Daily reminder this is the only correct power ranking (well maybe Canada is a little too high...)
I just read the article explaining methodology. They actually de-emphasise soft power compared to the other types of power. Quote,
>Soft power is a truly national asset, but not one that can be readily utilised by the government of each country, although it can be strengthened with national festivals and sporting spectacles or grandiose building projects. Consequentially, this is the least-weighted category of power within our audit.
So soft power ain't the reason we're ranked high
Didn't put the full quote
>One category we have deliberately de-emphasised is cultural pull – commonly known as ‘soft power’ – as we feel this kind of power, although important, is very difficult to wield by the countries concerned. In a way, it is a negative form of power: it is hard for governments to build up and use but very easy for them to damage. Soft power is a truly national asset, but not one that can be readily utilised by the government of each country, although it can be strengthened with national festivals and sporting spectacles or grandiose building projects. Consequentially, this is the least-weighted category of power within our audit.
>Hand over Falklands and Gibraltar, says journalist Richard Norton-Taylor
>After Jeremy Corbyn called for a "reasonable accommodation" with Argentina over the Falklands, Guardian journalist Richard Norton-Taylor says it is time for the UK to hand over control of the islands.
Why do the lefties hate us, lads?
>Of course, our Audit of Major Powers is not infallible: we have only used open source information, which may not be entirely accurate, particularly due to the fact that many nations guard such information tenaciously. Another problem is that the audit represents a mixture of data for different years; because statistics for the last year are not available for some countries for some components in each category, we have been forced to use statistics from previous years (i.e., the most up-to-date we could find for each country).
They are even saying their index is shit.
Keeping rates steady was absolutely the right thing to do. I was at the talk where the Carney announced the decision and spent an hour explaining it. BTW
>Britain's economy will grow faster than expected in 2016, increasing by 2.6 per cent, boosted by a sharp rise in exports to the US and buoyant retail sales, according to a new report.
>The study is due out tomorrow from the EY Item Club, the only non-governmental forecaster to use the Treasury's economic models.
>Coming from such a respected forecaster it will move to dispel some of the gloom hanging over the City as stock markets plunge around the world.
United States is the most powerful by a large margin and China is the second most powerful by a large margin. Dwarfs like Russia, the UK, France don't come close. The real game of global domination in this century is between the US and China I don't know who is making rankings like this.
I was expecting that. Personally, I thought our economy would take a hit from the EU referendum uncertainty, making our currency weaker and slowing down growth. I was expecting 2016 to be a bad year and the situation to improve in the last quarter.
The April 2016 IMF WEO should be ugly for us, but the long-term pay-off will be nice. If we vote to stay in the EU - which we will - after Cameron wins protections for the City and liberalising digital services reforms to the EU single market, we will be laughing. Laughing!
The currency being weaker for a while might help exports, but I'm guessing that Sterling will get stronger after the referendum and if the Eurozone becomes more unstable
You are not knowing what you are talking about. Both the US and China dwarf everyone and everyone is just a pawn from their perspective. Even once powerful Russia is just a "junior partner" for China.
I was as well. Just trying to be hard on you for your hate of PPP.
>Britain lost 5% of its economic power in one day!
Everyone is undercutting each other now with weaker currencies and exporting deflation.
US growth is expected to come in at .4% for Q4 2015 and our stock market has sunk 8% in a month. Thanks guys!
Chinese not once have said what this guy is saying.
Here's the PLA general.
They purposefully talk down their power.
No, it would be irrational. I can see why you're going for that analogy but it's not the same. Central Asia is and has always been very expensive for an occupying power to garrison. Quite frankly it's a headache.
In contrast, places like Falklands and Gibraltar are cheap for the UK to keep hold of, and they're vital to maintaining a global blue water navy. If we start abandoning these places we become little more than "Belgium with nukes".
Gibraltar is the most obviously useful naval base as its a launching point to the Atlantic and into the Med. Sea. Falklands are used all the time by our scientists and hydrographers that use the British Antarctic Territory and the seas around there.
For a more accurate analyogy, it would be like Russia giving Kaliningrad to Poland
Name one time in history China had a competent military.
'The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.' - Ecclesiastes 1:9
Too an extent it is.
Netherlands is more powerful than Belgium just as America is more powerful than Canada.
I actually think one of the hard power parts of this ranking is population.
The Chinese military isn't as strong as people seem to think, they have one aircraft carrier which is a piece of outdated junk from the 80's. They're not used to projecting force, and their modern military has very little experience in contemporary warfare.
Another thing; the US would never let two of their most valuable strategic interests in the Asia Pacific Region to be lost to the Chinese.
But yeah, memes and stuff.
>Name one time in history China had a competent military.
why does it have anything to this discussion? we are not talking about chinese military history we are talking about china right now
>'The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.' - Ecclesiastes 1:9
oh im laughing
and these are kind of people who imply I do know nothing
>Too an extent it is.
Indonesia for instance is an irrelevant shithole, it has one of the largest populations in the world. Our military could hold it's own against their's, we're literally a 10th of the size.
In a sense we have lost some economic power through currency depreciation, I have no qualms admitting that. But I am fairly confident it's a temporary loss.
Don't worry about the deflation too much. A lot of it is from the oil prices. Yesterday Carney was saying how it's the core inflation rate he's paying more attention to, in the UK this is looking more healthy
I think you are Chinese, if you are a Pole you would be familiar with the Bible.
'The war demonstrated the failure of the Qing Empire's attempts to modernize its military and fend off threats to its sovereignty, especially when compared with Japan's successful Meiji Restoration. For the first time, regional dominance in East Asia shifted from China to Japan; the prestige of the Qing Empire, along with the classical tradition in China, suffered a major blow. The humiliating loss of Korea as a vassal state sparked an unprecedented public outcry.'
>Didn't try giving it to Germany?
Heard rumours about this but I won't believe it until I see firm evidence. I can't see them ever giving it away of their own volition, it's too important
>Briitain owning the Falklands guarantees some populist power in Argentina. Poor Argies.
To be fair they voted in Macri who wants to improve UK-Argie relations
As much as they talk about core inflation to try justifying their policy failures, they still care more about headline inflation. Why? Because that's what Americans wages, and debts reacts to.
Headline is .4% in America, and that's before currency depreciation and oil's crash. We will most likely enter deflation in the next couple months.
Big population only does so much, see India. Their economy is slowing despite all their underhanded trade practices, protectionsim, inhumane treatment of workers, one-party system, I could go on. Their military is a joke comparatively and they lack in global force projection.
>I think you are Chinese, if you are a Pole you would be familiar with the Bible.
We are not talking about Bible we are talking about geopolitics. Put your 2000 year old shitty book in your ass.
The dynasty started much earlier than the 19th century.
It didn't become the largest dynasty ever by being a shit military.
The Russians definitely did. If they were actually going to accept the deal, I doubt.
But barely, and he'll be out again in 4 years. Britain indirectly has been fucking up Argentina for ages.
>But barely, and he'll be out again in 4 years. Britain indirectly has been fucking up Argentina for ages.
Your country did a lot worse, giving them the military Junta which invaded the Falklands in the first place. All Britain is doing is blocking them from getting decent military gear, and that's perfectly justified while they claim British territory as their own.
>Their economy is slowing
It's physicially impossible to grow at rate of 10% all the time. The more the economy is developed, the growth will be relatively slower. That's why the US grows "only" for 2-3% when India is growing for 7%.
this bait has the ability to cause almost unlimited levels of anal devastation on /int/
China's population definitely comstrained it 1950-2010. Recently as they have developed it's become a net positive.
Nonetheless more population is unequivocally a good thing if you aren't third world. The ranking assumes so.
Agreed. But it still has led to guaranteed support for populist parties. Argentina is just fucked.
I hope Britain keeps control because I support self-determination, and Falklanders want Britain.
>It didn't become the largest dynasty ever by being a shit military.
It got all it's land during the Mongol Conquests when it was under the Mongols.
When the Mongols died the Chinese were left with the land, Chinese military has always been shit.
Yes but China will be in troubled waters if it can't maintain an average of 8% growth for the next decade they'll be in definite trouble, especially with regards to their industrial growth. China is a growing country, maybe in the future it'll be able to rival the USA but they simply have too many problems and are currently too far behind the times. Look how poor their market does every time they try and ease back on their protectionist policies, you had the Chinese stock market crash halfway through last year, the Chinese shares that have been dropping by huge amounts recently (which has been fucking over us and Aus especially)
Obviously no one can rival them in their sphere of influence, but their sphere of influence is far too small to compare them to the UK or France, either of those countries could beat the Chinese in land that is outside the Chinese borders and their immediate neighbours
No I meant China, they dropped to 6.9% this year after being at 7.4% the year previous, and they're predicted to drop again to 6% next year.
When did I say this?
You actually think the Qing dynasty overthrew the Mongols.
The Qing military was competent and powerful 1600-1800. You know, when they conquered a bunch of places to become the largest dynasty ever.
Or did the Mongols do that for them?
It was a separate point regarding more pop = more power
They have the ability to deploy all over the world, strong diplomatic power in the EU, strong ties to the USA, nuclear weaponry, a modern navy and a competent military
>Yes but China will be in troubled waters if it can't maintain an average of 8% growth for the next decade they'll be in definite trouble
>No I meant China, they dropped to 6.9% this year after being at 7.4% the year previous, and they're predicted to drop again to 6% next year.
Lol. 8% is a ridiculously high growth, it's absolutely unsustainable.
>Yes but China will be in troubled waters if it can't maintain an average of 8% growth
because you say so?
Looks a little bigger than China today does it not?
>mongolia, Manchuria, Turkmenistan, areas near India, areas near Pakistan.
They conquered this. The Ming Dynasty never held these areas.
If they were incompetent militarily then how did they take and hold these lands for 220 years?
The UK maintains global influence while being less heavy-handed than the likes of Russia. The countries you compare don't think of "spheres of influence" in the same way.
>They have the ability to deploy all over the world
No they don't.
>strong diplomatic power in the EU
Actually in the EU Germany is stronger than both.
>strong ties to the USA
Hmm... Just like China.
Hmm... Just like China.
>a modern navy and a competent military
Chinese military is the third strongest in the world.
Except, you know, commodities crashing prices, the world economy slowing dramatically, and stock markets entering bear markets.
Say thank you to China exporting their problems for that.
>If they were incompetent militarily then how did they take and hold these lands for 220 years?
Look at the countries around senpai.
And this amazing Qing dynasty was defeated by a small island nation in 1894 in less than a year.
Chinese government is shifting economy towards services and consumption they are aware of that they can't sustain growth like this.
"New normal" for China is 7%, not 8%.
What is this "global influence" exactly? Having some small islands which weren't able to get independence?
Why the fuck you talk about history? Yes China was historically a fucking mess, because of how big it is it was really hard to keep that population and area in check before the modern era.
Also cultural thing - the mandate of heaven.
New communist regime kind of took care of these issues.
>Britain indirectly has been fucking up Argentina for ages.
They tried to capture Buenos Aires twice and they failed. Then they captured the Falklands. Then they forced Argentina and Brazil to grant independence to Uruguay so they could project their power on the River Plate.
>What is this "global influence" exactly? Having some small islands which weren't able to get independence?
Having military bases in other countries + the overseas territories means that the British military can easily influence worldwide events. I have trouble understanding you think the US having military bases in foreign countries is a sign of strength, but for the UK it's a weakness. That's very odd. Explain your reasoning?
London means the UK has global influence in economic and cultural/arts affairs.
Membership of pretty much every important union/group from the EU to NATO to the G7 and UNSC Permanent 5 also involve the UK in global affairs.
Shouldn't this all be obvious?
no, because we would start by zero here...
Also we have the best deal of all weak powers.
France gets the Power and Germany gets the economy.
If you would have to choose you would choose economy ,too .right?
Well they are allready working on it. You will see many "Southafrika the Chinese Version" nations soon. And then they start making the places all Han.
Just like they do in the Western provinces of China.
Notice that all people denying Chinese power are either Anglos or from countries strongly related to Anglos - people who think Anglos "won history", there will be no threat to their domination anymore and people who think of everything outside of their circlejerk as incompetent and incapable subhumans.
Inhabitant won't deny growing relevance of China because political debate in his country is dominated by "who will get Chinese money". Inhabitant of Central Asia won't deny Chinese influence because the Chinese are building highways and investing. People from SEA won't deny that China is a growing threat because they see the Chinese building artificial islands in South China Sea.
A lot of Poles won't really deny China aswell because the Chinese actually treat us as kind of respectable partner and are actively trying to pull off some deal with us. Not like Anglos who were always just treating us like a tool to use/white niggers.
>this one buttmad pole who hates britain gets rused by babby tier bait every single day on /int/ and can't contain his autistic ranting
That doesn't matter the European/British thought is often of the socialisation of China, Americans are more concerned with China being a military threat in the region.
Despite being British i think the U.S thought is probably going to be closer towards the truth.
I personally subscribe to the mainstream, idea that a multi-polar order and along with this though, institutions that will be running contrary to the U.S that will challenge their hegemony rather than the opposing view that the Chinese / Russia / Iran etc will eventually be adopted into the current order.
Regardless of this China has no power projection and has no real possibility of doing so military, they actually have poor chances of even dominating their own region, let alone anything outside of it. The U.S/Allies have the advantage that they already dominate globally, China literally cannot. The only thing China has going for it is the large economy, but people are too young to remember Japan? Lets see how China is in 10 years, its too early into the growth phase to call anything, and they won't try anything right now, if they did it would be self-destructive as they simply aren't powerful.
>The only thing China has going for it is the large economy, but people are too young to remember Japan?
are you retarded or something? why people keep repeating this bullshit? Japan=/=China
Japan was severely restricted in the first place, relatively small population, small area, no resources it's a completely different country than China
>they actually have poor chances of even dominating their own region
economically they already dominate it and they start to dominate it politically