North Korean side too has oil wells.)

I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. Disregarding rabid Korean netizens, the Korean government has been relatively liberal, indeed even more liberal than Japan has been, and will not likely go with social apartheid-style governing of the North. That, and to secure FDI for North Korea it will have to "open up". In the miniscule chance that the South does go with apartheid, North Koreans would begin fleeing to China, in which case China will expel them to the Korean government (which would mean the South). South Korea today is having difficulty supporting some 10,000+ North Korea defectors socially and financially, how will they deal with an influx of several million North Korean refugees into their territory?

Of course there is always the option of sealing North Korea shut to prevent refugees from fleeing to China but that would mean closing up and losing much needed FDI. Either way the South will have to foot a very large bill to support the North with any unification.

Japan's GDP per capital is expected to be around $60K in 2050, as 40% of populations would be elderly and Japan would be an economy where 1.5 active workers support 1 retiree on pension.

This is why China is expected to be overtaken by India soon, as China too faces a Japan-like aging society in less than 20 years and the growth sputters accordingly. All the economists project India to be the biggest economy(so the 21st century is technically India's Century, not China's) because the average age of India would be low, which helps to sustain the economic growth.

Korea as a whole is hardly a spring chicken, going by the demographic trends of the North and South. And with unification the South will not only have to provide for its rapidly aging population but also for 24+ million North Koreans living in poverty. As an ever growing demand for workers increases, Korea will have to let in ever more foreign guest workers into their country. That, or Korea would just recruit North Koreans as guest workers under an apartheid system, in which case the South will be paying the full bill to support them and their salaries

Whether India can reach their potential or not will depend entirely on the political actions the country takes. It's certainly not impossible.

 

[Audio]

Of course I'm not saying that USA isn't capable of massive overseas deployment. In fact, USA is the only one that can do it for sure. They deployed 150,000 troops in a very short time, and that's not an easy thing. But these numbers pale when you pit them against the 4.5 million military and paramilitary forces of China, and that's without counting reserves.

Your point that quality is better than quantity makes sense, but still these numbers have their effect. If China is on the defensive, it can take advantage of logistics issues, inability to bring in a huge number of troops all at once. Likewise, if China attacks USA, it's gonna have its arse kicked, 'cause here the US guys will take advantage of deployment and logistics problems.

I actually wasn't thinking about a classical land war, more like precision munition strikes on key military targets near the coast to deny operation.

The US needs a place for an effective buildup. it had Kuwait and Saudi in 2003. Who will support them against China? China may have millions of enemies, but how many of them have the guts to oppose it militarily?

Japan, Korea, India more covertly?

The only thing keeping the situation from exploding is nukes. China is terrified of US nukes, US is terrified of Chinese nukes. If one of the parties lacked nukes, the issue would have been resolved long ago.

Iran doesn't have nukes and is in almost constant conflict with the US in the last 30 years and they still havent been attacked.

Of course not, I'm not saying US wasn't justified in that case. I just presented this case because you asked why would USA fight over a few rocks.

err, a large percentage of world oil reserves is there, id say thats a bit more important then some rocks and whatever is beneath them.

 

[KRAIT]

What will happen when the Africans will want to eat? Buying land in Africa to relieve hunger is like putting a band-aid on an open fracture in my opinion, slightly better but you can imagine....

Well ofcourse the gap has shrunk, nobody in their right mind would deny it but the amount by which it has shrunk i think is grossly exaggerated to propel the myth of great China, CCP etc...the pics you see here, city centers, all fine and dandy, shines epicly (on a smog-free day), go on a 20 min ride outside and what will you see? Same with India.

This
Sun Tzu would be able to take it all away + whole SCS would be thankful to him.

I would rather accept Indian policy makers decision into consideration and their reasoning behind such acquisitions. Band-aid analogy didn't work but got your point. But its one of the solution to meet the demand. Not to forget bad distribution by Indian govt. Most of the land is bought by private players. For Africans, well won't they have jobs to work in the industries set up by foreigners. I think they will happily do job rather let their children die due to hunger or civil war with kids owning AKs. Have you read about Indian and China's version of imperialism which in former case was exactly we fought against.

Exaggeration is obvious, but underestimating is also present. Exaggeration of US might is also questioned especially after what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan, former made US bleed all over while later one does have some significance in prolonging the war.

I agree with 20 min ride situation but aren't things worsening in west too. Haven't people gone bankrupt and other problems rose. Its about decline in relative term. You can't measure US and China's growth in every house or city term. $100 increase of pay in US may not means a LOT but it means more to any Indian or Chinese living outside 20 min ride zone. If you have to compare is to compare the past living of standard and problems in your country and ours in our country.

Half a century ago, things were completely different, USSR came to same level as of US and now we are talking about 4 decades ahead. I think you know Leap Frog Advance in science and other areas.

I won't comment on possible structure of Asia in economy wise or geo-political wise, but technological level can be understood, exceptions will be there but most of the technologies will come to same level.

Sun Tzu won't risk getting weak by indulging in war with small but potent nations and give the bigger and more advanced nation to have a chance to increase the gap i.e. US. China can afford to loose few islands but can't afford to loose the momentum in every every area especially in economy.

 

[Infinity]

India economy will stay where it is, with rupee falling, FDI falling, and debt increasing, and growth rate falling

Being a Paksitani i appreciate you wish list.................But give valid reasons for your Post............Have you seen Yesterdays Business in Indian stock market.............Even in such adverse condition we are growing at 6% rate...............Did you read the Reforms announced by GOI yesterday.........If RBI announces interest rate cut this Monday..............then see the Economic Growth next quarter and then comment............Good Luck

 

[KRAIT]

Being a Paksitani i appreciate you wish list.................But give valid reasons for your Post............Have you seen Yesterdays Business in Indian stock market.............Even in such adverse condition we are growing at 6% rate...............Did you read the Reforms announced by GOI yesterday.........If RBI announces interest rate cut this Monday..............then see the Economic Growth next quarter and then comment............Good Luck

For such posters, give one argument, "Our movie industry worth 1/4 of their defense budget". You can't argue with them rationally.

No offense intended.

 

[DesiGuy]

 

[Infinity]

seeing you after a long time.............where were you??????????

 

[ViXuyen]

In 2050, I see the incomes per capita of the current industrialized countries of Western Euro & Japan will reduce drastically compared to 2012. The reason is that these industrialized countries of Europe and Japan have little to no raw materials/natural resources. They are rich at the moment because they can export their industrial products to import back the raw materials.

In the next 40 years, I see a lot of the current developing countries (with raw materials) able to produce their own cars, ship, machinery, electronic products, heavy equipment etc. As these former developing countries able to produce their own industrial products, Western Euro & Japan will lose export customers ...eventually the income per capita of Western Euro & Japan will converge with these former developing countries.

Some people have difficulty understanding why Japan is not in the top 10 largest economy by 2050. Imagine the scenario that in 2050 Japan is only able to export 1/5 of the export in 2012. Losing export customers means production of industrial goods got reduced, companies got closed down, job loss ...hence the gross "domestic products" got reduced ie the GDP . In simple sense, if Japan used to produce 10 cars for export, now only 2; you see why the current industrialized countries does not mean they will be able to maintain their current high GDP/capita forever.

 

[holysaturn]

i totally agree with krait , we have a great example in china for understanding which reforms work and which dont both in short term and long term,we can skip iterative steps which china wasted as a part of its experimentation with reforms............ we must also bring in processes which are unique to india .............why 2050 it can be done in 2040 provided we have a combination of good leadership,timely reforms,quality education and global cooperation which i am confident will get a boost in the coming years and these cannot be quantified in surveys.......

 

[ephone]

Countries?

When does Hong Kong become a country?

For taiwan, majority of the world won't/dare not recognize it. So it is better to replace with another descriptive word.

Survey: Singapore to be most affluent country in 2050 | abc7news.com



The biggest economy in the world in 2050 is India, BTW.