dalem

Besides, what good are the Euro and Brit advanced and funky cellphones when you can't get them to stop their holidays and actually work anyway?

-dale

astralis

gunnut,

you're missing the point (but at the same time making a big to-do about the cell phone statement).

a fancier, smaller cell phone means fancier, better electronics inside. which means that there's factories that also have the requisite equipment to put these phones together- and that these factories are not located in the US.

sure, a cell phone's main function is communication. but given the choice between a cell phone of today and a cell phone of five years ago- at the same price- which would you pick?

i also take some small offense at the statement,

as if asians had "cool" phones merely because they have no other sources of entertainment

in any case, zakaria isn't solely using the idea of cellphone technology as the be-all end-all of his statement. he's merely pointing out that many americans think that we're at the forefront of every technology, when this is not the case. in a 10-15 year timespan, east asia went from having almost no cellphones, no broadband, and a nascent biotechnological research, to having capabilities that beat the mighty US. if today we have lost the lead on something like cellphones, broadband penetration, (and not his example but mine) stem-cell technology, what will tomorrow show?

gilgamesh

Cell phones aren't exactly the barometer for being a superpower. If US gets its act together in k-12 education, fiscal deficits/debt, taxation and manufacturing aspects of their economy they'd be pretty much set for this century.

Parihaka

NZ is currently and has been for quite some time the world leader in various agricultural technologies and practices. Does that mean we are about to take over from the US as a world superpower?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

astralis

gilgamesh,

again, zakaria was not using cell phones as the "barometer for being a superpower", read the article again and see how he's using that as ONE of his examples.

astralis

parihaka,

completely different scale and area of tech.

Parihaka

Yes I know. My point is that you can't point at any one or group of general tech. ability as a pointer for supremacy.
IMHO there is only one measure that counts, and that is military technology, and the ability to pay for it. In both areas the US is so far out in front that no-one else looks within cooee for the forseable future.

gilgamesh

I generally agree with the subtext of his article, that US should not take it easy and must pull up its socks. Next ten years will be decisive, be it economy, population dynamics, education etc. Only in military is US decades ahead of others.

gilgamesh

Actually no! Military is important and one of the very important measures(but not the only measure) that counts. By your definition North Korea must be one the greatest nations on earth, but it clearly is not. Even CCCP had a massive economy to back its military machine. It just so happened they messed up their economy, so went the regime.

By the way what was David Lange's legacy to NZ? Has it made any impact on todays New Zealand. Lindsay Perigo doesn't seem to think so.

Parihaka

From what I've understood Nth Korea's miitary technology is crap, they simply rely on numbers and proximity to Seoul to be a threat. Any outright confrontation with the US and they'd last what? 2 days? before their military machine ceased to exist. Look at Iraq, big army, crap technology, meat.
Big impact in that he trashed NZ-US relations to the point where we still haven't recovered.
He was very charismatic and appealed to our sense of independence: "David and Goliath" was how his pr machine described the no-nukes issue but all it really did was leave us out in the cold.
Also his government instituted a series of economic reforms for which they had no mandate and in such an ad-hoc form that we went from being parallel with Australia in standards of living to 20% lower in seven years.
While I liked the man for his wit, I have a far lower opinion of his stewardship.
I haven't heard a peep from Lindsay Perrigo in years, what's he saying now?

Canmoore

I know it sounds weird now, but how did England..an island...become an international superpower?

Well, England was isolated from mainland Europe. So while all the European countries could be easily invaded, England was different. As an island, you couldnt just march into England. The English excelled at Naval warfare, so this made defending england much better, and made invading England so much more difficult. Also with such a strong navy, you could sail all over the world, and invade places and grow your empire.

Now...why did the States become so powerfull? well. its a combination of things. During the 1800's life in europe sucked. So ALOT of people moved to America, including some of the smartest people from europe. This game America a technological edge over the old world, plus with a more diverse gene pool, people were growing bigger, stronger, smarter....

Secondly, like England, America was not connected to Europe, two oceans seperated it. So again, invasion was made more difficult. Then after WW2, europe, including England, was left in tatters, which allowed America to surpass England as a Superpower.

Now if you take these things, then look to the world. Australia is an island nation. They have a growing population of immigrants.. Who is to say that they may not become the worlds next superpower?

crazy eh!

Obsidian_Masque

I'm more inclined to see Canada as the next superpower, with it's fresh-water reserves and increasingly open immigration policy.

HistoricalDavid

Don't forget the elite beaver troopers.

Shek

And Heckscher-Olin only explains less than half of world trade. I don't see your point.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

HistoricalDavid

I don't quite see yours.

I was explaining who (first?) showed economics not to be a 'zero-sum' game.