StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In today's world, the preeminent global power seems to be the US of A. Americans may be hated, but many know that it isn't afraid to bring out it's big stick to keep people in line, and the American Dolllar seems to be the defacto world currency.

But, for today's poll, I will ask you to look ahead, say a hundred years or maybe even two hundred years. The question is simple. Which nation or region of the world will be wielding the biggest, baddest stick in a century? Will it be the old favorites, will it be someone new? Or will it be a one-world government like the UN, or will our fates be controlled by gigantic supercorporations? Or maybe it might even be "The warlord with the most swords" in an post-apocalypse wasteland. Give reasons for your answer.

Megacorps, I don't know maybe because I see the corporations getting stronger and governments weakening. then again maybe thats just me.

The answer is, whoever sticks to closest to Laize-faire capitalism for the longest. The USA and Europe are both traveling down a path of collectivism, with no signs of stopping. I wouldnt be suprised if one or both of them ended up as communist states, either way I'm pretty sure both of them will end up as totalitarian states (as much as it saddens me to say that about the USA). Russia's attempts to adbot capitalism are half hearted at best, and its commitment to indiviudal liberties has no philosophical basis, theyll eliminate them if it seems to be the best course of action. China seems commited to capitalism, but they are a communist state..... its really a coin toss to see which way that goes. Finally, seeing Africa above subsistence level and not torn apart by wars and disease would be optimistic for that year. I really doubt they would be a global superpower by the listed date.

In other words, I think its going to end being a competition between the best of the bottom of the barrel (which will be the world).

ben wrote:Megacorps, I don't know maybe because I see the corporations getting stronger and governments weakening. then again maybe thats just me.

Governments have a monopoly on the legal use of force. No matter how "powerful" megacorps get a government can "legeally" (since theyre the ones setting the laws) march in and destroy the coporation and kill/imprision/fire everyone working there.

ben wrote:Megacorps, I don't know maybe because I see the corporations getting stronger and governments weakening. then again maybe thats just me.

I agree. Enron, WorldCom, Sprint, and others have made their mistakes and unfortunately other corporations have learned from this and will mostly like grow and grow while providing less and less to the staff who work for them.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:The answer is, whoever sticks to closest to Laize-faire capitalism for the longest. The USA and Europe are both traveling down a path of collectivism, with no signs of stopping. I wouldnt be suprised if one or both of them ended up as communist states, either way I'm pretty sure both of them will end up as totalitarian states (as much as it saddens me to say that about the USA). Russia's attempts to adbot capitalism are half hearted at best, and its commitment to indiviudal liberties has no philosophical basis, theyll eliminate them if it seems to be the best course of action. China seems commited to capitalism, but they are a communist state..... its really a coin toss to see which way that goes. Finally, seeing Africa above subsistence level and not torn apart by wars and disease would be optimistic for that year. I really doubt they would be a global superpower by the listed date.

In other words, I think its going to end being a competition between the best of the bottom of the barrel (which will be the world).

I would say the U.S. lasts the longest in this regard; we're hardly laissez-faire now, but there is at least some committment to capitalism in our leaders.

If megacorps are allowed to have their own private armies or buy enough land and resources to just make a country they won't be able to have enough power to be bigger than government. Of course with the government in bed with business at times there may not be a real distinction.

As for what will be the dominant world power, I think that the time frame isn't big enough for the U.S. not to be it. It is still the dominant country pretty much, and I don't think that only 100 years will change that. Or maybe perhaps maybe the EU. And a small chance of there being a stronger version of the UN being charge.

Though my plan is for me to take over the world. Mu hahahaha.

Durran Korr wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:The answer is, whoever sticks to closest to Laize-faire capitalism for the longest. The USA and Europe are both traveling down a path of collectivism, with no signs of stopping. I wouldnt be suprised if one or both of them ended up as communist states, either way I'm pretty sure both of them will end up as totalitarian states (as much as it saddens me to say that about the USA). Russia's attempts to adbot capitalism are half hearted at best, and its commitment to indiviudal liberties has no philosophical basis, theyll eliminate them if it seems to be the best course of action. China seems commited to capitalism, but they are a communist state..... its really a coin toss to see which way that goes. Finally, seeing Africa above subsistence level and not torn apart by wars and disease would be optimistic for that year. I really doubt they would be a global superpower by the listed date.

In other words, I think its going to end being a competition between the best of the bottom of the barrel (which will be the world).

I would say the U.S. lasts the longest in this regard; we're hardly laissez-faire now, but there is at least some committment to capitalism in our leaders.

Not really, they're more commited to coporatism then anything. They protect non-competitve Industries and give big government contracts to corps that are in their group or that are willing to give them money for election/relection, and thats just the Republicans. The Democrats have practially made their party line into "Capitalism is evil, Government is good", if that party had its way you had better bet that we would quickly desend into the griding poverty of socialism/communism caused by government nationialization.

Well, I've heard that the USA's national debt is growing - and the next ones to take the lead will be the superpower which is strongest militarily as well as economically.

Since the EU plans for an united european army seem unclear, I think it might be China.

neoolong wrote:If megacorps are allowed to have their own private armies or buy enough land and resources to just make a country they won't be able to have enough power to be bigger than government. Of course with the government in bed with business at times there may not be a real distinction.

As for what will be the dominant world power, I think that the time frame isn't big enough for the U.S. not to be it. It is still the dominant country pretty much, and I don't think that only 100 years will change that. Or maybe perhaps maybe the EU. And a small chance of there being a stronger version of the UN being charge.

Though my plan is for me to take over the world. Mu hahahaha.

Bill Gates, the weathiest man in the world, has a net worth of around 60 Billion dollars. The US military has an Annual Budget of over 300 Billion dollars, and has decades of usable arms built up, along with the trained officers to use it. The match is "slightly" lopsided.... I'll let you guess who would win it.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:The answer is, whoever sticks to closest to Laize-faire capitalism for the longest. The USA and Europe are both traveling down a path of collectivism, with no signs of stopping. I wouldnt be suprised if one or both of them ended up as communist states, either way I'm pretty sure both of them will end up as totalitarian states (as much as it saddens me to say that about the USA). Russia's attempts to adbot capitalism are half hearted at best, and its commitment to indiviudal liberties has no philosophical basis, theyll eliminate them if it seems to be the best course of action. China seems commited to capitalism, but they are a communist state..... its really a coin toss to see which way that goes. Finally, seeing Africa above subsistence level and not torn apart by wars and disease would be optimistic for that year. I really doubt they would be a global superpower by the listed date.

In other words, I think its going to end being a competition between the best of the bottom of the barrel (which will be the world).

I would say the U.S. lasts the longest in this regard; we're hardly laissez-faire now, but there is at least some committment to capitalism in our leaders.

Not really, they're more commited to coporatism then anything. They protect non-competitve Industries and give big government contracts to corps that are in their group or that are willing to give them money for election/relection, and thats just the Republicans. The Democrats have practially made their party line into "Capitalism is evil, Government is good", if that party had its way you had better bet that we would quickly desend into the griding poverty of socialism/communism caused by government nationialization.

True, but our leaders still use pro-capitalist rhetoric, if only in lip service, during campaigning and such. It's atypical to see candidate for any national office railing against capitalism, like you see in Europe and elsewhere.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

neoolong wrote:If megacorps are allowed to have their own private armies or buy enough land and resources to just make a country they won't be able to have enough power to be bigger than government. Of course with the government in bed with business at times there may not be a real distinction.

As for what will be the dominant world power, I think that the time frame isn't big enough for the U.S. not to be it. It is still the dominant country pretty much, and I don't think that only 100 years will change that. Or maybe perhaps maybe the EU. And a small chance of there being a stronger version of the UN being charge.

Though my plan is for me to take over the world. Mu hahahaha.

Bill Gates, the weathiest man in the world, has a net worth of around 60 Billion dollars. The US military has an Annual Budget of over 300 Billion dollars, and has decades of usable arms built up, along with the trained officers to use it. The match is "slightly" lopsided.... I'll let you guess who would win it.

It's estimated to be around 30 billion right now, actually.

Like I said, if. And if one did decide to make it's own country legally, then if a country just attacks it, it would be rather bad publicity. I doubt that the US would be willing to go to that extreme yet.

neoolong wrote:Like I said, if. And if one did decide to make it's own country legally, then if a country just attacks it, it would be rather bad publicity. I doubt that the US would be willing to go to that extreme yet.

If it decided to, the US would attack..... after its 8 month propoganda war on the horrors the coporation has inflicted on the world, and the horrors it will inflict, is over.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

neoolong wrote:Like I said, if. And if one did decide to make it's own country legally, then if a country just attacks it, it would be rather bad publicity. I doubt that the US would be willing to go to that extreme yet.

If it decided to, the US would attack..... after its 8 month propoganda war on the horrors the coporation has inflicted on the world, and the horrors it will inflict, is over.

So if McDonalds decided to buy California and make it a country, the US would be able convince enough people to get away with attacking?

I don't think enough people are sheep for that to work yet.

Heil Deutschland! Wir werden Sieger!
I stand for a two-polar world with (most of) Europe&Asia against America and some of it's allies (Japan, Britain).

neoolong wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:

neoolong wrote:Like I said, if. And if one did decide to make it's own country legally, then if a country just attacks it, it would be rather bad publicity. I doubt that the US would be willing to go to that extreme yet.

If it decided to, the US would attack..... after its 8 month propoganda war on the horrors the coporation has inflicted on the world, and the horrors it will inflict, is over.

So if McDonalds decided to buy California and make it a country, the US would be able convince enough people to get away with attacking?

I don't think enough people are sheep for that to work yet.

The U.S. has a long history of finding minor incidents from which in can propel itself into war. It also has a 100% success ratio of preventing states, by using force or the threat of it, from breaking away from the union.

The fact that the people are willing to fall into line and support the war because of setup, minor incidents, also proves that most people are, indeed, sheeple.

It's a bit different for a state to decide to break away, and an entity legally buying it away.

As for convincing people, perhaps, but I doubt it would be as easy in this case.

I don't there will be one dominate nation in 2103. I would except several nations that would be competing for domination.

I don't think megacorporate take-over of the world is about the use of military force or creating new corporate countries like some James Bond villian. They don't need to. They're bigger than that. They're above one single country. We're talking about corporations that have a stake in countries all over the world. With a big enough stake in a country's industry, they'll do what you want or face economic collapse. When you're a huge company you don't break away from your country, you buy it's government. Dump money into someone who will see to your interests. They do it now. If you're big enough and the government is in your pocket enough, the military simply becomes another means of protecting your interests. And as long as you don't do something that the population sees as outwardly illegal (that you can't cover up) and try to create a monopoly, no one will even know you've taken over until it's too late. Who cares about having a monopoly on one single industry? Let other megacompanies have their piece, you want to make sure you have a piece of EVERY industry. Sooner or later everyone is working for you and they may not even know it.

If megacorps are to take over, they will go about this until there are only a handful of actually individual companies in the world that are parent to every other smaller company. These handfull of companies will own everything. At that point political governments are simply figureheads doing the bidding of the corporations.

Mega Corps have always ruled the world in secret. They provided their pupet goverments with the funds needed to gain power in return for concessions. Lately the corps are getting more transparent about it. Microsoft for one has the American goverment shitting rocks. There is public pressure to sanction and split Microsoft but the Goverment no longer has the power to do this. I can actually see a time when the two will merge and the CEO's of the Corperations will also be running the country.

Even though i would love to see the USA always at the top. I believe that China will rival the US in Like 40 years

Impossible to tell. By 2103 Paraguay settlers could have found massive oil reserves in an AIDS depopulated sub Saharan Africa and built an empire.

Enforcer Talen wrote:http://www.theonion.com/onion3322/sixcorporations.html

Best line in that....
Bill Clinton, chief executive of U.S. Government, a division of MCI-WorldCom, praised Monday's merger as "an excellent move."

That had me in stitches....