Largest Economies by 2050

[Winner]

Yeah, if we already factor in demographic trends for the EU "big three", shouldn't France come out on top?

Population growth is notoriously difficult to predict accurately, especially now when developed countries went through the transition. Relatively small changes in the patters of migration, the overall fertility rates, life expectance, etc., can totally change the end result you get.

For example, the Czech Rep. was supposed to have less than 10 million people by now, or very close to that number. But in fact our population has grown to 10.5 million, largely due to increased immigration and slightly increased fertility rates in the past 8 years or so. I guess in the early 1990s nobody was able to imagine that people would actually want to immigrate here

Anyway, my point is that predictions based on current demographic trends should be taken with a grain of salt. Basing an economic prediction on an unreliable demographic prediction just increases the number of unknown variables, which makes the final prediction that more unreliable.

I think Germany will remain the largest economy in Europe pretty much forever. Once could argue it has always been the largest economy in Europe, at least since the end of the Dark Ages.

On global scale, it's impossible not to think China would've overtaken USA by then, by simply being four times their number. Same reason for India, basically, although it's not as certain that they'll be that far in 2050 already.

India faces huge challenges. I think it will come close to a full internal collapse in the next 40 years.

 

[Mise]

Leoreth, yeah, that's why I don't like talking about it. Though it's my own fault for bringing it up

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

I think Germany will remain the largest economy in Europe pretty much forever. Once could argue it has always been the largest economy in Europe, at least since the end of the Dark Ages.

Of course you know that Germany exists since 140 years? Prussia was not the biggest eco since the Dark ages either (and even the Kingdom of Prussia existed since what, the beginning of 17th? Before it was a baltic duchy) and the HRE has never been a state.

@kronic: The authors are anglosaxon (seriously, I think France might still be lacking in trade results compared to both UK and Germany for a long time so it might explain it).

edit: @Mise:

 

[El_Machinae]

It might not be the best metric to discuss the relative power, anyway. A question will remain about how much of the GDP is 'spare', after paying for essential living expenses. It's spare GDP that invested or squandered. If we compare the GDP of the US to 40 years ago, the current US seems to think that it cannot 'afford' a full space program. This seems very weird if we think of the US as being 'much more wealthy' than it used to be. But so much of the GDP has been redirected and appropriated that it might actually be true that the US cannot afford a space program.

Will China be economically 'bigger'? Probably. Economically more powerful? I dunno.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I predict that number one will be same as today: The EU (or the Greater German Co-Prosperity Zone as it might be called by then by insufferable pundits) and number two either China or rhe USA.
All those predictions don't take political changes into account. It's possible that the EU will expand and incorporate Turkey, North Africa or even Russia, not necessarily as full members but maybe as part of the common market.
It's also possible that China will swallow up Taiwan or lose Xinjiang. Their western provinces have a very low population density and an underdeveloped infrastructure, but that's also where most of their natural resources (oil, gas, rare earth elements) are. Uprisings in these areas could be very detrimental to China's development.

It's partly due to demographic changes. Germany's population is shrinking whereas the UK's is growing. [...] And Germany's current population is still shrinking faster than the UK's, even if we ignore immigration in both countries. (Germany's fertility rate is 1.36 per female; UK's is 1.82. Replacement rate is just above 2.)
[...]
The first trend means that the UK will have a raw population advantage over Germany.

Bah, just means you'll have higher unemployment.
Mao Zedong thought the higher the population of a country the higher the prosperity and power. His successors know this is wrong.
Besides:

Population growth is notoriously difficult to predict accurately, especially now when developed countries went through the transition. Relatively small changes in the patters of migration, the overall fertility rates, life expectance, etc., can totally change the end result you get.

Reminds me of the prediction (made around 19000) that Germany will have a population of 300 million by the year 2000. Fertility rates in Germany are rising again by the way.

I do think Western societies will deeply regret that they gave up their industrial base so lightly. I'm far less bullish about all those services. When you talk about a service industry that cannot be replicated locally then I'm just asking myself what these superior services are that you think countries like the UK export and that everybody needs to have?

Agree. I'm thinking of international financial services that inflate GDP but inevitably go *poof*.

 

[Winner]

Of course you know that Germany exists since 140 years?

Sure, all those Germans just suddenly popped into existence in 1871...

Prussia was not the biggest eco since the Dark ages either (and even the Kingdom of Prussia existed since what, the beginning of 17th? Before it was a baltic duchy) and the HRE has never been a state.

OK, to clarify - when I said "Germany", I meant not just the modern state, but all its precursors, including the HRE. Simply all the countries, statelets, free cities and whatnot dominated by German-speaking people.

Let's leave it at that, okay?

 

[Winner]

I predict that number one will be same as today: The EU (or the Greater German Co-Prosperity Zone as it might be called by then by insufferable pundits) and number two either China or rhe USA.

I think China will be a bigger economy than the EU, unless the EU expands a lot in the next 40 years. Today we have 500 million people. Let's say Ukraine, Belarus, and the rest of the Balkans join, as well as the remaining Western European countries. That will increase the population by another 60 million or so. Let's also say the UN population projections for Europe are wrong, and so there will be 40 million more people overall thanks to natural increase and immigration. That will still give us "only" about 600 million, half that of China. Even if the living standard in the new member states reaches the levels of old member states by then, it will be very hard to maintain our position as the largest economy (or economic bloc) on the planet.

Maybe if the Greater German Co-Prosperity Zone swallows Russia... nah, that's been tried before

Reminds me of the prediction (made around 19000) that Germany will have a population of 300 million by the year 2000. Fertility rates in Germany are rising again by the way.

Yes. As I said, demographic trends are notoriously hard to predict accurately, especially today.

For instance, what if in 20 years someone invents an anti-ageing gene therapy that will make us stay healthy and reasonably young-ish looking well into our 70s? What if it becomes commonplace for women to have children when they're over fifty? It would totally change the equation, as couples would be able to put off having children without the fear of not being able to afford them before their biological "window of opportunity" passes.

Anything can happen.

 

[RedRalph]

Why is Russia's population predicted to generally do well (which it is, whether in 5 or 50 years)?

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Let's leave it at that, okay?

Sure, but with that kind of thinking, you can say everything. that's like saying Charlemagne was german . Sounds great but is wrong. I have nothing against Germany btw (your smileys makes me feel u got it this way)...

 

[Akka]

Germany's demographics are indeed bad enough that it may end up behind the UK and France in terms of population and size of the economy by 2050. What kind of cracks me up all the time about these projections is that France always ends up being smaller than the UK although there's no real reason to believe that it has to turn out that way.

Overestimation of the UK is an EXTREMELY pervasive trend in these forums, and in the anglo-saxon world in general.

Just look at the polls about the greatest civilizations in history, you can bet on UK/England being in the overall top3, despite in reality not being in the top3 of Europe alone.

I think Germany will remain the largest economy in Europe pretty much forever. Once could argue it has always been the largest economy in Europe, at least since the end of the Dark Ages.

Well, save for the fact that Germany didn't even exists before the imperial period, and that France was far above and beyond everyone until the early XIXth century, then it was UK, and Germany didn't finally caught up until the end of the same century.

But I guess if you count "Dark Ages" ending at 1900, then it may be right...

 

[Alassius]

Overestimation of the UK is an EXTREMELY pervasive trend in these forums, and in the anglo-saxon world in general.

Just look at the polls about the greatest civilizations in history, you can bet on UK/England being in the overall top3, despite in reality not being in the top3 of Europe alone.

Surely Britain had a bigger impact to the rest of the world, than to Europe alone?

 

[Akka]

Surely Britain had a bigger impact to the rest of the world, than to Europe alone?

Could you rephrase it in a way that makes sense ?

 

[Flying Pig]

The influence of the British Empire is up there with Rome and the Greeks on the world. The dominance of the English language, the spread of democracy and old-school liberal values, and the prevalence of Christianity in the world are for better or for worse our legacy - not to mention the ethnic and linguistic makeup of the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the other 'settler colonies' outside of Europe. Rome gets the nod partly because many of its traditions (notably Christianity) were spread by the British, as do the Greeks for democracy which was exported, again, on the ships of Her Majesty's Royal Navy.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, save for the fact that Germany didn't even exists before the imperial period, and that France was far above and beyond everyone until the early XIXth century, then it was UK, and Germany didn't finally caught up until the end of the same century.

But I guess if you count "Dark Ages" ending at 1900, then it may be right...

I think he meant the German states collectively as well, not just unified Germany. Germany had some semblance of unity in the Middle Ages during the Hohenstaufen's though, but that wasn't even close compared to Post-1871 Germany.

 

[Akka]

I think he meant the German states collectively as well, not just unified Germany. Germany had some semblance of unity in the Middle Ages during the Hohenstaufen's though, but that wasn't even close compared to Post-1871 Germany.

Even if we consider a shattered collection of pseudo-states switching allegiances with the wind as a nation (which is really a huge stretch of the imagination), Germany was still not a strong economic power. As said, France was basically unmatched by a large margin until the end of the XVIIIth century.

 

[Akka]

The influence of the British Empire is up there with Rome and the Greeks on the world.

No.
Most of the actual impact doesn't come from the British Empire, but from USA.
Sure the USA has itself a direct and recent connection with the British Empire, but its influence stem from its own accomplishments, and not the British ones - basically everything influencial that came from the USA has been created there, not inherited from UK.

Everything that you describe was caused by the USA, not by the British Empire.
Not to say that the UK is not a noteworthy nation. But it's HUGELY overestimated - due to both having its golden age very recently, and fresher in the minds, and most of all benefitting from being a sister culture from USA.

 

[Alassius]

Could you rephrase it in a way that makes sense ?

As in, in Europe alone, Britain might not be as important as say France. But to the rest of the world, Britain certainly had a bigger impact than any other European country.

No.
Most of the actual impact doesn't come from the British Empire, but from USA.
Sure the USA has itself a direct and recent connection with the British Empire, but its influence stem from its own accomplishments, and not the British ones - basically everything influencial that came from the USA has been created there, not inherited from UK.

Everything that you describe was caused by the USA, not by the British Empire.
Not to say that the UK is not a noteworthy nation. But it's HUGELY overestimated - due to both having its golden age very recently, and fresher in the minds, and most of all benefitting from being a sister culture from USA.

Errr, Canada and Australia speak English because of Americans? Or was it India's democracy that's because of the USA?

America is having a golden age right now, even later than Britain's. The world was already in today's shape before America had a standing army. America didn't really change that shape that much.

 

[Tahuti]

Errr, Canada and Australia speak English because of Americans? Or was it India's democracy that's because of the USA?

And... don't forget Cricket and Football!

 

[Flying Pig]

No.
Everything that you describe was caused by the USA, not by the British Empire.

That's completely ridiculous. There really is no other answer.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

Another arrogant American .