World-System (1980-2100) Eight Futures for Canada

The Trump II administration has threatened a Trade War with Canada and the imposition of tariffs has been delayed while negotiations proceed (here). Canada, Mexico, China and the EU are the US's largest trading partners. I have presented the MXL20 (Mexico Late 20th Century) model here with eight future growth forecasts. In this post, I will do the same for Canada.

The Canadian forecasts are a little different in that they group clearly into two classes: Growth and Steady State (presented above) or Collapse (presented below) when compared against a the Random Walk (RW)--I give more detail about the classes of models with the MXL20 model here--the best two forecasts are the TECHE (Technical Efficiency) forecast and the Business as Usual (BAU) forecast. The forecasts do not predict growth forever (the Techno-Optimist forecast) but rather a steady-state after 2100 (the type of forecast one would get with a Classical Economic model).

The forecast for Geopolitical Alignment with the United States is very interesting and, I would argue, speaks directly to the threatened Trade War. The forecast with the USL20 model driving inputs to the CAL20 model suggests a Growth-and-Collapse scenario with a peak around 2025 at the start of the Trump II administration. In other words, the benefits of Canada's alignment with US have reached their peak and are not forecast to continue into the future--and my forecasts start in 2010!

Both the IMF (here) and the OECD (here) argue (as of 2024) that Canada needs to focus on internal structural issues and Technology, the BAU and the TECHE (Technical Efficiency) forecasts above. Reorienting the Canadian Economy will be difficult during a Trade War with the US, to say the least.

It would be reasonable to argue that some other Geopolitical Alignment might serve Canada better than alignment with the US, which appears to be ending.  I have estimated three other alignment models: World System (W), North America (NA) and China (CN). All of these models (presented above) predict collapse, some collapses being severe (NA and CN, respectively). Even focusing on Technical Productivity (TECHP) is worse than a Random Walk (RW, tomorrow being like today except for random shocks).

In summary, the CAL20 model suggests that Canada should concentrate on getting it's structural house in order and implementing efficiency-producing technologies, two steps that the IMF and the OCED have been emphasizing for the last twenty years. Let the Trade War with the US play it's way out. Geopolitical Alignment with the US has run it's course.

The IMF (here) and the OECD (here) economic reports about Canada bring up many other macro-economic issues. I'll look at those issues in the future. Setting the big picture for the Canadian Economy will help put detailed policy issues in a better perspective. I want to emphasize again that the future is unknowable. All I am doing is creating scenarios based on state space models. We will have to wait for the future to understand how useful such models might be.

NOTES

The Measurement Matrix for the CAL20 model is:

The first six indicators in standard scores are taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI). KOF = KOF Index of Globalization, EF = Ecological Footprint, HDI = Human Development Index. The second two components: CA2=(0.721 LU - 0.675 EF) and CA3 = (0.586 LU + 0.680 EF - 0.249 CO2 - 0.263 Q - 0.2076 N) describe Environmental and Unemployment Error Correction Controllers (ECCs). I will present the behavior of the Canadian ECCs in a future post.

You can run the CAL20 model here. The Bootstrap confidence intervals for the coefficients are:

You can convert the model into a Techno-Optimist model by setting F[1,1] = 1.0 in the System Matrix, but that would be an improbable value although it is close to the Upper Confidence Interval (UCI) of 0.990595.

World-System (2015-2030) US Egg-Price Controversey

 

To be honest, I never thought I would be blogging about Egg Prices, but evidently the price of eggs and other grocery items may have helped Trump win a second term. Had Biden imposed price controls during his administration, there would have been a terrible outcry among pundits and economists. There appears to be no consensus about price controls and Neoliberalism insists on leaving the markets alone to set prices.

What interests me about the Egg-Price Controversy is that Americans do not seem to understand how markets work. For those that have gone to college, they must have been asleep in ECON 101 or have not connected Supply and Demand Curves to the US Capitalist System. Shocks such as COVD-19 or the Bird Flu (H5N1) Pandemic affect the supply of chickens (eggs) as herds are culled and, according to ECON 101, if supply decreases then prices increase. I guess Americans think prices will always be constant and if they aren't then it is the fault of the unlucky Presidential Administration in charge during the shock. 

Part of the problem here is the ECON 101 understanding of how markets work. Adjustment to Supply shocks is supposed to be instantaneous. But, time to adjustment is most likely a function of the size of the shock.

The graphic above shows shocks to Egg Prices from 1980 to the present. The shocks during COVID and the Bird Flu were very large by historical standards. There is not a lot of historical experience to predict how the market will respond, but it won't be instantaneous.

The graphic above shows the response of egg prices to systemic shocks.  The strongest forces (statistically) driving egg prices come from the World-System (something likely not discussed in ECON 101). The first graph above shows the Price of Eggs in January as a function of growth shocks to the World System. As the World System grows in response to shocks, egg prices increase. The assertion by Techno-Optimists that markets always reduce prices has to be tested in each market; it fails in the Market for Eggs.

The second graph shows shocks to the World-Market compared to Global Temperature. Regardless of what markets do, shocks to Global Temperature reduce egg prices (chickens must like a warmer climate, to a point). Finally, the third graph shows World-Market conditions compared to the Ecological Footprint. World-Market shocks increase egg prices. It takes almost ten years (at least in the model)  to work the shocks out of the system. Since, during the decade, there are likely to be more shocks, establishing dynamic causality is always difficult and contentious.

What is the Working Class in a Capitalist System to do? You are supposed to play by the rules and reduce your demand for eggs. Instead, you ask for the Socialist solution of Price Controls or elect a Far Right Wing Presidential Candidate to solve the problem who thinks that eggs come from a machine in the back room at McDonalds. Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to switch to a vegan breakfast without eggs until everything blows over? Let the Price Gougers pound sand. Capitalism is certainly full of Contradictions that can make life miserable for consumers.

If you notice from the forecast at the beginning of this post, things are only going to get worse for Egg Prices! Shocks seem to be getting bigger as do the model's prediction intervals.  Keep in mind that no one knows the future and a model is not reality. The important issue is to understand how to protect yourself in a Capitalist System, a system that will not change soon and, when it does change, will produce massive shock waves that might make COVID and the Bird Flu look mild.

NOTES

Here is a more detailed look at the Error-Correcting Controllers (ECCs, a concept from Systems Theory not Economics) The second ECC shows how environmental conditions control egg prices (0.775 LP + 0.411 P.Wheat. + 0.241 P.Oil. - 0.235 TEMP) where LP is the Living Planet Index, P.Wheat. is the price of Wheat, P.Oil. is the price of Oil and TEMP is global temperature (see the Measurement Matrix above). In other words, favorable environmental conditions in the World System reduce the price of eggs. Finally, the third ECC shows another environmental World-Market controller  (0.712 P.Oil. + 0.461 P.Wheat - 0.241 Oil, - 0.293 EF) where Oil is World Oil production and EF is the Ecological Footprint. World Markets, when compared to Environmental conditions. Against a background of Egg Producer Price Gouging, World Markets and Environmental conditions are also taking their toll.

Another aspect of the Egg-Price controversy is the role of Technology. The Techno-Optimist Manifesto and  Neoliberalism both claim that Technology will drive prices down in a free market. I don't see that happening in the Egg Market. Technology (in the form of Vaccines) could reduce the impact of Bird Flu  but there is a problem: it is expensive to inoculate an entire herd of chickens, especially those that are going quickly to the slaughter house. There is some discussion of inoculating laying hens, but inoculation will only add to egg prices. Because there is a World market for chickens, culling the herd is (surprisingly) more cost effective since many countries will not accept chickens from infected herds. So, the effect of Technology (productivity increase) is not very clear in this market.

You can experiment  with the effect of Technology on Egg Prices here. You can see that the effect, at least in the short run, is not to lower prices as claimed by The Techno-Optimist Manifesto and  Neoliberalism. Sweeping claims about markets and technology always have to be tested.

World-System (1970-2100) Eight Futures for Mexico

 

The Trump II administration has threatened a Trade War with Mexico and the imposition of tariffs has been delayed while negotiations proceed (here). Canada, Mexico, China and the EU are the US's largest trading partners. Trump has threatened tariffs on all four if his demands on immigration and drug trafficking are not met. The common assumption is that the US "Gorilla" will impose it's will on other nations in the world and will get what it wants. But a World Economic Order where the US imposes it's hegemony on the rest of the World-System is not the only option and it may not be the best for any particular country.

In this post, I will create future paths for the development of Mexico based on different assumptions about possible Geopolitical Alignments. First, there is some history here between Mexico and the two Trump Administrations. In 1994, the US signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the impetus for free trade started in the Reagan Administration and is a central assumption of Neoliberalism. In 2017, with the start of the Trump I Administration, NAFTA was renegotiated into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (Trump thought NAFTA was a "bad deal"). Now, in the Trump II Administration, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (that Trump negotiated in 2017) is itself a "bad deal" and Trump thinks that the US is being treated very "unfairly". In the future, trading partners might no longer want to deal with the US and a US Republican party that can't decide whether Neoliberal free trade is a good or bad thing.

Currently, Mexico has an important role to play in the Globalization of its trading partners (CN, CA and US) but does not exert much control over the system (here). Future Geopolitical alignments, to include giving up on the World-System, might be one of the the following (presented visually in the time plot at the beginning of this post):  

• BAU [119.6 < AIC = 124 < 128] The Business as Usual (BAU) model is not a bad option (you can experiment with it here--see the bootstrap confidences intervals for coefficients below). It would essentially involve Isolationism and would insulate Mexico from US bullying tactics.
  
  
• LAC [73.36 < AIC = 131.5 < 170.1] The Latin American Regional (LAC) Alignment would direct Mexico to trade with it's Latin American Neighbors. It would not mean isolation from the World-System but rather Latin American Integration or a confederation of Latin American countries that would interface with the World-System (an unrealized idea that goes back to the 19th Century). In the MXL20 model, it would result in a steady-state after 2040.
  
  
• RW [38.14 < AIC = 48.06 < 57.18] The Random Walk (RW) model would open Mexico up to all types of shocks from the World-System, with Mexico becoming a Small Country, possibly dominated by some other World hegemonic leader. In the short-run (year-to-year) it is not a bad description of 20th Century Mexican history as one damned thing after another.
  
  
• W [69.96 < AIC = 91.55 < 104.3] Hierarchy Theory would argue that linking Mexico to the World System would be the best way to control growth, environmental problems and unemployment (see the Measurement Matrix below for the MX1, MX2 and MX3 state variable components). For Mexico, such a linkage would mean Degrowth after 2040.
  
  
• US [104.7 < AIC = 112.8 < 119.5] Hegemony Theory would suggest that linking to the Hegemonic World Leader (the US, in this case) would be the best strategy for a Semi-peripheral country such as Mexico. The US and Mexico have been strengthening ties (off and on) over the last three decades, but the Trump Administrations seem intent on severing the relationship. For Mexico, Hegemonic linkage would also mean Degrowth after 2040.
  
  
• CN [103.2 < AIC = 116.5 < 129.1] Mexico has also had a history of strengthening relations with China. If the US cuts Mexico free, China may well move into the Geopolitical vacuum. Of the choices uncovered by the MXL20 model, linking with China would be the worst and would lead to almost immediate collapse. The reason is the predicted collapse of the CN21 Model (to be covered in a future post).
  
  
• TECH1 Productivity [63.11 < AIC = 102.8 < 135.3] Mexico could also choose to improve the technological advancement of their economy. One aspect of Technological change is productivity (output per worker, output per energy input, etc.). Although an attractive alternative suggested by Economic Growth Theory, it would be equivalent to a steady-state in Mexico (see LAC above). 
  
  
• TECH2 Efficiency [81.42 < AIC = 130.8 < 160.6] Another aspect of Technological change is efficiency, for example, decreasing energy use per unit of GDP. In Mexico, increases in Economic Efficiency would not be much better than a Random Walk (RW).

As with the IPCC Emission Scenarios the Geopolitical options for Mexico are not forecasts. The future is unknowable. Using different inputs to the MXL20 model, alternate futures can be extrapolated. We will have to wait to see what direction Mexico actually choses, but shocks from the Trump II administration may push the country into making choices.

Notes

MX1 is the dominant state variable of the MXL20 system with data taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI). The methodology used to create forecasts is similar to the one used by the Atlanta Federal Reserves GDPNow app but produces growth scenarios similar to the IPCC Emission Scenarios. Prediction intervals are generated using a Bootstrap algorithm in the R programming language. The AIC can be used to evaluate the quality of models but does not determine which model provides the best forecast. An explanation of Dynamic Component Models (DCMs) can be found here.

The MX1 state variable was created from the following weighted indicators (the first row of the Measurement Matrix) and explain 98% of the variation. 

The first six indicators in standard scores are taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI). KOF = KOF Index of Globalization, EF = Ecological Footprint, HDI = Human Development Index. The second two components: MX2=(0.892 EF- 0.34 LU - 0.22 HDI) and MX3 = (0.847 LU - 0.305 GDP) describe Environmental and Unemployment Error Correction Controllers (ECCs).

You can run the MXL20-BAU model here. The bootstrap confidence intervals for coefficients are:

You can change parameters in the System Matrix (F) in the MXL20 BAU model to any number you want, but the ranges presented above would not be too extreme and would have reasonable probability values.

IPCC Emission Scenarios

Most of the IPCC Scenarios seem to produce a steady state around 2100 (after controlled growth or Degrowth) but there are some outlier scenarios that seem to grow forever. Te MXL20 BAU model is stable and would eventually also reach a steady state (well after 2100).

World-System (1990-2060) Globalization and Trump II Tariffs

 

The Trump II Administration announced today (here) that it is imposing stiff tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada and China because "...they haven't treated us fairly on trade...". The Wall Street Journal (here) is calling the move "...the dumbest trade war in history...". Other than the Trump II administration breaking decisively with Neoliberalism (free trade and Globalization were key elements of Neoliberal orthodoxy), what is going on here?

Let's first look at the state of Globalization among the trading partners (US, CN, CA, and MX) using the KOF Index of Globalization. The dominant state variable attractor path for the trading system is displayed above as being driven by the USL20 model. From 1990 to 2000, the system had its ups and downs but did stay pretty much within the 98% prediction intervals for the attractor path. In 2010, the system was right on the attractor path. After that, the US-dominated system is predicted to peak somewhere around 2040. Trump is throwing a tariff-wrench in the system and, as with prior swings in Globalization, the policy may have little impact and we can expect a return to the attractor path after Trump II is gone.

But, does Trump understand that the Globalization system is reaching a peak and might well collapse in the future? Is Trump attempting to pull globalized US industries back on-shore before system collapse? Trump claims to act intuitively and his ample gut might tell him that the global World-System is collapsing. At this point, my goal is to get a stake in the ground to understand what has happened after the Trump II Administration is over.

Notes

The Measurement Matrix for this KOF Index of Globalization system is presented above. KOF1=overall growth, KOF2 is dominated by the US and KOF3 is dominated by Canada. All look at KOF2 and KOF3 in future posts.

World-System (1950-2080) US Capitalist Accumulation Crises

 

Reading between the lines in the Classical Capitalist Model (see Higgins, 1985, Chapter 4) and the Neoliberal Model, Capitalism and Inequality go together.  Higher concentration of wealth ensures that funds are available for investment in the unceasing drive to accumulate capital. Too high concentrations of capital result in the Crisis of Capitalism. Too low concentrations require Neoliberal Renewal of Unfettered Capitalism.

I can develop these insights by starting with Higgins Classical Model and adding a GINI Coefficient (0 = perfect equality, 1= perfect inequality) as an output of the Classical System State in the causal diagram above, O=(L,Q,T). By applying the ideas of Systems Theory, the Capitalist Error Correcting Controller (ECC) is now the major output. What this means is that the relationship between Inequality (GINI) and Capital Accumulation (K) has to be monitored in a Capitalist System. From the perspective of Systems Theory, this ECC is one way to possibly maintain Capitalist growth, by continuing to keep (GINI > K).

When I apply the Marxist and Neoliberal insights to the US (see the Measurement Matrix in the Notes below), we get three components: Classic1 is the overall growth in Capital, Investment and Inequality explaining about 96% of the variation. Classic2 is the important controller here, ECC2=( 0.80 GINI - 0.778 K) that explains only about 3% of the variation. Classic3 is another controller for Investment, ECC3 = (0.548 GINI - 0.795 I) and explains another 0.08% of the variation. What the small explained variance for the ECCs means is that, in the Post WWII period, it has not been necessary to exert much control over capital accumulation in the US. 

When we put Classic2 in a state space model (here), and construct an attractor path for the US, the result is presented in the time series plot at the beginning of this post. Numbers above zero (dark black line) indicate increasing Inequality available for capital accumulation. The attractor path (dashed red line) indicates that Inequality has been well below expected levels and has plenty of room to increase under the Trump II administration. But somehow, since the 1980s, the US has stayed fairly close to (GINI - K) = 0.

What is notable is that there was a Neoliberal accumulation crisis during the Reagan years (the start of Neoliberalism in the US) and an impending Marxist Overaccumulation Crisis starting after 2000. But still, the US is below the World System attractor path. 

The attractor path at the beginning of this post is driven by the World System, overall growth of the system, environmental effects on agriculture and world markets. The graphic above takes the World System out of the model and allows ECC2 to work as expected. 

European Neoliberalism after WWII was meant to reintegrated the World System after the shock of Fascism. The Trump II administration is signaling that Neoliberalism is at an end in the US and that some type of Right-Wing Authoritarianism is being planned along with Isolationism.

The World System attractor path reaches a steady state after 2060 which may signal an impending Crisis of Capitalism in the US or simply that there would now be enough inequality to ensure continued accumulation for ever. Although the current Trump II Administration is committed to increasing inequality to really high levels, it is also committed to detaching from the World System--contradictory policies that may cancel each other out. 

You can run the USL20_Capitalism model here. Other futures for the USL20 model are available here.

Notes

The Measurement Matrix above was constructed using Principal Components Analysis with standardized data from the World Development Indicators. The USL20 Capitalism model with input from the World System is stable and cyclical (Eigenvalues = (0.8023969+0.119491i 0.8023969-0.119491i) and it is the best model out of the ones tested [-285.6 > AIC = -254.2 > -231.5]). For the BAU model [-260.2 > AIC = -242.3 > -220.5].

The confidence intervals for AICs of the W-input and BAU model overlap and are not statistically different even though the W-input AIC is better. What this means is that, even though the outputs of the two models are very different, political forces within the US could easily switch back and forth between either model--another reason why the future is unknowable. In a future post, I will discuss the importance of the World System for Neoliberalism.

 The full USL20 Capitalism model is available here (both W-input and BAU).

Terms

   US = United States, K = Capital Stock, Q = Production, I = Investment, 

    GINI = Gini Coefficient [0,1], L = Labor,T = Technology, N = Population, 

    O = Output, ECC = Error Correcting Controller

    Neoliberal Accumulation Crisis = (GINI < K),   

    Marxist Accumulation Crisis = (GINI > K)

References

• Marx Collected Works
• Higgins Economic Development
• Slobodian (2020) Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism

World-System (1970-2060) US Debt Crisis

The US just had another debt crisis to join France (here), Germany (here) and Canada (here). Debt Crises have been quite the political spectacle, almost closing down the government in the US and toppling governments in European countries. Hitting the Debt Ceiling and Government shutdowns are nothing new for the US (here). Deficit Hawks have used the repeated crisis to impose Austerity on the US Government, threatening to dismantle Social Security, Health Care and Welfare programs while giving tax cuts to the wealthy. 

What is somewhat confusing about all this is that there is a branch of Economics called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that suggests that there can be no debt crises when governments control their own currency, as do the governments in the US, France, Germany and Canada. Populist  Deficit Hawks argue that everyone understands that we can accumulate too much debt and wind up in bankruptcy. MMT counters that if individuals go into too much debt they cannot simply print money to get out of debt as modern governments can. As long as there are slack resources in the US Economy, government deficit spending will not create inflation. If you are not familiar with the theoretical arguments, the controversies make interesting reading (here and here).

From the perspective of Systems Theory, Debt Crises reveal yet another Error Correcting Controller (ECC) that is being used to control outputs of the Political System. Regardless of theoretical and rational considerations, the DEBT ECC triggers an important feedback loop we need to understand. If governments have to go into debt to address the Climate Crisis or any other of the many Overlapping Crises, ideas about DEBT will assert themselves as a constraint on spending.

In the graphic above, I have displayed a history of US Debt from 1970 to the present and a forecast for the future out to 2060 by political administration. Debt has been fairly close to the (increasing) attractor path except during the Clinton Administration when it went down, during the Obama Administration when it went up and during the Trump I Administration when it went way up (above the 98% prediction interval) as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The USL20 model's forecast for the future is that US Debt will be declining but with rather wide prediction intervals. Given the historical data, almost anything can happen.

Notes

Data are taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI). All variables are in standard scores. The methodology used to create forecasts is similar to the one used by the Atlanta Federal Reserves GDPNow app. Prediction intervals are generated using a Bootstrap algorithm in the R programming language. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is used for model selection.

You can run the WL20W US BAU Model here. From my perspective, the future of US Debt depends on the future of the US economy, which is unknowable but about which I have a forecast (here).

 

World-System (1980-2060) Five Futures for Russia (one surprised me)

 

Now that the Syrian Regime has collapsed (here), questions about what the collapse will mean for Russia are begin discussed (here). Russia did not intervene when rebels overran the Syrian capital and the question is "why" given that Syria fought not be become a Russian puppet state (a topic I will cover in a future post). In this post, I will concentrate on some possible future geopolitical alignments for Russia, one of which is to go it alone (BAU). One of the interesting and controversial models is to link to the EU, which would be by far the best choice for Russia, the least likely to happen in the medium term future and certainly the least discussed openly right now.

The graphic above presents five futures for Russia based on the RUL20 model (here):

• BAU The Business As Usual model is unstable and cyclical (you can run the model yourself here). BAU is a fairly good model but not the best model (91.26 < AIC = 130.2 < 163.5). Unfortunately, the BAU model encourages military expansion because currently Russia needs Ukraine to prevent a Malthusian Population Crisis (to be covered in a future post).
  
  
• RW The Random Walk model would be best interpreted as a descent into Chaos, today being like tomorrow except for random shocks. The RW is actually not a bad competitor model for Russia (110  < AIC =  128.9 < 147.3) and may be quite likely if Russia looses the War in Ukraine.
  
  
• W Rather than isolating itself (BAU model), the World Linkage model assumes that Russia becomes an Open Society with Political and Economic links to all countries in the World-System (right now, Russia is a Semi-peripheral authoritarian country trying to become a Core country through military force). The W-Linkage model is not a very good competitor (126.4 < AIC = 155.6 < 190.1) and retains the unstable cyclical nature of the Russian System.
  
  
• US Linking to the US has never been seriously pursued in Russia, although the Glasnost period in the 1980s is about as close as the two countries came (67.98 < AIC = 114.3 < 150.7)--maybe because it would lead to cyclical collapse for Russia. 
  
  
• EU Russia joining the European Union (EU) is, to me (somewhat surprisingly), the best option (of the models considered here) for Russia (58.25  < AIC =  102.2 < 144). It would allow Russia to continue growing exponentially and benefit from trade with the EU (particularly oil, natural gas and agricultural trade with Ukraine). Maybe this dream scenario will happen at some time in the distant future, but I am not holding my breath.

There are certainly many other futures for Russia, but the graphic above seems to bracket the options from continued exponential growth to collapse. Let's just assume that Business as Usual with continued military expansion is, at least in the short run, the best prediction. To me, since the BAU model is cyclical and in the process of heading for a downturn (as of 2024), the best response would seem to be to keep supporting Ukraine and allow Russia to continue on the path of cyclical downturn. This does not seem to be the preferred path of the New Trump Administration in the US, starting in 2025.

Notes

Data taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI). All variables are in standard scores. The methodology used to create forecasts is similar to the one used by the Atlanta Federal Reserves GDPNow app. Prediction intervals are generated using a Bootstrap algorithm in the R programming language. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is used for model selection.

You can run the RUL20 BAU Model here. You can change any coefficients in the System Matrix, F, to see what effect your changes will have on the system. Reasonable counterfactual values can be determined from the coefficient bootstrap confidence intervals:

LCI is the lower confidence interval and UCI is the upper confidence interval. In probability, the system can clearly be stabilized.

You can also run the EUL20 model here.

There is a small cottage industry of articles on Russia's Future many of them envisioning "Five" futures. Most of the articles are behind paywalls but here is one you can read from Casey Michel at The Atlantic Coouncil.