Summary: See the dreams of our ruling elites. This particular vision of the future is ten years old. See how it has guided American public policy, but so far has proven quite false. Its predictions of the future likely will be equally false. But our elites won’t change course. Only we can force them to take another path.
To survive, we must see the world with wide-open eyes.
One of the big reasons to read Stratfor’s geopolitical reports is that they provide a window into the thinking of our ruling elites (they also provide excellent reporting). Or rather, a smarter and better-informed version of their world-view. George Friedman, their founder, does this better than most. See this excerpt from his 2009 book. It explains why the US so eagerly expanded NATO up to Russia’s borders – absorbing Russia’s traditional buffer states and overthrowing Ukraine’s government to install a pro-US one. It explains their enthusiasm for open borders, although that they see the almost certain eventual disastrous outcome (they believe its too far away to care about).
Of course, even after ten years we can see that many of their dreams are false. Yet in the modern American way, they have not let forces change their plans.
The Next 100 Years:
A Forecast for the 21st Century
.
By George Friedman, founder of Stratfor (2009).
“There is a borderland between the United States and Mexico, with Mexicans and Americans sharing a mixed culture. …Mexicans on both sides of the border have deep ties to Mexico …Most borderlands change hands several times. The U.S. – Mexican borderland has changed hands only once so far. …
“At a certain point, the status of the borderland simply becomes a question of military and political power. The borderland belongs to the stronger side, and the question of strength is determined on the ground. Since 1848, the political border has been fixed by the overwhelming power of the United States. Populations might shift. Smuggling might take place. But the political boundaries are fixed by military reality.
“Later in the century, the current border will have been in place for two hundred years. Mexican national power might reemerge, and the demography of the borderland on the American side may have shifted so dramatically that the political boundaries might not be able to hold. At that time, it’s quite possible that Mexico may no longer be the fifteenth-biggest country economically, but well into the top ten. Stranger things have happened, and free trade with the United States helps. The countries currently ranked ahead of Mexico include many European countries with severe demographic problems. Given the impact of a potential Mexican-American confrontation on the border, there is no question but that this fault line must be taken seriously. …
“For the United States, on the other hand, it will be merely another fifty-year cycle in its history successfully navigated and another wave of immigrants attracted and seduced by the land of opportunity. Whether they come from India or Brazil, their children will be as American in a generation as previous immigration cohorts were throughout America’s history. This applies to everyone except for one group – the Mexicans.
“The United States occupies land once claimed by Mexico, and its border with that nation is notoriously porous. Population movements between Mexico and the United States differ from the norm, particularly in the borderlands. This region will be the major pool from which manual labor is drawn in the 2030s, and it will cause serious strategic problems for the United States later in the century.
“But around 2030 an inevitable step will be taken. A labor shortage that destabilizes the American economy will force the United States to formalize a process that will have been in place since around 2015 of intensifying immigration into the United States. Once this is done, the United States will resume the course of its economic development, accelerating in the 2040s as the boomers die and the population structure begins to resemble the normal pyramid once again, rather than a mushroom. The 2040s should see a surge in economic development similar to those of the 1950s or 1990s. And this period will set the stage for the crisis of 2080. But there is a lot of history to come between now and then. …
“Outside the United States two powers will be thinking about {outer} space. One will be Poland, which will be busy consolidating its land empire and still smarting at its treatment under the peace treaty of the 2050s. But Poland will also still be recovering from the war and surrounded by American allies. It will not be ready for a challenge. The other country thinking about space will be Mexico, which into the late 2060s will be emerging as one of the top economic powers in the world. Mexico will see itself as a rival of the United States …
“Mexico has never been in a position to attempt to reverse the American conquests. It adopted the view that it had no choice but to live with the loss of its northern land. …This was not because anti-American sentiment wasn’t present in Mexico. It is in fact deeply rooted, as one might expect given the history of Mexican American relations. However, as we have seen, sentiment has little to do with power. The Mexicans were absorbed by their own fractious regionalism and complex politics. …
“By the middle of the twenty-first century, as Mexican economic power rises, there will inevitably be a rise in Mexican nationalism, which, given geopolitical reality, will manifest itself not only in pride but in anti-Americanism. …
“However, as immigration becomes the dominant issue in the United States during the 2070s and the pivot around which the 2080 elections will turn, Mexico will begin to behave in unprecedented ways. The crisis in the United States and the maturation of the Mexican economy and society will coincide, creating unique tensions. …and a dramatic redefinition of the population of the American southwest will combine to create a crisis that will not be easily solved by American technology and power.
“The crisis will begin as an internal American matter. The United States is a democratic society, and in large regions of the country, the English-speaking culture will no longer be dominant. The United States will have become a bicultural country, like Canada or Belgium. The second culture will not be formally recognized, but it will be real and it will be not merely a cultural phenomenon but a clearly defined geographic reality. Biculturalism tends to become a problem when it is simply ignored when the dominant culture rejects the idea of formalizing it and instead attempts to maintain the status quo. It particularly becomes a problem when the dominant culture begins to take steps that appear designed to destroy the minority culture. And if this minority culture is essentially an extension of a neighboring country that sees its citizens as inhabiting territory stolen from it, the situation can become explosive.
“By the 2070s, Mexicans and those of Mexican origin will constitute the dominant population along a line running at least two hundred miles from the U.S. – Mexican border through California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and throughout vast areas of the Mexican Cession. The region will not behave as other immigrant-heavy areas have. Rather, as happens in borderlands, it will be culturally and in many ways economically a northward extension of Mexico. In every sense but politically, the border will have moved north. …This group will dominate not only local politics, but the politics of two whole states – Arizona and New Mexico – and much of the politics of California and Texas. Only the sheer size of the latter will prevent immigrants from controlling them outright as well. A subnational bloc, on the order of Quebec in Canada, will be in place in the United States.
“At a certain critical mass, a geographically contiguous group becomes conscious of itself as a distinct entity within a country. More exactly, it begins to see the region it dominates as distinct, and begins to ask for a range of special concessions based on its status. When it has a natural affinity to a neighboring country, a portion of the group will see itself as native to that country but living under foreign domination. And across the border, in the neighboring country, an annexation movement can arise.”
————————–
Conclusions
Friedman’s book was published in 2009. Some of the trends he described as happening in the late 21st century are already visible – such as the effects of open borders. This is commonplace in prediction. The “s” curve always surprises people. People experience that long slow base as the natural order instead of the first phase in an accelerating trend. This creates complacency slows recognition, preventing preparation before and fast response after.
But most of this is already looking false.
In 2009, Freidman was optimistic about Mexico’s future. See his rebuttal to predictions (from people like me) that it would become a failed state. Since then the cartels routinely kill senior army officers, judges, and politicians. Recently they defeated an army unit in a recent shoot-out, suggesting they have moved to a stage two insurgency (in Mao’s schema).
His dreams of immigrants’ rapid assimilation are already being proven to be false, as so many experts predicted. See the research.
Not only do we not need population growth to ensure prosperity, but it is also mad to bring in massive numbers of low-education, low skill migrants as a new industrial revolution begins – with waves of automation destroying those jobs. Japan looks like a more logical model for success in the 21st century (details here).
The clock is running against us. We do not have much time to prevent the likely horrific outcomes from following our elites’ dreams.
“So little distant dangers seem:
So we mistake the future’s face,
Even through Hope’s deluding glass;
As yon summits soft and fair,
Clad in colours of the air,
Which to those who journey near,
Barren, brown, and rough appear.”
– “Gronger Hill” by the Welsh poet John Dyer (1727).
Our elites have their dreams, and close their eyes to keep them safe.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
See Fred Reed’s insightful analysis about Mexico, also from 2009: “La Rubia y la Droga – Notes From an Unknown Planet.”
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about forecasts, about immigration, and especially these…
- Essential reading: See the hidden history of immigration into America (it ruins the narrative).
- Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
- The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
- The smoke & fire of the new Sweden is our future.
- Prepare for mass migrants, the greatest challenge to America.
- The Left goes full open borders, changing America forever.
- Choose: open borders or the welfare State?
- William Lind explains how to defend against an invasion.
- Our rulers make a new people for America.
- The devastating economic effect of mass migration.
Three books about immigration
See George Friedman’s (founder of Stratfor) 2009 book The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
Europe is our future. If we act quickly, we can learn and avoid their mistakes. These two books provide clear warnings.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
Mexico – reputation and reality
Speaking of Mexico as a failed state, there is suddenly talk of the military overthrowing the current government. The president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AKA AMLO), was in the news today saying that the Mexican people would not tolerate a coup, which makes me think that the threat is real. I could see the Mexican military being fed up with having their hands tied by AMLO, who thinks he can kill the cartels with kindness: “abrazos, no balazos” (hugs, not gun shots). He genuinely believes that social justice will somehow curb the cartels. He does appear to have been seriously rattled by the incident in Culiacan where Mexican security forces were overwhelmed by a cartel attack to rescue one of Chapo’s sons. It doesn’t fit his narrative of Mexico’s “Fourth Transformation.”
The Mexican people have been suffering from a state of danger, “la inseguridad” as they call it, for decades. No civilian government has been able to do anything to stop it. Mexico has had civilian governments for about 90 years. Is that about to change?
But can the Mexican military stop the cartels? Or would the US have to lend a “helping hand”? Would Mexico accept American military intervention? Would we do it? Would we want to do it?
Frank,
“AMLO, who thinks he can kill the cartels with kindness. …No civilian government has been able to do anything to stop it.”
Note that the rise of the cartels isn’t just AMLO. He is just trying something new, in the long series of attempts to suppress, mitigate, or adapt to the cartels.
“But can the Mexican military stop the cartels?”
The military has taken the lead in fighting the cartels for 10 years. Results so far aren’t encouraging.
“Or would the US have to lend a “helping hand”?”
History is clear that a “helping hand” from the US would be counter-productive. The use of foreign armies vaporizes a government’s legitimacy. The effect of Americans in Mexico would be that squared.
Plus, we have already helped. Mexican special forces have learned torture and other counter-insurgency methods at the US Army’s School of the Americas. Perhaps we could provide the latest surveillance technology (US tech corps would love the money), so their people could really hate them.
From what I have observed the Mexican military’s actions under the Calderon and Pena Nieto administrations have been half hearted, as both administrations seemed more interested in looting the treasury than in establishing law and order. Still, I have my doubts that Mexico run by a military junta under martial law will be able to stop the cartels. Corruption is endemic in Mexico, from the top all the way down to the shoeshine boys, and I doubt that the generals can’t be bought out. AMLO has vowed to fight corruption, but has little to show there as well.
Perhaps all we can do is build the wall and militarize our border, though the political will to do that is lacking.
Frank,
All characteristics of a failed state. As Israel has done, all we can do is built border defenses (a wall and patrols) and wait it out.
“The use of foreign armies vaporizes a government’s legitimacy. The effect of Americans in Mexico would be that squared.”
Agreed. Plus Mexicans fear that we would annex the rest of Mexico. Though there is a joke told in Mexico: What was Santa Anna’s biggest mistake? A: He only surrendered half of Mexico to the US.
There is a strong love/hate relationship with the US. That said, I think Mexicans fear losing their sovereignty far more than they fear the cartels, at least for now.
Sadly, I agree that Mexico is a failed state. There is a modicum of law and order in Mexico City, though it is still far more dangerous than when I lived there. But go outside into “La Provincia” and all bets are off, as the fiasco in Culiacan shows.
I fondly remember trips to Acapulco. Now, it’s become a lawless hell hole where the cartels act with impunity and the police cower in fear. Military presence barely makes a dent. Truly sad.
Frank,
Mexico is not yet a failed state. It takes time to wreck the institutions of a functional nation. It is on the path to becoming a failed state.
There’s a bunch of mainland Chinese opening up shops (factories) in Tijuana these days. With a bunch of flights flying out from TJ int’l airport.
Chinese over at TJ speak Spanish good. Real good. And Mexican women don’t seem to mind ’em.
It can’t be that much failed if youre opening up to Chinese money.
Takes 2 hours to cross the border, why? because a bunch of Americans (some buddies of mine) chose to live there and work in San Diego. They don’t mind the cartel wars, actually they prefer it to
the more chaotic street gangs this side of the border, Chicago? forget about it.
LCpx,
“It can’t be that much failed if youre opening up to Chinese money.”
There is no correlation between those two things.
“the more chaotic street gangs this side of the border, Chicago? forget about it.”
Bizarrely false. Mexico’s 2018 homiide rate was 27 per 100 hundred thousand, and rising. The rate for its most violent cities is probably 4x that. Chicago’s was 20 per hundred thousand, and falling (with fewer this year).
You may be right about Chinese businessmen, doing business in failed states, but I assure you they were not in Iraq or Afghanistan– they do take their risks in say South America and Africa, which tells me their cost benefit differs from ours a bit.
We like the desert (oil), they like virgin forests (other resources).
As for Mexico vs. Chicago, I don’t purport to know about Mexico, just Tijuana. And from my buddies doing the Tijuana to San Diego commute daily , they prefer the consistency in violence in TJ, than the chaotic American street gangs scene (Chicago being the worst in American example), but their comparative analysis,
is more California street gangs, Fresno/Bakersfield being the most chaotic in California right now. but Socal to San Diego too.
In TJ, you only have 2 cartels, and they pretty much leave others alone. Not much cross-fire to worry about as compared to California.
my point (actually my buddies’ their point) in their TJ/California (US) cost benefit analysis is that TJ (for them ) is more predictable (only 2 groups involved); whereas plenty of groups to be wary of in the US.
So again this is just Tijuana re crime/violence; but the rest of Mexico re China.
I have heard of people who choose to live in TJ and work in San Diego’s south bay, but my understanding is that they do it for financial reasons, as the cost of living is lower in TJ.
As for TJ being safe, they are deluding themselves:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11735361/in-tijuana-police-grapple-with-worlds-worst-homicide-rate
Frank,
I cited the same article to him!
LCpl,
As any Mexican, gringo expats usually know little about Mexico. Your friends are an extreme example.
The gringo section of Mexican towns tend to be relatively low crime. Mexico needs the money. Those who aren’t clear about this – die.
But as for its crime level:
“Tijuana was declared the most violent city in the world this month, by Mexico’s Citizens’ Council for Public Safety and Criminal Justice, which lists the Top 50 cities with the highest number of homicides per capita.
“This fast-growing border city suffered 2,519 homicides in 2018. That’s 40 percent more than in 2017, which was already a record-breaking year. And it’s almost three times as many killings as in the worst previous spike of violence Tijuana suffered between 2008 and 2010.”
https://www.kqed.org/news/11735361/in-tijuana-police-grapple-with-worlds-worst-homicide-rate
Also worth noting that even if they do not live in “gringo neighborhoods” expats, because they have more money than the average Mexican, usually live in nicer (and relatively safer) neighborhoods. But even in upper middle and upper class neighborhoods, houses and condo/apt buildings look like fortresses. The concept of a home where the front of your house is exposed to the street (like in the US) is mostly non existent in Mexico, and for good reason.
I recall seeing a video about a nicer apartment building in TJ. Before you could get to your apartment you had to get past a couple of secure metal doors. But I also recall that the apartments rented for $300-$400 USD a month. Out of reach for most Tijuanans but a bargain for a San Diegan.
Well, they’ve been there awhile now, so maybe theyre not really bothered by the spike. just riding out the trends, i assume.
But looking at 2014, 2015, 2016 stats, looks like my buddies’ would be in the right. those numbers are pretty low considering.
Is there a new cartel war going on that ‘s responsible for the spike? Because i do remember there was a spike early 2010s or late 2000s also , let me finish looking at these numbers…
p.s. we’re talking about Mexican-Americans here , not gringos, and they live in Mexican neighborhoods. theyre all vets from previous 2001-now wars, so i’ll take their cost-benefit anytime of the week.
But let me sift thru these Mexican crime numbers, because it looks simply like a spike in deaths. I assume here, not much civilians are involved. hence , the non-worry, not so much the ignorance tempering views here.
LCpl,
Not everybody likes facts. This is the great lesson I’ve learned from the 66 thousand comments here.
Larry,
it’s not so much facts, but optics operating here. i’ve perused thru that article you’ve linked to which linked to Mexican crime stats.
though the article is correct, 2018 is pretty high (i’m still trying to figure out what dolosos and culposas are) if you work your way back 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013…
the rates stay the same.
So again re optics, if you’ve lived there, the oldest of my buddies there would be 2010 off and on living in Tijuana. Then you’d take all other years and weigh it with the current spike, now i’m sure if 2019 and 2020 get worser and worser… then
they’d re-evaluate, but as of earlier this year, all seems to be good in Tijuana. I’ll see some of them again soon, so would like to see if they’d reconsider their long term plans.
Since i don’t hear any of them calling to crash on the couch. I’m assuming they’re riding this homicide spike for now.
Which begs the question is it all out war down there, or are they simply cleaning house. Cleaning house implies, they are just targeting other criminals, not civilians.
The facts need to be evaluated by folks on the ground, where the rubber meets the road.
Even at its lulls the TJ murder and crime rates are high. Just because your buddies haven’t been impacted by it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. There’s a reason houses in Mexico, even in “good” neighborhoods, have bars on the windows. Sure, the overwhelming majority of Tijuanans won’t be murdered and they go about their daily lives, often accepting that there is nothing they can do about the violence but hope for the best. But to say that it’s safer than San Diego is utterly risible. If your buddies like it in TJ, good for them.
Frank K.,
I don’t mean to say Mexico is better than the US, or that TJ is better than San Diego.
after all it is the 1st world vs. the 3rd world.
I’m not familiar with Mexico, but I am familiar with what the 3rd world looks like and how it works.
Corruption is of course more blatant; high walls with glass shards on top, or private guards with guns. same with every 3rd world country.
But yours and Larry’s rebuttle was that 2018 spike is the norm; so having looked into other years, it is not the norm after all. my rebutt.
Of course there are a lot more variables to consider in why they prefer TJ to San Diego. with the exchange rate playing a huge role.
But their (my buddies’) assessment of crime in Mexico vs. crime in the US is that crime in Mexico is more predictable and more consistent. there’s less 3rd party involvement (get shot at),
that may be anecdotal, but these stats really don’t say who’s getting killed.
So how these facts are interpreted on the ground, absent of further data (like who exactly is getting killed, in that 2,000+ stats mentioned in that article),
is unfortunately the de fault assessment. my point, statistics have to be interpreted. sure all i have are my buddies’ impressions, but unless you can lend specific to these numbers,
i have to assume they are numbers that don’t really touch upon my buddies’ lives, which means either these murders are happening outside their spheres or that these murders are happening around TJ but to specific people only.
You get me my point here?
I never said that the “pike year was the norm”. What I do say is that even in a good year TJ is far more dangerous than San Diego.
It’s also worth noting that TJ isn’t just the most dangerous city in Mexico, or even North America, It’s the most dangerous city in the world. That doesn’t happen overnight unless a civil war breaks out. And Mexico isn’t in civil war, at least not yet. The people still have faith in AMLO, but so far he’s batting 0.000
That’s the thing. Given our improvements in investigative methods.
Torture is useless to even counter-productive. More to do with lust for cruelty and bloodshed than professionalism.
As for the US. Primary focus would have to be treating addiction, securing the border, undoing corruption and cutting all avenues for arms transfers and funding.
Simply just killing insurgents wont do it. As adaptation made possible by resources available will continue.
At some point also. If the murder rate is high enough and majority is the result of organized violence.
The country is defacto in undeclared civil war.
info,
That’s too binary. Real world events are not that simple. 4GWs are extremely complex, and defies such simple categories.
@FM
That’s true in regards to 4GW. I find it hard to believe that in countries like El Salvador who managed to have more homicides than syria per year. Most of it due to gang violence.
Isnt in a defacto civil war.
Quick question: How can Stratfor be an excellent reporting yet also be propaganda pushers for elitism? Wouldn’t the reporting therefore be tainted? This probably seem s like a stupid question, as all media is biased, but Statfor, being a mouthpiece of elites, has a much more clearly defined end goal, thereby enabling them to put into reality what they wish.
Quick question: What is with this whole ballyhoo about the memorandum of the Ukraine call? I’m guessing that people in Washington are willingly being obtuse with regards to how we have conducted foreign policy since McKinley, i.e. that the president acts like a shakedown man even to ostensible allies.
Also, do you regard Palastine as a failed state? That seems to be the indication from your comment above.
Isaac,
“How can Stratfor be an excellent reporting yet also be propaganda pushers for elitism? ”
I didn’t say they were “propaganda pushers.” Rather, their perspective is that of our elites. After all, that’s their client base.
“do you regard Palastine as a failed state?”
It is not, and has never been a State (except in the distant past, before nation-states). There are several schema for describing what are the essential characteristics of a State. Palestine doesn’t have many or most of them.
A rhetorical question: doesn’t a state have to be a “non failed state” before it can become a failed state?
As for Mexico, I suppose it depends on where you are. In Mexico City it doesn’t quite look like a failed state. But in places like Uruapan, Acapulco and most recently in Culiacan it is obvious that the cartels are in charge, even though all those locales have a token government that provides basic services like water, electricity, paved roads, etc. I suppose it depends on how one defines a failed state. One definition I read said that once it reached the point of no return, that even if the lights are still on, that it’s a failed state.
Mexico is in a strange situation. It isn’t a banana republic. It has major industries. Your appliances and your cars have possibly been built there. But much like its national soccer team it has been unable to break through to greatness and become a true first world nation.
I once considered retiring in Mexico (I am a dual citizen), but that is clearly out of the question at this point. Not even Mexico City is safe enough, and even if it was I would not want to live in that smoggy megapolis. Cuernavaca once seemed like a nice option, but now the entire state of Morelos is overrun by crime.
Many years ago I lived in an upper middle class Mexico City suburb. The houses on our street did not have brick and mortar front yard fences. Now they all do, ten feet tall with the ubiquitous broken glass on the top and there are manned security booths at both ends of the street. And from what I hear, people still get robbed. When I lived there 30+ years ago no one was ever robbed on our street.
Frank,
“doesn’t a state have to be a “non failed state” before it can become a failed state?”
Yes, if you see this as a binary condition. It’s not, of course. Think of living and dying. Someone can be bed-ridden, on life support. They are alive, but barely. Then they enter a grey zone, as organs fail one by one and life support becomes essential. We need rules to determine when that person is “dead.” Similarly with failed states. There are criteria that allow drawing a line, but they are somewhat arbitrary.
As with so many concepts, we create them for easier description and analysis of the world. But General Semantics reminds us that they are not reality. “The map is not the terrain, the name is not the thing …”
Larry: “suggesting they have moved to a stage two insurgency”
I’m asking this question solely out of curiosity: Do the cartels WANT to control Mexico? I suspect that as long as they can avoid shooting fights with each other that they’d prefer to avoid the burden of government.
Frank K: “Or would the US have to lend a “helping hand”?”
The only useful helping hand the US could offer Mexico is to taper down our use of the drugs imported by the cartels. I, for one, am totally stumped on how to achieve that.
Pluto,
“Do the cartels WANT to control Mexico?”
That’s a powerful question. History shows that “plans” and “goals” play a smaller role than in the potted history taught in school. Did Cyrus the Great want to conquer the Middle East? Did the British East India Company want to conquer India? No, but they did anyway. Their power created an imbalance, leading to wars and their expansion. The stronger power might not intend to expand, but few can resist more wealth and power.
Something similar might be happening in Mexico.
If their bloodthirsty methods are effective in keeping citizen in fear in subjugation. It will only spread.
As they inadvertently gain power.
info,
In the real world, that’s not how things are done. The cartels gain support by providing prosperity in the areas they control. They ask loyalty in return, and brutally punish disloyalty.
Given their profits from drugs, extorting some chickens from the local peasants is hardly worth the effort.
Successful organized crime organizations run by the rule “everyone gets a taste.” Share a tiny fraction of the profits to build a solid foundation.
So terror had backfired on those groups that have gone too brutal?
From the NYTimes:Inside Ukraine’s Push to Cultivate Trump From the Start
Former President Petro Poroshenko alternately flattered President Trump, signed deals with U.S. firms and met with Rudolph Giuliani.
Accidently hit the post button.
Part of our elites vision is myopia. As Larry pointed out, it was the US that pursued influence in the old eastern bloc. It appears they do not want us to remember the Trump disqualification that he was not schooled in foreign affairs. Yet now point to Trump actions as illegal. Both Clintons, Biden, Kerry, to name a few, engaged in the same or worse, but these were qualifications for them.
Perhaps we should rename it as the amnesiac, war is peace, clown world.
John,
“remember the Trump disqualification that he was not schooled in foreign affairs.”
Got to be the goofiest thing I’ve read this week. We elect Presidents to run America. Foreign affairs is a small part of the game, and the president can get advisors. Many recent presidents — such as Carter, Reagan, and Obama — had little or no experience in foreign affairs.
I know it was a bit goofy. I blame reading the NYT.
Though, one of the many reasons given not to vote for Trump was his lack of foreign affairs experience. I agree with you, not just about foreign affairs, but also war, economics, etc.
John,
From the newspapers at the start of every new adminsitration since WWII: “Inside the many nations’ push to cultivate the new president.”
AKA: dog bites man, Extra Extra!
They’re getting desperate as narrative after narrative collapses.
“But around 2030 an inevitable step will be taken. A labor shortage that destabilizes the American economy will force the United States to formalize a process that will have been in place since around 2015 of intensifying immigration into the United States. Once this is done, the United States will resume the course of its economic development, accelerating in the 2040s as the boomers die and the population structure begins to resemble the normal pyramid once again, rather than a mushroom. The 2040s should see a surge in economic development similar to those of the 1950s or 1990s. And this period will set the stage for the crisis of 2080. But there is a lot of history to come between now and then. …”
An ageing population worries be, I know jobs will be lost with A1, but if 20% of houses are left empty as the population declines, how will that play out in a world with mass populations facing drought or economic poverty in Africa or Asia. It will need robot guards on those walls, ports and so on.
The West/Industrialized Asia were 60% of the population is over 65 could be reality by say 2030, Japan is nearly there, then ten years on 60% over 75 (half in old people’s homes, and 20% of those with cancer and or dementia), hope those robots are good. Our own over privileged single kids might not want to work in those homes.
A push for families to have 2 children, educate these children and get them ready to work and consume, to me seems a better way to stop the 2030 vision above or aged 66 (in my case) the flood gates may to be opened in my own interest to look after me in an aged care home.
I know A1 will take jobs, but when I was 18 in the UK we had 3 million unemployed, it was bad, but in time we used that distributive technology to create jobs. Again I may be wrong, but I see the elites being delighted we are on a path to genetic suicide. Less of us to argue, as they repopulated with people who are happier on the “Lord or Lady’s” farm.
Who knows over the future and I may be wrong, but I see A1 like the plough, spinning Jenny or PC’s in the 1980’s.
Just a guy,
“but if 20% of houses are left empty as the population declines”
Where do you get that number? The US is forecast to have population growth thru 2060 – the limit of reliable forecasts – even before immigration. Including moderate levels of immigration – and their higher fertility rates – we’ll have substantial population growth. The US Census predicts that the US population will hit 400 million by 2050, assuming slowly decreasing rates of immigration (ie, if the Dems don’t succeed in throwing open the borders).
Spot on very true, that was an over estimation by a factor of ten country wide, probably only true in dying towns and cities.
I still think AI may be like the Spinning Jenny or PC’s and allow us to do other work in time. If not idle hands will make the political polarisation very dangerous.
Regards from’
Australia.
Just a guy,
“that was an over estimation by a factor of ten country wide”
No, it was the wrong sign not wrong magnitude. Forecasts for the foreseeable future are for population growth – not decline.
Hi Larry, population may be increasing, but working age population is not increasing in wealthier countries, please ignore the click bait title but this article and others on his site have a focus on the deflationary effects of shrinking working age population.
https://econimica.blogspot.com/2019/09/is-elon-musk-right-about-global.html
Another way of stating – in wealthy countries (about everywhere except Africa and the subcontinent) growing populations are due to growing amounts of old people, not the younger people who are more active participants in the economy. Thanks, Drew
Drew,
(1) Look at that article more closely. It does not show the “working age” population in the US.
(2) The “deflationary aspects” are theoretical. Theoretical projections in economics are not worth spending ten minutes on. It’s an immature science. There is little experience with either severe deflation or population declines. Guessing about both is fun, but little else.
(3) Why do you pay attention to Chris Hamilton, who does not even claim any expertise in economics or demography? Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Pingback: Predicting politics | peakfuture