Dear Steven,

I think you may be attempting to put words into my mouth.

You wrote; “You on the other hand seem to see them as a group of benevolent and wise leaders guiding the country onto the right path.”

No, not at all. I basically said I hoped they were smart enough not to repeat America's mistakes with hyper-democracy (ie one that now treats corporations as people) and hyper-capitalism.

You spoke of the leadership being paralysed with fear yet wrote;

“As I pointed out in a previous post titled "China! China! China! China!....*", that model may be coming to the end of the road. From here on it gets harder. The Chinese leadership, recognising this, is pouring vast sums into R&D. Their stated aim is to add "Innovated in China" to "Made in China."”

Compare that to the cuts to education and training for instance by our Victorian Liberal government.

Or compare the recent introduction in China of a nearly universal health care insurance scheme covering nearly 1.3 billion people, to the furore in the US over Obama's, in reality, quite insipid health care reforms.

I'm not sure this is evidence of paralysis. 'Obamacare' and debt ceilings fit the bill far better. And you have twice acknowledged the Chinese 'smarts'.

You wrote; “From my perspective the evidence supports my point of view. You seem convinced your point of view is correct. Neither of us at this stage has any chance of convincing the other that they are right.”

You seemed to have created a fence out of thin air and and plunked it between us.

I am no more convinced about correctness of my point of view than you should be of yours. In fact I don't think we are all that far apart on China, our main disagreement would appear to be the viability of the US. However the best we can say is that you are a little more optimistic on that front. The next decade should tell us one way or the other.

Is the whole concept of one nation rising and the other falling itself questionable ?
Surely what lies ahead is all of us going down with the tide ?

Bazz,

You're on the right track.
The one thing that is always guaranteed is "change". The Western industrial paradigm is the represented by the power exuded from its "superpower" - America.

The U.S. has peaked and it aint coming back. China has its own problems, and has only managed to become a giant by "unsustainable" growth and monumental polluting practice.

The industrial model can't sustain itself and eventually must contract. How that pans out, we can only surmise at this stage.

Is the USA the emerging superpower - again?

Nope

*The industrial model can't sustain itself and eventually must contract. How that pans out, we can only surmise at this stage.*

The industrial model underpins the tens of millions in cities model.

Sounds like the "Daisy the cow on 5 acres model" makes perfect sense
and is not a bad way to live

csteele, I apologise if I've misrepresented your views.

I am far from certain that the US will rebound and remain a first among equals. But I think it possible and more probable than not.

But it could go badly wrong for them. Nations are usually their own worst enemies and the US is proving no exception.

But I am certain that the Chinese leadership are not possessed of any special wisdom.

For the rest, gentlemen we've placed our bets. Now it remains to be seen how the game turns out. If we're still around in 2030 we can hold a post mortem.

As for the "industrial model" - that is changing so rapidly that it's hard say what will happen.

Interesting video from The Economist:

The third industrial revolution begins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vSOroLQUx0

I think the "industrial model" will continue but it will hardly be recognisable.

There is an interesting piece in New Scientist:

China is taking control of Asia's water tower (New Scientist, 28 April 2012)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428624.400-china-is-taking-control-of-asias-water-tower.html?full=true

>>The country's engineers are damming or diverting the five great rivers that flow out of Tibet and into neighbouring countries>>

These huge engineering projects could have devastating consequences for Bangladesh, India and Vietnam. The rivers affected are the Indus, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween and Mekong.

I wonder how this will play out.

To quote from the article:

>>In a region where water supplies are stretched and nations play hydrological hardball, the stakes are high. China was one of only three nations to vote against a proposed UN treaty on sharing international rivers. As Loh Su Hsing, a fellow at the foreign affairs think tank Chatham House in London, wrote recently: "The big issue for Asia is whether China will exploit its control of the Tibetan plateau to increasingly siphon off for its own use the waters of the international rivers that are the lifeblood of the [downstream] countries.">>

Anybody got any ideas?

Could we see "water wars" - China vs the rest?

This has been brewing for sometime. I first read about it approx 6 years ago.
It could start a war that even China could not win.
When the life of 100s of millions are at stake, whats a few nuclear weapons ?
If China's water problem is a bad as we hear, then millions will starve
in one country or the other.
Would you let your country go without and sacrifice them for another
countries people ?

Hmmmm.