The next 100 years as it applies to the USA

This book reminded me of those American war films where no other allies were involved in WW2 or mattered much. The writer presents statistics to forecast how the world during next 100 years will be dominating by the US even more than in the second half of the 20th century. Only two years after publication (2009) we see that as an unlikely scenario, due in part to the colossal US debts that threaten to engulf it. I was amazed the writer also seems to dismiss China as some kind of 'passing phase'........ Mmmmm I don't think so. In summary: written by an American purely for Americans presumably to cheer them up.

8 people found this helpful

Great if free but don't waste a credit

SPOILERS this review will probably ruin the plot.
This poor bloke has all the knowledge of an A-level History and Economics student but little else. Its a master class of why the US is so star spangled awesome, according to an American.

His dismissal of China is the same "it'll collapse in on itself" magic thinking the US has been spouting for decades. He only seems to understand the China of the Century of Shame. This is somewhat like thinking you understand Shakespeare because you once watched a Punch and Judy show.

He really doesn't understand Russia or the Russian people. On any level.

He doesn't even try to discuss Africa or India.

Worse than not knowing his foreign nations, he seems to either be unaware of the extent to which US style capitalism is falling out of popularity, even in the US or assumes younger generations will, like preboomer generations, become more Conservative with age. This flies in the face of all the research undertaken in the west.

He talks of 50yr great cycles, domestically, with great confidence but here too his recollections are starry-eyed and its here I think his book will be (almost) the most derided. He predicts the next century without any reference to a second US civil war. Which is pretty certain.

Another issue he misses are the 100 year cycles all capitalist global empire's have been caught up in. Domestic unrest causes the rich ruling class to play with the forces Nationalism. Domestic enemies abound, identity politics split communities, economic problems are all the fault of these enemies. A foreign enemy exists hell bent only on destruction. No negotiation is possible with either enemy. A charismatic, sociopathic and most importantly Outsider leader arrives, traditional power looses control (and magically liability for what they've done) and suddenly all bets are off. Especially as everyone else seems to have been doing the same thing so the world is full of angry people who can't talk to each other, led by nutters (sorry, strong men) who are detached enough from reality to know, in their core, that their military adventures will be different, a new Alexander. Its almost a Rule. Apparently not this century.

This century will have a world war but just to right the injustice of treaties binding the US to not militarise space and here's the good news, the war won't go nuclear and will only cost the lives of a few thousand Poles, Germans and Turks, so a victimless war just waiting for the US to wake up to and reach out for its full destiny to win it all!

This century will mostly NOT be about globalised wealth trying to cement a global neo-feudalism. At all.

Turkey. He loves Turkey. So much is based on Turkey but he doesn't seem to understand the Legacy of the Ottoman empire nor that the bill has been far from paid in that regard. To keep Turkey distracted and a minor player? Keep funding the Kurds or any of the other large ethnic groups in Turkey as a legacy of the Ottoman empire. After all, the last 50 years has seen the re-emergence of all manner of ancient nations who think they can do better alone than as part of ancient empire. Just look at the almost certain collapse of the UK or, indeed, the EU .

Nothing to worry about though, Turkey is a super hero immune to this and able to subdue both massive internal issues and Russia. Oh all by unifying Islam. Yes Really.

Turkey. lol

The Japanese will be surprised to discover they're destined to inherit the moon and become the new global bond villain. Because reasons. thats why. Shut up.

Japanese moon pirates. lol

Poland gets a sloppy upgrade for no reason at all, presumably because the author runs out of imagination for how Poland can stand in for the EU (or, as he's American, Germany).

Polish bloc lol

Keep in mind, at all times, the author thinks he's clever. He doesn't really think China will be replaced by Japan, Russia by Turkey or the EU by Poland Its all subtle code. Its one of the reasons he's such a genius The Reds, the Yellas and the Trash don't know he's talking about them. Shhhh. Only clever and insightful Americans are in on it. Oh, and it's something he can explain from the sofa in all the shows

If you're going to pretend this is anything other than a tired hawkish foreign policy document about subduing Russia, China and Europe, then by far the biggest blunder is a failure to understand the effects of climate change. Without this he dismisses utterly the near certainty of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan or, even worse, China.

He has no clue about the destabilising effect of Eco-migration either globally, or closer to home, when Mexico runs out of water in, at best 2040-50. No mention of the wars this migration will cause.

Far from it, by the end of the century Mexico will rise as a threat, largely due to the fact Mexican Americans are traitors and massive amounts of drug money. Money that should be & was/currently is invested in the US? This drug money will make Mexico the spear tip of the new enemy, greedy Hispanics! Yes, really. Oddly a lot of Americans think this book is bipartisan. Honestly,

He blithely assumes we will have innovated replacements for oil. I understand why, if you don't there is no global civilisation but we have a good 5-6 existential or civilisation level threats coming to a head over the next 60 yrs and these just don't seem to phase him.
To such an extent you've really got to wonder.

All is based on the tired old trope, so beloved of the worst sort of American, of the US being like a gauche adolescent, well meaning but unaware of its strength and uncertain in its leadership. At the same time the book is full of discussions of the cynical, cold eyed, premeditated need to build up for sacrifice all allies then betray any who survive. Enemies will either evaporate or a short sharp war of punitive "destruction from above" will show Johnny the error of his ways, by Jingo. It's all a bit tired.

All the US stereotypes of Russia, Europe, China, (well everywhere really) are here on display and its this that gets most tiring.You'll love it if you're American. I expect you'll find it occasionally funny but ultimately childish and tedious if not.

I wouldn't view this as any more reliable than a horoscope, or a decent sci-fi.

6 people found this helpful

American-centric but interesting

In this book Friedman lays out an interpretation of world history (mainly modern history), adds in some currently known facts and statistics and then extrapolates this model forward to describe the drivers for world events in the near future.

As Friedman admits, this is shamelessly, uncompromisingly and sometimes almost offensively pro-US -but (if you can) set this aside this there are a number of interesting conclusions drawn about the driving causes for key events in world history. These conclusions are then joined and scenarios for the future are constructed and presented in a concise and flowing manner.

I liked this book. While I might like to question his interpretation of some historical events and even though many individual facts, forecasts and conclusions were not new to me, Friedman finds patterns and extends them into the future in a logical and consistent manner which I have not seen elsewhere and I found thought provoking. I shall be looking for other similar books to add to my library.

Definately worth listening to.

6 people found this helpful

Geopolitics may be accurate

What would have made The Next 100 Years better?

Perspectives from other people. Once the listener starts to disagree with the perspective offered it becomes more challenging to listen to.

Would you ever listen to anything by George Friedman again?

Possibly.

Which character – as performed by William Hughes – was your favourite?

Not applicable.

You didn’t love this book--but did it have any redeeming qualities?

Some food for thought in there.

Any additional comments?

While undeniably US-centric the core assumption is that the next 100 years will follow patterns established in previous centuries, failing to consider the continued rise and importance of technology, dominance of corporations, dwindling resources and ecological shifting. Relationships between governments, the central thought in the book, feels less influential in the 21st century than it was in the 20th already.

This would have been better written as a work of fiction as there are some nice geopolitical ideas presented.

3 people found this helpful

Shite

Terrible viewpoint, poorly argued, cannot wait to get a refund for this, its like listening to a fool in a truckstop

1 person found this helpful

Given recent events, this book is ridiculous

For example, the author confidently predicts that China won't produce a large navy. There are undoubtedly some fairly sound nuggets in this book, but many of its initial premises are wrong.

1 person found this helpful

Some good principles, but hilariously off-base

this book starts off with some fairly good geopolitical analysis, but quickly dissolves into American exceptionalist fanfiction. it completely ignored many things that could damage America over the next few decades and imagines several conflicts with other nations that closely mirror the conflicts of the 20th century, ignoring how the presence of nuclear weapons, the internet and global warming would fundamentally change those conflicts.

The lack of mention of how global warming will radically effect countries over the coming decades is either a ridiculous oversight or is a coded suggestion that the author is a denier. Either option is disappointing and makes many of these predictions moot.

The author also makes several caveats that he cannot predict specifics and that things might not turn out the way he thinks, but will then spend entire chapters detailing the battle plans of a new war between America and a Japanese-Turkish alliance.

That alliance seems especially funny to suggest just a decade on from this books publishing as Turkey has fallen in relevance and wealth and is unlikely to hold the power the author expects for the foreseeable future.

There are several other predictions that seem to be drawing on the political calculus of a pre-nuclear/globalisation view of politics, such as suggesting China will collapse and Japan will steal parts of its coastline, ignoring that Beijing would still have nukes and international alliances to stop such a thing from happening.

ultimately, I started reading this as fiction halfway through as it is so needlessly detailed yet so confident in wrong-headed ideas that I would be calling it out every chance I got if I read it as honest prediction.

1 person found this helpful

Oh how can you get it so wrong

Some interesting minor predictions, but claiming that Russia and China will fragment during 2010-20. So wide of the mark makes the relevance of everything else worthless.

1 person found this helpful

Entertaining and imagination provoking

As almost10 years elapsed since this book has been published it is interesting to compare it with real events that had shaped world history (for last decade) and assess the trajectory of events in comparison to the book. What strikes is utter (imo) underestimation of global warming (/climate change) and dealing with this issue in the epilogue only seems to confirm it questioning all other reasoning.
As a Pole I was captivated by vision presented.

1 person found this helpful

Intriguing and entertaining.

Viable scenario predicted. The precise details of which matter less than than the major themes and geopolitical dynamics including EU structural weaknesses, space based warfare, automation, demographics, new energy sources etc. Interestingly he also expects the current war on terror to be relatively short lived.

1 person found this helpful