We all know that USA will stop being the world's first economy by 2050. Who will replace USA as the next superpower?

Civilization will fall in idustrialized cunts like in western rome and will start over a new dark age and so and so

China will be the contender but I don't think they'll ever push the USA out of first place

We won't collapse, idiots.

We'll just slowly decline into mediocrity and irrelevance.

I don't think so, if this nation gets any more polarized politically and racially, balkanization is a very real possibility in a decade or 2.

USA will prevail. I still have hopes for that nation.

will just nuke the world if it gets that bad. Nobody wins if we lose.

Mexico of course lol

thank you greatest ally, I think we can turn it around too.

>USA will stop being the world's first economy
That's what "experts" were saying in 70's. They were saying Japan will be #1 by the end of the century.

Those "experts" were retarded. How would a small island nation with only third of population and no natural resources do that?

Japan had 10% annual growth back then. And they still are the third economy after China and the US.
How would a small island nation with only third of population and no natural resources do that?

>They have the tools to conquer the whole middle east.
Please don't, I don't want anymore terror attacks

And experts really believed that the growth would continue? Retarted as I said. And they just grew up into western standard, that was just as expected.

>really believed that the growth would continue?
Most predictions about 2050 you see are just projected growth (with some variations).

China will still be suffering from the demographic woes inflicted on them by the One Child Policy in 2050 so they're likely out, at least as far as manufacturing goes. They might be able to push through some reforms in the next few years to help transform them into a service economy, but with the CCP you never know. They're already seeing early signs of Japan Syndrome, so unless they can address that they're in for some pain

The EU is already neck and neck with the US on its own. A completely integrated European market is the most likely successor, though they aren't exactly experiencing a great period of economic growth right now. Their demographics are also a problem

India is still going to be a developing industrial and service economy. They might have the largest economy by volume, but it will lack depth

The NAFTA economic zone will likely continue to be the largest economic union, especially as the US moves manufacturing from China to Mexico. We also have some demographic problems, though there is nowhere near as large an age bubble here as in Europe or China so there won't be as precipitous a decline. The US will lose some power relative to Mexico as their economy grows and they sort out their domestic issues, but NAFTA as a whole will continue to be an economic powerhouse

It's inevitable, you're like a Soviet saying the USSR won't collapse in 1988

Wrong, the US will become more politically destabilized and economically stratified. If Clinton wins her foreign policy will most likely cause war or proxy war with Russia that the US will not only waste massive amounts of resources on but also lose. She will probably try to implement gun control, police will be shot trying to implement it and a revolt will start and then it's all over for the US.

>NAFTA
Wasn't Trump going to disband that?

Plus all NAFTA has done is increase the wealth of the super rich and decrease the wealth of the middle and lower classes.

Congress won't let him and he can't executive decree us out of it because the Supreme Court won't let him

That's assuming he wins and is actually planning on modifying the agreement, of which there is no guarantee. Hillary is pro-NAFTA and the other trade deals she supports won't have nearly the volume that NAFTA covers

>blah blah sensationalism blah blah Hillary blah blah Cred Forums shit
Unless you have proof you can fuck off

this.

Chinese growth is unsustaimable. Just look at their age demographics.

India on the other hand... India has healthy demographics, and will continue to grow at a fast rate.

greenland

India's infrastructure is still quite shit though, and they have few navigable waterways so it's expensive as hell to transport goods to the ports to ship them in the global market. They'll mostly be focused on infrastructure development and sustaining their population, not developing industry. The development will be there, we just won't see a Renaissance like we did with China after they opened up

That's not sensationalism, it's based on history

the United States is an empire that exhausted itself on military adventures and it's power has been unmistakably on the decline since 2004.

The US is economically stratified and politically divided, it's reaching the same conditions the USSR reached before it's collapse in 1991. You just don't understand this because your world view is based on incorrect notions of economic primacy and American exceptionalism.

>will replace USA as the next superpower
Nobody. The world slowly turning into a mutipolar one.

>Likely Candidates
China
EU
Russia
Reformed USA/Countries from the former USA

>Wildcards
Brazil
India
Indonesia
High population African nations such and Nigeria or Ethiopia

>tfw made this image almost a year ago

Brazil is the next superpower

USA will become supreme with Trump, shit with Hillary. If Hillary, next super power goes to Russia, and they better not let sjws have any voice

Brazilians are too corrupt and spend all their money on stupid shit instead of reinvesting in development and education.

Russia is a meme. Statistics show they are no more powerful then any single other European country.

this!

Our last chance of not turning into Portugal is electing Trump.

Not sure if we can turn this ship around.

>That's not sensationalism, it's based on history
What history? Specifics, not just "hurr, you should know this"

>the United States is an empire that exhausted itself on military adventures and it's power has been unmistakably on the decline since 2004.
You mean the same "decline" that has been our global drawdown since Gulf War 1? The same "decline" that's been happening since we started losing our relative power once the world started to recover in the 1950's? 2004 was a publicity hit, not a strategic one. We are no less secure domestically and abroad than we were in 1991

>The US is economically stratified and politically divided, it's reaching the same conditions the USSR reached before it's collapse in 1991.
Ah yes, the US is approaching the exact same conditions of the USSR before the Perestroika, how could I have missed it. The non-existent economy, the near rebellion, the failed coup d'etat. We're in for a collapse economically, politically, socially and otherwise despite having weathered the greatest global economic downturn since the 1920's with a return to pre-recession levels within 18 months while Europe was still feeling the impact for years.

>next super power goes to Russia
Nope unless they form a new soviet union or something. Otherwise they are just a oversized country with economy size of that of Italy.

Italy will rebuild the Roman empire

> thinking china will surpass USA

lol

china makes fake cities to inflate their GPD

china devalues their own currency to beat US

china is pathetic and their bubble is going to burst and it will be magnificent

>Be Russia
>Muh oil needle
>Be top 5 at extraction of oil in world
>Literally no processing oil into more complicated things
Banana republic

Hurry up and invade East Europe already, I'm tired of listening to the media bitch about Poland being scared

>We are no less secure domestically and abroad than we were in 1991

Wrong, the US Military as a result of corruption and the machinations of politics has severely degraded in quality. The US military appropriations process became even more corrupt and resources became wasted on more expensive extremely wasteful no bid contract created equipment.

The US military's continued use in "nation building" and counterinsurgency degraded it's conventional effectiveness immensely and this combined with the corruption in the military industrial complex has seen the relative capabilities of the US military significantly declined from it's high in the early 1990's. Patronage's influence in the US military is undeniable.

>Ah yes, the US is approaching the exact same conditions of the USSR before the Perestroika, how could I have missed it.

You just demonstrated your ignorance of Russian history. The decline of the USSR started with Andropov but it was continued wit haste with Gorbachev whose progressive reforms destabilized the system. As a result nationalism and radical ideologies prospered as the increasing privatization of the Russian economy reduced the quality of life of the average person and created a new class of rich oligarchs.

The USSR's military industrial complex became increasing bloated and corrupt as a result of massive overspending and obvious patronage. As a result of geopolitical weakness they lost allies and their influence declined.

I would say that's already happened to the US. So it's more or less at 1988 now, before shit really hits the fan.

The coup d'etat could easily come in the face of a extreme foreign policy failure by a president or combined with mass discontent or armed rebellion. The US is obviously becoming more politically destabilized, militias are increasingly spectacularly in popularity and more and more people believe in political radicalism.

Also one of the most powerful land armies in the world

This pls

>Banana republic

Saw that news of voting offices stuffing fake votes for Putin the ballot boxes.

Are Russians pissed at this? Do they want to be a real democracy?

I don't think real democracy would save us.

Why don't you declare Putin Czar and let him do everything that's necessary

> The US military appropriations process became even more corrupt and resources became wasted on more expensive extremely wasteful no bid contract created equipment.
Which we can afford and the Soviets couldn't. The F-35's development failures won't lead to a collapse

>The US military's continued use in "nation building" and counterinsurgency degraded it's conventional effectiveness immensely and this combined with the corruption in the military industrial complex has seen the relative capabilities of the US military significantly declined from it's high in the early 1990's. Patronage's influence in the US military is undeniable.
All meaningless buzzwords, all can be safely thrown into the trash
Provide me with some evidence familia

>You just demonstrated your ignorance of Russian history. The decline of the USSR started with Andropov but it was continued wit haste with Gorbachev whose progressive reforms destabilized the system. As a result nationalism and radical ideologies prospered as the increasing privatization of the Russian economy reduced the quality of life of the average person and created a new class of rich oligarchs.
You have provided no evidence of analogous situations in the US. Trashed

>The USSR's military industrial complex became increasing bloated and corrupt as a result of massive overspending and obvious patronage. As a result of geopolitical weakness they lost allies and their influence declined.
>I would say that's already happened to the US. So it's more or less at 1988 now, before shit really hits the fan.
See above

>The coup d'etat could easily come in the face of a extreme foreign policy failure by a president or combined with mass discontent or armed rebellion.
See above

>The US is obviously becoming more politically destabilized, militias are increasingly spectacularly in popularity and more and more people believe in political radicalism.
See above

>Which we can afford and the Soviets couldn't. The F-35's development failures won't lead to a collapse

No one can afford systemic corruption and patronage. You're acting as if they're different but you're just looking in the mirror of yourself in a few years. It isn't just the F-35, there are literally hundreds of examples of massive corruption in the appropriations process.

>All meaningless buzzwords, all can be safely thrown into the trash

If you don't have the intelligence to understand what I said then don't talk about topics that are too complicated for you to understand.

>ou have provided no evidence of analogous situations in the US. Trashed

The US's middle and lower classes are becoming poorer and the rich are becoming richer. The US is already in many ways an oligarchy where the rich hold the political influence and power and the people do not.

>See above

Where have you been in the last few years?

The US has lost Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Libya and they lost their proxy war in Syria. They made a humiliating deal with Iran because they recognized there was no way to get their aims than to negotiate.

Overall US world influence is being rolled back

>Coup d'etat

I'm saying that could easily be a response in the face of the destabilization, history shows coups are common in the face of foreign policy disasters.

>Militia

This is a well known fact, Militia recruitment is up almost 600% since 2008. It's believed there are already over 150'000 members of paramilitary groups in the US most of which are radically anti government.

It would be fair. I'm fucking tired of Russia being one whole fake.

>No one can afford systemic corruption and patronage.
You have provided no evidence of this taking place

>If you don't have the intelligence to understand what I said then don't talk about topics that are too complicated for you to understand.
>I cannot provide evidence of my claims, so I will resort to ad hominem when challenged
10/10 argumentative tactics

>The US is already in many ways an oligarchy where the rich hold the political influence and power and the people do not.
No evidence provided, trashed

>The US has lost the ME
>Overall US world influence is being rolled back
And yet we're still just as secure domestically as we were in 1991. None of the hostile groups in those countries are powerful enough to mount an existential threat to the US.

>They made a humiliating deal with Iran because they recognized there was no way to get their aims than to negotiate
Which you cannot prove

>>Coup d'etat
>I'm saying that could easily be a response in the face of the destabilization, history shows coups are common in the face of foreign policy disasters.
The US doesn't have a history of coup d'etats nor does it have a history of political generals. Which general would be able to convince his soldiers to mount a coup d'etat, and how long do you think it would be before he is wiped out by the remaining forces?
You have no proof that the situation will become bad enough to instigate a coup

>This is a well known fact, Militia recruitment is up almost 600% since 2008. It's believed there are already over 150'000 members of paramilitary groups in the US most of which are radically anti government.
You cannot prove that most or even a significant proportion of militia members are radical enough to mount an armed insurrection, nor can you prove that this would pose an existential threat to the United States

The general older and conservative population isn't a threat unless you think that BLM is going to militarize. Gun control in general consensus among Americans is favored, it's rather the fact that gun rights constituents go out and vote for holding back these laws.