Power is nothing. Power in the hands of good people is good, in the hands of bad people is bad. That old addage about power corrupting seems like nonsense, to me. =P
Power is nothing. Power in the hands of good people is good, in the hands of bad people is bad. That old addage about power corrupting seems like nonsense, to me. =P
"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Sure it makes sense, the great become bad and hence become corrupted :wink:
Well basically I see two ways of living...either helping people unselfishly, or helping yourself with the ultimate motive of having power and influence (i know there are shades of gray in between, but thats no fun). Not necessarily in the context of political power, but in a sense being a leader. Whethers it at work, as leader of your family, or leader in other ways you get power handed over to you. I'm not saying power is always bad, but is it a selfish goal to want to be powerful?
It depends on the kind of power you wish you had, and how you define power.
For example, is a rich person more powerful than a poor person? Or is it based on things like strength of will, kindness, strength, or something else?
Sure a rich person is more powerful, but power is by far not the only criterion by which we determine an individual's worth or character. Certainly things such as strength of will and kindness play a role and in my opinion one that is more overwhelming than "power" itself.
I guess it's hard to come to a universal definition of "power", but whatever it is, power is not destiny when it comes to determining someone's significance.
Certain political leaders are powerful yet despised. Particular celebrities are rich and hence somewhat powerful but are excoriated or even ridiculed.
In my opinion, however, true power is something that is not based on one's resources or monetary worth; it is based on deeds that emanate from deeply held principles which are in turn based on universally acceptable notions such as peace, equality, or human welfare.
Gandhi's principles of nonviolence and peaceful resistance can in my opinion be called powerful despite their utter simplicity and apparent submissiveness.
Power is a good thing in terms of international relations. It can be divided into soft power and hard power. An example of hard power is the technological advantage the United States has over China in the military. The 4000+ year history of China compared to the 200+ year history of the United States is an example of soft power.
A shift in power between nations such as China and the United States increases the chance of economic, cyber, military and diplomatic warfare. Therefore it's best that both superpowers make an ease in the inevitable transition of power.
Power is a good thing in terms of international relations. It can be divided into soft power and hard power. An example of hard power is the technological advantage the United States has over China in the military. The 4000+ year history of China compared to the 200+ year history of the United States is an example of soft power.
A shift in power between nations such as China and the United States increases the chance of economic, cyber, military and diplomatic warfare. Therefore it's best that both superpowers make an ease in the inevitable transition of power.
If you look at it this way, the only thing that matters is hard power. Soft power does not guarantee anything whereas hard power will guarantee what you want to achieve insofar as you invest enough resources.
The statement that China has more soft power than the US is problematic. It is true that China has far more history than the US, but time alone is by far not the sole criterion for determining whether a country has soft power. Take for example the American language (i.e. English is the by far the most popular language to learn in the world) and culture being the most popular in the world. I guarantee you that America has influenced China more so than China has influenced America; the same with America and any other country.
If you still don't believe me, look at China's economy. China is ideally a socialist state but one that is making the transition to a capitalist one. In fact, China has the second largest GDP only after America. In my opinion, this is what makes China a superpower, not all the history that lies behind it. Could it be that America has influenced the Chinese economic system to the extent of shifting it to a more capitalistic one (whether directly or indirectly)?
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that hard power dictates soft power but never the other way around. It can be aruged that China should be thankful to America for being a superpower: after all, there would be no Chinese sweat shops if there was no American demand for cheap modes of production.
You should take note of this: China has more hard power than it is credited as while America probably has more soft power than any other country because it has more hard power. Perhaps China may surpass America some day, but I doubt this will happen during my lifetime. However, the hard power/soft power distinguishment is in no way a distinguishment; rather, hard power is more of a precondition to soft power and more by far more important overall. As such, soft power if more of a measure for how much hard power a country has.
In the end, don't take any of this personally--I am only making a factual statement and not a normative one.
If you look at it this way, the only thing that matters is hard power. Soft power does not guarantee anything whereas hard power will guarantee what you want to achieve insofar as you invest enough resources.
This concept of hard and soft power is similar to software and hardware in the computing industry. It was not originated from China but a concept observed. I would disagree that hard power only matters. There is always enough resources to invest in. It's just a matter of finding them.
Insatiable;13836 said:
The statement that China has more soft power than the US is problematic. It is true that China has far more history than the US, but time alone is by far not the sole criterion for determining whether a country has soft power. Take for example the American language (i.e. English is the by far the most popular language to learn in the world) and culture being the most popular in the world. I guarantee you that America has influenced China more so than China has influenced America; the same with America and any other country.
There are many factors besides history that determine the quantitative values of soft power; of which you mention, culture and language being two examples. English was not the native tounge or text of the Americas nor is culture a prime influence. England's culture is not influencing America and yet in turn it is the other way around. Why is that? Chinese is spoken by the most populous amount of people than English. It can also be written in various directions not common to English. One word, one character to symbolize many.
Insatiable;13836 said:
If you still don't believe me, look at China's economy. China is ideally a socialist state but one that is making the transition to a capitalist one. In fact, China has the second largest GDP only after America. In my opinion, this is what makes China a superpower, not all the history that lies behind it. Could it be that America has influenced the Chinese economic system to the extent of shifting it to a more capitalistic one (whether directly or indirectly)?
A change from a command market to a capitalist market has benefitted China. Although history will write that a time of revolution and civil war had to be attended to before economic prosperity could be achieved. GDP and economic systems have changed throughout the centuries through different definition and meaning. Marco Polo once wrote that the whole economy of China surpassed that of Europe during historical times.
Insatiable;13836 said:
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that hard power dictates soft power but never the other way around. It can be aruged that China should be thankful to America for being a superpower: after all, there would be no Chinese sweat shops if there was no American demand for cheap modes of production.
You cannot run computer hardware without computer software. Nations rise and fall during time. America will fall as China will rise. This is the nature of things. Sweatshops are temporary like they were in America the early 1900s.
Insatiable;13836 said:
You should take note of this: China has more hard power than it is credited as while America probably has more soft power than any other country because it has more hard power. Perhaps China may surpass America some day, but I doubt this will happen during my lifetime. However, the hard power/soft power distinguishment is in no way a distinguishment; rather, hard power is more of a precondition to soft power and more by far more important overall. As such, soft power if more of a measure for how much hard power a country has.
China will surpass America but when in the future is undetermined.
Insatiable;13836 said:
In the end, don't take any of this personally--I am only making a factual statement and not a normative one.
This concept of hard and soft power is similar to software and hardware in the computing industry. It was not originated from China but a concept observed. I would disagree that hard power only matters. There is always enough resources to invest in. It's just a matter of finding them.
Would you at least agree that hard power matters overwhelmingly (or at least somewhat) more than soft power?
中国男人;13838 said:
There are many factors besides history that determine the quantitative values of soft power; of which you mention, culture and language being two examples. English was not the native tounge or text of the Americas nor is culture a prime influence. England's culture is not influencing America and yet in turn it is the other way around. Why is that? Chinese is spoken by the most populous amount of people than English. It can also be written in various directions not common to English. One word, one character to symbolize many.
Where the English language came from is ultimately irrelevant. The language cannot even be said to originate from the British Isles (it was brought there by Germanic settlers hundreds of years ago), but that's not the point. The status of the English language now and how it is influential is ultimately what counts. America is the largest English-speaking country and one could attribute a good part of the popularity of English to the economic dominance of America.
Further, though more there are probably more Chinese speakers than English ones, the language is spoken in only in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. English maintains official status in seventy-one countries! There is also the issue of the Chinese actually being a set of dialects (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, etc.) and hence not an actual language.
None of this matters, however, because there are by far more students learning the English language than any other in the world. And what does the Chinese writing system have to do with how influential the language is?
Please take note that I am not making a normative statement but merely a factual one.
中国男人;13838 said:
A change from a command market to a capitalist market has benefitted China. Although history will write that a time of revolution and civil war had to be attended to before economic prosperity could be achieved. GDP and economic systems have changed throughout the centuries through different definition and meaning. Marco Polo once wrote that the whole economy of China surpassed that of Europe during historical times.
I believe China emerging as a socialisit state was the direct result of revolution and civil war, or am I wrong? China becoming a capitalist state has more to do with the American demand for cheaper and efficient means of production. Economic systems might have changed, but I believe they have always been dictated to a certain extent by rational self-interest. The economic systems that do not jibe well with rational self-interest become impractical (take for example communism and how it's practically illogical for it to exist given humans' greedy and self-interested motivations). America's economy seems to be one of the first and certainly the largest to take rational self-interest into account and accommodate it.
Marco Polo gained fame for his exploits not for his economic insight. Even if China had a better economy than Europe at some point (presumably during the 13th and 14th centuries), that is irrelevant. The EU has a higher GDP than China right now.
中国男人;13838 said:
You cannot run computer hardware without computer software. Nations rise and fall during time. America will fall as China will rise. This is the nature of things. Sweatshops are temporary like they were in America the early 1900s.
Point taken about nations rising and falling. However, hardware is far more important than software in this case. To take your computer analogy further--you can have a functional computer without Microsoft Office but you cannot have Microsoft Office without a functional computer. Surely the performance of Mircosoft Office will depend on your computer's speed, RAM, and hard drive. Certainly hardware is more important; certainly hard power takes precedence over soft power; certainly a country's economic strength will dictate the dominance of its culture.
中国男人;13838 said:
China will surpass America but when in the future is undetermined.
Then perhaps you and I should have this debate again in fifty years or so. For now it is clear that America leads in hard power and soft power as a direct result of that. And even if China does supersede America, its soft power would have almost nothing to do with it. My point would hence be proven: hard power matters overwhelmingly more than soft power.
Would you at least agree that hard power matters overwhelmingly (or at least somewhat) more than soft power?
No, they must be in tandem just as in ying and yang.
Insatiable;13841 said:
Where the English language came from is ultimately irrelevant. The language cannot even be said to originate from the British Isles (it was brought there by Germanic settlers hundreds of years ago), but that's not the point. The status of the English language now and how it is influential is ultimately what counts. America is the largest English-speaking country and one could attribute a good part of the popularity of English to the economic dominance of America.
Yet you forget their is a minority of French and Spanish speakers in the Americas. The economic dominance of the United States has never been prevalent during the past century. The economy of the US is attributed to multiple contributions of european financial theory whether it be from England France, Germany or Spain.
Insatiable;13841 said:
Further, though more there are probably more Chinese speakers than English ones, the language is spoken in only in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. English maintains official status in seventy-one countries! There is also the issue of the Chinese actually being a set of dialects (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, etc.) and hence not an actual language.
Mandarin is the offical spoken language as well as it's grammar. However, the written text is universal among all those regions you've named including Japan, Korea and Vietnam. English is maintained in seventy-one small countries which were conquered by their colonial UK masters just as the Cree, Inuit, Blackfoot, Iroquois and Sioux have.
Insatiable;13841 said:
None of this matters, however, because there are by far more students learning the English language than any other in the world. And what does the Chinese writing system have to do with how influential the language is?
Students are learning English language out of the many other latin based languages. Chinese will dominate the Korean and Japanese writing systems in time. How the world will be influenced by either langauge, only time will tell.
Insatiable;13841 said:
I believe China emerging as a socialisit state was the direct result of revolution and civil war, or am I wrong? China becoming a capitalist state has more to do with the American demand for cheaper and efficient means of production. Economic systems might have changed, but I believe they have always been dictated to a certain extent by rational self-interest. The economic systems that do not jibe well with rational self-interest become impractical (take for example communism and how it's practically illogical for it to exist given humans' greedy and self-interested motivations). America's economy seems to be one of the first and certainly the largest to take rational self-interest into account and accommodate it.
There will be other regions around the world that will demand Chinese goods in which China can supply; all else being equal. The economy of the former Soviet Union was impractical which lead to it's dissolution. The communist political system of the past has transformed to a socialist system of today. I find most of communist political methodology logical and others not so logical.
Insatiable;13841 said:
Marco Polo gained fame for his exploits not for his economic insight. Even if China had a better economy than Europe at some point (presumably during the 13th and 14th centuries), that is irrelevant. The EU has a higher GDP than China right now.
To name another, Napolean Bonaparte was famously quoted, "Quand le Chine s'eveillera, le monde tremblera." The European Union is in shambles as of right now. They cannot even agree on a common constitution nor can their military aparatus function as a single entity. This union of Europe is far from being a union with disparate languages conflicting and two former cold war adversaries vying for Europe's interest.
Insatiable;13841 said:
Point taken about nations rising and falling. However, hardware is far more important than software in this case. To take your computer analogy further--you can have a functional computer without Microsoft Office but you cannot have Microsoft Office without a functional computer. Surely the performance of Mircosoft Office will depend on your computer's speed, RAM, and hard drive. Certainly hardware is more important; certainly hard power takes precedence over soft power; certainly a country's economic strength will dictate the dominance of its culture.
When I meant software, I was referring to the type of operating system. You cannot run Windows Vista on a 386 or utilize a Core 2 Duo using DOS. The hard power of a country's economic strength cannot be lead without a good soft power government.
Insatiable;13841 said:
Then perhaps you and I should have this debate again in fifty years or so. For now it is clear that America leads in hard power and soft power as a direct result of that. And even if China does supersede America, its soft power would have almost nothing to do with it. My point would hence be proven: hard power matters overwhelmingly more than soft power.
I disagree. Perhaps a few other observers on this forum should have their say since two opinions is insufficient.
No, they must be in tandem just as in ying and yang.
If you say they must be in tandem, why did you say earlier that China has more soft power than the US knowing full well that the US has more hard power? What I'm saying is that hard power will lead to soft power, but never the other way around. The US (at least for now) has more hard power than China and automatically more soft power. Saying that the two are somehow equal is pure bollocks.
中国男人;13844 said:
Yet you forget their is a minority of French and Spanish speakers in the Americas. The economic dominance of the United States has never been prevalent during the past century. The economy of the US is attributed to multiple contributions of european financial theory whether it be from England France, Germany or Spain.
"The economic dominance of the US has never been prevalent during the past century?"
Are you serious? The US won the Cold War because of its economic dominance; the US was the first to invent the atomic bomb because of its economic dominance; heck, the US was on the winning side during World War II probably because of its economic dominance. The US has even produced the greatest number of Nobel laureates than any other country. Still confused about who's got more soft power?
The US economy may have been influenced by those of certain European nations but the US quickly superseded these economies. American capitalism is like no other: more freedom in economic decision-making and less government regulation than almost any European nation. The US also has the most stable government in the world (only two dominant parties that almost resemble one another) and very firm property-rights. No European country (or any country for that matter) has these elements in place.
You also have to consider that the US is by far richer than Europe in terms of resource, this in large part had to do with the US surpassing Europe and becoming the world's dominant economy.
中国男人;13844 said:
Mandarin is the offical spoken language as well as it's grammar. However, the written text is universal among all those regions you've named including Japan, Korea and Vietnam. English is maintained in seventy-one small countries which were conquered by their colonial UK masters just as the Cree, Inuit, Blackfoot, Iroquois and Sioux have.
Students are learning English language out of the many other latin based languages. Chinese will dominate the Korean and Japanese writing systems in time. How the world will be influenced by either langauge, only time will tell.
Point taken about 19th-century Briatain subjugating every claimable piece of land in the world. Though I would hardly call the US and Canada "small" countries. The Spanish did perhaps as much colonizing as the English, yet the Spanish language is nowhere nearly as popular as English in terms of studying as a second language.
Further, it is undisputable that there are more students from Asia (whether it's China, Japan or Korea) studying English than there are North American students studying a Chinese language. This simply cannot be because of seventy-one small countries. See, it's not just non-English-speaking Europeans who study English but many Asian nations as well. I think the nexus between US economic dominance and the popularity of the English language is clear.
There will be other regions around the world that will demand Chinese goods in which China can supply; all else being equal. The economy of the former Soviet Union was impractical which lead to it's dissolution. The communist political system of the past has transformed to a socialist system of today. I find most of communist political methodology logical and others not so logical.
As I said before, China has the US to thank for its economic acceleration. Witout the American demand for Chinese goods, China's economy would not as great as it is today.
中国男人;13844 said:
To name another, Napolean Bonaparte was famously quoted, "Quand le Chine s'eveillera, le monde tremblera." The European Union is in shambles as of right now. They cannot even agree on a common constitution nor can their military aparatus function as a single entity. This union of Europe is far from being a union with disparate languages conflicting and two former cold war adversaries vying for Europe's interest.
The fact remains that the EU's collective economy is right now larger than China's. Further, your claims about the EU's shambing are exaggerated. They may be different countries, but they are all working towards the same goal. Further, every country is arguably "in shambles", you just have to look hard enough: the US's deficit, the Chinese one-child policy causing an unhealthy decline in the population, the lack of a European constitution, etc.
中国男人;13844 said:
When I meant software, I was referring to the type of operating system. You cannot run Windows Vista on a 386 or utilize a Core 2 Duo using DOS. The hard power of a country's economic strength cannot be lead without a good soft power government.
All computers capable of supporting Vista have to be extremely powerful (let's say at least P4s). Therefore, a powerful computer will automatically have a modern operating system. As such, it would make sense that the US (being a powerful computer) must have a lot of soft power because of its hard power (it must necessarily have a modern operating system). The two appear to correspond, so it appears you cannot have an instance of a lot of hard power and no soft power. Yet to me it seems that software evolves because of hardware, not the other way around. China has (at least for now) less hard power and as a result less soft power; the US has more hard power and hence more soft power. The hard/soft dichotomy is more a matter of a particular condition and a measure by which to gauge a country's economic influence. The more powerful a country is economically, the more influential it is not just economically but culturally and even in terms of ideas.
In essence, military and economic power will automatically mean the country will have a lot of soft power.
中国男人;13844 said:
I disagree. Perhaps a few other observers on this forum should have their say since two opinions is insufficient.
It only takes two to argue, but what does everyone else think?
No one in their right mind is jumping into the middle of this! :wink:
Responding and thinking of responses to just one intelligent post is so long, but totally worth it, knowing you'll receive the same thing in return :wink:
If you say they must be in tandem, why did you say earlier that China has more soft power than the US knowing full well that the US has more hard power? What I'm saying is that hard power will lead to soft power, but never the other way around. The US (at least for now) has more hard power than China and automatically more soft power. Saying that the two are somehow equal is pure bollocks.
Here is another analogy, people usually use their two hands in every day tasks. One hand is more dominant than the other whether it be the left-hand or right-hand. Let's say China is left-handed and the US is right-handed which would imply that China has more soft power and the US more hard power. They still have to use both in certain tasks but one will be used more than the other. Both hard and soft power are equal and unequal depending on the circumstance.
Insatiable;13856 said:
"The economic dominance of the US has never been prevalent during the past century?"
Are you serious? The US won the Cold War because of its economic dominance; the US was the first to invent the atomic bomb because of its economic dominance; heck, the US was on the winning side during World War II probably because of its economic dominance. The US has even produced the greatest number of Nobel laureates than any other country. Still confused about who's got more soft power?
Yes I am serious. During the first half of the twentith century, the US was facing an economic depression. Not until they entered the second world war and ended it did their economy flourish. The invention of the atom bomb was not due to economic dominance but because of the warfare situation. Panzer tanks, V2 Rockets and the jet engine were invented because they made the Nazi rich. Was the Soviet Union on the winning side because of their economic dominance? What does the number of Nobel Laureates have to do with anything? It is not considered a measurement of soft power.
Insatiable;13856 said:
The US economy may have been influenced by those of certain European nations but the US quickly superseded these economies. American capitalism is like no other: more freedom in economic decision-making and less government regulation than almost any European nation. The US also has the most stable government in the world (only two dominant parties that almost resemble one another) and very firm property-rights. No European country (or any country for that matter) has these elements in place.
You also have to consider that the US is by far richer than Europe in terms of resource, this in large part had to do with the US surpassing Europe and becoming the world's dominant economy.
The US economy is not so free of decision-making and regulation as you may think. Restrictions in trade secrets and business practices are apparent in both the US and Europe. The most stable government? What the hell is Canada? Take a look at Canada, France or any commonwealth country and see if these elements are in place.
Insatiable;13856 said:
Point taken about 19th-century Briatain subjugating every claimable piece of land in the world. Though I would hardly call the US and Canada "small" countries. The Spanish did perhaps as much colonizing as the English, yet the Spanish language is nowhere nearly as popular as English in terms of studying as a second language.
The majority of south and central american countries speak Spanish. All European countries colonize land even the Antarctic.
Insatiable;13856 said:
Further, it is undisputable that there are more students from Asia (whether it's China, Japan or Korea) studying English than there are North American students studying a Chinese language. This simply cannot be because of seventy-one small countries. See, it's not just non-English-speaking Europeans who study English but many Asian nations as well. I think the nexus between US economic dominance and the popularity of the English language is clear.
Korean and Japanese writing systems originated from the Chinese. Their character sets still contain Chinese loan words. These two countries will eventually have to speak Mandarin and use Chinese words in writing. Do not based all your information on a single website that is western. It is better to have multiple sources from multiple different perspectives.
Insatiable;13856 said:
As I said before, China has the US to thank for its economic acceleration. Witout the American demand for Chinese goods, China's economy would not as great as it is today.
The US is only a partial piece to the economic success of China.
Insatiable;13856 said:
The fact remains that the EU's collective economy is right now larger than China's. Further, your claims about the EU's shambing are exaggerated. They may be different countries, but they are all working towards the same goal. Further, every country is arguably "in shambles", you just have to look hard enough: the US's deficit, the Chinese one-child policy causing an unhealthy decline in the population, the lack of a European constitution, etc.
Then the collective economies of ASEAN would be just as large as the EU if not compared to China alone. As of today, the EU cannot agree on a common constitution but the achieved goal of the Euro must be noted. The US war-mongering to attack Iran and re-stabalize Iraq is dismal. The Chinese population is still increasing even with the one-child policy.
Insatiable;13856 said:
All computers capable of supporting Vista have to be extremely powerful (let's say at least P4s). Therefore, a powerful computer will automatically have a modern operating system. As such, it would make sense that the US (being a powerful computer) must have a lot of soft power because of its hard power (it must necessarily have a modern operating system). The two appear to correspond, so it appears you cannot have an instance of a lot of hard power and no soft power. Yet to me it seems that software evolves because of hardware, not the other way around. China has (at least for now) less hard power and as a result less soft power; the US has more hard power and hence more soft power. The hard/soft dichotomy is more a matter of a particular condition and a measure by which to gauge a country's economic influence. The more powerful a country is economically, the more influential it is not just economically but culturally and even in terms of ideas.
Very good.
Insatiable;13856 said:
In essence, military and economic power will automatically mean the country will have a lot of soft power.
It only takes two to argue, but what does everyone else think?
Here is another analogy, people usually use their two hands in every day tasks. One hand is more dominant than the other whether it be the left-hand or right-hand. Let's say China is left-handed and the US is right-handed which would imply that China has more soft power and the US more hard power. They still have to use both in certain tasks but one will be used more than the other. Both hard and soft power are equal and unequal depending on the circumstance.
The left/right analogy is faulty. But let's work with it for a minute: do you take into accout that physical exercise can strengthen both arms? If you do, you'll realize that because the US is presumably (at least for now) stronger than China (in terms of GDP), then you'll recognize that it has better hard and soft power (both arms become stronger as a result of physical exercise).
You have claimed before that China has more soft power than the US and that hard and soft power are equal and must be in tandem--this is contradictory. If you declare that China has more soft power, then it must have more hard power (after all, they must be in tandem); yet you admitted that the US has more hard power! If you state that hard and soft powers must be in tandem, then you must accept that either the US has more hard and soft power or that China has more hard and soft power; either way, the contradiction is apparent.
中国男人;13862 said:
Yes I am serious. During the first half of the twentith century, the US was facing an economic depression. Not until they entered the second world war and ended it did their economy flourish. The invention of the atom bomb was not due to economic dominance but because of the warfare situation. Panzer tanks, V2 Rockets and the jet engine were invented because they made the Nazi rich. Was the Soviet Union on the winning side because of their economic dominance? What does the number of Nobel Laureates have to do with anything? It is not considered a measurement of soft power.
I will admit that I overlooked the Great Depression, but the fact still stands that before and after the war the US had the biggest economy in the world (rivalled perhaps by Germany before and the USSR after)
Of course the wartime atmosphere caused the acceleration of the development of nuclear technologies, but do you really think it was only the US who was trying to develop the atomic bomb? USSR developed its nuclear bomb shortly after the US and the UK followed soon thereafter. How can you say that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with economic dominance when only only the select few nations (only the most powerful ones) could afford to have the atomic bomb at that time?
Sure the number of laureates is indicative of a country's soft power. Part of soft power includes the ideas of a nation. The Nobel Prize recognizes ideas, if anything, and hence is somewhat demonstrative that a country has soft power. Or am I mistaken?
And yes, the USSR was extremely powerful (there would have been no Cold War if it wasn't), but in a whole different sense than the US. The USSR's economy was based largely on its vast supply of resources and land. The US, however, had better ideas and technologies overall. I guess the USSR was on the winning side because Russians don't surrender easily :wink: :tongue:
中国男人;13862 said:
The US economy is not so free of decision-making and regulation as you may think. Restrictions in trade secrets and business practices are apparent in both the US and Europe. The most stable government? What the hell is Canada? Take a look at Canada, France or any commonwealth country and see if these elements are in place.
The restrictions are there, if anything, to prevent monopolies. However many restrictions you feel it has, the US strikes the perfect balance between a regulated and a free economy. And yes, the US is far more stable than Canada: look at our parties the NDP, the Conservatives, and the Liberals each have agendas that take our nation to different directions. In the US, it ultimately won't matter whom you vote for there will always be one of two practically similar outcomes: Democrat or Republican. An interesting way to measure a nation's political stability is to look at the number of parties--fewer parties with similar agendas indicates greater stability.
中国男人;13862 said:
The majority of south and central american countries speak Spanish. All European countries colonize land even the Antarctic.
I don't think you understood me correctly. I said English is by far the most popular language to study as a second language in the world. Read what you quote :wink:
中国男人;13862 said:
Korean and Japanese writing systems originated from the Chinese. Their character sets still contain Chinese loan words. These two countries will eventually have to speak Mandarin and use Chinese words in writing. Do not based all your information on a single website that is western. It is better to have multiple sources from multiple different perspectives.
Don't say that to anyone who is Korean or Japanese! Just because these nations use Chinese characters does not make them Chinese. The Vietnamese use Latin characters; central Asian nations use the Cyrillic; some non-Arab Middle Eastern nations use the Arabic script. That does not mean anything because every nation is singluar--having its own language, culture, and history.
And about the Koreans and Japanese "eventually" learning to speak Chinese, what do you mean? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#English_as_a_global_language It seems likelier that the Koreans and the Japanese will speak English along with their native languages. Again, I guarantee you that this is all because of American dominance in the economic realm.
English is the most studied second language in the world--and this fact remains. It does not matter whether a fact comes from a Western or a non-Western source; it exists independent of our prejudices and preconceptions. If Osama bin Laden had said "2 + 2 = 4" or that "all triangles have 3 sides", would we be more apprehensive to accept these indubitable mathematical facts? Certainly not! When a claim is made and it is a fact, it does not matter who says it.
中国男人;13862 said:
The US is only a partial piece to the economic success of China.
True, and China can even be said to somewhat contribute to the American economy. Yet nowadays it appears as though the two nations are feeding off of each other!
中国男人;13862 said:
Then the collective economies of ASEAN would be just as large as the EU if not compared to China alone. As of today, the EU cannot agree on a common constitution but the achieved goal of the Euro must be noted. The US war-mongering to attack Iran and re-stabalize Iraq is dismal. The Chinese population is still increasing even with the one-child policy.
ASEAN as large as the EU? Are you serious? ASEAN's GDP is approximately 2.75 trillion whereas the EU's is over 14 trillion. The EU still has a much stronger economy collectively. Of course this does not change the fact that ASEAN is probably developing faster than the EU because developING nations grow faster than developED ones. However, there's no way you can compare them now.
中国男人;13862 said:
Yes, this is not a round table debate.
I so desperately wish it were such a discussion. I wanna hear what everyone else thinks :angry:
The left/right analogy is faulty. But let's work with it for a minute: do you take into accout that physical exercise can strengthen both arms? If you do, you'll realize that because the US is presumably (at least for now) stronger than China (in terms of GDP), then you'll recognize that it has better hard and soft power (both arms become stronger as a result of physical exercise).
Faulty analogy?! No one can be 100% ambidextrous. A hockey player cannot shoot both left and right because hockey sticks were not constructed that way. Same goes with writing with a writing utensil because the non-writing hand holds the paper. Yeah, you can work out both arms but guess what. One arm will always be a bit stronger than the other. It's obvious the US has stronger hard power (ie. military spending) than soft power (ie. UN security Council consensus). The decision to attack Iraq was illegal because hard and soft power were not in alignment.
Insatiable;13902 said:
You have claimed before that China has more soft power than the US and that hard and soft power are equal and must be in tandem--this is contradictory. If you declare that China has more soft power, then it must have more hard power (after all, they must be in tandem); yet you admitted that the US has more hard power! If you state that hard and soft powers must be in tandem, then you must accept that either the US has more hard and soft power or that China has more hard and soft power; either way, the contradiction is apparent.
No, take the example of attacking Iraq. If the US had waited for the (UNSC consensus) soft power to reach a level equivalent to their (military buildup in Qatar) hard power, the direction of Iraq war would have been different then it is today. Only at certain moments should both hard and soft power be fully aligned but most of time they are not.
Insatiable;13902 said:
I will admit that I overlooked the Great Depression, but the fact still stands that before and after the war the US had the biggest economy in the world (rivalled perhaps by Germany before and the USSR after)
Of course the wartime atmosphere caused the acceleration of the development of nuclear technologies, but do you really think it was only the US who was trying to develop the atomic bomb? USSR developed its nuclear bomb shortly after the US and the UK followed soon thereafter. How can you say that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with economic dominance when only only the select few nations (only the most powerful ones) could afford to have the atomic bomb at that time?
The US had mistakenly thought that the Nazis wer developing the atomic bomb. The UK and France detonated a bomb for self-defense after the war. Some of the select few nations of the UNSC were in economic debt at that time.
Insatiable;13902 said:
Sure the number of laureates is indicative of a country's soft power. Part of soft power includes the ideas of a nation. The Nobel Prize recognizes ideas, if anything, and hence is somewhat demonstrative that a country has soft power. Or am I mistaken?
The human qualitative value in terms of quantity is not a deterministic value of soft power (from what I've read). That may change because this idea does support interest.
Insatiable;13902 said:
And yes, the USSR was extremely powerful (there would have been no Cold War if it wasn't), but in a whole different sense than the US. The USSR's economy was based largely on its vast supply of resources and land. The US, however, had better ideas and technologies overall. I guess the USSR was on the winning side because Russians don't surrender easily :wink: :tongue:
The USSR had a vast amount of resources and land; however, a command economy didn't utilize them for the entire populance. Only for the military were these resources rationed for. The first satellite in space, the first human in space, the biggest ballistic missile submarine and the largest bomb ever created were quite some ideas and technologies.
To win is to not surrender easily, eh?
Insatiable;13902 said:
The restrictions are there, if anything, to prevent monopolies. However many restrictions you feel it has, the US strikes the perfect balance between a regulated and a free economy. And yes, the US is far more stable than Canada: look at our parties the NDP, the Conservatives, and the Liberals each have agendas that take our nation to different directions. In the US, it ultimately won't matter whom you vote for there will always be one of two practically similar outcomes: Democrat or Republican. An interesting way to measure a nation's political stability is to look at the number of parties--fewer parties with similar agendas indicates greater stability.
Russia and China are a single party government whose allegiance is to the communist party. I guess the political stability of these nations is greater since there are fewer parties and fewer agendas.
Microeconomic and Macroeconmic policies do require a balance to stimulate growth.
Insatiable;13902 said:
I don't think you understood me correctly. I said English is by far the most popular language to study as a second language in the world. Read what you quote :wink:
I understand what you wrote. There is a difference between a language that is spoken because of popularity and a language that is spoken because of it's high population.
Insatiable;13902 said:
Don't say that to anyone who is Korean or Japanese! Just because these nations use Chinese characters does not make them Chinese. The Vietnamese use Latin characters; central Asian nations use the Cyrillic; some non-Arab Middle Eastern nations use the Arabic script. That does not mean anything because every nation is singluar--having its own language, culture, and history.
Well Chinese may not be the correct word but another definition to represent China, Japan and Korea. The Vietnamese were once conquered by the French, that is why they use latin characters. Previously they used characters similar to the Chinese.
Insatiable;13902 said:
And about the Koreans and Japanese "eventually" learning to speak Chinese, what do you mean? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#English_as_a_global_language It seems likelier that the Koreans and the Japanese will speak English along with their native languages. Again, I guarantee you that this is all because of American dominance in the economic realm.
This source is from an English perspective written in America, don't count on it if it is referring to China, Japan and Korea.
Insatiable;13902 said:
English is the most studied second language in the world--and this fact remains. It does not matter whether a fact comes from a Western or a non-Western source; it exists independent of our prejudices and preconceptions. If Osama bin Laden had said "2 + 2 = 4" or that "all triangles have 3 sides", would we be more apprehensive to accept these indubitable mathematical facts? Certainly not! When a claim is made and it is a fact, it does not matter who says it.
It does matter where facts are from. Not every nation views facts the same way. If Osama bin Laden said "2 + 2 = 4", George Bush said "4 + 0 = 4", Saddam Hussein said "3 + 1 = 4" and Tony Blair said " 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4" would you still be apprehensive? The equations are not the same but they lead to the same answer. The factual answer can be made by many equational claims.
Insatiable;13902 said:
True, and China can even be said to somewhat contribute to the American economy. Yet nowadays it appears as though the two nations are feeding off of each other!
ASEAN as large as the EU? Are you serious? ASEAN's GDP is approximately 2.75 trillion whereas the EU's is over 14 trillion. The EU still has a much stronger economy collectively. Of course this does not change the fact that ASEAN is probably developing faster than the EU because developING nations grow faster than developED ones. However, there's no way you can compare them now.
I so desperately wish it were such a discussion. I wanna hear what everyone else thinks :angry:
Faulty analogy?! No one can be 100% ambidextrous. A hockey player cannot shoot both left and right because hockey sticks were not constructed that way. Same goes with writing with a writing utensil because the non-writing hand holds the paper. Yeah, you can work out both arms but guess what. One arm will always be a bit stronger than the other. It's obvious the US has stronger hard power (ie. military spending) than soft power (ie. UN security Council consensus). The decision to attack Iraq was illegal because hard and soft power were not in alignment.
One arm is always stronger, granted that. However, intense physical exercise will make both arms stronger. The weaker arm of, say, a bodybuilder will be much stronger than the stonger arm of some average bloke. Similarly, an NHL star's skill level is so high that he can outplay a little leaguer both with a right- and a left-handed stick. What you're missing is that the discrepancy in skill, strenght, or in our case economy is so high that the side with the most will automatically be better in all aspects.
Similarly, the economic discrepancy between the US and China is so stark that the US has both better direct (hard power) and indirect (soft power) influence.
You and I, however, are going off on a bit of a tangent. Let's forget the analogies for a moment and get back to the main point: hard and soft power. You claim they are equally importnat and must correspond (like the original theory says). I claim that the entire theory is bollocks: to me soft power arises as a result of hard power and never the other way around. You said China has more soft power and the US has more hard; I say that the US has more of both because it has more hard power.
I've given several examples to corroborate this: these include (among many other things) the prevalence of the English language being studied as a second language throughout the world; the sheerly vast number of dominant ideas and technologies that are American; the ubiquitousness of the American culture above all others. The list goes on, yet all of this easily stems from the fact that the US is the most economically dominant country in the world. Who knows, if the Chinese surpass the Americans and with a bit of time, maybe China will have more hard and therefore soft power? Yet right now, this status goes to the US.
Hence, the schmuck (Joseph Nye) who came up with conceiving of hard power and soft power as a distinguishment ought to re-examine the part of his brain responsible for elementary cognitive functioning. They are not to be distinguished at all; rather hard power will lead to soft power and never the other way around. The US could simply execute economic sanctions on countries who do not agree with its policies. Name me one country who is as diplomatic as the US.
中国男人;13919 said:
No, take the example of attacking Iraq. If the US had waited for the (UNSC consensus) soft power to reach a level equivalent to their (military buildup in Qatar) hard power, the direction of Iraq war would have been different then it is today. Only at certain moments should both hard and soft power be fully aligned but most of time they are not.
American influence is so subtle, even you cannot see it. Ever hear of the Coalition of the Willing? An American-led force invading Iraq in 2003. Here is a map of nations who supported the US in its invasion of Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG
Though the vast majority of the troops were American, these nations nonetheless did not protest America's invasion of Iraq. Could they perhaps have been influenced by America's soft power? Were they perhaps intimidated by America's vast economic strength that they almost had no choice by to participate?
Even Canada is making up for America's fuck-ups: look at what our troops are doing in Afghanistan! Canada is supposed to be a peacful, diplomatic, and tolerant country, yet here we are being pressured by the US to stay in Afghanistan.
中国男人;13919 said:
The US had mistakenly thought that the Nazis wer developing the atomic bomb. The UK and France detonated a bomb for self-defense after the war. Some of the select few nations of the UNSC were in economic debt at that time.
This does not change the fact that the UNSC were and remain the world's most powerful nations--economically and therefore militaristically.
中国男人;13919 said:
The human qualitative value in terms of quantity is not a deterministic value of soft power (from what I've read). That may change because this idea does support interest.
Elaborate this.
中国男人;13919 said:
The USSR had a vast amount of resources and land; however, a command economy didn't utilize them for the entire populance. Only for the military were these resources rationed for. The first satellite in space, the first human in space, the biggest ballistic missile submarine and the largest bomb ever created were quite some ideas and technologies.
True, the USSR did not live up to its potential. But as a country of such a vast--truly vast--size, it could afford not to. This is why a geographically small country (such as Cuba) will never achieve what the USSR has. Better for such countries to assume an Asian Tiger model than to fool around with a command economy.
中国男人;13919 said:
To win is to not surrender easily, eh?
I guess so for the USSR in the second world war. The country could have easily surrendered and not have sustained the immense losses that it did. But since post 1900s Russia/USSR has never been blessed with a good leader, this did not happen. The idea during the war was death before dishonour. The USSR was the first socialist state in the world and perhaps the point was to show the world that a socialst state is able to survive.
中国男人;13919 said:
Russia and China are a single party government whose allegiance is to the communist party. I guess the political stability of these nations is greater since there are fewer parties and fewer agendas.
If you mean the USSR and China, then yes, I will bite the bullet and say that these countries were stable in the sense of being predictable. However, what I said applies more to countries where some degree of political freedom is permissible. Compare the US against any European nation and you will easily find that the US is more stable in the sense that I have defined. This is merely one of the many measures of political stability, excuse me for not clearing this up earlier.
中国男人;13919 said:
Microeconomic and Macroeconmic policies do require a balance to stimulate growth.
I won't argue with you on this one :wink:
中国男人;13919 said:
I understand what you wrote. There is a difference between a language that is spoken because of popularity and a language that is spoken because of it's high population.
Then you will understand that the new global language is (for better or for worse) English. It doesn't matter that there are more Mandarin and perhaps Spanish speakers. More people are studying English as a second language than any other language. The connection between this phenomenon and American economic dominance is utterly palpable.
中国男人;13919 said:
Well Chinese may not be the correct word but another definition to represent China, Japan and Korea. The Vietnamese were once conquered by the French, that is why they use latin characters. Previously they used characters similar to the Chinese.
English is the most popular second language to study in China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and a whole host of other countries. No other country's language is as popular to study as English.
中国男人;13919 said:
This source is from an English perspective written in America, don't count on it if it is referring to China, Japan and Korea.
You are still in denial my friend; when will you come to accept fact for what it is?
中国男人;13919 said:
It does matter where facts are from. Not every nation views facts the same way. If Osama bin Laden said "2 + 2 = 4", George Bush said "4 + 0 = 4", Saddam Hussein said "3 + 1 = 4" and Tony Blair said " 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4" would you still be apprehensive? The equations are not the same but they lead to the same answer. The factual answer can be made by many equational claims.
In whatever manner you define the fashionability or popularity of a language ("4 + 0", "2 + 2", etc.), the end result will be that English is the most popular second language to study in the world ("4").
中国男人;13919 said:
I have nothing to add or subtract.
I wish others would join in and let us know what they think so they could do some adding and subtracting of their own. I wanna know what others think!
Thank you Insatiable and...the guy with the chinese characters for a handle...for brain food!
You're welcome meesh and anyone else reading this thread. I'm sure my opponent (the fella with the Chinese characters [which come out as squares on my computer]) is as appreciative as I am that someone besides one of us is actually reading this thread :wink:
One arm is always stronger, granted that. However, intense physical exercise will make both arms stronger. The weaker arm of, say, a bodybuilder will be much stronger than the stonger arm of some average bloke. Similarly, an NHL star's skill level is so high that he can outplay a little leaguer both with a right- and a left-handed stick. What you're missing is that the discrepancy in skill, strenght, or in our case economy is so high that the side with the most will automatically be better in all aspects.
You are missing my point be comparing a little leaguer to an NHL star. A left-handed hockey player vs. a right-handed hockey player would be an example of the hard power and soft power analogy. The side with the most is not better in all aspects. There are weaknesses which can be exposed and if correctly strickened, all strengths of the advesary will be paralyzed.
Insatiable;13944 said:
Similarly, the economic discrepancy between the US and China is so stark that the US has both better direct (hard power) and indirect (soft power) influence.
Not as stark as you may think. Being the top team in the NHL doesn't mean you will win the Stanley Cup.
Insatiable;13944 said:
You and I, however, are going off on a bit of a tangent. Let's forget the analogies for a moment and get back to the main point: hard and soft power. You claim they are equally importnat and must correspond (like the original theory says). I claim that the entire theory is bollocks: to me soft power arises as a result of hard power and never the other way around. You said China has more soft power and the US has more hard; I say that the US has more of both because it has more hard power.
Well if the entire theory is bullocks to you then stop debating about it. As you say, soft power arises as a result of hard power and not the other way around. Why can it not? Having a fundamental soft power foundation can lead to a good development of hard power. Now you are contradicting yourself by stating, "the US has more of both because it has more hard power". There are only certain moments when a nation has more of both hard and soft power.
Insatiable;13944 said:
I've given several examples to corroborate this: these include (among many other things) the prevalence of the English language being studied as a second language throughout the world; the sheerly vast number of dominant ideas and technologies that are American; the ubiquitousness of the American culture above all others. The list goes on, yet all of this easily stems from the fact that the US is the most economically dominant country in the world. Who knows, if the Chinese surpass the Americans and with a bit of time, maybe China will have more hard and therefore soft power? Yet right now, this status goes to the US.
There are many ideas and technologies that did not originate in America or was developed in the English language. There are other nations besides the US who are just as brilliant and innovative than those yankees. American culture and economic dominance will fade but yes, presently they are the sole superpower.
Insatiable;13944 said:
Hence, the schmuck (Joseph Nye) who came up with conceiving of hard power and soft power as a distinguishment ought to re-examine the part of his brain responsible for elementary cognitive functioning. They are not to be distinguished at all; rather hard power will lead to soft power and never the other way around. The US could simply execute economic sanctions on countries who do not agree with its policies. Name me one country who is as diplomatic as the US.
Why don't you go tell the schmuck to re-evaluate his theory. I'm sure many others will agree or disagree with you. All countries are capable of economic santions such as banning beef. Diplomacy is a function of foreign affairs that all nations have. Hence diplomacy started way before the US existed.
Insatiable;13944 said:
American influence is so subtle, even you cannot see it. Ever hear of the Coalition of the Willing? An American-led force invading Iraq in 2003. Here is a map of nations who supported the US in its invasion of Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG
Though the vast majority of the troops were American, these nations nonetheless did not protest America's invasion of Iraq. Could they perhaps have been influenced by America's soft power? Were they perhaps intimidated by America's vast economic strength that they almost had no choice by to participate?
A vast majority of countries were against the war. This coalition of the willing was just a lie to hide the true intentions of the war. Bribery in diplomacy is the game that is played amongst nations whether it be financially or some other means. The US broke a security council resolution agreed by all members. The UN's legitimacy was at stake. The term, "go it alone" was a phrase that meant the US was above the law when the law did not suit them.
Insatiable;13944 said:
Even Canada is making up for America's fuck-ups: look at what our troops are doing in Afghanistan! Canada is supposed to be a peacful, diplomatic, and tolerant country, yet here we are being pressured by the US to stay in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is another situation that should be seperated from Iraq. The two are not related.
Insatiable;13944 said:
This does not change the fact that the UNSC were and remain the world's most powerful nations--economically and therefore militaristically.
Elaborate this.
Nobel Laureates are awards to individuals for their work. This also applies to the acadamy awards. China has developed their own awards system for their entertainment industry and presumably their scientific community as well. If this applies to soft power, it remains to be documented and seen.
Insatiable;13944 said:
True, the USSR did not live up to its potential. But as a country of such a vast--truly vast--size, it could afford not to. This is why a geographically small country (such as Cuba) will never achieve what the USSR has. Better for such countries to assume an Asian Tiger model than to fool around with a command economy.
Though the vassal status of Cuba to the USSR made that country a potential weapon. (ie. Cuban Missile Crisis)
Insatiable;13944 said:
I guess so for the USSR in the second world war. The country could have easily surrendered and not have sustained the immense losses that it did. But since post 1900s Russia/USSR has never been blessed with a good leader, this did not happen. The idea during the war was death before dishonour. The USSR was the first socialist state in the world and perhaps the point was to show the world that a socialst state is able to survive.
Leaders and parties will come and go but the stability of the government to the state is what is important.
Insatiable;13944 said:
Then you will understand that the new global language is (for better or for worse) English. It doesn't matter that there are more Mandarin and perhaps Spanish speakers. More people are studying English as a second language than any other language. The connection between this phenomenon and American economic dominance is utterly palpable.
There are flaws in latin-based languages and the same goes for most other langauges as well. So how does England benefit from all this? America doesn't speak Americanese.
Insatiable;13944 said:
English is the most popular second language to study in China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and a whole host of other countries. No other country's language is as popular to study as English.
You are still in denial my friend; when will you come to accept fact for what it is?
Go to a website that is not English such as Korean or Chinese. They will write about themselves in their own native language and write about America in their own native language. Text, grammar and perspectives are different.
Insatiable;13944 said:
In whatever manner you define the fashionability or popularity of a language ("4 + 0", "2 + 2", etc.), the end result will be that English is the most popular second language to study in the world ("4").
I wish others would join in and let us know what they think so they could do some adding and subtracting of their own. I wanna know what others think!
Participate in a forum that is not English. Perhaps a University in Japan or Germany and see what they think.
You are missing my point be comparing a little leaguer to an NHL star. A left-handed hockey player vs. a right-handed hockey player would be an example of the hard power and soft power analogy. The side with the most is not better in all aspects. There are weaknesses which can be exposed and if correctly strickened, all strengths of the advesary will be paralyzed.
Don't think of skill sets as being on the same level. The disparity in the economies of some countries is worlds apart. It hence makes no sense to say that two economies are like two NHL hockey players because of the sheer difference in the size of the economies. Think of it like this: a moderate NHL player can school a moderate little leaguer left, right, and centre!
In the case of world economies, more is always better. World economics does not resemble video games (where there are "weaknesses which can be exposed"). The more money you have (relatively and absolutely), the better your economy is plain and simple.
中国男人;13946 said:
Not as stark as you may think. Being the top team in the NHL doesn't mean you will win the Stanley Cup.
Being the best NHL team will guarantee that you can beat a mediocre team from some jack-shit league nine out of ten times, I assure you. That is likely a resemblance in the difference of economic strenght of some countries. Stop thinking that everyone is in the same league or within the same skill level. After all, not every nation is a G8 nation; some nations just didn't make the cut due either to their small size or small significance.
中国男人;13946 said:
Well if the entire theory is bullocks to you then stop debating about it. As you say, soft power arises as a result of hard power and not the other way around. Why can it not? Having a fundamental soft power foundation can lead to a good development of hard power. Now you are contradicting yourself by stating, "the US has more of both because it has more hard power". There are only certain moments when a nation has more of both hard and soft power.
I do not debate, I scrutinize and criticize. I so so to save people like you from accepting theories that don't hold water (such as this one). Just because the guy making it up is some Ivy Leaguer schmuck with a PhD, doesn't mean that everythig he says is gospel. When you first regurgitated his theory on this thread (I belive it was your first post on this thread) I made it incumbent on myself to expose this theory's flaws and absurdities. Namely, that what he calls hard and soft power are not equal and that the former engenders the latter and never vice versa.
中国男人;13946 said:
There are many ideas and technologies that did not originate in America or was developed in the English language. There are other nations besides the US who are just as brilliant and innovative than those yankees. American culture and economic dominance will fade but yes, presently they are the sole superpower.
True, there are such technologies. America has only been around as a nation for not more than 230 (231 soon) years. But look at the progress the country has made since then. I am not pro-American by any measure, but for better or for worse, America seems to serve as a beacon which most other countries seek to be in terms of economy. Some are closer (such as our nation) and some still have a long way to go (Mexico for example)
中国男人;13946 said:
Why don't you go tell the schmuck to re-evaluate his theory. I'm sure many others will agree or disagree with you. All countries are capable of economic santions such as banning beef. Diplomacy is a function of foreign affairs that all nations have. Hence diplomacy started way before the US existed.
I'm sure that all countries are capable of diplomacy and have this function. However, not every country will have the same amount of diplomatic clout. America or China will certainly have more influence than, say, Honduras, Estonia or Armenia. That's just the way life is, we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. Whether you agree with this or not, this fact is here to stay.
中国男人;13946 said:
A vast majority of countries were against the war. This coalition of the willing was just a lie to hide the true intentions of the war. Bribery in diplomacy is the game that is played amongst nations whether it be financially or some other means. The US broke a security council resolution agreed by all members. The UN's legitimacy was at stake. The term, "go it alone" was a phrase that meant the US was above the law when the law did not suit them.
It was a lie, but a good one at that. Look at how many nations enlisted. That's soft power for you. How many countries support China in its claim to Taiwan?
中国男人;13946 said:
Afghanistan is another situation that should be seperated from Iraq. The two are not related.
In the end, the two invasions owe their inceptions to the same thing.
中国男人;13946 said:
Nobel Laureates are awards to individuals for their work. This also applies to the acadamy awards. China has developed their own awards system for their entertainment industry and presumably their scientific community as well. If this applies to soft power, it remains to be documented and seen.
Then why is it that the American Academy Awards are watched in almost every part of the world and that most presumably countries have not even heard of a Chinese equivalent? That's America's soft power once again at work . . . . .
中国男人;13946 said:
Though the vassal status of Cuba to the USSR made that country a potential weapon. (ie. Cuban Missile Crisis)
The USSR was subsidizing Cuba at the time. Right now, Cuba is absolutely nothing--devoid of a meaning and without consequence. The only thing the country has going for it is its tourism industry and Cuban cigars--whaaaaaaaaat aaaaa waaaaaay to boost the economy!!!
中国男人;13946 said:
Leaders and parties will come and go but the stability of the government to the state is what is important.
Sure, but that doesn't change the current situation, does it?
中国男人;13946 said:
There are flaws in latin-based languages and the same goes for most other langauges as well. So how does England benefit from all this? America doesn't speak Americanese.
No language has "flaws". You should note that probably 90% out of the international students studying English as a second language are studying the American and not British variant of the language. Again, America's soft power stretches its tentacles far and wide . . . . .
中国男人;13946 said:
Go to a website that is not English such as Korean or Chinese. They will write about themselves in their own native language and write about America in their own native language. Text, grammar and perspectives are different.
This will not change the fact that America has the most dominant economy and that English is the most popular language in the world to study. These facts remain independent of what anyone says.
中国男人;13946 said:
Participate in a forum that is not English. Perhaps a University in Japan or Germany and see what they think.
It would be interesting for our debate to be translated into another language. I too am curious as to what others will think :wink:
Don't think of skill sets as being on the same level. The disparity in the economies of some countries is worlds apart. It hence makes no sense to say that two economies are like two NHL hockey players because of the sheer difference in the size of the economies. Think of it like this: a moderate NHL player can school a moderate little leaguer left, right, and centre!
The disparity of some countries are very similar such as Britain, France and Germany. They are the starting lineup hockey players of any winning team and their team be it the EU. My perspective is this: Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky can play on opposing teams in the NHL but can play on the same team in the Winter Olympics for Gold.
Insatiable;13960 said:
In the case of world economies, more is always better. World economics does not resemble video games (where there are "weaknesses which can be exposed"). The more money you have (relatively and absolutely), the better your economy is plain and simple.
The reference of World Economics to video games is flawed. Issuing more currency in terms of money does not mean the economy is better. The money will end up being fiat money which is useless.
Insatiable;13960 said:
Being the best NHL team will guarantee that you can beat a mediocre team from some jack-shit league nine out of ten times, I assure you. That is likely a resemblance in the difference of economic strenght of some countries. Stop thinking that everyone is in the same league or within the same skill level. After all, not every nation is a G8 nation; some nations just didn't make the cut due either to their small size or small significance.
There is not guarentee the best team will beat a mediocre team. Ever heard of the under-dawg? You are thinking same league, same level, not me. I am referring to the hard power, soft power concept. Oh, bring on the G8 nations. It's a club by invitation only. Not long ago was it called the G7 and now it may transform into the G20 nations.
Insatiable;13960 said:
I do not debate, I scrutinize and criticize. I so so to save people like you from accepting theories that don't hold water (such as this one). Just because the guy making it up is some Ivy Leaguer schmuck with a PhD, doesn't mean that everythig he says is gospel. When you first regurgitated his theory on this thread (I belive it was your first post on this thread) I made it incumbent on myself to expose this theory's flaws and absurdities. Namely, that what he calls hard and soft power are not equal and that the former engenders the latter and never vice versa.
Go save some other schmuck because I don't believe in your Christian Gospel God. His credentials of a PhD from any Ivy League is more trustworthy than an undergraduate from SFU. Scrutnize, criticize, exposing flaws and absurdities sounds like some sort of "man-makeup" person.
Insatiable;13960 said:
True, there are such technologies. America has only been around as a nation for not more than 230 (231 soon) years. But look at the progress the country has made since then. I am not pro-American by any measure, but for better or for worse, America seems to serve as a beacon which most other countries seek to be in terms of economy. Some are closer (such as our nation) and some still have a long way to go (Mexico for example)
America has been around for over 4000 years and I tell you that the current inhabitants don't have their ancestotrial roots on this continent. The progress the US has made by slaughtering the indigenous people for whose better and for whose worst.
Insatiable;13960 said:
I'm sure that all countries are capable of diplomacy and have this function. However, not every country will have the same amount of diplomatic clout. America or China will certainly have more influence than, say, Honduras, Estonia or Armenia. That's just the way life is, we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. Whether you agree with this or not, this fact is here to stay.
Equal in some aspects but different roles in others.
Insatiable;13960 said:
It was a lie, but a good one at that. Look at how many nations enlisted. That's soft power for you. How many countries support China in its claim to Taiwan?
Yeah, but how many nations regretted their enlistment now that the "state of denial" tells all the truths. More than 85% of the UN member nations support the One-China policy. The Taiwan question will be resolved with an apparatus similar to the "one country-two systems" method. Take for example of Hong Kong 香港, it will soon be 10 years that 香港 has reverted back to China's authority from Britain. Many 香港 people that have immigrated to Canada are now moving back to 香港 because of economic prosperity and the Basic Law that will be in palce for the next 40 years. This is an example that awaits for Taiwan.
Insatiable;13960 said:
In the end, the two invasions owe their inceptions to the same thing.
The Us had the right to invade Afghanistan but wrong to attack Iraq.
Insatiable;13960 said:
Then why is it that the American Academy Awards are watched in almost every part of the world and that most presumably countries have not even heard of a Chinese equivalent? That's America's soft power once again at work . . . . .
No debate there.
Insatiable;13960 said:
The USSR was subsidizing Cuba at the time. Right now, Cuba is absolutely nothing--devoid of a meaning and without consequence. The only thing the country has going for it is its tourism industry and Cuban cigars--whaaaaaaaaat aaaaa waaaaaay to boost the economy!!!
Do not describe a country that you have not been to. You would be surprised. The island itself has the potential to house a few ICBMs that could reach all of North America. That is some good real estate.
Insatiable;13960 said:
No language has "flaws". You should note that probably 90% out of the international students studying English as a second language are studying the American and not British variant of the language. Again, America's soft power stretches its tentacles far and wide . . . . .
This will not change the fact that America has the most dominant economy and that English is the most popular language in the world to study. These facts remain independent of what anyone says.
Why don't you go live in the US if you are so pro-American even though you say you are not.
Insatiable;13960 said:
It would be interesting for our debate to be translated into another language. I too am curious as to what others will think :wink:
The disparity of some countries are very similar such as Britain, France and Germany. They are the starting lineup hockey players of any winning team and their team be it the EU. My perspective is this: Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky can play on opposing teams in the NHL but can play on the same team in the Winter Olympics for Gold.
OK, but take China or any single EU country and compare its economy with the US's; how vast is the disparity in terms of absolute size? Hence it makes no sense to compare Lemieux with Gretzky because of the proximity in skill level. Take one of those players and put them up against a little leaguer. The NHLer will truly dominate at least 90% of the time. The disparity in skill levels is reflective in the disparity in economies between the US and any single country (for now).
中国男人;13961 said:
The reference of World Economics to video games is flawed. Issuing more currency in terms of money does not mean the economy is better. The money will end up being fiat money which is useless.
Give me more credit than that :omg:
Please excuse me for not clearing this up in my post, but I was referring to a country's GDP when I said "most money". And it's true--the bigger your GDP is, the stronger your economy (in absolute terms at least).
中国男人;13961 said:
There is not guarentee the best team will beat a mediocre team. Ever heard of the under-dawg? You are thinking same league, same level, not me. I am referring to the hard power, soft power concept. Oh, bring on the G8 nations. It's a club by invitation only. Not long ago was it called the G7 and now it may transform into the G20 nations.
Purely invitational? Economy and absolute power have nothing to do with it?
In my opinion, however, the G7 is more appropriate (G7 was without Russia). Given the disorder going on in Russia now, it does not deserve to be in the same forum as all those other much more stable countries.
中国男人;13961 said:
Go save some other schmuck because I don't believe in your Christian Gospel God. His credentials of a PhD from any Ivy League is more trustworthy than an undergraduate from SFU. Scrutnize, criticize, exposing flaws and absurdities sounds like some sort of "man-makeup" person.
You know, I could say something here, but you attacking me personally is quite indicative of your ability to argue. I never said anything bad about you personally (and if you took offence at some of my points, I sincerely apologize). All that I ask is that you address my arguments rather than make personal attacks against me. I may have exaggerated about Nye, but I was making a point: personal status and academic credibility mean absolutely nothing if what the individual says is nonsense. Nonsense remains nonsense irrespective of whose mouth it comes out of.
中国男人;13961 said:
America has been around for over 4000 years and I tell you that the current inhabitants don't have their ancestotrial roots on this continent. The progress the US has made by slaughtering the indigenous people for whose better and for whose worst.
No country's history is without blood. China is not so perfect; Russia is certainly not; neither is the UK, France, Germany, Japan or any other nation (civilized or not). And if you read what I wrote, I never said that American progress is a good thing; I merely say that it exists. Again, I made factual statements, not normative ones.
中国男人;13961 said:
Yeah, but how many nations regretted their enlistment now that the "state of denial" tells all the truths. More than 85% of the UN member nations support the One-China policy. The Taiwan question will be resolved with an apparatus similar to the "one country-two systems" method. Take for example of Hong Kong 香港, it will soon be 10 years that 香港 has reverted back to China's authority from Britain. Many 香港 people that have immigrated to Canada are now moving back to 香港 because of economic prosperity and the Basic Law that will be in palce for the next 40 years. This is an example that awaits for Taiwan.
If the percentage is really that high, then I admit that am wrong about Taiwan and that you are right: pwerhaps a one-China solution is best if it is supported by most other countries. And by the way, the Chinese characters in your name and the above quote are coming out as squares on my computer.
中国男人;13961 said:
The Us had the right to invade Afghanistan but wrong to attack Iraq.
In Afghanistan, go one hundred kilometres in any direction from Kabul and you'll see that neither the US nor Canada has achieved anything. Everything is as it was before.
Whether or not the US in its own mind had the right to invade is different than whether the US had the right to invade on a higher, moral level.
中国男人;13961 said:
Do not describe a country that you have not been to. You would be surprised. The island itself has the potential to house a few ICBMs that could reach all of North America. That is some good real estate.
The country's GDP is a meagre $40-something billion. Fairly meaningless at this point. Don't know what will happen in the future, but who do you think will give the Cubans nukes? It certainly won't be the Cubans themselves. One does not need a PhD in international relations or even visit the country to realize this.
中国男人;13961 said:
Why don't you go live in the US if you are so pro-American even though you say you are not.
I'm not pro-American; heck, I've never even been once to the country. I'm merely someone who has accepted facts for what they are. I never said that American dominance is a good thing (read all of my posts) and I never even called you pro-Chinese (even though I would be justified in doing so given your Sinocentric position). Just because the US is the world's most powerful country does not mean I embrace this fact with enthusiasm.
If you--or anyone for that matter--have finished reading this post, then do the following: I have stated why America is the most powerful nation in the world and how this leads to the prevalence of its culture, language, and even its economic model. As a result, because of its sheer economic strength, the country is also able to be influential in what is called "soft power" (i.e. indirectly). Yet it appears that America's indirect ability to influence is only a result of its direct economic power. If you disagree with me, show me a negative case; if you think China has more soft power (which you claimed it does), please show me how this is so.
OK, but take China or any single EU country and compare its economy with the US's; how vast is the disparity in terms of absolute size? Hence it makes no sense to compare Lemieux with Gretzky because of the proximity in skill level. Take one of those players and put them up against a little leaguer. The NHLer will truly dominate at least 90% of the time. The disparity in skill levels is reflective in the disparity in economies between the US and any single country (for now).
Who wants to watch Lemieux or Gretzky play against a little leaguer? I for one sure don't find it entertaining. It makes sense to compare the skill level of Lemieux to Gretzky because that is what makes hockey so great. If you are to refer China as a little leaguer than there would be no point in having this debate and I wouldn't be here.
Insatiable;13965 said:
Give me more credit than that :omg:
Credit for what?!
Insatiable;13965 said:
Please excuse me for not clearing this up in my post, but I was referring to a country's GDP when I said "most money". And it's true--the bigger your GDP is, the stronger your economy (in absolute terms at least).
You comparison of GDP and money did not make any sense to me. I agree with the latter statement.
Insatiable;13965 said:
Purely invitational? Economy and absolute power have nothing to do with it?
In my opinion, however, the G7 is more appropriate (G7 was without Russia). Given the disorder going on in Russia now, it does not deserve to be in the same forum as all those other much more stable countries.
Russia's economy wasn't so good when they accepted the invitation to join the G7 nations. That's your opinion about Russia and the other G7 leaders would think otherwise.
Insatiable;13965 said:
You know, I could say something here, but you attacking me personally is quite indicative of your ability to argue. I never said anything bad about you personally (and if you took offence at some of my points, I sincerely apologize). All that I ask is that you address my arguments rather than make personal attacks against me. I may have exaggerated about Nye, but I was making a point: personal status and academic credibility mean absolutely nothing if what the individual says is nonsense. Nonsense remains nonsense irrespective of whose mouth it comes out of.
Offend me? Attack you personally? What the hell are you talking about? You offered your salvation and I declined it. You didn't like the PhD's theory and I said I trusted it. I assume now you are girl then because I did not know of it.
Insatiable;13965 said:
No country's history is without blood. China is not so perfect; Russia is certainly not; neither is the UK, France, Germany, Japan or any other nation (civilized or not). And if you read what I wrote, I never said that American progress is a good thing; I merely say that it exists. Again, I made factual statements, not normative ones.
Yeah, the blood of another civilization or should I say an entire ethnic race. China, Japan and Russia plus the European countries clashed with blood but you know what. The land they occupy is still administered by those nations. A reserve is what's left of the native lands while the colonialist exploit the resources everywhere else.
Insatiable;13965 said:
If the percentage is really that high, then I admit that am wrong about Taiwan and that you are right: pwerhaps a one-China solution is best if it is supported by most other countries. And by the way, the Chinese characters in your name and the above quote are coming out as squares on my computer.
The pronounciation and meaning of those Chinese characters are not important in this debate anyways.
Insatiable;13965 said:
In Afghanistan, go one hundred kilometres in any direction from Kabul and you'll see that neither the US nor Canada has achieved anything. Everything is as it was before.
Whether or not the US in its own mind had the right to invade is different than whether the US had the right to invade on a higher, moral level.
There ain't no Taliban and the Al-Qaeda network no longer exist in Afghanistan. The moral, ethcial mind of the US didn't agree with minds of others on Iraq but agreed with Afghanistan.
Insatiable;13965 said:
The country's GDP is a meagre $40-something billion. Fairly meaningless at this point. Don't know what will happen in the future, but who do you think will give the Cubans nukes? It certainly won't be the Cubans themselves. One does not need a PhD in international relations or even visit the country to realize this.
Maybe some Salsa dancing, a visit to a school, or tour of their medical facilities will make you realize that GDP ain't everything. Yes, I know what will happen to Cuba in the future and they'll be receiving more than nukes.
Insatiable;13965 said:
I'm not pro-American; heck, I've never even been once to the country. I'm merely someone who has accepted facts for what they are. I never said that American dominance is a good thing (read all of my posts) and I never even called you pro-Chinese (even though I would be justified in doing so given your Sinocentric position). Just because the US is the world's most powerful country does not mean I embrace this fact with enthusiasm.
You've never been around the world enough to debate.
Insatiable;13965 said:
If you--or anyone for that matter--have finished reading this post, then do the following: I have stated why America is the most powerful nation in the world and how this leads to the prevalence of its culture, language, and even its economic model. As a result, because of its sheer economic strength, the country is also able to be influential in what is called "soft power" (i.e. indirectly). Yet it appears that America's indirect ability to influence is only a result of its direct economic power. If you disagree with me, show me a negative case; if you think China has more soft power (which you claimed it does), please show me how this is so.
The United States of America is currently the most powerful nation but trailing them closely is the People's Republic of China. Both have strengths and weaknesses in hard and soft power. I have gone to both countries. Have you?
Who wants to watch Lemieux or Gretzky play against a little leaguer? I for one sure don't find it entertaining. It makes sense to compare the skill level of Lemieux to Gretzky because that is what makes hockey so great. If you are to refer China as a little leaguer than there would be no point in having this debate and I wouldn't be here.
Credit for what?!
You comparison of GDP and money did not make any sense to me. I agree with the latter statement.
Russia's economy wasn't so good when they accepted the invitation to join the G7 nations. That's your opinion about Russia and the other G7 leaders would think otherwise.
Offend me? Attack you personally? What the hell are you talking about? You offered your salvation and I declined it. You didn't like the PhD's theory and I said I trusted it. I assume now you are girl then because I did not know of it.
Yeah, the blood of another civilization or should I say an entire ethnic race. China, Japan and Russia plus the European countries clashed with blood but you know what. The land they occupy is still administered by those nations. A reserve is what's left of the native lands while the colonialist exploit the resources everywhere else.
The pronounciation and meaning of those Chinese characters are not important in this debate anyways.
There ain't no Taliban and the Al-Qaeda network no longer exist in Afghanistan. The moral, ethcial mind of the US didn't agree with minds of others on Iraq but agreed with Afghanistan.
Maybe some Salsa dancing, a visit to a school, or tour of their medical facilities will make you realize that GDP ain't everything. Yes, I know what will happen to Cuba in the future and they'll be receiving more than nukes.
You've never been around the world enough to debate.
The United States of America is currently the most powerful nation but trailing them closely is the People's Republic of China. Both have strengths and weaknesses in hard and soft power. I have gone to both countries. Have you?
Without further ado, analogies, or perverted conceptions of “salvation”, I prefer that you back up what you say with examples. My position is this: the US has more hard power than any country. As a direct result, it has more soft power than any country. I have provided examples, but me reiterate:
-That the English language is by far the most popular to study is a direct result of America's economic dominance. I bet there are more non-English-speaking students studying English in the US than there are English-speaking students studying anywhere.
-American culture is ubiquitous. Can countries like China, Japan or Germany claim the same about their cultures? I don't think so. This is again a direct result of America's economic dominance. The country produces more of everything and extends its far-reaching tentacles even to the most uncivilized nations. Can any other country brag that it has accomplished anything similar.
-American forms of entertainment are shown everywhere. That is, shows, music, movies, and everything else is predominantly American. America has the biggest economy therefore it produces the most entertainment.
-America's constitution is unlike any other country's. There are many contentious points of course (“the right to bear arms”), yet it serves as a beacon and a barometer for determining the extent to which a country has human rights and civil liberties.
-America has produced more ideas than any other country. The ideas a nation produces are an indicator of a nation's soft power. Again, it does not take a genius to figure out that this stems from America's economic dominance.
-America's economic model has served as a template for many developing nations. I admit, their system is not perfect and not as free as the economic models of other countries (e.g. Hong Kong or Singapore) yet its economy strikes an exceptional balance between freedom and sufficient regulation to keep basic economic elements intact (e.g. limitations on trade secrets prevent monopolies and stimulate the market in such a way so as to increase the overall quality of a given product). Again, the fact that America is dominant economically allows its model to serve as the template for many developing countries. Arguably, even our own nation is slowly moving towards the American model.
That's all I can think of for now, but here is why I brought up these examples. These examples all illustrate one thing above others: that soft power is a direct result of hard power and not vice versa. The theory claims that the two are somehow equal in their effectiveness for a nation, yet my points clearly illustrate that soft power comes from hard power; the amount of soft power comes from how much hard power a country maintains. Hence, the flaw of the theory is that it equates the effectiveness of soft power with the effectiveness of hard power; yet the above clearly shows that soft power is inferior to hard power by virtue of hard power being the necessary condition for soft power.
If you disagree with me, please I urge you to bring forth examples that either refute my criticism of the theory or support that any country has more soft power than America (you said that China has more soft power, please elaborate on this). Do not retreat to saying that I'm relying on Western sources, or that you can be certain that something will happen (you mentioned earlier that the “Japanese and Koreans will eventually be speaking Chinese”--an overly bold and unfounded statement), or that I should not have an opinion about a country I've never been to (does visiting a country automatically give one more legitimacy when discussing that country's economy? Should I shut up about America simply because I haven't been there? How does visiting a country give you more right to speak about that country's economic orientation?).
Without further ado, analogies, or perverted conceptions of “salvation”, I prefer that you back up what you say with examples. My position is this: the US has more hard power than any country. As a direct result, it has more soft power than any country. I have provided examples, but me reiterate:
-That the English language is by far the most popular to study is a direct result of America's economic dominance. I bet there are more non-English-speaking students studying English in the US than there are English-speaking students studying anywhere.
-American culture is ubiquitous. Can countries like China, Japan or Germany claim the same about their cultures? I don't think so. This is again a direct result of America's economic dominance. The country produces more of everything and extends its far-reaching tentacles even to the most uncivilized nations. Can any other country brag that it has accomplished anything similar.
-American forms of entertainment are shown everywhere. That is, shows, music, movies, and everything else is predominantly American. America has the biggest economy therefore it produces the most entertainment.
-America's constitution is unlike any other country's. There are many contentious points of course (“the right to bear arms”), yet it serves as a beacon and a barometer for determining the extent to which a country has human rights and civil liberties.
-America has produced more ideas than any other country. The ideas a nation produces are an indicator of a nation's soft power. Again, it does not take a genius to figure out that this stems from America's economic dominance.
-America's economic model has served as a template for many developing nations. I admit, their system is not perfect and not as free as the economic models of other countries (e.g. Hong Kong or Singapore) yet its economy strikes an exceptional balance between freedom and sufficient regulation to keep basic economic elements intact (e.g. limitations on trade secrets prevent monopolies and stimulate the market in such a way so as to increase the overall quality of a given product). Again, the fact that America is dominant economically allows its model to serve as the template for many developing countries. Arguably, even our own nation is slowly moving towards the American model.
That's all I can think of for now, but here is why I brought up these examples. These examples all illustrate one thing above others: that soft power is a direct result of hard power and not vice versa. The theory claims that the two are somehow equal in their effectiveness for a nation, yet my points clearly illustrate that soft power comes from hard power; the amount of soft power comes from how much hard power a country maintains. Hence, the flaw of the theory is that it equates the effectiveness of soft power with the effectiveness of hard power; yet the above clearly shows that soft power is inferior to hard power by virtue of hard power being the necessary condition for soft power.
If you disagree with me, please I urge you to bring forth examples that either refute my criticism of the theory or support that any country has more soft power than America (you said that China has more soft power, please elaborate on this). Do not retreat to saying that I'm relying on Western sources, or that you can be certain that something will happen (you mentioned earlier that the “Japanese and Koreans will eventually be speaking Chinese”--an overly bold and unfounded statement), or that I should not have an opinion about a country I've never been to (does visiting a country automatically give one more legitimacy when discussing that country's economy? Should I shut up about America simply because I haven't been there? How does visiting a country give you more right to speak about that country's economic orientation?).
Oh! So you leave the debate for a week and then return, eh?! Well you'll have to wait for my one week break for a proper response.
Comments
Be a bit more specific regarding what sort of power and in what sort of context.
Sure it makes sense, the great become bad and hence become corrupted :wink:
For example, is a rich person more powerful than a poor person? Or is it based on things like strength of will, kindness, strength, or something else?
I guess it's hard to come to a universal definition of "power", but whatever it is, power is not destiny when it comes to determining someone's significance.
Certain political leaders are powerful yet despised. Particular celebrities are rich and hence somewhat powerful but are excoriated or even ridiculed.
In my opinion, however, true power is something that is not based on one's resources or monetary worth; it is based on deeds that emanate from deeply held principles which are in turn based on universally acceptable notions such as peace, equality, or human welfare.
Gandhi's principles of nonviolence and peaceful resistance can in my opinion be called powerful despite their utter simplicity and apparent submissiveness.
A shift in power between nations such as China and the United States increases the chance of economic, cyber, military and diplomatic warfare. Therefore it's best that both superpowers make an ease in the inevitable transition of power.
The statement that China has more soft power than the US is problematic. It is true that China has far more history than the US, but time alone is by far not the sole criterion for determining whether a country has soft power. Take for example the American language (i.e. English is the by far the most popular language to learn in the world) and culture being the most popular in the world. I guarantee you that America has influenced China more so than China has influenced America; the same with America and any other country.
If you still don't believe me, look at China's economy. China is ideally a socialist state but one that is making the transition to a capitalist one. In fact, China has the second largest GDP only after America. In my opinion, this is what makes China a superpower, not all the history that lies behind it. Could it be that America has influenced the Chinese economic system to the extent of shifting it to a more capitalistic one (whether directly or indirectly)?
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that hard power dictates soft power but never the other way around. It can be aruged that China should be thankful to America for being a superpower: after all, there would be no Chinese sweat shops if there was no American demand for cheap modes of production.
You should take note of this: China has more hard power than it is credited as while America probably has more soft power than any other country because it has more hard power. Perhaps China may surpass America some day, but I doubt this will happen during my lifetime. However, the hard power/soft power distinguishment is in no way a distinguishment; rather, hard power is more of a precondition to soft power and more by far more important overall. As such, soft power if more of a measure for how much hard power a country has.
In the end, don't take any of this personally--I am only making a factual statement and not a normative one.
Further, though more there are probably more Chinese speakers than English ones, the language is spoken in only in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. English maintains official status in seventy-one countries! There is also the issue of the Chinese actually being a set of dialects (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, etc.) and hence not an actual language.
None of this matters, however, because there are by far more students learning the English language than any other in the world. And what does the Chinese writing system have to do with how influential the language is?
Please take note that I am not making a normative statement but merely a factual one. I believe China emerging as a socialisit state was the direct result of revolution and civil war, or am I wrong? China becoming a capitalist state has more to do with the American demand for cheaper and efficient means of production. Economic systems might have changed, but I believe they have always been dictated to a certain extent by rational self-interest. The economic systems that do not jibe well with rational self-interest become impractical (take for example communism and how it's practically illogical for it to exist given humans' greedy and self-interested motivations). America's economy seems to be one of the first and certainly the largest to take rational self-interest into account and accommodate it.
Marco Polo gained fame for his exploits not for his economic insight. Even if China had a better economy than Europe at some point (presumably during the 13th and 14th centuries), that is irrelevant. The EU has a higher GDP than China right now. Point taken about nations rising and falling. However, hardware is far more important than software in this case. To take your computer analogy further--you can have a functional computer without Microsoft Office but you cannot have Microsoft Office without a functional computer. Surely the performance of Mircosoft Office will depend on your computer's speed, RAM, and hard drive. Certainly hardware is more important; certainly hard power takes precedence over soft power; certainly a country's economic strength will dictate the dominance of its culture. Then perhaps you and I should have this debate again in fifty years or so. For now it is clear that America leads in hard power and soft power as a direct result of that. And even if China does supersede America, its soft power would have almost nothing to do with it. My point would hence be proven: hard power matters overwhelmingly more than soft power.
Yet you forget their is a minority of French and Spanish speakers in the Americas. The economic dominance of the United States has never been prevalent during the past century. The economy of the US is attributed to multiple contributions of european financial theory whether it be from England France, Germany or Spain. Mandarin is the offical spoken language as well as it's grammar. However, the written text is universal among all those regions you've named including Japan, Korea and Vietnam. English is maintained in seventy-one small countries which were conquered by their colonial UK masters just as the Cree, Inuit, Blackfoot, Iroquois and Sioux have. Students are learning English language out of the many other latin based languages. Chinese will dominate the Korean and Japanese writing systems in time. How the world will be influenced by either langauge, only time will tell. There will be other regions around the world that will demand Chinese goods in which China can supply; all else being equal. The economy of the former Soviet Union was impractical which lead to it's dissolution. The communist political system of the past has transformed to a socialist system of today. I find most of communist political methodology logical and others not so logical. To name another, Napolean Bonaparte was famously quoted, "Quand le Chine s'eveillera, le monde tremblera." The European Union is in shambles as of right now. They cannot even agree on a common constitution nor can their military aparatus function as a single entity. This union of Europe is far from being a union with disparate languages conflicting and two former cold war adversaries vying for Europe's interest. When I meant software, I was referring to the type of operating system. You cannot run Windows Vista on a 386 or utilize a Core 2 Duo using DOS. The hard power of a country's economic strength cannot be lead without a good soft power government. I disagree. Perhaps a few other observers on this forum should have their say since two opinions is insufficient.
Are you serious? The US won the Cold War because of its economic dominance; the US was the first to invent the atomic bomb because of its economic dominance; heck, the US was on the winning side during World War II probably because of its economic dominance. The US has even produced the greatest number of Nobel laureates than any other country. Still confused about who's got more soft power?
The US economy may have been influenced by those of certain European nations but the US quickly superseded these economies. American capitalism is like no other: more freedom in economic decision-making and less government regulation than almost any European nation. The US also has the most stable government in the world (only two dominant parties that almost resemble one another) and very firm property-rights. No European country (or any country for that matter) has these elements in place.
You also have to consider that the US is by far richer than Europe in terms of resource, this in large part had to do with the US surpassing Europe and becoming the world's dominant economy. Point taken about 19th-century Briatain subjugating every claimable piece of land in the world. Though I would hardly call the US and Canada "small" countries. The Spanish did perhaps as much colonizing as the English, yet the Spanish language is nowhere nearly as popular as English in terms of studying as a second language.
Further, it is undisputable that there are more students from Asia (whether it's China, Japan or Korea) studying English than there are North American students studying a Chinese language. This simply cannot be because of seventy-one small countries. See, it's not just non-English-speaking Europeans who study English but many Asian nations as well. I think the nexus between US economic dominance and the popularity of the English language is clear.
And how can you say that "in time" Chinese will dominate the Korean and Japanese writing systems? If you're still confused, have a look here: http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/weber/rep-weber.htm
As I said before, China has the US to thank for its economic acceleration. Witout the American demand for Chinese goods, China's economy would not as great as it is today. The fact remains that the EU's collective economy is right now larger than China's. Further, your claims about the EU's shambing are exaggerated. They may be different countries, but they are all working towards the same goal. Further, every country is arguably "in shambles", you just have to look hard enough: the US's deficit, the Chinese one-child policy causing an unhealthy decline in the population, the lack of a European constitution, etc. All computers capable of supporting Vista have to be extremely powerful (let's say at least P4s). Therefore, a powerful computer will automatically have a modern operating system. As such, it would make sense that the US (being a powerful computer) must have a lot of soft power because of its hard power (it must necessarily have a modern operating system). The two appear to correspond, so it appears you cannot have an instance of a lot of hard power and no soft power. Yet to me it seems that software evolves because of hardware, not the other way around. China has (at least for now) less hard power and as a result less soft power; the US has more hard power and hence more soft power. The hard/soft dichotomy is more a matter of a particular condition and a measure by which to gauge a country's economic influence. The more powerful a country is economically, the more influential it is not just economically but culturally and even in terms of ideas.
In essence, military and economic power will automatically mean the country will have a lot of soft power. It only takes two to argue, but what does everyone else think?
You have claimed before that China has more soft power than the US and that hard and soft power are equal and must be in tandem--this is contradictory. If you declare that China has more soft power, then it must have more hard power (after all, they must be in tandem); yet you admitted that the US has more hard power! If you state that hard and soft powers must be in tandem, then you must accept that either the US has more hard and soft power or that China has more hard and soft power; either way, the contradiction is apparent. I will admit that I overlooked the Great Depression, but the fact still stands that before and after the war the US had the biggest economy in the world (rivalled perhaps by Germany before and the USSR after)
Of course the wartime atmosphere caused the acceleration of the development of nuclear technologies, but do you really think it was only the US who was trying to develop the atomic bomb? USSR developed its nuclear bomb shortly after the US and the UK followed soon thereafter. How can you say that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with economic dominance when only only the select few nations (only the most powerful ones) could afford to have the atomic bomb at that time?
Sure the number of laureates is indicative of a country's soft power. Part of soft power includes the ideas of a nation. The Nobel Prize recognizes ideas, if anything, and hence is somewhat demonstrative that a country has soft power. Or am I mistaken?
And yes, the USSR was extremely powerful (there would have been no Cold War if it wasn't), but in a whole different sense than the US. The USSR's economy was based largely on its vast supply of resources and land. The US, however, had better ideas and technologies overall. I guess the USSR was on the winning side because Russians don't surrender easily :wink: :tongue: The restrictions are there, if anything, to prevent monopolies. However many restrictions you feel it has, the US strikes the perfect balance between a regulated and a free economy. And yes, the US is far more stable than Canada: look at our parties the NDP, the Conservatives, and the Liberals each have agendas that take our nation to different directions. In the US, it ultimately won't matter whom you vote for there will always be one of two practically similar outcomes: Democrat or Republican. An interesting way to measure a nation's political stability is to look at the number of parties--fewer parties with similar agendas indicates greater stability. I don't think you understood me correctly. I said English is by far the most popular language to study as a second language in the world. Read what you quote :wink: Don't say that to anyone who is Korean or Japanese! Just because these nations use Chinese characters does not make them Chinese. The Vietnamese use Latin characters; central Asian nations use the Cyrillic; some non-Arab Middle Eastern nations use the Arabic script. That does not mean anything because every nation is singluar--having its own language, culture, and history.
And about the Koreans and Japanese "eventually" learning to speak Chinese, what do you mean? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#English_as_a_global_language
It seems likelier that the Koreans and the Japanese will speak English along with their native languages. Again, I guarantee you that this is all because of American dominance in the economic realm.
English is the most studied second language in the world--and this fact remains. It does not matter whether a fact comes from a Western or a non-Western source; it exists independent of our prejudices and preconceptions. If Osama bin Laden had said "2 + 2 = 4" or that "all triangles have 3 sides", would we be more apprehensive to accept these indubitable mathematical facts? Certainly not! When a claim is made and it is a fact, it does not matter who says it. True, and China can even be said to somewhat contribute to the American economy. Yet nowadays it appears as though the two nations are feeding off of each other! ASEAN as large as the EU? Are you serious? ASEAN's GDP is approximately 2.75 trillion whereas the EU's is over 14 trillion. The EU still has a much stronger economy collectively. Of course this does not change the fact that ASEAN is probably developing faster than the EU because developING nations grow faster than developED ones. However, there's no way you can compare them now. I so desperately wish it were such a discussion. I wanna hear what everyone else thinks :angry:
To win is to not surrender easily, eh? Russia and China are a single party government whose allegiance is to the communist party. I guess the political stability of these nations is greater since there are fewer parties and fewer agendas.
Microeconomic and Macroeconmic policies do require a balance to stimulate growth.
I understand what you wrote. There is a difference between a language that is spoken because of popularity and a language that is spoken because of it's high population.
Well Chinese may not be the correct word but another definition to represent China, Japan and Korea. The Vietnamese were once conquered by the French, that is why they use latin characters. Previously they used characters similar to the Chinese. This source is from an English perspective written in America, don't count on it if it is referring to China, Japan and Korea. It does matter where facts are from. Not every nation views facts the same way. If Osama bin Laden said "2 + 2 = 4", George Bush said "4 + 0 = 4", Saddam Hussein said "3 + 1 = 4" and Tony Blair said " 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4" would you still be apprehensive? The equations are not the same but they lead to the same answer. The factual answer can be made by many equational claims. I have nothing to add or subtract.
Similarly, the economic discrepancy between the US and China is so stark that the US has both better direct (hard power) and indirect (soft power) influence.
You and I, however, are going off on a bit of a tangent. Let's forget the analogies for a moment and get back to the main point: hard and soft power. You claim they are equally importnat and must correspond (like the original theory says). I claim that the entire theory is bollocks: to me soft power arises as a result of hard power and never the other way around. You said China has more soft power and the US has more hard; I say that the US has more of both because it has more hard power.
I've given several examples to corroborate this: these include (among many other things) the prevalence of the English language being studied as a second language throughout the world; the sheerly vast number of dominant ideas and technologies that are American; the ubiquitousness of the American culture above all others. The list goes on, yet all of this easily stems from the fact that the US is the most economically dominant country in the world. Who knows, if the Chinese surpass the Americans and with a bit of time, maybe China will have more hard and therefore soft power? Yet right now, this status goes to the US.
Hence, the schmuck (Joseph Nye) who came up with conceiving of hard power and soft power as a distinguishment ought to re-examine the part of his brain responsible for elementary cognitive functioning. They are not to be distinguished at all; rather hard power will lead to soft power and never the other way around. The US could simply execute economic sanctions on countries who do not agree with its policies. Name me one country who is as diplomatic as the US. American influence is so subtle, even you cannot see it. Ever hear of the Coalition of the Willing? An American-led force invading Iraq in 2003. Here is a map of nations who supported the US in its invasion of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG
Though the vast majority of the troops were American, these nations nonetheless did not protest America's invasion of Iraq. Could they perhaps have been influenced by America's soft power? Were they perhaps intimidated by America's vast economic strength that they almost had no choice by to participate?
Even Canada is making up for America's fuck-ups: look at what our troops are doing in Afghanistan! Canada is supposed to be a peacful, diplomatic, and tolerant country, yet here we are being pressured by the US to stay in Afghanistan. This does not change the fact that the UNSC were and remain the world's most powerful nations--economically and therefore militaristically. Elaborate this. True, the USSR did not live up to its potential. But as a country of such a vast--truly vast--size, it could afford not to. This is why a geographically small country (such as Cuba) will never achieve what the USSR has. Better for such countries to assume an Asian Tiger model than to fool around with a command economy. I guess so for the USSR in the second world war. The country could have easily surrendered and not have sustained the immense losses that it did. But since post 1900s Russia/USSR has never been blessed with a good leader, this did not happen. The idea during the war was death before dishonour. The USSR was the first socialist state in the world and perhaps the point was to show the world that a socialst state is able to survive. Current Russia isn't as unilateral as you think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma
just look at all those parties!
If you mean the USSR and China, then yes, I will bite the bullet and say that these countries were stable in the sense of being predictable. However, what I said applies more to countries where some degree of political freedom is permissible. Compare the US against any European nation and you will easily find that the US is more stable in the sense that I have defined. This is merely one of the many measures of political stability, excuse me for not clearing this up earlier. I won't argue with you on this one :wink: Then you will understand that the new global language is (for better or for worse) English. It doesn't matter that there are more Mandarin and perhaps Spanish speakers. More people are studying English as a second language than any other language. The connection between this phenomenon and American economic dominance is utterly palpable. English is the most popular second language to study in China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and a whole host of other countries. No other country's language is as popular to study as English. You are still in denial my friend; when will you come to accept fact for what it is? In whatever manner you define the fashionability or popularity of a language ("4 + 0", "2 + 2", etc.), the end result will be that English is the most popular second language to study in the world ("4"). I wish others would join in and let us know what they think so they could do some adding and subtracting of their own. I wanna know what others think!
A vast majority of countries were against the war. This coalition of the willing was just a lie to hide the true intentions of the war. Bribery in diplomacy is the game that is played amongst nations whether it be financially or some other means. The US broke a security council resolution agreed by all members. The UN's legitimacy was at stake. The term, "go it alone" was a phrase that meant the US was above the law when the law did not suit them. Afghanistan is another situation that should be seperated from Iraq. The two are not related.
Nobel Laureates are awards to individuals for their work. This also applies to the acadamy awards. China has developed their own awards system for their entertainment industry and presumably their scientific community as well. If this applies to soft power, it remains to be documented and seen.
Though the vassal status of Cuba to the USSR made that country a potential weapon. (ie. Cuban Missile Crisis)
Leaders and parties will come and go but the stability of the government to the state is what is important. There are flaws in latin-based languages and the same goes for most other langauges as well. So how does England benefit from all this? America doesn't speak Americanese. Go to a website that is not English such as Korean or Chinese. They will write about themselves in their own native language and write about America in their own native language. Text, grammar and perspectives are different. Participate in a forum that is not English. Perhaps a University in Japan or Germany and see what they think.
In the case of world economies, more is always better. World economics does not resemble video games (where there are "weaknesses which can be exposed"). The more money you have (relatively and absolutely), the better your economy is plain and simple.
Being the best NHL team will guarantee that you can beat a mediocre team from some jack-shit league nine out of ten times, I assure you. That is likely a resemblance in the difference of economic strenght of some countries. Stop thinking that everyone is in the same league or within the same skill level. After all, not every nation is a G8 nation; some nations just didn't make the cut due either to their small size or small significance. I do not debate, I scrutinize and criticize. I so so to save people like you from accepting theories that don't hold water (such as this one). Just because the guy making it up is some Ivy Leaguer schmuck with a PhD, doesn't mean that everythig he says is gospel. When you first regurgitated his theory on this thread (I belive it was your first post on this thread) I made it incumbent on myself to expose this theory's flaws and absurdities. Namely, that what he calls hard and soft power are not equal and that the former engenders the latter and never vice versa. True, there are such technologies. America has only been around as a nation for not more than 230 (231 soon) years. But look at the progress the country has made since then. I am not pro-American by any measure, but for better or for worse, America seems to serve as a beacon which most other countries seek to be in terms of economy. Some are closer (such as our nation) and some still have a long way to go (Mexico for example) I'm sure that all countries are capable of diplomacy and have this function. However, not every country will have the same amount of diplomatic clout. America or China will certainly have more influence than, say, Honduras, Estonia or Armenia. That's just the way life is, we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. Whether you agree with this or not, this fact is here to stay. It was a lie, but a good one at that. Look at how many nations enlisted. That's soft power for you. How many countries support China in its claim to Taiwan? In the end, the two invasions owe their inceptions to the same thing. Then why is it that the American Academy Awards are watched in almost every part of the world and that most presumably countries have not even heard of a Chinese equivalent? That's America's soft power once again at work . . . . . The USSR was subsidizing Cuba at the time. Right now, Cuba is absolutely nothing--devoid of a meaning and without consequence. The only thing the country has going for it is its tourism industry and Cuban cigars--whaaaaaaaaat aaaaa waaaaaay to boost the economy!!! Sure, but that doesn't change the current situation, does it? No language has "flaws". You should note that probably 90% out of the international students studying English as a second language are studying the American and not British variant of the language. Again, America's soft power stretches its tentacles far and wide . . . . . This will not change the fact that America has the most dominant economy and that English is the most popular language in the world to study. These facts remain independent of what anyone says. It would be interesting for our debate to be translated into another language. I too am curious as to what others will think :wink:
The reference of World Economics to video games is flawed. Issuing more currency in terms of money does not mean the economy is better. The money will end up being fiat money which is useless. There is not guarentee the best team will beat a mediocre team. Ever heard of the under-dawg? You are thinking same league, same level, not me. I am referring to the hard power, soft power concept. Oh, bring on the G8 nations. It's a club by invitation only. Not long ago was it called the G7 and now it may transform into the G20 nations. Go save some other schmuck because I don't believe in your Christian Gospel God. His credentials of a PhD from any Ivy League is more trustworthy than an undergraduate from SFU. Scrutnize, criticize, exposing flaws and absurdities sounds like some sort of "man-makeup" person. America has been around for over 4000 years and I tell you that the current inhabitants don't have their ancestotrial roots on this continent. The progress the US has made by slaughtering the indigenous people for whose better and for whose worst. Equal in some aspects but different roles in others.
Yeah, but how many nations regretted their enlistment now that the "state of denial" tells all the truths. More than 85% of the UN member nations support the One-China policy. The Taiwan question will be resolved with an apparatus similar to the "one country-two systems" method. Take for example of Hong Kong 香港, it will soon be 10 years that 香港 has reverted back to China's authority from Britain. Many 香港 people that have immigrated to Canada are now moving back to 香港 because of economic prosperity and the Basic Law that will be in palce for the next 40 years. This is an example that awaits for Taiwan. The Us had the right to invade Afghanistan but wrong to attack Iraq. No debate there.
Do not describe a country that you have not been to. You would be surprised. The island itself has the potential to house a few ICBMs that could reach all of North America. That is some good real estate. Why don't you go live in the US if you are so pro-American even though you say you are not.
Please excuse me for not clearing this up in my post, but I was referring to a country's GDP when I said "most money". And it's true--the bigger your GDP is, the stronger your economy (in absolute terms at least). Purely invitational? Economy and absolute power have nothing to do with it?
In my opinion, however, the G7 is more appropriate (G7 was without Russia). Given the disorder going on in Russia now, it does not deserve to be in the same forum as all those other much more stable countries. You know, I could say something here, but you attacking me personally is quite indicative of your ability to argue. I never said anything bad about you personally (and if you took offence at some of my points, I sincerely apologize). All that I ask is that you address my arguments rather than make personal attacks against me. I may have exaggerated about Nye, but I was making a point: personal status and academic credibility mean absolutely nothing if what the individual says is nonsense. Nonsense remains nonsense irrespective of whose mouth it comes out of. No country's history is without blood. China is not so perfect; Russia is certainly not; neither is the UK, France, Germany, Japan or any other nation (civilized or not). And if you read what I wrote, I never said that American progress is a good thing; I merely say that it exists. Again, I made factual statements, not normative ones. If the percentage is really that high, then I admit that am wrong about Taiwan and that you are right: pwerhaps a one-China solution is best if it is supported by most other countries. And by the way, the Chinese characters in your name and the above quote are coming out as squares on my computer. In Afghanistan, go one hundred kilometres in any direction from Kabul and you'll see that neither the US nor Canada has achieved anything. Everything is as it was before.
Whether or not the US in its own mind had the right to invade is different than whether the US had the right to invade on a higher, moral level. The country's GDP is a meagre $40-something billion. Fairly meaningless at this point. Don't know what will happen in the future, but who do you think will give the Cubans nukes? It certainly won't be the Cubans themselves. One does not need a PhD in international relations or even visit the country to realize this. I'm not pro-American; heck, I've never even been once to the country. I'm merely someone who has accepted facts for what they are. I never said that American dominance is a good thing (read all of my posts) and I never even called you pro-Chinese (even though I would be justified in doing so given your Sinocentric position). Just because the US is the world's most powerful country does not mean I embrace this fact with enthusiasm.
If you--or anyone for that matter--have finished reading this post, then do the following: I have stated why America is the most powerful nation in the world and how this leads to the prevalence of its culture, language, and even its economic model. As a result, because of its sheer economic strength, the country is also able to be influential in what is called "soft power" (i.e. indirectly). Yet it appears that America's indirect ability to influence is only a result of its direct economic power. If you disagree with me, show me a negative case; if you think China has more soft power (which you claimed it does), please show me how this is so.
-That the English language is by far the most popular to study is a direct result of America's economic dominance. I bet there are more non-English-speaking students studying English in the US than there are English-speaking students studying anywhere.
-American culture is ubiquitous. Can countries like China, Japan or Germany claim the same about their cultures? I don't think so. This is again a direct result of America's economic dominance. The country produces more of everything and extends its far-reaching tentacles even to the most uncivilized nations. Can any other country brag that it has accomplished anything similar.
-American forms of entertainment are shown everywhere. That is, shows, music, movies, and everything else is predominantly American. America has the biggest economy therefore it produces the most entertainment.
-America's constitution is unlike any other country's. There are many contentious points of course (“the right to bear arms”), yet it serves as a beacon and a barometer for determining the extent to which a country has human rights and civil liberties.
-America has produced more ideas than any other country. The ideas a nation produces are an indicator of a nation's soft power. Again, it does not take a genius to figure out that this stems from America's economic dominance.
-America's economic model has served as a template for many developing nations. I admit, their system is not perfect and not as free as the economic models of other countries (e.g. Hong Kong or Singapore) yet its economy strikes an exceptional balance between freedom and sufficient regulation to keep basic economic elements intact (e.g. limitations on trade secrets prevent monopolies and stimulate the market in such a way so as to increase the overall quality of a given product). Again, the fact that America is dominant economically allows its model to serve as the template for many developing countries. Arguably, even our own nation is slowly moving towards the American model.
That's all I can think of for now, but here is why I brought up these examples. These examples all illustrate one thing above others: that soft power is a direct result of hard power and not vice versa. The theory claims that the two are somehow equal in their effectiveness for a nation, yet my points clearly illustrate that soft power comes from hard power; the amount of soft power comes from how much hard power a country maintains. Hence, the flaw of the theory is that it equates the effectiveness of soft power with the effectiveness of hard power; yet the above clearly shows that soft power is inferior to hard power by virtue of hard power being the necessary condition for soft power.
If you disagree with me, please I urge you to bring forth examples that either refute my criticism of the theory or support that any country has more soft power than America (you said that China has more soft power, please elaborate on this). Do not retreat to saying that I'm relying on Western sources, or that you can be certain that something will happen (you mentioned earlier that the “Japanese and Koreans will eventually be speaking Chinese”--an overly bold and unfounded statement), or that I should not have an opinion about a country I've never been to (does visiting a country automatically give one more legitimacy when discussing that country's economy? Should I shut up about America simply because I haven't been there? How does visiting a country give you more right to speak about that country's economic orientation?).