• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Brace For A Global Crisis In 2020

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
30,161
Likes
40,701
#1
Brace For A Global Crisis In 2020
Gregory R. Copley



The year 2020 could emerge as the start of the era of relative global chaos or major upheaval. It is the era we have been anticipating, as the impact of core population decline meets economic dislocation, and security and structural uncertainty.


Changes in the fundamental sociological framework of global society, due to the end of the population growth cycle - and with it the end of the economic growth cycle based on expanding market size - were beginning to become evident by the beginning of 2020. It was apparent that 2020 was likely to see a major evolution in this transformation.

The three “inevitable” trends which had been promoted in recent decades - the “inevitable” rise of the People’s Republic of China; the “inevitable” decline of the United States of America; and the “inevitable” consolidation of the European Union into a strategic superpower — had all, by 2020, retreated into the swamps of vainglory.


A broad-brush landscape view of 2020 must include at least the following:


The People’s Republic of China and the BRI Framework:


The Communist Party of China (CPC) should be expected to face unprecedented challenge in 2020-21, not only for its control of the economy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but to its ability to project the PRC’s physical power in its immediate region, and across its suzerain empire, expressed through the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) network of states.





The PRC economy has been faltering for several years, and growth in gross domestic product (GDP) figures have only been sustained by artificial construction transactions, which are now becoming unsustainable. It is now estimated that the PRC was in actual economic decline at a time, which will lead to a faltering in its foreign investment and loan capacity to sustain the BRI program.


The BRI concept has become an ideology for the projection of the CPC’s influence, far more than an economic platform, but it is one which has a real financial cost to the PRC and which is expressed in monetary terms. It was created as a de facto ideology to buy strategic space globally when traditional maoist-marxist ideology could not make any meaningful penetration.


The CPC’s ability to “buy hearts and minds” was made possible by the Chinese economic growth, which had been funded by the Chinese private sector, unleashed by PRC leader Deng Xiaoping (1978-92) after the death of Mao Zedong. The state economic sector did not contribute to this rise.


By 2019, and even earlier, Pres. Xi Jinping had begun to curb the private sector and favor the state-owned enterprises (SOEs, which had not contributed to the “economic miracle”), in order to gain more control over society. It was a de facto return to maoism and economic stagnation at a time when urbanization and other factors were already stressing the PRC’s capability to sustain growth.


Moreover, the PRC has almost 20 percent of the global population and only seven percent of its water (and that water supply is decreasing due to consistently declining snowfall on the Tien Shan mountain range), and what water it does have is heavily polluted. Its food production is now totally compromised.


The PRC has extensive foreign exchange holdings and holdings of US debt paper, but these are now beginning to erode as Beijing is forced to now expand its imports of foreign foodstuffs. The reason for the PRC’s total capitulation to the US in the so-called trade war with the signing of “Phase One” of January 15, 2020 was (a) for the PRC to begin to cope with its growing food and economic crises, and (b) to ensure, for US Pres. Donald Trump, that the PRC’s economy would not completely collapse in 2020, the year of pivotal US elections.


So the PRC was already on economic life-support by the time the coronavirus pandemic began to become known by the end of January 2020. It was clear that the CPC was already well aware of the reality that the coronavirus had begun its broad contagion - with the consequent impact on the PRC economy - when it signed the “trade deal” with Pres. Trump.


All of this, coupled with the economic impact of the revolt of Hong Kong against the PRC - effectively removing Hong Kong as one of the key economic contributors to the PRC’s “economic miracle” - meant that the PRC’s already-delicate economic condition was now in an unavoidable and dramatic decline. At the same time, the Hong Kong example meant that Beijing’s steady pressure to dominate the elections in the Republic of China (ROC: Taiwan) collapsed, resulting in a severe loss of prestige for the CPC.


The Taiwanese “intransigence” meant that “two Chinas” continued to exist. The CPC could not claim total victory in the Chinese Civil War when the original state - albeit now reduced to a rump geography on Taiwan and other islands - continued to exist as a taunt to the legitimacy of Chinese maoism.


The question was, then, what Beijing would do about the situation to prevent a domestic backlash and the collapse of the substantial BRI infrastructure which had developed throughout Eurasia and Africa, and through the Pacific. Pres. Xi must do something, if only to contain the unrest within the CPC, let alone within the PRC population.


Was it possible that he would initiate military action against Taiwan? Or against Vietnam (perceptionally, an easier target, but one which embarrassed the PRC in 1979)? Or elsewhere? Xi must do something, and it will be disruptive, and possibly have significant negative impact on his own rule.


US Pres. Trump, assuming he wins re-election in November 2020, may decide in 2021 to take the PRC off life support and re-start the trade war. The downstream ramifications are significant.


Western Europe After Brexit, and the Re-Shaping of the Heartland/Maritime Balance:


The myth of the European Union (EU) was finally shattered when the United Kingdom - despite ruthless pressures from the EU - left the EU on January 31, 2020. The EU was already in a delicate economic condition before that occurred, and would now lose significant traction as a result of the UK departure (Brexit). This raises questions:


1. Would the economic malaise which was likely to deepen in the EU in 2021 (unless it could achieve a tariff-free trade deal with the UK before that time) cause other EU members to question the value of the alliance?​
2. Would the rump EU become more susceptible to influence from Moscow because of energy dependency on Russia? [And come under greater PRC pressure because of an economic dependency on PRC loans and investments?]​
3. Would the EU attempt rapid increases in “state-building” to create an actual sovereign entity out of the Union? This approach, which had been the long course of action by EU leaders, defies the fact that the EU lacks a coherent defense capability as a requisite for actual superpower influence. The ideology of Brussels has been that the EU would build a “third way” of “soft power”, something which indicates that the proponents of this do not actually comprehend the necessity to have a comprehensive arsenal of “soft” and “hard” power resources.​

The EU has moved into a position, particularly with Brexit, of massively reduced influence globally. On the other hand, the move by the UK back to fully sovereign status means a re-galvanized position for the community of maritime powers, and for the Commonwealth. Despite a period of “sorting out” in 2020, the maritime powers (the UK, US, Canada, Australasia, possibly Japan, India, Taiwan, and so on) and the Commonwealth, have now begun to re-coalesce.


The ongoing weakness of the EU, however, has significant ramifications for stability in the Mediterranean Basin, and particularly related to actions by Turkey toward Cyprus, Greece, Libya (and by stealth, toward Egypt), and the Levant. There is an increasing likelihood of France continuing to take a sovereign view of strategic issues, and work closely with the UK. Moreover, some EU states - particularly Greece, Poland, and the Baltic States - will reinforce a new momentum in NATO, which should be expected to re-orient away from a purely “North Atlantic” context to become the basis of a global capability.


The United States Moving To and Through Pivotal Elections:


The US continues to be a nation divided at levels of polarization not seen since 1860. This is likely to worsen until (and beyond) the November 3, 2020, Presidential and Congressional elections.


The internal US schism profoundly hampers both the attention which the US President can devote to strategic issues, and the prestige which gives the office influence. Thus, most of the strategic actions by the incumbent President fail to get attention in the US polity, such as initiatives to cement a new economic and power framework in Central Asia, extending through a resolution of the Afghanistan conflict, and linking to the Indian Ocean via Pakistan. And attempts since 2017 to break up PRC strategies (BRI) to control Eurasia and Africa.


Of primary importance, then, is whether the US misses great opportunities in 2020 and possibly fails to start to regain unity in 2021, and whether the US can itself regain cohesion at all. It is not inconceivable that the US could see greater moves toward secession by some states, or toward violence between urban-controlled state structures against nationalist elements.


In the US, it is the society-level schism which could work profoundly against the success of the state, as opposed to the PRC where it is the state which is now moving (again) against society.


A Turning Point for Africa:


The collapse of the PRC’s suzerainty over much of Africa has meant a collapse of security there, and a return to corruption at a leadership level in those particular states.


The absence of accountability or major-power pressure means that rapid decline should be expected in 2020 in South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere on the Continent. Problems persist in the Horn of Africa and North Africa. This instability is being exploited substantially by Turkey, working alone and through Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) conduits, and by Iran.


The fundamental decline in PRC investment and loans (and the pressure by Beijing for African states to deliver resources and other outcomes), as well as a tapering off of PRC purchases of resources from African states, will mean growing economic malaise in Africa. This will lead to an impetus toward mass migration to Europe (in particular) at a time when the EU states are increasingly less able to cope economically with this.


A similar scenario could apply to much of Latin America and for similar reasons.


The Transformation of the Middle East-Mediterranean:


There was, as 2020 dawned, a kind of “calm before the storm” emerging in the Middle East. Iran’s clerics, after a period of panic after the death (long anticipated) of Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani, were now looking more soberly at whether they could carry through with their planned new war against Israel. After initial euphoria about possible victory against Israel, there was the start of sober evaluation as to whether Iran could prevail.


Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which had briefly abandoned the US in 2019 to seek Moscow’s and Beijing’s support in keeping Iran from attacking them, had by 2020 begun to rebuild their relations with the US. Internal challenges in Saudi Arabia remained, and the task of restructuring Yemen in the wake of a collapse of the Saudi-UAE war there was beginning, but without Saudi influence.


Meanwhile, Turkey continued to lash out with initiatives in Libya designed to help Ankara get access to the Egyptian-Israeli-Cypriot gasfields of the Mediterranean. Turkey, facing growing economic and social challenges, became the principal area of instability, which was likely to cause its President to undertake precipitate action in 2020.


Is Chaos Likely to be Expressed as Paralysis and Distraction?


As very real crises begin to emerge, what is significant is that urban societies tend to avoid all consideration of them and turn to the distractions of belief systems, particularly climate change politics (which is separate from actual climate change science). These drive internal societal passions, but paralyze capabilities to deal with actual strategic challenges.


A sense of “social distress” is likely to become exacerbated in major urban societies as the economic decline of the PRC begins to bite the global economy. This will further polarize societies and impact funding for technological evolution.


We are entering the period of uncertainty.


By Gregory R. Copley via GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs








Historian, author and strategic analyst — and onetime industrialist — Gregory R. Copley, 70, has for four decades worked at the highest levels with various governments around the world, advising on national security, intelligence, and national management issues. He has authored more than 30 books, including "The Art of Victory" (2006) and "UnCivilization: Urban Geopolitics in a Time of Chaos" (2012). An Australian, he is President of the International Strategic Studies Association, based in Washington, DC, and Editor-in-Chief of the "Defense & Foreign Affairs" group of publications, including the government-only intelligence service, the Global Information System. Among his international recognitions, he was, in 2007, made a Member of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday Honours.

Gregory Copley, AM, GCHT*, FRCGS
grcopley@aol.com


http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/02.20/brace.html
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
30,161
Likes
40,701
#2
sometimes you have to get a kick out of these rag writers,

many of them state chin li's growth is way down and it portends issues for them,

but let's be realistic a minute, coming down to 5% growth vs 7% isn't like the end of the world or anything, especially if that 5% is on the #2 economy in the whole world.

we would be high fivin' and partying on if it were 5% here, yet we muddle along at a couple of percentage points growth, directly attributed to .gov spending.

then too, one must factor in level of growth prior. For instance, the us of friggin' a is pretty much at peak consumption and growth, whereas chin li has a really long runway. There are people there without sewer/water/trinkets/iphones/cars/stock accts/etc.

they are far from max'd out

if they could figure out how to finance it, they could create the growth internally for years to come
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
7,925
Likes
13,289
#3
Younger generations are not materialistic in certain ways. This is a generalization but they want their $1000 phone but not a house, car or job. They tend to shun responsibility and commitment. That way they can bypass the consumerism we were brought up with. They also recycle things like clothes etc. I think that is just one of the reasons things are made cheaper simply so they break and need replaced.

I have a 37 yo at work that wants to retire at 45 but has pushed it out to 50 because his wife is raising the kids.
Friends have a son working 80-90 hours a week. He wants to "retire" at 30 and travel. Owns almost nothing but the clothes on his back.
My point is they are not buying into the American, debt trap financed, dream.
 
Last edited:

wallew

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,578
Likes
1,561
Location
Texas, USA, North America, Planet Earth
#4
Younger generations are not materialistic in certain ways. This is a generalization but they want their $1000 phone but not a house, car or job. They tend to shun responsibility and commitment. That way they can bypass the consumerism we were brought up with. They also recycle things like clothes etc. I think that is just one of the reasons things are made cheaper simply so they break and need replaced.

I have a 37 yo at work that wants to retire at 45 but has pushed it out to 50 because his wife is raising the kids.
Friends have a son working 80-90 hours a week. He wants to "retire" at 30 and travel. Owns almost nothing but the clothes on his back.
My point is they are not buying into the American, debt trap financed, dream.
Uh, all that about younger generation are not materialistic sounds just grand. Right up until they move out of their parents HOUSE and get out on their own. Then THEY have to pay their own way.

Some of them will just go 'f it' and move into a tent on the street, begging for change, etc, etc and most of that subset of young people will suffer mightily in the coming diaspora. The rest will realize that no, that is not the way to 'get ahead' - that means being able to eat, pay for that $1000 phone, and a place to live - want to drive any where? - then you want a car which also means you need gas and insurance...and so it goes... life is funny that way. Then you fall in love, get married and have 2.7 kids.


AND THEN, DANG IT, you are as trapped as the rest of us 'old farts' that are just barely hanging on to our own pile of stuff we accumulated over the past four/five decades. Hoping things don't collapse BEFORE we all die.

But like the rest of you, we can't control it any more than you can.

TRUTH - it's a slippery little devil, ain't it??
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
7,925
Likes
13,289
#5
I agree with you "life happens". But look at birth statistics for whites...... it's down. When they don't get a "job" until 30-35 yo they are sure gettign a late start on life & as you say will be behind the rest of their lives because of it.
 

wallew

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,578
Likes
1,561
Location
Texas, USA, North America, Planet Earth
#7
I agree with you "life happens". But look at birth statistics for whites...... it's down. When they don't get a "job" until 30-35 yo they are sure getting a late start on life & as you say will be behind the rest of their lives because of it.
And all those parents who think they are doing their children a FAVOR BY LETTING THEM LIVE AT HOME UNTIL THEY ARE 40?

They aren't helping them. Just setting them up for failure.

A LARGE FAILURE. Because once Mom/Dad retire/die they can't pay for their kids stupid ideas of life.

THEN what happens to all those youngsters who can't work (don't know how - don't actually have marketable skills) - and will be on the government dole (while it last - not much longer now) until they are not because even the government eventually will run out of money. It won't matter if you are white, black, brown, yellow, green or whatever, because they safety net, long stretched into a hammock by a lot of lazy people, will NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE...

So yeah - the great diaspora will wipe a lot of people out.