Anti-Russsian?? I thought you were being pro-Russian .

Sorry, that was meant to be a joke. Seriously your post is pretty fair on Russia, and I only disagree really because of some of the bigger issues in the background.

I can understand some might think I was anti Russian, but I’m not, I’m anti-Putin and I think that *is* different.

I agree with Tobias that what Russia needs is an orange revolution itself, but when I look at those poor and downtrodden people in Beslan I can’t bring myself to feel optimistic we will have one.

As in Venezuela, a lot of the people who could induce change seem to be upping and leaving.

No worries. And the post indeed stopped somewhat in midair. Initially it was longer, but I scrapped a lot of highly speculative nonsense and decided to leave the rest “as is” to get a dialogue going.

Sorry about the harsh words. I guess I was a bit sore after being called anti-Russian for my posts on the gas dispute… (and anti-Brit throughout eurotrib…)

I guess I was disappointed to see your post cut short – it started with many interesting insights, and sort of stopped in midair…

The problems in France is that, with Chirac, we seem to be stuck in the late 60s, when he was minister for agriculture, the job he seems to have kept to this date, and when, as an advisor to Pompidou, you’d deal with strikes and industrial policy in a small meeting with two industrial bosses, tow (nationalised) bankers and two trade unionists, and indeed when the concept of “grandeur de la France” was prevalent.

Despite Chirac’s best efforts, he is now totally outdated – and the country is sort of stuck until he goes…

True, hence my qualification “in some French quarters” right before I mention Le Pen. The FN is a popular/populistic party (=they try to appeal to what people are supposed to think and feel) and when I compared it to the programme of the nationalistic Vlaams Belang, the concept of “grandeur” struck me as being different a different element from the VB programme.

It may be true that the mainstream is not too worried about grandeur, that is why I asked for French input on this post, but as a foreigner from a small country I cannot help but notice the sense of “grandeur” Chirac seems to communicate through his gestures and way of talking, for instance. And there is the talk of “la Francophonie” which seems to go beyond protecting the native language.

I wonder if there are regional differences as well as the difference between media/politicians and mainstream people? Since I live in Brittany, where Parisians are not very popular, my views can be distorted.

And please do not take this post as French bashing, that is not what I meant it to be. The concept of “grandeur” in the 2005 French debates honestly struck me and I used it as an angle to talk a bit about France -with all the necessary qualifications and caveats- and to invite French readers to bring a bit of much needed Francophonie into AFOE.

Well obviously nothing concrete, just a feeling that nothing will ever be quite the same again. The US will in all probability never again be the world’s largest economy. Of course China itself will still be pretty poor.

But then will follow an era of ‘catching up’ as Chinese per capita incomes get nearer and nearer to the US ones. Japan is still pretty rich, and pretty technologically innovative, but it doesn’t pack the clout it used to, that is all.

“And most important, will the US stop being good at what it’s good at?”

This I think will depend on the US and not on China. An interesting question, but one that clearly goes beyond the bounds of what we can reasonably resolve here.

“Obviously your knowledge is grater than mine.”

Well don’t treat what I say as gospel either, just another input .

My feeling is that there were, of course, plenty of ‘Little Englanders’, but they were not necessarily representative of the whole population.

Interesting. I’d heard the opposite before, but not, on consideration, from a UKan. Obviously your knowledge is grater than mine.

“My impression, from a distance, is that the colonial thing is irrelevant to the US, but the self-image of being the tech leader is very important.”

Very true.

“This is not in any imminent danger of disappearing, but there is a perception that it *may* come into question at some point in the future,”

Also true.

“and obviously when it is no longer the world’s number one economy by size, then some turning point will have been reached.”

This is a different thing entirely, and at the risk of dragging the comments yet further away from the original post, I have to question it.

So far, most of the discussion of this particular issue seems to be either journalists or pundits trying to push buttons and responses from people whose buttons have been pushed. On the day when the statistics indicate that China’s economy has (by some measure) surpassed the US, there will probably be front-page articles in the papers and speeches by politicians all over the world. But what will happen on that day, that week, that month, that will cause discomfort or loss for those who choose to ignore the chattering classes?

Will the Chinese automatically dominate the Security Council?

Will the Chinese win more Nobel Prizes that year?

Will the Chinese start buying American companies and replacing American brands?

And most important, will the US stop being good at what it’s good at?

The rise of China might very well be uncomfortable for the US, but I’m not sure the one statistic of total GNP size means.

We’ve argued that topic to death over at the European Tribune in recent days, if you want to go wade into introspection and gloom (not!). We’ve done the same with the “Anglo-Saxon model” (a msinomer for the great Thatcher-Reagan pullback)

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/12/30/13817/039 ( The Anglican Model, “Laissez-Faire” Capitalism & J.K. Galbraith)

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/12/29/83748/739 (is it true that france sucks)

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/12/26/13528/661 (old vs new Europe)

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2005/12/30/75134/300 (no more “Anglo-Saxon model”)

There’s too much French-bashing.

France (government) foreign position is mostly talking and parading, but not that much action.

Laurent

Just briefly, since I think it’s a side-issue from the points Guy is making: I think there are two issue here in identity terms, colonialism, and technical supremacy. The two aren’t necessarily the same.

I don’t think the big UK hangover was a post-colonialist one, but a realisation that the UK was no longer the workshop of the world. Indeed, it was a realisation that, technically speaking, many people now did things better,

My impression, from a distance, is that the colonial thing is irrelevant to the US, but the self-image of being the tech leader is very important.

This is not in any imminent danger of disappearing, but there is a perception that it *may* come into question at some point in the future, and obviously when it is no longer the world’s number one economy by size, then some turning point will have been reached.

That this is affecting the way people think, well, as evidence I will post comments from another blog:
http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2005/12/can_china_overa.html

The post itself is worth a read, but the comments from Arthur Ekart are revealing, in and of themselves. I quote in full, since I have no intention of trying to distort another’s opinions, especially when I don’t agree with them.

There’s nothing to suggest China will overtake the U.S. economy anytime soon. China is two economic revolutions behind the U.S. Also, China’s 1 billion peasants will be a negative force similar to India. Moreover, if you take away Hong Kong and Shanghai, China would be one of the poorest countries in the world. It’s unorthodox to relate purchasing power parity to GDP. I suspect, it’s difficult to measure China’s GDP (however, the high growth rate only proves China has a small economy). Both the consumption and production functions should be measured, and the effects of international trade (see Mundell-Fleming model). Obviously, China is losing the major trade wars to the U.S. (China exports half of its economy and is forced to invest its trade surpluses overseas to maintain acceptable levels of output and employment) Comparing living standards is more appropriate. Consequently, China simply doesn’t have what it takes to be another U.S. and will follow an economic path similar to India. There’s nothing in the Chinese economy that would lead anyone to believe it will surpass the U.S. economy.

and

Unlike the French, Americans welcome competition, which is one reason why the U.S. is the only real superpower. You seem to be in denial about the U.S. (much like the French). China and India are catching up. However, the U.S. is also moving forward, of course, at a slower rate, because large economies can’t grow fast. Are you still waiting for Japan to overtake the U.S. also?