The difference though is that most of the banks that are creating the housing bubble...well, asset bubble in China are state-owned. They won't just go bust like the American mortgage lenders did....but the Chinese government might take a massage shot in the gonads in order to clean up the balance sheets of their banks should they start to fail. Most of the "stimulus package" China passed in 2009 was actually in the form of bank loans rather than from the government itself. It would be interesting to see if the Chinese government would have the ability to pay it all off. It would be absolutely horrific if China went Iceland on us (in 2008 Iceland went bankrupt after its banks declared bankruptcy, having lent out more money than the GDP of Iceland)

I have to say, a massage shot in the gonads doesn't sound too bad, unless it's like that hot coal massage technique.

*massive* lol. An unfortunate typo.

(in 2008 Iceland went bankrupt after its banks declared bankruptcy, having lent out more money than the GDP of Iceland)"

One thing I could never understand about that was why was that considered Iceland's debt (as in a debt belonging to the people of Iceland) rather than a debt belonging to large corporations based in Iceland? For example if I were to start a company in Fiji and then convince someone to lend me a zillion dollars which promptly squander on some ridiculous investment, would that then mean the people Fiji now owe the money I have lost?

Worrying about inter-state rivals is so 20th century. We're going to be spending most of this century just trying to prevent the world from going completely chaotic. I thought we learned from the 90s that failed and collapsed states are bigger problem than daring to have a different social system than Uncle Sam.

@spyman - Well first off they were Icelandic banks which only had branches in Iceland, and maybe a few here and there in Europe, but it was near exclusive to Iceland. They were also the *only* banks in Iceland (as far as I know). When their loans went bad, they would have had to declare bankruptcy without government help. If they had gone all the way under, the entire savings of almost every man, woman, and child in Iceland would have been lost. I'm not sure what the conclusion of the crisis was, whether the banks still exist today, but it was a choice between the government going bankrupt and the entire nation losing it's savings.

@Putin - when in history have Great Powers not had rivals they worried about? It is a naturally occurring phenomenon and its just human nature. My qualms with China aren't because they are Communist, but because its rise (in the direction its going) runs counter to US interests and alters the balance of power in the world that I currently like. I could care less if they were communist, state capitalist, or whatever, so long as they play by the rules and are friendly with the US and our allies.

Now, does that mean China's a bigger problem than a failed state? No. Syria is a much more pressing concern, as is Somalia. However, long term I would say we must always "Watch our backs" with China and make sure they act as a Great Power should, etc.

"@Putin - when in history have Great Powers not had rivals they worried about?"

History does not always inform the present. The world suffered immeasurably from the calamity of two great power wars, and suffered further from the prospects of a potential nuclear war with the Cold War. We've moved beyond military competition between states. Problems are now much more global in scope, and require cooperation and timely action. The state is becoming increasingly outdated and inefficient as a means of addressing these problems. Especially since we've decided to give juridical statehood to areas of the world that are empirically anything but. They're still as dependent on rich countries as when they were colonies, and more poorly run. Now these areas of the world are simply agents of chaos for the rest of the world. Crime, terrorism, disease, environmental destruction spread from these areas. So-called "great powers" cannot afford to worry about other stable well off countries while these problems fester.

I agree that those are problems Putin, and that they must be addressed. But to do that properly we would have to give more teeth to international bodies than they currently have....and kick the Chinese and Russians off the Security Council lol (kidding....though they're really pissing me off in regards to Syria. This could have been over and done by now without their roadblocks).

But its not all that glum. Many former colonies are now thriving in their own rights, such as Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and South Africa (just to name some African ones).

But no matter what, I think we'll still have military competition between states, and there is nothing to do to stop it. When China is undergoing the greatest peacetime naval expansion program since Kaiser Wilhelm decided to challenge Great Britain, there will be a response no matter how much they say they have peaceful intent.

So I agree that failed states and undeveloped areas are important blights on the world that must be dealt with, I just don't believe its a state's place to deal with them.

Thriving? No. Kenya narrowly averted a civil war in the aftermath of Moi's departure. Kenya periodically still requires food aid to avoid famine in times of drought. They have had little to no manufacturing expansion since independence and their tiny portion of arable land is responsible for the lion's share of the economy (agriculture). And this is a country which has long been the most successful in East Africa.

Ethiopia will never thrive, and is currently in need of food aid due to drought. The climate will not allow it (nor will the depressed coffee prices). Any country where nomadic pastoralism is still a prevalent way of life is always going to live on the margins of existence.

Rwanda is a human rights disaster-case. Why it doesn't get the attention of you neo-cons is kinda surprising. I guess Kagame is exempt of all criticism due to the events of 1994.

"When China is undergoing the greatest peacetime naval expansion program since Kaiser"

They're starting from a low base, so that's not that impressive. German's vaunted naval expansion couldn't get them out of the blockade and played very little role in the actual war. Naval power isn't all it is cracked up to be, which is why very few countries bother investing in it.

At the very least those countries are stable and have growing economies, which is what I meant. And these past few years have been an exceptional drought in the region, much as the dustbowl was in the United States. But it takes time to develop the economic base for manufacturing. I don't believe any nation in Sub-Saharan Africa outside of South Africa really has a vibrant manufacturing sector.

Ethiopia is also a pinnacle of stability in the region, which is the very thing you said was needed. It is home to the headquarters of the African Union and is still a democratic and stable nation. Again, the climate issue will hopefully get better, but I think in the long term over the next century climate will begin to have a much bigger negative impact.

On Rwanda...yeah, that was a gaffe on my part. I meant Uganda, not Rwanda. Actually, to think of it I don't know shit about Rwanda. Also, I disagree that I'm a neo-con, so please don't group me in with them.

I'll agree that China is starting from practically nothing. Their only navy was a coastal defense force back in the 1980s, and much of the stuff they bought was old Soviet era stuff, but they're modernizing and building aircraft carriers, 5th generation stealth fighters and lots and lots of submarines. Naval power isn't everything, but having a navy means you can put the world's commerce to a halt at your whim, and that isn't something to scoff at.

Ethiopia - stable you might be able to stretch (thanks to ruthless treatment of Oromoland and other areas), but democratic? The same guy has basically been in power since the EPRDF took over. He pulled a switcheroo which has been so condemned in Russia's case (President to Prime Minister), and yet Putin hasn't ruled for 20 years like Meles Zenawi has.

Mentioning thriving former colonies but not Botswana? :/

"But it takes time to develop the economic base for manufacturing."

Yeah, but no progress has been made on this for fifty years. Some countries tried, but the lack of reliable foreign currency due to issues of periodic drought drying up exports, led to problems.

Alright, Putin, since you are clearly more informed than I am in these areas I'll concede to you. But if you condemn Zenawi then you must condemn Putin as well haha. As you said, they did the same thing.

@PE - the economy is growing rapidly in Botswana, but the population is growing almost as fast....the two tend to negate each other. I also know little of Africa, but I know much more about Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa than I do about Botswana

True, but the fact that there is actual growth and meaningful development, combined with legitimate respect for basic human rights, is surely a rather pretty spot to have compared to the rest of the ex-colonies, even if rapid population growth tends to mitigate that to a significant degree.

Hard to thrive when 1/3 of the population has HIV.

Asia rim is going to be very interesting by the time i die. Some countries with spectacular potentia, India, Indonesia, China, Russia, Vietnam, Japan and Korea are all in each others kitchen. This is why the US should pull back on its military involvements and focus on building good faith relationships with all players and reap the many rewards that will come from such a position.

*i expanded beyond the pacific rim from my intial post, It should just read "Asia"

Botswana is though one of the few countries which have not squandered their blessings with their mineral wealth. Though diamonds aren't exactly a labor intensive employer.

We've moved beyond military competition between states? We're not even two decades out from India and Pakistan getting nuclear weapons explicitly for military competition. Nearly every country in East Asia is expanding their naval and other military capabilities in order to balance against China's new assertiveness in regional disputes. Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon to compete with Israel's. You're talking out fo your ass more than usual, Putin33.

The US spends more than all the rest of the planet combined. Two of the strongest economic powers in the world - Germany & Japan, are constitutionally pacifist. There is a total absence of military competition in Europe, and the little military power Europe possesses they are busy trying to reduce. Witness the UK's recent reduction of nearly 1/4 of its naval power. Europe fell over itself trying to get out of Iraq & Afghanistan commitments.

Look elsewhere. Where is the military competition in South America? Brazil & Argentina, which used to have nuclear programs aimed at each other, now are engaged in a EU-like movement towards economic, political, military and monetary union.

Africa, despite its supposedly illegitimate boundaries and myriad of revanchist ethnic groups, is remarkable for the near total absence of inter-state wars since independence.

The India-Pakistani "rivalry" is really an issue of terrorism. India has soundly defeated Pakistan in all the wars they have fought, and its defense budget is about 10 times that of its poor pathetic "rival", even with the latter propped up by the United States & China.

The issue of the Pacific Rim is a rather silly one where the "skirmishes" are between fishing trawlers and random individual filibusters over uninhabited rocks.

The Middle East is remarkable in that Israel has largely been at peace with all of its military rivals - Egypt, Jordan, Syria. Iran, for all its bluster, has never fought a war with Israel, and its 'support' of the Palestinian cause is more rhetoric than reality. Indeed before the 1990s they were frenemies, and border-line allies.

At any rate the couple of regions where military competition persists will quickly find themselves on the outs with the rest of the world. It can be persuasively argued that India would be much further along if it had not been distracted by silly issues with its poor, jealous neighbor. Indeed, India's prestige fell by leaps and bounds when it went from being a leading light of the Non-Aligned Movement to being a nuclear belligerent who refuses to sign the NPT.