I was in a argument over which Super-power was better (India,China,Russia) He was American and obviously said America was, I looked up facts and said I'll put them onto the forum while I was at it.He said America was the "best" So here they are... You guys can judge these for yourself.

America 1. Have the most expensive healthcare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQo6ji35Ibg and most ineffective. If you consider GB a super-power.

2. Russia was ranked #2 behind Hong Kong for having the most beautiful women. http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjADahUKEwjT7ey81ZXGAhVOL9sKHZrmAKE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdestinationspoint.net%2Fmisc%2Ftop-11-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-women-in-the-world%2F&ei=jdmAVZPzLc7e7AaazYOICg&usg=AFQjCNGDVVPwHkAH8ASHXJWrdI1l2oycaA&sig2=zfHnskhXKSQ2eIB0RGIK8w

3. http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjADahUKEwjT7ey81ZXGAhVOL9sKHZrmAKE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdestinationspoint.net%2Fmisc%2Ftop-11-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-women-in-the-world%2F&ei=jdmAVZPzLc7e7AaazYOICg&usg=AFQjCNGDVVPwHkAH8ASHXJWrdI1l2oycaA&sig2=zfHnskhXKSQ2eIB0RGIK8w Yes,India is no3 with America at 7.

4. http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjADahUKEwjT7ey81ZXGAhVOL9sKHZrmAKE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdestinationspoint.net%2Fmisc%2Ftop-11-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-women-in-the-world%2F&ei=jdmAVZPzLc7e7AaazYOICg&usg=AFQjCNGDVVPwHkAH8ASHXJWrdI1l2oycaA&sig2=zfHnskhXKSQ2eIB0RGIK8w The Irish won here ;) Ireland is the best country in the world. It has one negative which was fixed with by being the first nation to legalise same-sex marriage.

Will be adding more points soon. Stay tuned :D

Here a debunk from me you are.

1. My grandfather was on the heart transplant list for 8 hours. He survived and is in his 70s with a heart in its 20s. Still ineffective?

2 & 3. This is absolutely useless. Beauty is opinion.

4. Ireland was not the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. The Netherlands was.

Edited 6/17/2015 02:50:59

Ireland was the first to legalize gay marriage by public referendum rather than legislature.

Not that really means anything in the context

India and Russia aren't superpowers at the moment. India has a low literacy rate, high poverty rate, and generally isn't a place that's fun to visit- as someone who's still got an Indian passport, my country has a long way to go. We used to have 33% of the world's GDP at one time (US peaked at 25%, at the beginning of the post-WWII era), but that's not the case anymore.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's economy has become increasingly resource-driven so it's not quite as stable as America's innovation-driven economy (which is far less susceptible to fluctuations in commodity prices or labor costs). Similarly, China's transitioning from a factor-driven economy to a more innovation-based one (which will take some time), so even economically I don't think it's quite at the same level as the US yet as an economic superpower. You could say that China has surpassed the US by some GDP (PPP) estimates- however, GDP (PPP) is a bit flawed as it treats a Chinese-manufactured automobile and a Xiaomi phone at the same level as a Ford and an iPhone, which aren't true just yet. Moreover, China's population is three times the size of that of the US- to match the US in terms of economic standard of living, it needs three times the GDP, not just a little bit more.

So I don't think you can even label any country other than the US a "superpower" just yet- probably in 10 or 20 years, as China's military is quickly catching up. However, right now- in terms of both hard power (e.g., economic and military influence) and soft power (e.g., how likely people in other countries are to wear our brands, use our language as a sign of high status, and watch our movies), the US is the only superpower.

I'd recommend reading up a bit more on international relations before you try to argue that certain nations are "superpowers"- there's some interesting questions that pop up. For example, Joseph Nye (who pioneered the field of soft power studies) has controversially argued that China and Russia don't even have any considerable amount of soft power (which particularly sucks for Russia, as soft power is a great way to soften the decline from superpower status).

I'm also surprised that you didn't consider the EU a "superpower"- of course there'd be some controversy over it, as it's a sui generis supranational body, but you could make a good argument, at least economically and possibly also military. Definitely in terms of soft power- probably beats Russia here, easily. The only challenge would be trying to figure out whether its decentralized government structure keeps it from having that type of concentrated power.

Edited 6/17/2015 03:22:31

None of these mean a thing instead of the first one.

America by far the better country to live in. Has a fourth the population of China and India, so what would you expect?

India not a superpower.

People contradict themselves, i went on a rant about this.

People hate America for one reason : They hate us, cuz they ain't us. True fax.

North Korea hates you because of that movie (and a lot of other things). Quite frankly, I would hate to live in the US.

It does kind of suck here we worship the Kardashians and people Hate I mean HATE the Muslims in the South. Also in the South Inbreds lots of Inbeds.

India and Russia aren't superpowers at the moment. India has a low literacy rate, high poverty rate, and generally isn't a place that's fun to visit- as someone who's still got an Indian passport, my country has a long way to go. We used to have 33% of the world's GDP at one time (US peaked at 25%, at the beginning of the post-WWII era), but that's not the case anymore.

Absolutely true.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's economy has become increasingly resource-driven so it's not quite as stable as America's innovation-driven economy (which is far less susceptible to fluctuations in commodity prices or labour costs). Similarly, China's transitioning from a factor-driven economy to a more innovation-based one (which will take some time), so even economically I don't think it's quite at the same level as the US yet as an economic superpower. You could say that China has surpassed the US by some GDP (PPP) estimates- however, GDP (PPP) is a bit flawed as it treats a Chinese-manufactured automobile and a Xiaomi phone at the same level as a Ford and an iPhone, which aren't true just yet. Moreover, China's population is three times the size of that of the US- to match the US in terms of economic standard of living, it needs three times the GDP, not just a little bit more.

Innovation-driven? There is no economy driven by innovation - this is just more propoganda talk from you. Perhaps you should explain more what you mean, but I think it's propoganda. Factor-driven? Anyhow, China is one of the highest working and producing (the highest working and producing) economy, in fact, so I think you meant it as degrading, but you're wrong. A SAIC and Xiaomi may not be at the same level as American technology, but there's four times more and growing faster.

But yes, China's population is four* times bigger than America, so it does have quite a few more problems if you want to live in it.

So I don't think you can even label any country other than the US a "superpower" just yet- probably in 10 or 20 years, as China's military is quickly catching up. However, right now- in terms of both hard power (e.g., economic and military influence) and soft power (e.g., how likely people in other countries are to wear our brands, use our language as a sign of high status, and watch our movies), the US is the only superpower.

Tsh, China is twice as strong as America, China and America are the worlds' superpowers - with America barely on the superpower scale anymore. Hardpower - immeausurable. Soft-power - China is part of the most powerful group on the planet - the SCO. English - a high status tongue - don't flatter yourself. It's a common tongue, but we don't speak it because it's cool - we speak it because of the British Empire's former dominions. Wear American brands? Watch American films? Are there such things (Obviously there are, but I have not heard of any except Avatar). I suppose in NATO, there is, but that's because America has them wrapped around their little finger.

I'd recommend reading up a bit more on international relations before you try to argue that certain nations are "superpowers"- there's some interesting questions that pop up. For example, Joseph Nye (who pioneered the field of soft power studies) has controversially argued that China and Russia don't even have any considerable amount of soft power (which particularly sucks for Russia, as soft power is a great way to soften the decline from superpower status).

You have to figure out some things for yourself, powerful when it comes to politics. The worst thing you can listen to is to a biased account - Joseph Nye, maybe for America, did pioneer International Relations, but, you know, in some big American university, they have a former general teaching International Relations - these are just paid propoganda spreaders. He'd say whoever is currently America's target/enemy/queasy has very little soft power, is weak, because good old American might. Have you heard of David Storkey? British historian, probably your version of Joseph Nye. That said, Russia does have less soft power than America and China, but it has the best friend in the world - China. Russia is also magnetising some former EU states, so to say it has little influence is just outright doltish and dumb.

I'm also surprised that you didn't consider the EU a "superpower"- of course there'd be some controversy over it, as it's a sui generis supranational body, but you could make a good argument, at least economically and possibly also military. Definitely in terms of soft power- probably beats Russia here, easily. The only challenge would be trying to figure out whether its decentralized government structure keeps it from having that type of concentrated power.

EUSSR - no, it isn't. Economically, it's good longterm good marks, but shorterm, right now, it's completely failing. Watch Nigel Farage prattle about it. Speak English, not Latin, by the way. Soft power...it's increasingly controlled by America, so I guess American soft power+the little soft power they have on their own beats Russia's? I think so, but "easily" is not the word to use. But EU is a group of 20 something countries, not one country, and there's folk from all over who hate the EU. It's got no nationalism, no military, and it's currently very divided.

It does kind of suck here we worship the Kardashians and people Hate I mean HATE the Muslims in the South. Also in the South Inbreds lots of Inbeds.

Looked up the Kardashians, well, of course, in every country, someone worships dumb folk. You have it good - at least the majority Muslim population doesn't hate you in the South.

I don't think you can really judge that. Honestly as an American, living in Texas, there are a lot of things wrong with the United States. The Tea Party, I'm sure you all know. However, the United States isn't that bad. It's still a Superpower, obviously, but it's not the best country in the world. It's a very diverse place, and that creates a forum for lunatics to voice their opinions, and they're listened to. Ted Cruz, a White Supremacist Canadian Latino, is running for President. The point is, every country except for maybe Rwanda or North Korea has good or bad things. You can't really judge a country for not being perfect. All you can do is improve the good things.

I don't know the Tea Party. But America is definitely very up there in living conditions, many Americans don't realise this.

By the way, go Ireland for superpower status.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2gtXHjYNZk really? Stanley McChrystal sounds kinda smart

Innovation-driven? There is no economy driven by innovation - this is just more propoganda talk from you. Perhaps you should explain more what you mean, but I think it's propoganda. Factor-driven? Anyhow, China is one of the highest working and producing (the highest working and producing) economy, in fact, so I think you meant it as degrading, but you're wrong. A SAIC and Xiaomi may not be at the same level as American technology, but there's four times more and growing faster.

Innovation-driven economy is not something that I came up with. Economies are either factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven. The term is semi-technical and is used by groups like the WEF to classify economies.

Factor-driven economies- like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia- are heavily dependent on the price of commodities like oil for their growth.

Efficiency-driven economies- like China, India, etc.- process those commodities and depend on their ability to provide cheap/efficient labor in a global market.

Innovation-driven economies- like Singapore, the US, and perhaps Germany (I'm rusty)- create new items and processes to drive their growth. They aren't able to simply grow off natural resources and aren't able to provide cheap/unpaid labor, so they focus on research (lots of patents here) and making new (like iPhones/iPads) or better goods (like really good cars) to compete in the global market.

The first type of economy is extremely susceptible to commodity costs- i.e., when demand for oil decreases, Russia's economy shrinks. The second type of economy is vulnerable to rising labor costs- i.e., when Chinese workers start earning more, their economic growth slows. The third isn't dependent on things that fluctuate so easily- research is a great long-term investment because you start creating new markets that you can dominate in and often are the only group that's capable of producing what you produce. Someone can't just show up with cheap labor or more access to silicon to outcompete Apple- they have to be able to make good gadgets and be able to improve them. So that's why it's called an "innovation-driven" economy, not because innovation is a great buzzword (DAE Silicon Valley?) but because these economies depend on their ability to innovate in order to compete.

Tsh, China is twice as strong as America, China and America are the worlds' superpowers - with America barely on the superpower scale anymore. Hardpower - immeausurable. Soft-power - China is part of the most powerful group on the planet - the SCO. English - a high status tongue - don't flatter yourself. It's a common tongue, but we don't speak it because it's cool - we speak it because of the British Empire's former dominions. Wear American brands? Watch American films? Are there such things (Obviously there are, but I have not heard of any except Avatar). I suppose in NATO, there is, but that's because America has them wrapped around their little finger.

By 2050, your hard power argument will probably be true- America will be getting outspent in military deveopment by both China and India. However, throughout the post-WWII period, America has dominated the world in military spending, currently spending 4 times as much as China. This has led to decades of accumulated advantages in research and development- for example, until 2011, no other country in the world even knew that the United States has stealth helicopters. China's navy, as I've probably pointed out before, is at best a green-water navy. The US has had a blue-water navy since the turn of the 20th century and is currently able to project power around the globe. Right now, China's military capabilites are mainly defensive and almost entirely focused in the Asia-Pacific region. Their research is focused on things like Dong Feng missiles- which are designed to block American aircraft carriers- not on technology that enables them to compete with the US in proxy wars. China is far behind in terms of aircraft carriers (which, admittedly, are probably the way of the battleship in 20 years, but still serve as the core of any blue-water navy) and, unlike the American navy, isn't yet at the stage where it's thinking about what to replace aircraft carriers with. Instead, China's focusing on catching up in the naval arena.

I don't think I quite explained what soft power is- soft power is the ability to use your culture in order to influence other countries. It's not about which military or economic groups you're in- that's still a form of hard power. (Even then, I'd argue that NATO trumps the SCO as NATO is a much more tightly-knit alliance and is also responsible for more military spending than any other military organization- NATO gets shit done).

For example, the UK has an incredible amount of soft power- as you pointed out, people speak British English in some places (although, if you look at countries like India, you'll notice a transition toward American English in the past 20 years- "zed" is now "zee", oddly enough). People know James Bond, watched the Royal Wedding, etc. However, the most recognized character in the world (by far) is Mickey Mouse. Hollywood movies often dominate other countries' theaters- for example, Kung Fu Panda kicked ass in China. That's an incredible concentration of soft power- people in China wear suits to KFC. Most people in the US think "shitty take-out" when you say "Chinese food" and "Jackie Chan?" when you say "Chinese movies."

There's still a massive gap that needs to be covered in both these categories. China is, of course, rapidly catching up- it's got a body of resources that guarantee its rise to superpower status in the long run, and of course the US is taking notice of this when it comes to military and economic strategy. However, it's not quite there yet, and won't be there in the next few years.

You have to figure out some things for yourself, powerful when it comes to politics. The worst thing you can listen to is to a biased account - Joseph Nye, maybe for America, did pioneer International Relations, but, you know, in some big American university, they have a former general teaching International Relations - these are just paid propoganda spreaders. He'd say whoever is currently America's target/enemy/queasy has very little soft power, is weak, because good old American might. Have you heard of David Storkey? British historian, probably your version of Joseph Nye. That said, Russia does have less soft power than America and China, but it has the best friend in the world - China. Russia is also magnetising some former EU states, so to say it has little influence is just outright doltish and dumb.

There's a great difference between "figuring out things for yourself" through critical thinking, in which you also take in a great deal of external sources- and "figuring out things for yourself" the way ancient Greeks did when it come to the natural world, which is just making things up after talking to yourself.

Joseph S. Nye is someone who literally pioneered the field of soft power studies. Both the Chinese and Russian governments take his accounts seriously. Moreover, if you want to call him a propagandist, read his works and actually find flaws in them. He offers analysis which is, fortunately enough, a falsifiable type of argument (unlike just calling someone a "propagandist" based on your limited knowledge of how American IR studies work).

Well it was just a little argument..(Was taken light-heartily) Was never meant to offend anyone just really a Topic in general.. If there is one thing America is the best at it is certainly the Olympics.

Innovation-driven economy is not something that I came up with. Economies are either factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven. The term is semi-technical and is used by groups like the WEF to classify economies.

Factor-driven economies- like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia- are heavily dependent on the price of commodities like oil for their growth.

Efficiency-driven economies- like China, India, etc.- process those commodities and depend on their ability to provide cheap/efficient labor in a global market.

Innovation-driven economies- like Singapore, the US, and perhaps Germany (I'm rusty)- create new items and processes to drive their growth. They aren't able to simply grow off natural resources and aren't able to provide cheap/unpaid labor, so they focus on research (lots of patents here) and making new (like iPhones/iPads) or better goods (like really good cars) to compete in the global market.

Ok, thanks for explaining your meanings. Factor-Driven Economies - Iran and Russia are not in here, 1990s Russia would be there, but since, Russia has greatly decreased it's dependence on oil. But then again, it's not really good enough to be in any of the other two, so I guess put it there. Iran? Same deal, but it does have some efficiency factor.

I already do not like this system, it is too broad. China has been in Innovation-Driven since Xiaoping times.

The first type of economy is extremely susceptible to commodity costs- i.e., when demand for oil decreases, Russia's economy shrinks. The second type of economy is vulnerable to rising labor costs- i.e., when Chinese workers start earning more, their economic growth slows. The third isn't dependent on things that fluctuate so easily- research is a great long-term investment because you start creating new markets that you can dominate in and often are the only group that's capable of producing what you produce. Someone can't just show up with cheap labour or more access to silicon to outcompete Apple- they have to be able to make good gadgets and be able to improve them. So that's why it's called an "innovation-driven" economy, not because innovation is a great buzzword (DAE Silicon Valley?) but because these economies depend on their ability to innovate in order to compete.

Second sentence, I think you mean, economic acceleration. It's certainly growing. With Apple (those sucky computers)...have you heard of Lenovo? You've heard of Xiomi. America still dominates the world in video games and in general, computers, but China is not far behind at all. And I guess I was mistaken about "innovation-driven", but you should have meant it before hand.

By 2050, your hard power argument will probably be true- America will be getting outspent in military deveopment by both China and India. However, throughout the post-WWII period, America has dominated the world in military spending, currently spending 4 times as much as China. This has led to decades of accumulated advantages in research and development- for example, until 2011, no other country in the world even knew that the United States has stealth helicopters. China's navy, as I've probably pointed out before, is at best a green-water navy. The US has had a blue-water navy since the turn of the 20th century and is currently able to project power around the globe. Right now, China's military capabilites are mainly defensive and almost entirely focused in the Asia-Pacific region. Their research is focused on things like Dong Feng missiles- which are designed to block American aircraft carriers- not on technology that enables them to compete with the US in proxy wars. China is far behind in terms of aircraft carriers (which, admittedly, are probably the way of the battleship in 20 years, but still serve as the core of any blue-water navy) and, unlike the American navy, isn't yet at the stage where it's thinking about what to replace aircraft carriers with. Instead, China's focusing on catching up in the naval arena.

Woah, woah, woah. I said nothing about hardpower. Hardpower, especially contemporary hardpower, is impossible to measure. We can really only use milestones for it, and I say, judging by how fast China went from fusion-fission, it's pretty scary. You're just going off the shady statistics the government gives you, which is always probably going to be an underestimation, just some number to put on. So, you can't talk here. End.

I don't think I quite explained what soft power is- soft power is the ability to use your culture in order to influence other countries. It's not about which military or economic groups you're in- that's still a form of hard power. (Even then, I'd argue that NATO trumps the SCO as NATO is a much more tightly-knit alliance and is also responsible for more military spending than any other military organization- NATO gets shit done).

SCO trumps NATO as it is arguably more tight-knit - but that's an argument for another time. Point - mean what you say before you say it. (Also, er, what? Culture? Government? Influencing? We are all living in what France's dream world 1000 years ago is, with Latin-based words in many European tongues, ties, bowties, and we still think speaking French is "classy".)

For example, the UK has an incredible amount of soft power- as you pointed out, people speak British English in some places (although, if you look at countries like India, you'll notice a transition toward American English in the past 20 years- "zed" is now "zee", oddly enough). People know James Bond, watched the Royal Wedding, etc. However, the most recognized character in the world (by far) is Mickey Mouse. Hollywood movies often dominate other countries' cinemas- for example, Kung Fu Panda kicked ass in China. That's an incredible concentration of soft power- people in China wear suits to KFC. Most people in the US think "shitty take-out" when you say "Chinese food" and "Jackie Chan?" when you say "Chinese movies."

Britain doesn't...the British Empire, yes. India is still "Zed" - it's generally folk working in computers that use "Zee". I don't know what James Bond is, don't know what the Royal Wedding is, don't know who Mickey Mouse is, Hollywood - American films. Kung Fu Panda? Have not heard of it, but what a dumb name :) I practised Tae-kwan do - waiting for Tae-kawn do Bear.

And what does culture matter? Your meaning of softpower is quite different to mine - I mean softpower as everything, just not actual weaponry. Relations, allies, so on. Here are some things that everyone has actually watched - Seventeen Moments of Spring, the sorrow when Brezhnev was laid to rest and The Trio from Petroposhkem. I have never been to America, so just looks like Americans are generally racist to Chinese.

Innovation-driven? There is no economy driven by innovation - this is just more propoganda talk from you. Perhaps you should explain more what you mean, but I think it's propoganda. Factor-driven? Anyhow, China is one of the highest working and producing (the highest working and producing) economy, in fact, so I think you meant it as degrading, but you're wrong. A SAIC and Xiaomi may not be at the same level as American technology, but there's four times more and growing faster.


Innovation-driven economy is not something that I came up with. Economies are either factor-driven, efficiency-driven, or innovation-driven. The term is semi-technical and is used by groups like the WEF to classify economies.

Factor-driven economies- like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia- are heavily dependent on the price of commodities like oil for their growth.

Efficiency-driven economies- like China, India, etc.- process those commodities and depend on their ability to provide cheap/efficient labor in a global market.

Innovation-driven economies- like Singapore, the US, and perhaps Germany (I'm rusty)- create new items and processes to drive their growth. They aren't able to simply grow off natural resources and aren't able to provide cheap/unpaid labor, so they focus on research (lots of patents here) and making new (like iPhones/iPads) or better goods (like really good cars) to compete in the global market.

The first type of economy is extremely susceptible to commodity costs- i.e., when demand for oil decreases, Russia's economy shrinks. The second type of economy is vulnerable to rising labor costs- i.e., when Chinese workers start earning more, their economic growth slows. The third isn't dependent on things that fluctuate so easily- research is a great long-term investment because you start creating new markets that you can dominate in and often are the only group that's capable of producing what you produce. Someone can't just show up with cheap labor or more access to silicon to outcompete Apple- they have to be able to make good gadgets and be able to improve them. So that's why it's called an "innovation-driven" economy, not because innovation is a great buzzword (DAE Silicon Valley?) but because these economies depend on their ability to innovate in order to compete.

Tsh, China is twice as strong as America, China and America are the worlds' superpowers - with America barely on the superpower scale anymore. Hardpower - immeausurable. Soft-power - China is part of the most powerful group on the planet - the SCO. English - a high status tongue - don't flatter yourself. It's a common tongue, but we don't speak it because it's cool - we speak it because of the British Empire's former dominions. Wear American brands? Watch American films? Are there such things (Obviously there are, but I have not heard of any except Avatar). I suppose in NATO, there is, but that's because America has them wrapped around their little finger.


By 2050, your hard power argument will probably be true- America will be getting outspent in military deveopment by both China and India. However, throughout the post-WWII period, America has dominated the world in military spending, currently spending 4 times as much as China. This has led to decades of accumulated advantages in research and development- for example, until 2011, no other country in the world even knew that the United States has stealth helicopters. China's navy, as I've probably pointed out before, is at best a green-water navy. The US has had a blue-water navy since the turn of the 20th century and is currently able to project power around the globe. Right now, China's military capabilites are mainly defensive and almost entirely focused in the Asia-Pacific region. Their research is focused on things like Dong Feng missiles- which are designed to block American aircraft carriers- not on technology that enables them to compete with the US in proxy wars. China is far behind in terms of aircraft carriers (which, admittedly, are probably the way of the battleship in 20 years, but still serve as the core of any blue-water navy) and, unlike the American navy, isn't yet at the stage where it's thinking about what to replace aircraft carriers with. Instead, China's focusing on catching up in the naval arena.

I don't think I quite explained what soft power is- soft power is the ability to use your culture in order to influence other countries. It's not about which military or economic groups you're in- that's still a form of hard power. (Even then, I'd argue that NATO trumps the SCO as NATO is a much more tightly-knit alliance and is also responsible for more military spending than any other military organization- NATO gets shit done).

For example, the UK has an incredible amount of soft power- as you pointed out, people speak British English in some places (although, if you look at countries like India, you'll notice a transition toward American English in the past 20 years- "zed" is now "zee", oddly enough). People know James Bond, watched the Royal Wedding, etc. However, the most recognized character in the world (by far) is Mickey Mouse. Hollywood movies often dominate other countries' theaters- for example, Kung Fu Panda kicked ass in China. That's an incredible concentration of soft power- people in China wear suits to KFC. Most people in the US think "shitty take-out" when you say "Chinese food" and "Jackie Chan?" when you say "Chinese movies."

There's still a massive gap that needs to be covered in both these categories. China is, of course, rapidly catching up- it's got a body of resources that guarantee its rise to superpower status in the long run, and of course the US is taking notice of this when it comes to military and economic strategy. However, it's not quite there yet, and won't be there in the next few years.

America does have the slight edge on China in your meaning of soft power, maybe even a more than slight edge, but America has ways to go in foreign relations and power before it catches up to China. Aim for Jinping, so you'll land on Obama. (Aim for the stars, you'll land on the Moon). Remember, not everyone lives in NATO.

There's a great difference between "figuring out things for yourself" through critical thinking, in which you also take in a great deal of external sources- and "figuring out things for yourself" the way ancient Greeks did when it come to the natural world, which is just making things up after talking to yourself.

Ok, let's call it critical thinking - you don't rely on just one, probably pretty biased American source, Joseph Nye. Chinese and Russian governments - come on, be sensible. You even say yourself that he is flawed - all IR, politicans, and politics professors are this way, swinging to one side of the fence or the other. Don't try anything else. The reason his books sell is not for their amazing neutrality, but because they say "So we bombed the SAND N******s back to the stone age! And before that, the JUNGLE N******S!", which makes proud Americans (you) feel good.