01-03-2017, 04:24 PM
Quote:That was obvious in the 1990's. Who else had the potential? But my analysis suggested China would not emerge a hegemon until mid-century. Typically a new hegemon first reaches economic dominance (US in the 1880's) then financial dominance (US after 1914) and then finally hegemony (US in 1943). Since China was not scheduled to overtake the US in GDP until the 2020's or so, I wouldn't except this to translate to hegemony until around 2060. At this time I was operating with a 70 years cycle: 1918-1991 and 1992-2060. Hence a second round of US hegemony. I showed you all this already Jordan, so why are you rehashing it?
I seem to remember not accepting your new timeframe vs that actually outlined in the book. I am kinda noticing a trend here...
How are you determining your dates? Why are you only going back one cycle? Are you referring to nominal or PPP GDP? On a per capita or absolute basis?
Quote:And why come back as an alias? Why not use your old handle?
Because my old handle was actually my name, and I decided that I didn't necessarily want to nail my colors to the mast, as it were. In particular, when I was first browsing this new site, I noticed that PBrower had practiced a vile bit of thread necromancy on his "Is Connecticut the best state" where he selectively quoted me from the old thread and then threw in new responses (while leaving out all the bits where I showed that he didn't actually know what things like the Law of Large Numbers meant, that his just-so stories had serious logical inconsistencies, etc.) to make it look like he wasn't a complete idiot grinding an axe. And, since it had my name attached, it was particularly offensive, as at the time that he did this here I was no longer posting and thus not able to raise a complaint. So, when I decided that I had the time and desire to discuss certain issues here again, I decided to protect myself from future involuntary association with creeps, cranks, and losers by using an alias.