Of course the economy of the world is interconnected. But we are talking about a changing of the guards and the next leader of the pack. Loh, let me remind you that the US's share of the world economy has declined from 50% after WW2 to 20% in 2010. It is forecast to decline to 18% in 2015, the year before China overtakes the US as the number 1 economic power in 2016. That means China's share of the world economy will be ahead of the US's, signalling a changing of the guards. To look at this in proper perspective, Loh, do you know what was China's share of the world economy after WW2? Almost too small to make it pass the decimal point! Now you tell me IQ has nothing to do with it? I predict that in the 2030s China might even have a naval base in Singapore. Impossible? Just look around your neighbours for the Chinese presence. Even countries like the Pacific islands (Fiji, etc) and East Timor are teeming with Chinese investments and Chinese people. How about Singapore? Don't you have more Chinese new arrivals than ever before? If you want your economy to boom, all you need to do is to welcome more Chinese-people, investments, and of course better IQ.
It is understandable why some people in Hong Kong, not all, are suffering from the Chinese 'red eye' disease. In a blink of an eye Hong Kong people find they are so dependent on China's economic rise when only yesterday they were sending cooking oil, rice, and cash to a starving China. Loh, some people cannot accept losing their status from a master before to a dependent now. I am sure some people in Singapore are having the same antagonistic feeling towards the new Chinese invasion in Singapore. From my own viewpoint, it is understandable the less well off (in IQ and education/wealth) residents of these two places lash out at China. It is hard for such people to accept their former slaves as their new masters! Of course I have used very crude descriptions above, but you get the point at its full blast, without any ambiguity.
We will have to wait and see whether the predictions that you mentioned will happen or they are just hot air. You are assuming that the US and the EU will remain stagnant to allow China to lord over them. If Chinese IQ is so superior, why then did it take so long for the world's most populous country to emerge? Why is it that a much less populous US, with diverse cultures and ethnicities, able to be so strong in so many areas of human endeavour? If their IQ is so low, how can they be leaders in so many fields that China is now catching up on? And if the US and its European counterparts did not accept or continue to delay China's admission into the WTO, will China be able to progress so fast economically? And if the US and EU did not buy cheap Chinese goods and invest in China, where will China be today? Remember too that the world's economic pie has grown much bigger as more countries joined the WTO, aside from China's participation. China would have failed considerably if it did not take advantage of its membership for being the world's most populous country of 1.3 billion! So China has benefitted from the generosity of US and Europe principally and has now amassed vast amounts of foreign reserves that it is able to invest in the less developed countries in turn. And with its investments China is trying to woo and influence such countries in its foreign policy to gain an advantage in world affairs and international balance of power that commenssurate with its physical and economic size. This is international politics not foreign to the US and Europe. They have practised and experienced this way ahead of China. Please keep your predictions to yourself to save your own face. Will you live long enough to witness your predictions come alive? Many so-called gurus have embarassed themselves with all sorts of potshot predictions. Do you want to join them? It is natural for migrants to resettle elsewhere for a better life. They will go to where they perceive to be a place of opportunity for themselves and their families. The fact that hordes of Chinese are trying to emigrate is also an indication that they don't find China to be a place of plenty nor the leadership inspiring. There are still enormous problems in China. There may be pockets of seeming prosperity but the income disparity is too great. Corruption is eating into the lives of the general populace and has long been entrenched with the rich and politically powerful. Yet the Chinese leadership has failed to eradicate this at the very top echelon. How do you expect the ordinary people to respect the Chinese leadership? How then can China overtake the US and Europe if it can't solve its own domestic problems?
If the great powers in the UN Security Council had not objected to such action, who am I to pass judgement? Apart from the US, among others, Russia and the "high IQ" Chinese leaders made up this very powerful body, so I should be asking why the Chinese agreed with the decision? This should be regarded as a collective action by the superpowers. Then many will still be asking why so few in the Security Council should be deciding on the issue on behalf of so many other UN member countries, big and small? Why did Russia collude with China in the recent veto against stopping the Syrian government from killing it's own citizens? Did not these two superpowers commit a crime against humanity as a result, apart from the Syrian government? Why did high IQ China not do the right thing? And how come Koffi Annan had to surrender his mediation role even with his vast experience as the past UN Secretary General?
Loh, perhaps you are not well informed about geopolitics in general and the 2003 Iraq War in particular. May I suggest you read this again and again www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War. Loh, you should instead make some effort to bring Bush and his inner circle officials to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Almost all countries in the UN Security Council, other than the US and her sidekick the UK, were against the war. When the then UN Secretary General said it loud and clear that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, why is Loh saying that other Security Council members were with the US? Re the Syrian conflict, Loh, you are merely seeing things like a frog in the well. On a geopolitical perspective, the Syrian crisis is all about the 3 great Muslim powers positioning themselves for a new infrastructure. The Turks want to reassert their Ottoman days of glory, after being kicked out from the ME and Europe. The Arab nations are Sunnis and they hate Iran (Persians, who are not Arabs) who are Shias. Bush in his folly has handed an Iraq that was anti-Iran under Saddam Hussein to a new Iraq that is now controlled by the Shias, great allies and blood brothers of Iranians. From a small Iran to an enlarged Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon Hisbullahs, this new emerging 'empire' frightens the West, the Sunni Arabs, the West and Israel. The US and its followers who toe the line want to 'engineer' a new mix of Sunnis, Shias, Turks, Israel, and the West that it can control. But all their efforts are unraveling because they never seem to understand that you cannot 'engineer' nations to be your appendage. See, what is now happening to Libya, Egypt, and the ever stronger Muslim anti-US feelings. China alone says 'let it be' and let the Syrians themselves sort it out without outside interference. Russia's position is from a different perspective from China's. Russia wants to protect their trade with Syria. But, Loh, I do not expect you can engage in geopolitics in any meaningful discourse, because of your rather limited understanding of world affairs.
Loh, another teaser for you here. Why is Israel putting pressure on the US to attack Iran before the latter gets its atom bomb? Why are the UN nuclear inspectors targeting and checking only on Iran's nuclear facilities? Why not the same for Israel? Everyone knows that Israel has many atom bombs. Herein lies the crux of the problem. It is this root problem for such strong anti-US feelings from Muslim countries, and they are not going to go away. Now, Loh how are you going to solve the problem? Bomb Iran? Or start dismantling the new Shias 'Empire' by chopping off its limp Syria first and then containing Iran/Iraq? My take is that if Mitt Romney is president, the West would have no friends. Even Obama's moderate stand cannot solve the root problem.
So you think you are very smart with high IQ and know everything about history and able to offer solutions to the world's problems. Then you should not be wasting your time here. Maybe you're better off as a history lecturer provided you don't manipulate the facts to serve your own selfish interest.
No, I don't claim to possess such qualities you are trying to heap on me. But one thing I make sure is to know the subject or topic before I shoot my mouth off. Loh, one has to learn to not shoot first and then aim later. This can make you look not so credible. What facts have I manipulated to serve my own selfish interest? I am neither a history teacher nor am I in any position to offer solutions like we see in Syria. All what I am doing is to give my own opinion. Now, how about some from you?
Loh, what is your take about the current nuclear issue/problems involving Iran and Israel? Who is the saint and who the villain? I have a feeling you would want to pass on this.
You are dead right. I'm in no position to offer any better ideas than what have been publicised by those who are directly involved. As I've said who am I to try to be smarter. Even the leaders, politicians and scholars have differing views and claims and who am I to challenge them? It takes at least two parties to disagree. It is still ongoing and at the slightest opportunity, those involved will strike first to gain an advantage or to highlight their cause. Who is right and who is wrong depends on which side you are in. If the UN can't offer a better solution and member countries continue to take sides, the problem will go on and on and could also become worse. So you think you can offer a solution or be a peacemaker supplanting the UN?
Quantitative Easing...and the solution is printing more money? Doesn't matter who wins the presidency (but Mitt Romney isn't going to win it imo), same old same old as it was four years ago. QE3 is another bubble inside a sink hole.
Yes, QE3 is another bubble and it is made in America. But, they have no choice because the alternative will mean America will become another Greece, but much bigger. With so much debt being piled up, the US must at a later time pay these debts back. The only way they can do this is for their economy to grow, but where is the market? China is the only market of substance to bail America out, but with so much China bashing nothing concrete is being done to fix the economy. If you are in Asia, you can see around you the absence of any new American economic presence there. Asia anchored by China is the only growth engine. In contrast you go around Asian countries you can see the Chinese presence. Even in such small places like the Pacific islands, East Timor and even Sabah, young Chinese tourists and businessmen are everywhere. I visited KK in Sabah recently and was astonished to find most of the tourists are mainland young Chinese. I did not see a single American, only Chinese, Koreans and an Australian here and there. Perhaps Hillary Clinton should send more American tourists and businessmen to Asia instead of trying to export such an obscure and mirage-like product like security.
Loh, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I was just asking you for your opinions, not on how to solve the problems. The root problem in the ME and the great Muslim/US divide is Israel. The other troubles among the ME countries are side shows to the main problem. Of course there is no solution to the Israel, US vs Muslims problem. So all they can do is to kick the can down the road. With no solution in sight, there will be no healing between the US and the Muslim world. Obama is doing his best but his is a hopeless fight. Do you agree that were there to be no Israel how would the picture look like? But that is just hypothetical and not realistic. So, it remains a problem that has no solution. Loh, the above is a small effort to have an opinion of a problem and a conclusion that it cannot be solved.
Loh, what do you think of Ahmadinezad's (Iran president) recent speech at the UN? Your opinions may give us a clue on whether you can think critically and independently or merely a reflection of what you see and hear everyday from all the inputs that you have absorbed.
Loh, wrong choice of the idiom because it was just an invitation to you to give your opinions, not a an irrelevant invitation. In contrast, asking for your opinions on an issue and responding with some unrelated to the request is 'barking up the wrong tree'. Loh, actually I am feeling that your perspective as shown in nearly all your posts is too 'tunnel-vision' without being aware what is around you. Why do I say this? Well, your 'Singapore Also Can' shows it all.
Ah so you remembered all your hot air. You've been "wise" so many times before so adding another one makes no difference to your portfolio, right?
This looks like a lot of babbling without any focus on the issues being addressed. Why is it so difficult to come out with any opinion at all? Don't you agree that the way people form opinions reveal what they really are or are not?
Loh, what do you think of the following state of affairs re the current hoopla about Iran's nuclear program? As a backdrop, there is a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in which countries who have signed the Treaty are not allowed to develop nuclear weapons or nuclear bombs with the exception of the then prevailing countries that are already in possession of such nuclear arsenal. Four countries are not signatories to the NPT, namely India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Of these 4 non-signatories all have nuclear weapons but claim they have done nothing wrong as they are non-signatories to the NPT. Of the 4 countries, Israel, India, and Pakistan are seen to have been accepted by the world as having done nothing wrong. But North Korea? It has sanctions and everything thrown at her mainly from the US and the West for having the audacity to have one or two atomic bombs. Is this double standard? Iran denies having any ambition to develop an atomic bomb, but the West and Israel are accusing Iran of duplicity. Just to remind everyone, Israel as far back as 1992, 1995 (no less than by Netanyahu) been warning the world that Iran is close to a atomic bomb. That was almost 20 years ago! Now Netanyahu is at it again, warning the world that Iran is close to having the bomb. Now, will this be another misinformation that leads to war like the last one in Iraq for a fake WMD? Or will it be a lie for an excuse to disembowel Iran? Yes, Israel may be able to claim the noble high ground that it has done nothing wrong in developing nuclear weapons because it was never a signatory to the NPT. In contrast, Iran is a signatory and is thereby bound by the NPT's restriction. However, Israel then loses any moral high ground when it refused to comply with a 2009 UN General Assembly resolution urging Israel to open all its atomic sites to the UN IAEA inspections and to sign the NPT. Why is Israel so unyielding? Is it because it wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the ME and will not tolerate any other ME countries who desire to become one. Loh, what do you make out of these? The above are a reality check and hard facts but that is not what the western media portrays to the world. The US and the West have done such a 'good' job at distorting facts that they are trying to build up a case to justify an attack on Iran. Loh, you seem to be an easy sucker for such misinformation. This will be immoral but this is an immoral world and anything goes with the powers be. Even if Iran were to really develop a bomb, what is so wrong about it when Israel has so many bombs for so many years? Who is threatening who in the ME? The one with nuclear weapons (Israel) or the one without (Iran and every Arab country) but being accused of being on the verge of getting there? Loh, do you consider the above a level playing field? The world has not changed. It is power that corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The one with the gun in his hand makes the rules and the democratic system as well as the global pecking order.
