从这里了解印度人对中国的看法

Quora:谁有可能成为下一个全球超级大国?

2015-05-27 19:39 163个评论 字号:

如果你询问17世纪的人谁会成为主导性的全球超级大国,大多数人会回答西班牙帝国。但100年时间证明了他们的错误。 如果你询问19世纪的人,他们会回答大英帝国:(理由是)庞大的帝国与海军,经过了工业革命洗礼,等等。但50年时间证明了他们的错误。  如果你询问20世纪60年代的人,50%认为是美国,50%认为是苏联。但短短30年时间证明了上述一半的人的错误。  如果你询问20世纪80年代的美国人,我敢打赌60%-70%认为是日本。结果仅仅10-20年这个答案就被推翻了。

译者:Elyssa
来源:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-347988-1-1.html
外文:https://www.quora.com/Which-country-if-any-is-poised-to-become-the-next-global-superpower

1356054542665

资料图

Which country, if any, is poised to become the next global superpower?

谁有可能成为下一个全球超级大国?

Kind of amazing that the US was barely considered a regional power in the 1800s, and then you had a devastating civil war, and I bet a lot of people wrote off the US by the late 1800s.

神奇的是19世纪的美国仅仅被称之为区域性大国,随后其爆发了毁灭性的内战,到19世纪末期相信许多人都将美国从区域大国的名单上挪除。

But then within a span of 40-50 years (in between the Spanish American War and WW2, essentially), the US became a major global player economically, militarily and politically. I don’t think most people in the late 1800s era could have called it.

但仅仅40-50年时间里(确切说来是在美西战争与二战之间),美国一跃成为全球经济、军事与政治的主要参与者。这是大多数身处19世纪末期的人们所无法给出的定义。

So my question is: who’s next?

我的问题是:谁将成为下一个(超级大国)?

Things to consider:
•Cyclical nature of history: does it necessitate a decline of US technical and military dominance and an economic decline (following the example of Rome, Spain, Great Britain, Qing China, etc.)?
•Demographics (my hunch is that if you consider demographics, you have to write off Russia, China, Japan, and a lot of Western Europe: they just can’t win. But countries like Thailand / others in SE Asia might win)
•Natural resources (A nation in Africa / Australia / South America?)
•Is the world different now? Must the rise of the next superpower require military domination and technological domination in the military sense? Or is economic hegemony / soft power enough in today’s world?

以下几个方面的考量:
•        历史的必然性:是否会导致美国的科技、军事与经济的必然衰落(在罗马帝国,西班牙帝国,大英帝国,中国清朝等先例之后)?
•        人口统计(我的观点是如果你参考人口统计学,那么俄罗斯、中国、日本与大部分的西欧国家会从候选名单中移除:因为他们无法在人口方面取得优势。如泰国/其他东南亚国家则可能取胜)
•        自然资源(非洲/澳大利亚/南美国家?)
•        现在的世界形式是否不同?下一个超级大国的崛起是否必然需要军事与具有军事意义的科学支配地位?或者说在当今世界经济霸权/软实力已足够?

I’m going to throw some names out here, and maybe someone can chime in and tell me if these are plausible for the next superpower in say the next 25-75 years: India, Venezuela, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Iran, Sudan (I know), Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar (yup), Malaysia, Indonesia. And I don’t mean a regional power. I mean Global Superpower. Who’s plausible?

我会在此罗列一些国家,或许有人能够回答这些国家之中是否有谁有希望在25-75年间成为下一个超级大国: 印度、委内瑞拉、巴西、加拿大、挪威、伊朗、苏丹(好吧,我了解)、尼日利亚、澳大利亚、新西兰、泰国、越南、缅甸(是的,就是它)、马来西亚、印度尼西 亚。我指的是全球性的超级大国,并非区域性大国。谁有可能?

I mean, a totally legitimate answer would be the US, since we still command a ton of natural resources, and though our demographics aren’t great, we have such a head start that we might be able to sustain our lead for quite a long time…I’m just not sure, that’s all.

我认为,美国应该是一个勿需质疑的答案,因为我们仍控制着大量自然资源,虽然人口规模不大,但我们已处于有利的开局,而这种优势可能会让我们持续领先很长一段时间……我只是有些不确定,仅此而已。

I know this is a tough question. Hopefully Quora comes through!

我知道这个问题有些难,希望Quora能够给我答案!

Want Answers 437 想要答案
Comments 14+ 评论
Share 12 分享
Downvote 反对票

【回答】

译者:答案开始前,先说一下这个提问,在Quora上关于超级大国的提问有很多,“谁会成为下一 个?”“XXX是/会成为超级大国吗?”“如果XXX将成为超级大国为什么XXX不现在就毁了她?”,等等。上面的这条提问已经很早了,大概是2013年 提出的,但是关注量很大,一直到最近一两个月都有人回复,所以可以看到一些情况的变化与趋势。
PS. 我会先翻两个赞成票数最高的,然后按照默认顺序从上往下翻(不确定Quora上的回复是怎么排序的,也许是按最新的评论时间来的?)

Alex Song, Hedge Fund Analyst 对冲基金分析师
2.4k upvotes 2400赞成票

•If you asked people in the 1600s who would be the dominant global power, most would have said Spain. They would have been proven wrong within 100 years.
•If you asked people in the late 1800s who would be the dominant global power, most would have said Great Britain: huge empire, coming out of the industrial revolution, huge navy, etc. And they would have been wrong within 50 years.
•If you asked people in the 1960s who would be the dominant global power, 50% would have said US, 50% would have said the Soviet Union. Half of those people would have been proven wrong in a short 30 years.
•If you asked Americans in the 1980s who would be the dominant global power, I bet 60-70% might have said Japan. They would have been proven wrong in a mere 10-20 years.

•        如果你询问17世纪的人谁会成为主导性的全球超级大国,大多数人会回答西班牙帝国。但100年时间证明了他们的错误。
•        如果你询问19世纪的人,他们会回答大英帝国:(理由是)庞大的帝国与海军,经过了工业革命洗礼,等等。但50年时间证明了他们的错误。
•        如果你询问20世纪60年代的人,50%认为是美国,50%认为是苏联。但短短30年时间证明了上述一半的人的错误。
•        如果你询问20世纪80年代的美国人,我敢打赌60%-70%认为是日本。结果仅仅10-20年这个答案就被推翻了。

Shit happens. And it happens quickly. And that pace has only picked up as globalization takes hold. Maybe it’s just me, but I just think that there’s a lot of group-think right now and people by nature assume the US or China is going to dominate / continue dominating. And while that may ultimately prove to be correct, I think we should at least try to challenge that assertion. The US is in a very similar situation as Great Britain at the height of the industrial revolution. And this too shall pass. Maybe in 20 years. Maybe in 200.

倒霉事常有,通常来得挺快,并且随着进一步全球化,发生的速度也会加快。也许只我这么觉得,我认为现在有很 多人自然地认定美国或中国会持续主导/将要主导(全球)。这也许会成为事实,但我想我们至少应该尝试挑战下这种论断。美国正处在一个同工业革命巅峰时代的 大英帝国非常类似的情况之下,它也终将会衰落,也许20年后,也许200年后。

As an investor, I like to think in terms of odds. So here’s a mental exercise:

作为一个投资人,我喜欢用概率思考。下面是一个脑力练习题:

Let’s pretend there is a 40% true probability that China becomes the next great superpower (let’s say that was plausible). But if you look at the responses in this thread, it seems like some people think that number is closer to 80-90%. Basically a foregone conclusion. I’d like to call that an overvalued asset. Betting on that is a low-return proposition.

我们假设中国有40%几率成为下一个超级大国(我们假设这是合理的)。根据这个思路得出的反馈中,你会发现有些人认为这种可能性接近80%-90%,一个基本已成定数的结论。我把它称之为一项被高估的资产,为其押下赌注将是一个低回报的提议。

Now let’s also pretend a country like Australia or Nigeria has a 1 in 10,000 chance of somehow becoming the next global superpower (maybe plausible), but it seems like people are effectively writing them off and pricing in a 1 in a million chance of that happening (if not lower). As an investor, I’d call that an undervalued asset, because if those assumptions are anywhere near correct, my expected value on that investment is 100x. That mispricing is something we ought to pay attention to. I want to be prepared for the unexpected. Think of it as buying a cheap option.

现在我们再假设,如果澳大利亚或者尼日利亚这样的一个国家有万分之一的几率成为下一个超级大国(假设也许是 合理的),人们会即刻忽略掉它们并将之发生的机会估值为百万分之一(如果没有更低的话)。作为一个投资人,我把它称之为一项被低估的资产,如果这种假设最 终成为事实,那么这项投资的期望值将达到100倍。上述的错误定价是我们需要注意的问题。而我时时准备应付意料之外的情况,所以会将它看作一个购买廉价期 权的机会。

Just my two cents. A lot can happen in 25 years.

只是一家之言。25年的时间可能会发生很多变化。



分页: 1 2 3 4

友荐云推荐

无觅相关文章插件,快速提升流量